Symbol

[The Paineful Truth]

Deists have struggled to come up with a symbol for it for a long time. Someone suggested this which has so far garnered near universal support from deists--a miracle (haw) in itself. It is very cool once you know, so take a look. What do you see?

First, does it bring to mind any image(s). (No it isn't Arabic.)

Further, everyone here, from the States anyway, has certainly seen this before, no doubt many times. (hint)

[Magsj]

I give up... what is it?

[The Paineful Truth]

I give up... what is it?

You might be at a disadvantage being English. On the other hand....

[Magsj]

I give up... what is it?

You might be at a disadvantage being English. On the other hand....

I'll take that comment in a positive way... I think...

Can't say I've ever seen that symbol anywhere, but it'll be interesting to know what it is...

[TheStumps]

It's the calligraphic letter "D", specifically, it's the letter "D" of the Declaration of Independence.
Specifically, it is from calligraphy type set for the title of the declaration, which has a base root of Black Letter calligraphy with a Copperplate rounding to it; Copperplate calligraphy is used for the rest of the document.

This is common for the time period as European type calligraphy had moved to a more function over form type of calligraphy, thereby favoring Copperplate, and a Black Letter form, which was a less elaborate form of "Gothic" previously used.

Personally, I think it's a silly symbol to use for Deism, as it's interest is in the suggestion that many of the founding fathers were themselves Deist...which is simply not true; most were Pentecostal; the most common form of Christianity in the Colonies for the time and region of the Colonies most of the Founding Fathers lived in.

There were Deists, yes, but they were not the dominant amount of members.
However, even at that, it is thought as appropriate because of the interest in the Founding Fathers to separate Religion from Politics, which the movement of Deism strongly encourages with it's suggestion that God does not intervene with man's activities, and therefore Religion has no need to be involved with Politics since God has no interest in man's politics.

That's all fine, but it's still a silly symbol in my opinion as it dives itself into being anchored to a political movement to separate church and state from each other as it's symbol for a religion that praises the separation of removing politics from religion...kind of self-defeating really.

[matthatter]

To me it sort of looked like the head of a bird, which I then interpreted as an eagle (which, in order to balance out any connotation of manliness, is crying like a little bitch).

I think this is a better symbol for Deism:

[Oughtist]

Hammer & sickle?

[TheStumps]

For comparison of what I was talking about:
Here is the declaration of independence, look at the D.

[Magsj]

All is now clear TS... I've seen that document only a handful of times so I wouldn't be familiar with it's stylised calligraphical content.

Why not design a new personalised D for the deist cause, TPT?

[TheStumps]

Personally, I think using the letter D from that document is really counter to representing what Deism is about; in part for the reasons I previously listed, but also for the following reasons:

That string of representation that the above D embodies is only a superficial level of what the Deism concept is about, and it's not even Deism that that D represents.
That D represents the political ideal by which Deism agrees with, not Deism itself.

Deism is about admiring and astonishing at that which is around us by observing and examining everything that is around us; all that we can observe.
For all that we can observe is what God has made, and what better way to love God than to love learning the nature of everything that God has made; than to wonder at it in awe?
When God is not directly observable; a seemingly distant relative that does not appear to be tangible here and now; why spend all of the time conjecturing about what God is and how God behaves, when we can look at what God has made and marvel at how wondrous and enchanting God is by simply doing this?

That the truest form of worship, the reverent love and devotion, that a person can have for such a thing as God, that which made all that is, is to observe and examine using logic and reason to understand what God has made and how what God has made works.

To unravel the puzzle that God has left; to reach another chapter in the lessons left.

This is the Deist ideal in the truest form.

So to me, it would seem more appropriate that the Deist symbol for representation should allude to this concept; this perspective; that logic and reason in observation of all that God has made is the purpose of life and the expression of love from man to God.

With all of that in mind, this is what comes to my mind as some form of symbol of Deism:


The circle representing ALL, or EVERYTHING, but specifically, due to the other half of the symbol this actually only refers to all that is observable.
The triangle intersecting the circle representing the observation; observable and examining "sight" of man that causes logic and reason to occur.

The triangle does not encompass the entirety of ALL or EVERYTHING that can be observed either; suggesting there is always something more to observe, to examine, logic and reason; that there is more to witness of God's wonder that he has made.


So something like this is more what comes to mind regarding Deism than some dusty old calligraphic D that stands as part of the theological separation from the political structure.

[The Paineful Truth]

Why not design a new personalised D for the deist cause, TPT?

For many of the reasons that Sumps points out--its historic context as well as the fact that many of the founders, including the ones that wrote the Declaration, were deists in fact if not in name. Jefferson is acknowledged universally as a deist, but I know of no place where he referred to himself as such. Even Thomas Paine, who wrote the American treatise advocating deism, The Age of Reason, never came out and said "I am a deist" that I've been able to find. Such was (and often still is) the laid back or aloof nature of advocacy with a large audience.

Stumps, Yes a majority of the founders were indeed some form of Christian--often the smaller sects of which with their dogmas, needed protection from the larger sects and their dogmas. You probably know (or maybe not) that the phrase "separation of church and state" was used by Jefferson as the interpretation of the First Amendment, in a letter to a Danbury (Conn.) Baptist congregation who had written to him seeking protection from state legislation against them instigated by their Christian opponents in the state. Ironically, the Southern Baptist convention became the 20th Century Protestant denomination (America's largest), are now advocates of theocracy, and didn't even renounce the slavery they had advocated in the 19th Century, until the 1990's. "Freedom of religion not freedom from religion" is still their mantra.


You said, "However, even at that, it is thought as appropriate because of the interest in the Founding Fathers to separate Religion from Politics, which the movement of Deism strongly encourages with it's suggestion that God does not intervene with man's activities, and therefore Religion has no need to be involved with Politics since God has no interest in man's politics."

First we, at least I, believe God is intently interested in what we do. Deists believe that God does not intervene, yes, but that's not the main reason to separate church and state. The reason for that is the myriad contentious and contradictory "revealed" religions, sects and denominations. In order to meld church and state, you not only have to decide on which particular flavor of religion to use, but how, and how much of its dogma we should legislate into law. Is there anybody but a Muslim that thinks it would be appropriate to codify Sharia Law in to state, and eventually, federal law? Yes an extreme example. But which sect do you suggest?

Many founders wanted "God" and "Jesus" to be included in the Constitution in 1787, but were unable, due to an alliance of free thinkers in the leadership (including Madison, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams and Paine), Masons, and Christians who saw the ultimate value of separation of church and state.

This country almost succumbed to a theocratic coup during the Jackson administration, composed of an alliance of the National Bank, Vice President Calhoun and his allies, and Ezra Stiles Ely's alliance of reactionary Christian churches and tract societies. This period, equivalent to an American dark ages, is often swept under the rug of American history in our education system due to Christian revisionism about that period, as well as putting words in the mouths of founders as often as they could get away with it--words that are still quoted on the Internet to this day, always unattributed.

I see nothing silly about any of this.

[TheStumps]

Painful,

When I say that God doesn't care about man politically, I am referring to what you are referring to in the non-intervention; sorry, that came out incorrect.

What I mean by saying that it's surface material is that all of what you just described is still a very politically active focus.
It's not that I think it's inappropriate to appreciate, I think, however, that it is far far short of what Deism itself is actually about religiously.

Deism, as a religion, is larger than what influences occurred among the Founding Fathers and the American concept regarding church and state.

That is my simple point.

[Oughtist]

How about a rotated D, with the curve on top, as in half a circle. It could indicate something like an upside down horse-shoe, wherethru the Deity has poured out a reality but then leaves it to fall of its own accord. And if O is the symbol of atheism, this would suggest that atheism is only half true.

[The Paineful Truth]

How about a rotated D, with the curve on top, as in half a circle. It could indicate something like an upside down horse-shoe, wherethru the Deity has poured out a reality but then leaves it to fall of its own accord. And if O is the symbol of atheism, this would suggest that atheism is only half true.

Looks like this is already dying the death of a thousand pricks to which other proposed symbols for deism have already succumbed--although most of those never made it out into the sunlight.

[TheStumps]

Well...tbh...I'm not sure why Deism needs a symbol.
It's kind of anti-Deist to use one in a way, since Deism does not adhere to any creed, have a unified belief system, or really any sort of community cohesively at all...in fact, congregational areas are counter to the concept of Deism; it's a religious perspective that is against organizing religion.

So...giving it a symbol seems a step towards organization, and well...that seems like a step backward for Deism.

[The Paineful Truth]

Well...tbh...I'm not sure why Deism needs a symbol.
It's kind of anti-Deist to use one in a way, since Deism does not adhere to any creed, have a unified belief system, or really any sort of community cohesively at all...in fact, congregational areas are counter to the concept of Deism; it's a religious perspective that is against organizing religion.

So...giving it a symbol seems a step towards organization, and well...that seems like a step backward for Deism.

There is the core tenet of deism of divine laissez-faire, a belief that promotes reason. Yes, organizing deists is like herding cats, but I think that problem is because so many non deists are calling themselves deists. So many are just make-it-up-as-you-go mystics or pagans or what-not--even Christian deists for God's sake. They're like theistic anarchists who unwitting adopt philosophical chaos.

The most famous deists, in this country anyway, were the founders, but they didn't eschew organization, they just figured they were pushing things in the government end for all it was worth and figured the tentative rebellion wouldn't stand the further strain of religious rebellion. I can't judge whether they were right or not, they were there and I wasn't. In any case, if you want to promote anything, reason, deism, whatever, it helps to be organized--if you can become unified to begin with.

[TheStumps]

Just my opinion, but as nice as it may sound to unify Deism...

If Deism is unified, then it just started it's road to being bastardized, mutilated, despised, ridiculed, misunderstood, manipulated, deviated, and segregated.

I simply think this because it's what has happened to all other religions that have become well ordered, unified, and organized.



As my Wife always says about God's Wife; she's not in the Bible, so you can't fuck up her reputation and name.