United Deist Church

Does anyone remember this logo?



Do you think the idea of a "United Deist Church" was a bad one? Could it ever work out?

I think just calling it a church is a bad idea; too many negative connotations. Ditto the lame word "fellowship". Home, hall, table or some such symbol of gathering would, I think, be better.

I'm not averse to the idea of regular meetings of deists, but there just aren't enough of us, and the ones there are are more independent, so that the success of such enterprises is often disappointing.

Once again, however, the biggest obstacle to such a communal endeavor is defining what a deist is in the first place.

Yeah, I think it could.

But because of low numbers, as Paine correctly points out, and because of the uniqueness of our understanding of the sacred it would have to have a creative format, probably starting out as an internet church. I t hink DAvidium at the beginning had the right idea with much more than a discussion forum, including sermons, etc.
Hell if quacks like Benny Hinn can become superstars for Jesus, there must be a demand out there for our vision.

I suggest starting as an internet-based group (call it what you will). There could be so much more than just the forums, such as sermons etc. From that point two things could happen. Small cluster could get together regularly. Plus larger meetings could be organized involving conferences, retreats etc.

Could be done, yep.

First place to start would be an internet org. simply because it's such a unique modern gateway. Build it and they will come.

When someone finds a forum like this, the usual response is "I'm so glad I found you!" There are probably many more Deists out there, but most don't know it. The advantages of being an independent thinker are too numerous to list, but one of the disadvantages is that you are often very much alone.

I think the Internet provides a better chance of reaching people than a brick-and-mortar building does, but there has to be a better term than "church". That has a connotation that would scare off a lot of free-thinkers!

That's why some UU congregations don't call themselves churches (except when communicating with the IRS, of course).

A funny story regarding labels: My brother is a Calvary Chapel pastor. (Obviously, we don't agree on much but we are still brothers). Calvary Chapel started on the west coast and is pretty well-known there, but he went to New Hampshire to open a new church. After advertising his Calvary Chapel and after no one showed up for Sunday services, he decided to change the name because most of the calls he received were from people wanting to rent the chapel for their weddings! That's what "chapel" meant to people in New Hampshire.

You can't change people's perceptions with the same old language. Free-thinkers don't go to "churches".

Quote :

Do you think the idea of a "United Deist Church" was a bad one? Could it ever work out?

I once thought it might work, but now I'm not sure the world is ready for a formal Deist religion. If you are really set on starting an "internet church", I suggest you first study the brief history of Universism. For those who never heard of it, Universism grew out of a Deist website. It then broadened its focus to include self-labeled freethinkers in general: Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, Theists, Buddhists, Wiccans, etc. The only common denominator was an aversion to blind faith and dogmatic doctrine. Some yearned for a secular spirituality, while others gagged at the very idea of spirituality.

The Universist movement grew rapidly to over 8000 online members, and local fellowship groups in several major cities. The leader aggressively promoted the Universism philosophy online and in traditional media. He staged some publicity events and got write-ups in LA and New York papers. He even got a visit from a CNN news crew.

Sadly, at the point where it seemed that Universism might actually become a real church with a real mission, everything fell apart. The split seemed to fall along the line between politics and religion---or between anti-fundamentalism and pro-spirituality. Some members wanted local meetings, social ministries, and charities. Other members were repelled by the very idea of a formalized religion. Some were willing to follow a dynamic leader, but others accused him of megalomania. In a short time the movement sputtered and died, in a fog of bitter accusations and muttered recriminations. A common lament at the time was, "organizing Freethinkers is like herding cats". . . .

After that experience, I decided that those who need close fellowship, social services and specific ministries (i.e those with small children) might as well attend a Unitarian church (if you don't mind their Christian roots, liberal politics and New Agey beliefs). Otherwise, a website such as this can serve as a virtual community, with prospects for distant fellowship, and it might even help to keep the flame of freethought alive, until the world catches-up with us.

Don't let me be a buzz-killer. But, as for me, Deism is my personal philosophical worldview, period.

Quote :

Don't let me be a buzz-killer.

Nah, that was an interesting observation. So was PA's.

Actually the logo (which is no longer visible for some reason) was from the initial incarnation of the UDC that Ford helped to start.

I think for any organization to work there needs to be some sort of head organizing committee. The UDC could have worked IMO however the committee turned out to be a committee of one and that one acted too erratically for the organization to ever take root.

I like the idea but instead of it being a place of worship it should be a place of reasoning together like we are now. I think also instead of trying to evangilize the world we should just educate them on deism and help them think more freely. I think calling it a church makes it sound like we will be teaching dogma. So, I prefer the word school because it would be a place of freethinking, learning, education, and reasoning together. Maybe call it," The United Deist School of Reason."

Schizophretard

The UDC could be kind of like a brach of the Theosophical Society (without the Santana Dharma beliefs), it could be arranged around topics of mutual interest for its members, have regular discussions about those topics and keep a local library.

The questions your posing have one general pupose it seems. To find a "name" or singl eword that define "a social network of reasoning persons dedicated to diest philosophy". To call it a church would be a supposed direct worship , whereas my understand is that Deism does not worship the creator directly but through how reason is used in guiding action towards Aristotles "virtue". I would lean towards terms such as "The Deist Collective" or "Family for Natural Reason".

Welcome Azillioin!

Yes, you're right, a Deist church would be so non-traditional that perhaps labeling it as a church might be counter productive!

Certainly aspects of a church that I would want in a similar Deist endeavour would be, in order of importance, goodworks; fellowship; and of course reasoned exploration of the sacred.

Cheers!

I like Deism, I'd hate for someone to ruin it by making a religion out of it.

Why do you say that? Its counterproductive unles you tamper the defenition of "religion". To engage a society of Deists to give or assist in direction as well as continue to learn and aspire for greater levels of virtue may be a "religion", but is that wrong in the slightest?
As for your quote Uriah, Kittrege I think is too extreme in his desires for a "society of "tenderness". The west has lost all sight of moderation. After having lost moderation, endeavors to reach unreasonable goals created a society lacking in society. To me more clear , we have given away control over socialization to maintain our lack of moderation. Moderation which , oddly enough, should be included in socialization.

Azillion wrote:

Why do you say that? Its counterproductive unles you tamper the defenition of "religion". To engage a society of Deists to give or assist in direction as well as continue to learn and aspire for greater levels of virtue may be a "religion", but is that wrong in the slightest?

Deism is a spiritual belief based on reason. Religious belief systems are, by their very nature, without reason - in that they require ritual and dogma, and foster intolerance.
You can start a Deist religion if you want, I will stay far from it.

Azillion wrote:

As for your quote Uriah, Kittrege I think is too extreme in his desires for a "society of "tenderness". The west has lost all sight of moderation. After having lost moderation, endeavors to reach unreasonable goals created a society lacking in society. To me more clear , we have given away control over socialization to maintain our lack of moderation. Moderation which , oddly enough, should be included in socialization.

Well, William Kitteredge is extreme because as a Westerner he realizes that we are very close, if not already past, a point of no return. He cherishes the simple beauty of what was, and what could have been if greed and economic enterprise had not been our sole motivators, and he feels a poignant sense of guilt at having been responsible for such.
Ideally, the West should never have been settled, especially not with huge, sprawling, concrete metropolises such as Salt Lake City, Phoenix, or Las Vegas. However, deluded Eastern notions of land and water rights, and a national hunger for geologic resources have been the main determining factors of Western character, and at this point in time drastic, 'extreme' measures must be taken because at the way things are going it's only a matter of time before the wells run dry.

Industrialization and growth is unevitable , so we must agree to disagree on that. As for religion. - to be what you call religion a group must "- in that they require ritual and dogma, and foster intolerance" Deism does in fact give creedence to a creator. Though uninvolved a creator does exist and I personally see religion as a group of peoples inspired by like beleifs together in search for betterment of humankind based on that beleif. Through reason flaws and can be found in other religions and their "profits" those are religions with faith in outward sources that go against reason. I see them as poor religions. I guess , as I thought I pointed out, it is all dependent on what you beleive a religion to be.

I'm not arguing against growth, but I am arguing against the ecologically blind, and unsustainable, manner in which it has been carried out - in the West and everywhere else.

As far as religion, I think you're being a tad Panglossian about it. As soon as you organize a belief system, one group will inevitably use it to control others - it's human nature.

Deism was born from Romanticism, and as such, those romantic - and wholly unrealistic - notions of human egalitarianism, and social enlightenment are never far from its heart.

I may agree with the idea that spirituality and reason are not mutually exclusive, but I hold no such romantic notions about the nature of the human race. Deism is too much work for most people, they want spiritual absolutisms.

You give people a religion, and it will become a system of control.


That's just my take on it, of course. And though history bears me out I'd love to be wrong.

Ah Uriah, how you must rue the day, centuries and centuries before even socrates was around, that mankind first domesticated the wild plants in the foothills of the great Zagros Mountains.

Indeed the world, then, was perfect. Almost Eden-like. No cities, no villages, no organized religions.

Just hunter gatherers all over the globe.

But these hunter gatherers at the foot of the Zagros mountains got a brilliant idea. They took the seed and planted it on the riverside of the great Tigris and Euphrates rivers, and lo, and behold, agriculture was born.

The hunter gatherers laid down their hats, built huts and became farmers.

Uriah's paradise shattered.

The once proud race of tarzans and janes destroyed by the fertile crescent.

For within the agricultural bounties of the fertile crescent came the trojan horse of civilization which beget fanatical religions and idiot kings.

And the proud bands of hunter gatherers - true free men, true free women - were no more!

I share your pain, Uriah

There is much truth in your jest Helium, more than you obviously give credence to.

And you can condescend your point of view if it pleases you, that's the fun part of Internets Forums. Lord knows I've done my fair share of trolling.

However, the case remains that civilization is indeed just as much a curse as it is a benefit, and whatever our origins may be, we are not now where we evolved to be. Civilization has taken control, much like Skynet (if you will). Whatever the nature of the first organized sedentary society, it most certainly mirrored the nature of the culture which created it.

Yet now, some 8000 years later (depending on what history book you trust) civilization no longer follows the nature of culture, instead we are on inside looking out, and our culture is in many ways determined by civilization. We are no longer masters of our creation, it has run amok on us - and the sad part is that most humans don't even realize it, and if they do acknowledge that fact for even a moment they quickly mythologize it, and pretend that surely we must be just where we are 'supposed' to be. Much like the alcoholic and his bottle.

Regardless, any objective, reasonable human being admits that we are in a precarious position at this point in time, and as I've said before if you are going to simply sweep aside the very real possibility of civilizational collapse you are making an extremely hasty generalization.

That's why religion (any religion), and the subsequent rationalizing mythology they wrap us in, is a danger to us all. We just might go on thinking all these benighted notions about God, and the purpose of creation, and still wind up causing our own extinction because we forgot how to live in nature.

Quote :

There is much truth in your jest Helium, more than you obviously give credence to.

And you can condescend your point of view if it pleases you, that's the fun part of Internets Forums. Lord knows I've done my fair share of trolling.

Yes me too. But lucky for you guys I just limit it to here now. Anyway, no condensation intended, not trying to rain on anyone's parade, just trying to be funny, which on average, both on the internet and at home, I'm about in the 2 out of 100 range. That's why I gotta keep trying so often!

Oh yes and i was also trying a bit to show off my knew found knowledge of the book I'm currently reading that I bought in the bargain bin...
Ancient Civilizations. The Illustrated Guide to Belief, Mythology and Art.

While it is sad that the races of this planet have seen fit detroy the resources they need before ensuring that the would not destroy that which made them. I concede that mankind should while growing give more care to the world we live in. We are where we are though. So to our current situations arguments must be placed not in the past. How can we stop the cycle of destruction. I say with Direction. Learned minds must edeavor to solve these issues. Allow our technology to guide to a more reasonable outcome. As for what began this discussion... Deist should be able to confeer in reason and guide like minds in ways best to better humankind in as much as can be done.

Learned minds must edeavor to solve these issues.

Yes, always a difficult challenge, though, when the masses are more into, what is that saying, beer, bread and their weekly gladiator matches at the coliseum. I guess that sounds a bit pompous and stuffy for me to be saying that though.

Uriah wrote:

However, the case remains that civilization is indeed just as much a curse as it is a benefit, and whatever our origins may be, we are not now where we evolved to be. Civilization has taken control, much like Skynet (if you will). Whatever the nature of the first organized sedentary society, it most certainly mirrored the nature of the culture which created it.

Yet now, some 8000 years later (depending on what history book you trust) civilization no longer follows the nature of culture, instead we are on inside looking out, and our culture is in many ways determined by civilization. We are no longer masters of our creation, it has run amok on us - and the sad part is that most humans don't even realize it, and if they do acknowledge that fact for even a moment they quickly mythologize it, and pretend that surely we must be just where we are 'supposed' to be. Much like the alcoholic and his bottle.

Regardless, any objective, reasonable human being admits that we are in a precarious position at this point in time, and as I've said before if you are going to simply sweep aside the very real possibility of civilizational collapse you are making an extremely hasty generalization.

That's why religion (any religion), and the subsequent rationalizing mythology they wrap us in, is a danger to us all. We just might go on thinking all these benighted notions about God, and the purpose of creation, and still wind up causing our own extinction because we forgot how to live in nature.

Interesting ideas, but while you rant against Religion (and that may be what all of us here have in common), your specific complaints seem better suited for an attack on Science!

Did Religion create the unnatural society in which we find ourselves, or was it Science that led us to believe that we could be masters of nature? Ironically, it was Religion that opposed the direction Science has taken.

Uriah wrote:

Deism is a spiritual belief based on reason. Religious belief systems are, by their very nature, without reason - in that they require ritual and dogma, and foster intolerance.
You can start a Deist religion if you want, I will stay far from it.
.

I have come to view Deism as a belief system for a rare breed of Platonic-philosopher-kings-in-waiting, who are highly motivated to control their natural, animal instincts with artificial, human reason. Unfortunately, such careful thinkers have always been outnumbered and outdone by the instinctive doers of the world, who prefer simplistic faith to complex reasoning. That's why elitist Plato, like Machiavelli, advocated controlling the human herds with pandering religion and "big lie" propaganda.

Although I can't deny the utility of popular religion, I personally can't justify leading with lies. So, for the time being, I too shy away from formalized faith communities. But that's easy for me to do, since I am a loner by nature. Those who are more sociable and gregarious couldn't live like that. So I haven't given up on finding a middle way between dogmatic religion-for-the-masses and freethinking philosophy-for-the-few.

Over the centuries many have tried to create such a paradoxical institution; only to see them wither away from lack of passion, or turn to lies and dogma to control unruly passions. Here's my attempt to define a freethinking religion of the future.

PROLIGION
Literally, a link to the future. ~ Religion is derived from the Greek terms for “link” or “connection” and “back” to the past. In other words religion-in-general is essentially about cultural Traditions, rather than any particular belief system. ~ Older religions had Tribal origins. Then their beliefs and traditions were expanded to suit National requirements, and later to serve Imperial functions. But so far, we don't have any truly global religion to serve the "spiritual" needs of all tribes, all nations, and all beliefs. ~ A Proligion will allow people of various traditions and beliefs to live to-gether in peace. All that's required is the re-definition of "Faith" to a non-dogmatic sense as a "collective belief system" that can evolve as impartial science does, gradually rather than once-and-for-all. ~ A Proligion will not require unity of belief, but merely unity of desire for elusive truth. If adherents of Proligion, like those of Science, can agree to disagree on the debatable details, perhaps we can keep moving toward the enticing, but unattainable goal of absolute, Objective Truth, both physical and metaphysical.

Paul Anthony wrote:

Uriah wrote:

However, the case remains that civilization is indeed just as much a curse as it is a benefit, and whatever our origins may be, we are not now where we evolved to be. Civilization has taken control, much like Skynet (if you will). Whatever the nature of the first organized sedentary society, it most certainly mirrored the nature of the culture which created it.

Yet now, some 8000 years later (depending on what history book you trust) civilization no longer follows the nature of culture, instead we are on inside looking out, and our culture is in many ways determined by civilization. We are no longer masters of our creation, it has run amok on us - and the sad part is that most humans don't even realize it, and if they do acknowledge that fact for even a moment they quickly mythologize it, and pretend that surely we must be just where we are 'supposed' to be. Much like the alcoholic and his bottle.

Regardless, any objective, reasonable human being admits that we are in a precarious position at this point in time, and as I've said before if you are going to simply sweep aside the very real possibility of civilizational collapse you are making an extremely hasty generalization.

That's why religion (any religion), and the subsequent rationalizing mythology they wrap us in, is a danger to us all. We just might go on thinking all these benighted notions about God, and the purpose of creation, and still wind up causing our own extinction because we forgot how to live in nature.

Interesting ideas, but while you rant against Religion (and that may be what all of us here have in common), your specific complaints seem better suited for an attack on Science!

Did Religion create the unnatural society in which we find ourselves, or was it Science that led us to believe that we could be masters of nature? Ironically, it was Religion that opposed the direction Science has taken.

Well, that's fair - but I would counter that scientific materialism is a religion in its own right.

I'm not clamoring against the tenets of any one religion - Christianity, Modernity, or otherwise.

I am addressing the basic ways in which we humans mythologize our epistemologies - and more specifically our definitions of truth and the sources from which those definitions come.

Science and "religion" are the same exact thing, rather they share the same human source - they are an attempt to answer the same questions, and to explain, define, and give meaning to our absurd existence.



Now, I understand - human society simply cannot function if everyone viewed it like I do. A world of Existential-Anarcho-Animist-Nihilists would not spend much time building upon the foundations of the past, but what can I say?

That's just me, I guess. A cynical inhumanist, through and through.

I can't fault anyone for seeing things their way, I just don't have that much faith in humanity.


Anyway, I think Gnomon captured my feelings in a much more agreeable manner. I have a tendency to write in a very confrontational style.

MOst importantly is that we use thos of all philosophical standings to underatand that 1) mankind must survive 2) In doing so mankind must act with virtue 3) No one person can make the race or humans act virtuously. 4) Only through reason directed toward the greater good can mankind survive.
TO these thoughts I would again mention moderation, fallibility etc etc as I have in my paper on the human consciousness. But The fact that we few can consider and reason through grand schemes shows that there is in fact hope for humankind regardless of current or past shortcomings we must look to the future. The creator does not intervene for within us lay the answers on how to do what is right. Religion or not , human kind deserves to have a coalition or individuals using reason to proper their race aside from political or "religous" practices.