Monday, September 26, 2005

THE ABSENTEE GOD OF DEISM

As we continue our critique of non-Christian worldviews, we come now to one called "deism." You may have heard that many of our founding fathers were "deists." Whether or not this is true, deism today is virtually unheard of, but of course, many heresies take a long time to die.

Deism can be summed up as the worldview which believes that a god created the universe, but that this "god" is now no longer involved in sustaining it. The universe now sustains itself. It has been given the analogy of a watchmaker who winds up a watch but then leaves it be.

There are many problems with this worldview. First of all, we must ask why our world that we see before us is ordered and uniform. If indeed the creator of all left everything alone, then there would be no order or uniformity of nature. Even something as simple and yet complex as snowflakes, which show intricate design, would make no sense if there were no creator who was sustaining all things by his providential hand.

Secondly, there is a major problem with the epistemology and axiology of deism. Epistemology is the theory of knowledge and how it is obtained. It asks the question of how we know what we know. Axiology is the theory of value. Its subsets are ethics (good and evil) and aesthetics (beauty).

Epistemologically, if the creator were absentee and uninvolved, then we would not be able to know anything. Unless this creator were sustaining our thoughts as well, we would know nothing.

Furthermore, deism really crumbles when it comes to the question of good and evil. If the creator let things go, then what is good and evil? Evil and good can then become what we make them. Besides, according to deism, the creator never took the time to reveal to us anything--so how do we know what good and evil is? We must assume that this is just the way things are "supposed" to be--in the sense of the creator not caring whether or not calamities are indeed a horrible thing or not, and in the sense of the creator not caring about whether or not evil is extremely problematic (to say the least) or not. Should evil be punished?

Questions for deists:

-Should evil be punished? What is evil in your worldview, anyways?

-What makes something beautiful in your worldview?

-How do you know that 2+2 always equals four?

-Why is nature uniform? Is it self-sustaining?

-Should good be approved of? What is good in your worldview, anyways?

-How do you know the difference between good and evil?


We see that deism is just another example of mankind suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. Man would rather be his own god. Man wants to rule himself. The deists recognize the clear truth of God's existence, but they turn the true God into an idol and make it an absentee god.

Anything so they don't have to be responsible to the sovereign, infinite, eternal, majestic, glorious, and holy Sustainer of the universe: the only true God, who has revealed Himself to us and is involved in every detail of upholding His creation.

They know this God, and they are under His wrath. Unless they repent and turn to the Lord Jesus Christ, they will eternally perish. To all deists who read this: flee to the Lord Jesus Christ before it's too late! Repent of your sins and turn to Him. Ask Him to give you His righteousness. Confess your sin of deceiving yourself into believing that God is not involved in our affairs, all so you could have your sinful ways. You are accountable before the God who made you and holds your very life in His hands.

Turn to Christ before it's too late. Today is the day of salvation.

--Josh Brisby

3 comments:

tatyana58ashely said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Nathan said...

hey Mr. Brisby,

I can think of something that a Deist would say (or at least what I would say perchance I was a Deist).

Because God created this world, and because God is the whole slew of "iscients", "presents", and "benevolents" then the fact that he lets the world run itself (and it operates intact) is because He eternally planned it out to be consistent and orderly, and at given occasions to act unorderly and chaotic. God predetermined the world's existence and all that has happened and will happen until the end of the world. I, as a Deist, have a consistent epistemology and axiology because God wound the world, and its creatures, up accordingly. How we understand this is defended by the "Creator-Creature Distinction." The world as it functions was all predetermined as God "wound it up".

Deists also, I believe, deny the deity of Christ. A much better argumentation against Deism, I believe, would be to point out that God himself cared enough to intervene, and accordingly, to save humanity. He also has His eye on the sparrow, and I therefore know He is watching me : ) The very fact that God Himself acted in the world and "unrusted his hinges" by being born in Bethlehem disproves Deism. But of course they don't believe Jesus was God, but obviously that's just stupid.

-nate

p.s. the whole *cough* not finishing the homework thing won't happen again. I'll redeem myself on our test. Hopefully God wound me up to Ace it.

Josh Brisby said...

Nate,

Interesting comments. Easily refutable though! Hehehe. Here we go.

If a deist says that God eternally planned it out to be consistent and orderly, and sometimes to act unorderly and chaotic, and predetermined the world's existence and all that would happen until the end of the world, then they are now no longer deists.

They have now become Calvinists. No deist would say the above, unless they were Calvinists.

You were of course right that Christ came into the world, but that does not in and of itself disprove deism. A deist will not acquiesce into the evidence for Christ. They will view the evidence through their presuppositions. They may just say He was a good man. They will not believe in His resurrection. And even if they did, they may say that that was just an interesting phenomenon.

In other words, as you know, all evidence is viewed through presuppositions. Deists cannot answer to the truth that they have inconsistent presuppositions that not only do not comport with each other, but that are also not able to be applied to the world around us.

Good job on the test today by the way!

--Mr. Brisby