Talk:Deism

I have cut the following from the article page as I'm not quite sure what all this about the American Declaration of Independence has to do with the subject. It's also a bit hard to understand in places.--Bobbing up 13:01, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Cut begins:

Jefferson created his own version of the Bible by using only the words of Jesus and omitting the rest, which is in print today in various versions.

''It was Benjamin Franklin who edited out Thomas Jefferson's initial line: "We hold these truths to be sacred..." and changed it to: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." So much for the theory of a Christian source for the founding document. Instead of being held up as sacred revealed truths, the rights are held up as purely intellectual axioms accepted by the founding fathers as the basis for rights.''

''Thomas Jefferson said that the Declaration of Independence was "an expression of the American mind." Now only if it was an expression of American faith, like the religious Right currently claims (and retrojects onto the document).''

''The word "God" in the Declaration of Independence is contentless, because the God of Christianity and Judaism and Islam grants no rights in the scriptures. There is only bald assertions by a group of men coming out of the Enlightenment period that a vague fuzzy deist "God" established the rights, and this is held as a matter of unquestioned self-evident truth, but there is nothing written in the "Judeo-Christian" scriptures to support it.''

''As a matter of fact, there is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian faith. The Jews serve Yahweh alone with all their heart and mind, while Christians believe no one comes to Yahwah except through his only Son. These two concepts cannot be comingled in a monstrosity such as a "Judeo-Christian faith". You are either one or the other. And some of the founding fathers were closer to the Jewish view of God as one. Jefferson was Unitarian.''

Cut Ends.--Bobbing up 13:01, 4 November 2008 (EST)


 * Hmm, there are some things to be said about the material here, but it's not done in a very good style. Double carriage returns, or a side-by-side style, might be necessary if this was to be made into something more substantial. --InterpretedThe stupid evil bastard hath said in his heart, 'there is no 4 corner simultaneous 4-day time cube'.
 * But do you think the deism article is the place for it?--Bobbing up 13:06, 4 November 2008 (EST)
 * Don't we have some page somewhere to respond to Andy's 'Jefferson was more Christian than my mother, so eat that, anti-chivalry lieberals!' claims? --InterpretedThe stupid evil bastard hath said in his heart, 'there is no 4 corner simultaneous 4-day time cube'.
 * The middle part

''It was Benjamin Franklin who edited out Thomas Jefferson's initial line: "We hold these truths to be sacred..." and changed it to: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." So much for the theory of a Christian source for the founding document. Instead of being held up as sacred revealed truths, the rights are held up as purely intellectual axioms accepted by the founding fathers as the basis for rights.

Thomas Jefferson said that the Declaration of Independence was "an expression of the American mind." Now only if it was an expression of American faith, like the religious Right currently claims (and retrojects onto the document).

The word "God" in the Declaration of Independence is contentless, because the God of Christianity and Judaism and Islam grants no rights in the scriptures. There is only bald assertions by a group of men coming out of the Enlightenment period that a vague fuzzy deist "God" established the rights, and this is held as a matter of unquestioned self-evident truth, but there is nothing written in the "Judeo-Christian" scriptures to support it. ''


 * is word for word the same as an addition to Founding Fathers, where I copyedited it into something more like English. Here it just seems bizarre.  Let's look at what was before and after it again to see if that part makes any sense...  ħ uman  14:20, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Weird. Teresita added that section on 9/29, and Kim added it to FF yesterday - before this discussion started.  ħ uman  14:23, 4 November 2008 (EST)
 * Clearly a remarkable coincidence of opinion. Or perhaps something to do with the Large Hadron Collider --Bobbing up 14:49, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Convergence of deism and chaos theory?
I heard somewhere a variety of deist belief called chaos deism. This is a belief that while god creating the Big Bang and scientic processed, god in some cases subtly intervines through the chaos theory. The idea is many events can be caused an affected by innumerable subtile factors. The idea is since not all of them can be fully observed (see Hisenberg's principal), god may subtlly affect some of these factors, thereby god reacts with the world in a natural rather than supernatural way. This lines up with the idea many "miricles" in scripture were actually natursl events (god creates natural events by manipulating suddle factors). I personally agree but, can this be verified? &mdash; Unsigned, by: 216.118.68.193 / talk / contribs


 * I can't find any mention of "chaos deism" on the internet. What you're describing sounds more like theistic evolution or other theories of God working through natural processes.  If God is interfering at any level, and especially creating "miracles", then it's theism rather than deism.   22:34, 26 January 2009 (EST)

The Jefferson Bible
I rolled back BoN's statement that Jefferson had edited the bible because, well, really... Silver Sloth (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's true that Jefferson made his own "edited" Bible (just Jesus' sayings, IIRC). The rest of what BON typed... well... yeah.  21:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"Classical vs Modern"
As a quick aside I just discovered rationalwiki today and am thoroughly enjoying it. Now I was curious on something. I feel it is something that needs further explanation actually. The line that states "Deism still exists, but in a form distinct to the "classical" deism of the Enlightenment which was philosophically closer to present-day atheism." I feel this is very vague and needs expanding. Explaination on how it is distinct maybe? Now I am a deist and I understand that a lot of modern deists are very "natural religion", "look at the wonders of God" and most seem to try to make more out of it then it really is but there are a lot of us, myself included, that are more scientific about our approach.

I do not abhor the idea that there is and never was a creator. At my current place in life I feel there was a creator but that is it. I believe everything else beyond that is random happenstance within the laws of the universe. I even wrote out on a religion blog that I have a theory (just a theory not claiming proof) that allows for a creator. The day comes I feel they are invalid I'll axe them and move on.
 * You have a hypothesis.  And remember to sign your posts.   (~ ~ ~ ~) without the spaces.   But I an't answer for an example, I don't ge the whole deism thing. Quaru (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if anyone can make sense of this... 16:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Thecaleb. Proof would be a lot to ask for. What evidence do you have though?--BobSpring is sprung! 16:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thecaleb has a point. Classical Deism is that God is impersonal - she doesn't bother with us mere mortals. Modern Deism is that God is transpersonal - God transcends the personal/impersonal duality and moves beyond such human terms - which is much nearer to Atheism. This is not clear in the article. I'll try and fix it. Jack Hughes (talk)
 * My understanding was that "classical deism", that is the deism of such famous 18th century figures as Voltaire, was a belief that all we know of God comes from natural reason, not from divine revelation; and that "modern deism", that is of the 20th & 21st century, is a belief that God has no concern with the world after having created it. I'd suggest, by the way, that stating the distinction as "classical" vs. "modern" is apt to be confusing, as in philosophical circles the 18th century is considered "modern". TomS TDotO (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Deism has nothing to do with atheism
Stop likening it towards atheism. Atheism is the non-belief in any gods. Deism is the belief in a god who simply doesn't interact but made the laws and set things in motion. Don't you atheists understand your own position? "Origin of species finally gave a complete version of the universe that did not necessarily involve any supernatural forces" seriously? Evolution concerns biology only, not cosmology and physics so it doesn't give a complete version of the universe. Who wrote this horrible article? --Hemmen (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspect that bit at the end was more about what happened historically, than what makes sense in today's much wider view of the world considering things like the Big Bang Theory. Nullahnung (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Jesus said
Matthew 6:8 "Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him." Talk to Civic Cat  21:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Ceremonial deism
It might fit better in The United States as a Christian nation or Separation of church and state or similar. It's really about the law rather than the religion. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 22:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to moving it. Ceremonial deism in legal writing has referred directly to our Founding Deists, if perhaps erroneously. Bongolian (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't Voltaire be mentioned?
He was, after all, a deist, and he based much of his religious theories off Deism.ChikinRamen (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)