Bump: You know that obnoxious thing people do on the internet when they've said something and they feel they haven't been paid enough attention? I'm doing that.

Fragment of a discussion from User talk:Tmtoulouse
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wouldn't that also mean that the faith of deist (non-miracle worker) can't be harmfull to society? Also would that mean that faith in anything non-supernatural can't be harmfull either? (That's what I get by accepting Mara's and ListenerX's premises and I fully agree with them.)

uhm, t!23:41, 4 July 2011

No; all that "premise" does is to remove science from the equation. It does not leave deistic/theistic beliefs immune to other criticisms, nor does it necessarily excuse faith in non-supernatural entities or ideas (e.g., political fanaticism)

Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX00:23, 5 July 2011

All by itself, I can't see how deism can harm society. However, suppose someone claimed: "The deist God will reward you with everlasting bliss if you do right, and punish you with everlasting torment if you do wrong. And doing right is to kill all members of <insert your favourite minority here>, and doing wrong is failing to exterminate that group." That viewpoint is compatible with deism, since it isn't claiming the deist God is intervening in any way - post mortem reward/punishment is not a form of intervention into this universe. But clearly, such a viewpoint would be very harmful to society.

So deism by itself can't hurt society, but deism + some other ideas can, if those other ideas are bad. I'd say the same thing about theism, actually; plain old theism, by itself, doesn't harm society in any obvious way. Theism + some other ideas can obviously harm society, but then the harm comes from those other ideas, not from theism per se.

(((Zack Martin)))08:22, 5 July 2011