Deism Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.Anti-spam check. Do not fill this in! == Enlightenment Deism == === Aspects of Deism in Enlightenment philosophy === Enlightenment Deism consisted of two philosophical assertions: (1) reason, along with features of the natural world, is a valid source of religious knowledge, and (2) revelation is not a valid source of religious knowledge. Different Deist philosophers expanded on these two assertions to create what [[Leslie Stephen]] later termed the "constructive" and "critical" aspects of Deism.<ref>{{cite book | last= Stephen | first= Leslie | date= 1881 | title= History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century 3rd Edition 2 vols (reprinted 1949) | url= http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001915511 | location= London | publisher= Smith, Elder & Co | isbn= 978-0844614212 | author-link= Leslie Stephen | access-date= 2019-01-04 | archive-date= 2015-06-30 | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150630043157/http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001915511 | url-status= live }} Stephen’s book, despite its “perhaps too ambitious” title (preface, Vol.I p.vii), was conceived as an “account of the deist controversy” (p.vi). Stephen notes the difficulty of interpreting the primary sources, as religious toleration was yet far from complete in law, and entirely not a settled fact in practice (Ch.II s.12): deist authors “were forced to .. cover [their opinions] with a veil of decent ambiguity.” He writes of Deist books being burned by the hangman, mentions the Aikenhead blasphemy case (1697) [https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Indytment_of_Thomas_Aikenhead] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190106055114/https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Indytment_of_Thomas_Aikenhead |date=2019-01-06 }}, and names five deists who were banished, imprisoned etc.</ref><ref>{{cite book |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=1kruAAAAMAAJ |title= Deism: An Anthology |editor-last= Gay (Fröhlich) <!-- Editor surname --> |editor-first= Peter Joachim <!-- Editor forename[s / etc.] --> |editor-link= Peter Gay <!-- Title of Wikipedia article (if any) on editor --> |location= Princeton etc. |publisher= Van Nostrand |year= 1968 |isbn= 978-0686474012 <!-- recent reprint / reissue --> }} * "All Deists were in fact both critical and constructive Deists. All sought to destroy in order to build, and reasoned either from the absurdity of Christianity to the need for a new philosophy or from their desire for a new philosophy to the absurdity of Christianity. Each deist, to be sure, had his special competence. While one specialized in abusing priests, another specialized in rhapsodies to nature, and a third specialized in the skeptical reading of sacred documents. Yet whatever strength the movement had—and it was at times formidable—it derived that strength from a peculiar combination of critical and constructive elements." (p.13)</ref> "Constructive" assertions—assertions that deist writers felt were justified by appeals to reason and features of the natural world (or perhaps were intuitively obvious or common notions)—included:<ref>Tindal: "By natural religion, I understand the belief of the existence of a God, and the sense and practice of those duties which result from the knowledge we, by our reason, have of him and his perfections; and of ourselves, and our own imperfections, and of the relationship we stand in to him, and to our fellow-creatures; so that the religion of nature takes in everything that is founded on the reason and nature of things." ''Christianity as Old as the Creation'' (II), quoted in Waring ''(see above)'', p.113.</ref><ref>Toland: “I hope to make it appear that the use of reason is not so dangerous in religion as it is commonly represented .. There is nothing that men make a greater noise about than the "mysteries of the Christian religion". The divines gravely tell us "we must adore what we cannot comprehend" .. [Some] contend [that] some mysteries may be, or at least seem to be, contrary to reason, and yet received by faith. [Others contend] that no mystery is contrary to reason, but that all are "above" it. On the contrary, we hold that reason is the only foundation of all certitude .. Wherefore, we likewise maintain, according to the title of this discourse, that ''there is nothing in the Gospel contrary to reason, nor above it; and that no Christian doctrine can be properly called a mystery''." ''Christianity Not Mysterious: or, a Treatise Shewing That There Is Nothing in the Gospel Contrary to Reason, Nor above It'' (1696), quoted in Waring ''(see above)'', pp. 1–12</ref> * God exists and created the universe. * God gave humans the ability to reason. "Critical" assertions—assertions that followed from the denial of revelation as a valid source of religious knowledge—were much more numerous, and included: * Rejection of all books (including the Quran and the Bible) that claimed to contain divine revelation.<ref>{{cite book |last=Stephens |first=William |url=http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/37302 |title=An Account of the Growth of Deism in England |author-link=William Stephens (minister) |access-date=2019-01-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190105043226/http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/37302 |archive-date=2019-01-05 |url-status=live}} (1696 / 1990). Introduction (James E. Force, 1990): "[W]hat sets the Deists apart from even their most [[latitudinarian]] Christian contemporaries is their desire to lay aside scriptural revelation as rationally incomprehensible, and thus useless, or even detrimental, to human society and to religion. While there may possibly be exceptions, .. most Deists, especially as the eighteenth century wears on, agree that revealed Scripture is nothing but a joke or "well-invented flam." About mid-century, [[John Leland (Presbyterian)|John Leland]], in his historical and analytical account of the movement [''View of the Principal Deistical Writers'' [https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/008682251] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190105043222/https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/008682251|date=2019-01-05}} (1754–1755)], squarely states that the rejection of revealed Scripture is ''the'' characteristic element of deism, a view further codified by such authorities as [[Ephraim Chambers]] and [[Samuel Johnson]]. .. "DEISM," writes Stephens bluntly, "is a denial of all reveal'd Religion."”</ref> * Rejection of the incomprehensible notion of the Trinity and other religious "mysteries". * Rejection of reports of miracles, prophecies, etc. ==== The origins of religion ==== A central premise of Deism was that the religions of their day were corruptions of an original religion that was pure, natural, simple, and rational. Humanity lost this original religion when it was subsequently corrupted by priests who manipulated it for personal gain and for the class interests of the priesthood,<ref>{{cite book | last=Champion | first=J.A.I. | title=The Pillars of Priestcraft Shaken: The Church of England and its Enemies, 1660-1730 | year=2014 | publisher=Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Studies in Early Modern British History) }} Champion maintains that historical argument was a central component of the Deists' defences of what they considered true religion.</ref> and encrusted it with superstitions and "mysteries"—irrational theological doctrines. Deists referred to this manipulation of religious doctrine as "priestcraft", a derogatory term.<ref>{{cite book | last= Paine | first= Thomas | title= The Age of Reason | title-link= The Age of Reason }} "As priestcraft was always the enemy of knowledge, because priestcraft supports itself by keeping people in delusion and ignorance, it was consistent with its policy to make the acquisition of knowledge a real sin." (Part 2, p.129)</ref> For deists, this corruption of natural religion was designed to keep laypeople baffled by "mysteries" and dependent on the priesthood for information about the requirements for salvation. This gave the priesthood a great deal of power, which the Deists believed the priesthood worked to maintain and increase. Deists saw it as their mission to strip away "priestcraft" and "mysteries". Tindal, perhaps the most prominent deist writer, claimed that this was the proper, original role of the Christian Church.<ref>“It can't be imputed to any defect in the light of nature that the pagan world ran into idolatry, but to their being entirely governed by priests, who pretended communication with their gods, and to have thence their revelations, which they imposed on the credulous as divine oracles. Whereas the business of the Christian dispensation was to destroy all those traditional revelations, and restore, free from all idolatry, the true primitive and natural religion implanted in mankind from the creation.” ''Christianity as Old as the Creation'' (XIV), quoted in Waring ''(see above)'', p.163.</ref> One implication of this premise was that current-day primitive societies, or societies that existed in the distant past, should have religious beliefs less infused with superstitions and closer to those of natural theology. This position became less and less plausible as thinkers such as [[David Hume]] began studying the [[Four Dissertations#The Natural History of Religion|natural history of religion]] and suggested that the origins of religion was not in reason but in emotions, such as the fear of the unknown. ====Immortality of the soul==== Different Deists had different beliefs about the immortality of the soul, about the existence of Hell and damnation to punish the wicked, and the existence of Heaven to reward the virtuous. Anthony Collins,<ref> {{cite book |last= Orr |title=(see above) }} p.134.</ref> [[Henry St John, 1st Viscount Bolingbroke|Bolingbroke]], [[Thomas Chubb]], and [[Peter Annet]] were materialists and either denied or doubted the immortality of the soul.<ref> {{cite book |last= Orr |title=(see above) }} p.78.</ref> [[Benjamin Franklin]] believed in reincarnation or resurrection. Lord Herbert of Cherbury and [[William Wollaston]]<ref> {{cite book |last= Orr |title=(see above) }} p.137.</ref> held that souls exist, survive death, and in the afterlife are rewarded or punished by God for their behavior in life. [[Thomas Paine]] believed in the "probability" of the immortality of the soul.<ref> ''[[The Age of Reason|Age of Reason]]'', Pt I: {{blockquote| I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. }} and (in the Recapitulation) {{blockquote|I trouble not myself about the manner of future existence. I content myself with believing, even to positive conviction, that the power that gave me existence is able to continue it, in any form and manner he pleases, either with or without this body; and it appears more probable to me that I shall continue to exist hereafter than that I should have had existence, as I now have, before that existence began. }}</ref> ====Miracles and divine providence==== The most natural position for Deists was to reject all forms of supernaturalism, including the miracle stories in the Bible. The problem was that the rejection of miracles also seemed to entail the rejection of [[divine providence]] (that is, God taking a hand in human affairs), something that many Deists were inclined to accept.<ref>Most American Deists, for example, firmly believed in divine providence. See this article, [[#Deism in the United States|Deism in the United States]].</ref> Those who believed in a watch-maker God rejected the possibility of miracles and divine providence. They believed that God, after establishing natural laws and setting the cosmos in motion, stepped away. He did not need to keep tinkering with his creation, and the suggestion that he did was insulting.<ref>See for instance {{cite book | last= Paine | first= Thomas | title= The Age of Reason | title-link= The Age of Reason }}, Part 1.</ref> Others, however, firmly believed in divine providence, and so, were reluctantly forced to accept at least the possibility of miracles. God was, after all, all-powerful and could do whatever he wanted including temporarily suspending his own natural laws. ====Freedom and necessity==== Enlightenment philosophers under the influence of [[Newtonianism|Newtonian science]] tended to view the universe as a vast machine, created and set in motion by a creator being that continues to operate according to natural law without any divine intervention. This view naturally led to what was then called "[[necessitarianism]]"<ref>David Hartley, for example, described himself as "quite in the necessitarian scheme. See Ferg, Stephen, "Two Early Works of David Hartley", ''Journal of the History of Philosophy'', vol. 19, no. 2 (April 1981), pp. 173–89.</ref> (the modern term is "[[determinism]]"): the view that everything in the universe—including human behavior—is completely, causally determined by antecedent circumstances and natural law. (See, for example, [[La Mettrie]]'s [http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/LaMettrie/Machine/ ''L'Homme machine''].) As a consequence, debates about [[Free will|freedom]] versus "necessity" were a regular feature of Enlightenment religious and philosophical discussions. Reflecting the intellectual climate of the time, there were differences among Deists about freedom and determinism. Some, such as [[Anthony Collins (philosopher)|Anthony Collins]], were actually necessitarians.<ref>See for example ''Liberty and Necessity'' (1729).</ref> ===David Hume=== [[File:David Hume.jpg|thumb|upright|[[David Hume]]]] Views differ on whether [[David Hume]] was a Deist, an [[Atheism|atheist]], or something else.<ref>Hume himself was uncomfortable with both terms, and Hume scholar [[Paul Russell (philosopher)|Paul Russell]] has argued that the best and safest term for Hume's views is ''[[irreligion]]''. {{cite encyclopedia |url= http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-religion/ |title= Hume on Religion |encyclopedia= Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |year= 2005 |first= Paul |last= Russell |author-link= Paul Russell (philosopher) |access-date= 2009-12-17 }}</ref> Like the Deists, Hume rejected revelation, and his famous essay ''On Miracles'' provided a powerful argument against belief in miracles. On the other hand, he did not believe that an appeal to Reason could provide any justification for religion. In the essay ''[[Four Dissertations#The Natural History of Religion|Natural History of Religion]]'' (1757), he contended that [[polytheism]], not [[monotheism]], was "the first and most ancient religion of mankind" and that the [[Psychology of religion|psychological basis of religion]] is not reason, but [[fear]] of the unknown.<ref>{{Cite book | last= Hume | first= David | author-link= David Hume | title= The Natural History of Religion | year= 1779 }} “The primary religion of mankind arises chiefly from an anxious fear of future events; and what ideas will naturally be entertained of invisible, unknown powers, while men lie under dismal apprehensions of any kind, may easily be conceived. Every image of vengeance, severity, cruelty, and malice must occur, and must augment the ghastliness and horror which oppresses the amazed religionist. .. And no idea of perverse wickedness can be framed, which those terrified devotees do not readily, without scruple, apply to their deity.” (Section XIII) </ref> In Waring's words: {{blockquote|The clear reasonableness of natural religion disappeared before a semi-historical look at what can be known about uncivilized man— "a barbarous, necessitous animal," as Hume termed him. Natural religion, if by that term one means the actual religious beliefs and practices of uncivilized peoples, was seen to be a fabric of superstitions. Primitive man was no unspoiled philosopher, clearly seeing the truth of one God. And the history of religion was not, as the deists had implied, retrograde; the widespread phenomenon of superstition was caused less by priestly malice than by man's unreason as he confronted his experience.<ref>{{cite book | last=Waring | title=(see above) }}</ref>}} ===Deism in the United States=== [[File:Thomas Paine rev1.jpg|right|thumb|upright|[[Thomas Paine]]]] The [[Thirteen Colonies]] of [[Colonial history of the United States|North America]] – which became the [[United States of America]] after the [[American Revolution]] in 1776 – were part of the [[British Empire]], and Americans, as British subjects, were influenced by and participated in the intellectual life of the [[Kingdom of Great Britain]]. English Deism was an important influence on the thinking of [[Thomas Jefferson]] and the principles of religious freedom asserted in the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]]. Other [[Founding Fathers of the United States|Founding Fathers]] who were influenced to various degrees by Deism were [[Ethan Allen]],<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.ethanallenhomestead.org/history/oracle.htm#excerpts |title = Excerpts from Allen's ''Reason The Only Oracle Of Man'' |publisher = Ethan Allen Homestead Museum |access-date = 2008-05-01 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080502050943/http://www.ethanallenhomestead.org/HISTORY/oracle.htm#excerpts |archive-date = 2008-05-02 |url-status = dead }} </ref> [[Benjamin Franklin]], [[Cornelius Harnett]], [[Gouverneur Morris]], [[Hugh Williamson]], [[James Madison]], and possibly [[Alexander Hamilton]]. In the United States, there is a great deal of controversy over whether the Founding Fathers were Christians, Deists, or something in between.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0501/articles/dulles.htm |title=The Deist Minimum |work=First Things |year=2005 |access-date=2006-09-14 |archive-date=2006-09-01 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060901183307/http://firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0501/articles/dulles.htm |url-status=live }}</ref><ref> {{cite book |last=Holmes |first=David |author-link=David L. Holmes |title=The Faiths of the Founding Fathers |url=https://archive.org/details/faithsoffounding0000holm |url-access=registration |publisher=Oxford University Press, USA |location=New York, NY |year=2006 |isbn=0-19-530092-0}} </ref> Particularly heated is the debate over the beliefs of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and [[George Washington]].<ref>{{cite news |author=David Liss |date=11 June 2006 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060801123.html |title=The Founding Fathers Solving modern problems, building wealth and finding God |newspaper=Washington Post |access-date=20 September 2017 |archive-date=12 May 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170512144847/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060801123.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/jefferson_deist.htm |title=Was Thomas Jefferson a Deist? |author=Gene Garman |publisher=Sullivan-County.com |year=2001 |access-date=2006-09-14 |archive-date=2006-08-30 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060830123010/http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/jefferson_deist.htm |url-status=live }}</ref><ref> {{cite web |url=http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090213/pg_1 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071012180005/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090213/pg_1 |url-status=dead |archive-date=2007-10-12 |title=Benjamin Franklin: An American Life |author=Walter Isaacson |publisher=[[Skeptical Inquirer]] |date=March–April 2004}} </ref> In his ''Autobiography'', Franklin wrote that as a young man "Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."<ref> {{cite book |last=Franklin |first=Benjamin |author-link=Benjamin Franklin |title=Benjamin Franklin: Autobiography, Poor Richard, and Later Writings |publisher=Library of America |location=New York, NY |year=2005 |page=619 |isbn= 1-883011-53-1}} </ref><ref> {{cite web |url=http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~walters/web%20103/Ben%20Franklin.htm |archive-url=https://archive.today/20121210090217/http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~walters/web%20103/Ben%20Franklin.htm |url-status=dead |archive-date=2012-12-10 |title=Benjamin Franklin, Autobiography |publisher=University of Maine, Farmington}} </ref> Like some other Deists, Franklin believed that, "The Deity sometimes interferes by his particular Providence, and sets aside the Events which would otherwise have been produc'd in the Course of Nature, or by the Free Agency of Man,"<ref>Benjamin Franklin, [https://web.archive.org/web/20021114204257/http://www.historycarper.com/resources/twobf2/provdnc.htm On the Providence of God in the Government of the World] (1730). </ref> and at the Constitutional Convention stated that "the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth—that God governs in the affairs of men."<ref>{{cite book|editor=Max Farrand|url=http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1057&Itemid=27|title=The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787|location=New Haven|publisher=Yale University Press|year=1911|volume=1|page=451|access-date=2011-02-26|archive-date=2011-03-08|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110308123447/http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1057&Itemid=27|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Thomas Jefferson]] is perhaps the Founding Father who most clearly exhibits Deistic tendencies, although he generally referred to himself as a [[Unitarianism|Unitarian]] rather than a Deist. His excerpts of the [[canonical gospels]] (now commonly known as the ''[[Jefferson Bible]]'') strip all supernatural and dogmatic references from the [[Life of Jesus in the New Testament|narrative on Jesus' life]]. Like Franklin, Jefferson believed in God's continuing activity in human affairs.<ref>Frazer, following [[Sydney Ahlstrom]], characterizes Jefferson as a "[[Theistic rationalism|theistic rationalist]]" rather than a Deist, because Jefferson believed in God's continuing activity in human affairs. See {{cite book|first=Gregg L.|last=Frazer|title=The Religious Beliefs of America's Founders: Reason, Revelation, Revolution|url=https://archive.org/details/religiousbel_fraz_2012_000_10692050|url-access=registration|publisher=University Press of Kansas|year=2012|page=[https://archive.org/details/religiousbel_fraz_2012_000_10692050/page/n24 11] and 128|isbn=9780700618453}} See {{cite book|first=Sydney E.|last=Ahlstrom|title=A Religious History of the American People|year=2004|page=359}} See {{Cite book|author=Gary Scott Smith|title=Faith and the Presidency: From George Washington to George W. Bush|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=eC9fM42OE9MC&pg=PA69|year=2006|publisher=Oxford U.P. |page=69|isbn=9780198041153}}</ref> [[Thomas Paine]] is especially noteworthy both for his contributions to the cause of the American Revolution and for his writings in defense of Deism, alongside the [[Criticism of religion|criticism]] of [[Abrahamic religions]].<ref name="Claeys 1989"/><ref name="Gelpi 2007">{{cite book |last=Gelpi |first=Donald L. |year=2007 |origyear=2000 |chapter=Part 1: Enlightenment Religion – Chapter 3: Militant Deism |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hB1KAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA47 |title=Varieties of Transcendental Experience: A Study in Constructive Postmodernism |location=[[Eugene, Oregon]] |publisher=[[Wipf and Stock]] |pages=47–48 |isbn=9781725220294 |access-date=2023-01-22 |archive-date=2023-01-22 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230122122123/https://books.google.com/books?id=hB1KAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA47 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Fischer 2010">{{cite journal |last=Fischer |first=Kirsten |date=2010 |title="Religion Governed by Terror": A Deist Critique of Fearful Christianity in the Early American Republic |editor1-last=Manning |editor1-first=Nicholas |editor2-last=Stefani |editor2-first=Anne |journal=Revue Française d'Études Américaines |location=[[Paris]] |publisher=Belin |volume=125 |issue=3 |pages=13–26 |doi=10.3917/rfea.125.0013 |doi-access=free |eissn=1776-3061 |issn=0397-7870 |lccn=80640131 |via=[[Cairn.info]]}}</ref><ref name="Paine 2014">{{cite book |last=Paine |first=Thomas |author-link=Thomas Paine |year=2014 |chapter=Of the Religion of Deism Compared with the Christian Religion, and the Superiority of the Former over the Latter (1804) |chapter-url=https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/paine-deism.asp |editor1-last=Calvert |editor1-first=Jane E. |editor2-last=Shapiro |editor2-first=Ian |title=Selected Writings of Thomas Paine |location=[[New Haven]] |publisher=[[Yale University Press]] |series=Rethinking the Western Tradition |doi=10.12987/9780300210699-018 |pages=568–574 |isbn=9780300167450 |s2cid=246141428 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160827161516/https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/paine-deism.asp |archive-date=27 August 2016 |access-date=7 August 2021}}</ref> In ''[[The Age of Reason]]'' (1793–1794) and other writings, he advocated Deism, promoted [[reason]] and [[freethought]], and argued against institutionalized religions in general and the [[Criticism of Christianity|Christian doctrine]] in particular.<ref name="Claeys 1989"/><ref name="Gelpi 2007"/><ref name="Fischer 2010"/><ref name="Paine 2014"/> ''The Age of Reason'' was short, readable, and probably the only Deistic treatise that continues to be read and influential today.<ref>In its own time it earned Paine widespread vilification. How widespread deism was among ordinary people in the United States is a matter of continued debate.{{cite web|url=http://www.common-place.org/interim/reviews/dilorenzo.shtml#.VV90HvlViko |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140302202951/http://www.common-place.org/interim/reviews/dilorenzo.shtml |url-status=dead |archive-date=2014-03-02 |title=Culture Wars in the Early Republic |publisher=Common-place }}</ref> The last contributor to American Deism was [[Elihu Palmer]] (1764–1806), who wrote the "Bible of American Deism", ''[[Principles of Nature]]'', in 1801. Palmer is noteworthy for attempting to bring some organization to Deism by founding the "Deistical Society of New York" and other Deistic societies from Maine to Georgia.<ref>{{Cite book |author-link=Kerry S. Walters |author=Walters, Kerry S. |title=Rational Infidels: The American Deists |publisher=Longwood Academic |location=[[Durango, CO]] |date=1992 |isbn=0-89341-641-X}}</ref> ===Deism in France and continental Europe=== [[File:D'après Nicolas de Largillière, portrait de Voltaire (Institut et Musée Voltaire) -001.jpg|thumb|right|upright|[[Voltaire]] at age 24, portrayed by [[Nicolas de Largillière]]]] France had its own tradition of [[religious skepticism]] and natural theology in the works of [[Michel de Montaigne|Montaigne]], [[Pierre Bayle]], and [[Montesquieu]]. The most famous of the French Deists was [[Voltaire]], who was exposed to Newtonian science and English Deism during his two-year period of exile in England (1726–1728). When he returned to France, he brought both back with him, and exposed the French reading public (i.e., the aristocracy) to them, in a number of books. French Deists also included [[Maximilien Robespierre]] and [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau|Rousseau]]. During the [[French Revolution]] (1789–1799), the Deistic [[Cult of the Supreme Being]]—a direct expression of Robespierre's theological views—was established briefly (just under three months) as the new state religion of France, [[Dechristianization of France during the French Revolution|replacing the deposed Catholic Church]] and the rival atheistic [[Cult of Reason]]. There were over five hundred French Revolutionaries who were deists. These deists do not fit the stereotype of deists because they believed in miracles and often prayed to God. In fact, over seventy of them thought that God miraculously helped the French Revolution win victories over their enemies. Furthermore, over a hundred French Revolutionary deists also wrote prayers and hymns to God. Citizen Devillere was one of the many French Revolutionary deists who believed God did miracles. Devillere said, "God, who conducts our destiny, deigned to concern himself with our dangers. He commanded the spirit of victory to direct the hand of the faithful French, and in a few hours the aristocrats received the attack which we prepared, the wicked ones were destroyed and liberty was avenged."<ref>{{Cite book |last=Devillere |first=Citizen |title=Archives parlementaires de la révolution français |publisher=Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique |year=1987 |pages=361–362}}</ref> Deism in Germany is not well documented. We know from correspondence with Voltaire that [[Frederick the Great]] was a Deist. [[Immanuel Kant]]'s identification with Deism is controversial.<ref>Allen Wood argues that Kant was Deist. See "Kant's Deism" in P. Rossi and M. Wreen (eds.), ''Kant's Philosophy of Religion Reconsidered'' (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991). An argument against Kant as deist is Stephen Palmquist's "Kant's Theistic Solution". http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/srp/arts/KTS.html {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050722081614/http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/srp/arts/KTS.html |date=2005-07-22 }}</ref> ===Decline of Enlightenment Deism=== Peter Gay describes Enlightenment Deism as entering slow decline as a recognizable movement in the 1730s.<ref>{{cite book |last=Gay |title=(see above) }} “After the writings of Woolston and Tindal, English deism went into slow decline. ... By the 1730s, nearly all the arguments in behalf of Deism ... had been offered and refined; the intellectual caliber of leading Deists was none too impressive; and the opponents of deism finally mustered some formidable spokesmen. The Deists of these decades, Peter Annet (1693–1769), Thomas Chubb (1679–1747), and Thomas Morgan (?–1743), are of significance to the specialist alone. ... It had all been said before, and better. .” (p.140) </ref> A number of reasons have been suggested for this decline, including:<ref name=EoP-Mossner> {{cite encyclopedia |title=Deism |first=Ernest Campbell |last=Mossner |author-link=Ernest Campbell Mossner |publisher=Collier-MacMillan |year=1967 |encyclopedia=[[Encyclopedia of Philosophy]] |volume=2 |pages=326–336}} </ref> * The increasing influence of [[metaphysical naturalism|naturalism]] and [[materialism]]. * The writings of [[David Hume]] and [[Immanuel Kant]] raising questions about the ability of reason to address metaphysical questions. * The violence of the French Revolution. * Christian revivalist movements, such as [[Pietism]] and [[Methodism]] (which emphasized a personal relationship with God), along with the rise of anti-rationalist and counter-Enlightenment philosophies such as that of [[Johann Georg Hamann]].<ref name=EoP-Mossner /> Although Deism has declined in popularity over time, scholars believe that these ideas still have a lingering influence on [[modern society]].<ref>{{cite journal |last=Van den Berg |first=Jan |date=October 2019 |title=The Development of Modern Deism |journal=Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte: Journal of Religious and Cultural Studies |location=[[Leiden]] and [[Boston]] |publisher=[[Brill Publishers]] |volume=71 |issue=4 |pages=335–356 |doi=10.1163/15700739-07104002 |s2cid=211652706 |eissn=1570-0739 |issn=0044-3441}}</ref> One of the major activities of the Deists, [[biblical criticism]], evolved into its own highly technical discipline. Deist rejection of revealed religion evolved into, and contributed to, 19th-century [[Liberal Christianity#Liberal Protestantism|liberal British theology]] and the rise of [[Unitarianism]].<ref name=EoP-Mossner /> Summary: Please note that all contributions to Christianpedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Christianpedia:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission! Cancel Editing help (opens in new window) Discuss this page