Deism For the Modern Mind

What Sustains Deists?

noreply@blogger.com (Joel) — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 20:26:00 +0000

I hope Bob will not mind me posting since this blog has been inactive for some time. As one of those who has the privilege of being able to author posts on this blog, I must admit that the past few months has involved a lot of soul-searching when it comes to religion and philosophy, so I've been quiet. For a time, I also wanted little to do with what I have perceived is a predominant "culture" in modern Deism towards religion bashing. Despite disengaging from dialogue with Deists, I must admit the following two things. First, there are in general only two views available when it comes to religious belief. Either a person embraces a religion or philosophy that has the natural world as its source of authority, or a person embraces views that accept something beyond reality as the authority (such as revelation). I have struggled with my place in the scheme of all of the names and tags we give our beliefs, but I am completely dedicated to what we find in nature and reality as the source of religious belief.

Deism is not the only stamp a person can assign to himself or herself that embraces reality. Certain elements and schools of philosophy, both ancient and modern, are deeply rooted in the study and appreciation of the natural world. Certain teachers within Zen Buddhism point to reality as what we must wrestle with and ultimately accept. There are others, to be certain, some people I have met even within the confines of the so-called "revealed" religions. So simply because a person or group does not quote Thomas Paine, does not mean that they are not fellow-travellers with those of us who do not buy the view of a revelatory God waiting to burn us up like the head of a match. We should try to learn from and dialogue with others whose experiences are ultimately rooted in making the best of life in here-and-now, because the only other choice people have is to embrace "supernatural" religion that implies at its core that the world that may have a Creator behind it is simply not good enough.

Why should we do this? Why should we ask a Soto Zen Buddhist about zazen, or read Marcus Aurelius or Nietzsche, or learn about what is in our gardens, parks, and even our backyard as something like a spiritual act? Because we need it. Constantly reacting to, and railing against, the ills of revealed religion is not healthy, and will not sustain the psyche of many people. To be sure, there are people who have been deeply hurt by Roman Catholicism and need to draw from Deism as a source of validity to work through their hurt and anger. But at some point, the anger and sense of righteous indignation will wear off. We all need, at some point, something positive and life-affirming to sustain us. Embracing Deism does mean un-learning much that we have been told about God from established religions, but it also means embracing the beauty of nature that is bigger than us, that speaks to something bigger than us that we call "God". Such an approach to the spiritual life, that is rooted in the created order, no matter where it comes from, should be enough to sustain us. It has been enough to sustain me in the past few months.

So let me ask: what is it about Deism that sustains you?

CONTACT THE AUTHOR

legionnaire1211@gmail.com (Bob Blunk) — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 23:20:00 +0000

I have a new home. Come check out what I have been up to. I will be adding more personal content and moving in a more philosophical direction.

http://thebob.tumblr.com/

I am still not sure about the future of this blog, so stay tuned.

CONTACT THE AUTHOR

Warning in America: Andrew J. Bacevich on Bill Moyers Journal

legionnaire1211@gmail.com (Bob Blunk) — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 01:16:00 +0000

"We modern Americans are marvels of indolence. We'll slap magnetic "Support our troops" ribbons on our minivans and surrender our freedoms to telephone companies if that's what it takes to keep from having to protect our freedoms"

By Mark Czerniec

read more | digg story

Note: Click on read more. This article is a must read. Enough said!

Deism Podcast Episode 8 - No Jealous God For Me Please

legionnaire1211@gmail.com (Bob Blunk) — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:29:00 +0000

Episode 8 of The Deism Podcast is now available for download via the Deism Podcast Blog and iTunes. Click on the image above to go there now.

This episode features a dialog from WUD Director Bob Johnson. This week in Deism News, learn about a recently published article about a prominent Atheist turned Deist. Also, learn how multimedia content on Deism is spreading around the Internet.

I would like to thank everyone for their support of this podcast. Spread the word of Deism by recommending this podcast to all of your friends and family members. Please provide any feedback or comments that you have to help us improve the show.

Deism News:
Atheist Changed His Mind
Deism on YouTube(link shows videos for and against Deism, so choose wisely)

Enjoy the show!

CONTACT THE AUTHOR

YouTube - Deism FAQ: God and the Natural Universe

legionnaire1211@gmail.com (Bob Blunk) — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:29:00 +0000

John Armstrong has been posting some interesting and thought provoking videos on YouTube and I thought that it would be great to share some of them here.

This video provides a basic overview of the falsies within the bible. John provides reason based questions and information that makes it apparent that the bible is filled with ridiculous fantasy and falsehoods.

Let me know what you think.

The Rise and Fall of Individualism

legionnaire1211@gmail.com (Bob Blunk) — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 17:37:00 +0000

America was built on a firm stance of individualism. Immigrants to the English colonies were escaping persecution and intolerance. The collectivism of Europe pushed people to find new homes, and more importantly, a new way to live. American independence was a result of the hard handed stance of individualism and individual freedom. The Founding Fathers of America intended to create a new government that would show the world that people living as individuals could maintain a homogeneous society.

"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society." --Thomas Jefferson

Words to this effect held a special power in the early days of the American Democracy. People and their individual rights were the pinnacle of American idealism. If people could maintain their voices and be heard above the masses, then the balance of power would always be maintained. Popular thought held that elected officials were the best and brightest of the American people and the people would always elect those who were best to lead. The addition of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution added to the idea of individualism and in most minds cemented the fact that individualism would yield a government sworn to protect the interests of the people.

Halfway though the 20th century, something ominous began to happen. Individual voices began to drown out the will of the majority. Individualism began to unbalance the powers that the Founding Fathers so meticulously designed. The will of the individual began to win out over common sense and reason. Frivolous lawsuits, unjust wars, unethical corporate practices, and corrupt politicians have cost the American people billions of dollars and thousands of lives. We are beginning now to understand that any ideal, unchecked, can lead to a society's undoing. The essence of individualism is to choose one’s own standards, or ignore standards entirely, so long as that decision is well-reasoned. The problem is, that reason can be flawed, and a society with no standards will eventually crumble.

"Democracy in itself does not define or guarantee a free society. History has told many stories of democratic societies that have degenerated into corruption, plunder, and tyranny." -- Richard M. Ebeling

For too long now, we have hidden behind the guise of a Democratic nation. Far from the truth, America is no longer a Democracy. Each new President brings us closer to totalitarianism. People's right and liberties are being repressed. Individuals, and individual ideals, are preventing the majority from protecting our precious freedoms. Individualism should not, and probably will not, ever die or fade away. However, the majority needs to regain its voice and footing. Democracy is not republicanism. We are not representatives of our government. We elect officials to govern for us. We elect people who we believe are best suited to make the decisions that protect our rights and interests. Individualism is preventing this. An individual's ideals are preventing the government from doing what is best for the whole of our nation. Our officials spend far too much time placating to every minority, special interest group, and individual within their constituency.

Reason can help us strike a balance between Individualism and Collectivism. The majority can have a voice and individuals can still maintain their rightful place within the American and world society. We must remember that what is good for one, might not be the best for all.

"Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." -- James Bovard

CONTACT THE AUTHOR

Deism Podcast Episode 7 - A Little Talk About Paine

legionnaire1211@gmail.com (Bob Blunk) — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 21:30:00 +0000

Episode 7 of The Deism Podcast is now available for download via the Deism Podcast Blog and iTunes. Click on the image above to go there now.

This episode features a dialog from WUD Director Bob Johnson. Listen to Deism News for information concerning an LA Time article about Deism. Also, make sure you listen to the Deism News section to hear an announcement concerning the WUD.

I would like to thank everyone for their support of this podcast. Spread the word of Deism by recommending this podcast to all of your friends and family members. Please provide any feedback or comments that you have to help us improve the show.

Deism News:
Article about the Jefferson Bible

Enjoy the show!

CONTACT THE AUTHOR

With meticulous editing, Jefferson made Bible his own.

legionnaire1211@gmail.com (Bob Blunk) — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:17:00 +0000

"Jefferson was not the only 18th-century leader who questioned traditional Christian teachings. Like many other upper-class educated citizens of the new republic, including George Washington, Jefferson was a deist."

By Louis Sahagun
Los Angeles Times / July 7, 2008

read more | digg story

Note: This is a story that every Deist should read. Frequently Deists, including myself, lash out at the revealed religions. Our anger tends to cloud the fact that good can be found in all things. Jefferson knew this fact, and although he considered himself a Deist, he wanted the world to know that the bible hid many of the standard morals that guide our lives today behind superstitions and exaggerated stories.

Also, it should be noted that this story was printed in the Los Angeles Times, meaning that Deism is becoming more mainstream as the word about Deism spreads. This is an encouraging fact that could lead to more people learning how to lead a life based on reason. This story also highlights the importance of learning about the ideals of our Founding Fathers and their impact on our culture and civilization.

Reason and Religion

noreply@blogger.com (Joel) — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:31:00 +0000

I'm currently reading Faith Founded on Fact: Essays in Evidential Apologetics by John Warwick Montgomery (Trinity Press, 1978). A review of this book claimed that is contained the most comprehensive refutation of Anthony Flew's view on miracles, so I figured I would give it a try. While I'll need to go back and re-read Dr. Montgomery's take on Flew since he has the tendency to drift off into British verbosity, I'll shoot from the hip and say he fails to refute Flew because he does not use a consistent position for each of his two-fold arguments. On their own, they are strong positions. Together, they are contradictory and cancel each other.

But anyway, that is another topic. In the essay on Martin Luther and the defense of the "biblical faith", the subject of reason comes up. In defining Martin Luther's position on reason and revelation, he quotes B.A. Gerrish Grace and Reason (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), pp. 72-73:

"The Kingdom of Reason embraces such human activities as caring for a family, building a home, serving as a magistrate, and looking after cows. All that can be demanded of me by God in such a sphere of activity is that I should 'do my best'. The important thing not to overlook is that this Kingdom has its boundaries: the error of the sophists is that they carry the saying 'to do one's best' over into the regnum spirituale [spiritual kingdom], in which a man is able to do nothing but sin....For the Kingdom of Human Reason must be separated as far as possible from the Spiritual Kingdom."

Montgomery goes on to argue that Luther connected the two kingdoms with enough of a bridge to say that the Christian faith can be objectively argued. But I'm familiar enough with Luther's writings to know that Dr. Montgomery's view falls apart when Luther's moral views are examined, particularly his schizophrenic view of how a "Christian soldier" participates in war.

But there is glaring problem with Luther's (and therefore, the Protestant) position on reason. Garrish's treatment of Luther relegates certain worldly tasks to the kingdom of reason, where Luther presumes one only needs to 'do your best', and it cannot encroach into spiritual or moral matters. First, doing one's best is merely a pursuit of effort. If that is all God asks of such tasks as raising a family, then we could expect that simply doing one's best would be enough to produce good results. But as anyone knows who has tried to either build a house or raise a child, doing one's best is not enough. There is a, dare I say, moral quality to these tasks when they are done well according to certain principles. A well-built house will relatively weather the test of time and the elements. A well-raised child will have a relatively small therapy bill owed to his parents when he is an adult. Luther's position that the realm of reason only requires amoral effort is a joke. It smacks of the position of someone who spent his days praying in his cell as a good little Augustinian and never really held down a job, or raised a family.

So since the Protestant assumptions about the kingdom of reason and its amoral quality fall apart fairly easily, dismantling the notions of the spiritual realm where mankind can only sin is rather easy to do as well. If the realm of reason has God-given, discoverable, operational principles that are moral in nature (because things not done well in real life do hurt people, regardless of the level of effort), then we can assume with very little argument that the the suposed chasm between the physical world operating on reason, and the spiritual world operating on God's morality, does not exist. The spiritual kingdom where man is wholesale adjudicated a sinner doesn't exist. Otherwise, this adjudication would spill over into the realm of reason where morality is in operation, and no one would be able to ever build a house, raise a child, or milk a cow with any measure of success.

CONTACT THE AUTHOR

Reason's Humble Beginnings

legionnaire1211@gmail.com (Bob Blunk) — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:33:00 +0000

"Words need to be sown like seed. No matter how tiny a seed may be, when it lands in the right sort of ground it unfolds its strength and from being minute expands and grows to a massive size. Reason does the same; to the outward eye its dimensions may be insignificant, but with activity it starts developing. . . . The mind will then respond by being in its turn creative and will produce a yield exceeding what was put into it."

Seneca, Roman Stoic

Reason saw its humble beginnings from a group of Greek Philosophers, known as the Presocratics. Heraclitus being the first of the Greek philosophers to develop the idea of logos, which loosely resembles our modern day idea of reason. The idea that the use of Reason should alone guide our understanding of the world and its nature reached its pinnacle with Aristotle. He belived that through reason man understand the basic knowledge needed to understand everything within the universe, because knowledge must originate within a person's mind.

During Artistotle's time and after, reason took on a new meaning. Reason became a means to finding happiness in life, or rather a way to lead a happy existence (Eudaimonia). Reason started taking on the additional burden of becoming an almost religious underpinning to philosophy. People began to feel as though leading a life based on reason would lead to a happy existance on earth and after.

It was during the Neoplatonism movement that the idea of the soul began to intertwine with the philosophy of reason. Neoplatonists believed that through reason humans could attain a higher understanding of God, but they also believed that reason could elevate to soul to a point where it could behold, or ascend up to, that one good primary Being whom reason cannot know. It was at this point that reason took on an unbalanced approach and began to become dogmatic. Balanced Reason started taking a backseat to the idea of the soul. After all, why use reason when the ascension of the soul is the true goal.

This basic outline, or short history, of reason shows how easy it is, with time, to twist basic principles into dogmatic beliefs. If this twisting of truth can be done to reason, just think of all the ways truth can be bent or broken by religious zealots who wish to pressure humankind into believing in superstitious religions.

CONTACT THE AUTHOR

New Blog Logo

legionnaire1211@gmail.com (Bob Blunk) — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:04:00 +0000

I would Like to take this opportunity to thank Dan Mesmer for all of his hard work on creating this wonderful new logo for the blog. We wanted to create a logo that would express the sentiments of this blog and help start creating our own identity.

It is important to remember that this blog is a place for all Deists to share their ideas on not just religious philosophy, but on any topic that interests the movement and helps fellow Deists learn about nature and develop an understanding of how reason can be used to guide our daily existence. Recently my work schedule has prevented me from working extensively on promoting this blog and providing extensive content. Hopefully, in the coming weeks this will change. I hope to begin producing the Deism podcast again next month and we are still looking for more contributors to add to the fold. If you are willing to become an active participant in the Deist movement, use the link below to contact me via email and let me know.

CONTACT THE AUTHOR

Nothing Freakish About Mind Freaking

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Mesmer) — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:10:00 +0000

Most of us have seen the trick that Chris Angel does where he takes around five large paper or Styrofoam cups and places them upside down on a table. He places a sharp and very real knife under one of the cups with the blade facing upward. While he faces away from the cups, someone scrambles the order of the cups on the table. Then, Chris turns around, smashes the cups one by one with his hand, and leaves only the cup with the knife remaining. Even though we expect that Chris will perform the trick correctly, we may cringe as he smashes each cup with his hand. We may cringe because our brains have a toggle switch that sends signals to either the reasoning frontal lobe ("he will perform the trick safely because he knows what he's doing") or the emotional center of the brain ("I fear that he will pierce his hand with the knife"). The toggle may toggle repeatedly between each of these two portions of the brain while Chris is performing his magic.

Medical science doesn't know, yet, what causes this switch in our brain to toggle between sending signals to and from the frontal lobe or to and from the central portion of the brain. The phenomenon has been observed in a number of recent studies where subjects were given life-threatening scenarios and were asked to choose between two difficult alternatives. While the subjects were making their decisions, their brains were scanned by CT or other scanning technologies. There was clarity in the results from the studies. The alternative chosen depended upon which portion of the brain dominated in the decision making. The dominant portion was clearly visible during the brain scans.

Our emotional side is part of what makes us human. With it, we can be joyful and loving. We want to keep that. However, we can make some very big and tragic mistakes when we use emotion rather than reasoning. Can you imagine Chris Angel choosing which cup to smash based upon how he feels about each cup?

Recently, I showed my girlfriend how Chris Angel performs the trick. I showed her the technique in such a way that I left no doubt in my girlfriend's mind that I had discovered how the trick is done. Even though she knows that I know, were I to perform the trick in front of her again, the possibility of her cringing remains. We have only partial control over the toggle switch. This has big implications for Deists, since it shows why it is so difficult to get people to use reason.

Chris Angel takes masterful and wonderful advantage of this sometimes difficult-for-us-to-control toggle in our minds. Unlike people and groups who use the toggle to gain and keep unwitting victims under their control, Chris Angel shows us that the toggle can be used for some great fun. To the best of our ability, we allow him to control our toggle, repeatedly, because we have reasoned it is harmless to do so and because we have felt the immense enjoyment from his doing so. As a result, we have chosen to love..."Mind Freak!"

CONTACT THE AUTHOR

Pope's Missteps Could Help People Embrace Deism

legionnaire1211@gmail.com (Bob Blunk) — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 13:24:00 +0000

"Pope Benedict XVI said Sunday a "spiritual desert" was spreading throughout the world and he challenged young people to shed the greed and cynicism of their time to create a new age of hope for humankind."

Full Story

While rapping up a week long Festival dedicated to the world's youth, the Pope gave a speech more in keeping with the ideals of Deism than Christianity. He called on societies across the globe to leave behind the hollow spirituality of today and embrace "the power of God "to let it break through the curse of our indifference, our spiritual weariness, our blind conformity to the spirit of this age." Obviously he meant for this speech to appeal to Christians who have strayed from the religion and wants them to return. But his words might have the opposite effect for many. His words may have the opposite effect because the Catholic Church is so detached from the sentiments of the world today, that they fail to realize that the Church is the evil, hollow, empty soul of which the Pope speaks of.

The Pope went on to say that the world needs a renewal of change. He fails to realize that this change is rapidly occurring and that the Church will no long be apart of the new world. The outdated, dogmatic ideals of the Church are no longer in keeping with the intellectual base of the global community. Fear mongering and superstition can no longer control the minds of modern man.

The Pope's aim is "a new age in which hope liberates us from the shallowness, apathy and self-absorption" of today's relationships. It is plainly obvious that apathy and self-absorption are the mainstay of the Catholic Church. With the Pope on our side perhaps we can turn more people away from the ignorance of the Catholic Church and help them understand the true nature of the Universe and renew the world's hope of a better future.

CONTACT THE AUTHOR

The Greatest Scientific Instrument Ever Made

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Mesmer) — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 05:31:00 +0000

Muon Spectrometer Installation at LHC

Clearly, the greatest scientific instrument ever made by humans is the Hubble Space Telescope. It achieves such distinction from the enormity of its contributions to science. Nevertheless, a new contender is arriving, and it, too, could reveal much about our universe.

To create this new contender for "greatest scientific instrument," make a "Hula-Hoop" over 26 kilometers in circumference. Inflate the tube of your hoop to give it a large diameter. Then lay your hoop over the border of France and Switzerland, and bury it. Fill it with 9,300 magnets. Cool the magnets with tons of liquid nitrogen; then, cool them further with tons of liquid helium. Make the atmospheric pressure inside your hoop 10 times less than the pressure on the surface of the moon, and use the magnets to guide trillions of protons through your hoop at 99.99% the speed of light. Measure and record the collisions of your speeding protons by designing and constructing gigantic, one-of-a-kind instruments. Do all of the preceding, and you have made the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, near Geneva, Switzerland. Congratulations!

Send the data you obtain to thousands of scientists in scores of countries using a distributed computing network specifically created to speed your data 1,000 times faster than the broadband connection you use at home. Realize that all of these scientists understand the importance of analyzing your data, and thousands of them have agreed to keep their computers attached to and running on this speedy grid so that you can use all of their CPUs concurrently to analyze over 15 million gigabytes of data per year.

Do you feel like you're hot stuff? You should. The temperatures created by the proton collisions in your hoop are over 100,000 times hotter than the center of the sun. You'll really be hot stuff, though, if you discover a Higgs boson, or a particle relating to dark matter, or a new dimension, or something no one had guessed would be there to find.

Then you realize—other people like to be "hot stuff," too. So you tell them that they can help to unearth the previously unknown by making their home computers available to analyze LHC data over their existing broadband connection. To obtain information about how to get started, they just need to click on LHC@home.

Note: Initial testing of the Large Hadron Collider begins August 2008. If all goes well, experiments will commence no later than early 2009.

CONTACT THE AUTHOR

Can Someone be a Revealed Religionist and a Deist?

legionnaire1211@gmail.com (Bob Blunk) — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:44:00 +0000

This article is posted from the July edition of THINKonline. I think the message contained within it should be understood by Deists and Non-Deists alike. Today many people think that it is okay and in some cases necessary to create hybrid religions. They mix and match the views of dissimilar religions to suit their individual needs. In my opinion this is a dangerous trend that could blur the line between reason and superstition.

"I recently received emails from sincere people asking if Deism can be mixed with Christianity. Happily, they cannot.

Deism is so pure and simple, once it is contaminated with superstition it is no longer Deism. As Thomas Paine said, every "revealed" religionist is a Deist in their first article of belief, that is belief in God. This is the end of their similarities because the revealed religionists add to this beautiful, simple and logical belief almost unlimited nonsense and superstition. Once this is done you no longer have Deism. This is why there are two components of Deism, positive and negative. Positive Deism is the belief in God based on the objective application of our reason on the designs found throughout Nature. Negative Deism is the objective examination of the claims made by the various "revealed" religions to divine revelation, etc. Both the positive and the negative are essential to a complete form of Deism.

The driving force for sincere people who are revealed religionists is love of God. As Deists we need to show them that by giving up the manmade superstitions that make up their "revealed" religion, and which separates it from Deism, they are actually getting closer to God and showing more honor to God.

Any thinking person who is in a "revealed" religion has to try and make the ridiculous claim that their "revealed" religion aligns with their God-given reason. Once they realize that this is not necessary in Deism, because Deism makes no ridiculous claims, they are well on their way to becoming a Deist."

By Bob Johnson

Anyone familar with the WUD, knows who Bob Johnson is. He has spent great effort to advance the ideals of Deism and continues spreading the word of Deism. Not all Deists agree with each other, but having a support structure that can help people become aware of Deism is not only important, it is necessary.

THINKonline is a monthly e-zine, provided free of charge, by the World Union of Deists

To help support this cause subscribe to the monthly newsletter, Deistic Thought & Action.

CONTACT THE AUTHOR

The Constitution Dies Tomorrow

legionnaire1211@gmail.com (Bob Blunk) — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:38:00 +0000

"Over 200 years ago, we enshrined the rule of law as the only monarch in America. Tomorrow, the Senate will likely vote to shred that precedent. Democrats, "compromising" with Republicans, will act together, in a bipartisan fashion, to destroy your right to be free from search without a warrant."

by Jason Rosenbaum

Full Article

Note: This post is a little late in coming. I did not want anything to overshadow Dan's previous post.

By now the communication act is already signed into law. Bush signed the FISA bill making is legal for communication companies fork over personal information regarding subscribers and expanding the NSA surveillance program. The Forth Amendment is under attack by the Bush administration and the public remains in the dark over an issue that drastically reduces our rights as citizens. It is the job of government to provide for the well being of its citizens and rule in a manner that protects their interests. It is the job of the people to maintain their rights and limit the power of governments. Through this process a balance is struck to ensure proper security of a nation and at the same time ensure that governments do not become oppressive. Slow, but surely, our government is becoming more oppressive and we are doing little to reverse this trend.

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."
Ben Franklin

Reason dictates that we, as Deists, must realize the gravity of our situation. If the power of our government continues to grow unchecked we might see a day when the atrocities that we are observing abroad become common in America.

Article from CBS

Condemned to Death for an Internet Download

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Mesmer) — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:02:00 +0000

You can help to try to save the life of this 23-year-old Afghan journalism student and reporter named Sayed Parwiz Kambakhsh. He has been sentenced to death for downloading and distributing material suggesting that Islam oppresses women.

I came across the story after I clicked on the Faith Freedom International link on my Deist Links web site. The top of the Faith Freedom International web site is posting a notice about the situation. They have a link to the Center for Inquiry, which furnishes further information. Austin Dacey, United Nations representative for the Center for Inquiry, and Idn Warraq, senior research fellow at the Center for Inquiry, are urging compassion.

You can assist by clicking on this Center for Inquiry link. It provides opportunities both to sign a petition to free this student and to state your concern and urge his immediate release through a letter to Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

CONTACT THE AUTHOR

Deism as Process

noreply@blogger.com (Joel) — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 10:20:00 +0000

When people ask me what my religion is, I generally tell them I'm a Deist. I do this because it is a simple question that really requires a complicated answer, but I know I would be taxing the patience of the asker. I'm not really sure Deism qualifies as a religion in the conventional sense. Deists don't call other Deists heretics - at least, not openly. And there's no such thing as a bad Deist, or a Christmas and Easter Deist, either, because there is no established, Divinely-mandated authority or organization. So Deism as a religion in the conventional sense is out.

Is Deism a philosophy? Well, that label doesn't exactly stick in a conventional sense, either. Most major schools of philosophy are built upon some cosmological framework, often making certain assumptions that most Deists would pick through with a series of questions and tests pretty quickly. I think most Deists would also be appalled at Plato's notion that it is acceptable to invent religious myth in order to get people to do certain things. Most Deists don't have the elaborate and speculative cosmologies of the Stoics, either. I think most of us are pretty content to believe nothing more than there is a God who created what we call the physical universe. We don't seem to care too much for the how's. In fact, we seem to talk more about debunking other people's cosmological assumptions, such as evolution or creationism.

So, even though I tell people my religion is Deism, I think, for lack of a better term, Deism is a process. It is an observational process whereby each person attempts to arrive at truth through certain reasonable assumptions: that (1) there is an intrinsic order to the universe that, as of yet cannot be replicated by man and (2) rationally implies a Creator and not random chance, and (3) this Creator can be best known through attention to the natural order and sound reason. While others may phrase it a little differently or make some variations, I think this is pretty close to what most Deists accept. The implication of this is that each person is responsible to use the process to arrive at, and continually re-evaluate, truth. So any Deist who says what a person should believe or should be doing is forgetting that Deism is about each person applying one's reason to the search for truth in the created order. To accept what Voltaire, or Descartes, or Thomas Paine, or Ethan Allen, or Thomas Jefferson says without question, or to quote them as some sort of authority on God without being able to articulate one's personal process of examining what they have said, is to depart entirely from Deism, and begin to walk down the well-trodden path of religion and philosophy.

I think Deism is gaining credibility in general because it is not a religion or philosophy in the conventional sense. I think people are embracing Deism because it is a process. What would squelch this increased attention almost immediately would be for Deists to begin treading the well-worn path of religion by establishing organizations with authoritatian power structures, or establishing Deist dogma beyond the most general statements. Once someone or some people become THE AUTHORITY on Deism, to the censure of any dissidents, it is over. Better yet, let there be a schism. All we would need would be a rift dividing Deists in half over some trivial point for people on the outside to say, "Yep. Deism is another church."

So fellow Deists, we must be very careful to avoid the temptation to be a religion or a philosophy based on either authority, dogma, or speculation. There are already blogs and websites that make definitive and sweeping statements about Deism that I'm not sure apply to all. This is a direction we must avoid. I think the biggest rift in historic Deism was not over beliefs, but how much invective to heap at established religion. It was a discussion that was never resolved, so before we jump into "Deists believe..." statements, let's see if we can even decide how we are going to relate to those who want to save our souls from the fires of hell.

16.1% - Religiously Unaffiliated

legionnaire1211@gmail.com (Bob Blunk) — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:27:00 +0000

The number of people who say they are unaffiliated with any particular faith today (about 16%) is more than double the number who say they were not affiliated with any particular religion as children.

Deist Clockwork Evolution

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Mesmer) — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 05:18:00 +0000

Doubting Thomases

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Mesmer) — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:25:00 +0000

In reply to people who blindly follow organized religions and who muster the collective impudence to call people who don't, "doubting Thomases":

People who are so afraid of relying upon their own powers of reasoning that they turn to "experts" even when dealing with subjects in which there are no experts, and people who are so afraid of their own ability to handle rejection that they never voice unpopular thoughts to those "experts"—even when those thoughts may be correct, are the real "doubting Thomases."

These real doubting Thomases will be the first to accuse a person who has left an organized religion that he or she has "lost faith." These real doubting Thomases don't realize the decision to leave an organized religion may be the first sign that a person has gained real faith.

Finally—as part of an organization that has for hours, days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, or millennia harmed people through perpetration of myths and superstitions—these real doubting Thomases will complain that we complain. We former members of organized religions who were victimized, understand exactly why you complain about our complaining. We know that you fear reason; we understand why you fear reason; we understand that you are victims, too; and we have compassion for you.

It is out of compassion that I voice my complaints. I have no doubt about it.

CONTACT THE AUTHOR

An Ultimate Process for Measuring Morality?

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Mesmer) — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 17:34:00 +0000

I will start with humility and say that I cannot, in an ultimate and absolute sense, know if a particular individual has acted morally. I possess neither all of the requisite information about any particular person nor a moral yardstick that is known to be absolutely correct. That does not mean that we should not make a reasonable estimate about a person's morality. I think it is part of our ethical responsibility to do so. Additionally, I think that we can make an educated guess as to what might be involved in making a final moral judgment about a person. I think the final measure of a person's morality might be:

Given the innate level of the person's intelligence, the innate level of the person's emotional stability, the amount of education the person received, and the influences upon the person that were not within the person's control, should the person have acted as he or she did?

Here are only two of countless examples:

For a person of low intelligence who was victimized by the people around him or her and who did not realize it, I think compassion might be shown.

For a person who through his or her given level of reasoning power should have realized his or her own victimization and who had the opportunity and emotional stability to pull himself or herself away from such victimization but did not, I think the judgment might be harsh.

A corollary of the second example is that many followers of revealed religions are in a morally precarious position.

CONTACT THE AUTHOR

McCain denounces the separation of church and state

legionnaire1211@gmail.com (Bob Blunk) — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:23:00 +0000

"He said last fall that "the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation." Although the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," McCain goes on to claim of our Founding Fathers that "they didn't mean, in my view, separation of church and state.""

By The Progressive

This quote is right in line with my belief that American Politicians spend too much time wearing their religion on their sleeve and focusing their attention on the past. The Founding Fathers were Deists, for the most part. They constructed a constitution that has upheld a government and supported the American people longer than any other written document in history. But why focus so much on the past. The Founding Fathers were great men, men who I admire. But, this election needs to focus on future issues. McCain will not be voted into office if he intends to run his campaign by focusing on past and unpopular issues.

McCain also said, "that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation. But I say that in the broadest sense. The lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door doesn't say, “I only welcome Christians.” We welcome the poor, the tired, the huddled masses. But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles."

Personally, I am a moderate. I vote for whoever will do the best good for the republic and perform their duties in the best manner possible, with respect and dignity. These attributes are hard to come by in todays politics, and McCain seems to be farther away from these ideals than most. Mired in the world of yesterday, this man has obviously lost touch with the minds and religions of today. This country is certainly in need of change, but don't expect to see this happen in the next administration. Bloated spending, inflation, and political infighting will highlight the next decade or so of American politics. However, there is hope. The belief in reason based religious and ethical philosophies is on the rise. Americans are feeling the pull of reason, and it is causing them to question the irrational and superstitious beliefs of the revealed religions.

Map of The World's Religions

legionnaire1211@gmail.com (Bob Blunk) — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:00:00 +0000

Click on the Map to enlarge it, and your perception of the World's Religions

CONTACT THE AUTHOR

Christian Moral "High Ground"?

noreply@blogger.com (Joel) — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 12:24:00 +0000

I can remember even in my not-so-distant past arguing for the superiority of the Christian religion because its morals and ethics were superior to all other religions and ethical systems. But once I began to examine the foundations of Christian ethics, as well as the foundations of the Western philosophical traditions, I had to concede that Christianity's ethical base was nothing more than dressed-up tribal superstition. While I don't think that anyone can assume all Christians have the same ethical framework, some suppositions are more common than others and can therefore be addressed in general. Let's take a look at just two of these:

Foundation # 1: God rewards the good and punishes the wicked.

Refuting this is simple: ask anyone who believes this to prove it. Other than quoting verses from a religious text, there is no evidence in reality that people who are evil supernaturally come to a bad end, or that good people supernaturally find envelopes of money in their mailboxes on exactly the day that their bills are due. If God were truly actively rewarding and punishing based on behavior, then he has some serious explaining to do, especially as to why children who are under the oft-quoted evangelical "age of accountability" suffer from cancer, birth defects, and painful injuries from accidents - among other things. The belief that one must be good because it will be rewarded by God simply doesn't stand up to reality, and eventually leads to a level of frustration when one's good deeds don't seem to pay off while unbelievers seem to be doing pretty well for themselves. If you are in discussion with a religionist who is rational enough to concede the point, the next statement that I almost guarantee will come out of his or her mouth is this: "Ok, fair enough. But God truly punishes and rewards in the after life." This is foundation # 2.

Foundation # 2: "Believers" or "the faithful" go to heaven, while heathens and sinners go to hell.

The premise behind this is that by joining a religion and adhering to the morals of that religion, one can avert the righteous indignation of God that is coming on the whole world and spend eternity in Paradise. This is, just as foundation #1, an extremely selfish motive for doing good. I was talking with a Christian coworker and was able to effectively argue that the Bible (at least, the Pauline portion) does not teach the notion of an eternal hell. His response effectively summarizes the Christian moral foundation: "If hell is not eternal, and eventually everyone goes to heaven, then why I am trying so hard to do the right thing?" The Christian moral foundation does not recognize in any capacity the idea that good has its own intrinsic benefits. The average religionist must be bribed with reward or threatened with punishment before he or she will exert effort at doing good.

So the assertion that Christianity or any other religion is superior and holds the moral high ground can be seen here to be a lie. It is built upon crude childlike assertions of reward and punishment, and will not generally produce character in its adherents that can withstand adverse circumstances.

The Deist Approach
Once I had exposed the faulty foundations of Christian morality in myself, I began looking for another way. Eventually, I discovered Deism. The idea that how one lives should be dictated by nature and reason, and not by supposed promises of divine rewards and punishments, was beautifully simple. No longer did I need to fear that if something bad happened that it was either divine punishment or demonic persecution. If something bad happened, it was due to either a necessary cause and effect that was necessary according to natural law to preserve the whole, or a human cause-effect based on poor decision-making. The first I can work to accept as necessary, and even "good." The second I can work to prevent by encouraging every person to live according to the highest ideals of human virtue found in nature and reason, and working within myself to achieve virtuous living. The end result is the happiness and betterment of all.

In conclusion, here is an excerpt from a poem by the Christian theologian CS Lewis that I think well illustrates the fallacy of the moral high ground of Christianity. It is called Cliche Came Out of its Cage:

1
You said 'The world is going back to Paganism'.
Oh bright Vision! I saw our dynasty in the bar of the House
Spill from their tumblers a libation to the Erinyes,
And Leavis with Lord Russell wreathed in flowers, heralded with flutes,
Leading white bulls to the cathedral of the solemn Muses
To pay where due the glory of their latest theorem.

Walk carefully, do not wake the envy of the happy gods,
Shun Hubris. The middle of the road, the middle sort of men,
Are best. Aidos surpasses gold. Reverence for the aged
Is wholesome as seasonable rain, and for a man to die
Defending the city in battle is a harmonious thing.
Thus with magistral hand the Puritan Sophrosune
Cooled and schooled and tempered our uneasy motions;
Heathendom came again, the circumspection and the holy fears ...
You said it. Did you mean it? Oh inordinate liar, stop.

2
Take as your model the tall women with yellow hair in plaits
Who walked back into burning houses to die with men,
Or him who as the death spear entered into his vitals
Made critical comments on its workmanship and aim.
Are these the Pagans you spoke of? Know your betters and crouch, dogs;
You that have Vichy water in your veins and worship the event
Your goddess History (whom your fathers called the strumpet Fortune).