Pardon me for being so late in responding.
I see a convergence between all four directions because all four directions see the universe, the world, and all the creatures of the creation, including people, as something that is meant to be understood, as opposed to chastised, ignored, or despised.
Since there appears to be such a conundrum about any modern definition of deism recently, I hope I am not being to presumptuous to quote from the book I am currently reading, so I may be allowed to present my understanding of the definition.
ABE - There is also that sense of awe and humility, indeed even a sense of celestial harmony, concerning the works of God, that I think places all four directions toward a similar conclusion. Contrast this with the metaphor of warfare and self-debasement so popular in some interpretations of western religion.
From "Ages in Chaos: James Hutton and the Discovery of Deep Time" by Stephen Baxter, page 27.
quote:
This 'Deist' thinking, a major break from the orthodox traditions of the time, had originated in seventeenth-century France, and flourished in England in the first half of the eighteenth century. The Deists accepted the Bible's moral authority but rejected its literal interpretation as a true history of the world. God wasn't banished, but His role was restricted to setting the universal laws. He emphatically did not tinker day to day in the working of the world, through miracles and Floods. Newton's vision of a world governed by simple laws led to its natural incorporation into the Deist vision, even though this was to some extent a misrepresentation of what Newton himself believed. Later Deism became well rooted in revolutionary America, counting Benjamin Franklin and the first three Presidents among its adherents.
I think that under this broad definition, most people who are not atheists and that accept a post-medieval modern understanding of the world, including such things as an old earth, the germ theory of disease, evolution, genetics, heliocentrism, physics, chemistry, geology, and biology may easily be considered Deists.
As one of my favorite quotes that so far as I know I made up goes - "I learn about God through the works of God rather than the words of Men."
So under the broad definition of Deism, as a Spinoza Panthiest, you can count me in.
How does it look for Taoism and Matayama Buddhism from your perspective, Archer? From what little I directly know, and trusting other sources, they appear Deist in the broad sense as well as they also appear to reject a micromanaging deity.
Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.
Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
™ Version 4.2
