Talk:Deism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Blatant advertisements for Bob Johnson[edit]

Seriously? The first deist organization since Paine? Some of these claims are entirely unsourced and unbelievable. They are also most certainly not NPOV. 66.108.17.70 (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you list and document any Deism organizations that existed before the World Union of Deists on April 10, 1993?

When I became a Deist in 1984 I searched for several years everywhere I could think of for books on Deism and for Deist organizations. The only books I found were by Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen and Elihu Palmer as well as a scholarly work by Peter Byrne, Natural Religion and the Nature of Religion: The Legacy of Deism. I could not find any Deist organization at all. Here's the link for a Google search for Deist organizations which shows the World Union of Deists being the oldest, which strongly indicates there were not any Deist organizations prior to the WUD: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Deist+organizations . Bob Johnson, World Union of Deists, www.deism.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.30.44 (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is blatant advertising "In 1993, Bob Johnson established the first Deist organization since the days of Thomas Paine and Elihu Palmer" should at the very least be written "In 1993, Bob Johnson established the first widely known Deist organization since the days of Thomas Paine and Elihu Palmer". The current text clearly comes off as bias and unscholarly. 151.207.250.61 (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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...

Contemporary deism revisited[edit]

I had raised questions regarding the amount of weight given to contemporary forms of deism earlier on this page, as can be found at Talk:Deism/Archive 6#Contemporary deism. I would welcome any input from any of you regarding the concerns expressed there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

According to the List of deists page, modern deists, excluding who you listed above include physicist, Andrei Sakharov, Guitarist Brett Gurewitz, physicist Luis Walter Alvarez, writer Martin Gardner, physicist, Max Born and some others. I'm sure there are interviews where they discuss their views on deism. This would help form a better picture of contemporary deism. According to this website http://www.deism.com/deismbook.htm the book Deism: A Revolution in Religion, A Revolution in You is by the founder of the World Union of Deists.

Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

None of that, however, seems to address the concerns I asked. We cannot use our own pages as sources, so the list of deists is not a source. And a website called "deism.com" can hardly be seen as being an independent reliable source as per WP:RS. There are I believe extremely serious issues regarding WP:WEIGHT regarding the material on contemporary deism in this article, and as I said before I would welcome concerns regarding that issue among others. John Carter (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I didn't intend to use it as a source, I think you've missed my point. My point was that contemporary deists themselves (those listed above) would be able to give insights on contemporary desim if they have given interviews on the topic or spoken about it. Deism.com is the website of the World Union of Deists. Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
And you seem to be missing my point, which is that so far as I can tell there are no independent sources on the topic of contemporary deism. And, honestly, there are a huge number of very small religious groups with little or no notability in their own right which claim, in some form, to be a continuation of earlier groups. We, as an encyclopedia, have little if any interest in any such clearly biased sources. Nor are we particularly obliged to provide "insight" into what might be, according to the independent sources meeting WP:RS standards, marginally if at all notable groups and their beliefs in an article whose title is, according to the reference sources I know of, used to discuss only the much more notable older group or movement. If the World Union of Deists is sufficiently notable for its own article, and right now the link at that name it is just a redirect to this article, and it speaks for that modern deism, that material would certainly be reasonable to add material regarding it there, but not necessarily here. John Carter (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
At the very minimum, claims that so-and-so modern person was/is a deist need to be sourced to quotations from said person, possibly to independent biographers analyzing their statements. Looking at Martin Gardner's autobiography, for instance, although he included himself in a larger group of "philosophical theists" which subsumes the deists, it's not clear that he considered himself a deist, and some of what he says might be considered in contradiction to deistic views of an earlier age. Mangoe (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I for one agree with John Carter that all references to contemporary Deism should be streamlined to the bare minimum that is warranted by reliable sources. Deism is a historic philosophical concept, and the WP article should be mainly concerned with this specific historical concept. Any contemporary thinking about historic philosophical streams of thought only dilute the historical importance of the topic into current developments that cannot be documented with any historical accuracy through reliable sources. warshy (¥¥) 18:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
One other question, admittedly one I don't myself really want to ask because of possible claims that I might be pushing a POV of some sort myself, is whether we would have any basis of perhaps through OR/SYNTH if required indicating that at least some of the modern deism might be described in the extant article Moralistic therapeutic deism. I sincerely doubt any modern deists want to be described as such, and I haven't read the work itself to see if any groups or individuals are specifically listed there, but that does seem to be at least one form of currently active deism which has been described by independent reliable sources. I guess the question would be whether any of these non-notable deist groups have been described as such, or whether their tenets are similar or identical to those of moralistic therapeutic deism.
I suppose another question is the broad question of whether any internet based organization whose members cannot be accurately determined by independent sources is or should be notable. Groups like these, which apparently have no really obvious organizational structure and no obvious "observances" or independently verifiable group activities, could well be huge, and reasonably deserving of attention on that basis if true, or maybe just one or two people with not much to do but use an army of socks to give the impression that they are big when they might not be. That sort of thing might become more significant and frequent as the years go on. John Carter (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Leave WTD out of the article except as a "see also". He didn't mean these people were deists per se, only that they didn't have much truck with miracles. Mangoe (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I haven't myself read that article in years, so I'll take your word on it. John Carter (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I've been away a while and the article has gone to hell. All the modern stuff is sourced with primary sources or broken links. I'm about 1 inch away from doing some wholesale deleting since there aren't proper sources and it looks bad, and the information itself is highly questionable. Dennis Brown - 16:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Agreeing with this and with John Carter and warshy. Astounding that so historical a topic has so many references that are just "some homemade website on the internet." Hyperbolick (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Section on Panendeism (sourced to self-published websites) has been deleted, so nominating the redirect pointing there for deletion, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 10‎#Panendeism. Found nothing supporting this as a real thing after searching for days. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
      • I am surprised it ever got in there. One newspaper article to lay claim to a slew of exceptional WP:BLP claims, and the rest nothing but WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY sources. 18:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's Not Challenge historians From Jefferson's home Plantation[edit]

They acknowledged Jefferson broke with Christianity as he grew and that his deism was aligned with that of Henry St John, 1st Viscount Bolingbroke and Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:447:4100:1692:2414:63EC:14F0:3AF7 (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Your point? It is already acknowledged in the article. Christian deism doesnt mean what you think it does. Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry comrade, but you need to read the Monticello article for yourself. Your definition of Christian deism doesn't match Jefferson. I know how hard it is to accept that a slave-owner was not a Christian.2601:447:4100:1692:2414:63EC:14F0:3AF7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Did you actually read the Christian deism article? Why would that be hard to accept? Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Because Jefferson was not at all a Christian Deist. They look to mainly Christ's values, whereas Jefferson played agnostic and looked randomly. While his deist influences Bolingbroke and Shaftesbury where aligned with the Anglican Church's war with the Papacy, they were not Christian Deists either.2601:447:4100:1692:2414:63EC:14F0:3AF7 (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

"Christian deism, in the philosophy of religion, is a standpoint that branches from Christianity. It refers to a deist who believes in the moral teachings—but not divinity—of Jesus. " This is from the christian deism page. Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is only part of Jefferson's deism. Why don't you read the Monticello article for yourself.2601:447:4100:1692:2414:63EC:14F0:3AF7 (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

You said it yourself he denied Jesus' divinity. Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not seeing how this has any relevance to this article. The Monticello articles doesn't claim he held deist positions. Mangoe (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Deism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  09:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Intelligent god?[edit]

Is the deist god an intelligent god? Does it do thinking, perform logic, have human like emotions? Is it like Spinoza's god, which is a brainless god. Spinoza's god is basically everything in nature, which looks like a redefinition of the word "god". Vmelkon (talk) 00:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

This would be an interesting question to try to address if doing so were not against policy about what a talk page is supposed to be used for. WP:NOTFORUM — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm asking it because when I read this page, it isn't clear what is meant by the word god. I read the page on Spinoza's god and it looks like it isn't a god at all. He just calls reality "god" for some reason. Vmelkon (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
OK, I'll unhat this discussion and we can try to move forward as if you are asking for a modification of the article.
I agree that the lead sentence is problematic in that it doesn't seem to include as part of deism the idea that there is a creator god, not just that there is not a god that intervenes in the world.
So would an article about deism discuss the notion of whether the creator could be considered "intelligent"? We'd have to find sources that discuss the issue directly; it's not something we can insert by logical inference. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 01:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
It's hard to find a source that describes the deist god. I found https://www.britannica.com/topic/Deism which says "It was possible to believe even in prophetic revelation and still remain a Deist," and also "goodness of God.". Then it says "The more extreme Deists, of course, could not countenance this degree of divine intervention in the affairs of men.". Why not? Is the deist god impersonal? Does it mean that it doesn't have a personality, no intelligent, no feelings? It is very blurry. I'm not sure why no one is able to give a solid definition of what their god is suppose to be. Vmelkon (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
The Christian God (there are many good points and links in that article on "God"), while much has been written about "him", seems to like to remain enigmatic in more ways than one. And this applies to "the theist God" as well as to "the deist God". Deism is much less about the actual nature of god and much more about the people who practice deism and the way they think about the nature of God. So if you want to know about deism, then this is the article to read; however, if you want to know about God, then you might want to peruse that article (which is linked in my first sentence).  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  10:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to assume that the deist god(s) has intelligence (has a brain). Deists don't explicitly say it but the language they use makes it sound like it is some guy(s) like the many cultural gods, except that he(they) does not intervene in the universe and perhaps he(they) is not aware that humans exists (That's from the GOD article in your first line). Vmelkon (talk) 02:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You are welcome to assume that, but please don't try to add your conclusion to the article. That would be considered original research. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)