User talk:Panyd/Astrotheology old

recent talk page
This site claims information about "astrotheology" is banned from Wikipedia. My aim is to prove this wrong. Now it's merely a single sentence definition with a cited reference - So I guess there's no reason to delete it (unless you want to ascertain the conspiracy theory). Estr4ng3d (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually there is a reason, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia, and if a definition is all the article is going to be, Wiktionary, is a better place for it. The fact that the article is not create-protected proves that this topic is not "banned". Beeblebrox (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's exactly why it's a stub. Estr4ng3d (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I object to the deletion of this article. It was created less than a week ago, and it is marked as a stub, so it is no surprise that it contains little more than a definition at present time. It needs time to grow (which it has over the last few days) and deleting it now would only serve to stop that growth. I find the notion that the subject is trivial astounding. As obvious from the definition, it's a field of study that is discussed in several books, and it connects theology & astrology, which are both major subjects. How is that non-notable? Even if there aren't millions of people who know the term or are interested in the subject, isn't Wikipedia the place for such a thing? Aren't we hear to spread knowledge? I started this article because I learned of a claim that the subject is censored on Wikipedia, acting on belief that Wikipedia is not censored. The fact that the article is now being flagged for deletion on the basis that it's "too short" only less than a week after its creation really makes me start to rethink my position. I hope I and the conspiracy theorists will be proved wrong by seeing this article get its chance. Estr4ng3d (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the deletion is not proposed because it is too short. It is proposed because it is short and unable to get longer. If it cannot be longer than the three sentences it is now -- and I see no reason to think it can, from the sources so far presented -- it is not more than a dictionary definition. See WP:NOT for why this is not allowable.


 * Similarly, there is no argument that the subject is "trivial". Rather the argument is that there is not enough source information to make an article.


 * The subject is not censored on Wikipedia -- it's just not notable, as witnessed by the absence of sources. The original version contained almost no sources relevant to the article, this one contains even fewer. It's just as non-notable as when it was deleted previously.


 * If you wish to object to the deletion, you need to remove the dated prod template from the top of the article as detailed at WP:PROD. If you do this, I shall take the matter to WP:AFD and there will be a debate on the subject.


 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * How can you ascertain that it's "unable to get longer"? It has only been up for 4 or 5 days. I have seen articles take months to grow into something truly informative. And when I checked yesterday it was already "longer" than the version I originally edited. So unless you want this stub article deleted on the basis of "slow growth" I don't see your point. I'm not arguing that the content is notable (at the present time), I'm saying that just like any other stub, it needs time to grow and become "notable."


 * Furthermore, I'm afraid that given your background a conflict of interest/non-neutrality issue exists here. I'd proceed with resorting to start a debate. Estr4ng3d (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Which background, pray? My point about its size is that I do not believe it will get any longer or that there are useful sources, as evidenced by the fact that none came up last time around, at Articles for deletion/Astrotheology. Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

History section
I am unsure about the relevance of this section to the article. It is indeed about the affect astronomy could have on theology, but not in the natural theology sense of the use described elsewhere. It is a soteriological point. Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability and tags
Please leave the notability tag up on the entry until this issue is resolved. I do realize that this is but a stub at the moment, but that doesn't change the fact that this stub does not establish the notability of the subject matter. Fix it then remove the tag. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The film Zeitgeist is not an RS and furthermore uses the term "astro-theological" only once to describe its subject matter. If anything it diminishes the notability of that particular phrase. Also this is a viral internet video we're talking about. Clearly more is needed here.PelleSmith (talk) 23:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see how you say it diminishes it. Do you mean that since you see Zeitgeist as a viral internet movie that it is not notable? The hyphen is insignificant for prefixes (choice of style), and in fact in the movie itself it spells it without the hyphen on screen. Consider that Zeitgeist, the Movie has gone through two AfDs, there is much reason already written there that needs not to be repeated here about notability. There was nothing viral about the movie being distributed, as everyone had there own choice to watch it like any movie. &mdash;  Dz on at as  02:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm speaking of the notability of the exact phrase, hyphen or no hyphen. It appears only once in the film suggesting that it is not commonly used to refer to the films subject matter. What are we to make of that? And the film is not a reliable source for this in the first place, regardless of how notable the film itself may be as a viral video.PelleSmith (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I still don't see that as a measure to not include any off it or how it degrades. The way it was used in the film appears to outline the discussion. They aren't defining the word, but merely include the relative events of how the beliefs systems evolved. It's more of a summary of the deeper sources, so (yes) the more notable sources are what the movie is based upon for information. Maybe someone will have time to dig deeper and expand on it, but I don't see a reason not to include it for now (it's merely a reference). &mdash;  Dz on at as  15:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing that this film isn't related to the subject matter that is being called "astrotheology" here, only that it isn't a reliable source to assert that this subject matter is indeed notably called "astrotheology." Viral videos usually fit into the, "in popular culture" or "in film" sections of entries. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, I didn't intend to make that assertion, also. &mdash;  Dz on at as  19:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What seems to be dominating, but not written here is the offensiveness of this branch of thought. There is no doubt that Astrotheology exists, much as Astrology, Numerology or Sociology exists. The validity or application in the real world is still under discussion and while I personally find it an irrational and unsubstantiated body of thought, this can be no more or less that Abrahamist religions, which suffer the same issues of noteability.

Wikipedia is such an important resource to us that we should not be deleting ideas, simply because we do not agree with them or because they have no real proof. If this is their philosophy let them write it here and let us hear about it on Wikipedia, rather than somewhere else. Philip Copeman 02 June 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.29.14 (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources for review
Here is a list of potential sources for this article. Even if they discuss astrotheology, I like to avoid the ones that seem just to just discredit religion because astrotheology is not about being anti-religion. If you lack any ideas to help improve this article in any way, here is your chance to to research one of these before you suggest AfD or likewise: &mdash;  Dz on at as  01:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Massey, Gerald - The Historic Jesus and the Mythical Christ, The Book Tree
 * Carpenter, Edward: Pagan and Christian Creeds: Their Origin and Meaning Book Tree, 1998
 * Acharya S - The Christ Conspiracy, Adventures Unlimited Press
 * Massey, Gerald - Ancient Egypt: Light of the World, Kessinger Publishing
 * Churchward, Albert -The Origin and Evolution of Religion, The Book Tree
 * Acharya S - Suns of God, Adventures Unlimited Press
 * Murdock, D.M. - Who was Jesus?, Steller House Publishing
 * Allegro, John - The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth, Prometheus Books
 * Frazer, Sir James: The Golden Bough, Touchstone Pub., 1890
 * Maxwell, Tice, Snow - That Old Time Religion, The Book Tree
 * Rolleston, Frances: Mazzaroth, Rivingtons, Waterloo Place, 1862
 * Cumont, Franz: Astrology and Religion Among the Greeks and Romans Cosimo Classics 1912
 * King James Version, The Holy Bible, Holman
 * Fideler, David: Jesus Christ, Sun of God Quest Books, 1993
 * Berry, Gerald: Religions Of The World, Barnes & Noble Pub., 1965
 * Leedom, Tim C - The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read, TS Books
 * Paine, Thomas - The Age of Reason
 * Wheless, Joseph: Forgery in Christianity: A Documented Record of the Foundations of the Christian Religion 1930
 * Remsburg, John E. - The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence, Prometheus Books
 * Massey, Gerald - Egyptian Book of the Dead and the Mysteries of Amenta, Kessinger Publishing
 * Irvin, Jan & Rutajit, Andrew - Astrotheology and Shamanism, The Book Tree
 * Doherty, Earl - The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ?, Age of Reason Pub.
 * Campbell, Joseph - Creative Mythology: The Masks of God, Penguin
 * Doane, T.W. - Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, Health Research
 * Maxwell, Jordan: The Light of World (Film Series) IRES
 * Singh, Madanjeet: The Sun- Symbol of Power and Life, UNESCO, 1993
 * Flemming, Brian: The God Who Wasn't There (Film) 2005
 * The Naked Truth (Film) IRES
 * Jackson, John G. : Christianity Before Christ, American Atheist Press, 1985

Galileo
I noticed this section was deleted by from the article:
 * One of the more popular controversies is found when Cardinal Bellarmine determined such studies as a threat to the Roman Catholic Church, especially when Galileo tried the bring visual proof to the cardinal.[3] Galileo asserted that even Pope Urban VIII said that if God wanted us to understand such complex matters, we would.[4]

Astrotheology covers the paradigm shifts and etymology of words -- even the rejection of them. Astrotheology studies why the church rejected any reason to see celestial bodies as anything but for the gods. The book Astrotheology & Shamanism makes it quite clear that it wasn't just the Copernicus ideas that was being rejected, but that it didn't want anything to do with paganism or other beliefs where gods pushed around the celestial bodies. &mdash;  Dz on at as  07:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliability
Can someone please explain how Astrotheology and Shamanism is to be considered a WP:RS for the type of historical information that it is being used to present?PelleSmith (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As I noted on the AfD, as far as I could ascertain, it isn't. HrafnTalkStalk 15:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * First to note is that the subject as produced by the publisher is not a tabloid. It is easy to see the sources are verifiable. The book is quite NPOV as it talks about the subject of astrotheology, but it does tend to promote shamanism. I think what the worry here is that the fringe theories will be used in the articles rather the the subject itself that is notable. Astrotheology obviously has been used to support other fringe theories, but that doesn't make astrotheology itself a fringe theory. &mdash;  Dz on at as  16:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:RS cannot be compressed down to "it isn't a tabloid". The publisher clearly specialises in WP:FRINGE material, and we have no indication that the authors have any relevant qualifications, let alone that their claims have any scholarly acceptance. HrafnTalkStalk 18:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Scholary acceptance is not a rule of thumb for reliability. I stated other reasons besides "tabloid." Also, the logical doesn't work that if a manufacturer specializes in making tennis balls, that when it makes a baseball that the baseball should be tested in the same way of a tennis ball. Controversial subjects are not by default false, inaccurate, or not reliable. &mdash;  Dz on at as  19:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:RS and WP:V. You are making historical claims presented as if they were fact, and those types of claims require a reliable source, which actually does require "academic recognition". Certain sources are reliable for certain things, and this source is quite clearly not written by a historian, nor is it published by a notable academic press. I'm afraid it is not reliable, at the very least in how you are trying to use it. I will remove the source and put in tags. If the material remains unsourced in a few days it should also get the axe.PelleSmith (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The ref from the Academic Press talks about the paradigm shift also (in regards to newtonian). A paradigm shift is expressed in the citation that you deleted. It clearly does not obfuscate the subject even if the book is considered completely unreliable. It uses well known events, so it obvious isn't being false about them. It is not being contentious toward some other view. The use of the book as limited as it was done is obvious not outside its subject. If this book was used in the article about God to tried to disprove his existence, then it would be clearly outside of its use. That is not what it is being used for and the book never implies it. Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth - WP:V. &mdash;  Dz on at as  22:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes and that statement goes against your claim, which amounts to "other RSes also make this claim so its simply true and therefore I can use this non-reliable source to say the same thing." Wikipedia is based upon verifiability, and as such verifiability through reliable sources. If the source is not reliable then its out. If a reliable source can be used for the same statement then add it by all means. Until that time I will leave the tags in.PelleSmith (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's basically what I was told some years ago trying to add facts to wikipedia. It's facts that could basically be scientifically proven. It didn't matter how true they were because I was told the wikipedia is not based on truth. Instead, wikipedia is a reference, and I see no reason to delete reference material if is follows the guidelines for verifiability. &mdash;  Dz on at as  00:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:RS and WP:V in totality. This does not follow the guidelines of verifiability because verifiability is built upon reliable sources. Please read these policies. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is the verifiability checklist for quetionable sources. Please be clear and convincing where you agree and disagree:


 * the material used is relevant to their notability;


 * it is not contentious;


 * it is not unduly self-serving;


 * it does not involve claims about third parties;


 * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;


 * there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;


 * the article is not based primarily on such sources.


 * &mdash;  Dz on at as  01:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No. It is a checklist for questionable sources in articles about themselves. This is not an article about the authors of this book, so it does not apply. HrafnTalkStalk 07:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That seems to suggest that the book clearly does not fall into a category as a 'questionable source'. That would mean any discussion about such is irrelevant. It then finally seems clear that the wrong guidelines were claimed against the book! That would leave the only other unsubstantiated claim about the book as WP:FRINGE (and not reliability). &mdash;  Dz on at as  07:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What part of "in articles about themselves" did you fail to comprehend? The section is WP:V -- "about themselves". This article is not about the authors of this book, so it is not "about themselves" so the crtieria do not apply regardless of whether the book is a questionable source. This is a further bogus argument. HrafnTalkStalk 08:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Selectively quoting from policy isn't helpful. The most basic guideline is this: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The issue here is with meeting basic parameters for being a reliable source, and not necessarily a "questionable source" though that guideline also addresses the issues in the same basic sense. The guideline about questionable sources is: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking." The source you use does not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Please see Reliable_sources. When you make statements that fall within a specific field of academic expertise, in this case history most generally, you need reliable historical sources. It is that simple. If you are trying to slide in popular literature about "astrotheology" through some loophole in claiming that it isn't "questionable" please do not do so. If, as you say, other reliable sources can verify this information then we need to use them. Also take a note of number 6 as you quoted it above, because it is very pertinent here. When you state something from history "as if it were fact" it is not the same as clearly attributing it. Also see number 7, because this entry is completely relying on popular publications with no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.PelleSmith (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "When you make statements that fall within a specific field of academic expertise, in this case history most generally, you need reliable historical sources." Hmmm. Click on Galileo, Pope Urban, and the Cardinal and you will be lead to many historic sources that convey they exact same events. I see no need to copy all those references to this page when a simple wikify will work. Further, if you study the original author of thew viewpoint, John Marco Allegro, you will notice that the claims made by the book were peer-reviewed by The Journal of Higher Criticism. Also, the Wikipedia Editorial Team kept a note, "Jan Irvin is a writer who has substantiated much of Allegro's work with the publication of Astrotheology & Shamanism in January 2006. --Jan Irvin 03:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)." I never knew about this book until I started to research for this article (when you started to see me edit this article). I can't classify is at "popular literature" since it took more than a few sources to go through to find out about it. About the guideline you quoted, as you say, don't be selective, because the next clause says, "This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." In my attempts to summarized the content, I'm am not trying to put in my own opinion. As a stub, it is actually suggested to be more liberal about the statements and come back later to clarify and summarize them better. I have spent a lot of time on this, probably more than you have to even try to answer my last checklist questions, to make sure it stays NPOV and meets guidelines. When I see unsubstantiated claims against the edits, I wonder how much time was actually taken to improve the article before they gave up and just tagged it or complained. Consider how I can find these books and references in the time I did, I seriously doubt others have really tried. Even if you believe this falls into academic expertise outside of the mentioned historic events, that would mean you would have to have knowledge of what made such claims: do share and provide refs! What you said about #6 is not clear. What you said for #7 is a claim that has continued to go unsubstantiated (unless you want to simply want to consider it a questionable source and then we are back to the checklist). It is not that is has "no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" because that is your opinion, and because your opinion exists -- that is the same as making the claim it is "poor." I simply posted the appropriate verifiability checklist based on your claim of poor reputation. Trying to say there is "no reputation" as something different from being "poor reputation" is like trying to find that loophole you mentioned. &mdash;  Dz on at as  04:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Jan Irvin is a writer who has substantiated much of Allegro's work with the publication of Astrotheology & Shamanism in January 2006. --Jan Irvin 03:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)." Look at the bloody signature! It was Jan Irvin himself who posted this claim. It thus has zero probative value -- and that he posts such claims about himself on Wikipedia would widely be taken as some indication that Jan Irwin is a crank. HrafnTalkStalk 07:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I surely didn't try to hide the fact that it was a comment from Irvin himself!!! If you want to consider his comment as zero probative value, then I will give equal weight to you in the same way to treated him. Irvin, however, posted a comment to the editorial team about the Allegro article. He didn't do something stupid like put his own bio in a page about himself on wikipedia. &mdash;  Dz on at as  07:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't remember anybody making any claims about my reliability as a source based on claims I made about myself -- so the "probative value" of my non-existent claims-about-myself aren't at issue. HrafnTalkStalk 07:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Irrational! &mdash;  Dz on at as  07:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No. Merely distinguishing my actions which you had illegitimately conflated with Irvin's. 08:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. - WP:TPG &mdash;  Dz on at as  09:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Article talk pages" are most certainly "platforms for" "editors" expressing their "personal views" about the reliability of sources. That's what consensus is all about. My view is that Irvin's self-serving claims lower the reliability value of his book. YMMV :) HrafnTalkStalk 10:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Jargon?
The article has had the jargon tag put on it, but no specific term was cited that needs explanation. It is helpful when you use the tag to create a discussion on the relative talk page for it. Please, add here the terms that need explanation. &mdash;  Dz on at as  19:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC) The more I look at this, the more that astrotheology/physicotheology/physiotheology seems to be just an obscure form of natural theology. The trouble is that as the article is written it is unclear what it is about -- so I cannot be sure. HrafnTalkStalk 07:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC) I would further point out that nowhere does the article on Isaac Newton mention any connection to biology, so the whole Newton-biology-astrotheology thing needs some explanation for this section to be anything other than an incomprehensible mess. HrafnTalkStalk 07:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "physicotheology"/"physiotheology" -- HINT: stating who it is "used in reference to" is no help whatsoever -- you need to provide a definition inline for such specialised and obscure terms.
 * "Newtonian" used as a noun (not sure if this is just a grammar error).
 * "reasoned between theology and biology" is a meaningless phrase.
 * Biology or any other science does not "find the purpose". They are about how things happen, not their ultimate purpose.
 * You have given no indication what possible connection there is between Astrotheology, "theology founded on observation or knowledge of the celestial bodies" and biology, a field which has nothing whatsoever to do with "celestial bodies".
 * Since the word biology seemed actually to be in use after the 19th century, I don't see a reason why it would be specifically referenced as that in early times. It is the word the book author & Academic Press chose to use. Most likely, they used a modern term to describe an older field. &mdash;  Dz on at as  07:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ummm both Adaptation: Natural Selection in Evolution and Isaac Newton were written "after the 19th century" and so make use of modern wording. In fact Adaptation makes frequent use of "biology" JUST NOT IN CONNECTION TO NEWTON! This line of argument is completely bogus. HrafnTalkStalk 08:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you think it is bogus what I just said, then find a source that connects biology and and Newton before 1900. Add it to the article and cite it. &mdash;  Dz on at as  09:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No. (1) Both Adaptation: Natural Selection in Evolution and Isaac Newton were written after the 19th century, so would use the modern word "biology" (in preference to some archaic equivalent). Your reference to before/after 19th century is therefore a red herring (i.e. "bogus"). (2) Regardless, neither Adaptation: Natural Selection in Evolution nor Isaac Newton use any word (archaic, modern or otherwise) to directly link Newton to biology. The link you made in "Newton reasoned between theology and biology" therefore has no sourced basis. HrafnTalkStalk 11:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[Edit conflict]On a further read-through of the source for the first paragraph of this section, I could likewise find no indication of a connection between Newton & biology. Further, I found evidence that the claim that "post-Newtonian[sic] research shifted into biology to find the purpose" is WP:SYNTH. What the source actually says is "After Newton, already explained patterns of motion did not seem to demand further purposive explanation. More direct evidence of ends and uses was available, and it came not from astronomy but from biology." The difference is subtle but important. This is philosophising deriving from biology, it is not "research" in biology itself. Science itself doesn't seek "purpose" -- that's something that philosophy sometimes seeks to derive from science. This source also gives further indication that Astrotheology is merely a part of natural theology -- as this shift is described as the "biologising of natural theology" -- i.e. moving from astronomical natural theology/'astrotheology' into biological natural theology (later to be made famous by William Paley. None of this is made clear by the section however. Should anything of this article survive AfD it should probably be merged into natural theology. HrafnTalkStalk 08:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see where natural theology makes a direct connection from celestial bodies to gods or deities. Also, it appears astrotheology has been used both from atheist and many theist views, so if merged it would need and article that doesn't limit such viewpoints. &mdash;  Dz on at as  08:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Astrotheology' would appear, at least in the context that Adaptation uses the word, to be the subset of natural theology based upon astronomy (as opposed to scientific fields more generally). See p20 for discussion that makes this fairly clear. It is "attempts to prove the existence of God and other divine attributes purely philosophically, that is, without recourse to any special or supposedly supernatural revelation" based upon astronomy. Whether Astrotheology, or natural theology generally, can be used to disprove as well as prove, is an irrelevant aspect that I don't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys about. HrafnTalkStalk 09:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Take what you read, add it to the article, and cite the source. No need to keep it here on the talk page where article readers won't find it. &mdash;  Dz on at as  09:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Already done so -- have also wikilinked to the extensive information on the 'Bridgewater Treatises' in the natural theology article. HrafnTalkStalk 10:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I could likewise find nothing in the source that indicated that "Isaac Newton found evidence to lead a view on the world for the distinction between natural theology and astronomy." (my emphasis) -- so I have tagged both that passage & the "Newton reasoned between theology and biology" as requesting a quotation from the source here on talk (a point that the tag only makes clear in its documentation) to substantiate these claims. HrafnTalkStalk 08:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look at the bottom of page 18, the paragraphs starts, "Newton's achievement made necessary the first distinction between the theological reasoning based on astronomy and that based on biology. the distinction was between "astrotheology" and "physicotheology." ("Physiotheology" would be a better therm for the modern ears; physiocotheology is based not on evidence from physics, but from biology.) The two approaches divided the old Argument of Design into an asronomical Argument from Pattern and a biological Argument from Purpose." Beyond this, the rest of the text can be found in the book, and the book has samples on google books. Also, Newton seemed to be against the idea of his position being portrayed as natural theology, which does not imply him as against natural theology but he contrasts it. &mdash;  Dz on at as  08:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Newton's achievement made necessary the first distinction between the theological reasoning based on astronomy and that based on biology. the distinction was between "astrotheology" and "physicotheology." That he made a distinction necessary, DOES NOT MEAN that he himself made the distinction! You are garbling what the source said. It gives no indication whatsoever that Newton himself made any any mention of biology, nor that a distinction was made by anybody between Astrotheology and natural theology, rather than simply between (natural) theology based upon astronomy and (natural) theology based upon biology. HrafnTalkStalk 09:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't garble it. I said Newton found the evidence. I didn't write that he alone made the distinction itself. Obviously, Derham wrote more about the distinction. Your other assertion seems like WP:OR. &mdash;  Dz on at as  09:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You wrote "Isaac Newton found evidence to lead a view on the world for the distinction between natural theology and astronomy." Aside from being horribly muddled ("...found evidence to lead a view on the world for..."), it certainly creates the impression that Newton's evidence created the distinction, not that his work merely led to making such a distinction becoming necessary. The material that you wrote about Derham is likewise garbled, and makes no mention of any "distinction" -- in fact it appears to conflate "astrotheology" and "physicotheology." <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 10:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of 'Astrotheology'
We appear to have 2-3 different meanings of 'Astrotheology': My suggestion would be to create content based on the Adaptation coverage from scratch for natural theology, and let the other meanings die with the AfD as having no basis in WP:RS. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 10:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Adaptation's historical meaning of natural theology based upon astrology. This would arguably be the only reliable source to date, and this meaning lies more reasonably in natural theology than in an article of its own.
 * 1) A new-age 'Christianity stole paganism's ideas' meaning, found in Astrotheology & Shamanism & Zeitgeist -- neither of which have gained wide acceptance as a reliable source.
 * 1) Dzonatas' nebulous idea of an atheist astronomy-based argument against the supernatural -- which has no sourced basis whatsoever.
 * Um, "Dzonatas' nebulous idea of an atheist astronomy-based argument against the supernatural -- which has no sourced basis whatsoever." -- where in the world you get that flippant idea of yours? Doesn't matter, but if you want to use the book Adaptation in the other article then that is something you can do, but that doesn't justify to delete any other philosophical view of from astrotheology that doesn't fit in such article. There is obviously lot more sources to cover and much more can be included from the sources already given. If you are going to use a source, you can't be selective in what you use from that source to try to assert your claim that the other parts of the source should die in AfD. &mdash;  Dz on at as  10:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Also, it appears astrotheology has been used both from atheist and many theist views, so if merged it would need and article that doesn't limit such viewpoints. — Dzonatas 08:32, 3 June 2008"


 * The "other philosophical view of from[sic] astrotheology" has no WP:RS, so warrants no article. I've already moved my sourced and ungarbled material into natural theology. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 11:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Paradigm Shift
Noted in revert comment -- "Rvt: (1) it was a move AWAY from Astrotheology to biological natural theology (physicotheology), not a paradigm shift IN astrotheology and (2) it happened AFTER (i.e. "Post-") Newton." It doesn't matter which way the shift occurs or in what subject. If there is a change in the knowledge and understanding of the world, that is a basis for a paradigm shift. Please read Paradigm shift. &mdash;  Dz on at as  10:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Astrotheology didn't "shift", it was abandoned completely (i.e. it was put into "eclipse"). It was a "paradigm shift" only in the context of natural theology, not in the context of Astrotheology. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 10:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * An astrotheologist would observe the shift in the context of theology and astronomy. The book Adaption observes the shift from astrotheology to physicotheology.(page 19) &mdash;  Dz on at as  11:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "An astrotheologist would observe" that he has nowhere to go -- physicotheology biological natural theology has no "context of ... astronomy" -- it is about biology not astronomy. The field proceeded to disappear post-Newton. And I "would observe" that your understanding of the texts you are citing has proven to be repeatedly and egregiously erroneous. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 12:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

POV
It appears pretty obvious from the different sources that astrotheology is neither analogous with natural theology nor does it have only one monotheist viewpoint. The remove of other viewpoints to support natural theology is not WP:NPOV. This kind of POV seems more like WP:OR in order someone link astrotheology as a subfield of natural theology even though astrotheology existed before natural theology. The popular view of astrotheology appears to be that it neither tries to prove nor disprove God. It is, instead, simply the relation between astronomy and gods and deities. Going through sources and being selective in events where astrotheology was used to support God is not WP:NPOV when it is clearly used throughout other sources to support different views on ancient astronomy or other theist ideology. &mdash;  Dz on at as  18:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Astrotheology most certainly did not exist before natural theology. Astrotheology is a new age neologism of very recent invention. Show me a text that uses this term that dates back more than a couple of decades.PelleSmith (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to correct you PelleSmith, but grandious terms for subfields of natural theology ('Physicotheology'), such as 'Astrotheology' (purpose from astronomy), 'Hydrotheology' (purpose from water), 'Ornotheology' (purpose from birds), etc have been around at least since the 18th century -- the New Age movement simply appropriated it and have, or at least have attempted to, redefine it. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 18:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Correction much welcomed :).PelleSmith (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I should have been more diligent. Found this in the OED: "1714 DERHAM (title) *Astro-Theology, or a Demonstration of the Being and attributes of God, from a survey of the heavens. 1882 Q. Rev. July 131 The astro-theology of Chaldæa." I guess searching ATLA isn't enough, but the lackluster results of such a search do point to the probable fact that whatever original usage this term may have had in whatever short lived capacity it had it, must be distinct from the current popular new age usage, which would of course not be generating hits in a scholarly database. Thanks Hrafn.PelleSmith (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The "other viewpoints" were from sources whose reliability had already been challenged. I dug up reliable sources that said something different. Per WP:DUE, we go with the reliable sources. The term 'natural theology' (or its Latin transliteration -- scholars wrote in Latin back then) has been around at least since the 15th century -- long before the term 'astrotheology' was created. I don't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys what you consider to be the "popular view", I care what the reliable sources state -- WP:RS tells us to be selective. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 18:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

William Paley coined the term 'Natural Theology' in 1802. In the book Adaptation, it is said that astrotheology existed before then even though it was scarcely named. It appears you put the carriage before the horse. &mdash;  Dz on at as  20:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Webster's dictionary
The following definition from Websters is not a good source for claiming that Derham's use and his book coincide with the generic one that was added to this entry: "Theology founded on observation or knowledge of the celestial bodies." Theology broadly construed in modern discourse was clearly not Derham's usage in an eighteenth century treatise titled "Astro-Theology, or a Demonstration of the Being and attributes of God, from a survey of the heavens." Also, it is very bad practice to extrapolate the mention of Derham in Websters next to a generic definition to mean that this definition was Derham's. You will need to read the treatise itself or at least a respectable academic review of it, otherwise you are seriously abusing the sources.PelleSmith (talk) 01:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What you reverted to is clearly an invalid citation and very misleading statement from the text of the book itself. I'm trying to find more source, but in the meantime don't leave the article in such state. The other sources also associate the observation and astronomy, so what I had is clearly not wrong. &mdash;  Dz on at as  02:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My point is that your version claims a very loosey goosey and inclusive definition which is quite clearly falsely sourced to an 18th Century figure whose notion of "theology" did not encompass the generality of the term presented in the wikilinked entry Theology. Do you disagree with this? Can you show me from Derham that he had this notion of "theology". Making the an inference the way you did from the Webster's entry is also very bad practice not the way to go about sourcing accurately. You We need to take care to source things properly, or else what does exist of this entry will simply end up at AfD as unsourced, fringe, etc.PelleSmith (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I disgaree with the ad hominems here. The line was changed away from the plain dictionary reference, and your complaint is not clear. &mdash;  Dz on at as  12:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you feel that this was an attack on you then I apologize. I meant in a general way. The complaint is simply that one cannot take the Webster's definition as if it corresponds with Derham simply because they have named him. There is ample reason to believe that he certainly did not believe in Theology broadly construed. Your version did wikilink Theology as part of the Webster's definition and then source it Derham. That simply is not accurate. Things have moved beyond this now, but that was my complaint.PelleSmith (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Natural Theology
The source for Modern Predicament does not claim that Astrotheology is *only* exists as a subfield of Natural Theology. That is entirely misleading to have cited it that way. It is clear between the book Adaptation and Modern Predicament that Natural Theology has its minor theology also called astrotheology. Please read the books. &mdash;  Dz on at as  02:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Modern Predicament: "These subordinate theologies [of natural theology] -- which are said to have been zealously cultivated by the English -- were given impressive names. Thus astrotheology studied God's purpose in the stars; hydrotheology His purpose in water; ornotheology His purpose in birds; and so on." This makes it very clear -- "astrotheology" was created as a name for a subordinate theology (i.e. a subset) of natural theology. Adaptation, although it does not appear to explicitly define it, uses it in exactly this context -- as the part of natural theology that is based upon astronomy. All theology that is based upon natural observation rather than supernatural revelation is natural theology. Therefore "theology based on observations of astronomy" is, by the definition of natural theology, part of natural theology. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 03:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In Adaptation, "The distinction was made between 'astrotheology' and 'physicotheology'." Same paragraph, "But contrary to Newton's expectation, his achievements did not advance the standing of astronomy in natural theology. The did mark the beginning of a heyday in British natural theology -- but of a natural theology self-consciously based on biology rather than astronomy. Once the scientific differences between Pattern and Purpose were clearly spelled out, the benefits of Purpose became apparent." It is very clear there is a distinction being made between astrotheology and natural theology. The later is clearly about purpose and based on biology. The field of astrotheology in natural theology is only about purpose, and it has nothing to do with the astrotheology that is based on astronomy (and patterns). What we have is clearly two astrotheology viewpoints with one based on astronomy and the other was not. The one based on astronomy only "illustrates the grandeur and expanse of creation, not prove design." Natural Theology, specifically states in Modern Predicament, is set out to prove the existence of God (and purpose). &mdash;  Dz on at as  03:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In the lead, I think it is perfectly unbiased to start it as "Astrotheology is theology... blah.. blah .. blah" and show the distinction. To say that "Astrotheology is natural theology... yadayada" does not create such distinction and is confusingly pov, especially when the sources get into the Pattern instead of the Purpose. &mdash;  Dz on at as  04:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem appears to be that we have two contradictory definitions for 'physicotheology' -- Adaptations uses it for biological natural theology ("physicotheology is based not on evidence from physics but from biology") and Paton uses it for natural theology generally ("In this narrow sense natural theology -- sometimes known by the more grandious term 'physicotheology'..."). However Adaptation does not deny that Astrotheology has its meaning in the context of natural theology. 'Astrotheology' is "astronomy in natural theology", a "a natural theology self-consciously based on ... astronomy" that was being eclipsed by that based upon biology. There is no distinction made between Astrotheology and Natural Theology -- only between Astrotheology and biological natural theology. Your claim "The field of astrotheology in natural theology is only about purpose, and it has nothing to do with the astrotheology that is based on astronomy (and patterns)." is nonsensical. If it wasn't about purpose it wouldn't be theological, and if it wasn't about astronomy, it wouldn't be "astro-". Natural theology is theology based upon observation, astrotheology is theology based upon astronomic observation, THEREFORE ASTROTHEOLOGY MUST BE PART OF NATURAL THEOLOGY. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 05:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Putting it another way, I have a WP:RS (Paton) that clearly and unambiguously states that Astrotheology is a "subordinate theology" to Natural Theology. I further have the fact that, even by your definition, Astrotheology falls within the definition of Natural Theology. Therefore unless you can find a WP:RS that unambiguously states that Astrotheology is not part of Natural Theology, it is reasonable to state unequivocally that it is. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 05:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What you are doing is completely denying Newton's achievements and the events of the distinction that was made. You are denying that those events ever occurred. You have sources in your hand that clearly make those distinctions, but you have a blind eye to one. Your position is flawed by Newton's own achievements. Paley's Astrotheology is a minor theology to natural theology. Derham's Astrotheology is a major theology that stands in contrast to physicotheology. I put a WP:RS of Derham, and you have completely denied its existence. Do you understand that your views a highly POV to only be bias towards Paley's Astrotheology. Paley's Astrotheology is an abstraction of Derham's Astrotheology. &mdash;  Dz on at as  06:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The distinction was not made between Astrotheology and Natural Theology, but between Astrotheology and biological natural theology (which Adaptations terms 'physicotheology'). Claiming otherwise is absurd WP:SYNTH across contradictory definitions. This has nothing to do with "Newton's achievements", which I am not denying. Cite a WP:RS that unambiguously states that Astrotheology is not part of Natural Theology or stop complaining. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 06:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You haven't even cited a source that says exactly (or even close to) "astrotheology is natural theology based on astronomy." Natural theology is sometimes known as physicotheology (Modern Predicament p.2). Physicotheology is distinct from astrotheology (Adaptation p.18). "The two approaches divided the old Argument of Design into astronomical Argument of Pattern and biological Argument of Purpose (Adapptation p.18). Obviously here, "Pattern" does not equal "Purpose." Now you state you have one WP:RS (Paton), its says that Natural theology is the theology on nature with evidence to the existence of God's purpose (Modern Predicament p.20). It doesn't say "God's Pattern" as it specifically says "God's Purpose"! You have contradicted yourself and your edits have made the article highly questionable now. &mdash;  Dz on at as  07:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Modern Predicament and Adapation USE CONFLICTING DEFINITIONS OF "PHYSICOTHEOLOGY"! You therefore CANNOT put what they say about their different meanings of physicotheology together. Even if you could logically, it would be impermissible WP:SYNTH. I am sick of having to repeat this obvious point. Modern Predicament: "These subordinate theologies [of natural theology] -- which are said to have been zealously cultivated by the English -- were given impressive names. Thus astrotheology studied God's purpose in the stars; hydrotheology His purpose in water; ornotheology His purpose in birds; and so on." This clearly indicates that astrotheology is part of natural theology. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 08:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "God's pattern" and "God's purpose" are equivlaent in this context. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 08:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

In response to your hidden-comment claim that placing Astrotheology within Natural Theology "does not agree with all source, like Derham", I did a Google Book search of Astrotheology (repeated attempts to download the whole thing having fallen over part way through), and the book appears to contain no explicit mention of either 'Astrotheology' or 'Natural Theology], so any claim that it distinguishes between the two would appear to be WP:SYNTH, at best. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 08:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You clearly do not understand WP:NPOV where you try to present all WP:RS's neutrally. It is only WP:SYNTH if the source didn't make the argument itself. I cited the argument directly from the source. I quoted it for you. You do not seem to understand the fundamental and logical distinction between form and function. Further, there is no instance of the word 'natural theology' in Derham's Astro-Theology. By the way, Derham also authored Physico-Theology, which is his argument in contrast to Astro-Theology. Derham mentions Physico-Theology in Astro-Theology. Derham also uses the expression "demostration of being" and "attributes to God" and "survery of the Heavens" throughout his book. It is clearly written on the front page that the book is about "Astro-Theology" and the immediate defines it as "A demonstration of the being and attributes of God, from a survey of the heavens." He doesn't make a claim at all the Astro-Theology is Physico-Theology, but instead he merely remarks at how well the earlier editions sold. Derham published Physico-Theology defines itself as "A demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God, from His Works of Creation." In page 3 he says, "It may not therefore be unsuitable to the Nature and Design of Lectures [footnoted as philosophy] founded by one greatest Virtuoso's of the last Age, and instituted too on purpose for the Proof of Christian Religion against Atheists, and other Infidels, to improve this Occasion in the Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of an infinitely wise and powerful Creator, from a Cursory Survey of the Works of the Creation, or (as often called) of Nature." To Derham, one is about the Heavens (astronomy) and the other is about Creation (Nature). One of the chapters are, in fact, called "the functions of Nature." The first chapter goes into the study of Terra... Earth. It continues on and one about being, animals, plants, mountains, etc etc all things Nature. He does not talk about Astro-Theology in the book Physico-Theology, it just merely contrasts it. His next line specifically makes the distinct, "Which works belong either to out Terraqueous Globe, or the Heavens." He talks about the Globe in Physico-Theology. He talks about the Heavens in Astro-Theology. &mdash;  Dz on at as  09:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"It is only WP:SYNTH if the source didn't make the argument itself." Derham "didn't make the argument" that Astrotheology isn't Natural Theology. Unless he clearly identifies 'physicotheology' with 'Natural Theology' in distinguishing the former from 'astrotheology' you can't get there. From the context, it would appear that Derham is using 'physicotheology' to indicate natural theology based upon (earthly) 'Creation' (the Earth, life, etc) as opposed to natural theology based upon "the heavens" (though as far as I know, "the heavens" are also considered to be part of God's Creation). Further, we have no indication that Derham considers his definition of 'astrotheology' not to be a form of "theology based upon observation" -- which is our core definition of natural theology. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 09:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Dzonatas, it is abundantly clear even from Adaptation that astrotheology was considered part of natural theology and that the emergence of biology and the eclipsing of astronomy happens within Natural Theology. Please see Here is some relevant text from page 19 of Adaptation: I'm sorry but this is rather unambiguous. Astrotheology was clearly considered part of natural theology, a part that at this period in history was being eclipsed by physicotheology. I agree with Hrafn that you have no reliable source to back your claim. The sources that do exist back his.PelleSmith (talk) 12:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ad ignorantiam &mdash;  Dz on at as  12:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Two important scientists, the naturalist John Ray and the physicist chemist Robert Boyle, set the tone for post Newtonian natural theology. They and their followers began to marginalize astrotheology. Natural theology texts began to mention astronomy only in passing."
 * The very first sentence of the next paragraph then reads: "Commentators on this era of natural theology recognize the shift from astrotheology to physicotheology."
 * Those comments reflect that astrotheology was faded out and that physicotheology was faded in. They do not state any definitive claim of "astrotheology is natural theology'. Cite a source that claims that exact terms. You seem not content about the use of a dictionary to give further enlightenment to a term, but you are content with such ambiguous claims. If you believe source exist to back his, verify it and cite it. &mdash;  Dz on at as  13:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The Fallacy of the undistributed middle explained here by example:
 * B = "based upon observation"


 * Z = "Natural theology"


 * Y = "astrotheology"


 * All Z is B -> [all] "Natural theology is based upon observation" (claim made by Hrafn)


 * Y is B -> "astrotheology is based upon observation" (claim made by Hrafn)


 * Therefore, Y is Z -> "THEREFORE ASTROTHEOLOGY MUST BE PART OF NATURAL THEOLOGY" (claim made by Hrafn)

&mdash;  Dz on at as  13:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No that is a straw man. Adaptation, a reliable source and not an editors argument, is very clear about this. The english language does not require that we state unabigiously X is a subset of Y for the meaning to be clearly conveyed that this is in fact the case. Please deal with the text I have presented instead of making that claim. Here is more text for you showing the ends of this shift within natural theology (pg. 21): "The connection formerly asserted by natural theology between the specific discoveries of astronomy and the nature of the Creator (astrotheology) had been cut." Again this is unambiguous. I added (astrotheology) in there so that you could see it more clearly, but within the context of the previous pages the "connection between the specific discoveries of astronomy and the nature of the Creator" is clearly and unambiguously "astrotheology." This sentence makes it clear that this also fell within natural theology until it was eclipsed. Please deal with the actual text here.PelleSmith (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You need to quote where it states in that source that it specifically claims that it means "astrotheology" by the word "Creator". Also, it is not clear (uncited) how that quote claims that astrotheology ever was a part of natural theology. &mdash;  Dz on at as ' 13:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you need me to copy paste the entire two pages here (I linked them above, please do go and read the actual book)? What do you not understand by the phrase "connection formerly asserted by natural theology"? Do you deny that in the context of these two pages the book is not referring here to astrotheology? If you do not deny this then please stop playing games. Both before and after this sentence the book directly uses the term astrotheology to refer to exactly this. Instead of disputing the relevant facts here you are asking for a bogus phrase to exist in the book. No such phrase is needed to compel the meaning that is obvious here. I'm not sure if you are willfully playing this game or if you actually believe what you are saying, but regardless this is unambiguous and clear, and any third party can come here and attest to it. I'm done with this conversation unless you show me how the book attests to your false claim, how my quotes do not attest to what I say, and/or at the very least have an uninvolved party agree with you false claim. Good day.PelleSmith (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Do you need me to copy paste the entire two pages here" -- No, just where it specifically claims that "astrotheology is natural theology" and also how there is no other existence of astrotheology before or after natural theology (since as you implied in your quote that it was disillusioned). -- WP:BURDEN &mdash;  Dz on at as  14:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No I'm afraid the burden is on you. Please see below. An RS states rather clearly that astrotheology died. I'm afraid that's verifiable through a reliable source. The burden is on you to show otherwise. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BURDEN, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." You reverted the change. Now, WP:PROVEIT. Even if the sources are reliable, the editor must make it clear and clarify what is being cited and not be misleading. &mdash;  Dz on at as  19:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Proof remains below where it has always been. You have yet to show how another reading of Adaptation is even remotely possible. If after being presented clear proof of something you refuse to accept it and simply demand more proof (an activity you could do endlessly I might add) then you are simply being disruptive. Continued disruption can only lead to undesirable outcomes. You've been here for a while, surely you have enough experience here to know where that leads. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Fallacious claim and already-answered question
"[all] "Natural theology is based upon observation" (claim made by Hrafn)" No. What I am claiming is that "Natural theology is [all theology] based upon observation" -- as the core reason for the existence of the term is to contrast it with theology based on supernatural revelation. This would make a definition of 'natural theology' that excludes some natural observations dysfunctional. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 04:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC) "Cite a source that claims that exact terms."

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 04:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Then are you also claiming that "All theology is natural theology"? &mdash;  Dz on at as  04:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No. I explicitly stated that "theology based on supernatural revelation" was not natural theology. You could perhaps read my comments more carefully before asking questions I've already answered. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 06:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Then natural theology is not *all* theology. When Gifford first establish natural theology, he based it on principles, not other theologies like astrotheology. It wasn't until later, as the Modern Predicament explains, that natural theology took on a series of teleological subordinate theologies. The subordinate theology is only a part of the entire theology. Not all theologies are teleological. Astrotheology is not entirely teleological -- therefore is wrong to say astrotheology is natural theology because they would deny the teleological aspect so made a principle by Gifford. &mdash;  Dz on at as  07:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In the general sense the difference here has everything to do with divine revelation, please review the concept and understand that what makes natural theology different from revealed theology is that it is not based upon revelation, but instead upon observation. Case closed.PelleSmith (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If by "Gifford" you mean Adam Gifford, Lord Gifford, who established the Gifford Lectures (and I don't see any other Gifford involved), he did not "first establish" the field of Natural Theology, which was being written about at least as early as the 15th century, but simply established, in his will, a series of lectures on the topic. I am sick to death of wasting my time correcting you on the most basic facts. If you cannot interpret the most basic details of sources correctly, then you should not be editing articles on them. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 13:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "One of [natural theology's] earliest exponents, Raymond de Subunde, who published his Theologia Naturalis in 1438..." Paton p20. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 13:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Adaptation and Natural Theology
Here are some relevant quotes from Adaptation, which show unambiguously that astrotheology was a part of natural theology and that within natural theology it was in fact abandoned for physicotheology. If other sources disagree, then fine, but what this source claims is CLEAR. We start with the first reference to astrotheology - see for yourselves (from pages 18-21): Dezonatas, please understand that the phrase you keep on asking for is not required in the English language to convey the very clear meaning here. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) "Newton's acheivement made necessary the first distinction between the theological reasoning based on astronomy and that based on biology. The distinction was between 'astrotheology' and 'physicotheology'."
 * 1) "Two important scientists, the naturalist John Ray and the physicist chemist Robert Boyle, set the tone for post Newtonian natural theology. They and their followers began to marginalize astrotheology. Natural theology texts began to mention astronomy only in passing. Increased emphasis was put on organic design ..."
 * 1) "Commentators on this era of natural theology recognize the shift from astrotheology to physicotheology."
 * 1) "The biologizing of natural theology meshed nicely with the increasing British interest in natural history. No one had the impiety to fully abandon astrotheology. The heavens still 'proclaimed the glory of God' but the ceased to prove his existence"
 * 1) "So astrotheology was scarcely named in time for it to be neglected."
 * 1) "[William Paley's] 1833 Bridgewater Thesis can be seen as the last gasp of astrotheology."
 * 1) "The connection formerly asserted by natural theology between the specific discoveries of astronomy and the nature of the Creator had been cut."
 * Those only assert a distinction. Natural Theology and Physicology are teleological approaches to biology. What you are trying to convince me is that "astronomy is biology". You are trying to tell me there is absolutely no distinction between astronomy and biology. In the book The Development of Darwin's Theory (page 6) it gets into reasons why astrotheology lost ground for Purpose (like you noted above), "By the spring of 1837, [Darwin] was a transmutationist, believing that species has descended from from some other previously existing species and that its characteristics have been determined largely by heredity. This same brief interval also saw the beginnings of a profound alteration in biological though generally -- namely, the rejection by many of the best young British and continental naturalists of the teleological approach to biological explanation, which Georges Cuvier and British natural theology alike declared to be the only sure path to the understanding of organisms." That is concrete that natural theology is biology. How do you justify that astronomy is biology with or with the theology? I think you'll quickly find why these other books never asserted that 'astrotheology is natural theology'. Astronomy and biology often parallel each (i.e. life on other other planets) but that has never made one a subset of the other. &mdash;  Dz on at as  19:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are acting as if natural theology could not at one point have included both biological and astronomical emphases. The point made above is that at some point one forced the other out. There is nothing at all in what you quote that says otherwise. It is clear that those promoting astrotheology, within natural theology, did so during a time that others were promoting physicotheology. Adaptation makes that clear and your book does not refute it in the least. Neither physicotheology nor astrotheology are natural theology. However, if we believe Adaptation, at some point all natural theology became physicotheology. Do you not understand the distinction here?PelleSmith (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm replying to each quote above... (copied here so that the mode of chat above is not interrupted)
 * 1) "Newton's acheivement made necessary the first distinction between the theological reasoning based on astronomy and that based on biology. The distinction was between 'astrotheology' and 'physicotheology'." What is clear here (despite theology) is that astronomy is analogous to astrotheology and physicotheology is analogous to biology. In retrospec, it almost gives evidence for the potential of hybrid-teleological views before the Ptolemaic and Copernican views, but I'm not gonna assert that without further sources.
 * 1) "Two important scientists, the naturalist John Ray and the physicist chemist Robert Boyle, set the tone for post Newtonian natural theology. They and their followers began to marginalize astrotheology. Natural theology texts began to mention astronomy only in passing. Increased emphasis was put on organic design ..." Their teleological research shifted into looking at organism for purpose instead of the heavens. That doesn't mean that people didn't continue to look into the heavens for patterns: astronomy still exists but not anymore as an answer to the purpose of life.
 * 1) "Commentators on this era of natural theology recognize the shift from astrotheology to physicotheology." Doesn't assert they are the same or one is the subset of the other. People shift their tastes from apples to oranges.
 * 1) "The biologizing of natural theology meshed nicely with the increasing British interest in natural history. No one had the impiety to fully abandon astrotheology. The heavens still 'proclaimed the glory of God' but the ceased to prove his existence" (see #2) This agrees that natural theology is biology and that people gave up the hybrid model.
 * 1) "So astrotheology was scarcely named in time for it to be neglected." Right, before then it was pretty clear to be charged with heresy and be burned at the stake for any attempt to identify it (i.e. Whiston, Galileo, Copernicus).
 * 1) "[William Paley's] 1833 Bridgewater Thesis can be seen as the last gasp of astrotheology." Less interesting in astronomy as purpose, more interesting in biology for purpose (and "purpose is stated in context of the book").
 * 1) "The connection formerly asserted by natural theology between the specific discoveries of astronomy and the nature of the Creator had been cut." Again, "purpose" as used in its context (that isn't being stated here). Natural theology is only about purpose and doesn't give a darn about the patterns of celestial bodies as purpose. Newton's achievements showed that those patterns don't equal the purpose of life. Newton basically gave the final deathblow to the idea of the Sun moving around the Earth -- beyond doubt. &mdash;  Dz on at as  20:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (reply) "You are acting as if natural theology could not at one point have included both biological and astronomical emphasis." In the very narrow sense for the "Argument of Purpose" (as used in the book), Natural Theology clearly has its own adoption of ideas. Astrotheology is not limited to the "Argument of Purpose" and in fact it, independently of Natural Theology, has always had the "Argument of Pattern," which doesn't fit in Natural Theology. Once Natural Theology no longer look at Astrotheology for "Argument of Purpose," it looked elsewhere. Before natural theology, astrotheology, and physicotheology, there was the Argument of Design. "The point made above is that at some point one forced the other out." You still haven't cited any source that can claim astrotheology only existed in natural theology, which as an assumption is WP:OR and disruptive without clear citations. Please reread that don't ignore the only qualifier. It likes trying to claim that houses (natural theology) are made of bricks (astrotheology), but bricks don't make anything else but houses, therefore bricks are houses. It's called "Partisan screed" and it's worse than what I've heard people say about what Zeitgeist says. &mdash;  Dz on at as  20:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Faulty logic abounds in your reply. The only reliable sources discussing astrotheology discuss it as something existing within natural theology. There is not any need for a statement as emphatic as you are asking for. That is a repeated red herring here, and there is no OR violation at all in using reliable sources only for what they do claim. Again the burden of proof is on you to show that it exists outside of natural theology, an inference you cannot make from these reliable sources. The only texts you'll find to that purpose are non-academic non-reliable primary sources from more contemporaneous new age writers. Also, your claim about "purpose" doesn't seem to match the basic definitions of "natural theology" that are available. Why do you keep on talking about "a book" btw, and keep on capitalizing "Natural Theology" as if one primary text on the subject defines it in entirety? That is simply not true, it is a vast subject matter filled with various treatises and writings.PelleSmith (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Consider that you have only relied on opinions of quotations and not the opinions of the authors being quoted, it is highly unlikely you are able to prove your assertion that "astrotheology is natural theology," and thus you challenge me to prove otherwise because you can not do it. It is recommended in WP:PROVEIT to simply remove such statements that can't be verified. We established notability from reliable sources, but they simply need to be conveyed clearly here in the article. &mdash;  Dz on at as  23:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The proof is above, and it is clearer than day. Circular reasoning will not help. I will restate the position for you in case you missed something. That astrotheology existed outside of natural theology is not an inference that can be made from either of the sources. You have yet to show how it can. The inference that it was part of natural theology is clearly shown above, and you have yet to refute it.PelleSmith (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of Physico-Theology
Derham states that this books is (front):

He further mentions to the reader (vii):

He ascribes Physico-Theology to Boyle (viii):

He expresses the hope of these lectures that (xiii):

The book contradicts the first sentence of Astrotheology. Also none of the discussion occurs on the page referenced (ix). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 07:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Further on the claims made in this edit summary, on vii Derham praises Boyle effusively (indirectly as the founder of the lectures), but does not dedicate the book to him. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 07:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanation here, and for your verification of the cites and added content. It is always good to get a visual on what is being compared, and especially how it is being interpreted. It appears we have basically the same gleam on the text, so lets see how we can best add it. I'm not opposed to use the original text on this, since it is public domain, but as you read over the text you probably noticed the older "opera" style of writing can be harder to directly quote.


 * On the word "lectures" being used, it does not seem to mean the same because of the "at the..." and the "as the..." usage. One describes a possession while the other describes a place. Their use of Lectures tend to mean philosophy, so I didn't make the same assumption as you with that to mean Boyle's Lecture in "as the founder," but rather to mean Derham's philosophy that is being stated right there in the text.


 * I agree that he ascribes it to Boyle. It could make this book a secondary source to Boyle's 'Physico-Theology Way', but that would depend on what is meant by in his usage of 'founder.'


 * The part about the 'service' we may need to quote more directly. I included further pages because it seem to set that, consider he 'preach'ed the sermons, is part of the service. It seemed fair to account for the next page since the discussion appeared to carry over. I'm not concerned deeply about this part except that it tends to support why he ascribed it to Boyle -- being that Boyle invented the philosophy and that Derham conveyed them (or observed Boyle and wrote about it). You might disagree.


 * Could we bring this book up to RS/N and see if we can get outside opinion: on if it qualifies more as a primary source or secondary source? &mdash;  Dz on at as  06:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The quoted passages DO NOT verify your passages and we DO NOT "have basically the same gleam on the text". The text does not state that "Derham founded Physico-Theology" it states that Boyle founded a series of lectures. It also does not state that Derham did not "address[] the book to Boyle as a service to him" but that he addressed it to the service of "young Gentlemen at the Universities". As I stated in this thread's title, this is a "Misinterpretation of Physico-Theology". <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 07:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you trying to say that the "I" in "I have had the Honour of preaching..." means Boyle? You missed understood how "addressed" is use. &mdash;  Dz on at as  08:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No. I am trying to tell you that the "I" (Derham) is not the "Noble Founder of these lectures" (Boyle). What Derham is saying can be paraphrased into modern English as: "The Noble Founder of these lectures, at which I have had the honour of preaching, [effusive praise of Boyle]". If you can't correctly interpret the source, don't edit the article. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 08:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Modern Predicament
The quotes that are being argued in the above sections seem to narrow and taken out of context from Modern Predicament. It seems that the word 'subordinate' is pivotal to interpretation. A link to the page..

Emphasis was added to derive from them and the wikify added to 'God's purpose'. It does not state natural theology 'created' the other theologies or likewise. It states:

It then lists the theologies with a name that supports it in the teleological view. However, Derham did not define Astro-Theology the same way as the Modern Predicament did. Compare: the study of "God's purpose in the stars" to "A demonstration of being and attributes of God, from a survey of the heavens." Clearly, one is purely observational while the other is teleological. Further, astrotheology is based on astronomy. Natural theology is based on biology. I haven't seen anything that can be cited that supports "astronomy is biology" in an analogy to "astrotheology is natural theology." A Google search on "astronomy is biology" got two hits:
 * http://ccrsdodona.org/m_dilemma/1979/pis/forum.html :


 * http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=38828 :

&mdash;  Dz on at as  06:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is egregious misinterpretation
Fuller quotation:

This clearly states that astrotheology is one of the "subordinate theologies" that are part of natural theology (that natural theology "break[s] up into") which "study[] the manifestations of the divine purpose in a particular field", in this case, the field of astronomy. Derham's and Paton's descriptive (not prescriptive) definitions do not conflict, they merely emphasise different points. "A demonstration of being and attributes of God, from a survey of the heavens" is definitely not "observation", but rather speculation as to God's nature based on inferences as to his purpose in creating "the heavens". Having to correct these very basic errors of interpretation is tiresome and unproductive. I would request that you cease and desist this disruptive editing until such time as you can interpret these sources in a manner that does not completely distort them. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 08:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Assimilated
That does not in any way say that natural theology invented them, but it does say it practically assimilated what was already being cultivated by the English. They already had the names before before natural theology derived from them to its own narrow usage. You keep taking things out of context -- if natural theology cultivated them all, then it would have said that, but it said others did and natural theology derived from them. This is actually re-enforced later in the book were the author describes Gifford's main principle but found it too broad and inconsistent, and in fact despised to call the book (the author's) "Natural Theology" because of the way the naturalist at the time 'prided' themselves on other's work. The author made it obvious that Gifford tried to include everything he could in his philosophy, uphold it as teleology, but then had the inconsistent notion to also want it to be natural science. Then, Boyle came along and set it straight until Paley had his say. That's all in Modern Predicament, and you seem to realize that Derham's book about Physico-Theology confirms what Boyle did, whether you agree with the attribution or not; You recognized it was Boyle's. So how dare you say my edits are disruptive -- you even blanked content completely. Now, you come back and all you can do is claim misinterpretation. *sigh* &mdash;  Dz on at as  14:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You have presented no evidence that Natural Theology "assimilated" astrotheology from another source, and Paton's wording "natural theology tended to break up into a series of minor theologies" strongly implies that astrotheology derived from it. You have likewise presented no evidence that "they already had the names" before Natural Theology came into existence, which was at least as early as 1438. Further, you have presented no citations for your other claims, and I have no interest whatsoever in going through Paton to try and deduce what passage you have mangled this time to come to these conclusions. The passage that I removed was ungrammatical, erroneous and unsourced. As you have sourced it, and as I have corrected the grammar, it is now merely erroneous -- but still of no value to wikipedia, and your continued advocacy on behalf of it is simply disruption. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 15:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)