17 Jan '18 06:44>3 edits
I have been described as a deist several times over the years on this forum. I don't think it's true because I lack the prerequisite belief in a deity. I am open to the idea, but I think to be a deist I would have to be more 'proactive' about my belief in a creator being. And maybe I was more so in the past.
However, I do find myself to be - at least on a gut feeling level - somewhat sympathetic to the basic premise of deism: the notion of a god or gods that do not interfere directly with mankind or the world.
More solidly, I find myself, broadly speaking, in agreement with what may be described as some of deism's key 'tenets': I am unconvinced by religions based on texts claiming to be divine revelations - and therefore I'm nonplussed by the dogma attendant thereto - and I do not find explanations dependent on assertions about supernatural phenomena to be credible.
One of the regular theist posters (dj2becker), despite the long and rich tradition of deism, has described [Thread 175422, top of page 25] this notion of a god who does not interfere directly with the affairs of humans to be "intellectually dishonest".
Is it?
However, I do find myself to be - at least on a gut feeling level - somewhat sympathetic to the basic premise of deism: the notion of a god or gods that do not interfere directly with mankind or the world.
More solidly, I find myself, broadly speaking, in agreement with what may be described as some of deism's key 'tenets': I am unconvinced by religions based on texts claiming to be divine revelations - and therefore I'm nonplussed by the dogma attendant thereto - and I do not find explanations dependent on assertions about supernatural phenomena to be credible.
One of the regular theist posters (dj2becker), despite the long and rich tradition of deism, has described [Thread 175422, top of page 25] this notion of a god who does not interfere directly with the affairs of humans to be "intellectually dishonest".
Is it?