Religion and War

 

There is a popular conception that if religion could be abolished a primary cause of conflict and war would go with it. Current belligerence in the name of Islam is often cited, or the historical religious wars of Christianity, still with current echoes, are raised.

This, though, ducks the issue, which is human culpability. It’s along the lines of the childish excuse, “He made me do it”, to blame another, in this case God, and so shirk taking responsibility. Religion can be used to recruit the blindly faithful to the flag, but so can nationalism or a political cause.

Religion can be very effective in this as it purports to transmit the actual will of God, when in reality it is very much a human construct. Religious traditions develop and consolidate over many generations and can appear to be the timeless commands of God.

For instance, during a recent radio interview concerning extreme temperatures in Pakistan, a Moslem woman explained the difficulty this posed during Ramadan. From sunrise to sunset fasting requires abstinence from drinking even water.

While this is an impressive display of personal disciple it nonetheless remains a human originated stricture. Religious scriptures can no doubt be quoted, but they, Koran, Bible or Talmud, are of human authorship.

Deists would point out that the created universe works according to identifiable laws, with inherent mechanisms. On a hot day, thirst is the natural trigger to drink and doing so is not a sin or breaking some divine ordinance. Not imbibing a glass of water is a human choice not a divine one.

Similarly, perpetrating violence comes from motivations that are all too human. Newsreel footage from the First World War exists of priests showering paraded troops with holy water from essentially a bucket with a broad paintbrush. However, there can be little doubt that that conflict arose from political and economic causes, not by celestial direction.

Frederick the Great described himself as a philosopher, which in the 18^th century meant a declaration of atheism. He acquired the epithet “the Great” due to his embarking on military campaigns for the expansion of Prussia. Man requires no help or sanction from God to wage war.

There may be myriad reasons for, and causes of, war which might involve massive armies and prolonged fighting, or individual acts of violence. However, justifiable or otherwise those reasons and causes may be, perpetrators are responsible for them, not religion, not God.

It would be quite possible for deists to become instigators of war; after all, Frederick the Great regarded himself as a citizen of the Enlightenment who applied reason to his belligerent rule. This demonstrates deism or atheism are no guarantors of peace. The difference being neither can use God as an excuse.

Man must accept and bear the responsibility for his or her actions.

 

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.

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.

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.

Why Deism?

There is dialectic between an evermore pervasive (and persuasive) materialism and an inner prompting insisting God is not to be so easily set aside. In a largely secular society dominated by science and technology, atheism can seem to be the obvious truth.

When ill I turn to medicine and not the relics of saints, for even though doctors may be a long way from a cure all, they are more efficacious than some crumbling canonised toe bone in a reliquary. Similarly, while I might rant against a seemingly pernicious universe when my car breaks down at the most inopportune moment, I know a mechanic is going to be of more use than a priest.

And yet, standing in an isolated stone circle out on the bleak Lake District fells, I’ve been in the presence of the ineffable; an intuitive feel for the sacred that is beyond the ideologies, temporal as well as spiritual, cast as infallible creeds by Man.

What I’ve come to understand is that atheism, rather than being the alternative to belief, is in fact another belief in itself. While perfectly credible to uphold scientific understanding is persuasive there is no God, such a position remains a belief. Neither science, nor any atheism emerging from it, can prove or disprove the existence of God.

The existence of God can be asserted or denied, but neither can be claimed as objective certainty. I rather suspect that what atheists deny is a straw God, stuffed with scriptural quotations selected out of context.

The weakness of much religious belief is its basic tenets often originated millennia ago. The only evidence offered for the veracity of those tenets is sacred scriptures, authenticated by being the actual word of the deity either delivered directly or mediated through angels. This leads to rigorous enforcement of holy writ; after all the very word of God must not be contradicted, so unquestioning belief is demanded.

These ideas become literally set in stone, be it Moses bringing tablets from the mountain, or the raising of magnificent cathedrals across Europe. This petrifying of faith transformed the Church into a political power reaching into heaven itself. I have long considered the promise of eternal life, offered only to those who accept faith in Christ, is actually a denial of faith, as the motivation is utterly self-centred.

Reason demands recognition of a religious impulse in Humanity. While forms of expression through which this impulse is realised changes historically, it nonetheless continues. Religions rise and fall, but religion perseveres.

It may well be the words “religion” and God” eventually become archaisms: that would merely be semantics. A new lexicon would surely evolve to express recognition of the sacred nature of nature. Or will Man dethrone God and install human being as the apogee of the universe?

No doubt we would like a God who is some sort of super Santa: if only we are good then we will be rewarded by getting what we want. And if there is some apparent oversight, some faithful soul suffering an awful and unjustified affliction, then prayers might just act as a reminder to the divine. The question has been posed, where was God in the Nazi death camps? A more apposite one would surely be, where was humanity?

Deism is inspiration rather than revelation, inspiration subjected to the discipline of reason rather than allowed to run wild and become fanciful. This is not to deny the importance of the mythic, as long as it is regarded as such and not some literal truth. Sacred writings may have an importance as a way of reflecting upon creation, as poetry does. No one asks if a poem is objectively true.

Even if it could be absolutely proved that no such person as Jesus ever existed the narrative remains valid as myth, a parable, with important things to say. Stories are referred to as fiction not lies, and are a way of addressing the human condition.

I like to go to church, though not when there’s a service on. As places of quiet reflection dedicated to spiritual pursuit they are, for me, sacred spaces. Such spaces are the creation of Man wherein the divine can be contemplated, not contained. It is a shared, agreed purpose, even if the expression of that purpose is not necessarily held in common.

It is perfectly reasonable for there to be space set aside for spiritual use, a function that goes beyond creed and doctrine. The stone circle serves just as well, as can, a bench in a modest garden beneath a night sky, star strewn or clouded, amidst soughing trees.

Deism should not be some dry, emotion denying belief pushing God so far away there’s no communion. As a deist I see the universe as is God’s unfolding creation and I’m part of it. Even if I’m talking to myself as I sit on that bench I am at least speaking with some small aspect of God.

Human religious and spiritual history cannot be simply declared false and written off. Deism offers the possibility of recognising the intrinsic worth of much in the various traditions around the world and a context where they can be developed and expanded upon to serve the religious needs of the future.

Whatever their profound differences, religions, including Deism, have the divine as their starting point. Deism is not a denial of what others believe; it is not even a single, coherent ideology in itself. Rather it is recognition of possibilities in a universe so vast and mysterious it is reasonable to be humble and recognise we, humanity, may not be the absolute acme of creation.