Talk:Deism: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Brian Dean Abramson (somewhere in there I must note the many previous attempts to use reason and logic to prove a theistic God) |
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:Oh, I hardly think that it is - however, it was certainly acheived a height of popularity in that era that it has been slow to return to. I'll get to it (and add in Dawkins criticism that Deism is "watered down theism" as well) later in the week. [[User:Brian Dean Abramson|Brian Dean Abramson]] 23:54, 2 June 2007 (CDT) | :Oh, I hardly think that it is - however, it was certainly acheived a height of popularity in that era that it has been slow to return to. I'll get to it (and add in Dawkins criticism that Deism is "watered down theism" as well) later in the week. [[User:Brian Dean Abramson|Brian Dean Abramson]] 23:54, 2 June 2007 (CDT) | ||
:Also, somewhere in there I must note the many previous attempts to use reason and logic to prove a ''theistic'' God, e.g. the Islamic theologian Abu Bakr al-Baqillani, who argued in the Ninth Century "that men could prove the existence of God logically with rational arguments." (Karen Armstrong, ''A History of God'' p. 167). [[User:Brian Dean Abramson|Brian Dean Abramson]] 01:27, 3 June 2007 (CDT) | :Also, somewhere in there I must note the many previous attempts to use reason and logic to prove a ''theistic'' God, e.g. the Islamic theologian Abu Bakr al-Baqillani, who argued in the Ninth Century "that men could prove the existence of God logically with rational arguments." (Karen Armstrong, ''A History of God'' p. 167). [[User:Brian Dean Abramson|Brian Dean Abramson]] 01:27, 3 June 2007 (CDT) | ||
One can believe it is possible to "use reason and logic to prove a ''theistic'' God" without thereby being a deist. That's just the project of natural theology, which can have its own article--I'm not sure what it has to do with deism ''per se.'' --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 01:39, 7 June 2007 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 00:39, 7 June 2007
I'd like to see some proof that deism properly so called is strictly a 17th and 18th century phenomenon. I had a friend in grad school who used to call himself a deist, and I found nothing particularly unusual about that. --Larry Sanger 23:25, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
- Oh, I hardly think that it is - however, it was certainly acheived a height of popularity in that era that it has been slow to return to. I'll get to it (and add in Dawkins criticism that Deism is "watered down theism" as well) later in the week. Brian Dean Abramson 23:54, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
- Also, somewhere in there I must note the many previous attempts to use reason and logic to prove a theistic God, e.g. the Islamic theologian Abu Bakr al-Baqillani, who argued in the Ninth Century "that men could prove the existence of God logically with rational arguments." (Karen Armstrong, A History of God p. 167). Brian Dean Abramson 01:27, 3 June 2007 (CDT)
One can believe it is possible to "use reason and logic to prove a theistic God" without thereby being a deist. That's just the project of natural theology, which can have its own article--I'm not sure what it has to do with deism per se. --Larry Sanger 01:39, 7 June 2007 (CDT)