Is deism intellectually dishonest?

I have been described as a deist several times over the years on this forum. I don't think it's true because I lack the prerequisite belief in a deity. I am open to the idea, but I think to be a deist I would have to be more 'proactive' about my belief in a creator being. And maybe I was more so in the past.

However, I do find myself to be - at least on a gut feeling level - somewhat sympathetic to the basic premise of deism: the notion of a god or gods that do not interfere directly with mankind or the world.

More solidly, I find myself, broadly speaking, in agreement with what may be described as some of deism's key 'tenets': I am unconvinced by religions based on texts claiming to be divine revelations - and therefore I'm nonplussed by the dogma attendant thereto - and I do not find explanations dependent on assertions about supernatural phenomena to be credible.

One of the regular theist posters (dj2becker), despite the long and rich tradition of deism, has described [Thread 175422, top of page 25] this notion of a god who does not interfere directly with the affairs of humans to be "intellectually dishonest".

Is it?

The wiki article about Deism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Originally posted by @fmf
I have been described as a deist several times over the years on this forum. I don't think it's true because I lack the prerequisite belief in a deity. I am open to the idea, but I think to be a deist I would have to be more 'proactive' about my belief in a creator being. And maybe I was more so in the past.

However, I do find myself to be - at least on a gu ...[text shortened]... es not interfere directly with the affairs of humans to be "intellectually dishonest".

Is it?

Sometimes we can look at something for so long, we forget its name.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
Sometimes we can look at something for so long, we forget its name.

Ummmm, what?

One might assume you have a point in saying this. If so, then speak plainly.

Originally posted by @fmf
However, I do find myself to be - at least on a gut feeling level - somewhat sympathetic to the basic premise of deism: the notion of a god or gods that do not interfere directly with mankind or the world.

Why?

FMF: However, I do find myself to be - at least on a gut feeling level - somewhat sympathetic to the basic premise of deism: the notion of a god or gods that do not interfere directly with mankind or the world.

Originally posted by @great-king-rat
Why?

Because, supposing there were a creator of some kind that had revealed itself and was intervening in the affairs of mankind or issuing instructions etc. then surely it would have done this already and I would be aware of its existence; I don't think it has. If there were a creator then, it would make more sense to me if its nature was something along the lines of how deists might see it. But I am not a deist; I lack belief in the existence of a creator.

Originally posted by @fmf
Because, supposing there were a creator of some kind that had revealed itself and was intervening in the affairs of mankind or issuing instructions etc. then surely it would have done this already and I would be aware of its existence; I don't think it has. If there were a creator then, it would make more sense to me if its nature was something along the lines of how deists might see it. But I am not a deist; I lack belief in the existence of a creator.

Yet you, and I, and many others, are intrigued by the pastime known as theology; imagining what sort of person our creator would have to be.

Originally posted by @fmf
Because, supposing there were a creator of some kind that had revealed itself and was intervening in the affairs of mankind or issuing instructions etc. then surely it would have done this already and I would be aware of its existence; I don't think it has. If there were a creator then, it would make more sense to me if its nature was something along the lines of how deists might see it. But I am not a deist; I lack belief in the existence of a creator.

You cannot positively claim a lack.
You have rejected the thing you assume "would have done this (made themselves known) already," so the only accurate description would be a rejection of the creator.

What isn't addressed is why you feel compelled to announce to every/anyone what you believe or what you reject.
It's like kids in school sitting down at lunch time opening up their boxes and calling out to the table what each of them found inside.

Originally posted by @suzianne
Ummmm, what?

One might assume you have a point in saying this. If so, then speak plainly.

Like others who frequent the forum but otherwise claim to reject any/all tenets of faith in anything resembling a religion, FMF has been staring at God, the issue for so long, he seems to not know what he believes any more.

Originally posted by @js357
Yet you, and I, and many others, are intrigued by the pastime known as theology; imagining what sort of person our creator would have to be.

Indeed we are. I am also interested in where else our 'spirituality' equipment can and does take us [or affect us, for that matter], aside from the creator theories themselves.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
FMF has been staring at God, the issue for so long, he seems to not know what he believes any more.

With there being no credible reason to believe what their proponents claim, I believe it is necessary to get by without subscribing to religions like yours and like my neighbours' various religions here where I live. Personally, I believe that religious creeds are examples of human spiritual faculties being squandered.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
You cannot positively claim a lack.
You have rejected the thing you assume "would have done this (made themselves known) already," so the only accurate description would be a rejection of the creator.

What isn't addressed is why you feel compelled to announce to every/anyone what you believe or what you reject.
It's like kids in school sitting down at lunch time opening up their boxes and calling out to the table what each of them found inside.

There may well be a creator. Your particular ideology seeks to fill a gap caused by a lack of specific belief but does not succeed.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
What isn't addressed is why you feel compelled to announce to every/anyone what you believe or what you reject.

It's what this Spirituality Forum is for. And virtually everyone is at it. You feel compelled to announce to everyone what you think about my topic/thread. It's OK for you to do that. Neither of us has to 'address' the fact that this is what we do.

Deism is right in the sense that there is a God. The basic and persuasive arguments (or 'proofs'😉 for God can be used by Deists and so, in a sense, we agree about that.

Deism seems to try to take this easy route of saying 'oh, there isn't going to be anything in the natural world or any event that I point to as being proof of it, or as having some message for us.'

It is sort of trying to hold onto the philosophical concept of God but not wanting to take on the burden of defending the religion that usually accompanies it. It is philosophically expedient but it is largely substanceless. I think a lot of the deist sentiment might also fall into the fallacy of people just attaching whatever additional beliefs they want to their Deist structure... I always associate deism with a lot of universalistic sentiments.

I also kind of associate it with unitarian universalism. I know that deism does not have to be that, but there is a reason why there is an affiliation between UU and deism in the 18th century.

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
It is sort of trying to hold onto the philosophical concept of God but not wanting to take on the burden of defending the religion that usually accompanies it. It is philosophically expedient but it is largely substanceless.

"Philosophically expedient"? Surely people who do have religious beliefs [about what they claim are detailed revelations by a creator god] can just go ahead and defend their religions; why should people who are not religious in this way have "the burden of defending [a] religion"?