Pandeism vs. Atheism vs. Darwinism: Do they achieve the same result?

3

1

Is there any conceptual difference between "Pandeism" and "Atheism" and "Darwinism"?

It seems they achieve the same result about the universe's creation. I mean Pandeists achieve the same result about the universe's creation that Atheists or Darwinits achieve. Don't they?

Questioner

Posted 2018-11-24T11:01:21.297

Reputation: 161

2The basic difference is that Darwin's theory originated modern biology, i.e. a science, while Pandeism and Atheism had nothing to do with science – Mauro ALLEGRANZA – 2018-11-24T11:26:50.537

So, we may say that Darwinism proves Atheism scientifically. But how about Pandeism vs. Atheism? – Questioner – 2018-11-24T11:29:29.417

3Why so ? Darwinism proves things about evolution genetics and so on. Abou God ... who knows ? – Mauro ALLEGRANZA – 2018-11-24T11:36:08.053

So, you may want to say that Darwinism does not reject believing a God ? – Questioner – 2018-11-24T11:38:29.150

Darwinism says complexity can arise from mere entropy differentials. It doesn't shut the door on the existence of a God. If anything, it affirms the belief in the existence of a God since belief in a God is so selected-for. – EternalPropagation – 2018-11-24T12:08:54.970

2Darwin's theory and Atheism have nothing to say about creation so my answer would be a definite no. The theories you list are equivalent only in the sense that all three are a claim of complete ignorance as to the world's creation. The 'result' they achieve is therefore rather similar, it not being a result at all. Only one of them says anything about creation and this is only a guess. – None – 2018-11-24T12:53:26.383

I made an edit for clarity. Please modify or roll back if you don't agree with it. – Frank Hubeny – 2018-11-24T13:15:59.083

@Frank Hubeny , Your edit is Ok. – Questioner – 2018-11-24T13:20:02.983

Darwin’s observations are absolutely irrelevant to Pandeism, and only relevant to atheism as to specific gods. Darwarism would be relevant to atheism in those cases where it was a central tenant of the religion that a specific species came about in a specific manner. – Jmoreno – 2018-11-24T15:37:53.850

Answers

4

Using the links provided by the OP, there are differences in concepts and results between pandeism and atheism.

For pandeism, the Wikipedia link states:

Pandeism ... holds that the creator deity became the universe (pantheism) and ceased to exist as a separate and conscious entity (deism holding that God does not interfere with the universe after its creation). Pandeism is proposed to explain, as it relates to deism, why God would create a universe and then appear to abandon it, and as to pantheism, the origin and purpose of the universe.

The result for the pandeist is a universe with an origin and purpose through a deity. The concept of the universe contains the idea of at least a former deity.

For atheism, the Wikipedia link states:

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

The result for the atheist is a universe with no deities either before or after its origination. The conceptual view of the universe contains no reference to a deity no matter how it originated.

This provides a conceptual difference between pandeism and atheism: one has a deity who became the universe and the other has no deities.

I will not consider Darwinism which could be reduced to a form of atheism especially as described by Alvin Plantinga. See his evolutionary argument against naturalism.

In general one should expect all theories to at least claim they conform to whatever the results are that we experience although their explanations and conceptual descriptions of those results may differ. They should all claim to be sufficient to produce those results or their theories would be falsified by the results.

That the results are achieved does not make the explanations how those results were achieved necessary. They would at best be sufficient to achieve the results, not necessary. Nor does it mean all the various explanations are the same.


References

"Atheism", Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

"Evolutionary argument against naturalism", Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism

"Falsifiability", Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

"Necessity and sufficiency", Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency

"Pandeism", Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandeism

Frank Hubeny

Posted 2018-11-24T11:01:21.297

Reputation: 18 742

1Thank you for your answer. However, one thing is not yet clear to me is that when we say "Pandeism holds that the creator deity became the universe", does it mean the deity has been transformed to the universe knowingly intelligently and voluntarily ? – Questioner – 2018-11-24T18:21:22.630

1

@sas That might not be something one can say about pandeism as a whole. One would have to limit it to what a particular pandeist thinks about it. It is the same with Christianity or Hinduism. One answer may not fit all. Such a question may already have been asked here. https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/36060/29944 However it is not exactly the same. You might pick a particular pandeist and formulate a question like that here. Make the question very specific and perhaps provide references to the work of that pandeist.

– Frank Hubeny – 2018-11-24T18:26:08.793

1My goodness. I just read that evolutionary argument against naturalism (I don't know if I've ever seen a poorer argument) but I'm having trouble seeing how it relates to your answer. Could you elaborate? – William Grobman – 2018-11-24T18:35:06.013

@WilliamGrobman It is just a way to avoid having to talk about Darwinism and focus only on pandeism and atheism. In general Darwinism doesn't discuss the origins of the universe and so is not relevant. However, Plantinga's argument is relatively well known. Your concerns might be the subject of new questions you could pose here. – Frank Hubeny – 2018-11-24T18:53:10.390

I'm not certain that you can use that to avoid Darwinism. His claim seems to be that Darwinism isn't likely consistent with atheism. Wouldn't that really make it another case to consider instead of allowing you to get around it in this answer? – William Grobman – 2018-11-24T18:58:03.960

@WilliamGrobman The other way I was thinking of avoiding Darwinism is having found differences between pandeism and atheism the three of them can no longer be the same because they differ on these two (out of three) positions. We can discuss more in this chat room if you want: https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/76868/free-will-omnipotence-determinism

– Frank Hubeny – 2018-11-24T19:03:42.870