My beliefs as a "Christian Deist"

[retrowire]

Last edited Tue Apr 19, 2016, 10:08 AM - Edit history (1)

I've long considered myself a deist with Christian roots. I don't believe the bible is really the word of God, but rather a collection of some good moral codes to live by. I do believe in a deity that had at one point created matter and existence. I don't believe that churches are anything more than manmade temples for man made purposes. I do believe that "love one another" is the most important 3 words to live by. It seems all encompassing to me.

I wanted to pass my belief by you guys and see what you thought of it.

The reason behind my belief in creationism is founded in science. It's simply rooted in the paradoxical predicament created by the law of the Conservation of Mass. To quote the line specifically, "Mass can neither be created nor destroyed although it may be rearranged in space, or the entities associated with it may be changed in form."

But we live in an realm of beginnings and ends. And we all unanimously agree that there was in fact a beginning. This alone suggests that mass/energy was "created" at some point in time. By laws of nature, it couldn't have always been there so the only way to cause a creation of mass and literally break the natural laws of physics is to introduce something supernatural in order to do it.

That supernatural entity, whatever it is, would be considered a god or the deity.

So what do you think?

[cleanhippie]

1. If the bible is your moral guide, I'd ask how you pick what moral lessons you follow.

Considering the bible is also full of horrific and terrible things like misogyny, racism, patriarchy, murder, and rape, how do you pick and choose what 'morals' to follow?

[retrowire]

4. Excellent question.

So, the one line in the bible... This one, John 13:34 goes...

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."

Bam, that's it. I find that this new commandment alone is pretty all encompassing. It covers the ten commandments, it asks for self improvement and to only live an existence that benefits others.

Therefore, all the misogyny, racism, patriachy, murder and rape are nullified by this.

Again, this is my personal belief, and that's the main pillar of which it stands upon. I'm comfortable with that.

[cleanhippie]

10. So it's not really "the bible" that gives you a moral compass?

Love one another is a platitude found across cultures and time. It's not unique to the bible.
And if that one line nullifies the rest of the bible, why use it at all? What is unique about the bible as a moral guide, once all the horrific and terrible parts are ignored?

[retrowire]

11. because its what i was raised on

So it's apart of my lifetime.

The love one another is referring to a specific bit of the scripture.

[Mike__M]

2. I applaud your willingness

to grab hold of the concept of creation, to wrest it out of the grasp of fools.

[retrowire]

5. I'm a firm believer that science and religion are one and the same.

Science just explains Spirituality with math and numbers, it doesn't negate it.

I see it as just the creative mind and calculative mind, 2 sides of one brain.

[rug]

3. I follow and I'm there with you.

I think that is the root of theism.

[hrmjustin]

6. If it works for you I say it sounds fine.

[retrowire]

7. And it's not a bible thumping, do what I say or else kind of belief either.

It's a lead by example kind of thing. If I practice "love one another" well enough, I will show others the value of love and kindness.

Love should be contagious. But sadly, negative feelings are more so. That's why it's important for us all to do our best to be good to each other.

[hrmjustin]

8. I have doctrinal beliefs but your views are very similar to mine.

[retrowire]

9. Just love one another! <3 Simplicity is best. nt

[trotsky]

12. I would suggest a book for you.

Lawrence Krauss - A Universe From Nothing

[rug]

16. I would suggest a review for you.

The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields... they have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1415727315-pCXR9NUmWeBxo+FViR+NlA

[Act_of_Reparation]

13. I see a lot of problems here.

I don't believe the bible is really the word of God, but rather a good moral code to live by

A good moral code? Which part? The rules and regs for selling your daughters? Guidelines for beating your slaves? Marriage as restitution for rape? There's hardly anything in that book that could be considered moral by modern standards.

The reason behind my belief in creationism is founded in science. It's simply rooted in the paradoxical predicament created by the law of the Conservation of Mass. To quote the line specifically, "Mass can neither be created nor destroyed although it may be rearranged in space, or the entities associated with it may be changed in form."

You're confusing descriptive scientific laws with prescriptive ordinance. You're also misquoting the law of conservation of mass, which actually reads thusly: "for any system closed to transfers of matter and energy, the mass of the system must remain constant over time."

That does not mean mass cannot be created or destroyed. It merely means mass remains constant in a closed system. The Big Bang transferred matter and energy into the system, therefore the creation of mass is the expected natural consequence. No creator required.

But we live in an realm of beginnings and ends. And we all unanimously agree that there was in fact a beginning. This alone suggests that mass/energy was "created" at some point in time. By laws of nature, it couldn't have always been there so the only way to cause a creation of mass and literally break the natural laws of physics is to introduce something supernatural in order to do it.

Again, you're confusing descriptive laws with prescriptive laws. Scientific laws are based on observation. Nowhere is written "Mass and Energy shall not be created or destroyed, by the decree of Nature". These laws merely describe an observable tendency. We have always observed mass to remain constant in a closed system. That does not mean that mass remains constant in an open system, or that mass remains constant in a closed system under any and all conceivable circumstance.

As for the supernatural, that's not as logical a leap as you seem to think it is. Throughout mankind's tenure on this planet, we have figured out a great many of nature's mysteries, and the overwhelming trend is towards naturalism. Not once has a supernatural explanation proved useful, and not once has a naturalistic explanation been dropped in favor of a supernatural explanation.

[retrowire]

14. well, to be honest, no one would ever logically accept a

Supernatural solution anyways because it's beyond the realm of logic comprehension.

My acceptance of the supernatural is born out of the process of elimination. We as a civilization cannot come to the absolute conclusion of how existence began, therefore by theory of elimination the beginning must be incomprehensible by our logic. Therefore, the supernatural solution enters. My belief only logically works because of the process of elimination. Until we have a unanimous conclusion as to how things began, my personal conclusion is that a supernatural entity created the first matter/energy.

As for the Bible thing, I already explained to another user that it is not the entire Bible I subscribe to, but most specifically the passage that contains "love one another" that being the pillar of my belief. It is all encompassing and negates the negative aspects of the Bible.

These are my beliefs and I'm not trying to debate or knock atheism or other religions, I truly believe in coexistence. However I did decide to speak of my beliefs so that I may hone them as they were born of experience from years ago.

That said, you have introduced a new concept to me by clarifying the conservation of mass. I was quoting the conservation of mass from a book I read about creationism long ago and Wikipedia used the same quote as well.

However, what do you mean by "descriptive scientific laws" and "prescriptive ordinance"? could you explain the difference to these terms?

Also which is a closed and which is an open system? Are we currently in a closed one or open one? Is one infinite while the other is beginning and end? Don't leave me guessing here lol.

[mr blur]

15. I think you make far too many assumptions,

and fill the logic gaps thus created with whatever comforting fantasy is to hand.

[retrowire]

17. well yeah.

You call it fantasy but I believe spirituality is personal. You don't have to call it as I see it. I respect that.

My spirituality is how I come to terms with that which I don't know and I doubt we'll ever know.

You grasp reality in your own means as well. Not a problem ya know?

[trotsky]

18. A lot of this comes down to how comfortable someone is accepting "we don't know" as an answer.

We don't know exactly how the universe came to be. We might never - but we at least have some plausible theories.

What we do know for sure though is that we have no evidence whatsoever that an intelligent creator was *necessary* to create the universe.

[retrowire]

19. right.

It's a personal decision. All spirituality is or... Should be I believe.

[cleanhippie]

20. So Spirituality is just a platitude?

You certainly make it seem that way.

[retrowire]

21. not necessarily

Just because it isn't some profound thing that we should all rejoice in in my own belief doesn't mean that isn't personally profound.

It is meaningful and interesting, but only to whom that holds it dearly.

My belief is based is loving my fellow persons, and I don't think there's anything more profound than unity amongst all living things. It's not meant to be complex because spirituality doesn't have to be.

[trotsky]

22. What, then, when spirituality conflicts?

Your belief is based on loving your fellow persons - sounds great. What about the next guy, who says his belief is based on loving his fellow human beings - whether they be born or unborn?

I think great difficulty and conflict arise when positions on issues are anchored to these spiritual beliefs. They are by their very nature uncompromisable. Or as President Obama put it back before he ran for president:

...Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.

[retrowire]

23. what about the next guy? well i love that person. agreeing or disagreeing.

You're making it more complex than it is. There are no hard concrete rules to my belief. As life is filled with millions of variables, so to must my belief be. It will always evolve and grow. My belief won't be rooted in one point in time. It's forever changing.

The mere ideology of forgiveness is a great example of religion compromising on things. My belief would not subject anyone to it or ask anyone to follow me. It's my own. Others can share it but not by my will or choice, it is always a personal decision. Thou shalt not judge is important because I don't care to criticize others beliefs. If it benefits them and others then I agree with that.

I'm sure next you might wonder if it is absolute that I love everyone including those who harm others.

No, there is a line which I can draw. Personal morality comes into play there. I believe that if the person is harming others then it's my duty to right a wrong. Protect and help those who are hurt. If possible, save the assailants from becoming worse themselves, if not possible then, I cross that bridge when I get there.

[trotsky]

24. Sure, you claim your beliefs are open to change.

As history has made pretty clear, not many people are as willing as you are to adapt their spirituality to fit new evidence or other viewpoints. In fact, it's a much more typical reaction for us to "dig in" and reinforce our religious beliefs. Most notably with people who include in their beliefs elements of trusting "faith" over reason, etc.

So we're still left with the problem of when decisions have to be made over how we are to live together. Should the people who are willing to adapt their spiritual beliefs ALWAYS be the ones to compromise and/or change?

[retrowire]

25. personally, i think everyone should be open to change

That's nature for ya. Things change!

But again, as my belief goes, if they don't wanna change that's their choice. I don't have to agree with it.

[trotsky]

26. You're still avoiding the problem, though.

Living together as human beings, there are some decisions that need to be made when it comes to the laws we agree to live under.

When we have some people who have "dug in" and won't budge from their religious beliefs, what should we do?

[retrowire]

27. personally, lead by example and if they dont follow

Leave them to be.

[Maedhros]

28. Keep in mind that physical laws, such as the law of conservation of mass, are human constructs

and thus imperfect.

What you consider to be evidence of God (i.e. creation of mass) is more easily explained as limitations in our knowledge of how the universe functions. I find no need to invoke God to explain it, and choose to instead accept "I don't know" as a valid answer.

[retrowire]

29. hmmm... this makes me think about myself

Why am I not content with accepting that I just don't know?

Probably fear. My spirituality is born of love and fear. Hmmmm... Even so, the spirituality remains.

I do still feel a great unification of all life and something that is transcendent amongst our existence. Something greater than mass and biology.

[Maedhros]

31. I don't know - a fearful person would not yearn for discovery.[n/t]

[retrowire]

33. but a fearful person can be open to discovery.

I'm always interested in hearing what science has proven and solidified.

[Maedhros]

34. I don't think you are fearful. [n/t]

[retrowire]

35. i do have fears though. :/

And will I grow braver or more timid with age?

I was much braver then... The more I've learned the more I've feared and I've known more than anything for the longest time that ignorance is bliss.

This is why people drink. Lol

[northernsouthern]

30. Plenty of great posts here.

Have to say your...

"Mass can neither be created nor destroyed although it may be rearranged in space, or the entities associated with it may be changed in form."

Is a layman's understanding, even in our 200 level physics classed we knew this to be wrong. This one is a good one for showing that as we know more it balances the energy out each time, it is because we are missing parts of the puzzle. The creation of the universe itself takes in to account false vacuums and such depending on the theory, but unless you are study the field we really don't know better than those people. I never trust a laws of thermodynamics argument, they are often from a poor understanding of the rules much like the quantum physics Schrodinger's cat people run with the idea of each decision creates both options. The rule applies to closed systems only, as in too small to be a cat, no other influence by other bodies. So if I were you I would ignore these things. Besides if you ignore the bible, but take the character from it, why would you know any better than the writers as to what to take and leave? It gets you in the whole Descartes and the puppet master thing. Oh and the Thermodynamics rules were also used to deny evolution for a long time.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/energy-can-neither-be-created-nor-destroyed/

Also...
but rather a collection of some good moral codes to live by.
Not sure about that, three of the rules are about only one true god, one is about murder (not killing, it is very specific)...they also have rules about witchery and dirty foods and women being unclean...

I am not knocking it, just saying at times people whitewash the good book like Hillary whitewashes Bernie supporters.

[retrowire]

32. i hear ya.

Ummm to put it simply....

Love one another.

Don't judge.

Something supernatural began the "big bang" as energy and mass logically could not have come from nothingness.

Personal spiritual belief that doesn't infringe on others.

----

No worries I appreciate the input and I am honing my belief based on this new knowledge being presented here. I don't see you as knocking it. Thank you.

[northernsouthern]

37. Careful now (in an Irish accent)

Something supernatural began the "big bang" as energy and mass logically could not have come from nothingness.

This part is wrong, there are actual theories on this one...

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

The claim of nothing is not a serious claim, the correct statement is they are not sure of what occurred before, that is what the big crunch is in the article, the idea it has exploded and collapsed multiple times. But from current models it will not collapse this time, if it every had before. As for a "closed system" that does not take in to account the idea of multiple dimensions and such. There are many theories, and the idea that thermodynamics disproves it is wrong, it merely fits in to all theories. the collapse and expansion breaks no rules. Also scientist are not sure what occurs in a singularity, that does mean some god is controlling in each blackhole. :p

Neil Degrasse Tyson is not amused by the "A god must have have it" idea, both he, Carl Sagan, and hundreds of others have said they have huge issues with this path of logic. They simply say "Why, what proof do you have there is a god and it did make anything."

[retrowire]

38. no proof, just faith and the process of elimination.

Thanks for this though, it's clear I've got to brush up on my understanding of the supposed big bang a little bit more.

[northernsouthern]

39. You better cause if you don't...

I will post the meme of Neil giving a middle finger. BTW Futurama is a great place to learn a little, they had very high number of PHDs in their writing staff.

[3catwoman3]

36. My husband and I have 2 sons, now 26 and 23.

We did not take them to any organized religious services when they were growing up. Rather, we talked about things that were right and wrong just because they were right and wrong - not because a book (that had been translated and interpreted so many times it is TNC - too numerous to count) said so.

We discussed the "Golden Rule," and how, if everyone could obey that one rule, we really wouldn't need any others. It pretty well covers everything.