Christians are afraid of their God. Muslims are afraid of their God. Both are right to do so, even if they claim their God is a loving God. In my opinion, they are right to do so. Their God is so hateful. They proudly proclaim that he ordered the rape if thousands of young girls. He punishes thousands for trying to create a building that was too tall. But what of the Deist God? Should we fear him? Should we be afraid that he shall smite us with lightning?
No.
As a whole, Deists tend not to believe in a meddling God. We see no evidence or reason for God to influence our lives. Of course, I cannot speak for all Deists. For many of us, God is not a jealous man in the sky, but a necessary fact of our universe. There i no reason to fear such a being. He cannot be threatened by large buildings, or cloning. He is certainly more loving than Jehovah, because that he is not actively malicious.
There are certainly better emotions to have for a Deist God. I have a respect for God, the kind of one a parents deserves from their kid (but not the love that comes from raising me). I also am thankful towards God for my existence. However, I am not threatened by God. I lack the fear of God, for there is ultimately no reason to do so for a Deist.
This is such a liberating concept. For thousands of years, the fear of deities (whether it be Zeus or Jehovah or any other of the countless deities" has bound and constricted Humanity and progress. The Churches use it as a method of controlling the masses, along with countless other fears. By recognizing our lack of fear, we can no longer let it hinder our progress. We can move past "Playing God" as an excuse for hindering scientific research and deal with the real ethical questions. We can live our lives without fearing that we might be smote for doing something against God's will. We can now exist without the fear of God.
By Danny Ray
Previously I wrote of axioms as being self-evident truths. As Deists, we don’t always agree on very much, yet our basic foundational axiom-“There is A God”- seems such an obviously in-your-face, just-open-your-eyes-type point. Yet many of my very reasonable friends look at the evidence and develop a different axiom. It’s interesting how words can get in our way, since they are actually poetic and allow much room for differences of interpretation.
When I say “God” my connotation maybe totally different from what pops into your mind. Many people are turned off and defensive when the word “God” hits their ears, because their mind’s eye has been trained to envision an anthropomorphic judgmental old man in the sky who is going to get you in the end unless you do exactly as he tells you. Speaking only for me, this God made in the image of man is not what I believe in as a Deist.
The phrase credited to Voltaire: “If you would converse with me, you must first define your terms”-describes the predicament to be solved in dialogue. Yet how does one define God? Here is a partial list of pseudonyms for God:
· The More
· The Ultimate
· The Original Dice-Thrower
· The Great Unknowable
· The Invisible Mover
· The Master Mechanic
· The Wholly Other
· The Absolute
· My Invisible Friend
· The Creative Power
· The Ultimate Mystery
In Christianity’s The Lord’s Prayer, the phrase is “…hallowed be thy name”. Yet in my book any vocalization we utter, or symbols we write are not only hallow, but actually just shallow attempts to capture that which cannot be captured, or to contain that which cannot be contained. Perhaps best is the advice from Chapter 1 of the Taoist’s Tao Te Ching- which suggests instead of wasting time invoking a name for the unnamable, it’s best if we just wonder. What do you mean when you say “God”?
It recent times I have been finding myself more and more on the threshold of Panendeism. My sense of reason has been pointing towards it, and I can no longer ignore it. So that my readers (all seven of you) can get a better understanding of me and my religious beliefs, I’ve decided to write about what leads me towards Panendeism. The path was broken by my problems with divine intervention and my personal belief in the idea of not assigning limits to God.
Why wouldn’t God intervene in the universe? The question drove me towards Pandeism. It provided me with a satisfactory explanation: God is the universe, so, in a sense, he is all action in the universe, so the difference between regular occurrences and divine intervention is non-existent. But something bugged me about Pandeism. Something I only recently discovered.
It assigns a limit on God’s creative power. If God could create a universe from himself, he then should be able to create more. It limits God to one universe. I disagree with assigning limits, or even most attributes to God. It seems like a poor choice to limit God’s existence by assigning him qualities that, at a fundamental level, we can’t even be sure he has. This led me away from Pandeism towards Panendeism. It leaves open the idea of multiple universes. It assigns no limitations to God.
Though, if you are worried that I’m going to change my blog, stop. I still identify as a Deist, with Panendeism being more of a specific part of my extended belief system. I do hope to write more about it in the future, and welcome any discussion or questions you might have.
I am a firm adherent of the idea of the equality of religions. That is to say, that all the people of all religions have the exact same rights to carry out religious practices and such. One thing that perplexes me is many people’s attitudes on evangelization. The evangelicals, who would harass you while you were doing your day-to-day business, would turn around and harass atheists who would so much as mention their religion to other people on the grounds that they were evangelizing atheism. While I’m certainly no fan of annoying evangelism, I have to ask: What gives Christians the sole right to attempt to spread their religion?
I was listening to an old God Discussion show one day, when a caller (if I recall correctly) accused the members of the Clergy Project featured in the show of ‘evangelizing atheism.’ The caller identified as a Christian, so I have to ask why an adherent of a religion whose preferred pulpit is Congress would object to evangelism. For some reason, Christianity has a monopoly on the right to preach.
None of this should really be that surprising. Christians for years have never let go of their desire to squash other religions. They enforce the notion that for non-Christians, it is unacceptable to even try to spread your religion. Of course, many non-Christians, particularly of the Atheist and Deist kind, ARE opposed to evangelizing, which is how Christians can justify their squashing (by claiming hypocrisy). What Christians often claim is evangelizing is usually a mere discussion of Atheism, an attempt to organize Atheists, an attempt to identify Atheists, a combination of things, or merely anything that mentions a non-Christian religion. Of course, you cans substitute Atheism in that sentence for any religion, including Deism.
The question of the appropriate amount of evangelism is still up to debate. Many Deists would say that there should be no evangelism. But the question of whether or not someone is allowed to evangelize based on your decision of the appropriate amount of evangelism is and has always been solved, even if the solution has been ignored. If you, as a Christian or an adherent of any other religion that indulges in evangelism, decide that it is okay to evangelize, you better let others do the same. To defy that would be to defy the principles of religious equality and freedom that have contributed to the prosperity of America and many other countries, communities, and cultures.
By Dan Retzer (aka Danny Ray)
For Deists, a familiarity with the term axiom is very helpful. An axiom is defined as “a self-evident or universally recognized truth.”
Similar to Socrates’ statement “the unexamined life is not worth living”- the unexamined faith is also not worth having. Personally it’s been very emotionally painful, yet ultimately very fulfilling as I’ve looked at my own orchard of thought and chopped down many a cherished axiom which in retrospect I should not have even allowed to germinate. For years I have watered and cultivated many an unreasonable idea. A Mark Twain quote succinctly describes this lifelong self-examination process -“I must studiously and faithfully unlearn a great many things I have somehow absorbed.”
Unfortunately in drinking from the fountain of knowledge, almost everyone’s glass contains a twist of confirmational bias. The human tendency is to ignore evidence which refutes our beliefs and cling to those that do. We commonly build a foundation of seemingly self-evident axioms to support our belief structures which maybe personally satisfying, but in the end, become surprised to find our personal beliefs are actually not universally held axioms. For example, many a dialogue toward deism with Christian friends involving the axiom of the Bible as the inerrant “Word of God”, takes an interesting turn when informed Thomas Jefferson took his penknife to the scriptures.
The well-meaning Deist who envisions a better World, should be ruthless in terms of self-examination, but needs to be gentle and have sympathy in debunking others. Perhaps a more fitting approach to the axioms of others would involve nibbling or whittling? To avoid entrenchment in the battle of beliefs, allowing self-application of the final coup de grâce to an axiom is best. To emphasis the positive attributes of deism is better than pointing out the cracks in our fellow human’s foundations of hope. Be aware that religious apologetics is an emotionally laden process of biased rationalization for believing unbelievable axioms. Deists are not immune to bias. In reference to the Twain quote, unlearning is harder than learning. It’s apropos to not hesitate to apply the axe to our unfounded axioms. Stay sharp!
When you try to answer this question, it is easy to pick the dictionary of your choice, turn to religion, and read what you see. I'm not trying to ask that. I'm asking what do people think of when they hear religion. Go to religion.com. What do you see? A cross. A large part of the problem Deists face in today's society stems from the fact people associate religion with only Christianity, and occasionally Atheism, when you put it in Christian terms.
When I type 'religion' into the kindle book store, I see mostly Christian books. In America, we have convinced ourselves that Christianity IS religion. Most people can only associate the word God with Jehovah, despite its potential to mean the Muslim God, the Jewish God, a Deist God, or ANY other God. It's more than the word God. We barely bother to differentiate people who call themselves religious and people who are devout Christians. I am a very religious person. Tell that to an American, and they will assume I am a bible-thumping Christian.
Atheists do this too. Especially with the term God, but also with religion in general. They savagely attack Christianity, but claim to be attacking religion in general. They disprove Jehovah and then claim to disprove God. They are ultimately unable to get rid of the idea that Religion=Christianity. Not just Atheists, but most Americans. Perhaps there will be some minor nod towards Islam or Judaism, but ultimately when most people say Religion, they mean Christianity.
Not only is the idea obviously stupid, it is hurtful to EVERY OTHER RELIGION that isn't Christianity. I want to be able to go outside, have a chat with some random stranger, mention that I'm religious, and not talk about Christianity. We must do our best to fight this notion. Every time you see an atheist attack Christianity, but claim to "disprove religion," correct them. Every time a Christian claims that the religious are being persecuted, correct them (both on the fact that Christians are being 'persecuted' and that they are almost certainly not being persecuted). Nothing in today's America can be more harmful to the idea of religious freedom than assuming that religion is Christianity.
|
RSS Feed