Proud Man

Being an apostle of Pyrron
A certain man must insist
Religion is quite redundant,
God can safely be dismissed.

Faith is so terribly passé,
What can’t be proved isn’t there,
Those deluded who say otherwise,
Well, they haven’t got a payer.

All the wars and atrocities
To which religions incline,
Man can manage perfectly well
Without needing the divine.

Pity feeble-minded believers,
Let churches crumble and fall,
Gather scriptures up and burn them,
For atheists know it all.

Celebrate mankind’s accession,
With God dethroned it must be
Man is now the supreme being,
The universe’s apogee.

For the self-proclaimed free thinker,
It comes as a great relief
To be so certain he believes
He’s not blinded by belief.

The Problem with God

Census data and other surveys indicate a declining propensity for people to associate themselves with a belief in God. Certainly, with a few exceptions, this is reflected in declining church attendance.

While the supernatural remains a popular form of entertainment, few regard it as an actual feature of life. Even at quasi-religious occasions such as church conducted funerals, how many really believe in the angels and archangels intoned by the prelate?

Religion plays at best a marginal role in most people’s lives and those who persist in professing a faith it is questionable how many of them seriously reflect on what it is they claim to believe.

Are they aware of the many contradictions and inconsistencies contained in the bible? Do they know that what they accept as the word of God is very much a human construct, a selective assemblage brought about at the behest of the Roman emperor Constantine?

Even the divinity of Christ was finally decided upon centuries after His time. Most of the accepted narrative of Jesus’ life story is a reworking of elements drawn from a number of previous sources such as classical mystery religions and the religious traditions of ancient Egypt.

For deists, not only is all this not a difficulty for people, but an opportunity for believers and non-believers alike. No longer can anything be regarded as literally the gospel truth.

Nor is there any requirement for anyone to declare them self steadfastly atheist. The very word, atheism, indicates opposition to theism, the belief in whatever form of denomination, in the biblical God. Deists, in that sense, are atheists.

Deism makes no appeal to scriptures of any kind, regarding all supposedly holy books and texts as very much the word concocted by Man. Nor is there recourse to the supernatural: the universe in all its aspects, however strange or awe inspiring, is natural.

Deists might accept the supranatural; that God transcends or is beyond the universe in ways exceeding human comprehension. For all practical purposes, however, the concept of God is an extrapolation from what humanity can comprehend: that there is a creation functioning according to discernable laws in which consciousness and intelligence are integral features.

This is in no sense a suggestion of an anthropomorphic super being, motivated by anger, jealousy, or love depending on pious point of view, who manipulates His creation according to His whim.

Some deists prefer to use the Latin “Deus” rather than “God” because of the entrenched associations of the latter word. Language is inadequate in that it cannot formulate a precise word or phrase to accurately encapsulate what is ultimately beyond human comprehension.

This is not some verbal sleight of hand. There are intimations of deliberation in nature; even what was until recently considered by physicists as the chaos of the sub-atomic is beginning to yield to understanding.

Reason and experience are the watchwords for deists who make no claim to having a definitive view or explanation. Science is embraced for offering insights and expanding understanding, revealing the universe to a marvellous creation. Deism makes the logical claim that creation is suggestive of a creator.

When pressed, people who claim no religious affinity will admit to seeing a pattern in nature, in their lives. Even atheists are usually loath to declare their lives purposeless. Deism offers the possibility of Deus without any requirement for religious observance.

Indeed, it’s possible to be a deist and deny being religious, accepting deism as a philosophy. This might actually become the most tenable position, with deism eventually transcending religion while meeting spiritual needs, however vaguely these manifest themselves.

It is also likely that deism itself will eventually be superseded by enlightened thinking going beyond present levels of understanding. Even then, deism will have been a valuable contribution to human development, just as theism and atheism served their purposes in the past.

Universal Reason

“Universal Reason, which governs everything, knows its own characteristics, and what it creates, and the material on which it works.” (Marcus Aurelius)*

The difficulty with the word “God” is that it triggers many preconceived ideas, or at least ideas formed in childhood through formal and informal religious education. These ideas tend to bear the cultural imprint of the society in which a person is raised.

Even a professed atheist has been influenced in this way and for him or her, the rejected “God” bears many of the characteristics inculcated through the formative years.

Gnostics portray such an anthropomorphic figure as a demi-urge, a semi-divine figure responsible for creating this world with all its fallibilities, reflecting those of that less than divine deity. God remains so much greater and beyond personification.

Stoicism has taken a rather more pragmatic view, representing the divine according to characteristics relevant to a particular circumstance. Zeus, or God, or Gods or Providence are invoked, the implication being that humans can but glimpse the partial while unable to comprehend the whole.

For a Deist, Universal Reason is a property that can be divined through observation and experience of nature. There is no suggestion of supernatural intervention, indeed, reason is discernable in people. It is, therefore, at the very least demonstrably property of the universe.

Why shouldn’t Reason be an intrinsic feature of the universe, beyond embodiment in our rather limited and limiting lives? There are those who argue the universe is without purpose, yet a purpose can be found for everything however obscure that might appear.

Natural selection is an example of a process acting with a purpose, survival at the very least. It can even accommodate the random by adapting to take it into account. This is not to infer some super being in control; rather that Universal Reason imbues nature.

That there is a universe rather than nothing is due to Universal Reason initiating and working through it: God the Propagator and the on-going process.

* “The Spiritual Teachings of Marcus Aurelius.” Edited by Mark Forstater.
Hodder & Stoughton, 2000.

Stoic Deism

As can be seen from the date of the last item a third of a year has passed since it was posted. This is not because of waning interest or a change of mind, but a period of reflection, the bringing together of two strands of thought.

There have been previous articles on this site drawing a line of continuation from the ancient philosophy of Stoicism through the emergence of Deism during the Age of Reason to its fairly recent renaissance as Modern Deism.

Firstly, though, it has to be unequivocally stated that it is understood that a stoic may also be an atheist, an agnostic or find accommodation with a religious faith. The intention here is not to claim sole rights to Stoic philosophy for Deism.

However, there does seem to be a natural compatibility between Deism and Stoicism. This can be detected, for instance, in the writings of the philosopher emperor Marcus Aurelius who would often opt for the largely undefined “Providence” when referring to what others might have called Deus, God.

How he considered this concept is illustrated thus:
“In the universe, respect the highest power, namely the creative force which directs and makes use of all things.”*
Then he goes on to link that broadest of generalisations to the individual:
“In the same way, you must respect the highest power in yourself, for it is of the same creative kind.”*

There is no effort to define the “highest power” or “creative force”; to do so is to limit it to the human level. Rather accept the intimations of its being and act, and think, accordingly.

The intention is that for the time being DEISMUK will feature mainly, though not exclusively, articles relating Stoicism and Deism to each other and to wider concerns. It is also recommended that for a good source of information about Modern Stoicism reference be made to The New Stoa on the Blogroll.

*”The Spiritual Teachings of Marcus Aurelius” by Mark Forstater, Hodder and Stoughton, 2009. Page 114.

A Few Thoughts on Deism

All religions are human creations despite any claims to special divine revelations they may make. They are a product of a given social circumstance and a process of evolution according to subsequent influences.

 This is most certainly true for Deism, the big difference being Deists have never claimed any privileged knowledge from a supernatural source. Indeed, Deists reject the notion that religious scriptures and creeds reveal final Truth.

 Nature and human appreciation of it is the starting point for Deism. As creation functions according to discernable laws amenable to reason, then it is reasonable to posit a creator.

 However, it is not possible to define the creator, or attribute particular intentions. Only being a part of creation human understanding cannot encompass the whole, otherwise we would be God(s).

 There cannot, therefore, be an anthropomorphic God. He or She would just be a human being on a grander scale, still subject to limitations that would imply creation is greater than the creator.

 Humanity must look to itself to make its way through this world, responsible for its own actions and not able to cite God as favouring or condemning them. Reason tempered with compassion would seem to be the best guide.

 Deism has no central authority; no Church, no holy book, no religious leader. It is arguable that it is not a religion at all, but rather a philosophy; individual Deists must decide for themselves whether they are religious or not.

 Most Deists hold to the concept of God creating the universe according to, and continuing to operate by, natural laws. Some prefer to use Deus to distance themselves from the accumulated associations of the word God.

 Some Deists, perhaps the majority, assert Deus became disassociated from the universe once created. Others maintain Deus continues to play some part in creation, while others, Panendeists consider Deus to be all the cosmos and more. No one position as an article of faith, more a speculation from the known to the unknown.

 A Summary of Views

• Some Deists think Deus does intervene in the world, though most consider Deus to be completely transcendent and does not respond to prayers or enact miracles.
• Reason is the human faculty allowing us to accrue knowledge and understanding, enabling reasonable speculation.
• The sacred texts of other religions are respected, but considered to be of human not divine origin.
• The world operates according to the natural laws governing the creation and continued development of the universe. It is not subject to the arbitrary action of a fickle God.
• Deus does not have human form and is not subject to human feelings and emotions. Indeed, Deus is ineffable, beyond the scope of human comprehension.
• Deists hold a range of views as to the attributes and nature of Deus. Many maintain Deus has no particular interest in humanity and may be unaware of human existence.
• Deism is a religion/philosophy entirely created by humans, developing from the Age of Reason when science began to seriously challenge traditional religious thinking.
• Informed by science and new thinking, Deism will continue to develop its ideas.
• Deism is open to those of every religious tradition and none who may reject established religions, yet consider there being Deus, whatever that might mean to them.
• No one joins Deism, a person becomes a Deist by self determination.

“Evolution: Fact or Fiction”

The title for this piece is borrowed from a pamphlet by John Blanchard*, an evangelical Christian. Most of the booklet is devoted to a refutation of what is generally accepted orthodoxy, evolution.

 Actually, Blanchard does not dismiss evolution altogether, accepting change and adaptation does take place. However, he insists this is only within species. A bird may develop a longer beak, for example, to take advantage of a food source.

 The bird, though, remains a bird. This is his main thrust, that one species does not evolve into another as the chain of evolution – from primeval single celled life forms to human beings – asserts.

 Blanchard argues plausibly, although the suspicion is that most of his readers are not well informed about evolutionary biology. While evolution may be commonly recognised, the details, especially research and scientific understanding, are not common knowledge.

 This means Blanchard can claim there is a lack of supporting evidence for vital key features of evolutionary theory and the general reader has nothing other than unsubstantiated scepticism to doubt him.

 This, though, is not the point at issue here. To suspend disbelief for a while, and take Blanchard and his pamphlet at face value, does the conclusion he draws, essentially a return to biblical explanations, actually follow?

 The answer has to be a resounding, “NO!”, it is a non sequitur. Having devoted most of his booklet to denouncing evolutionary science for its lack of actual evidence, he goes on to posit an alternative for which there is no evidence at all.

 For Blanchard to be correct the bible has to be the actual word of God. If it is the product of Man then it is not reliable without evidence to support it. What evidence there is rather does the opposite.

 As an evangelical Christian Blanchard presumably accepts the New Testament as being literally the Gospel, God’s word. Yet, it was and is the product of a political settlement, following a decision by the emperor Constantine.

 The divinity of the central character, Jesus, was only “settled” centuries after his time and the gospels are only four amongst many, most rejected for not fitting what was becoming the official Church narrative.

 Many of those alternative gospels can appear to be rather fanciful in content if taken literally. Read as texts rich in symbol, myth and metaphor they can be taken as true in the sense that poetry is true.

 Some, particularly the Gospel of Thomas, have none of the narrative associated with Christianity. Instead, the sayings attributed to Jesus, whether they were actually spoken by him or not doesn’t affect their veracity, offer a religious view that is not reliant on miracles and supernatural speculations.

 Rather than feeling a need to contradict evolutionary theory/reality, deists have embraced it. Being based on observations of nature and Reason, deism sees science in all it aspects as giving insights into “divine designs”.

 This is not to suggest some anthropomorphic deity in some celestial drawing office sending out teams of angelic construction workers to fashion and refashion His creation.

 Intelligent design, ID, has uncomfortable associations with the creationism espoused by those such as Blanchard. Perhaps ID would be better abbreviating Immanent Design, integral to the cosmos enabling evolution to create human beings from primeval protozoa.

 The universe needed to be finely tuned to allow this piece to be written. If any one of a number of different variables had been different when the cosmos came into being, then there would be no humans, perhaps no life.

 This is not to dismiss the role of chance. For it was by chance, a spur of the moment decision in passing to look inside a small but intriguing looking evangelical church while on holiday, that brought this pamphlet to hand.

 However, neither the pamphlet nor this article is a product of chance; the ideas are not random but have developed, evolved, over time through conscious engagement and expressed by design. Design, at the very least from a human point of view, is integral to our evolution.

 Part of the evolution in human thought is the development of new ways of religious understanding, of which deism is an example. God, or whatever we refer to as god, is and must remain ineffable to us. To comprehend God we’d have to be the equal, so all we have are intimations.

 Even if, and it is a somewhat big “if”, Blanchard was to prove correct in his critique of evolutionary biology, deism would remain valid. What he would have shown is that human understanding is partial, something we already know, and our search for greater knowledge must go on.

 Deists would continue to apply reason to the changed circumstances, not regress to a pre-scientific acceptance of biblical revelation. That the creation of Deus is very much more complex than may be commonly supposed acts as a spur to advancement.

 *

“Evolution: Fact or Fiction.” By John Blanchard. Evangelical Press 2010.

The Gospel of Thomas – A Deist View

Much is made in Deist circles of religious scriptures and revelations as being the antithesis of Reason, the basic concept behind Deism. This is understandable as they are the source of what can appear to be superstition at best and an aggressive fundamentalism at worst.

From the 18th century onwards the advance of science and rationality has pushed back the boundaries of religious influence to the point today where affirming believers are a dwindling minority.

Churchmen and women strive to accommodate scientific understanding within the context of their faith, the difficulty being their concept of a supernatural God fits badly, if at all, with such an understanding.

Does this mean that all contained in religious texts is little more than the revelation of the ignorance of our per-scientific forebears? A good case can be made such testaments employed a metaphorical language before a scientific one became available.

However, there is no need for such special pleading in the case of a gospel existing outside the accepted canon. The chronological origin of the Gospel of Thomas is imprecise, with conflicting authorities arguing for dates prior to the New Testament gospels and others who favour a couple of centuries after.

Whichever came first, the gospels of the New Testament or of Thomas, a very different approach to religion is revealed, one that does not need to be refashioned around scientific thinking.

The Gospel of Thomas is a collection of 114 sayings attributed to Jesus. There is none of the usual narrative or any indication of miracles, and God is only mentioned twice. This is not a supernatural Jesus set to reign over and judge mankind, but a teacher challenging listeners to take responsibility for their own spiritual development.

The most significant difference with traditional religious practice is an absence of any requirement for faith. “To know” is the verb of preference, and that appears in three forms in the course of this Gospel.

Awareness, as in, “I’m aware of how science has enhanced human knowledge of the universe.”

Understanding or realisation, as in, “The apple fell on Newton due to gravity, not as an act of God.”

Profound certainty, as in, “Through reason and experience I know a created universe operating according to discernable laws is not a random chance occurrence.”

There is a single reference to belief in the Gospel, but that is on behalf of some followers wanting some sign so they might believe in their teacher. The reply is a gentle admonishment that, as yet, they don’t know, doesn’t understand what is being set before them.

Such profound “knowing” has been rendered in canonical texts as repentance, the negative concept built around sin and sinfulness with consequent divine retribution on which the power of the Church has been built.

Consequently, a whole edifice of faith and belief was constructed inhibiting Christians, individually and collectively, from exploring spiritual possibilities and development, using and profiting from their Reason.

The Gospel of Thomas is not a holy book in the sense binding oaths before God can be sworn on it. It is a record of what was essentially an oral teaching, the efficacy of which does not depend on the teacher being literally Jesus.

For Deists there is much within the Gospel to contemplate and relate to how Deism can develop a spiritual praxis. Within in it are concepts certainly pre-dating it and are probably themes humans have explored since developing the cognitive ability to reason.

Like all text books, the Gospel is a starting point from which learning can be developed. It requires no priests or theologians as its use and interpretation falls on each individual who responds to it.

There will be many Deists for whom it is wholly inappropriate, while others may take inspiration from it. As traditional religions decline and a cold pseudo-scientific materialism fails to satisfy, many feel spiritually poorer, something The Gospel of Thomas anticipated in its third saying.
“But if you do not know yourselves
then you are in poverty,
and you are the poverty.” *

Such poverty also applies to those maintaining their faith; they may know the bible cover to cover, but don’t know themselves, relying on faith rather than Reason. God is reduced to an anthropomorphic being, instead of a concept appreciated, though necessarily beyond human understanding.

*
“Jesus Untouched by the Church.” Hugh McGregor Ross, William Sessions Ltd, York,1998. ISBN 1850722137.

The Age of Reason

When Thomas Paine wrote “The Age of Reason” it was a time of revolution in America and France. These were the political manifestations of what became known as The Enlightenment.

Paine took emergent scientific analysis and applied it to a forensic examination of the bible. He demonstrated that rather than being the word of God, scripture was most certainly the words of men.

His intention was not to refute religion, but purge it of traditions and customs hindering clearer understanding, so “…man would return to the pure, unmixed and unadulterated belief in one God, and no more.” The natural world was to be the new gospel.

220 years later this remains a seminal book, establishing the intellectual premises whereby reason rather than faith becomes the foundation of religious belief. This was a new religion, Deism, emerging from a millennium and a half of a catholic theism having its traditional underpinnings eroded by science.

There are anachronisms, such as referring to Islam as the “Turkish” faith, but all writing is bound to reflect the conventions of its time. It still reads as a pertinent and accessible book for an increasingly secular Britain.

Is Deism the future of religion? As Deists eschew the supernatural it is not possible to make predictions, however if it is not Deism then it’s likely to be something very much like it. Religion may have to throw off its burden of superstition, but it’s not going to go away.

For those nurturing a religious or spiritual impulse, however vague, without finding a niche in traditional religions, then Deism could well be for them. “The Age of Reason” is a good starting point, providing a rational critique of Christianity in particular and the other Abrahamic faiths by extension.

On such a solid analytical basis it is possible for an individual to begin constructing a religious viewpoint suiting them. Deism does not have creeds, so it is up to each Deist and ask, “Is there reason enough to suggest Nature is an on-going process indicative of a Natural Creator, albeit One beyond human fathoming.

Thomas Paine’s writings on religion are exemplars of the Deist method, through their application of reason to the subject. “The Age of Reason” is not an exposition of faith; no one is invited to believe anything.

Read the book. See for yourself.

Sacred Circles

Many, perhaps most, people would not regard an ancient stone circle as a house. A construction, yes, a significant construction even, one redolent of mystery perhaps. But, a house?

There seems to be a tendency to ascribe religious connotations to pre-historical sites, as if those who commanded the raising of stones were, in some fundamental way, different from people in the modern world.

The reality is, as far as it’s possible to know, those Bronze Age property developers were as we are. Certainly, so much more knowledge is available today and there is now a technology that might inspire those distant people with thoughts that we are as gods.

Except, that is to patronise them as being gullible, almost to reassert the nineteenth century concept of the noble innocent savage, when actually their ability to comprehend was equal to that of present people.

Confronted by a mobile phone it is likely a Bronze Age man or woman would have been initially wary. Yet rather than worshiping it as a conduit to the gods, within a very short space of time they’d be txting like the rest of us.

This means we should question the assumption that stone circles necessarily had mystical associations. Perhaps they were market places: after all, by limiting points of access tolls could be charged to traders wishing to do business.

Maybe, such circles served both God and Mammon, as did many of the medieval cathedrals and churches, being centres of prayer and trade. Then there would have been a secular return on the investment of time and effort required in quarrying, transporting and hoisting upright those stones.

However, I am willing to concede that stone circles, or at least one in particular, were, and still are, spiritual spaces. The one convincing me of this is Castle Rigg, just far enough beyond the bounds of Keswick to be of the Lakeland fells.

Stonehenge has become a theme park, as likely a source of profound insight as Disneyland. Hordes of grockles are herded along designated pathways roped off to prevent any actual contact with the stones. It is a photo opportunity before reloading the coach and off to the next itinerary item on the tourist checklist.

Castle Rigg on a sharp March morning, with snow on Blencathra still and a stiletto wind slicing through any number of gortex swaddlings to pierce skin and flesh down to the bone, has few visitors. It is beautifully bleak.

The sheer magnificence of the setting proves the aesthetic qualities of our ancestors. It is a site chosen not for comfort, being so exposed, but because solace is deliberately not being invoked.

Human fragility is emphasised, both in terms of how insignificant an individual can appear in such a wonderfully harsh environment and how easily that individual might be extinguished and consumed without leaving a trace on those fells.

Today, as our technology probes ever deeper into space and back in time towards the very beginnings, it is the universe providing such a perspective. For Bronze Age men and women the stone circle was their observatory.

The root of the word “church”, the Old English “cirice, signified a circle in much the same usage as a “circle of friends”. It could be that gathering in circles has always had symbolic meaning, reflecting the roundness of the horizon, the arc of the heavens.

Once, on an idle ramble through a Norfolk wood, I happened upon a long abandoned Norman church. No evidence remained of the community it once served and itself was little more than a roofless shell being repossessed by nature.

For me, it had a greater religious tenor in such a state, as an illustration of the impermanence and mutability of everything. This is a more profound truth than any supposed everlasting divine word.

Henges such as Castle Rigg were being built as many years before the designated birth of Christ as those passed since. Those four millennia or so being the merest fraction of time in Earth’s existence, let alone the universe in which it’s set.

It is the prevailing fashion, in Britain at least, to dismiss religion as the last pathetic refuge of the credulous. Everyone from tele-scientists to stand-up comedians confirm their intellectual credentials through public avowals of disbelief.

This is, intentional or not, surely a statement of arrogance. The implication is, that as far as we can tell humanity is the apotheosis of creation, there is nothing greater than Man.

Standing alone within the petrified boundary of Castle Rigg, looking out over the daunting splendour of the fells beneath a grand parabola of sky I have no sense of human pre-eminence.

Nor do I feel insignificant. Rather, I am an integral part of the whole vastness of creation, the purpose of which is far beyond my comprehension, but that it has a purpose I do not doubt.

For me the God is not a divine being, but is divine being and the only true gospel is unfolding creation. And a circle of stones on a windswept hill is a sacred house in which those with eyes prepared to see can catch an elemental glimpse of that which is so much greater.

Deist Reflection No.1

Introduction

Reflection is going to be an occasional series in which significant quotations are made the subject of a Deist consideration. This does not mean the person quoted considered him or her self to be a Deist, only that what was said has Deist allusions.

“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slightest details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”

                                                                                                                Albert Einstein

The first two words, “My religion…”, are significant in that they express a fundamental truth about Deism. Deists not only make no claims for divine revelation, they insist their religion is very much manmade, as are all religions whatever claims or special pleading to the contrary.

And as Deists we each make our own religion, that is, it is a product of personal reflection based on experience and knowledge of Nature. No one can be persuaded to become a Deist and indeed Deism is not a proselytising religion, seeking to make converts.

Rather people come to Deism because they are moved by a “…deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power…” The wonders of the universe as revealed through science chime with a personal perception of creation suggesting a Creator. It is an interaction of the subjective with the objective.

And for all the advances science has made, the accumulated knowledge and ever expanding understanding the universe remains “incomprehensible”, it cannot be reduced to human terms.

It is a given amongst those physicists working in the field of quantum theory that anyone saying they understand it most certainly does not understand it.

The human mind is the most advanced thinking system we know of, and yet it is “frail and feeble” when considered on a universal scale. So it is hardly surprising that while the mind can grasp at a concept such as God, any real comprehension of it is beyond that grasp.

We do know, though, that the universe is not a random accident, but unfolds according to identifiable laws. We know the universe is conscious of itself because we are conscious of it and ourselves. That we don’t understand it all does not mean we cannot comprehend that there is so much more of which we don’t have an inkling.

Language is limited so a word like “God” has a burden of associations, but words can be remade, redefined and for Deists God is “…a superior reasoning power…”, so superior to human understanding as to be ineffable.

However, while God has not provided us with divine revelation we do have God-given reason: God-given in that as the prime source of all there is, reason is as much an attribute of creation as gravity.

It is through the use of reason that the Special Theory of Relativity could be formulated by the author of the quotation at the head of this piece. And reason is the source of Deist understanding.

Einstein may not have referred to himself as a Deist, but the quotation shows his personal philosophy was Deist in spirit. There are many who profess no religion, and many who do, who think along similar lines to Einstein, even if they do not express it so eloquently.

Deism may well be the religion of the non-religious.