Ship of Fools: Can you be a deist and believe in revelation?

Thread: Can you be a deist and believe in revelation? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025986

Posted by Orb (# 3256) on :

What am I?

> I think there might be a God.
> I don't think it's something that's knowable or reasonable. I don't think it needs to be.
> I want something that makes me feel alive and in touch with other people.
> I REALLY believe in revelation - in the power of someone being ruptured from their own way of thinking/feeling/being onto a new path. I think I have managed to divorce this from the idea of God somehow.
> I don't really believe in miracles. It just doesn't seem necessary. Life is life.
> I prefer the politics of Jesus to the theological prognostications of Jesus.
> I have a lot of respect for the discipline of Islam, and its relentless focus on the transcendence of God. In other words, I don't really want to feel God close.
> I don't really bother with or enjoy church, except the Fresh Expression that I have been with for five years, and mostly just the social occasions.

What am I?

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

A seeker

Posted by Eudoxia (# 17251) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Orb:
> I REALLY believe in revelation - in the power of someone being ruptured from their own way of thinking/feeling/being onto a new path. I think I have managed to divorce this from the idea of God somehow.

The crucial question is whether the source of this revelation is God or neurones. The former option would not sit well with deism.

Historically, deism as a theological position grew out of the rejection of the traditional Christian understanding of revelation (which normally involves Jesus Christ and the Bible), but your definition differs from with the Christian view anyway. If revelation is defined without any reference to God (and you indicate you have managed to untangle the two to your satisfaction), then my understanding is that it doesn't break any deist rules. The word "revelation" may be a little confusing in this context, though.

Is this revelation just a powerful experience that is born in the depths of the human brain?

Posted by Orb (# 3256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eudoxia:

quote:
Originally posted by Orb:
> I REALLY believe in revelation - in the power of someone being ruptured from their own way of thinking/feeling/being onto a new path. I think I have managed to divorce this from the idea of God somehow.
Is this revelation just a powerful experience that is born in the depths of the human brain?

Both/I don't know. I think I want to remain a bit agnostic on that, while sort of thinking it is God. But then it's not really deism if I am even partly subscribing "neuron-firing" as being from God, right?

Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on :

You might find Mark Vernon's 'Agnosticism' helpful. He's a former CofE Priest who became an Atheist and then became an Agnostic. As well as theology, he also has qualifications in Philosophy and Physics.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Inspiring.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
> I think there might be a God.
> I don't think it's something that's knowable or reasonable.

These are perfectly consistent. But if there is such a thing as God, he HAS to exist, because the existence of all things would follow from him. Gods can be contingent. God is either impossible or exists necessarily.

quote:
> I don't really believe in miracles. It just doesn't seem necessary. Life is life.

Then you don't really believe in God, because a God that can't turn a little water into wine raise the dead is not much a God. You might have a god in your mind, but not the omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly benevolent God of Ages that Christians believe in. Whether you understand the necessity of miracles is besides the point, since a thing such as God is necessarily inscrutible at least some of the time.

quote:
> I don't really bother with or enjoy church, except the Fresh Expression that I have been with for five years, and mostly just the social occasions.

Thus belaboring my point. You don't believe in much of a God if He isn't owed even an hour of our week.

quote:
> I REALLY believe in revelation - in the power of someone being ruptured from their own way of thinking/feeling/being onto a new path. I think I have managed to divorce this from the idea of God somehow.

It isn't revelation if it doesn't come from beyond human life. However dramatic a rupture it might be, you've got nothing more than a human changing his mind. Make as much of that as you like, but don't confuse it with revelation.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

That's in answer to your question Orb.

Posted by Eudoxia (# 17251) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Orb:

quote:
Originally posted by Eudoxia:

quote:
Originally posted by Orb:
> I REALLY believe in revelation - in the power of someone being ruptured from their own way of thinking/feeling/being onto a new path. I think I have managed to divorce this from the idea of God somehow.
Is this revelation just a powerful experience that is born in the depths of the human brain?
Both/I don't know. I think I want to remain a bit agnostic on that, while sort of thinking it is God. But then it's not really deism if I am even partly subscribing "neuron-firing" as being from God, right?

In its traditional form, deism champions the view that after creating the world and setting in place the laws of nature, God has not interacted with his creation, choosing to lurk in the shadows rather than manifest himself directly. He hasn't sent prophets, hasn't inspired any visions, hasn't been implicated in any miracles, hasn't demanded worship, hasn't participated in the writing of any holy books. In a sense, he has adopted the posture of a disinterested observer - the "Divine Watchmaker".

On the deist view, revelation as understood by the Christian tradition is at best superfluous, as human beings, armed with the God-given weapon of reason, are more than capable of finding out the truth on their own. Instead of relying on God's revelation (which will not be forthcoming anyway), we are expected to pursue knowledge - not least knowledge of God - though reason and experience.

I guess it is possible to argue that those "powerful experiences" do actually have their origins in God to the extent that they are a natural outworking of the laws governing neurones - the laws that from a deist perspective were instituted by God - but they are certainly not a result of direct divine intervention. That has no place in deism, although obviously no deist police will be rounding up the suspects and enforcing the purity of views among the adherents.

Why do you want to leave room for revelation in your worldview, if you don't mind me asking? I am genuinely curious. In my own stint as an atheist/agnostic/sceptic, there was a lot of ground, such as the existence of a higher power, that I was unwilling to cede. Ultimately, these "scraps of belief" brought me back to orthodox Christianity.

Posted by Orb (# 3256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:
You might find Mark Vernon's 'Agnosticism' helpful.

Thanks. I'm not going to question your advice, but just buy the book. Plus, he turns up at Greenbelt some years [Smile]

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
God is either impossible or exists necessarily.

Agree. I think I err towards God mainly because I have read Philip Larkin's Aubade and understand it. It hits me hard and I don't want my life to end. Is that a good reason for belief in God?

quote:
Whether you understand the necessity of miracles is besides the point, since a thing such as God is necessarily inscrutible at least some of the time.

True, true. What about all of it? Is it a cop out to say "I believe in God [and thus miracles, in your reading - which I see the logic of] but I don't ever need to know who God is or what God is doing. God is inscrutable. I'm fine with it. I am open to the possibility of miracles." Am I having my cake and eating it?

quote:
You don't believe in much of a God if He isn't owed even an hour of our week.

Surely God is not just an hour or sitting still, is she? Although I read a good Giles Fraser article that was arguing for the boredom that church brings.

quote:
Make as much of that as you like, but don't confuse it with revelation.

Yeah, you're right I think. Revelation must come from God. Thanks for the clarity.

quote:
Originally posted by Eudoxia:
Why do you want to leave room for revelation in your worldview, if you don't mind me asking?

Because it's exciting. It's being open to the possibility that something can suddenly break in and make you ecstatic, or joyful, or just aware of yourself and your place in the world. Like this .

Posted by Orb (# 3256) on :

Most uprated comment on that video: "I'm autistic. No shit to you all. I am. And this guy gives me much hope in believing I can be sombody. I love you all for being yourselves...because thats what I am doing and its working perfectly. Thank you guys!"

That's revelation to me.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Orb:
Most uprated comment on that video: "I'm autistic. No shit to you all. I am. And this guy gives me much hope in believing I can be sombody. I love you all for being yourselves...because thats what I am doing and its working perfectly. Thank you guys!"

That's revelation to me.

Maybe it would help if you explained what you think revelation is. Is there a distinction of kind between revelation and the insights of merely human modes of knowing (such as reason and experience), or is revelation a difference of degree? I.e.- is revelation just really profound insights from modes of human knowing?

quote:
Agree. I think I err towards God mainly because I have read Philip Larkin's Aubade and understand it. It hits me hard and I don't want my life to end. Is that a good reason for belief in God?

I think to believe that there is a God is a good thing. Whatever reasons will do.

quote:
True, true. What about all of it? Is it a cop out to say "I believe in God [and thus miracles, in your reading - which I see the logic of] but I don't ever need to know who God is or what God is doing. God is inscrutable. I'm fine with it. I am open to the possibility of miracles." Am I having my cake and eating it?

God is unknowable, but he's also infinitely important. Whether he's spoken to human kind at all, no less than in Jesus Christ, is a matter of no small amount of debate.

quote:
Surely God is not just an hour or sitting still, is she? Although I read a good Giles Fraser article that was arguing for the boredom that church brings.

Indeed, he would be owed absolutely everything. An hour a week is the very least he could ask for.

[ 10. August 2013, 22:17: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Orb (# 3256) on :

In that case, it was the idea that we're all important and have a task to fulfil. I think I'm fairly teleogical in my thinking - it's all working towards some Final End, that we don't yet know. I like that idea.

More generally? I guess I think revelation is seeing something that you didn't see before. It's GETTING something for the first time - seeing something new, understanding a new aspect of life that wasn't there before. I don't think it has to be a lightning bolt, but just a subtle reflection in your mind/heart, or just recognising something about yourself and your own frailties.

(By the way, I'm not sure the hour a week has EVER revealed anything to me, and I'm not sure whether I can "owe" God anything because he seems to want me to exist, otherwise why create me? I see your point though - I guess I do need to see the whole of my life as a worship, otherwise why bother with God...)

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Don't get me wrong. Humans are capable of very profound insights. Not classifying those insights as revelation in no way diminishes this profundity. In the distinction I am making, I am saying "Yes" to the implied question "Has God spoken to humankind so that we might know him and be saved?" God would have to speak to us in a special way, because being God he is not available (or entirely available) to our finite modes of knowing. We could never sit under a bodhi tree and think out the conclusion "God has not forsaken us."

If you answer "No" to that question, then you are indeed a deist, and revelation for you will be merely thinking hard and having keen senses to experience the world. Plenty of deists have believed that. And it makes me sad, because I can't conceive of how the God could be much of a God. But that's just my opinion- take it or leave it.

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

Maybe "epiphany" is a better word. To me at least, "revelation" requires A (the revealer) to reveal B (the revelation) to some person(s) C. We talk about people having epiphanies (or "a-ha moments," etc.) that are internally generated quite often. Or "realization"?

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Maybe "epiphany" is a better word. To me at least, "revelation" requires A (the revealer) to reveal B (the revelation) to some person(s) C. We talk about people having epiphanies (or "a-ha moments," etc.) that are internally generated quite often. Or "realization"?

I think "Epiphany" is the wrong term because that is the festival of the incarnation when Christ is made known to the world (i.e. revealed). Perhaps realisation or eureka moment might be better?

Posted by Highfive (# 12937) on :

There was an epiphany toilet in Scrubs. I'd have a hard time thinking of it as a revelation toilet, so I think epiphany might be the right term. Just me, though.

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
There was an epiphany toilet in Scrubs. I'd have a hard time thinking of it as a revelation toilet, so I think epiphany might be the right term. Just me, though.

Did it have glass doors? [Ultra confused]

Posted by Highfive (# 12937) on :

It was situated in the middle of the large flat concrete roof of the hospital. There was a queue to use it running from roof access down to about three floors. Being the tallest building in the district, no-one could seen from up there unless the accountant was attempting suicide.

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:

quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Maybe "epiphany" is a better word. To me at least, "revelation" requires A (the revealer) to reveal B (the revelation) to some person(s) C. We talk about people having epiphanies (or "a-ha moments," etc.) that are internally generated quite often. Or "realization"?
I think "Epiphany" is the wrong term because that is the festival of the incarnation when Christ is made known to the world (i.e. revealed). Perhaps realisation or eureka moment might be better?

It's true that epiphainein and epiphaineia also imply an actor (the process of making oneself visible) in Greek, but it seems like a pretty standard English usage to say "I had an epiphany while I was sitting on the toilet." See e.g., Scrubs!

Posted by Orb (# 3256) on :

Bloody hell. My life is an episode of Scrubs!

[Confused]

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Orb:

What am I?

By the standards of St Werburghs, you are rather old fashioned and religiously straight.

Posted by Orb (# 3256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:

quote:
Originally posted by Orb:

What am I?
By the standards of St Werburghs, you are rather old fashioned and religiously straight.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0