I've briefly searched the forums and failed to find much said about deism, a perspective I endorse and support. Much of what I've read regarding the topic hinges more on humanism or disguised atheism.
[My summary of the basic perspective held by Esseans (Society of Esseans International) or Esse simplified]

Esse ("that which truly exists") defines cosmic reality as the interstellar presence whose activity generates an environment of perceived material forms. This tri-part premise can be visualized in the following manner:

The cosmos is like an infinite ocean whose water is in constant motion. Its currents interact with one another as they traverse that cosmic ocean. This interaction produces changes that provide contrasts between past and present states of activity. These contrasts are the essence of experience.

Picture the material realm as a collection of eddies. When those eddies come in contact with each other and in contact with other currents, each changes as a result of that contact. Each now evolves a new state of being different from its former state. If because of its greater complexity, an eddy retains an impression of its former state and an impression of its new state, that eddy develops an awareness of change. Thus, it becomes aware of its experience and aware of its environment. If the complexity of its being permits it to accumulate these awarenesses, it evolves a sense of self as being different from the rest of its environment.

At our essence, each of us is a complex collection of eddies (subatomic activity) functioning cohesively within our human forms. Our cells are made up of molecules that consist of atoms. In turn, those atoms are made up of infinitely smaller particles that we can describe best as no more than particular activities occurring within a given region of interstellar space. We view ourselves as separate entities because no perceivable tangible forms exist between our bodies and the other perceivable aspects of the material realm. Just as we no not see the air that exists between our eyes and the words on this page, we do not perceive the existence of the spatial fabric between our bodies and the other seemingly separate objects of the environment even though that spatial fabric is a maelstrom of activity. The electromagnetic fields we have detected and now utilize are evident proof of this. However, because of the bulk of spatial activity rests beyond the grasp of our native senses, we erroneously conclude our environment is made up of separate "things". Like two eddies observing each other within an ocean and not being aware of the water or the majority of its currents, we conclude that we are isolated beings.

Essentially, perception is the interaction between moving aspects of interstellar space (active fields of activity). It is an experience of change in a state of being and not a true reflection of that which truly exists. We sense the existence of a material thing because, in some way, its activity interacts with our own and effects changes within the activity that makes up our bodies. For example, a portion of the light spectrum reflects off an object and alters the activity of the cells leading from the eyes to the brain. Thus, we claim to "see" that object when, in reality, we only interact with the narrow portion of the light spectrum that object does not absorb. However, these illusionary perceptions allow us to function within our environment in a manner that permits us to survive. The same can be said of all our senses. They are attuned to that portion o interstellar activity critical to our continued existence, providing an awareness of only a small fraction of the cosmic realm.

Indeed, we are patterns of spatial activity - no more and no less. However, our senses delude us and lead us to believe otherwise. They provide no more than a functional grasp of reality, prompting us to view ourselves as isolated material entities, living within an infinite void populated by separate material things. Yet, as our sciences are beginning to reveal, the opposite is true. Interstellar space embraces a uniformity that envelops everything we know to exist. If we carefully analyze the cosmos, we must concede that the material realm with which we are familiar exists as no more than activity functioning within the fabric of interstellar space. To assert any other premise leaves us with the irreconcilable conundrum of explaining how that cosmic activity can exist and thrive in an absolute "void". Logic should lead us to conclude that interstellar space is an active medium, albeit one we cannot detect. It is the cosmic "water" that we, like fish, swim about in; and, just as the fish detect the water's movement but not the substance of the water, we have no perception of interstellar space except by contrasting it with the things we do experience. According, interstellar space appears to be the absence of perceived things that exists between those perceived things. Therefore, we label it a "void". Just as logic prompts us to accept phenomena we cannot perceive naturally (atoms, particles, electromagnetic radiation, et al), it should render the plausibility of a medium that even our finest instruments cannot reveal. Modern science is founded upon similar postulations. Why not accept the possibility of an infinite medium as the foundation of the entire material realm?

From the perspective of Esse, the cosmos is an infinite presence whose perpetual activity gives rise to experience of tangible forms. The atheist can accept this premise as the basis of Nature while the deist may choose to define it as God. The selective perspective is irrelevant for Esse represents that which truly exists. Reality cannot be dissected further. Only the mechanisms of that reality are left to be explained.

Opinions anyone?

We have several Deists here. They will filter to this thread.

__________________
InterfaithForums.com-Where your ideas and beliefs count.

First of all, welcome here to I.F., and I find the above proposition to be interesting and logical and, if one takes such a position, then they shouldn't jump to conclusions as to exactly what this "medium" entails and should keep almost all options open.

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

Hi Ahualoa,

There's a few Deists here. Sorry I am in and out, busy schedule lately. You can check out some of my posts on the Deist Workshop here:

Deist Beliefs - InterfaithForums

Here are some of my thoughts on Deism and its place. Of course, as you know, getting two Deists to agree on anything isn't easy, look forward to your posts:

Before we expand upon the world of Integral Panendeism, it may be necessary to briefly review how the term came into being. To do this, I will use certain terms and define them to explain the evolution and distinction of the term. Some may have a different definition of some of these terms, but the hope is that by explaining what they mean to Integral Panendeism it will help others who either might identify with it or simply wish to better understand it.

The broad term for the systematic speculation on the nature of God/Deity/Spirit and how it relates to the human conscious is theology. A theology is approached by human consciousness through a belief system. The three broad ontological belief systems are theism, atheism, and deism and an epistemological descriptor, agnostic.

Theism is a belief in a personal God who at least shares human-like attributes (i.e. physicality, emotions, intellect). Theists generally believe that God exhibits a personality and often they treat God as a person. This belief requires faith, which is often a major component of theist based theologies. Because theists believe that God has personal relationships with people, they accept "revelation", hearsay tales of his relationships with people in the past. They often believe that God is a person in their stories, and often accept their myths as literal accounts of their God’s personal involvement. Because theists often interpret their mythology literally, their religions are heavily dependent on the historical veracity of those accounts. Theism is an affirmative belief structure.

Atheism is the absence of a belief that a God exists. Atheism is generally counter to the concept of a personal God conception, and so the belief structure is considered impersonal and non-affirmative.

Deism is a belief in a transpersonal God, often termed Deity to differentiate it from theistic conceptions. Deists do not generally see Deity as a person, and since faith is something we have in persons, Deists rely on reason in their belief pattern. Deists generally accept experience over hearsay and recognize myths as metaphor, wherein a “person” as God is merely symbolic. Because deists understand the metaphoric nature of anthropomorphic description, stories and tales about God do not have to be supported by scientific and historical evidence. Deism is an affirmative belief structure.

Agnosticism is often claimed as an “I don’t know but neither do you” belief system. Here it is used to describe what type of evidence is allowed for the inquiry. The term agnostic here denotes that a person has no objective knowledge of God by way of either empirical evidence or logical deduction. An agnostic-theist, therefore believes in a personal God while admitting there is no objective knowledge to support the belief. A traditional theist will often point towards general revelations or miracles as such proof. An agnostic-atheist believes that objective evidence is the only true source of knowledge and therefore, based on the lack of such evidence, does not affirm the existence of God. Anyone without a belief in God, such as infants and others who have not developed the capacity for higher thought processes, could be considered an atheist. An agnostic-deist is one who believes in a transpersonal Deity while believing there is no objective evidence for such. A traditional Deist may accept the “Argument From Design” as such objective proof.

The affirmative belief structures are further sub-divided into types with a prefix. Poly- indicates “many”, mono- indicates “one”, pan- indicates “all is”, and panen- indicates “all in”. So polytheism would be a belief in many personal gods, while polydeism would be a belief in many impersonal deities. Likewise, monotheism would be a belief in one personal God, while monodeism would be a belief in one impersonal Deity. Most early Deists were in fact, monodeists, most often referred to as Classical Deism. Classical Deism is a rationalistic movement begun in the 17th and 18th centuries whose adherents generally subscribed to a natural religion based on human reason and morality, on the belief in one God who after creating the world and the laws governing it refrained from interfering with those laws, and on the rejection of every kind of supernatural intervention in human affairs.

Both the pan- and panen- prefixes are evolutions of the mono- subset. Traditionally, monotheism refers to belief in a God that is separate from the universe, whereas pantheism (all is God) refers to the belief that God and the universe are identical. The German philosopher Karl Christian Friedrich Krause (1781-1832) sought to reconcile the two beliefs and coined the term panentheism (all in God). This conception of God influenced New England Transcendentalists such as Ralph Waldo Emerson. The term is best known for its use by Charles Hartshorne in his discussions of Process Thought and has also been adopted by proponents of various New Thought beliefs.

Panendeism, therefore, is simply Deism together with the belief that the universe is a part of God, but not all of God. Some panendeists do not feel the need to define this theology further than that. Others have developed more detailed versions of what this definition might entail. One of the first was Reflexive Panendeism based on the works of Arthur M. Young. An overview of that system can be accessed here:

Introducing_Part_1

Integral Panendeism draws its inspiration from the Integral Philosophy based on the works of Ken Wilber. Integral means of, relating to, or serving to form a whole; essential to completeness; organically joined or linked; formed as a unit with part(s) of another. Integral Panendeism is a theological panendeistic speculation that Reason continually makes wholes of parts which then become parts for greater wholes and so on and so on eventually enabling selfhood to reunite with Deity. What follows is the attempt to relate that concept as a possible structure. Ultimately, there can be no such thing as an actual structure, but we offer our best approximations and we hope it will be beneficial to others in their theological explorations.

-TC

Its interesting you use the concept of "eddies", I did the same in constructing my model, mostly referring to them as spirals of activity.

-TC