Will we drop the ball?

This article from the Religious News Service had a couple of interesting points.

Quote :

... there is sociologist Christian Smith's study in which he finds today's young people practicing an aberrant form of Christianity that he calls "moralistic, therapeutic deism" - nice people having their personal needs met by a God who is there in case of emergency, like a parachute on an airplane. This is not Jesus' version of the faith.

I see that m/t deism is still making the rounds and is just as muddled as when it started. Whatever "moralistic, therapeutic" means, ostensibly the golden parachute, it shows a complete lack of understanding, probably intentional, of what deism is.

This second quote, quotes another Christian who says:

Quote :

"On the whole I do not find Christians, outside the catacombs, sufficiently sensible of the conditions," she said. "Does anybody have the foggiest idea what sort of power we so blithely invoke? Or, as I suspect, does no one believe a word of it?"

I find it interesting that even Christian commentators are coming to openly notice that many Christian pews are filled with those who are there for reasons other than spiritual salvation. She doesn't specify what she thinks the numbers of those "outside the catacombs" are, but I'm sure they are large and growing. If (when) this realization breaks through into the collective consciousness of the average "Christian", I believe there will be a major shift toward... something else, I'm not sure what. Will reason figure into it when the time comes, or will they just shift to some other irrational form of spiritual pablum like moralistic, therapeutic deism?

Will deists be there to promote reason, or will we, fractured as we be, be of little help--or worse?


http://www.biblicalrecorder.org/content/opinion/columnists/2008/03_11_2008/gc11032208no.shtml

I think our main problem is lack of numbers. There just aren't enough people out there willing or able to "spread the word".

Given the communications infrastructure available to us, I don't think that's much of a problem if/when Christians finally start going adrift in large numbers.

It is a much larger problem if we can't present a coherent vision that showcases the inherent value of reason via its application. If we can't, saying we value reason falls flat.

An outside observer coming even to this web site could conclude there is little difference between the blind faith of revealed religions and the inability to give reason its necessary priority here. I say that because we can't all be correct in our differing views which even go to the defining tenets of deism.

I think we do have the numbers. It's just most Deists don't know they're Deists. At my work we have a few people who consider themselves Christians, one Atheist, and everyone else describes their view of God in a way that would be considered Deism. I asked my boss if he believed in God and at the time I meant Bible God. He answered," Well, I believe there is a higher power." One guy at work said that he believes that all religions have some truth to them and that they were made from people of different cultures trying to describe the one true God. My favorite answer from a friend at work was," I believe there is a god. I just don't think he works like most people believe. I imagine him as a god that is basically just watching the universe." I believe that if people understood what Deism is as well as they understand what Atheism is then millions of people would start to call themselves Deists.

Since there is no founder of Deism (thank God), the only way it will be organized is by dividing it simultaneously into various sects. As during the formative period of Islam (7th century to 10th century, according to Montgomery Watt) or more importantly like the simultaneous outburst of various protestant sects all at the same time. To be sure it all started with Luther, but it didn't take more than a few decades for the rise of the Calvinists, Anabaptists, and Anglicans etc. etc.

But what is important to realize is that today Deism stands much like atheism--it is unorganized theological disposition of folks who care not what other think. And without an organized religion (or a systemic philosophy) no ideology can succeed--even Buddhism and Taoism had to become organized religions inorder to spread.
And that makes me reiterate my first point: Organizing a religion around doctrines and creating perimeters of belief invariably create schism and sects within.
But why should that bother us? As Deists we concede that there is no inherent dogma within Deism; what we need is various sects wherein like minded Deists can effectively organize and prosylitize.

I've developed my own sect (a systemic philosophy) that I often refer to as the "Way of the Dodecahedron." I just don't have the time or motivation to devote to it. But I'm very confident that it would go very well with a lot of folks.

Every religion needs its prophets, martyrs, and reformers if it is to persist and spread through the ages.

Schizophretard wrote:

I believe that if people understood what Deism is as well as they understand what Atheism is then millions of people would start to call themselves Deists.

You present more evidence for the drifting away from Christianity I spoke of, but why would they call themselves deists if they don't know what that means? We need a simple, apolitical statement or definition of deism on which we (most of us) can agree and which says something about it that's concrete.

Our brother website, Positive deism, has a motto: "Reason and respect in all you think say and do." Reason indicating what? And how can you respect everyone? A common deist shibboleth is "Belief in God through reason"????? What does that mean? Most deists couldn't tell you. I certainly can't.

I offer this,
Deism: Belief in God who adheres to His own Prime Directive that we remain free of supernatural influence in this rational universe.

Something the limited free will crowd can live with and only the most hardcore purist subjectivists would object to, but only by abandoning their subjectivity.

(I think it's only right that I should post this at PD so I won't be talking behind their backs.)

Yes, back to the old "How do we define Deism" discussion.

I think that even though "reason" is a relatively vague concept (So's god for that matter), it's about the only thing that most deists will agree is a necessary aspect of our approach. Therefore any definition of Deism needs to include two things. A metaphysical belief in god (however you want to describe it) and a methodology or epistemology based on reason.

Now, part of the reason that most deists have a hard time coming up with a specific metaphysical definition of Deism (as Paineful is presenting) is because Deism is not a religion on par with Christianity or Islam based around a specific set of events or beliefs. It's more like a general category of belief on par with Atheism, Theism and Agnosticism.

From a historical perspective the category known as Deism emerged during a time of intellectual enlightenment when western society was just beginning to awaken to the power and importance of our own individuality and with that the ability to think for ourselves and reject authority. It was this ability to think for ourselves in a logical fashion that became synonymous with the word reason. It is also because of this inherent rejection of authority that comes along with this mindset based on "self-aware" individuality that we deists have a hard time joining together under any common banner.

Even those that can agree on a sub-category such as Panendeism have a hard time agreeing on the nuts and bolts of ontology, language, more specific epistemologicallies, and a general metaphysics.

Perhaps Deism won't/can't flourish until we can learn to look past, or at least learn to understand, our own individual differences and how such differences can arise in a relativistic world. Unfortunately for many, such a concept defies reason.

Deism is kind of like the "Animal House" of all the religions: It's a repository for all the misfits and outcasts that don't fit in with the mainstream faiths.

Uriah wrote:

Deism is kind of like the "Animal House" of all the religions: It's a repository for all the misfits and outcasts that don't fit in with the mainstream faiths.

Our deist founders weren't outcasts. However, the only one who stuck his neck out and openly declared his deism was perhaps the first deist martyr. But now, most people haven't even heard of it, and when they do, they wonder which of the 25 definitions and permutations they should believe, and probably just move on in disgust.

Aaron wrote:

Yes, back to the old "How do we define Deism" discussion.

Until we come up with a coherent definition, it will only mean "lost".

Quote :

Therefore any definition of Deism needs to include two things. A metaphysical belief in god (however you want to describe it) and a methodology or epistemology based on reason.

But that's just a vague as reason alone. You can't start off with how you arrived at your conclusion, you say what you believe, and then when they ask "Why?", you get into it. We need a hook, a definition. You can see the wheels turning immediately when they're comparing what you just said with what they've been taught. If not, you move on.

Quote :

Now, part of the reason that most deists have a hard time coming up with a specific metaphysical definition of Deism (as Paineful is presenting) is because Deism is not a religion on par with Christianity or Islam based around a specific set of events or beliefs. It's more like a general category of belief on par with Atheism, Theism and Agnosticism.

And each of those does have a definition. (BTW, what, if anything, do you object to in my proposed definition?)

Quote :

It is also because of this inherent rejection of authority that comes along with this mindset based on "self-aware" individuality that we deists have a hard time joining together under any common banner.

But we don't reject authority other than that of the tyrant or the prophet. I suppose there could be a anarchist-deist, but the first thing an anarchist does is trash the dictionary, so......(Hmmmm)

Quote :

Perhaps Deism won't/can't flourish until we can learn to look past, or at least learn to understand, our own individual differences and how such differences can arise in a relativistic world. Unfortunately for many, such a concept defies reason.

How can we have reasonable differences except in the realm of the subjective/individual? In fact, I think the virtue of accepting those differences, in their place (the individual), should be a major tenet of deism.

The Paineful Truth wrote:

Quote :

Now, part of the reason that most deists have a hard time coming up with a specific metaphysical definition of Deism (as Paineful is presenting) is because Deism is not a religion on par with Christianity or Islam based around a specific set of events or beliefs. It's more like a general category of belief on par with Atheism, Theism and Agnosticism.

And each of those does have a definition. (BTW, what, if anything, do you object to in my proposed definition?)

Yes and their definitions are extremely vague as well. Theism is defined simply as "a belief in god". I would add "...based on tradition, authority, and special revelation." in order to distinguish it from Deism. Just what the nature of god is, is up to the individual theist to figure out (or inherit) based on their own cultural norms, religious traditions, and faith in certain authority figures.

Atheism is simply "a lack of belief in god". Once again, how god is defined is left up to the individual atheist to figure out.

As far as your definition of Deism, I don't have a problem with it as a statement of personal belief. I respect your right to believe what you want. I just think it's way too specific a definition to cover the entire category of Deism.

The Paineful Truth wrote:

Quote :

It is also because of this inherent rejection of authority that comes along with this mindset based on "self-aware" individuality that we deists have a hard time joining together under any common banner.

But we don't reject authority other than that of the tyrant or the prophet. I suppose there could be a anarchist-deist, but the first thing an anarchist does is trash the dictionary, so......(Hmmmm)

Most deists I know don't appreciate being told what and what not to believe and rarely fall in line simply based on what an expert has to say on a matter of spirituality without first giving it some serious thought. Deists do rely on faith, but it's generally more of a reasoned faith than a blind faith.

The Paineful Truth wrote:

Quote :

Perhaps Deism won't/can't flourish until we can learn to look past, or at least learn to understand, our own individual differences and how such differences can arise in a relativistic world. Unfortunately for many, such a concept defies reason.

How can we have reasonable differences except in the realm of the subjective/individual?

Spirituality is about as subjective/individual as it gets.

The Paineful Truth wrote:

In fact, I think the virtue of accepting those differences, in their place (the individual), should be a major tenet of deism.

I think tenets belong in the realm of religion and as I've already stated I don't believe Deism to be a religion anymore than Theism is a religion. I do think that it's possible for deist religions to exist however ,and I agree, if such a deist religion ever took shape, such a tenet would be a very good idea.

Uriah wrote:

Deism is kind of like the "Animal House" of all the religions: It's a repository for all the misfits and outcasts that don't fit in with the mainstream faiths.

Franklin was actually quite the party animal from what I've heard.

Paineful Truth wrote:

Deism: Belief in God who adheres to His own Prime Directive that we remain free of supernatural influence in this rational universe.

There is no necessity in nature whereby we must be free in our volition. You still cling to a primitive monotheist deity, and then instantly switch arguments within a debate whereby you'll define God as something that is the Truth, which is not only the broadest of all tautologies but also does nothing to defend your faith in the prime directive that allows humans free will. In short, you see no reason to believe in God, so you define him tautologically; but then you take a leap of faith in your own conviction with a blind faith in a personal God.

Aaron wrote:

Yes, back to the old "How do we define Deism" discussion

Deism is a belief in God based upon reason.
It starts with a simple axiom that is predicated upon the definition of two term: God and reason;
Secondly, the operational term in the definition above is not God, but reason, and from here onwards we can derive the five axioms of praxeology that give us all the necessary building blocks of a system.

Averroes wrote:

Aaron wrote:

Yes, back to the old "How do we define Deism" discussion

Deism is a belief in God based upon reason.
It starts with a simple axiom that is predicated upon the definition of two term: God and reason;
Secondly, the operational term in the definition above is not God, but reason...

I completely agree.

Averroes wrote:

...and from here onwards we can derive the five axioms of praxeology that give us all the necessary building blocks of a system.

And that's where our deist "sects" begin to diverge.

I adopted the label of "Deist" to distinguish my philosophy from both theists and atheists, but it has had its shortcomings. On other forums, where most had not heard the term or at least not given it much thought, I have been asked to explain what it means to be a Deist. Defining it is, as you've all noticed, can be very difficult. I have come up with several variations of this:

A theist believes in a power that caused the universe to exist. This power created the universe - and us - for a specific purpose, which is explained by the Bible or Quran or Torah. God gave us free will, but monitors our thoughts and actions and judges us. If our choices are opposed to his plan he may punish us.

A Deist believes in a power that caused the universe to exist. This power may have had a purpose for creation, but we are unable to know what that purpose is. God gave us free will, and allows us to suffer if we make choices that are not in our own best interests.

The biggest problem I've encountered is from people who do a Google search or rely upon Wikipedia for their knowledge. Then, they argue with me because my definition doesn't match what they've read elsewhere!

Deist: A freethinker who believes in an unrevealed god and uses the natural world as his/her Bible.

Paul Anthony wrote:

The biggest problem I've encountered is from people who do a Google search or rely upon Wikipedia for their knowledge. Then, they argue with me because my definition doesn't match what they've read elsewhere!

Yes, even if you can agree on a definition like "Deism - a category of belief in god based on reason." You very often get caught up in debates about how to define "god" and "reason". For many atheist "reason" is synonymous with empiricism and "god" is synonymous with a Zeus like sky daddy. In other words, they fail to see how one can use reason (the way they define reason) as a basis for a belief in something so mythic in nature (based on the way they define god).

Quote :

God gave us free will, and allows us to suffer if we make choices that are not in our own best interests.

Yes and not to nitpick but the set up of the universe obviously allows for suffering even when it is not deserved, such as those who are victim to crime or natural disaster.

Helium,

I don't believe that suffering's only purpose is to just punish us when we deserve it. I believe it has other purposes also. For an example, animals trying to escape from suffering is one of the things that drives evolution.

Schizophretard wrote:

Helium,

I don't believe that suffering's only purpose is to just punish us when we deserve it. I believe it has other purposes also. For an example, animals trying to escape from suffering is one of the things that drives evolution.

Indeed, conversely suffering is what drives us in spiritual evolution as well. After all, it was Siddhartha's witnessing of death, pain, and loneliness in the world that caused him to seek unattachment and nirvana.

It may well be but a simple parable, but the truth is in there - suffering is what drives us to invent spiritual purpose to human existence.

Quote :

Helium,

I don't believe that suffering's only purpose is to just punish us when we deserve it. I believe it has other purposes also. For an example, animals trying to escape from suffering is one of the things that drives evolution.

Yes, I think the point I was trying to make is that God does not intervene to either initiate nor end suffering. Suffering is usally caused by tragedy either inflicted by the natural world (including inanimate events such as hurricanes and earthquakes) or the animate world (such as bacteria, viruses or raging black bears) and of course through free will exterted by our fellow humans which allows them to inflict suffering. My point, which may be obvious, is that God does not intervene nor influence these events.
Uriah is quite correct, I guess, that how we deal with the things life sends our way can build strength and character and all that stuff. And I guess if we believe in a Deist God, then although we don't believe god directly intervenes, God would have facilitated this system. Or if Aaron's panendeist model is correct, we may be creating this wisdom out of the void.

Helium,

I understood your point that God doesn't intervene nor influence events but I don't believe that it is a required "doctrine" to believe this to be a Deist. God could do the opposite and still be a Deist god. A Deist can believe that everything that happens could be both influenced by God and caused by divine intervention. The main difference between how Theists and Deists look at divine intervention is that Theists believe God violates his natural laws to intervene and Deists believe that if God does intervene then he does it through natural laws.

For an example, If an asteroid hit the Earth a Theist may say that God changed the natural course of the asteroid with a miracle and caused the asteroid to hit the Earth to punish us for sin. A Deist would either say that God just let the asteroid follow it's natural course or God set up the universe in such a way that it would hit the Earth on a certain day by following it's natural course.



Paineful,

You are right that people are drifting away from Christianity but many of them are drifting towards Deism. I believe most Deists don't know they are Deists because they don't know what the word means.

I know this from experience. Every single Deist I personally know has never called themselves Deists. When I ask them their religion they don't give me a title for it they give me an explanation for it. After they give me their explanation I explain to them what Deism is and they realize that's what they are.

This happened to me. Atheists convinced me that Christianity is false. Right after I lost my faith I realized that all religions are false but I still believed there is a god. I was convinced that there is a god but that he never started any religions. I thought that everyone was either a Theist, Atheist, or Agnostic and that I came up with a new category of belief. I was uncomfortable with not having a word for what I was and felt alone. The best I could come up with was calling myself an Atheist that believes in God. I heard an Atheist use the word and remembered that it had something to do with the Founding Fathers. When I first heard it used in reference to the Founding Fathers I thought it was some cult or organization and wasn't interested in finding out what it was. After the Atheist used the word and in the context he used it, I became very interested in the word. I looked it up on Google and read some Deist websites. I realized that I wasn't alone. These websites explained it and they kept bringing up The Age of Reason. So, I read the book, I loved it, and started calling myself a Deist. I don't feel alone anymore.

I believe that Deists not knowing they are Deists is the main reason our numbers are low. If every Deist knew that they are Deists then I bet Deists would out number Atheists.

We don't need a better more comprehensive definition of Deism because no belief system gets converts from a definition. Christian is defined as someone who believes in Jesus. This definition doesn't convert anyone into a Christian because it needs an explanation. People need it explained to them who Jesus is, what he done, and that the Bible is the word of God to be converted to Christianity. So, we need to explain what we believe and not just give a more comprehensive definition.

In other words, We need to "evangelize" and not just try to give people a better vocabulary.

If you want to sell something - whether it be a product or an ideology - you must answer the question that is on the mind of every prospective buyer: "What's in it for me?"

Many people cling to Religions because their church promises Eternal Salvation. How're ya gonna compete with that?!?

A lot of people are drifting away from Christianity, but drifting toward New Age teachings that offer rewards in this life ~ wealth, power, love, etc. That's still hard to beat!!!

And what are we offering? Reason and logic. In case you haven't noticed, an awful lot of people are NOT logical. So, where's the appeal?

An Atheist friend of mine said, (during a conversation about how to increase the number of Atheists), the world has always needed leaders, thinkers and followers - in a ratio of 1%, 5% and 94%. Atheists (and Deists) are not found among the 94%.

Paul Anthony

Well, you can show them that they don't need eternal salvation because there is no such thing as eternal damnation. When I lost my faith in Jesus I felt saved because I realized that the majority of mankind isn't going to be tortured for all of eternity.