Extended abstract
This study employs an analytical-critical approach to examine the logical possibility or impossibility of the principle of "revelation" within the framework of "Deistic theology." The origin of this inquiry lies in the fundamental opposition between two paradigms: on the one hand, Deism, which, relying exclusively on "natural reason" and a belief in the "cosmological self-sufficiency" of the world, negates any divine intervention and direct communication (including revelation) after the initial creation; and on the other hand, revelatory theism, which emphasizes the possibility and actual occurrence of God's voluntary and guiding communication with humanity through revelation. The findings of this analysis indicate that Deism's negative stance regarding revelation rests on three invalid presuppositions: first, a restrictive view of God's communicative power; second, the assumption of an inherent conflict between reason and revelation; and third, the reduction of the concept of revelation to a "violation of natural laws." The fact that the Deistic intellectual edifice is built upon these unsound foundations leads it toward four internal aporias (logical impasses), which destabilize the internal coherence of this system of thought.
Deists, on the one hand, acknowledge a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and purely good – a God possessing all attributes "worthy of worship" – yet on the other hand, by absolutely denying any subsequent voluntary act and communication on His part with the world, they effectively empty these attributes of any practical relevance. This position leads to a "degradation of the image of God" and presents a reduced theology in which God is likened to an "absent watchmaker." The fundamental question is: How can one simultaneously affirm God's infinite power but consider Him incapable of an act such as "speaking" to His creatures – an act which does not necessitate the violation of any logical or metaphysical law? This perspective entails a "voluntary reductionism" of divine power. Moreover, if the creation of the world – especially a world containing rational and volitional beings – has a wise purpose, the Creator's absolute indifference to guiding these creatures toward that end either indicates the "futility" of the act of creation or an "ethical neglect" on the part of an all-good God. Both conclusions violate His attributes of wisdom and benevolence.
Deism presents "Universal Reason" as a complete substitute for revelation, claiming that this autonomous reason is sufficient for knowing all necessary truths concerning God and ethics. However, the history of philosophy and the unresolved disagreements among philosophers on fundamental issues such as proving the immortality of the soul are clear testaments to the inadequacy of pure reason. This reason, in addition to its vulnerability to psychological and social obstacles, faces a more structural challenge known as "The Problem of Criterion": Reason requires a criterion to distinguish true beliefs from false ones, but justifying that very criterion leads either to circularity or to an infinite regress. Therefore, reason severed from any transcendent source of knowledge lacks a firm foundation for attaining certainty in the realm of metaphysics.
Deists attempt to derive objective ethical principles through observation and inference from "nature". However, this approach faces a fundamental contradiction: on the one hand, Deism denies any divine guidance or continual intervention in nature, portraying it as an autonomous system reliant on mechanical laws (such as the evolutionary process based on natural selection). On the other hand, it seeks to deduce obligatory commandments like justice, self-sacrifice, and benevolence from this system, which lacks inherent ethical purposiveness. The question is: How can values that often require transcending individual self-interest be extracted from a process whose core is based on "the survival of the fittest" and competition? This explanatory gap indicates that establishing an objective and binding morality seems to necessitate reliance on a source beyond the material nature- revelation.
Deism regards human reason as a divine gift but blocks the possibility of any supra-rational explanation or complement to this gift. If God is all-good and wise, having bestowed this remarkable faculty (reason) upon humanity, is it not natural that He would also wish to provide, directly and clearly (through revelation), the necessary guidance for directing this reason? In other words, denying revelation implies that a God who is subtle and all-aware (who, according to verse 14 of Surah Al-Mulk, is more aware of His creation than they are of themselves), despite His knowledge of human perplexity and need for guidance, refrains from offering the most direct form of guidance. This is incompatible with the conception of God's active wisdom and benevolence.
In contrast to these impasses, the article outlines an alternative model titled "The Model of Wise Communication". In this model, a relational and dependency-oriented ontology replaces Deism's dualistic and independence-oriented perspective. Accordingly, the world is not like an independent clock but is in a state of continuous existential dependence on its Creator. Revelation, within this framework, is not an alien "intervention" from without but the culmination and natural manifestation of this very existential connection in the realm of consciousness and guidance. Revelation is part of God's eternal wise plan, which operates in harmony with the laws of nature, yet at a transcendent level, to guide volitional beings toward their perfection. This perspective dissolves the artificial conflict between "God's action" and "natural law."
The absolute negation of revelation in Deism is based on erroneous presuppositions that lead to internal contradictions in the theological, epistemological, ethical, and anthropological domains. The way out of this impasse is the acceptance of "public revelation," which includes innate human nature (fiṭrah), foundational moral intuitions, and universal spiritual experiences. This form of divine disclosure, embedded within the very structure of creation and human nature, can fill Deism's gaps without violating its fundamental principle (in its specific sense) and provide the groundwork for its internal evolution and constructive dialogue with revelatory religions.