European Union laws require you to give European Union visitors information about cookies used on your blog. In many cases, these laws also require you to obtain consent.
As a courtesy, we have added a notice on your blog to explain Google's use of certain Blogger and Google cookies, including use of Google Analytics and AdSense cookies.
You are responsible for confirming this notice actually works for your blog, and that it displays. If you employ other cookies, for example by adding third party features, this notice may not work for you. Learn more about this notice and your responsibilities.
Deism in India!
The first Deist in India was Emperor Akbar The Great, he had started a religion in his time, it's name was Deen e Ilahi, means the Religion of God.
DEISM
In these days of scientific knowledge and thinking and
philosophy and psychology all of us face the problem of defining the god, many
of us comfortably believe in him and many of us wonder in his existence and
such peoples who want to comprehend the god in scientific terms wonder a lots
and seek the scientific help, the science tries its best effort to provide the
answers in scientific terms, but there are peoples who make the phenomena
confusing by their arguments, they use quantum theory and quantum entanglement
and so and so kind of theories which explains that a vacuum can produce
particles by vacuum fluctuation process.
Anyhow today no kind of science can prove that there is no
need of a god, all the scientific theories can do at the most is to show the process by
which something exists, particle can be created and whole universes can be
created and there can be multiple dimensions of space time fabric, but science
cannot prove that there is no god or we do not need god or all this matter and
energy can be created without the god.
Now if you examine the universe and our existence, then you
will realize that this existence is very huge and large, the distances and
weight and sizes are very very large and beyond comprehension, the amount of
energy in the cosmos is very huge, and considering the size of the nothing or
vacuum in which the cosmos exists we can assume that the god who can only be
responsible for this existence must be very huge compared to the size of the
nothing, this nothing is the vacuum in which vacuum fluctuations occurs and
these scientists claims that in this fluctuations particles are created and
annihilated constantly without break since eternity towards eternity and in the
mean time some stray particles escape and get accumulated in the course of
billions and billions and billions of long time and when their accumulation
becomes considerable in size and weight, they get collapsed inwards and inwards
and more and more such accumulations gather together in the course of time and
after collapsing considerably turn into energy and particles and appear in the
form of big bangs.
Anyhow all this happens, no doubt, we agree all the modern
scientific theories but where is the denial of the god in this process, nobody
can deny the existence and involvement of god in this process, because all
these magnificent phenomena need the power of god only.
Therefore the god must be very very huge, and he must be
super powerful and intelligent and thoughtful too, because all these and other
unknown phenomena need supreme intelligence and thoughtfulness.
Up to this point no body and no genuine scientists deny the
existence of the god, but from this point many depart on different paths, the
scientists believe in the existence of god but they try to find refuge in
deistic thinking, in deistic thinking it is believed that god does exists and
he created this all cosmos and all this which we are wondering about but after
creation he has disappeared and ever since then he was not been seen or spotted
anywhere, and what happened to him nobody knows.
All right no doubt about everybody is free to make such
arguments but there is one question, if the god is so and so powerful and
capable of such huge energies and creations and then he must have
understandings and intellects and he must have integrity in his existence then,
he must have some plan or he must have thinking about the consequences of his
creation, including we humans and our treatments with other fellow humans and
the consequences of our interactions.
We humans are not always living in peace and harmony and
justice in this world, there are very few examples of our peaceful life in this
world, since known history we are in conflict with each other and we are not
living in harmony and peace and with justice, we are supposed to live with
justice, but we cannot live in peace as the struggle for existence demands that
we should indulge in struggle and this process in itself is the cause of all
the troubles of the mankind today and yesterday.
We cannot skip this struggle either, and I cannot blame on
this process for the troubles since it is we who are evolving and it is we are
not perfect this evolutionary process only want to refine all of us this
process of struggle for existence is only for refining us, and in the course of
this process all humans and all living and non living things are in its target
of refinement, now any individual is doing injustice towards other individual
is seen in the light of survival of fittest and as an struggle for existence.
Now we all humans should understand the natural processes
and we should treat and behave in harmony of peace and justice, because in
modern times we can better understand the natural processes and their aims.
But this is not that’s all and we cannot avoid
responsibilities since we are aware and intelligent and thoughtful organisms,
and if we as humans cannot avoid responsibilities even if we do not have
unlimited resources in our disposal then how the god can avoid his
responsibilities even if he has unlimited power.
The god has power and energy and intelligence and if he has
created us then he has some plan too, at least he cannot tolerate injustice,
and if he cannot tolerate injustice then he assumes us to live in harmony, and
if we are not doing so, then he can punish us, not after we will die, but in
this life itself, we are not individuals, in the cosmic view, we are the
continuation of the first life.
We are the same life which emerged millions of year in the
past and today we are the same life, in the cosmic eyes.
Whatever is happening good to us is our reward which our
collective parents has done good deeds, we are nothing but a continuous life,
we are not individuals, some of us are enjoying and some of us are suffering
this is not a joy for some of us and there is not sufferings for some of us,
but the collective resultant is our gain.
This gain can be sufferings or celebrations, depending our
deeds of our collective life, this life can be our own individual life or the
lives of our peers and parents and grandparents and of our other living
organisms and matter particles which are related to us in the evolutionary
tree.
The god who created this cosmos and all other known and
unknown dimensions cannot be dumb and stupid if he has the power to create such
a vast universe, such a vast amount of energies involved in the nature and such
complex and mind boggling secrecy and technology and phenomena.
That god definitely is expecting that we too should behave
according to our intelligence and proving us to be civilized and highly refined
personality, living in harmony of peace and justice, otherwise the process of
evolution is such designed that it can refine us till we will become totally
refined and straight forward, and if we did not comply with the harmony of
peace and justice then our sufferings will not cease till the process of
struggle for existence and survival of fittest will complete its course of
action and it will stop only then when we will be completely refined.
This is the plan of god for us, he does not wait till the
end of this universe to punish or reward us, our children will receive the
result of our deeds plus the result of our collective others, who are involved
in the entire cosmos., today we are receiving the fruits of the result of our
parents and their peers, we are nothing but a single organism, we are the same
first life form which was the first life and which was the Adam and which will
be the same if we happen to survive on this earth or any other place in the
cosmos in the far deep future.
Adam has never died, the body of adam perished but the adam
survived in his progeny and this will continue till the end of the cosmos and
adam will survive till the end, only our bodies dies off, our bodies is just
like our clothes, we change cloths, but our self remains the same, Adam will never die, he will die on a day when any life in the universe will die, insects and fish and some tree produce millions of seeds and eggs, only few seeds succeed and rest perish, this is not the loss for the life, it is gain, that few succeeded.
life remains in the scenes and the perishers are only vehicle, Adam is nothing but a representative of the life.
life remains in the scenes and the perishers are only vehicle, Adam is nothing but a representative of the life.
Some of us are celebrating the life and some others are
suffering, but actually adam is celebrating and Adam is suffering, now he has
to decide the total collective gain, whether he has lost or gained.
The god is not unjust, he has already prescribed a just
system in our cosmos for our benefits and his all laws and systems are highly
perfect in functioning and those laws keep us refined and pure, we know these
laws as evolution process and gravity and quantum physics etc and all these
laws are nothing but the servant of our god who has made them for our benefits.
The conclusion of the study of this long thought experiment
is that we humans should live in harmony of justice and peace, if we want to
live in peace, if we will maintain this harmony then the evolutionary process
will not try to correct us, but if we deviate from the harmony of peace and
justice then the process of evolution will start behind us and it will not give
us any chance for rest.
Peace and celebrations of life and sufferings, both are in
our hands; god is not unjust, now it is we who has to decide what we want for
the adam, we are adam, the adam never died, he only has changed his clothes
overtimes again and again, in each era till today and will tomorrow.
Tomorrow either we will die on earth or will abide in
distant galaxy nobody knows, but collision between our galaxy and Andromeda
galaxy is inevitable in distant future in coming millennia and there are
chances that at that time we will get a chance to leap from earth to new planet
in the new galaxy, life of our sun will be near to its end at about 5 billion years from now and the andromeda galaxy is going to collision with our milky way at about 4 billion years from now, and this is the time when we humans will have sufficient means to leap from earth to nearby new planets at least, many different individuals will try to leap in their rockets in different directions and few will land successfully.
Whatever be our place in future we will only enjoy unless we
will not learn to live with peace and justice and in harmony, this will be the
expectations of our god.
And if the god has the ability to create all that is known
to us and all that which we do not know, and the god has the superpowers of
amazing energies and creation then we can assume that he can do which we do not
know, he can create us trillions of times or infinity times, he has too much space and energy for
our maintenance and all of us know very well that he has done what which we are
still trying to understand and that thing is this our existence and this matter
to which we are trying to understand, we believe that we are intelligent to
understand the creation, but our scientists know that how much is our range and
knowledge and understanding up till now.
Therefore we should expect from the god that he can do
whatever he wanted and he is supreme potent and powerful almighty, resourceful
and very great and beyond our comprehension, if he wanted to reward us nobody can
prevent him and if he wanted to punish us then nobody can force to stop him.
This is nothing but we can think about a god who is so
resourceful and so potent that even we cannot understand him.
He has created us and he has the power to dispose us off and
he only can know what to do with us, it is more likely that he will like those
who will be nice and good and it is more likely that he will dislike the bad
ones and worse ones, so the chances of the disposing off of worse ones are
higher, so if adam has to survive he must be nice anyhow, and the evolutionary
process will definitely wipe out the worst ones, this is real alfa and omega of
life, this is the beginning and this is the end.
collision of Andromeda Galaxy and our Milky Way Galaxy
which signs of your lord will you deny? ( Quran ).
collision of Andromeda Galaxy and our Milky Way Galaxy
By Eng. Ishrat Hussain Mohammad. Dubai.
Deism, here I am presenting information regarding deism from internet and Wikipedia, at present there are thousands of millions of peoples in India who can be termed as deist but they themselves do not know this fact, they simply reject their religion due to its absurdities and superstitions and they believe in only one god.
I am presenting copy paste data from internet this material and data or information is not my property….
Deism (
i/ˈdiː.ɪzəm/[1][2] or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/) is the belief that reason and observation of the natural
world are sufficient to determine the existence of a
Creator, accompanied with the rejection of revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge.
Contents
Deism is a theological
position concerning the relationship between "the Creator" and the
natural world. Deistic viewpoints emerged during the scientific
revolution of 17th-century Europe and came to exert a
powerful influence during the eighteenth century enlightenment. Deism stood
between the narrow dogmatism of the period and skepticism. Though deists
rejected atheism,[11] they often were called "atheists" by more traditional
theists.[12]There were a number of different forms in the
17th and 18th century. In England, deism included a range of people from
anti-Christian to un-Christian theists.[13]
Deism holds that God
does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world in any way,
allowing it to run according to the laws
of nature. For Deists, human
beings can only know God via reason and the observation of nature, but not by
revelation or supernatural manifestations (such as miracles) – phenomena which
Deists regard with caution if not skepticism. See the section Features of deism, following. Deism does not ascribe any specific
qualities to a deity beyond non-intervention. Deism is related to naturalism because it credits the formation of life and the universe to a
higher power, using only natural processes. Deism may also include a spiritual
element, involving experiences of God and nature.[14]
The words deism and theism are both derived from words for god: the former from Latin deus, the latter from Greektheós (θεός).
Prior to the 17th
century the terms ["deism" and "deist"] were used
interchangeably with the terms "theism" and "theist", respectively. ...
Theologians and philosophers of the seventeenth century began to give a
different signification to the words... Both [theists and Deists] asserted
belief in one supreme God, the Creator... and agreed that God is personal and
distinct from the world. But the theist taught that God remained actively
interested in and operative in the world which he had made, whereas the Deist
maintained that God endowed the world at creation with self-sustaining and
self-acting powers and then abandoned it to the operation of these powers
acting as second causes.[contradictory][15]
Perhaps the first use of
the term deist is in Pierre Viret's Instruction Chrétienne
en la doctrine de la foi et de l'Évangile (Christian teaching on the doctrine
of faith and the Gospel) (1564), reprinted in Bayle's Dictionnaireentry Viret. Viret, a Calvinist, regarded deism as a new form of Italian
heresy.[16] Viret wrote, as translated following from the original French:
There are many who
confess that while they believe like the Turks and the Jews that there is some
sort of God and some sort of deity, yet with regard to Jesus Christ and to all
that to which the doctrine of the Evangelists and the Apostles testify, they
take all that to be fables and dreams... I have heard that there are of this
band those who call themselves Deists, an entirely new word, which they want to
oppose to Atheist. For in that atheist signifies a person who is without God,
they want to make it understood that they are not at all without God, since
they certainly believe there is some sort of God, whom they even recognize as
creator of heaven and earth, as do the Turks; but as for Jesus Christ, they only know that he is and hold nothing
concerning him nor his doctrine.[16]
Lord
Herbert of Cherbury (1583–1648) is generally considered the "father
of English Deism", and his book De
Veritate (1624) the first major statement of deism. Deism
flourished in England between 1690 and 1740, at which time Matthew Tindal's Christianity as Old as
the Creation (1730), also called "The Deist's
Bible", gained much attention. Later deism spread to France, notably
through the work of Voltaire, to Germany, and to the United States.
Features of deism[edit]
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material
may be challenged and removed. (September 2009)
|
The concept of deism
covers a wide variety of positions on a wide variety of religious issues.
Following Sir Leslie Stephen's English Thought in the
Eighteenth Century, most commentators
agree that two features[17] constituted the core of deism:
Critical elements of deist thought included:
- Rejection of religions based on books that claim to
contain the revealed word of God.
- Rejection of religious dogma and demagogy.
- Skepticism of reports of miracles, prophecies and
religious "mysteries".
Constructive elements of deist thought included:
- God exists and created the universe.
- God gave humans the ability to reason.
Specific thoughts on
aspects of the afterlife will vary. While there are those who maintain that God will punish
or reward us according to our behavior on Earth, likewise there are those who
assert that any punishment or reward that is due to us is given during our
mortal stay on Earth.
Individual deists varied
in the set of critical and constructive elements for which they argued. Some
deists rejected miracles and prophecies but still considered themselves
Christians because they believed in what they felt to be the pure, original
form of Christianity – that is, Christianity as it existed before it was
corrupted by additions of such superstitions as miracles, prophecies, and the
doctrine of the Trinity. Some deists rejected the claim of Jesus' divinity but
continued to hold him in high regard as a moral teacher (see, for example, Thomas Jefferson's famous Jefferson
Bible and Matthew Tindal's Christianity as Old as the Creation). Other, more radical deists rejected Christianity
altogether and expressed hostility toward Christianity, which they regarded as
pure superstition. In return, Christian writers often charged radical deists
with atheism.
Note that the terms constructive and critical are used to refer to aspects of deistic thought, not sects or
subtypes of deism – it would be incorrect to classify any particular deist
author as "a constructive deist" or "a critical deist". As Peter Gay notes:
All Deists were in fact
both critical and constructive Deists. All sought to destroy in order to build,
and reasoned either from the absurdity of Christianity to the need for a new
philosophy or from their desire for a new philosophy to the absurdity of
Christianity. Each Deist, to be sure, had his special competence. While one
specialized in abusing priests, another specialized in rhapsodies to nature,
and a third specialized in the skeptical reading of sacred documents. Yet
whatever strength the movement had— and it was at times formidable— it derived
that strength from a peculiar combination of critical and constructive
elements.
—Peter Gay, Deism: An Anthology, p. 13'
It should be noted,
however, that the constructive element of deism was not unique to deism. It was
the same as the natural theology that was so prevalent in all English theology in the 17th and 18th
centuries. What set deists apart from their more orthodox contemporaries were
their critical concerns.
Defining the essence of
English deism is a formidable task. Like priestcraft, atheism, and freethinking, deism was one of the dirty words of the age. Deists were
stigmatized – often as atheists – by their Christian opponents. Yet
some Deists claimed to be Christian, and as Leslie Stephen argued in
retrospect, the Deists shared so many fundamental rational suppositions with
their orthodox opponents... that it is practically impossible to distinguish
between them. But the term deism is nevertheless a
meaningful one.... Too many men of letters of the time agree about the
essential nature of English deism for modern scholars to ignore the simple fact
that what sets the Deists apart from even their most latitudinarian Christian contemporaries is their desire to lay aside scriptural
revelation as rationally incomprehensible, and thus useless, or even
detrimental, to human society and to religion. While there may possibly be
exceptions, ... most Deists, especially as the eighteenth century wears on,
agree that revealed Scripture is nothing but a joke or "well-invented
flam." About mid-century, John
Leland, in his historical and
analytical account of the movement [View of the Principal Deistical Writers],
squarely states that the rejection of revealed Scripture is the characteristic element of deism, a view further
codified by such authorities as Ephraim Chambers and Samuel Johnson. ... "DEISM," writes Stephens bluntly, "is a denial of all reveal'd Religion."
— James E. Force, Introduction (1990) to An Account of the Growth of Deism in England (1696) by William Stephens'
One of the remarkable
features of deism is that the critical elements did not overpower the
constructive elements. As E. Graham Waring observed,[18] "A strange feature of the [Deist] controversy is the apparent
acceptance of all parties of the conviction of the existence of God." And
Basil Willey observed[19]
M. Paul Hazard has
recently described the Deists of this time 'as rationalists with nostalgia for
religion': men, that is, who had allowed the spirit of the age to separate them
from orthodoxy, but who liked to believe that the slope they had started upon
was not slippery enough to lead them to atheism.
This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem
is: this section inserted
October 2006, but it almost entirely long quotes with hardly any annotation. Please help improve this section if you can. (September 2010)
|
"Reason" was
the ultimate court of appeal for deists. Tindal presents a Lockean definition of reason, self-evident truth and the light of nature:
By the rational
faculties, then, we mean the natural ability a man has to apprehend, judge, and infer:
The immediate objects of which faculties are
not the things themselves, but the ideas the mind conceives of them.... Knowledge [is]... the perception of the agreement or disagreement of our ideas. And any two of these, when joined together so as to be affirmed or
denied of each other, make what we call aproposition... Knowledge
accrues either immediately on the bare intuition of these two ideas or terms so joined, and is therefore styled intuitive knowledge or self-evident truth, or by the intervention of some other idea or
ideas ...... this is called demonstrative knowledge...
If there were not some
propositions which need not to be proved, it would be in vain for men to argue
with one another [because there would be no basis for demonstrative reasoning]
... Those propositions which need no proof, we call self-evident; because by
comparing the ideas signified by the terms of such propositions, we immediately
discern their agreement, or disagreement: This is, as I said before, what we
call intuitive knowledge.... [Intuitive knowledge] may, I think, be called divine inspiration as being immediately
from God, and not acquired by any human deduction or drawing of consequences:
This, certainly, is that divine, that uniform light, which shines in the minds
of all men...
Deists did appeal to
"the light of nature" to support the self-evident nature of their
positive religious claims.
By natural religion, I
understand the belief of the existence of a God, and the sense and practice of
those duties which result from the knowledge we, by our reason, have of him and
his perfections; and of ourselves, and our own imperfections, and of the
relationship we stand in to him, and to our fellow-creatures; so that the
religion of nature takes in everything that is founded on the reason and nature
of things.
I suppose you will allow
that it is evident by the light of nature that there is a God, or in other
words, a being absolutely perfect, and infinitely happy in himself, who is the
source of all other beings....
Once a proposition is
asserted to be a self-evident truth, there is not much more to say about it.
Consequently, deist authors attempted to use reason as a critical tool for
exposing and rejecting what they saw as nonsense. Here are two typical
examples. The first is from John Toland's Christianity Not
Mysterious.[22]
I hope to make it appear
that the use of reason is not so dangerous in religion as it is commonly
represented. ...
There is nothing that
men make a greater noise about than the "mysteries of the Christian
religion." The divines gravely tell us "we must adore what we cannot
comprehend." Some of them say the "mysteries of the Gospel" are
to be understood only in the sense of the "ancient fathers." ...
[Some] contend [that] some mysteries may be, or at least seem to be, contrary
to reason, and yet received by faith. [Others contend] that no mystery is
contrary to reason, but that all are "above" it.[23]
On the contrary, we hold
that reason is the only foundation of all certitude, and that nothing revealed,
whether as to its manner or existence, is more exempted from its disquisitions
than the ordinary phenomena of nature. Wherefore, we likewise maintain,
according to the title of this discourse, that there is nothing in the
Gospel contrary to reason, nor above it; and that no Christian doctrine can be
properly called a mystery. ...
Now, as we are extremely
subject to deception, we may without some infallible rule, often take a
questionable proposition for an axiom, old wives' fables for moral certitude,
and human impostures for divine revelation....
I take it to be very
intelligible from the precedent section that what is evidently repugnant to
clear and distinct ideas,[24] or to our common notions,[25] is contrary to reason. ... No Christian that I know of expressly
says reason and the Gospel are contrary to one another. But very many affirm
that ... according to our conceptions of them [i.e. reason and the Gospel] they
seem directly to clash.
And that though we
cannot reconcile them by reason of our corrupt and limited understandings, yet
that from the authority of divine revelation we are bound to believe and acquiesce
in them; or, as the fathers taught them to speak, to "adore what we cannot
comprehend." This famous and admirable doctrine is the undoubted source of
all the absurdities that ever were seriously vented among Christians. Without
the pretense of it, we should never hear oftransubstantiation, and other ridiculous fables of the Church of
Rome. Nor should we be ever bantered with the Lutheran impanation....
The first thing I shall
insist upon is that if any doctrine of the New Testament be contrary to reason,
we have no manner of idea of it. To say, for instance, that a ball is white and
black at once is to say just nothing, for these colors are so incompatible in
the same subject as to exclude all possibility of a real positive idea or
conception. So to say as the papists that children dying before baptism are damned without pain signifies nothing at all.
—John Toland, Christianity Not Mysterious: or, a Treatise
Shewing That There Is Nothing in the Gospel Contrary to Reason, Nor above It
(1696)
I have known some, who have
alleged as a reason why they have forsaken the Christian faith, the
impossibility of believing. Many doctrines (say these) are made necessary to
salvation, which 'tis impossible to believe, because they are in their nature
absurdities. I replied, that these things were mysteries, and so above our understanding. But he asked
me to what end could an unintelligible doctrine be revealed? not to instruct,
but to puzzle and amuse. What can be the effect of an unintelligible mystery upon our minds, but only an amusement? That
which is only above reason must be above a rational belief, and must I be saved
by an irrational belief? ... You all agree that the belief of your Trinity is
absolutely necessary to salvation, and yet widely differ in what we must believe concerning it; whether three
Minds or Modes, or Properties, or internal Relations, or economies, or
Manifestations, or external Denominations; or else no more than a Holy Three,
or Three Somewhats... If I should be persuaded that an explanation of the Trinity were necessary to save my soul, and see the
Learned so widely differing and hotly disputing what it is I must believe
concerning it, I should certainly run mad through despair of finding out the
Truth...
—William Stephens, An Account of the Growth
of Deism in England (1696), pp. 19–20'
Arguments for the existence of God[edit]
Thomas
Hobbes – a 17th-century deist and important influence
on subsequent deists – used the cosmological
argument for the existence of God at several places in
his writings.
The effects we
acknowledge naturally, do include a power of their producing, before they were
produced; and that power presupposeth something existent that hath such power;
and the thing so existing with power to produce, if it were not eternal, must
needs have been produced by somewhat before it, and that again by something
else before that, till we come to an eternal, that is to say, the first power
of all powers and first cause of all causes; and this is it which all men
conceive by the name of God, implying eternity, incomprehensibility, and
omnipotence.
—Thomas Hobbes, Works, vol. 4, pp. 59–60; quoted in John Orr, English Deism,
p. 76
History of religion and the deist mission[edit]
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material
may be challenged and removed. (October 2012)
|
Most deists saw the
religions of their day as corruptions of an original, pure religion that was
simple and rational. They felt that this original pure religion had become
corrupted by "priests" who had manipulated it for personal gain and
for the class interests of the priesthood in general.
According to this world
view, over time "priests" had succeeded in encrusting the original
simple, rational religion with all kinds of superstitions and
"mysteries" – irrational theological doctrines. Laymen were told
by the priests that only the priests really knew what was necessary for
salvation and that laymen must accept the "mysteries" on faith and on
the priests' authority. This kept the laity baffled by the nonsensical
"mysteries", confused, and dependent on the priests for information
about the requirements for salvation. The priests consequently enjoyed a
position of considerable power over the laity, which they strove to maintain
and increase. Deists referred to this kind of manipulation of religious
doctrine as "priestcraft", a highly derogatory term.[citation
needed]
Deists saw their mission
as the stripping away of "priestcraft" and "mysteries" from
religion, thereby restoring religion to its original, true condition – simple
and rational. In many cases, they considered true, original Christianity to be
the same as this original natural religion. As Matthew Tindal put it:
It can't be imputed to
any defect in the light of nature that the pagan world ran into idolatry, but to
their being entirely governed by priests, who pretended communication with
their gods, and to have thence their revelations, which they imposed on the
credulous as divine oracles. Whereas the business of the Christian dispensation
was to destroy all those traditional revelations, and restore, free from all
idolatry, the true primitive and natural religion implanted in mankind from the
creation.
One implication of this
deist creation myth was that primitive societies, or societies that existed in the
distant past, should have religious beliefs that are less encrusted with
superstitions and closer to those of natural theology. This became a point of
attack for thinkers such as David Hume as they studied the "natural history of religion".
Freedom and necessity[edit]
Enlightenment thinkers,
under the influence of Newtonian science, tended to view the universe as a vast
machine, created and set in motion by a creator being, that continues to
operate according to natural law, without any divine intervention. This view
naturally led to what was then usually called necessitarianism[27] (the modern term is determinism): the view that everything in the universe –
including human behavior – is completely causally determined by antecedent
circumstances and natural law. (See, for example, La
Mettrie's L'Homme machine.) As a
consequence, debates about freedom versus "necessity" were a regular feature of
Enlightenment religious and philosophical discussions.
Because of their high
regard for natural law and for the idea of a universe without miracles, deists
were especially susceptible to the temptations of determinism. Reflecting the
intellectual climate of the time, there were differences among deists about
freedom and determinism. Some, such as Anthony
Collins, actually were
necessitarians.[28]
Beliefs about immortality of the soul[edit]
Deists hold a variety of
beliefs about the soul. Some, such as Lord Herbert of Cherbury and William Wollaston,[29] held that souls exist, survive death, and in the
afterlife are rewarded or punished by God for their behavior in life. Some,
such as Benjamin Franklin, believed in reincarnation or resurrection.
Others, such as Thomas Paine, had definitive beliefs about the immortality
of the soul:
I believe in one God,
and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.
I trouble not myself
about the manner of future existence. I content myself with believing, even to
positive conviction, that the power that gave me existence is able to continue
it, in any form and manner he pleases, either with or without this body; and it
appears more probable to me that I shall continue to exist hereafter than that
I should have had existence, as I now have, before that existence began.
Still others such as
Anthony Collins,[30] Bolingbroke, Thomas Chubb, and Peter
Annet were materialists and either denied or doubted
the immortality of the soul.[31]
Deist terminology[edit]
Deist authors – and
17th- and 18th-century theologians in general – referred to God using a variety
of vivid circumlocutions such as:
- Supreme Being
- Divine
Watchmaker
- Grand Architect of the Universe
- Nature's God – used in the United States Declaration of
Independence
- Father of Lights – Benjamin Franklin used this terminology when proposing
that meetings of the Constitutional Convention begin
with prayers[32]
The history of classical deism[edit]
Historical background of the emergence of deism[edit]
Deistic thinking has
existed since ancient times. Among the Ancient Greeks, Heraclitus conceived of a logos, a supreme rational principle, and said the
wisdom "by which all things are steered through all things" was
"both willing and unwilling to be called Zeus (God)". Plato envisaged God as a Demiurge or 'craftsman'. Outside ancient Greece many other cultures have
expressed views that resemble deism in some respects. However, the word
"deism", as it is understood today, is generally used to refer to the
movement toward natural theology or freethinking that occurred in 17th-century Europe, and specifically in Britain.
Natural theology is a
facet of the revolution in world view that occurred in Europe in the 17th
century. To understand the background to that revolution is also to understand
the background of deism. Several cultural movements of the time contributed to
the movement.[33]
The discovery of diversity[edit]
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material
may be challenged and removed. (October 2012)
|
The humanist tradition of the Renaissance included a revival of interest in Europe's classical past in
ancient Greece and Rome. The veneration of that classical past, particularly
pre-Christian Rome, the new availability of Greek philosophical works, the
successes of humanism and natural science along with the fragmentation of the Christian churches and
increased understanding of other faiths, all helped erode the image of the
church as the unique source of wisdom, destined to dominate the whole world.
In addition, study of
classical documents led to the realization that some historical documents are
less reliable than others, which led to the beginnings of biblical
criticism. In particular, when
scholars worked on biblical manuscripts, they began developing the principles
of textual criticism and a view of the New
Testament being the product of a particular historical
period different from their own.
In addition to
discovering diversity in the past, Europeans discovered diversity in the
present. The voyages of discovery of the 16th and 17th centuries acquainted
Europeans with new and different cultures in the Americas, in Asia, and in the Pacific. They discovered a greater
amount of cultural diversity than they had ever imagined, and the question
arose of how this vast amount of human cultural diversity could be compatible
with the biblical account of Noah's descendants. In particular, the ideas of Confucius, translated into European languages by the Jesuits stationed in China, are thought to have had considerable influence
on the deists and other philosophical groups of the Enlightenment who were
interested by the integration of the system of morality of Confucius into Christianity.[34][35]
In particular, cultural
diversity with respect to religious beliefs could no longer be ignored. As
Herbert wrote in De Religione Laici (1645),
Many faiths or
religions, clearly, exist or once existed in various countries and ages, and
certainly there is not one of them that the lawgivers have not pronounced to be
as it were divinely ordained, so that the Wayfarer finds one in Europe, another
in Africa, and in Asia, still another in the very Indies.
Religious conflict in Europe[edit]
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material
may be challenged and removed. (October 2012)
|
Europe had been plagued
by sectarian conflicts and religious wars since the beginning of the Reformation. In 1642, when Lord Herbert of Cherbury's De Veritate was published, the Thirty Years War had been raging on continental Europe for nearly 25 years. It was
an enormously destructive war that (it is estimated) destroyed 15–20% of the
population of Germany. At the same time, the English Civil War pitting King against Parliament was just beginning.
Such massive violence
led to a search for natural religious truths – truths that could be
universally accepted, because they had been either "written in the book of
Nature" or "engraved on the human mind" by God.
Advances in scientific knowledge[edit]
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material
may be challenged and removed. (October 2012)
|
The 17th century saw a
remarkable advance in scientific knowledge, the scientific revolution. The work
of Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo set aside the old notion that the earth was the center of the
universe. These discoveries posed a serious challenge to biblical and religious
authorities, Galileo's condemnation for heresy being an example. In consequence
the Bible came to be seen as authoritative on matters of faith and morals but
no longer authoritative (or meant to be) on science.
Isaac
Newton's (1642–1727)
mathematical explanation of universal gravitation explained the behavior both
of objects here on earth and of objects in the heavens in a way that promoted a
worldview in which the natural universe is controlled by laws of nature. This,
in turn, suggested a theology in which God created the universe, set it in motion controlled by natural law and retired from the scene. The new
awareness of the explanatory power of universal natural law also produced a
growing skepticism about such religious staples as miracles (violations of natural law) and about religious books that
reported them.
Precursors of deism[edit]
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material
may be challenged and removed. (October 2012)
|
Early works of biblical
criticism, such as Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan and Spinoza's Theologico-Political
Treatise, as well as works by
lesser-known authors such asRichard
Simon and Isaac
La Peyrère, paved the way for the
development of critical deism.
Early deism[edit]
Lord Edward Herbert of Cherbury (d. 1648) is generally considered the "father of
English deism", and his book De Veritate (On Truth, as It Is Distinguished from Revelation, the
Probable, the Possible, and the False) (1624) the first major statement of
deism.[36][37]
Like his contemporary Descartes, Herbert searched for the foundations of
knowledge. In fact, the first two thirds of De Veritate are devoted to an exposition of Herbert's theory of knowledge.
Herbert distinguished truths obtained through experience, and through reasoning
about experience, from innate truths and from revealed truths. Innate truths
are imprinted on our minds, and the evidence that they are so imprinted is that
they are universally accepted. Herbert's term for universally accepted truths
was notitiae communes – common notions.
·
There is one Supreme God.
·
He ought to be worshipped.
·
Virtue and piety are the chief parts of divine worship.
·
We ought to be sorry for our sins and repent of them
·
Divine goodness doth dispense rewards and punishments both in this
life and after it.
—Lord Herbert of Cherbury, The Antient Religion of
the Gentiles, and Causes of Their Errors, pp. 3–4, quoted in John Orr, English Deism, p. 62
The following lengthy
quote from Herbert can give the flavor of his writing and demonstrate the sense
of the importance that Herbert attributed to innate Common Notions, which can
help in understanding the effect of Locke's attack on innate ideas on Herbert's
philosophy:
No general agreement
exists concerning the Gods, but there is universal recognition of God. Every
religion in the past has acknowledged, every religion in the future will
acknowledge, some sovereign deity among the Gods. ...
Accordingly that which
is everywhere accepted as the supreme manifestation of deity, by whatever name
it may be called, I term God.
While there is no
general agreement concerning the worship of Gods, sacred beings, saints, and
angels, yet the Common Notion or Universal Consent tells us that adoration
ought to be reserved for the one God. Hence divine religion— and no race,
however savage, has existed without some expression of it— is found established
among all nations. ...
The connection of Virtue
with Piety, defined in this work as the right conformation of the faculties, is
and always has been held to be, the most important part of religious practice.
There is no general agreement concerning rites, ceremonies, traditions...; but
there is the greatest possible consensus of opinion concerning the right
conformation of the faculties. ... Moral virtue... is and always has been
esteemed by men in every age and place and respected in every land...
There is no general
agreement concerning the various rites or mysteries which the priests have
devised for the expiation of sin.... General agreement among religions, the
nature of divine goodness, and above all conscience, tell us that our crimes
may be washed away by true penitence, and that we can be restored to new union
with God. ... I do not wish to consider here whether any other more appropriate
means exists by which the divine justice may be appeased, since I have
undertaken in this work only to rely on truths which are not open to dispute
but are derived from the evidence of immediate perception and admitted by the
whole world.
The rewards that are eternal
have been variously placed in heaven, in the stars, in the Elysian fields... Punishment has been thought to lie inmetempsychosis, in hell,... or in temporary or everlasting
death. But all religion, law, philosophy, and ... conscience, teach openly or
implicitly that punishment or reward awaits us after this life. ... [T]here is
no nation, however barbarous, which has not and will not recognise the
existence of punishments and rewards. That reward and punishment exist is,
then, a Common Notion, though there is the greatest difference of opinion as to
their nature, quality, extent, and mode.
It follows from these considerations
that the dogmas which recognize a sovereign Deity, enjoin us to worship Him,
command us to live a holy life, lead us to repent our sins, and warn us of
future recompense or punishment, proceed from God and are inscribed within us
in the form of Common Notions.
Revealed truth exists;
and it would be unjust to ignore it. But its nature is quite distinct from the
truth [based on Common Notions] ... [T]he truth of revelation depends upon the
authority of him who reveals it. We must, then, proceed with great care in
discerning what actually is revealed.... [W]e must take great care to avoid
deception, for men who are depressed, superstitious, or ignorant of causes are
always liable to it.
—Lord Herbert of Cherbury , De Veritate
According to Gay, Herbert
had relatively few followers, and it was not until the 1680s that Herbert found
a true successor in Charles
Blount (1654–1693). Blount made one special contribution
to the deist debate: "by utilizing his wide classical learning, Blount
demonstrated how to use pagan writers, and pagan ideas, against Christianity.
... Other Deists were to follow his lead."[38]
Deism in Britain[edit]
John Locke[edit]
The publication of John
Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689, but dated 1690) marks a major turning point in the history
of deism. Since Herbert's De Veritate, innate ideas had been the foundation of deist epistemology. Locke's famous attack on innate ideas in the
first book of the Essay effectively destroyed
that foundation and replaced it with a theory of knowledge based on experience. Innatist deism was replaced by empiricist deism. Locke himself was not a deist. He
believed in both miracles and revelation, and he regarded miracles as the main
proof of revelation.[39]
After Locke,
constructive deism could no longer appeal to innate ideas for justification of
its basic tenets such as the existence of God. Instead, under the influence of
Locke and Newton, deists turned to natural theology and to arguments based on
experience and Nature: the cosmological argument and the argument
from design.
Peter Gay places the
zenith of deism "from the end of the 1690s, when the vehement response to
John Toland's Christianity Not Mysterious (1696) started the deist debate, to the end of the 1740s when the
tepid response to Conyers Middleton's Free Inquiry signalled its close."[40]
Among the Deists, only
Anthony Collins (1676–1729) could claim much philosophical competence; only
Conyers Middleton (1683–1750) was a really serious scholar. The best known
Deists, notably John Toland (1670–1722) and Matthew Tindal (1656–1733), were
talented publicists, clear without being deep, forceful but not subtle. ...
Others, like Thomas Chubb (1679–1747), were self-educated freethinkers; a few,
like Thomas Woolston (1669–1731), were close to madness.
During this period,
prominent British deists included William
Wollastson, Charles Blount, and
Henry St John, First Viscount Bolingbroke.
The influential author Anthony Ashley-Cooper, Third Earl of
Shaftesbury is also usually categorized as a deist. Although
did not think of himself as a deist, he shared so many attitudes with deists
that Gay calls him "a Deist in fact, if not in name".[41]
Notable late-classical
deists include Peter Annet (1693–1769), Thomas Chubb (1679–1747), Thomas
Morgan (?–1743), and Conyers Middleton (1683–1750).
Matthew Tindal[edit]
Especially noteworthy is
Matthew Tindal's Christianity as Old as the Creation (1730), which "became, very soon after its publication, the
focal center of the deist controversy. Because almost every argument,
quotation, and issue raised for decades can be found here, the work is often
termed 'the deist's Bible'."[42] Following Locke's successful attack on innate ideas, Tindal's
"Deist Bible" redefined the foundation of deist epistemology as
knowledge based on experience or human reason. This effectively widened the gap
between traditional Christians and what he called "Christian Deists",
since this new foundation required that "revealed" truth be validated
through human reason. In Christianity as Old as the Creation, Tindal articulated a number of the basic
tenets of deism:
- He argued against special revelation: "God
designed all Mankind should at all times know, what he wills them to know,
believe, profess, and practice; and has given them no other Means for
this, but the Use of Reason."
David Hume[edit]
David Hume
The writings of David
Hume are sometimes credited with causing or contributing to the decline of
deism. English deism, however, was already in decline before Hume's works on
religion (1757,1779) were published.[43]
Furthermore, some
writers maintain that Hume's writings on religion were not very influential at
the time that they were published.[44]
Nevertheless, modern
scholars find it interesting to study the implications of his thoughts for
deism.
- Hume's skepticism about miracles makes him a natural
ally of deism.
- His skepticism about the validity of natural religion
cuts equally against deism and deism's opponents, who were also deeply
involved in natural theology. But his famous Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion were
not published until 1779, by which time deism had almost vanished in
England.
In the Natural History of Religion (1757), Hume contends
that polytheism, not monotheism, was "the first and most ancient religion
of mankind". In addition, contends Hume, the psychological basis of
religion is not reason, but fear of the unknown.
The primary religion of
mankind arises chiefly from an anxious fear of future events; and what ideas
will naturally be entertained of invisible, unknown powers, while men lie under
dismal apprehensions of any kind, may easily be conceived. Every image of
vengeance, severity, cruelty, and malice must occur, and must augment the
ghastliness and horror which oppresses the amazed religionist. ... And no idea
of perverse wickedness can be framed, which those terrified devotees do not
readily, without scruple, apply to their deity.
—David Hume, The Natural History of Religion, section XIII
As E. Graham Waring saw
it;[18]
The clear reasonableness
of natural religion disappeared before a semi-historical look at what can be
known about uncivilized man— "a barbarous, necessitous animal," as
Hume termed him. Natural religion, if by that term one means the actual religious
beliefs and practices of uncivilized peoples, was seen to be a fabric of
superstitions. Primitive man was no unspoiled philosopher, clearly seeing the
truth of one God. And the history of religion was not, as the deists had
implied, retrograde; the widespread phenomenon of superstition was caused less
by priestly malice than by man's unreason as he confronted his experience.
Experts dispute whether
Hume was a deist, an atheist, or something else. Hume himself was
uncomfortable with the terms deist and atheist, and Hume scholar Paul
Russell has argued that the best and safest term for
Hume's views is irreligion.[45]
Deism in Continental Europe[edit]
English deism, in the
words of Peter Gay, "travelled well. ... As Deism waned in England, it
waxed in France and the German states."[46]
France had its own
tradition of religious skepticism and natural theology in the works of Montaigne, Bayle, and Montesquieu. The most famous of the French deists wasVoltaire, who acquired a taste for Newtonian science,
and reinforcement of deistic inclinations, during a two-year visit to England
starting in 1726.
French deists also
included Maximilien
Robespierre and Rousseau. For a short period of time during the French
Revolution the Cult
of the Supreme Being was the state religion of France.
Kant's identification with deism is controversial.
An argument in favor of Kant as deist is Alan Wood's "Kant's Deism,"
in P. Rossi and M. Wreen (eds.), Kant's Philosophy of
Religion Re-examined (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991);
an argument against Kant as deist is Stephen Palmquist's "Kant's Theistic Solution".
Deism in the United States[edit]
Thomas Paine
In the United States, Enlightenment philosophy (which itself was
heavily inspired by deist ideals) played a major role in creating the principle
of religious freedom, expressed in Thomas Jefferson's letters and included in
the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution. American Founding Fathers, or Framers of the Constitution, who were especially noted for being influenced
by such philosophy include Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, and Hugh Williamson. Their political speeches show distinct deistic
influence.
Other notable Founding
Fathers may have been more directly deist. These include James Madison, possibly Alexander
Hamilton, Ethan Allen,[47] and Thomas Paine(who published The Age of Reason, a treatise that helped to popularize deism
throughout the USA and Europe).
A major contributor was Elihu Palmer (1764–1806), who wrote the "Bible" of American deism in
his Principles of Nature (1801) and attempted to organize deism by forming the
"Deistical Society of New York".
In the United States
there is controversy over whether the Founding Fathers were Christians, deists,
or something in between.[48][49] Particularly heated is the debate over the beliefs of Benjamin
Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington.[50][51][52]
Benjamin Franklin wrote
in his autobiography, "Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they
were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's lectures. It
happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended
by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted,
appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a
thorough Deist. My arguments perverted some others, particularly Collins and
Ralph; but each of them having afterwards wrong'd me greatly without the least
compunction, and recollecting Keith's conduct towards me (who was another
freethinker) and my own towards Vernon and Miss Read, which at times gave me
great trouble, I began to suspect that this doctrine, tho' it might be true,
was not very useful."[53][54]Franklin also wrote that "the Deity
sometimes interferes by his particular Providence, and sets aside the Events
which would otherwise have been produc'd in the Course of Nature, or by the
Free Agency of Man.[55] He later stated, in the Constitutional Convention, that "the
longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God
governs in the affairs of men."[56]
For his part, Thomas
Jefferson is perhaps one of the Founding Fathers with the most outspoken of Deist tendencies, though he is not
known to have called himself a deist, generally referring to himself as a Unitarian. In particular, his treatment of the Biblical
gospels which he titled The Life and Morals of Jesus of
Nazareth, but which subsequently
became more commonly known as the Jefferson Bible, exhibits a strong deist tendency of stripping
away all supernatural and dogmatic references from the Christ story. However,
Frazer, following the lead of Sydney Ahlstrom, characterizes Jefferson as not a Deist but a "theistic
rationalist", because Jefferson
believed in God's continuing activity in human affairs.[57][58] Frazer cites Jefferson's Notes on the State of
Virginia, where he wrote,
"I tremble" at the thought that "God is just," and he
warned of eventual "supernatural influence" to abolish the scourge of
slavery.[59][60]
The decline of deism[edit]
Deism is generally
considered to have declined as an influential school of thought by around 1800.
After the writings of
Woolston and Tindal, English deism went into slow decline. ... By the 1730s,
nearly all the arguments in behalf of Deism ... had been offered and refined;
the intellectual caliber of leading Deists was none too impressive; and the
opponents of deism finally mustered some formidable spokesmen. The Deists of
these decades, Peter Annet (1693–1769), Thomas Chubb (1679–1747), and Thomas
Morgan (?–1743), are of significance to the specialist alone. ... It had all
been said before, and better. .
It is probably more
accurate, however, to say that deism evolved into, and contributed to, other
religious movements. The term deist became rarely used, but
deist beliefs, ideas, and influences remained. They can be seen in 19th-century
liberal British theology and in the rise of Unitarianism, which adopted many of
its beliefs and ideas.
Commentators have
suggested a variety of reasons for the decline of classical deism.
- the rise, growth, and spread of naturalism[61] and materialism, which were atheistic
- the writings of David Hume[61][62] and Immanuel Kant[62] (and
later, Charles Darwin), which increased doubt about the first cause argument
and the argument from design, turning many (though not all) potential
deists towards atheism instead
- criticisms (by writers such as Joseph-Marie
de Maistre and Edmund Burke) of excesses of the French Revolution, and consequent
rising doubts that reason andrationalism could
solve all problems[62]
- deism became associated with pantheism, freethought,
and atheism; all of which became associated with one another, and were so
criticized by Christian apologists[61][62]
- frustration with the determinism implicit in "This is the best of all
possible worlds"
- deism remained a personal philosophy and had not yet
become an organized movement (before the advent in the 20th century of
organizations such as the World Union of Deists)
- with the rise of Unitarianism, based on deistic
principles, people self-identified as Unitarians rather than as deists[62]
- an anti-deist and anti-reason campaign by some
Christian clergymen and theologians such as Johann
Georg Hamann to vilify deism
- Christian revivalist movements, such as Pietism or Methodism, which taught that a more personal relationship with a
deity was possible[62]
Deism today[edit]
Contemporary deism attempts
to integrate classical deism with modern philosophy and the current state of
scientific knowledge. This attempt has produced a wide variety of personal
beliefs under the broad classification of belief of "deism". The
Modern Deism web site includes one list of the unofficial tenets of modern
deism.[63]
Classical deism held
that a human's relationship with God was impersonal: God created the world and set it in
motion but does not actively intervene in individual human affairs but rather
through Divine Providence. What this means is that God will give humanity
such things as reason and compassion but this applies to all and not individual
intervention.
Some modern deists have
modified this classical view and believe that humanity's relationship with God is transpersonal, which means that God transcends the
personal/impersonal duality and moves beyond such human terms. Also, this means
that it makes no sense to state that God intervenes or does not intervene, as
that is a human characteristic which God does not contain. Modern deists
believe that they must continue what the classical deists started and continue
to use modern human knowledge to come to understand God, which in turn is why a
human-like God that can lead to numerous contradictions and inconsistencies is
no longer believed in and has been replaced with a much more abstract
conception.
A modern definition[64] has been created and provided by the World Union
of Deists (WUD) that provides a modern understanding of deism:
Deism is the recognition
of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind,
supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the
universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason
coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized
religions of having received special divine revelation.
Because deism asserts
God without accepting claims of divine revelation, it appeals to people from
both ends of the religious spectrum. Antony
Flew, for example, was a
convert from atheism, and Raymond Fontaine was a Roman Catholic priest for over
20 years before converting.[65]
The 2001 American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS), which involved 50,000 participants, reported that the
number of participants in the survey identifying themselves as deists grew at
the rate of 717 percent between 1990 and 2001. If this were generalized to the
US population as a whole, it would make deism the fastest-growing religious classification in the US for that period, with the reported total of 49,000
self-identified adherents representing about 0.02% of the US population at the
time.[66][67]
Modern deistic organizations and websites[edit]
In 1993, Bob Johnson
established the first Deist organization since the days of Thomas Paine and
Elihu Palmer with the World Union of Deists. The WUD offered the monthly
hardcopy publication THINK! Currently the WUD offers
two online Deist publications, THINKonline! and Deistic Thought & Action! As well as using the
Internet for spreading the Deist message, the WUD is also conducting a direct
mail campaign.
1996 saw the first Web
site dedicated to deism with the WUD site Deism.com. In 1998, Sullivan-County.com[68] was originally the Virginia/Tennessee affiliate
of WUD and the second deism site on the Web. It split from Deism.com to promote
more traditional and historical Deist beliefs and history.
In 2009, the World Union
of Deists published a book on deism, Deism: A Revolution in
Religion, A Revolution in You written by its founder
and director, Bob Johnson. This book focuses on what deism has to offer both
individuals and society.
In 2010, the Church of
Deism was formed in an effort to extend the legal rights and privileges of more
traditional religions to Deists while maintaining an absence of established
dogma and ritual.
Subcategories of contemporary deism[edit]
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material
may be challenged and removed. (October 2012)
|
Modern deists hold a
wide range of views on the nature of God and God's relationship to the world.
The common area of agreement is the desire to use reason, experience, and
nature as the basis of belief.
There are a number of
subcategories of modern deism, including monodeism (this being the default standard concept of deism), polydeism, pandeism, panendeism, spiritual deism, process deism, Christian deism, scientific deism, and humanistic deism. Some deists see design in nature and purpose in the universe and
in their lives (Prime Designer). Others see God and the universe in a
co-creative process (Prime Motivator). Some deists view God in classical terms
and see God as observing humanity but not directly intervening in our lives
(Prime Observer), while others see God as a subtle and persuasive spirit who
created the world, but then stepped back to observe (Prime Mover).
Pandeism[edit]
Pandeism combines
elements of deism with elements of pantheism, the belief that the universe is identical to
God. Pandeism holds that God was a conscious and sentient force or entity that
designed and created the universe, which operates by mechanisms set forth in
the creation. God thus became an unconscious and nonresponsive being by becoming the universe. Other than this distinction (and
the possibility that the universe will one day return to the state of being
God), pandeistic beliefs are deistic. The earliest allusion to pandeism found
to date is in 1787, in translator Gottfried Große’s interpretation of Pliny
the Elder’s Natural
History:
Beym. Plinius, den man,
wo nicht Spinozisten, doch einen Pandeisten nennen konnte, ist Natur oder Gott kein von der Welt getrenntes
oder abgesondertes Wesen. Seine Natur ist die ganze Schöpfung im Konkreto, und
eben so scheint es mit seiner Gottheit beschaffen zu seyn.[69]
Here Gottfried says that
Pliny is not Spinozist, but 'could be called a
Pandeist' whose Nature or God 'is not a being separate from the world. Its
nature is the whole creation in concrete form, and thus it seems to be designed
with its divinity.' The term was used in 1859 by German philosophers and frequent collaborators Moritz Lazarus and Heymann Steinthal in Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und
Sprachwissenschaft. They wrote:
Man stelle es also den
Denkern frei, ob sie Theisten, Pan-theisten, Atheisten, Deisten (und warum
nicht auch Pandeisten?)[70]
This is translated as:
So we should let these
thinkers decide themselves whether they are theists, pan-theists, atheists,
deists (and why not even pandeists?)
In the 1960s, theologian Charles
Hartshorne scrupulously examined and rejected both deism
and pandeism (as well as pantheism) in favor of a conception of God whose
characteristics included "absolute perfection in some respects, relative
perfection in all others" or "AR", writing that this theory
"is able consistently to embrace all that is positive in either deism or
pandeism", concluding that "panentheistic doctrine contains all of
deism and pandeism except their arbitrary negations".[71]
Panendeism[edit]
Panendeism combines
deism with panentheism, the belief that the
universe is part of God, but not all of God. A component of panendeism is
"experiential metaphysics" – the idea that a mystical component
exists within the framework of panendeism, allowing the seeker to experience a relationship to Deity through meditation,
prayer or some other type of communion.[72] This is a major departure from classical deism.
A 1995 news article
includes an early usage of the term by Jim Garvin, a Vietnam veteran who became a Trappist monk in the Holy
Cross Abbey of Berryville,
Virginia, and went on to lead
the economic development of Phoenix, Arizona. Despite his Roman
Catholic post, Garvin described his spiritual position as
"pandeism' or 'pan-en-deism,' something very close to the Native American concept of the
all-pervading Great Spirit..."[73]
Spiritual deism[edit]
This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem
is: how is this a
subcategory? what category is it distinct from or contrast with? Perhaps
should go in "groups" section. Please help improve this section if you can. (April 2010)
|
Spiritual deism is the
religious and philosophical belief in one indefinable, omnipresent god who is
the cause or the substance (or both) of the universe. Spiritual Deists reject
all divine revelation, religious dogma, and supernatural events and favor an
ongoing personalized connection with the divine presence through intuition,
communion with nature, meditation and contemplation. Generally, Spiritual
Deists reject the notion that God consciously intervenes in human affairs.
Spiritual deism is
extremely general and is not bound by any ideology other than the belief in one
indefinable god whose spiritual presence can be felt in nature. As such,
spiritual deism is not infected by political principles or partisanship of any
kind. Because of this, Spiritual Deists are extremely welcoming and tolerant to
all except dogma, demagoguery, and intolerance itself. Therefore, most
Spiritual Deists are more comfortable contemplating the universe as a mystery
than they are in filling it with belief systems such as eternal reward,
reincarnation, karma, etc.
Contemporary deist opinions on prayer[edit]
Many classical deists
were critical of some types of prayer. For example, in Christianity
as Old as the Creation,
Matthew Tindal argues against praying for miracles, but advocates prayer as
both a human duty and a human need.[74]
Today, deists hold a
variety of opinions about prayer:
- Some contemporary deists believe (with the classical
deists) that God has created the universe perfectly, so no amount of
supplication, request, or begging can change the fundamental nature of the
universe.
- Some deists believe that God is not an entity that can
be contacted by human beings through petitions for relief; rather, God can
only be experienced through the nature of the universe.
- Some deists do not believe in divine intervention, but
still find value in prayer as a form of meditation, self-cleansing, and
spiritual renewal. Such prayers are often appreciative (that is,
"Thank you for ...") rather than supplicative (that is,
"Please, God, grant me ...").[75]
- Some deists, usually referred to as Spiritual Deists,
practice meditation and make frequent use of Affirmative
Prayer, a non-supplicative form of
prayer which is common in the New
Thought movement.[citation needed]
Recent discussion of the role of deism[edit]
Charles
Taylor, in his 2007 book A Secular Age, showed the historical role of deism, leading
to what he calls an exclusive humanism. This humanism invokes a moral order,
whose ontic commitment is wholly intra-human, with no reference to
transcendence.[76] One of the special achievements of such deism-based humanism is
that it discloses new, anthropocentric moral sources by which human beings are
motivated and empowered to accomplish acts of mutual benefit.[77] This is the province of a buffered, disengaged self, which is the locus
of dignity, freedom and discipline, and is endowed with a sense of human
capability.[78] According to Taylor, by the early 19th century this deism-mediated
exclusive humanism developed as an alternative to Christian faith in a personal
God and an order of miracles and mystery.
See also[edit]
- American
Enlightenment
- Christian deism
- Ceremonial
deism
- Ietsism
- Infinitism
- List of deists
- Religious affiliations of
Presidents of the United States
- Theistic
evolution
- Transcendentalism
- Unitarian
Universalism
- Spiritual
entity
- Godly
deities
- Avatars
The Beauty of Deism
by Bob Johnson
A positive approach to life is always more rewarding and
motivating than a negative outlook. People all have an individual choice to
embrace either the positive or the negative, regardless of their situation. By
choosing and dwelling on the negative, people often paralyze themselves. It
seems one depressing and negative thought spawns two or three more. It soon
becomes an endless and apparently overwhelming negative cycle. I believe the
Christian mind-set that is so eager to accept guilt and original sin, as well
as the additional unnatural idea of redemption by proxy, is much to blame for
the suffering of millions of people who allow themselves to be victims of
negativity.
The insane and unreasonable ideas which abound in
Christianity and Judaism are effectively neutralized and eliminated by the
reason-friendly openness which permeates Deism. In place of Christianity's
vacillating god of the Old and New Testaments, Deism offers an idea of a
Creator as unchangeable as the laws of Nature. A Creator incapable of such
misery producing acts as the extermination of men, women, children and even of
unborn babies by drowning. Deism happily rejects the Passover horror story
which depicts God killing the first-born of all the Egyptians, and even the
first born of their animals, because Pharaoh did not do what the Bible god
allegedly (according to Exodus 11:10) made impossible for him to do (releasing
the Jews).
THE DEISTIC IDEA OF GOD
In contrast to the ideas of God endorsed and promoted by the
various revealed religions, ranging anywhere from killing babies in the Old
Testament to suggesting the practice of "turning the other cheek" in
the New Testament, Deism offers a very simple non-dogmatic concept of God: an
eternal entity whose power is equal to his/her will.
With the quality of being eternal, the entity of God
obviously would have no beginning or end. Albert Einstein's theory of general
relativity predicted places in the universe void of time, so the idea of
eternalness is not unreasonable. As humanity learns more about science and the
universe, our concepts of the Creator will correspondingly grow. This is the
only way we can learn more about God: through the honest study of the Creator's
creation, not through contradictory books written by men but claiming
inspiration and revelation from God.
The antiquated practice of forming an idea of God based on
purely past material experience, such as referring to God as "King",
is also rejected by Deism. The extremely limited picture of God as the jealous
and paranoid king of kings sitting on his throne upset that his subjects were
going to reach "heaven" by building a brick tower is due to the
limited vision which the Bible writers had of both the Creator and of the
universe. This fear the Bible god had of the Tower of Babel is based on fear of
humanities acquisition of knowledge. The Creator the Deist venerates invites
all of us to learn as much as possible about absolutely everything, for this is
the best way to learn about God.
Another problem with the idea of God as promoted by the
revealed religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam is its depiction of God
as a man. By limiting God to the status of a man, women are consciously and
subconsciously relegated to a lesser standing in society. After all, if God is
characterized as a man, then men are closer to God then women. Perhaps this
accounts for the multiple instances of women bashing found throughout the
various "holy books." By limiting the advancement of women through
their subjugation to men, revealed religion has limited the advancement and
progress of all of society. And a very sad element of this anti-progress
mind-set, advanced by revealed religion, is that it claims God as its author.
DEISM REJECTS VIOLENCE
All religions claim they reject violence. History, of
course, proves them wrong. From the grotesque horror stories of slaughter and
rape at the alleged command of God found throughout the Old Testament, to the
claimed words of Jesus regarding bringing not peace but a sword, to the blood
soaked Inquisition through religiously approved contemporary wars, revealed
religion goes happily hand in hand with violence and war.
Deism's rejection of divine revelation excludes it from
falling into the same violence promoting business that the revealed religions
are in. There are no written words from the Almighty that can be twisted to
sanctify one human being killing another. This makes Deism less useful to the
ambitions of the power-elites. Could this be why very few people are aware of
Deism and of the Deistic influence of the Enlightenment and the American
Revolution?
Nuclear realities have made the waging of war an
unacceptable proposition. War was never justifiable, it only exposed man's
mental limitations at being able to formulate a workable solution to a problem.
However, in the nuclear age humanitie's ignorance can lead to the extermination
of civilization and life itself on our planet. The shallow chauvinism of the
various revealed religions take us all one step closer to that irreversible
catastrophe. Deism, by its reliance on reason and rejection of violence, serves
as a block to the apocalyptic nightmare that is so central to the major
revealed religions.
DEISM'S APPRECIATION OF LIFE AND BEAUTY
One of the best roads to happiness is to greatly appreciate
the positive things in life. In spite of many obstacles that everyone has in
their lives that need to be overcome, the fact remains there is much to be
thankful for. To quote Thomas Paine:
"But if objects for gratitude and admiration are our
desire, do they not present themselves every hour to our eyes? Do we not see a
fair creation prepared to receive us the instant we are born - a world
furnished to our hands, that cost us nothing? Is it we that light up the sun, that
pour down the rain, and fill the earth with abundance? Whether we sleep or
wake, the vast machinery of the universe still goes on."
From personal experience I know if my problems seem
overwhelming, all I need to do is force myself to only think of the positive
things in life and my spirits are soon picked up and fortified. I not only feel
better, but my mind is cleared and solutions to the problems flow much
smoother. And the more often I use this method the easier it becomes.
Many people express anger at God for disease, natural
disasters and war. Yet it is within humanities power to eliminate and/or
neutralize all of these. By studying the principles of Nature we have already
eradicated many diseases and protected ourselves from much of Nature's fury. If
we didn't let our egos, selfishness and fear get in the way, just think of how
far we could be by now. Every invention and discovery we have today, could have
been in effect 2,000 to 5,000 years ago. For the fact is, the principles those
inventions and discoveries are based on were in effect from before the
evolution of mankind. We could be enjoying a virtually disease free, peaceful
progressive society extending well beyond our planet Earth. It still isn't too
late. As we generate a peaceful worldwide religious revolution through Deism
and the World Union of Deists we will bring about the emancipation of the
individual's mind and spirit. The soul of society will then be lifted to a new
level, never before thought possible. A level of progress and international
cooperation that will make warfare just an archaic oddity of the dark,
superstitious past.
WHAT BEING A DEIST DEMANDS
Being a Deist demands that we truly believe, to the depths
of our souls, that the spiritual philosophy of Deism will definitely make our
own lives better and that it will make the world a better place. Once we
realize this, it becomes obvious that the old outdated religious views of
revealed religion must be overcome by peaceful means. This entails a lot of
work, sacrifice and giving on the individual's part. The revealed religions are
so entrenched in society it will take a prolonged herculean effort on our part
to pry their fingers from the throat and pockets of society. Once we do this by
educating their rank and file, as well as by bringing in the millions of people
who believe in God but don't endorse any particular religion, the power the
revealed religions now yield will wither and society will get stronger. This
requires each and everyone of us to make special efforts and sacrifices in both
time and money. It's only logical that we must do and give more than those on
the side of revealed religion are doing and giving to their cause.
Individual Deists can also make a big difference by telling
their friends and family about Deism and the World Union of Deists. This is
often the most effective type of advertising and does much to make Deism a
household word.
Deism: A New Beginning
by Brutus C. Tipton
As a Deist I can attest to the strain and terrible
affliction which often accompanies the apostate who has rejected the faith of
his fathers and goes off in search of some truer way of thinking and being in
the world. But this act of supreme
integrity, (in the sense of being true to oneself) though noble, often comes at
a high price. If we could talk to Tom
Paine he could tell us, perhaps better than anyone else, what it means to pay
that price. A man whose life’s work was
instrumental in the shaping of our country died in infamy for daring to tell
the truth as he found it in nature; wild and free as it ought to be. Revealed religions are ever wont to be the
domesticators of truth. They beat it and
break it and make it conform to their human will; they place a yoke upon it and
call it “faith”. But faith was neither
derived nor was it made to serve the will of the Almighty … faith, as it is
propagated by the major religions, is, in my opinion, merely truth perverted to
serve the superstitious dogmas and doctrines of the revealed religions which
are nothing more than the vane creations of men – not God. But what I have come to believe as a Deist is
that the truth can never be fully domesticated; it is a child of nature and is
only revealed to us though the unbiased observation of nature on her own
terms. This gives me the courage to
continue my search for truth and a sense of rightfulness in having the courage
to do so even when most of the world seems set against it.
When one sets out on the path to find truth (or at least
something as close to it as possible) the way is not always clear. The road is often obscured and the terrain
treacherous. When I became disenthralled
from Christianity as a young man in my teens I began my search by experimenting
with various “spiritual paths” and “alternative” religions but, although I was
sincere and participated of my own free will, there was still so much that
seemed disingenuous to me about such spirituality even within the depths of my
own mind. Being a spiritual person by
nature it was hard for me to come to terms with the fact that I had to lie to
myself to get anything out of the “spiritual” experiences I was having and,
after a while, it became obvious that most “alternative” religions and
spiritualities are much the same as the monolithic Abrahamic religions; just on
a smaller scale: 1) Most all of them
have a strict hierarchy (whether it is institutionalized or implied it is almost
always there). 2) Most all of them have
at their head some charismatic leader who is often supposed to have attained
some sort of special divine knowledge or favor.
3) Most all of them require that you “tow the line” doctrinally or face
some form of social ostracism or threat of otherworldly punishment. 4) Most all of them claim to be possessed of
some special quality that makes their way more right than all others. And, as with some revealed religious
congregations, doctrinal squabbles and petty politics often destroy any good
that anyone had intended to do before it even had the chance to manifest.
After my last experience with organized religion via
“alternative spirituality” I had to put on the breaks. Feeling drained from
years of searching in vain for “spiritual truth” I felt the need to start
anew. I was an agnostic for a while but
after researching Deism and carefully weighing the arguments in my mind I came
to the conclusion that it was more reasonable to believe that there is a
Supreme Being or a “First Cause” than to not or to hold, as I did as an
agnostic, that there is not enough evidence either way to support the existence
or non-existence of God. I came to this
conclusion mainly because it seemed inherently unreasonable for me to believe
that the creation of the universe, unlike everything else in it, had no cause
and that the order we see pervading our universe, which we as a species are
just now beginning to comprehend, is accidental. Further, the idea of a God who is a “first
cause” or “impersonal creator” is borne out by what we see happening in our own
solar system and throughout the universe which, though it bears the mark of an
intelligent designer, by no means exhibits the characteristics of a system
which is geometrically perfect and/or constantly and omni potently being
corrected. When the German-born
astronomer and mathematician Johannes Kepler, a contemporary of Galileo,
attempted to determine the orbit of the planets around the Sun in accordance
with the five “perfect” solids of Pythagoras and Plato (see illustration below)
his calculations would always be amiss.
Eventually, after many years of trying and failing to prove his theory
of the six planetary spheres being nested within the five perfect solids, which
he called the Mysterium Cosmographicum or cosmic mystery, he discovered that
the orbits of the planets were elliptical, not at all as geometrically perfect
as he and the astronomers who had come before him had imagined them to be. As Kepler himself put it, “The universe is
stamped with the adornment of harmonic proportions, but harmonies must
accommodate experience.”
Just as we can use our reason to surmise the works of an
intelligent designer/creator whose mark is manifest throughout our universe, it
may likewise be reasonably deduced that the work of creation (or at least this
particular result of creation [i.e. our manifest universe]) was a singular act
and that the Creator, if he acts upon the manifest world at all, does so rarely
and according to his own purpose (not human whim) and that he is not so much
concerned with mathematical perfection as he is with overall significance; that
is assuming he is “concerned” at all.
That’s not to say, of course, that some people and events are not
possibly “acted upon” at times by the Creator.
The fact that we know as much as we do about Creation comes as close to
being a miracle as anything I can think of without going outside the bounds of
reason. After all, if Kepler had never
met Tycho Brahe, the man who provided the raw astronomical data which
eventually led Kepler to discard his “divinely inspired” cosmic mystery in
favor of the correct, though just shy of perfect, theory of elliptical
planetary orbits our view of the solar system, and perhaps the world itself,
would be very different than it is today.
Indeed it seems as though all the great advancements to our knowledge of
the universe have happened against the greatest odds and only just barely have
those whose works have significantly contributed to our understanding of the
universe done so and all too infrequently.
Perhaps our Creator wants us to understand his creation and at times
intervenes in lives and events to help guide us along that path. Perhaps that is mankind’s ultimate destiny
and the reason for the development of human consciousness or, to put it another
way, maybe it is our responsibility to use our gift of consciousness to this
end and when we do so the Creator takes note of us and helps us in our quest to
understand his creation. Is this the
true source of divine providence?
After all my spiritual searching and questing in all the
wrong places finally came to an end coming to a rational belief in God was easy
and natural but the more I thought about it the more I realized that Deism
isn’t simply a rational belief in God; it is a realization that we live in a
creation of God and that we are not just human beings we are creatures who are
as much a part of Creation as the ground we tread upon, the air we breathe and
the stars in the sky. All of us, and
everything that exists, shares in the oneness of Creation. Not only that - nature, or Creation if you
prefer, has its own unique language that can inform us and, when properly
understood, can lead us to true self understanding without ever having to make
a leap of faith. I once jokingly told a
friend that, “Deism made an honest man of me”.
What I meant by that was before I became a Deist I often (and most
promiscuously) took as a “spiritual” truth anything that hit a chord within me
subjectively without ever holding it to the light of pure reason. When I became a Deist, however, I realized
what a rare and beautiful thing objective truth is, very much like true love,
and just as true love should never be confused with baser human motives, faith
should never be masqueraded as objective truth nor should objective truth be
conflated with the former. Faith is a
highly subjective experience requiring no proof nor benefiting from objective
inquiry. Objective truth, on the other
hand, can be sought after and determined by one who is fluent in the language
of Creation and shared with everyone for the benefit of all mankind.
As a Deist I must allow that there are very many things that
are not currently known to us through scientific inquiry and perhaps there is
much that will never be known. I hold,
however, that one truth honestly earned is worth far more than all the false
promises and rewards of the faithful. As
a Deist I am very much content to say I just don’t know when it comes to
questions such as the existence (or lack thereof) of an afterlife. Like Tom Paine I hope for life after death,
and allow for the possibility of such a thing, but I stop short of having faith
in life eternal as it cannot be reasonably known through objective experience;
but hoping and allowing for the possibility of such a thing is not at all the
same thing as having “faith” that my consciousness will continue to exist after
my body has died. Perhaps science will
someday validate the belief in an afterlife (or at least some form of
consciousness which continues after physical death) and perhaps it may someday
validate the power of prayer and other spiritual and religious practices. Nothing would please me more and although I
personally stop short of faith I believe in keeping an open mind. After all, the universe has only begun to be
discovered and what cosmologists are discovering is simultaneously more
thrilling and more bewildering than most of us could likely imagine. According to the recent theories in
cosmology, something like 73% of our universe is composed of an invisible form
of energy called “dark energy” which is now thought to be the reason why the
expansion of the universe is actually accelerating rather than slowing down as
was at first expected. A further 23% of
the composition of the universe is now thought to be a form of non-atomic,
invisible matter popularly known as “dark matter” which is thought to pass
right through the earth! The existence
of this type of matter is thought to account for the fact that stars on the
outskirts of galaxies rotate at the same speed as those near the center but are
not thrown out into open space - being held in orbit by the gravity of this
dark matter. The rest of the universe is
thought to be composed of the more conventional kinds of atomic matter that we
can perceive with our five senses.
How exciting! It
seems that science has discovered that the vast majority of what constitutes
our universe is invisible and, as of yet, undetectable by our most
sophisticated technology, dark energy and dark matter being perceivable only by
observing the effects that they have on the visible universe. It should be mentioned that not every
scientist buys into the theories of dark matter and dark energy. Some think that our ideas concerning gravity
need to be amended in order to account for the discrepancies in Newton’s laws
for which dark matter and dark energy are thought to account. Whatever the case may be, modern science has
pushed its boundaries and, taking nothing as an article of faith, has amended
itself to conform to the evidence, such as it may be, and quite possibly
discovered a universe more mysterious than anything dreamed up by ancient
shamans and the prophets of revealed religion.
We are living in a time when there is at least the possibility that
humanity can come to an understanding of the universe which is “universally
meaningful” without ever having to convert by force or convince without reason
a single “soul” and, who knows, perhaps even the rediscovery, via science, of
unseen forces analogous to the idea of a “spiritual realm”. The possibilities are so exciting and my
curiosity so great that the idea of faith, as it is promulgated by the major
religions, seems rather disappointing.
In my opinion, if Revealed Religion, or even any of the
thousands of indigenous religions which the revealed religions have supplanted
and absorbed, have ever contained a penny stock of spiritual truth it has by
now been tarnished almost beyond recognition by hundreds of years of religious
bureaucracy, holy wars and cultural vandalism.
If we are to reclaim these truths for ourselves, here and now in the
modern era, we must start with a clean slate and look within ourselves and into
the unknown vastness of Creation with an eye for discovery and re-discovery
rather than to the heavens of revealed religions in a spirit of faith. Above all Deism represents for me a new
beginning from which I can begin the long task of righting the mistakes of my
own past and, hopefully, contribute in some small way to the betterment of
mankind. There is a whole universe out
there to be rediscovered and many books to be rewritten. For us Deists all the slates are clean … now
let us begin anew.
_-001.jpg){kind=link}
