Talk:Deism/Archive 5

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. Joja  lozzo  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.  Joja  lozzo  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. Joja  lozzo  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. Joja  lozzo  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)

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. Joja  lozzo  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? Joja  lozzo  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. Joja  lozzo  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. Joja  lozzo  19:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

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 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)

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:
 * I prefer this because it emphasizes what deism is not what it isn't. Joja  lozzo  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.  Joja  lozzo  03:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

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:


 * 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)

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

1st Collaboration draft:

Jims 1st draft One of JDefauw's drafts:

Jims 2nd draft JimWae's 1st draft:

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:

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 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,

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:
 * 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. Joja  lozzo  21:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Or, as two more managable sentences:
 * Joja lozzo  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. Joja  lozzo  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,

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.



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"?  Joja  lozzo  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?

--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 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

New Lede Description of Deism, a collaborated effort
--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.

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)

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?

--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

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?

--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)

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)

--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.


 * 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.

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... 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)

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.

--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)

--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)

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. No one can honestly and without bias read the definitions of "religious philosophy" and "philosophy of religion" and say that 'philosophy of religion' is not more pertinent to deism. --Dsomeone (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 1>Typically, deists do believe their creator is good. 2>Please look at philosophy of religion and religious philosophy. Deism is a conclusion (a belief), not an investigation. Several others have also already pointed this out,

You say: "Deism is a conclusion (a belief), not an investigation." This is so wrong, Deism is based on Reason and Observation of the Natural World / Universe included. Nothing is conclusive, everything is changing, Humans will only be here for a spark of time, relative to the universe. Do you believe God / the creator will cease to exist when humans are gone, or that The creator only began creating when humans evolved, such a short time ago? This is a huge problem, Christians CAN NOT define Deism. The universe is not concluded! Humans are not that important to the existence of God or the universe. Nothing in the Universe is supernatural. Religion is MANS creation. Deism is a search for the true creator of the universe through our God Given Ability To Reason and Observer Gods Nature. NOT some supernatural being which is concerned with Humans! We should leave the description as it is now, in the main article, if you guys insist on infiltrating deism with christian ideas. And reject Reason, this is all pissing in the wind. Deism can save your soul, and the world. Stop the religious wars and tell the truth about organized religion. WAKE UP!

--Dsomeone (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Your new first sentence is equivalent to saying "A cat is an animal with 4 legs" is a definition of a cat. You have not distinguished deism from other religious philosophies in your first sentence, nor have you signalled the reader that you have not finished defining the concept. Nobody has supported your version, and yet you have put it up - with additional new terminology. How is this working "collaboratively"? People have repeatedly objected here to "belief system", yet you put that up too! For something to be a "belief system" there must be a collection of intertwined beliefs. You have not shown how any 2 beliefs are connected. Better to simply start "Deism is the belief that..." I encourage you to remove your new edit and continue discussion. Otherwise, I will soon be reverting, per WP:BRD.--JimWae (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

We will never get anywhere here. you know it, and so do I. The Lede is more complete and accurate now. What was there was much worse and had no merit what so ever. reverting to that is unreasonable. I've been following you for a long time, and I know you have no interest in the betterment of deism. Please let this stand. and let someone else work with it. --Dsomeone (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Reason and observation of the natural world is what sets deism apart from revealed beliefs.

--Dsomeone (talk) 02:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * But that does not set deism apart from Catholicism. The fact that you don't get that yet speaks volumes about your ability to edit this article with NPOV. If I were the only one objecting, I might be more accommodating. However, it has been you in the minority for some time AND you have put up wording that many others have objected to. That is discourteous to others besides me. ALSO www.deism.com and moderndeism.com are self-published, non-peer-reviewed advocacy websites written by people with no clear credentials on anything at all - virtually nothing more than blogs & so do not qualify as reliable sources.--JimWae (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You will reject all ref., you only accept ancient ref. which are not relevant to modern day deism. You know what? those ancient ref. are also someone's opinion. #5 ref. You reject anything which doesn't reflect your confused view of deism. in favor of christian views. --Dsomeone (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This is much closer to what has been agreed upon here
 * Not that this is really relevant, but it might keep you from repeatedly putting your foot in your keyboard: I am not a Xn.--JimWae (talk) 03:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of a Wikipedia article
Dsomeone, you need to have a better understanding of what we do here at Wikipedia. The purpose of an article in Wikipedia is to accurately summarize what books and journals published by mainstream publishers have stated on a given topic. We do nothing more, and we do nothing less. We also state every significant point of view that has appeared in mainstream books and journals. Once again, we do nothing more, and we do nothing less.

As long as you have access to books and journals that have been published by mainstream publishers, and you give accurate summaries of what those books and journal articles say, we will welcome your contributions to this article.JDefauw (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)JDefauw

I have removed this source from article to here, because it does not seem to be attempting a definition.--JimWae (talk) 07:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1938 source {{request quote|date=October 2012|reason=http://books.google.com/books?id=nqQFAAAAMAAJ&q=%22natural+religion%22#v=snippet&q=%22natural%20religion%22&f=false uses "natural religion" to refer to deism, but does NOT define deism as natural religion - AND even if it or other source does do so, people ought not to need to click on links (in this case it was a REDIRECTED link) to understand the first sentence.

New lede description 3
In the most recent hypothetical lead description of JimWae, he removed the sentence to which Dsomeone was opposed: "Deists typically believe that a creator has planned the universe for the benefit of humanity. . . ."  Would his hypothetical lead description without that sentence be acceptable to him? And would it be acceptable to Dsomeone as long as that sentence is removed?

In the article itself, I see that nobody has removed the the term "natural religion", and if the reference added to the article does support that usage and nobody is opposed to it, then we could begin the paragraph:

Does anybody have any concerns about this proposed lead? Is anybody opposed to referring to deism as a "natural religion". I will not be able to respond tonight.JDefauw (talk) 03:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)JDefauw


 * The lede is supposed to be the most accessible part of the article. People ought not to have to click on links to understand what the terms mean in the lede (no less the first sentence). I myself have questions about what "natural religion" really means - and the link does not even go to "natural religion". Leave it as "Deism is the belief that...". Dsomeone ought not to have inserted "natural religion" with not only no consensus but with actual opposition already expressed. Is all that discussion being blatantly ignored?--JimWae (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Moreover, the source uses "natural religion" to refer to deism, but does NOT define deism as natural religion. In that same sentence the source also describes deism as having a creed. Even if some source does so define deism, refer to the point above.--JimWae (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it cannot properly be claimed that Deism 'affirms' anything, any more than it can be claimed that Deism is 'based on Truth' or the like. Deism is the position that it is possible to deduce the existence of a Creator from observation of our Universe, but even this deduction isn't proof. The rational position is that there can be no humanly cognizable absolute proof one way or the other, but that we can construct a weighting of probabilities. Deism itself does not 'prove' anything; it is the belief that the proof is possible. Deists then turn to arguments like the Prime Mover argument, and the fine tuning argument ( noting the intricacy and fortuity of scientific processes like evolution as proof of a designer behind these processes) while denying as self-contradictory and non-universal the splintered theistic arguments arising from the multitude of claimed revelationary texts. DeistCosmos (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think theres too much emphasis on Christianit in the lede. Some deists belonged to other religions such as Judaism. Pass a Method   talk  08:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

"Natural Religion" is very well documented as a primary description of Deism. for starters, you can Google "deism a natural religion", and see all the results. Natural Religion is what deism is, in its simplest form. --Dsomeone (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * After I thought about it, the article on natural religion says the term has three different meanings. If we use the term at all, we would have to explain which meaning we intended by saying "natural religion" (as opposed to a "revealed religion").  However, since the lead should be the most accessible part of the article, we probably should not introduce an unfamiliar term that has multiple meanings.


 * DeistCosmos, if we return to the previous wording "Deism is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a creator deity", would that be acceptable? Or do you have any other ideas?


 * Pass a Method, if we said "among intellectuals raised as Christians and Jews who believed in one God", would that be acceptable?JDefauw (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)JDefauw


 * I have 2 or 3 hesitations in doing so: 1> I am unaware of ANY Jewish deists from the 17th & 18th centuries. If there were any famous ones, I would sincerely like to have some names. 2> I would also hesitate even with a few names of Jewish deists, if those people were not especially prominent in the movement. 2B> True, Spinoza rejected inerrancy of scripture, but his "natural religion" was pantheism. 3> Jews, of course, have problems with the Trinity & inerrancy of the New Testament for many other reasons, and did so long before 1601. --JimWae (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I still like this, in its most simplest form, contains all the basic ideas and is not confusing.
 * 1) Natural Religion / Natural theology is at deism's core, that cannot be disputed.
 * 2) without need for religion... sums everything up well. see body for details.
 * 3) Believe in a creator, linked to creator deity. sums that up. see body for details.
 * 4) And the prominence of deism in the 17th-18th.. rejection on miracles, etc. in separate paragraph makes sense.

Dsomeone (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It still has the same problem with which we started. Many Christians, Jews, and Muslims would agree with that sentence.  I also do not see anything confusing at all about the new lead paragraph.


 * I also stated toward the beginning of this discussion that the term "natural religion" was vague if we did not explain what we meant by the term. I said we call deism "natural religion" because deists generally do not believe in supernatural divine revelation or in miracles.  So I said that we should include the same idea in the definition without using the term "natural religion", and that is what we have done.  We have stated that deists reject "revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge", and that early deists could not believe in miracles.


 * I was wrong when I said the term "natural religion" has 3 different meanings. It has 5 different meanings: it can mean "a spontaneous religious apprehension common to all human beings", nature worship, the polytheistic religions of various peoples prior to their Christianization, natural theology, and religion that is not based on any claims of divine revelation.JDefauw (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)JDefauw

Redundant?
Does this sound redundant? "without the need for organized religion", are sufficient to determine the existence of a creator, and "rejecting revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge."


 * I thought so myself, but first I wanted to get the other changes accepted. I have moved "organized religion" to the later sentence--JimWae (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe the lead paragraph is greatly improved. One minor change that could be made is to say "accompanied by the rejection of" in place of "and the rejection of".  If others think it sounds better, then change it; if not, then leave it as it is.JDefauw (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)JDefauw
 * I see no redundancy there. A belief system can posit revelation and yet be unorganized. DeistCosmos (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it has become too long, too complicated/confusing (again) and has redundancies. please see my last post in section above. Dsomeone (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Does the article under massive expanding and or editing right now?
thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.163.26 (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)