UPDATE – This article was cross-posted at the Young Australian Skeptics website and Dr Mark Henn is responding to comments there too, if you’d like to check that out!
It has also been printed in Skeptical Briefs – the newsletter for the Skeptical Inquirer.
For a while now, I’ve become quite uncomfortable about an assumption sometimes expressed: ’skepticism equals atheism’. It’s simply just not true.
From my own personal experiences I’ve had when teaching in faith schools, I’ve seen that that religion and skepticism can co-exist. I’ve attended skeptic conferences where skeptical people happily discuss their faith (Christian, Judaism, etc) over dinner; even heard the responses of those same people when presenters on a skeptic conference stage think they’re talking to atheist-only skeptics! Sure, the demographic of any sample-size of skeptics you might choose to make will most likely contain plenty of atheists. But we cannot claim that those who hold religious beliefs don’t stand along with them.
My own first experience with the ‘deist skeptic’ question came from attending The Amazing Meet!ng 3 back in 2005. I recall some of the discussions that stemmed from that time – Penn Jillette made inflammatory comments about religious people from the stage; Julia Sweeney discussed her own journey of faith and we heard and spoke in person to a (most approachable!) Richard Dawkins. Naturally, the question of whether skeptics could believe in God came up again and again, long after TAM3 ended, amongst skeptics online and in discussions.
There was even a panel discussion at TAM4 about deist skeptics – a podcast episode featuring Hal Bidlack on ‘deist skeptics’ was presented on Skepticality. I’m certain that there are more and more people over time who will point out that Martin Gardner, Harry Houdini (and even employees and forum forum moderators of the James Randi Educational Foundation) believe in the existence of a god. I probably don’t have to point at the millions of blog entries online that approach skepticism with atheist leanings – so where are the blogs that acknowledge ‘the other side’? Where are the blogs that talk about how atheism and skepticism are ‘not one and the same’?
So, when it came to writing about deist skeptics – I couldn’t resist writing to my friend Dr Mark Henn about our shared experiences. He attended TAM3 and 4, was selected as a Fulbright scholar in 2008 and is a professor of Psychology in New Hampshire. You can see his contribution to the first Skeptic Zone podcast episode, as the interviewer of Mark ‘Gravy’ Roberts, who presented a post-mortem of the “truth” movement.
Kylie: A few years back, we attended the Amaz!ng Meeting 3 and there was a debate at the Amazing Meeting 4, all about ‘deist skeptics’. I had heard one criticism of that presentation was that it only featured emotionally-based arguments for ‘believing in god and yet being a skeptic’. Can one actually be a skeptic and a deist due to other reasons?
Mark: Of course! Skepticism is a process, not a conclusion. The conclusions we reach through critical evaluation must necessarily depend on the evidence that is there for us. American culture, as an example, is thoroughly saturated with belief in god. A skeptical thinker (I am picturing a child, adolescent or even a young adult) could ask the people known to be trusted and legitimate authorities in his or her community for evidence and opinion, and be provided with information that is biased toward belief in a god. How is this person supposed to know better? Given the information provided to this person (and that information alone), perhaps a good skeptic would be forced to conclude that a god does indeed exist!
After that, the same belief perseverance mechanisms that we all have kick in. Once a belief is accepted, a skeptic will be willing to abandon it for another if evidence insists… but frankly, it would not be terribly adaptive for us to have our fundamental beliefs flap with each breeze. There is a reason for the requirement that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, and evolution found that out before Carl Sagan did. We do not change our fundamental beliefs easily; many of us do not change them at all.
I know many skeptics who pooh-pooh religious belief, but who simultaneously have no problems believing in a causal free will. Indeed, they will actively defend this utterly irrational belief, and belittle me for my correct stance!
Kylie: Yes, that’s something that is often said by the likes of Skeptic.com’s Dr Michael Shermer and Junior Skeptic’s Daniel Loxton – that ’skepticism is a process’. Sometimes I wonder if it’s said enough! I’ve occasionally come across a rather ‘gung-ho’ approach of ‘we must challenge religious beliefs, that’s what skeptics are about: critical thinking equals skepticism equals atheism’ that often seems more limiting than productive. Does that really get religious people, let alone people sympathetic to those who believe in a god or even just open to the possibility, on-side?
Mark: Of course, critical thought is not a requirement for atheism at all! Atheism is simply the privative condition, the negatively defined “none of the above” category designating no particular religious faith. An individual may choose to be an atheist based on a great deal of critical thought, very little thought, or no thought at all! All it takes is not being a member of any of the positively-defined belief categories (Muslim, Jew, Christian, etc.).
Critical thinking is not a prerequisite for atheism, nor is a lack of critical thinking required for any religious belief. There may be correlations, but the assumption you are examining is that of identity–that all atheists are critical thinkers and that no religious believers are. That, of course, is just plain wrong.
Kylie: ah, I see…
Mark: We must also bear in mind that it would be extraordinarily rare for one’s religious beliefs to actually, meaningfully, be challenged. Deistic belief is often criticized (by the atheist/skeptics you speak of) as being unfalsifiable, which of course it is. Modern deism posits a “hands-off” god, and so a god that never strongly contradicts one’s work in chemistry, physics, biology… let alone plumbing, programming, or politics. A superfluous god is not problematic in the way that an interventionist god is, and while such a god may not be a necessary element to one’s work, neither is such a god obviously contradicted by one’s everyday observations (”hand me the pipe wrench, and offer up a burnt offering to Thoth, and we’ll have that leak fixed in no time!”).
Our perceptual systems are geared toward seeing correlations–seeing what goes with what(this is arguably the basis for a good many superstitions, such as the belief that the full moon is responsible for… any number of things, actually). We are much worse at seeing what does not go with what (”it’s not what you did; it’s what you didn’t do”). A god who does nothing is not noticed, but is not actively contradicted by observation. In the absence of such a challenge, it is not surprising that there is little change in belief.
Kylie: After attending a local atheist meeting, I had someone question me about whether the former Australian Skeptic of the year, Dr Karl, had an opinion about faith and science – so I took the opportunity to ask him for the Skeptic Zone podcast! He spoke on a recent episode about how a well-known scientist in Australia (Dr Laurie Peak) divides his views on faith and science. He said that in his view faith and science were ‘orthogonal and separate’ – and he could not see why a population saw a conflict between evolution and religious belief. So, what is the big issue?
Mark: There is a conflict, because not all religious beliefs are orthogonal to science. Religious belief varies tremendously, and while some (by some accounts, the vast majority of) religious believers hold views that are indeed independent of science, some hold beliefs that are in clear opposition to the knowledge base of science. This number may be a small percentage of believers, but in some places they hold disproportionately great political or social influence.
Different areas of science, too, differ in their independence from or relevance to religious belief. Experimental psychology, for instance, with its subject matter of sensation, perception, memory, cognition, belief, learning, and more, is uniquely suited to evaluate the sorts of individual, personal experiences that many claim as the reason for their belief.
Kylie: We’re sometimes presented by extremist views of faith – that it’s “damaging and dangerous”, perhaps akin to a form of abuse to children in being exposed to religion. Can deist skeptics really challenge what is rapidly becoming a popular stereotype of ’skeptic equals atheist’ and contribute to promoting science and reasoning, despite an assumption that ‘their beliefs come first / will trump skepticism’?
Mark: Can one? Certainly. There is no reason to exclude such a person. There should be no reason to specifically include this person, either, because non-deist skeptics should understand the psychology that can lead to the tremendous variety of skepticism and belief. (I suppose a deist skeptic could be just as blind to that, come to think of it. Far more important than some nominal category is the ability to understand that list above… memory, cognition, belief, etc….)
Kylie: With that last question, I admit that I’ve taken the position that a skeptic must contribute to ’science and reasoning’. Are there really any ‘requirements’ for one to be a skeptic anyway? After all, there’s plenty of people who care about frauds, scams, who fight for consumer awareness and rights and their religious beliefs don’t get in the way of this.
Mark: There must be–otherwise it would be synonymous with “human”. We always say “skeptics say ’show me the evidence’”, don’t we? Skeptics are not merely cynics; skeptics don’t say “I don’t believe it!”, they say “what is the evidence for it?”, and if there is sufficient evidence, they change their belief. This is why, in question 1, it is not at all difficult to see skeptical deists.
Just as “believing” does not imply belief in any and every god, “skepticism” can only be applied to the topics we apply it to. If we have no reason to doubt a particular fundamental belief, why should we actively examine it? A person may be the best at applying skeptical thought to, say, the methodological flaws in Sheldrake’s “sense of being stared at” protocol, and yet have never once had reason to critically re-examine her or his belief in a god. Beyond this, there are the social reasons to remain a member of a religious group, above and beyond belief with every tenet that group holds. I suppose these are similar reasons to remain a member of skeptical groups…
Kylie: Finally, what, in your view, would be the best way for skeptically-minded people to view religion? Is it really our ‘job’ to limit skepticism and its reach?
Mark: Religion is … human. It is not any more (or less) fundamentally human than any number of other social activities. There is, as William James wrote, a variety of religious experience; any simplistic explanation of belief will at best explain only a portion. On the other hand, we should not shrink from studying religious belief; it makes a wonderful lab rat. We believe any number of things that are not true; here we have the luxury of self-identified samples that systematically believe a similar set of things. And of course, skeptical individuals who happen to be religious may have a unique and valuable perspective. For example – at what point in her odyssey did Julia Sweeney cross the line from believer to skeptic? My answer – she started being a skeptic very early on, and quit being a believer very late in the process. Most of the journey, she wore two hats.
You can see Julia Sweeny, discussing such an experience, here on the Amaz!ng Meeting 2 footage:
![[Valid RSS]](http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/9879/validrsscf0.png "Validate my RSS feed")
{ 17 comments }
I have performed a thought experiment that goes like this:
1. I used to be an atheist, but now I’m a deist. Now that I know that there is a god, but that god does nothing now, how does this change how I interact with people and the world?
2. I used to be a deist, but now I’m an atheist. Now that I know that the god I once thought did nothing is now nonexistent, how does this change how I interact with people the world?
I found no practical difference. I have no problem with deism. It is meaningless.
This is a very different claim from deism (which is so similar to atheism as to be barely worthy of its own word, IMHO).
Why is it that professed Christian skeptics do not apply their skepticism to their religion? Would we be prepared to say that someone that believed in ghosts but not UFOs was a skeptic? Is it a matter of how many things you’re skeptical about? What about if someone was prepared to accept every single paranormal claim at face value except religious claims? Are they “in the club”?
Belief in the paranormal, whether that be a belief in ghosts, UFOs, psychics, invisible pink unicorns, or religion, is still a non-skeptical belief. I’m not saying such people should be ostracised or whatever, but I also don’t see any particular reason to view religious claims any differently than anything else – the motive of most people that want to do so seems to be that religious beliefs are so entrenched that you risk alienating a large number of people – but skepticism and the scientific method in general are not about populism. Weird beliefs are weird beliefs, no matter how popular they are – and the beliefs associated with everyone’s favourite desert death cult are definitely weird beliefs if viewed objectively.
That is, unless these religious skeptics are in possession of some evidence that they’re not sharing with us atheist skeptics?
@halcoolguy: we are more than how we interact with other people. We each have an active mind subject to vast ranges of experience that are known to no one but ourselves. So while various flavors of theism may not mean anything to you, there are others to whom it will have profound meaning.
@kylie: great piece! Even as an atheist I worry that organized skepticism is hostile to believers who can value and employ the tools of skepticism.
I agree with “hal”.
Deism is an intellectually bankrupt and indefensible position, as it is utterly indistinguishable from “no gods at all”.
If it *were* distinguishable, even in potentia, it would full-blown theism.
Deism is, in my opinion, merely a political tactic employed in order to save one’s-self from having to have the guts to publicly declare one’s genuine position, (either way).
I do have a problem with Deism, much as I have a problem with “moderate” religious folk.
Both suckers give succour to the extremists.
(I feel much better now, thank you!…;)
… thanks to Michael, we now have an example of the ‘hostility’ that Reed mentions. But they feel ‘much better now’, so I guess that helps _them_. Clicked on the YouTube vid, did you? I doubt the likes of Julia would have bothered if she had people call her a ’sucker’ and that would have been a great loss.
Extremists exist on both sides.
Gazza wrote: ‘What about if someone was prepared to accept every single paranormal claim at face value except religious claims? Are they “in the club”?’
I’d say yes – but which religious claims do you mean?
Gazza wrote: “Why is it that professed Christian skeptics do not apply their skepticism to their religion?”
What evidence do you have that some don’t? I would quote Dr Henn, from another conversation about his early influences in a church which encouraged questioning one’s faith, but I can’t seem to find it at the moment. I will, however say that your comment reminds me of the classic example of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy – nothing more than checking off a box.
Shamus: No true Scotsman puts sugar in ‘is porridge.
McTavish: But I’m a Scotsman, an’ I put sugar in me porridge.
Shamus: Then you’re nay a true Scotsman.
When you start suggesting a list of things that a skeptic must do before he can be called a skeptic, you are using the same fallacy, unless you can show that these things are required in order to be a skeptic, which I do not believe you have done. A skeptic can be described as a person who simply questions certain things, which is why I say we are all skeptics about some things and we are all non-skeptics about others.
I would not deem myself worthy of deciding who is and who isn’t a skeptic based upon checkboxes, but I would certainly say that we cannot discount the contributions of people of faith.
I like the article, and perhaps the most important point is that much depends on what evidence you’re exposed to. I embraced the Christian faith when I was persuaded that the evidence pointed in that direction, and I abandoned the Christian faith after a series of cumulative disappointments in which things I’d previously taken as evidence turned out not to be, either in the light of more information or a fresh way of looking at them. In between, Christianity was a very important part of my life.
I feel disappointed by the strength of anti-religious tone in some of the early comments. I think Gazza constructs something of a strawman in the implication that believers necessarily accept their religion “at face value”, but I agree in principle that religion shouldn’t be treated differently from other claims. What alienates people is dismissal of their beliefs without first seeking to understand them, and the trouble with many articles by atheist sceptics is that they seem ill informed about the diversity of perspectives on the other side. The right to criticise comes with the responsibility to listen.
Hmmm,
I think I would have written a profoundly different piece had I not already read the above comments.
To make matters clear:
).
1) I consider myself a Bright (noun not adjective).
2) I disagree with Deists at an intellectual level (in fact I’ll take a step back and say an intuitive level mediated by evidence, frankly just I don’t see the other side as stupid).
3) I have vast sympathy for skeptical Deists and surprisingly less for non-skeptical Atheists. I have had arguments with conspiracy theorists that have left me a little jaded. It also helps that I am a Unitarian Humanist and attend church with Unitarian Christians, Buddhists, Jews, etc (we’re all on big happy, occasionally argumentative family
Having laid my biases out for criticism I can begin.
When I hear the term deism I am reminded my some things Carl Sagan wrote on regarding the great demotions. Rarely our initial intuitive ideas on things turn out to be right. It is humbling to think that the geocentric model of the universe is in fact more intuitive until one looks at the evidence. On this I point out some typical assumptions we make on the nature of a deity.
Firstly that this deity is intelligent, something akin to our own intelligence just bigger and more perfect. Access to limitless information on any time and place and an infinite processing ability to cope with it. To illustrate why I think this might be I introduce a thought experiment called the Gigus Mechanism. This requires certain properties of it’s parts, these being universes must as part of their formation have a sufficiently large space time and a specific balance on condensed Energy or rocks, gass and liquid (also being conducive to life as a by-product). Additionally being outside space and time it has developed feedback mechanisms through a system of heritability of parts to ensure their genesis is consistent with this. This machine is not sentient, certainly not intelligent but is an entity outside of space-time that could have spawned a lithogenic (and therefore occasionally anthropogenic) universe. I think that this is not what the deist has in mind when they talk of god however.
So why then must God be cognisant? I think the reason is something of a shortcut. Like the idea of a soul comes complete with memory, vision, hearing, touch, emotions, cognition, etc. A God seems to come with intelligence, Emotion (love in particular) and a desire for Life (especially with our kind of minds). These two concepts (Dualism and Deism) are not necessarily connected but I think they do come from a common source, our intuition.
We cannot be certain that the flying spaghetti monster isn’t real. But it helps if you get Bobby Henderson to admit he just made it up. Isn’t this the same with God. If our minds are predisposed to believe in an intelligent cause isn’t this synonymous with nature “making up” God albeit by accident. If we are to be agnostic about a god, let’s be aware of just how agnostic we really are. A deity is an occupant of a truly vast realm of agnostic entities, few we tend to imagine, some we can’t imagine even as an approximation.
However,
this does not make it not true. In the end the question of a deist god isn’t a skeptical question. It makes no testable claims. Frankly it can even be put that Deism does have positive benefits. Something I have noticed about people in my own church (and these people if they are theists are almost to a person deists) is that a sense of spirit helps some people feel more connected to the universe in a way that being a bright finds it harder to do. It appeals to our intuitions and works hand in hand with our psychology. As I said I have vast sympathies with deists even if I couldn’t be one myself.
I apologize if I just Straw manned any positions people might hold (it’s devilishly hard to guess people’s minds)
Oh and to Kylie, sorry for such a long post
Thor’Ungal
Thanks for the post, Kylie!
As a skepitc and a deist of sorts, this interested me, of course. I wonder if the difference between atheist-skeptics who accept deists and those that don’t is the same difference that divides the incremental atheists and revolutionary atheists. The incrementalists want to improve the social acceptance of atheism while the revolutionists want the complete undoing of all religious belief. This is the main divide I’ve experienced in the atheist community.
RE: Thor’Ungal – That was a well written comment. I’ve made the very assumptions you discuss. Dawkins’ The God Delusion pointed out these assumptions and I’ve since abandoned them. I still think there is an argument for the existence of some sort of ultimate cause because of Leibniz’s modal cosmological argument (TGD only address the Kalam cosmological argument), but no longer believe that said ultimate cause need be complex (intelligent, etc.).
I also think TGD goes to far and assumes the ultimate cause need be simple. Extrapolating from one scientific concept, biological evolution, to the entire universe isn’t sufficiently justified based on our present knowledge. The universe contains examples of both top-down and bottom-up design. To prefer one over the other as it applies to the universe itself is problematic at best.
Since I admit that this ultimate cause may be simple, it also admits that it my not properly be called ‘god’. Thus I describe my theological position as deist-agnostic. This is almost purely a philosophical position based mostly on reason. Of course, such a philosophical position has absolutely no application to my life. The lack of evidence for an intelligent, intervening god means my default position is no god. Thus I function as an atheist.
Thanks for reading. These are just some thoughts from someone who’s comfortable identifying with both deists and atheists.
There’s two approaches I could take – an emotional pleading, or looking at it pragmatically with human psychology in mind. The former is knee-jerk, unconsidered and depends purely on one’s mood and cultural background. So…I’ll come from the second.
As much as we’d like to have privileged views of our brains, they are constructed to work in a socialised, personal world. They also demand answers regardless of whether there is anything to base them on. So, faced with big questions, it’s natural to react with ’something with a personality might be responsible’.
Skepticism is a philosophy that says before we form any such conclusions, we need objective, empirical reasons. If we rigidly adhered to this philosophy, we’d view a number of things in the universe as unanswerable for the moment (and some permanently so).
BUT…given this goes against how our brains evolved to work, obviously there are going to be large numbers of people who find it uncomfortable, or damn near impossible, to rigidly stick to a skeptical philosophy. To alleviate some of this personal discomfort, some relaxing of the philosophy will take place. I think we all do this from time to time with different things, given that the rewards of comfort or social cohesion will often outweigh the pragmatic benefits of rigid skepticism.
For those who argue ‘it’s not skeptical’, I might agree, but I’ll also ask ’so what?’. If you wish to argue the benefits of skepticism, fine, but it does have its limits. I feel skepticism is a valuable tool where part of its strength is in determining where its benefits lie, and where applying it may instead make life more difficult.
Sidfaiwu,
Thanks for the compliment. I like arguing but please let me first be frank. I like Deists. I live in a comunity full of them and they are both reasonable, skeptical and often intellectually honest (I think they’d have to be to have rejected theism for it). Also I am not a philosopher, I am an engineer. If you are a philosopher then I will get crushed in any argument in that field and unfortunately not be able to put up much of a fight (sorry). I don’t concider the consequences of either of our views as bad and so argue only because it hones my skills in thinking and let’s face it thinking rocks.
I’d never heard of the “Libniz’s modal cosmological argument” and had to look it up (I am shamed). Thankfully it sounds similar to the first cause argument (well as much as the Kalam is a varient of the teliological argument). Instead of disagree with you I’ll say sure, I think the argument has a point. Unfortunately it only establishes the ground of all being. In other words some set of rules by which the universe opperates (kind of like Conways Life). A framework so to say. A brute fact. The argument states that it colapses to two options:
1) The universe just is
2) “God” exists and is therefore the ground of all being.
These really aren’t all that different. The Gigas mechanism still opperates as God. God is a brute fact, the universe is a brute fact, the Gigas mechanism is a brute fact, etc.
The greater concern with this argument is the objection to point 1. Aside from being a false dicotomy (for instance a fundimental geometry might be the brute fact or in my case the Gigas mechanism) why would it be absurd? And how does postulating a god solve this?
I’ve never heard of naturally occuring top down design (Ok bee hives, bridges, etc might be but that’s still a crane ultimately), could you give an example?
I also think we are playing with words, the level of agnosticism we both state puts us both in the same category as Richard who also thinks that the universe requires an explaination. He just thinks it is an extention of the natural laws rather than a deity, in fact the way you’ve defined a deity I think he’d agree with you (I’ve never met him and don’t really know him so he might not too).
Thanks for the chat, I better get back to work before people ask why I’m looking thoughtful and not stressed.
Regards,
Thor’Ungal.
Athon,
I’d Agree with you here. As much as it gauls me to say I really must take some (alot) of things for granted just to get through the day.
The essentials:
1) Objective reality exists
2) Objective reality has a sense of cosmos to it (i.e. that there realy is a patern to it and it’s not just really massive coincidence that…say…gravity works)
3) My senses reflect some part of this world (I’m not just a brain in a vat)
4) Placeholder for the hundred or so things evolution has lumbered on me that I’m not even aware of
The practicals:
1) Authority within reason (I trust Science as long as it doesn’t trigger my baloney detection sense)
2) What I observe within reason (I trust my own senses under similar conditions to the first)
3) The truth of friends/family/trusted collegues within reason
4) placeholder for what I’ve missed
I think it is important to realise our assumtions thougheven if we can’t live effectively without them. Kind of Like free will (well I’m a compatiblist so it’s more complicated in my case).
Hello Thor’Ungal,
The purpose of my comment was really to highlight how one may be simultaneously skeptic and a deist. I wasn’t really fishing for a philosophical argument. But I always love a good discussion, especially if it hones skills.
Don’t worry about the level of philosophical skill – I only took a few courses in college. I just loved them so much that I’ve done amateur self-study since. I find that among skeptics and (or) atheists, my skills are near average in that area. Much of skepticism and the practice of philosophy is rooting out logical fallacies in arguments so there’s plenty of overlap. About the only advantage I may have is extensive training in formal logic thanks to graduate-level mathematics.
The modal version of the cosmological argument differs from the first cause argument in that the modal version is non-temporal (or at least not necessarily temporal). It deals with regressions of dependent things to at least one necessary thing instead of regressions of cause-and-effects to at least one first cause. But since you chose not to dispute the point for now, I’ll leave it at that.
It seems the version of the argument you looked up does present a false dichotomy at the outset. Here is the version I had in mind:
1. A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
2. This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
3. The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
4. What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
5. Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
6. Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
7. Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.
It’s worded so that it is generalized between the temporal and non-temporal versions for convenience.
You’ve granted for the purpose of discussion that we can take this argument as valid. Interestingly, we’ve come to the same conclusion, “it only establishes the ground of all being,” as you so eloquently put it. For years I made the mistake of presuming that the ultimately necessary thing need be complex (to the point of even having a personality). The universe itself could be the necessary thing (the ‘brute fact’ as it’s often called). But the universe itself is pretty damn complex. You might reply that it began simple and self-complexified over time. But remember that the modal version of the cosmological argument in non-temporal. There must be a necessary thing that all else is ultimately contingent upon now. Heck, time itself may very well be a contingent thing (I’ve actually heard this used as a counter-argument to the time-dependent cosmological argument). There may not be anything special about the direction we perceive time to flow… but I’m getting a little far afield there.
Actually, beehives, bridges, etc. were exactly what I had in mind when I made the statement. But things like super-novas, spontaneous turbulence of fluid flows and the like take ordered things and plunges them into chaos also work as well. I think you would reply that these things were first made complex from simple things. In the case of bees and humans, biological evolution came first, then the top down stuff. Likewise with stars and laminar flows. I would counter that there could be an oscillation between simplification and complexification. Indeed, simple went to complex via evolution and produced humans, which then down-designed polymers, which complexify when provided with the proper energy, which can simplify by melting in a fire, etc. Thus though the universe appears to have started simple, to the best of our knowledge, there’s no reason to assume that if it has a prior cause it must also be simpler. It could be a point at which a complex-to-simple cycle ended.
I think you are right. I was just trying to explain one reason why I might self-identify as deist. I am just as comfortable with atheist. Another reason is that when I call my self a deist in front of atheists, it often results in a really cool discussion with intelligent people.
Wow…that was so cool.
sidfaiwu,
I haven’t much to say past this point, we mostly agree. Once you pull out the arrow of time from this question the whole thing unravels. I think we’ve got to nut out this word complexity a bit too since it I think this is really the only point we disagree on. I recon this might quickly colapse into a position where nothing needs explaining at all as long as we’re willing to classify it as a brute fact. A kind of solipsism for explainations (you know the argument “how do I even know you exist”, my Aunt infuriates me with it). But without outlying the kind of bootlaced structures that can determine what really does need to be contingent and what doesn’t I think we might hit an impass.
On this note can I recommend we pull this onto your blog (I think we can only deviate from the topic from here on). Maybe if you could leave a link here so people can follow our conversation if they’re really keen.
Thanks Kylie for tollerating our lengthy conversations ^_^ .
Thor’Ungal.
Good idea, Thor’Ungal. I created a post that covers much of what we’ve discussed already. We can continue our discussion there if you’d like.
I thank you as well, Kylie.
Oh, I don’t mind in the slightest if you continue here – but glad that you’re keen to discuss!
I’ve seen my share of discussions on the JREF forums in which self-described agnostics accused “hard” atheists (and I include myself in the latter category) of failing to think in properly skeptical fashion because the atheists dismissed the existence of a god without evidence to that effect. The main thing I picked from those discussions is that you have to start off by defining the concept of what constitutes a “god” (or “God”), or all parties involved are just going to end up talking past each other. I don’t care for discussions that devolve into “Battles of the Dictionaries,” but for myself, I wield the WordNet definition for “god ” as “any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force [syn. deity].” You don’t have to agree with that definition, but just so you understand what I mean when I say “god.”
To me, for an entity to be a “god,” that entity has to be consequential; there has to be a discernable positive effect if you believe in and worship that entity, and a discernable negative effect if you fail to do so. Theistic religions make this claim about the gods they posit, and these are testable claims. The problem is that, every time these claims have been put to the test, the evidence does not support them (in practice, nasty things happen just as often to the devout of any religion as they do to the non-devout), and this where anyone who describes himself as both a theist and a skeptic runs into trouble.
Deists are a different story, because the deist concept of “god” is much more malleable. My wife, for example, is a self-described deist in that she believes in a creator-entity that made the universe, but does not intervene in its subsequent running. I can’t argue with that notion in that, to paraphrase Mark Roberts as quoted in the post, such an entity is unfalsifiable, but because the existence (or lack thereof) of such an entity is inconsequential to our existences as human beings, I would argue that such an entity does not meet my definition of a “god.”
Thus, even though I acknowledge such an entity might exist, I refuse to shed the lable of “atheist” because “atheist” does not equal “adeist.” As it happens, I don’t believe in a deistic concept of a creator-entity either (though in good skeptical fashion, I’m prepared to change my mind on the basis of evidence regarding a deistic “god,” whereas I’m thoroughly convinced that any theistic concept of “god” is bunk), but if that’s what makes you happy, don’t let me stop you. At least you won’t be agitating for laws banning same-sex marriage because your god supposedly opposes it.
On a different note, I’ve finally Pulled up that Blog for the Unitarian Church of SA. tell us what you think:
http://unitariansa.wordpress.com/
I’ve still got to link it up with the Youtube and itunes section (and populate it with coolness) but it’s a start. Sadly due to the positions I hold I don’t think I’ll be posting anything myself too often (except as comments). It’s really just a gateway for the church.
Ooh feel free to have it out with any foolishness you see there (I will). Especially when the sermons and podcasts start coming through. I’ll be maintaining it so you can post suggestions to the Email Address on the “Who are you anyway” page (if and when you feel like it).
Tanks,
Thor’Ungal.
Comments on this entry are closed.