DEISM PRESENTS US WITH AN UNGODLY GOD

 

 

 

Carlo Alvaro, a deist philosopher, defined deism as such:

• A deistic god is a transcendent entity that brings the universe into existence, but, unlike the God of monotheism, it is not a person or a moral being such that it is aware of humans and wishes to have a relationship with them. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGrcPQQLqNKqgssjcwNVnXBnvkC?projector=1&messagePartId=0.1

However, such a god would seem to be an unlikely candidate to explain and cause the realities of our existence—our appreciation of music, dance, literature, nature, seeking truth, friendship, romance, understanding. and other delights, which enrich our lives. Consequently, this non-moral impersonal creator is inferior to his creation—a scientific impossibility—since, in all cases, the cause must be greater than the effect.

Instead, this deistic god is robotic and uncaring. Therefore, why and how would he create a humanity greater than he, having a fullness of being, which this god lacks? And why would he even bother to create the world if he just doesn’t care.

Besides, the deist embraces the existence of the laws of science, but why not also the emotional/spiritual laws governing humanity, which also require a Creator? For example, we feel good when we help others and feel guilty when we hurt them, causing a firestorm of self-justifying excuses. When we apologize, we feel relief, and when we are forgiven, we feel an even greater sense of relief and even reconciliation. Why then should this set of laws exist, along with our passion to grasp them, if god is robotic and uncaring? Why would this god create us to love the things that he does not love?

It seems like the solution is worse than the ailment —the problem of evil. Or is this the problem? Others suggest that the real issue is the existence of a righteous God who places demands upon our lives. The atheist philosopher, Thomas Nagel, had asserted that no one can be impartial about God:

• I am talking of...the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true...It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God. I don't want the universe to be like that...I am curious whether there is anyone who is genuinely indifferent as to whether there is a God. (The Last Word, Oxford University Press, 1997, 130)

Many others have confessed to an aversion to a righteous God. Aldous Huxley, the author of The Brave New World,” had also been very candid about his rejection of a righteous God:

• I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning [and moral absolutes]; consequently assumed that it had none…We don’t know because we don’t want to know. It is our will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence. Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason or another, it suits their books that the world should be meaningless. (Ends and Mean)

Nor are scientists immune to these commitments to a God-less world. Todd C. Scott admitted:

• Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic [mindless and purpose-less].

This reasoning seems to also pertain to the deist god who is “not a person or a moral being such that it is aware of humans and wishes to have a relationship with them”—one who is unconcerned about evil.