In Defense of Classical Deism

by Lewis Loflin

What I call the Internet deists have very little in common other than they hate Christianity and Judaism, and equally reject true deism.

We have silliness such as claiming deism is a method and not anything specific. In fact they will fight tooth and nail to keep from defining deism in any rational or recognizable terms. This is simply because they reject actual deism.

Their only concern that unites most of the Internet deists is to trash or tear down Christianity. The end result is a tear down and trash American culture in general, which was largely built on the Protestant ethic.

Nowhere is this problem more than a spiritual atheism system known as pantheism. Pantheism posits that God and nature are conflated into one. They may use the term God but this view of God has absolutely no real meaning. That was the whole point of pantheism to these people was the idea of throwing a word around such as God, a concept they truly reject.

Two of the most asinine and ridiculous terms that have been invented in recent years is known as pandeism and panendeism. These are simply plays on the old run-of-the-mill pantheism which today runs predominantly among many environmentalists that see nature as divine.

See Scientific Case for a Transcendent God.

What is it about classical deism that these phony Internet deists object to? Because many of them refuse to give clear definitions on anything I'm going to do it here in clear terms that they can't twist or distort.

It's time to call out this collection of secular humanists and closet atheists for what they are. Yes definitions are important and we will no longer allow them to just make up utter nonsense.

Classical deism posits that God (or as we would prefer the deity) created the universe and transcends or stands apart from creation. Now God is often loaded term due to past abuse from what is commonly called organized religion.

Christian fundamentalists and radical secularists alike have hijacked and distorted deism to the extreme. Christians use it as a dumping ground term for all kinds of heresy that seemed to claim some form of God.

The radical secularists of the French Revolution such as Voltaire conflated the God of deism with Aristotle's Prime Mover. All of this was used in an effort to de-Christianize French society.

Radical French Deist Robespierre would be the prototypical secular mass murderer whose offshoots would include monsters such as Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini. The claims that replacing revealed religion with secular philosophies would end the world's problems runs counter to reason and empirical proof.

Classical deism places reason over revelation. This doesn't mean that divine revelation is impossible, but is unreliable due to the humans that somehow claim authority from God with no proof other than their say so.

Roughly quoting Thomas Paine unless I receive the revelation directly it's simply hearsay.

Thus classical deism rejects the authority of priests, councils, and other mostly political bodies. We embrace individual thought not collectivist organization.

Classical deism rejects the concept of heresy. The concept of heresy has more to do with religious political organization than religion itself. In other words keep politics out of religion.

But that doesn't mean making up anything you can concoct or feel comfortable with can be called deism just on one's say so. It doesn't work like that. If one wants to believe that trees rocks and slugs are somehow God stop wasting my time and go away. Go Google the secular humanist society and be with your friends.

If one's only interest is to find ammunition to use against other religions then go away. One that comes to a belief system simply because of anger with another faith is doing that new belief system no favors.



How many Muslim criminals and terrorists we have seen in recent years that have been converts angry at either Christianity or the society that they grew up in? We don't need those kinds of people here. Go away!

At the same time the classical Deist is interchangeable with classical Unitarianism must respect and learn from other religions. This is particularly true of Christianity, Judaism, classical extinct belief systems such as Gnosticism, etc. and I'll add classical in particular Greek philosophy.

We must take a positive view of religion, not confrontational.

How are we to understand ourselves as Deists if we don't explore our roots and understand why we got here?

Thus classical deism was an effort to moderate and introduce rationality back into Christianity that had fallen prey to church politics and superstition.

God is one or monotheistic. There have been other efforts to suggest why not more than one God? Simply no because there is no need of it.

God must by necessity stand outside creation. Because the radical secularists for almost 2 centuries have failed to prove that life in the complex world we live in is simply a product of random material processes clearly indicates a power beyond mere physics and chemistry.

The absurd idea of mystifying nature through pantheism and assorted atheist spiritual beliefs undermines the scientific method and opens the door for superstition - keep religion our of science.

The classical Deist must separate miracles from magic-they are not the same thing. The abundance and diversity of life in this world is clearly a miracle observable by all. Magic on the other hand clearly defies known science and physics and unproven to the masses must clearly be approached with great skepticism.

The classical Deist, and many of them were early scientists or connected with science, must not confuse belief in the scientific method with a belief system based on science.

Science properly understood is limited to a description of the physical properties and processes in nature and nothing more. It has nothing to do with politics, ideas of social justice, or feelings.

When science is reduced to a belief system or as a tool of governance it will become corrupted and distorted. The misuse of these almost secret scientific councils as a way to lay the foundation for oppressive political agendas must be resisted at all times.

Again science, like religion, must be kept clear of politics. Science has its uses but when it becomes a belief system is open to corruption and exploitation so common among religions. Science like reason is a tool, not an end in itself.