It has been remarked so many times that the God of deists just set the universe running with its predetermined laws and then left. But, that is not an essential component of deism. Some deists do believe that God may intervene or may have intervened at some point in history in some places and some poeple but it is a deist’s firm stand that these interventions were not intended to be used as stamps for a supposed message from God.

For one thing, these interventions (classically called miracles or suspensions of the natural laws) can hardly be proven. When the person or persons who were witnesses of such miracles (if it really happened) relate this to other people, those who will receive their message would have to rely on their words for anything that they will have to say.

Thus, modern deists do not outrightly claim that miracles are impossible to happen. They can occur by God’s will, but they are miracles or maybe revelations only to those who have witnessed it first hand. Any revelation/miracle that comes from second hand sources becomes unreliable and is not anymore obligatory for any reasonable person to believe.

Secondly, people can easily be deceived by what they see or perceive. The prevalence of ghost stories show that even in modern times, people are still prone to deception. As David Hume rightly commented, it is more possible that the person who reports a miracle is lying or is deceived than that a miracle has really happened . The rationale is that we see so many people in our lifetime being deceived and/or lying but very rarely or none at all do we see miracles occuring.

In my observation, many Catholics in the Philippines (I can only speak of my fatherland), especially those who are highly educated, are of this type. They choose which doctrines to believe and which doctrines to reject; a reason why they are referred to by Catholic authorities as “cafeteria-style” Catholics. I presume that nominal members of other religious groups do the same. And also those nominal members of many religions around the world do the same.

Without knowing it, these people are actually placing much value on personal reasoning and judgment over and even against the teachings of their religion. So, without being conscious about it, they are actually rationalists in matters pertaining to religion. Some may question many teachings of their religion and others may just dismiss them as baseless. Generally though, they find the existence of God to be a very reasonable idea by merely observing the beauty and complex designs of nature.

If this is so, they actually subscribe to a set of beliefs that is basically deist. The Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary defines a deist as “one who believes in the existence of a God or Supreme Being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason.” The deist is the person and the religious philosophy is called deism.

I was in a much the same situation before. I didn’t know that such a religious philosophy had a name and history. It was a very popular philosophy back in the 17th and 18th centuries and there were attempts to institutionalize it (like in France and in the US) but the efforts failed partly due to the individualist nature of deism. But it was revitalized with the advent of the internet and now, according to a survey done by the National Survey of Religious Identification (NSRI ), deism or a simple belief in a Deity is the fastest growing religion in the United States with an astounding estimated growth of +717% from 1990 to 2004.

To my fellow deists, I think its about time to go out of our shells and to be seen as what we are and to show the rest of the world that we are not just nominal Christians, or nominal Jews, nominal Muslims or nominal whatever. We have a religious philosophy of our own. We are deists!

Reference cited:

Survey of Religious Identification (NSRI ). 2001. American Religious Identity Survey (ARIS): Top Twenty Religions in the United States. Accessed on September 21, 2006 at
http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html

For instance, it is little known that Rizal was actually a deist. He had a firm belief in God but he rejected revealed religion. When we say revealed religion, it refers to a religion that bases its teachings on a supposed revelation from God contained in “holy books” and/or traditions handed down from generations to generations. One can read Rizal’s exposition on this subject in his correspondence with a Jesuit priest, Fr. Pablo Pastells, who was actually his spiritual director during his youthful years in Ateneo. The exchange occurred when Rizal was in an exile in Dapitan and when Fr. Pastells was already the Superior of the Philippine Mission of the Society of Jesus.

In his third letter to Pastells, our national hero explained:

“Through reasoning and by necessity, rather than through faith, do I firmly believe in the existence of a creative Being. Who is he? I do not know. What human sounds, what accents are we to use in pronouncing the name of this Being whose works overwhelm the imagination? Can anyone give him an adequate name, when a small creature on this earth with power so fleeting carries two or three names, three or four surnames, and many more titles and designations? We call him Dios but this only comes from the Latin dues and ultimately from the Greek Zeus. What kind of being is he? I would attribute to him, to an infinite degree, all the beautiful and holy qualities my mind can think of, but the fear of my ignorance constrains me. Someone has said that everyone conjures up his own God in his own image and likeness. And if my memory serves me right, it was Anacreon who said that if a bull could form an image of God, it would imagine with horns and mooing in a superlative degree. Even so I venture to think of him as infinitely wise, mighty, good (my idea of the infinite is imperfect and confused), when I behold the wonders of his works, the order that reigns over the universe, the magnificence and expanse of creation, and the goodness that shines in all.”

“Unable to pass judgement on what surpasses my powers, I settle for studying God in his creatures like myself and in the voice of my conscience, which only can have come from him. I strive to read and find his will in all that surrounds me and in the mysterious sentiment speaking from within me, which I strive to purify above all else.”

Thus, Rizal’s belief in a Deity was based on reasonable reflection of nature as well as from conscience and not on faith or divine revelation. On the same letter, Rizal expressed his disbelief on the teachings of ancient sacred books. He writes:

“The various religions claim to have God’s will condensed and written in books and dogmas; but apart from the many contradictions, conflicting interpretations of words, and many obscure and untenable points I find in them, my conscience, my reason cannot admit that he who like a wise father had provided his creatures with everything necessary for this life, proceeded to bury what was necessary for eternal life in the obscurities of a language unknown to the rest of the world and hide it behind metaphors and deeds that go against the very laws of nature. Is it possible that he who makes the sun rise for all and the air to blow everywhere to give life, he who has endowed everyone with intelligence and reason for life here on earth, has also hidden from us what is most necessary for our eternal life? What shall we say of a father who heaps candies and toys on his children, but gives food only to one of them, educates and rears him alone? And what if it so happens that this chosen one refuses to eat while the others die looking for food?”

But Rizal goes to qualify his denial of revelation. He only denied special revelation that came through ancient books or traditions. He pointed it out in his fourth letter to Fr. Pastells that:

“I believe in revelation, but in the living revelation of nature which surrounds us everywhere, in the voice speaking out through nature – powerful, eternal, incorruptible, clear, distinct, and universal as the Being from which it comes. It is this revelation that I believe in, which speaks to us and penetrates our being from the day we are born to the day we die. Can any other books reveal to us more faithfully God’s work, his goodness, his love, his providence, his eternity, his glory, his wisdom? ‘The heavens tell the glory of the Lord, and the firmament proclaims his handiwork. Ps 19:1’ Must humanity look for other gospels in order to love God? Do you not believe that men did wrong when they looked for God’d will in scrolls and temples instead of the wonders of nature under the majestic canopy of the skies? Instead of interpreting obscure passages or phrases which provoked hatreds, wars, and dissensions, would it not have been preferable to interpret the facts of nature the better to shape our lives according to its inviolable laws and utilize its resources for our perfection?”

It is then obvious that Rizal was neither Catholic nor Protestant or any other religion you know. He just came to the conclusion that God exists through reasoning and through studying nature and not from any suspicious and contradictory revelation. I advise you get hold of these exchanges with Fr. Pastells. You can also read the honest and equally intelligent replies of Fr. Pastells, which makes their exchange mentally stimulating and really interesting. But in the end, Rizal remained unmoved. He was not convinced by the priest’s arguments as was clearly expressed in his last letter.

Therefore, our national hero, who was incontestably intelligent and no doubt studied these matters carefully, came to arrive at a very simple religious philosophy that was attuned to be one of the foundations of the Filipino nation; attuned to his aspirations of independence, academic and religious freedom for our country.

Reference:

Bonoan, Raul J., S.J. 1994. The Rizal-Pastells Correspondence. Manila: Ateneo de Manila University Press. pages 121-216