Cool series, Josh. I’m liking this already. Just for fun, I’ll play the “Deist’s advocate.”

On #1: I’m with you. Great summary.

On #2: Some might suggest that the impulse to “personalize God” - that is, to assert that the divine at some point in history has entered corporeality (indeed, humanity) - reflects a human aspiration to divine power or validation thereof. “The divine has chosen the human body as the only one fit to manifest itself!” As such, attempts to “personalize” God can be read as the foundation of anthropocentric religiosity. In this framework, the incarnation can become a violent and repressive force used by humans to validate the domination of “lesser beings.”

The impulse to “personalize” also democratizes the power relationship between humans and the divine. One might suggest that the deist, powerless to resist, exhibits a greater sense of divine sovereignty (though the deprivation of resistance is quite repressive in itself).

On #3: Deists may suggest that historically, religious elite have wielded “the supernatural” as a weapon, claiming a monopoly over mystical power and subjecting followers to regimes of truth that totalize and enslave. Consider the case of the Pharisees, who claimed to know exactly what must be done to assuage the wrath of God, or Simon, who desired to purchase the right to wield such power. For the deist, the denial of the supernatural is ironically a vector of liberation for the oppressed.

Just some thoughts.

Cheers,

Scott

(To any one stumbling across this comment who might be alarmed: I am very much a Christian. It just happens that I also have an interest in religious studies. If you have any doubt about my faith, please contact me before lobbing a ball of hellfire this way. Peace!)

I’ve always thought that deism was interesting, but I think you’ve nailed the problems of it down pretty well.

The thing that impressed me about deism when I first learned about it was how logical it was - it fits what Paul talks about when he says that God has fully revealed Himself to everyone through what He has created.

Deism is a natural next step beyond atheism or agnosticism — basically, admitting that God exists, and that He created everything, but denying His active participation in it. It’s a helpful point of view to work on with someone is is oriented towards logic but very much against the idea of believing in God.

Deists are actually the perfect choice for people to lead the formation of a new government. They are fully aware of the downsides of mixing religion with politics, and at the same time fully able to recognize the existence of God and to recognize, on a rational basis, that our most basic rights come from our Creator. These days, it seems that either people are unable to rationally deal with the existence of God (such as the reactions towards discussions of intelligent design), or they are more inclined to mix religion with politics (by legislating morality on the right and/or charity on the left).

you guys both make salient points.

can i say salient?

on point #2: “What is the point of God?”!? Talk about wagging the dog with the tail. Perhaps you meant to say “what is the point of God’s creating man?” God doesn’t need a “point”, as though God were only there to serve some purpose for man. It is very possible that God created man AND is impersonal.

I am a DEIST
NOT ALL DEIST BELIEF THE SAME!
Deist do not belief in sin.
Jesus did not die for our sins.
And your not going to hell for
not believing in what the church
teaches.I belive the church and
Jesus are one and the same.
You can not have Jesus with
out the church. And The church would die what out Jesus.