Talk:List of deists

Dennis Diderot

Diderot: "A deist is someone who has not lived long enough to become an atheist."

David Hume: atheist or deist?

Why is Hume here, when he is also in List of atheists? Hume was not actually an atheist. Many have made this mistake.

• Hume is a mystery. I am not aware of his saying anywhere that he believed in any kind of god, but he is (iirc) quite quiet on that, but not on his criticisms of Christian god concepts. Since he never iirc clearly said he was either an atheist or a deist, and atheists and deists were often grouped together anyway, he is often grouped in both. I'd be very interested in any source that could settle this. His arguments, particularly when coupled with Darwinism, had a great effect on the downturn in deism though. I think it's quite interesting that this has never been resolved afaik.
• He presented a lot of the same arguments as Deists did against miracles. It was quite dangerous to be an atheist, and perhaps that is why he did not in his lifetime publish his criticisms of the proofs for god.--JimWae 02:14, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

• If it is controversial within the scholars and other experts, then he ought not to be listed as either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deleet (talk • contribs) 20:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Berkeley?

Why on earth was Bishop Berkeley on this list (I've removed him)? Berkeley was a Catholic clergyman, and fiercely opposed to deism, as it says in the George Berkeley article. Chick Bowen 02:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Pruning: Removed 8 Theists

I've been able to find and verify the 8 men I removed as theists and not deists. The quotes on jcsm.org/AmericasFounders/ indicate how these men believed in a personal God (some even, clearly the biblical God), so this precludes the god of deism. On the link above, you can click on each man's name to see this evidence. --Jason Gastrich 00:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Lincoln

So that I will not be counted a visitor to your user-unfriendly website so you can get paid for it by your sponsors, I request that you copy each quote here that you wish to discuss. I will start by copying the Lincoln quotes, but request you do the rest - but please, only the ones that stand a chance - not like most of the ones I've seen so far --JimWae 04:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• See http://michaelnewdow.com - same site without the ads--Jason Gastrich 05:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

"That I am not a member of any Christian Church, is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or of any denomination of Christians in particular . . . I do not think I could, myself, be brought to support a man for office whom I knew to be an open enemy of, and scoffer at religion." - "The Illinois Gazette," August 15, 1846.

• nothing here indicates Lincoln is not a deist --JimWae

• This is a contradictory viewpoint, therefore a logical fallacy. Lincoln says, "I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures." The Scriptures plainly describe God as a personal God and Jesus Christ His Son. Therefore, he is not a deist and cannot be a deist. I need not go on. --Jason Gastrich 05:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• no, what Lincoln is saying there is that he is not a scoffer - he does not take it upon himself to deny the scriptures are true - nor does he say they are true, but rather remains silent on that issue - though he may proclaim they contain truths. He said this when he was accused of being an atheist. Incidentally, for future reference, be aware that, strangely enough, some deists pray - usually not for favors but for strength however. --JimWae
• By your logic, Jason, since he is not on record denying the truth of deism, Lincoln must be a deist... a lack of denial is not a statement of agreement. Ronabop 08:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• It's not enough to say "nothing here indicates Lincoln is not a deist." It's like saying, "nothing in my post indicates I'm not a woman," (falsely implying, on this basis, tha I am a woman). You're using the same logic and it's absurd.--Jason Gastrich 20:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• You are asserting that Lincoln was not a Deist. He may, or may not, have been. You will have to provide reasoning why Lincoln was not a Diest. Ronabop 09:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"I sincerely hope father may recover his health; but at all events tell him to remember to call upon and confide in our great and good and merciful maker, who will not turn away from him in any extremity. He notes the fall of a sparrow and numbers the hairs of our head, and He will not forget the dying man who puts his trust in Him." - from a letter to his step-brother, in 1851, concerning the illness of their father.

• with this one, at least there is some basis for discussion - full text at http://www.literaturemania.com/2linc11/page68.asp - Do note that Lincoln is telling his step-brother to tell his father something, and that this is not necessarily what Lincoln himself believes but could very well be an offering of consoling words when all other words fail. If this were the only passage on Lincoln's theological views, your interpretation would be more valid. However, there is plenty of other text to support Lincoln being a deist and a non-Christian, so this one passage is not going to change over a century of scholarship on the matter. Also note that it is "Maker" in the original - a deistic term. Also note the earlier part in which AL says he thought writing would do no good
• apparently his father, from whom he is estranged, does die - and it seems he is estranged from his brother as well - see http://www.literaturemania.com/2linc11/page71.asp and even moreso http://www.literaturemania.com/2linc11/page66.asp - note the talk of heaven there too - just 10 days before the one you excerpt from. One could say AL is quite skilled at discussing religious ideas with people on their own terms, without interjecting any of his well-supported different ideas. --JimWae

• The whole concept of deism is essentially based on god "forgetting" (or leaving) his creation and moving on; not being involved any longer. Lincoln says God will remember those that trust in Him. Therefore, Lincoln cannot be a deist.--Jason Gastrich 05:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• again - AL is telling his no-account brother what to SAY to his estranged father. Have you never advised someone with a reply you know would be good for them but not for you?--JimWae
• This is also a misrepresentation of Deism. Some deists believe in a "forgetful" god, or one which only intervenes from time to time. Other deists consider the mere idea that god could be called upon to intervene (through prayer, etc.) as a form of blasphemy, because it pre-supposes that the person praying knows better how to execute "god's plan" than god does. Ronabop 08:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

"The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God . . . one must be wrong. God can not be for and against the same thing at the same time." - "Meditation on the Divine Will," 1862.

• nothing here indicates Lincoln is not a deist --JimWae

• The god of deism created and left and is not in control of daily events. The God Lincoln describes is, as He can either be for or against something. Therefore, Lincoln cannot be a deist.--Jason Gastrich 05:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• not the only interpretatin possible - suppose god HAD a will - and knew everything that would happen, then died. AL's comment would still hold.--JimWae 05:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Another mis-representation of Deism. Lincoln, I assume, was referring to things like battles, where both sides are claiming to act in the name of god. This assumes that it is god's will to have a victorious party (maybe it's god's will to have battles, without caring who wins?). In any case, Lincoln isn't stating that god is somehow in control of man's events, quite to the contrary, he is stating that man isn't in control of god's events. Rather than this being a statement endorsing divine intervention, it's a statement condemning the whole concept... postulating that god cannot be persuaded to act according to the will of either party, because god's will is pre-determined. Thus, of two sides expecting victory in the name of god, one will be wrong. Ronabop 08:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• First, we have another logical fallacy by JimWae. The one who claims Lincoln is a deist has the burden of proof.
• Next, Ronabop's meandering rationalization is wishful. Lincoln clearly indicates that he believes God has a will. Therefore, he cannot be a deist.--Jason Gastrich 20:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• I await your proof that *all* Diests do not believe that god has (or once had) a will. You seem to be confused about Deism. Ronabop 09:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Jason, how do the following three quotes fit into your idea that AL was not a deist?

• First, don't forget that you have the burden of proof. You need to prove that Lincoln is a deist if he is to stay in the list of deists. Nobody can prove a negative, so I do not have to prove that he isn't a deist.--Jason Gastrich 20:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• I await your proof that Lincoln should be *removed* from this list, because you are attempting to prove that Lincoln was *not* something. He may have been a Diest, an Atheist, and an evangelical, at various times in his life. Ronabop 09:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

John T. Stuart, Lincoln's first law partner on Lincoln:

"He was an avowed and open infidel, and sometimes bordered on Atheism...He went further against Christian beliefs and doctrines and principles than any man I ever heard."

• First, this is second hand information; someone's opinion of Lincoln. Therefore, the quote cannot be weighed as heavily as Lincoln's actual words.

Next, this only talks about going against Christian beliefs and doctrines. This doesn't define a deist. He could have went against traditional Christian beliefs and still not held the deistic position. Therefore, this is not proof that he was a deist.--Jason Gastrich 20:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• But Lincoln was a politician, he knew not to talk about his religious beliefs in definite terms. he said as much here:

"There was the strangest combination of church influence against me. Baker is a Campbellite; and therefore, as I suppose with few exceptions, got all of that Church. My wife had some relations in the Presbyterian churches, and some in the Episcopal churches; and therefore, wherever it would tell, I was set down as either one or the other, while it was everywhere contended that no Christian ought to vote for me because I belonged to no Church, was suspected of being a Deist and had talked about fighting a duel." (Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, Nicolay & Hay edition, vol. 1, p. 80.)

Given this obvious conundrum for historians the second hand information is quite relevent. Why didn't you comment on Lincolns letter to Wakefield? that is first hand. He states that Christian doctrine is unsound and refers to his "earlier views". Obviously he has not been uncomfortable with the Christian doctrine for a while before this letter. If he was God fearing but not a Christian how would you describe him? Why NOT a deist? Why would you dispute the conclusion of historians? David D. (Talk) 00:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Which historians? Should we list historians on each side? Or should we just call your argument what it really is: the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

You seem to think that the default position for a (possibly) non-Christian theist is deist. Is that really so, though? --Jason Gastrich 04:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

How many historians to not class him as a deist? An appeal authority is not invalid when the majority of historians agree. David D. (Talk) 06:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's see... if appealing to authority is always fallacy, appealing to the Bible as authority on Christian doctrine is fallacious. Hm. Mark K. Bilbo 03:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

How long have you been waiting to use that bad one-liner?--Jason Gastrich 03:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Bad how? Because it shows your equivocation of "appeal to authority?" I suggest: Appeal_to_authority. It is not at all a fallacious appeal to authority to appeal to the expertise of historians. Being an expert in a field may not make one automatically right but an informed opinion carries more weight. In any case, appealing to the Bible on matters of the Christian belief system is, indeed, an appeal to authority. If all appeals to authority are fallacious, it is fallacious to appeal to the Bible on matters of the Christian faith. It's really quite simple. Mark K. Bilbo 21:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

This has nothing at all to do with Lincoln. Thanks for exposing a pet issue of yours, though. Please don't sidetrack the discussion, again. It only hurts your case for Lincoln's deism. As time permits, I'll reply to those who posted legitimate statements about Lincoln.--Jason Gastrich 21:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It has everything to do with the discussion to hand Gastrich. You are the one who charged someone with "appeal to authority" when you, yourself, regularly appeal to an authority. This is a contradiction. And who do you think you are dismissing people from the discussion? Did you recently purchase the Wikipedia? Did you keep the receipt? Mark K. Bilbo 14:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Lewis quoting Lincoln in a 1924 speech in New York:

"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."

• Again, statements against Christianity are not statements for deism. There is no proof from this statement that Lincoln was a deist. Don't forget. For the sake of this entry, I'm not arguing that he was a Christian, but I'm arguing that he was not a deist.--Jason Gastrich 20:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• You web site claims he was a Christian. The first step to show he was a deist is to show (to you) he is not a Christian. I think it is quite clear he was not a Christian. However, he was God fearing, there seems little doubt of that. If he was not a Christian but was God fearing what was his religion? I'm sure there are many of his own writings out there taken together will make it hard to deny he was deist. David D. (Talk) 00:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• His quotes indicate that he thought God had more control and interest in daily events than the deist affirms. Therefore, he can't be a deist.

If there are "more writings" that indicate (to you) that he is a deist, then please post them.--Jason Gastrich 04:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure he wasn't being sarcastic? David D. (Talk) 06:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Lincoln in a letter to Judge J.S. Wakefield, after the death of Willie Lincoln:

"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them."

David D. (Talk) 08:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• See above.--Jason Gastrich 20:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Not all Deists believe in a totally disconnected god. See Deism. Jason, I think you might be enlightened by more education about what Deists do, and don't, believe. A diest may believe that they were saved by god from being crushed by an avalanche, but *not* because god stepped in 10 seconds before the avalanche started. Rather, a diest might believe that god knew an avalanche might happen many million years into the future, and thus, decided to set up the future "just right" so that a specific person might not die. You seem to be rather confused about what is, and isn't, Deism. Ronabop 09:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

George Washington

Why are people trying to remove Washington from the list? Lincoln, as discussed above, would never write directly about his deism (being involved with the Christian church was a political necessity) do you think Washington would have made that mistake? What is the level of proof that you both (User:Jason Gastrich and User:JJstroker) need to see for his deism? It is clear he is was not a Christian, but he believed in a god, that's a good start. The vast majority of historians agree that he was a deist. May be you both believe he was a Christian, is that why you want him off the list? Do you also believe he chopped down a cherry tree? David D. (Talk) 17:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Why? Because Washington was an Episcopalian, every historian has acknowledged that he was a member of the Episcopalian/Anglican church, was married under their rites, baptized his children there, and was buried so, according to his will.. Apparently, he was not very active, but despite Deism being a well-known faith at the time, he never said anything to the effect of being a Deist. In several writings, he referred to miracles, blessings, and other "supernatural" events which Deists do not accept. A Deist would not implore the blessing of Heaven<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_and_religion#cite_note-29>. Not much of a Deist at all.

We have a reliable source identifing Washington as a deist. There is no contradiction between being a member of a Christian church and being a deist. Notably, Washington never took communion, and his minister testified to that fact. Nick Graves (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

If this is all of your evidence that Lincoln was a deist, I move to remove him from the list. The burden of proof is severely lacking. Furthermore, I also move to remove any others that have not been supported with proof. We cannot assume that the other 7 are deists without proof, so they should not be listed in this entry, either. --Jason Gastrich 20:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Don't you think the title you chose for this section is a bit presumptuous? --JimWae 06:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• There is plenty of support for the claim that Lincoln rejected revelation & miracles. Here's a start:--JimWae 06:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/steinlinc.htm
  • http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_5.html
  • http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/

• You are narrowing the definition of Deism, then saying AL was not a Deist according to that definition - almost like the claim that Mormons are not Christians. AL might not be a "stereotypical deist" - that does not show he was not one. No True Scotsman --JimWae 06:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• As far as your claim that I have committed a "logical fallacy" -- It was you who pointed us to info that was supposed to show AL was not a deist. You purported to prove the negative and you have not succeeded. Deism is more complex than "God has no will". Most deists would claim God had some purpose in designing the world the way it is.--JimWae 06:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Burden of Proof

What is the proof that users such as User:Jason Gastrich and User:JJstroker require to attribute deism to an historical figure? If the burdon of proof is so high why are they happy to leave all the other so called deists on this list but feel that the founding fathers need to be removed? David D. (Talk) 23:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Just refference a historian... though his minister saying he was a deist is pretty convincing.... Sethie 07:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Sourcing the list should resolve things. Durova 03:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes User:Silence started this off leading by example. We should do this for all those on the list. David D. (Talk) 03:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I second the notion. It may be wise to create a criteria, though. We're going to get all sorts of quotes and not all of them will support the notion that each person is a deist.--Jason Gastrich 04:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Criteria

I started this section to discuss the criteria we should use to conclude that a person is a deist. At the very least, we should find firsthand quotes from the people in question that are consistent with a belief in deism. If we find quotes that are contrary to the deistic belief system, then that person should not be called a deist. Should we consider anything else?--Jason Gastrich 04:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Making such a judgement based on a couple of quotes will lead to a lot of arguments. The decision needs to be made by assessing the persons whole life, actions and writings/speeches. Why are first hand quotes a necessity? As i mentioned above many of the politicians knew they had to keep Christians on their side to stay in office. For this reason many of them were silent about their private beliefs. Here I quote Lincoln again:

"There was the strangest combination of church influence against me. Baker is a Campbellite; and therefore, as I suppose with few exceptions, got all of that Church. My wife had some relations in the Presbyterian churches, and some in the Episcopal churches; and therefore, wherever it would tell, I was set down as either one or the other, while it was everywhere contended that no Christian ought to vote for me because I belonged to no Church, was suspected of being a Deist and had talked about fighting a duel." (Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, Nicolay & Hay edition, vol. 1, p. 80.)

Also consider these other scenarios:

What if we find quotes that are contrary to the deistic belief system from a time when they were a teenager, does that count even if they were deist for the majority of their life?

What if we find a quote from a speech, contrary to the deistic belief system, that was designed to influence the audience? Does that count even if their private writings suggest the opposite view?

Historians use all the information available not just the first hand material. Why wouldn't wikipedia do likewise and more importantly use these reputable historians as a source. I use the word reputable since some historians, such as the writings of David Barton, are controversial and not generally accepted as reliable sources by the majority of historians. David D. (Talk) 06:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with David, and disagree strongly with Jason: history teaches us that marginalized and unpopular religious movements like "deism" aren't going to be shouted from the hilltops by believers who have something to lose from publicly forsaking the dominant faith. In some cases, as with some of the founding fathers, it's certainly possible to find quotations from private writings indicating their deism, and at the same time to find quotations from public speeches indicating their non-deism; the criteria for inclusion on this list should be that noteworthy sources have ascribed deism to the person, including the person himself, significant people who knew him personally, major news organizations. Even people who weren't Deists but who are very commonly believed to be should be listed in this article purely for the sake of dispelling some of those myths. Being inclusionist on this matter is the only way to avoid adding a POV skew to the page by making an implicit judgment call on who is or isn't "Deist". Once most or all of the entries on this list have citations, we can start moving new entries to this page until a cite can be founded for them or it can be shown that they haven't admitted to Deism or been widely considered Deist or anything like that. -Silence 07:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Quote mining is simply not at all a useful criteria for doing history. You end up with people hurling context free quotes at each other. It's not productive. Mark K. Bilbo 19:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually this line of reasoning flirts with the NOR rule. In most cases it's better to cite some historian. Durova 17:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

agree with above, we don't research & analyze "first hand quotes" from subjects, we compile info from reputable publications, scholarly journals, authoritative media. Appleby 18:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Added links and removed tag

25 of the names are now sourced. I've removed the cleanup tag. BTW someone with a conservative Christian agenda has been using this page on another site for a critique. Regards, Durova 04:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

From the Encarta Dictionary: "a belief in God based on reason rather than revelation and involving the view that God has set the universe in motion but does not interfere with how it runs."

A quote from his Second Inaugural Address in March of 1865: "Both [North and South] read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes." When a Northern minister said to the president that he "hoped the Lord is on our side." Responded Lincoln, "I am not at all concerned about that. . . . But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side."

As with this quote and the one posted earlier concerning prayer. You only pray when you believe in miracles. It makes absolutely no sense for someone to pray for someone who is sick if they won't believe that God would intervene in some way. In the definition above it states that God does not interfere with how it runs. It is quite obvious here that he believes that God would interfere with how the world runs, just in the one given point that he prayed. In the quote I gave above Lincoln also stated that God could not answer both prayers of the South and the North because they were opposing prayers. He also states that the "Almighty has his own purposes". He believed that the Lord had his own purposes on how he would answer the prayers concerning the war and slavery. So if he had a purpose, then he is more involved than in just setting the universe in motion. He also is anxious and prays that Lincoln and the North be on the Lord's side. Why should Lincoln care if he is on the Lord's side or not, if he didn't believe in some type of judgement, which in the definition does not apply. Speaking of judgement, he also quotes here the scripture concerning, "that we be not judged". Judgement comes in many forms as Lincoln certainly believes since he is concerned by his "constant anxiety and prayer". Just another point, Lincoln was a continual reader of the Bible, and anyone who believes that he can take comfort and guidance from it must have some type of belief in it and the miracles and prophecies that it contains.

Whether or not we can pinpoint as to what his faith was as far as denomination does not make him a deist, neither does the fact that he discontinued his visits to the Baptist Church. There have been many people in history that have been disillusioned by different denominations that they have visited, but could never find one that they thought lined up with the teachings of the Bible. These people could certainly not fit into this category. I myself was in this position for many, many years and I never fit into being a deist.

History is riddled with those who abused the religious positions that they held. Many people have been disconcerted and discouraged with those that taught contrary to the Bible, but yet claimed to be its minister. Those that can find no church teaching what they read about in the New Testament, and have quit going to church entirely are convicted about not going to any Church unless they find the one they believe teaches what they believe to be the truth concerning the Bible. There are many thousands of these people out there now! This does not make them deists.

By the way, I myself have no concervative agenda. I do not partake in political arguments. I just ran across this by accident and I believe that it is inacurate to say the least to list Abraham Lincoln here. There are others on this list that I do not think belong here either, but I don't have the time to dispute them, though I do have the needed information. I really think that you should look at this with an open mind and seriously consider my arguments.

Thank you.

Oh, by the way here are some more quotes:

A President Lincoln on his knees praying to God asking for victory at Gettysburg. God took the whole business into his own hands. A man comforted by his God by his knowing that he has taken control. Now this is someone that believes that God is interfering by "taking control". No this man was not a deist.

July 5, 1863 to General Dan Sickles:

"Well, I will tell you how it was. In the pinch of the campaign up there (at Gettysburg) when everybody seemed panic stricken and nobody could tell what was going to happen, oppressed by the gravity of our affairs, I went to my room one day and locked the door and got down on my knees before Almighty God and prayed to Him mightily for victory at Gettysburg. I told Him that this war was His war, and our cause His cause, but we could not stand another Fredericksburg or Chancellorsville... And after that, I don't know how it was, and I cannot explain it, but soon a sweet comfort crept into my soul. The feeling came that God had taken the whole business into His own hands and that things would go right at Gettysburg and that is why I had no fears about you."

March 30, 1863 One of Lincoln's proclomations for a national day of prayer and fasting:

"It is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, and to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon, and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in Holy Scripture, and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord. And, insomuch (sic) as we know that by His divine law nations, like individuals, are subjected to punishments and chastisement in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war which now desolates the land may be but a punishment inflicted upon us for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole people? We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven; we have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity; we have grown in numbers, wealth and power as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which has preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us, and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us. It behooves us, then, to humble ourselves before the offended power, to confess our national sins and to pray for clemency and forgiveness."

Here is a quote supporting my argument that he was not satisfied with a church, because he could not find one that taught the Bible accurately:

"When any church will inscribe over its altar, as its sole qualification for membership, the Savior's condensed statement of the substance of both law and Gospel, 'Thou shalt love the lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul and thy neighbor as thyself' that church will I join with all my heart and all my soul." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, ed. Roy P. Basler, (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1953-55), 1:382.

July 31, 1846 Though this statement has been quoted above, the statement is made here that he has never denied the truth of the Scriptures. If he then believed them, then he believed the prophecies and the miracles printed therein:

"That I am not a member of any Christian church is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or of any denomination of Christians in particular....I do not think I could myself be brought to support a man for office whom I knew to be an open enemy of, or scoffer at, religion."

There is much more than I have quoted. What else would anyone need to prove he was not a deist?

Thanks again for your consideration.

Hawking

I removed Stephen Hawking from the list. Dr. Hawking's works and other statements evince no tendency or sympathy towards deism; the link used to justify his inclusion in this list justifies his status as an agnostic, not a deist.

Jefferson

Why is Jefferson as deist disputed? Coleca 21:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm removing the disputed tag. His article seems to indicate clearly that he was a deist. If I'm in error, then I certainly will appreciate an explanation and correction. Coleca 17:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson -- He was AGNOSTIC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.120.60 (talk) 07:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Combine with Deism

Why not combine this article with Deism page

Einstein was not a deist

Was Einstein a deist? No. Einstein has never said that he was a deist. Many writers have identified Einstein as a pantheist. The deist God is some kind of cosmic intelligence. And, Einstein has never clearly said that he believed in such God. Thus, it would be wrong to call Einstein a deist. RS

This is correct. "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." -Albert Einstein -- Spinoza, and thus Einstein, was a Pantheist

Images

List looks kinda crappy without images, and seeing as most of the people listed are long dead, it should be easy. I just can't be arsed at the moment. Use the format in List of atheists (film, radio, television and theatre) --Closedmouth (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Order

It seems it is in alphabetical order by first name, but then not ALL of them are. Zeek Aran (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Darwin?

I've noticed that quite a lot of people categorize Charles Darwin as leaning (or, indeed, fluctuating) towards deism, though he never actually used the word himself. Between 1851 (the year his daughter Annie died) and 1879 (when he said an Agnostic would be the correct description of his state of mind) he no longer believed in the Christian God or in any revelation, but he accepted some kind of a cosmic intelligece as the First Cause and the designer of the laws of nature (nowadays known as the "fine-tuning" argument), which left the individual events indeterministic. Doesn't this actually fit into most definitions of deism?

If you can find a reliable source calling Darwin a deist, that would be enough for inclusion (provided he did not later move away from deism). Interpreting statements can be dicey, and often ends up being original research, which isn't allowed here. Nick Graves (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Atatürk, a deist?

Is there any source in English proving that Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was a deist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.253.26 (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe there is even a Turkish source proving that Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was a deist. The source given in the page is the website of a group, and within that web site there is no text claiming that Atatürk was a deist. Gökdeniz Karadağ (talk) 13:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTvpy96eY0w This video is from Mustafa, a Can Dündar documentary. Bekiroflaz (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)