I was thinking about Christianity today (shocking, right?). Specifically, I was thinking about several parts of Christianity that Deists object to: Original Sin, God the Planner, Faith Healing, Satan. I think I have realized the common thread that unites them all: Christianity is about not taking responsibility for your actions.
Original Sin teaches that because Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, humans are inherently sinful. This shifts the burden of responsibility to Adam and Eve for our wrongful actions. Christians like to say God has a plan for us. This removes the need for any of them to try to achieve anything meaningful, because if it is in God's plan, it will happen no matter what. If it isn't, then it never could happen, and thus isn't worth trying to achieve anything. This is similar to faith healing. If you rely on God to heal people, then it isn't your responsibility if they live or die. Satan and demons tend to go around possessing people and tempting them to do wrong things. This removes all wrong-doing from the person who was 'possessed.'
Deism is the opposite. God won't do everything for us. We have to actually DO something. Nothing can be blamed on God or Satan. We take responsibility for our actions. This, I think, is one of the things that distinguishes Deists from Christians. We can preach self-reliance without hypocrisy. Indeed, I would say self-reliance is a core value of Deism. We rely on our own mind to guide us to Deism. We rely on our reason to know right from wrong. We do not rely on others to tell us how we should live, we decide for ourselves. This is one of the things that makes Deism great.
This can be a curse, though. While I view our diversity of opinion as a wonderful thing, it can look to outsiders like Deism is about arguing about the nature of God and the universe. Many new Deists can be daunted by the task of creating their entire belief system. I say to them: have no fear. Deism can be as simple or complex as you what. All we ask is that you take responsibility for your actions and your thoughts. Do not rely on others to tell you what to think.
*Please note that this applies to America specifically.
There is a rather bizarre trend among Christians. Many Christians in America like to say that they are part of a persecuted minority. They like to talk about Obama going after Christians because he is a secret Muslim, a "War on Christmas," the banning of religion in the military, and any law that prevents any Christian from doing anything they want (including getting away with murder) as an attack on Christianity. For the most part, these claims are untrue. It seems to me that they are convinced that Christians are a minority group in America.
No, they are not a minority group. The Pew Research Religious Landscape Survey** lists Christians as a total of 77.5% of the adult population. Christianity has always been, and most likely continue to be for a significant period of time, the majority religion in America. It takes willful ignorance born out of desperation to pretend otherwise. They are desperate to counter the claims by practically every other religious group that Christians persecute them by saying "Hey, we're being persecuted too." They have seen how well it serves to rile people up when you claim Christianity is under attack when in truth, they are performing the attacks.
I have hope that people will stop this. Of course, I'm sure someone wants to respond with "Willful ignorance is what Christianity does best, what makes you think they will stop?" I think we can stop them. If we call BS every time they try to cry persecution, we can show them that people aren't dumb enough to fall for this. If we can show people that Christianity is and won't ever be persecuted in any real way anytime soon, we can stop them. Of course, this requires all of the rational people (Deists, Atheists, and Christians alike) working together to work. I think we can do it.
The problem would be that even if we got all the Atheists and Deists working together, Christians would just keep doing exactly what they've been doing: tuning us out. We'd have to be able to recruit rational Christians to stand up to the BS. I think we should try. We need to be willing to work with Christians to achieve our common goals. We would see it as stopping extreme Christians, they would see it as bettering Christianity. By working together with all enemies of extremism, we can move towards a society in which Deism could thrive.**http://religions.pewforum.org/affiliations
Sometimes from following the diverse deistic blogs, it appears Deism could be accurately described as: “The only firing squad that stands in a circle.” Seems we spend considerable time taking potshots at fellow Deists when there are better things to do then draw targets on each other. In continuing along the axiom theme of my previous posts, does an axial axiom exist for our movement? Is there a self-evident central core hub around which we can unite? We are direly in need of some type of anchoring point, rallying cry, polar star, or compass setting for our movement. Is there a foundational way to activate our actions, motivate our members, and focus our efforts?
Thomas Merton once wrote: “There is always a temptation to diddle around in the contemplative life, making itsy-bitsy statues.” Most Deists, in terms of their beliefs, thrive in the intellectual private realm of contemplation, but then choke when it comes to action in the real sphere of public activity. Endless contemplative foreplay without the consummation of life by pragmatic activity is a waste. Further remarks on the subject from Thoreau nail it: "There are nowadays professors of philosophy, but not philosophers. Yet it is admirable to profess because it was once admirable to live. To be a philosopher is not merely to have subtle thoughts, nor even to found a school, but so to love wisdom as to live according to its dictates, a life of simplicity, independence, magnanimity, and trust. It is to solve some of the problems of life, not only theoretically, but practically."
But before pointing any fingers, I like many Deists, resemble Thoreau’s remark in spending more than my fair share of time parked in the garage of existence revving my mental engine without putting my life into gear. Anyone have thoughts on propositions of an axial axiom for deism, or on which way we should steer from here?
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.
When I was in Morocco, I met two identical twin teenagers. They were fellow tourists, and they said that when they went to a shop, the owner had given them a discount, along with a small figurine. We were told this was because of a local belief that twins were good luck. One of the twins mentioned the contrast in the U. S, where other kids would harass them, asking them about their telepathic powers, usually by punching one of them and asking the other if they felt it. I feel that this demonstrates why it is ultimately okay for people to have varying religious beliefs, even if as a Deist I would say that they are irrational: as long as you aren't bothering, harassing, or hurting someone, then nobody has a right to make you give up those beliefs.
I have no right to say that others aren't allowed to believe in Christianity or any other religion. I have the right to question, to criticize their beliefs and they have the right to do the same to me. At any point, I cannot say that they can't be Christian. But I have a right, a DUTY, to stop them from using Christianity as an excuse to hurt people. When they say that I have to be a Christian, or that someone else can't be gay, or that a child must lose his intellectual freedom in order to make way for Christianity, they have moved from exercising their rights and denying others'.
Because using your freedom to deny others' is one of the most hypocritical acts I can imagine, not to mention the inherent wrongness. People justify TOO MANY harmful practices on the basis of religion. Freedom of religion does not give you the right to harm other people. We have the right to worship freely, to believe freely, to live freely, as long as we do not harm other people.
Religious freedom is as often, if not more often, oppressed for the sake of harming people rather than invoked to excuse harming people. But many time, both are done at once. Many would enforce their Christianity on us, justifying things that would suppress our religion by claiming they are just exercising their religion. Religious freedom is a wonderful thing. It allows for many people to live without fear of persecution. It allows for the free exchange of ideas. It allows for the moral and spiritual betterment of our society. People have and still do die in the name of it. So it is inexcusable the way so many treat it: Using it to justify its own repression.
|
RSS Feed