Talk:Deism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 2 of Talk:Deism - posts.

Discussion

Except that the Deist Alliance is not a "small group". It is composed of several groups, both large and small, who send representatives to the DA

The history of the Deism article clearly shows that I compromised by placing all the links in one group rather than separating the DA links.

I have checked out the Deist Alliance homepage. That's why I removed all the excess links. None of the sites are notable on their own, or worthy of inclusion in an article about all of Deism. Furthermore, the Deist Alliance homepage has direct links to all of them. When the choice is being one link to a mildly notable page that has other links to a bunch of lesser pages, there is absolutely no need to include the links to all the lesser pages in the article too.

You are obviously quite ignorant of the organizations in question, and therefore have earned no right to judge them. The sites are notable. Visit them yourself. PONDER has been on the net longer than most Deist sites. Moreover, the various organizations are not "lesser". They are in fact "greater". They are larger and more detailed than the DA. The DA itself is quite new; the other sites have been around for awhile. The DA is a new council created to sare ideas among them. The other sites are not subservient to DA, nor are they supported by DA. Online, the DA is basically just a webring to join them.

The Deist Alliance itself being included as a link in the article is somewhat questionable, but I'm willing to keep the one link to the homepage. Anybody interested in the Deist Alliance can use that single link to go to all the other pages. Including more than that one link in the article is just spam and trying to get the Deist Alliance more notice than it deserves. Modargo 15:02, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Who the hell are you to determine that the DA deserves less exposure than the United Deist Community which is a trojan horse owned by Ford Vox, a NON DEIST, and aldeism which used to tell its members to smoke pot to know God?!!!

• NOTE: Aldeism no longer has any references to marijuanna. The entire spiritual philosophy of Aldeism is on the first page of the Aldeism site. Anonymous poster needs to set up a Wikipedia ID (look at the top right of your browser window which will have a small log in icon). Posting derogatory comments about other websites is also not likely to be a productive method of making your point. Arevich 02:42, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and I'll also note that this has been noticed before by other people than me: see 138.26.155.47. Just look at that edit summary -- "Regarding the "International Deist Alliance" This does not need a special identification in the links section. And if they are all one group they should only have one link." I invite other comments on this. Does anybody else think that one group needs six links when one link can be made that goes to a list of all the other sites in the group? Modargo 15:15, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That person is Ford Vox. Ford is the former host of the United Deist Church. His relationship with the church ended when he changed the website to a universist site and dissolved the UDC Charter Board without their consent. Since then, Ford has been discharged by the UDC board and the UDC set up its own website. Ford continues to host United Deist Community, but he has admitted to no longer being a Deist and uses the site to recruit people to Universism, not Deism.

I have no desire to bring that feud over here, otherwise I would have deleted Ford's links repeatedly as spam. Instead, I now place links to other organizations side by side with his links and let people decide for themselves. The fact that you do not wish DA links to be displayed, but wish to keep Ford's universist links , does not represent you well. Let people see all the links. The ones I added are links to different pages and organizations set up by different people INDEPENDENTLY.

Um, I really have no clue what you're talking about here. First, how do you know that that's this Ford Vox guy just because of the IP? And second, uh, I really don't care about your internal feuds, the Deist Alliance still doesn't deserve six links. Modargo 15:44, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please do not separate my comments. That makes it very hard to read this page. Reply in one block. Modargo 15:47, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and lastly -- as for "Who the hell are you to determine" -- I'm somebody who isn't involved with any of your organizations and internal feuds, and who doesn't have a stake in any of the sites linked, and who wants to have a balanced external links section without lots of links to one group. Whereas you, apparently, seem to have quite a stake in the Deist Alliance and some sort of vendetta against some of the other groups. Modargo 15:51, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You are also a very dishonest individual. There was only ONE (1) link to the Deist Alliance.

Click on this link: http://www.deist.info It is NOT a link to the Deist Alliance.

Click on this link: http://www.deistnet.com It is NOT a link to the Deist Alliance.

And so on.

If you keep up this BS, I will create a webpage that links to the non DA sites and use your poor reasoning against you. As far as links are concerned, the DA is little more than a webring.

It is not in debate whether or not the sites are made by different individuals or belong to different organisations. The point is that since all of the organisations are subgroups of one larger organisation there is no need to have a link to every distinct subgroup of the larger organisation. Suppose we were to do this with some large corporations - the external links section would grow to hunders, perhaps thousands of URLs. This is simply not feasible, IMO. -- Grunt (talk) 16:06, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

But these organizations ARE NOT subgroups of a larger organization. If I create a webpage that links to aldeism, deism.com, and the other sites, can we delete them, too? The DA is a freaking webring. It is not an organization.

The point stands. We cannot link to every page in a webring because the links section would quickly spiral out of control. -- Grunt (talk) 16:10, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

If the point stands, then it had better stand universally. I will now create a webpage that links to the others. Then, if the point truly stands, the others (deism.com, aldeism, etc) will no longer deserve a link, right?

We do not need a webpage that links to the others because the links are already here on this webpage and your page would not be notable. -- Grunt (talk) 16:17, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

Suit yourself. As soon as the page is no longer protected, I will be constantly reverting it back to a state that includes the links. So much for discussion.

If you continue to abuse the page, we do have the power to block abusive users and will do so if it is absolutely necessary. Therefore, for your sake, I suggest you do not do that. -- Grunt (talk) 16:21, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

It is not abuse of the page, nor is it vandalism, so you have no grounds on which to block me. None of the links I added are inappropriate. Moreover, most of them are more notable than the others you keep. So have fun. I will maintain the links.

Reversion to the same material more than three consecutive times is essentially vandalism. -- Grunt (talk) 18:06, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

Then be prepared to apply that rule to Modargo, that is if you actually intend to be nonpartial.

Dear user editing from IPs 140.254.* at the Ohio State University,

let me quote from one of the extlink you've given above ([1]):

Know that you are not perfect, and that is okay!

Be respectful and tolerant of others. They too are imperfect.

Note especially the "respectful and tolerant" bit, good advice for anybody, not just Deists! :-)

You said yourself that the DA was a webring. But then that's perfect for including in the article! It gives access to all these other sites. Note that Wikipedia is not a web directory. It is irrelevant whether these sites see themselves as part of a larger organization or not, the point is that somebody has already nicely organized these links in a webring, making it easy for people to find the sites. Listing all the sites individually is thus far inferior and a maintenance nightmare, for our list would quickly become obsolete: new members of the webring would not be added, and sites that disappeared would still be listed. Far better, therefore, to link to the webring. It's more practical, avoids cluttering the article with an excessive number of links, and still maintains accessibility of these sites from the wikipedia article.

I hope you can accept this viewpoint, which has also been voiced by others here on this page, and by many others in similar discussions on other pages.

How about the following: we'll revert to the version having one link (to the DA) only, but we'll change that link to http://deistalliance.udcgalveston.org/whoaretheda.htm - a web page giving both the webring's "next" and "previous" links and also listing all the participating sites.

Hopefully that will be a solution acceptable to anyone.

Lupo 08:38, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You remind me to be respectful and tolerant, but I have been neither disrespectful nor intolerant. In fact, it has been disrespect and intolerance that I have been fighting. Please note that Modargo insists that even the DA webring deserves no link. I have not displayed intolerance of the other links. I have suggested that we leave them side by side. And it is not disrespectful to defend that which has been deleted. If you expressed anger at someone who chopped off your arm, are you being disrespectful?

What you have failed to realize throughout this discussion, is that you are allowing Wikipedia to lose what it stands for. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia. Users are cautioned not to post unless they accept that their posts will face changes. I am willing to accept that. I did not complain when changes were made. I simply corrected them. Now, I do not own Wikipedia, and I recognize that Wikipedia has the right to censor contributions, even if that runs contrary to its reputation. But if the moderators refuse to even visit the sites in question, then they are advocating uninformed censorship. Your censorship should either be informed or nonexistent.

So, I will accept your proposal on one condition: you delete the external link to the United Deist Community (not to be confused with United Deist Church). This site, whose domain is unfortunately deism.org, is not a deist site, but a universist site. The owner of the site is a universist, not a deist, and also maintains universist.org. Visit the site yourself and witness that it is labeled a "universist project". Click on the link to the forum, and see where it leads you (universist.org) The purpose of the site is to advertise Universism by inviting Deists and "converting" them. As such, it is an inappropriate link and spam. There is already a link to universism as a related topic, and readers will find a link to universist pages in that article. The owner of deism.org can place his external link on that page. If you would like me to agree to the deletion of actual independent deist links from this article, then I implore you to at least delete nondeist links, too.

Conditions, shmonditions... :-) No seriously, whether the deist.org link belongs into this article is a completely different matter.

I have taken the time to research your claim (had nothing better to do), and lo and behold, you seem to be correct that this Ford Vox guy founded Universism and has left Deism behind himself. Both deism.org and universism.org in fact resolve to the same IP. However, his Universism apparently grew out of Deism, a fact which would deserve mention in this article, too.

Seems you've found an error in Wikipedia. You could have just explained this and removed the deist.org link instead of trying to rectify the unjustice you perceived by adding a lot of links.

Allright, I'll unprotect the article now. We'll see how it evolves...

Lupo 13:34, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Once again, you show how uninformed you are. Look at the history of the article. I was not the first to add Deist Alliance links. I merely added to the list and maintained them. The addition of the links had absolutely nothing to do with my opinion of other sites. The links that I added or maintained are simply sites that are extremely active in Deism today. Your suggestion that my actions are reactionary is unwarranted, and in fact ludicrous considering it was not me who added the DA in the beginning. Even this older version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Deism&oldid=2980151 has a couple of links that I tried to maintain, such as Positive Deism and United Deist Church. You didn't even check the history of your own site before making assertions. Some of these links you deleted may be even a year old.

Current version is fine with me. Also, I looked over the deism.org site, and while it is linked with universist.org, it still focuses on Deism and has a good library. So I think the one link to it should stay. More than that really isn't needed. The external links just need to provide a good start, after which people can navigate around for themselves. Modargo 15:54, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

World Union of Deists - Not Reasonable

The self proclaimed World Union of Deists is a US based group (or just a website) of unknown size that loudly advocates American left wing political rhetoric on it's website home page. While it's website does contain some apolitical resources on Deism, there is no justification for noting it as the activist front of modern Deism. In fact, the website appears to contradict one of the primary tenants of Deism as noted in the article itself - the belief that God should be honored in a way that the individual believes is best and most appropriate for them & that humans can be guided by their conscience in matters of morality - it is a multi-faceted and an individualized process. To correct, the paragraph about the World Union of Deists was deleted as there is already an external link for the organization. Also, the sentence talking about Universalists bringing back Deism was deleted as uncited nonsense.

External link to "Aldeism" homepage.

There is an external link to the homepage for a philosophy called "Aldeism". An article on this topic was voted to be deleted around the same time as this link was added - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Aldeism. The link was added by an anon [2] who also added the same to the userpage of the person who claimed to have invented Aldeism, and complained of its deletion (leading me to think it was the same person). I suggest this external link be excised. bd2412 T 21:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• The link has been there for several years and was added by the same person that created the Aldeism entry. The entry was properly deleted through the vfd process. The link serves only as an interesting external reference to Deism. It continues to maintain its utility, but could be deleted if there is no longer consensus about its usefulness. Arevich 20:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You are Allan Revich, the creator of the Aldeism article (and of Aldeism) I take it? I sympathize - I went through much flak with respect to the Pandeism article - but that is a term that has been in use (although sporadically and inconsistently) since 1833. Wikipedia reports what is (or at least was), not what ought to be. Like the newly-formed local rock band that hopes to make it big, Aldeism will have a place in Wikipedia when it exceeds the desires of a handful of people. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Seeing no further objection... bd2412 T 18:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The Yin and Yang (or male and female) in PanDeism

Consider for a moment the gender roles that best suit the parent philosophies of PanDeism. First you have Deism - this is absolutely a masculine concept. God is a father-figure, not a mother giving birth to the universe, but a mechanic, an architect, a craftsman, a clockmaker, a typical male role. And what does this father do after the universe has been made and set in motion, when the gears are wound? He abandons us. He disappears, and does not make himself available to us. We trust that he is still there, but can only confirm this through the exercise of cold reason; this is a God who is cold, emotionless, out of reach, like every stoic father who has presented only this face to a son, a tradition passed down from generations before. The God of Deism therefore possesses the attributes of the Yang.

Now you have PanTheism - a feminine concept if ever one was! God is the universe that envelops us, is all around us, wraps us in her warmth. God is ever present, sharing herself completely with us, giving us unconditional love because we are part of her, born from her womb with an umbilical cord that can never be severed. This is the ultimate mother, the ultimate feminine, possessing the attribute of the Yin.

Hence, PanDeism strikes the perfect balance of masculinity and femininity, of Yin and Yang (thus not surprisingly, PanDeistic ideologies are far more prevalent in Asia). Like the masculine Deist God, the PanDeist god is a mechanic, an architect, a clockmaker; but the PanDeist God does not abandon us when his act of creation is completed; rather, the PanDeist God assumes the other role, that of the PanTheist all enveloping mother, allowing us to exist through her very substance

So, as Deism and PanTheism combine to find the perfect balance in PanDeism, so must we strive to find this balance in ourselves and in our relationships, to both build and nurture, to be sufficiently distant yet always present when this presence is called for. We are each a microcosm of the potential balance of the universe, and each of us already carries with us the connection with the universe that enables us to emulate its temperament, should we desire to touch the God within ourselves. Realize, therefore, beloved friends, that touching God therefore means touching the characteristics within ourselves that reflect the opposite gender - men must find their feminine side, and women their masculine.

//// Pacific PanDeist 07:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Nice except I'm a guy and If I strive for this kind of balance I will never get a girl and have children! I feel that the core of this belief is centered around a honest belief in science 1ST, as we can verify it, and God 2ND as we cannot, Thus the rejection of 2ND hand revelations and miracles etc. I was brought up in this type of thinking and as a young boy in American my hero was Tom Paine (read him if you want to expand your vocabulary and mind) and his views helped shape mine on Government and God. I must say that the truly sad thing about this most of these comments are that they go as far a attribuiting a gender bios to God as defined by Deism WTH? I think the part people miss is this is really meant to free you up haveing to discuss religon and make you more active in addressing the God On Earth ie: Peoples View/Need of Government! Sad that all the debate here is on Religions which a we most definitely do not believe in (see the definiton of terms for Deism) The Deist view on government is much clearer and neglected here as it IS something most of us believe in as in less = more, and what it should be concerned with ie: Freedom and Security. But thats another page or 7.

Thomas Jefferson was a Christian

Our nation's third president was, in fact, a student of Scripture who attended church regularly, and was an active member of the Anglican Church, where he served on his local vestry. He was married in church, sent his children and a nephew to a Christian school, and gave his money to support many different congregations and Christian causes. Moreover, his "Notes on Religion," nine documents Jefferson wrote in 1776, are "very orthodox statements about the inspiration of Scripture and Jesus as the Christ [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28006]. Why do people say Jefferson was a deist? One is his abridged bible which was actually made for the purpose of converting Indians to Christianity. I have read how Jefferson believed strongly in converting the Indians to Christianity. The other things people site is that he may not have believed in any miracles Jesus performed, he may have believed Jesus was just a man and not God incarnate, or that he may have not been huge on organized religion. This does not make him something other then Christian. Most Christians have criticisms of organized Christianity or of certain beliefs, but that doesn't make them non-Christians. All Christians could be accused of not being Christians, because there are so many denominations with different beliefs. A protestant might say 'catholics aren't really Christians because they believe in this or that', but the fact is, they are Christians from an objective viewpoint.

He left quite a bit of the miracle passages and statements of the divinity of Jesus out of the Jefferson Bible, which certainly seems to make him less than an orthdox Christian according to the traditional consensus of mainstream Christian doctrine, and he had moods in which he was virulently anti-clerical. AnonMoos 17:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think what you mean to say is that they are Christians from a subjective viewpoint. It is precisely because the Christian Scriptures can be used to espouse so many different points of view that it is impossible to claim that someone "is not a christian." Of course this means it is also fairly difficult to claim someone is a christian. However, a standard we may adopt is belief in the ressurection since it is central to all christian sects I am aware of (anyone have contradicting info?) The Jefferson Bible ends with Jesus's internment, their is no ressurection, there are no miracles, if this is Christianity then I'm a Muslim because I believe that a guy named Mohammed actually existed and said some stuff. --Anymouse

U.S. Founding Fathers

A quick Google search shows passionate arguments on both sides of the claim that deism was popular among the U.S. Founding Fathers. I plan to research this further. <>< tbc

Thanks! When I get a chance I'll dig up my notes and see what I can add. – Anonymous#1

Please do not use searches on the Internet to try and research this claim. The 'net is full of websites written by Evangelical and otherwise right-wing Chrisitians who are not honest about this subject. I have seen, and on radio have heard, dishonest historical revisionism on this topic. The documentable historical truth is that many of the USA's founding fathers were Deists; many in fact found Christianity contemptible. Thomas Jefferson himself edited a radical version of New Testament to take out the miracles, and anything else imcompatible with Deism. All this talk about all of them them being Chrisitians is part of the Christian right's political agenda. RK

You might even find a source, like, say, Wikipedia via the Internet. :-) If you're going to discount the writings of Christians, then respond with your own evidence. I found a mix of Atheists and Christians writing about the subject. When I have time to research it (yes, on the Internet) I'll say more. Until then (despite my Christian bias), I'll leave it at that. I suggest you do the same until you back it up with your own evidence. And be prepared to defend it. The Founding Fathers' writings are available on the 'net. Use them. <>< tbc

By the way, I am not discounting the writings of all Christians! I only say that we shouuld discount those that are demonstratably dishonest and misleading on this topic. RK

Look at tbc's page before you say this. For now, maybe we can say that some Founders were Deists and that Deism was an influential idea at this time. I certainly dont think they were ALL Deists. Some of them were probably devout Christians. – Anonymous#2

Thanks. The evidence shows that many of them indeed were devout Christians. And it's undisputable that virtually all were shaped by a Christian worldview—whether they believed in it or not. (There's plenty of evidence that Jefferson rejected Christian accounts of Biblical miracles, for instance.) <>< tbc

The American Christian right-wing does have a political agenda, and it does involve deliberately lying about the origins of our nation. For years they have been slandering historians who objectively discuss the formation of our nation and its founding fathers. Historians get in the way of their attempt to turn the USA into an explicitly Christian nation.

Do I have the authorship straight now? I apologize for mis-reading the diff. RK, you have twice declared that there is some deliberate spreading of misinformation going on. Just pony up with some evidence. Go ahead and put it here if it's not ready to incorporate into the article, but I see no reason for you to repeat yourself. I have nothing to "critcize" because you haven't produced any evidence. So far it's just been namecalling. <>< tbc

Actually ultra conservative christians consider any thoughts of the US being created as a christian country comeplete propaganda, and wholeheartedly attack the founding fathers for their deism (believing instead that the US and all countries should be christian countries.

This is to RK and others who think that the fact that most, if not all, of the founding fathers were Christians is just right-wing propaganda. A five minute Google search [3] shows that Benjamin Franklin was in fact most decidedly not a deist, especially since he qoutes the Bible. However, if you feel the Library of Congress is some right-wing propaganda machine, you may feel free to discount this argument. He was in fact a devout Christian. Franklin stated:

In this situation of this assembly, groping, as it were, in the dark, to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were beard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time, and, the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth— that God governs in the affairs of men . And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed, in this political building, no better than the builders of Babel. We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded; and we ourselves shall become a reproach and by-word down to future ages. And, what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom, and leave it to chance, war. and conquest.

The first link from the above Google search, [4], is a transcript from a session where the speaker is quoting Franklin. Search for It was then, at that fateful moment, that the oldest man at the Convention, Benjamin Franklin, stood to his feet and addressed the chair in which sat General George Washington to find the beginning of the relevant paragraph.

The second link, [5], is not readable (at least on my machine) unless you save it to disk and give it a .html extension and then open the locally saved file. That one appears to be an actual transcript of the session where Franklin spoke. Search for Dr. FRANKLIN. Mr. President, the small progress we have made after four or five weeks' close attendance and continual reasonings with each other to find the beginning of Franklin's remarks.

For a more readable version, check out [6], which includes what appear to be scans from the paper versions conatined in the LOC. I hope that this provides some concrete evidence. I leave it as an exercise to the concerned reader to hunt down pertinent information on the other founding fathers. <>< -- Anonymous Guy

Both sides of the issue have made questionable claims. Certainly I’ve seen Christians being to trigger happy to lay the claim of being Christians (such as claiming Thomas Jefferson was not a deist) to those doing the opposite (such as claiming George Washington was a deist). One helpful and reliable resource might be Time's Almanac. It confirms that Thomas Jefferson was a deist (as I’ve seen some people claim), though it also confirms that George Washington was an Episcopalian (as I've seen various Christians claim). --Wade A. Tisthammer 15:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Washington however, reportedly never took communion and was a Mason, two things which if Evangeys were being honest they would decry (they complain about other people who do these things). Jefferson and Franklin were almost certainly Deists (numerous writing both private and public confirm this) and a single speech does not disprove the mountain of evidence. Plus, what in that speech is christian? He mentions Babel, but even I know that story and I'm Hindu.--Anymouse

Newton not a Deist

While extrapolations of Newtonian Physics have been associated with Deist, the concept focuses on the Supreme Being not being further involved after creation. Prophecy is by definition active involvement in predicting the future and in bringing to fulfillment. Thus Newon's life work on Prophecy clearly shows that he is not a Deist.

Isaac Newton's influence

The article gives the impression that determinism, as inspired by Newton's physics, was the major motive for deism. I'd have thought that basing religion on reason was inspired by Newton's demonstration that problems long thought to be philsophical problems that resisted reason in fact are not impervious to reason. Was I wrong to think that that was the connection? Michael Hardy 00:42, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Discussion

Newton's laws didn't so much solve philosophical problems as put them on a shelf. For example, WHY do masses attract one another according to the formula that Newton inferred? He doesn't try to answer that one -- he says, in effect, that they just do, and that is enough for him as a scientist. "I make no hypothesis" about the why of it, was I believe what he said. But the result was deterministic, because the mathematics seems to make prediction and retrodiction possible without limit -- into zillions of years in the future and back to zillions in the past.

Discussion

This does not appear to address the question. That failure is of no importance but for what it says next:

In other words, I believe the emphasis in the article was right. --Christofurio 01:02, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Discussion

This seems a non sequitur. OK, he showed there was no need to address certain philosophical problems if one is satisfied with his solution to certain scientific problems. But the article suggests that Newton's theories' seeming support of determinism gave rise to deism as a deterministic worldview in which there is no divine intervention. But it seems plausible to me that the point was not determinism but reason: Newton showed that reason can handle problems formerly thought to be intractable; the deists, inspired by his example, attempted to settle religious questions by reason rather than faith. The "emphasis in the article" neglects that point. Michael Hardy 15:56, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. But I'd be perfectly happy to have you edit the article in a way that would show me! --Christofurio 12:17, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Discussion

Here's another problem that involves determinism. According to the article in its present form, one of the reasons for the decline of deism was frustration with the determinism implicit in "This is the best of all possible worlds." But that phrase was famously mocked by the man who may be the paradigm of deism, Voltaire, so how is that panglossian phrase supposed to reflect deism itself? --Christofurio 04:22, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)