Silk Road forums
Discussion => Philosophy, Economics and Justice => Topic started by: Red Rama on December 17, 2012, 03:11 am
-
So the two users (or just one, they're pretty indistinguishable from each other and could just be the same idiot) on here a few days ago that blasted everyone with the caps-lock on about how we're all hellbound heathens for using drugs got me thinking. I know over the past decade or so especially the Atheist movement has picked up quite a bit of steam, especially thanks to works being published by guys like Richard Dawkins. I myself was raised Catholic, then dabbled a bit in LaVeyan Satanism and Agnosticism before studying up on and determining Deism is the most accurate label for my outlook on life. Copied/Pasted from Wikipedia for those unfamiliar with it:
"Deism is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of God, accompanied with the rejection of revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge. Deism became more prominent in the 17th and 18th centuries during the Age of Enlightenment—especially in Britain, France, Germany and America—among intellectuals raised as Christians who believed in one god, but found fault with organized religion and could not believe in supernatural events such as miracles, the inerrancy of scriptures, or the Trinity. Deism is derived from deus, the Latin word for god. The earliest known usage in print of the English term deist is 1621, and deism is first found in a 1675 dictionary. Deistic ideas influenced several leaders of the American and French Revolutions. Two main forms of deism currently exist: classical deism and modern deism."
I'd love to hear what others think. I'm kind of surprised it's not more well known and hasn't quite picked up steam compared to Atheism, considering it's a fairly happy medium between Christianity and outright Atheism.
-
I was an atheist for most of my life. I used to be a big fan of people like Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, etc. I still think these thinkers serve a useful purpose -- by attacking religion in its mythical and exoteric form, they are elevating the psychological development of people who are ready to step out of a mythic and pre-rational belief in God, into a rational and trans-rational belief in God.
The problem with Dawkins is that he is too focused on attacking the idea of God without defining which level of God he is attacking. He is pretty much only attacking the mythic God of the Old Testament. But there are higher conceptions of God. His arguments simply don't apply to the God of Meister Eckhart, Plotinus, Spinoza, Sufi mysticism, the Upanishads, or even Christianity in its esoteric and mystical forms.
Here's a good article on the various levels of God:
Put bluntly, there is an archaic God, a magic God, a mythic God, a mental God, and an integral God. Which God do you believe in?
An archaic God sees divinity in any strong instinctual force. A magic God locates divine power in the human ego and its magical capacity to change the animistic world with rituals and spells. A mythic God is located not on this earth but in a heavenly paradise not of this world, entrance to which is gained by living according to the covenants and rules given by this God to his peoples. A mental God is a rational God, a demythologized Ground of Being that underlies all forms of existence. And an integral God is one that embraces all of the above.
Which of those Gods is the most important? According to an integral view, all of them, because each "higher" stage actually builds upon and includes the lower, so the lower stages are more fundamental and the higher stages are more significant, but leave out any one of them and you're in trouble. You are, that is, less than integral, less than comprehensive, less than inclusive in your understanding of God.
So which level of God do you believe in? Whatever it is, the central point is that, if human beings do indeed undergo psychological development, then their understanding of God or Goddess or Spirit will likewise undergo development. Tracing that development-while honoring each and every stage as an equally crucial component of that development-is an important part of any integral approach to religion and spirituality.
http://www.beliefnet.com/Wellness/2004/09/Which-Level-Of-God-Do-You-Believe-In.aspx
I'm not sure if I can identify as a deist. All I know is that there is a God. I believe in God on the basis of both reason and direct experience. Deists seem to believe that God is accessible only by reason and observation. But while there are certainly rational grounds for belief in God, the ultimate proof, I believe, is a direct experience of cosmic consciousness. And such an experience is compatible with a wide variety of spiritual interpretations -- theistic, pantheistic, and deistic.
-
tbh, I view Deism as little more than rhetoric. If you study it's historical context, when and why it arose, and who it's proponents were, you'll find that it arose at a time where challenging religion head on (and since we're talking about the West we're talking about Christianity) would at best get you ostracized from society (where you were guaranteed to languish in obscurity and poverty), and at worst (and actually more likely) get yourself killed. If you read any scholarly work on the subject, you'll find that the consensus is that most of the proponents of Deism were most likely Atheists that had to find a more palatable form for their beliefs, and created all this "Deist" fluff as a middle ground between distinguishing their views from that of traditional Christianity and being so controversial that they'd incite angry mobs to show up at their door.
So that's the answer to your question as to "why it hasn't picked up more steam." When talking about systems of belief, and why some are so popular while others are less so, and other similar questions, keep in mind that there are basically three possibilities for anybody and any stage of their life. Go with a foundational belief system that is culturally sanctioned (in the West that would be Christianity), explore foundational belief systems in the same way that you would sample foods to find which one tasted best to you, or take the time to really study the concept of a "foundational belief system," study in what way's they're all similar, and the limitations each one while have due to their basic makeup. And then learn if they is another option. Which there is. Most people would 'name' this other option Atheism, but that makes the mistake of pretending like it's all about religion, when in fact it is much more than that. The philosophical term that everyone has come to agree on is Nominalism.
So I would say that I was raised Christian, discovered all the obvious problems with that foundational belief system as a young teen, after which I spent a few years exploring other foundational belief systems like various forms of mysticism, and then in my mid-20s had the good fortune of going through a minor program in philosophy during which I was introduced, in depth, to Nominalism, and have been happy with a clear mind on these topics ever since. I don't feel like the loss of spiritualism has been any great detriment to my enjoyment of life. On the contrary, the clear headedness I've gain has been one of the most significant boons of my life.
I'd like to think that America is just 30-40 years behind the rest of the West in moving towards a post-theist world view, and there is some polling data (30% of 18-24 identify as Atheists in a recent Heritage poll) that backs up the idea that we're moving in that direction. The sooner the better I'd say, but to each their own.
-
I suppose deism is a bit a of an acknowledgement of doubt. It is the believe that there is 'something there', but that something doesn't match with what common religions propose. Perhaps the main issue in deism is not that their is some supreme being, but that there is some means to communicate with it, which does not have to be praying as traditionally practiced.
Everyone is free to believe in what they want obviously, and if such a philosophy fits your understanding of life best, why not embrace it.
As for atheism: in western europe it is not the largest portion of society. In the netherlands atheists as such are still a minority of about 40-45%, but as such larger christianity, since the remaining 55-60% is comprised of a mixture of faiths - mostly christian (split between catholic and protestant), but also muslim, and smaller minorities like Hindu and Buddhist.
-
I just think it's interesting that in America we have the Christian conservative element that have talking points about morality and the religious beliefs of the founding fathers when the founding fathers were mostly Deists, drunks and smugglers... weed smokers, slave holders..
Thomas Jefferson was an autistic, weed smoking atheist who fucked slaves.
History is cool.
I like how the Deists in France actually changed the Christian calendar during the French Revolution.
So the talking point of the founding fathers of America being upstanding Christians and founding a Christian nation is moot.
Half those motherfuckers would be on Silk Road.
No taxes, smuggling...
Right up their alley if you ask me.
(end rant)
-
I just think it's interesting that in America we have the Christian conservative element that have talking points about morality and the religious beliefs of the founding fathers when the founding fathers were mostly Deists, drunks and smugglers... weed smokers, slave holders..
Thomas Jefferson was an autistic, weed smoking atheist who fucked slaves.
History is cool.
I like how the Deists in France actually changed the Christian calendar during the French Revolution.
So the talking point of the founding fathers of America being upstanding Christians and founding a Christian nation is moot.
Half those motherfuckers would be on Silk Road.
No taxes, smuggling...
Right up their alley if you ask me.
(end rant)
+ 1,000 for that! It irks my nerves when people shout out "One Nation Under God" and "In God We Trust" as some sort of magic bullet trying to argue we're a Christian nation. Especially when you consider guys like Thomas Jefferson considered Islam a more valid belief system.
-
Thomas Jefferson wrote that letter to the Muslims to end the Tripoli conflict that stated America is not a Christian nation, and we have no beef with Islam.
200 years later...
Same shit.
-
I just think it's interesting that in America we have the Christian conservative element that have talking points about morality and the religious beliefs of the founding fathers when the founding fathers were mostly Deists, drunks and smugglers... weed smokers, slave holders..
Thomas Jefferson was an autistic, weed smoking atheist who fucked slaves.
History is cool.
I like how the Deists in France actually changed the Christian calendar during the French Revolution.
So the talking point of the founding fathers of America being upstanding Christians and founding a Christian nation is moot.
Half those motherfuckers would be on Silk Road.
No taxes, smuggling...
Right up their alley if you ask me.
(end rant)
Dude, and it's not just their life style choices! You read the letters, treaties, or other writing of any of our significant founding fathers, they ALL EXPLICITLY state OVER and OVER again that the USA is NOT a Christian nation, is not founded on or based on religious principles. It's just laughable how the Christian right can be so utterly uninterested in basic facts and reality. For instance again and again in the writing of our founding fathers John Locke is attributed as the philosopher of the American Revolution. Well, what kind of government did he write about. A secular one in which religion played no part! And why was this such a big issue back then? Because life in Britain at the time was pretty similar to current civil unrest in the middle east with all the sectarian violence. Nowadays it might be suni's killing shiites and vice versa, back then it was methodists killing luterans killing anglicans killing catholics etc etc etc.So obviously, and verifiable by their own words, America's founding fathers' EXPRESS PURPOSE in working at the American experiment was to create a government in which religion played NO part. Tolerance as a lifestyle choice, but absent as an influence on government. That was the ideal upon which this country was founded.
But people with a FBS tend to care less about knowing how things actually are, while instead preferring things to fit with the predetermined foundations of their belief system. :-\
-
I suppose the USA is in a bit of a pickle there. Your constitution provides you with a secular state in principle, the is little doubt about that.
The again, printing 'in god we trust' on your currently, having people 'swear to god' when giving legal testimony and such gives the impression of a de facto christian country. Another line is crossed when American courts can order (atheistic) citizens to enroll into christian-based AA programs and such.
These issues should be addressed i think, if the desire is to gain freedom from religion as people experience it in western europe.
-
I suppose the USA is in a bit of a pickle there. Your constitution provides you with a secular state in principle, the is little doubt about that.
The again, printing 'in god we trust' on your currently, having people 'swear to god' when giving legal testimony and such gives the impression of a de facto christian country. Another line is crossed when American courts can order (atheistic) citizens to enroll into christian-based AA programs and such.
These issues should be addressed i think, if the desire is to gain freedom from religion as people experience it in western europe.
The Declaration of Independence and pretty much any other legal document the founders wrote clearly states "Nature's God". Unfortunately years of "progress" from Christians have turned the phrase to suit their own ends. I find it odd lots of the people up in arms about the Ten Commandments being displayed in or outside courthouses don't make the same racket about swearing on the Bible in court. When it comes down to it the only public place in America where separation of church and state truly exists are public schools. Even there they still try to push their agenda with things like "Intelligent Design". I once saw a picture of some graffiti that said "I don't need religion, I have a conscience". I don't doubt a day will come when the majority of the planet shares that sentiment, I just hope I'm able to see it before I die.
-
I find it odd lots of the people up in arms about the Ten Commandments being displayed in or outside courthouses don't make the same racket about swearing on the Bible in court. When it comes down to it the only public place in America where separation of church and state truly exists are public schools. Even there they still try to push their agenda with things like "Intelligent Design".
I suppose its a different world entirely here. Swearing to god in still allowed in courts here, but displaying a religious symbol like a cross is not accepted. Displaying the commandments on the premisses of a court would be completely unacceptable.
In the netherlands it has reached a point of absurdity on some occasions: people actually complain about christmas trees being set up in city halls and such, since they are technically a christian symbol. Considering the number of non-christians that just like to decorate trees with lights anyway i think thats overdoing it a bit, especially since the idea of christmas (winter solstice) predates christianity and was more or less hijacked.