I’m not suggesting that humanists reject atheism or deny who we are. And, as generally defined, atheism is a necessary, but not sufficient, prerequisite to humanism. My points are 1) that we should not lead with our atheism, and 2) that as a movement we might do good to be more open to those who do cling to some sort of deistic belief. From a practical perspective, comparing atheism and deism is a distinction without a difference – it has no bearing on anything other than our views on “first cause.” It seems that even a deist lives “without supernaturalism” and that there is nothing in, for example, Humanist Manifesto III that absolutely precludes a deistic understanding for the origin of the universe.

Since “deism” as a movement has a long history and assorted definitions, that might not be the best word for what I’m trying to convey (at least one definition that I’ve seen includes the existence of a “soul” or an “afterlife”). Maybe “pandeism” is a better word. Maybe something else. But, again, my point is only that if somebody claims to have a belief in a god-of-the-gaps who created the universe, but is otherwise a secular rationalist, humanists should embrace them rather than drive them toward liberal Christianity. My guess is that once in a community of people who are comfortable in their atheism, such unnecessary beliefs would eventually be dropped.

Mel Lipman