Deism, Liberal Protestantism or Natural Religion

Authors

Abstract

First published in 1802, Natural Theology was written by William Paley in defense of the teleological argument. His opening statement sets this stage by supposing that if he found a watch upon the ground, then examined its parts, he would necessarily conclude that it was designed for a purpose. His watchmaker analogy is still a favorite of many as a starting point for showing that such complexity cannot possibly have come into existence without an intelligent mind creating it. “Natural Theology” attempts to show that recognizing marks of design and intelligence in nature is not begging the question, but is instead drawing an inevitable conclusion about the nature of design. Many of the Founding Fathers of USA were Deist and were disillusioned by the Christian dogma of Original Sin and vicarious atonement.

Along came Sir Charles Darwin with his On the Origin of Species and some people thought that it may a fatal blow to Deism.  But then physicists continued to discover more and more amazing organization and Albert Einstein continued to be a Deist.  Decades passed and with further development in science and technology humans egos continued to grow until Prof. Richard Dawkins wrote his The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design and more recently his book God Delusion.

As people like Dawkins started making their final victory lap they were destined for a rude awakening!  With authors and producers like myself, Ben Stein and those from the Intelligent Design movement, especially their documentary the Privileged Planet, the atheists are now on retreat.  There ought to be a Creator of this universe.  Nothing can come into being from nothingness or lack of consciousness.  Remember, it was not only our material universe that came into being with the Big Bang but also our time and space.  However, the atheists and agnostics have been right all along in their criticism of irrational Christian dogma!  And what is wrong with the Intelligent Design movement is topic of a separate article.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————–

To look for common thread between the Christian and the Muslim tradition one should start at Deism. One should start with President Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Payne. There will be a lot in their views that a Muslim and a Christian could agree to and from there one begins to discuss the agreements and the disagreements. The Holy Quran states:

Say, ‘O People of the Book! come to a word equal between us and you — that we worship none but Allah, and that we associate no partner with Him, and that some of us take not others for Lords beside Allah.’ But if they turn away, then say, ‘Bear witness that we have submitted to God.’ (Al Quran 3:65)

About March 1, 1790, Benjamin Franklin wrote the following in a letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale, who had asked him his views on religion:

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho’ it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble. (Carl Van Doren. Benjamin Franklin. New York: The Viking Press, 1938, p. 777.)

Natural religion might have the following meanings:

A synonym for “natural theology”; religion based on reason and ordinary experience rather than supernatural revelation, although not necessarily denying it. This usage was popular in the 18th and 19th centuries— see, for example, David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.
In the modern study of religion it’s used to refer to the notion that there is some sort of natural, spontaneous religious apprehension of the world common to all human beings.

For some related details also see my articles about President Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deism (pronounced /ˈdiːɪzəm/, us dict: dē′·ĭzm)[1][2] is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for either faith or organized religion. Many Deists reject the notion that God intervenes in human affairs, for example through miracles and revelations. These views contrast with the dependence on revelations, miracles, and faith found in many Jewish, Christian, Islamic and other theistic teachings.

Deists typically reject most supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and tend to assert that God (or “The Supreme Architect“) has a plan for the universe that is not altered either by God intervening in the affairs of human life or by suspending the natural laws of the universe. What organized religions see as divine revelation and holy books, most deists see as interpretations made by other humans, rather than as authoritative sources.

Deism became prominent in the 17th and 18th centuries during the Age of Enlightenment, especially in what is now the United Kingdom, France, United States and Ireland, mostly among those raised as Christians who found they could not believe in either a triune God, the divinity of Jesus, miracles, or the inerrancy of scriptures, but who did believe in one god. It included some of the Unitarian ideas that emerged with Socinianism around 1574. Initially deism did not form any congregations, but in time it strongly influenced other religious groups, such as Unitarianism and Universalism. Many ideas of modern secularism were developed by deists. Two forms of deism currently exist: classical deism and modern deism.

Contents

[hide]

Overview

Deism is a theological position (though encompassing a wide variety of view-points) concerning God’s relationship with the natural world which emerged during the scientific revolution of seventeenth century Europe and came to exert a powerful influence during the eighteenth century enlightenment. By virtue of this, deism as a theological doctrine has had a great influence on the character of the modern world. Deism stood between the narrow dogmatism of the period and skepticism, they rejected atheism,[3] but often were called “atheists” by more traditional theists.[4] 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.[5]

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 that he configured when he created all things. God is thus conceived to be wholly transcendent and never immanent. 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 can also refer to a personal set of beliefs having to do with the role of nature in spirituality.[6]

Deism can be a belief in a deity absent of any doctrinal governance or precise definition of the nature of such a deity. Deism bears a relationship to naturalism. As such Deism gives credit for the formation of life and the universe to a higher power that by design allows only natural processes to govern creation.

The words deism and theism are both derived from the word god:

  • The root of the word deism is the Latin word deus, which means “god”.
  • The root of the word theism is the Greek word theos (θεός), which also means “god”.
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.[7]

A helpful discussion of deism, theism, and other positions on divine beings can be found in the theism article.

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 Dictionnaire entry Viret. Viret, a Calvinist, regarded deism as a new form of Italian heresy.[8] 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.[8]

In England, the term deist first appeared in Robert Burton’s The Anatomy of Melancholy (1621).[9]

Lord Herbert of Cherbury (d. 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 America.

Features of deism

Critical and constructive deism

The concept of deism covers a wide variety of positions on a wide variety of religious issues. Following Sir Leslie Stephen’sEnglish Thought in the Eighteenth Century, most commentators agree that two features constituted the core of deism: Critical elements of deist thought included:

  • Rejection of all religions based on books that claim to contain the revealed word of God.
  • Rejection of reports of miracles, prophecies and religious “mysteries”.

Constructive elements of deist thought included:

  • God exists, created and governs the universe.
  • God gave humans the ability to reason.
  • God wants human beings to behave morally.

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, e.g., 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 was 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,[10] “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[11]

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.

Concepts of “reason”

“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 a proposition… 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…
—Matthew Tindal,  Christianity as Old as the Creation (II)[12]

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….
—Matthew Tindal, Christianity as Old as the Creation (II)[13]

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.[14]

I hope to make it appear that the use of reason is not so dangerous in religionas 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.[15]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,[16] or to our common notions,[17] 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 of transubstantiation, 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 Oeconomies, 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

Thomas Hobbes – an early deist[citation needed] 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; andthat 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

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.

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.
—Matthew Tindal, Christianity as Old as the Creation (XIV)[18]

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

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: the view that everything in the universe – including human behavior – is completely causally determined by antecedent circumstances and natural law. (See, e.g., La Mettrie’s L’Homme machine.) As a consequence, debates about freedom versus determinism 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 necessitarianism. Reflecting the intellectual climate of the time, there were differences among deists about freedom and necessity. Some, such as Anthony Collins, actually were necessitarians.

Beliefs about immortality of the soul

Deists held a variety of beliefs about the soul. Some, such as Lord Herbert of Cherbury and William Wollaston,[19] 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 were agnostic about the immortality of the soul:

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.
Thomas PaineThe Age of Reason, Part I, Recapitulation

Still others such as Anthony Collins,[20] Bolingbroke, Thomas Chubb, and Peter Annet were materialists and either denied or doubted the immortality of the soul.[21]

Deist terminology

Deist authors – and 17th- and 18th-century theologians in general – referred to God using a variety of vivid circumlocutions such as:

Historical background

Deistic thinking has existed since ancient times. Among the Ancient Greeks, Heraclitus conceived of God as the logos, roughly speaking, the supreme rational principle that governs the universe, while Plato envisaged God as the Demiurge or ‘craftsman’. And, outside of ancient Greece, many other ancient cultures have also expressed similar views. 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.[23]

The discovery of diversity

The humanist tradition of the Renaissance included a revival of interest in Europe’s classical past in Greece and Rome. With study of the past came a growing awareness that the world in which the classical authors lived was quite different from the present.

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.

“Life and works of Confucius”, by Prospero Intorcetta, 1687.

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.[24][25]

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.

This new awareness of diversity led to a feeling that Christianity was just one religion among many, with no better claim than any other to correctness.

Religious conflict

Europe had been plagued by vicious 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 sectarian violence inspired a visceral rejection of the sectarianism that had led to the violence.[citation needed] It also 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

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 authority and to the religious authorities, Galileo’s condemnation for heresy being an especially visible 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 matters of science.

Isaac Newton’s discovery of universal gravitation explained the behavior both of objects here on earth and of objects in the heavens. It promoted a world view 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. (See the Watchmaker analogy.)

The new awareness of the explanatory power of universal natural law also produced a growing skepticism about such religious staples as miracles (i.e., violations of natural law) and about books, such as the Bible, that reported them.

The history of deism

Precursors of deism

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 as Richard Simon and Isaac La Peyrère, paved the way for the development of critical deism.

Early deism

For main article, see English and French Deism in the Eighteenth Century

Edward Herbert, portrait by Isaac Oliver (1560–1617)

Lord 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.[26][27]

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.

In the realm of religion, Herbert believed that there were five common notions.[3]

  • 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

It is worth quoting Herbert at some length, to give the flavor of his writing. A sense of the importance that Herbert attributed to innate Common Notions will help in understanding how devastating Locke’s attack on innate ideas was for 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 in metempsychosis, 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.”[28]

John Locke

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.[29]

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.

The rise of British deism (1690–1740)

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 Middleton’s Free Inquiry signalized its close.”[30]

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.
—Peter Gay,  Deism: An Anthology[30]

Other prominent British deists included William Wollastson, Charles Blount, Anthony Ashley-Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury (who did not think of himself as a deist, but shared so many attitudes with deists that Gay calls him “a Deist in fact, if not in name,”[31]) and Henry St John, First Viscount Bolingbroke. (This last was a patron of Jonathan Swift, who regardless disagreed with his deist views by dint of being in holy orders in the Church of Ireland.)

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. .
—Peter Gay,  Deism: An Anthology[32]

Matthew Tindal

Dr Matthew Tindal

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’.”[33] 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

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.[32] Furthermore, some writers maintain that Hume’s writings on religion were not very influential at the time that they were published.[34]

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 its implications for deism, the Natural History of Religion (1757) may be Hume’s most interesting work. In it, 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 observed:[35]

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.[36]

Continental European deism

Voltaire at age 24
by Nicolas de Largillière

English deism, in the words of Peter Gay, “travelled well. … As Deism waned in England, it waxed in France and the German states.”[37]

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 was Voltaire, 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

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 the principle of religious freedom expressed 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, John Adams, possibly Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen [38] and Thomas Paine (who published The Age of Reason, a treatise that helped to popularize deism throughout America and Europe). Elihu Palmer (1764–1806) 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.[39] [40] Particularly heated is the debate over the beliefs of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington.[41] [42][43]

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.”[44] [45]

For his part, Thomas Jefferson is perhaps one of the Founding Fathers with the most outspoken of Deist tendencies, though he more often referred 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.

The decline of deism

Deism is generally considered to have declined as an influential school of thought by around 1800. It is probably more accurate, however, to say that deism evolved into, and contributed to, other religious movements. The term deist became used rarely, but deist beliefs, ideas, and influences did not. They can be seen in 19th-century liberal British theology and in the rise of Unitarianism, which adopted many of its beliefs and ideas. Even today, there are a number of deistic Web sites.Several factors contributed to a general decline in the popularity of deism, including:

  • 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[47]
  • 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[47]

Deism today

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/category of belief of “deism”. The Modern Deism web site includes one list of the unofficial tenets of modern deism.

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 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, is a convert from atheism, and Raymond Fontaine was a Roman Catholic priest for over 20 years.

The 2001 American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) survey, 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.[48] [49]

Modern deistic organizations and websites

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 www.deism.com . In 1998 http://www.sullivan-county.com[50] was the Virginia/Tennessee affiliate of http://www.deism.com and the second oldest Deism site on the web. Instead of engaging in constant attacks on Christianity and Judaism, split from Deism.com to promote more traditional and historical deist’ beliefs and history. From this effort, many other deist sites and discussion groups have appeared on the Internet such as Positive Deism, Deist Info, Modern Deism and many others. In the last few years, the Deist Alliance was created so that many of the sites on the internet could come together to support each other and advocate deism. The Deist Alliance has its own quarterly newsletter that is written by members and readers.

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.

Subcategories of deism

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, 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 (Prime Mover).

Pandeism

Main articles: Pandeism and Pantheism

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:

Plinius, den man, wo nicht Svinozisten, doch einen Pandeisten nennen konnte, ist Natur oder Gott kein von der Welt getrenntes oder abgesondertes Wesen. Seine Natur ist die ganze Schöpfung im Konfreto, und eben so scheint es mit seiner Gottheit beschaffen zu seyn.[51]

Here Gottfried says that Pliny is not Spinozist, but ‘could be called a Pandeist’ whose nature-God ‘is not separate from the world. It is nature, it is the whole creation, and it seems to be designed with 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?)[52]

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”.[53]

[edit] Panendeism

Panendeism combines deism with panentheism, the belief that the universe is part of God, but not all of God. A central[citation needed] component of Panendeism is “Experiential Metaphysics” – the idea that a mystical component exists within the framework of Panendeism,[vague] allowing the seeker to experience a relationship to Deity through meditation, prayer or some other type of communion.[54] This is a major departure from Classical Deism.

A 1995 news article includes an early usage of the term by Jim Garvin, a Vietnam vet who became a Trappist monk in the Holy Cross Abbey of Berryville, Virginia, and went on to lead the economic development of Phoenix, Arizona. 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…”[55]

The term “panendeism” appeared again in 2001 on a website[54] developed by Larry Copling in Dallas, Texas. Copling used the term while developing a more deistic interpretation of the panentheistic approach to understanding the Deity. Copling wrote a more complete description of panendeism in a 2008 article.[citation needed] The original ideology known as “PanenDeism” continues in its present development.[vague]

Unbalanced scales.svg
A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia’s content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (July 2009)

Spiritual Deism

Spiritual Deismis the religious and philosophical belief in one indefinable, omnipresent god who is the cause and/or the substance 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, contemplation, and prayer. 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 and in man. 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.

Spiritual Deists are likely to label themselves “Spiritual But Not Religious.”

Opinions on prayer

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.[56]

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 (i.e., “Thank you for …”) rather than supplicative (i.e., “Please God grant me …”).[57]
  • 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.

Alexander Pope, generally considered to have deistic sympathies, composed a poem he called “The Universal Prayer.[58]

See also

References

  1. ^ R. E. Allen (ed) (1990). The Concise Oxford Dictionary. Oxford University Press.
  2. ^ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deist
  3. ^ a b Justo L. González (1984). The Reformation to the present day. HarperCollins. pp. 190–. ISBN 9780060633165. http://books.google.com/books?id=GWoHUb5qQccC&pg=PA190. Retrieved 14 August 2010.
  4. ^ Joseph C. McLelland; Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion (November 1988). Prometheus rebound: the irony of atheism. Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press. pp. 85–. ISBN 9780889209749. http://books.google.com/books?id=y0LP9AiNS_wC&pg=PA83. Retrieved 14 August 2010.
  5. ^ James E. Force; Richard Henry Popkin (1990). Essays on the context, nature, and influence of Isaac Newton’s theology. Springer. pp. 43–. ISBN 9780792305835. http://books.google.com/books?id=modLIHCBCIoC&pg=PA43. Retrieved 14 August 2010.
  6. ^ http://moderndeism.com/html/deism_defined.html
  7. ^ Orr, John (1934). English Deism: Its Roots and Its Fruits. Eerdmans. pp. 13.
  8. ^ a b See the article on the history of Deism in the online Dictionary of the History of Ideas.
  9. ^ Reill, Peter Hanns; Ellen Judy Wilson (1996). Encyclopedia of the Enlightenment. Facts On File. article: Deism.
  10. ^ Waring, E. Graham (1967). Deism and Natural Religion: A Source Book. Introduction, p. xv.
  11. ^ Willey, Basil (1940). The Eighteenth Century Background. pp. 11.
  12. ^ Gay, Peter (1968). Deism: An Anthology. Van Nostrand. pp. 114 ff..
  13. ^ Waring, E. Graham (1967). Deism and Natural Religion: A Source Book. pp. 113.
  14. ^ Quoted in Deism and Natural Religion: A Source Book, pp. 1–12
  15. ^ Some mysteries are “above” reason rather than “contrary” to it. This was Locke’s position.
  16. ^ Note the reference to Descartes’ “clear and distinct ideas”
  17. ^ Note the reference to Lord Herbert of Cherbury’s “common notions”
  18. ^ Waring, E. Graham (1967). Deism and Natural Religion: A Source Book. pp. 163.
  19. ^ Orr, John (1934). English Deism: Its Roots and Its Fruits. Eerdmans. pp. 137.
  20. ^ Orr, John (1934). English Deism: Its Roots and Its Fruits. Eerdmans. pp. 134.
  21. ^ Orr, John (1934). English Deism: Its Roots and Its Fruits. Eerdmans. pp. 78.
  22. ^ Benjamin Franklin – Constitutional Convention Address on Prayer
  23. ^ The discussion of the background of deism is based on the excellent summary in “The Challenge of the Seventeenth Century” in The Historical Jesus Question by Gregory W. Dawes (Westminster: John Knox Press, 2001). Good discussions of individual deist writers can be found in The Seventeenth Century Background and The Eighteenth Century Background by Basil Willey.
  24. ^ “Windows into China”, John Parker, p.25, ISBN 0890730504
  25. ^ “The Eastern origins of Western civilization”, John Hobson, p194-195, ISBN 0521547245
  26. ^ Willey, Basil (1934). The Seventeenth Century Background.
  27. ^ Orr, John (1934). English Deism: Its Roots and Its Fruits. pp. 59 ff..
  28. ^ Gay, Peter (1968). Deism: An Anthology. Van Nostrand. pp. 47–48.
  29. ^ Orr, John (1934). English Deism: Its Roots and Its Fruits. Eerdmans. pp. 96–99.
  30. ^ a b Gay, Peter (1968). Deism: An Anthology. Van Nostrand. pp. 9–10.
  31. ^ Gay, Peter (1968). Deism: An Anthology. Van Nostrand. pp. 78–79.
  32. ^ a b Gay, Peter (1968). Deism: An Anthology. Van Nostrand. pp. 140.
  33. ^ Waring, E. Graham (1967). Deism and Natural Religion: A Source Book. pp. 107.
  34. ^ Orr, John (1934). English Deism: Its Roots and Its Fruits. Eerdmans. pp. 173.
  35. ^ Waring, E. Graham (1967). Deism and Natural Religion: A Source Book. Introduction, p. xv.
  36. ^ Russell, Paul (2005). “Hume on Religion”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-religion/. Retrieved 2009-12-17.
  37. ^ Gay, Peter (1968). Deism: An Anthology. Van Nostrand. pp. 143.
  38. ^ “Excerpts from Allen’s Reason The Only Oracle Of Man. Ethan Allen Homestead Museum. http://www.ethanallenhomestead.org/history/oracle.htm#excerpts.
  39. ^ “The Deist Minimum”. First Things. 2005. http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0501/articles/dulles.htm.
  40. ^ Holmes, David (2006). The Faiths of the Founding Fathers. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 0195300920.
  41. ^ David Liss (11 June 2006). “”The Founding Fathers Solving modern problems, building wealth and finding God.””. Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060801123.html.
  42. ^ Gene Garman (2001). Was Thomas Jefferson a Deist?. Sullivan-County.com. http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/jefferson_deist.htm.
  43. ^ Walter Isaacson (March-April, 2004). Benjamin Franklin: An American Life. Skeptical Inquirer. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090213/pg_1.
  44. ^ Franklin, Benjamin (2005). Benjamin Franklin: Autobiography, Poor Richard, and Later Writings. New York, NY: Library of America. pp. 619. ISBN 1883011531.
  45. ^ “Benjamin Franklin, Autobiography”. University of Maine, Farmington. http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~walters/web%20103/Ben%20Franklin.htm.
  46. ^ a b c “English Deism”. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2006. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/d/deismeng.htm#Hume%27s%20Influence. Retrieved 2009-12-16.
  47. ^ a b c d e f Mossner, Ernest Campbell (1967). “Deism”. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 2. Collier-MacMillan. pp. 326–336.
  48. ^ “ARIS key findings, 2001”. http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/key_findings.htm.
  49. ^ “Largest Religious Groups in the United States of America”. Adherents.com. http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html.
  50. ^ Deism and Reason
  51. ^ Große, Gottfried (1787). Naturgeschichte: mit erläuternden Anmerkungen.
  52. ^ Moritz Lazarus and Heymann Steinthal, Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft (1859), p. 262.
  53. ^ Charles Hartshorne, Man’s Vision of God and the Logic of Theism (1964) p. 348 ISBN 0-208-00498-X.
  54. ^ a b Welcome to PanenDeism.com
  55. ^ Albuquerque Journal, Saturday, November 11, 1995, B-10.
  56. ^ External link to portion of text
  57. ^ Deism Defined, Welcome to Deism, Deist Glossary and Frequently Asked Questions
  58. ^ Alexander Pope “Universal Prayer”

Bibliography

Today, the most accessible statement of Deism is Thomas Paine’s book The Age of Reason (1795). It is short, readable, and witty. It is still in print and is also downloadable in electronic format from various Web sites including the site of the World Union of Deists.

Elihu Palmer’s outstanding book on Deism, The Principles of Nature, can also be found for free at the site of the World Union of Deists.

The most recent book on Deism, Deism: A Revolution in Religion, A Revolution in You is available through major book retailers and also through the site of the World Union of Deists.

A comprehensive recent study of English deism is:

  • The Radical Rhetoric of the English Deists: The Discourse of Skepticism, 1680-1750 by James A. Herrick (University of South Carolina Press, 1997)

Important discussions of deism can be found in:

  • English Deism: Its Roots and Its Fruits by John Orr (1934)
  • European Thought in the Eighteenth Century by Paul Hazard (1946, English translation 1954)
  • A History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century by Sir Leslie Stephen, 2 volumes (1876, 3rd ed. 1902)
  • A History of Freethought: Ancient and modern, to the period of the French revolution by John Mackinnon Robertson (1915)

Other studies of deism include:

  • Early Deism in France: From the so-called ‘deistes’ of Lyon (1564) to Voltaire’s ‘Lettres philosophiques’ (1734) by C. J. Betts (Martinus Nijhoff, 1984)
  • The Seventeenth Century Background: Studies on the Thought of the Age in Relation to Poetry and Religion by Basil Willey (1934)
  • The Eighteenth Century Background: Studies on the Idea of Nature in the Thought of the Period by Basil Willey (1940)
  • Simon Tyssot de Patot and the Seventeenth-Century Background of Critical Deism by David Rice McKee (Johns Hopkins Press, 1941)
  • The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus During the Deist Controversy by William Lane Craig (Edwin Mellen, 1985)

Anthologies of deist writings include:

  • Deism: An Anthology by Peter Gay (Van Nostrand, 1968)
  • Deism and Natural Religion: A Source Book by E. Graham Waring (Frederick Ungar, 1967)

External links

Look up deism in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Deism

[edit] Informational links

[edit] Early history of deism

[edit] Works by Thomas Paine

[show]Articles Related to Deism
[show]

v • d • e

Theism

List of philosophical theories
[show]

v • d • e

Figures in the Age of Enlightenment by country

[show]Notable figures
United States
Prussia and Saxe-Weimar
England
Scotland
France
Italy
Spain
Portugal
Poland
Russia
Latin America
[hide]Related topics
[show]

v • d • e

Philosophy of religion

Related articles
Concepts in religion
Theories of religion
Philosophers
of religion

Albrecht Ritschl • Alvin Plantinga • Anselm of Canterbury • Antony Flew • Anthony Kenny • Augustine of Hippo • Averroes • Baron d’Holbach • Baruch Spinoza • Blaise Pascal • Bertrand Russell • Boethius • David Hume • Desiderius Erasmus • Emil Brunner • Ernst Cassirer • Ernst Haeckel • Ernst Troeltsch • Friedrich Schleiermacher • Friedrich Nietzsche • Gaunilo of Marmoutiers • Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel • George Santayana • Harald Høffding • Heraclitus • Jean-Luc Marion • Lev Shestov • Ludwig Wittgenstein • Martin Buber • Mircea Eliade • Immanuel Kant • J. L. Mackie • Johann Gottfried Herder • Karl Barth • Ludwig Feuerbach • Maimonides • Paul Tillich • Pavel Florensky • Peter Geach • Pico della Mirandola • Reinhold Niebuhr • René Descartes • Richard Swinburne • Robert Merrihew Adams • Rudolf Otto • Søren Kierkegaard • Sergei Bulgakov • Thomas Aquinas • Thomas Chubb • Vladimir Solovyov • William Alston • William James • William Lane Craig • W.K. Clifford • William L. Rowe • William Whewell • William Wollaston • more …

Existence of god
[show]

v • d • e

Theology

Outline of theology
Apologetics
General
Bahá’í
Christian
Muslim
Conceptions of God
Divine presence
God as the
God in
Singular God
Binitarianism
Trinitarianism
Other
Eschatology
Existence of God
arguments against
from
other
arguments for
from
other
Opposition to religion
Anti-
Other
Theism
Theologies
Other
Seminaries and
theological colleges
Resources
Practitioners

6 Comments

Comments RSS
  1. Zia H. Shah

    A few quotes from Thomas Payne
    It is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what one does not believe. It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]

    The Bible is a book that has been read more and examined less than any book that ever existed. [The Theological Works of Thomas Paine]

    Every phrase and cirsumstance are marked with the barbarous hand of superstitious torture, and forced into meanings it was impossible they could have. The head of every chapter, and the top of every page, are blazoned with the names of Christ and the Church, that the unwary reader might suck in the error before he began to read. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, p.131]

    Priests and conjurors are of the same trade. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]

    The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]

    Take away from Genesis the belief that Moses was the author, on which only the strange believe that it is the word of God has stood, and there remains nothing of Genesis but an anonymous book of stories, fables, and traditionary or invented absurdities, or of downright lies. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]

  2. Zia H. Shah

    Karl Barth Neo-Orthodox or Orthodox?

    His precursor is Soren Kierkgaard.

    Karl Barth (May 10, 1886 (1886-05-10) – December 10, 1968) (pronounced “Bart”) was a Swiss Reformed theologian whom critics hold to be among the most important Christian thinkers of the 20th century; Pope Pius XII described him as the most important theologian since Thomas Aquinas. Beginning with his experience as a pastor, he rejected his training in the predominant liberal theology typical of 19th-century European Protestantism. Instead he embarked on a new theological path initially called dialectical theology, due to its stress on the paradoxical nature of divine truth (e.g., God’s relationship to humanity embodies both grace and judgment). Other critics have referred to Barth as the father of neo-orthodoxy — a term emphatically rejected by Barth himself. The most accurate description of his work might be “a theology of the Word.” Barth’s theological thought emphasized the sovereignty of God, particularly through his innovative doctrine of election.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Barth

  3. Zia H. Shah

    Book of the week: Age of Reason by Thomas Paine in the Islamic light

    Mark Twain said, “It took a brave man before the Civil War to confess he had read the Age of Reason … I read it first when I was a cub pilot, read it with fear and hesitation, but marveling at its fearlessness and wonderful power.” In 18th century Thomas Paine was a believer and preacher of Deism and a great writer and philosopher and I will over time create his Muslim version for our times.
    In studying him, his Deism, Islam and Christianity, side by side, some of our Christian brethren and sisters are more likely to appreciate reality. In noting what is common and what is different between the three religions, Deism, Islam and Christianity, our reason, belief and prejudices may be shaken and jolted enough to restore a natural and reasonable order. Allow me to use a rather crude analogy, reading Thomas Paine can restore logic and reason like electro-convulsive therapy (ECT) can re-establish mood in major depression. Unlike ECT, anesthesia is not required in reading Paine or my articles!
    I will precisely reproduce his whole book and comment where his Deism and Islam completely agree with each other and augment each other and where they would differ, in so doing a Christian may find a more palatable transition to Islam. Paine’s criticism of revelation perfectly applies to the Bible but not to the Holy Quran. The former is not preserved over time, and even the language that Jesus spoke namely Aramaic is extinct, the same cannot be said about the Quran. The canonical Gospels were written in Greek or Hebrew decades after Jesus crucifixion, while the Holy Quran was written within the life time of the Prophet Muhammad and compiled within two years of his demise. So, the critical analysis of Paine about verbal revelation applies to the Bible but not to the Quran. However, Paine’s claim against revelation is completely true in as much as there should not be any contradiction between the testimony of work of God and verbal revelation, His words. If the two contradict, the testimony of nature takes precedence, as reflected in the European history of the time of Galileo Galilee.
    In his book at times Paine criticizes Islam also, but it should be read as his condemnation of Ottoman’s corruption and his lack of knowledge of Islam. His criticism of the Christian dogma on the other hand is insightful, well founded and consequential, as he was very well familiar and experienced with all things Christianity!

    http://www.themuslimtimes.org/2011/12/religion/christianity/book-of-the-week-age-of-reason-by-thomas-paine-in-the-islamic-light

  4. Zia H. Shah

    Rudolf Karl Bultmann
    Rudolf Karl Bultmann (August 20, 1884 – July 30, 1976) was a German theologian of Lutheran background, who was for three decades professor of New Testament studies at the University of Marburg. He defined an almost complete split between history and faith, called demythology, writing that only the bare fact of Christ crucified was necessary for Christian faith.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bultmann

  5. Zia H. Shah

    Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher
    Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (German pronunciation: [ˈʃlaɪɐmaxɐ]) (November 21, 1768 – February 12, 1834) was a German theologian and philosopher known for his impressive attempt to reconcile the criticisms of the Enlightenment with traditional Protestant orthodoxy. He also became influential in the evolution of Higher Criticism. His work also forms part of the foundation of the modern field of hermeneutics. Because of his profound impact on subsequent Christian thought, he is often called the “Father of Modern Protestant Theology.” The Neo-Orthodoxy movement of the twentieth century, represented most prominently by Karl Barth, was in many ways an attempt to overturn his influence.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Daniel_Ernst_Schleiermacher

  6. Zia H. Shah

    Einstein’s God according to Michael Shermer
    Albert Einstein famously opined, “God is cunning but He is not malicious.” And: “God does not play dice.” When asked his motivation for doing physics, Einstein replied: “I want to know how God created the world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.” In the final weeks of his life, when Einstein learned of the death of his old physicist friend Michele Besso, he wrote the Besso family: “He has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. For us believing physicists, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubborn illusion.”

    What did Einstein mean by “God” playing dice, or “us believing physicists”? Was he speaking literally or metaphorically? Did he mean belief in the models of theoretical physics that make no distinction between past, present, and future? Did he mean belief in some impersonal force that exists above such time constraints? Was he just being polite and consoling to Besso’s family? Such is the enigma of the most well-known scientist in history whose fame was such that nearly everything he wrote or said was scrutinized for its meaning and import; thus, it is easy to yank such quotes out of context and spin them in any direction one desires.

    When he turned 50, Einstein granted an interview in which he was asked point-blank, do you believe in God? “I am not an atheist,” he began. “The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.”

    That almost sounds like Einstein is attributing the laws of the universe to a god of some sort. But what type of god? A personal deity or some impersonal force? To a Colorado banker who wrote and asked him the God question, Einstein responded: “I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals or would sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we can comprehend about the knowable world. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”

    http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/columns/michael-shermer/einstein%E2%80%99s-god

    Shermer is painting a picture of Einstein being a deist, like President Thomas Jefferson and many of the Founding Fathers of USA. This is helpful as it defies the claim of some atheists that Einstein was one of them. Einstein denied Personal God but all his life continued a deep involvement with the Jewish tradition, so in some subtle ways he subscribed to the Personal God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aron, David, and Jeremiah.

    I have provided a more complete and detailed analysis of Einstein’s religion in a different article:

    http://www.themuslimtimes.org/2011/12/religion/albert-einsteins-search-for-god

    Once a seeker properly understands Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aron, David, and Jeremiah, he or she is ready to appreciate Jesus and Muhammad, in their true colors. May peace be on all the Prophets of Allah!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: