I have been interested in the kind of apology that you discuss here for
some time now. The aim of this approach, as I have tried it, is to
first knock people off their high horse. I will openly admit (just in
case others have not recognized this in my posts) that this is in large
part why I began studying the philosophy of science some 20 years ago.
The high horse that most of the atheists I have dealt with (obviously
because of my career) was that of science and the "rational" scientific
method, a kind of positivist view of knowledge and belief. I began this
journey defending the possibility of a science, based largely upon the
work of Stanley Jaki, as founded upon a Christian worldview. However,
even Jaki (and I asked him specifically about this to test his conviction
on the matter) beleived that once science and its method was discovered
and developed, a Christian perspective was no longer necessary. I still
believe this is in error and that a kind of theistic perspective is
required. Nonetheless, Jaki is correct regarding the atheistic
scientist's viewpoint. Even if you can get them to acknowledge the
Christian roots of science (not an easy task since many historians do not
they believe it irrelevant. It is not difficult, if one pursues the
philosophy of science to find a critical evaluation of science and its
products, so much so that it is now widely accepted by anyone who has an
educated opinion on the subject, except scientists themselves, that
science ought no longer be viewed as the paradigm of objective knowledge
that it was in the early parts of the last century.
Independent of the specifics of how it is done, I believe that it is
necessary to undermine the atheistic foundation of their beliefs. This is
a kind of negative apologetic, and perhaps not the one favored in
Scripture, which tends to be a positive apologetic. Perhaps reminding us
that our idols are mere wood and of our invention is a kind of negative
What I have tried to argue is that everyone has a god, where god is
something that is ultimate, eternal, omnipresent, and even all powerful.
Such a god is the end of our questioning. It is. I believe that
somethign like Aquinas' Five Ways can be turned to advance this argument.
For example, I present an argument that something is eternal, and this
something you can call god, even your god.
What all these kinds of cosmological arguments get you, however, is not by
any stretch, a Christian god, or even a theistic god. It is more like an
Aristotelian god. What is difficult, I think, is not to get someone to
acknowledge the kind of god I'm speaking of here. What is difficult is to
get them to even look seriously at the possibility of a personal god. The
very nature of science, in its attempt to gain an impersonal, so-called
objective viewpoint, undermines such a possibility. When a organistic
paradigm was overthrown by a mechanistic one, the die was cast, even
though a mechanistic model is wearing thin, and the god of chance taking
its place today. This, I think, is why so many (not just those on this
list) are so zealously adamant against any form of ID. Our idea of
rationality and warranted belief finds a personal god abhorrent.
I'll stop here with this question. Do you all believe that a negative
apologetic is fruitful. If so, does not that negative apologetic have to
take aim at the foundation of their atheism? Atheists, after all, are
apparently persuaded. They are no less persuaded than Christians. But
perhaps this is becoming old. Are there any true atheists left? Atheism
is, after all, a form of theism, founded on a kind of absolute knowledge,
what today is going out of fashion. If so, what we are left with is the
flexible squishiness of agnosticism.
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009,
> Heya George,
> You're right about the confusion that's probably brought up with the "deism"
> term. I tried to get across what I meant by talking about "basic theism" in
> the same breath (well, sentence anyway). All I meant was that Aquinas and
> others relied on arguments to get people to a very basic, "mere" belief in
> or acceptance of God first - and that these arguments are tremendously
> important when dealing with the sort of people I'm talking about. But it
> seems you understand what I mean on this front anyway.
> As for the effects of natural theology, I'd disagree. Aquinas preceded the
> enlightenment by centuries, and he wasn't exactly some obscure cleric in the
> western church. And he was hardly the only scholastic-era philosopher who
> was taking the route of arguing or approaching the issue in this manner.
> What happened between Aquinas' time and the seventeenth century was
> absolutely not merely a simple and uncomplicated expansion of natural
> theology, certainly not thomistic natural theology. The rise of nominalism,
> of cartesian dualism, of radical skepticism, etc played a major role, as did
> the sectarian wars, political aspirations of various sectors of society, and
> so on.
> Now, I'm not going to pretend that any person exposed to, or even convinced
> by, these basic theistic arguments is going to reliably become orthodox
> christians overnight, or even at all. And is there a danger with getting
> people to approach God in such a stepwise manner? Sure. But I also think
> there was danger when Paul made that rhetorical use of the altar to an
> unknown God - a move which is, in my view, vastly more radical than what I'm
> talking about here. And again, I'm not saying this is a good argument to use
> on lapsed but basically believing Christians, or muslims, or hindus, or
> buddhists, etc. I'm talking specifically about the developed west, where
> even a simple belief in God is many times shrugged off and not really taken
> seriously because the idea seems either too remote, or too fantastic. Put
> another way, the people who need to hear this message are already in a
> dangerous state of affairs when it comes to God and religion. At least if
> they take God seriously, even the God of mere theism, or even the God of
> Paine's deism, they've become people who one can have a serious discussion
> with about God in principle. And, while I believe their strand of atheism is
> on the way out the door, I'd point out that this taking God or religion
> seriously is the last thing the more recent and rabid atheists want.
> Finally, I absolutely agree with you about the atheist delusion about
> 'morality and value'. They do not recognize how much they borrow, they do
> not recognize how little they can sustain of what they borrow, and they do
> not realize (despite one history lesson after another) just what humanity is
> capable of in the negative sense. And to turn a paraphrase from a
> Christian-insulting movie on its head, "Fifty million corpses from this so
> far, probably more. Those people should go to a graveyard and count the
> tombstones sometime, and perhaps they'll learn a lesson. ... No. Probably
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 6:36 PM, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>> You & Cameron are quite right in pointing out that the word "deism" has
>> a variety of meanings. I think though that the distinction you make below
>> between "Deism 1" and "Deism 2" & the way you expound the meanings of the 2
>> varieties confuses things. What you call "Deism 2," in which "God is
>> established and Christianity at that point remains a live possibility and
>> warrants investigation," I would call "mere theism." I.e., it is the view
>> that the existence of God & perhaps some basic properties (e.g., God
>> originated the world) can be established from observation of the world &
>> reason, & it may be possible to know other things about God from special
>> This is essentially what I have called the "classic" view of natural
>> theology in the Christian tradition, a theology which can serve as an
>> introduction to a more complete & satisfactory theology based on
>> revelation. As you note, this is the approach of Aquinas, & it seems to me
>> unhelpful to refer to this as a variety of “deism.”
>> But terminology is not the fundamental problem. Whether it’s called
>> Deism-2, mere theism, natural religion or anything else, this is a dangerous
>> approach to take. Supposedly such “natural religion” is to serve as the
>> “forecourt” of the temple, but the difficulty historically has always been
>> that people tend to stop in the forecourt, which eventually becomes the
>> sanctuary. I have quoted here before the following passage from Richard
>> S. Westfall's *Science and Religion in Seventeenth-Century England* (Yale,
>> 1958), pp.106-107, but I think it’s worth repeating.
>> "While the virtuosi [scientists in today's parlance] concentrated
>> vigorously on the demonstrations of natural religion and proved to their own
>> satisfaction that the cosmos reveals its Creator, they came to neglect their
>> own contention that natural religion is only the foundation. The
>> supernatural teachings of Christianity received little more than a
>> perfunctory nod, expressing approval but indicating disinterest. Although
>> the absorption in natural religion and the external manifestations of divine
>> power did not dispute or deny any specific Christian doctrine, it did more
>> to undermine Christianity than any conclusion of natural science."
>> I.e., the classic view of the introductory and subsidiary role of natural
>> theology changed into the Enlightenment view in which reason is all we need
>> and revelation is unnecessary. Even when this doesn’t happen, even when
>> people do move on to take special revelation seriously, theology suffers
>> from the influence of the prior non-Christian ideas about God & God’s
>> relationship with the world. Many of the problems that theology has had
>> in dealing with Christology and the Trinity are due to such influence.
>> Secondly, it can be argued that deism may claim to provide some standards
>> of morality and value. Cameron, e.g., quoted Paine as saying, inter alia,
>> “I believe in the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties
>> consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavouring to make our
>> fellow-creatures happy.” But in fact there is nothing in a natural
>> religion based only on observation and reason that leads to such beliefs.
>> They are really just some of the debris left over after the demolition of
>> religions that claim to be based on revelation. Similarly today the New
>> Atheists imagine that society can get rid of religion (or “revealed
>> religion”) and go happily along with people accepting moral standards of
>> justice, mercy &c. They are unwilling to look into the abyss that they
>> would create and see that in fact there is no basis for any such morality.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Schwarzwald <email@example.com>
>> *To:* firstname.lastname@example.org
>> *Sent:* Saturday, August 15, 2009 9:30 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Deism, Apologetics, and Neglected Arguments
>> Heya George,
>> Some interesting comments. I'll offer up some replies.
>> First, I don't bring up these thoughts about deism and a more
>> basic/fundamental theism as a defense or promotion of ID. I mentioned ID
>> mostly in passing, because that's where I see the 'deism' charge spring up
>> most often. Edward Feser, to give a different example, is a philosopher who
>> is sympathetic to but deeply critical of the ID movement - but the approach
>> he took in "The Last Superstition" matched what I'm talking about here.
>> Namely, he argued for the existence of God (along with other things,
>> primarily in an Aristotilean / Thomistic context) yet made it clear that the
>> arguments he made in the book were not sufficient to establish more than a
>> very basic theism. What I'm contending is that such a "basic" God is
>> important to communicate and argue for, rather than relying on arguments
>> that practically begin with the assumption that a person already believes in
>> some kind of God.
>> Second, it's important to draw the distinction here between the
>> enlightenment and post-enlightenment Deism (which was in part a more
>> particular viewpoint that grew out in reaction to sectarian conflict and
>> other issues) and the sort of "deism" that one finds in Aquinas' five ways,
>> in Plato and Aristotle and other greek thinkers, etc. The latter was largely
>> concerned with establishing the existence of a basic deity and divine power,
>> and moved from that point to questions of God's traits and (for christians,
>> muslims, possibly neo-platonists) issues of revelation - and that's the kind
>> of "deism" I'm talking about here. The former was more a collection of
>> essentially definitive positions about God - in other words, not an
>> open-ended view that could lead one to additional conclusions, but a final
>> conclusion itself. I'd also point out that even post-/enlightenment Deism
>> didn't universally show up in the form of a deus otiosus - in fact at times
>> the existence of God was seen as meaning quite a lot for morality, man's
>> place & destiny, the purpose of existence and the universe, etc. So if deism
>> is defined as a belief in the existence of a God whose existence has
>> absolutely no repercussions for anyone's worldview or lifestyle, then quite
>> a lot of people we recognize as deists (Franklin, Paine, etc), were not.
>> Third, I think you're underestimating the importance of deism/basic theism
>> in these science v religion debates. You point out that a God who never does
>> anything (or who perhaps did things, but has not in quite a long time) isn't
>> immediately threatening to most atheists, because such a God doesn't make
>> demands on one's worldview and lifestyle. I agree with this wholeheartedly -
>> in fact, it's my view that the "new atheist" movement is motivated primarily
>> by politics and social aims more than anything else. But I want to
>> illustrate the "two kinds" of deism/theism I talked about in the previous
>> paragraph, and why a particular distinction matters.
>> Deism-1: A God who certainly has no active involvement in the world,
>> particular concern for humanity or the universe, overarching plan, etc.
>> Deism-2: A God, whose intentions and activity is unknown.
>> Deism-1 is of no concern to any atheist motivated by sociopolitical
>> factors, precisely because Deism-1's God definitely has no active
>> involvement, plan or concern with humanity and our universe.
>> Deism-2 is of tremendous concern to any atheist motivated by sociopolitical
>> factors, precisely because Deism-2's God -may- have an active involvement,
>> plan or concern with our universe.
>> Put another way: In Deism-1, God is established but Christianity (and
>> judaism, and islam, etc) is ruled out. In Deism-2, God is established and
>> Christianity at that point remains a live possibility and warrants
>> When Krauss, Coyne and others concede the compatibility of science with
>> deism, they're making a tremendously important concession: They are saying
>> that the existence of God is entirely compatible with science. They may move
>> on to dispute certain acts (miracles, etc) and traits (omnibenevolence,
>> concerned with the universe/humanity, etc), but the fact is they've conceded
>> that science is compatible with some basic yet fundamental God's existence.
>> Indeed, if they allow for a God who 'set the universe up and now passively
>> lets it unwind', they have conceded the compatibility of science with the
>> existence of a creator-God of tremendous capability. The Christian still has
>> work to do in such a discussion, but if deism is conceded as compatible with
>> science, quite a lot of work (in the context of that particular debate) is
>> already done for them.
>> One last note: I didn't bring up this talk about deism/basic theism as some
>> antidote to the New Atheists. In fact, after seeing the actual fallout from
>> Francis Collins' nomination to head up the NIH (read: in essence, none, in
>> spite of the protestations from Harris, Coyne, etc), I'm starting to believe
>> they're given too much attention - they may be a red herring. The reason I
>> bring this topic up is specifically to promote thought about apologetics in
>> the west. I'm talking in particular about an approach for agnostics, or
>> "practical atheists" - men and women who have no major hostility towards the
>> idea of God or faith, but for whom it just doesn't seem like an important
>> issue in their day to day life. In other words, the kind of person who may
>> be amenable to some greater thought about or interest in God and Christ, who
>> probably had some superficial exposure to it as a youth, but who (also
>> superficially) believes that God's existence just isn't compatible with
>> science, or who may believe (not because it was drummed into them as youths,
>> but because that's just "what they hear") that if the earth isn't 6000 years
>> old, then God doesn't exist. This is an example of a person for whom I think
>> a "starting basic" approach - arguing for the existence and rationality of
>> some basic, fundamental deity, divorced at first from any deeper revelations
>> or commitments - may be fruitful.
>> On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 7:35 PM, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>wrote:
>>> Wrong on several counts. Deism offers a *deus otiosus*, an idle God who
>>> doesn't do anything in the world. Maybe he did long ago but now he's
>>> retired. It's hardly surprising that some atheists are willing to concede
>>> the possibility that such a God exists. Those who think that scientific
>>> descriptions of the world rule out any God who actually does things have to
>>> admit, if they're honest, that such arguments can't touch a God who doesn't
>>> do anything. & such an admission matters little precisely because such a
>>> God doesn't do anything & thus offers no real challenge to anyone's
>>> worldview or lifestyle - & that in spite of attempts of classical deism to
>>> retain some notion of rewards & punishments. Historically, deism was
>>> degenration, an attempt to retain a religious fig leaf after the essntials
>>> of Christianity had been abandoned.
>>> & there is no "false logic" involved in saying that much of ID, &
>>> certainly the popular varieties of it, contain a strong religious element.
>>> & in reality most ID theists don't say "Yes I am" when that statement is
>>> made, but instead want to play the "Nobody here but us scientists and
>>> philosophers" game. Case in point, my fruitless attempt to discuss
>>> theological issues of ID on UcD.
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> *From:* David Clounch <email@example.com>
>>> *To:* Schwarzwald <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>> *Cc:* email@example.com
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, August 15, 2009 6:06 PM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Deism, Apologetics, and Neglected Arguments
>>> Thanks for bringing this up.
>>> You are not alone.
>>> You mentioned: "Fine, even if that's the case you can't be sure it's YOUR
>>> God! Or any religion's God!"
>>> This is the position I have always taken. If one looks at science alone,
>>> and nothing else, then the best one can arrive at is deism. The reason is
>>> one can learn someone was there, but one doesn't know anything about who.
>>> Inferring an intelligence is simpler than inferring details about the
>>> intelligence. Example: we see evidence of a Roman soldier being present in
>>> a viaduct in Italy. But we cannot tell if he was a republican or for the
>>> empire, whether he beat his wife or cheated on his taxes.
>>> We can tell nothing about him except that he leaned his hand against the
>>> So, I have always looked at ID as at best just a way to bring us to
>>> deism. For this reason I once upon a time suspected that Christianity, or
>>> at least the right wing of Christianity, would reject ID as not being
>>> compatible enough with or supportive of Christianity.
>>> Of course if one looks at clues outside science then one can refine one's
>>> picture. But one must be very careful not to commit the logical error of
>>> affirming the consequent.
>>> And that error is, I suspect, what virtually all theists commit when
>>> thinking of ID.
>>> Because they commit this error, then when someone levies an accusation of
>>> "oh, you ID types are doing religion" then the theist will often raise his
>>> hand and say "yes I am". Not realizing the accusation is based on
>>> undetected but false logic.
>>> I think deism as an offshoot of Christianity goes ignored. I've
>>> wondered if there is such a thing as deistic Christianity.
>>> You are absolutely right - any evidence for deism repudiates atheism. It
>>> is vastly more dangerous to the atheist than to the theist.
>>> On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 1:07 AM, Schwarzwald <firstname.lastname@example.org>wrote:
>>>> One thing I've noticed in the various science & religion debates is the
>>>> beating the deists tend to take. You can see this now and then in the TE/ID
>>>> debates - TEs accusing ID proponents of believing in a God who is a cosmic
>>>> tinkerer, more brilliant (or not so brilliant) engineer than God. ID
>>>> proponents accuse TEs of believing in a God who is remote, either to the
>>>> point of impotence (God "starts up" the universe, perhaps, but controls and
>>>> foresees nothing) or being downright impersonal (God foresees everything to
>>>> the point where natural processes unfold according to God's will, such that
>>>> anything but secondary causes are not needed, or are needed in fantastically
>>>> few historical moments).
>>>> I can understand why Christians take it as an insult. Our faith is
>>>> founded on the concept of a God who loves, and loves personally. There's
>>>> even that famous quote from Pascal, "The God of Abraham, God of Isaac,
>>>> and God of Jacob — *not the god of the philosophers*!" And I agree with
>>>> Pascal that the difference is paramount. Aquinas, giving his five ways,
>>>> admitted outright that even if his five ways work, they alone don't get a
>>>> person to Christianity - revelation and additional arguments are needed
>>>> But here's why I bring this up. I think for many people - I'm thinking
>>>> here in particular of western agnostics and practical (non-energized,
>>>> ambivalent) atheists - arguments that expressly bring one to at the very
>>>> least a deistic God, are necessary, but neglected. Not that there aren't
>>>> popular arguments that apologists admit only get someone as far as deism or
>>>> a basic theism (Craig is pretty open about this with regards to the
>>>> cosmological argument, ID proponents - whatever criticisms may be lodged
>>>> against them - expressly admit that their arguments get one to a Designer or
>>>> Designer(s), etc.), but a very popular reply is "Fine, even if that's the
>>>> case you can't be sure it's YOUR God! Or any religion's God!" - and just
>>>> about every time I've seen this charge made, the apologist's reply is to
>>>> quickly move on to additional arguments from revelation, from the
>>>> historicity of the gospels, etc. And the impression is that A) the apologist
>>>> doesn't really view the existence of or belief in at least a deist God as
>>>> all that important [Reasonably so, considering what's on the line], and
>>>> therefore B) has little to no interest in defending such an anemic, or at
>>>> least vague, view of God.
>>>> I think this attitude is, while understandable, profoundly mistaken. And
>>>> I think it's particularly relevant as a topic about the interplay between
>>>> science and faith for numerous reasons, but these spring to mind: A) If even
>>>> deism is right, then atheism is wrong, B) Someone who moves from
>>>> atheism/agnosticism to deism is vastly more apt to seriously investigate the
>>>> claims of Christianity, and C) Even prominent atheists/agnostics (Lawrence
>>>> Krauss, most recently. Even the rabid and increasingly off-kilter Coyne, if
>>>> I recall) are willing to cede the compatibility of mere deism with science.
>>>> I'd further point out that, just as the scholastics (and the greeks they
>>>> worked off) realized, an intellectually rigorous path to God has to navigate
>>>> through the deistic/basic theistic waters at some point if the belief is not
>>>> already there. In other words, arguments and evidence that pointed at, or
>>>> was compatible with, such a simple God were recognized as important. One of
>>>> my favorite acts of Paul is when he takes note of the altar to an Unknown
>>>> God and makes use of it in his evangelizing, which I think is comparable
>>>> Either way, I bring this up to the list because I wonder: Am I alone in
>>>> this? Does anyone else see the value of deistic arguments and insights in
>>>> the west, as a stepping stone towards evangelizing a skeptical or jaded
>>>> audience? Or maybe there are pitfalls to this which I have not considered.
>>>> Whatever the case, I thought I'd put it to the ASA list for discussion.
>>>> Obviously, I personally think arguments and attitudes along these lines are
>>>> neglected, and are so to our detriment. And I think it's particularly
>>>> important in the science/religion interface debate, and with certain
>>>> audiences. (On this note, I'll relate how I often hear stories about how
>>>> missionaries will spend a lot of time learning the culture, beliefs, and
>>>> history of the peoples they're visiting in order to find the best way to
>>>> approach them about Christ. I think a similar approach is desperately needed
>>>> in the west.)
To unsubscribe, send a message to email@example.com with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Aug 17 09:10:12 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Aug 17 2009 - 09:10:12 EDT