TürkçeThe Ethics of Deism:
The Unbearable Weight of Acting as a Moralist
Adnan Bülent Baloğlu*
In my opinion, one of the most valuable, original and perhaps the most unbiased works on Christian ethics is the work of the American philosopher of Palestinian origin, Ismail al-Faruqi. In this remarkable work, Faruqi argues that Christian ethics constitutes a genuine ‘‘ethics of Jesus’’. According to him, Jesus Christ became aware that the morality of his society was devoid of any value, that it had lost its raison d'être, and that this so-called morality was basically a code of conducts concealed under the ‘‘mask’’ of piety (Faruqi 2015: 92). This so-called morality improperly placed the existence of a religious community above all other codes of values, exploited and distorted existing moral sentiments, and ultimately transformed them into a self-interested, monopolistic and oppressive organisation. Meanwhile, Judaism was an eviscerated and hollow system of values, which, in every situation and circumstance, had been persistently and stubbornly pursued, and which was pushing Jewish society into the embrace of apparent decay and nihilism. The Jewish community rejected both the observance of its own moral code and the basis of the morality they upheld, and thereby explicitly abnegated its own foundation for existence (Faruqi 2015: 95). Jesus Christ had realised a truth: In a morally corrupt society, neither the individual nor humanity or the world could have any value. Yet the world was created to serve society and the individual, and its raison d'être has always been to serve the individual. A code of ethics that is concerned only with the Jewish Tribe and Israel and ignores the rest of humanity would have no value. Therefore, it constituted a must to establish a New Morality that would emphasise the universal fraternity of humanity against a racist Jewish exclusivism (Faruqi 2015: 95-97). The conscience of the individual should have been the tribunal and voice of this interiorised and subjectivised morality. Conscience would be the voice of this morality, make its voice heard in the soul and guide the will. The right and priority to ‘‘throw the first stone’’ could only belong to the ‘‘sinless’’ person; everyone had to first come to a reckoning with their own conscience and then make their decision according to the voice of their conscience (Faruqi 2015: 103). The New Morality also emphasised something else: One must turn to God with all one’s heart, soul and mind and love Him sincerely. Along with the New Morality, Jesus Christ also highlighted religion, because otherwise it would not have been possible for family, political, individual and social values to have meaning. This morality drew its inspiration from religion and in particular from the idea of the ‘‘Sovereignty of God’’ and observed the will of God. A morality devoid of God could never constitute a New Morality. Otherwise, Jesus would have been merely an ordinary reformer, and the moral laws he introduced, even if they produced some moral and social consequences, would have been merely a set of rules that ignored the spiritual side of human beings and did not contribute to their spiritual transformation (Faruqi 2015: 102).
‘‘The Sermon on the Mount’’, which is believed to have been written down by the Apostle Matthew, is a typical example of the very essence of the beliefs and ethics of Christianity. The Sermon on the Mount, which is believed to have been written down by the Apostle Matthew, is a typical example of the very essence of the beliefs and ethics of Christianity. Drawing attention to the deep connection existing between being a Christian and being an individual of good morals, this Sermon heralds that those who are ‘‘poor in spirit, humble, merciful and of a pure heart’’ will be ‘‘heirs of the earth’’ and ‘‘kings of the heavens’’ (Kishlansky 2017: 193-96). ‘‘The Sermon on the Mount’’ not only contains the essential parameters for the construction of a faithful and moral society, but also important clues about the religious conception of Christian morality. Similarly, many historical documents with an intensive moral content, such as the ‘‘Epistle to the Romans’’ of St. Paul, the ‘‘Admonitions’’ of Francis of Assisi, the ‘‘Summa Theologica’’ of Thomas Acquinas, and the ‘‘Letters’’ of Catherine of Siena, constitute extremely important documents that nourished the spiritual roots of Western civilisation. These documents also explicitly attest to the meticulous and equal emphasis on faith and morals in Christian society, especially in the period up to the Renaissance. These documents explain that the way to become a faithful and devout Christian lies in the transformation of a set of moral virtues such as compassion, humility, patience, austerity, virtue and kindness to one's neighbour into a genuine daily practice. Catherine of Siena ended her letter she had written to Duke Louis in 1376 with the following words: ‘‘Remember, my lord, that death is certain and that you do not know when the time of death will come. Endeavour to live your life with the holy and affectionate love of God. Forgive me if I have overstepped my bounds. In the name of the blessed Jesus Christ!’’ (Kishlansky 2017: 385).
Jesus Christ was not only a prophet but also a law-maker, a guide and a teacher, especially a moral teacher. He combined in his own personality the qualities and responsibilities of a messenger with his outstanding character and exemplary behaviour. As a prophet, the mission of Jesus Christ was to establish an exemplary society of morality and faith. Moreover, he aimed to cleanse a society that was morally corrupt, religiously degenerated and deviant from the path of righteousness. Another aim of Jesus Christ was to create a clear and coherent individual and social consciousness that comprehends the cosmos, the world and human life as a meaningful whole. Furthermore, as a pathfinder, it aimed to restore the social balance that had been disturbed and to re-establish the social order that had turned upside down. Additionally, another aim of Jesus Christ was to lift the veil from the eyes that failed to recognise the harmonious relationship between the physical universe and metaphysical reality.
The reason why I have started this article with the above lines is to draw attention to the existence of a close relationship between religion and morality in Christian society at the beginning and to reveal the role of religion in shaping the morality of the Christian individual and society. Another aim is to remind that religion once served as a solid and reliable basis for morality in the Christian geography. For there is an unbreakable relationship between religion and morality; religion and morality nourish and support each other. This fact continued to be prevailing in the Christian society until a certain period of time. The religion functioned as an engine that imposed moral commands and established the link between morality and human nature. A religious person might well choose to be immoral, but religion could never be immoral. Religion and morality were intrinsically linked, because these two concepts were brothers and sisters of each other (Köktaş 2022: 164-65). The topic has been introduced with Christian morality because we argue that a historical link exists between it and neoliberal morality and its branch, deist morality. Therefore, although our subject is not directly Islamic ethics, there may be some references to Islamic ethics where necessary. First of all, it is very important to recognise how Christian morality, which was brought to life by Jesus Christ, later changed shape, colour and direction with capitalism and then liberalism, and became the basis for different moral attitudes. However, in doing so, I do not intend to go into the long historical journey of Western Christian morality, as this would exceed the purpose and volume of this article. However, in order to understand whether there is a deism-specific morality, and if so, the nature of this morality, an attempt will be made to make a brief and concise analysis of the developments that have profoundly affected the historical course and caused profound social transformations. Up to this point, the ground shift in Christian ethics has been scrutinised, because contemporary deism is a phenomenon that originates in the West and is significantly fuelled by the secularist ethics of neoliberal capitalism, which emerged in the West with this ground shift and then exhibited the desire, ambition and will to spread on a global scale.
Footsteps of Secular Humanist Morality
It is possible to define the Renaissance as the era in which both humanism was born and the first tensions between religion and the physical world began to spark. Moreover, the Renaissance characterises a period in which many different views and secular perspectives in religion, art, politics and economics were boldly expressed despite the repression of the Church, which also heralded radical changes and transformations in the imagination and perception of society on many different issues. The Renaissance, which expresses a renewal, rebirth and awakening in science and art, also harbours the roots of a rebellion against God and the authority of the Church (Baloğlu 2022: 119). From another perspective, the Renaissance also marks the emergence of new forms of relations and patterns of behaviour in the triangle of politics, religion and economy, and is deemed to be the starting point of the process in which the ethical system that pursues the ultimate goals of religion has been surpassed. In the Renaissance, a period in which the number of those who remained faithful to their oaths of allegiance to God and the Church was rapidly declining, society, politics, economy, the church and religious traditions had to enter the gravitational field of a strong force of transformation. It was certain that nothing would ever be the same again. As the city became the centre of economic and social life, it opened up new avenues of economic gain. With the cosmopolitan city life, on the one hand, the conservative fabric was dissolving, and on the other hand, traditional styles and moulds were gradually being abandoned by the people. It was not only a ‘‘liberal’’ system that aspired to the throne of the divine order, but also an ‘‘oligarchic’’ structure that craved to dominate money and capital. Perhaps the most distinctive characteristic of the Renaissance was that it was a favourable climate for humanism to ferment. It would not be wrong to regard the humanism movement as a natural outcome of the attempts to harmonise reason and faith. In the following period, this movement would constitute a convenient instrument of modernism and secularisation and would become a new culture that determined the new way of life of modern human beings (Baloğlu 2022: 123)
Ultimately, the first social and cultural break between the Middle Ages and modern times took place with the Renaissance. In this period, the conviction of a tight and unbreakable link between the moral responsibilities of the human being and the perception of the "morally good" and the commandments of God was still present among people, even if only in appearance. However, over time, and above all with new discoveries, two qualities began to predominate: productivity and rationality, which triggered the emergence of the idea that the world was given to the service and benefit of intelligent human beings. There was a close and organic relationship between the qualities of being productive and rational and the use of one's intellect, working hard, unleashing one’s full potential productivity through continuous improvement, and transforming the world into a place of comfortable living (Taylor 2008: 360). This understanding necessitated a new way of life with certain rules. The concepts of rationality and productivity were closely linked to the fulfilment of two aspects: rejection of tradition and dedication to one’s work (Weber 1997: 62). All of the above-mentioned factors heralded the emergence of an aggressive ‘‘capitalist spirit’’ based on entrepreneurship. The human silhouette on the horizon was that of a "capitalist" person who, even if he/she did not oppose the Church, was increasingly becoming apathetic towards religion and had no problem in alienating himself/herself from otherworldly matters. The personal moral qualities of this new type of person were not necessarily related to Christian religion and morality. However, it was not far-fetched that both religion and the morality stipulated by religion would be seen as an obstacle to the construction and development of the idealised typology. Therefore, the establishment of a lifestyle envisaged by capitalism could only be possible on the basis of a ‘‘liberal enlightenment’’. For precisely this reason, religion and morality could be sacrificed as necessary for the construction of a society with a ‘‘capitalist spirit’’ (Weber 1997: 62).
It must not be surprising that a ‘‘natural’’ world, in which there are no religious value judgements and only the laws of physics are applicable, is believed to be outside the sphere of intervention of a God whose divinity has been suspended except for His creative attributes. Undoubtedly, such a world was also very favourable for those with a capitalist spirit, who were seeking new areas of profit and exploitation, and who stood out with their rational, opportunistic, utilitarian and accountant characteristics. What had to be done then was to redesign the relations revolving around the triangle of religion, politics and economy, to redefine the contents of the concepts according to the spirit of the time, and finally to reorganise and reconstruct social structures in accordance with this. Reason, science and experiment were to be the guidelines to be strictly followed in this new world, while basic humanist values such as tolerance, freedom and equality were to constitute the parameters of universal morality. All this meant only one thing: The human being, who came from nature, was returning to its original habitat, that is, to nature. One should not forget that the increase in verbal abuse, attacks and defamation targeting Christianity, the Bible, its religious teachings, its clergy, its churches and its moral codes was a natural part and result of this process. It has been observed that the supra-historical/transhistorical role and power of Roman Catholicism, which desired to control especially the natural and religious life, politics, trade, art and, to put it briefly, all areas of life, gradually eroded in this process. The manipulative and sinister relations with the European monarchies, authority struggles, bribery, etc. are among the factors that accelerated this erosion. Roman Catholicism, which was structured with a rigid bureaucratic structure, could not avoid drifting towards the endless horizon of ‘‘modern’’ times, whose fiction and design were managed by political actors and the bosses of the economy. As the vision of a capitalist world centred on the economy has been gradually realised, the preservation of the metaphysics and morality of the Catholic faith has become an ever-greater challenge. Today, it has become even easier to achieve this goal with the introduction of the full weight of technique and technology, which are the products of the owners of such a vision.
The reactionary and critical attitude towards the Church and the clergy, which sometimes went as far as ridicule and humiliation, reached its climax in the 17th century, and it should not be forgotten that the Protestant movement also had a serious share in the emergence of this situation. It was only in the early 1500s when Martin Luther said that the Roman Church had deviated from its original course and turned into a place of adulteries, drunkenness, gambling and games. Describing what was happening as a great "scandal", Luther witnessed a landscape of a Church besieged by lazy, careless and abusive priests (Febvre 2016: 74-75). The Reformation, which began as a movement to challenge the Holy See, was not only an attempt to eliminate the intermediaries between the individual and God, but also a call for religious and moral purification. Concerns that the world has begun to show more and more signs of immorality with each passing century have been expressed at different levels. However, especially in that period, it would be necessary to recall the ‘‘naturalistic’’ tendencies of the opponents who argued that the Church and its understanding of religion was devoid of morality in its view of humanity and nature, and therefore the era of the clergy was about to come to an end. According to this tendency, goodness, kindness or ‘‘acting in good faith’’ did not necessarily have to be connected with religion, the Church or the revelation of God. The atheist and deist tones of this tendency have become more prominent over time. According to some scholars, extreme Protestantism, which gained strength and courage with the Reformation movement, was a kind of deism. So much so that it was almost impossible to distinguish the extreme Protestant stance from that of deism. It has been claimed that Luther's stand in favour of consciousness and freedom paved the way for deism, and that this inspired and encouraged the rationalism of deists and their determination to advocate free thought (Emerson 1987: 20).
Max Weber strikingly claimed that Protestantism led the way for the emergence of capitalism. According to him, puritanical Protestantism played an active role in the construction of a methodical, disciplined, moral, conscious Christian personality, who cares about his/her business life but at the same time observes the demands of God, in accordance with the entrepreneurial spirit of capitalism. In other words, by introducing a new type of morality that would pave the way for commercialism, Protestantism freed the human interest in profit and material possessions from the restrictive prohibitions of morality and gave a legitimate and legal basis to financial gain by claiming that this is exactly what God wants from human beings. According to the Protestant perspective, working, possessing, earning and accumulating wealth was the key to not only worldly but also spiritual gain (Weber 1997: 150). According to this thesis, the new morality arose from the blending of Calvinist work ethics and theology. If this is true, it means that capitalism owes its success to a significant extent to Protestantism. More precisely, this religious background has played the lion's share in the ability of capitalism to thrive on a ground of legitimacy. Every Protestant who desires to gain God's favour must at the same time develop his/her profession in the most ideal way, work without laziness and do his work in a sound and proper manner, thus reflecting the will and commands of God in his profession. Accordingly, every individual, regardless of his/her social stratum and the profession to which he/she belongs, must first of all devote himself/herself to his/her profession. The way to be useful to the society lies in being diligent and hardworking, working hard and in a disciplined manner, displaying one’s talents in the best way possible and, of course, saving money. The person who follows the Protestant ethical principles perfectly in his/her working life will fulfil his/her duty to be a responsible and strong individual, first to himself/herself, then to his/her society and to his/her God, and thus will earn all kinds of respect. The English philosopher Terry Eagleton put it succinctly when he remarked: ‘‘Materiality is blessed for Christianity because it is the work of God’’ (Eagleton 2021: 46).
As a result, the climate of secularisation, which started with the birth of the capitalist spirit and became more intense and pronounced with the influence of humanism and undoubtedly religious conflicts, would not hesitate to develop its own understanding of morality. The transformation of this morality, which was initially inspired, empowered and supported by Protestantism, into a ‘‘universal morality’’ which does not belong to a religion or revelation, which is independent and shaped by human experience and intuition, which is in harmony with nature and tested by reason, cannot be explained by a series of coincidences. To emphasise, capitalism also plays a central role in the maturation and spread of a global materialist culture. Certainly, this does not summarise the whole process. Humanist rationalism, scientific empiricism, naturalistic tendencies, technical advances and rampant consumer culture have also had a negative impact on the moral structures of societies. In addition, attempts by capitalism to construct a self-interested ‘‘global morality’’ disguised as ‘‘globalisation’’ under the guise of neoliberal policies have also had far-reaching effects that cannot be ignored. Taking into account the existence of a competitive and inexpungable ambition to acquire wealth that is completely divorced from religion and morality, we can more or less have an idea of what the world of the future will look like. Of course, it would have been inconceivable for deism and atheism, which sprouted and blossomed in the heart of a Christian world that had drifted far away from the ideal of a faith-based moral society that Jesus Christ had originally aimed to establish, not to be influenced by all these historical events and developments, as well as by the spirit of the times, and not to find a suitable means for themselves to thrive. They too were part of the sharp opposition to the Church that we mentioned at the beginning, which was sometimes explicit but often hidden for fear of being banished. One should not forget that a ‘‘secular morality’’ that avoids, even implicitly, any part of faith and religion in the construction and definition of identity and selfhood serves as a safe harbour for deists and atheists. I would like to emphasise that secular morality is a morality that is free from religious legitimacy and its sublime values, and thus corresponds to a shrunken, dry, sterile and relativistic set of rules.
The Return of Morality
I guess, I would not be wrong if I said that we are living in times when the importance of morality is widely discussed, especially in the face of increasing complaints that immorality is spreading all over the world. On the other hand, the French educator and philosopher André Comte-Sponville claims that humanity today is witnessing the return of morality. In order to justify this claim, he lists several grounds. The first of these grounds is that even the Nietzschean and Marxist generation of the 68, who once perceived morality as a ‘‘Judeo-Christian ideology’’ that enslaves people and restricts freedoms, today frequently express their moral concerns. Sponville, who was himself a member of the 68 generation, explains that morality is deemed ‘‘immoral’’ in the eyes of this generation because of its oppressive, sterilising and guilt-inducing character. According to this generation, politics, which they held sacred, could easily replace everything else, including morality. However, the situation is very different now, the generation of 68 and several generations that followed them have abandoned such claims, even though they still have not given up on their political view. Today, many humanitarian problems, including racism, which are ostensibly political, are basically moral problems for them. The generation in question, which in the past held the view that ‘‘politics is everything’’ and believed that good politics was the ‘‘only morality’’ that should exist, has now adopted the idea that ‘‘morality is everything’’ (Comte-Sponville 2012: 16-26).
Sponville cites the triumph of capitalism as the second justification for the return to morality. The development that confirmed the victory of capitalism was the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the 80s. During the Cold War, capitalism, i.e. the liberal West, i.e. the free world, was boasting of its own moral system against the communist system and was trying to legitimise itself through this morality. For Sponville, who says that ‘‘the West still has a rival, but capitalism has no rival left’’, this situation is alarming. Capitalism, which is still a monopolised system with all its distortions and injustices, bends and twists humanitarian and conscientious values at its own pleasure in a world system built on production and consumption, and continues to multiply its sphere of influence day by day. Therefore, a capitalist ideology with no alternative is another reason why morality is increasingly brought to the agenda as a problem (Sponville 2012: 26-29).
According to Sponville, who pays no attention to the exclamations that ‘‘God is dead’’, in reality God is not dead, but has retreated into the private life of the individual, and if he has died, this death has taken place in society, that is, in the social sphere. According to Sponville, the process of secularisation, which began with the Renaissance, gained momentum with the Reformation and the Enlightenment, and continued in the 19th and 20th centuries, was ultimately sloganised as ‘‘God is dead’’ or ‘‘The spell of the world has been broken’’, and the perception of this as the actual state is quite wrong. Although secularisation, i.e. the process of moving out of the sphere of influence of religion, or more precisely, ‘‘the process of turning away from Christianity’’, is a real phenomenon, the statement of Nietzsche that ‘‘God is dead’’ does not apply to those who believe in God. Sponville here also draws attention to a danger which he refers to as ‘‘the cost of secularisation’’. In the event that the ‘‘God’’ that brings society together is dead, the ‘‘religion’’ that unites communities has disappeared, and the ‘‘religious unity’’ has broken down, it means that the need for morality has become even more vital. ‘‘For three thousand years society has never been so secularised,’’ says Sponville, ‘‘we are in dire need of morality.’’ According to him, the need for morality has never been as great as it is today for three thousand years. The question of what people should and should not do if there is no God must be answered urgently. Sponville, who argues that religion must have a morality, ranks morality second because it originates from religion. When religion disappears, morality replaces it, which is inevitable. This is the third justification for the return of morality (Sponville 2012: 29-34).
The fourth reason is quite obvious. The first three reasons (the transition from one generation to another and the political crisis; the collapse of the Soviet regime and the loss of the legitimacy of capitalism as a counter-thesis; the question ‘‘What should I do?’’ becomes an individual problem as a result of the ‘‘social death’’ of God.) demonstrate that the return to morality is not just a ‘‘fashion’’, but constitutes a need of decisive importance for the fate of civilisation. It is perhaps the market that should benefit the most from the return of morality, or more precisely, that needs it the most. Merchants and companies are in any case dependent on morality in order to make a profit. Sponville finds the concept of ‘‘market morality’’ bizarre and points out that the phrase ‘‘Ethics increases competition, ethics sells!’’ has become a cliche as a fashionable saying in this market. He refers to this inherent consequence as ‘‘the fashion for ethical enterprise’’ (Sponville 2012: 34-39).
Sponville says that morality has returned, and I have no objection to his claim and the justifications he puts forward. It was one of the goals of modernity to transform religiosity into a form that would not interfere with the myth of ‘‘progress’’ and to shift it to the private sphere. It was inevitable that this development, which can be described as a ‘‘disenchantment’’ in favour of progress, would lead to a change and transformation in moral tendencies and religious structures. Even though the return of morality is a reality, the question of whether this morality is the morality that was previously lost by humanity is an issue that needs to be addressed. While the morality that has been taken backstage is basically a morality that has an organic connection with religion, the morality that Sponville claims to have returned is a ‘‘bizarre’’ mixture that submits to the demands of many ‘‘contemporary’’ elements such as modernity, modern capitalism and its rational forms of secularism, neoliberalism, market rationality and ideology, respectively. The only ingredient absent from this mixture is religion. The ‘‘market’’ morality has taken the place of a morality that derives its approval and sanctioning power not only from the conscience of the individual and society, but also from the divine source. The market, which has succeeded in transforming religion, language, institutions, organisation and, of course, religiosity into instruments of capital accumulation and profit, has rationally used all the techniques, possibilities and means that capitalism and neoliberalism have bestowed upon it, and has made considerable progress towards gaining a ‘‘universal’’ identity. Probably, today there is very little that is not in deep synergy with market morality.
The fact that the concept of ‘‘market’’ has been promoted to the position of an adjective characterising many things belonging to the world of human beings should be recorded as a success of capitalism and neoliberalism. These things, as the title of the work by Patrick Haenni suggests, have taken on a new context and identity with the concept of ‘‘market’’. His work, titled Market Islam, essentially defines neoliberalism in the shape of Islam. This concept, which summarises a state of ‘‘metamorphosis’’, seems to imply the tragic story of a religion that has drifted away from its roots. It announces the eclectic reconciliation of Islam with the values of the West. The same concept also claims that Islam has been helplessly submitting to the rules of Western global marketing and mass consumer culture, feeding on it and accepting to be in harmony with the requirements of modernity created by marketing and mass consumer culture. The claim of Haenni’s work is obvious and at the same time heart-breaking for the Muslim soul: Religion, morality, charity and economics with an Islamic perspective are today being reshaped around the Western market (Haenni 2014). Regardless of whether we accept it or not, it has become an undeniable reality that a transformation similar to the transformation of Christian religiosity in the West in the face of capitalism has been experienced in Muslim geographies, especially in the second half of the 20th century. It is everywhere today thanks to ‘‘market-supported religiosity’’, which emerged as the mature product of the attempts of secular motives to rationalise Islamic values, structures and thoughts. On the one hand, the market purifies religiousness from radical elements, and on the other hand, it constructs a Muslim identity that articulates with mass culture and focuses on success and performance (Haenni 2014: 51 vd.). This identity is a ‘‘dressed up’’ identity; the body of this identity is a ‘‘meta" body that has been familiarised with styles (fashion) that are contrary to its faith and morality. It is a ‘‘need and consumption orientated market Muslim’’ with very few elements of religion and morality preserved. Ultimately, the religion of this identity consists of being ‘‘a flexible instrument of moral action that can be combined with market logics’’ (Osella 2022: 43). Religion now functions as a motivating factor for what comes into vogue. To make this statement more concrete, religion has finally been harmonised with the economic principles and goals of capitalism and neoliberalism. Religious morality has been reconstructed and reconfigured in such a way as to become the key to neoliberal development. In this way, not only religion has been prevented from becoming a tool that will slow down the speed of production and consumption of the market, but also the distance between religious morality and market morality has been brought closer and eventually the merger of these morals will be ensured (Osella 2022: 38-39). It can be said that capitalist modernity has captured important fronts in its war against Islam, as it has against all other institutional religions. With the concept of ‘‘Market Islam’’ Haenni also refers to the existence of a bourgeoisisation based on religionization. It also refers to the utilisation of Islam as a basis for the legitimisation of capitalist tendencies in making sense of life, essentially the legitimisation of market demands, many of which are not really legitimate. Ultimately, Islam has been given the identity of being an ‘‘entrepreneurial’’ religion capable of adapting to the demands of capitalist modernity (Haenni 2014: 10). It is important to realise that this ‘‘entrepreneurial’’ religion has opened up a wide field of action for Muslims within the capitalist system. If morality has returned, it would not be an exaggeration to say that the morality that has returned is one that is compatible with the secular demands of capitalist liberalism.
Deism and Deist Morality
For deists, God is the eternal architect and divine intelligence behind the universe and the universal laws of physics. This God has nothing to do with or resemble the God of religions. In fact, the God of deism consists of infinite power and energy with transcendent intelligence. This God, who has infinite power and energy as an architect, has no human-like characteristics. This God neither sends divine revelations or holy books nor appoints prophets to establish religions. This God does not intervene in the universe and nature through miracles or other means, does not interfere with human beings and their affairs, does not answer their prayers, does not command them, does not forbid them, does not deceive them with the promise of heaven, does not give them hope, does not threaten them with hell and terrible afterlife punishments, and does not terrify them. Furthermore, this God does not require people to worship Him or impose any obligations on them. Deists know that actions such as homicide, rape, theft and other acts and behaviours that harm human beings are intrinsically wrong and evil. According to them, there is no need for a religion to recognise or comprehend all these evils. They are universal truths that have been proven. The human mind, which has the ability to distinguish between good and evil, has never needed revelations, holy books, or the guidance of prophets to know what is good or evil.
For deists, who regard deism as a philosophy and a way of life, and who absolutely isolate it from any kind of religion or belief, there is no morality derived from religion, but instead there is an ‘‘objective morality.’’ This morality is a phenomenon that humanity has constructed based on its own historical experiences and is therefore human-made and possesses no divine attributes. Human circumstances, conditions and experiences are common property and a shared element of humanity. Moral rules, on the other hand, are solely the product of this sharing, and their rules are based on empathy and experience. Through experience, human beings can know and comprehend what hurts them, and empathise and understand that the same thing can hurt others. As human beings mature, their morality also matures. Consequently, to link morality with religion is to distort the truth. Although religions impose certain rules and responsibilities under the name of ‘‘morality’’, in reality they do not contribute anything to the rules of morality. Goodness does not stem from religion or being religious. Consequently, there is no official morality for deists, who base their philosophy on reason and the natural universe. The parameters of deism are determined on the axis of reason, science, experiment/experience, nature and evolution, and morality is not free from this.
According to atheists and deists, religions cannot serve as a source of inspiration for the discovery of universal moral laws. In other words, religion does not serve as a basis for moral laws because of the explicit rejection of religion. While the atheist rejects God with the support of science, the deist accepts God with the support of science. In the deist understanding, God does not bestow revelation; the books believed to have come by revelation were written by people called ‘‘prophets’’. Therefore, just like atheism, deists argue that religion cannot be a basis for morality. Just as the basis of religion is reason and nature, so is the basis of morality reason and nature. The famous deist Anthony Ashley-Cooper (death 1713), better known as Shaftesbury, asserted that a person who dwells upon the universe, its laws and its management can discover God. When the mind of a person becomes unified in harmony with the universe, this person will surely find God and the principles of morality. Human nature, which represents a perfect meeting and harmony of virtues, is always inclined towards what is good and beautiful. Morality arises from this inclination of the human disposition towards the good and the beautiful. The most important tool here is reason; reason plays an active role in the emergence of moral behaviour by keeping emotions under strict control. Evil arises as a result of the deviation of human disposition from its perfection, just like the deformation and deterioration of the body. Therefore, evil merely consists of the deviation of the human beings from their normal disposition. In order to prevent this deviation and to help human beings find the universal truth, the good and the beautiful, human beings are constantly reminded of their natural tendencies. Thus, there is no need for a revelation, i.e. a holy book, for their discovery (Aldridge 1951: 303).
Under the influence of Gnostic ideas, a branch of deism that underlines the moral aspect of deism and regards it more as a ‘‘moral therapy’’ argues that heaven can be achieved here and now, in this world, when evil disappears and goodness and beauty prevail. According to Christian Smith and Melissa Lundquist, the proponents of this fictitious view, God exists, created the universe and set its rules, and also watches over and cares for human beings. What makes this deist view, which clearly shows that deism is by no means a monolithic construct, even more interesting is their sympathetic view of Christianity and other world religions. According to them, as the Bible and most world religions preach, God wishes people to do good, to live well and to treat each other with honesty. The main purpose of life is to be happy and to make people feel happy. Contrary to the general deist position, this understanding also accepts divine intervention by Gold when needed to solve a problem. Another view that attracts the reaction of many deists is that good people go to heaven when they die. It is worth noting that these moralistic deists also see Jesus Christ as a moral teacher (Huizenga 2019).
Deism assumes that the morality of God is grounded in justice. Thomas Paine was probably attempting to draw attention to this point when he called upon every true deist to defend the moral justice of God against the injustices of the Bible. Nowadays, deists still consider themselves part of the crowd gathered under the banner of the struggle against religions and all religious beliefs, and endeavour to keep alive the belief that common sense will one day triumph over religious beliefs. Nevertheless, their reconciliation with neoliberalism, which we regard as the guardian of the unjust and colonialist goals of capitalism, weakens their emphasis on divine justice. While the moral decadence caused by industrial capitalism has been added to the moral decadence caused by digital capitalism today, the fact that deists have evolved into an attitude that absolves God from all kinds of intervention in the domain of human beings and nature plays into the hands of predatory capitalism and its neoliberalism that ‘‘eliminates all obstacles’’ in its path. I must say that an understanding that puts God in a cage, despite the fact that they have put a barrier between themselves and atheism, is remarkably compatible with the ‘‘universal project’’ of global capitalists. The isolation of the sense of social justice and goodness from the justice and goodness of God fits neoliberal arbitrariness perfectly. Once God is removed as a truth that goes beyond morality and as an authority that balances and controls it, it would be enough to open the veils of discernment and observe the landscape of the present world with an eye to see to which direction human weaknesses can lead man himself.
Canadian philosopher and politician Charles Taylor emphasises the ontological fragility of the ‘‘good’’ and argues that it is merely a ‘‘hollow’’ in our self-perception. When our belief in the good, the true, the beautiful, the value of life is not grounded in divine commands beyond the human sphere, then he asks, ‘‘How can these things be binding on us?’’ (Taylor 2018: 517). In fact, deism, which concentrates all its energies on the war against religions and eliminates the divine laws that could serve as an armour for humanity against the so-called ‘‘universal’’ morality of an unequal, unjust, exclusionary and arbitrary neoliberal economy that is increasingly sweeping the world, has almost nothing to offer to humanity. Those who are familiar with the rules of the neoliberal game have no right to complain about the lack of justice in a world where capitalist exploitation prevails with all its elements.
Instead of Conclusion
To understand how Jesus Christ’s ‘‘New Morality’’ project, which aimed to bring the community of believers together around the same human ideals and lofty behaviours, has been undermined by capitalist ambitions, it is enough to look at the Christian world of today. The principles of ‘‘priority protection of the poor and weak, universal sharing of goods and universal participation’’, which form the basis of Catholic morality, have been revised in a way that favours those who are rich and powerful. The landscape in the Muslim world is not much different from that in the Christian world. These tragic scenes, which have become a bitter reality of almost every square kilometre of the globe, are the best indicator that capitalist reality has developed its ability to present itself in multiple forms that are constantly transforming, changing and flowing in the digital age. The situation, to which political scientist Wendy Brown refers as ‘‘The Ruins of Neoliberalism’’, is clear and sarcastic enough as a striking conceptualisation of global destruction. The oppressive mentality, which is very skilled in discovering the ways and methods that perhaps even the devil would not think of in capturing the minds, languages, histories and cultures of individuals and societies, also skilfully exhibits its dexterity in shaking the belief and moral foundations of societies and individuals. It is quite remarkable that the capitalist entertainment industry is constantly increasing the number and variety of instant pleasures, multiplying its profits and expanding its area of influence. In this environment, deists, who, just like atheists, blame all evils on religions and pretend to preserve their belief in God and turn themselves into moral monuments, need to first and sincerely look in the mirror. The objection of their deist ancestors in history, while not concealing their naturalistic tendencies, was to the authority of the Church, which they believed had lost its purpose and purity in the mire of money and the dirty games of politics. For all their anger, however, they were, with the exception of a few, very sensitive to preserving their Christian affiliation and identity. When it comes to the present, today's deists are as responsible as anyone else for the moral evils that thrive in the shadow of capitalism and neoliberalism. Zygmunt Bauman's concept of ‘‘Moral Blindness’’, which describes the loss of sensitivity in fluid modernity, is also applicable to them. After all, there is no morality unique to deism, which is stripped of all its metaphysical weight apart from a dry belief in God, or a morality identified with the deist perspective. Neoliberal values, the extent to which they are moral and sincere is questionable, are also a convenient umbrella for deists. A secular humanist morality the form and content of which have been determined according to the perceptions, values and judgements of neoliberal capitalism is, for the time being, also the style of deists. The endeavour to boast of being moral or to propagate deism as a sincere moral way of life is, frankly, the result of a strange state of melancholic fascination. Deists are at least as responsible as we and everyone else for the profound moral distortion that is about to be nailed to the earth.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ALDRIDGE, Alfred Owen, (1951), “Shaftesbury and the Deist Manifesto”, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, v. 41, no. 2, p. 297-382. (Source: jstor.org).
BALOĞLU, Adnan Bülent, (2020), Son Hurafe: Deizm, Ankara: Diyanet İşleri Başk. Yay.
COMTE-SPONVILLE, Andre, (2012), Kapitalizm Ahlaki midir? (Le capitalisme est-il moral?) translated by Dilek Yankaya, İstanbul: İletişim Yay.
EMERSON, Roger L., (1987), “Latitudinarianism and the English Deists”, Deism, Masonry, and the Enlightenment, ed. J. A. Leo Lemay, London: Associated University Press, 19-48.
EAGLETON, Terry, (2021), Materyalizm (Materialism), translated by Serkan Gündüz, (İstanbul: Tellekt Yay.)
FARUKİ, İsmail Raci, (2015), Hıristiyanlık Ahlakı: Hıristiyanlığın Tarihsel ve Sistematik Analizi (Christian Ethics: A Historical and Systematic Analysis of Its Dominant Ideas), translated by İsmail Kapaklıkaya, İstanbul: Mahya Yay.
FEBVRE, Lucien, Martin Luther: Alın Yazısı (Un destin. Martin Luther), (2016), translated by Serpil Gürer, Ankara: Cümle Yay.
HUIZENGA, Leroy, (2019), “What is Therapeutic Deism and Why Does It Fail?”, https://stpaulcenter.com/what-is-moral-therapeutic-deism-and-why-does-it-fail/ (Access: 16.09.2022)
KISHLANSKY, Mark A. (ed.), (2017), Batı’nın Kaynakları I-II (Sources of the West I-II), translated by M. Kürşat Atalar, İstanbul: Açılım Yay.
TAYLOR, Charles, (2008), Benliğin Kaynakları (Sources of the Self): Modern Kimliğin İnşası, translated by S. Aygül Baş, Bilal Baş, İstanbul: Küre Yay.
WEBER, Max, (1997), Protestan Ahlakı ve Kapitalizmin Ruhu (The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism), translated by Zeynep Aruoba, İstanbul: Hil Yayın.
*Prof. Dr., Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi