Deism

Newton, Leibniz, Kant . . . were deists.
Is “Deism” dead ?

Newton, Leibniz, Kant . . . were deists. Is "Deism" dead ? =
It's not dead, it's known by other names: agnosticism, spirituality, higher power. A way of not saying atheist. Lois
Newton, Leibniz, Kant . . . were deists. Is "Deism" dead ? =
It's not dead, it's known by other names: agnosticism, spirituality, higher power. A way of not saying atheist. Lois . . . . agnosticism, spirituality, higher power, . . . . I don't know if their followers tried to use scientific laws to understand God, divine essence of nature. But deists said: "Mathematics is the language in which the gods speak to people" and this was reason that they believed that must be a more suitable conception of God. Deists believed that without science ( scientific laws) and reason would be unthinkable to understand God / Religion conception. They believed that God had given man a religion worthy of Him – - a reasonable scientific religion, for man was capable of reason. ===…
Newton, Leibniz, Kant . . . were deists. Is "Deism" dead ? =
It's not dead, it's known by other names: agnosticism, spirituality, higher power. A way of not saying atheist. Lois . . . . agnosticism, spirituality, higher power, . . . . I don't know if their followers tried to use scientific laws to understand God, divine essence of nature. But deists said: "Mathematics is the language in which the gods speak to people" and this was reason that they believed that must be a more suitable conception of God. Deists believed that without science ( scientific laws) and reason would be unthinkable to understand God / Religion conception. They believed that God had given man a religion worthy of Him – - a reasonable scientific religion, for man was capable of reason. ===… A reasonable scientific religion is Humanism. We err in assuming religion must be theistic. But the vast majority of people make that error, which is the reason I seldom use the word religion when I am speaking of a moral philosophy, even though the actual definition of religion does not require a belief in god. Just try getting the average person to understand that and you will have little time to do anything else. So I simply avoid the term altogether. Lois
Newton, Leibniz, Kant . . . were deists. Is "Deism" dead ? =
It's not dead, it's known by other names: agnosticism, spirituality, higher power. A way of not saying atheist. Lois . . . . agnosticism, spirituality, higher power, . . . . I don't know if their followers tried to use scientific laws to understand God, divine essence of nature. But deists said: "Mathematics is the language in which the gods speak to people" and this was reason that they believed that must be a more suitable conception of God. Deists believed that without science ( scientific laws) and reason would be unthinkable to understand God / Religion conception. They believed that God had given man a religion worthy of Him – - a reasonable scientific religion, for man was capable of reason. ===… A reasonable scientific religion is Humanism. Lois Sorry Mr. Lois Humanism doesn't use physical laws, formulas to confirm its truth. But deists at first of all tried to explain the nature of religious truth in Scientific way, by mathematics and physics. ( not by moral, ethic, humanism) I try to follow their way ==. “ One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike – and yet it is the most precious thing we have." / Einstein / # " Einstein was a giant. His head was in the clouds, but his feet were on the ground. Those of us who are not so tall have to choose! " / Richard Feynman, as quoted in Collective Electrodynamics : Quantum Foundations of Electromagnetism (2002) by Carver A. Mead, p. xix / == .
Newton, Leibniz, Kant . . . were deists. Is "Deism" dead ? =
It's not dead, it's known by other names: agnosticism, spirituality, higher power. A way of not saying atheist. Lois . . . . agnosticism, spirituality, higher power, . . . . I don't know if their followers tried to use scientific laws to understand God, divine essence of nature. But deists said: "Mathematics is the language in which the gods speak to people" and this was reason that they believed that must be a more suitable conception of God. Deists believed that without science ( scientific laws) and reason would be unthinkable to understand God / Religion conception. They believed that God had given man a religion worthy of Him – - a reasonable scientific religion, for man was capable of reason. ===… A reasonable scientific religion is Humanism. Lois Sorry Mr. Lois Humanism doesn't use physical laws, formulas to confirm its truth. But deists at first of all tried to explain the nature of religious truth in Scientific way, by mathematics and physics. ( not by moral, ethic, humanism) I try to follow their way ==. “ One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike – and yet it is the most precious thing we have." / Einstein / # " Einstein was a giant. His head was in the clouds, but his feet were on the ground. Those of us who are not so tall have to choose! " / Richard Feynman, as quoted in Collective Electrodynamics : Quantum Foundations of Electromagnetism (2002) by Carver A. Mead, p. xix / == . Deism is "the belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation."* It says nothing about science or mathematics. Individual deists may have a belief in those things but they are not part of the definition of deism. *the freedictionary.com Deism is not a specific religion but rather a particular perspective on the nature of God. Deists believe that a creator god does exist, but that after the motions of the universe were set in place he retreated, having no further interaction with the created universe or the beings within it. As such, there are a variety of common religious beliefs that deists do not accept. http://altreligion.about.com/od/alternativereligionsaz/p/Deism.htm Deism: Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation. http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm Where do you get the idea that a religion must use physical laws and formulas to confirm its truth. That is not the definition of religion. Buddhism, for example, is a religion and it does not use physical laws and formulas to confirm its truth. Nor does Hinduism or Confucionism. In fact, it is not a requirement for any religion. 1.the ethical system of Confucius, emphasizing moral order, the humanity and virtue of China's ancient rulers, and gentlemanly education thefreedictionary.com Definition of Humanism Humanism is a democratic and ethical lifestance which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethics based on human and other natural values in a spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality. • The International Humanist and Ethical Union

[removed as a partial repeat of previous post]

Dear Mr. Lois
In the 17th – 18th centuries Deism was a new view of God !!!
Deists believed that without science ( scientific laws) and reason
would be unthinkable to understand God / Religious conception.
I have the same opinion.
== . . .

Dear Mr. Lois In the 17th – 18th centuries Deism was a new view of God !!! Deists believed that without science ( scientific laws) and reason would be unthinkable to understand God / Religious conception. I have the same opinion. == . . .
Yes, and that's what it is, a personal opinion that has nothing to do with deism. Deism has no dogma, no rules. It is a stance on the existence of a god--that a god created everything, and takes no further action in the lives of humans or in the universe. That's all deism is. It is very close to atheism, which is also not a religion. It is a stance on belief in god. That's all it is. There is no dogma, no rules. All one has to accept to be a deist or an atheist is that no god is controlling humans or the universe. It stops there. In deism and atheism here is no rule that humans must "believe in" science or use it to understand the universe. In that sense, they are exactly the same. Deists are atheists for all intents and purposes, but for believing that a god created everything in the past. But that belief has no impact on their lives. They are left to work out meaning and how the universe works with no supernatural involvement, just like atheists. . But there is no rule that they must work it out, it's up to the individual. A person who has absolutely no interest in science or how the universe operates can be a deist or an atheist. There are no other qualifications but an acceptance that no god is in control. Lois

Deism is like atheism in that both do not believe there is any entity directing our lives or involved in creation or that reveal truth to some people. Deism differs from science in that it claims a rational conclusion based on a lack of evidence. It extrapolates evidence of how parts of the universe were created to be true for the universe as a whole. That is non-scientifc.

Dear Mr. Lois In the 17th – 18th centuries Deism was a new view of God !!! Deists believed that without science ( scientific laws) and reason would be unthinkable to understand God / Religious conception. I have the same opinion. == . . .
Yes, and that's what it is, a personal opinion that has nothing to do with deism. Deism has no dogma, no rules. It is a stance on the existence of a god--that a god created everything, and takes no further action in the lives of humans or in the universe. That's all deism is. Lois In the 17th – 18th centuries Deism was a new view of God !!! In the 17th – 18th centuries Deism doesn't have scientific laws. It was only tendency to understand God in a new way and this tendency is keeping even today: a) Does Quantum Physics Make it Easier to Believe in God? https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/does-quantum-physics-make-it-easier-believe-god b) Does Quantum Physics Prove God's Existence?http://physics.about.com/od/physicsmyths/f/QuantumGod.htm c) Does quantum theory prove God exists? http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions/1339-does-quantum-theory-prove-god-exists/ . . . . . only the wish to understand . . . . . ==..
Deism differs from science in that it claims a rational conclusion based on a lack of evidence.
It was true in the past. Today quantum physics again raised Deism's question. P.S. " The Reasons of a modern science give, maybe the opportunity to make the conclusion that the religion became acceptable for sensible scientific mind, since 1927." / Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington / ==..
It was true in the past. Today quantum physics again raised Deism's question. P.S. ==..
Don't see how. Quantum physics gave us more of an explanation of what might have come before the Big Bang. I can forgive 2,000 y.o. authors for assuming the earth is only 10,000 years old, but we've all had time to absorb the idea that the universe is 13.7 b.yo. And now, we have some theories about what happened at the beginning of this physical universe. That doesn't answer the question of what came before that, nor does it lead to a conclusion that an intelligence was involved. If anything, we are finding a continuation of the idea that complex forms come from simpler forms and energies.

@Lausten
i am talking only about a tendency . . . only about a wish . . .
. . wish to understand . . .

@Lausten
by the way, some great people see the unity
between religion and science in “big bang” :
Pope Pius XII declared, at the November 22, 1951
opening meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences,
that the Big Bang theory accorded with the Catholic concept
of creation.
Conservative Protestant Christian denominations have also
Welcomed the Big Bang theory as supporting a historical interpretation
of the doctrine of creation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Religious_interpretations
=====.

You seem to think it is important that “some people” think things. I wrote a post about that stupid Pope and how the Catholic scientist that did some early work on the Big Bang told him to stop saying stupid stuff like that. There are a couple hundred people around me who say they’ve seen Bigfoot. It just makes me want to move away from this hick town.

You seem to think it is important that "some people" think things. I wrote a post about that stupid Pope and how the Catholic scientist that did some early work on the Big Bang told him to stop saying stupid stuff like that. There are a couple hundred people around me who say they've seen Bigfoot. It just makes me want to move away from this hick town.
It is hard to go away "from this hick town " . . . . . we are like in "Alice's Wonderland" ==..
Deism is like atheism in that both do not believe there is any entity directing our lives or involved in creation or that reveal truth to some people. Deism differs from science in that it claims a rational conclusion based on a lack of evidence. It extrapolates evidence of how parts of the universe were created to be true for the universe as a whole. That is non-scientifc.
Of course it is, but it is a benign form of unscientific. It's almost as benign as atheism. I can accept deism because it is no different than atheism in everyday life. One tiny bit of irrationality can be dealt with, IMO. It's cerainly easier than dealing with people who have a dogma relating to their god belief. Lois
It is hard to go away "from this hick town " . . . . . we are like in "Alice's Wonderland" ==..
Yes, and you are the one who is wanting us to chase them down the rabbit hole.
It is hard to go away "from this hick town " . . . . . we are like in "Alice's Wonderland" ==..
Yes, and you are the one who is wanting us to chase them down the rabbit hole. Sorry Mr. Lausten In my opinion it is not rational way "to chase them down the rabbit hole." Everybody has his own philosophy of life and to change it is impossible. As Max Planck wrote: "A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." ==..