Are Deists more like theists or Atheist?

[Mudhammam]

Reporting what they stated about religion, without mentioning the milieu in which they lived, is misleading.  If you wish to avoid such speculations, it is better to say, "he stated..." or "he wrote that..." before whatever one wants to say.  To say that Epicurus was a deist is to say something that we really do not know.  To say that he expressed deistic ideas is not.

I said, "Philosophers like Epicurus didn't believe the gods intervened in the world." That's not misleading at all. I think you read too much into it.

[Brian37]

Einstein was not even a deist, he used the term "God" as metaphor for nature. He was a public figure and unfortunately and especially back then he had to speak as not to offend so he spoke in those terms to water down his "off" position. He did not believe in the god of the Jews or bible, his last letter said as much.

Einstein's words are far to often twisted by apologists to paint him as a religious person.

[RobbyPants]

I tend to see deism brought up in three circumstances:

• The person lacks modern understanding of things, and some god is a good placeholder for unanswered questions. See: the founding fathers.
  
• The person is non-religious, but isn't quite ready to give up on theism all together. The god they are left with is extremely vague, because they don't want to make claims that can't hold up to scrutiny.
  
• The person is actually a non-deistic theist, but for the sake of the argument at hand, they don't want to commit to anything more specific. See: Intelligent Design proponents. Most of them believe that Jesus died on a cross for our sins, but they realize that's a harder sell than trying to invoke the Cosmological Argument.
  

[Mudhammam]

"Those things which without ceasing I have declared unto thee, those do, and exercise thyself therein, holding them to be the elements of right life. First believe that God is a living being immortal and blessed, according to the notion of a god indicated by the common sense of mankind; and so believing, thou shalt not affirm of him aught that is foreign to his immortality or that agrees not with blessedness, but shalt believe about him whatever may uphold both his blessedness and his immortality. For verily there are gods, and the knowledge of them is manifest; but they are not such as the multitude believe, seeing that men do not steadfastly maintain the notions they form respecting them. Not the man who denies the gods worshipped by the multitude, but he who affirms of the gods what the multitude believes about them is truly impious. For the utterances of the multitude about the gods are not true preconceptions but false assumptions; hence it is that the greatest evils happen to the wicked and the greatest blessings happen to the good from the hand of the gods, seeing that they are always favourable to their own good qualities and take pleasure in men like unto themselves, but reject as alien whatever is not of their kind."

Is that a man who is merely masking his atheism? Maybe, but that doesn't appear to be the case.

[DeistPaladin]

Do deists believe objective morality is 'founded' on God?

By definition, "objective" means "free of anyone's opinions or values". 

not influenced by personal feelings,interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts;unbiased:

Therefore, no being, however wise, powerful or benevolent, can create an "objective system of morality" since opinions would necessarily enter into such a created system of rules.

EDIT TO ADD: My morals are more based on humanistic principles. I'm not sure if I qualify as a "secular humanist" but I'd be comfortable with that label.

[Pyrrho]

"Those things which without ceasing I have declared unto thee, those do, and exercise thyself therein, holding them to be the elements of right life. First believe that God is a living being immortal and blessed, according to the notion of a god indicated by the common sense of mankind; and so believing, thou shalt not affirm of him aught that is foreign to his immortality or that agrees not with blessedness, but shalt believe about him whatever may uphold both his blessedness and his immortality. For verily there are gods, and the knowledge of them is manifest; but they are not such as the multitude believe, seeing that men do not steadfastly maintain the notions they form respecting them. Not the man who denies the gods worshipped by the multitude, but he who affirms of the gods what the multitude believes about them is truly impious. For the utterances of the multitude about the gods are not true preconceptions but false assumptions; hence it is that the greatest evils happen to the wicked and the greatest blessings happen to the good from the hand of the gods, seeing that they are always favourable to their own good qualities and take pleasure in men like unto themselves, but reject as alien whatever is not of their kind."

Is that a man who is merely masking his atheism? Maybe, but that doesn't appear to be the case.

Given that, according to what Epicurus wrote, the gods have no function or relevance for people, it is hard to say.  In any case, given that he could have been executed for atheism, it isn't surprising that we do not have many explicit atheists from that era.  If one were an atheist, one would need to cover it up very well, as a mistake means death.  So praising them highly while simultaneously saying that they are irrelevant to one's life is pretty much what I would expect an intelligent atheist without a death wish to say at that time.

(For those curious about the quote from Epicurus in Nestor's post quoted above, it is from the  "Letter to Menoeceus" which can be found here.)

Now, I would not say that Epicurus is an atheist.  I do not know if he was an atheist or not.  I do not know if he wrote what he wrote because he believed it, or if he was covering himself to avoid being killed.

We might have a better idea if we had more of his works to go on, but we are limited to the few documents that survived.


In the case of David Hume, when he refers to Christianity as "our most holy religion" in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part II, I am reasonably certain that he is being sarcastic and does not really mean that Christianity is holy at all.  The context is:

I am the better pleased with the method of reasoning here delivered, as I think it may serve to confound those [130] dangerous friends or disguised enemies to the Christian Religion, who have undertaken to defend it by the principles of human reason. Our most holy religion is founded on Faith, not on reason; and it is a sure method of exposing it to put it to such a trial as it is, by no means, fitted to endure. To make this more evident, let us examine those miracles, related in scripture; and not to lose ourselves in too wide a field, let us confine ourselves to such as we find in the Pentateuch, which we shall examine, according to the principles of these pretended Christians, not as the word or testimony of God himself, but as the production of a mere human writer and historian. Here then we are first to consider a book, presented to us by a barbarous and ignorant people, written in an age when they were still more barbarous, and in all probability long after the facts which it relates, corroborated by no concurring testimony, and resembling those fabulous accounts, which every nation gives of its origin. Upon reading this book, we find it full of prodigies and miracles. It gives an account of a state of the world and of human nature entirely different from the present: Of our fall from that state: Of the age of man, extended to near a thousand years: Of the destruction of the world by a deluge: Of the arbitrary choice of one people, as the favourites of heaven; and that people the countrymen of the author: Of their deliverance from bondage by prodigies the most astonishing imaginable: I desire any one to lay his hand upon his heart, and after a serious consideration declare, whether he thinks that the falsehood of such a book, supported by such a testimony, would be more extraordinary and miraculous than all the miracles it relates; which is, however, necessary to make it be received, according to the measures of probability above established.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341#Hume_0222_263

In Hume's case, we have more to go on, but I would only be very tentative in expressing an opinion on his exact views.  That he was not a typical Christian is clear enough, but his exact views are harder to determine.  For example, there is this story:


A famous anecdote tells about  who, attending a dinner at d'Holbach's salon, remarked that he didn't believe anybody could really be an atheist. D'Holbach them asked Hume to count the number of people present at that moment. When Hume replied he counted eighteen people d'Holbach said: 'I can point to fifteen atheists right here, the other three haven't made up their minds yet'.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Baron_d%27Holbach

The source of the story is a letter from Denis Diderot, though he is not credited at the above link.  That would suggest that Hume was not an atheist.  However, we also have this:


On Sunday forenoon the 7 of July 1776, being too late for church, I went to see Mr David Hume, who was returned from London and Bath, just adying. I found him alone, in a reclining posture in his drawing-room. He was lean, ghastly, and quite of an earthy appearance. He was dressed in a suit of grey cloth with white metal buttons, and a kind of scratch wig. He was quite different from the plump figure which he used to present. He had before him Dr. Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric. He seemed to be placid and even cheerful. He said he was just approaching to his end. I think these were his words. I know not how I contrived to get the subject of immortality introduced. He said he never had entertained any belief in religion since he began to read Locke and Clarke. ...  He then said flatly that the morality of every religion was bad, and, I really thought, was not jocular when he said that when he heard a man was religious, he concluded he was a rascal, though he had known some instances of very good men being religious. ...

I had a strong curiosity to be satisfied if he persisted in disbelieving a future state even when he had death before his eyes. I was persuaded from what he now said, and from his manner of saying it, that he did persist. I asked him if it was not possible that there might be a future state. He answered it was possible that a piece of coal put upon the fire would not burn; and he added that it was a most unreasonable fancy that we should exist for ever. That immorality, if it were at all, must be general; that a great proportion of the human race has hardly any intellectual qualities; that a great proportion dies in infancy before being possessed of reason; yet all these must be immortal; that a porter who gets drunk by ten o'clock with gin must be immortal; that the trash of every age must be preserved, and that new universes must be created to contain such infinite numbers. ...

...

I asked him if the thought of annihilation never gave him any uneasiness. He said not the least; no more than the thought that he had not been, as Lucretius observes. 'Well,' said I, 'Mr Hume, I hope to triumph over you when I meet you in a future state; and remember you are not to pretend that you was joking with all this infidelity.' 'No, no,' said he. 'But I shall have been so long there before you come that it will be nothing new.' In this style of good humour and levity did I conduct the conversation. Perhaps it was wrong on so awful a subject. But as nobody was present, I thought it could have no bad effect. I however felt a degree of horror, mixed with a sort of wild, strange, hurrying recollection of my excellent mother's pious instructions, of Dr. Johnson's noble lessons, and of my religious sentiments and affections during the course of my life. I was like a man in sudden danger eagerly seeking his defensive arms; and I could not but be assailed by momentary doubts while I had actually before me a man of such strong abilities and extensive inquiry dying in the persuasion of being annihilated. But I maintained my faith. ...

...

He had once said to me, on a forenoon while the sun was shining bright, that he did not wish to be immortal. This was a most wonderful thought. The reason he gave was that he was very well in this state of being, and that the chances were very much against his being so well in another state; and he would rather not be more than be worse. I answered that it was reasonable to hope he would be better; that there would be a progressive improvement. I tried him at this interview with that topic, saying that a future state was surely a pleasing idea. He said no, for that it was always seen through a gloomy medium; there was always a Phlegethon or a hell. 'But,' said I, 'would it not be agreeable to have hopes of seeing our friends again?' and I mentioned three men lately deceased, for whom I knew he had a high value: Ambassador Keith, Lord Alemoor, and Baron Mure. He owned it would be agreeable, but added that none of them entertained such a notion. I believe he said, such a foolish, or such an absurd, notion; for he was indecently and impolitely positive in incredulity. ...



...  I am sorry that I mentioned this at such a time. I was off my guard; for the truth is that Mr. Hume's pleasantry was such that there was no solemnity in the scene; and death for the time did not seem dismal. It surprised me to find him talking of different matters with a tranquility of mind and a clearness of head which few men possess at any time. ...

Mr. Lauder, his surgeon, came in for a little, and Mr. Mure, the Baron's son, for another small interval. He was, as far as I could judge, quite easy with both. He said he had no pain, but was wasting away. I left him with impressions which disturbed me for some time. 


http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.to...h.Hume.pdf

That is part of James Boswell's "An Account of my last interview with David Hume, Esq.  Partly recorded in my Journal, partly enlarged from my memory, 3 March 1777."

From that, one gets the definite impression that Hume was a total atheist.

I would tentatively suggest that Hume was simply an atheist.

[robvalue]

I suppose some theists take more kindly to deists because "At least you believe in something".

Not having some sort of answer, however vague, seems both incoherent and terrifying for some people.

[comet]

it's funny how both sides need him so. It would Be nice if we just decided based on what we know. It's sad that non-formally trained people even begin to claim him as a figure head. With what we know the only thing he can claim is that no-nothing is as absurd as Omni-dude. Be that as it may ... He is dead, move on.