Replies

“But what criteria are you judging those people and religious organisations on?”

On the criteria of basic decency and fairness, at least as I understand those concepts. Those concepts I define thusly:

Decency - behaving in a polite and respectful manner, until a valid reason not to - such as being confronted with impolite and/or disrespectful behavior - presents itself.

Fairness - conforming to a standard in which all parties involved are treated equally and with equitable intent, until such a time as it is shown that one of the parties involved should not be, due to their own untoward actions.

“I am afraid previous posters are right - you are setting yourself up as a “god”, in the sense that you are the one defining what is good and what is bad.”

Nonsense. Merely expressing my opinions as to what is or is not good human behavior in no way implies a deistic quality in me. That would be like saying that a Rabi is setting himself up to be a god for simply expressing his views along the same lines. The only difference between myself and a Rabi in this respect is that my criteria for defining good and bad are somewhat different than his.

“a deist is someone who believes in god, (or gods, or a supreme being) but has come to that belief by some form of rational or logical process of deduction and reasoning, as opposed to personal revelation. And this is all very well and good, except that it presupposes that all truth can be discerned solely by the powers of the mind.”

I presuppose no such thing. I actually do believe that many people experience a personal revelation not born entirely of reason which leads them to truth. I simply admit that I have yet to experience such myself. Please do not assume that because I’m not, say, a Christian, that I don’t understand or appreciate that such spiritual revelations as you’ve remarked upon exist.

On the criteria of basic decency and fairness, at least as I understand those concepts.

But that is the point that I am trying to make. Your criteria are perfectly valid, but you are the one who is defining them. As you say - "As I understand those concepts".

Merely expressing my opinions as to what is or is not good human behavior in no way implies a deistic quality in me.

True, it does not. But you have already declared that you are, in fact, a deist. When I point out the consequences of that position, your response is to deny that your statements imply deism. Aren't you really dancing in and out of the argument there?

That would be like saying that a Rabi is setting himself up to be a god for simply expressing his views along the same lines. The only difference between myself and a Rabi in this respect is that my criteria for defining good and bad are somewhat different than his.

No it isn't the same. Not at all. Because a Rabbi, or a Christian, "leans not on his own understanding". In other words, the basis for your belief is merely your own experiences and thoughts (and possibly the wisdom of others), whereas the basis for the Rabbis is the word of almighty God AND his own experiences and thoughts (because we all of us are far from heaven, and sinfully insist doing it our way rather than Gods).

Fair enough, I apologise if I impugned the belief that there is no truth but what you can taste, smell, touch, see and hear to you. But - the original point stands. My definition of the way deists arrive at their conclusions is accurate. You agree that "many people experience a personal revelation not born entirely of reason which leads them to truth." And you also admit to not having such an experience yourself yet. Therefore, it follows that there is a whole aspect of religion that you are simply unaquainted with.

I would suggest, if you are serious about examining these matters, that you ask [whatever it is you believe to be God] to provide that experience.