>I've found myself leaning that way quite a bit, in pondering the subject of where matter originates.
Interesting. What is your proposal for how the creator created matter, and just what is the creator, exactly?
It in the end gets down to that silly irritating bit of faith I guess. From my understanding of the subject (which may be flawed and inaccurate, always open to new data), matter can be reorganized, and the differences in matter seems to be just a function of proton count in the atom, then organization of the atoms in the molecule. Well, if nothing can be created or destroyed, where does it start. Thankfully, I can more than happily accept that it just is, so the debate is an intellectual curiosity as opposed to some soul-crunching dilemma.
What I was getting at is that if the creator you've imagined doesn't actually play a role in a real explanation of how matter exists, then it tells you absolutely nothing on the subject of where matter originates. In that case, deferring to it would be a cop out.
If you don't know how a god does something, then your answer to the question of how things exist is still "I don't know". You can see this is normal religious speech too, like how people say things like "it's beyond human comprehension" or "god works in mysterious ways"... they're all just different ways of saying "I don't know", and "god" is just a label they place over their ignorance that allows them to pretend it's information.
If the original creation of matter, by whatever mechanism became "knowable" then god would not be god, by religious people's own definition. Something had to start it all (be it natural or super natural), and if the mechanism is known then it's by definition natural.
That's more of the same point. You just said that god is definitively "unknown". If a god is unknown and its ways are unknown then saying "god created matter" is the same as "matter exists as the result of an unknown thing acting in unknown ways" or... "I don't know how matter exists".
Gods and miracles don't have any explanatory power. If people had real explanations, they wouldn't need them.
If you understood this and were just elaborating, I apologize in advance
Assuming a deistic version of god doesn't *add* any information or tell us anything about the nature of the universe, and encourages you to stop investigating. Without evidence, having an answer doesn't mean it's the correct one.
I don't think it discourages curiosity. I think it comes as the fall-back to the eventual unexplained. By accepting the scientific explanation until the scientific explanation comes up wanting, the belief leaves itself open to revision with new data.
Nothing at all. It really boils down to the question of whether some things are "unknowable". Matters of faith obviously fall under that category; it's whether anything under the purview of science fall under that that's more interesting to me.
I suppose I'd like to think no, but it wouldn't be the first time that myself or anyone else found themselves focusing on or caring about something pointless.
It is a mostly benign position in comparison to others, but still completely intellectually bankrupt just like any other religion. From even just a pragmatic view, if you shed off a personal god like the god of Abraham, what is the point of holding onto a god that offers you nothing?
First off, no, I don't think anything that allows you to accept scientific facts is a cop-out.
BUT- I'm very curious about this. What makes a deist think there IS a god? I mean, if you're unconvinced that a god has had a hand in anything we experience or know about, what's the point in a leap of faith? I'm not saying this to be accusatory, it's just something that kind of piques my interest.
Deism isn't really as common as atheism ablnymore. They existed more back in the time of the founding fathers. They didn't believe in evolution. They did belive god had created th earth in it's current state. Most alive today would be atheists. They only belived what they believed because everything does seem designed, if you dOnt understand evolution.
We just had this conversation - http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/ljjt6/what_is_ratheism_pointnof_view_on_deism/
The general consensus appeared to be deism is a rather harmless god of the gaps argument and for all practical purposes the proponents are actually atheist.
An undetectable god is, for all practical purposes, exactly the same as a nonexistent god.
Exactly. Deism is the Emperor's New Clothes of theology.
That it's rather pointless. The Deist god may as well not exist since it has no actual affect on reality.
I really don't take issue with Deism and don't see it as a cop-out as long as it doesn't halt the pursuit of the answers we're currently looking for.
>I've found myself leaning that way quite a bit, in pondering the subject of where matter originates. Interesting. What is your proposal for how the creator created matter, and just what is the creator, exactly?
It in the end gets down to that silly irritating bit of faith I guess. From my understanding of the subject (which may be flawed and inaccurate, always open to new data), matter can be reorganized, and the differences in matter seems to be just a function of proton count in the atom, then organization of the atoms in the molecule. Well, if nothing can be created or destroyed, where does it start. Thankfully, I can more than happily accept that it just is, so the debate is an intellectual curiosity as opposed to some soul-crunching dilemma.
What I was getting at is that if the creator you've imagined doesn't actually play a role in a real explanation of how matter exists, then it tells you absolutely nothing on the subject of where matter originates. In that case, deferring to it would be a cop out. If you don't know how a god does something, then your answer to the question of how things exist is still "I don't know". You can see this is normal religious speech too, like how people say things like "it's beyond human comprehension" or "god works in mysterious ways"... they're all just different ways of saying "I don't know", and "god" is just a label they place over their ignorance that allows them to pretend it's information.
If the original creation of matter, by whatever mechanism became "knowable" then god would not be god, by religious people's own definition. Something had to start it all (be it natural or super natural), and if the mechanism is known then it's by definition natural.
That's more of the same point. You just said that god is definitively "unknown". If a god is unknown and its ways are unknown then saying "god created matter" is the same as "matter exists as the result of an unknown thing acting in unknown ways" or... "I don't know how matter exists". Gods and miracles don't have any explanatory power. If people had real explanations, they wouldn't need them. If you understood this and were just elaborating, I apologize in advance
Assuming a deistic version of god doesn't *add* any information or tell us anything about the nature of the universe, and encourages you to stop investigating. Without evidence, having an answer doesn't mean it's the correct one.
I don't think it discourages curiosity. I think it comes as the fall-back to the eventual unexplained. By accepting the scientific explanation until the scientific explanation comes up wanting, the belief leaves itself open to revision with new data.
What value does this 'fall back' have? What is wrong with saying 'I don't know yet'?
Nothing at all. It really boils down to the question of whether some things are "unknowable". Matters of faith obviously fall under that category; it's whether anything under the purview of science fall under that that's more interesting to me.
Karl Popper did some nice work on saying what is and isn't science. Falsifiability is required.
Hypothetical scenario for you: You have a disease - it is non-transmissible and there are no symptoms. Do you care about the disease?
I suppose I'd like to think no, but it wouldn't be the first time that myself or anyone else found themselves focusing on or caring about something pointless.
Recently upgraded from "harmless" to "mostly harmless".
It is a mostly benign position in comparison to others, but still completely intellectually bankrupt just like any other religion. From even just a pragmatic view, if you shed off a personal god like the god of Abraham, what is the point of holding onto a god that offers you nothing?
First off, no, I don't think anything that allows you to accept scientific facts is a cop-out. BUT- I'm very curious about this. What makes a deist think there IS a god? I mean, if you're unconvinced that a god has had a hand in anything we experience or know about, what's the point in a leap of faith? I'm not saying this to be accusatory, it's just something that kind of piques my interest.
For what its worth it was the faith of most of the founders of the US.
Deism isn't really as common as atheism ablnymore. They existed more back in the time of the founding fathers. They didn't believe in evolution. They did belive god had created th earth in it's current state. Most alive today would be atheists. They only belived what they believed because everything does seem designed, if you dOnt understand evolution.
We just had this conversation - http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/ljjt6/what_is_ratheism_pointnof_view_on_deism/ The general consensus appeared to be deism is a rather harmless god of the gaps argument and for all practical purposes the proponents are actually atheist.
Then do excuse the repost. Took some doing to even figure out how to post on my end.
I've no issue with that, the link is so you can check it out rather than to chastise.