Deism- A Religion for the 21st Century?

by Big Jim 25 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Big Jim

  Deism - A Religion for the 21st Century?

  More than 200 yrs ago Deism made its mark on history. Many noteworthy people including a number of the founders of the United States were Deists. Reason and logic was influencing the thinking of many leaders. It seemed the logical conclusion had been reached - people believed in God but they wanted to believe in a rational, logical manner. They wanted to be done with the irrational, the miraculous and the superstitous.

  Now we are just starting out in the 21st century and where are we? Christianity and other theistic religions are as strong as ever and on the other end of the spectrum - Atheism is perhaps at its highest peak ever with about 5% of the population admitting to non-belief. What about Deism? Has the 18th century religion of the educated and rational triumphed? More scientists are alive now than at any time in man's history. More people today have access to higher education than at any time before. Has Deism made any progress? Let's not kid ourselves - outside of a textbook on history who has even heard of Deism?

  What exactly is a Deist? A Deist is a person who believes in God but does not look to organized religion or to sacred texts to define this God. The Deist looks to nature and the creation to help (if possible) define this God. Classical Deism also rejects the supernatural as irrational.( I would suggest here that it takes less of a leap of faith to believe in the existence of the paranormal than to believe in a Supreme Being who created the entire universe.)

  Perhaps many people who call themselves Christians or members of other theistic religions may actually be in practical terms Deists. If a person acknowledges being a member of a church for example but doesn't go along with everything their church teaches then their personal reason and common sense has become the guiding authority rather than the Bible or the teachings of their church. They are perhaps more Deist than they realize.

  Atheism is a dead end philosophy (no pun intended). It may be logical in many respects but it is an incomplete philosophy. It has jumped to the conclusion that because God is currently absent from the scene (apparently) this means that he doesn't exist and never did.

  Deism has a lot to offer as a belief system. It is the only belief system that is open to modification as it is based on observation and reason. It is therefore the most tolerant and rational way to believe in God. There is no book of legends, there is no Statement of Beliefs that one must subscribe to. The one requirement for being a Deist is to be willing to think for yourself. A strong atheist and a strong theist have two things in common they both think they are absolutely right and they both have closed minds. A Deist can keep an open mind much more easily than a theist or an atheist.The philosophy of Deism has the greatest range of any belief system - it can range from belief in a personal God (who is as yet unrevealed/undefined) to an impersonal/unknowable God to a universe without God (as he has for the moment "left the building") - sort of a "temporary atheism". It is the most tolerant of all belief systems, it is the most rational and it is the only one that can truly grow - based on observable evidence. It has room for all the spectrum of beliefs a human being might want to to believe in with none of the dogma that hinders human growth and development. It could be perhaps a universal religion - suitable for all humankind.

  In its short time in the sun (200+ years ago) it produced remarkable results. It was directly involved in the founding of the United States of America - one of the most successful and diverse nations in history. The great freedoms that are in place in America are not as some claim a result of the "Christian ethic" but rather they stem directly from the Deist influence at its founding. It is amazing that such an intelligent and comprehensive belief system would be so quickly abandoned. Perhaps it is time to give Deism another look - it has much to offer.
• 

  LDH

  FRED:

  NYAH NYAH beat you to it....
• 

  Abaddon

  Interesting.

  I'm an atheist, and get bored with people assuming just because I don't believe in god I don't have spiritual values or believe in an 'other'.

  I just think that this 'other' is non-personifiable, non-sentient, almost ambient. I think the 'supernatural' is 99.99% hooey, and am probably being romantic in allowing such leeway. What there is is just stuff we can't measure yet and is only supernatural from where we are looking.

  As such, I sound like a classical Deist, apart from the God thing, but then the Deist god is pretty similar to my concept of spirituality and 'other'. He's certainly not YHWH on a cloud scaring Israelites.

  Funnily enough, in terms of moral code, I'm a Christian of sorts, even though I don't believe in God, or that Jesus was his son. I just like the values.
• 

  JanH

  Big Jim,

  What Deism does not have, of course, is observational consequences. Neither does it have any consequences for ethics or human behaviour generally. One can argue that by being a form of belief system that is unfalsifiable and without personal consequences, not only is Deism not a religion, it is essentially meaningless.

  Atheism is a dead end philosophy (no pun intended). It may be logical in many respects but it is an incomplete philosophy. It has jumped to the conclusion that because God is currently absent from the scene (apparently) this means that he doesn't exist and never did.

  
  One can have valid criticisms of atheism, but this isn't one of them. True, atheism is very incomplete, since it is just a rejection of all theistic belief systems in the world. One can be a Buddhist, Communist, Humanist or Satanist and also be an Atheist. So it is not a belief system, and neither is it a philosophy. It is merely a natural consequence of the philosophy of naturalism. I'd like to see you attempt to call naturalism a dead end.

  One can launch the same sort of criticism as you do against the lack of belief in Santa Claus. Just because you don't see him, and because you now have different theories accounting for the fact you get presents at xmas day than some young children have, then "this means that he doesn't exist and never did". I am pretty convinced you don't really entertain the serious idea there is a Santa Claus. Well, God's existence has exactly the same status, were it not for people's nostalgia over old traditions.

  So, yes, lack of positive evidence is normally the strongest evidence against existence we can possibly have!

  Indeed, when it comes to the God of the three great theistic belief systems, we have better evidence against than mere lack of positive evidence. There are many arguments, as I am sure you are familiar with, that disproves such a deity, like the arguments from evil. And yes, I know it does not specifically target the absent "God" of the Deists.

  Deism has a lot to offer as a belief system. It is the only belief system that is open to modification as it is based on observation and reason. It is therefore the most tolerant and rational way to believe in God. There is no book of legends, there is no Statement of Beliefs that one must subscribe to. The one requirement for being a Deist is to be willing to think for yourself. A strong atheist and a strong theist have two things in common they both think they are absolutely right and they both have closed minds.

  
  This is the fallacy, the "the reasonable middle ground," that is, simply assuming that because you find some middle ground between two postulated extreme points, then this is somehow a more "reasonable" assumption.

  Of course, in real life, either God exists or God does not exist. God does not 45% exist. That is absurd (for a given definition of God). So either the theist or the atheist are right, and the other wrong. No middle ground. Deism as you describe it is just an absent God. You postulate that God exists, but acknowledges that there is no evidence for it, and that this God means nothing whatsoever to anybody. This God is not interested in anyone or anything, and does not interfere in any human affairs. That, to me, is a non-existant God. Why you find it more emotionally satisfying to believe such a thing exists, than adopt the atheist position of assuming non-existence as a provisional default position, is pretty well beyond me, but to each his own. But when you claim it is a rational position, I will reject that as flat-out wrong. It is never rational to believe in something there is no evidence for. Period.

  Bringing in a constructed position of "strong atheist" makes you argue against a strawman. People have provisional beliefs, strong or weak, whether they admit it or not. Many believe they hold strong theism (like many JWs), but when they later change their mind, they demonstrate that they did not.

  Atheists I have met, read or heard about range from people who believe the god-question is actually meaningless and unworthy of any serious debate, to people who are almost certain there is no God. Absolutes are not very relevant to any discussion of knowledge. When you debate atheism, this is what you should discuss.

  I will agree with you that Deism was great progress from superstitions of the past. Based on the mechanistic worldview of Newton, it made sense that the mechanical clockwork they thought the universe was had a Master Mechanic. As rational men, they also assumed this to be someone who had no interest in the affairs of humans, and needed or required no worship, doctrines or churches.

  But with the enormously improved knowledge we have of the world after especially Darwin and Einstein, it's easy to see there is no need for any "Mechanic" (the universe is, after all, not as much like a clockwork as Newton thought it was).

  The universe just is. It needed no "first mover". In fact a first mover is incompatible with some properties of the universe. So, since the God of the Deists was just the ultimate "God of the Gaps", and the gap became so much smaller with no sign of a God, the whole concept of a supernatural deity should be thrown on the scrap heap of history, along with other superstitions of the past. In fact, I am convinced that for human progress to continue into the next century, this will have to happen. Whether it does, I do not know. I think it depends a lot on what individuals like me and you do for themselves.

  - Jan
  --
  Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]
• 

  Sunchild

  Interesting concept. I'm a Neopagan myself (specifically, Wiccan), and like most Neopagans, I'm a panentheist: God/dess is everywhere and in everything. There is no need to believe in special creation or in "God" as most people think of it. There is only energy in its various manifestations.

  Atheism is a dead end philosophy (no pun intended). It may be logical in many respects but it is an incomplete philosophy. It has jumped to the conclusion that because God is currently absent from the scene (apparently) this means that he doesn't exist and never did.

  I actually tried being an atheist once, but it never worked for me. I've always had a sense of Something More that kept it from sticking. *shrug* Maybe it's because, deep down, I've always known that the exclusively male deity you're referring to here wasn't the only possibility for conceptualizing the Divine.

  To me, confining "God" to a single personage seems very limiting, but that's just me. I also think that disposing of miracles, magic, etc., entirely is limiting, but again, that's just me. From what I've seen of life so far, there's just too much of it that isn't purely logical or easily defined for there not to be something more to it than what we usually see.

  *Rochelle.

  ---------
  "Most men complacently accept 'knowledge' as 'truth'. They are sheep, ruled by fear."
  -- Sydney Losstarot, "Vagrant Story."
• 

  larc

  SunChild,

  I agree with you that there are things that are not logical and things that we can't understand. However, I disagree with you as to the answer to this dilema. If one compares the history of science with the history of religion and/or invisible spiritual influences, then science has a far superior track record.

  A couple of examples: we no longer believe that a God throws lightning bolts from the heavens. We understand the natural process that causes lightning. The idea of a God hurling things towards earth is exciting, but clearly wrong.

  We no longer believe that schizophrenia is caused by demon possession (although there are residual groups of people who still believe this). It is pretty well accepted that schizophrenia is a geneticly transmitted brain desease. The idea of demon possesion is more spooky and exciting, but wrong.

  The annals of science and religion are filled with examples like this.
• 

  Sunchild

  Larc,

  I think you've misunderstood me. I never said to throw out science. In fact, I think science is wonderful, and a greater understanding of it only makes me appreciate life, nature, and yes, even my spirituality, more. I only said that I don't see the point of discounting miracles entirely.

  This is the problem that I have with all-or-nothing atheism. What, exactly, is the point of throwing out the very possibilty that there are factors, approaches, possibilities and realities that we don't yet understand or know how to measure? Throughout history, that's all that magic and miracles ultimately prove to be: factors that we don't yet understand. And if some of those "unknown factors" happen to prove useful in my life, I don't intend to let them go just because they're "unscientific."

  If you see everything in black and white ("It's not proven yet, so it doesn't exist"), I believe you limit yourself just as much as people who only see the world through Bible-colored glasses. I just can't think that way.

  *Rochelle.

  ---------
  "Most men complacently accept 'knowledge' as 'truth'. They are sheep, ruled by fear."
  -- Sydney Losstarot, "Vagrant Story."
• 

  Introspection

  Putting aside religion and the objective world for a moment, I find it interesting to note that there are individuals who are capable of controlling what are normally considered involuntary physiological processes. A mental parallel might be the ability to overcome conditioned thinking patterns. It seems to me such subjective mastery would put you in a better position to see the world more objectively. After all, why would you want to consciously fool yourself, if there is such a thing?
• 

  joelbear

  I call myself a lifeist. Visit my web page if you are interesting in my thoughts. www.joelbear.com then click on lifeism.

  My thoughts come from Deism and Taoism mostly. One of my other main influences is Isaac Asimov.

  But, I've still got a lot to learn.

  hugs

  Joel
• 

  logical

  Atheism is a dead end philosophy (no pun intended). It may be logical in many respects but it is an incomplete philosophy.

  Im not an atheist