LibriumArcana.Games

I've been asked about what it is enough times I figured I'd post a basic rundown...

Beginnings.

To understand Deism, first one looks at the word. It shares the same basic meaning as Theism.. Both words use the old root for 'God' in two Classical languages. But the two exist as opposites of the same coin.

'Theist' is a basic term for everyone who beleives in a deity, and in turn, miracles, prophets, some form of divine creation, intervention in the material world, and what is collectively known as 'Revealed Truths'. 'Revealed' truths or knowledge or religion refers to the idea that any book, or prophet, or single source can hold the words of the Creator.

Deism assumes there's a deity, and that this entity is appropriately powerful to it's main feat. It created the universe, and built-in all of the mechanisms; accretion discs, stellar births, evolution, and so forth are built to produce the desired effects. Similarly, this entity is powerful enough that, if it desired it's will known, it'd not place it in a book or in one person's head; the knowledge would be built-in and unmistakable.

That is, as they say, the beleifs of Deists. Everything from here tends to be individual in nature, derived from reason and observation of the universe, much like trying to understand the painter by studying his collected works.

Heresy to Obscrurity: A very condensed history.

Deist was first used to describe an emerging Heresy in the 1500s, which rejected Christ and all the trappings of existing religion, but preserved beleif in God.

It would be Lord Herbert of Cherbury who attempted to distill Deism into a basic argument, in his book De Veritate (On Truth, as It Is Distinguished from Revelation, the Probable, the Possible, and the False). This book would fail, of course, as a full two thirds is devoted to his theory of knowledge(Truth from experience, from reasoning, from innate sources, and revealed.), and while his arguments on some of it can be useful, the concept of 'innate truths' would be destroyed by the end of the 17th century by Locke. Locke is not a Deist, but is a major factor in the evolution of the movement, as his arguments forced the abandonment of all philosophy based on innate truths.

The rise of Deism would spark, though, and it would climb high. Matthew Tindal would provide a new starting point for Deists. He also laid out the basic argument against revealed knowledge: "God designed all Mankind should at all times know, what he wills them to know, believe, profess, and practice; and has given them no other Means for this, but the Use of Reason."

Deism's rapid rise would not last. David Hume(Rightly regarded as a fool), is sometimes seen as the downfall of Deism in England, but in truth the movement was faltering already.

Deism would leave it's mark in a number of ways, however. Many of America's founders are confirmed or suspected Deist's of several flavours(Jefferson, for example, was a Christian Deist; the 'Jefferson Bible' essentially sets forth Jesus Christ as a teacher of morality), and this would influence it's founding documents. Unitarians, another religious group, would absorb many of Deism's tenets.

Today, Deism enjoys a minor resurgence via the web. A group even exists to bring Deists together, but history has proven that organizing Deists is as easy as herding cats.

Thoughts, questions, arguments.. Let fly!

A good quick read, I enjoied it and thank you.

A couple of questions:

How does the idea that we would all know square with free will? I am assuming that Deist believe in free will as there seems to be no evidence that they don't.

What agruements did Locke use against innate truths? In my current political science class, Locke seems to have taught there was an innate natural law that could be discovered by reason...

What did David Hume did or agrue that led to his label as a fool?

What's the difference between Unitarians and Deist?

frigidmagi wrote:A good quick read, I enjoied it and thank you.

A couple of questions:

How does the idea that we would all know square with free will? I am assuming that Deist believe in free will as there seems to be no evidence that they don't.

Most beleive in free will. The basic idea, as has been explained to me, is we would know what is wished. That does not require us to do that, any more than knowing we shouldn't have just one more chocolate prevents us from pigging out.

What agruements did Locke use against innate truths? In my current political science class, Locke seems to have taught there was an innate natural law that could be discovered by reason...

I think I needed to spend more time on this. Innate Truth is not the same as a truth reached via reason, which is what Locke proposed. The movement begins with Plato, who beleives the mind is etched with certain ideas from the beginning.

The specific Innate Truths used by early Deism were:

* There is one Supreme God.
* He ought to be worshipped.
* Virtue and piety are the chief parts of divine worship.
* We ought to be sorry for our sins and repent of them
* Divine goodness doth dispense rewards and punishments both in this life and after it.

Except these ideas aren't natural; people beleived there were many gods often, and that fear and power were often parts of them.

What did David Hume did or agrue that led to his label as a fool?

He is the father of skepticism, which argues that nothing can ever be known. He once said it's illogical to say the Sun will rise in the East, since you can't prove it 100%.

What's the difference between Unitarians and Deist?

A very diverse group. They range from Biblical(God is one being; Jesus is the Messiah, but not a part of the Trinity, cause there's no Trinity), Rational(Mainly different from Deism by a beleif that humans are basically nice, and that God intervenes), Evangelical(By Scripture Alone is a major thing with them. JW's are included), and Unitarian Universalists, who are pretty much a group devoted to allowing all folks of any beleif to get together and promote basically Humanist values. They also like to give those folks without a church a place to gather and get that social aspect.

Unitarians, in short, are a bunch of very opposing sides.

All philosophy based on innate truths in the British school, certainly, Martin, but not in the continental schools of Philosophy. I hold Innate ideas to be a fundamental part of who humans are, as based on the Kantian school of Transcendental Idealism.


...Which is probably where about half of our disagreements come from, unsurprisingly.

He is the father of skepticism, which argues that nothing can ever be known. He once said it's illogical to say the Sun will rise in the East, since you can't prove it 100%.

I also seem to remember that he also said that it was rank foolishess not to assume it would anyway. Or am I thinking of another philosopher here?

The simple fact is, we cannot KNOW anything with 100% confidence. However that is not the same as having reasonable, or even very very certain confidence, that for example, the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. This is the basic premise upon which the scientific method functions BTW