Divining God

As church congregations continue to dwindle, triumphalist atheism proudly struts across TV screens in the personas of media scientists and stand-up comedians displaying their aggressive cleverness. Anyone daring to profess a belief in God must be prepared to be patronised at best or vilified as an anachronistic reactionary.

But for all it is garbed in modern fashion the arguments between theists and atheists would be better dressed in eighteenth century attire. It was during the Enlightenment, with the emergence of science as a significant force, that religion spawned its own nemesis, the sceptics, the free thinkers.

By the early nineteenth century militant atheism had become significant, typified by Ludwig Feuerbach who gathered a following for this position. His was a rejection of God, specifically the Christian God, on the grounds a recourse to the divine is to project the human onto some notion of the transcendent.

In other words, humanity has its worldly, historical and social content extracted and then moulded into a personification beyond this world in the idealised form of God.

Theists, meanwhile, maintained a fideistic theology, insisting on an absolute requirement for faith. For them, God existed beyond human comprehension, denying any possibility of rational justification.

However, as the century advanced so did thinking in this field. Karl Marx, often mistakenly identified with Feuerbachian atheism, rejected both Christian theism and the atheism of Feuerbach. He insisted each was equally replicating antithetically identical essentialist and abstract accounts of the sacred and the secular.

For Marx, humanity and nature exist for each other and people have become consciously aware of this. The idea there is a being existing above humanity and nature, with the consequent implication of the unreality of humanity and nature, has become practically impossible.

Therefore, the denial of such unreality, atheism, has become obsolete. Atheism negates God to assert humanity’s existence. But, such negation is no longer required as the positive self-consciousness of humanity has moved beyond the abolition of religion.

As an aside, it is interesting to note that subsequent regimes claiming the title Communist acted against religion, in the case of Albania outlawing it altogether, thus proving them Feuerbachian, not Marxist as they claimed, at least in this respect.

Effectively Marx moved the argument beyond the disputants of theism and atheism. Religion, specifically the Christian religion and by extension the other two Judao-religions, or its absence was rendered irrelevant.

Deism as a coherent and identifiable strand of thought also arose during the eighteenth century Enlightenment, emerging as a reaction to the clash between existing Christianity in its various denominations and atheism as a product of the emerging sciences. It was a strand of free thinking in its own right.

While Marx cannot be claimed as a Deist, his analysis can be drawn on by Deism in its rejection of both theism and atheism. The conclusion drawn, however, is markedly different from that of Marx.

Deists embrace rather than reject the concept of God, but in doing so they most certainly do not deny the reality of this world. In that sense they are as philosophically materialist as Marx. Nature is fundamental to Deism, its starting point, sometimes referred to as the one and only true gospel.

Deism is an apophatic philosophy recognising that what is referred to as God is actually beyond language to express. Many Deists prefer the term Deus to differentiate from theistic implications of using “God”. Perhaps it might be preferable to have no word at all, except that would make having any sort of conversation impossible.

Unlike fideistic theology, which also recognises the ineffability of God while rejecting any possibility of rational justification of their belief, Deists begin from a standpoint of using reason to identify in nature the consequences of God while accepting the divine is beyond the limitations of human comprehension.

Intelligent Design (ID) is often pressed into service at this point, but that has unfortunate associations with anti-scientific fundamentalist creationism. Perhaps it might be better for Deists if ID were to stand for Immanent Design, design integral to creation.

God or Deus signifies the source, the prime mover, the primal cause of all there is. Not a supernatural being or glorified superior humanoid dispensing favours on the faithful, visiting wrath upon the sinners. For Deists God is the X in the cosmic equation humanity is not equipped to solve.

That there is consciousness and intelligence in the universe is indisputable, humanity is both the evidence and witness to this. Reason leads Deists to the conclusion that such features play a crucial role in there being a universe at all let alone one that manifests those very features. It is how they divine God.

Marcus Aurelius and Deism

It could be anachronistic to claim a Roman emperor of the 2nd century as a deist, although there are traits in ancient Greek thought at least analogous to deism. The test is whether or not a writer in antiquity has anything to contribute to modern thinking in general and, in this case, deism in particular.

Marcus Aurelius was a philosopher of the stoic school. His surviving writings, what have come to be known as his meditations were addressed, in true philosophical style, to himself. This is important as he was exploring his own thinking in relation to stoicism and not concerned with winning either arguments or converts.

Deists draw their inspiration from observing nature and applying reason to their experience. Aurelius wrote, “Go straight on where nature leads you, both Universal Nature, through what happens to you, and your own nature in terms of how you should act.”*

Clearly he saw a larger universal principle manifested in the individual, which can hardly be contentious as a person must be entirely a product of the universe. Working from that he concluded,
“All things are linked with one another, and this oneness is sacred; there is nothing that is not interconnected with everything else.”

This is the essence of the sacred, a principle recognised and ritualised by religion. Take the Christian Eucharist, for example, whatever grandiose claims are made for it by various denominational practitioners; it is essentially the (Christian) community coming together to symbolically share in the divine. Similar examples can be identified in other religions.

Secularists also gather together to share a sense of their community; it is a human trait reflecting at least a tacit recognition of the ultimate oneness of everything. After all, creation is referred to as a universe: even the theoretical positing of a multiverse is actually an unspecified number of universes.

Aurelius recognised a higher power immanent in creation. “Universal Reason, which governs everything, knows its own characteristics, and what it creates, and the material on which it works.”

That the universe is a reasonable place, that is, it is susceptible to reason, operating according to discernable laws must, at the very least indicate the concept of Universal Reason as being of itself reasonable. However, this is not to suggest an anthropomorphic god in another guise.

When he wrote, “Universal Nature felt an impulse to create the universe. And now everything that comes into being follows as a natural consequence.” he was expressing an attitude, a way of looking at creation, not defining a precise methodology.

Even when he seemed to be referring to the Gods Aurelius kept man’s way of relating to the universe in mind. “Those who live with the gods… constantly follow the dictates of their spirit, the same spirit that Zeus has given to each one of us as a guardian and guide. And this spirit is our mind and reason.”

Whether or not he literally believed in Zeus and the gods is at best a moot point. It has to be remembered the prevailing religious context in which he was writing. He certainly identified “mind and reason” as the guardian and guide for a person.

There is, of course, a great deal more to the writings of Marcus Aurelius than is hinted at here. As a stoic he mused on a wide variety of topics as they related to how humans could, and perhaps should, live their lives. Or at least, how he should live his own life.

Were there contradictions? Certainly! He wrote, “Hatred, war, disorder, illness, and slavery, will wipe out these sacred principles of yours.” Here is the recognition that even cherished ideas are compromised by life. After all, he was an emperor pursuing the ideal of the simple life of moderation.

For a deist there is much to contemplate in his writings, always remembering he was addressing himself and not prescribing for others. Aurelius is part of the human tradition of looking at the universe and drawing reasonable conclusions that are not, cannot, be definitive. And a good thing to, otherwise inquiry would have to cease at that point.

A common criticism of religion by secularists is that any belief in god is merely hanging on to a comforter in what is actually a universe unaware of human presence, let alone caring for it.

There is an argument such thinking ignores, the fact that as humans are an integral feature of the universe and are aware of it, then it is actually aware of itself in general and humans in particular. Sentience must be a characteristic of the universe otherwise human beings, or any life form, could not exist presuming developing awareness is a feature of life.

Not that this should be taken to mean the Divine or Universal Nature or Providence, another term Aurelius used in this context, is a benign super-human being. Man’s concerns are subjective and often projected, by way of religion, on to a god who has singled humanity out for special treatment.

Aurelius did not subscribe to such a partial view as the following illustrates graphically. “ ‘When a mother kisses her child,’ said Epictetus, ‘she should whisper to herself, “Tomorrow you might be dead.”’
‘Ominous words.’ They told him.
‘No word is ominous,’ said Epictetus, ‘which expresses a work of Nature; if this is the truth, it is also ominous to speak of the gathering of the corn.’”

These are not words of easy comfort, but a recognition that Universal Nature does not work to please humanity. People celebrate what they enjoy, such as harvest festivals marking the beneficent gathering of corn. However, death is as much a part of that Nature as life.
Stoics counsel against the pursuit of pleasure for its own sake and the frantic avoidance of pain. Both are necessary features and it is the dialectical interplay of the two that sentient creatures have to come to terms with.

Deists recognise the working of Universal Nature and celebrate it without any expectation they will receive some divine bounty in return. Rather, there is recognition that the divine is far greater than our understanding can encompass. The best people can do is to continue to wonder and speculate, moderated by reason and experience. Perhaps deism is better understood as a philosophy than a religion.

To become a sage, a philosopher (in the non-professional, seeker after wisdom sense) is the aim. “For what can be more pleasant than wisdom itself, when you consider the safety and contentment of everything which relies on your mind’s understanding and knowledge.”

All references are taken from, “The Spiritual Teachings of Marcus Aurelius.” Compiled by Mark Forstater, Hodder & Stoughton, 2000.
Page references in order: 125, 124, 126, 153, 117, 174, 164 97.