<p>This is long-winded and random. Feel free to skip it if you have more important things to do (which is probably the case). </p>
<p>I just thought of this; tell me if you agree/disagree with all or parts of this, no need for flames if I’m mistaken. I’m getting the idea as I type so forgive me if it’s not completely formed. Also forgive me if I sound too pedantic or bookish; I’m usually not this much of a jack@ss … but it’s 2:00am and I don’t have the energy to edit this so I’m typing whatever it is I think of.</p>
<p>In my opinion, the strongest external influence on a person’s religion is his/her parents’ religious beliefs. I’ve never heard of anyone being raised as a deist by deist parents (I’m sure it does happen, I just doubt it’s common as compared to any other religion). Therefore I assume that deism is more of an adopted/converted belief than something you are simply raised believing.</p>
<p>If we accept that, then we postulate that deists can be converts of two different ends of the religious spectrum: those who were raised religiously, and those who weren’t. Those raised religiously who turn to deism appear to me as people who are grasping for some form of their religion to hang onto when they realize that, scientifically and logically, religion as it was initially presented doesn’t add up. Those who weren’t raised on religion (or at least not strongly) may turn to deism because they find atheism too extreme or too devoid of answers. </p>
<p>Thus deism, like agnosticism, is a religious ‘middle ground’ where its followers can basically pick and choose which aspects of religion they decide to adhere to on an individual basis, depending how they truly personally feel and believe. The inherent availability of choice in this “religion”, as opposed to a more staunchly set religion (like, for example, strict Catholicism or orthodox Judaism…not that there’s anything wrong with those =P), makes it appear to be a more progressive and thus, a more “modern” choice. </p>
<p>I don’t have the numbers in front of me, nor do I know where to find them, but it would be interesting to see whether statistics support the theory of the growth of deism/agnosticism/atheism in the last several hundred years. As a continually progressive, growingly capitalistic, increasingly individually-independent world within the last half a millenium or so, do we naturally select less and less religion? …Or perhaps the opposite is true. </p>
<p>However, looking at historical trends, religion has assumably become less influential now than it was in the Dark Ages, when religion was the unquestioned iron law of the land (referring to Europe, because it was here that the dominant civilizations sprang from after the Renaissance). Is it possible to extrapolate this trend to the future and postulate that in another millenium or so, barring any major civilization-altering events, religion will become even less of a factor in our lives, withering into popular deism/agnosticism at first and then ultimately resulting in a general worldwide atheism?</p>
<p>When I say ‘general’, I mean it in the sense that Christianity was the ‘general’ European religion during the Dark Ages. Of course there were those who were not Christians (I’m not referring to Muslims, I’m referring to the small percentage of atheists/“pagans” who had been introduced to society) then, as of course there will be those who are not atheists. </p>
<p>I know there are potentially plenty of individual counterexamples to the details mentioned above, undoubtedly including some person ones from the people currently reading this, but what I’ve said is more of a general theory than anything else. Ah, ok, that’s it for tonight. Oh, what random crap I think of when I’m half-asleep…</p>