Talk:Deism

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)

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(^Õل^ō)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)

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(^Õل^ō)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)

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(^Õل^ō)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(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 23:55, 10 June 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.

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.

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)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Calvinism deserves a mention here

And not just Christian viewpoints, but others if they could be added...

-edit- nevermind... determinism is mentioned and that links to Calvinism. I believe there should be more religions related but this is the wrong place to discuss...

"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)

Natural

I am posting this on someone elses behalf. Should the first paragraph include the word "natural" before "creator deity" as in "natural creator deity"? Pass a Method talk 03:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Not unless there are good sources that use that terminology as a general deist stance. It does not appear anywhere else in the article which suggests such sources may not be forthcoming. Jojalozzo 04:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and I appologize to all for my lack of understanding of wikipedia in the past. I believe I am doing better.

The reference for adding Nature to the definition of deism is in the definition itself. Deism is a belief based on Nature and Reason, Rejecting anything supernatural. Therefore, as a natural belief system or philosophy, it should only be reasonable that it follows a Natural God. Anything other than a natural God must be supernatural and conflicts with the basic philosophy of deism. The Deity of Deism is Nature or a Natural God.

I am proposing in the first paragraph to include the word "natural" before "deity" as in "natural deity" or "natural God"? and eliminating "Creator" which should be covered by "the product of", may be redundant, sounds funny with the product of.

Such as:

a philosophy which holds that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is the product of a "natural God". (or a natural Deity.)

I hope this helps. Thank you.

--Dsomeone (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You are giving us a logical argument. Without sources it's original research. Please address the concerns about sources I expressed just above. Jojalozzo 23:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

---

This is from the body here on wiki:

"Deists did appeal to "the light of nature" to support the self-evident nature of their positive religious claims. By natural religion, I understand the belief of the existence of a God, and the sense and practice of those duties which result from the knowledge we, by our reason, have of him and his perfections; and of ourselves, and our own imperfections, and of the relationship we stand in to him, and to our fellow-creatures; so that the religion of nature takes in everything that is founded on the reason and nature of things. I suppose you will allow that it is evident by the light of nature that there is a God, or in other words, a being absolutely perfect, and infinitely happy in himself, who is the source of all other beings.... —Matthew Tindal, Christianity as Old as the Creation (II)[18] "

I suppose this could be a ref as well in the definition.

--Dsomeone (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

---

The complexity of deism is that it is or should be a continually adapting belief or philosophy based on truth, reason and science, and nature, which means new discoveries may not have references as of yet. For example our knowledge of the universe is way past antiquity, and that differentiates the views of deist from ancient times and the true views deist today. Just FYI.

--Dsomeone (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

---

This should also be a good reference for adding Natural God. Dealing with God from a scientific and reasonable point, such as defined by deism.

From the Existence of God

Polkinghorne, John (1998). Belief in God in an Age of Science. Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-07294-5.

--Dsomeone (talk) 02:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Here we go, the first paragraph and throughout the Declaration of Independence, refers to the natural laws and a natural God. The Declaration of independence was written primarily by Thomas Jefferson A known deist among deist, who also wrote the Jefferson Bible which is used by many deist still today. Found in wiki under Thomas Jefferson and religion under the heading of "Jefferson and deism", it's not to far down. The declaration of independence was also heavily influenced by the most famous deist Thomas Paine.

--Dsomeone (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Please quote the specific text that you feel supports usage of the term "natural god". For example, I didn't see where the US Declaration of Independence refers to a "natural god". (BTW, you don't need to add lines between your entries. Most of us are used to looking for the signature lines that designate the end of one entry and the start of the next. Usually a line like that designates a change of direction in the discussion.) Thanks. Jojalozzo 03:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the tip, no more line.

Here's the quote: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." from: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

--Dsomeone (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It would be even better to word it in the same text, such as: "a philosophy which holds that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is the product of nature's God.

--Dsomeone (talk) 03:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "nature's God" makes more sense to me also. Can you find any other usage with that construction to make sure Jefferson isn't an anomaly? If we can't, I don't think it belongs in the lead. Jojalozzo 03:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

How about this: http://www.deism.com/to-natures-god.net/

This should be proof enough, that deist like "nature's God" even the logo states "in nature's god we trust".

--Dsomeone (talk) 04:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that you are using WP:Primary sources with more or less questionable connections to deism (the deism of the Declaration of Independence for example is rightly questioned, and even if it was deist it wouldn't speak for all deists). If you want the phrase "a natural God" to be included, you will need to find a reliable secondary source preferably written by a known scholar, that characterises deism in general as the belief in "a natural God" (verbatim). Inferring from the use of "natural religion" or other terms in primary or secondary sources would be considered synthesis. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

What about this? Let’s forget about adding Nature, and just reword,

since what we have now sounds very distant form Deism and more of a generic incomplete definition. Doesn't this sound much better?

“Deism (i/ˈdiː.ɪzəm/[1][2] or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/) is a religious philosophy which holds that through reason and observation of nature, without the need for organized religion, one can determine that the universe is the product of a deity.”

Can we agree that this sounds better, and is more personal to deism?

--Dsomeone (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You will still need a secondary source that supports such a definition. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Citing that the 'Nature's God' of the Declaration of Independence is the Deistic understanding of one is simply done.

The Faiths of the Founding Fathers - David L. Holmes - 2006 - Page 47. DeistCosmos (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The source doesn't seem to place a primary meaning of "Nature's God" over any of the other examples listed, and thus is still insufficient to support mentioning it in the first sentence in the lead. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

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

re-word

What we have now sounds like a generic incomplete definition.

From:

"Deism (i/ˈdiː.ɪzəm/[1][2] or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/) is a philosophy which holds that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is the product of a creator deity."

to:

“Deism (i/ˈdiː.ɪzəm/[1][2] or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/) is a philosophy of religion which holds that through reason and the observation of nature, without the need for organized religion, one can determine that the universe is the product of a deity.”

This sounds better, is more complete and personal to deism, and has good references throughout wiki.

--Dsomeone (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it is important still to recognize that Deism posits a nonintervening Creator, and especially a Creator with no need to intervene because the Creation was sufficiently competently executed in the first instance. DeistCosmos (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

That belief is way outdated from when Voltaire introduced it, We now see an infinite universe which is constantly changing and evolving, when one star or solar system dies another takes it's place. Science can not prove the existence of a creator or a beginning to the universe. only infinite change. And any creator above nature is in itself super-natural and deist unanimously reject the supernatural. also if there is a creator like the watchmaker theory of Voltaire, what was the creator of the creator? That is a supernatural manifestation of the mind, just like all other dogmatic religions create. Science can only reveal to us today the all encompassing infinite power of Nature. The complexity of deism is its ability to adapt to new science. which is what needs to happen here.

From: http://moderndeism.com/

It must be noted that Deism has been defined as the religion in which God abandoned the creation. This was rarely the case. During the Second Great Awakening, Deism was attacked by the revialists who wanted to degrade its influence. They created the notion that Deists believed that God had created and then abandoned his creation in favor of greater things. No Deists truly believed this. Some believed that God was no longer active in creation but had not abandoned it but watched to observe.

This is a very controversial and outdated idea and should be left alone.

Thank you.

--Dsomeone (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Some Christians and Muslims will argue that their theological model can be arrived at by reason and observation alone. Are they, then, Deists? DeistCosmos (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't answer that, and it is a bit off topic. the only theology of Deism is the theology of nature.

--Dsomeone (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Dsomeone: It appears to me that you may have a conflict of interest between your personal beliefs versus the general philosophy of deism, current and historical. This article should be inclusive of the whole range of philosophies that may be or have been considered deist. Jojalozzo 20:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It may be a historical element of Deism, but definitely off topic here. And definitely too controversial and therefore not suitable as a part of the Lede. Can we please stay on topic, I did not bring this subject up, but have been forced to reply to it. I am simply proposing a more complete and accurate definition. Thank you.

--Dsomeone (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

What are you using as the basis for determination of accuracy? Jojalozzo 02:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The greatest change in the new definition proposed by Dsomeone is the use of the term "deity" in place of creator deity. The term "creator deity" certainly belongs in the definition of classical deism. I'm not sure it belongs in the definition of modern deism (deism.com uses the term "creative force", which I believe is different from a "creator deity"). The question is, can anybody locate a secondary reliable source that does not use the term "creator" or "created" in the definition of deism? Also, does deism.com qualify as a secondary reliable source?JDefauw (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)JDefauw

I posted my comments before the third opinion request was made. We can still use a third opinion from someone who is more knowledgeable about the subject than I am.JDefauw (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)JDefauw

Thank you JDefauw, Actually I believe the definition of Deity itself is a good Reference as to why it is more fitting since it states Nature as a possible Deity which fits perfectly with Deism being the study of Nature, to justify a Deity.

"A deity (i/ˈdiː.ɨti/ or i/ˈdeɪ.ɨti/) is a being, natural, supernatural or preternatural, with superhuman powers or qualities, and who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred. Believers may consider or believe that they can communicate with the deity, who can respond supernaturally to their entreaties, and that the deity's myths are true.[1] [2] Some religions have one supreme deity, others have multiple deities of various ranks."

And sounds and flows better as Deism / Deus / Deity / Are all related to or mean God. and creator deity tends to sound a bit redundant and Creator deity does not mention Nature at all.

Does this make sense?

P.S. also http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deism , refers to a "system of thought advocating natural religion"

and "denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe". The Laws of the universe is equal to the Natural Laws of the Universe, such as stated by our founding fathers.

If one denies the interference of the creator with the laws of the universe, and the laws of the universe appear to be infinite, this would mean the creator may have never been allowed in, at all. something to think about.

--Dsomeone (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• There are various conceptions of deism - with God as non-interventionist, with God as not involved,.... An ordinary person can be involved in and try to influence another person w/o intervening in their life. Some deists have believed God does neither, but nearly all think he would be, for the most part, non-interventionist. A deity who has to daily intervene in his creation (with miracles, etc., suspending natural processes) has not designed well - that is part of what deism is about. There is a paucity of reliable sources for these conceptions, not only in the article, but on the Internet in general. As I said above, I think we need to work on a section on this WITH SOURCES, and then add it to the lede. The lede ought not have content the body does not.--JimWae (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm in full agreement with this proposal: work this up in the article body with sources and then reflect it back into the lead. Jojalozzo 19:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Again how does creator deity which does not have anything to do with nature fit better with deism, has anyone proven this, it was added without approval. When Deity does mention nature, and includes all possible deities intervening and not, natural and super-natural. as per the definition. Why should we keep creator deity, which was added by someone who had no authority and no collaboration? That is what needs to be proven.

I still believe we need another unbiased opinion from someone who understands that Deism is based on Reason and the study of nature, hot history, and antiquities.

--Dsomeone (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Dsomeone: I continue to hear that you are basing your proposals on logic and on your own understanding of Deism. That is not how Wikipedia works. Your own understanding is very helpful in guiding your work but you need to use sources to support both your arguments here and your edits. Jojalozzo 19:35, 2 October 2012 (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.

A separate proposal to improve the definition of deism

I think we do need to try to improve the definition of deism in the lead of the article. It is not enough to say in the definition that we can come to know that God exists "without the need of organized religion". Many Christians who are not deists believe that we can come to know the existence of God by means of observation of the natural world and reason alone, without the aid of divine revelation. The question of whether God actually did speak to us through prophets (and, according to Christians, through his Son) is separate from the question of whether we can come to know the existence of God through our natural reason alone.

We should state in the definition not just that we can come to know that God exists "without the need of organized religion". We should specifically say that proponents of deism do not believe in prophecy or divine revelation.

I would also say that the term "natural religion" is vague if we do not explain what we mean by the term. There are two senses in which we say that deism is "natural religion: 1)They believe we gain all of our knowledge by means of natural reason. 2)They believe that God does not interfere with the laws of nature.

I will produce a rough draft of a lead sentence that incorporates 1) and 2) in the definition.

"Deism is a (philosophy) (philosophy of religion) which, while denying a belief in prophecy or miracles, holds that one can determine that the universe is the product of a (deity) (creator deity) through observation of the natural world and reason alone, without the aid of divine revelation."

Even though this definition does not include the terms "natural" or "nature", it does include the two senses which deism is "natural religion". I hope that addresses the concern above about the need to add the word "natural" or "nature" to the definition.JDefauw (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)JDefauw

Wow, and thank your for your involvement. I like your ideas.

I believe we should take one piece at a time, and work to an end. I propose we use your rough draft as a good starting point and work our way through it.

First: philosophy or philosophy of religion? Philosophy is generic by definition, however I believe philosophy of religion is perfect for deism since deism is the use of reason and the study of what we can see to determine the existence of a God, as per the definition of Philosophy of Religion here on wiki, which should be already verified and accepted, "Philosophy of religion is a branch of philosophy concerned with questions regarding religion, including the nature and existence of God,". At least this gives us the correct branch of philosophy. So I propose this to start: From 1 to 2.

1. "Deism is a (philosophy) (philosophy of religion) which, while denying a belief in prophecy or miracles, holds that one can determine that the universe is the product of a (deity) (creator deity) through observation of the natural world and reason alone, without the aid of divine revelation."
2. "Deism is a philosophy of religion which holds that through reason and observation of the (natural world) (Nature) one can determine that the universe is the product of a (deity) (creator deity) without the aid of divine revelation, prophecy or miracles."

Sorry I condensed it a bit, I believe it is easier to read and still contains all elements. the only real change was I believe"philosophy of religion" fits better by definition. And I can't imagine a logical argument against it.? since, "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems." and this is definitely concerning the nature and existence of God.

After we get the best terminology agreed on, which seems to be the hard part, we can tweak the arrangement if needed.

Also, We should keep in mind that the basic beliefs of Deist are based on: Science, Reason, Nature, Observation (of current knowledge), and God. Not so much History, or the outdated thoughts of antiquity. Deism is, or should be, forever evolving, moving forward, not stuck in the past.

--Dsomeone (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Before I give my response, I want to address the concern repeatedly stated above that we avoid original research. That is a very valid concern. My understanding of the policy against OR is that we are not allowed to use primary sources, synthesis of secondary sources, or logical arguments to make any novel claims. If we apply that to the present situation, we are not allowed to produce a definition of deism that is in any way novel or different from the generally accepted meaning of the term.

Although I am not a deist, I believe it is always worthwhile to gain an accurate knowledge of other religious and philosophical traditions so that we do not misrepresent them. I agree with you that we need to make my definition flow a little better. I think we also need to improve the clarity of your definition. To produce a definition, we need to identify the genus (in this case, I will say it is a philosophy of religion that affirms the existence of God), and the specific difference. The specific difference answers the question: what is it that sets deism apart from Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and the Bahai faith?

The definition that you produced still has the same problem as the definition in the article (Another contributor had a similar concern, although he addressed it differently.) Many Christians (including myself) and non-Christians who are monotheistic would read the definition in the article and say, "Then I am a deist as well as a person who has religious faith. We agree that if God had never sent Moses and the prophets or any other prophets, and had decided to never work any miracles, we could still know that he exists through observation of the natural world and reason.

Now the thing that sets deism apart from Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and the Bahai faith is that proponents of deism do not believe in supernatural events, namely prophecy and miracles. I will try to produce another draft of a definition: "Deism is a philosophy of religion that rejects belief in any supernatural events, miracles, and prophecy, and holds that through reason and observation of the natural world, without the aid of divine revelation, one can determine that the universe is the product of a deity."

As a side note, I do not know enough about modern deism to know if it is better to use the term "deity" or "creator deity". If you can convince the other contributors to change it, there won't be any argument against the change from me. We will set aside that question for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDefauw (talk • contribs) 01:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You are a genius, and a great help. And thank you for your honesty! Let me first restate your proposal for now and for reference.

"Deism is a philosophy of religion that rejects belief in any supernatural events, miracles, and prophecy, and holds that through reason and observation of the natural world, without the aid of divine revelation, one can determine that the universe is the product of a deity."

My revision of above:

"Deism is a philosophy of religion that rejects the idea of supernatural events such as divine intervention, miracles, and prophecy, and holds that through reason and observation of nature or the natural world, without the aid of divine revelation, one can determine that the universe is the product of a deity or creator."

1. I changed "belief" to "idea" since no deist truly rejects beliefs, that would indicate a lack of tolerance.
2. added "such as", for a better flowing statement.
3. divine intervention, covers the non intervening god, some like to argue.
4. nature or natural world, to remove possible conflicts. either could be argued correct.
5. deity or creator, to remove possible conflicts. either could be argued correct.

Getting better?

Thanks

--Dsomeone (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

That definition sounds great to me. We can wait a day or so and see if anyone has any other concerns that we need to address.JDefauw (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)JDefauw

• Nice work going on here. Here's my copy edit:

  Deism is a philosophy of religion that views the universe as the product of a deity or creator on the basis of reason and observation of nature and the natural world as opposed to divine revelation, divine intervention, miracles, or prophecy.

I prefer this because it emphasizes what deism is not what it isn't. Jojalozzo 02:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

JoJalozzo, that is good, but it is also important to note what something isn't as well to avoid confusion and give it distinction from the other theologies. Do you believe there is anything we can incorporate from your edit into ours without taking away from it, since we both believe what we have it to be good? Here it is with wiki links.

"Deism is a philosophy of religion that rejects the idea of supernatural events such as divine intervention, miracles, and prophecy, and holds that through reason and observation of nature or the Natural World, without the aid of divine revelation, one can determine that the universe is the product of a deity or creator."

--Dsomeone (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I second JDefauw's motion that this is great, and should be used as is.

--Dsomeone (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's more powerful to say what something is and then differentiate it. I think we should define deism as an alternative rather than a rejection or reaction. I also thought you would like having deism related to a deity right up front since you have expressed a strong desire to differentiate deism from atheism. Jojalozzo 03:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

"Deism is a philosophy of religion that rejects the idea of supernatural events such as divine intervention, miracles, and prophecy, and holds that through reason and observation of nature or the Natural World, without the aid of divine revelation, one can determine that the universe is the product of a deity or creator."

I don't view this definition as rejecting so much as stating facts, deist do unanimously reject the supernatural, and Actually work towards God or a deity through Nature. --Dsomeone (talk) 03:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I still second JDefauw's motion that this is great, and should be used as is.

--Dsomeone (talk) 03:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I can easily understand Jojalozzo's concern because I initially had the same concern when I produced my first draft of the definition. That was why I created an awkward suboordinate clause in my first draft ("while denying the belief in prophecy and miracles"), and that needed to be revised. Jojalozzo is right that we can solve the problem by first saying what deism affirms before we say what it opposes. His revision flows OK and yet still sounds a little awkward because knowing the existence of God on the basis of reason is juxtaposed not just to divine revelation and prophecy, but also to divine intervention and miracles, which are not so closely related to how we come to know the existence of God. As long as we place the denial of the supernatural at the end, it won't sound like a negative philosophy. So my next draft is:

Deism is a philosophy of religion that views the universe as the product of a deity or creator on the basis of reason and observation of nature and the natural world, and rejects the idea of divine revelation, divine intervention, miracles, and prophecy.

I hope we will be one step closer to a consensus. We agree in principle on what should be included in the definition.JDefauw (talk) 04:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)JDefauw.

1. Deism does NOT reject a supernatural event such as a Creation. 2. "on the basis of" is vague 3. The philosophy of religion differs from religious philosophy in that it seeks to discuss questions regarding the nature of religion as a whole, rather than examining the problems brought forth by a particular belief system. (from the lede of philosophy of religion)

"Deism is a religious philosophy that maintains that reason and observation of the natural world, independent of scripture and divine revelation, is sufficient to discover that the universe is the product of a deity or creator, and that the divinity rarely, if ever, reveals himself or intervenes directly in natural processes to perform miracles.

-- but we do still need reliable sources.--JimWae (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

1st Collaboration draft:

"Deism is a philosophy of religion that rejects the idea of supernatural events such as divine intervention, miracles, and prophecy, and holds that through reason and observation of nature or the Natural World, without the aid of divine revelation, one can determine that the universe is the product of a deity or creator."

Jims 1st draft One of JDefauw's drafts:

Deism is a philosophy of religion that views the universe as the product of a deity or creator on the basis of reason and observation of nature and the natural world, and rejects the idea of divine revelation, divine intervention, miracles, and prophecy.

Jims 2nd draft JimWae's 1st draft:

"Deism is a religious philosophy that maintains that reason and observation of the natural world, independent of scripture and divine revelation, is sufficient to discover that the universe is the product of a deity or creator, and that the divinity rarely, if ever, reveals himself or intervenes directly in natural processes to perform miracles.

The only new information I can see in Jim's editions is that the deity rarely if ever reveals itself (we can't call it 'himself' since no one knows, and that is a human trait used in Christianity). And this also seems to contradict the 'observation of nature to determine that there is a deity or creator', supernatural or not. The creator can not be proven to be super natural or natural, we can only know that it is a Deity or a Creator, but the true nature of what created the universe is an unknown. which is covered by the definition of deity.

What about this: Proposed final draft:

Proposed final draft:

"Deism is a philosophy of religion that rejects the idea of supernatural events such as divine intervention, miracles, and prophecy, and holds that through reason and observation of nature or the Natural World, without the aid of divine revelation, one can determine that the universe is the product of a deity or creator, which only reveals itself through its creations."

I believe this should satisfy Jim's views and others, without controversy. If we say "rarely or never" reveals itself, then why would we observe nature in our search? that seems to be contradictory. I do believe this is better with 'only reveals itself through its creations'. that covers it without conflict.

• Please note that the actual creation is also unknown as to be natural or supernatural and this edition does not state that deism rejects any type of creation.

--Dsomeone (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I propose that the proposed final draft is suitable to be posted to the lede. and any further editions can be submitted for collaboration in a new talk topic in the future. I also propose that someone other than myself should post this. since I have made some grave mistakes on wiki not knowing the proper procedures in the recent past.

I motion to post the proposed final draft. subject to future edits, but only after future collaborations in talk.

--Dsomeone (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi dsomeone. I read the note on my talkpage, but unfortunately the above text is too much. Please see Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read and be more brief next time. Pass a Method talk 13:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Dsomeone, I don't think your final draft is ready. 1) I agree with the point Jim Wae made that philosophy of religion is not the correct term to use. Religious philosophy may be closer to the mark. 2) Minor point, but don't link divine intervention as that is a disambiguation page not a article (such a link would be removed as a matter of routine cleanup, which is why it is minor). 3) The sentence is rather overly long and the multiple subordinate clauses make it difficult to parse. 4) The clause, which only reveals itself through its creations is a questionable assertion, not the least because it appears to be making a claim about the nature of deity in general when I think the intent is to qualify how deists understand deity. older ≠ wiser 14:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed final draft #2:

Short and sweet,

"Deism is a personal belief system which dismisses the idea of supernatural events such as divine intervention, miracles, and prophecy, and holds that only through reason and observation of the Natural World, can one determine the existence of a Creator deity.

Everything else about deism is too complicated for the lede, and should be discussed in the body.

Again I nominate this to be ready to post.

And others?

--Dsomeone (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we should reverse the order to say what deism is first:

Deism is a personal belief system which holds that only through reason and observation of the natural world can one determine the existence of a creator deity and rejects the idea of supernatural events such as divine intervention, miracles, and prophecy.

Also, let's not capitalize "natural world", and if "natural world" just links to Nature, i.e. there is no better link that really addresses what we mean by that phrase, then we should just say "nature". Likewise there's no need to capitalize "creator deity". I removed unnecessary commas. Jojalozzo 21:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Or, as two more managable sentences:

Deism is a personal belief system which holds that only through reason and observation of the natural world can one determine the existence of a creator deity. Deists reject the idea of supernatural events such as divine intervention, miracles, and prophecy.

Jojalozzo 21:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think "rejects the idea of supernatural event..." is correct since no one rejects an idea, they just occur in the mind. I think it's more the reality of the supernatural that is rejected but I'll leave the final wording to you philosophers. Jojalozzo 21:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's aversion to fix that reject problem some have. and I can redirect the link for not capitalized, and fix that later.

Short and sweet #2,

"Deism is a personal belief system which holds that only through reason and observation of the natural world can one determine the existence of a creator deity, while dismissing the notion of supernatural events such as divine intervention, miracles, and prophecy.

Wow, I believe we are very close.

--Dsomeone (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Saying that only through reason and observation of the natural world can one determine the existence of a creator deity makes it sound like Deists are intolerant of those hold that the deity can be known by other means. Also, there is no need to italicize any of the terms. older ≠ wiser 23:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I have a 2nd concern about the same sentence. By saying "only through reason and observation of the natural world can one determine the existence of a creator deity, that can be interpreted to mean "only through reason and observation can we determine whether or not God exists," implying that the question has not been settled. I think we should use the word "sufficient" as JimWae did above. Here is a revised version.

"Deism is a personal belief system which holds that through reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for supernatural events such as divine intervention, miracles, or prophecy, one is able to determine the existence of a creator deity.

Sounds acceptable to me. (I also believe it is proper to have Italics on words with links, not sure? someone else said so elsewhere.) --Dsomeone (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Re italics, no it is not correct to have italics on words with links. See WP:ITALICS for guidance on the appropriate use of italics on Wikipedia. older ≠ wiser 01:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I wasn't sure, I'll remove them now. thanks--Dsomeone (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see much difference between "dismissing the notion" and "rejecting the idea". Could we say "with no supernatural claims, such as divine intervention, miracles or prophecy"? Jojalozzo 03:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

See above edit. Sounds good to me. But anything is better than what we have now. Thanks --Dsomeone (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

We can't forget about the Truth.

What about this?

"Deism is a personal belief system based on truth, which holds that through observation of the natural world, and the human ability to reason, one is able to determine the existence of a creator deity, and gives no merit to miracles, prophecy, or the supernatural.

--Dsomeone (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I motion that someone closes this topic and references the new section below, as a continuation:

titled

"New Lede Description of Deism, a collaborated effort"

--Dsomeone (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2012 (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.

The most recent proposal of JDefauw in the discussion above was subsequently modified. His original version was:

"Deism is a personal belief system which holds that reason and observation of the natural world is sufficient to determine the existence of a creator deity, while dismissing the notion of supernatural events such as divine intervention, miracles, and prophecy."

I request permission to modify the above discussion so that the archive has an accurate record of our proposals.JDefauw (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)JDefauw

Tertiary sources.

Statement from above: "but we do still need reliable sources".

I have two dictionaries in my house which say that deists do not believe that God intervenes in his creation. I assume that a dictionary is regarded as a tertiary source. The statement in Wikipedia:Tertiary is: "Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." We are certainly providing a broad summary of the topic in the first sentence of the article. So when I get a chance, I will add the citations of these two dictionaries to the end of the first sentence. That, I hope, will allow us to include in the definition that God does not intervene in his creation.

Meanwhile, if anyone can add citations of reliable secondary sources to the section "Features of deism" and make any other helpful improvements to that part of the article (as long any additions to the article are accurate summaries of those secondary sources), it will be most appreciated.JDefauw (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)JDefuaw

This statement from the proposed final draft above does cover that aspect of deism. and is less controversial. "rejects the idea of supernatural events such as divine intervention," I am really trying to use terms which cover the broad beliefs of deist, and eliminate as much controversy as possible. I am working on something now, give me some time. What we are doing is Ground breaking, I don't think Deism has ever been properly defined. ? Like deism the definition should be REASONABLE and Based on observation and truth. A lot of historical documents over the past few centuries have been distorted in order to discredit deism. www.moderndeism.com is good, but don't know if it can be used here due to the corrupted history. I do know there are refs. to this information being used to discredit deism but not sure where yet. Thanks. I will post my next draft in the proper topic above.

--Dsomeone (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Please view the proposed final drafts in the "A separate proposal to improve the definition of deism" section above.

--Dsomeone (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

New Lede Description of Deism, a collaborated effort

"Deism is a personal belief system based on truth, which holds that through observation of the natural world, and the human ability to reason, one is able to determine the existence of a creator deity, and gives no merit to miracles, prophecy, or the supernatural.

--Dsomeone (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's ridiculously POV --JimWae (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Jim. This is a collaborated point of view. We would welcome constructive opinions. This has Incorporated the views of those involved, from above. Eliminating as much controversial items as possible from the lede, which are to be discussed in the body.

--Dsomeone (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You cannot seriously think "truth" is NPOV, can you? I was blunt because apparently you needed to be startled. Actually, part of your proposal is perhaps a worthy improvement, but the blatant POV spoils it all. Also, please do not recommend closure immediately after you introduce new terminology. Recommending closure before receiving input is not working collaboratively. It more closely resembles claiming WP:OWN.--JimWae (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

So you have a problem with Truth, Is it reasonable to base Reason on anything other than Truth? Would it be better in your opinion if we remove Truth? If others feel it would be better without Truth I have no problem with omitting the Truth. (I am not startled, this is expected)

--Dsomeone (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I would like to post again my most recent proposal (I posted it last night).

"Deism is a personal belief system which holds that reason and observation of the natural world is sufficient to determine the existence of a creator deity, while dismissing the notion of supernatural events such as divine intervention, miracles, and prophecy.

I think we can take this proposal as our starting point. 1)It is better than the lead sentence that is in the article right now. 2)It tells us what sets deism apart from the Abrahamic (and even polytheistic) religions. 3)It is concise. 4)To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in this sentence that is unclear or inaccurate. 5)Although it could be improved in the future, it is adequate.

Those who are Christians, Moslems, Jews, members of the Bahai faith, and members of other religions all believe that their belief systems are based on truth. Wikipedia articles need to take a neutral point of view regarding which belief system actually is based on truth. I can absolutely guarantee that if I added a sentence to the article on Christianity stating that the Christian belief system is based on truth, somebody would undo my edit. (Please do not do this even as an experiment.)JDefauw (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)JDefauw

Jdefauw, I believe some expressed concern about words like Dismissing and Rejecting, "not giving merit to" may be less controversial to those people.

"Deism is a personal belief system which holds that reason and observation of the natural world is sufficient to determine the existence of a creator deity. Deists typically give no merit to supernatural events such as divine intervention, miracles, or prophecy."

I believe this has all the points and I removed Truth. Broke it into two so it's not a run along. I have time to work on this, so if you or anyone else has suggestions, let me know. thanks.

--Dsomeone (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It sounds to me like a very good beginning to the article. I took away the link to "Deist" and took away a comma. We'll see what the other contributors have to say.JDefauw (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)JDefauw

I second that motion, and agree it sounds very good. Thank you for your help. --Dsomeone (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

1. Why "personal belief system" instead of "religious philosophy"? Are we to imply deism is to be distinguished from some belief systems are not "personal" in some way. Communism can be construed as a belief system, as can capitalism. "Belief system" does not capture the religious nature of the belief system. An alternative to "religious philosophy" could be "theological position"
2. "gives no merit to" is a vague euphemism that leaves open the interpretation that deists discount miracles - even though they "really occur". Less euphemistically, deists typically believe the deity seldom, if ever, intervenes with miracles. I put "typically" and "seldom, if ever" since deists do not all agree on whether miraculous interventions ever happen. It would be hard do deny that "Creation" itself was some kind of supernatural miracle. Still, the outright denial of FREQUENT divine intervention is commonplace among deists. --JimWae (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

1. People seem to not agree as to whether Deism is a Religion or a Philosophy, and Belief System def. covers both views. And Deism is a personal belief system, since each person has his own variation of Deism, based on personal experience and thoughts.
2. Typically gives no merit to, was agreed to be less controversial, since some do give merit to. As far as Creation being some kind of supernatural event is unknown, since no one knows if the creation was natural or not, that is impossible to know, and is a controversial topic better left out of the lede and discussed in the body. I am a Deist and I do not deny frequent intervention, most people today can reason that the universe is never finished as per modern science.

We will never get an agreement to have controversial material in the lede description, both trains of thought with ref. can be presented in the body.

--Dsomeone (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC) All of this was covered in the above collaborations sub-topics, before this sub-topic. --Dsomeone (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we can include in the definition the statement by JimWae that deists typically believe the deity seldom, if ever, intervenes with miracles. If that statement is not true, then I am totally confused.JDefauw (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)JDefauw

I'm on it. --Dsomeone (talk) 02:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, both of my dictionaries begin the definition of deism by simply saying "the belief that, etc." It seems to me we could also safely refer to deism as "a theological position".JDefauw (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)JDefauw

??? I also notice that dictionaries use Belief, ? if so , why use theological position? and not Belief system??? That sounds contradictory to what you and I find in the dictionary? --Dsomeone (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

"Deism is a personal belief system which holds that reason and observation of the natural world is sufficient to determine the existence of a creator deity. Deists typically give no merit to supernatural events such as divine intervention, miracles, or prophecy."

Wouldn't "believe the deity seldom if ever intervenes with miracles." be redundant with "giving no merit to divine intervention"? Same thing. I can't make it sound good if it's redundant. what we have now is less controversial and not too long. Adding that to the lede makes it too long, and is a step backwards. Those Details are best discribed in the body. Thanks

--Dsomeone (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, as JimWae put it, "gives no merit to" is a vague euphemism. It perhaps is redundant with seldom if ever intervenes with miracles, but to me the solution is to lose the vague euphemism. older ≠ wiser 02:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I like it with Reject! can we agree on that?

"Deism is a personal belief system which holds that reason and observation of the natural world is sufficient to determine the existence of a creator deity. Deists do not believe in divine intervention or any other supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles."

--Dsomeone (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

"Rejects supernatural event" sounds like: "These events do happen, and deists decide to reject them when they happen". I know that's not what you intended to say.

I wish I could stay with this discussion a little longer. I'll be able to rejoin the discussion on Saturday. If you arrive at a consensus before then, you won't have to wait for my approval.JDefauw (talk) 03:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)JDefauw

"Deism is a personal belief system which holds that reason and observation of the natural world is sufficient to determine the existence of a creator deity. Deists do not believe in divine intervention or any other supernatural events such as prophecies and miracles, holding instead that the universe is governed by the laws of nature."

I added the Laws of Nature, makes it more complete as well.

Thank you JDefauw, I agree with what you are saying, However, I believe what we are doing is showing respect for those who do believe that these things are real. We reject them, but respect those who don't. Does that make sense? (That was a concern of another editor above). It does make sense to me. E.G. If you believe the universe was created in 7 days, I respect that, while I personally reject the Idea. (based on the definition of deism). I went ahead and did a little rewording above, this may be an improvement for both concerns. of intervention and rejection. --Dsomeone (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I propose that this is very good, and suitable to be added to the lede description. Can I get a second motion? or two.

--Dsomeone (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be a number disagreement there -- purely grammatical, that issue. Reason and observation 'is'? DeistCosmos (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this better?

"Deism is a belief system which holds that one can determine the existence of a creator deity solely through reason and observation of the natural world. Deists do not believe in divine intervention or any other supernatural events such as prophecies and miracles, holding instead that the universe is governed by the laws of nature."

--Dsomeone (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Or you could change the is to an are. Not sure I'm crazy about the 'one can determine' language. Again, I would add that a big argument in favor of Deism is the notion that a competent Creator could set forth a Universe which would develop as desired without needing intervention. DeistCosmos (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

"Deism is a belief system which holds that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a creator deity. Deists do not believe in divine intervention or any other supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, holding instead that the universe was set in motion by a creator and is governed only by the laws of nature."

Done deal! Thanks. I like it and motion to use this version, until further options occur. Can we get a second motion to use this version?

--Dsomeone (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

With no further objections, I motion that this last version be incorporated into the lede on Monday 10/08/12 at 10:00pm cdt. Or pending a count of yeas and nays by then. I count myself as a YEA.

--Dsomeone (talk) 14:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Below reformatted for easier reading--JimWae (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not think you have made a good enough case to prefer "personal belief system" over the other choices. I repeat my earlier points and add

4>Having "personal" in there adds no clear content.

5>If deism is "personal" (which you seem to say means it depends on each person's own idea of what deism is), then it is not a defineable topic for an encyclopedia

6>You have said you are a deist and that you DO believe in frequent divine intervention, yet you suggest the lede say "Deists do not believe in divine intervention", thus seemingly excluding yourself.

7>Saying "Deists do not believe in divine intervention or any other supernatural events" suggests that deists have determined that any creation of the universe was NOT a supernatural event. I think any mention of supernatural events has to be omitted from the first paragraph.

8>Deism started as a rejection of the infallibility of scripture/revelation, in conjunction with the Copernican Revolution which made acceptance of the Bible as the literal truth a problem. Deistic ideas spread as people realized that motions in the solar system were not at the whim of any deity, but were regular and periodic, and claims such as that the Sun stopped moving so the Hebrews would have a longer day to win a battle were discredited.

9> What deism meant changed as science developed. Its modern meaning is so diverse that some deist's theological beliefs (ie, not including the customs & detailed beliefs) are indistinguishable from Judaism, Islam, & non-Trintiarian Christianity. Deism's historical meaning (17th & 18th centuries) is probably what this article needs to focus on most, as it has had the most influence.

10> Dr. Samuel Johnson's 1755 Dictionary defines a deist as "a man who follows no particular religion but only acknowledges the existence of God, without any other article of faith." In that sense it is a definition by exception. However, many deists also maintained the deity a>was good, b>designed and created the universe, and c>designed it to support humanity.

11> Some deists have even accepted polytheism, apparently including Ben Franklin

12> Catholics and Muslims and many others also fully hold "that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a creator deity", so your first sentence does not sufficiently define/distinguish deism. Deism opposes basing one's own religious beliefs on authority, and/or supposed divine interventions such as scripture/revelation/prophecy &/or miracles - this more clearly distingusihes deism from other religious philosophies- and needs somehow to be part of the definitional sentence. It would also be surprising to find a single deist who was a Trinitarian. Against a background of actual wars between Catholics who emphasized authority (and miracles) and Protestants who emphasized scripture, Deists said neither was a strong basis for belief in a deity nor any religious belief. --JimWae(talk) 19:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I Skimmed over Jim's essay, which is TLDR, it seems as though he wants to remove the word "personal"... which I did. He also appears to confront me on Divine intervention; To answer; I, like all deist, do reject divine intervention in favor of Natural Law. Removing the word personal, does not seem to effect the description; therefore, I still believe it is suitable for use. as per described above. Thank you. --Dsomeone (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

"Deism is a belief system which holds that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a creator deity. Deists do not believe in divine intervention or any other supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, holding instead that the universe was set in motion by a creator and is governed only by the laws of nature."

--Dsomeone (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we can compose a lead sentence that does not use the phrase "supernatural events", and also takes Jim's other comments into account.

I will try to produce one more draft.

"Deism is a theological position which affirms that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a creator deity, and opposes basing one's religious beliefs on religious authority or claims of divine revelation, inerrancy of scripture, prophecy, or miracles."

I would argue in favor of using the term "theological position". The same general theological position can coexist with a tremendous diversity of theological beliefs. The term "theological position" can easily mean certain first principles that all deists share in common. We could also begin the sentence by saying, "Deists share in common a theological position which affirms, etc.

In the article on dispute resolution, we are reminded that we can take our time. As long as we are patient and are willing to work with each other, we can hope to have a consensus in the next week.JDefauw (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)JDefauw

Theology is heavily associated with Christianity or even Claimed by Christians. Many if not all definitions of Deism state "Belief System", which has good reference. And the fact that Deist do not believe in Supernatural events is documented extensively. your proposal seems to be a watered down description with lots of theism and little Deism. We may as well just say.

"Deism is a belief system which holds that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a creator deity."

No one will agree on anything more. We can't even agree that it's a belief system, when that is the defining definition used by the three major dictionaries online. I don't know. Everything in the below is verifiable. and factual.

"Deism is a belief system which holds that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a creator deity. Deists do not believe in divine intervention or any other supernatural events such as prophecy or miracles, holding instead that the universe was set in motion by a creator and is governed only by the laws of nature."

Deism is a belief system... check! (and covers all other possibilities)

Reason and observation of nature...Check!

Existence of a Creator...Check! (covers all)

no divine intervention...Check! (also covers all views)

no supernatural events...Check!

no prophecy or miracles...Check!

Universe set in motion by a creator...Check!

Governed only by the laws of nature...Check!

I don't see any verifiable or reasonable reason to reject this? We should use this and then propose changes in new subtopics in the future. or we will never move forward.

--Dsomeone (talk) 03:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not that important to me that we use the term "theological position" rather than "belief system". I will withdraw that proposal. The word "theology" is not just associated with Christianity. The term natural theology can easily be associated with deists.

JimWae's point still stands. As long as some deists believe in supernatural events, it is not accurate to say "deists do not believe. . .in any other supernatural events".

Many theists believe in basing our religious beliefs on claims of divine revelation, prophecy, and miracles. Deists do not believe that. My definition does tell us what sets deists apart from theists.

Once again, the Wikipedia article on dispute resolution tells us there are no deadlines with Wikipedia, and it recommends a cooling off period when contributors are angry with each other. I had thought about proposing a cooling off period after your response to JimWae's comments above. I now propose a cooling off period at least until Monday.

Let me be clear. There is no consensus until JimWae agrees to our defintion.JDefauw (talk) 04:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)JDefauw

The Problem is NO Deist believes in Supernatural events, since Supernatural events goes against reason. Reason and Nature are the foundation of Deism. [23][25] (references in main article)

As I do respect JimWae’s opinion, (and will work to satisfy) I disagree that JimWae should be the ultimate authority. We are all equal here and if we can come up with a democratic majority in favor of a description, that is all we should need. No one person has that authority here. I will create a new sub-topic so we can start fresh. See below for “New Lede Description Fresh Start”.

Wikipedia is not a democracy. It runs on WP:consensus, which means attempting to address legitimate concerns. I don't see where JimWae has ever claimed to be the final authority on Deism. I do see multiple editors (including myself) agreeing with the issues that he raises. older ≠ wiser 15:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean "unanimity" (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms.

--Dsomeone (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Right, and so far I don't see anything remotely close to consensus. older ≠ wiser 15:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's see if we can get one below. Thanks. --Dsomeone (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

New Lede Description Fresh Start

(reference links are in main article)

"Deism is a belief system [2][12] which is sometimes referred to as “Natural Theology” [30][61][62]. Deism holds that reason and observation of the natural world [23] are sufficient to determine the existence of a creator deity [12]. Deism excludes the belief in divine intervention [23] and other supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles [13][23][25], holding instead that the universe was set in motion by a creator [12] and is governed only by the laws of nature [12][23][25]."

https://github.com/cwebf/Theopedia/blob/master/articles/d/Deism.md (There are many articles like this online with references, just for example.)

--Dsomeone (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

This may flow a little better.

"Deism, which is sometimes referred to as “Natural Theology”, [30][61][62] is a belief system [2][12] which holds that reason and observation of the natural world [23] are sufficient to determine the existence of a creator deity [12]. Deism excludes the belief in divine intervention [23] and other supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles [13][23][25], holding instead that the universe was set in motion by a creator [12] and is governed only by the laws of nature [12][23][25]."

--Dsomeone (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Multiple comments below.

• How does reference 2 (Meriam-Webster) support the statement that "Deism is a belief system"? Also, I don't see where reference 30 (Introduction to The Historical Jesus) provides unambiguous support for describing deism as a "belief system" as distinct from a religious philosophy (or other terms that have been suggested).
• which is sometimes referred to as "Natural Theology". I don't see where any of the three references make such a claim. The article itself spends some time distinguishing between the two.
• Notably missing from this is that Deism does not accept the authority of organized religion or of a priestcraft. Given that Deism can be (at least to some extent) whatever anyone who calls themselves a Deist wants to say it is, it seems problematic to categorically claim that Deism excludes the belief in divine intervention and other supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles. Without any organized authority to enforce the preferred beliefs, what is the basis for claiming such an exclusion? Are you seriously suggesting that no Deist has ever had any belief in divine intervention and other such events? It is tautological to claim such exclusion is a defining characteristic of Deism because it is part of the definition of Deism. Skepticism of such phenomena is certainly a common trait, but I don't see any way to claim a categorical exclusion as a defining trait.
• Similarly, claiming the universe is governed only by the laws of nature (emphasis added) seems to introduce an unnecessary categorical proposition. I think there would be no objections to saying simply that the universe is governed by the laws of nature.

older ≠ wiser 17:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

older wiser, feel free to make your corrections, the references are possibilities, I'm sure we can find better ones.. Is anyone going to work with me, or just against me, see little effort to work with me. The contents of the description above are all verifiable, with a little effort.

1. the dictionary ref. states 'Belief', same as others.
2. Natural Theology is nearly same as def. of deism and was suggested by JDefauw above.
3. not accept the authority of organized religion... some of this wording was rejected earlier.???
4. is governed only by the laws of nature'... No problem with removing only. But what else governs?

I've worked hard to try and make you guys happy, but it appears to be in vein, It will be very hard to do this with those who reject the basic beliefs of Deism and also reject references, and have little intent on actually helping. We could pick through this entire article and delete most of it that was added with no references and no discussion. I was told this is the proper way to edit wiki, but it appears I am the only one who has really tried this. And can see that this process will never end. It is useless for me to continue. you guys can use the definition of your consensus. I am a deist, and don't need wiki to help. I only hope you can come up with a description of Deism that current, and based on true Reason and observations of the World today, and not those views from centuries ago.

--Dsomeone (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

1) The dictionary reference you provided (Merriam-Webster) as supporting the use makes no mention of "belief".

2) While there are similarities between natural theology and Deism, I see no basis for asserting they are synonyms or even that Deism is sometimes known as natural theology. It would be more accurate to say that natural theology informs and influences the religious philosophy of Deism.

3) I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I don't see where anyone has argued that non-acceptance (or non-recognition) of religious authority is a not key component of Deism.

4) Some might quibble that this implies an equivalence between god and the laws of nature. I think there might be some Deists who feel god governs the universe and the natural laws are the objective evidence by which humans can come to understand god.

Re your final comments, while I appreciate your efforts to improve the article are made in good faith, your implicit or sometimes explicit criticisms of other editors are misplaced and do nothing help reach agreement. Further, I suggest that you give discussions a chance to breathe. You've made so many proposals in very short order that it is extremely difficult to follow any continuity in development. This gives an impression that the various proposals are presented in scatter-shot manner, in the hope that maybe one of the many might hit close to the mark. And finally, as repeated explained to you, being a Deist is not a prerequisite for editing the article and may in fact be a detriment if you are unable to consider things from a neutral point of view. older ≠ wiser 21:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you older/wiser, Someone should take the best parts of all the proposals and put one together. It has been scatter shot as you say, in an effort to please everyone, Lots of good points have been made, but ultimately most get rejected by someone. I would like to see more editors presenting possibilities/proposals to consider with references that are reasonable when viewed with the knowledge of today. I hate to seem like I am pushing my Ideas, I am trying to push the Ideas I have gathered from other editors. The topic starts way back in Talk:Deism#re-word. What do we agree upon? What is our common denominator? How do we describe Deism in its simplest form, without attacking or rejecting other philosophies, beliefs or religions? --Dsomeone (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

In this one, I included points from all.. (showing who seemed to agree)

Deism, is a philosophy of religion (jimwae,dsomeone), related to natural theology (JDefauw,dsomeone), which holds that reason and observation of the natural world (all seem to agree) are sufficient to determine the existence of a creator deity (all seem to agree). Deism is not guided by religious scripture or supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles (all seem to agree).

--Dsomeone (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

A one sentence definition may be too difficult. I will produce one more draft.

While deism encompasses a wide diversity of philosophical and theological beliefs, deists share in common a belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a creator deity, as well as a common belief that it is unreasonable to base one's religious beliefs on claims of divine revelation, prophecy, inerrancy of scripture, miracles, or legitimacy of religious authority. Deists typically believe the deity seldom, if ever, intervenes in the world by suspending the laws of nature and working miracles.JDefauw (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)JDefauw

I believe it is the above proposal by JDefauw that we should now consider, rather than DSomeone's. Besides other improvements, JDefauw's proposal distinguishes deism from other religions in the 1st sentence, whereas Dsomeone's does not.--JimWae (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry Jimwae I thought I had taken that directly from one of your proposals. ?

Deism encompasses a diversity of philosophical and theological beliefs(needs ref). Deists believe that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a creator deity, as well as it is unreasonable to base one's beliefs on claims of divine revelation, prophecy, inerrancy of scripture, or legitimacy of religious authority. Deists typically believe the creator deity seldom if ever intervenes in the world by suspending the laws of nature or working miracles.

I made a correction or two above and condensed it just a little. I like it.

--Dsomeone (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

By splitting JDefauw's first sentence into 2, the 1st sentence says too little. The 2nd sentence ought not to omit "miracles" nor "scripture" as they are key points in Classical Deism. Divine revelation, prophecy, inerrancy of scripture, miracles all involve divine intervention. Divine revelation, scripture, and prophecy are all pretty much redundant (except that scripture is the only one that has to be written down). Prophecy is both "authority" and revelation, and could perhaps be omitted from the 1st paragraph.--JimWae (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Deism is a religious philosophy that holds that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a creator deity, and that it is unreasonable to base religious beliefs on authority, or claims of divine intervention in the form of miracles or revelation (such as scripture or prophecy). Deists typically believe that a creator has planned the universe for the benefit of humanity, and seldom, if ever, intervenes in natural processes to perform miracles. --JimWae (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Deism is a religious philosophy/philosophy of religion that holds that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a creator deity, and that it is unreasonable to base religious beliefs on authority, or claims of divine intervention in the form of miracles or revelation (such as scripture or prophecy). Deists typically believe that the creator does not intervenes in natural processes of the universe.

jimWae, You were doing good until you slipped in some Christianity at the end there... Deist are not so arrogant as to believe God is working solely for humanity, Our observations prove we are nothing more than specks of dust in the universe. --Dsomeone (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)