Who were the Deists? Why Deism?

[Charlemagne_II]

Ed

Because the 18th-century Deists worked with the assumption that a God “powerful enough to create the universe” would do everything on a universal level. They would ask: “why would such a God reveal Himself in one particular person only, or to one particular group?” Generally they argued that nature was enough–why would you ask or God need to provide any other revelation or any other basis for knowing and loving God?

Sounds like pantheism to me. I know such people. I think the love of Nature must be a poor substitute for loving the Creator. Why love one and not the other? I love both.

As to revealing himself to one group and not another, I think he was looking for fertile ground upon which to spread His seed. The Jews offered Him that, being monotheistic.

I think it’s dangerous to speculate about the psychology of other people based on their ideas. And it’s not really helpful.

Why dangerous and why not helpful? When I see people who espouse certain dangerous ideas (such as nazism or communism) I think it can be very dangerous not to speculate about their motives. And how can I not help myself in the process?

Please clarify what you mean by “dangerous” and “not very helpful,” in case I have completely misunderstood your objection.

 

[Swan]

There are a couple of very informative websites on deism:

moderndeism.com

and

deism.com

Both have answers to your questions. Deism.com is the more militant of the two and has many essay on the “why” and also on the differences between Theism and Deism. Both sites are, IMO, worth checking out if you are interested in the reason (no pun intended) being Deism.

 

[SedesDomi]

That, and to love God, which for Paine, is loving God’s creatures. Yep, that’s about it

But that would be to suppose a personal relationship, and Paine says nothing about loving God. Unless you can show me the passage. I may have missed it?:ehh:

What does it mean to love God, in real, practical terms? Since God Himself is “invisible”, we must rely on what God makes visible, that is, His Word. In Christianity, His Word would be Jesus and the Community of Jesus.

For Paine, since Paine has no direct experience of Jesus, God’s Word is God’s Creation.

The Creation we behold is the real and ever existing word of God, in which we cannot be deceived. It proclaimeth his power, it demonstrates his wisdom, it manifests his goodness and beneficence.

And the love of God then includes the love of Creation, the contemplation of Creation, the study of Creation – otherwise known as “science”:

The natural bent of my mind was to science. I had some turn, and I believe some talent for poetry; but this I rather repressed than encouraged, as leading too much into the field of imagination. As soon as I was able, I purchased a pair of globes, and attended the philosophical lectures of Martin and Ferguson, and became afterwards acquainted with Dr. Bevis, of the society called the Royal Society, then living in the Temple, and an excellent astronomer.

I think if you try to see Paine as a scientist, you might understand why he would shy away from explicitly talking about a “devotional” relationship to God, and instead focus on an “intellectual-contemplative” relationship to God. Einstein talked about God in a similar way.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I think if you try to see Paine as a scientist, you might understand why he would shy away from explicitly talking about a “devotional” relationship to God, and instead focus on an “intellectual-contemplative” relationship to God. Einstein talked about God in a similar way.

Yes, and Einstein was something of a Deist, though he never to my knowledge called himself one.

I’m wondering who first coined the word Deist.

Swan, thanks for citing the websites for Deism. I’ll check them out later.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

To answer my own question, apparently John Calvin coined the term Deist in derision of those who thought God could be privately discovered by reason alone and we need no help from the Bible or traditions of the Church.

answers.com/topic/deism

I think Calvin was right to deride. Suppose this god of Reason to exist; is every person ever born supposed to discover God entirely from scratch on his own by the unaided use of his own reasoning powers? But think of all the people who are downright strangers to, and hostile to, Reason. Are they then never to know God but in the worship of trees, and rivers, and skies, and ultimately his neighbor who wields the biggest club (Darwinian survival of the fittest)?

 

[Contarini]

Why dangerous and why not helpful? When I see people who espouse certain dangerous ideas (such as nazism or communism) I think it can be very dangerous not to speculate about their motives. And how can I not help myself in the process?

Please clarify what you mean by “dangerous” and “not very helpful,” in case I have completely misunderstood your objection.

It’s not helpful because your chances of being right are very small, and because even if you are right, you are probably not going to respond to their ideas in a way more conducive to truth and virtue than if you assumed the best about them. It’s dangerous because you will treat their ideas with contempt and thus fail to engage them in constructive ways, and because jumping to cynical or patronizing conclusions about other people is a sin against charity and very bad for your own soul. Develop a habit of this, and you will find it hard to understand or love other people at all. I’ve seen it happen.

Edwin

 

[Charlemagne_II]

It’s not helpful because your chances of being right are very small, and because even if you are right, you are probably not going to respond to their ideas in a way more conducive to truth and virtue than if you assumed the best about them. It’s dangerous because you will treat their ideas with contempt and thus fail to engage them in constructive ways, and because jumping to cynical or patronizing conclusions about other people is a sin against charity and very bad for your own soul. Develop a habit of this, and you will find it hard to understand or love other people at all. I’ve seen it happen.

Well thank you for the sermon.

It’s not helpful because your chances of being right are very small

Indeed, how do you know this for a fact? Are you omniscient?
*
because even if you are right, you are probably not going to respond to their ideas in a way more conducive to truth and virtue than if you assumed the best about them.*

Indeed, how do you know this for a fact. Are you omniscient?

It’s dangerous because you will treat their ideas with contempt and thus fail to engage them in constructive ways,

Indeed, how do you know this? Are you omniscient?
*
and because jumping to cynical or patronizing conclusions about other people is a sin against charity and very bad for your own soul.*

Indeed, how do you know I am “jumping”? Are you omniscient?

Develop a habit of this, and you will find it hard to understand or love other people at all.

Develop a habit of what? Speculating about the motives of nazis and communists is going to make it difficult for me to love anyone at all?

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please be careful to stick to the thread’s topic everyone. Take side discussions to new or existing threads and personal discussions to the PM function. Thank you all.

 

[MindOverMatter]

“

What I don’t understand is why the Deists even exist. .

I predict that in the future, as science progresses in understanding, Deism will become the new atheism; or rather the vast majority of people will be Deist rather then Atheist or Theist.

What do you think of that!!!

 

[MindOverMatter]

Has anyone ever seen this site before? I can’t believe that these guys are serious.

deism.com/atheism.htm

 

[Leela]

I predict that in the future, as science progresses in understanding, Deism will become the new atheism; or rather the vast majority of people will be Deist rather then Atheist or Theist.

What do you think of that!!!

I think deism is the old atheism and that Einstein’s pantheism (defnitely noit deism) is a form of atheism.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*I think deism is the old atheism and that Einstein’s pantheism (defnitely noit deism) is a form of atheism. *

Are you making all this up as you go along? What is your source for the above statement? Are you stuck on Dawkins? I know Dawkins in one book falsely referred to Einstein as an atheist, though Einstein on several occasions went out of his way to dissociate himself from atheism.

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’—cannot hear the music of the spheres.” Albert Einstein

“I’m not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the language in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.” Albert Einstein

Both quotes from Max Jammer’s Einstein and Religion.

 

[PMG]

A number of our country’s better known Founding Fathers were actually Deists: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Ben Franklin, for examples. Some of them, such as Washington, maintained membership in a christian church because most states required church membership to hold public office (such as Washington receiving Communion once a year in the Episcopal Church), but were philosophically Deists.

I know a number of Christians, Catholic and Protestant, who practice their faith, yet for whom Deism remains intellectually attractive. It seems to “fit the facts” of out existence. That is, our complex universe was obviously created by an intellectually Higher Power, but which seems disinclined to become involved in human affairs, e.g. allowing natural disasters to occur and birth-defect babies to be born.

Deists may say prayers of Thanksgiving to God for creating the natural wonders around us. They would say, however, that praying to heal a person born with one arm or who must be permanently wheel chair-bound is a waste of time. At least that’s how I understand it; I am not a Deist.

 

[Leela]

*I think deism is the old atheism and that Einstein’s pantheism (defnitely noit deism) is a form of atheism. *

Are you making all this up as you go along? What is your source for the above statement? Are you stuck on Dawkins? I know Dawkins in one book falsely referred to Einstein as an atheist, though Einstein on several occasions went out of his way to dissociate himself from atheism.

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’—cannot hear the music of the spheres.” Albert Einstein

“I’m not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the language in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.” Albert Einstein

Both quotes from Max Jammer’s Einstein and Religion.

It hard to say what Einstein could possibly mean when he says he is not an atheist, since in his explanantions of what he does believe about religion, he denies belief in a personal God and calls the idea nieve, which is all I mean by the term atheist. I suspect that he is saying he is not an atheist in the sense that he does not claim to know that God does not exist, which no scientist would say since it would be impossible to defend the assertion of the nonexistence of anything. I think he was right to resist labels of any kind though it is clear that he does not believe in God as described by the Catholic Church or any religion. I myself only grudgingly allow myself to be referred to as an atheist.

Best,
Leela

 

[Contarini]

It hard to say what Einstein could possibly mean when he says he is not an atheist, since in his explanantions of what he does believe about religion, he denies belief in a personal God and calls the idea nieve, which is all I mean by the term atheist.

But that isn’t what the term normally means. That’s why we have words like “Deist” and “pantheist.”

Edwin

 

[Leela]

But that isn’t what the term normally means. That’s why we have words like “Deist” and “pantheist.”

Edwin

That is a reason to avoid such labels as Einstein tried to do. Unfortunately, Einstein gets misunderstood because he used the word “God” in a way that is not what most people take it to mean.

 

[Shinji_Ikari]

Okay, I saw htis thread, and I couldn’t resist posting before going to post in another thread about a question I had.

Speaking from the Personal Viewpoint of a Deist myself: We do believe that there is a God out there. In fact, we believe that he is so Magnificent and Wondrous, that we cannot possibly comprehend him, as we currently are able to understand him. We are people of Reason, first and foremost, but are always open to new points of view, since, as Living Creatures, our perpective towards that of something that is not of this Physical Existence may be made clearer through openmindedness to new subjects. We do not condone closeminded zealotry, since it makes others tend to shut their ears and not want to listen to anything we have to say, and as such get along with many Faiths equally.

Anyways, I suppose that could be put forth what a Deist is, in a nutshell. We are not atheists, nor are we people that claim to understand something we have no concept of understanding about. But that’s what the search for God is all about, is it not?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Einstein denies belief in a personal God
Best,
Leela

This could mean several things. For example, it could simply mean that he doesn’t believe in the personal God of religion. That does not necessarily mean that he believes that God does not have a personal nature. The fact is, your analysis is only correct if we assume that Einstein was contradicting himself; which is possible, but unlikely. There are people who believe in God, but think that God is an indifferent architect of the universe, and that the conception of God, as revealed in religion, is a childish attempt to have a personal relationship with a transcendent being. Some simply think that praying and social interaction with such a being is impossible and arrogant, since God transcends are social capacities. Some may feel that we are were merely a creative after thought of existence, an artistic representation of the personal. Nothing more. Of coarse, I disagree with this analysis of God; but i can certainly see why one would think that all religions are like various kinds of ladders that humanity has built in their attempt to reach up and know the ultimate reality of all things. I have a feeling that Einstein may have been thinking along those lines in favor of a more sophisticated God.

Look at the laws of nature. They are very specific. Very orderly in their function. And very meaningful in so far as the ends that they achieve. The universe is very logical. Therefore it is not unreasonable to think that there is in fact a personal intellect at the root of all logic and meaning. If we think of reality, existence in itself, it is very much like an eternal, artistic, creative expression of an intelligent being.

What good reason do we have to say, that this sense of meaning and purpose we find in nature, is just an illusion? And what is the agenda of those who claim it to be so?

Peace.

 

[Leela]

This could mean several things. For example, it could simply mean that he doesn’t believe in the personal God of religion. That does not necessarily mean that he believes that God does not have a personal nature. The fact is, your analysis is only correct if we assume that Einstein was contradicting himself; which is possible, but unlikely.

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated.** I do not believe in a personal God **and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

Albert Einstein, in a letter March 24, 1954; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 43.

“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”

Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216.

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.”

Albert Einstein, The World as I See It, Secaucus, New Jersy: The Citadel Press, 1999, p. 5.

“The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve.”

Albert Einstein in a letter to Beatrice Frohlich, December 17, 1952; Einstein Archive 59-797; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 217.

“I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.… This is a somewhat new kind of religion.”

Albert Einstein, in a letter to Hans Muehsam, March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 218

“I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance — but for us, not for God.”

Albert Einstein; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 66.

“The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously.”

Albert Einstein, letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981.

“I cannot accept any concept of God based on the fear of life or the fear of death or blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him I would be a liar.”

Albert Einstein; from Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, New York: World Publishing Company, 1971, p. 622.

“I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.”

Albert Einstein, to Guy H. Raner Jr., September 28, 1949; from Michael R. Gilmore, “Einstein’s God: Just What Did Einstein Believe About God?,” Skeptic, 1997, 5(2):64.

“I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. Your counter-arguments seem to me very correct and could hardly be better formulated. It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere—childish analogies. We have to admire in humility the beautiful harmony of the structure of this world as far—as we can grasp it. And that is all.”

Albert Einstein, to Guy H. Raner Jr., July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism; from Michael R. Gilmore, “Einstein’s God: Just What Did Einstein Believe About God?,” Skeptic, 1997, 5(2):62.

 

[MindOverMatter]

“I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist

Okay…I guess that settles that then.