(May 27, 2015 at 2:29 pm)Nestor Wrote: Philosophers like Epicurus didn't believe the gods intervened in the world, and I wouldn't doubt if the idea of an intelligent first cause who arranged the initial conditions and then concluded its involvement goes back further (Anaxagoras, maybe?).
I see deism as closer to atheism than theism for the simple reason that theists make all sorts of assertions about what the first cause is like, "his" purpose and wishes for mankind, his frequent interventions in the world, and all sorts of other superstitions, whereas what divides atheists and deists seems to primarily be the issue of whether the unexplained cause or initial conditions is intimately related to our concepts of order, reason, intelligence, morality, etc. I don't see it as a position that confers any direct benefits on a person's life except perhaps to offer the illusion of a tidy system that "explains" the objective appearance of subjective phenomenon and one that suggests the possibility of an ultimate purpose that includes living organisms.
Sweet. Looks like my memory didn't fail.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deists
Epicurus is not on the list at Wikipedia, so I am unsure what you intend with that.
Regardless, there are serious problems with trying to determine the religious views of people in the past. Epicurus lived in a time and place where one could be executed for expressing atheism, so the fact that he did not express atheism and specifically said he believed in the gods means nothing whatsoever about his beliefs. I am a strong atheist, and I would have said what Epicurus said, had I lived next door to him. I would not be martyred for nothing.
Another problem is the fact that people's beliefs change over time. For example, David Hume was raised a christian, and believed in it as a child. But that does not tell us what he believed later in life. Nor can we be sure that his views were constant in adulthood. And, of course, Hume also lived in a time and place where candid atheism was illegal, and so the fact that he never wrote that he was an atheist means nothing. We know that he was accused of atheism in his lifetime (and for good reason), but he steadfastly denied it in public, as doing otherwise would have been extremely foolish, regardless of what the truth may have been.
Even today, there can be strong motives to hide atheism. Aside from the religious countries in which atheism could get one killed, in the U.S., one might wish to hide it due to the bigotry of family and acquaintances. Or if one simply wished to have a political career and have a reasonable chance of becoming president.
Deism is generally less offensive to religionists, as it does not entail denying the existence of a god, and even affirms the existence of a god. So there are reasons why an atheist may have claimed to be a deist in the past. (Or even today, though especially in the past.)
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
