The Deism's, Plural.

[Joshpantera]

Let's investigate the alternative view of Deism and it's sub categories. This is sort of a pre-atheistic range of thought that was held by some of the forefathers of the United States:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

 

 

 

Deism (/ˈdiː.ɪzəm/ dee-iz-əm ^[1][2] or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/ day-iz-əm) (derived from Latin "deus" meaning "god") is a philosophical position which posits that a god does not interfere directly with the world. It also rejects revelation as a source of religious knowledge with the conclusion that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a single creator of the universe.^{[3][4][5][6][7] [8]}

Deism gained prominence among intellectuals during the Age of Enlightenment, especially in Britain, France, Germany, and the United States. Typically, these had been raised as Christians and believed in one God, but they had become disenchanted with organized religion and orthodox teachings such as the Trinity, Biblical inerrancy, and the supernatural interpretation of events, such as miracles.^[9] Included in those influenced by its ideas were leaders of the American and French Revolutions.^[10]

Today, deism is considered to exist in the classical and modern forms,^[11] where the classical view takes what is called a "cold" approach by asserting the non-intervention of deity in the natural behavior of the created universe, while the modern deist formulation can be either "warm" (citing an involved deity) or "cold" (citing an uninvolved deity). These lead to many subdivisions of modern deism which tends, therefore, to serve as an overall category of belief.^[12]

 

Moving down the page I've jumped to arguments in favor of Deism:

 

 

Arguments for the existence of God[edit]

Some deists used the cosmological argument for the existence of God - as did Thomas Hobbes in several of his writings:

The effects we acknowledge naturally, do include a power of their producing, before they were produced; and that power presupposeth something existent that hath such power; and the thing so existing with power to produce, if it were not eternal, must needs have been produced by somewhat before it, and that again by something else before that, till we come to an eternal, that is to say, the first power of all powers and first cause of all causes; and this is it which all men conceive by the name of God, implying eternity, incomprehensibility, and omnipotence.

— Thomas Hobbes, Works, vol. 4, pp. 59–60; quoted in John Orr, English Deism, p. 76

 

Now I'll caution here that these are old and outdated arguments. In this day and age we conceive of an eternal natural cosmos by way of a multiverse or similar ideas that show how natural existence can itself be "The Eternal" which the Deists were struggling to discover in their time. I'd urge those following not to take my critique of these ideas in any way other than for the purpose of helping ex-christians to properly understand the playing field and what theistic and deistic arguments include. And how they fare against modern scientific and philosophical ideas. 

 

 

Decline of deism[edit]

Deism is generally considered to have declined as an influential school of thought by around 1800.

After the writings of Woolston and Tindal, English deism went into slow decline. ... By the 1730s, nearly all the arguments in behalf of Deism ... had been offered and refined; the intellectual caliber of leading Deists was none too impressive; and the opponents of deism finally mustered some formidable spokesmen. The Deists of these decades, Peter Annet (1693–1769), Thomas Chubb (1679–1747), and Thomas Morgan (?–1743), are of significance to the specialist alone. ... It had all been said before, and better. .

— Peter Gay, Deism: An Anthology^[42]

It is probably more accurate, however, to say that deism evolved into, and contributed to, other religious movements. The term deist became rarely used, but deist beliefs, ideas, and influences remained. They can be seen in 19th-century liberal British theology and in the rise of Unitarianism, which adopted many of deism's beliefs and ideas.

Commentators have suggested a variety of reasons for the decline of classical deism.

• the rise, growth, and spread of naturalism^[62] and materialism, which were atheistic
• the writings of David Hume^[62][63] and Immanuel Kant^[63] (and later, Charles Darwin), which increased doubt about the first cause argument and the argument from design, turning many (though not all) potential deists towards atheism instead
• criticisms (by writers such as Joseph-Marie de Maistre and Edmund Burke) of excesses of the French Revolution, and consequent rising doubts that reason and rationalism could solve all problems^[63]
• deism became associated with pantheism, freethought, and atheism, all of which became associated with one another, and were so criticized by Christian apologists^[62][63]
• frustration with the determinism implicit in "This is the best of all possible worlds"
• deism remained a personal philosophy and had not yet become an organized movement (before the advent in the 20th century of organizations such as the World Union of Deists)
• with the rise of Unitarianism, based on deistic principles, people self-identified as Unitarians rather than as deists^[63]
• an anti-deist and anti-reason campaign by some Christian clergymen and theologians such as Johann Georg Hamann to vilify deism
• Christian revivalist movements, such as Pietism and Methodism, which taught that a more personal relationship with a deity was possible^[63]

 

Modern Deism is the next consideration.  

 

 

Subcategories of contemporary deism[edit]

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Modern deists hold a wide range of views on the nature of God and God's relationship to the world. The common area of agreement is the desire to use reason, experience, and nature as the basis of belief.

There are a number of subcategories of modern deism, including monodeism (this being the default standard concept of deism), polydeism, pandeism, panendeism, spiritual deism, process deism, Christian deism, scientific deism, and humanistic deism. Some deists see design in nature and purpose in the universe and in their lives (Prime Designer). Others see God and the universe in a co-creative process (Prime Motivator). Some deists view God in classical terms and see God as observing humanity but not directly intervening in our lives (Prime Observer), while others see God as a subtle and persuasive spirit who created the world, but then stepped back to observe (Prime Mover).

Pandeism[edit]

Main article: Pandeism

Pandeism combines elements of deism with elements of pantheism, the belief that the universe is identical to God. Pandeism holds that God was a conscious and sentient force or entity that designed and created the universe, which operates by mechanisms set forth in the creation. God thus became an unconscious and nonresponsive being by becoming the universe. Other than this distinction (and the possibility that the universe will one day return to the state of being God), pandeistic beliefs are deistic. The earliest allusion to pandeism found to date is in 1787, in translator Gottfried Große's interpretation of Pliny the Elder's Natural History:

Beym. Plinius, den man, wo nicht Spinozisten, doch einen Pandeisten nennen konnte, ist Natur oder Gott kein von der Welt getrenntes oder abgesondertes Wesen. Seine Natur ist die ganze Schöpfung im Konkreto, und eben so scheint es mit seiner Gottheit beschaffen zu seyn.^[69]

Here Gottfried says that Pliny is not Spinozist, but 'could be called a Pandeist' whose Nature or God 'is not a being separate from the world. Its nature is the whole creation in concrete form, and thus it seems to be designed with its divinity.' The term was used in 1859 by German philosophers and frequent collaborators Moritz Lazarus and Heymann Steinthal in Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft. They wrote:

Man stelle es also den Denkern frei, ob sie Theisten, Pan-theisten, Atheisten, Deisten (und warum nicht auch Pandeisten?)^[70]

This is translated as:

So we should let these thinkers decide themselves whether they are theists, pan-theists, atheists, deists (and why not even pandeists?)

In the 1960s, theologian Charles Hartshorne scrupulously examined and rejected both deism and pandeism (as well as pantheism) in favor of a conception of God whose characteristics included "absolute perfection in some respects, relative perfection in all others" or "AR", writing that this theory "is able consistently to embrace all that is positive in either deism or pandeism", concluding that "panentheistic doctrine contains all of deism and pandeism except their arbitrary negations".^[71]

Panendeism[edit]

Panendeism combines deism with panentheism, the belief that the universe is part of God, but not all of God.

A 1995 news article includes an early usage of the term by Jim Garvin, a Vietnam veteran who became a Trappist monk in the Holy Cross Abbey of Berryville, Virginia, and went on to lead the economic development of Phoenix, Arizona. Despite his Roman Catholic post, Garvin described his spiritual position as "pandeism' or 'pan-en-deism,' something very close to the Native American concept of the all-pervading Great Spirit..."^[72] The term was later suggested by Larry Copling in 2000.^[73]

Contemporary deist opinions on prayer[edit]

Many classical deists were critical of some types of prayer. For example, in Christianity as Old as the Creation, Matthew Tindal argues against praying for miracles, but advocates prayer as both a human duty and a human need.^[74]

Today, deists hold a variety of opinions about prayer:

• Some contemporary deists believe (with the classical deists) that God has created the universe perfectly, so no amount of supplication, request, or begging can change the fundamental nature of the universe.
• Some deists believe that God is not an entity that can be contacted by human beings through petitions for relief; rather, God can only be experienced through the nature of the universe.
• Some deists do not believe in divine intervention, but still find value in prayer as a form of meditation, self-cleansing, and spiritual renewal. Such prayers are often appreciative (that is, "Thank you for ...") rather than supplicative (that is, "Please, God, grant me ...").^[75]
• Some deists practice meditation and make frequent use of Affirmative Prayer, a non-supplicative form of prayer which is common in the New Thought movement.^{[citation needed]}
•  

[Guest]

Thanks for starting this thread, Joshpantera. I'm going to delve into it all later!

[Geezer]

I examined Deism after I Ieft Xiamity. I see Deism as a form of Spirituality with many possible interpretations. I kind of like the idea that "God" or what humans call God, & the Universe are one & the same. One of Deism's appeal, at least for me, is that it sn't really a religion per se but a form of non- religious spirituality. That noted, I don't personally identify myself as a Deist.

[Joshpantera]

Geezer, is that a Pandeism you speak of, or a little different? 

[Geezer]

Geezer, is that a Pandeism you speak of, or a little different?

 

It would seem to be in that neighborhood. We have to keep in mind we are referencing human definitions. The Deism theory has no specific definition, it appears to mean whatever a person that calls themselves a Deist wants it to mean & I'm okay with that.

[♦ Fuego ♦]

I find it fascinating how the ancients like Pythagoras approached deism and discovering the divine through physical "clues" like the golden rectangle, geometric relationships, cycloids, etc. They figured that a god would leave fingerprints all over his creation and that finding these things brought them closer to knowledge of the divine. Happily, many of their discoveries helped pave the way for modern mathematics and science.