Help on Tele2, tariffs, questions

[from lat. deus - God and directly from the French. déistes - deists], a rationalistic religious and theological direction of the New Age, whose followers opposed themselves, on the one hand, to atheists, on the other hand, to followers of certain Christs. denominations.

The first evidence of D. dates back to 1564, when the Calvinist P. Vire published “Christian Instruction,” where he mentions a “gathering” of those who themselves called themselves “deists.” He calls their teaching worse than the teaching of the Turks and Jews, with whom they are united by the denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ and the redemptive nature of His sacrifice. According to Vire, some of the deists, in addition to this, deny the immortality of the soul, and others deny the participation of God in the destinies of the world and people, so that some of them are closer to the Stoics, and others to the Epicureans. Vire expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that some of his educated contemporaries were willingly saturated with the atheistic poison of the deistic variety, i.e., already in the 16th century. Deists were a very significant phenomenon in a fairly wide spectrum of Europe. freethinking. Nevertheless, their terminological identity remained blurred for a long time, since back in the 17th century. the concepts of “deist” and the newly formed “theist” (having a single semantic origin) were often interchangeable - some deists willingly called themselves theists; this is a mixture of the concepts of “theism” and “D.” can be traced back to the last. decades of the 18th century Despite this, in the 2nd half. XVII century D. denoted a completely identifiable direction of religion. thoughts in England, as evidenced by the polemical “Letter to a Deist” by E. Stillingfleet, Bishop of Worcester, who defined his general addressee as one who recognizes the existence of God and his Providence, but belittles the importance of the Holy. Scriptures and Christ. religion as a historical form of worship. In 1755-1757 J. Leland published a fundamental op. “A Look at the Major Deistic Authors,” in which he subjected Christ to a detailed analysis. positions and views of leading representatives of English deistic thought. Confessional polemicists themselves contributed to the erosion of the identity of deists, often confusing them (partly for objective reasons, partly by association, and partly to enhance criticism) with Socinians, Unitarians, skeptics, and even atheists. Much less consideration was given to D.'s more objectively significant connections with Freemasonry.

Definitions and content of the concept D.

All scientists who have attempted to determine the essence of D. emphasized as its main characteristic the desire to reduce the integral Christ. creeds, dogma and Tradition to several components, selected on the basis of the uniquely implemented “principle of economy”. According to the authoritative and often cited definition of the Oxford English Dictionary. language, D. is “belief in the existence of a Supreme Being as the source of ultimate existence, combined with the denial of Revelation and the supernatural doctrines of Christianity; natural religion" (A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles / Ed. J. A. H. Murray. Oxf., 1897. Vol. 3. R. 152). Some researchers believe that such a standard interpretation of D., undoubtedly significant, is still not entirely correct for the reason that some deists recognized both Revelation and Christ. dogmas (in England they sometimes called themselves "Christian deists"). Even less correct is the popular opinion (partially going back to the testimony of Vire), according to which deists are those who, while recognizing Divine creation, deny Divine providence, since not all of those who were considered followers of D. adhered to this view.

The real scope of deistic reductionism is evidenced by S. Clark, who, in the introduction to the treatise “Discourse concerning the existence and attributes of God, the obligations imposed by natural religion, and the truth and reliability of the Christian revelation” (1704-1705), identifies 4 types of deists: 1) those who recognize Divine existence and all Divine attributes, the creation of the world, as well as the action of Providence in it, while rejecting Divine Revelation and relying only on natural knowledge of God (Clarke. 1823. P. 141-146); 2) those who recognize everything mentioned, denying, in addition to Revelation, also the immortality of the soul and posthumous reward (Ibid. P. 146-149); 3) those who admit that God controls the natural world, but believe that He, being deprived of the “anthropomorphic” attributes of goodness and justice, is indifferent to the progress of mankind; they also deny everything that the deists of the first 2 directions deny (Ibid. P. 149-150); 4) those who deny, along with everything listed above, also that God directly rules the natural world (Ibid. P. 150-155).

Since all varieties of D. deny at least the significance of Revelation, from the theological point of view. D. can be defined as a theological direction that reduces all knowledge of God to the possibilities of natural theology, the edge of tradition. confessional theological systems constituted only a part, not the whole. This definition is confirmed by the differentiation of D. and theism in the 2nd edition of the “Critique of Pure Reason” by I. Kant, which, although it narrows D. to transcendental theology (consideration of the Deity from the concepts of pure reason alone), leaving natural theology for theism, and releases him after. the indicated confusion of concepts from reliance on Revelation, rightly assumes (based on the different understanding of the Divine principle in theism and D.) that “it would be more lenient and fair to say that the deist believes in God, and the theist believes in the living God” (Kant I. Criticism pure reason. M., 1994. P. 381).

From a historical point of view. D. was much more voluminous than just a theological position, and integrated a number of characteristics of spiritual non-confessional religions. movement, which was conceived by its leaders as a “religion of the enlightened” (in Germany, for example, the concepts of “deist” and “enlightenmentist” were synonymous), opposed to Christ competing with each other. denominations, which were generally perceived by deists as “religion for the masses.” Modern researcher K. Gestrich identifies the following main features of what could be called “deistic religiosity”: 1) rejection of claims to the absoluteness of any religion, denomination or religions. denominations; 2) the insistent demand of religions. tolerance and freedom of conscience; 3) emphasizing the equivalence of true piety in Christianity, Judaism and Islam; 4) development of principles for comparing (or even combining) these and other religions; 5) recognition of a certain hidden community of rational worshipers of God at all times in all countries; 6) the assumption of the existence of a universal ur-religion of humanity, natural-reasonable and monotheistic, later on. was distorted by myths, superstitions and priestly interests; 7) recognition of the complete sufficiency of the basic content of this proto-religion for religions. modern needs person; 8) rejection of supernatural Revelation or recognition of it as only an educational resource for people who do not think independently; 9) insistence on the need for such knowledge of God, which would be completely independent of any dogmatic traditions and religions. in-tov; 10) identification of the true content of all religions with the moral and ethical component; 11) development of biblical exegesis, through which the meanings of biblical texts are “purified” with the help of historical, natural science or moralistic criticism; 12) the idea of ​​the Divine as the subject of consideration of philosophy (or specifically metaphysics); 13) rejection of the general confessional triadology and Christology and sympathy for Unitarianism and Arianism (Gestrich . 1981. S. 394).

Until now, the characterization of Deism by one of his early researchers, G.V. Lechler, has not lost its significance, who wrote: “Deism is... in accordance with its concept, elevation on the basis of free research and relying on the speculation of natural religion to the norm and rule for any positive religion” (Lechler. 1841. S. 460). It is this reliance on natural religion as the ultimate truth and measure for “positive” religions, which made criticism of the latter possible, that should be considered the basis for determining the boundaries of religious freedom and separating it from other varieties of religious free-thinking, no matter how close to it.

Prerequisites and predecessors D.

Although some researchers find the prerequisites of D. in ancient reflections on religion (primarily in the natural theology of the Stoics and Epicureans), the signs of real D. significantly limit these analogies, since they allow us to see in it primarily an “enlightenment” reaction to complex relationships Christ confessions, one of the first experiments of the so-called. dialogue of religions (with the implied task of criticizing Christianity), as well as a focus on demythologizing the Bible and a complete revision of the significance of the entire Tradition. The main position of the deists - the opposition of the true core of all “positive religions” in the form of non-confessional natural religion to everything that they considered increments to it - could not have had predecessors in antiquity, in which there was no idea of ​​confessionality itself.

The real prerequisites for the deistic position are easily discovered among the humanists of the 15th-16th centuries, who identified the true content of religion with morality and contrasted it with “incrementations” in the form of dogmas, rituals and churchliness. The development of a religion “based on reason” and opposed to historical religions is already evident in T. More, in his “Utopia” (1516). Although Protestantism was in direct opposition to humanism, one of its important tendencies also turned out to be in demand: we are talking about an explicit distinction between fundamental (i.e., those necessary for a person to be saved) and secondary provisions of the doctrine, which was borrowed by J. Aconzio from Germany and transferred to D.’s homeland, England, so that it was no longer easy for the deists to further narrow the circle of basic “necessary truths.” The contrast between “religion of reason” and “positive” religion is found in J. Bodin, who in “The Conversation of Seven on the Inner Mysteries of Sublime Things” (Colloquium Heptaplomeres de abditis rerum sublimium, 1593) identified a “reasonable minimum of faith” in the form of assumptions of the existence of God, immortality soul and posthumous reward, taking beyond its boundaries the doctrinal differences of all “empirical” religions and confessions. Undoubtedly, the influence on the formation of D. and B. Spinoza - primarily as one of the first “biblical critics”. Finally, a contemporary of E. Cherbury, the founder of D., was the famous Goll. jurist G. Grotius, who identified the core of the “natural law” of existing “positive legislation”, considering it as the scale of their truth. It was not difficult to apply the same methodological scheme to religions.

English deists.

Already in the 18th century. Danish historians began their chronicle with E. Cherbury (1583-1648). In the treatise “On Truth” (De Veritate), he set out the main principles of D. as the basis of natural religion, which corresponds to the requirements of reason and which “positive” religions can also correspond to the extent of their agreement with reason. Reason requires the recognition of principles determined (here the use of the epistemology of R. Descartes is obvious) of a kind of religion. innate ideas (ideae innatae, notitiae communes), which can be found in religion. sayings of all peoples and the truth of which is derived from the “consent of peoples” (consensus gentium) - a neologism, undoubtedly deliberately opposed to traditions. Catholic “consent of the fathers” (consensus patrum). There are 5 innate religions. ideas-truths: the existence of the Supreme Being; the need to honor him; virtue and piety as the best form of worship of God; the need for repentance as atonement for wrongdoing; the existence of posthumous retribution. Cherbury did not deny the possibility of Revelation, but believed that the knowledge of these fundamental truths cannot depend on it, moreover, Revelation is intended only for those who have already purified themselves for the perception of the “divine spirit”, therefore, it is redundant. All subsequent historical “accretions” to the ideas of natural religion determine the religions that “tormented” humanity. oppositions, for which dogmas, cults and ministers of the latter are responsible, and religions and confessions themselves are not divided into true and false (according to Cherbury, they are all true because they correspond to “reasonable religion”, and all are false because they deviate from it) , but to more and less perfect.

Although J. Locke is also considered one of the philosophers who influenced the formation of D., this is true only in the sense that he emphasized the need to reconcile Revelation with natural reason; He did not deny the dogmas of Christianity and did not relativize Revelation. In this, his contemporary C. Blunt (1654-1693) differed from him, who in his work “Great Diana of the Ephesians” (Great Diana of the Ephesians, 1680) openly elevated the sacraments of the Church to the “deception of the priests” and proclaimed that “in religion, morality is higher than sacrament."

Similar beliefs were held by J. Toland (1670-1722), who in “Christianity without Mysteries” (1696) stated that there is nothing true in Christianity that could contradict natural reason, and those provisions of Scripture that do not meet this condition correspond, are not authentic. In his later Letters to Serena (1704), Adeisidaemon (1708), and Nazarenus (1718), he covertly disavowed Christ. doctrine under the guise of criticism of paganism (primarily the doctrine of the immortality of the soul), revised the history of Christianity (finding its true core in the teachings of the Ebionites, who denied the divinity of Jesus Christ), denied the apostolic origin of the hierarchy and openly contrasted the religion of “reasonable people” with the religion of the crowd. Toland highly respected E. E. Shaftesbury (1671-1713), who was considered a great authority among deists along with other leaders of the Whig party (J. Halifax, J. Buckingham, G. Mulgrave, R. Sunderland, A. Essex, etc.) and whose contribution to the formation of D. was associated primarily with his ethical teaching (op. “An Inquiry Concerning Virtue and Merit”). According to Shaftesbury, any good deed contains a reward in itself, while the expectation of posthumous reward for it (which constitutes the most important motive of “positive religion”) is its profanation and deprives virtue of any independent value.

A. Collins (1676-1729) in his work “Discourse on the Foundations and Arguments of the Christian Religion” focused on criticizing the patristic interpretation of the Old Testament prototypes, trying to disavow the typological connection of the two Testaments using specific examples. At the same time, T. Woolston (1670-1733) dedicated a special treatise “Discourse on the Miracles of Our Savior” to the exposure of the Gospel miracles, which, from his point of view, with letters. understood are simply meaningless, and in a symbolic sense they represent only allegorical transpositions of Old Testament realities.

M. Tindal (1657-1733) in the book “Christianity is as Ancient as the World” (1730), sometimes even called the “deistic Bible,” systematized D.’s argumentation and thought through possible responses to criticism of his principles. He clearly expressed the main idea of ​​“deistic theology”, according to which God has placed in the heart of every person, regardless of his national and religious affiliation, the truths he needs, which are sufficient for the correct attitude of people both towards themselves and towards their neighbors and which constitute “ natural law"; Jesus Christ only restored this true ancestral religion (that is why His teaching is as ancient as the world), however, in every religion, not excluding Christianity, many later “accretions” have accumulated, from which they must be freed through correct exegesis. In response to the main objection to D., that he contrasts natural religion with “positive”, Tyndale denied the very possibility of divergence between these religions, since natural religion contains “positive” truth and from this “it necessarily follows that natural and revealed religion cannot be distinguished, since what reason demonstrates as worthy of having God as its author must belong to natural religion, and what it demonstrates as unworthy of having God as its author can never belong to true revealed religion" ( Tindal. 1730. R. 220).

T. Morgan (1680-1743) also reflected on the relationship between the two Testaments, who, in the spirit of the Gnostic Marcion, considered it necessary to cleanse Christianity of all the Old Testament content inherited by him (op. “Moral Philosopher: Dialogue of Philalethes, a Christian deist, and Theophan, a Christian Jew " - The Moral Philosopher: In a Dialogue between Philalethes, a Christian Deist, and Theophanes, a Christian Jew, 1737-1740), since, in his opinion, between the nationally limited biblical religion and universalist Christianity there is not continuity, but a gap, and the religion of the New Testament is moralistic and expresses the law of naturalness.

Deists of France, Germany and America

Since the 40s. XVIII century English D. began to lose his former popularity, but he managed to influence many Europeans. and Amer. thinkers. During his stay in England (1726-1728), Voltaire became imbued with the ideas of D., who, on the one hand, sharply criticized the teaching and practice of the Catholic Church, on the other, formulated the principle of “mechanistic theism”, interpreting God (for example, in op. “God and people” - Dieu et les hommes, 1769) as a single rational principle of the movement of the world, functioning like a clockwork. In contrast to him, J. J. Rousseau developed a unique sentimentalist type of D., presented in the “Confession of Faith of the Savoy Vicar” in the novel “Emile” (1762), where the Supreme Being is considered as the source of justice and goodness, faith in which comes not so much from the mind as much as from the heart. In France, D. became (albeit for a very short time) state. religion: Robespierre, who persecuted Catholics and atheists, achieved the introduction by the Convention on May 7, 1794 of the cult of the Supreme Being as a civil religion.

In Germany lands, D.'s ideas became popular after his accession to the Prussian throne in 1740. Frederick II; the most significant representative of Germany. D. is considered to be G. S. Raymarus (1694-1768), in whose essay “Research on the Noble Truths of Natural Religion” (1754) the thesis that true religion is comprehended just as reliably through observation of the human heart and nature was stubbornly defended , as well as through doctrinal catechisms. Raymarus rejected the teachings of St. Apostle as inconsistent with the spirit of Jesus Christ and the meaning of the moral law. Paul on original sin, atonement, justification by faith and predestination. Fragments from Raymarus's treatise "Apology, or Defensive Essay for Reasonable Worshipers of God" (Apologie oder Schutzschrift für die vernünftigen Verehrer Gottes), remaining in the manuscript, were first published in 1774 under the title "On the Admission of Deists" (Von Duldung der Deisten) with comments by G. E. Lessing. The latter’s play “Nathan the Wise” (1779) can be considered as significant an artistic manifesto of D. as Tyndale’s work is its theological expression, primarily due to the allegory of 3 rings proposed by Lessing, corresponding to equal religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam, as well as due to the identification of the Patriarch of Jerusalem as the main negative fanatic character (representatives of two other religions are not so clearly represented).

The influence of D. as a religious frame of mind is obviously present in the works of I. Kant; his “Lectures on Ethics”, “Critique of Practical Reason”, as well as the treatise “Religion within the Limits of Reason Only” express the idea that morality alone constitutes the true content of religion, while its liturgical and theological components do not carry any fundamental value. According to Kant, it is ultimately only human weakness that requires the fulfillment of the moral law to be supported by a belief in an afterlife.

The followers of D. were the founders and first leaders of the United States, among whom are B. Franklin, who recalled in his autobiography how he turned to D. after reading its critics. Franklin repeatedly formulated (with slight variations) “the main points of sound religion” (belief in the Creator of the universe, in His Providence, the need to worship Him, which consists primarily in doing good to His “children”, in the immortality of the soul and in its fair reward after death for her deeds in this life), which deserve respect, no matter in what “sect” they are found. Franklin treated “Jesus of Nazareth” as the creator of the most perfect moral teaching in the entire history of the world, doubting, however, His divinity (see, for example, letter to E. Stiles dated March 9, 1790 - The Works of Benjamin Franklin / Ed. J. Bigelow. N. Y., 1904. Vol. 185-186).

T. Paine, in his treatise “The Age of Reason,” called for a “revolution in the system of religion” and, although he formally recognized the existence of God and the immortality of the soul, according to his own statement, “went through the entire Bible, as a man with an ax goes through a forest, felling trees” ( Payne T. Selected works. M., 1959. P. 347). The name “deist” became so popular in America that even obvious atheists were classified as such.

D.'s critics and his successors in the 19th-20th centuries.

Some scholars of D. are of the opinion that its crisis, which began in the 18th century, was caused by D. Hume’s criticism of the very idea of ​​natural religion as the original ethical monotheism, the essay “Education of the Human Race” by Lessing, in which he conceived the initial human religion in the form the lowest level of religiosity (paganism), as well as Kant’s criticism of natural theology as such. Criticism from the standpoint of “positive religion” should be distinguished from this “criticism from the left.” Already the Lutheran theologian I. Muzeus (1613-1681), positively assessing Cherbury’s appeal to natural reason in religion, noted that he underestimates the corruption of reason itself by the Fall, which does not allow it to be considered as a “mirror” in which divine truths can be reflected without distortion and This eliminates the need for Revelation. In the 18th century S. Butler pointed out that not everything in Scripture can be transparent and understandable to the human mind (and accordingly rejected by it on sufficient grounds) and that biblical texts should be interpreted as a whole, and not separately, as was done in the deistic biblical criticism. G. W. Leibniz easily identified theological errors and heretical, unitarian tendencies in Toland’s “Christianity without Mysteries.” J. Berkeley emphasized that the philosophers themselves (deists) raised the dust that prevented them from discerning the truth of Christianity. Ep. J. Wesley drew attention to the fact that reason is by no means the only organ of knowledge of God, and therefore religion. the feelings that reveal the truth of “positive religion” should be trusted no less than him. The founder of the philosophy of religion, S. von Storchenau, also wrote about the insufficiency of natural religion for knowledge of God and salvation. At the same time, many The authors saw the positive significance of deistic concepts in the fact that without problematizing the concept of religion and distinguishing between natural religion and “positive” religions, the initial philosophy of religion itself would hardly have been motivated, at least in the form of D.’s answer.

Despite varied criticism, D.'s ideas continued to be developed after the era of Enlightenment rationalism. All liberal biblical criticism of the 19th-20th centuries. actually reproduces the “editing” of Scripture by deists from the position that something in the biblical texts is accepted or not accepted as true from the point of view. subjectively understood “natural reason”. The liberal theology of A. von Harnack and E. Troeltsch with its focus on “non-dogmatic Christianity” and criticism of Christianity’s claims to “absoluteness” is also the legitimate heir of D. Much later, the same attitudes in the very influential direction of Christ. “pluralism” (J. Hick, P. Nitter, H. Coward and others) define the main line of “self-denial” of Christianity for the sake of the ideas of “equality of religions,” “tolerance” and “dialogue of religions,” which assumes that Christianity, in order to meet the standards of “natural reason” and political correctness, it must renounce its historical heritage, first of all, the doctrine of the divine uniqueness of Jesus Christ, which clearly interferes with the “dialogue of religions” (at the same time, no concessions are made from other religions in the interests of this “dialogue " not required). A deistic worldview also permeates the work of G. Küng (an admirer of Lessing), who argues that Christianity, in the name of tolerance (again, one-sided), should abandon its doctrinal identity - primarily in Christology.

Source: Viret P. Instruction chrestienne en la doctrine de la loy et de l"evangile: En 3 vol. Gen., 1564; Herbert of Cherbury. De veritate. P., 1624; Stillingfleet E. A Letter to a Deist, in Answer to Several Objections Against the Truth and Authority of the Scriptures. L., 1677; Toland J. Christianity not Mysterious. N. Y., 1978r; A Discourse of the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion. M. Christianity as Old as the Creation. Reimarus S. Die vornehmsten der natürlichen Religion. Leland J. A View of the Principal Deistical Writers. 1-3; Clarke S. A Discourse Concerning the Being and Attributes of Natural Religion, and the Truth and Certainty of the Christian Revelation. Glasgow, 1823; The Age of Reason. T. Discourses on the Miracles of Our Saviour. N. Y., 1978; English materialists of the 18th century: Translated from English. American enlighteners: Trans. from English M., 1968. T. 1; Lessing G. E. Favorites / Join Art. and commentary: A. Gulyga. M., 1980.

Lit.: Lechler G. V. Geschichte des englischen Deismus. Tüb., 1841. Hildesheim, 1965r; Wiezychowski B. Kants Religionsphilosophie und der englische Deismus: Diss. Breslau, 1918; Torrey N. L. Voltaire and English Deists. New Haven, 1930; Orr J. English Deism: Its Roots and its Fruits. Grand Rapids (Mich.), 1934; Robertson J. M. A History of Freethought, Ancient and Modern to the Period of the French. L., 1936. Vol. 2; Stromberg R. N. Religious Liberalism in 18th Cent. England. Oxf., 1954; Schlegel D. Shaftesbury and the French Deists. Chapell Hill, 1956; Morais H. M. Deism in 18th Cent. America. N. Y., 1960; Leslie S. History of English Thought in the 18th Cent.: In 2 vol. L., 1962; Gestrich Chr. Deismus // TRE. 1981. Bd. 8. S. 392-406; Byrne P. Natural Religion and the Nature of Religion: the Legacy of Deism. L.; N.Y., 1989.

V. K. Shokhin

Deism . This term has been used in very different meanings, and so far no precise and generally accepted meaning has been established for it. It was first introduced in the religious, not philosophical, sphere. Deists in the 16th century. began to be called Socinians, who rejected the dogma, Trinity and Divinity of Jesus Christ. In the XVII-XVIII centuries. a number of English thinkers received the name deists, but the unifying principle between them is only the recognition of the unlimited rights of reason, and some reason led to belief in the super-rational secrets of revelation (Locke), others to the denial of miracles (Tyndale), others to pure pantheism ( Toland). Samuel Clarke (1675–1729), in his discussion of the existence and properties of God (vol. II, chapter II), tried to establish four types of deists: 1) those who recognize God, but deny providence; 2) those who recognize God and providence, but deny the existence of any laws and duties other than those established by people themselves; 3) those who recognize God, providence and duties, but deny retribution; 4) recognizing and retribution, but denying principle, authority and Revelation. Kant (in the Critique of Pure Reason) quite arbitrarily defined the deist as a thinker who, under the first principle of everything, thinks of an infinite force immanent in matter and the blind cause of all phenomena. In modern times, some people began to associate the term D. with theism. In the Book of Wisdom of Solomon, in the Sibylline books (the Jewish Sibyl) they wanted to see D. But mainly by D. they understand: 1) recognition of natural religion with the denial of the need or actual existence of supernatural (revealed) religion and 2) recognition of God, who created the world, but not hunting for him. A representative of the first form of D. can be called Herbert Cherbury (1581–1646). He outlined his religious views in two works: De veritate and De religione gentilium. All people, according to Herbert, are innate in certain positions that contain indisputable truth. This is notitiae communes. They are characterized by the following features: 1) universal acceptance - that which in the right mind of all people has always been and is considered true cannot be false; 2) primacy or, so to speak, immediacy - for example, it amazes us, the beauty of something with a nervous impression, regardless of the analysis of an elegant object: 3) independence and non-derivativeness: 4) immediate persuasiveness. In the religious sphere, Herbert recognized the following notitiae communes: 1) There is a supreme being (nupe supremum). Everyone ascribes to him eternity, omnipotence, wisdom, goodness, bliss, etc. d. 2) Everyone is obliged to honor this supreme being for the benefits received from Him. This reverence - mental or expressed in rituals - is religion. 3) The best worship of God consists of virtue in connection with piety. 4) Man has an innate aversion to evil and hence the resulting conviction that every sin committed must be corrected by repentance. To assert that a person is deprived of the opportunity to appease the deity if he has angered him with his vices and crimes is blasphemy, because his goodness is thus denied. 5) Our existence does not end with earthly life, after which comes fair retribution for our actions. Not only do all religions agree on this, but immediate consciousness and the voice of conscience also convince. Herbert views atheism either as a type of madness, or as a protest against the unworthy representation of a deity. Such ideas, in his opinion, arose as a result of the gradual mixing of the creature with the creator, which mixing was greatly facilitated by priests, legislators and philosophers. Herbert does not deny the possibility of revelation (he makes it clear that he himself published his book De veritate only after receiving an approving divine sign), but a revelation received by one, in his opinion, can never be obligatory for another. Another form of D. has been very common since the 18th century, but it has not been presented by anyone in the form of a strict and consistent system. D. XVIII century in France it was some kind of intermediate principle between atheism and theism. D., like theism, recognized the existence of God, but placed God, like Epicurus, in some kind of transcendental void and, together with atheism, sought to explain everything that happens in the world exclusively from natural causes. Voltaire and Rousseau were called deists (but not in the strict sense). Kant can be called a deist (again with limitations). At times, perhaps, D. was a hypocritical atheist. Darwin said that he did not raise the question of the existence of God, a question solved by so many great minds, but that from the fact that God exists, it does not follow that he should interfere in earthly affairs. Deists are essentially rationalist theologians. They talk about God, Christ, divine love, but they deny revelation, miracles, prophecies. They deny supernatural providence, but this means that they deny all providence, because providence in general consists either in the supernatural improvement of being, or in the supernatural correction of the world order upset by finite creatures. Sometimes, even now, pantheistic and close to atheism teachings are named after D. Criticism of D. Since D. is brought together and identified with other teachings (pantheism, theism), everything that is said against or for these teachings is directed against or for D. An independent philosophical direction is D., as a doctrine that denies historical revelation and - even more broadly – ​​fishing in general. Arguments asserting the unfoundedness of such a denial are directed against D. in the proper sense. D. denies the significance of historical revelation. But we have before us the undoubted fact that a person usually turns out to be unable to develop sublime moral concepts and monotheistic ones through his individual efforts. representation. Therefore, he needs help, revelation. On the other hand, direct revelation and in essence should not be available to sinners, and then, if a supernatural means can be replaced by a natural one, then we usually think that a means of the latter kind should be used. Historical revelation is communicated to people from generation to generation in a natural way. The supernatural amazes and frightens. The natural can always be the subject of calm and cool study. Thus, people can calmly reflect on the content of historical revelation and decide with their conscience and reason whether it has a supernatural or natural origin. Therefore, we must admit that what is needed is historical revelation. And anyone who believes in the possibility of revelation in general, in the possibility of providence, must also recognize the fact of the existence of historical revelation. But radical D. also denies providence. This denial, if carried out consistently, must lead to both the denial of progress and the denial of hope for the triumph of good. At whose expense is the spiritual rise of humanity taking place? Progress would be contrary to the law of causality if there were no providence. Then, if human freedom were not regulated by divine providence, evil would grow and grow in the world. It is a natural fact that every evil committed must grow and develop in a natural order. Poets have long noticed this. Failure to invite Eris to Peleus's wedding entails disputes among the goddesses, the abduction of Helen, and the Trojan War. Macbeth's murder of Duncan entails on the part of the former a new series of terrible atrocities and prompts him to fill all of Scotland with blood. The heart of man should be filled with despair at the idea that there is no higher power opposing the growth of evil. But the action of this good power is revealed everywhere in history, and man lives by faith in the triumph of good, that is, by faith in providence. The greatest good of man consists in love for that and in communication with the one who most evokes love, in communication with God. D. removes man from God, takes away creation from the Creator, deprives a son of the Father. Do not pray to God, do not ask Him, say D., but you can only pray to God, and only religion given from above, and not self-invented, can give true peace and delight to the suffering heart.

DEISM

DEISM

(from Latin Deus - God) - a religious and philosophical view, characteristic primarily of the philosophy of the New Age. It itself became widespread in Protestant circles, in particular among the Socinians, who used it to indicate their difference from atheists. In the 17th century D. finds himself in the so-called. natural religion, developed by H. Cherbury, T. Hobbes, and partly by J. Locke. B. Pascal classified deists (along with atheists and libertines) as opponents of Christianity, and J. Bossuet as “hidden atheists.” D. received his highest degree in the philosophy of the Enlightenment. The majority of the French were deists. encyclopedists. In Great Britain, deists include J. Toland, A. Shaftesbury, M. Tindal, and G. Bolingbroke. In Germany, D. Reimarus, M. Mendelssohn, G.E. joined D. Lessing.
In solving the problem of the relationship between God and the world, deists tried to avoid relying on religious dogma and. According to I. Kant, “deists have no faith in God at all, but only the recognition of an original being or a higher cause.” According to D. Diderot, a deist is one who believes in God, but denies all Revelation. As the first cause, God created immutable laws that he follows. At the same time, according to deists, God is not immanently present in creation, being completely different from it, just as a watchmaker is different from the watch he makes and winds. Revelation is verified by reason and is either rejected or accepted depending on the latter. The world follows the eternal plan. All events occurring in it are predetermined. The purpose of human existence and its highest duty is the laws of nature created by God. On the one hand, D. opposed himself to theism, which proceeded from the immanence of God to the world, which recognized the direct presence of Providence in world events. On the other hand, D. opposed pantheism, which identified God and nature. D. assumed religious tolerance and rejection of fanaticism. Beyond the “universal religion,” he often allowed for a “private” religion, conditioned by the traditions and habits of a particular people or social class.
In relation to philosophy, D. is purely historical, although many modern naturalists profess it in an unreflected form.

Philosophy: Encyclopedic Dictionary. - M.: Gardariki. Edited by A.A. Ivina. 2004 .

The same ideas, but in a more rationalistic form, were expounded by the English politician and philosopher E. Herbert Cherbury in his “Treatise on Truth...”, published in Paris in 1624. This book is usually considered the first document of deism (although it contains , as in Bodin's work, this term is not mentioned). Refusing to search for any super-reasonable truths in the Bible (which was inherent in the Socinians) and completely breaking with the Christian dogmas of the Incarnation, atonement, resurrection, etc., Herbert considers faith in God to be a manifestation of “general concepts” innate to man (notitiae communes ), affirming the existence of a supreme being, whose veneration is necessary for human morality, unthinkable without the concept of the immortality of human souls, etc. This precedes Christianity and all other specific religions, which contain truth only to the extent that they correspond to this ancient “true Catholic” religion.

In subsequent decades, deism became an influential philosophical and religious movement in England. A follower of Herbert Cherbury, C. Blount (1654-93), in his “Summary Account of the Deists Religion” (1693), denied miracles and prophecies. Revelation and directly called his views deistic. But even before this book appeared, Bishop Stillingfleet spoke out against deism in his “Letter to a Deist” (1677). In 1678, the Cambridge Platonist R. Kedworth, in his essay “The True Reason of the World,” introduced the Greek term “theist,” etymologically identical to the term “deist”; in philosophical and theological polemics, some deists called themselves theists (these concepts were fixed by the 18th century; Diderot stated that if he accepts faith in Revelation, then deism denies it). The highest deism was found in the works of J. Toland, A. Collins (the author of the term “free-thinking” of the first century), J. Tyndall, G. Bolingbroke, published in the beginning. and 1st floor 18th century Rejecting the distinction between “counter-reason” and “super-reason” dating back to Thomas Aquinas, these philosophers approached with rationalistic criteria not only the Old Testament, but also the New Testament, interpreting them from the standpoint of natural religion and viewing positive religions as a clerical distortion of its simple and clear principles. And although they essentially rejected it, the leaders of the English church saw them as atheists. In addition to Bishop Stillingfleet (who also polemicized with Locke), Bishop Butler (1692-1752), J. Berkeley, and S. Clarke criticized deism. The moral and aesthetic variety of deism is presented by A. Shefstderi. T.n. “Christian deists” - T. Chubb (1679-1746), T. Morgan (1743) and others tried to combine the principles of deism with some provisions of Christian doctrine. Hume is peculiar: the author of “The Natural History of Religion” recognizes the regularity of the idea of ​​a “higher mind”, “some intelligent cause” and an “intelligent creator”, but at the same time undermines the principles of deism with his skepticism and assertion of the fictitious nature of “natural religion”, believing that in The basis of religion is human, most often stimulated by fear.

Deistic movement in France in the 17th century. closely intertwined with the influential skepticism here. Its bearers were freethinkers (libertines), although their Christianity (Catholicism) did not reach the sharpness that was inherent in English deism. At the end of the 17th century. deism was popularized thanks to P. Bayle (article “Vire” in his “Historical and Critical Dictionary”). In the 18th century the influence of deism was especially evident in Voltaire, who usually called himself a theist. French materialists of the 18th century. Diderot (who went through the stage of deism in his philosophical development), Holbach and others subjected deism to uncompromising criticism. However, Rousseau, who rejected the traditional, in the “Confession of Faith of the Savoy Vicar”, included in the pedagogical novel “Emile, or On Education”, formulated an emotionally charged version of deism: the supreme divine being is the source of justice and goodness, in him the requirement is not so much intelligence, but hearts. A follower of Rousseau, Robespierre, who rejected both traditional Christianity and atheism, at the height of the French Revolution, insisted on the introduction by the Convention (May 7, 1794) of the cult of the Supreme Being as the civil religion of France.

Deism in Germany in the 18th century developed most intensively after Frederick II came to the throne in 1740. The works of English deists and their opponents were published in German translations, free thinkers (Freidenker) appeared, among them G. Reimarus (1694-1768), theologian and enlightenment philosopher, who spoke from the position of natural religion against both church orthodoxy and French materialism. For the further fate of deism, G. Lessing’s work “Education of the Human Race” (1780) played a significant role. Valuing primarily the moral content of religion, Lessing believed that the Old Testament testifies to a rougher moral state of humanity and corresponds to its childhood, the New Testament speaks of a greater moral maturity of humanity, corresponding to its youth; in the next, third stage, he will reach a perfect moral state - this will be the “Eternal Gospel.” Kant also paid a certain tribute to deism, delimiting it from theism, as the author of “Religion within the Limits of Reason Only” (1793).

Views of the most prominent North American philosophers of the 2nd half. 18th century-B. Franklin, T. Jefferson, T. Paine and others were formed mainly under the influence of English deists and French educators. Under their influence (as well as the first American president, George Washington, who sympathized with deism), the US Constitution (1787) clearly stated the complete separation of church and state, and a religious system was established in the country.

The concept of deism is also used in a broader sense to characterize such a relationship between God and the world, in which the role of God is extremely minimized, so that he becomes only a guarantor of the strength of the laws revealed by science. P. Museus in 1667 used the term “naturalist” to characterize the views of deists, and C. Montesquieu, at the very beginning of his main work “On the Spirit of Laws” (1748), clearly formulated this most important idea of ​​deism: “...There is an original mind; laws are the relations existing between him and various beings, and the mutual relations of these various beings. God relates to the world as creator and preserver; he creates according to the same laws by which he protects; he acts according to these laws because he knows them...” (Montesquieu Sh. Selected works. M., 1955, p. 163). With this broader interpretation, some views of Descartes, Hobbes, Leibniz, Locke and many others are usually classified as deism. However, the boundaries between deism, theism, and even more so pantheism among these and other philosophers are often very vague. For deists, it should be recognized that the existence of God is atypical, the cosmological proof dating back to Aristotle is more typical, but the most characteristic and even specific for them was the physical and theological proof, which grew stronger with the success of human activity, especially in the creation of mechanisms (starting from the hours of 14-15 centuries) and in revealing the mechanical laws of the world. Hence the enormous role of Newtonian heaven-earth mechanics, which gave many deists of the 18th century. the main arguments for the substantiation of physico-theology - only a “higher mind” could create such a complex and clearly functioning heavenly-earthly one.

As the principle of religious tolerance triumphed and the historical understanding of religion developed, the influence of deism in the countries of Western Europe fell sharply to the end. 18th century Nevertheless, religious in the 19th and 20th centuries. remained specific with historical deism. There are also deistic tendencies in the views of some natural scientists, who emphasize the natural (“reasonable”) order of the universe.

Lit.: Orbinsky S. English deists of the 17th and 18th centuries. - “Notes of the Novorossiysk University”, year 2, vol. 3, issue. 1. Odessa, 1868; Rogovin S. M. Deism and David Hume. M., 1908; Meerovsky B.V. English deism and John Locke. - “Philosophical Sciences”, 1972, no. 4; Zeckler W. V. Geschichte des englischen Deismus. Stuttg., !981; Hofick Z. Die Freidenker, oder die Represäntanten der religiösen Aufklärung in England, Frankreich und Deutschland. Bern. 1853-55; Rinnsal Ch. De. Philosophie religieuse: de la théologie naturelle en France et en Angleterre. P., 1864; Sayous Ed. Les déistes anglais et le christianisme (1696-1738). P., 1882; Religionsphilosophie des Herbert von Cherbury, hrsg. von H. Scholz. Giessen, 1914; Tùrrey N. Z. Voltaire and the English deists. New Haven-Oxf., 1930; Ort J. English deism. Its roots and fruits. Grand Rapids, 1934; Stephen Leslie. History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, v. 1-2, L., 1962.

Deists do not believe in miracles, scriptures, or messengers from above. There are no angels or demons. There are no leaders and no churches. So, what is deism? How did it come about? What is its influence on modern religions? More details in the material.

Deism of the Enlightenment: historical information

The idea of ​​thought dates back to the 17th century, when some members of the English church expressed distrust of a number of principles of the Christian faith that seemed to contradict common sense and the laws of nature. Deism arose and reached its peak during the Enlightenment.

At that time, Europe experienced an atmosphere of religious freedom, which contributed to the spread of scientific knowledge. It was then that the basic principle of this belief was laid down: classical deism in philosophy is the belief that God created the Universe and has not interfered with its development since then.

Development of Belief

Deism was popular among the leaders of the American Revolution. Thus, Benjamin Franklin was a fan of deism. He wrote: “I was about 15 when books against deism came into my hands. It so happened that they influenced me in the opposite sense from the intended one. The deist arguments seemed to me much stronger than the refutations (anti-deist arguments).”

Philosophical deism influenced continental Europe during the French Revolution. At that time, Notre Dame Cathedral was renamed the "Temple of Reason".

Over time, other schools of thought developed under the umbrella of deism, including Christian deism, the belief in deistic principles coupled with the moral teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, and Pandeism, the belief that God has become the entire universe and no longer exists as a separate being.

The influence of this movement diminished in the 19th and 20th centuries. This was probably due to the development of science and humanistic thought, which questioned the belief in God.

Recently, the influence of deism has been increasing. One of the reasons is the growing interest in science and free access to the Internet.

Influence of Deism

Since the second half of the 18th century, deism has used science to justify its position. For example, Isaac Newton was able to explain how the Universe and everything around us works without relying on faith. Many phenomena that man had previously attributed to divine origin were given a simple mechanical explanation. The development of science contributed to the decline of religious faith among the intellectual elite. As a philosopher and mathematician, Descartes reduced God to a “mathematical abstraction.” Reason pushed away faith in mythology and superstition, and deism, as a consequence, quickly developed into atheism. Science seemed to be engaged in an age-old battle with religion.

Works of deists

The classic text for deism is probably Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason, where he states: “I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe in human equality; and I believe that the religious duties are to seek justice, to be merciful, and to try to make our countrymen happy.”

“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, the Roman Church, the Greek Church, the Turkish Church, the Protestant Church or any other church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.”

Do Deists Believe in God?

Deism is, as stated above, a belief that defines God through nature and reason rather than through revelation. Deists, who believe in God, or at least divine providence, may follow some of the principles and practices of Christianity, Judaism, or any other religion.

So why do some deists believe in God at all? Partly because they were raised Christian, and partly because they thought of God as a natural creator and ruler who was able to order the universe.

Some deists have specific religious views. Many of them believe that the big bang was initiated by God, and everything that has happened since then is a consequence of the fact that at the same moment the scientific laws by which the modern world works were created. Deists sometimes believe that God not only initiated all the events that make life on Earth inevitable, but is still responsible for them. They have the right to believe or not to believe in an afterlife. Deistic beliefs generally differ from conventional religion in that the creator god is either not worthy of worship or worship is completely unnecessary. In this freethinking, deism, compared to other religions, is more like atheism.

Fundamental Principles

Deism is the belief in a supreme being who remains unknowable and untouchable. God is seen as the first cause and fundamental principle of rationality in the universe. Deists believe in a nature god, a creator who commanded the universe to operate according to natural laws. Like the “clock god” who initiates the cosmic process, the Universe moves forward without the need for observation. Here are some examples of deist reasoning:

• Some deists believe in Jesus Christ, while others do not. Most focus on the moral teachings of Jesus.
• The Bible is not perceived as the infallible Word of God. Deists refute the evidence for the incarnation of Jesus Christ on earth. They deny the writings of the Apostles and any other "inspired" writings.
• Thus, in deism there are no articles of faith or holy books. They do not believe in Satan, hell or symbols of evil.
• Deism in philosophy is the belief that man has the right to decide what the reasonable path is. Deists call themselves “freethinkers.”
• They reject revelations and visions. In the life of an enlightened deist there is no place for nonsense, miracles and prophecies.

The basic principle of Enlightenment deism: all an individual needs is their own common sense and the ability to contemplate their human condition. Deism believes that precise and unchanging laws define the Universe as independent and self-evident. These laws are revealed through the “light of reason and nature.” Relying on the power of reasoning trades faith for human logic.

Deism, pantheism, atheism, Christianity: differences

The God of deists is completely different from the God considered by traditional Abrahamic religions: God has no personality and does not communicate with people. Deists tend to perceive him as an abstract logical principle rather than an anthropomorphic being with needs and a burning desire to control humanity.

Unlike the Abrahamic religions, atheism shares common ground with deism. This is evident in the fact that both deists and atheists believe that the Bible and other religious works are works of a political nature rather than the holy word of God. Both beliefs claim that there is a naturalistic explanation for almost every phenomenon around us. In fact, the only real difference between atheism and deism is the explanation of the origins of time and space. Deists claim that God created the universe and its rules, but did not and will not do anything else. Atheism denies the existence of any god and, therefore, his involvement in the creation of the Universe. Thus, atheism can be considered as modern deism.

Pantheism in its spiritual essence is also close to deism. Its development history is impressive. In pantheism, God is not represented separately from the world, in itself, since he is immanent, that is, inherent in something. Spinoza expressed himself most accurately in this regard: “God is nature.” Pantheism is most characteristic of Indian philosophical systems.

Deistic beliefs

An analogy often used to explain philosophical deism is that of a watchmaker: a watchmaker creates a watch and designs a mechanism, but the device ends up working on its own.

Instead of believing the Bible, deists typically view the Old Testament as, at best, a historical novel with added supernatural trappings, and the New Testament as pure brainwashing. They regard Jesus and Paul as philosophers who have nothing from the Almighty.

Unlike members of established religions, many deists do not worship God because they see no evidence that he wants to be worshiped. However, deists who still wish to enjoy the trappings of church services can attend Unitarian Universalist congregations, where lack of faith in the Bible is not usually stigmatized.

Many years after the beginning of the existence of mankind, many faiths, their divisions, etc., emerged. There are people who believe in God or some other forces, and there are those who do not believe in anything. Let's get acquainted and understand such concepts as “theism”, “deism”, “pantheism” and “atheism”.

What is theism?

A set of religious ideas about God as a rational being who rules the world.

Theism

This is one of the divisions of faith. Theism is a religious and philosophical worldview that asserts that all living things were created by God and he continues to participate in every possible way in the development of his creatures.

Deism

Also one of the divisions of faith. Deism is a religious and philosophical worldview that recognizes that God created all living things, but denies the manifestation of any supernatural trends.

Pantheism

Pantheism is also a religious and philosophical worldview that asserts that God as something material does not exist. There is only the Universe, which rules the world.

Atheism

Rejection of any belief in God, denial of the existence of supernatural and mystical phenomena.
Comparison of concepts.
All these concepts are different. There are similarities between theism and deism, theism believes that God is directly involved in the creation of humanity and the world as a whole, and deism states that God exists, but does not take any part in the development of his creations, that is, people. Atheism and pantheism are somewhat similar, for pantheism does not represent God in the material plane, but rather the force or the Universe is called God here. We can say that adherents of pantheism do not believe in God, but believe in a substitute for him. But adherents of atheism do not believe in anything at all and in every possible way deny the manifestation of any supernatural phenomena.
Each direction given in this article has been formed over centuries. What's really interesting is that every person has a different worldview. And no one knows exactly what happened before us or will happen after. This riddle is interesting, but at the same time frightening. What is hidden behind this unknown?