On Faith - Part I: Theism Vs. Deism

                One of the subjects on which I have thought the most lately is faith, or rather it's foundations. I, myself, grew up in a region in Norway that is a part of what we call the Bible belt, which is made up by the most “Christian” regions, stretching from the south and following the coast north-east. I thus grew up in a Christian dominated community, and, naturally, I integrated Christianity into my life's philosophy. I have always had an open mind, always being ready to listen to and even adopt alien philosophies (ways to look at life), but when it came to religion, I was never able to do the same – for lack of trying. Not that I was not curious or interested, but it was unthinkable, by the denotation of the word, to  consider the values of other religions - as is the habit of virtually every religious faith. With hindsight, the only way not to waver in faith is to have a rather condescending approach to other religions, or agnosticism and atheism, for that matter. I was no exception.
                 But as adamant as I was, I now find myself having become an agnostic, by the intermediary of a deist, so something must have changed. In this first part, I will speak of how I went for Lutheranism, which was my former Christian sect, to deism.

 After having finished my primary education, I went to France to pursue the secondary, and it was there, mainly thanks to my literature teacher during the second year, that I made myself familiar with the philosophers of the Enlightenment, and I must say I felt inclined to their way of looking at religion. Rapidly summed up, they adhered to what is called deism, which is the belief in a god, or a divine entity as I prefer, as the creator of the world. A grand architect, as I believe the Freemasons have called it. One might ask where the difference in that with for example Christianity is, but it is fundamentally different by the fact that it doesn't really go any further. Monotheism, as my teacher explained it, is the belief in a (one) God, has declared himself (or itself), and that can be represented. The old man with the long white beard in the roof of the Sistine Chapel is an example of how Catholicism corresponds with the latter. Theism is the belief in a god that has declared himself, but that has its own nature – one that man cannot fathom. Islam is a good example of this, as it is seen as blasphemous even to try to imagine what he might look like (I find it interesting that they still refer to him as him). Deism, on the other hand is the belief in a divine entity as a creator, but that has not, in any way, made himself known. It is no more than a logical assumption, as in the words of Voltaire:

“I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker.”

As to the fact that he hasn't bothered to say hi, I will again quote Voltaire, this time in the words of a dervish from “Candide”:

“What does it matter,” said the dervish, “whether there is evil or good? When His Highness sends a ship to Egypt does he trouble himself whether the rats in the vessel are at their ease or not?”

It seems to me that it is a completely pretentious and, not in the least, egocentric thought to believe that God, whether it exists or not, occupies itself with us mere humans when there is a vastness of infinite space, and possibly many other worlds, in the universe.
                The words of Voltaire appealed to me, as, though I had always been a Christian out of obviousness, I have never really identified myself with Christianity's religious philosophy. What finally made me agree and adhere to deism were the words of, yet another time, Voltaire, put in the mouth of the eponymous personage of “L'Ingénu” (this is my own translation, as I could not find one for free: thou be’st warned):

“If there was one mere truth hidden in the heap of arguments that we have dwelled upon for all these centuries, we would have found it without doubt; and the universe would have at least agreed upon that. If this truth was necessary as the Sun is to the Earth, it would have shone as brilliantly as it. It is an absurdity, it is an outrage to the human race; it is an onset upon the Infinite and Supreme Being to say: There is an essential truth to Man, and God has hidden it.”

This in itself was not enough to make me change my religious philosophy, but it had already been weakened by a couple of questions that had arisen to my attention. During the same year, I read “Holy Blood, Holy grail”. One may refute their conclusions, but it is not the hypothesis the authors propose that made me think, but a number of observations they made, particularly about the Bible. 

            There seems to be a certain partiality to the Romans, which is far from justified. One of the first clues to this is the case of Pontius Pilate. He is portrayed as a rather kind leader, with whom one could sympathise. He did after all give the people of Jerusalem a chance to save Jesus, which they chose to ignore, by appealing to an Easter tradition of liberating a prisoner. First of all, historians have never found any evidence of such a tradition – the Bible is the only source, and historically, Pilate has never been known for being anything else than a tyrant; a corrupt politician taking bribes and misusing his power, even worsening the tyrannical pressure from Rome. It thus seems logical to assume that his portrayal in the Bible is unrealistic; even false. I would also like to add that the political situation in Judea, the lower administrative part of Palestine in the time of Christ, was an incredible tense and unstable one. The Roman government was a brutal and absolute one. When the Romans occupied Judea to take direct control, they executed 3'000 rebels without any form of judgement. A period of revolt and extreme political tension marked the coming of Christ, and it continued for another hundred years afterwards, culminating in the expulsion of all Jews in Judea by decree of Emperor Hadrian in 135 A.D.. The strange thing is that none of the Gospels give any impression or hint of this – it is even suggested that it was a time of peace, and that most citizens were content with the situation. The interpretation of the authors, which I support, is that all this has been done, wittingly or not, to shift the blame for the death of Christ away from the Romans – the Gospels were mostly written by Romans and for Romans after all (with the possible exception of the Gospels According to Matthew). I also wish to add that all “the other” early Christian texts, for Christianity had already divided itself into different “branches”, some believing Christ to be the son of God, others just a prophet, others again a mixture of both, have been severely repressed, so that there are no (present) rival interpretation of the religion. Christianity, which was to be the national religion of Rome by the decree of Emperor Constantine, would have seemed slightly less appealing to its people if they were blamed for the death of their saviour. It was thus much more ... strategic... to blame the Jews, who have been persecuted as “murderers of Christ” even in our time. Now, all this might seem a bit far-fetched, but there are other indications (I do not dare, nor think it is completely justified, to speak of proof, but then again, can one consider the Gospels, at all, to be accurate?). I already mentioned that the Bible has a rather kind portrayal of Pontius Pilate, who only reluctantly adheres to the crucifixion of Jesus. Jesus was, according to the Gospels preliminarily judged by the ‘Sanhedrin’, a council of 71 priests and scholars that functioned as the highest institution of Jewish law. In the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), Jesus was arrested the night before Good Friday. But this makes little sense, because the laws of the Jewish council forbade them to gather during Passover, even during the night. Also, if he had been judged by the Jews for blasphemy, why would they not have chosen stoning as the execution method? Apparently, they had the legal authority to give a death sentence, by stoning, so why they needed to bother Pilate at all seems strange. Crucifixion was besides a roman method of execution, reserved mainly (though not exclusively) for political prisoners – enemies of Rome. To sum up in the words of the authors of “Holy Blood, holy Grail”: “(...) Jesus was a victim of a Roman administration, Roman law, Roman judgement, Roman military power and a Roman Execution. Jesus was not crucified for crimes against Judaism, but for crimes against the Empire”. 
                There is other evidence that supports the idea of a more political figure than religious. At the time, there was a Jewish political, and, I am tempted to say, terrorist movement, the Zealots, that held significant support amongst the Jewish people, as they were bent on throwing the Romans out of Judea. At least one of his twelve disciples, Simon, was a Zealot, and several others; such as James, John, and Judas; at least sympathised with Zealot agenda, if they were not directly involved. Also, the term ‘Messiah’, of which ‘Christos’ is the Greek translation, simply means “the anointed one” and usually pertains a King. At the time of Jesus, the Messiah was meant to be a legitimate king, an unknown descendant from the kin of David, who was supposed to free his people from Roman oppression. The expectation of such a (war)leader attained around this time a proportion of unrest that developed into hysteria, and this continued even after the Death of Jesus. The rebellion in 66 A.D. that ended with the Romans sacking Jerusalem was caused by the Zealots stirring up the unrest with the pretext of the coming of the Messiah. Today, the expression signifies a divine saviour, but at the time, the addition of divine would have been seen upon as preposterous, even ridiculous. It was a politically charged title that was given to Jesus, and he became known as ‘Jesus Messiah” or ‘Jesus Christos’ in Greek, a, again, title that later was corrupted into a proper name, ‘Jesus Christ’. Historians are fairly certain that Jesus has existed, but the historical Jesus might not live completely up to the divine image he has been given posthumously.

               The problem with the Bible is that it is not accurate enough, nor impartial. It even contradicts itself recurrently. It is said that whatever point of view that one might be defending, you will be able to find something in the Bible that supports your theory. The Bible is used to defend women's rights in the Church - the right to take part of its higher hierarchy, and it is used to subjugate them (“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church”. I Corinthians 14:34-35, the New Testament). My favourite example is from Leviticus 24: 19-21, in the Old Testament: “¹⁹Anyone who maims another shall suffer the same injury in return: ²⁰fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; the injury inflicted is the injury to be suffered. ²¹One who kills an animal shall make restitution for it; but one who kills a human being shall be put to death”. But my focus is on the New Testament, and its partiality towards Romans and possible inaccuracy, even falsification. The Bible might be said not to be written by God, but inspired, though one would think that divine inspiration might not make such manipulative texts, and so many different versions of them (again, the Gospels we know were chosen between many others). But even by ignoring all that, in the end, I just do not feel that I can trust a document that has been handed down from generation to generation for 2’000 years. When we can't seem to find out who or what really killed John F. Kennedy, a mere fifty years ago, how the heck can we ever be sure of what really happened or did not happen over two millennia back in time? I just do not trust humanity enough to take our forefathers' (apparent) word for God's existence and interest. And when I cannot trust the Bible, the very founding stone of Christianity, how can I trust Christianity itself? I did believe that there is a god, or a divine entity - I could not see any other logical solution to the cosmological problem (the universe's very existence), but it did not have to be the Christian god. Deism was just more appealing.


"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that Man has never worshipped anything but himself", Richard Burton