Deism: A Personal View

I started this Deism UK blog having come to the realisation that I am a Deist. Previously I had been a vague sort of none church going Christian, had dabbled a bit with Buddhism and, had I been challenged, would probably have described myself as an agnostic.

Atheism also had its appeal, but I always had an inchoate feeling of there being more to the universe than is dreamt of in any Man’s philosophy (to mangle the bard). My dad, a superb classical musician, insisted there are patterns to things, an organising principle.

Then I discovered a number of American Deist websites and I began to investigate. For the first time I had found a spiritual philosophy that made sense, to me at least. I no longer had to square some supernatural super-being called God with a rational outlook that naturally shied from such a concept.

When, as a Deist, I say that God is ineffable I actually mean it and it’s not an attempt to sidestep the issue. If humanity was truly able to understand God then we would have to be on a par with the divine.

This is a corollary with the atheist position of denying God: it’s insisting that something the human mind cannot conceive of cannot then exist. It really is arrogant in placing the human mind as the epitome of intelligence beyond which there is, and can be, nothing greater.

I might not be able to conceive what God is, but it is the flexible brilliance of the human mind that allows me intimations of divine being. That there is a universe and it is intelligible, not with standing creatures with consciousness enough to appreciate and investigate it, is at the very least suggestive of a greater Prime Cause of all subsequent effects.

Do I offer this as conclusive proof? Of course not! Deism makes no grandiose claims and certainly does not believe itself to be some sort of conduit for divine revelation. The onus is on each individual Deist to work out his or her “theology” (should that be “Deology”?) based on the only reliable scripture there is, the book of Nature.

Deism makes no promises of places in heaven, or threats of damnation to hell. Indeed, it has always seemed odd to me that a supposed omnipotent God requires bribery to secure adherents: “Praise me and I’ll let you through the pearly gates.”

I do not even know whether God is actually aware of my individual existence, but that does not prevent me meditating on what “God” means and my place in creation. I am also thankful to God for my span, however significant or insignificant, in the divine universe.

Deism is a concoction of the human mind, a way of viewing, incorporating a religious sensibility with a rational, scientific outlook. Undoubtedly, at some point in the future, Deism will be superseded by a better way of coming to terms with the wonder of existence. By then, it will have served its purpose of furthering human response to, and understanding of, being in creation.

A Short History of Deism

“Deism” is the Latin form of the Greek “Theism”, with both meaning a belief in one God, contrasting with polytheism (many Gods) and Atheism (no God). However, language is ever changing.

During the latter part of the 17th and into the 18th centuries, science and rationalism began to systematically emerge, challenging prevailing religious notions. This new thinking began to permeate religious ideas, resulting in a radical Christianity.

This new theology (or should that be deology?) subjected the scriptures and creeds to forensic examination, applying scientific rigor to what had traditionally been accepted on faith.

Such critical Christianity rejected concepts such as revelations, miracles and the infallibility of the bible. Requiring a convenient name to differentiate it from conventional Theism, this developing religious view adopted Deism.

Deism quickly became influential amongst leading philosophers, politicians and scientists of the day, spreading through Britain, France, Germany and America. It embraced advances in physics, chemistry and astronomy, and leading figures such as Bacon, Copernicus and Galileo.

It was a logical progression to apply the techniques for the rational study of nature to religion. Indeed, nature became the starting point, the “gospel” Deists drew upon as inspiration for their promotion of God.

God was no longer an anthropomorphic figure rewarding the faithful few and damning the rest to the torments of Hell. Indeed the concept of God became rather less definite, a First Cause in the chain of cause and effect creating, and constantly recreating, the universe.

These early Deists contended the Bible did hold important truths while maintaining it was not divinely inspired and, therefore, beyond error. Bible study became a branch of history.

An early Deist, Lord Herbert of Cherbury in his book “De Veritate” (1624) suggested “Five Articles” for Deism to observe:
i. Belief in the existence of a single supreme God.
ii. Humanity’s duty to revere God.
iii. Link worship with mortality.
iv. God will forgive if sins are repented and abandoned.
v. Good works and evil will receive their due reward or punishment in this life and after.

The influence of 1500 years of Christianity is still clear in Herbert’s “Articles” and over time, as Deist thinking advanced, they were superseded. In fact, the notion that Deism required “Articles” or a creed was eventually dismissed and such terms would come to be used only figuratively, not literally.

Deist thinking was advanced by such as Anthony Collins (1676-1729), Matthew Tindal (1657-1733), FMA de Voltaire (1694-1778) and JJ Rousseau (1712-1778).

Many of the founding fathers of the USA were Deists, including Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. English born Thomas Paine, author of the hugely influential Deist book “The Age of Reason”, was involved in the revolutions of the US and France.

Deists advocated the important principle of separating the church and state, along with religious freedom, which was incorporated in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the USA.

Today, Deism largely does not associate itself with any of the Abrahamic religions and is often very critical of them, while recognising a basic idea in common, advocacy of God.

Really, Deism is no longer a religious movement in any conventional sense. There are no Deist places of worship, no priests, no holy books or scriptures and no hierarchy wielding authority.

Many Deists regard Deism as transcending religion, a philosophy recognising that while there are intimations of the divine, ultimately God is ineffable.

Consciousness of Miracles or the Miracle of Consciousness

Religions make claims as to the intervention of God in the world, when the natural order is contravened: the raising of Lazarus, for example. Such are cited as evidence of divine beneficence.

However, like claims for revelation by God, miracles are, at best, second hand accounts. Sometimes someone will claim to have benefited through miraculous intervention, such as the sole survivor of a crash.

This does not account for the others who died, nor why God would choose to spare this particular person after subjecting them to the terror of the event. Religious sects often persuade the gullible to rely on faith, invoking miracle cures rather than seeking medical intervention, often with disastrous results.

Deism makes no such claims, recognising that God is beyond human comprehension and may or may not be aware of individual existences. Evidence for God is necessarily circumstantial, the basic order in nature, which functions according to identifiable laws.

It is claimed, especially by Chaos Theorists, such order is only apparent, while at the sub-atomic level order breaks down and randomness is the rule. There is though an emerging strain of scientific thinking suggesting such randomness is illusory, as there are patterns even at this level. It is only because they are so complex they presently lie beyond human understanding.

Nature is also the source of miracles for those who crave them. The theory of evolution gives a perfectly good account of how life has become variously manifested. What it does not do is explain how inorganic matter became living organic matter, or why.

Not only did organic matter emerge, it eventually achieved consciousness so that, in its highest expression Man, matter became conscious of its own existence. By extension, the universe becomes evermore aware of itself as humans probe its secrets.

This is not to suggest some bearded celestial figure in a long white gown reached down and, in an act of divine prestidigitation, conjured life from non-life, just like that! An anthropomorphic God is not being proposed here.

In the universe there is no effect without a preceding cause: that there was a big bang (or whatever) as a first effect requires a primary cause, behind or beyond or outside the universe, responsible for the apparent designs immanent within creation.

Such is God, a simple word for a concept so profound it is really ineffable. What is certain is that consciousness is a natural aspect of the universe, perhaps a product of increasingly complex structures. Maybe animists had apriori intuition of all matter being imbued with spirit (consciousness) which becomes manifest in higher organisms.

Deists concur with materialist scientists (indeed, Deism is a materialist religion as it draws on nature as its source of “divine revelation”) that consciousness is an emerging property, a latent process inherent in the big bang.

Having accepted consciousness as an emergent property some Deists believe it cannot continue when the material host, the brain, ceases to function. In other words, there is no consciousness beyond death.

Consciousness remains a sacred gift and those who have been conscious have been truly blessed. There are, though, Deists who argue that a God who could arrange a universe might also have some purpose in maintaining emergent consciousnesses in some manner beyond the scope of our present understanding.

It is the case that we do not know and there is likely to be a great deal that we know little or nothing about. It is an arrogance to assert we comprehend enough about the universe to make absolute, categorical statements that are beyond contradiction.

So, let consciousness be celebrated and employed to discover as much as possible about universe, drawing on it as an inspiration for further understanding of the divine source of creation. That understanding may always be deficient, but at the very least a Deist can say/pray for the one certain miracle:

Thank you, Deus, for being.

Observations of a Deist

It is easy to be an atheist these days. Celebrity scientists team up with popular comedians on TV programmes ranging from presentations of cosmology and nature to panel shows. The intelligently designed message, implicit or explicit, is that God is for intellectual losers.

There are even programmes dealing with religious matters in which the presenter is quick to deny any personal belief, treating the subject as anthropology. A recent Radio 4 broadcast about Jainism began with the presenter declaring she, of course, didn’t hold any religious beliefs.

Conversely, members of revealed religions continue to be socially significant. While many church congregations continue to be small if not declining it seems cathedrals services are attracting increasing numbers. And there is no denying the impact of Islam on Britain.

“Thought for Today”, Radio 4 again, features speakers from all three Abrahamic faiths with a bias towards Christianity. There are occasional contributions from Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists, reflecting the variety of religious traditions in Britain today. No invitation for a Deist contribution as yet.

So, atheism or belief? Perhaps a hedging of bets by embracing agnosticism is the really smart move. This appears to be the position of many people who forswear any religious affiliation and yet are not fully prepared to commit to a complete rejection of God.

The religious impulse is common throughout humanity; even non-believers recognise its force, otherwise why are humanist and secular societies so insistent denial?

What cannot be denied are the insights and advances of science. Revealed religions are often found wanting when some scientific breakthrough contradicts a traditional viewpoint based, so it’s claimed, on a divine diktat.

However, what science is revealing expands religious understanding. For a Deist, unencumbered by either scepticism or faith, a fundamental principle has been established: nothing occurs without prior cause.

That there is a universe signifies a universal creator. Some Deists invoke intelligent design, but this has the debilitating drawback of association with creationism. Perhaps intelligent creation might be a better concept. Creation is continuous and intelligence is an aspect of that creation, an obvious manifestation of it in humanity.

The universe is self aware: although it can appear that humans are in some way observers of creation we are as much a part of it as the earth on which we stand and the stars we look out upon. Therefore, if we turn an eye towards the universe it means the universe is looking at itself.

The objection usually raised against a First Cause is, doesn’t logic demand that also had a cause? This question presumes the creation can comprehend its creator. Laws established for the functioning of the universe have no logical necessity to apply beyond, or before, the universe.

The universe is a miraculous conception and for all the advances of science, how much is not yet understood, how much will remain outside our understanding? Every new discovery opens up whole new vistas for inquiry not previously dreamed of.

Deists refer to the First Cause as God or Deus, but do not presume to claim any profound understanding of what that means. God is an inference as, analogously, dark matter and energy, though unobservable, were inferred through their effects on what could be measured.

Therefore, it is possible to combine humanity’s basic religious impulse with an appreciation of scientific insight without sacrificing intelligent credibility. Look at nature, creation, and witness the divine expressed in material reality.

Perhaps we should not be so arrogant as to think we virtually know it all, or at least enough to dismiss a spiritual appreciation of creation. Clever jokes and sneering contempt cannot deny the Deist view there is something greater than we, for all our learning, can comprehend.

Deist Declaration of Independence

By his own admission, David Pyle was imbued with “Deistic Revolutionary Passion” when he wrote “The Declaration of Deist Interdependence” on 4th July, 2003. It was, after all less than two years after the group of revealed religionists perpetrated what’s come to be infamously known as 9/11.

However, his opening gambit remains pertinent. “…in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for an individual to dissolve the religious bonds which have strangled their understanding of God…”

Too often faith, or appeals to faith, determines the actions and beliefs of those adhering to a revealed religion. After all, they claim, they are obeying the will, or actual word, of God as recorded in their sacred text.

Really? Even if God assumed human form to speak his word directly to Moses (or prophet of choice), that would be a revelation for Moses alone. Even if he passed the message on absolutely accurately it would still be second hand. The listener(s) then must have total belief in the messenger in the first instance, rather than in God.

Pyle went on to write that the individual needs to, “…assume responsibility for the exploration of the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God…” This requires the individual to seek first hand experience and knowledge, not relying on scriptures or taking anyone’s word to be God’s word.

In the spirit of the US Declaration of Independence he goes on to assert, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men have an equal chance at understanding God, and are endowed by the Creator with the ability to Reason through the concepts of life, liberty, and the pursuit of Truth.”

Reason is the rock on which the “church” of Deism is constructed. And Reason demands each person thinks for them self. Certainly, there will be sharing of ideas, arguments made and countered; through such a dialectical process is understanding achieved. But, each individual must come to an understanding, as there is no dogmatic truth to be won.

Pyle goes on to make a number of condemnatory statements about revealed religions that contain the essence of Deism’s rejection of them, while tending towards hyperbole.

He asserts that revealed religions are responsible for the bloodiest wars that have afflicted Mankind and, “the murder of more men, women and innocent children than any other force in the history of humanity.”

It is certainly true religions have played no small part in the cause and prosecution of wars and murder through history, but so have political ambition and naked avarice. Indeed, when the religious habit is stripped away these are usually the actual motivations behind so-called wars of religion.

If Deists are to be true to their profession of Reason then the difference between appearance and actuality must be considered. The First and Second World Wars are, to date, the bloodiest in history, at least in sheer numbers of casualties. Although prelates blessed the troops, and prayed for their victory, on all sides, religion was not the cause of those conflicts.

Pyle quite rightly identifies religions as the active repressors of Reason over thousands of years. This, though, reflects the gradual evolution of human thought over millennia and doesn’t take into account the beginnings of the university system, for example, that began as religious institutions.

Deism itself is an example of such evolution, emerging in the eighteenth century from traditional Christianity when its ideology became subject to the sceptical scrutiny of Reason. However much religions try to suppress it, Reason eventually becomes the force through which it is transcended.

The advocate of the new has a tendency towards exaggeration when castigating the old and Pyle succumbed to this weakness when he wrote, “…Revealed Religion is the enemy of the Purpose of God, and fights against the progression of humanity by destroying the ability to Reason in its adherents.”

This rather begs the question as to what God’s purpose is and is it possible for it to be discerned by humanity? Unless mankind is elevated to being equal with God it is likely that purpose must remain beyond comprehension. Much has been learned about the universe, but on human terms, not God’s.

Also, whatever the intentions of authorities, religious or secular, to inhibit the application of Reason they will be frustrated: the human spirit emerges counterpoised to self-serving power bases. Indeed, they may even be the catalyst for movements, such as Deism, that will depose them.

Much is presently been made in the media about the findings in the last national census showing a considerable fall in the numbers claiming even nominal adherence to religious institutions. Humanist groups are crowing over the apparent inexorable progress of atheism.

However, it is the decline various denominations of Revealed Religions that is so marked and as yet, in Britain, the profile of Deism is presently so limited as to be virtually unknown generally.

Mass media only presents a straight dichotomy: atheism or the Church, with the former being the predominant ideology of the publicly clever. The suspicion is the census has actually identified a demographic that has not chosen one preference over another, but rather rarely, if at all, thinks seriously about it.

A similar trend can bed seen in politics with a growing number of the electorate that is so disillusioned as to identify with no political party or trend. Just as this does not mean, though, they are not interested in politics, so it may well be religiously. People will not be told what to think.

Which is where Deism comes in. No creed, no dogma, no articles of faith, or faithlessness for that matter. Reason is the instrument to be wielded by each person on his or her own behalf, with experience being the touchstone of judgement and nature the subject of consideration.

For Deists it is because creation can be the subject of Reason that the assertion of God’s existence is reasonable. Otherwise, why is it possible to make sense of anything? What constitutes God is beyond our limited comprehension: most certainly not the fickle, somewhat limited, super-being – now punishing, now saving – of Revealed Religions.

In the final statement of his Declaration David Pyle goes on to say, “We declare that we are the true spiritual home of all who seek to understand God through the use of Reason, and who oppose the domination of thought imposed by Religions of Faith.”

All those who find themselves alienated from their religion while not of the atheist camp either could do well to consider they may be Deists and have not yet realised it. David Pyle has progressed in his Deism from his early days as represented by his Declaration of Interdependence to a more considered, reasonable position.

Yet at the core of his Declaration is the recognition that religion will continue to be a significant factor and through Deism it can find expression at a time when Revealed Religions either become dangerously fundamentalist or gently decline into inconsequence.

The full text of David Pyle’s Declaration of Interdependence can be found at
http://www.celestiallands.org

Deism and Poetry

Valley of Fire
(Nevada)
By
Dave Alton

To stand in the desert for a first time
Is to stand at the very beginning
Of creation, and at the very end.
Another world orbiting a different,
Bigger sun, a sense life is otherwise,
Invisible creatures with difficult
Intelligences and all seeing eyes.
Time is sculptor here, fashioning absurd
Abstracts from huge blocks of fiery sandstone,
Wielding wind as hammer, rain as chisel.
A cunning hand that long since gave up skin
And tendons, muscle and bone, precisely
Etched pictograms for snake, for long-horned sheep,
For spiral and labyrinth, and for Man,
Drawn out through black skimmed vertical flat screens
Of varnished canyons. Who now can translate
Such a strange, distant vocabulary,
Which might be magic or coarse graffiti,
Or menu of giants who once dwelt there
Before disbelief forced their extinction?
But, having stood and witnessed sudden gusts
Lift powdered earth whirling up into air,
Stood there in an absolute fog of sand,
Stood and peeked through squinted eyes while the land
Was re-arranged, the obvious declines,
A requirement for transliteration
Becomes an impertinence. Let rocks speak
For themselves, as do the wings of the bird
Of prey circling, its eloquent shadow
Echoing along the desiccated
Riverbed flooded to overflowing
With vibrant, infernal dust. It’s just those
Dependent on metalled ways who’re deafened
And blinded by desert’s shrill brilliance.

This poem expresses Deistic sensibilities in relation to creation, recreation and creator. Of itself it indicates the being of a poet. This is not some chance formation of words, but the product of mind operating within identifiable laws of language.

Much more can be reasonably inferred: that consciousness and intelligence exist, that there is a greater medium, poetry, of which this is a particular expression, that these are undeniable features of the universe.

The poem itself cannot be proved to be objectively true even though some of its detail is available for general scrutiny. It is a singular, subjective view of a moment in all the vastness of time. Whether the poem is good, indifferent or bad cannot be scientifically established.

However, neither is the poem an attack on science or scientific methodology. Indeed, the weathering referred to is most certainly open to scientific scrutiny and explanation. The scene is a product of evolution, formed through the action of weather and climate.

Creatures living there can do so because adaptation makes it possible; natural selection is the dynamic, favouring one feature over another, as a poet chooses this word and not that.

The pictograms etched into rock faces are mysterious because not only are the artists long gone, the people to which they belonged have also vanished. Their signs and symbols defy interpretation; are they sacred or profane or idle doodles?

Reason demands, though, not only can the existence of those folk not be denied, but also they are a part of a greater singularity, human being. What a vastly complex individual is human being and only a tiny, tiny aspect of the universe.

Although the possibility of the sacred is mentioned in the poem there is no explicit reference to God. For the Deist poetry expresses the abstraction for which the word God stands.

If a poem is its own universe, then the poet is its creator. Should there be some minute expression of the poet’s consciousness deep within the poem that became self-conscious, how much might it come to understand the entirety?

From the structure in which that conscious fragment existed it could reasonably deduce the existence of a poet without being able to comprehend what such a figure is.

Surely the multifaceted variety of poetry would be beyond its comprehension, as would the abstract overarching concept of The Poet. And even the individual poet is so much more than the poetry.

Analogies are always weak and ultimately flawed and that constructed here is no exception. This merely demonstrates the difficulty of writing or speaking of the ineffable.

Read a poem: better still, look around at creation and, employing reason, ask, is this all merely the product of purposeless chance or are there patterns suggestive of something greater?

Just because beneath that fascinatingly weathered rock resplendent with ancient pictograms there lurks a rattlesnake is no a denial of God. Rather, the existence of all and more is at the very least suggestive of the divine, whatever that might mean.

Deism and Religious Observance

“Common folk have no great need for the services of religious officials.”* So wrote Ibn Khaldun, the 14th century Islamic scholar who was blessed with this insight despite his own spiritual tradition.

The three Abrahamic religions have always insisted on religious observance: praising God and asking for His favour, protection and forgiveness of sins. Failure to do so is to invite eternal damnation, or the opprobrium of the religious authorities at least.

Synagogue, church and mosque have been presented as the portals through which the faithful pass from the profane world to the sacred. Even amidst the venal temptations of everyday life there is the imperative to pray. God must have His veneration.

Not that Sabbath day observances have always been piously adhered to. It seems that in medieval times services might well last all day, but while the priest was intoning at the front of the church, market trading and gaming occupied the back.

That the Church, backed by the state, resorted to compulsion suggests many “common folk” were perhaps not as keen as they might have been on regular Sunday attendance. In more recent times non-attendance has become the norm.

Not that this is a new phenomenon. With the move from the rural to urban communities following industrialisation in the nineteenth century so there appears to have been a waning of the Church’s hold over “common folk”.

Friedrich Engels, in his “The Condition of the Working Class in England” noted the absence of religious influences in many working class communities. Where religion did exercise a measure of authority it was revivalist non-conformist chapels, many of which were destined to become the designer dwellings of today.

The recent national census in Britain has revealed a falling off in the number of people claiming even nominal religious affiliation and it is more likely the shopping mall rather then the pew draws people to it on a Sunday.

The victory of Mammon and the vanquishing of God? Actually, it is just a more open and honest expression of what was going on anyway in the medieval churches. It also a demonstration of how correctness of Ibn Khaldun’s observation.

Khaldun was not being pejorative in his use of the word “common” in this context and it is, in any case, a translation. This is “common folk” in the sense of the generality of people as opposed to a specific group such as a priestly caste. He recognised that unless coerced by fear of the wrath of God, religious authorities, the state or a combination of all three, people are not so keen on formalised religious observance.

For Deists this is positive. God, as the ineffable originator of all creation, surely does not require to be repeatedly reminded of this by a miniscule element of that creation. People have been blessed with intellect and reason with which to grasp some understanding of the universe, appreciating the divine nature of it.

Humanity has evolved a moral sensibility and while how that is expressed is culturally determined, the concepts of Right and Wrong seem fundamental. Therefore, it is for people to work out their moral code and the facility of conscience supports external social enforcement.

This is creation working through human beings; so God is the ultimate source of the process by which what is considered morally acceptable is determined, not the enforcer. Morality, like all of creation, is not fixed, but changes and evolves: what was once a sin becomes acceptable through conscious human choice. “God’s will” expresses itself through our will.

For the universe to be as it is its dynamism has to be objective. If certain parts could be privileged and granted favours then the universe would be very different. If God could be appealed to and grant special dispensations then a faithful person might well be able to step from a very tall building in the sure knowledge angels would gently bear him safely to the ground.

This would remove any requirement for personal responsibility; all that would be needed for a near perfect existence would be faith and piety. It does not require a great deal of experience to realise this is not how creation works, there are laws operating, which means the faithful plummet from great heights as readily and as quickly, as the faithless.

That there are such identifiable laws, rather than a chaos of random chance, leads Deists to their assertion of there being a prime cause, God or Deus or what you will. There is no need for religious officials to bring the “common folk” into pious observance for the divine creation to continue on its way.

Indeed, the universe produced the human species, which will have its time then creation will move on without us. That God does not require our image can be seen from the absolutely minute amount of time of our existence.

This does not mean religious observance is totally vacuous. People will gather to ask profound questions, speculate on meaning (or the absence of meaning), share the appreciation of the wonder of creation, consider what is meant by such a word as “God”. They may also do all of this individually through meditation.

Will God be listening? Is God even aware of our presence? Could God actually be cognisant of every last particle in the universe? No one knows and Deists certainly don’t claim to know, but that does not prevent us from being aware of the divine nature of creation, of God.

*”The Muqaddimah” by Ibn Khaldun, 14th century Islamic scholar.

Deism and Occam’s Razor

William Occam (Ockham – c. 1285-1347) was a Franciscan who, having condemned Pope John XXll as “no true pope”, had to flee his order and spent many years writing on church-state relations.

He dismissed Platonism and proffered himself as the one true interpreter of Aristotle. However, his most popularly regarded gift to posterity was his razor, a philosophical principle profound in its simplicity.

As was the scholastic custom of his day, Occam expressed his notion in Latin: Entia non sunt multiplicanda – entities are not to be multiplied. Indeed, his “razor” was to be employed shaving away all extraneous detail to arrive at the essential nub.

This is often expressed as, the simplest explanation is the one to be considered correct. Adding complications and complex arguments merely obscures the truth.

For Deists Occam’s razor is a most useful tool. Arguing for the existence of God from observation and experience of nature the formulation is straightforward: creation requires a creator.

Atheists ultimately have to propound a quite unbelievable conjuring trick: before creation (big bang) there was nothing. In fact, there wasn’t even nothing, as that is a concept and is, therefore, something. But, from or into this absence emerged everything for no reason or purpose at all.

Not only did this occur, this random act develops and behaves according to laws and through meaningless natural selection eventually spawns not only life, but life capable of reason and purpose.

Antipathy towards God is understandable if the divine posited is essentially a super-human, all the traits of Man, just on a grander scale. This is the God of theism of which atheism is the antithesis.

Deism transcends both positions. It makes no claims to defining what is meant by God or ascribing what the divine purpose of creation might be. Deists merely say that the most reasonable explanation for there being a universe lies with an originator.

And as creation is dynamic and on going the originator’s presence is still observable if ineffable: it is surely supreme arrogance to presume human understanding of the universe is so comprehensive as to exclude purpose and reason way beyond our ken.

Whether that originator/creator is called God or not is irrelevant; the word could be scrubbed from the lexicon and replaced by another unburdened by its associations and cultural accretions. Some Deists resort to the Latin Deus for this reason.

Ironically, Judaism, which eventually produced Christianity and Islam, originally avowed the divine could not be named. Of course, it then went on to variously name and attribute all manner of characteristics to God.

However, in principle there does seem to be a fundamental recognition that the divine is beyond comprehension and, therefore, beyond taxonomy. The problem is humans want to discuss these matters and so require language, a word to use.

So God, Deus or some other formulation will undoubtedly find continuing usage. It may require a word that is not just a noun but a verb and adjective concurrently.

Does this apparent complexity contradict Occam? Linguistically, probably, yet as an expression of a basic notion, not at all: Occam himself ventured propositions supportive of the Deist position, such as:
• Being cannot come from non-being.
• Whatever is produced by something is really conserved by something as long as it exists.
• Everything that is in motion is moved by something.

The latter is a forerunner of Thomas Paine’s argument against atheism: if someone can demonstrate perpetual motion, then the case for atheism can be proved. Otherwise there stands the case for the Prime Mover.

Deism can make good use of Occam’s razor to resist any temptation towards becoming overly complex. In simplicity is the profound beauty of its appreciation of nature and Nature’s God.

REVELATIONS OF REASON

With Christendom’s fragile relics revealed
To be fakes, so then the enlightened
Presumed god and his holy church would yield.
The superstitious, being no longer frightened,
Could look up into the heavens and see
An absence of angels. They were free
From damnation and this blessed relief
Should have them all embracing disbelief.
Abrahamic sophistries would fall,
Excised by the keen, adamantine blade
Of science; the progress that has been made
Must surely let atheism enthral,
Now that this has become the full season
To reap the grand harvest of reason.

Yet, just as Torah, Bible and Koran
Become manifested as errant tomes,
Not the Words of God, rather works of Man,
Mere shadows in illuminated homes.
Yet, although revelation is dismissed,
It is still conceivable to insist
That reason does not need to undermine,
But be a staunch pillar of the divine.
In truth, science continues to advance
And comprehension of creation grows
Because there exist discernable laws,
Not merely random, promiscuous chance.
Freethinking scientists and laity
Can contemplate a sense of deity.

The shape and the length and the depth of God,
The divine conceit and its extension:
Man might speculate but not know quod
Erat inveniendum*. Mention
The sacred and reason in the same verse
And zealots will fulminate, and curse
The apostate for his vile defiance
Of the jealous god or godless science.
Pious prelate and the secularist
Set aside their fundamental schism
To denounce as error modern deism
For reasoning the divine must exist.
What is God? Language is inadequate,
But thoughtful poetry may speculate.

This Logos being beyond definition,
Ineffable always and in all things,
And yet, occurring in Man’s cognition,
The merest hint imagination brings.
No cold and distant deity is this
And far too persistent for Man to miss.
The ineffable may be made absurd,
Transliterated as the holy word.
While sceptics’ intransigent insistence
On a rigid militant denial,
Must foreswear purpose glimpsed in nature’s guile
And that anything at all makes sense.
God can’t be confined by Man’s summation,
Being within and without creation.

What then of evil and the cruel stain
Upon mortal flesh left by the tart juice
Oozing from the forbidden fruit? Again,
Here’s evidence of clerical abuse,
With so much pomp and privilege to win
Through invocation of original sin.
Heaven’s gate slammed shut bringing Man to his knees
Before the Pontiff whose hand held the keys:
How else was Wrong to be culled from Right
Without the guarantee of Hell? Unless,
There’s no original sin to confess
And God isn’t irked by Adam and Eve’s slight.
Not guilt, but free reason divines intent
And human conscience guides moral judgement.

Commandments claimed of God for humanity
Are made by Man, through Man, for Man. It’s in
This promulgation their profanity
Allows such considerations of sin
To be tempered with due experience,
Fashioning a proper and commonsense
Of justice: not some divine demagogue
Handing down a mountaintop Decalogue.
In a reasonable world everyone should know
Whatever their differences they pale
To insignificance when male and female
Are utterly equal before the law.
However people might choose to relate,
In life and death, Nature doesn’t discriminate.

Sitting beneath a star-strewn midnight sky
On a hill above a spangled city,
The distant drone of traffic driving by,
Owl screech and a sense of complicity
With all creation, as if its intent
Is entirely this sacrosanct moment.
No matter the cosmos is so immense,
Nor a fraction of it makes any sense.
For the living, those to be born, the dead,
This grand contrivance emerged and was wrought
Over eons from a singular mote,
So a human eye might witness the sacred.
Break bread beneath those stars, raise a glass of wine
And share in communion with the divine.

Or, no wine, nor bread, nor appurtenances
Of revelation: let the spirit soar
Without scriptures, creeds and such romances,
Written by rote with God as dictator.
Earth is consecrated through its being,
Heavens are made holy by the seeing
Of them through wondrous eyes. Jubilation
At being blessed with life, conscious creation,
Aware enough to rejoice, celebrate
With song and dance and poetry and paint,
Or sit in silence listening for the faint
Whisperings of transcendence. Contemplate
Or cry; whatever personally holds sway
In observing nature’s mystery play.

Consciousness is no fortunate mistake,
Some side effect: rather Man’s sentience
Affirms that the universe is awake
And its being self-aware no vague pretence.
Intelligent Design? Do not expect
God in the person of an architect,
It seems the cosmos has proclivity
To show immanent creativity.
Absence of perfection is not a loss
Of coherence, for it is in the flaw
Seeds are planted and there begin to grow.
Thesis – order! Antithesis – chaos!
This dynamic antimony suggests
An active principle that never rests.

Religions are all too human, thoughtful
Fabrications constructed in good faith
To shelter all who cannot help but mull
An idea as insubstantial as a wraith.
Word is treacherous, betrays its meaning,
So, those who are intent upon gleaning
Absolute definition, find the trial
Inconclusive, and settle for denial.
Reason lights a way between blind belief
And blinkered rebuttal, yet such a light
Casts much deeper shadows when it is bright,
And it is in darkness doubt finds its brief.
Science or sacred? Seek to heal this schism,
Embrace reason, the reason for Deism.

* Which was to be found

Deist Epistle 1

It is no small task to become free from superstition. In infancy children are exposed to prevailing religious ideas. Often before they can comprehend such an the event, baptism is performed and they are inducted, however nominally, into a church.

It is not long before Christmas begins to inculcate some basic notions. Perhaps twinkling lights, glitter and presents are what fascinate the most, but angels, stables wise men and mangers also start to appear. Then there’s the central figure.

The baby Jesus is something a young child can relate to as being very like themselves, only extra-special in some ill-defined way. At nursery simple carols are learned and sung and then on into school and religious education.

Even children raised in secular households are not immune from such religious influence. Modern society, having arisen from Christendom, is infused with its ideas and values so they appear to be a natural part of even an atheist’s personal ideology.

Atheists tend to be those who have made a conscious effort to liberate themselves from outmoded religious concepts. The bible has proven to be not the infallible word of God, but the all too fallible tale telling of man.

Science split not only the atom, but also heaven wide open, revealing great mysteries though ones susceptible to human interrogation and comprehension. However influential culturally Christendom might remain, its cosmic monarch has been toppled as surely as Byzantium.

God is dead! Nietzsche wrote the obituary almost a century and a half ago, and yet religion refuses to emulate Judas by slinking away and quietly perishing. Certainly, with notable exceptions, pews continue to be polished more regularly by aging volunteers with dusters, rather than the bums of believers.

The recent census demonstrated a decreasing number who laid claim, however tenuously, to religious observance of any sort. Regularly society is declared secular through the organs of the media; while celebrity atheists, some scientists, others stand up comedians, make mock of the few remaining deluded fools.

However, it is on the ship of fools many take passage against this rising tide of scepticism. Perhaps humanity should not consider itself so clever that it alone can now walk on water. Tides have a way of turning unexpectedly, catching out those who considered themselves safe on the moral high ground.

Reason is the faculty that has promoted humanity to its present lofty position. The world is no longer taken on faith; its ways and enigmas are challenges for reasoned investigation.

Science makes manifest the natural laws by which it is possible for there to be sentient life capable of such a task. Everyday experience confirms generally what science defines precisely.

Such thinking has been applied to religion for as long as science has been rising to its dominant position. The eighteenth century saw the emergence of Deism, the application of reason to religious and sceptical thinking.

If the universe operates according rational laws, then what is the source of such reason? God as the creator, the prime mover, emerged, transcending previous theistic revealed religion and confounding those promoting Man through their declared absence of God.

God is a concept of unfathomable depths, ultimately beyond human comprehension. As a word it is little more than a convenience, a sign allowing conversation to take place.

Perhaps “God” as a word is dead, due to the accumulated burden of all its previous associations. If the word has had its meaning crushed from it, then another will take its place. Deus is favoured by many Deists.

The word is not ultimately important; it is not in itself holy. Language has limitations that do not allow for direct and precise definition, which is why physicists use mathematics.

But, Deism is at least true in the sense that a poem is true, or a painting, or a piece of music. Nietzsche was aware that with the interment of Christendom’s God science, of itself, was not suitable to fill the vacant throne.

In “The Birth of Tragedy” he looked back to ancient Greece for indications of what might hold the key to human flourishing. In the Stoics he could have found the early development of thinking that has re-emerged in modern times as Deism.

Like all religions and philosophies, Deism is man made and as such will have its moment and then pass away. However, when it does so there will arise a new manner of thinking in which the timeless precepts of Deism will be inculcated, just as those of value from previous religions have echoes in the Deist heart.