Theism, Atheism and Deism in context

19 posts / 0 new
Last post
AlphaLogica157's picture
Theism, Atheism and Deism in context

When the Atheist examines, denounces, or satirizes the gods, he is not dealing with persons but with ideas. He is incapable of insulting God, for he does not admit the existence of any such being. - G.W. Foote

In my experience there has been much confusion on the meaning of the terms Theism, Atheism, and Deism in modern times. I too often see my fellow Atheists make sweeping criticisms that are built on an honest ignorance of what it truly means to be an Atheist and go so far to throw both Theism and Deism under the same rug. So here I hope to settle the confusion and give clear definitions and examples of Theism, Atheism and Deism.

In order to set up a frame of reference I will start with Theism and move onto Atheism and finish with Deism. Now the source that I am going to use is the Oxford Dictionary of World Religions.

Theism: The Doctrine that there is one transcendent, personal God who freely created all that exists out of nothing, and who preserves and governs it. His governance of the world is said to be manifested in divine providence, and also, in occasional miraculous interventions and in revelations of his nature and purposes. Theism is distinguished from Deism, which denies God's personal governance of the world by ruling out the possibility of providence,miracles and revelation.

Atheism: A position of non belief in God(Note the capitol G as that is a point to the God of Theism as opposed to a little g which is a Deistic god) Derived from the Greek word Atheos, which means "without gods" by extension Atheism literally means " without God" (or more specifically without Theism)

Deism: A proposition that God initiated creation and donated its laws but allowed it to pursue its own course. There is much emphasis on the irrationality of Christian claims and miracles.

Now that I have provided definitions I will now draw distinctions between Theism, Atheism and Deism. It obviously follows that Atheism is the direct antithesis to Theism and therefore is mutually exclusive from one another ; but what about the relation between Atheism and Deism, are they also mutually exclusive or different expressions of the same position?

If we look again at Deism and note what sets it apart from Theism E.G a rejection of divine intervention as expressed through miracles and revelation and any god who has claims of doing as such.

Now if we compare Deism to Atheism, which as I have shown is, by definition, also a rejection of those same tenets central to Theism, then it is clear that since A Deist is one who posses no belief in a Theistic God, and an Atheist is one who posses no belief in a Theistic God then a Deist is an Atheist in practice.

To further elaborate, since to be a Theist, one must accept that God has to some extent revealed himself through revelation and acts of miracles. For Jews its the Torah and the acts of Moses. Christians it's the Canonical Gospels the acts of Jesus. And for Muslims it's the Qur'an and the acts of Muhammad there is of course much more to all of them but I am keeping the as short as possible.

To conclude, there is a reason why no one has ever heard of an "Adeist" since Deism makes no truth claims in regards to the nature of god or the structure of reality. And as such it provides no basis for which to refute a gods existence, as opposed to Theism which is required to make truth claims about reality and the nature of God in order to support its central theme, which is that through revelations and miracles God has revealed himself...and in order for that God to exist then the claims central to its theology MUST have actually taken place. For Jews Moses HAD to speak with God on Sinai...For Christians Jesus HAD to be crucified, for Muslims Mohammad HAD to have taken his flight into heaven to speak with all the prophets that came before him. Again there are many examples I could use but I will end it here.

If anything I hope I have cleared up some confusion on this topic.

Thank you for your time.

AlphaLogica

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

ThePragmatic's picture
I had been thinking of

I had been thinking of writing a similar topic, but mostly asking questions about the definitions of terms. I was thinking of adding a few terms...

Now, I know some people think these labels are pointless and if that is the case, that's just fine. There is not need to write a rant about it...

I should perhaps add that English is not my native language, therefore if some of the questions seem stupid, lets blame it on that! :)

So, is "Adeism" an actual term or not?

There are of course also the knowledge terms "Gnostic" and "Agnostic" to combine with Atheist/Adeist.

It would be technically more correct for me to describe myself as an "Agnostic Adeist"
But then one can actually be a "Agnostic Adeist and Gnostic Atheist", and other combinations as well.

Then there is the term "Areligious - unconcerned with or indifferent to religious matters." (dictionary.com)
But in my case, since I am an Anti-Theist, that seems like it must be excluded.

"Irreligious", seems more like an active rejection of religion, but one can't be a "Irreligionist", right?

And "Secular humanist", which also fits in quite well on me. But in combination with the other terms?
It seems excessive to identify as for example a "Secular Humanist and Agnostic Adeist/Gnostic Atheist".

Another term I have mixed up while debating, is "Creationist" and "Young Earth Creationist".
As soon as somebody identifies as a Creationist, I tend to assume that they also deny radiometric dating and believe that dinosaurs were living alongside humans. But that is often only true for the Young Earth Creationists.

"Literalist", someone who believes their scriptures are the literal (and often perfect) word of their god.
That should automatically also mean that they are Young Earth Creationists (Christianity about 6000 year, Islam about 12000 years as I understand it, Judaism ???)

What else is there...

The philosophical standpoints like:
Rationalism, Pragmatism, Naturalism, Empiricism, ...

AlphaLogica157's picture
Pragmatic, I a happy to

Pragmatic, I a happy to answer any questions you have, and I must admit that I am a little confused by some of your statements. To start:

"Now, I know some people think these labels are pointless and if that is the case, that's just fine. There is not need to write a rant about it..."

What do you mean by this? Is it that these labels do not really matter or that my essay was just a rant and had no real point? If you mean the latter, then please offer specific criticisms so that I may see any potential errors in my writing style, as it was not intended as a rant at all, but an examination of the aforementioned terms so as to provide clear definitions and to support my conclusion that a Deist is an Atheist in practice.

" So, is "Adeism" an actual term or not?"

No, it is not a term or anything, which is why I put it in quotes. But the point I was making is that there has not been a term invented like "Adeist" for a reason, as there is no means of effective criticism towards Deism as a concept, because it provides no claims or doctrine or creed that would allow one to draw conclusions either for or against a gods existence. As opposed to Theism which must make claims and therefore is subject to scrutiny and criticism.

I hope I have answered this question sufficiently.

"There are of course also the knowledge terms "Gnostic" and "Agnostic" to combine with Atheist/Adeist."

True but I believe that to be splitting hairs, at least in regard to this essay. I would spend too much time breaking down the minute variations in Atheism, Theism and Deism and get so far off topic that it would to too long to read and be ignored. I have to assume that no one wants me to wright a novel lol.

"Then there is the term "Areligious - unconcerned with or indifferent to religious matters." (dictionary.com)..."Irreligious", seems more like an active rejection of religion, but one can't be a "Irreligionist", right?"

Well now that is a hard question for me to answer, lets look at the definition of irreligious:

1. not religious; not practicing a religion and feeling no religious impulses or emotions.

2. showing or characterized by a lack of religion.

3. showing indifference or hostility to religion:
irreligious statements. (dictionary.com)

So I think that one can be a "irreligionist" but the closet word for it that I can think of would be Anti-Theist. I am sure there is a more accurate term we could use of course but I do not know it myself.

"and "Secular humanist", which also fits in quite well on me. But in combination with the other terms?
It seems excessive to identify as for example a "Secular Humanist and Agnostic Adeist/Gnostic Atheist"."

Yes I agree completely, that is getting excessive. But that is normal with any movement, people seek to find other people so much like themselves that they start to create tiny fractures in a belief or ideology, or add parts of other belief systems or ideologies. This is of course a very simplified explanation but it can be seen among Jews in the past having never really set a standard "This is what it means to be Jewish" code, similar to that of the Nicene Creed, not that it really made a lasting difference, just look at Christians with the reformation.

"nother term I have mixed up while debating, is "Creationist" and "Young Earth Creationist"."

I do as well, this is why I try to allow the theist I am speaking with clarify as many terms they use a s possible, by asking specific questions I can offer specific criticism...though there have been times when the theist just REFUSES to acknowledge the definition of a word as descried by a dictionary and just want to make stuff up as they go...as soon as language breaks down then there is no point to the discussion.

ThePragmatic's picture
@AlphaLogica

@AlphaLogica

Hi

"What do you mean by this? Is it that these labels do not really matter or that my essay was just a rant and had no real point?"

No, not at all. I apologize for being so vague.
What I meant was, that anyone reading this who think the use of these terms are pointless, can simply omit to post their inevitable rant about how pointless they are.

"there is no means of effective criticism towards Deism as a concept, because it provides no claims or doctrine or creed that would allow one to draw conclusions either for or against a gods existence."

Yes, I see your point. And I can't even find it as a word in any of the dictionaries I tried.
I think the term would have some use to describe a person who simply does not believe that a deity was involved in starting up the creation of the universe and set up the basic laws. As a broader term than Atheism.
At least I learned something today. :)

"True but I believe that to be splitting hairs, at least in regard to this essay. I would spend too much time breaking down the minute variations in Atheism, Theism and Deism and get so far off topic that it would to too long to read and be ignored."

Sure, it's easy to get too much text and end up getting ignored.

"though there have been times when the theist just REFUSES to acknowledge the definition of a word as descried by a dictionary and just want to make stuff up as they go"

Of course. :)
It's much easier to be elusive if the definitions of words are fuzzy.

AlphaLogica157's picture
Pragmatic,

Pragmatic,

"No, not at all. I apologize for being so vague.
What I meant was, that anyone reading this who think the use of these terms are pointless, can simply omit to post their inevitable rant about how pointless they are."

Thank you for the clarification, you are correct in that those who view these terms as pointless could easily dismiss them, I have had this discussion before and got some pretty incredulous replies from my fellow Atheists. I find that while most Atheists are fairly knowledgeable on common aspects of various religions, namly Christianity and Islam. But they choose to ignore the deeper elements of Theology as a whole, and act as if the writings of Spinoza or David Hume or Justin Martyr etc, simply are not worth reading and have nothing of value to say on the matter. Really blows my mind.

"At least I learned something today. :)"

That is my favorite aspect of disputation, I have spent years reading books, but have learned far more through critical discussion with those of whom I may or may not agree with. =)

"It's much easier to be elusive if the definitions of words are fuzzy."

I, like Socrates, view the enemy of knowledge to be the Sophists and sadly the internet has been a breading ground for Sophistry.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
Yes like you I agree that the

Yes like you I agree that the distinction should be clearly understood by everyone debating this subject.
Unfortunately most fellow atheist do indeed regard it as pointless, mostly because they are lazy :)

Though I would argue with you some of your definitions

"Deism: A proposition that God initiated creation and donated its laws but allowed it to pursue its own course. There is much emphasis on the irrationality of Christian claims and miracles."
This is not a correct way to define a Deist god, since it it JUST ONE possible deist god from many.

Deism is a not well defined broad subject, some deist could even consider god as a prime mover(engine of life), which could mean that there was no creation at all, but was always there and still is. No character, no intention, just IS.

Regardless of the definition of a Deist god however, some distinctions should be made clear from a Theist god.

There is no revelation
No known character for god
No Omnipotence
No Omniscience
No Infinite Love

For the rest I mostly agree with all you said especially the part where the Deist is an Atheist.

"Adeist" on the other hand is not a used term because as you said, you first need a Deistic claim to be the opposite of that claim or lack of.
However since a Deist still believes that there is some type of god then an Adeist would be the one who claims that there is no type of god what so ever. They are basically claiming to know everything without knowing.

Clearly I consider these people stupid to the core because they are basing their opinion on no evidence or logic but just prejudice and bias.

AlphaLogica157's picture
Jeff: "This is not a correct

Jeff: "This is not a correct way to define a Deist god, since it it JUST ONE possible deist god from many."

hmmm, well considering that most, if not all, ( as far as I know) the writers in support of Deism specifically based their position as one that is counter to Theism, and used Christianity as a frame of reference it is a correct definition. And I should also add that the definition is not my own, as I am in no way qualified to offer definitions as an arm chair scholar of the Abrahamic religions. So I provided the definition from the Oxford dictionary of World religions.

If you disagree with this definition then I am, of course, willing to be convinced. So if you can offer examples of a Deist God that is far enough outside the one I presented , and cite sources of equal or greater value. Then I will gladly accept your criticism as valid.

"Unfortunately most fellow atheist do indeed regard it as pointless, mostly because they are lazy :)"

I cannot agree with you more =)

"some distinctions should be made clear from a Theist god."

I like the simplified distinctions you present, those really do get right to the point and are useful.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
"Deism: A proposition that

"Deism: A proposition that God initiated creation and donated its laws but allowed it to pursue its own course. There is much emphasis on the irrationality of Christian claims and miracles."
This is not a correct way to define a Deist god, since it it JUST ONE possible deist god from many.

"God initiated creation"
Not all deist gods fit here

A More accurate oxford dictionary definition.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/deism

"Belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe."

"A creator", does not mean "initiated creation"
Those can mean different things.

initiated creation = there was an initial creation
"A creator"= creates things, but it does not mean that there was an initial creation.

Thus the first is implying a creation while the second is leaving it open for an infinite, never ending universe that keeps on creating things shaped by the force of this type of god.

Which is a huge difference that you cannot just ignore. people died on this topic alone in the past. :)

It is not the first time that dictionaries get things wrong, so it is best to go to the source of who coined the terms sometimes and how it evolved throughout the ages.

yes, words do change meaning with time and different culture/language.

Today there are so many variations of deism, that they themselves claim that they do not know, and make no claims about the deistic god except when they compare it to other types of gods like a theistic god for example.

that is why I said:
"Deism is a not well defined broad subject"

To avoid going into it's definition.

However I would suggest my fellow atheists to see the arguments presented by Deists like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFS0rPxlEPM

It helps one understand that the concept of anti-theism started/was helped by deists that critiqued the theistic concept for a god.

ThePragmatic's picture
I didn't consider that the

I didn't consider that the definition does not include "initial creation".

Wikipedia's definition:
"Deism (/ˈdiː.ɪzəm/[1][2] or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/, derived from the Latin word deus meaning "god") is a theological/philosophical position that combines the rejection of revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge with the conclusion that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a single creator of the universe."

Also seems to suggest an "initial creator" of the universe.

AlphaLogica157's picture
Jeff.

Jeff.

I asked and you delivered lol. Although I do not agree with this:

""A creator", does not mean "initiated creation""

How can you draw a distinction between these as if they are different? Really all you have done is say the same thing two different ways. To 'initiate creation' is to lay the frame work for whatever it is one is 'creating'. The point is that of the first cause...the prime mover ...is the beginning and end for Deism.

"A creator"= creates things, but it does not mean that there was an initial creation."

This just seems like a contradiction. If there was no creation, then there can be no creator.

I think you are conflating Deism and Pantheism if I am reading you correctly.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
Pantheism is a more modern

Pantheism is a more modern name for a possible deist god.

as I stated with time new words and definitions emerge but before, deism(the concept of a prime mover in some way) was the main umbrella for those.

Pantheism assumes one with all, deism includes the possibility of being just part of the all.(like a subset)
It is more general since it is unknown.

One can have many other definitions of types of deistic god but Deism was what was used before(less specific).

"A creator"= creates things, but it does not mean that there was an initial creation."
You can be a boat builder and never build a boat, but fix them only.

An other way of seeing it:
One can create matter from the already existing universe
= there is a creator but there is no initial creation of the universe.
(this could be either the creator is the universe(or part of) or the universe was always there regardless of the creator)

Do you understand the distinction now?

AlphaLogica157's picture
"Do you understand the

"Do you understand the distinction now?"

Yes I do, thank you for the clarification.=)

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
You are welcome.

You are welcome.
Glad to have a discussion with someone as mature as you.

ThePragmatic's picture
@Jeff

@Jeff

To see if I understand what you mean:
In that sense, "the creator" could have created (as in molded, shaped from already existing clay) the world as we know it, without being the creator of space, time, matter, etc?
It could range from making adjustments to an already existing planet Earth and thereby making life possible, to molding all the galaxies in the universe as we see it today?
It could also mean that "the creator" could be a separate entity or in some way it could be the universe itself?

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
In that sense, "the creator"

In that sense, "the creator" could have created (as in molded, shaped from already existing clay) the world as we know it, without being the creator of space, time, matter, etc?
Yes basically when you say a prime mover, you cannot generalize "space, time, matter, etc" in 1 bag.
Since the deist definition is not defined, it is arrogant to assume that the creator creates "space, time" since we do not even know if those things even have a beginning/creation at all.
For all we know the big bang is just 1 in an infinite amount of big bangs that repeat to infinity.
Speculating in this manner can lead to flawed conclusions.

So it is best not to mix creator with original creation of everything.

"It could range from making adjustments to an already existing planet Earth and thereby making life possible, to molding all the galaxies in the universe as we see it today?"
Yes, there are some deist gods that are just considered as creator of life alone(on this planet only or everywhere) and do not commit anything "regarding galaxies in the universe as we see it today", they leave it open.

Though on the other hand there are other possible deist gods that include the creation of "galaxies in the universe as we see it today" but not include space and time. Thus the creator uses space and time but he might be not responsible for their original creation.(since they could be eternal, without a creation)
Like the Pantheist god AlphaLogica mentioned, where everything is one with god including space and time.

"It could also mean that "the creator" could be a separate entity or in some way it could be the universe itself?"
yes, exactly.
One must understand that when the early deist came up with the concept of being created as part of something bigger, they did not know how the universe works.
So what today we can call consciousness, they would have called it god, a type of deistic god.
They disagreed an many aspects since this was all theoretical, (imaginary) but from the beginning humans wanted to be part of something bigger.
And indeed we are part of the universe and are indeed effected by it in some way.

That is why an ADeist could be considered a person that claims that any type of god does not exist.

Basically a type of deist god is constructed out of what nature and knowledge humans have at the time.
Different people in different time periods have different knowledge and thus they update accordingly what they know about nature to try to understand the creator(GOD) of life better.
That is why there is no definition, because they don't know what a deist god is, but rather try to find out what it is.

Science has a natural explanation which has some holes and clearly states that we do not know yet on some aspects.
Most likely a deist would claim that the natural/random explanations are not enough to justify creation and that there is a much more elegant explanation(maybe part of the natural/random explanation) which we do not know it yet.(they call it god)

ThePragmatic's picture
Thanks.

Thanks.

The most important thing about Deism, as I understand it, is that it poses no threat to human progress, politics or education, and it doesn't promote slavery, misogyny or other forms of discrimination.
It doesn't lock the mind in an ancient mindset.

ThePragmatic's picture
Reading through the Wikipedia

Reading through the Wikipedia article on Deism, these are some key excerpts:

"""Deism is a theological position concerning the relationship between "the Creator" and the natural world."""

"""For Deists, human beings can know God only via reason and the observation of nature, but not by revelation or supernatural manifestations (such as miracles) – phenomena which Deists regard with caution if not skepticism."""

"""Deism is related to naturalism because it credits the formation of life and the universe to a higher power, using only natural processes."""

"""Both [theists and deists] asserted belief in one supreme God, the Creator... . But the theist taught that God remained actively interested in and operative in the world which he had made, whereas the Deist maintained that God endowed the world at creation with self-sustaining and self-acting powers and then surrendered it wholly to the operation of these powers acting as second causes."""

"""Sir Leslie Stephen's English Thought in the Eighteenth Century describes the core of deism as consisting of "critical" and "constructional" elements.

Critical elements of deist thought included:
- Rejection of religions that are based on books that claim to contain the revealed word of God.
- Rejection of religious dogma and demagogy.
- Skepticism of reports of miracles, prophecies and religious "mysteries".

Constructional elements of deist thought included:
- God exists and created the universe.
- God gave humans the ability to reason."

Individual deists varied in the set of critical and constructive elements for which they argued."""

"""Most deists (see for instance Matthew Tindal's Christianity as Old as the Creation and Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason) saw the religions of their day as corruptions of an original, pure religion that was simple and rational. They felt that this original pure religion had become corrupted by "priests" who had manipulated it for personal gain and for the class interests of the priesthood in general."""

"""As priestcraft was always the enemy of knowledge, because priestcraft supports itself by keeping people in delusion and ignorance, it was consistent with its policy to make the acquisition of knowledge a real sin.

—The Age of Reason, Part 2, p. 129"""

"""Deists saw their mission as the stripping away of "priestcraft" and "mysteries" from religion, thereby restoring religion to its original, true condition – simple and rational. In many cases, they considered true, original Christianity to be the same as this original natural religion."""

"""Deistic thinking has existed since ancient times.""" ... """Outside ancient Greece many other cultures have expressed views that resemble deism in some respects. However, the word "deism", as it is understood today, is generally used to refer to the movement toward natural theology or freethinking that occurred in 17th-century Europe, and specifically in Britain."""

"""In particular, the ideas of Confucius, translated into European languages by the Jesuits stationed in China, are thought to have had considerable influence on the deists and other philosophical groups of the Enlightenment who were interested by the integration of the system of morality of Confucius into Christianity."""

"""Contemporary deism attempts to integrate classical deism with modern philosophy and the current state of scientific knowledge. This attempt has produced a wide variety of personal beliefs under the broad classification of belief of "deism"."""

"""A modern definition[64] has been created and provided by the World Union of Deists (WUD) that provides a modern understanding of 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."""

(I think I just got a new favourite quote (from "The Age of Reason") and a new favourite word: "priestcraft" :)

I didn't find anything in that article that actually points at an exclusion of "an initial creator". It's not very clearly stated, but always seem to point at including a creator of the universe. At least, that is my interpretation.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
(I think I just got a new

(I think I just got a new favourite quote (from "The Age of Reason") and a new favourite word: "priestcraft" :)

"priestcraft" is the art of manipulation of information.
Controlling who knows what.

The church made an art out of this concept.

William00's picture
I appreciate the adjustable

I appreciate the adjustable settings on my massage chair. I can adjust the intensity, speed, and focus areas to cater to my specific needs. Best heated massage office chair

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.