Ask a Deist!

[Dr_Perky]

Everyone’s doing it why not me.

Deism is not so much a Religion as it is a belief. It is defined simply as the belief in God through reason and nature.

Ask away.

[JamesKane]

Why is PI equal to 3.14159265…?

[Winged_One]

Wasn’t this locked just a few minutes ago???

And, James, it’s because caek has already taken the value of 4.815162342

[Magical_Master]

What are your thoughts on this piece?

@Greta Christina

You’ve almost certainly heard this trope:

“I’m not religious, but I’m spiritual.”

It doesn’t necessarily mean that the person is woo (although it often does). People use it who hold more or less traditional theistic beliefs, but have left their organized religion or never belonged to one. (For those people, the trope often goes, “I’m not religious, but I worship God in my own way.”) People use it to mean they believe in something other than the physical world: they don’t know exactly what, but they’re pretty sure it’s something. People even use it to mean that they find some sort of meaning and transcendence in life, and don’t know another word or context for meaning and transcendence other than spirituality.

But I don’t think unorganized spirituality holds any more water than conventional religious beliefs. And while it doesn’t have the same power to brutalize or oppress that traditional organized religion does, it does have much the same power to derail critical thinking, and to prioritize personal bias over evidence, and to base important decisions on a foundation of sand.

Now, when I’m in a generous mood, I see this trope as coming from a totally valid desire to not be connected with the horrors of organized religion… while, at the same time, still feeling some sort of personal, emotional experience that the trope-holder thinks is a connection with God. (Or the Goddess, or the spirit world, or whatever.) The people who say it are trying to separate the wheat from the chaff; to take what they need and leave the rest. And while I think their interpretation of their experience is mistaken – I think it’s all chaff – I can certainly understand the impulse.

And sometimes, like deism, the “spiritual but not religious” trope is a gateway drug, a baby step out of religious belief. For people who are questioning religious belief but have been brought up to believe that religion is the source of all morality and meaning, “spiritual but not religious” can be a way to begin to let go of their beliefs without feeling like they’re stepping into the abyss. And I can definitely be generous about that.

When I’m in a less generous mood, though, I see this trope as totally smug and superior, without anything to back it up. I see it as a way of saying, “I am so special and independent, of course I don’t have anything to do with that hidebound organized religion, I’m far too free a spirit for that… but I’m also special and sensitive, and in touch with the powerful sacred things beyond this mundane world.”

So what’s my problem with it? Other than the smugness, I mean?

The obvious problem, of course, is that there’s not a shred of good evidence to back it up. There’s no more evidence for disorganized religion than there is for organized religion.

And in my experience, “spiritual but not religious” tends to be a very sloppy form of spirituality. It lacks even the tortured rigor of carefully thought-out theology; the discipline, pointless though it may be, of fervent religious practice. All too often, “spiritual but not religious” seems to mean, “I believe in some sort of supernatural world, but am not willing to give that belief much thought, or to seriously consider whether the spiritual world I believe in is consistent or makes sense.”

Rather more importantly, I think the “spiritual but not religious” trope completely plays into the idea that religious belief – excuse me, spiritual belief – makes you a finer, better person. There’s a defensiveness to it: like what the person is really saying is, “I don’t attend any religious services or practice any religious practice… but I’m not a bad person. Of course I still feel a connection to God/ the soul. I haven’t totally descended to the gutter. What do you take me for?” It gives aid and comfort to the idea that value and joy, transcendence and meaning, have to come from the spiritual – i.e. the world of the spirit, the world of the supernatural.

But I think my biggest problem with the “spiritual but not religious” trope is with the “mundane world” thing.

If being “spiritual but not religious” really does mean thinking of yourself as being in touch with the special sacred things beyond this mundane physical world… then I think that shows a piss- poor attitude towards the mundane physical world.

The physical world is anything but mundane. The physical world is black holes at the center of every spiral galaxy. It is billions of galaxies rushing away from each other at breakneck speed. It is solid matter that is anything but solid: particles that can’t be seen by even the strongest microscope, separated by gaping vastnesses of nothing. It is living things that are all related, all with the same great- great- great- to the power of a zillion grandmother. It is space that curves, continents that drift. It is cells of organic tissue that somehow generate consciousness and selfhood.

When you take the time to learn about the mundane physical world, you find that it is anything but mundane.

And I think that the “I don’t follow any organized religion, but I know that there has to be something more to life than what we see” is doing a serious disservice to the astonishing and complex vastness of what we see.

As a blogger or commenter somewhere whose name I can’t remember once wrote: The “I’m spiritual but not religious” trope is trying to have the best of both worlds… but it’s actually getting the worst. It’s keeping the part of religion that’s the indefensible, unsupported- by- a- scrap- of- evidence belief in invisible beings; indeed, the part of religion that sees those invisible beings as more real, and more important, than the real physical world we live in. It’s keeping the part of religion that devalues reason and evidence and careful thinking, in favor of hanging onto any cockamamie idea that appeals to your wishful thinking. It’s keeping the part of religion that equates morality and value with believing in invisible friends. It’s keeping the part of religion that involves conferring a sense of superiority onto yourself, solely on the basis of your purported connection with an invisible world.

It’s keeping all that… and abandoning the part of religion that is community, and shared ritual, and charitable works, and a sense of belonging. It’s throwing out the baby, and keeping the bathwater – and then patting yourself on the back and saying, “Look at all this wonderful bathwater I have!”

[garrthbarrttinn]

Have you taken large amounts of LSD or other hallucinagenic drugs? I live in a town full of hippies and ex-hippies (my own mom falls under the latter) and I find an extremely strong positive correlation between using strong drugs or having used strong drugs in the past and “spirituality.”

I see it as nothing but the result of fucking up your brain with drugs, but I may be wrong with you, I hardly know your beliefs so you may not fall under this category.

My second question would be, can you explain your beliefs as best as possible for us?

[Teh_Casino]

What is the difference between deism and theism?

[danielsangeo]

Deists typically (but not always) see the universe as being created by a deity, then having a hands-off approach. The “miracles”, “prophecies” and such by your typical theistic religion is bunk in their eyes. Thomas Jefferson, a deist (though he had views on a wide range of religions), rewrote the Bible, taking out all the supernatural elements. You can read it here.

Theists, on the other hand, typically see the universe as being created by a superdeity/superdeities and that these deities involve themselves in our lives.

Oversimplified:
Deists: Hands-off gods
Theists: Hands-on gods

[mattemuse]

@garthbartin

I find an extremely strong positive correlation between using strong drugs or having used strong drugs in the past and “spirituality.”

It’s not just you; there is a scientifically proven correlation between hallucinogens and spirituality. Experiments with psylocybin in the 1980s consistently induced self-described “religous” experiences in test subjects.

My personal feeling is that, even in the absence of a literally religious experience, mind-altering substances by definition cause people who ingest them to experience subjective reality from a different perspective than their own. And this demonstrates conclusively that, by showing them that another perspective is possible, it is demonstrated in the most conclusive possible way that their reality isn’t as black and white as they’d formerly thought it to be.

May this never happen to you, Garthbartin

[geekofalltrades]

What’s the difference between deism and agnosticism?

[Gunzniper]

I’ve been looking for the name of this. What I believe is that there is some kind of god but religion was created by man and is unnecessary/untrue. I have a completely different theory on the universe as well, with the idea that nothing is black and white. However, I’ve never used any psychoactive or strong drugs.

[danielsangeo]

@geekofalltrades

What’s the difference between deism and agnosticism?

Oversimplified:
Deism: There is a god that created the universe, but didn’t do anything after that.
Agnosticism: There’s not enough evidence to know one way or the other. I just don’t know.

[MaxTheLimit]

@Dr. Perky

Everyone’s doing it why not me.

Deism is not so much a Religion as it is a belief. It is defined simply as the belief in God through reason and nature.

Ask away.

Are your beliefs totally faith based, or do you have legitimate evidence to back up any of the claims of your belief? Keeping in mind that lack of evidence to refute your claims, is not evidence your claims are true.

[geekofalltrades]

Ah. Well, then I see that I have wrongly been calling myself agnostic these last few years; I’m really deistic. Although I do lean towards agnosticism sometimes.

[garrthbarrttinn]

@mattemuse

It’s not just you; there is a scientifically proven correlation between hallucinogens and spirituality. Experiments with psylocybin in the 1980s consistently induced self-described “religous” experiences in test subjects.

My personal feeling is that, even in the absence of a literally religious experience, mind-altering substances by definition cause people who ingest them to experience subjective reality from a different perspective than their own. And this demonstrates conclusively that, by showing them that another perspective is possible, it is demonstrated in the most conclusive possible way that their reality isn’t as black and white as they’d formerly thought it to be.

May this never happen to you, Garthbartin

Are you suggesting I go out and get baked or trip on some acid? I like keeping my brain clear and capable of logical and advanced thought. The way I see it, hallucinations don’t “open your eyes” as you think, but just fuck up your brain and ruin your logic and reason.

One example of spiritualism was this lady who is friends with my mom who was telling me how the cells of a rock want to live and how nothing exists until we see it and it wants to exist.

EDIT: I’m sorry, I didn’t mean for this post to be as aggressive as it sounds, please disregard my hostility.

[Soup]

I’d say anyone that becomes spiritualistic has confused or integrated their drug-induced experience into their lives, which doesn’t mean they see another perspective just that their original one is skewed.

I’m pretty sure that deism/theism is just as black and white as atheism.

[Archy]

which game do you think is better: mass effect 2, or modern warfare 2?

[mattemuse]

@garthbartin

Are you suggesting I go out and get baked

No, I’m suggesting that it would probably be better in the long run if nothing ever were to happen to you that would cause you to question your unshakable certainty that you know exactly how the world works.

[garrthbarrttinn]

@mattemuse

No, I’m suggesting that it would probably be better in the long run if nothing ever were to happen to you that would cause you to question your unshakable certainty that you know exactly how the world works.

Hallucinations by definition aren’t real and it’s stupid to question your beliefs over something that isn’t real. They don’t give you a new prespective, they give you a false one.

If anything drugs would steer me away from religion, they’d show me that when you throw reality and logic out the door anything is possible, even a benevolent all powerful deity that forgives evil but punishes you for eternity if you don’t kiss his ass.

Also, where’d Perky go?

[danielsangeo]

@garthbartin

Are you suggesting I go out and get baked

“You will be baked and then there will be cake.”

[mattemuse]

I’m not talking about hallucinations, and I’m not suggesting you do drugs. Many experiences can cause folks to rethink their formerly iron-clad perspective on life, and these experiences don’t necessarily leave empirical evidence in their wake.

FYI, because I think it’s an interesting subject:

Using unusually rigorous scientific conditions and measures, Johns Hopkins researchers have shown that the active agent in “sacred mushrooms” can induce mystical/spiritual experiences descriptively identical to spontaneous ones people have reported for centuries.

The resulting experiences apparently prompt positive changes in behavior and attitude that last several months, at least.

"under very defined conditions, with careful preparation, you can safely and fairly reliably occasion what’s called a primary mystical experience that may lead to positive changes in a person. It’s an early step in what we hope will be a large body of scientific work that will ultimately help people.”
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2006/GriffithspsilocybinQ