Modern Deism vs "classical" Deism

What do you think is the main difference between Modern Deism and "Classical" Deism?

Modern Deists believe there is no objective Truth and therefore it can be anything they want to believe with the ultimate objective of not offending anyone. Classical Deists believe in facing the painful Truth, which is wherever the evidence and facts may lead.

OK, so I embellished a little.

I consider myself to be a "modern deist", yet I believe in objective truth so I'll have to disagree with you there.

Don't I remember you defending Christian (in the supernatural sense) deism? Or let me ask it this way, what differentiates you from classical deism?

The Paineful Truth wrote:

Don't I remember you defending Christian (in the supernatural sense) deism?

No, I don't think that was me. At least not in a supernatural sense.

The Paineful Truth wrote:

Or let me ask it this way, what differentiates you from classical deism?

That's a good question. I'll have to get back to you later on it though because I don't have the time to answer it properly right now.

The Paineful Truth wrote:

What differentiates you from classical deism?

I was going to write a long post about the beliefs of the various groups of classical deists and how and where those beliefs came from, and then I was going to compare and contrast those beliefs with mine. But then it occurred to me that there's really no need to go into all of that detail because the difference is really very simple.

I see existence as divine in and of itself. I think most of the classical deists viewed existence as a creation of the divine.

Quote :

Modern Deists believe there is no objective Truth and therefore it can be anything they want to believe with the ultimate objective of not offending anyone. Classical Deists believe in facing the painful Truth, which is wherever the evidence and facts may lead.

Well I looked up the word prejudicial in the dictionary and that paragraph was listed as one of the examples!!!