Talk:Deism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Archive 1 of Talk:Deism - posts.

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

the "I do not find..." quote apparently does not ever clearly cite a source (so claims monticello.org, and I've yet to see one myself either) beyond a letter to "dr. woods"--which Monticello, at least, cannot identify. Not to claim there is any doubt to his being non-Christian in the strictest sense (there are pretty clear quotes and ideas regarding his approach to Jesus as primarily historical figure and non-divine, and his rejection of the Trinity concept--these two being a little more clearly documented) FangsFirst 08:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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

FEATURES OF DEISM

Add Spinoza?

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

done

StephenFerg 13:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

• No. Any act by God would be considered a miracle. Hence the terms "Act of God" and miracle being synonymous.

Discussion

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

Answering small prayers would presumably mean changing the natural course of event.... supernatural force changing natural course of events = miracle!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 03:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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.

THE CURRENT STATE OF THIS ARTICLE

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.

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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.

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)

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)

What is this {{eo:Diismo}} code?

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

looks like a link to the Esperanto article. Koyaanis Qatsi

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://wiki.riteme.site/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.

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)

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

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.

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)

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.

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)