Recently, the Deist Alliance responded to a request from Michael Newdow for quotes from the Founding Fathers referencing Deism and God in a specific format. I was the principle author on our response:


Dear Michael Newdow,

We have followed in the news your court cases and efforts to win separation of religion and government, which we hope persons from all religious backgrounds would support due to fairness. We have noticed that the Justices who ruled against you in the Pledge Of Allegiance cases have conceded the point that "under God" is a reference to "ceremonial Deism" that was influential in the founding of the country (and not to Christianity), though the pledge and the phrase "under God" do not go back that far.

We are pleased you have contacted us seeking specific colonial American Deistic references to "a God who sets things in motion and then sits back, not interfering in human affairs", and we recognize that you might be trying to connect the non-interfering beliefs with not being "under God". We are providing you with quotes and sources showing colonial American leaders admitting to being Deists or influenced by Deism, and also a few quotes indicating the non-interfering God ideals, and will let you apply them as you wish. We are doubtful, however, or at least inconclusive that Deists of any time period or type; historical, classic, or modern, would completely deny being "under God", either directly or indirectly.

Deism is a theological subcategory of belief comparable to theism more than it is to Christianity. As such, it has many different interpretations and flavors. It is somewhat difficult to get two Deists to agree on a concise definition as the nature of the belief promotes debate and discussion rather than seeking accord and uniformity. It is this distinction Deists often refer to and champion as Reason. Because the term “God” was often associated with theism, Deists often used other descriptive words to differentiate their position. Supreme Being, Nature’s God, Providence, and Divine Author are but a few of these terms.

The definition you seek is the common one given today by dictionary people, and Deists who thought along these lines would be more inclined to use terms such as First Cause or Prime Mover. Very few Deists of the Colonial period would say something like this. Thomas Paine comes close:



But the dictionary definition has more in common with French Deism, along the lines of Diderot (the universe is Deity, or pandeism) than it does with Colonial American Deism. To even speak of “Colonial American Deism” is too broad a stroke in itself, but we will for sake of brevity.

Colonial American Deism is more of a hybrid between English and French Deism. Whereas English Deism sought a theological outlook that ran in accord with Newtonian physics yet retaining its non-revelatory Deity (the universe is the creation of Deity, or monodeism), American Deism expanded into a much more political flavor. Because the impetus for liberty was the cause of the American Revolution, American Deists believed in a Deity that afforded that political and intellectual liberty. It was contrary to Christianity because European governments declared part of their right to rule from divine favor. In this sense, Colonial American Deists often saw Deity as the source of virtues such as Wisdom, Justice, Reason, Liberty, and Nature. If Plato were to quiz the Colonial American Deists with, “What is the source of Liberty?” the answer would be “Deity”. In this symbiotic relationship, Deity is the source of Liberty, so exercising one’s individual liberty is the best way to honor Deity. If Deity is the source of Reason, exercising one’s individual reason is the best way to honor Deity, and so on.

We know of no formal correspondence in which major Deist political figures declare themselves as Deists. First, it was considered rude by the intellectual elite, an imposition on someone else's free conscience. Second, and more practically, politics is about getting elected, so why alienate any possible voter over something personal like religious or philosophical position. Such Deists were more likely to use the metaphors that any theist wouldn’t object to, such as:

George Washington:





John Adams:




Thomas Jefferson:




So, we have to turn to prominent Deists who did not seek such political ambitions. Of those, there are three that first of all said they were Deists and second wrote about what they thought a Deistic conception of God was. Those three would be Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen.

Benjamin Franklin:


Benjamin Franklin was asked point blank about his religion and answered:



He goes on to say he doubts the divinity of Jesus but considers his moral structure the best to have ever been. From this we can discern that Franklin believes that God certainly created the universe, but what "governing by providence" entails, is open to debate. Some would argue, that Providence is that self-governing mechanism, impervious to human wishes and hopes. Others might contend that Providence is the very "will of God" and is therefore not removed from the goings on. Most Deists would say it is more of the former than the later, but it is not as succinct as the dictionary would have us believe.

Thomas Paine:


Paine's Deism emphasizes the natural Creation and the liberty of conscience. To our knowledge, Paine's conception of Deity isn't one who just retires from the scene, but is rather like the clue giver hoping you can find him. Creation offers the clues, Reason gives you your deductive ability to discover. Without a free conscience, such a game would not be very exciting.

So, God lays out the clues:



And it is up to us to figure out what they mean:



But whether or not God is retired, recluse, or active cannot be entirely known:




However, Paine is a fan of science and allows a bit of that transference here:


Ethan Allen:


Ethan Allen comes closer to what you are seeking. He refers to the Creation as a "stupendous machine", which is contemporary to a Newtonian view of the universe.



And, he is against the idea of predestination, indicating we are moral free agents within this machine as evidenced by his Chapter 2, Section 4 title in his book, Reason, the Only Oracle of Man:



If we conclude that Allen agrees that Providence indicates a "self-governing mechanism", a "stupendous machine", he is quite explicitly saying here that the choices of man have large degree of independence within it. Whether that independence of action indicates an absentee God removed from his creation is difficult to tell. Our deduction says this is not what Allen has in mind.

In summary, we would be cautious in using the dictionary definition. One thing Christian groups attempt to do in discrediting the idea that many of the prominent founders of the country were indeed Deists, is to pull that very definition out of the dictionary and contrast it to the writings of these men. While some Deists may be very comfortable with the dictionary definition, not all Deists are. We do not think the men of this period would be either. We are unsure if this helps or not, but at least we are confident that this should give you a better feel for these men and their conceptions about Deism and Deity.

The Deist Alliance
http://deistalliance.org/