[Kamepherype]

When historians refer to some of the Founding Fathers as "Deists," it's as if they're talking about an extinct philosophy, like alchemy or phrenology. Very few Americans go around describing themselves as Deists.

Well, perhaps that ought to change. A new study reveals that a rapidly growing number of Americans hold the belief system that used to be described as Deism.


Library of Congress

Many Americans embrace a faith strikingly similar to that of Thomas Jefferson.
Deism was a philosophy, especially popular in the 18th century, holding that God had created the universe and its laws but then receded from the action. It was treated as heretical -- akin to atheism -- because Deists rejected Biblical authority. Thomas Jefferson, for instance, wrote that the authors of the canonical Gospels were "ignorant, unlettered men" who laid "a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms, and fabrications." He famously crafted his own Bible sans miracles.

This brings us to a new study about the rise of "Nones," Americans who profess no religious affiliation. Trinity College analysts now conclude that Nones make up 15% of the population and that, given their rate of rapid growth, their numbers might soon surpass the nation's largest denominations.

The rise of the Nones is usually decried by religious leaders as a sign of secularization or atheism's ascent, but get this: 51% say they believe in God.

Now, some of those folks might just be religious people in between churches. So the Trinity folks asked them to describe what kind of God they believed in. 24% say they believe in "a higher power but no personal God."

Beliefnet Related Links

What Jefferson Deleted From the Bible

Prayerism
That would mean about 3.6% of Americans could be considered Deists, making them more common than Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, or Mormons.

And that's if you use a pretty narrow definition of Deism. In my book, Founding Faith, I argued that even the so-called Deists of the 18th Century were a bit more religious than we think. Both Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin believed that God intervened in history. A recent study by the Pew Religion Forum found that 35% of Nones pray weekly or daily.

I suspect that some modern American Deists are actually quite like Jefferson and Franklin. They don't believe in Scripture, or cotton to organized religion. But in the privacy of their home, they think that the distant, aloof God occasionally checks in to listen to their prayers.
Deism: Alive and Well in America - WSJ.com
of all the religions you learned about as a kid, it always made the most sense to me

[Andoror]

When I clicked I thought the headline was "Denim on the rise."

This story is quite a bit more interesting tho. I find it amazing that so many people are fine with throwing off organized religion but not so eager to reject the idea a diety of some sort.

Why do humans need a God?

[kaiayout]

So half of people who have no religion believe in God, and more than half of those pray... and yet around half also think God is impersonal.

So what makes a person who believes in an impersonal God pray? what's the point of that?

[meteeratymn]

It may be interesting but it's not surprising. I have a friend whose an atheist because there's no proof there's a God. I say I believe there's a god (higher power) since there's no proof there isn't and no explanation for the "unmoved mover." It's also interesting that many of the most influential founders weren't backers of organized religion and Franklin mainly went to church to keep up appearances (at least initially).

[moredasers]

I've been discussing this elsewhere for a while now, and its hard to wrap my head around. Partly because its made of bone, and partly because 'god' is seeming more illogical the more I think on it.

[AdSuiteAdobe]

I've been discussing this elsewhere for a while now, and its hard to wrap my head around. Partly because its made of bone, and partly because 'god' is seeming more illogical the more I think on it.

then what's the logical answer?

[FilmCriticAwezume]

That there is no god.

[rhiniddibiarmr]

Deism isn't a separate religion, it's the view that God is the Universe. That God informs and pervades all religions, all modes of thought, indeed all the world because God is just as much as the universe is.

[Civilrecordzz]

That there is no god.

that's illogical, what set the universe in motion?
th deist god was often referred to as the clockmaker god, he created and set in motion and left everything to run its course. that seems as logical as the next thing. some people are uncomfortable with not being able to explain things but "a man's got to know his limitations."

[viepedorlella]

th deist god was often referred to as the clockmaker god, he created and set in motion and left everything to run its course. that seems as logical as the next thing.

Not really, because then you have to explain what set God in motion.

earlier:
I say I believe there's a god (higher power) since there's no proof there isn't It can be very hard to prove a negative. For example, proving that breast implants were not causing all those health problems. It was finally proven, or at least agreed on, but only after the lawyers had cashed in.
Disproving the existence of God is simply impossible.

[Xxmlqevq]

Not really, because then you have to explain what set God in motion.

earlier:

It can be very hard to prove a negative. For example, proving that breast implants were not causing all those health problems. It was finally proven, or at least agreed on, but only after the lawyers had cashed in.
Disproving the existence of God is simply impossible.

so is proving god's existence, do you not agree? my point is, it's really a choice, it's not something that can be answered. saying there is a God or higher power is no more illogical than saying there isn't. As William James pointed out, you're better off believing in something than believing in nothing since there's no upside to believing in nothing.

[avaiftBoara]

so is proving god's existence, do you not agree? my point is, it's really a choice, it's not something that can be answered. saying there is a God or higher power is no more illogical than saying there isn't. As William James pointed out, you're better off believing in something than believing in nothing since there's no upside to believing in nothing.

I agree that it's impossible to prove God's existence, BUT
there's a big difference between a believer saying, "I just saw a vision of Mary in the evening sky" and a nonbeliever saying, "I was in my study this evening and, well, I didn't see God around."
Believers require no proof, and they can always insist that nonbelievers just haven't seen the light yet.

True, it's a choice, but what if I said I had a bottle of magic WD-40 in my possession that cures blindess and speaks seven languages, but that I can't prove it because it stubbornly insists on working in mysterious ways. Would you then say that believing and disbelieving in the WD-40 are equally logical/illogical?

As for the William James thing, check out Pascal's Wager. There's a wikipedia page on it that sets out some of the logical problems with that same supposition as James'.

[TagBahthuff]

saying there is a God or higher power is no more illogical than saying there isn't.

[dselectronics]

I agree that it's impossible to prove God's existence, BUT
there's a big difference between a believer saying, "I just saw a vision of Mary in the evening sky" and a nonbeliever saying, "I was in my study this evening and, well, I didn't see God around."
Believers require no proof, and they can always insist that nonbelievers just haven't seen the light yet.

True, it's a choice, but what if I said I had a bottle of magic WD-40 in my possession that cures blindess and speaks seven languages, but that I can't prove it because it stubbornly insists on working in mysterious ways. Would you then say that believing and disbelieving in the WD-40 are equally logical/illogical?

As for the William James thing, check out Pascal's Wager. There's a wikipedia page on it that sets out some of the logical problems with that same supposition as James'.

the scenarios above are incomparable. and let's face it, a deist isn't going to say any such thing as seeing the light. deists are typically very secular. I'm not sure you understand the difference between a deist and an evangelist. you can study WD40 and see outcomes, the same cannot be said for the existence of God. a more comparable situation would be if I someone told us there was a beachball in box 1 but there was no way of opening or examining box 1 in any way.

[houkbsdov]

typical atheist garbage about how superior you are to everyone else. it's absolutely unbelievable how some people think something is so obvious yet cannot be proven or disproven by people far more intelligent than us.

[tLO0hFNy]

double post!

[gactanync]

it's absolutely unbelievable how some people think something is so obvious yet cannot be proven or disproven by peopel far more intelligent than us.

I agree.


I'm not suggesting I or anyone else is superior. As I posted above, this is something I'm still working on... as in, I have been pretty secure in my belief in God, and just recently I started thinking more in-depth about it & questioning what I'd always assumed was true. I think that's a smart & healthy thing for any person to do from time to time, take stock & re-evaluate.

[Luisabens]

I agree.


I'm not suggesting I or anyone else is superior. As I posted above, this is something I'm still working on... as in, I have been pretty secure in my belief in God, and just recently I started thinking more in-depth about it & questioning what I'd always assumed was true. I think that's a smart & healthy thing for any person to do from time to time, take stock & re-evaluate.

I agree and that's what led me to deism in the first place

[outdog]

the scenarios above are incomparable. and let's face it, a deist isn't going to say any such thing as seeing the light. deists are typically very secular. I'm not sure you understand the difference between a deist and an evangelist. you can study WD40 and see outcomes, the same cannot be said for the existence of God. a more comparable situation would be if I someone told us there was a beachball in box 1 but there was no way of opening or examining box 1 in any way.

I probably don't know the significant difference between a deist and an evangelist. I'd like to know, though. In the posts above, I was just focusing on all believers.

My point was that since God cannot be studied, as you've written above, so- well, Karl Popper said it best: God's existence cannot be proven false, and therefore he can never be a part of science.

[itsmycock]

Actually, logic and game theory support a belief in God rather than disbelief, per Pascal's Wager.