Becoming a Deist
by R.T. Longoria de Voltair, Ph.D.
I’m writing this letter at Bob Johnson’s request. I had deistic sentiments my whole life, but found that my worldview had a name about 10 years ago. I don’t think I ever “became” a Deist. I would say, rather, that I discovered a philosophy that was in line with what I already believed.
I was born into a Catholic family and attended Catholic schools for elementary, high school, and college. As a youth, I would spend some of my leisure time watching the Discovery and Science Channels and learning about nature and physics. I loved learning and in school I learned all about Christianity generally and Roman Catholicism specifically. But I never really believed what I was being told. I had particular problems accepting transubstantiation, original sin, the infallibility of the pope, virgin births, ascension into the heavens, and walking on liquid water. It simply did not fit into my understanding of how the world operated. Secondarily, the prohibition on the use of contraception seemed stupid and the proscription on female priests seemed misogynist. Doubt was always present and my mother would marvel at how I could get a C in religion class but straight A’s in everything else.
It was in a world history class while I was reading about the Enlightenment that I first saw the term Deism. It immediately sparked my interest and curiosity. I read Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Matthew Tindal, John Toland, Voltaire, Shaftsbury, and others. As I read I saw that my views had already been articulated centuries ago. There was no doubt that I was a Deist. I was committed to using my reason to understand the universe. I was naturally pensive, quiet, and logical. Indeed, I once had an employer tell me that I reminded her of Spock from Star Trek. Logical is certainly one of my traits and I think for that reason Deism was the perfect theological philosophy for me.
I learned that religious wars engulfed the Dark Ages while Catholics and Protestants fought for power. The Enlightenment came along and told people that tolerance was a better path and that religious fanaticism was dangerous. This was a fantastic breakthrough in human morality and one that I support. But it seems to me that this is insufficient as a moral standard. Tolerance is like telling someone, “I hate you, but I’ll deal with it and refrain from killing you because of our differences.” Acceptance is a much higher standard of morality. When a person is ready to accept someone, despite their differences, as a full member of human society we are acting in a just manner. It is like saying, “If I were in your shoes, I’d like to be treated with dignity and respect. So I’ll treat you the same way I would like to be treated.” Throughout history Deists always seemed to be telling others to stop their petty fighting over ridiculous and non-sensical beliefs.
I felt so strongly that Deism was a better moral path that I changed my surname. This is something that many people do. Muslims sometimes take the name Mohammed when they convert. Christians take a confirmation name that symbolizes their link to Christianity. People do this to tell the world, “This is what I believe.” There is no shame in that and I want people to know what I believe in. Eventually, I would get excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church, but that is a different story.
It seems to me that very smart people are drawn to Deism. This isn’t because Deism will give you all the answers and tell you the Truth, but it is a foundation for seeking the right answers and provides a framework for organizing the world. Ultimately each person has to find their own answers based on what they find reasonable. This strikes a chord with people who are individualists and with those who believe that humanity can be made better. My love of knowledge caused me to pursue my education until I completed a Ph.D. last year. I’m now a college professor and committed to using my mind for the betterment of humankind.
R.T. Longoria de Voltair, Ph.D.
December 12, 2004
A very extraordinary event occurred earlier
this month. I was
corresponding with an expert on Canon law from the
However, the chorus song of “We want you back” must not be taken as the full position of the Church. This speciously seems like a very accepting doctrine and one that is consistent with their emphasis on an all-merciful god. Rather we should hear the full chant, “We want you back, but only after you agree with our position.” This stance is one that seeks to coerce people into accepting their dogma and to exclude those who disagree with it. Those Catholics who seek to leave the community will, nevertheless, still find it difficult to do so with any sense of formality.
Because, in the words of the Church official, no one is “placed outside of the community” severing one’s relationship can only be a one sided affair. Though the individual believes he has left, the Church still considers him a member. At most the individual can only be excommunicated. This is the most severe sanction the Church can impose on a member, but even this person is still in the community though he is as excluded as he can possibly be.
To be excommunicated one must violate Canon
law not just materially but formally.
Many people can commit a material sin, that is do something wrong
in the eyes of the Church but not be considered culpable for that sin.
People born in
Indeed, there are several mechanisms by which a person will not be held accountable for their actions. First, a person must have the full the use of their reason; this means that children and those who are otherwise mentally disabled cannot be held accountable. Secondly, a person must have sufficient moral liberty; this means that a person must not have been coerced into taking an action. The action must have been taken of their own free will to be held accountable. Thirdly, the person must be aware of the law and of the penalties.
This last criterion is not as easy as one may suppose. One must became a novice expert on Canon law to incur the penalty. They must not only know what precisely is prohibited, but also know exactly what the sanction is for committing the action. Heresy and apostasy are violations of Canon law that incur the sanction of latae sententia excommunication, and they are the ones committed if one adheres to the traditional Deist views. In the case of excommunication one must not hold to popular misconceptions about the penalty, but understand the penalty and what it entails from the Church’s own perspective.
Once this knowledge is acquired there is yet one more hurdle. One must choose not to cease in the prohibited action. One must be obstinate and recalcitrant. Only with these four criteria met can one be culpable and incur the sanction. It is only then that the sin is consummated and that one is formally in violation of Canon law.
In this regard the Church does make every attempt not to punish its members. And even the sanction of excommunication is designed to “rescue the single lost sheep.” It is imposed so that the person will realize their errors and return to the herd. But verily I say to you, no reasonable person should wish to be a member of a herd. The tyranny of the priestly shepard over his “sheeple” must be resisted. Sheep are mindless creatures that obey their masters, but people are rational creatures with a capacity for judgment and a will of their own. Eat from the tree of knowledge, form your own opinions and live independently. This is the American way. Freedom from all forms of tyranny, mental and physical, is why we revolted. It is a value that must be defended.
Moreover, error and sin are relative. The Deist could as easily argue that the popish are erroneous and sinful. But I suggest no such thing. Arguments between those with different theological views are intractable. Instead, we should hold steadfast to a higher morality than the Church itself adheres to. To accept those with different views into our lives, by letting them share in our camaraderie, is a stronger moral position than excluding those who disagree with us. I believe the Church to be like a child who says, “I don’t want to play with you anymore.” The Deist is and should be above such petty bickering.
The survey shows a giant step forward for Deism in the fact that it actually uses the word "Deist" and for the very significant raw numbers it shows as representing the number of people who are Deists. In reality, the number of Deists is actually higher than the survey shows because the survey uses an outdated definition of Deist. For a more accurate definition please see our Deism Defined page.
Click here to read the actual survey. (It's in PDF)
One of the reasons the freethinker Giordano Bruno was tortured and murdered by being burned alive by the Catholic Church during the Inquisition was that he said the Universe is eternal and infinite which violates the superstitions in the Bible found in Genesis. This new study vindicates Bruno.
Obama supporters forget that when all is said and done, Obama is just another politician. This article shows he's proving that he is nothing but a politician by doing more than any other president to mix religion and government, especially through giving tax-dollars to religious organizations.