Deism

[beforHim]

Figured out something interesting about deism, I'll lay it out best I can, and wait fr replies to see how cogent this really is. Or if it's true at all!


Deism uses reason to find out there is a God who ceated then left. Now, once this God is found to exist, we can say we trust our reasoning (since made by God). And now, since we can trust our reasoning, and ur reasoning leads to this absentee God, it must be true.

Thus, we assume our reasoning is correct, then get an answer, then say in light of the answer we see our reasoning can be correct. This is confusing to me, and I'm still thinking it over. But doesn't this mean we ASSUME from the get-go that our reasoning is correct?

"Look, our reasoning mst be good and correct and able to find truth. I mean, there's a God who's made it this way". So even BEFORE we know of the God, we reason our way to the God. Is this circular, or is it more like once we figure out God, we can then trust even our past reasoning, hence not being circular (or something like that).



OK, you see the problem I posed (for deism AND for my problem with deism). Comments, please! :)

[Doug Shaver]

Figured out something interesting about deism

How did you figure it out? By talking to deists? I suspect not.

Deism uses reason to find out there is a God who ceated then left.

Deism is the belief that there is such a god. How a person comes to believe in it is not part of deism.

Now, once this God is found to exist, we can say we trust our reasoning (since made by God).

Most deists do believe we can trust our reasoning, but they don't infer that from God's existence.

But doesn't this mean we ASSUME from the get-go that our reasoning is correct?

We all have to assume that we can trust our reasoning, no matter what we believe about God. Even presuppositionalists can't avoid that assumption, no matter how much much they try to deny it.

"Look, our reasoning mst be good and correct and able to find truth. I mean, there's a God who's made it this way". So even BEFORE we know of the God, we reason our way to the God. Is this circular, or is it more like once we figure out God, we can then trust even our past reasoning, hence not being circular (or something like that).

I don't quite understand your question here, but maybe this will answer it.

You can assume both that your reasoning is reliable and that there is a God with certain characteristics. Then you can use your reasoning to figure out what other characteristics God might have. Or, you can assume that our reasoning is reliable and then use your reasoning to infer God's existence and his characteristics. What you cannot logically do is assume that God exists and then infer that your reasoning is reliable, because without assuming reliable reasoning, you cannot infer anything at all from any assumption.

Circular reasoning happens anytime you reach a conclusion that merely restates one of the argument's premises. Therefore, any argument that claims to prove the reliability of our reasoning is circular, because any argument has to presuppose the rules of logic.

[Seasanctuary]

Just a sec, let me put on my presuppositionalist mind-warp cap...

Deism is ok because an omniscient God could have actualized a world which would be guaranteed to develop fairly reliable human reason.

But Atheism is definitely not ok because fairly reliable human reason is not a guaranteed result of metaphysical naturalism.

(Which is why I'm not a vanilla Atheist. I'm an Athe-who-believes-in-fairly-reliable-human-reason-ist. Owned, presuppers.)

[beforHim]

Thx, guys. Doug, you hit the nail on the head.

Yeah, it seems pretty much all reasoning is circular, as you have to assume something. Ad reasoning is retty much always assumed as reliable, in ne way or the other.

And yeah, the place in my mind were was getting mixed up was tha I was assuming that deists believed in a God that made reasoning perfect and reasoning the way we figure stuff out. I kind of assumed some things from the start.

Well cool. I feel better now, now tat this has been dispelled n one sense. :)

[Whateverman]

"Look, our reasoning mst be good and correct and able to find truth. I mean, there's a God who's made it this way". So even BEFORE we know of the God, we reason our way to the God. Is this circular, or is it more like once we figure out God, we can then trust even our past reasoning, hence not being circular (or something like that).

Hi beforeHim,

I'm a cautious deist. There aren't many of us around, so when i find a thread on deism it's a pleasant surprise. However, I had trouble understanding your OP here; I'll try to not make an argument based on a misunderstanding, but please forgive me if I do...

"Look, our reasoning mst be good and correct and able to find truth. I mean, there's a God who's made it this way" - this statement doesn't even come close to expressing my thoughts on the subject. I don't assume that my reasoning is good; even if I did, this would not be my argument for the existence of a deity.

I've come to my (hesitant) conclusions for entirely different reasons. I do not believe strongly that a deistic God exists - I merely suspect it. You could say I'm in the middle of a life-long search for answers to questions like this. Your ideas above DO represent circular reasoning, but they don't represent the way I think or the reasoning I use.

Cheers

[CodewordConduit]

WEM!

[Whateverman]

WEM!

Nice to see you again, CwC! Love the avatar...

[beforHim]

Good to know, whatever man. See, I tens to associate deis with the thinkers around the turn of the 18th century (I think). Around the founding of our nation, or during John Locke's time and all that, modernity you know. They (eveb some Christians, like Locke) trusted reason so much. But as Doug said (in a round about way) it misses the point. And you stating that it doesn't even come close to your thinking gives me a real life example. Cool. :)