People say, "You don't want to be too religious, because then we end up with a theocracy like something out of the Dark Ages. But on the other hand, you don't want to be too irreligious, because that's the path to a corrupt, immoral society like what we have now. You want to be a deist, like the founding fathers of this country."
Well, how is that different than the chicks we see who are "spiritual but not religious" and just use their religion for feel-good purposes, rather than any kind of moral compass? It seems like the deism of the founding fathers allowed them to make up a bunch of stuff, e.g. that "all men are created equal," since to them it was supposedly self-evident.
-
Leucosticte
- Posts: 84
- Joined: Sun May 26, 2019 4:20 am
Re: Is there a difference between deism and being "spiritual but not religious"
Deists like the US Founding Fathers believed in a god but didn't believe that he had a hand in human development; i.e., he pressed the button to create our universe and then stepped back to watch the show.
People who are "spiritual but not religious" are a diverse bunch, but they probably believe in old spooks such as "karma" or "morality" or "the existence of some spirit or life force" even though they don't posit all this on a god or gods. This kind of junk seems to be popular amongst hippie types.
People who are "spiritual but not religious" are a diverse bunch, but they probably believe in old spooks such as "karma" or "morality" or "the existence of some spirit or life force" even though they don't posit all this on a god or gods. This kind of junk seems to be popular amongst hippie types.