Fort Towson

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Speculative possibility

It occured to me that certain Catholics have at times accused Protestants of "ecclesial deism," referring to the Church invisible. This is interesting, even more so because historically, Catholic apologists have blamed the Reformation/Protestantism for deism and/or unitarianism. In other words, (some) Catholics would like to think of their church as less deist than the alternatives. My speculation is this is a reaction-formation to the role Catholics played in the history of deism. (Unfortunately, I don't think there ware sources for that.)

Historically, a major cause of deism in Catholic areas is from crypto-Judaism and crypto-Islam in areas where they were outlawed. A pretty much secular Jew/Muslim could fit well into Christian society and is also close to deism already. Of course I am thinking of Baruch Spinoza. In other words, just because Jews/Muslims were outlawed didn't make them all go away. Rather, the ones that remained were incentivised to fit in. Their ideas remained and became part of the melting pot. There already sources documenting the link between Protestantism and Islam, but it would take some more research to find sources to document the Jewish/Islamic influence on Catholic pre-deist humanism (such as with Johann Reuchlin, although he seems to have influenced Protestants more than Catholics) and also on deism proper.

Earlier than this, there is the pagan concept of a Uranus (Roman) or an El (Canaanite) deity who is all powerful, yet uninvolved. As pagans were outlawed earlier than Jews/Muslims, this would provide another group of people who influenced the development of Western Christianity from within, yet were converted by force rather than arguments (allowing the older ideas to survive more strongly). The link with Catholicism could be the humanists--the question is whether any of the philosophical works carried the idea of this sort of creator god to the Renaissance era. As deism is a form of hellenized thought, the role of Catholicism in preserving hellenization against Jewish/Muslim/Protestant de-hellenizing influences is how Catholicism fostered deism.

The link with Catholicism is as follows:

  • 1. Catholics persecute select out-groups, which causes the older ideas to survive underground in areas where otherwise they would have not survived.
  • 2. Fosters and incubates learning involving these ideas, also preserving hellenization.
  • 3. As the authority systems Catholicism relied on weakened, deism emerged.
  • 4. Early modern era persecution of deists by Catholics (and Protestants) helps draw lines around the movement, preventing it from just being a bunch of ideas.
  • 5. At the same time, the schola moderna also enables deism.

--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But, it is all original research until we have sources. Right now I will go look and see if I can find anything about Occam's razor to feed into the article. Maybe I will find something, maybe I won't.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid synthesis (WP:SYNTH) it is usually best to first consult tertiary sources like other encyclopedias that give an outline or conclusion and to then reflect and detail that using additionally secondary sources. Starting with an original research outline made out of our own conclusions, although parts could be supported by sources, often results in flawed conclusions only partly supported by disconnected parts. Maybe you already did the former to write the above, but did not yet link the source? If not, I suggest to first rework this outline from such a source. —PaleoNeonate – 06:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So this is why for now it has to stay on the talk page, as I understand it will be regarded as original research without the proper sources outlined. In another generation, maybe there will be enough intersectionality studies to give us a more focused article to use as a tertiary source for this one, but for now the closest we will find to what you (and I, for that matter) would like are certain bits and pieces of the history section of Deism encyclopedia articles, such as the 1911 Catholic encyclopedia and Christian cyclopedia. These may be more useful for French deism than English, given that English deism existed in a Protestant culture. Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another place to look would be the Chinese Rites Controversy and the link between Confuscianism and modern deism. Already, #5 is substantiated in the link between Descartes and Deism I added to the article. Deism#Classical_deism describes a more general connection between deism and ancient Greece, as received by the renaissance humanists. The "Religious conflict in Europe" subsection further down in the same article is one of the things which weakened authority systems. The Deism article as is doesn't describe persecution of deists, though.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad I don't know French... a search on Google Books turns up things like this which might help an Anglicanism and Deism article describe the persecution of deists, but not this one.
Found this source on Spinoza and Deism and, better yet, this one on Deism and natural theology.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish encyclopedia describes the role of Moses Mendelssohn and also notes this

The relations of deism to Judaism, however, have not been made the subject of systematic inquiry, though non-Jewish controversial writers have often argued that Judaism, positing a transcendental God, virtually stood for deism. This contention must be allowed if deism connotes anti-Trinitarianism. Judaism has always been rigorously Unitarian. Deism, as the denial of original sin and the soteriology built thereon, also harmonizes with Jewish doctrine. But the doctrine of deism which relegates God, after creation, to the passive rüle of a disinterested spectator, is antipodal to the teachings of Judaism.

Dr. Juan de Prado is not the same as the Blessed Juan de Prado, and unfortunately I don't have the book to get the references (such as #73) for this and nearby statements: Jonathan Israel. Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity 1650-1750 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001)
Found a little more on Juan de Prado: it seems he was a crypto-Jew who became more of a deist (really, a crypto-deist) due to his education. His significance to deism is mainly as an associate/influence of Spinoza.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another useful article is Averroism, so I looked for sources about it, such as this interesting quote, "Transcendentalism, the first distinctively American philosophy, arose in the circles of Boston Brahmins, where a form of deism not unlike the Averroeism of Spanish Jews had long been engrained" and this quote "In Averroeism, the church came into contact with a sceptical philosophy of the highest ability and attractiveness" and also this quote

But the history of Averroeism culminates at the University of Padua. It appears there first a.s a kind of free belief, embraced chiefly by physicians and men devoted to natural studies. From being in disgrace with the Cliurch, it comes into favour. It tli^-n provokes opposition both from the side of philosophy and orthodox theology. It mingles its influence with the revival of letters, and then disappears as the morning star before the sun. Plato comes back and Scholasticism vanishes. Aristotle is read in Greek and his Ai'abian commentator seeks the shade. Cardinal Bembo celebrates in verse the great event. The morning dawns and the shadows flee away. Nearly all the great men of the Universities both of Padua and Florence in the time of the revival are called Averroeists; but this only in a very wide sense. They all exhibit in some way the influence of philosophy in its cont-act with the new direction which had been given to the physical sciences. They are all either metaphysicians or naturalists or both combined.

This Britannica article seems useful. It refers to Giovanni Boccaccio, Petrarch, Utopia (book), Michel de Montaigne, Pierre Charron, Jean Bodin, Edward Stillingfleet, Charles Blount (deist)

The words “deism” and “deist” appear first about the middle of the 16th century in France (cf. Bayle’s Dictionnaire, s.v. “Viret,” note D), though the deistic standpoint had already been foreshadowed to some extent by Averroists, by Italian authors like Boccaccio and Petrarch, in More’s Utopia (1515), and by French writers like Montaigne, Charron and Bodin. The first specific attack on deism in English was Bishop Stillingfleet’s Letter to a Deist (1677). By the majority of those historically known as the English deists, from Blount onwards, the name was owned and honoured.

  • Will have at some future point an article on every intersectionality. Catholic Church and Judaism, Judaism and Deism, Islam and Deism, etc. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
wow! So far I am having the hardest time finding information about crypto-Islamic Catholics and deism. I think it will need to be removed from the outline above.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

@Manannan67: Confused by some of your edits here. Don’t you think the article ought describe in its introduction what the Church has traditionally taught as to Deism? At least a line? Hyperbolick (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First you need to define what it is, before you describe how people reacted to it. Please note, that the first lengthy quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia does not describe Catholic reaction, but that of the Church of England. Note the mention of "Parliament, "bishops and clergy of the Establishment" -that's the Established Church. Woolston was a nominal Anglican and there was no Catholic Bishop of London in his day, it was an Anglican See. Secondly, the next long quote from the CCC: after much verbiage and listing five different "isms", winds up with the observation "This inquiry is distinctively human." -not a terribly cogent statement of any position. Thirdly, I wonder if someone hasn't confused or conflated Italian Humanism with Deism. "Petrarch was a devout Catholic and did not see a conflict between realizing humanity's potential and having religious faith." -I did find where Pascal accused Descartes of Deism, but then Pascal was a Jansenist, so "whatever". Manannan67 (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Catholicism and Pandeism should be merged here as pandeism is derived from Deism and much of the information duplicates that which is here. Manannan67 (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: I'd also propose that the much of the content be put under a section along the lines of "Views of Max Bernhard Weinstein," and that we only merge content that clearly uses the term "pandeism" in a way consistent with the Pandeism article. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ignoring ~eight other people not named Weinstein? Hyperbolick (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I grant you Kresta. Bruno and Eriugena are only on the page mainly because Weinstein retroactively classified them as pandeists. But Bolton and Rushdoony are using the term pan-deism to mean a super-ecumenicism with non-Christian religions. It's unclear what Ferrarese meant, but there's no indication that it included an aspect of "[God] ceasing to exist as a separate and conscious entity." And who knows what Nannetti was railing against, but it doesn't sound like the pandeism as defined in the top of the article. Catholicism and Pandeism right now is a bit like a hypothetical Sweden and Apple Computer that includes content about Sweden and Apple Records and Sweden and apple (fruit) - GretLomborg (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ferrarese is explicit in identifying the characteristics of Pandeism as a spiritual conception that "locates reason outside the human person, declaring man a fragment of God." That is consistent with modern definitions, as much so as any theology over such a length of time. Nanetti identifies Pandeism by negation as something the opposite of "contingent and mutable" laws and as presenting a being "in substance with forces driven by motions and developments." Nor is Weinstein alone in identifying Bruno as Pandeist. Discover magazine editor Corey S. Powell did so, with no reason to think he read Weinstein to do so. As did David Sessions and (not yet added to this article) Michael Newton Keas. Even were Weinstein removed, a reasonable body of scholars deem Bruno a Pandeist. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think you misunderstand me, I'm not saying Weinstein should be removed, but rather the focus shifted to him from his subjects (e.g. "(Section) Weinstein: Weinstein identified several historical Christians with what he considers pandeistic views. He says of Eriugena... and of Bruno...."). Maybe that section could be broadened to something like "modern scholars' analysis of historical figures" include Powell, etc.
On the other stuff: Ferrarese sounds like he's talking about pantheism with no indication of any Deism. Nanetti hasn't identified anything, his negation is so broad he could be referring to Newton's laws. Bolton and Rushdoony are talking about something entirely different than pandeism-as-defined-by-the-article. Ferrarese, Nanetti, Bolton, and Rushdoony really shouldn't be included at all due to these definitional issues. The situation here is just like how an article about Sweden and Apple Computer shouldn't contain a bunch of stuff about Apple Records, even though you could claim Apple Records is exemplifies many of the characteristics of Apple Computer by being a corporation named Apple that's involved in music industry.
The article really should be about the concept as it's defined, not about usages of the sequence of letters p-a-n-d-e-i-s-m. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion somewhat mooted by Manannan67‘s move of the other page so it will no longer focus on Catholicism at all, but Pantheism does not see man a “fragment” of God, no fragmentation is involved in it. In Pantheism there is only an entity which always is, and so is always the Universe. In Pandeism, an original entity changes its unitary state to one able to experience multiplicity, fragmentation of being. Scott Adams literally uses “blew itself up” to describe a pandeistic God leaving behind nothing but debris, which we are then made of. Nannetti’s denunciation is in no way inconsistent with this. Bolton, Rushdoony, and by the way Beach, another discussion. But as noted, evolution of thought of what Pandeism entails, as happens with many philosophies (even Atheism, Theism, Deism) Hyperbolick (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pantheism article gives a definition of "pantheism is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing, immanent God," which fits Ferrarese's 1838 comments. It seems pantheism was becoming a bit of a fashion at that time. Nanetti made his comments in 1829, at the latest. Weinstein published his book in 1910. Scott Adams published God's Debris in 2001. Despite Nanetti's use of the word pandeism, I think you need a stronger link to connect whatever he was condemning to the latter two. Right now the connection seems like an anachronism. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part of and fragment of are subtly different — just so, Pantheism and Pandeism are subtly different. Of course there will be overlap, as Pandeism is pantheistic. But as to anachronistic, most words sound so if you find their earliest uses. Did you know the word email was coined in the 1970s? Most people don’t, so seeing a paper from that are using it would seem off. Earliest apparent use of Pandeism (as Pandeisten) was in 1787. Godfrey Higgins used the term in 1833, in contrast to both Pantheism and Deism. All long before Adams or Weinstein. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pantheism and Pandeism are subtly different.": that's exactly the problem here, and why I think and inclusion criteria based on mere usages of the string p-a-n-d-e-i-s-m is problematic, especially in such old sources. The word in question is one that appears to have been easy to independently re-coin as a neologism with variant meanings, which is clearly shown with Bolton and Rushdoony. It's even shown by the Lazarus and Steinthal quotes in the main pandiesm article, which frankly looks like pure wordplay. Given this problem, I think you need strong sources that explicitly connect a particular archaic usages to your more-modern pandeism concept. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page having been moved, give me about a week or so to come up with a rewrite refocusing, adding these sources. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Catholicism and Pandeism" itself seems to be a misnomer as there is little, if any, information regarding the Catholic Church's views specfically toward pandeism. Manannan67 (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against:Pandeism as studied in the other article has considerable differences to as deism as considered in this one. This article is more historical and Western in character; the issue of pandeism is related more to interactions with Eastern religions and encompases both historical and present-day controversy. If you look at the talk page for Catholicism and Pandeism you will see evidence of a desire to censor certain information--the merge proposal as present gives no indication that the sourced and reliable content will be respected. Would the near-entirety of the other page would be turned into subsections of this one? As for information of the official Catholic positions toward pandeism, this is irrelevant to the merge, as Hyperbolick stated there are eight other sources documenting it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just realized that a large portion of the Pandeism article was deleted by the editor proposing this merger on July 16th. I opposed this on the talk page, suggesting to revert to the June 28th version until after the merger discussion is complete. I am of the opinion that a discussion on merging requires a consideration of the full pages in order for it to be legitimate. The content removals threaten to make the discussion here illegitimate.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What is "illegitimate" is taking the response of the Church of England and presenting it as that of the Catholic Church. The fact that Deism manifested itself principally in England towards the latter end of the seventeenth century, makes it perfectly understandable that Anglican bishops would take a strong stand, but this was well before the Relief Acts or any Catholic hierarchy in Britain, which also explains why they did not. If this article is supposed to be about the history of the idea, then it needs a lot of work. However, the fact that someone felt it necessary to include the dubious statement on both pages only indicates that the two are apparently so close that they should indeed be merged.
  • A review of the talk page for Catholicism and Pandeism do not show evidence of a desire to censor certain information, but rather a lengthy discussion of SYNTH;
  • If "Pandeism as studied in the other article has considerable differences to as deism as considered in this one. This article is more historical and Western in character; the issue of pandeism is related more to interactions with Eastern religions... -what in the world does this have to do with Catholicism?
  • The fact that there is no "information of the official Catholic positions toward pandeism, ...is irrelevant" (?!) What are these eight other sources? Are we then to rely on non-Catholic sources for an authoritative statement of somebody else's position?
  • R U serious? Everything you say only argues in favor of a merge. Manannan67 (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can have a straightforward merger discussion until you revert your changes on the Pandeism article pending the results of this discussion. It would be good for all participants to know what can be expected to be part of the merger should they support it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What can be expected to be part of the merge is what is in the article. Manannan67 (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At least eight sources. What about Filippo Nannetti? A priest!! And Al Kresta, definitely a Catholic writer. No rule that an author must be Catholic to analyze Catholicism, and one might expect Catholics to be too biased to make a neutral analysis of it. Of those, what about Corey S. Powell, editor-in-chief of Discover magazine, who makes an argument independent of Weinstein as to Bruno’s Pandeism? And even if the Catholic Encyclopedia is analyzing the Anglican church, it’s still specific in asserting Deism is wrong, and results from the Protestant rebellion against Catholicism. Go read it. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you've proved my point. Nannetti, Kresta, and Powell are all in the Pandeism article (and still there), but this is the Talk page for Deism. It seems you've mixed them up. Clearly it would be much easier for all concerned to put them together. Manannan67 (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten that you yourself asked just before who these eight sources were? Hyperbolick (talk) 02:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So far that's five. Manannan67 (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC) Aveling's discourse is a broad historical overview rather than a critical analysis, as is to be expected fr a professor of psychology. Polemics are not his stock in trade. As for being 'specific in asserting Deism is wrong", what he said was it was "for the most part out-of-date, commonplace, and dull." Manannan67 (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrarese (attack on Cousin was meant to ingratiate to the Church); Rushdoony and Beach, who I know you discount because they aren’t Catholic, but no bearing on reliability as sources. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I do not discount reliable non-Catholic sources on point; but by all means cite Rushdoony, who has been criticized for anti-Semitism and holocaust denial. That just points to a dearth of Catholic sources, who might actually understand the Catholic position, (if there be one). -And why isn't this being discussed on the Pandeism page where these so-called sources are mentioned. You're getting the pages mixed up once again.Manannan67 (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That you raised it here is the whole of the reason. If your objection is to a dearth of Catholic sources —- which would be biased towards Catholicism —- why haven’t you proposed making this an article on Christianity and Deism or Protestantism and Deism, etc. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You might well move the Catholicism and Pandeism article to Pandeism and Christianity (because it's more about the former than the latter) and then a number of the sources might actually be relevant. Manannan67 (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead, then. I wouldn’t object to that. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. In as much as there is an actual encyclical that mentions Deism, I have no issue with alluding to Deism and the Catholic Church; but for the sake of consistency how would you feel about reversing the title to "Deism and the Catholic Church"? I think it puts the focus rightfully on Deism, where as the Church has taken positions on all sorts of ideas (modernism, indifferentism, materialism, etc., etc.) Manannan67 (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Catholic_Church_and_deism