A Hypothetical Dialogue on Why Theism and Deism Are Empty Concepts
By Edwin L. Young, PhD
August 21, 2007

Theism is a belief that a God created and rules the world and intervenes in human affairs. It is not necessarily, but typically in Western religions it is, accompanied by belief in divine revelation such as through the Bible or Quran (Koran). Deism is a belief in God based on reason rather than revelation. It involves the view that God has set the universe in motion but forthwith does not interfere with how it runs. Some physicists, mathematicians, etc. espouse Deism. I do not espouse Theism. Nor do I espouse Deism because, as a concept, I have no idea what it could mean other than it may give some comfort to the Deist. If an argument for Theism or Deism comes down, in the final analysis, to an assertion that one believes because one wants to believe, then who am I to dispute their right to do that. I cannot dispute their preference for the color pink or hand gliding. Anyone could believe in ghosts or fairies or Santa Claus, or whatever. Their belief in such figments does not in the least compel me to do so. Likewise for their preferences; prefer as you like, I am not obliged to do so. To me, it is like if they had a preference for Brussels sprouts and I don’t, I say go ahead and prefer it, you are free person.

When I was in my early to late twenties I preached in Presbyterian Churches. After many years of studying theology, the Bible, and other religions and observing and listening to people discuss their beliefs and their related religious experiences, I opted for Atheism. Doing so did not seem like a descent into some disreputable status as a human being. I knew a few Atheists and they were uniformly highly intelligent and genuinely compassionate people.

An "imaginary" famous experimental psychologist once told me that he was going to try to study the Awtheitie and invited me to join him in his research. The following imaginary dialogue ensued. I asked what an Awtheitie was and he said it was an unseen being that most people believed in but they gave it different names. He said it was omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. I said, well those are certainly interesting attributes but attributes of what? He said it was something that required faith which was the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. I said, but how do you know what it knows, does, and where it is? Grasping for some analogy that might help me understand, I said, is it like oxygen or the air you breathe, or maybe like a stealth bomber, or perhaps a computer spying program? He said no those were things you could feel or see or watch people make but this is something people know because ancient revered texts have affirmed it or because, in addition to their ‘Devine’ texts, they had had what they call a miraculous experience that had to be Devine intervention. Many people claim to have had such experiences in which they were saved against all odds, and which they felt could only be explained as an act of an Awtheitie. I said, I see, so if we do not know the content of the concept and everyone defines it in their own way anyway, and is invoked to explain what to them is the unexplainable, and furthermore it seems only to refer to the unknown, then how do we study it? It sounds somewhat like proving that what a person sees in a Rorschach blot is, in fact, exactly what that blot is, in spite of the fact that the person who made the blot did so just so that it would be a just ink spilled on paper and not look like any known thing. It sounds like someone believing that Big Foot is real because there are so many rumors about "it" or "him". It sounds sort of like trying to prove that myths are true history or reports of flying saucers means that they exist.

My famous Awtheitie seemed at a loss for words. I went on. If a concept can mean almost anything, especially what cannot be verified, then does not that suggest that it really does not mean anything other than what a person can make up, that is to say, ‘make it mean’. Am I way off base here? He just kept saying that I just didn’t understand and I didn’t trust what the whole world believes. I gave in and said OK, let’s try to find it or study it. I prodded him a bit and said, so how do you propose that we might do that? He proposed a number of approaches, like investigating the phenomena of healing when person prayed to be healed or when someone else prayed for a sick person to be healed. I said, OK, but how often does that occur or not occur? If it happened universally, I would say that we should be, or I should be, more optimistic and I would be inclined to look for an alternative explanation for it, especially if I am to be a true scientist and want to further medical science. Are you suggesting that course of action? He said, what other possible explanation could there be than that there is no explanation and it is just the work of the Awtheitie. I said, taking the stance that you are taking, if you presuppose the Awtheitie is the only possible explanation, then we are stuck with Awtheitie, are we not? I said, so you would prefer not to try to discover why a seemingly incurable disease suddenly healed, right?

I, admittedly, was a bit irritated with him at this point. I said, OK, it looks like we have arrived at a stalemate. I suggested that there could be or may be alternative explanations but we will not know until we do observable, measureable, replicable studies. To me, we are obligated to pursue further research. You insist that we should look only to Awtheitie when we face the improbable and seemingly inexplicable. We seem to be hopelessly stuck on opposites sides of a giant conceptual chasm. On your side of the chasm is the position that simply because everyone does believe (from my point of view wants to believe) in Awtheitie even though everyone’s idea, belief, or name for Awtheitie is different and they are all un-provable, nevertheless, your faith in your (local) Awtheitie cannot be disavowed.

Perhaps it just comes down to what kind of person would believe in searching for an alternative explanation? What kind of person would believe there could be no other explanation for creation and so-called miracles than Awtheitie and that searching for alternatives is akin for infidelity or heresy? It may boil down to who prevails in insisting their concept is the right one, in other words, the best debater wins. My guess is that opposites will not be persuaded. Hopefully, opposites can still be tolerant of one another as fellow humans even if they are not fellow believers. Finally, jesting, I said, now that is really good science, isn’t it! We are stuck with the impasse. In conclusion, it is just a matter of whatever floats your boat!