tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post263208857861074291..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Competing Definitions of "Deism" and "Christianity"Brad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-35034932644648575452010-02-22T20:07:05.782-07:002010-02-22T20:07:05.782-07:00Jon,
Do you have a sense of the origin of the defi...Jon,<br />Do you have a sense of the origin of the definition of "Deism" as belief in a God who started it all with no active involvement thereafter? In the 20th century, that was the accepted definition. In the 18th, it seems to be much more slippery. As with many definitions: "Christian", you have noted, but also "atheist".Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12165084874363214919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-49472636185068543792010-02-21T08:44:43.141-07:002010-02-21T08:44:43.141-07:00Jon, If I know anything about your friend, it wasn...Jon, If I know anything about your friend, it wasn't that he was simply asking "for a broader definition of 'Deism'." He was asking why the belief in a non-interventionist god was being used to circumscribe what deism, in its historical context, was meant to be. As far as I can tell, this approach is the same as saying that deism implies a belief in evolution. Now, If Thomas Paine or Jefferson, for example, had said that they believed in a "watchmaker god" that had no involvement with his creation, then I can understand. Otherwise, the "watchmaker god" appears to be an anachronism.Ray Sollerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07950061062767093373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-45180431675279041782010-02-20T21:25:47.252-07:002010-02-20T21:25:47.252-07:00I think the real problem of today's discussion...I think the real problem of today's discussion is much deeper than "warm deism"...or a "personal Providence". That view is affirmed by evangelicals, and conservative Protestantims.But, believeing such is also an exclusive claim to revelation, which is irrational commitment.<br /><br />The underlying philosophical question is whether Chrsitianity is a philosophy or a commitment. Commitment is what the conservative want to demand, because of their belief in a personal God, versus the "cold evolution of chance" or the , impersonalability of "god" or "no god at all".<br /><br />One can argue 'god' because of "limits to reason", but what difference is that argument from the "god of the gaps"? Humans just give credence to "god" for whatever is not understood scientifically?<br /><br />I think that the Founders understood Christianity as a philosophy. And political philosophy was of importance in their understanding of "faith". The "separation of Church and State" protected the right of religious freedom/difference. <br /><br />Today should be no different. Political freedom should allow for religious freedom. <br /><br />The Dali Llama stated that he wanted "religious freedom" but he not say "political freedom". He understood that religious freedom is "untouchable" by scientific materialism...as these convictions are "beyond the realm of science". Therefore, he does not entangle himself with political philosophy, but with religious freedom, which affirms "human rights" under individual or a sect's conscience/values.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com