Talk:Deism/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Merge proposal (Theistic rationalism)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Consensus was Against the proposed merge. -- Tevildo (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The Theistic rationalism article recently survived an AfD, so its content is apparently deemed appropriate for keeping. However, I still believe that it has insufficient evidence of independent notability, outside its use by some politically-motivated authors to describe the religious beliefs of Jefferson, Madison, et al, and that "Deism" is sufficiently close in meaning for the articles to be merged. A similar situation exists with Evolutionary creationism and Theistic evolution; terms with slightly different meanings, but for which there isn't a consensus to have seperate articles. I'm therefore proposing that the existing content from Theistic rationalism be merged to the Deism article.

  • Support as nominator. Tevildo (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Againt Theistic rationalism in and of itself in the 18th century was fine. It doesn't mesh with 21st century Deism as Christianity is rejected by the majority of Deists through critical thinking which wasn't popular in the 18th century. It was social and political suicide to reject the bible and Jesus as myth. W mostly agree that it is myth and to merge what we consider myth into a natural religion today, which rejects the myth, would be a step back for Deism. It would be akin to merging Judaism with Christianity because Jesus was a Jew. Deism is shifting from mere philosophy to a religion for many. That is where the shift is. Just as Taoism and Buddhism are both philosophies and religions, Deism is both as well. Rev. Keith R. Wright
  • Support Theistic rationalism is a POV fork based on unreliable sources that should've been deleted. The second-best option is a redirect to Deism. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 12:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. While they may not be quite the same thing, it's clear that theistic rationalism has plenty in common with deism and is related to it; and there doesn't seem to be enough to say about it to justify its own page, so I suggest making it a sub-section of this one. (Although I note that this page is well over 60KB already... perhaps that's a reason not to merge, or to cut this page down somewhere to make room for it.)Terraxos (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Against Deism is a separate concept than theistic rationalism, and as the theistic rationalism page shows, there are components of the two that do not agree. We're dealing with apples and oranges: both are fruit but neither are the same. Auror (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Against On the rationales that have been presented of non-notability, or non-separateness from Deism, I would be inclined to disagree and keep the article, at least for now. However, a more substantial argument may be made, after some months, that if this article is not improved and less-"orphaned" than it is at present, it should be merged simply because there is insufficient heft to support a separate WP article. N2e (talk) 15:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Against While Theistic Rationalism may be an offshoot of Deism, it hardly represents widespread Deist beliefs and therefore should not be included in the main Deist page. I could, though, support expanding the Theistic Rationalism page into a listing of Deist offshoots or possibly replacing the TR page entirely with a page devoted to the more organized sects of Deism.Shryer (talk) 23:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • AgainstI don't think it should be included on the main page of Deism because the theistic rationalist(by their wiki definition) think that God intervenes in human affairs and that is not rational. I do agree though that they have alot in common.Luckynumbers (talk) 07:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Against Deism is a very distinct religious philosophy, separate enough from theistic rationalism to justify the existence of separate articles. scetoaux (talk) (My contributions.) 07:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Against The belief by Theistic Rationalists that "God plays an active role in human life" thus "rendering prayer effective" is fundamentally different from the beliefs of most Deists. It is the opposite of what most Deists believe. The preceding quotes were taken directly from the "Theistic rationalism" article. Crontron (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Against Theistic Rationalism is not the same thing, per the article itself. Any "theism" is going to be the opposite of any "deism" by simple definition. Merging the articles doesn't (and can't) make sense. Might as well merge Protestantism and Catholicism if you do. Their dogmas have more in common with each other than these two articles do. PHARMBOY (TALK) 16:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Undecided - Link for the lengthy Afd discussion about Theistic rationalism:
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_January_14#Theistic_rationalism

-Delete per WP:OR?? That was a mistake, it should have been delete per WP:Fringe theories.

All that is needed is to find some reliable sources showing that Theistic rationalism is at best a variant of Deism, then you can post that Article again for AfD.

The Vatican, for example doesn't mention Theistic rationalism anywhere, this fact could be used to support a WP:Fringe theories argument against Theistic rationalism. The whole article is based on just 4 references, 2 of them written by the same person.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 19:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Against - The Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy has an article http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.394/pub_detail.asp on the idea of an American founding creed that contains a lengthy definition of theistic rationalism. Also, L. Harold DeWolf's The Religious Revolt Against Reason (New York: Harper and Row, 1949) contains an analysis of the European Protestant argument professed by Kierkegaard, Niebur, Barth, and Brunner, and an effective response to that argument from the side of theistic rationalism, per Gordon K. Lewis' "America and the New British Radicalism", in The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 1 (March 1953), pp. 24-25. For the deism article, there is an interesting discussion of how the neo-orthodox Eur Protestants argued that those supporting reason were losing faith in science and beginning to have doubts. Lewis article available on JSTOR. --Pat (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Againt - More than enough of a difference to warrant separate articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.221.33 (talk) 06:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Againt - The article was only created three months ago. the number of links to an entry is a poor argument to subsume it elsewhere. It just went through AfD, and having survived that, it was then hit with a merge proposal. It needs time to develop. Theistic rationalism is worthy of its own article. 06:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueOrb (talk • contribs)
  • AgainstSimilar, but the fact that humanities courses differentiate between the two significantly warrant their separation.24.105.236.66 (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Role of nature in spirituality

Stale
 – No one was interested in the question.

Deism can also refer to a personal set of beliefs having to do with the role of nature in spirituality. I was shopping for internal links for this article when I stumbled on this phrase -- the role of nature in spirituality. Do we mean capital N Nature here? Do we refer to simple spirituality or does this have anything to do with naturalistic spirituality and numinous? --Pat (talk) 08:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Absent any evidence that capital-N Nature was intended, such as the use of a capital N and a link to that article, we necessarily assume that it was not. Same goes for highly nuanced reinterpretations of the word "spirituality". — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 00:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

A symbol for deism?

Resolved
 – No such symbol exists, only proposals.

Isn't exist a symbol deism. I looking for it and I have not found it. I want request a universal symbol for deism. There are much deists around the world that they love identificate within this new picture. We shall do it. (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC) --Fonsi80 (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC) User

There isn't one as of yet, but there are several popular symbols beeing used. Some of us are trying to popularize a particular symbol for the new deist movement, much like new atheist used that stylized 'A", we have a stylized "D" created by the guy at the following link and his permission given for all deists to use it and modify if they wish. A new "D" symbol for deist movement. http://www.amorian.org/2009/07/30/new-and-improved-deism-symbol/ Check it out. --Iconoclastithon (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Religious naturalism?

Stale
 – Question garnered no comment in over 2 years.

Would this article fit under the category "Religious naturalism", along with pantheism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.51.34 (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Skip to TOC and Archive box

Resolved
 – Old news.

The {{Skiptotoctalk}} template has been added to the top of this Talk page for those who want to "get right down to it".  .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  07:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
PS. An Archive box has also been created to house the 3 archives.

I cleaned this up further; we have {{WPBS}} to obviate the need for {{skiptotalk}} unless there is also a large pile of non-project templates at the top of the page. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 23:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Coining of "panendeism"

Resolved
 – Contested material deleted almost 2 years ago without further dispute.

Regarding the {{dubious|date=July 2009|next sentence indicates he did not}}: This is not a dubious claim since "purportedly" is used, and Copling actually does claim to have coined the term. Please look up the definition of "purportedly". Also, when using the "dubious" template, the editor is expected to start a discussion on the Talk page with subject titled whatever you put after the "date=July 2009|" (in this case, the subject should have been "next sentence indicates he did not"). Plus, I restored the text removed by editor JimWae per WP:Preserve. This text has been in the article for awhile. I'm still investigating the Copling website, and so far it appears to offer a detailed account of the concept of panendeism.  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  06:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The text is apparently self-promotion - and far too detailed coverage of a person that "purportedly" coined a term when his claim is contradicted by other text. I gave this all the comment it needed in the edit I made. The article is increasingly worsened by the addition of dubious material --JimWae (talk) 06:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
An encyclopedia might include a false purported claim if there was some great controversy about it. Do you know of such a controversy? Can you find a reliable source that would make such controversy noteworthy? We do not need to include false claims, nor details about when false claims first appeared on someone's website --JimWae (talk) 07:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Much of this material was apparently added by Copling himself - putting him in a WP:COI. He may be a major influence on panendiesm - but even if he is, all these details about his website are more promotional than encyclopedic -- AND he did not coin the term --JimWae (talk) 07:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
No, JimWae, I don't think the section was written by Copling. The writer of the section introduced the claim Copling made by describing it with "purportedly", so it should be obvious that the section writer was showing that Copling's claim is dubious. Then the section writer goes on to show why he or she thinks Copling's claim is dubious.
So rather than a self-promotion, this section reads more like a "hey, if you want to learn more about panendeism, go to Copling's website, but don't believe everything you read there". The section is short, for panendeism is a young concept compared with classical deism. As such it is still growing and developing. If you can write the section better, do so.  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  16:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • PS. I went ahead and made some changes to hopefully reduce the NPOV bent of the section.
LOOK at the edit history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deism&diff=299763477&oldid=298624412 - Material was NOT there for a long time - only 5 hours. AND someone using LCopling as a userID wrote it.--JimWae (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, JimWae, but if you "LOOK" here, you will see that the part replaced by LCopling has been there since at least March. Copling obviously monitors the section and replaced a reverted deletion, again as per WP:Preserve.  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  18:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • PS. I'm sorry if I offended you in some way, JimWae. This was never my intention.
Give me ONE good reason to include a patently false claim like this in an encyclopedia --JimWae (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Which claim is that? I see no "patently false" claims in that section. Please to enlighten?  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  18:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
That same person added links to the copling website http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pandeism&diff=prev&oldid=33313097 in another article. Wake up - the "purported" claim of coinage has no place in the article at all --JimWae (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Your "LOOK" here (above) is irrelevant to the topic - look there yourself please --JimWae (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I await ONE good reason to include the false claim of coinage at all--JimWae (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
There is no article on panendeism, but it does have possibilities if it continues to grow. So right now, that's all we have on the subject -- just a little section in the article on Deism. Copling seems to be a good source for watching the growth of panendeism, and he might even be the one who writes a full article about it. It's apparent that he doesn't seem to mind that his claim of coinage is challenged here. It should be preserved here so readers will know that Copling did not necessarily coin the term, as he claims to have done on his website.  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  19:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Is Deism synonymous with religous belief and vice versa?

Resolved
 – No consensus for proposed changes; mostly just a personal discussion anyway.

Is Deism synonymous with religous belief and vice versa? A dispute has arisen in the Creationism article on this simple issue.

I may be being over-picky but I think that this is worthy of opening to a wider audience. I know from my own experiences that there are people today (and there probably have been in the past too) who believe that the universe we inhabit may have been "created" by some deity but who do not engage or hold tight to any particular religious belief and may actually reject most aspects of religion. The ones I know personally regard themselves as "spiritual" but not "religious". Religious belief implies adherence to certain norms according to the religion and my understand is that the very word "religion" comes from a latin word meaning "to tie fast". I therefore hold that there are some people with creationist beliefs who are not religious just as there are religious people who accept more naturalistic explanations for the world we live in. In other words Deism, Religious belief and Creationism are related concepts but they do not overlap in the way implied in the lead sentence at the Creationism article.

I'd like help in resolving this dispute by bringing it to a wider audience and seeking advice about whether the creationism is wrong to imply that all forms of creationism stem from a religious belief. Comments please either here or at the creationism talk page. Thanks.--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be much help to you, Hauskalainen. Whether or not some people consider themselves spiritual rather than religious, the fact remains that a Deist believes in a superior being, and this belief is a religious faith itself because there is presently no non-faith-based (scientific) way to prove that such a being actually exists.  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  07:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Surely a religion is an organised way to share in and celebrate aspects of belief. You seem to be equating religion with religious faith. These are different words in the English language because the convey different ideas. Religion is organized and bounds are set in the so called creed. Many people have a much looser faith in something whether that is a formal God or being bound to the universe and things within it, but they do not adhere to a common faith and ritual which is the mark of religion where the community or religious texts used by that community sets the bounds of being IN or OUT. There are many people who refuse to be bound to religion but who are nontheless spiritual. The argument I have had at the creationist argument is with someone who holds that belief in God implies "religious faith" even if the person does not adhere to a religion. In my opinion religious faith implies by its very words, faith in a common set of beliefs set down in a religion. Hence belief in God does NOT equate with a religious belief.--Hauskalainen (talk) 11:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually I'm not equating religion with religious faith. Quite the opposite. You are correct about religion, however you do not appear to see the span of the definition spectrum for the word "religious". One might say that a certain person is religious, or almost religious, in the way he is always up and awake at 5 AM, makes coffee, gets the paper, etc. So the term "religious" does not necessarily imply a connection to "religion" of any kind. The wording in the Creationism article is "Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a supernatural being or beings, commonly a single deity." In this context, and if one accepts that "religious" is used in a more general manner to describe "belief", one may begin to accept that the ideas of creationism, deism and such are appropriately described as "religious" without any necessary connection to a specific religion and with only a minimal tie to religion in general.
Since there is some small connection to religion in general when one speaks of creationism, it would confuse readers if this description were permanently removed. Describing creationism as a "religious belief" focuses readers away from less religious interpretations of creationism, such as "astrological beliefs" or "philosophical beliefs". Deism, a form of creationism, is described as a belief that is both religious and philosophical. And it is indeed both. Perhaps creationism is, also? The thing to ask yourself is, "If I remove this content, will I be improving the article? or will I be making it worse? Will I be clarifying ideas for the reader? or will I make things more unclear and confusing?"  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  18:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
If the editor that added the word religious means it in the general meaning of habit then it it is entirely misleading precisely because it diverts the reader's attention towards religion as the source of creationism and away from other forms of belief (be they personal or cultural) that do not stem from any organized forms of religion. But I suspect the editor is really of the opinion that belief in God is much the same as holding a religious belief because (s)he says "I would certainly assert that any belief pertaining to a "god" or a "supernatural creator" of the universe is sufficiently substantial and core a belief that it amounts to a 'religious belief' rather than a mere superstition or similar". I think using the adjective "religious" in this context must mean something connected to religion and only having a belief in God does not constitute a religious belief because a religion is much much more than a belief in the existence of a god or gods.--Hauskalainen (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
We'll just have to "agree to disagree", Hauskalainen. And forgive me for saying this, but I seriously doubt that your argument is strong enough to gain a consensus for change. However, you do seem to feel very strongly about this, so my advice would be for you to add a {{Fact}} template after the word "religious" to see if WP:Burden can be met. If nobody comes up with a good, third-party reference for verification, then the word may be removed without violating WP:Preserve.  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  07:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Anachronistic wording

Resolved
 – Obvious fix.

I'm a bit concerned about the wording here:

"Deism became prominent in the 17th and 18th centuries during the Age of Enlightenment, especially in the United Kingdom, France, United States and Ireland..."

There was no United Kingdom in the 17th century and no United States until the last couple of decades of the 18th. Should these be changed to England (and Scotland if warranted?) and America? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greghouston (talk • contribs) 19:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The sentence of course means ". . . especially in what is now the United Kingdom, France, United States and Ireland . . .". The sentence in the article has thus been improved.  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  05:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
And someone who didn't think about the matter, apparently, removed that clarification, so I put it back in again. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 00:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Poor links

Resolved
 – There is no need to save extraordinarily poor links, they should just be deleted with justification in the edit summary.

Saving extraordinarily poor links. In the context of the sentence

These views contrast with a dependence on revelations, miracles, and faith found in many Judeo-Christian[poor 1][poor 2], Islamic and other theistic teachings
  1. ^ The knowledge of God according to the Church, Vatican.va.
  2. ^ "Dennis Prager Publishes Series On Judeo-Christian Values". Traditional Values Coalition.

The first Vatican one actually inclines towards deism as regards to "man being able to reason the existence of God", the second one does contain a list of links none mentioning miracles and revelations, but being a rightist aggression towards everything that don't fit a very tight and constrained world view – not only irrelevant but also dirty and shameful. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Something is wrong (?)

Resolved
 – No further interest in this topic in almost 2 years.

I suspect some kind of bias, maybe using "deism" as a pejorative label. By this:

Deists typically reject most supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and tend to assert that God (or "The Supreme Architect") has a plan for the universe that is not altered either by God intervening in the affairs of human life or by suspending the natural laws of the universe.

Acceptable so far, but:

What organized religions see as divine revelation and holy books, most[who?] deists see as interpretations made by other humans, rather than as authoritative sources.

doesn't automatically follow from the previous one, at least not according to my logic, f.ex. imagine a one-time-divine revelation. And in the other direction: interpreting the holy books as based on divine revelation doesn't preclude human interpretations; furthermore: interpreting the holy books as based on human inspiration/interpretation doesn't imply a deist world view. ("Theist/interpretationist views") ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, maybe my "gut feelings" are just reflecting the inherent bias in the "theism-deism controversy", not a bias in the article. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Bingo! However, I don't particularly care for the "most" deists part. That's a weasel word that calls for a [who?] template.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  11:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There is incosistency regarding whether deism is belief or non belief. First the page says " ... is a religious and philosophical belief that ..." and then it says " ... this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for either faith ..." So clarify if deism is a belief system or not. The latter quote make it seems like an empirical system. David Jonsson 14:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) This is hairsplitting at a level that borders on trolling. The article makes is perfectly clear that Deism is a belief system, one based on rational observation. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 00:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Constructive vs critical deism

Resolved
 – No on appears to have cared about these changes for almost 2 years.

Deleted following.........

  1. Rejection of the Genesis account of creation and the doctrine of original sin, along with all similar beliefs[citation needed].
  2. Rejection of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and other religious beliefs[citation needed].
  3. Rejection of belief in the Trinity and/or the divinity of Jesus[citation needed].

............. because it is grossly Abrahamic-centric. Implies that all other reveled religions are not a factor or worthy of discussion in the context............ ALSO.... the three deleted points are extremely, embarrassingly redundant version of the two points above them. These two points encompass all of the three points deleted:

  1. Rejection of all religions based on books that claim to contain the revealed word of God[citation needed].
  2. Rejection of reports of miracles, prophecies and religious "mysteries"[citation needed]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.167.202.148 (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

...further: the way it was written implies that Deism is only an alternative to/ only rejects Abrahamic religions. It may have been the case. But the modern definition include ALL living and dead revealed religions and all of their books, practices, rites, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.167.202.148 (talk) 04:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Unitarianism?

Resolved
 – No objections in over 9 months to these edits.

The 3rd paragraph in the introduction contains this:

It included some of the Unitarian ideas that emerged with Socinianism around 1574. Initially deism did not form any congregations, but in time it strongly influenced other religious groups, such as Unitarianism and Universalism.

Besides an uncomfortable degree of circularity (a caused b, b caused a), the wording makes it sound as if Unitarians are deists, which they are not. In fact, Unitarians describe themselves as monotheists, sometimes saying 'strict monotheists' because they believe in a Judeo-Christian God, but not a divine Christ.

The body of the text more accurate describes the actual relationship. That is, Socinianism influenced influenced both deism and unitarianism.

I modified the paragraph to read:

It included some of the non-trinitarian ideas that emerged from Socinianism around 1574 which also influenced Unitarianism. Initially deism did not form congregations, but in time it influenced other religious groups such as Universalism.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Moralistic therapeutic and ceremonial deism

Stale
 – No further dispute on this issue in over 6 months.

With articles out there like "Death By Deism"; A nation of deists"--readers reading those titles will come to Deism to find out what they're talking about. There needs to be some comment, some brief comment, in this article to tell readers why Moralistic therapeutic deism and ceremonial deism are not really forms of deism. DeistCosmos (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Now, I do not think MTD is notable enough to warrant what you're seeking. Besides, I would argue that it's just as good that these people find their way here and get confused. We can't control how people decide to bend the English language, but we don't have to bend with them.Griswaldo (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

DeistCosmos, I think you fundamentally misunderstand the inteded purpose of Wikipedia articles. This article is supposed to discuss Deism, not serve as a "google Zeitgeist" tool to accommodate web search trends (even if there was positive evidence for a rise in searches for "deism" in the context of MTD, which has not been presented). --dab (𒁳) 17:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That's funny because I thought the purpose of an encyclopedia is to dispel confusion, not create it. DeistCosmos (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The article is about Deism, not MTD. Just because the two concepts share similar terminology is not enough to make MTD notable in terms of this article and I don't see that MTD is notable enough on its own to warrant inclusion. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Protected

The article has been reverted back and forth without discussion, so I've protected it for a few days to allow some discussion.   Will Beback  talk  03:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sikhism

Resolved
 – The disputed wording about Sikhism was removed and has stayed gone for over 6 months without further objection, and original objector has publicly withdrawn.

He there, I have no intention of making further changes to Deism on Wikipedia as I do not want to further waste my time here. Strangely, it was Wikipedia that gave me some information about Deism when I came across this word. Then I did some seraches particularly the Standford philosophy net. Sikhism very much encomapsses Deism and answers all the questions which Deism itself is unable to. But there appears to be an envy that how come a religion is able to be above Deistic theory. Sikhism is a yooung religion and research on Sikhism in the western universities has just started. Thanks but not thanks. I'll keep developing information on how Sikhism predates Deism and post that on my blog sometime and eventually take that to a university conference. Have fun. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurtejnz (talk • contribs) 17:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a mistake to include Sikhism as an example of Deism -- they are two distinct currents of thought. I'm posting this in regard to the recent edit war. I also think that the section on John Locke violates WP:NOR and should be removed. Delia Peabody (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  07:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Sikhism is a revealed religion. While it may have concepts in common with Deism it cannot be an example of Deism for this reason. The section I removed appeared to be more concerned with proselytizing Sikhism than providing the reader with accurate information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TJHarrisonUK (talk • contribs) 03:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree. This came up before in November. Delia Peabody (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  07:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Deism

Resolved
 – Answer to question is self-evident.

Dudes, I was just now looking at Portal:Christianity and I saw that there's actually like a dozen portals for Christianity alone -- I'm talking, different portals just for Christianity in India, and Christianity in China. So why no Portal:Deism? DeistCosmos (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously because there is insufficient interest in creating and (more importantly) constantly maintaining one. There isn't even a Wikipedia:WikiProject Deism. There aren't enough active Desists to make such things practical. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 23:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

COI tag

Resolved
 – The disputed tag was removed.

Can someone please explain why there's a COI tag on this article? It's not evident from the talk page. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone (rightly, since it was unexplained) removed the tag. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 23:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

What's the difference between Deism and Agnosticism?

Unresolved
 – The article never discusses agnosticism.

Can someone explain it to me?PonileExpress (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

A fundamental difference between deism and agnosticism is that deism is affirmative on the question of the existence of a god. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
This is a place for discussing the article, not its subject. And ignore Saddhiyama's answer; agnostics can believe in gods. Ilkali (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Agnostics generally suspend judgement on the existence of gods, while a belief in a god is inherent in deism. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The above is all true. however one can be an agnostic-deist{nost deists are such}, uncertain/agnostic but LEANING or TENDING towards Deism.--Iconoclastithon (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
PonileExpress had a legitimate question, and Ilkali is correct that talk pages are not the place for such questions. The article itself should more clearly distinguish between Deism and not-too-distant philosophies like agnosticism and theistic rationalism. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 23:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Freemasons

Unresolved
 – The article never mentions Freemasonry.

There ought to be a brief passage on the role of Freemasons in the history of Deism, since it's quite fairly obvious that they played a role in this (cf Grand Architect of the Universe). Also, it must be noted that Deism has often been used in opposition to the Christian belief in the Holy Trinity. ADM (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

--Freemasonry strictly prohibits the discussion of religion and politics within its institutions. The implication that Freemasonry is responsible for the founding of deism is without foundation. Deism was more or less a social trend and many Brothers undoubtedly "converted". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.174.167 (talk) 07:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Deism in the U.S.

I edited the main article to reflect historical accuracy in reference to the First Amendment. The phrase "separation of Church and State" stemmed from the 16th century Anabaptist theology (and earlier Christian groups) as did the concept itself. In the colonies, you had writings of ministers discussing the idea within what might loosely be called Protestantism in Massachusetts and certainly in Roger William's writings prior to and after helping to establish Rhode Island. The Quakers, more Anabaptist than Protestant, put the idea to work from day one in establishing Pennsylvania, and Baptists though often Calvinist adopted the Anabaptist line on this point.

When Jefferson wrote to the Baptists who had crusaded for some time to be protected from "establishment church" persecution, he was referring to a religious doctrine, not a secular one per se. The debate over this concept of religious freedom had already been raging for centuries and did not originate with the Enlightenment, but rather the Enlightenment was influenced by the arguments of those holding the Anabaptist view in this regard.

Not sure I expressed things well here or in the article, but if someone re-edits, they should adhere to a proper understanding of history in regards to how the concept of First Amendment in regards to religion. The establishment clause is right next to the free exercise clause for a reason. The 2 ideas go hand in hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.88.174 (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

However, this article is about deism, not about separation of church & state. It would not be wrong to state that deist ideas influenced ideas of separation of church & state - many things can significantly influence something.--JimWae (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The article says that Enlightenment philosophy, which influenced the American founders, was heavily inspired by deist ideals. This statement is vague and not sourced and seems to be original research. A plausible argument can definitely be made for this statement (depending on what it means), but I don't think that it belongs in an article as an assumption of fact. One scholar, Gregg L. Frazer, has argued that the leading American founders, such as Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin, all believed that God was active in human affairs, and that they stressed reason over revelation, which makes them "theistic rationalists," not deists. Another scholar, Michael Novak, in On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense at the American Founding, has argued that both faith (in an active God) and reason were part of the religious outlook of the leading American founders. (Novak's "two wings" were faith and reason.) Novak compared the Founders' God to the God of the ancient Israelites. Therefore, I think that the article's phrasing about deism and the American founders needs to be more circumspect. "Deist ideals" of religious freedom were also theistic rationalist ideals. --Other Choices (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
We can't rely on an unpublished work by Gregg L. Frazer when there are so many solid published works. Frazer has merely a vague sentence on Jefferson which seems to be based on a misreading of TJ's book (where TJ says God is asleep--TJ does NOT say God is now active in human affairs). see standard reference books like Ellen Judy Wilson & Peter Hanns Reill, Encyclopedia of the Enlightenment (2004) where "deism" is discussed in 80 different articles. Novak of course is not a historian, but he does fasten on some of the religious Founders, while ignoring those who challenged Christian orthodoxy. Hundreds of historians have discussed the central role of the Enlightenment in shaping Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington, Madison, Adams etc etc. Start with The Enlightenment in America (2006) by Henry F. May Rjensen (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
A few points of clarification. I think that, here at wikipedia, our personal assessment of a particular source often needs to be held in check. Your assessment of Frazer's interpretation of Jefferson's statement is different from mine. It seems to me that Jefferson's words clearly indicate a general belief in God's involvement in human affairs. Frazer's work has an entire chapter, not a "vague sentence" on Jefferson's religious views. For the article, lengthy discussion is not appropriate, so I presented Frazer's strongest single piece of evidence, which is usually ignored by the "Jefferson-was-a-Deist" camp.
Secondly, I was not disputing Enlightenment influence on the American founders, but rather the threefold connection of Deism, Enlightenment, and the American founding. I have read May's book, as well as many other books relating to Enlightenment philosophy, American colonial education, and the lives and thinking of the founders, including lesser-known founders like Witherspoon, Wythe, and Wilson. The Americans were much more likely to read theists like Shaftesbury and Hutcheson, for example, than Voltaire or Rousseau. There were cross-currents in the Enlightenment, so the vague, unsourced statement linking Deism, the Enlightenment, and the American founders seems to be not only against wikipedia policy, but also misleading and unhelpful. --Other Choices (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Another consideration is that ultra-conservative writers are on a "holy war" to "reclaim" the Founding Fathers. Quite a number of books have been written that attack the idea that many of them were Deists (I even found one at Costco the other day, some kind of "why everything you think you know about America is liberal lies" kind of Republican rant book), but I have yet to find one that has any solid research behind it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 23:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
This subject is clearly opinionated, and has historians on both side of the debate. As such, I don't think it's appropriate to include a statement that the founders were (or were not) deists in this article, particularly in the opening paragraphs. It simply doesn't belong. This could be an interesting topic of discussion all its own in either a separate article, or much further down in this article, in a separate section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awawawawoo (talk • contribs) 23:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

"Abandoned" quote

Unresolved
 – Was this ever examined?

User:170.22.76.10 made this edit to Pandeism, changing the quote which also appears on this page. I would guess that this change is incorrect, and the original quote is the correct wording. Can someone have a look at it to be sure? Cheers! bd2412 T 19:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If anyone examined this and fixed it if necessary, please change this to {{Resolved}}. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 23:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Arguments for the existence of God

Under this section should a link to "arguments of God" be put in? Or should a link be put in under "See also"? Keep up the good work! 62.16.241.158 (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Deleted paragraph in the Deism article

I've added the paragraph "Deism can't be said to be any less religious view than the purest Christian, Buddhist or any other. However, it may be that Deists are more detached and that they consider fx. God (or Buddha) in more reflected terms and have an approach that has a looser interpretation to their religion, not that they lack in devotion to their religion! Deists are not some cultists any more than Thomas Paine has been a cultist, as he cites that he believes in no existing church. There is indeed a non-dogmatic argument for God on the internet that backs the Deist-Christian rather than the Theist-Christian.[63]" [correction on some, inserting "...as he cites..." instead]


My reference of 63, as suggestion and example has been http://philosophyblog777.blogspot.no/2011/12/god-materialism-idealism-and-ndnid.html%7Ctitle=Non-Dogmatic New Intelligent Design without bothering to make the url explicit in the text. I hope, of course, that other people bother to reenter this or other equivalent and that the article finally appears exhaustive rather than short in providing layman or expert info, depending efforts agreed upon.

62.16.241.158 (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to refactor the deism articles

The wikipedia article on deism has grown overly large and very messy.

Today I refactored the article on deism so that it now has 4 basic sections on: overview, features, classical deism, and contemporary deism.

In the process, I discovered that there is a relatively new article, Deism in England and France in the 18th century, that has a considerable overlap with the first 3 sections of discussion of the article on deism. I could find no comparable wikipedia article on contemporary deism or modern deism.

I propose that the current wikipedia articles on deism should be rationalized and refactored so that they have this structure:

  • a VERY short article on deism. This article would provide a little introductory/overview material, and act as a disambiguation page for...
  • an article on classical deism
  • an article on contemporary deism

I think the mechanics of this change could be done this way.

  1. create a new article on modern deism and move most of the material on contemporary deism in the deism article into it. In the deism article, leave only a pointer/reference to the new modern deism article.
  2. create a new article on classical deism
  3. move the material Deism in England and France in the 18th century into the new article on classical deism. In the Deism in England and France in the 18th century article, leave only a pointer/reference to the new classical deism article.
  4. move (and merge) most of the material on classical deism in the deism article into new article on classical deism. In the deism article, leave only a pointer/reference to the new classical deism article.

If people think this would be a good idea, or at least have no objections, I would be willing to do this work.

If I were to do this, my goal in step 4 would be to merge text from the deism and Deism in England and France in the 18th century articles into the new classical deism in a way that preserves most of the text of both sources. Then we could let the normal wikipedia evolutionary/editorial process take over and smooth out the merged text until it becomes one focussed text.

So, I have a request for comment:

StephenFerg (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

To be a valid RfC this proposal should refer to sources showing that "classical" and "modern deism" are well-established terms with well-defined scope and boundaries. The same applies to naming. Until that this RfC doesn't make sense. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Dmitrij D. Czarkoff, and even if there are "sources showing that "classical" and "modern deism" are well-established terms with well-defined scope and boundaries", refactoring this article as StephenFerg had proposed would make it lose its essence; it will be much better to take out the two terms, "classical deism" and "modern deism", make them articles and leave a pointer on this article, considering this as the main article on the topic. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I too agree in opposing the proposed refactoring. We ought to have individual articles expanding on the particularities of classical and modern Deism, but this ought to be the main article on the topic, and ought to address at least in sum all of the history and development of Deism. Compare, as a model of such organization, the Deism article in the online edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, which pulls this off. DeistCosmos (talk) 06:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose creating two articles for classical and modern deism until sources are provided for how established the terms are. And then, a discussion will have to cover why this article isn't enough to cover them both. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The God of the Deists

Unresolved
 – No progress has been made on these points.

The alternate "Deus" was just removed because two "or"s in the same line was decreed objectionable. So, where in this article shall it be said that some Deists (eg Arthur C. Clarke) refer to their Deistic Creator as the Deus? The current reading suggests there are two, and exclusively two, correct names. Torquemama007 (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not a "He" as you have it but rather an IT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.142.114 (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Worse yet, the article no longer has any organized information at all about the Deist conception of God, just scattered stuff all over the place. This badly needs to be a section, including the gender issue, names for God, etc., etc. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 00:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The gender issue under Deism is generally resolved by just adding God to the 3. person singular, that is, he, she, it and God. 62.16.241.158 (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

God is a humanized version of The Creator. What is the essence of the Creator: the whole universe itself? a form of energy? As a deist, I know that my express-able knowledge is limited by language, and my language is not sufficient to define The Creator. What I really know is: I can not create the grass, I can not create the air, I can not design the time. The Creator is some-unknown that can do those. 167.205.22.105 (talk) 09:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well it depends now doesn't it? There are different schools of thought within Deism. If you believe the whole Universe is the essence of the Creator that's Pandeism or perhaps Panendeism. If it's a separate sort of Creator like a theistic God but one who is not jealous or punishing or otherwise intervening, it's probably Monodeism. If you think of it as some form of energy external to that of our Universe, perhaps Emanationism? DeistCosmos (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
The Creator is undefinable because of limitation of language, avoiding a classification into certain school. Even the term "Creator" is humanizing.180.253.137.127 (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

god vs God

Shouldn't a deist's "god" not be capitalised? I would actually think that would be one of the important differences between deism and theism.137.111.13.167 (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. There's also no need to capitalize "deist" or "deism". It doesn't appear that the MOS guidance on capitalization has been applied here consistently. References to the Christian God are capitalized, so care must be taken to observe context when making adjustments. Jojalozzo 02:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
If a deist is a monotheist, then "God" is their name of a single individual. They typically capitalized "Providence", "Architect", "Creator" also. When unsure, use "deity".--JimWae (talk) 04:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of instances on the page where god is capitalised without it being a proper noun.137.111.13.167 (talk) 05:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Deistic view on intervention

I went and changed it where it said that a deist believes that a a god rarely if ever intervenes to never intervenes. It seemed kinda awkward having a citation to a dictionary stating that deism believes that a god doesn't intervening then turning around and saying in the article that that very same god does intervene. As I am new, I just want to make sure I did it right and didn't mess up? AlphaLinkX (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to add that there is a difference in a miracle as personal experience and God acting through laws and principles of nature to somebody (by illusion/delusion) seeing "an arm of God extending from the sky to kill an assailant". The "miracles" may be perceived differently, much like snow in nature to the naked eye vs. snow in the laboratory. Good? LFOlsnes-Lea 19:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Deism rejects God-based miracles. Period. If something happens to you which you would call a miracle, it is luck or coincidence, or (in forms such as Pandeism) your own unwitting exercise of your own subtle ability to bend our Universe a tiny bit. DeistCosmos (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I disagree, Deism personifies determinism. Luck and/or coincidence could be an (albeit planned) God-based miracle depending on point of view, whatever that means.

Jefferson never used the term "theistic rationalism" himself

I am deleting this statement for the same reason as in the article on theistic rationalism: (1) The source provided is a search of Google books for the term "Theistic rationalism" linked to dates from 23-12-1000 through 31-12-1857. The implicit assumption is that absence of any appearance in that dataset prior to 1856 is itself confirmation of the assertion. But where was it established that Google books searches are a reliable means for establishing earliest usage of terms? Do scholars familiar with this area of knowledge agree that no use of "theistic rationalism" has been found prior to 1856? (2) This kind of sourcing is a violation of Wikipedia's No Original Research policy. Dezastru (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson's writings are available online. Nowhere does TJ use the term "theistic rationalism". The burden is on those calling him a TR to produce any usage of the term during TJ's lifetime, or else admit that they are using a term not in use then. None has been presented. It needs to be remarked that people who classify TJ (& other Founding Fathers) as a TR are using a term that was never used by TJ (nor by any of his contemporaries) --JimWae (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The standard you are setting by that requirement isn't really fair. My dog has never called herself a "dog," so far as I know, but does that make her any less a dog? Wikipedia requires only that it be possible to show the assertion in a reliable source. That source doesn't necessarily have to have been Jefferson himself or contemporaneous to Jefferson. Dezastru (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
But just as it is somehow incongruous to call dogs atheists and ants communists, it is somewhat incongruous to call TJ's religious beliefs by a term that did not exist when he was alive. All I expect is an acknowledgement that the usage of the term ante-dates the people such as TJ to whom it has been applied. Readers are entitled to know that this is what is being done.--JimWae (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
It's incongruous to call dogs atheists and ants communists if by definition atheists and communists must be humans (or anthropomorphic beings). Without that definitional requirement, those labels start to seem worth discussion.
Regardless, I am pretty sure most people would reject the premise that a person can only be classified in a certain way if he or she explicitly acknowledges that classification. Alan Turing is widely regarded as "the father of computer science," but it's doubtful he ever called himself a "computer scientist," as (I believe) he died before that term was even coined. One of our failings (or strengths?) as human beings is that we often are incapable of appreciating certain characteristics of ourselves that may be very clear to others who are able to evaluate us more objectively. And certainly in describing ourselves we tend to want to play up particular aspects of ourselves, or what we see ourselves to be. (What tyrant ever calls himself a tyrant?) So it would not make much sense to insist that someone can legitimately be regarded as an adherent of a particular viewpoint only if he or she explicitly called himself an adherent of that viewpoint. Dezastru (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Calling Jefferson & other US Founders "Theistic Rationalists"?

Is it a mainstream view among historians that Thomas Jefferson, along with other founders of the United States, was a "theistic rationalist"? I deleted a section of the article that characterized Jefferson as such because it was sourced solely to the work of Prof. Gregg Frazer. Commenting on the deletion I asked what other scholars share this view.

The previous version of the article read as follows [1]: 

For his part, Thomas Jefferson is perhaps one of the Founding Fathers with the most outspoken of Deist tendencies, though he is not known to have called himself a deist, generally referring to himself as a Unitarian. In particular, his treatment of the Biblical gospels which he titled The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, but which subsequently became more commonly known as the Jefferson Bible, exhibits a strong deist tendency of stripping away all supernatural and dogmatic references from the Christ story. However, one unpublished Ph.D. dissertation has described Jefferson as not a Deist but a "theistic rationalist", because Jefferson believed in God's continuing activity in human affairs.[1]

I deleted the sentence "However, one unpublished Ph.D. dissertation has described Jefferson as not a Deist but a "theistic rationalist", because Jefferson believed in God's continuing activity in human affairs."

Rjensen then added the following: 

However, Frazer, following the lead of Sydney Ahlstrom, characterizes Jefferson as not a Deist but a "theistic rationalist", because Jefferson believed in God's continuing activity in human affairs.[2][3]

I don't have Ahlstrom's The Religious Beliefs of the American People on hand, so I cannot confirm whether he used the term "theistic rationalist" and applied it to Jefferson in his book on page 359 as cited, but I can see in previews of the book that are online that on page 382 Ahlstrom explicitly referred to Jefferson as a Deist: "Baptists like John Leland, leading the assault on Anglican privilege in Virginia, could almost assume the language of Thomas Paine on this subject or see eye to eye with a deist like Jefferson." Clearly, Ahlstrom didn't regard "theistic rationalism," assuming he even used that specific term, and Deism as mutually exclusive — unlike Frazer, who, if I understand him correctly, regards "theistic rationalism" as separate and distinct from Deism.

If Frazer's view is mainstream, who are other scholars who also embrace the term "theistic rationalism" and understand it in the same way that Frazer does, and who also regard Jefferson and other Founders as being "theistic rationalists"? Dezastru (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I was going to post the following in the Talk section above that is entitled, "Jefferson never used the term 'theistic rationalist' himself," but it's probably of even greater value here:
Wikipedia's policies require that any contributor who wants to call Jefferson a "theistic rationalist" needs to produce a mainstream source that so describes Jefferson — or, if the view that Jefferson is a theistic rationalist is not mainstream but is held by an influential group of authorities on the subject, needs to state in the contribution that such a view is controversial or otherwise contrary to common understanding. If the view is non-standard and is not held by a significant group of authorities, then inclusion in Wikipedia risks violating WP:fringe and WP:undue. ("If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small [or vastly limited] minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.") Dezastru (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree, this is really basic Wikipedia principles. If the only source labelling Jefferson a "theistic rationalist" (as a term distinct from deism) is an unpublished phd dissertation then it is obviously undue weight to mention it here. If the term is widely recognised among scholars it should be possible to find some published reliable secondary sources mentioning it, otherwise it needs to go.--Saddhiyama (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I've checked Sydney Ahlstrom's The Religious Beliefs of the American People. Ahlstrom does not use the term "theistic rationalist" or "theistic rationalism" on page 359. What he does write is: 

And from each of the three main sections of the country would come one man who by international standards represented the classical Enlightenment at its best: John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson. Each of these men sought to express the new rationalism with complete intellectual integrity. Each of them tried in a serious way, through a long and active career, to deal coherently with the separate but interrelated problems of man, God, nature, and society.

Elsewhere in that book Ahlstrom writes that Jefferson "was unquestionably the most significant of the American rationalists" (p. 367) and "[the clergy] were also disturbed ... by the threat, in the person of Thomas Jefferson, of a president who was an articulate critic of 'sectarianism' in religion and and eloquent defender of deism" (p. 364). On p.366, Ahlstrom discusses "rational religion, or deism," as a religious movement underway during Jefferson's era.

So I don't see Ahlstrom, at least not in that book, being a reliable source for calling Jefferson a "theistic rationalist" as Frazer refers to him. Dezastru (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Frazer is the one who cites Ahlstrom. Frazer's new book has been well received by scholars ("Sophisticated, well-documented, and forcefully argued" says Mark Noll), and is published by in the leading series on the American presidency. Saying his view is "fringe" will require very strong evidence that has not been produced. Rjensen (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Several points. First, I see that you have reinstated the following sentence, which I had deleted: 
However, Frazer, following the lead of Sydney Ahlstrom, characterizes Jefferson as not a Deist but a "theistic rationalist", because Jefferson believed in God's continuing activity in human affairs.
It is sourced to
-Gregg L. Frazer, The Religious Beliefs of America's Founders: Reason, Revelation, Revolution (University Press of Kansas, 2012) p 11, and
-Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People (2004) p 359
However, as I just observed above, Ahlstrom DOES NOT call Jefferson a theistic rationalist. He very clearly calls Jefferson a deist. So I am not following how the clause "Frazer, following the lead of Sydney Ahlstrom, characterizes Jefferson as not a Deist but a 'theistic rationalist'" is justified.
Second, from your comments it seems that you are misunderstanding my reference to the WP:fringe policy. I do not mean to suggest that Frazer's proposition that Jefferson and other Founders were theistic rationalists is a fringe idea in the "crackpot idea" sense of that term. I am suggesting that Frazer's proposition is a (possibly valid) hypothesis that has not yet been fully vetted and adopted as part of the generally accepted understanding of this area of study. Again, Wikipedia's policy on due and undue weight says:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
My sense is that Frazer's view may in fact be held by only an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, which is why I have asked for names of authorities who hold Frazer's view. Thus far we have a grand total of two, namely, Frazer himself and Gary Smith. Against those two, it is pretty easy to come up with a list of others who call Jefferson deist (and/or Unitarian). So I am not yet convinced that including Frazer's view in this article would not be giving that view undue weight.
Third, you commented that "Frazer's new book has been well received by scholars ('Sophisticated, well-documented, and forcefully argued' says Mark Noll)." That may be the case, but that does not necessarily mean that Mark Noll or any other scholar agrees with Frazer on this specific point, which is ultimately what is relevant for this article. Dezastru (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Books that have been published by Oxford UP (Smith) and Kansas UP (Frazer) are fully vetted by many scholars in the publication process and are explicitly called reliable sources. Frazer's book is new; Smith's has had favorable scholarly reviews by specialists. Smith's book has been cited by numerous scholars, none of whom (according to my searches) has challenged the "theistical rationalist" argument. (Ahlstrom called TJ "rationalist" and "Christian"). Wiki rules REQUIRE that all serious viewpoint be given a hearing, and not be deleted by Dezastru because he personally disagrees. (Just what does he disagree with??) "does not necessarily mean that Mark Noll or any other scholar agrees with Frazer on this specific point" -- the problem is that Dezastru is assuming with no evidence that scholars disagree with Smith. That is Dezastru's personal POV showing. Rjensen (talk) 02:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
On Smith, look at the reviews: "in this carefully crafted, well organized, and extensively researched study. This major scholarly effort provides an in-depth analysis of the religious convictions and practices of eleven presidents." [By: Smidt, Corwin. Congress & the Presidency. 2011, Vol. 38 Issue 3, p354-356]; "Gary Scott Smith's new book is an exhaustive but wonderfully informed compendium of religious faith, devotion, and principles held by eleven presidential figures through history....The extensive research and clear prose ensures that this book is not merely another run through the annals of presidential leadership, but is actually a cataloguing of the way career progress, power, and piety work in harmony for those who reach the pinnacle of public life." [By: Scott, Ian. Journal of American Studies. Dec2007, Vol. 41 Issue 3, p698-699]; Faith and the Presidency "is a particularly valuable contribution to this historiography. This ably researched, evenhanded, and clearly written account...." [By: Dierenfield, Bruce J. Journal of American History. Dec2007, Vol. 94 Issue 3, p1005-1006]; "Smith's herculean "Faith and the Presidency" ...is a cleansing breath of fresh air I cannot think of a better current example of how sound historical scholarship offers potential ballasts against the confusions and foolishness wrought by woefully shortsighted interpretations of contemporary culture This impressive tome, which provides the most extensive scholarly exploration of Christian faith and the American presidency ever written, reveals the extent to which religious issues informed and regularly shaped the public discourse of many presidential administrations." [By: Green, Jay. Fides et Historia. Summer2007, Vol. 39 Issue 2, pp 97-101.]]. In sum we have VERY high praise for Smith by many mainstream scholars guarantees we have solid RS here Rjensen (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
"Wiki rules REQUIRE that all serious viewpoint be given a hearing" — actually, I don't think that's what the WP:undue policy says. Once again, that policy says, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." If you had said "Wiki rules REQUIRE that all serious viewpoints held by a significant minority or by the majority be given a hearing," then you'd get no argument. The point of contention here is over whether these two scholars should be considered a "significant minority" in this case. The fact that their books have received favorable reviews does not mean that the specific viewpoint under consideration has been adopted (or even commented on) by other scholars. Who else is referring to the Founders as theistic rationalists? Who is citing Frazer and Smith on this specific issue? When I said above that it may be that the idea has not been fully vetted, I was not saying that the book had not been vetted for publication; I was suggesting that the idea about Jefferson being a theistic rationalist (or, for that matter, even the idea that theistic rationalism is a whole separate category of belief apart from deism generally) might not yet have been thoroughly considered by the wider community of scholars. Frazer's book was only recently published. Maybe very few are familiar with it at this point and that is why names of more than one prominent adherent other than Frazer are not yet coming forth on this page. Perhaps in a year or two from now, it will be easy to produce names of plenty of scholars who have cited Frazer's work and who agree with his views. Dezastru (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
"Wiki rules REQUIRE that all serious viewpoint be given a hearing, and not be deleted by Dezastru because he personally disagrees. (Just what does he disagree with??)" I assure you there is no ulterior motive. Reading Gouverneur Morris' Wikipedia entry I found this statement:
At the convention he gave more speeches than any other delegate, a total of 173. Morris has been categorized as a "theistic rationalist"[8] because he believed strongly in a guiding god and in morality as taught through religion. Nonetheless, he did not have much patience for any established religion. As a matter of principle, he often vigorously defended the right of anyone to practice his chosen religion without interference, and he argued to include such language in the Constitution.
I had never encountered the term theistic rationalist before and saw that the source provided in the Morris article was a paper by Frazer "prepared for delivery at the 2008 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association." I then noticed that the WP stub on theistic rationalism was sourced almost exclusively to Frazer, and that mentions of theistic rationalism had found their way into WP articles on several of the Founders, with no other sources being provided. Google searches on theistic rationalism turned up only a bunch of blog posts apparently generated by two or three individuals, all referring back to (solely) Frazer's dissertation, as well as links sourced back to the same Wikipedia articles. It seems quite strange that there are no other sources for the topic. This isn't some obscure area of particle physics — what areas of American history have been pored over more thoroughly than the lives and beliefs of people like Thomas Jefferson? If Jefferson's having been a theistic rationalist is in fact a major viewpoint, why is it so hard to find more information about this topic? And why are almost all the other people who have been writing about his religious views in the past 10 or 15 years calling his views deist and/or Unitarian, not theistical rationalist? Dezastru (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Btw - There still hasn't been any justification offered for the sentence that says that Ahlstrom called Jefferson a theistical rationalist. Ahlstrom never used that term. Dezastru (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
1) The text does not say "that Ahlstrom called Jefferson a theistical rationalist." 2) "theistic rationalist." is a technical term that has been used in theology for 100+ years. Here's a cite from 1870: Samuel Sprecher (1879). The groundwork of a system of evangelical Lutheran theology. pp. 345–. and here's one from 1861: Christopher Wordsworth (1861). The interpretation of the Bible: five lectures, delivered in Westminster abbey. p. 10.. 3) Smith's books have been enthusiastically received --that makes him mainstream. His ideas on "theistic rationalism" have been covered in numerous recent books such as The Oxford Handbook of Religion and American Politics (2009) - p. 476; and Religion and the American presidency (2007) - Page 2 & 10; Realistic Visionary: A Portrait of George Washington (2008) - Page 185. I have found no one who disagrees -- and neither has Dezastru. He has no RS to support his position on Smith & Frazer, so they are merely his personal POV in rejecting views by scholars he disagrees with for no specific reason. Rjensen (talk) 06:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct that the article does not include the typographical error "theistical." Rather, it says, "However, Frazer, following the lead of Sydney Ahlstrom, characterizes Jefferson as not a Deist but a "theistic rationalist"," sourced to Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People (2004) p 359. What is the justification for including this text referring to A Religious History of the American People? Dezastru (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Frazer repeatedly cites Ahlstrom, who has a detailed explanation of why Jefferson was a Christian rationalist. Frazer adds "theistic", which is a term from German theology. Rjensen (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
What the text says and what you have just explained are not the same. Do you not see the problem? Dezastru (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The main problem is a stubborn refusal to accept recent scholarship. Rjensen (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Rjensen here. Fraser pointedly follows the thought of Ahlstrom, using an established term that closely fits Ahlstrom's meaning and is close to Ahlstrom's chosen language.--Other Choices (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined mostly to agree with Rjensen. If Frazer's book has been well received by other scholars, including Mark Noll, who has written on this topic, then we can at least say that that a significant minority of scholars do not disagree with the main point of the book. Having skimmed through the first chapter of Frazer's book, it is evident that the main point of the book is that the belief system of many of the founding fathers of America is not exactly the same as historical Christianity, and not exactly the same as deism. It is some sort of middle way between deism and historical Christianity. Frazer gives this middle way the name theistic rationalism.

Not only do a significant minority of scholars not disagree with Frazer, I'm not even sure why a majority of scholars would disagree with him. Earlier in this article, it has already been stated that there is a distinction between "deism" and "theism". This article has the following quotation from John Orr, from his book English Deism: Its roots and fruits:

"Prior to the 17th century the terms ["deism" and "deist"] were used interchangeably with the terms "theism" and "theist," respectively. ... Theologians and philosophers of the seventeenth century began to give a different signification to the words... Both [theists and Deists] asserted belief in one supreme God, the Creator... and agreed that God is personal and distinct from the world. But the theist taught that God remained actively interested in and operative in the world which he had made, whereas the Deist maintained that God endowed the world at creation with self-sustaining and self-acting powers and then abandoned it to the operation of these powers acting as second causes."

Since it is generally acknowledged that some of the founding fathers who were influenced by deism believed that God continued to intervene in human affairs, we can conclude that when people simply label these founding fathers as "deists", this is an imprecise use of the word "deist". It would appear that Frazer is simply introducing more precise terminology to the discussion.

I will say, however, that we would be better off if we removed the reference to Ahlstrom from the article, and any reference to him from this discussion, since he does repeatedly use the word "deist" in an imprecise way and refer to Thomas Jefferson as a deist. When Frazer refers to Ahlstrom, he is saying that Ahlstrom has at least some recognition that the beliefs of Jefferson and other founding fathers were not exactly the same as deism in its precise sense.

We could also rewrite the sentences on Frazer and apply them to the founding fathers in general. In that way, we will be restating the main point of the book, which we are sure a number of scholars do not disagree with, or else they would not be praising the book.

According to the online New World Encyclopedia, "in general the American Deists believed in a general concept of divine providence." That would mean the "American Deists" were really theists. The reference in the article to Jefferson's comment about the possibility that supernatural influence might bring an end to slavery does provide us with concrete specific evidence that Jefferson believed in a general concept of divine providence, and so would be a theist rather than a deist.JDefauw (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)JDefauw

Deists believe in general providence - that God has a plan & has built forces into the world to make his plan come about. Deists even believe that individuals will be rewarded (later and/or now) for joining in God's plan. What theists (in the specific sense) believe - that few deists do - is that God personally intervenes in the lives of individual humans. Some deists even maintain that God is active in the individual human "heart". Finding that someone believes that God has some role in human affairs does not disqualify that person from being a deist.--JimWae (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. It sheds new light on the topic. I did not know that some deists believe in Divine Providence. I learned something new.
That means that the opinion of Frazer may not be as non-controversial as I thought. Consequently, I suppose a decision will have to be made whether his point of view is held by a significant minority of scholars or a small and limited minority (and whether this can be determined with any degree of certainty). Other people who have more experience than I have applying the policies of Wikipedia to these situations will have to make that decision. In any case, it's not essential that we know exactly how to classify the religious beliefs of Thomas Jefferson, which everybody agrees were very heterodox.
Regardless of what other people decide on that question, it seems to me there would be no grounds for removing the statement about what Jefferson wrote in his Notes on the State of Virginia because this statement is 1) relevant to the topic, 2)is not a POV, but rather a verifiable statement taken from a primary source, and 3)is referenced to a mainstream secondary reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDefauw (talk • contribs) 21:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"Necrodeism"?

Really? I thought I'd heard of every kind, but never this one. Nor has it made it into any real publications so far as I can discern. Does an answers.com ref (or whatever it was) suffice here? DeistCosmos (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It certainly does not. I think we can safely delete that section as unreliably sourced as well as WP:FRINGE violation. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Catholic Voltaire

Voltaire was most certainly not a Catholic and his "deathbed confessions" are largey thought to be apocryphal and made up by his enemies. And http://www.adherents.com/people/pv/Voltaire.html is certainly not a reliable source for anything of the kind either. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Mention of Paine being called an atheist & of Voltaire's supposed deathbed conversion are too detailed for the lede.--JimWae (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Mention

Should there be a sentence about deism in the lede of the God article? Pass a Method talk 12:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

If you do, then it would be a good idea to provide a brief summary of theism, deism, and pantheism. I also believe that the last paragraph of the lede should be moved to the body of the article.JDefauw (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)JDefauw

Clockwork Universe + Divine Watchmaker

These 2 representations of a Creator & "his" creation are intertwined with Deism. There are numerous sources to support this characterization of Deism and to support having a presentation of this topic in the article. In fact, omitting it is a disservice to readers. Apparently, there are also Deist sources who dispute this characterization. How much they think a perfect, All-Knowing, Divine Architect would need to revise his work is unclear. Noteworthy also is that Deism predates Newton, who is much-responsible for the Clockwork Universe idea. Lets write a section on this before it is re-added to the lede.--JimWae (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Voltaire's 1734 Traité de métaphysique, btw, does NOT have Voltaire saying God IS a watchmaker. He says when he sees a watch, he infers a watchmaker:

SOMMAIRE DES RAISONS EN FAVEUR DE L’EXISTENCE DE DIEU.
Il y a deux manières de parvenir à la notion d’un être qui préside à l’univers. La plus naturelle et la plus parfaite pour les capacités communes est de considérer non seulement l’ordre qui est dans l’univers, mais la fin à laquelle chaque chose paraît se rapporter. On a composé sur cette seule idée beaucoup de gros livres, et tous ces gros livres ensemble ne contiennent rien de plus que cet argument-ci: Quand je vois une montre dont l’aiguille marque les heures, je conclus qu’un être intelligent a arrangé les ressorts(3) de cette machine, afin que l’aiguille marquât les heures. Ainsi, quand je vois les ressorts du corps humain, je conclus qu’un être intelligent a arrangé ces organes pour être reçus et nourris neuf mois dans la matrice; que les yeux sont donnés pour voir, les mains pour prendre, etc. Mais de ce seul argument je ne peux conclure autre chose, sinon qu’il est probable qu’un être intelligent et supérieur a préparé et façonné la matière avec habileté; mais je ne peux conclure de cela seul que cet être ait fait la matière avec rien, et qu’il soit infini en tout sens. J’ai beau chercher dans mon esprit la connexion de ces idées: « Il est probable que je suis l’ouvrage d’un être plus puissant que moi, donc cet être existe de toute éternité, donc il a créé tout, donc il est infini, etc. » Je ne vois pas la chaîne qui mène droit à cette conclusion; je vois seulement qu’il y a quelque chose de plus puissant que moi, et rien de plus.

The watchmaker ANALOGY was used earlier by Fontenelle in 1686, but was most famously formulated by Paley in 1802.--JimWae (talk) 01:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Of the supposed sources that were given as opposed to the Clockwork representation:

  1. 9.^ Stephen, Leslie. History of English Tought in the Eighteenth Century. vol 1. pp. 91.
  2. 10.^ Houston, Beth (2009). Born Again Deist. first chapter: New Deism Press.
  3. 11.^ Paine, Thomas. Age of Reason. Part I, Recapitulation.
  4. 12.^ Gay, Peter (1968). Deism: An Anthology. Princeton, N. J., D. Van Nostrand Company Inc.. pp. 191.[need quotation to verify]
  5. 13.^ Voltaire. "Deism". Traité de Métaphysique. newworldencyclopedia. Retrieved 2008-08-29.
  6. 14.^ Voltaire, W. Dugdale (1843). A Philosophical Dictionary ver 2.
  7. 15.^ Graves, Dan. "The Religious Affiliation of Influential Philosopher Voltaire 2". adherents.com. Retrieved 2005-07-12.

ONLY ONE is available online - and McAfee considers that ONE a suspicious site.

However, even a Clockwork Universe does not rule out Providence. Providence could (theoretically) have been part of the design of the universe. Many writers who claim the Founding Fathers were not Deists claim otherwise or conveniently ignore this. --JimWae (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Indented line

Etymology

Ok, Please explain why you want to delete very important information from the Deist definition. Which needs to be at the top where it is. Thank you. --Dsomeone (talk) 23:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC) - Moved from my talk page. Jojalozzo 23:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree that etymology is "very important" for this topic. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and there is already a link to wiktionary where the etymology may be found. Even if we choose to include the etymology I do not consider it at all among the most important information we need to convey about this topic and I see no reason to feature it so prominently in the introduction. Perhaps you can convince me of its importance. Jojalozzo 23:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The cited source doesn't mention "deism", so it is original research. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I think the source is Merriam Webster Dictionary which must include "deism" and its etymology. I do not think this is OR, just a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about and lack of skill in creating citations. Jojalozzo 00:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I am talking about this specific edit, which includes a citation that links to the page "-ism" in the Mirriam Webster dictionary, which does not mention "deism" at all. That is the OR I am referring to. A proper verifiable sourcing would be to link to the article "deism" from MW then. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you are absolutely correct but if that was the issue you could have just fixed it instead of deleting it, true? I'm glad you helped out in any case. Jojalozzo 14:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you a Deist? If not of course this is not important to you. But is is very important to tell the truth of the word, and remove the confusion. How would you like me to state that the word is derived from Deus and ism ? please help. unless you have malicious intent? I hope not. Thank you. --Dsomeone (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Please stop and take a breath. I suggest you become more familiar with Wikipedia policy and etiquette before you accuse anyone here of malicious intent. From my perspective, I have tried very hard to explain my position and to help you understand what Wikipedia is and is not. You have not addressed those issues but instead suggest I am acting in bad faith. I understand that you are trying to improve the article but others here do not agree with your actions. You must work with other editors here, not fight them. We operate by consensus and discussion not by bullying and bulling our way. Please read the Welcome! message that was posted on your talk page a week ago, listing help and basic policy pages. I think you will find those links helpful in participating constructively in Wikipedia's editing community. Please spend some time familiarizing yourself with that material. Thank you. Jojalozzo 01:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not interested in becoming a professional editor. The Deism was much better before you deleted the information. you could help and explain why you disagree with something so obviously true? I have a friend who is a senior editor I will ask him to help me. He is a Deist. Thank you. for the help.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsomeone (talk • contribs) 01:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Please explain a) what is the confusion that you refer to and b) how does the etymology reduce that confusion (when the article is already explaining what deism is about in some detail)? Please do not claim anything is "obvious". That is not a valid argument. Jojalozzo 01:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
(By the way, we are all volunteers here.) Jojalozzo 01:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Deism is a very simple personal belief in God based on Truth, Reason and Nature, and is sometimes confused with atheism, when in fact it is the opposite of that. Stating that it is derived from Deus Latin for God and ism the study of is very important, and many people (Deist) have expressed thanks to the removal of confusion on wiki. Deism is same as God-ism. a simple personal belief, which is under attack and has been for centuries. non deist are constantly trying to make it confusing, when it is very simple. and stating deism is God-ism helps a lot. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsomeone (talk • contribs) 01:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Since this is a religious topic, are you deist or are you of something other which opposes deism? this is also relevant. Religion is tough to get right when one is not understanding, or atheist trying to edit God based info. Make sense? --Dsomeone (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

-Follow the normal protocol When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can instead of just deleting it.- I was just wondering why this doesn't apply to you? Protocol says to improve it instead of just deleting it. Deism was much improved until you deleted this. And I did ask for help. to improve it. I don't know what else to do. but I will learn. --Dsomeone (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It is your opinion that the article was improved by your addition. There are others here who do not agree with you. Simply stating that it was improved does not make it so. As I understand it you think the article does not make it clear that deists are not atheists. If we can get consensus here that your opinion is correct then we can discuss how to do that. We have to take this a step at a time and you need to be clear about what improvements are needed and why they are needed. I do not think anyone here will go along with what you want without well thought out arguments.
Bulling your way by posting and re-posting and re-posting and re-posting your sentence is not effective collaboration. Please remove the disputed content so you are no longer in violation of the edit warring rules. Then we can proceed. Jojalozzo 02:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You will not answer my questions ? I did everything you've asked to make it better. you are not collaborating. you are only offering criticism and no answers. I don't know what else to do. Are you an authority of Deism? Are you Deist? or do you have other issues as an editor of a religious topic. The consensus among the deist I know is that it is much better. what can you do to improve it? --Dsomeone (talk) 03:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not a deist or an authority but I can use sources to compile reliable content on deism. I intend my criticism to be helpful and constructive. I am an experienced Wikipedia editor and I understand what this article is attempting to do but I do not think you do. From what I can tell you are not an authority on deism and you are certainly not yet a competent Wikipedia editor.
The opinions of other anonymous deists carry no weight here and I do not think that the article confuses deists with atheists.
However, before you respond to any of my points here, please remove the disputed content. Otherwise, I am unwilling to continue this discussion. Jojalozzo 03:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, I see someone else has removed it for you. Please do not restore it until we have come to a consensus here. Thank you. Jojalozzo 03:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


even his excuse was bogus, the ref is not for ism, it is for the origin of the word deism. Who's being bullied? with no discussion and that person did not discus with us. --Dsomeone (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The reference did not support the purported usage. That combined with there being no good reason for such a mundane dictionary definition in the introduction is why I removed it. older ≠ wiser 03:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

--- Would you please find a better source for the origin of the word deism instead of just deleting it. --Dsomeone (talk) 03:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see the need for an etymology of the word here in the introduction. It is pretty unremarkable formation of relatively common roots. older ≠ wiser 03:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

so it boils down to your opinion vs my opinion, wow, that's fair, and you're not a deist. Hum... I believe I will need some constructive help here. Let me see what I can find. Thank you. --Dsomeone (talk) 03:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The etymology is already covered with better context in the Overview section. older ≠ wiser 03:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
And as I've explained to you elsewhere already -- being a deist is not a prerequisite for editing the article and may in fact be an impediment in that it may make it difficult to edit from an neutral point of view, which is one of the cardinal policies for Wikipedia articles. older ≠ wiser 03:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you guys for being so helpful, I'm sure I will be blocked. --Dsomeone (talk) 04:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ Gregg L. Frazer, "The Political Theology of the American Founding" (Ph.D. dissertation), Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, California, 2004, p. 75; in press as The Religious Beliefs of America's Founders: Reason, Revelation, Revolution (University Press of Kansas, 2012)
  2. ^ Gregg L. Frazer, The Religious Beliefs of America's Founders: Reason, Revelation, Revolution (University Press of Kansas, 2012) p 11
  3. ^ Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People (2004) p 359
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deism/Archive_4&oldid=1138970184"