. . . there are numerous alternative explanations for the "rules". . . . I don't believe in any number of the alternative explanations, but they are just as valid as Christian theism when it comes to explaining where the "rules" come from.In other words, our unbelieving friend thinks that there are many worldviews that can account for the things needed to under-gird science and rationality. In other words, the things most people take for granted each day when they reason and do science such as logic, the uniformity of nature, the moral obligation to be rational, logical, etc. This is what this unbeliever means by "rules". Then our unbelieving friends says this,
I believe that the Great Bombus created the universe about 15 billion years ago. She decided that the universe would follow certain patterns. Then she flew off into the nearest wormhole in the space-time continuum and went off to pollinate other universes, leaving this one to run on its own. It’s as good as any other explanation.Our unbelieving friend threw out a mockagodafarian objection (i.e, Flying Spaghetti Monster, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, The Great Pumpkin, ad infinitum, ad nauseum), which I have responded to in detail here: Twelve Questions for Mockagodafarians.
Identifying "the Deism Objection"
Our unbelieving friend's version of the mockagodafarian objection above had an interesting twist to it. Take note again of the following statement, "Then she flew off into the nearest wormhole in the space-time continuum and went off to pollinate other universes, leaving this one to run on its own."
This is the classic "deism objection". This occurs when an unbeliever attempts to undermine our arguments against naturalism and for Christian theism by positing an essentially contentless god as the sufficient answer to the Christian apologist's attack against naturalism. The unbeliever wants to show that the existence of the Judeo-Christian God is not necessary to make sense out of human experience, but that positing a deistic god can sufficiently provide what's needed to make reality intelligible. Thus, for the unbeliever, using this objection shows that an appeal to any revealed religion (esp. Christian theism) is unnecessary and superfluous. This was confirmed when our unbelieving friend said earlier in our exchange,
What you’ve made here is an argument for deism, not Christianity.Since this has become a popular, knee-jerk response to Christian apologists, I will address it below.
What is Deism?
Deism is the teaching that a god exists who created the universe and everything in it, but that this god stopped being involved in the universe after making it. The deistic God "wound up the clock" as it were, and is now allowing it to wind down in accordance with the laws of nature without any further intervention. Thus, deism teaches that miracles don't occur because god is no longer involved in the world. This logically means that for the deist, any claims to revelation must be spurious from the outset since this god hasn't revealed itself beyond the creation event. In other words, no miracles and no revelation. This would obviously negate the idea of the Bible (or anything else) being inspired of God as well as the incarnation, death, burial, and resurrection Jesus of Nazareth. The World Union of Deists define their beliefs this way,
“Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation." [http://deism.com/deism_defined.htm]
Natural Religion vs. Revealed Religion
- Deists claim that their religion is "natural religion" and not revealed religion. In other words, they derive their beliefs of morality, God, truth, purpose, etc., not through any direct revelation of God such as the Bible, but through the observation of nature and their use of reason. Thus, they emphasize empirical and rational means to take in knowledge of the world. Make a mental note of that last sentence, for it will be very important for our critical review of deism.
- Deists affirm personal responsibility, positive choices, and reject negative attitudes and ideas. Some even claim religions are the reason for the problems in the world. They also say that God is a “universal creative force which is the source of laws and designs found throughout nature.” [Ibid.]
I will divide my critique into two sections, (1) a Biblical critique and (2) a philosophical critique.
A Biblical Critique: Deism is obviously unbiblical since Scripture proclaims that God is involved in the world, has intervened in it many times, and currently maintains its existence (Acts 17:28; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3). Matt Slick of CARM summarizes,
First, it denies the person of Christ as the only means of redemption.
Second, it is man-centered because there is no revelation of God or his divine will. Any religious doctrines developed without God have to originate with man’s understanding and preferences. Therefore, it cannot be God-centered.
Third, morality cannot be derived by watching nature. Animals kill, eat each other alive, and are brutal.
Fourth, all reason from a deistic mindset is subject to human limitations and failures. Without divine intervention and clarification, people will do what is right in their own eyes, and this subjective system of reason leads to confusion and inconsistency.Philosophical criticisms: There are many basic inconsistencies with deism. The two we will focus on are (1) the inconsistency of having a creator god yet rejecting miracles, and (2) deism is unable to provide the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience.
Miracles
- It seems inconsistent to claim that a divine being could bring the universe into existence from nothing but couldn't or wouldn't perform lesser miracles. What good reason would the deist have for rejecting all post-creation miracle claims if they believe that the universe was created? Thus, it appears to be self-defeating to claim that a god created the entire universe yet can't or won't do lesser miracles. It seems the only rejoinder would be to argue that there are no credible miracle reports but this would beg the question as to what constitutes a "credible" report.
- Scientists today consider the laws of nature to be general, not necessarily universal. Thus, a general uniformity of nature holds insofar as inductive experiments have confirmed, but this doesn't necessarily rule out miracles nor would a local miracle violate the general principle of the uniformity of nature.
- Deism posits a unitarian, impersonal god that is uninvolved in the world beyond the initial act of creation. An impersonal, detached god cannot ground personal, moral obligations. But since we experience personal moral obligations, deism cannot be true.
- Deism offers no objective revelation from a personal, theistic God. To ground objective morality, one needs an objective, transcendent, universal, personal source such as with Christian theism. Deism provides no objective, personal, transcendent, and universal source to ground morality. Therefore, deism cannot ground objective morality. As a result, deists are ultimately left with secular ethics; which always devolve into some type of relativism.
- Deism offers no assurance that nature will operate in a uniform and law-like way in the future because the creator set it up that way. To argue that such will be the case from past experiences without an appeal to divine revelation doesn't tell us what future experiences will be like. Therefore, deists succumb to the problem of induction when they beg the question by assuming that the future will be like the past based upon past experiences of the future being like the past.
- Deists derive their beliefs about morality, God, truth, purpose, etc., through the observation of nature and their use of reason. But truth and purpose are culturally and independently relative if there is no transcendent objective standard that exists outside of us by which we can determine whether or not we are achieving truth and purpose. Deists beg the question by assuming that their senses and reason are valid in order to investigate the world around them. Thus, they are in the same quagmire of empirical and rational skepticism that the atheist, agnostic, and skeptic falls into when assume the validity of their senses and reason to prove the same. For more information on solving this problem from the Christian perspective, see my Sensation, Reason, and Christian Epistemology
- Deists emphasize empirical and rational means to take in knowledge of the world. But not only do the deists beg the question by assuming the validity of their senses and reason to prove the validity of their senses and reason but as noted above, deism provides no objective, transcendent basis for grounding moral obligations and thus, cannot tell us why we are obligated to be rational or logical.
- Deism's unitarian God cannot provide an answer to the philosophical problem of the One and the Many. This problem essentially states, "Which is more ultimate, the one (i.e., the universe), or the many (i.e., the concrete, finite, particular things in the universe - i.e., trees, people, cars, stars, jars, etc.)?" Christian theologians have long answered this problem by appealing to the very being of the Triune God Himself. Since the Triune God is both one and many then this problem can be answered that both the one and the many are equally ultimate. But unitarianism can never answer this question since it doesn't have the features needed to answer it.
Because the Bible tells you so. Philosophically put,
- Metaphysical: The immaterial, universal Personality of the Triune God grounds personal (He is personal), immaterial, universal entities (He is immaterial and universal), moral obligations (He is a moral being), solves the problem of the one and the many (because He is both one and many), and provides an a priori certainty that the universe will generally operate in a uniform, law-like way till the second coming of Christ (Gen. 8:22; Pro. 1:7; Acts 17:28; Col. 2:3; Heb. 1:3).
- Epistemological: We have a certain, indubitable foundation upon which to rest our knowledge claims because God created us to be able to generally trust our minds and senses (Pro. 20:12).
- Ethical: Unlike deists, atheists, and skeptics, we aren't left trying to determine how we ought to live by studying how we live (Pro. 1:7). Instead, we can ground personal, objective, moral obligation in the unchanging character of God. Transcendent, objective, personal, moral obligations can only come from an objective transcendent, personal moral Lawgiver. Contra deism, Islam, and other unitarianisms, the Triune God of the Bible has eternally enjoyed the intertrinitarian relationships in His very being (I-thou distinctions in the Trinity allow for eternal personality), and hence can ground personal moral obligation since personality is necessarily part of His nature as the uniplural, multipersonal Creator God. We are also obligated to follow God’s objective moral norms as revealed in Christ’s law because the Creator who owns you has the sovereign right to tell you how to live.
