Imagine for a second, reader, you fit the following quantities. First, you belong to a religion few have heard of, but many acknowledge the basic tenants of. Second, you are only one of a handful of believers in that religion left, despite it having famous historical believers and significance. Third, you are in an environment where you even those who know of your religion are unsympathetic to it. Fourth, even those who agree with many of your tenants have no qualms about insulting you for it. Picture, that, essentially, you are a deist in the modern world. The religion you profess is linked with the formation of capitalism and democracy, but few even know what it is.

Now, what is deism? It is a religion, but not one in the conventional sense. First, let us clarify some philosophical definitions. Most major world religions, such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism, rely on “divine revelation,” or the idea that supreme beings handed down divine law to guide humans. These religions then, are referred to as “revealed religions.” Contrast this with atheism, a philosophy which states no deities exist, period. There is also agnosticism, which states it is impossible to scientifically and empirically prove or disprove such a supreme being. In place of divine law, many atheists and agnostics prefer the doctrine of “secular humanism.” This states that the human mind, rather than revealed religious texts, is the best guide in our quest for meaning.

Now, where does deism fit on this scale? Deism is not a revealed religion, but it is neither atheism nor agnosticism. To a deist, the universe and everything in it were created by a supreme being. Opinions within deism differ, however, as to how and why this almighty supreme being intervenes in the universe, if at all. Some deists believe the Almighty stopped intervening immediately after creation, and simply does not care. Other deists believe that the Almighty does not intervene because It already created a self-contained universe, so there was no further need to intervene.

This does not mean humanity has been forgotten. Most deists agree that the Almighty does have some sort of relationship with humanity. I personally share the opinion of most deists. That is, the Almighty does not intervene because It desires us to use our own minds to make life better for ourselves and others. The Almighty certainly could will the universe out of existence in less than a thought, but given most deists believe in a benevolent Creator of some sort, this is unlikely. Perhaps the Almighty, a being of timelessness and unchanging eternity, wanted to create a universe of constant change. Perhaps one of the only things unknowable to a timeless entity is a sense of “linear time.” Such theological speculation is a subject in my novel Necessary Evil.

Now, let us clarify a few issues on creation. Despite what many fundamentalists believe, the theory of evolution, biology, physics, and the Big Bang provide ample explanation for the mechanics of the universe’s formation. However, the purpose of the universe’s formation is something philosophers have grappled with for aeons. The most precious gift of humanity is intellect. Perhaps it was merely an adaptation. Let us consider the evolution of the intellect from the Almighty’s point of view. Many deists, including myself, believe the Almighty knew intellect was likely to emerge from the experiment. After all, an engineer is likely to know what their machine perform. Thus, the human intellect can be seen as a “divine gift” to a deist.

This is where deists part from the ranks of the fundamentalist religions. The intellect is not simply something to be worshiped narcissistically. It is to be used. More importantly, it is to be used to examine the world around us. We have several universal laws operating around us all the time. Early sixteenth century Dutchman Baruch Spinoza referred to the Almighty as a “Cosmic Clockmaker.” The invisible clockwork of physics is always churning, whether we are aware of it or not. All of these laws can be “reverse engineered.” Because our intellect has its limits, our models are often flawed. However, it is through constant trial, error, and improvement that this process continues, and more accurate models are created. This process is called “science.”

What should we do with the laws of physics we uncover? The answer is obvious: whatever we want. To uncover scientific principles is to uncover the Almighty’s own laws. The forces of nature, while created by the Almighty, are impartial. Natural disasters are not “divine judgment,” but rather forces of nature apathetic to anything in their path. When a storm hits a city, it does not matter if the city is “virtuous” or “decadent.” What does matter is people had better learn the warning signs of storms and evacuate. It is the responsibility of people to be aware of their environments, and help use this information to improve themselves and their surroundings. Science and observation can help determine information on the world we see empirically, but cannot explain ethics and morality.

Several ethical and moral considerations remain, however. How will other humans act to new information? Will it benefit them or hurt them? Will it allow some to grow powerful at others’ expenses? Is their something to be done to maximize the good aspects, and minimize the bad ones? How about helping others? Should one expect compensation for helping another person? These questions are imperative, as they define our relations with other thinking beings. The field that examines moral consequences is defined as ethics, the study of morality.

One may wonder where secular, or non-revealed religious, ethics come from. Without “revealed religious” texts, such as the Bible or Koran, many criticize deism for being an “ethical void.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Non-religious ethics were developed by a seventeenth century German philosopher named Immanuel Kant. Kant’s work Critique of Pure Reason decried the idea that all mysteries in the universe could be solved through empirical means, such as science. Kant also disbelieved that one religion alone had a monopoly on ethics. Kant believed every person had inalienable rights, and this idea is reflected in classical American political thought.

Kant’s way of determining ethics was delightfully simple. “Act as though everything you did became a universal maxim, and then consider the results.” When an individual commits an action, imagine for a moment that everyone around the world commit the same action. If you stole from a person, imagine what a world filled with theft would be like. Since theft violates others’ rights to property, it is immoral. Other actions, such as murder and lying, are considered immoral for similar reasons. When everyone lies, cheats, and kills, society becomes a brutal place where humans’ inalienable rights cannot be upheld. This philosophy is called “non-consequentialism,” because it attempted to avoid creating negative consequences. While most world religions had similar doctrines in place, Kant was the first to create a secular philosophical basis for them. This, in turn, influenced American political philosophy.

The deist influence on American politics is obvious and overt. The Declaration of Independence, after all, contains the line, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” This is but one of many signs of deist influence in the American Founders. Of the Founders, it is important to note several were noted deists. The most famous of these are Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Paine.

Many were hostile to organized religions of the day, as they were often tools of political control. In pre-revolutionary America, one had to belong to the Church of England to hold public office. Of course, distaste for organized, political religion is a national tradition of sorts. Many of Britain’s first American colonies were religious dissidents seeking a home abroad. To keep them all in line, however, the monarchy used the Church of England as a tool for political control via religion.

Subversion against this was a cornerstone of many revolutionary-era works. While more commonly known for his pamphlet Common Sense, Thomas Paine also covered the essentials of deist theology in another pamphlet called Age of Reason. In Age of Reason, Paine boldly proclaims, “The Christian, Turkic, and Jewish churches accuse each other of disbelief. I, however, disbelieve them all.”

The American revolutionaries put a large value on religious freedom. If no religion was required for political office, then no religious sect could establish dominance akin to the former Anglican Church. Thus, the separation of church and state was a viable means to this end. In a famous letter to the Danbury Baptists, Thomas Jefferson called for a “wall of separation between Church and State.” John Adams sagely noted that, “Religion and government both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.”

Now, many fundamentalists may counter by saying the American Founders attended Christian services. This is true, to an extent. The overwhelming majority of the early United States were Christians, after all. However, they were a varied and diverse lot. Many deists often worshipped alongside different Protestant Christian sects with creeds similar enough to their own. For instance, Thomas Jefferson was said to have preferred the company of Unitarians. Many deists of the period often found prayer with fellow believers comforting, even if they didn’t exactly believe the exact same things. The case was a deist would find a certain parish more “close enough” to their own personal codes than being a fanatical believer.

It is also important to remember the social structure of the day. A deist who did not regularly attend Church services (as Jefferson was sometimes known to) could erroneously be called an “atheist.” In his 1800 campaign for the Presidency, Jefferson would be insulted as an “atheist” by his opponent Aaron Burr. Attending a Christian church also allowed higher social standing. While the Church of England’s monopoly on power was gone, the mental association of religiosity with morality was not. John Adams, for instance, was known to his neighbors as a Christian, but also said the quote, “All good men are Christians regardless of theological opinions.”

It is this universalism and ability to merge with a variety of sects that makes deism so versatile. What remains constant, however, is the humanistic ideals of deism. Human rationality, though far from perfect, is one’s best tool for determining matters of belief. One must do one’s best, and be aware of their environment. The Almighty handles “everything else.” In other words, “don’t sweat the small things.”

While revealed religions rely on human-authored texts, there are still “universal principles” between them. Just because a revealed religion might not be “official” deists does not mean they are without merit. It merely means you disagree on some minor things. The Almighty, as an infinite being, can be personified a number of ways. Provided that a religion agrees with the “basic tenants,” it is a good road map.

The special responsibility of the deist, however, is to use their mind, and encourage others to think. It is by constantly questioning and improving that our standards of living, personal lives, and own personal codes are made better. To stop asking questions is to stop changing, and to stop changing is to admit defeat to fundamentalists who idealize unchanging fanaticism. Even in the revealed religions, many “common interests” can be found on the basis of philosophy alone. As one Protestant minister said, “He died to take away your sins, not your brains.”

Deism is not merely another “revealed religion.” It is the “source code” upon which all other religions are built. A fitting comparison might be an engine. While other engines might be produced with different special parts, deism is an engine stripped to its most basic components. Pure performance is the result, and an engine that can be customized no matter the user’s needs.

This hypothetical engine does not discriminate. It does not matter what one’s ethnicity, social class, gender, or sexual orientation is. What matters is how one treats others. The quote “God helps those who help themselves” is very fitting to deism. Jesus Christ, Buddha, and the ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius made a simple observation: “Treat others the way you want to be treated.” As my father so simply put it, “God’s the man, don’t be a jerk.”

As mentioned before, many historical deists were politically active. However, the exact political system can change. The most famous examples of deist democratic-republicans were the American Founders. Deists have also participated in absolutist monarchies, parliamentary systems, and even in anarchist movements. An example would be the French satirist Voltaire, who was a friend of the Prussian king Friedrich II the Great. Friedrich was not only a military genius, but also an avowed atheist who allowed religious freedom in his lands. His influence on Voltaire was also apparent. Voltaire was skeptical of republican movements, and believed only absolutist philosopher-kings could rule effectively. This parallels classical Chinese philosophy, where the government must serve the people, or the people must overthrow it.

The idea that the government must serve the people was likely developed in China, but spread west as trade along the Silk Road continued. The early Renaissance humanists realized that individual citizens were who governments were meant to serve, rather than the other way around. The idea of a justified revolt against a corrupt government also emerged from Chinese philosophy. Eventually, philosophers struggled with the answer as to how allow for a stable government and balance public opinion. That train of thought would eventually lead to the concept of a federal republic with democratically elected officials, quite erroneously known today as “democracy.” Under this radical system, laws would not be based on religious edicts nor monarchs’ whims, but on what a majority of an educated citizenry decided was fair and equitable.

With the idea of individual reason, and a government run by elected officials came another question: How should an individual follow their own interests while benefiting society? Many colonial governments of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries used economic systems favoring the “mother country” and leaving the colonies at an economic disadvantage. Individuals were unable to make their own way easily, and could often have their wealth taken away at a monarch’s whim. Taxes became instruments of economic oppression, rather than merely government revenue. Religion, likewise, could demand tithes and tributes from parishioners.

Many humanistic philosophers came up with a dramatic solution to this. Economist Adam Smith noted that humans were innately greedy, but often times, when individuals competed, the consumer was the one who benefited. Each producer of a good would want to make a profit by selling more of their good. If several producers had the same market, one might try to attract consumers by lowering their prices. The other producers would then follow suite, and the consumer would end up paying less money.

This lead to thinking that an individual should be free to set up their business, and government dues should not exceed a reasonable amount. This idea would become popular with the British and Dutch, and is most commonly referred to as “capitalism.” There was one concern with this and democracy. What assurance did one have that even an elected government might not take their money? As a response to this, the idea of a “right to property” was developed.

Thus, there are parallels between deism, democracy, individual rights, and capitalism. Ideally, under capitalism, an individual was responsible for their own prosperity or poverty. In deism, all individuals stand before the Almighty with their actions, and will receive no “special treatment” based on ethnicity, ideology, or gender. The individual is responsible for helping create a society where people have individual rights assure and guaranteed to them. The idea a group of concerned citizens can change their government is the basis of democracy, after all.

None of these ideologies is perfect, nor should they claim to be. All are based on “Enlightenment-era” ideals, such as individualism, self-determination, and freedom. It is the individual, however, who is ultimately responsible for upholding this. All are based on the idea that change is inevitable, but can be made into something beneficial. While democracy and capitalism are things most people today are familiar with, deism is not. Deism has nothing that modern fundamentalists do. It does not have churches, nor hierarchies of clergy, nor should it. It is an individual religion, and one tied closely to world history. Many famous individuals were deists: Baruch Spinoza, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Voltaire, and recently, Albert Einstein.

To forget deism is not only ignorant, but a travesty to history. As fundamentalists worldwide prepare for demented crusades, a Voltaire quote comes to mind: “Those who make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” Deism is a lot more than a curious relic. It is world history. Looking back at the accomplishments of deists in the past, I am proud to call myself one. How about you?

--

Footnotes and Fun Facts:

-The ideas of social equality, inalienable rights, capitalism, deism, and democracy are part of a larger philosophical trend called “Modernism.”

-Some added irony is the fact the USA was founded by deists and liberal Christian humanists, but American fundamentalists are keen to say the nation was “founded by born again Christians,” or some such trash.

-Deism has no single “bible” or definitive work, but there is an interesting work that came close. There is a Bible specifically made by Thomas Jefferson. He personally removed the Old Testament (save Proverbs and some Psalms), Revelation, and the stories of Jesus working miracles in the New Testament, and left only the parables and moral teachings of Jesus. Jefferson considered himself a “true Christian” in that he could see the human, non-divine Christ behind the mythic Messiah. Jefferson Bibles are probably something fundamentalists wouldn’t like too much.

-For ethics, check out Kant. The work I’d recommend most is “Critique of Pure Reason.” Kant’s own religious philosophy is somewhere between agnosticism and deism.

-As for my own writing, a number of my stories have deist themes in them:

--In The Eyes Of God has a democratic republic where the majority of the population is deist.

--Necessary Evil is a theological space-opera with a deist view of God.

--Hallowed Be The Fatherland has deists as a sizable religion in one of the nations.

--Daughter of the Machine and Mother of the Machine have a deistic cyborg named David Risona (AKA “The Machine”) as a primary character.

--Heaven Can Wait has a deist philosopher ironically being worshiped as a messiah.

--The Infowar has a small group of neo-Modernist intellectuals and true patriots trying to retain sanity as the world goes mad due to both despotic governments and terrorist groups.