Will Deism ever make a major comeback (in the US)?

[Dazey]

Deism was the generalized religious belief in the time of the Founding Fathers; will it ever make a return to being a mainstream form of religious thought?

[Oakvale]

lmao

[Tetro Kornbluth]

no

[°Leprechaun]

A Deist believes in God. An atheist does not. That sounds like a big difference, but practically speaking what is the difference? Perhaps someone could use the term Deist to indicate that there is a supernatural meaning to life beyond materialism. Perhaps a Deist could even believe in a life after the "spirit" leaves the body (commonly known as "death" but if there is an afterlife then death isn't literally death).

Since we are moving away from traditional "conservative" theism in this world, Deism may be an appealing alternative to some people, so my answer to the question is "I don't know".

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The idea that Deism was ever mainstream is a stretch, tho it was a major current among those who gave serious thought about religion in the late 18th century. The tendencies towards Deism have more outlets today now that information about Eastern religion and philosophy are generally available, so I doubt that Western Deism will ever have a resurgence since similar Eastern traditions have more depth and breadth of thought.

[The Mikado]

Deism's popularity was also closely tied to intellectual trends in that era and the love for the elegant simplicity of Newtonian mechanics and how they could be used to explain complex things. The popularity of the clockwork clock, where everything in it moved with exact precision due to dozens of tiny gears moving in precisely the right way because a master craftsman had made them so, was a pretty compelling analogy for the way the universe worked, with God as a master craftsman who had made a clockwork universe, wound it up, and let it go seemingly forever and ever with no tune-up needed.

The overthrow of Newtonianism and the 20th/21st century rejection of simplicity in the design of the universe (subatomic particles that obey different rules than everything else? The rules of physics changing near the speed of light?) have created a far murkier conception of the universe that makes the clockwork universe of the Deists seem far less plausible.

[sparkey]

Deism had its followers, mostly elites, at the time of the Founders, but was never "the generalized religious belief." Thomas Paine was widely disliked for his "Age of Reason."

How many founders were even deists? Paine, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Gouverneur Morris, James Wilson... if any other than Paine were even proper deists, rather than just deist-influenced.

[DC Al Fine]

As an actual movement? No.

As a set of views? Sure, there are plenty of functional deists now. Many nominal Christians and nones have a vague belief in God without affirming any particular religion. Surely there are deists in their number.

[DemPGH]

No, I don't think so. It's an 18th century idea - basically, people were trying to be rational and spiritual/religious simultaneously, and I think we're at a point where that's no longer necessary. If one is inclined to religion and tradition, one will likely choose that intellectual path. If one is inclined toward the physical and science, then that, which was still in its infancy in the 18th century, will be the choice of path. They're now pretty much mutually exclusive. At least I don't see a way of reconciling them in the present.

[The Mikado]

No, I don't think so. It's an 18th century idea - basically, people were trying to be rational and spiritual/religious simultaneously, and I think we're at a point where that's no longer necessary. If one is inclined to religion and tradition, one will likely choose that intellectual path. If one is inclined toward the physical and science, then that, which was still in its infancy in the 18th century, will be the choice of path. They're now pretty much mutually exclusive. At least I don't see a way of reconciling them in the present.

As long as "Why is there something rather than nothing" is an open question, people will posit some sort of creating entity, and "Being that set the Universe into motion" is basically a god by any sort of definition, even if it isn't an omnipotent being or even a currently-existing being. There's plenty of room for Deism as a modern tradition as an answer to that simple question: "Why is there something rather than nothing."

EDIT: Although, as per my previous post, it won't be an organized movement, just, like DC Fine mentions, a kind of default position for people who have abandoned their "religion" but haven't abandoned their belief in some sort of God.

[RFayette]

As an actual movement? No.

As a set of views? Sure, there are plenty of functional deists now. Many nominal Christians and nones have a vague belief in God without affirming any particular religion. Surely there are deists in their number.

This.  Christianity can be as much a culture as a set of religious doctrine for many people.  There are plenty of self-identifying Christians who believe in things like reincarnation, spirits staying on Earth etc.  So I'm sure you'd find deist-like viewpoints in some of them.

[RFayette]

No, I don't think so. It's an 18th century idea - basically, people were trying to be rational and spiritual/religious simultaneously, and I think we're at a point where that's no longer necessary. If one is inclined to religion and tradition, one will likely choose that intellectual path. If one is inclined toward the physical and science, then that, which was still in its infancy in the 18th century, will be the choice of path. They're now pretty much mutually exclusive. At least I don't see a way of reconciling them in the present.

Being a Christian != being Ken Ham, people.
There are many doctors, engineers, and scientists who believe in God and are at least nominally Christian, like Francis Collins, for instance.  You can choose both a religious path and a scientific one if one would like - I mean, the Vatican has an observatory and nearly every non-Baptist/fundamentalist religious university teaches at least some science. 

[Skill and Chance]

No, I don't think so. It's an 18th century idea - basically, people were trying to be rational and spiritual/religious simultaneously, and I think we're at a point where that's no longer necessary. If one is inclined to religion and tradition, one will likely choose that intellectual path. If one is inclined toward the physical and science, then that, which was still in its infancy in the 18th century, will be the choice of path. They're now pretty much mutually exclusive. At least I don't see a way of reconciling them in the present.

Being a Christian != being Ken Ham, people.
There are many doctors, engineers, and scientists who believe in God and are at least nominally Christian, like Francis Collins, for instance.  You can choose both a religious path and a scientific one if one would like - I mean, the Vatican has an observatory and nearly every non-Baptist/fundamentalist religious university teaches at least some science. 

Yes, I thought immediately of Francis Collins when it comes to prime mover beliefs in the modern era.  Of course, he is really Deist plus literal Resurrection of Christ so that complicates things.  You could argue that's where the Emergent Church ends up at, basically Easter Deism with the rest of the Bible being taken metaphorically.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

I doubt it. I'm essentially a deist (I attempted to make my own religion back in HS, but I never really got beyond how the universe was created). I think that I've met one other person who was deist. Interestingly, he's my best friend and neither of us grew up in very religious homes. A lot of people that I know of that have left their former religion have gone either to just saying that they're Christian without being very devout (and rarely going to church, if at all) or to becoming atheist/agnostic.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Mikado is correct.

The idea that Deism was ever mainstream is a stretch

It was certainly mainstream amongst a certain social class, and often did not actually involve rejecting Christianity in any serious sense (quite a few Anglican clergy of the 18th century could be described in those terms).

[afleitch]

No, I don't think so. It's an 18th century idea - basically, people were trying to be rational and spiritual/religious simultaneously, and I think we're at a point where that's no longer necessary. If one is inclined to religion and tradition, one will likely choose that intellectual path. If one is inclined toward the physical and science, then that, which was still in its infancy in the 18th century, will be the choice of path. They're now pretty much mutually exclusive. At least I don't see a way of reconciling them in the present.

As long as "Why is there something rather than nothing" is an open question, people will posit some sort of creating entity, and "Being that set the Universe into motion" is basically a god by any sort of definition, even if it isn't an omnipotent being or even a currently-existing being. There's plenty of room for Deism as a modern tradition as an answer to that simple question: "Why is there something rather than nothing."

EDIT: Although, as per my previous post, it won't be an organized movement, just, like DC Fine mentions, a kind of default position for people who have abandoned their "religion" but haven't abandoned their belief in some sort of God.

I think deism today is not too far removed from enlightenment or ancient greek notions of deism. In essence it is 'objectifying' what may simply be a natural cause/order on the basis that as humans we cannot fail to identify agents; that is hardwired into us. Even when inferring things you know deep down just to be as they are, from the wind to the motion of atoms, you cannot fail to personify them when describing them and if you go out your way to try and avoid that language then you may fail to capture anything meaningful about what you are observing.

As I have said many times, I cannot fail to be in awe of something as basic as the sun, in the manner in which we always have been. I'm in awe of the sun, it's properties and it's essentialness to such an extent that I'm only a paper thin distance from deifying it.

[Skill and Chance]

Mikado is correct.

The idea that Deism was ever mainstream is a stretch

It was certainly mainstream amongst a certain social class, and often did not actually involve rejecting Christianity in any serious sense (quite a few Anglican clergy of the 18th century could be described in those terms).

All philosophy was confined to the elite at that time, though.  I don't believe Colonial America even had majority literacy although it was probably above the European average.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Mikado is correct.

The idea that Deism was ever mainstream is a stretch

It was certainly mainstream amongst a certain social class, and often did not actually involve rejecting Christianity in any serious sense (quite a few Anglican clergy of the 18th century could be described in those terms).

All philosophy was confined to the elite at that time, though.  I don't believe Colonial America even had majority literacy although it was probably above the European average.

Depends on which group of people you consider. For white males literacy ran from a bare majority in the Southern colonies to basically everyone who could learn to read doing so in New England. Females less so, but still a substantial majority in New England.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

All philosophy was confined to the elite at that time, though.

Because everyone these days knows their Ayer from their Erasmus.