Talk:Deism

	This Religion related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

"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.^{— Unsigned, by: Thecaleb / talk / contribs}

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... ^theist 16:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Thecaleb. Proof would be a lot to ask for. What evidence do you have though?--Bob^{Spring 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)

"Kashfence Philosophy"

Why are we featuring some nobody's formulation of basic deism with an edgy new title? This isn't "Advertisement Wiki." Carthage (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

It does seem odd given that the print version of the book has sold zero copies in four years and is now on steep (75%) discount. Delete at will. Bongolian (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

And nothing of value was lost. Carthage (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)