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.

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.

Scouting For God

The Scout movement is contemplating changing its oath. Presently, the prospective recruit makes a promise along the lines to do his or her best for the Queen, and for God. It seems this may be discouraging some potential members.

In an increasingly secular society a growing number of young people profess disbelief in God and uphold no religion. Accommodation has already been made for those of non-Christian faiths, so the logical step is to actively include those of no faith.

Enforced allegiance is, of course, no faith at all, so even if a pedantic adherence to the traditional oath were preserved it would not create a single new young believer. Any non-believer desperate to join could simply mouth meaningless words, an encouragement to dishonesty.

Deists understand that God does not require oaths of allegiance or any particular recognition. The Divine is not a person partial to praise, dispensing favours on favourites while wreaking terrible vengeance on those in disfavour.

By way of a thought experiment, consider two people who both step into the path of a speeding train. One is a thorough going sceptic who dismisses God out of hand, the other a dutiful Christian who lives a life of faith.

In this world it is certain each would be killed, faith or the lack of it having no bearing on the physics involved. However, in a world where God absolutely protects and rewards faithful followers, the atheist is still virtually obliterated while the Christian walks away uninjured.

For this to occur all the known laws of physics, and biology for that matter, would have to be utterly compromised if not abolished. The whole of creation would become a series of unpredictable, random acts or so predetermined as to make any exercise of choice or responsibility impossible.

Deists most certainly do not promote such nonsense, even in its lesser form of prayers intended to persuade God to grant favours amounting to localised suspensions of known scientific laws.

It is because creation operates according to discernable laws, and can be understood rationally, Deists posit God as the overarching source or creator. That there is such a universe is the only “sacred text” Deists require for their theology.

Whether God is aware of human beings as individuals or a population is a moot point. The evolutionary process that produced Homo sapiens would fill the niche left if people became extinct. We are of God, but so would be a virus bringing about the termination of our species.

The miracle is the existence of life and the subsequent development of consciousness to the point where products of the universe, human beings, are instrumental in the universe coming to an awareness and understanding of itself.

Perhaps the wisest notion in the Hebrew bible is the injunction not to make graven images of God. All attempts to do so result in producing some version of ourselves. God responsible for the whole of creation is so far beyond human comprehension that even abstraction cannot possibly represent the Divine.

The God of the Scouts’ oath is a graven God, a human creation rather than the other way around. As such, a graven image is disposable when no longer required. Scouts who develop a sense of wonder by direct experience of nature might well come to a sense of the Divine, even if they resolutely choose not to use such a word as God.

There are many Deists who do not realise they are. They are members of all religions and none, but they have in common recognition, however vague, of a sense of purpose, a pattern, an inkling creation is more than chance random accidents, while not conforming to traditional religious dogmas either.

Any organisation charged with developing the sensibilities of youth need to shed any impediments to that mission. The Scout movement in opening young minds to possibilities will nurture adults who’ll come to terms with creation in their own ways.

Deists are confident the Deus, God or whatever, can be freely appreciated by open-minded adults whatever language they choose to express this fundamental concept. As the Scouts’ motto insists, “Be Prepared” to experience nature and use reason to discern the divine therein.

Deism: An Overview

Deism, derived from Deus, the Latin word for God, is a natural religion. The existence of God is posited on rational grounds with no reference to revelation, sacred texts or religious authority.

This makes Deism very different from the three Abrahamic faiths, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. All three are based on the notion of prophets receiving the Word of God and relaying it to the rest of humanity.

So, Deists…

• Reject the belief common to most religions that God is revealed through holy texts.
• Disagree with atheists who assert there is no God.
• Appeal to reason, that in the universe there is nothing that exists without a creator, therefore the cosmos, logically, will have a creator, that is God.
1. “God is the power of first cause, nature is the law, and matter is the subject acted upon.” (Thomas Paine)
2. “…everything we behold carries in itself the internal evidence that it did not make itself…” which takes us “…to the belief of a first cause eternally existing…this first cause, man calls God.” (Thomas Paine)
3. “How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self replication capabilities and coded chemistry?” (Antony Flew, long-time atheist who became a Deist)

History of Deism

Originally, Deism was belief in a single deity as opposed to many Gods or no God(s). However, in the 17th century it came to refer to types of radical Christianity rejecting revelation, miracles and the infallibility of the bible.

Eventually, this led to a complete separation from Christianity, and today Deism is not associated with any established religion. As there is no Deist organisation of churches, priesthood or over-arching authority, it is not a religious movement in any traditional sense.

Deism emerged during what has become known as The Enlightenment, developing its ideas from the scientific advances of such as Bacon, Copernicus, Galileo et al. It was the employment of techniques used to study nature applied to religion.

Early Deists still considered the bible contained important truths, but it was not divinely inspired or literally true. They developed bible study as historical analysis rather than revealed truth.

One of those early Deists was Lord Herbert of Chedbury who listed 5 articles of English Deism in his book, “De Veritate” (1624)
• Belief in a single supreme God.
• Humanity has a duty to revere God.
• God will forgive sins following repentance.
• Worship linked with practical morality.
• Good works will be rewarded (evil punished) in life and after death.

Some leading Deists of the day were; Anthony Collins (1676-1729), Matthew Tindal (1657-1733), JJ Rousseau (1712-1778) and FMA de Voltaire (1694-1778).

Deism was particularly influential amongst leaders of both French and American revolutions. American Deists such as John Adams, Ethan Allen, Ben Franklin, James Madison, George Washington, along with English radical Thomas Paine, insisted on the principle of separation of church and state, a clause in the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Deism Today

There are no fundamental creeds all deists subscribe to, indeed such would be anathema to Deism. However, there are some broad principles most Deists could accept as a starting point:
• All religious texts and creeds were/are created by humans.
• Deists look to nature as its “gospel” of reasoned creation (not creationism). Nature is not eternal, so it is reasonable to posit the existence of a Creator.
• This non-anthropomorphic Creator has/does not reveal the purpose of creation, so humans must make their own way in the world.
• Deism’s basic premise is that a pre-existing Prime Mover set the universal process going (wound it up or lit blue touch paper or “said” ‘Let there be light’) and allows it to evolve along its own path.
• Some Deists contend that God still occasionally intervenes in human affairs. Most, though, believe God is transcendent and does not listen to or answer prayers, nor interfere with nature through miracles.
• Inspiration can be drawn from traditional sources such as sacred texts as a repository of human thinking on religious themes.
• The universe operates under laws established at the outset by God.
• God does not have human form or feelings such as love, hate etc.
• Deists insist a practical system of morals/ethics can be developed through reason. There may well be an innate sense of right and wrong even if the way this finds expression evolves over time and is socially determined.
• Some Deists, while accepting God stands outside/beyond creation, use prayer and/or meditation to contemplate on and express their appreciation of God’s work, the universe.

Conclusion

Deism is not a fixed ideology; like the universe, it is subject to constant flux and variety. It is very aware that it is a product of human thought not divine inspiration and, therefore, not the ultimate truth which is probably beyond human conception. It cannot be proved to be correct, just as the existence of God can only be inferred not conclusively demonstrated. Deism does not stand in contradiction to science, but rather celebrates scientific discovery as further uncovering and making known the workings of divine creation.

Resource: Religious Tolerance.Org (See Blog Roll for link)

God and Providence

Deism emerged during the enlightenment of the eighteenth century, but that does not mean it was the formulation of a completely new set of ideas. Its core assertion, that there is a God, is as ancient as humanity’s consideration of such a notion.

The perennial problem in considering God is getting beyond the anthropomorphic. It seems a human tendency to portray the divine in the image of Man, especially so in the Abrahamic faith traditions.

However, there have been other ways of dealing with the concept. The Stoic school of philosophy was, religiously, a forerunner of Deism. Rather than a God known only through revelation recorded in scripture, Stoics identified what they termed Providence as the essence of creation.

God, for Stoics, consisted of Fire, or active energy, and Logos, reason. God’s presence in the universe could be deduced from Nature operating according to Laws, the result of Cosmic Reason or Providence. Providence ordered all things, even humanity whose freedom existed only within the context of cosmic necessity.

The Fire or active energy aspect of God is the vital principle from which everything in the universe emerges, is shaped, cycled and recycled. God, as vital force, moulds and directs passive matter into all the forms existing at any given moment, reshaping them for the next.

God is not a being outside the universe, drawing up plans and directing operations. Providence is the chain of cause and effect, itself part of creation it regulates and is subject to the immutable law of necessity. Rather than a proper noun, God is a verb, the doing of creation.

“Providence” comes from the Latin “providentia”, meaning foreknowledge and forethought. In this sense the universe is subject to intelligent design, but that intelligence or forethought is immanent within the universe, with design being the result.

This does not imply some celestial blueprint whereby the universe is plotted out in advance. Rather, it is dynamic design responding to the needs of the moment, always in a state of flux.

The question is often posed; if creation follows God’s plan, why are their glaring design faults and imperfections? However, if the universe was perfect it would have to be in stasis, there could be no change to perfection. A dynamic creation requires an element of chaos to be creative.

But, no matter how chaotic the world might appear the universal laws of physics (and biology and chemistry) continue to apply. The cosmos is not a place for arbitrary happenings even if it can be the realm of the unexpected.

There have always been those, like the Epicureans, who espoused the idea of the world being subject to blind fate, just as now evolution is often posited as being purposeless. The Stoics did not deny the existence of a controlling power, just as Deists fully accept evolution, but insisted it was a manifestation of divine will, the power of Providence.

For Stoics, and Deists, everything there is in Nature has a reason. Throughout all creation there is an active “force” or “element” (insert your own word or phrase) that is co-extensive with matter everywhere.

Every manifestation of the individual is but a temporary arrangement that must decay and be subsumed by the whole, but not one single particle is lost. All is to be continually shaped and reshaped according to those laws science has identified.

As Providence acts out of necessity not favour, it follows no one and nothing occupies a divinely privileged position. The Stoic ethic insisted there is no difference between people of various nationalities, or men and women. Providence is truly universal: every individual being a member of “one body partaking in reason.”

When it came to religious practice Stoics did not concoct elaborate ceremonies or rituals. Rather they had a preference for prayer (meditation/contemplation), self-examination and praise. And by praise was meant the appreciation of the wonder of creation. Providence worshipped in the temple of the heart.

Deists likewise do not create liturgies nor build temples. The possibility of God, or Deus, or Providence arises from the experience of individual Deists of Nature. This is not a romantic view, nature “red in tooth and claw” is as apparent to them as a beautiful tranquil sunset.

There is a recognition that seeing in nature the malign as well as the benign arises from a subjective view, while the universe does not operate according to good and evil, but by objective laws.

God is not the fulfiller of human wishes: if Man can be assigned any privilege it is having been granted the ability to play a consciously active role in shaping creation to some extent. This is achieved not through random actions, but intelligent human design.

To deny such a design feature is absent from creation in general is a somewhat arrogant assertion that humans alone somehow transcend an otherwise purposeless and pointless universe.

The concept of Providence is useful as a reminder not to view the divine as being human shaped. God is ineffable because language is necessarily limited to human concepts. Unless Man was the equal of the divine it cannot be otherwise.

Contemplating Deus*

 The usual purpose for writing such as this is to mount an argument, prove a point. No such intention here as none of the following points can be proved. There is an appeal to reason though, as there is no suggestion that anything here be taken on faith. Let what follows be measured against experience, that it makes rational sense, even if it is not conclusive. After all, if the matter were finally settled it would mean the end of debate.

 Probably the agnostic has a most logical position. Not the dithering sort who sometimes almost do believe, sometimes almost don’t and mostly can’t make up their minds. Rather the robust, the existence of a deity or the divine can be neither proved nor disproved, so theism and atheism remain tendentious at best.

 While the non-existence of God cannot be absolutely established by science it remains a reasonable hypothesis. However, the contrary position must, therefore, also be reasonable, in that it has not conclusively been demonstrated to be in error.

 A dialectical approach appears to be the most effective way of understanding matters. In a universe of constant change and contending forces, the emergence of any thing creates its antipode. The dynamic between the two poles brings about change through the appearance of something that is the hybrid containing the most propitious elements of its contentious parents.

 Dialectics have often been expressed in the simple formula: Thesis creates Antithesis and their interaction produces Synthesis. However, while this does convey the basic notion, it camouflages a greater complexity. There are contending forces within the Thesis and the Antithesis as there must be in the emergent Synthesis. Nor should that Synthesis ever be regarded as a final state, even for a moment, as it too is dynamic, becoming itself a Thesis requiring Antithesis.

 A good example of dialectics is evolution. A single cell emerges in an environment subject to constant change. To survive the cell also has to change to cope with its unstable environment, perhaps joining with another cell for mutual benefit. This two celled creature impacts on the environment which then reacts through some alteration in itself….and so on and so on…

 Ideas also evolve, acting on and reacting to each other. Thus new thinking emerges and the reasonable mind remains open rather than made up. Absolute certainty is the denial of progress and the bane of religion.

 All religions are Man made, as are all religious texts. They emerge in certain historical conditions and are expressions of the spiritual in the material contexts of their time. As material conditions change and societies rise and fall, so the content of surviving sacred books are reinterpreted. Over time interpretations clash and are transformed through contention. The deluded are those who convince themselves they are guardians of the original word of their god. Yet, like the last of the dinosaurs in a changing atmosphere, they may be on their way to extinction, but remain powerful and increasingly vicious in the meantime.

 For Christians, God is the word and the word is God. “God” certainly is a word, a linguistic sign. Almost everyone knows what is meant by the word “Tree”, yet there are so many varieties and is even used in the sense of family tree and shoetree. All language is slippery, definitions provisional, which is why physicists employ mathematics to express themselves with precision.

 The word God, rather than being a noun could be considered a verb. Divine as a process, the multiplicity of actions throughout creation and perhaps even transcending creation. Or an adjective that is as close to describing in a non-specific way what is ultimately ineffable. Perhaps God is noun, verb and adjective for a concept intuited apriori while remaining beyond human comprehension.

 Though human knowledge and understanding has become vast, it would be best to avoid the hubris of thinking all will be known and understood. After all, there is no way of measuring the present sum of human knowledge as a fraction of what there is to be known. One function of the word God could be the X in this equation.

 God as a verb perhaps gives a clearer view of Divine Being. Being in this case is not an individual, as in a human being, rather being as something that is, human being as the presence of Man on earth. Find a shard of knapped flint in an otherwise deserted landscape and this can be taken as indicating human being in that place many thousands of years ago. That the actual human being, the individual, who fashioned the flint is utterly absent from the site isn’t a denial. Similarly, that God as a discernable entity, a being, can’t be identified is no repudiation of Divine Being, the presence or doing of the divine through creation.

 Deists repudiate religion based on revelation be it an individual’s vision or a scripture claimed as the word dictated by God. Even if each were actually the case they would only be revelations to the visionary or to God’s amanuensis. Once passed on to others by word of mouth or written text it becomes second hand at best and requires being taken on faith.

 However, the deist who has personal experience of the world and interprets that as being evidence of purpose, divine purpose does so through the application of reason. That deist might recommend such an attitude to others, but it is up to those others to experience creation similarly, not to simply take the word of the deist.

* Some deists use the word “Deus” simply to differentiate their religious thinking from that implied from the common, if very imprecise, usage of the word “God”.

Deism- A Few Thoughts

It seems society is becoming more secular. Not as a consequence of widespread atheism necessarily, more a general lack of engagement with religion. It simply does not figure much in people’s lives. If pushed many people respond with phrases like, “I suppose there must be something…” or “I don’t think there is one…” to whether there is or is not a God.

To take the latter one first: it appears the God they vaguely dismiss is an anthropomorphic figure dispensing or withholding goodies like some peevish children’s conjurer. Church, in its many manifestations, has no appeal for them except, perhaps, for weddings, baptisms and funerals. Even then, like the drunks rolling into the Christmas midnight mass, it’s more a matter of form rather than belief.

Those who admit to a tenuous belief in the possibility of God do not necessarily allow it to impinge on their lives. Again, they might attend church for occasions, but could not imagine it playing a significant role in their lives.

Beyond each of these indefinite positions are the ideologues. On one side the increasingly assertive unbelievers, the atheists militant. So certain of their absolute correctness not an iota of compromise with, or consideration of, any contrary view can be tolerated. God is dead and these are his grinning assassins.

Their counter parts on the opposing wing are the evangelists who are utterly convinced they alone are arbiters of truth. God is not only alive, but has chosen them for salvation while consigning everyone else to eternal damnation.

These are, of course, broad statements that do not take into account shades of opinion that undoubtedly exist. Nonetheless, there are vastly greater numbers of people in shopping malls of a Sunday than are seated in pews. And agnosticism, if not outright atheism, is developing as a popular consensus.

Yet those who concede a suspicion there might be “something” indicate a belief, however vague, in God is not easily expunged. Even some of those more dismissive might well concede nebulous feelings of spirituality in certain circumstances. Perhaps the God pronounced deceased was never alive in the first place.

A man was approached by an evangelist and asked if he believed in God. He replied that recently he had taken an interest in the Quakers. The evangelist shook his head and sadly informed the man that Quakerism is not a religion, only a philosophy.

This anecdote actually happened and illustrates a way of thinking that acts as a carapace shielding the evangelist. Unfortunately, it also stops the evangelist breaking out. The man in question did pursue the Quaker path, but his philosophising led him to Deism instead.

The traditional churches, in their varied manifestations and whatever their differences, practice Theism. That is a belief in a personal God who interacts with each individual believer. This is the God who keeps a ledger, or might it be a spreadsheet these days, in which He records every person’s good and sinful deeds and thoughts for the final reckoning. A God whose favour can be solicited through prayer and worship, who sent His son into the world to redeem it through His own death and resurrection.

Quite simply, Deists do not believe such things. Deism posits an extrinsic God that cannot be known personally, but can be profoundly appreciated and honoured. There are no holy scriptures or revelations, no priesthood to dictate creeds or forms of worship.

Deism is based on nature, reason and experience: the order and design found in nature indicates a creative power suggestive of God. There are natural laws and the universe is best understood mathematically: even randomness expressed through chaos plays a positive role in the development of the cosmos. Design should not be taken to mean William Pally’s clockmaker, if no better reason than that would simply be an affirmation of an anthropomorphic God. The existence of a celestial architects office is not being suggested, rather divine design is integral to the fabric of existence.

Reason allows us to discern the laws and mathematics of creation and extrapolate an ineffable divine purpose. An abstract painting may appear to be a random and purposeless series of colourful splotches, but we know the artist had a purpose for creating it even if we can’t discern what it is.

Perhaps one way to ameliorate the often futile dispute between science and religion is to think of Deism as an aesthetic appreciation of creation. It would not make sense to ask scientists to prove the veracity of a poem, painting or symphony and yet truth is found in all these forms. And no one disputes the existence of poet, painter and composer.

Experience of life lived in the universe allows a person to develop a view for which there can be no absolute verification. If Divine being appears to be the most reasonable conclusion to be drawn from something that may well be beyond knowing in its entirety then Deism has its foundation.

The very least that can be stated is that the universe is self-aware: we know of its existence, but we do not stand apart from it, we are very much of it. So consciousness must be as an integral feature of creation as any other. Neither is design foreign to the cosmos as, at least in our little bit of it, humanity is an active design agent.

It’s possible the word God is a stumbling block due to its historical associations, which is why some Deists have adopted Deus, just to differentiate themselves from other religious usage.

Language is an imprecise tool and much argument arises from differences of definition rather than substance. However, it is all I have at my disposal to contemplate and promote Deism.