Talk:Deism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, not a Christian (He was a Christian Deist who did not accept Jesus's divinity) 2 Added this part 3 FEATURES OF DEISM 3.1 Add Spinoza? 3.1.1 done 3.2 "a" "god"? (i.e. Why is Deism monotheistic?) 3.3 Linguistics of the word "deism" 4 active God, miracles 4.1 Discussion 4.2 Discussion 4.3 Discussion 4.4 Discussion 4.5 Discussion 4.6 Discussion 4.7 The Mechanic vs. The Divine Watchmaker 5 6 THE CURRENT STATE OF THIS ARTICLE 6.1 Deism Today and NPOV 6.2 This Article is a Mess! 6.3 Discussion 6.4 External links 6.5 This page was a mess; now it is only half a mess 6.6 Now it is only one-sixth of a mess 6.7 Claims of the recent growth of Deism 7 Personal Relationship 8 Controversial 9 a removed sentence 10 What is this {{eo:Diismo}} code? 10.1 Discussion 11 Andrew Zito's comment 11.1 To Andrew Zito 11.2 TO ALL YOU <snip> 11.3 OH SO YOU ADMIT 11.4 Blatantly non-NPOV 11.5 Anonymous user adding "Deist Alliance" links 11.6 Article protected 11.7 Discussion 12 World Union of Deists - Not Reasonable 13 External link to "Aldeism" homepage. 14 The Yin and Yang (or male and female) in PanDeism 14.1 Discussion 15 16 PARTICULAR PEOPLE AND DEISM 17 Thomas Jefferson was a Christian 18 U.S. Founding Fathers 19 Newton not a Deist 20 Isaac Newton's influence 20.1 Discussion 20.2 Discussion 20.3 Discussion 20.4 Discussion 20.5 Discussion 21 Dictionary of History of Ideas: Deism 22 Leibniz vs miracles 22.1 what arguments did deists use for the existence of God? 22.2 Text about Leibniz has been removed 23 Afterlife and Deism 24 Terminology 25 Something very wrong with the opening definition 26 Removed 4 "fact" tags 27 Historical Revisionism 28 Loose ends after copy editing

[edit] Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, not a Christian (He was a Christian Deist who did not accept Jesus's divinity)

Quotes regarding Thomas Jefferson:

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." -Thomas Jefferson

"We discover in the gospels a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication. " -Thomas Jefferson

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being of His Father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -Thomas Jefferson

"In summary, then, Jefferson was a deist because he believed in one God, in divine providence, in the divine moral law, and in rewards and punishments after death; but did not believe in supernatural revelation. He was a Christian deist because he saw Christianity as the highest expression of natural religion and Jesus as an incomparably great moral teacher. He was not an orthodox Christian because he rejected, among other things, the doctrines that Jesus was the promised Messiah and the incarnate Son of God. Jefferson's religion is fairly typical of the American form of deism in his day."

"First, that the Christianity of the churches was unreasonable, therefore unbelievable, but that stripped of priestly mystery, ritual, and dogma, reinterpreted in the light of historical evidence and human experience, and substituting the Newtonian cosmology for the discredited Biblical one, Christianity could be conformed to reason. Second, morality required no divine sanction or inspiration, no appeal beyond reason and nature, perhaps not even the hope of heaven or the fear of hell; and so the whole edifice of Christian revelation came tumbling to the ground"

-intranetusa

[edit] Added this part

• • • Christian Deism is contradictory, since a key tenant of Deism is the rejection of revealed religions, especially Christianity. Thus, Christian Deism is only considered Deism if the follower accepts Jesus not as divine but as an ordinary human being.***

-intranetusa

[edit] FEATURES OF DEISM

[edit] Add Spinoza?

I recommend adding Spinoza to the list of historical Enlightenment thinkers with a Deism bent. Surely more of a diest than Kant.

[edit] done

StephenFerg 13:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "a" "god"? (i.e. Why is Deism monotheistic?)

The article repeatedly mentions a Deist's use of logic and reason in relation to the supernatural. It also constantly refers to the god that created the universe. If Deists rely on logic and reason, is it not also rational to suppose that there may be more than one god? Additionally, it may not even be what we today call a "god". Could it possibly be some sort of spirit / force / supernatural being? After all, there is no "logical" way to know. Right? Please post a reply to this, as I am quite interested.

A deist can either believe in a personal god (one that intervenes in human events) or not. Personally, I don't believe in a personal god so I see God only as the creator or the "spark" of the Big Bang. Since I only accept God as the creator, there is no reason for me to personally believe in more than one creator although I suppose it is possible that "God" isn't unique. Agent-garak

Also, reason dictates the use of Occam's Razor, that the simplest explanation is often the best. Therefore, it is simpler to believe there is one Creator rather than a team of Creators, since if one Creator could create the universe through its own power, it would not need assistants or other co-Creators.JJ4sad6 10:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, see Polydeism and Pandeism-- attempts to describe WHY a creator-type God would now be inaccessible.... Polydeism supposes the Universe was the joint creation of a group of gods, none of whom made enough of an individual contribution to continue caring, hence no active intervention.... Pandeism supposes one God who can't intervene because now he IS the Universe, having become it for the most logical reason why a God would bother to create a Universe, to learn something that God could only learn by becoming the Universe. //// Pacific PanDeist * 02:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linguistics of the word "deism"

I'm wondering why the word deism means what it does. "Deity" basically means g-d, so deism ought to mean "g-dism," so why does deism mean specificaly "belief in an univolved G-d?" Please post on my talk page Eliezerke 05:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Just a quirk of speech-- why does "gay" no longer just mean "happy", after all? The word derives from Deus, have a look there.... //// Pacific PanDeist * 02:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] active God, miracles

Others share the theistic outlook that God is still active today. Deists do not believe in miracles or revelations.

Is there a difference between believing in an active God and believing in miracles? Evercat 21:04, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

An active God could be one observing, answering small prayers, etc. etc, without ever actually doing a miracle. Lyellin

[edit] Discussion

And the opposite can also be true. One can believe in an inactive God, but not that he/she creates miracles. That, instead, miracles are created through natural means - as some Quantum Physics fans posit. Gandahar 15:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Hmm. Isn't even a small miracle a miracle? What sort of things do you think the god could do and not count as miracles? Morwen 21:27, Dec 26, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Now we are getting into theology, not my strong point. I guess what I was trying to say is that it is possible to imagine a belief in God, an active god who is observing and perhaps even intervening, without doing miracles. Miracles referring to things like curing the blind, the lame, etc out of the blue. Miracle in the sense that one must be proved before sainthood ( or is it 3? I'm not RC, I don't know for sure), in the Roman Catholic faith. Lyellin

[edit] Discussion

As far as I am concerned, causing a lost sock to be found counts as a miracle. Would you not count that, then? Morwen 22:16, Dec 26, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

IMHO, that would depend on HOW the lost sock is found. If I pray for guidance, "God please help me find my sock," and then say, "Gee, I've just received guidance in the inwardness of my soul and now I remember where I left the sock!" -- no miracle. Believers will call that inspiration and secularists can call it the power of positive thinking. Neither side will call it a miracle. On the other hand, if the sock suddenly acquires the power of speech, and yells "HEY! I'm Under Your Pillow!" -- that would have to be a miracle. Deists must disbelieve in miracles but it is possible they can believe in divine inspiration in the inwardness of the soul, including inspirations that come in response to prayer. Just my thoughts, FWIW. --Christofurio 01:04, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Mechanic vs. The Divine Watchmaker

A textbook (European History) I read used "The Mechanic" for the metaphor describing God as opposed to the "The Divine Watchmaker". Maybe this could be used to describe the theistic view as a Mechanic would be more likely to be active with his work after its completion (Maintenence, Repair, etc...). This is just an idea I want to throw out there.

[edit]

[edit] THE CURRENT STATE OF THIS ARTICLE

[edit] Deism Today and NPOV

I came to this subject hoping to find an introduction to Deism and its proponents in a scholarly tone with proper citation.

Much of the article seems to do this, including the sensible debate on the talk page about who should be listed as a Deist given the scholarly debate about this issue (c.f. Kant).

However I found this paragraph (Deism Today) deviated from the sensible debate and started to become a list of bald assertions about the merits of deism for those who dislike traditional theistic faiths or athiesm.

Is anyone able to provide a rational discussion of the strands of modern deism without the article becoming proslytising in tone? Also helpful would be a a description of contemporary debate within deism and criticisms of modern deism from traditional theistic faiths and athiests. I am sure athiestic scientists such as Richard Dawkins have as many comments to make about Deism as they do about Theism.

[edit] This Article is a Mess!

The article needs a complete overhaul! First, it sounds like it was written by advocates. (If you wish to expound, do it here and not in the article.) Second, it's so rambling as to be practically incoherent. For example, "...but a modern but small movement exists that is steadily growing in size" and "One common such view is the classical view..." How did the author of this, er, charming prose make it past "O" Levels or high school English Comp? He obviously spent more time learning deconstruction than in learning how to write a sentence. (Not his fault, just the sad state of teaching today.)

The definition of deism merely as the rationalist approach to religion is not helpful at all. What distinguishes deism, namely the belief that God exists but does not intervene in the world, should be at the center of the article, and I have made it so.

Come on, Folks, let's make a helpful article!

— J M Rice 16:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

I took out the references to "other religions" for this reason -- it would be same as having a paragraph in the entry on buses stating that airplanes are also a way to move people.

I'm not so sure that was a good idea - it shows that other "religions" have some of the elements of deism - but how they still differ. It could be more like an article on airplanes that talks about seaplanes too. --JimWae 04:19, 2005 July 15 (UTC)

[edit] External links

There are an overwhelming number of external links present now. Some of which are simply personal narratives with little notable information about the subject of this article. Some clean up performed, more is needed. Arevich 21:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This page was a mess; now it is only half a mess

Just a quick FYI.

When I first came on this page a couple of weeks ago, it was indeed a total mess. It was virtually all not-NPOV -- basically it was an extended statement of some author's distinctly idiosyncratic view of deism. It contained virtually no information on the historical movement called Deism that existed in Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries.

I'm slowly trying to evolve it to a more objective and historically accurate account of deism, but I am a relative newbie to Wikipedia, and I have been reluctant to delete large chunks of someone else's text, even if they do seem to me not NPOV. This section, on Deism Today, is one of the relics of the article as I originally found it. It is definitely not NPOV and I agree that it really should be deleted, or reduced and re-written.

User:StephenFerg 2006-08-27 5:41pm EST

[edit] Now it is only one-sixth of a mess

I've been doing some serious re-arranging, trying to evolve it toward NPOVness. What is the standard procedure for removing the NPOV flag?

User:StephenFerg 2006-08-27 11:30pm EST

[edit] Claims of the recent growth of Deism

I have removed the following claim from the page:

• Deism, according to the American Religious Identity Survey, is the fastest growing religious belief in the US with a growth rate of 717 percent! adherents.com

because it is based on information on adherents.com which mis-represents the ARIS findings.

(1) Adherents.com labels as "Deity/Deist" a category that ARIS itself labels only as "Deity". See the second table in exhibit 1 at the ARIS page. By this, I take it, ARIS categorizes people who reported they simply believe in God. There is no evidence that people categorized themselves as "deists".

(2) The Adherents.com page conflates three categories of the ARIS survey (wiccan/pagan/druid) which are not conflated in ARIS. This skews the numbers presented at adherents.com.

(3) According to the ARIS survey, "deity" at a growth rate of 717 is not the fastest growing. "Wiccan" (for example) had a growth rate of 1,550%.

This claim has been reinserted into the page, however.

StephenFerg 12:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Relationship

I removed a line stating that deists do not believe that one can create a personal relationship with god, because it's incorrect. Deists do not believe that one can form a personal relationship with God in the same way that some other religions do, but they most certainly believe that a personal relationship can be achieved through spirituality.

[edit] Controversial

I'm not sure if this is the best thing to do, but I've added this to the list of controversial issues, simply as a warning to expect abuse from Andrew Zito if you try to make any changes to the article. older ≠ wiser 22:22, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] a removed sentence

The following sentence was removed: Relying on empirical evidence demonstrating a natural world obeying natural laws, Deists reject the idea of a theistic God actively involved in the universe beyond its creation. While the idea of a Theistic God is rejected by Deists, the idea of God as a continuing entity is not universally rejected. A look at Dictionary.com indicates that while The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition concurs with the idea of abandonment of the universe, both Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. and WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University allow for the continuing existence of God, provided that God's existence is based on reason alone and not on faith or revelation. Arevich 20:15, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Since this topic is tagged as controversial, I felt it best to remove a single controversial sentence and not replace it with anything equally controversial. For that reason I have left my comments about the alternative viewpoints only in the Talk forum. Arevich 20:21, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

After doing a google for Deism and checking dictionary.com, I've gotten the impression that a large majority of Deists believe in a non-interfering (i.e., non-miraculous) God. While there may be some disagreement on Deists on this issue, I think that it is a significant enough part of Deism in general that it should be mentioned in the article. As such, I added this sentence: "Most Deists believe that God does not interfere with the world or create miracles." Modargo 12:56, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] What is this {{eo:Diismo}} code?

What is this {{eo:Diismo}} code that is buried in the main entry for?

[edit] Discussion

looks like a link to the Esperanto article. Koyaanis Qatsi

[edit] Andrew Zito's comment

NOW IF THE IGNORANT PEOPLE CREATING EDITING CONFLICTS WISH THEY CAN EITHER INACCURATELY ATTRIBUTE MY STATEMENT TO ALL DEISTS OR BE INCORRECT BY TRYING TO APPLY OTHERS COMMENTS (including Deists) TO ME either way you are ignorant.

Who are you? - Hephaestos|§ 05:34, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Plastering your name all over an article is more than just tacky, it's vandalism. RickK | Talk 05:34, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you really want to contribute-do it right. Looks like you have some good information so do it correctly and everyone will benefit. Do not put your name or all those bold statements in. Thanks. GrazingshipIV 05:36, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

Actually I am a theoretical authority if not the scholastic authority regarding deism having studied / pondered the questions and issues for over 20 years as a deist in a comparative and Deist specific manner as such my ideas on Deism are unique and relevant in being distinct from many calling themselves Deists but whom I recognize not as fellow deists (maybe they are agnostics). Rare references I consulted spoke of the Deist g-d as not mysterious but reasonable meaning not supernatural (and not just without miracles or revelations which would be found acceptable as the miracles of nature; not just christian mystics but Buddhist, Moslem, Hindu, Jewish etc., in that Atheists dont believe in the supernatural but can be equally evasive and metaphyical Berkley Kant they too are opposed as are Empirists for similar reasons; whence the reason why many if not most Deists evolved into one materialist school or another).

None the less NON-SUPERNATURAL UNMYSTERIOUS was the used by the common organizations were referred to as the Temples of Reason. Many of the religious fathers having been the protectors during the revolutionary war made efforts so as to protect their parishes and parishioners. Herbert Aptheker Noted American Historian accurately spoke at length as to how the American Public was divided during the American Revolution.

There is no doubt in my mind that the clergy of the official church establishments (yes state religion was sanctioned until so time later after the revolution [much later e.g. Papist Roman Catholics, and Jews etc who were burdened and precluded while he Protesant Elite who often maintained a pro-british loyalist position during the war on pretexts actually feigned support of the revolution after the war) often played a some what conservative modest if not questionable role as it was said that on supporting the revolution "One-third loyal, one-third patriot, one-third undecided." (John Adams (“2. Loyalists a. 100,000 left the colonies4. Declaring Independence (WAYCROSS COLLEGE DR. COREY LESSEIG http://www.waycross.edu/faculty/coless/Am1lec.htm)

(inaccurately said to be 10-15% loyalist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_War_of_Independence)

Considering that the clergy are more astute polititians tied to the bread and butter of the issues (than their flock it suggest) many of the establishment clergy are suspect as actually having often pro-British with the exception of Deists and Masons (the later distinguished by their acceptance of a esoteric aspect to enlightenment.

Thomas Paine was a highly read author in that his pamplet “Common Sense” in the period in question out sold the bible and that a sizable proportion of the literate population read his best selling works (just to keep up with the gossip if not the issues). ( Thomas Paine and Common Sense (1) January 1776 // 120,000 copies by May (2) attack on all monarchy, but especially the "royal brute" George, Ibid.)

“Loyalists, that sizeable pro-British element, perhaps a majority when open war began, who had stood by established law and imperial unity against revolutionary upheaval” (http://www.canadianheritage.org/books/canada4.htm) “New York City, which was at that time more pro-British than England itself.“ (The Tribes and the States W. J. Sidis chapter 23, http://www.sidis.net/TSChap23.htm)

The question the colonial elite must have repeatedly asked each other is if the growing class hatred developing in the colonies could be focused against the pro-British elite, and be deflected from themselves, the national elite? (Lecture Notes 3 - The American Revolution African American History - Spring 1999 Department of History, St. John's University by Omar, Ali http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/4275/StJohnsLec3.html ). "about 40% of the population was pro-British. (The Presbyterian Rebellion ( by Harry Seabrook (harry@littlegeneva.com" http://www.littlegeneva.com/docs/presbyterian.htm )

If and specific sources are desired they should be requested though at present these should suffice though the insulting demands placed upon me were unreasonable and in fact fashioned not based on facts but close minded impresssions for which appologies will not be accepted and remembered. By the way as most "Deists" will tell you all "Deists" don't agree as to what is "Deism" or "Deists" hence the need for proper placement of quotation marks, references and notes (just like a doctoral theses. Does spelling really count if the message is conveyed? Einstein couldn't spell.).

It seems like some people enjoy changing this page without discussion here so two can play that game.

[edit] To Andrew Zito

Whatever sort of authority you claim to be on this subject, your style of writing is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. Please do note include self-references and self-citations in the body of the article. If you have published materials or websites, you can list them at the end of the article. Please refer to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and the entire Wikipedia:Style and How-to Directory. older ≠ wiser 19:35, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] TO ALL YOU <snip>

ok I deleted all references to myself so you <snip> who don't know how to edit out personal referemces (eg user names) but hypocritical can discriminatorily and biasedly figure out how to delete everything thing including Thomas Paine's Photo and the extrenal links to groups you dont like <snip>.

You're intemperate response does not inspire any confidence in your contributions and you do yourself a disservice with such outbursts. If your contributions have merit, then they'll stay, and if not, they'll be edited. Speaking for myself only, I saw no easy way to separate the bogus self-serving parts of what you write from anything that might be of value. I'm not an authority on Deism and so did not want to try to edit the article, but I could very easily spot the self-serving and inappropriate nature of your contributions. Hence the revert. Sorry if that offended you, but you might want to learn how things work around here before you get all huffy and start calling people names. older ≠ wiser

[edit] OH SO YOU ADMIT

YOU ARE NOT SPEAKING BASED ON MY MENTION AS AN AUTHORITY? THEN AREN't YOU THE IGNORANT PARTISAN SINCE YOU CAN"T DISTINGUISH ONE FROM THE OTHER? Doesn't that show how faulty your belief that every thing should be objective? But you wouldn't admit that? By the way my foul mouth and Fin temper and mood has nothing to do with it as John Lennon said you learned to "smile as you kill" and are as phony as they come. BY THE WAY THIS IS THE FOURTH OR FIFTH ATTACK ON MY PERSON WITHOUT YOU <snip> ADDRESSING THE SUBSTANCES OF ISSUES AS YOU ADMIT YOUR IGNORANCE SO YOU ARE MOSTLY DECEITFUL <snip>. AND AS I HAVE BETTER THINGS TO WASTE TIME WITH.Andrew Zito

Then please, by all means, go and do better things with your time and leave us alone. older ≠ wiser 20:25, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC) BY THE WAY THIS <snip> Bkonrad very much admited he has no basis to revert the text he did so he can <snip>

Since this page doesn't accurately reflect the topic and since people wish to make arbitrary changes without discussion and mere accuse me wrongfully for the sake of accuracy it is better to have nothing insteand of the biased one sided inaccurate domatic views which are finding prominence in Wikipedia to which I OBJECT.

[edit] Blatantly non-NPOV

I edited the end of line 1, which read, " Most Deists believe that God does not interfere with the world or create miracles, but of course this is wrong". I took out the 'but of course this is wrong' because if Wikipedia is to remain a viable and neutral source of information, then obviously biased comments like this one need to be kept out. Let the reader make their own decisions as to whether or not something is 'wrong'.

That was a clear case of vandalism anyway. Just look at the edit summary of the (anonymous) person who edited the "but of course this is wrong" bit in: "Be abusive". I would've reverted it myself, if it hadn't already been taken care of by the time I noticed. Modargo 17:29, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous user adding "Deist Alliance" links

An anonymous user, coming from the IP ranges of 140.254.114.* and 140.254.93.*, has been repeatedly adding back the links to the Deist Alliance. These links have been removed multiple times, because nobody else has seen the need for a whole link section for one small webring. In his most recent re-addition of the links, he even called my last edit (in which I cut the Deist Alliance links from six or so to one) "vandalism" in his edit summary. I am currently reverting the changes to the last version by me, and if he does it again I plan to address his actions as vandalism. Just making this post as a sort of record and explanation of my thought process. Modargo 05:08, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

--

The reason that my IP changes is because I use a university account.

The Deist Alliance is not one organization with one link. If you would bother to actually look at the links, then you would see that. They are several different sites on different servers maintained by different individuals:

PONDER is maintained by Jay Boswell

Deist.info was created by Stephen Zinn

Positive Deism is a discussion group started by Steve Dowell

The United Deist Church should be back online soon (after being hacked).

UDC Galveston and UDC Asheville are sites for the ministries of David Pyle and Keith Wright, respectively.

SOCAL Deists is an organization focused on meetups in Southern California.

These separate sites decided to open communications between them in order to help each other out. Each of the above sites has a representative to the Deist Alliance whose page is temporarily hosted by David Pyle on UDCgalveston. The DA is sort of like a UN of sorts. Listing simply one link to the DA in place of the above links is neither appropriate nor sufficient.

[edit] Article protected

I have – for the time being – protected the article on Deism due to a revert war between User:140.254.93.124 (using various IPs) and Modargo and invited them to hash out their differences here. Lupo 14:30, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

All that needs to be said is that the Deist Alliance is a small group that does not need six or seven links all for itself and its members. It warrants one link to the main Deist Alliance page, but no more. Any more is simply external link spam. Modargo 14:46, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Except that the Deist Alliance is not a "small group". It is composed of several groups, both large and small, who send representatives to the DA

The history of the Deism article clearly shows that I compromised by placing all the links in one group rather than separating the DA links.

I have checked out the Deist Alliance homepage. That's why I removed all the excess links. None of the sites are notable on their own, or worthy of inclusion in an article about all of Deism. Furthermore, the Deist Alliance homepage has direct links to all of them. When the choice is being one link to a mildly notable page that has other links to a bunch of lesser pages, there is absolutely no need to include the links to all the lesser pages in the article too.

You are obviously quite ignorant of the organizations in question, and therefore have earned no right to judge them. The sites are notable. Visit them yourself. PONDER has been on the net longer than most Deist sites. Moreover, the various organizations are not "lesser". They are in fact "greater". They are larger and more detailed than the DA. The DA itself is quite new; the other sites have been around for awhile. The DA is a new council created to sare ideas among them. The other sites are not subservient to DA, nor are they supported by DA. Online, the DA is basically just a webring to join them.

The Deist Alliance itself being included as a link in the article is somewhat questionable, but I'm willing to keep the one link to the homepage. Anybody interested in the Deist Alliance can use that single link to go to all the other pages. Including more than that one link in the article is just spam and trying to get the Deist Alliance more notice than it deserves. Modargo 15:02, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Who the hell are you to determine that the DA deserves less exposure than the United Deist Community which is a trojan horse owned by Ford Vox, a NON DEIST, and aldeism which used to tell its members to smoke pot to know God?!!!

• NOTE: Aldeism no longer has any references to marijuanna. The entire spiritual philosophy of Aldeism is on the first page of the Aldeism site. Anonymous poster needs to set up a Wikipedia ID (look at the top right of your browser window which will have a small log in icon). Posting derogatory comments about other websites is also not likely to be a productive method of making your point. Arevich 02:42, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and I'll also note that this has been noticed before by other people than me: see 138.26.155.47. Just look at that edit summary -- "Regarding the "International Deist Alliance" This does not need a special identification in the links section. And if they are all one group they should only have one link." I invite other comments on this. Does anybody else think that one group needs six links when one link can be made that goes to a list of all the other sites in the group? Modargo 15:15, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That person is Ford Vox. Ford is the former host of the United Deist Church. His relationship with the church ended when he changed the website to a universist site and dissolved the UDC Charter Board without their consent. Since then, Ford has been discharged by the UDC board and the UDC set up its own website. Ford continues to host United Deist Community, but he has admitted to no longer being a Deist and uses the site to recruit people to Universism, not Deism.

I have no desire to bring that feud over here, otherwise I would have deleted Ford's links repeatedly as spam. Instead, I now place links to other organizations side by side with his links and let people decide for themselves. The fact that you do not wish DA links to be displayed, but wish to keep Ford's universist links , does not represent you well. Let people see all the links. The ones I added are links to different pages and organizations set up by different people INDEPENDENTLY.

Um, I really have no clue what you're talking about here. First, how do you know that that's this Ford Vox guy just because of the IP? And second, uh, I really don't care about your internal feuds, the Deist Alliance still doesn't deserve six links. Modargo 15:44, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please do not separate my comments. That makes it very hard to read this page. Reply in one block. Modargo 15:47, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and lastly -- as for "Who the hell are you to determine" -- I'm somebody who isn't involved with any of your organizations and internal feuds, and who doesn't have a stake in any of the sites linked, and who wants to have a balanced external links section without lots of links to one group. Whereas you, apparently, seem to have quite a stake in the Deist Alliance and some sort of vendetta against some of the other groups. Modargo 15:51, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You are also a very dishonest individual. There was only ONE (1) link to the Deist Alliance.

Click on this link: http://www.deist.info It is NOT a link to the Deist Alliance.

Click on this link: http://www.deistnet.com It is NOT a link to the Deist Alliance.

And so on.

If you keep up this BS, I will create a webpage that links to the non DA sites and use your poor reasoning against you. As far as links are concerned, the DA is little more than a webring.

It is not in debate whether or not the sites are made by different individuals or belong to different organisations. The point is that since all of the organisations are subgroups of one larger organisation there is no need to have a link to every distinct subgroup of the larger organisation. Suppose we were to do this with some large corporations - the external links section would grow to hunders, perhaps thousands of URLs. This is simply not feasible, IMO. -- Grunt (talk) 16:06, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

But these organizations ARE NOT subgroups of a larger organization. If I create a webpage that links to aldeism, deism.com, and the other sites, can we delete them, too? The DA is a freaking webring. It is not an organization.

The point stands. We cannot link to every page in a webring because the links section would quickly spiral out of control. -- Grunt (talk) 16:10, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

If the point stands, then it had better stand universally. I will now create a webpage that links to the others. Then, if the point truly stands, the others (deism.com, aldeism, etc) will no longer deserve a link, right?

We do not need a webpage that links to the others because the links are already here on this webpage and your page would not be notable. -- Grunt (talk) 16:17, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

Suit yourself. As soon as the page is no longer protected, I will be constantly reverting it back to a state that includes the links. So much for discussion.

If you continue to abuse the page, we do have the power to block abusive users and will do so if it is absolutely necessary. Therefore, for your sake, I suggest you do not do that. -- Grunt (talk) 16:21, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

It is not abuse of the page, nor is it vandalism, so you have no grounds on which to block me. None of the links I added are inappropriate. Moreover, most of them are more notable than the others you keep. So have fun. I will maintain the links.

Reversion to the same material more than three consecutive times is essentially vandalism. -- Grunt (talk) 18:06, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

Then be prepared to apply that rule to Modargo, that is if you actually intend to be nonpartial.

Dear user editing from IPs 140.254.* at the Ohio State University,

let me quote from one of the extlink you've given above ([1]):

Know that you are not perfect, and that is okay!

Be respectful and tolerant of others. They too are imperfect.

Note especially the "respectful and tolerant" bit, good advice for anybody, not just Deists! :-)

You said yourself that the DA was a webring. But then that's perfect for including in the article! It gives access to all these other sites. Note that Wikipedia is not a web directory. It is irrelevant whether these sites see themselves as part of a larger organization or not, the point is that somebody has already nicely organized these links in a webring, making it easy for people to find the sites. Listing all the sites individually is thus far inferior and a maintenance nightmare, for our list would quickly become obsolete: new members of the webring would not be added, and sites that disappeared would still be listed. Far better, therefore, to link to the webring. It's more practical, avoids cluttering the article with an excessive number of links, and still maintains accessibility of these sites from the wikipedia article.

I hope you can accept this viewpoint, which has also been voiced by others here on this page, and by many others in similar discussions on other pages.

How about the following: we'll revert to the version having one link (to the DA) only, but we'll change that link to http://deistalliance.udcgalveston.org/whoaretheda.htm - a web page giving both the webring's "next" and "previous" links and also listing all the participating sites.

Hopefully that will be a solution acceptable to anyone.

Lupo 08:38, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You remind me to be respectful and tolerant, but I have been neither disrespectful nor intolerant. In fact, it has been disrespect and intolerance that I have been fighting. Please note that Modargo insists that even the DA webring deserves no link. I have not displayed intolerance of the other links. I have suggested that we leave them side by side. And it is not disrespectful to defend that which has been deleted. If you expressed anger at someone who chopped off your arm, are you being disrespectful?

What you have failed to realize throughout this discussion, is that you are allowing Wikipedia to lose what it stands for. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia. Users are cautioned not to post unless they accept that their posts will face changes. I am willing to accept that. I did not complain when changes were made. I simply corrected them. Now, I do not own Wikipedia, and I recognize that Wikipedia has the right to censor contributions, even if that runs contrary to its reputation. But if the moderators refuse to even visit the sites in question, then they are advocating uninformed censorship. Your censorship should either be informed or nonexistent.

So, I will accept your proposal on one condition: you delete the external link to the United Deist Community (not to be confused with United Deist Church). This site, whose domain is unfortunately deism.org, is not a deist site, but a universist site. The owner of the site is a universist, not a deist, and also maintains universist.org. Visit the site yourself and witness that it is labeled a "universist project". Click on the link to the forum, and see where it leads you (universist.org) The purpose of the site is to advertise Universism by inviting Deists and "converting" them. As such, it is an inappropriate link and spam. There is already a link to universism as a related topic, and readers will find a link to universist pages in that article. The owner of deism.org can place his external link on that page. If you would like me to agree to the deletion of actual independent deist links from this article, then I implore you to at least delete nondeist links, too.

Conditions, shmonditions... :-) No seriously, whether the deist.org link belongs into this article is a completely different matter.

I have taken the time to research your claim (had nothing better to do), and lo and behold, you seem to be correct that this Ford Vox guy founded Universism and has left Deism behind himself. Both deism.org and universism.org in fact resolve to the same IP. However, his Universism apparently grew out of Deism, a fact which would deserve mention in this article, too.

Seems you've found an error in Wikipedia. You could have just explained this and removed the deist.org link instead of trying to rectify the unjustice you perceived by adding a lot of links.

Allright, I'll unprotect the article now. We'll see how it evolves...

Lupo 13:34, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Once again, you show how uninformed you are. Look at the history of the article. I was not the first to add Deist Alliance links. I merely added to the list and maintained them. The addition of the links had absolutely nothing to do with my opinion of other sites. The links that I added or maintained are simply sites that are extremely active in Deism today. Your suggestion that my actions are reactionary is unwarranted, and in fact ludicrous considering it was not me who added the DA in the beginning. Even this older version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Deism&oldid=2980151 has a couple of links that I tried to maintain, such as Positive Deism and United Deist Church. You didn't even check the history of your own site before making assertions. Some of these links you deleted may be even a year old.

Current version is fine with me. Also, I looked over the deism.org site, and while it is linked with universist.org, it still focuses on Deism and has a good library. So I think the one link to it should stay. More than that really isn't needed. The external links just need to provide a good start, after which people can navigate around for themselves. Modargo 15:54, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] World Union of Deists - Not Reasonable

The self proclaimed World Union of Deists is a US based group (or just a website) of unknown size that loudly advocates American left wing political rhetoric on it's website home page. While it's website does contain some apolitical resources on Deism, there is no justification for noting it as the activist front of modern Deism. In fact, the website appears to contradict one of the primary tenants of Deism as noted in the article itself - the belief that God should be honored in a way that the individual believes is best and most appropriate for them & that humans can be guided by their conscience in matters of morality - it is a multi-faceted and an individualized process. To correct, the paragraph about the World Union of Deists was deleted as there is already an external link for the organization. Also, the sentence talking about Universalists bringing back Deism was deleted as uncited nonsense.

[edit] External link to "Aldeism" homepage.

There is an external link to the homepage for a philosophy called "Aldeism". An article on this topic was voted to be deleted around the same time as this link was added - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Aldeism. The link was added by an anon [2] who also added the same to the userpage of the person who claimed to have invented Aldeism, and complained of its deletion (leading me to think it was the same person). I suggest this external link be excised. BD2412 T 21:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• The link has been there for several years and was added by the same person that created the Aldeism entry. The entry was properly deleted through the vfd process. The link serves only as an interesting external reference to Deism. It continues to maintain its utility, but could be deleted if there is no longer consensus about its usefulness. Arevich 20:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You are Allan Revich, the creator of the Aldeism article (and of Aldeism) I take it? I sympathize - I went through much flak with respect to the Pandeism article - but that is a term that has been in use (although sporadically and inconsistently) since 1833. Wikipedia reports what is (or at least was), not what ought to be. Like the newly-formed local rock band that hopes to make it big, Aldeism will have a place in Wikipedia when it exceeds the desires of a handful of people. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Seeing no further objection... BD2412 T 18:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Yin and Yang (or male and female) in PanDeism

Consider for a moment the gender roles that best suit the parent philosophies of PanDeism. First you have Deism - this is absolutely a masculine concept. God is a father-figure, not a mother giving birth to the universe, but a mechanic, an architect, a craftsman, a clockmaker, a typical male role. And what does this father do after the universe has been made and set in motion, when the gears are wound? He abandons us. He disappears, and does not make himself available to us. We trust that he is still there, but can only confirm this through the exercise of cold reason; this is a God who is cold, emotionless, out of reach, like every stoic father who has presented only this face to a son, a tradition passed down from generations before. The God of Deism therefore possesses the attributes of the Yang.

Now you have PanTheism - a feminine concept if ever one was! God is the universe that envelops us, is all around us, wraps us in her warmth. God is ever present, sharing herself completely with us, giving us unconditional love because we are part of her, born from her womb with an umbilical cord that can never be severed. This is the ultimate mother, the ultimate feminine, possessing the attribute of the Yin.

Hence, PanDeism strikes the perfect balance of masculinity and femininity, of Yin and Yang (thus not surprisingly, PanDeistic ideologies are far more prevalent in Asia). Like the masculine Deist God, the PanDeist god is a mechanic, an architect, a clockmaker; but the PanDeist God does not abandon us when his act of creation is completed; rather, the PanDeist God assumes the other role, that of the PanTheist all enveloping mother, allowing us to exist through her very substance

So, as Deism and PanTheism combine to find the perfect balance in PanDeism, so must we strive to find this balance in ourselves and in our relationships, to both build and nurture, to be sufficiently distant yet always present when this presence is called for. We are each a microcosm of the potential balance of the universe, and each of us already carries with us the connection with the universe that enables us to emulate its temperament, should we desire to touch the God within ourselves. Realize, therefore, beloved friends, that touching God therefore means touching the characteristics within ourselves that reflect the opposite gender - men must find their feminine side, and women their masculine.

//// Pacific PanDeist 07:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Nice except I'm a guy and If I strive for this kind of balance I will never get a girl and have children! I feel that the core of this belief is centered around a honest belief in science 1ST, as we can verify it, and God 2ND as we cannot, Thus the rejection of 2ND hand revelations and miracles etc. I was brought up in this type of thinking and as a young boy in American my hero was Tom Paine (read him if you want to expand your vocabulary and mind) and his views helped shape mine on Government and God. I must say that the truly sad thing about this most of these comments are that they go as far a attribuiting a gender bios to God as defined by Deism WTH? I think the part people miss is this is really meant to free you up haveing to discuss religon and make you more active in addressing the God On Earth ie: Peoples View/Need of Government! Sad that all the debate here is on Religions which a we most definitely do not believe in (see the definiton of terms for Deism) The Deist view on government is much clearer and neglected here as it IS something most of us believe in as in less = more, and what it should be concerned with ie: Freedom and Security. But thats another page or 7.

[edit]

[edit] PARTICULAR PEOPLE AND DEISM

[edit] Thomas Jefferson was a Christian

Our nation's third president was, in fact, a student of Scripture who attended church regularly, and was an active member of the Anglican Church, where he served on his local vestry. He was married in church, sent his children and a nephew to a Christian school, and gave his money to support many different congregations and Christian causes. Moreover, his "Notes on Religion," nine documents Jefferson wrote in 1776, are "very orthodox statements about the inspiration of Scripture and Jesus as the Christ [3]. Why do people say Jefferson was a deist? One is his abridged bible which was actually made for the purpose of converting Indians to Christianity. I have read how Jefferson believed strongly in converting the Indians to Christianity. The other things people site is that he may not have believed in any miracles Jesus performed, he may have believed Jesus was just a man and not God incarnate, or that he may have not been huge on organized religion. This does not make him something other then Christian. Most Christians have criticisms of organized Christianity or of certain beliefs, but that doesn't make them non-Christians. All Christians could be accused of not being Christians, because there are so many denominations with different beliefs. A protestant might say 'catholics aren't really Christians because they believe in this or that', but the fact is, they are Christians from an objective viewpoint.

He left quite a bit of the miracle passages and statements of the divinity of Jesus out of the Jefferson Bible, which certainly seems to make him less than an orthdox Christian according to the traditional consensus of mainstream Christian doctrine, and he had moods in which he was virulently anti-clerical. AnonMoos 17:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think what you mean to say is that they are Christians from a subjective viewpoint. It is precisely because the Christian Scriptures can be used to espouse so many different points of view that it is impossible to claim that someone "is not a christian." Of course this means it is also fairly difficult to claim someone is a christian. However, a standard we may adopt is belief in the ressurection since it is central to all christian sects I am aware of (anyone have contradicting info?) The Jefferson Bible ends with Jesus's internment, their is no ressurection, there are no miracles, if this is Christianity then I'm a Muslim because I believe that a guy named Mohammed actually existed and said some stuff. --Anymouse

[edit] U.S. Founding Fathers

A quick Google search shows passionate arguments on both sides of the claim that deism was popular among the U.S. Founding Fathers. I plan to research this further. <>< tbc

Thanks! When I get a chance I'll dig up my notes and see what I can add. – Anonymous#1

Please do not use searches on the Internet to try and research this claim. The 'net is full of websites written by Evangelical and otherwise right-wing Chrisitians who are not honest about this subject. I have seen, and on radio have heard, dishonest historical revisionism on this topic. The documentable historical truth is that many of the USA's founding fathers were Deists; many in fact found Christianity contemptible. Thomas Jefferson himself edited a radical version of New Testament to take out the miracles, and anything else imcompatible with Deism. All this talk about all of them them being Chrisitians is part of the Christian right's political agenda. RK

You might even find a source, like, say, Wikipedia via the Internet. :-) If you're going to discount the writings of Christians, then respond with your own evidence. I found a mix of Atheists and Christians writing about the subject. When I have time to research it (yes, on the Internet) I'll say more. Until then (despite my Christian bias), I'll leave it at that. I suggest you do the same until you back it up with your own evidence. And be prepared to defend it. The Founding Fathers' writings are available on the 'net. Use them. <>< tbc

By the way, I am not discounting the writings of all Christians! I only say that we shouuld discount those that are demonstratably dishonest and misleading on this topic. RK

Look at tbc's page before you say this. For now, maybe we can say that some Founders were Deists and that Deism was an influential idea at this time. I certainly dont think they were ALL Deists. Some of them were probably devout Christians. – Anonymous#2

Thanks. The evidence shows that many of them indeed were devout Christians. And it's undisputable that virtually all were shaped by a Christian worldview—whether they believed in it or not. (There's plenty of evidence that Jefferson rejected Christian accounts of Biblical miracles, for instance.) <>< tbc

The American Christian right-wing does have a political agenda, and it does involve deliberately lying about the origins of our nation. For years they have been slandering historians who objectively discuss the formation of our nation and its founding fathers. Historians get in the way of their attempt to turn the USA into an explicitly Christian nation.

Do I have the authorship straight now? I apologize for mis-reading the diff. RK, you have twice declared that there is some deliberate spreading of misinformation going on. Just pony up with some evidence. Go ahead and put it here if it's not ready to incorporate into the article, but I see no reason for you to repeat yourself. I have nothing to "critcize" because you haven't produced any evidence. So far it's just been namecalling. <>< tbc

Actually ultra conservative christians consider any thoughts of the US being created as a christian country comeplete propaganda, and wholeheartedly attack the founding fathers for their deism (believing instead that the US and all countries should be christian countries.

This is to RK and others who think that the fact that most, if not all, of the founding fathers were Christians is just right-wing propaganda. A five minute Google search [4] shows that Benjamin Franklin was in fact most decidedly not a deist, especially since he qoutes the Bible. However, if you feel the Library of Congress is some right-wing propaganda machine, you may feel free to discount this argument. He was in fact a devout Christian. Franklin stated:

In this situation of this assembly, groping, as it were, in the dark, to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were beard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time, and, the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth— that God governs in the affairs of men . And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed, in this political building, no better than the builders of Babel. We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded; and we ourselves shall become a reproach and by-word down to future ages. And, what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom, and leave it to chance, war. and conquest.

The first link from the above Google search, [5], is a transcript from a session where the speaker is quoting Franklin. Search for It was then, at that fateful moment, that the oldest man at the Convention, Benjamin Franklin, stood to his feet and addressed the chair in which sat General George Washington to find the beginning of the relevant paragraph.

The second link, [6], is not readable (at least on my machine) unless you save it to disk and give it a .html extension and then open the locally saved file. That one appears to be an actual transcript of the session where Franklin spoke. Search for Dr. FRANKLIN. Mr. President, the small progress we have made after four or five weeks' close attendance and continual reasonings with each other to find the beginning of Franklin's remarks.

For a more readable version, check out [7], which includes what appear to be scans from the paper versions conatined in the LOC. I hope that this provides some concrete evidence. I leave it as an exercise to the concerned reader to hunt down pertinent information on the other founding fathers. <>< -- Anonymous Guy

Both sides of the issue have made questionable claims. Certainly I’ve seen Christians being to trigger happy to lay the claim of being Christians (such as claiming Thomas Jefferson was not a deist) to those doing the opposite (such as claiming George Washington was a deist). One helpful and reliable resource might be Time's Almanac. It confirms that Thomas Jefferson was a deist (as I’ve seen some people claim), though it also confirms that George Washington was an Episcopalian (as I've seen various Christians claim). --Wade A. Tisthammer 15:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Washington however, reportedly never took communion and was a Mason, two things which if Evangeys were being honest they would decry (they complain about other people who do these things). Jefferson and Franklin were almost certainly Deists (numerous writing both private and public confirm this) and a single speech does not disprove the mountain of evidence. Plus, what in that speech is christian? He mentions Babel, but even I know that story and I'm Hindu.--Anymouse

[edit] Newton not a Deist

While extrapolations of Newtonian Physics have been associated with Deist, the concept focuses on the Supreme Being not being further involved after creation. Prophecy is by definition active involvement in predicting the future and in bringing to fulfillment. Thus Newon's life work on Prophecy clearly shows that he is not a Deist.

[edit] Isaac Newton's influence

The article gives the impression that determinism, as inspired by Newton's physics, was the major motive for deism. I'd have thought that basing religion on reason was inspired by Newton's demonstration that problems long thought to be philsophical problems that resisted reason in fact are not impervious to reason. Was I wrong to think that that was the connection? Michael Hardy 00:42, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Newton's laws didn't so much solve philosophical problems as put them on a shelf. For example, WHY do masses attract one another according to the formula that Newton inferred? He doesn't try to answer that one -- he says, in effect, that they just do, and that is enough for him as a scientist. "I make no hypothesis" about the why of it, was I believe what he said. But the result was deterministic, because the mathematics seems to make prediction and retrodiction possible without limit -- into zillions of years in the future and back to zillions in the past.

[edit] Discussion

This does not appear to address the question. That failure is of no importance but for what it says next:

In other words, I believe the emphasis in the article was right. --Christofurio 01:02, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

This seems a non sequitur. OK, he showed there was no need to address certain philosophical problems if one is satisfied with his solution to certain scientific problems. But the article suggests that Newton's theories' seeming support of determinism gave rise to deism as a deterministic worldview in which there is no divine intervention. But it seems plausible to me that the point was not determinism but reason: Newton showed that reason can handle problems formerly thought to be intractable; the deists, inspired by his example, attempted to settle religious questions by reason rather than faith. The "emphasis in the article" neglects that point. Michael Hardy 15:56, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. But I'd be perfectly happy to have you edit the article in a way that would show me! --Christofurio 12:17, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Here's another problem that involves determinism. According to the article in its present form, one of the reasons for the decline of deism was frustration with the determinism implicit in "This is the best of all possible worlds." But that phrase was famously mocked by the man who may be the paradigm of deism, Voltaire, so how is that panglossian phrase supposed to reflect deism itself? --Christofurio 04:22, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dictionary of History of Ideas: Deism

According to Dictionary of History of Ideas: Deism, which you cite, Deism did NOT originate in 17th century England, although it came to great prominence there (and in France). It has origins in ancient Greece, and was markedly developed by Cicero --JimWae 18:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Also: one could read the first paragraph & not realize that it says (near the very end) that Deists do believe in God --JimWae 18:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leibniz vs miracles

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-causation/ NOT listed in list of deists & while perhaps he would not consider himself a deist, his arguments against miracles became part of the basic deist position. His "best of all possible worlds", though ridiculed by some other deists, became a strong argument against miracles. He also believed in ontological argument. AS one of the standard "rational proofs" for the existence of God, it is hard to imagine the argument was never held by anyone who called themselves a deist - but I will look for other deists who espoused it - though the veru notion of of innate ideas has strong links to the ontological argument. In any case, I think the natural theology section needs more prominence in the article --JimWae 05:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what arguments did deists use for the existence of God?

I agree that the section on natural theology needs more information, and I'm working on it. But one of the things that I'm finding in researching deism is that in the heyday of English deism (1690-1740) "constructive deism" definitely played second fiddle to "critical deism".

As for Leibniz, Leibniz was not the only one to argue against miracles. In fact, arguments against miracles were the standard stuff of critical deism for decades.

Frankly, I will be surprised if you can find any 17th or 18th century author who both called himself a deist *and* appealed to the ontological argument. But I'd welcome any evidence that you can find.

StephenFerg 00:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Text about Leibniz has been removed

I have removed the following text:

• Deist forerunner Gottfried Leibniz appealed also to the ontological argument - if you can conceive of a God that is a perfect being, then for that being to be perfect, he must exist

on the grounds that Leibniz was not a deist and not a deist forerunner, but a critic of deism.

Answers to deists by more conservative writers of England, France, and Germany also found a wide circulation in France and spread acquaintance with deistic views. Thus Leibnitz, writing in French, answered Locke and Toland.

—John Orr, English Deism: Its roots and its fruits, p. 188

Leibnitz, contemporary of Locke and Toland, defended his philosophical rationalism against their empiricism. His doctrine that this is the best possible world aroused the ire and attracted the mockery of Voltaire. Leibnitz can properly be classed as an opponent of early deism.

—John Orr, English Deism: Its roots and its fruits, pp. 228-229

StephenFerg 01:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and Spinoza, another anti-miracle guy, is regarded as a pantheist. While their arguments were repeated by deists, I agree Leibniz cannot be called a deist - though his works (via Candide) were very influential in the deisti movement. I also agree that deists were pretty quiet about what they meant by natural religion - though I think appeals to the cosmological and teleological arguments can be found --JimWae 01:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afterlife and Deism

I suggest removing those two items I placed a citation needed label by unless we can cite that. Being a Deist, I know that there are a myriad of Deist views, and that some Deists might believe there is an afterlife, but I argue that such a belief is a faith based belief, rather than a reasoned belief. In other words, would reason lead to a belief in the after life when we cannot see, touch, or measure it? And no one has ever come back to tell us about it (unless we somehow take Dante's journey as truth).

On another matter, I strongly suggest removing the Webster's citation at the beginning. Webster's is notoriously POV against non-Christians, for example, calling Athiests people who reject a belief in God. Rather, Atheists are simply people who don't believe in a God or Gods at all, thus, not something they could reject. In other words, Webster's works from the point of view that the one Judeo-Christian God does in fact exist, and thus defines the terms in its book accordingly. JJ4sad6 10:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

I have three concerns with the following line in the Deist terminology section:

• Grand Architect of the Universe — often used by members of the Freemasonic lodges or societies which involve Masonic rituals

First, the term used by Masons is Great Architect of the Universe, not Grand.

Second, the way this is phrased, it makes the unfounded insinuation that all Freemasons are Deists. This is not the case. While there have been (and probably still are) individual Deist Masons, the vast majority of Masons are firm adherants of theistic faiths. They are Jews, Muslems, Christians, Hidus, etc. all of whom would disagree strongly to any accusation that they were deists.

And third, the term is not a deistic usage. The term was derived from John Calvin's reference to God as "the Architect of the Universe" in his Institutes of Christian Religion - "This phrase was introduced in Reverend James Anderson's 1723 Constitutions of the Free-Masons, and he no doubt picked ut up from John Calvin's Institutes of Christian Religion. God is referred to as The Architect of the Universe and His creation as Architecture of the Universe no less than ten times. In Calvin's commentary on Psalm 19, God is called the Great Architect or Architect of the Universe." (quoted from: S. Brent Morris, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry, Alpha/Penguin Books, ISBN 1592574904, p.212). I hardly think a term that was created by Calvin can be considered deistic terminology.

For all of the above reasons, I have deleted this line. Blueboar 20:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with that being deleted, but I wanted to let you know that the two lodges I've been a part of use the word Grand instead of Great. It probably varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Ultimately it is a moot point since they are co-relative terms. Magna means both great and grand, likewise English views them as largely synonymous. JJ4sad6 23:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I admit that the Great/Grand issue is the weekest of my three comments... and if that were the only problem I would say it could be fixed with a minor parenthetical remark. I am curious to know which jurisdiction you hail from, as all the one's I am familiar with use "Great" (I not disputing your claim... just curious as to the differences in ritual etc.). To me it is the third issue that is the important one as far as encyclopedic information goes. Anderson was a Calvinist minister and would have been very familiar with Calvin's writings. He obviously chose to use the term "Great Architect of the Universe" with Calvin in mind. This marks the phrase as being different from the other terminology listed in the section. It is demonstratably theistic (ie Protestant Christian) in origin. Blueboar 12:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm out West; joined in Colorado, and live in Texas now. But maybe once I get to DC I'll hear Great instead of Grand.JJ4sad6 14:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You will. Pop up to NY as well. But in any case... Grand is great, and Great is just as grand. Blueboar 19:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something very wrong with the opening definition

From the Oxford English Dictionary: deist: One who acknowledges the existence of a God upon the testimony of reason, but rejects revealed religion.

The definition as it stands in the article is: "Deism is belief in the existence of a personal God, with disbelief in Christian teaching, or with a purely rationalistic interpretation of Scripture..."

This is not satisfactory since it accounts for all religions that are not Christian but also have personal deities. To the contrary, Deism does not even include "personal gods" - much less a "personal God" (note the G capitalized). This definition is blatantly Christian biased and evidently wrong. How can a deist believe the world is not inherently affected by a deity while also still professing it is a "personal God."

Please, somebody input. GravityExNihilo 23:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Two comments... first, it is standard practice to add new comments to the bottom of the page, not at the top. I will move this for you. Second... the def used in the article comes from a different dictionary. I don't think you can say one is more accurate than the other. So... the only other option, as I see it, would be to list both - Websters and the OED. Blueboar 12:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As I've said previously, we should really remove the Webster's dictionary, it is notorious for framing everything from a christianist point of view. JJ4sad6 22:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I removed it for the reasons I and GravityExNihilo stated before: that it is from a Christian bias and that it does not accurately capture the fundamental ideals of Deism. And Blueboar, the Webster's Dictionary definition is inaccurate in much the same way saying an Orange is commonly blue. The Webster's definition is not only biased, but grossly inaccurate. I personally feel that the opening statement at the top of the page is a fair assessment of Deism. Therefore, I don't think any dictionary definition is really warranted. JJ4sad6 04:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I was unaware of the standard practice and guessed that the most recent discussions would line up on top (similar to any internet forum). Glad to have this fixed, what actually prompted me was in having a discussion about Einstein, the person couldn't reconcile the fact that Einstein rejected a "personal god" while he was arguably very deistic. Hopefully, the misconception that all deists proclaim "personal gods" does not live much longer.GravityExNihilo 07:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed 4 "fact" tags

The last two items of the following list, along with the last two items of a similar list at another place in the article, were cited with "fact" tags.

Constructive deism held some or all of the following beliefs:
* God exists and created the universe.
* God wants human beings to behave morally.
* Human beings have souls that survive death, i.e. there is an afterlife. 
* In the afterlife, God will reward moral behavior and punish immoral behavior. 

I have removed those tags. The person who inserted them apparently wanted to question the assertion (for example) that souls survive death.

But the text was not making the assertions in question. It was asserting that these beliefs were typical of deists, and subscribed to by many, but not all, deists.

That deists typically held such beliefs is documented and discussed in other places in the article. See for instance the long quotation from Herbert, and the section discussing deist beliefs about the immortality of the soul.

I'm still not convinced, at best, Deists might be agnostic about the afterlife, but being based on reason (and therefore quantitative data) we Deists cannot positively assert that an afterlife exists. JJ4sad6 22:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that these were not "citation request" tags? Placing a {{fact}} tag and placing a {{citation needed}} tag do the same thing (for both, you end up with ^{[citation needed]} in the article.) I think some citations would indeed be nice here... if only to show that these particular beliefs part of are what Constructive Deists believed (as opposed to some other form of deist). Blueboar 22:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the terms constructive and critical are used to refer to aspects of deistic thought. It is not as if there were two forms or subtypes of deism, and that any particular deist author fell into one camp or the other. That is part of the point that Peter Gay was making. See the quotation in the article that begins All deists were in fact both critical and constructive deists. StephenFerg 03:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding deists' beliefs about the afterlife: the terms "deist" and "deism" have always been used to cover a very wide spectrum of beliefs, shading off on the conservative end to natural religion and latitudinarianism, and on the radical end to pantheism. Some deists believed in, say, immortal souls, and others did not. That is why, when listing these beliefs, I describe them as "typical" and say that constructive deism could include "some or all" of the listed beliefs.

Again, as for citations, see the long quotation from Herbert, and the section discussing deist beliefs about the immortality of the soul. There are many other scholarly citations that might be given, but since they are referenced at multiple other places in the article, it hardly seems worth it. StephenFerg 03:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh... In that case... (Having come here knowing very little about deism) I have to point out that because of the way this article is structured, to the uninformed reader it does indeed come across as though deists can be broken into two varieties: "constructive" and "critical". ((I agree that to the uninformed reader it does indeed come across as though deists can be broken into two varieties: "constructive" and "critical". I have reworked that section so that it is less likely to give that impression. StephenFerg 01:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC))) You repeat the same two bullet point lists (which highlights that information to the reader) and the quotation you refer to gets lost even though it is in a grey box (actually, I have found that the average reader tends to skip over such quotations... in the same way he or she tends to not read footnotes. It is a bit discouraging to those of us who try to craft a well researched and good looking article, but it is true). You might want to re-think how you present this information, or at least try bolding the first line of the quote to draw attention to it. Blueboar 12:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Good points. I have a limited amount of time during which I have access to some of the scholarly works, so I'm trying to make the best use of that time that I can. Then I'll try to look at the whole article for readability. StephenFerg 02:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Revisionism

It seems to me that in general there has been a great deal of historical revisionism by the Christian Nationalists to claim the Founding Fathers as their own. I have seen that on this wikipage as well as other. However, it should be noted that modern Christians do not consider Unitarians as true Christians, therefore it is impossible for them to claim persons such as Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, Madison, or even Adams as their own. The historical record stands that these gentlemen would not qualify as modern evangelical Christians, and thus unlikely poster-boys of Christian Nationalism by any stretch of the imagination. I would seriously like to see an end to these attempts to re-write history to justify the establishment of a Christian Theorepublic. We had a Theorepublic before the founding of this nation, it was the Puritan colonies of New England. The last remnants of that failed regime attempted to impose their governmental structure on the Founding Fathers, but it was ultimately rejected by them, as they had seen what evil blind religiosity can bring. We need look back only to the time of Oliver Cromwell or the Massachusetts Bay Colony to see what such a Christian Theorepublic would entail. America was most assuredly founded to prevent that from ever occuring again. JJ4sad6 04:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with you about Unitarians not being considered Christian... Unitarians are certainly Christians. But I am not sure why this matters... very few (if any) of the founding fathers were Unitarians. You are correct that they were not Evangelicals, but they were not deists either. Most were congregants in more "traditional" or "mainstreem" denominations... for example, Washington was an Episcopalian. They may have been influenced by Deistic philosophy (which was common during the Enlightenment) and thus not "good" Christians by modern standards... but they were certainly not Deists either. Blueboar 15:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

After writing the above, I went back and looked at the Deism in America section... I notice that while the article states that:

• Founding Fathers who were Deists include Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, Hugh Williamson, and James Wilson.

the citation given to support this statement this does not completely back this claim up ... when you look down at the chart on this source, all four are listed as being members of a traditonal, mainstream denomination as well as being listed as Deists (Harnett, Morris, and Wilson as Episcopalians, and Williamson as Presbyterian.

I don't think it is revisionism to say that there is a great deal more debate about the religious beliefs of the founding fathers than this article implies. To some extent, I would say that the revisionism is being done by the supporters of Deism. Please understand that I am not an evangelical right wing Christian ... I am an historian. I don't think either extreem in this debate is correct. The founders WERE Christians, and some of them were quite religious ... but they were also tolerant of differences and did not believe in imposing their beleifs on others. They were clearly influenced by Deistic philophy, but that was common in that era, and does not make them Deists. I am going to try to reword this section to account for this. Blueboar 15:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

While I largely agree with you, the point I was getting at with the Unitarian deal was that I have asked Christian Nationalists if they would define someone who believes that there is only one part to God a Christian, and they invariably tell me know. They say that to be a true Christian (by their standards) requires accepting the Trinity. Thus, by their logic, many of the Founding Fathers were not "real" Christians, yet they are willing to claim them as Christians when it advances their theorepublican goals.

Regarding the parts I added last night, what if we say "Founding Fathers who were deistic include..." ? JJ4sad6 01:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I can see that many Christian Nationalists might not accept that Unitarians are Christian ... they have a very narrow view of what makes one Christian. But I am still not clear on what the Unitarians have to do with the Founding Fathers... very few (if any) of the founding fathers were Unitarians after all ... almost all were were members of mainstream Trinitarian denominations (Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Dutch Reform, etc.).

As for the tie to Deism... again, I think this is a bit of revisionism on the part of modern Deists. One must remember that Enlightenment philosphy used similar language to Deistic theology. Enlightenment philosophy was very fashionable in the late 1700s. It was common for men (especially those in the wealthier class) to use language that today sounds Deistic, but at the time did not have that connotation. That usage does not make them Deists, or even deistic. In those days, one could use terms such as "Divine Providence" and mean the Trinitarian Christian God (In fact, while such language is archaic, the same can be true today).

I think both sides in the current religious culture war are applying modern interpretations of religion and modern religious attitudes to men who lived in very different times, and had a very different view of religion. Blueboar 13:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, a common Christian Nationalist argument is that our founding documents were based on Christian principles and written by Christians. However, if the authors of the Declaration were not "true" Christians by their definition (TJ was at least a Deistic Christian, as was BF, and JA was a Unitarian. I believe the other two played a lesser role in the DoI, but were also not "true" Christians by their definition). As for the major authors of the Constitution, and those who urged its ratification, that would be Madison, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and others previously mentioned. In any event, my ultimate point is what I stated before, that Christian Nationalists want their cake and to eat it to in regards to defining the Founders collectively as Christians, while denying that people who hold beliefs similar to those held by many at that time were not true Christians. JJ4sad6 16:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

OK... but my point is that the Founders were indeed Christians ... Perhaps not "good" Christians, and perhaps not Christian by the definition of a narrow minded sect, but Christian in a true definition of the term.

I can understand how you might be upset at the twisting of fact by Christian Nationalists to support their political views... but please be honest and do not deny the fact that the vast majority of the Founding Fathers were indeed Christians. The United States was founded upon Christian values (it's not like the nation was founded on Muslem, Budhist or Hindu values, after all!) ... just not modern Fundamentalist, Christian Nationalist, values (which have their roots in the "Second Great Awakening" of the 1800s).

Remember that the big religious issue facing the founding fathers was not "Christian vs. Other" but "Christian denomination A vs. Christian denomination B"... In other words: Congregationalist vs. Anglican vs. Roman Catholic vs. Presbyterian, etc. What makes the US Constitution so special is that in solving the question about whether one Christian denomination should prevail over another (the answer being "no"), the framers ended up writing something that was flexible enough to transend not only the issues of their day, but could grow to eventually encompass equality for ALL religions. Blueboar 17:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loose ends after copy editing

I've copy-edited the article—for instance, bringing uniformity to Deism and deism, which appeared haphazardly, by lower-casing the capitalized ones. However, a few problems remain.

• I haven't mastered Wikipedia's formats for notes and references. It would be well if someone who knows the code checked to see that I haven't introduced errors there.
• One block quote at about the middle of the page is missing a statement of its source. I added a "^{[citation needed]} " to mark it.
• It seems to me that the article contains more quoted text than is ideal, but I don't know the subject matter well enough to say where to trim. Cognita 08:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)