Attending To God

 

A recent Church of England report revealed that regular church attendance presently stands at 1.8% of the population. It went on to project that this would fall over the next decade to about 1%. The decline, it appears is inexorable.

No doubt secularists greeted this news as confirmation that religion has all but been vanquished, that we all now live in the Kingdom of Godlessness. Of course, it means nothing of the sort. What it does reflect is a diversity of views and an unwillingness to be martialled into any particular camp.

There can be no presumption that the corollary of the report’s findings is that 98.2% of the population are atheists or agnostics. Apart from members of other denominations and faiths, perhaps the majority of people rarely even give the matter much thought.

When they do it seems many profess a vague, inchoate sense that “there is something” or the order they see in the world around them can’t be the result of mere chance. Nothing more definite than that. A recognition they are part of something far greater than themselves, only there’s no need to go into some designated building every Sunday to sing about it.

Atheism has a fundamental problem most atheists seem to solve by denying it. That is, in a random, purposeless universe the only rational position is that of the nihilist. An assertion that Godless humans can find their own purpose, through existentialism or whatever, is to accept, at the very least, purposefulness does exist in creation.

After all, people are a part of that creation and are expressions of purpose. It is a similar realisation that the universe is self-aware: it must be, because we humans are aware of the universe, at the very least we are the universe’s self-consciousness.

Although atheism presents itself as a modern way of thinking, it is actually as ancient as religious belief. The per-Socratic philosophers were intellectually wrestling with the implications of materialism even as the chosen people of Israel were developing the early foundations of what have become the three Abrahamic faiths.

Deism is a dialectical product all the contending factors around belief and disbelief, informed by science. Like all religions it is man-made and, as such, has its own imperfections and contradictions. It does not claim to offer prefect answers, because they don’t exist.

Indeed, it may not even be a religion but a philosophy. It has no dogma or creed demanding obedience, rather the opposite, imposing on the individual the burden of drawing his or her own conclusions.

Deists cannot even say what God, or Deus, is. Not only is there no settled agreement amongst deists, there is a shared recognition that God must be, and remain, beyond human comprehension. Otherwise, God is little more than an idealised, but limited, human being at best, such as the God of the Abrahamic faiths.

Maybe the word God will eventually fall into disuse and some other arise to denote a less anthropomorphic designation. If so, it seems unlikely it will require the filling of pews on a Sunday.

Certainty

 

Are there intelligent beings, perhaps far more advanced than us, on other worlds scattered through the vastness of the universe? It is possible to construct reasoned arguments to support both positive and negative answers to this question. The one thing that cannot be stated categorically one way or the other is absolute certainty.

Certainty can be a dangerous concept, too often founded on an absolutist partial view. To be certain is to accept no contradiction, all contrary views must be summarily dismissed as erroneous.

Is there God? In Britain it has become the prevailing trend amongst those who would consider themselves to be most progressive and rational in their thinking to become unholier than thou. God of the gaps has become no gap for God.

Non-belief in God is perfectly rational, a reasoned conclusion drawn from some combination of scientific understanding with all too many execrable examples of religious dogmatism or malpractice.

Atheism, though, does not confer secular sainthood on its adherents. Atheists are as capable of all the foibles that too often are considered the failings of the religious. The uncomfortable truth is that such failings, from the trivial to the horrendous, are human, not God’s.

God is often cited to justify truly terrible acts committed by those claiming to be His most pious adherents. Whether they sincerely believe this or not their justification is a human falsehood, the crimes are theirs.

This is also the case for religious practices and books. They are human productions, not divinely ordained. Therefore they cannot be cited to justify persecution of those considered non-believers or claim a monopoly on truth.

Atheists who readily cite such religious malfeasance are conniving at the pious fallacy. False belief remains just that whether dressed in religious garb or sporting a secular appearance. Both are guilty of closed thinking if they profess absolute certainty in their ideology.

Deism begins with the view that all ideologies, religious or secular, are manmade, including its own. Therefore, an ideology at any given moment is provisional and will change over time, and may be supplanted at some future date when it has been falsified by new understandings.

The argument for God or Deus that deists profess is based on the application of human reason. Science provides an expanding knowledge of the universe, which is only possible because it operates according to discernible laws.

If creation was the product of just random chance then there would only be chaos, certainly none of the predictability science requires to function. Deists argue that universal laws rather than chaos are at the very least suggestive of something that can be referred to as God or Deus or First Cause or perhaps even X.

This is not certain, but it is a recognition that the age old belief in deity, expressed in such varied ways over millennia, is perhaps an a priori feature of human cognition. That it gets bound up in sectarian religious practices is a reflection of a desire for certainty about something which is ultimately beyond human comprehension.

It is far, far more likely that the existence or otherwise of extra-terrestrial advanced beings will at some point be possible than some absolute proof of God. However, inquiry should not be dismissed or even curtailed by a present insistence on an absolute certainty.

Does God Exist?

 

This question is considered by many philosophers to be one of the irresolvable conundrums. Essentially, it cannot be known absolutely whether God exists or not. Indeed, philosophically, the proper position to take may be agnosticism.

However, religion has played a significant role in human life to date, being manifested in a variety of ways. Today, atheism is widely considered to be the smart position to hold, with many claiming it to be superior to belief.

Faith is mocked as staunch belief in an entity for which there isn’t a shred of evidence: worse, it is akin to advocating the existence of fairies or Santa Claus. Here though there is a category error: fairies and Santa Claus demonstrably belong in the realm of childhood and most people, adults and children, know what they are and look like.

This is not true of God. Islam rejects any possibility of representing Allah and Judaism used Yahweh to signify God, originally not a name, rather an unpronounceable collection of letters. Christianity has given God a human face in Christ, but even then that is only an aspect of God who is ineffably greater.

The point is that while atheists could be correct, there is no objective way of establishing the case one way or the other, it is as much a belief system as theism, both being faiths profoundly held. It often seems the God atheists vehemently do not believe in is not a God theists do.

Agnostics draw a perfectly reasonable conclusion by recognising that neither contrary position can be verified. However, this does not prevent people from drawing another reasonable conclusion from their own observations and experiences.

The universe, possibly a multiverse, is a dynamic system operating by comprehensible laws. While chance does play its part, the cosmos is not just an agglomeration of random events. Is there purpose in creation? Human beings know there is at least purpose in their own lives, therefore purpose can be shown to be a factor.

This leads some to posit a Prime Mover or Grand Designer, which is not to suggest some human-like being on a grander scale. Both phrases can be picked apart if they’re taken literally, but accepting the limitations of language to describe what may always lie beyond human comprehension, they can be used indicatively.

Deism adopts this provisional position, provisional because it cannot be absolute and desist make no such claim to infallibility. They may also prefer the Latin Deus to the Greek Theas, to differentiate themselves from previous considerations and speculations about the divine.

So, does God exist? For deists, Deus does.

 

What’s in the Word?

When the word is God, rather a lot. That the universe is of divine creation, that there is God, or Gods, are notions that humanity has nurtured since pre-history. The problem has been, and still affects the world’s religions, is that the concept of the divine has been limited to reflect society at any given moment.

Indeed, ideas about God often seem to lag behind social changes and should be obviously anachronistic to those who continue to espouse them, For example, the Christian Church still refers to God as King of creation: this suffers from the twin difficulties of being anthropomorphic and outdated.

The theist God is very human, all be it on a grander scale. In fact, king is not a bad epithet for a deity that is jealous, ruthless, angry, demanding of praise and fealty, loving the subservient, dispensing favour or punishment according to the divine whim. A despot indeed.

According to religious teaching, God created man in His own image. It would surely be more accurate to reverse that, man creates God in his own image. This is reflected in recent times by feminist theologians who insist on the female nature of God, as if this makes any real difference to such a limited concept.

If God is demonstrably a human creation rather than the other way around, why persist with the notion? Strip away all the cultural and religious accretions and religions have one element in common, God. It seems humans have an a priori knowledge that the universe in which we all exist was created, and continues to be created, by something way beyond our ken.

It is because this ineffable something lies way beyond our very partial understanding that it has become repeatedly dressed up in human attire. The word God allows us to indicate this mysterious something, to consider and speculate about, even have vague intimations of, the divine.

Deists celebrate reason because it enables us to have insights into creation and see in all the wonders science reveals laws and purpose. We know from human experience that creation requires a creator.

From the first primitive log role to the very latest automobile there has been conscious choices made by numerous people down the centuries. Even chance would have contributed, but a fortunate accident would require someone to choose to learn from and incorporate it into the process of development. This is evidence of human being.

On the very much grander scale creation requires a creator, divine being. That our view is limited doesn’t prevent us appreciating the significance of that of which we are a part.

Analogies are always flawed, so accepting this consider: Actors are filmed scene by scene in no particular narrative sequence. Often, they have little or no idea as to the story being made. Indeed, the director in the editing suit cuts the film and makes the story. We are like those actors, only we may never get to see the whole production.

Some deists choose to use the Latin Deus rather than God, considering the word God has too many cultural and religious associations. There are deists who argue they are not religious at all, rather they subscribe to a philosophy not a religion.

So, what’s in the word? An awful lot, it seems, but language is a living not a fixed entity, discarding outmoded meanings and adopting new ones. For the word God deists offer new definitions appropriate for our times, a word that can open thinking to new concepts and understandings that transcend religious boundaries. We might be defined by God, but we cannot define God.

Which God?

It has been suggested that deism is an expression of atheism. This is correct in that it denies theistic conceptions of God and the religions proceeding from them. Whatever their differences, all three Abrahamic faiths essentially subscribe to an anthropomorphic deity exhibiting all too human emotions such as jealousy, anger and forgiveness.

Knowledge of such a God is claimed via revelation and scriptures asserted to be the divine word or, at the very least, divinely inspired. A supernatural element if also employed to a greater or lesser extent.

Deists deny that any such detailed knowledge of God is possible. Holy books are the works of man and as such lack any real consistency, indeed are often contradictory, hardly the mark of the divine word.

Revelation has a particular problem. Even if it’s true, God puts in a personal appearance with Moses for example, it is only Moses that has the first hand experience. For everyone else the experience is second or third hand, needing to be taken on trust. Even if Moses is an honest fellow, no matter how convincing he is, it is still not a revelation for those to whom he relates his experience.

Deism requires none of this, indeed it is each individual’s personal experience and reflection upon the universe alone that can lead to the conclusion of there being God. That creation is amenable to rational study through there being identifiable laws makes it reasonable to accept there was/is a creator.

That there is something, a universe, rather nothing poses a problem if there is no creator: nothing emerges from nothing, no effect without a cause, no movement without a moving force. The prime cause, the prime mover is what deists refer to as God.

And God must be of a very different order of being as to be the instigator without having to be instigated. So, although humanity can have intimations of God, whatever that simple word refers to is beyond the partial understanding of human beings.

This is not a new concept or one unique to deists. In Hindu philosophy there is Brahman, an unchanging reality that’s in, behind and beyond the universe that cannot be defined.

Similarly, in Taoism it’s said that however the Tao is understood or defined, that is not Tao, which is outside the human capacity to comprehend.

That there are lesser deities spawned turning these philosophies into versions of theistic religion is a demonstration of a human need for the anthropomorphic: however, Micky Mouse being a fictional human creation does not invalidate the reality of mice.

God, as a word, does carry millennia of anthropomorphic associations which is why many deists have adopted the Latin Deus for their discourse to avoid theistic implications.

Deism does not proselytize for the very good reason, mentioned above, that it is for individuals to arrive at their own conclusions. People can be pointed in the direction of deism, but they must engage with it and become deists because they decide to.

So, while deism is not synonymous with atheism in its broader sense, not is it religious like theistic faiths. Many deists would regard themselves as not being religious at all, that deism is a philosophy not a religion. It certainly has none of the religious trappings such theocratic hierarchies, articles of faith, holy books or such like.

If there is a deist gospel it is written on the earth and in the stars and is not bound by the hand of man. The works of Deus are literally everywhere, and we are one of them.

Way of Deism

For anyone seeking truth, or something approximate to it, finding the way is not easy. If the first steps entail walking away from established religious tradition a sense of being bereft can become pervasive.

This often leads to a spiritual tourism where various religious alternatives are tried and found wanting. Their similarity to the established religious traditions they claim to eschew becomes apparent: formal or informal hierarchies, leaders who may or may not be charismatic and/or divinely inspired, some creed to be adhered to, an insistence their way is the only true way.

The result often is the experience of such schismatic sects reinforces a rejection of religion, with the adoption of an unsatisfactory agnostic or even atheistic position. However, a feeling that there is something more remains.

Careful consideration, and a determination not to be bound by previous experiences, can then lead to a rational examination of what can be personally observed. A starting point is questioning notion that the creation of the universe, unlike everything that is within it, had no cause of its own.

If there was an initial cause that brought the universe into being it was unique, different to all subsequent causation by not being the result of some previous effect. Otherwise it would, by definition, not be the First Cause.

Also, the order perceived in the universe, that it operates according to discernable laws and had to be precisely as it is for life to emerge and evolve into humans is surely not accidental.

There is nothing in the universe that isn’t the result of a chain of creation that continues to develop. It is hardly a step to then come to the conclusion that creation has a creator.

Such a creator is not the anthropomorphic Deity of the Abrahamic religions. The universe does not demonstrate geometric perfection or evidence of constant omnipotent correction.

It appears creation may well have been a singular act with little or no subsequent interference by the Creator. If there are continuing divine influences they must be according to the Creator’s purpose and not the result of human imprecations.

The universe is manifestly not perfect, but that may not be the point, rather that its being is in itself significant. Also, if perfection had been achieved the universe would surely have reached stasis as any further developments would have led to imperfection. The lack of perfection makes the universe a dynamic, continually developing process.

Perhaps, the Creator wants or needs creation to be perceived and understood, at least to some extent, and that is a role humanity presently plays. Indeed, we are active consciously in shaping our small corner of creation and in that sense we are the Creator’s agents.

Maybe humanity’s purpose to develop consciousness of creation and to employ this gift as part of the on-going dynamic development: through us at least we can be sure the universe is aware of its own existence. Might divine providence be channelled to us in this way?

Deism is more than a rational speculation about the existence of God. It is an understanding that we are of creation as much as any other feature, part of the whole. Nature itself is the Word of God and we have the ability to learn, understand and interpret that language.

The universe is an objective reality and while our reactions to it may be subjective they can be filtered through reason to reach conclusions in accordance with that objective reality. If there is an element of faith in deist belief in God it is not a faith in contradiction with objective reality.

Deism is not a licence to believe in just anything, it is demanding of the individual to use reason so as to draw conclusions verified by being in concert with those arrived at by fellow deists.

This is not to preclude differences; they will arise according to various interpretations of observations of nature. As the ultimate nature of God/Creator/First Cause/Whatever is beyond human fathoming perhaps the one shared conclusion deists can agree on is that Deus is not beyond reason.

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.

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.

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.