This article will address Classical Deism, which is traditionally summarized by Lord Herbert of Cherbury's (1583-1648 AD) Five Articles:
Catholic Encyclopedia - Deism
- That there exists one supreme God,
- Who is chiefly to be worshipped;
- That the principal part of such worship consists in piety and virtue;
- That we must repent of our sins and that, if we do so, God will pardon us;
- That there are rewards for good men and punishments for evil men both here and hereafter.
Arguably, in light of the above, this is an extremely prominent religious system, followed unconsciously or intuitively by almost all who would reject organized religion, at least in a notional or confessional way. Of course, adherents of organized religions also usually believe these things, but the point of Classical Deism is to believe these things while specifically not adhering oneself to revealed, organized religions.
It is easy to see the appeal of Classical Deism. The Five Articles are something that virtually all sensible people can agree on. And, because the religion does not adhere itself to any scripture, institution, or authority, there is not much need for apologetics. It is appealing to belong to a religion that has very little surface area for attack vectors, because the beliefs are so minimal, and uncontroversial.
A critique of Classical Deism hinges on the issue of morality, and specifically, the possibility of defining a morality without divine revelation. The third of the Five Articles says, "That the principal part of (worship of the Supreme God) consists in piety and virtue". However, what exactly constitutes "piety and virtue" is the primary cause of all controversy between every religion and philosophical system in existence.
This is because discerning morality can seem relatively easy in some more obvious cases - for instance, every sensible religion would agree that it is wrong to kill an innocent person. However, very quickly, the question becomes, what exactly is "innocent", and many religions have vastly different answers to that question. So, can Classical Deism give meaningful or authoritative answers to what actually constitutes "piety and virtue"?
When attempting to define a morality, Deism must maintain that it is discernible through the use of reason and observation, and therefore, there is no need for special revelation when constructing a moral framework by which to live. However, actually examining case studies of moral questions reveals that defining a morality apart from any special revelation is not easy at all, and actually presents a number of intractable questions and unintuitive conclusions.
Suppose a person is non-vegetarian, and therefore causes the suffering and death of thousands of animals in their lifetime by eating meat. Does God obligate that such a person should be forced to be a vegetarian, or imprisoned, and forced to be vegetarian, or killed? They are responsible for a tremendous amount of suffering, and the suffering is unnecessary, because they could survive as a vegetarian. Is all suffering to be regarded as equal, whether it is human, or animal, so long as it is an animal with a reasonable degree of cognition? Is killing a dog the same as killing a person? If two dogs are attacking one infant human, should the two dogs be killed to save the one person? Ten dogs?
Suppose humanity has the ability to kill all of the wolves in a given region, and are able to balance the ecosystem reasonably well without them. Should they kill all the wolves? The wolves, as predatory animals, cause the suffering and deaths of tens of thousands of animals from prey species. Is allowing them to exist a sin? Does God desire for wolves to exist? Does God hold humanity innocent, when they have the power to eradicate wolves from an area, and do not do so? What about all other predator species? Does God desire for predatory species to exist, who cannot exist without causing suffering and death? Does God desire for parasites and malignant viruses and bacteria to exist?
Suppose that a woman kills the baby in her womb, not due to any danger to her own life or health, but because she believes that it will lead to a greater quality of life for both herself, and the rest of her family. Has the mother committed a sin, considering that the baby is unaware of what is happening to them? Is it moral or immoral, on the same principle, for a mother to sedate her 5 year-old child, and kill them, for the same reason, so long as the child is totally unaware of what is happening to them? What about if a government determines, after careful consideration, that due to the number of available resources, the quality of life of everyone would massively increase, if a number of elderly people are sedated, and killed? Has a sin occurred, assuming they are all unaware of what is happening to them, and the quality of life for everyone else increases?
Suppose a person kills someone else. Is it moral to kill the murderer, when it is possible to prevent them from harming others by imprisoning them instead? Does God require that society pay for the food, shelter, and care of an individual simply because that person killed someone? Suppose the murderer kills someone in prison. Is it moral to kill them then? Is retributive justice ever appropriate, as either the will of God, or to act as a deterrent against those who would do the same things in the future? Under what cases is it to be allowed, and how far should it be taken? Suppose a person is genuinely sorry for having killed someone, and no longer presents any danger to society. Is releasing them moral, or sinful? Does God want humanity to kill them, because they have killed someone else? Does releasing them lead to more murder, from others who see the situation, and decide to murder because of an expectation of leniency if they are caught?
Suppose that a nation of highly-intelligent Deists acquire the means to conquer the world via warfare. The peoples that they conquer are not Deists, and instead follow organized religions, which to the Deists are all idolatrous, and present false notions of God, and even slander Him, leading to billions of people blaspheming God, living in confusion, and otherwise suffering. Should the Deist nation violently conquer the world? Suppose that when they are finished, they can ensure that tens or hundreds of billions of people will live pleasant Deistic lives, at the cost of only a few billion non-Deists being killed in the conquest. Should the enlightened, correct, wise Deist nation perform the necessary evil of eradicating all other groups, so that humanity can finally be rid of the scourge of false views of God? Would it be sinful if the Deistic nation used any means necessary to eradicate non-Deism, if doing so ensured a wildly prosperous age of humanity, where for millions of years all had the proper notion of God and reason, and so much confusion and suffering could be avoided as a result?
Suppose a person commits a particular crime. Is it immoral for that person to be physically beaten in some way, as punishment? Is prison more just as a punishment? What if prison is more destructive, more expensive for society and the perpetrator, and less effective, in this circumstance? Is imprisonment rather than beating immoral, in that case?
Suppose a child does something wrong. Is it ever okay to physically hurt them in some way as punishment, or is that sinful? Or, is not using physical punishment sinful, in some instances?
Suppose a married woman has no children. While her husband is away at work, she has a series of affairs with single men. This continues for many years, and her husband is blissfully unaware. The woman never contracts a disease, nor does she get pregnant. The woman and her husband never have children, and they both die without the husband, or anyone else, ever finding out. Has sin occurred?
Suppose the answer is, "Yes, because she has lied, and lying is wrong in this case". Notice, "in this case", because all admit that lying is moral under certain circumstances. For example, consider a woman in 1940's rural Poland, who must lie to conceal those who would be exterminated by the German occupation on the basis of their perceived ethnicity or religion. She may lie to conceal them, and it is not sinful, because it is for the greater good. Is the woman who had many secret affairs not lying for the greater good? Her husband perceived no harm. She enjoys herself. The many single men, also, enjoyed themselves in the affairs. A lot of pleasure has been released into the world, and no discernable pain. So, has she lied for the greater good? Has sin occurred, or not?
Suppose she carries on one affair every 2 weeks, for a period of 20 years. This would amount to 520 total partners, each of whom enjoyed the interaction, and found it pleasant. Has sin occurred? Now suppose that the husband discovers her affairs. Should the affairs continue? The pleasure of 2 people is at odds with the displeasure of 1 person. Now suppose once again that there are 520 partners. The pleasure of 521 people is at now odds with the displeasure of 1 person. Does the majority rule, in this case? Must the husband tolerate the affairs, for the overall good of the group? And, what is God's opinion on the affairs, especially the secret ones, given that they generate so much pleasure with no perceived pain at all?
Suppose a single adult woman posts naked pictures of herself for other single adults to see. Is she glorifying God by showing off the beauty of humanity? Or is she dishonoring herself, and offending God, by uncovering something that should be hidden?
Suppose that a man has $400,000, representing ten years of wages. Three armed men show up to his house, and take half of the money. Has sin occurred? Most would say yes, sin has occurred, because taking someone's money is wrong in this instance. Notice "in this instance", because most admit that taking someone's money against their will is sometimes permissible. For example, when a service is performed for someone, and they neglect to pay for the service, the delinquent can be taken to court, and sued.
However, when is taking wealth permissible, and how much may be taken? Suppose a person has $1 billion dollars, and everyone else in their city has $100,000. Suppose the other citizens determine that the billionaire must shoulder a higher tax rate than everyone else, because he has wildly more money than everyone else. Yet, does he need to? From his perspective, he believes that he can use the money more wisely than others, resulting in the greatest good for the greatest number of people. He earned the money, and the money belongs to him. And, suppose God wants the billionaire to be fantastically wealthy. What is the basis for declaring that it is moral to take the billionaire's money, against his will, at a higher rate than everyone else? Does the majority rule? What if the majority decides to take all of his money, except for $100,000? Is that moral?
Suppose in a Deistic society, there is an active minority who advocate for organized religions, and seek to evangelize. Once again, to the Deist, these organized religions actually represent false religions, which claim to have spoken for God, and have not, and make many erroneous and dangerous statements about God. Such organized religions lead to much confusion and suffering, for countless individuals who are deceived by them.
So, is it moral to ban all proselytization for non-Deistic religions? What if the ones doing the proselytizing do not stop? Is it moral to kill or imprison them, to prevent the suffering and deception of the millions who may potentially be deceived by them?
Going further, is it permissible to take the newborn children of those who follow organized religions, and raise them in Deist families, so that their parents do not get an opportunity to lie to them, and deceive them about reality? Should all non-Deistic religions be banned, because they lead to suffering, delusion, and perpetuate blasphemy against the Deistic God? Does the Deistic God find the Deistic society guiltless, even though they tolerate the minority of organized religionists blaspheming Him, when they could prevent it?
Suppose a group advocates for a maximal view of government, wherein the government should be in charge of many social programs, control the economy to ensure fair prices, and on that basis require a high tax rate from its citizens. Is it a sin to join that group, and attempt to implement a socialist government over other human beings?
Suppose that another group advocates very limited government, and suggests that the goodwill of other private citizens will provide a social safety net for the vulnerable in the society. Is it a sin to join this group, and attempt to implement a Libertarian government over other human beings? Is government legitimate at all? Or does God want there to be no government, and is the concept of human beings ruling over others actually illegitimate? Is it the will of God that powerful groups use force to rule over other human beings, raise militaries, provide services, and extract taxes?
Can governments interfere in the affairs of other nations? Can a very powerful government attempt to police other nations, or even the entire world, in order to ensure that no group is being treated in a way they disapprove of, or work to export their values through foreign affairs?
Can a government kill or imprison a person for not paying taxes? Can a government seize, in theory, all the wealth of its citizens in order to more properly manage it? Can a government make owning private property illegal, for what they have determined to be the betterment of society?
A Deist can attempt to use reasoning to arrive at an answer for the short selection of problems presented above. However, they cannot arrive at an infallible assurance that they are ever right about any of their conclusions on so many different moral issues that present themselves in the complex world of humanity. Attempting to discern a morality that one can be absolutely sure is entirely pleasing to God without special revelation is an exercise in chasing the wind, and leads to interminable debates between individuals both attempting to use their own reasoning to discern morality, yet coming to different conclusions.
The main flaw in Classical Deism is that one can never have infallible assurance that they are in fact living in a way that pleases God. Instead, they can, at best, use reasoning to arrive at a morality, and then attempt to follow it. However, (perceived) sincerity does not guarantee success in such an effort. Very few people would think that they are insincere, or evil, and yet, those who perceive themselves as sincere find themselves on the exact opposite sides of major moral issues.
Revealed religion usually claims that God has communicated to mankind which "side" to take on at least the major moral issues in life, in a codified, definite way. This is a major advantage over Deism, as without revealed morality, a Deist is left trying to please a God who they cannot hear from, do not know the moral will of in any definite way, and only have a speculative hope is merciful, based on what they perceive virtue to be.