Mehmet Fatih Arslan
Recently, the claim that deism is in vogue, especially in Türkiye, and that the youth (especially those from conservative families) are rapidly shifting towards deism has been kept on the agenda by certain circles. First of all, it is difficult to find a field study to support this claim. Nevertheless, it can be seen that some of the young people may have such a tendency, but it is not difficult to see that this is due to some practical reasons rather than scientific and rational reasons. It is no secret that the new generation in particular is eager to (implicitly or secretly) secularize and distance themselves from religious values.
So, what is the most common opinion on this issue? The most widespread opinion in popular media, especially social media, is that pious people in power are pushing young people towards this kind of degeneration through their mistakes and abuses: The most stereotypical answer is that religious people act in opposition to the religious values they espouse in their moral behavior and lives. In other words, young people are rapidly moving away from religion due to the abuse of power and the opportunities that power brings. However, there are two fundamental flaws in this claim. First, even if it is assumed that young people are influenced by the immorality of some pious people and turn to deism, their opinions about the pious community, which opposes such practices, criticizes the current government as much as they do and expresses the same concerns as they do, are also extremely negative. Therefore, it would be expected that young people, who are alienated from religion by being affected by the actions of some pious people, would develop a more balanced attitude towards religion, at least by looking at other pious formations that claim that these practices contradict religion and are far from religion, that express similar demands to them, and even ultimately meet with them on a higher roof in terms of their political preferences. However, this is clearly not the case. This shows that the issue is not the wrongdoings of religious people, but rather the search for a justification for the legitimization of an attitude developed for reasons that will be explained below.
It is also necessary to open a Palestine parenthesis here. Because it is possible to say that in societies from America to the Far East, which host perhaps the most secular and atheist youth in the world, at least a sympathy in favor of Islam and Muslim identity has emerged after the Palestinian resistance. The Palestinian people, who did not compromise their stance despite facing all Western colonial powers, the most savage tribe in the world, the Zionists, the most miserable and expansionist group in the world, and despite countless forms of torture, death and starvation, caused a serious awakening in the West. While the image of Palestinians, who are targeted simply because they are Muslims and who take refuge in Islam and Allah despite experiencing the full weight and ordeal of their Islamic identity, is leading the youth of the West to read the Qur’an and sympathize with Islam, the Turkish secularism and atheism are not moving a leaf. Far from displaying the minimum humanitarian stance demanded of them, they directly target the Palestinian image and support a genocide accompanied by the clichés of ‘traitorous Arabs’ without any concealment and with a boastful attitude. The aforementioned people, who constantly preach morality with the concepts of justice, right, law, injustice and oppression, and try to prove that there is no connection between piety and morality, carefully avoid the slightest sympathy for the struggle of the Palestinian people, who stand out with their Islamic identity. For those who derive all their legitimacy from the claim of resisting oppression, who object to being weighed on different scales of justice according to their identities, who boast of their stance against injustice, and who at every opportunity express (with a bit of finger wagging) the need to support the oppressed, no matter who they are, to sympathize with the victims of an unprecedented genocide, to support the most justified resistance of the modern era, to show solidarity with the victims of the greatest injustice is a very minimal expectation. The secular sector, which claims that religious people are moving away from religion due to their moral weaknesses, naturally loses its persuasiveness completely because it chooses to rapidly move away from religious values and minimum human commons and presents this as an ingenuity instead of questioning itself at least on this occasion, revising its memorization of religion and evolving to a more just point by correcting its attitude towards religion.
Secondly, if one accepts the claim that some young people are disturbed by the immoral behavior of pious people, one would naturally expect that these young people are in search of a much more ideal and superior moral framework or that they come to society with such an offer. For example, as in the 60s, we should have seen young people turning to various ideologies that they claimed were fairer and more moral than the religious values they saw as the cause of the submissive attitude of their parents and society. In other words, young people who put forward moral justifications for deism would be expected to turn to more idealistic, more ‘radical’ movements with a higher moral bar. However, it can easily be seen that these young people are free of idealistic concerns, more liberal and reformist in their discourse against moral certainties. In fact, instead of a critical and idealistic attitude that requires certain sacrifices and costs, it is noticeable that they demand a life that promises prosperity and comfort, that is free from suffering and hardship, that brings easy earnings, that will enable them to climb the career ladder quickly, and that will set them apart from the masses. This shows that the moral limitations and responsibilities of religion are more effective in the development of distanced attitudes towards religion rather than misrepresentations of religion. Therefore, it is clear that the problem in the eyes of these young people is not misrepresentations of religion, but the limiting doctrine that underlies their moral and spiritual records, religion itself. The immediate solution is to replace religion with an easily consumable and fluid deism of uncertain nature. Moreover, this is not the product of intellectual and rational effort, but of the impulse to will what is easy, even if it is morally problematic, and to fortify individual interests at the expense of society, especially at the expense of other identities.
From this point of view, it can also be said that there is a hidden arrogance in deism and an implicit claim of superiority over the rest of society. For in the eyes of deists, ordinary people can only do moral acts and comprehend morality through revelatory laws and religious commands. However, intelligent people do not need such guidance. Thanks to their divinely endowed intellect, they can recognize what is moral and act accordingly in every situation without the need for any religious guidance.
On the other hand, the fluid and ambiguous nature of deism also offers significant advantages for individuals who do not want to be bound by a specific identity. In particular, it is obvious that an identity that can be abandoned at will, that does not require paying a price for it, and that has no boundaries is also favored by modernity, which imposes ‘fluidity’ and being on the move as an ideal. Therefore, severing one’s ties with established religious understandings without being subjected to atheism’s obligation of rational proof and rational deduction, and being a ‘distant’ and ‘equal’ interlocutor with God without severing one’s ties with God are highly attractive elements for societies where individuality is highly sanctified.
When all this is considered together, it is inevitable to see that the issue is not the moral weaknesses of pious power holders, the abuse of religious identity or the moral corruption in the Islamic community, but rather the efforts of some people who themselves are morally corrupt and who want to get rid of all religious and moral records, to legitimize these efforts through other identities and to present this transformation as the natural state and finally summum bonum in the long run.
Another aspect of the deism issue is the claim that deism is spreading among the younger generation of the pious. The story of the emergence of this claim and by whom it is promoted is significant. Especially after July 15th, the intentions of those who claim that young people have abandoned their religious identities and shifted to deism and the echo chambers within the pious community are worthy of a separate and thorough discussion.
