Talk:Pandeism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Point by point

Let's look at each proposed removal and figure them out individually. References removed for readability.

Ashman reference

resolved

Reference to: Alex Ashman, BBC News, "Metaphysical Isms". Removed because: "not BBC, not a RS." Well the link has "bbc.co.uk" in it so I can see how one would think it is from the BBC, but also appears unnecessary. Could substitute for it: 2011, Paul Bradley This Strange Eventful History: A Philosophy of Meaning, page 156: "On the other hand, Pandeism combines the concepts of Deism and Pantheism with a god who creates the universe and then becomes it." or 2011, Alan H. Dawe, The God Franchise: A Theory of Everything, page 48: "Pandeism: This is the belief that God created the universe, is now one with it, and so, is no longer a separate conscious entity. This is a combination of pantheism (God is identical to the universe) and deism (God created the universe and then withdrew Himself)." or 2010, Dr. Ronald Bish, Jesus: The Way, the Truth and the Life, page 19: "Pandeism: The belief that God preceded the universe and created it, but is now equivalent with it." or 2008, Shane T. Foster, We Are The Imagination of Ourselves, page 77: "The first is known as "Pandeism," which is a combination of pantheism and deism (a philosophical concept which states that whatever force led to the creation and/or existence of the cosmos no longer exists in any applicable or accessible form)." Any of those, or all, would do. LCS check (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC) The BBC URL was simply a redirect. Please substitute one of your other sources. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC) I have subbed in the best two. Blessings!! DeistCosmos (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Scientific proofs

deleted

Removed because "Robert G. Brown self-published "proof" is not a RS" and Chopra is all that's left, doesn't mention "Pandeism" In 2009, Robert G. Brown, a professor of physics at Duke University with a background in philosophy, published a scientific proof asserted to be an actual theorem concerning God and the Universe in the context of pandeism, using information theory. Titled "The Pandeist Theorem", the theorem states that "If God exists, then God is identical to the Universe. That is, the theorem is a statement of conditional pandeism. If God exists at all, God must be absolutely everything that exists." The basic premise is that a being properly defined as God must have absolute knowledge of the universe, and that no method except existing as a real-time map of the whole content of the universe would permit that. Brown's conception does not accept a created "Universe" (he is careful to distinguish the "Universe" to mean all that is, including God, from the "Cosmos" which is simply our physical experience of galaxies and other physical phenomena), but one that is pandeistic without having been created (as "God" can, and indeed must, become the cosmos), although he allows for the possible consciousness of "God" – the universe itself – at n-dimensional levels. Stephen Hawking's recent determination that our universe (and others) needed no Creator to come about inspired the response from Deepak Chopra, interviewed by Larry King, that: He says in the book that at least 10 to the power of 500 universes could possibly exist in super position of possibility at this level, which to me suggests an omniscient being. The only difference I have was God did not create the universe, God became the universe. Chopra insists that Hawking's discoveries speak only to the nature of God, not to its existence. LCS check (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC) The pandeistic universe is just as the universe described in naturalistic pantheism, with the distinction that the belief necessarily encompasses a sentient being that existed before the formation of the universe. Panentheism also suggests a universe designed by a sentient deity, and composed of matter derived from that deity. The belief systems part on the point that panentheism asserts that God is greater than the universe, and therefore continues a separate existence alongside it, while pandeism asserts that everything that was the Deus became incorporated into the universe. Brown's credentials are verifiable; his authorship of the work in question is verifiable; see no problem with his reliability as a source. For Chopra, "pandeism" being just shorthand for "God became the universe," could title this article Theory that God became the Universe, but no need because "pandeism" is understood to mean that. LCS check (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Science does not operate based on credentials. The authorship is not in question. The fact that it has not gone through peer-review makes it worthless. If it's published somewhere, we should cite the journal, rather than (or in addition to) his personal site. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Greetings, sir. Are we speaking of science here, or of a theology? DeistCosmos (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Peer-reviewed theological scholarship would suffice as well. TippyGoomba (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The God Franchise

Removed because: ""Alan Dawe's 2011 book" has no relevance here"

Text was:

Alan Dawe's 2011 book The God Franchise, though mentioning pandeism in passing as one of numerous extant theological theories, declines to adopt any "-ism" as encompassing his view; Dawe's theory includes the human experience as being a temporarily segregated sliver of the experience of God, but incorporates panentheistic elements as well.

Again, title this article Theory that God became the Universe, and the relevance is plain. LCS check (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Take a look it WP:COATRACK#The_Flea. Alan's book sounds like a flea. Is there a reason other than the passing mention of Pandeism to talk about his theory? TippyGoomba (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Wait, what do you mean "title this article Theory that God became the Universe"? TippyGoomba (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I asked Alan Dawe what he thought of this proposal to strip the reference to his book from this article, and he replied: "The remover obviously hasn't read the book, or perhaps can't understand it."[1] I'm going with "hasn't read" here. The entire central thesis of the book is an argument for a pandeistic model. DeistCosmos (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that his book shouldn't be referenced in the article. It is perfectly acceptable for use in defining the term, as far as I can tell. TippyGoomba (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Comparison to Eastern philosophy

Big chunk of material, apparently taken out with no effort to refine or pick out anything which should be kept. Removed because: "More Robert G. Brown blogging removed."

The ideas described by pandeism in the West have resonance with certain Eastern philosophies, particularly with some expressions of Hinduism. Robert G. Brown, in his Pandeist Theorem, identifies Hinduism as "perhaps surprisingly, remarkably compatible with the theorem," and specifically observes that "pure Vedantic Hinduism as described in particular in the Upanishads is monist and either pandeist or panendeist...." Similarly, Warren Sharpe wrote:

“ To the Hindu, for example, God didn't create the universe, but God became the universe. Then he forgot that he became the universe. Why would God do this? Basically, for entertainment. You create a universe, and that in itself is very exciting. But then what? Should you sit back and watch this universe of yours having all the fun? No, you should have all the fun yourself. To accomplish this, God transformed into the whole universe. God is the Universe, and everything in it. But the universe doesn't know that because that would ruin the suspense. The universe is God's great drama, and God is the stage, the actors, and the audience all at once. The title of this epic drama is "The Great Unknown Outcome". Throw in potent elements like passion, love, hate, good, evil, free will; and who knows what will happen? No one knows, and that is what keeps the universe interesting. But everyone will have a good time. And there is never really any danger, because everyone is really God, and God is really just playing around. ”

Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, as well, had previously observed this:

“ In the Mandukya Upanishad it is written, "As a spider throws out and retracts its web, as herbs spring up in the ground . . . so is the Universe derived from the undecaying one," Brahma, for the "Germ of unknown Darkness", is the material from which all evolves and develops, "as the web from the spider, as foam from the water," etc. This is only graphic and true, if the term Brahma, the "Creator", is derived from the root brih, to increase or expand. Brahma "expands", and becomes the Universe woven out of his own substance. ”

Errant reasoning. Only the first sentence is cited to Brown. The rest is cited to Warren Sharpe and Madame Blavatsky. And again, title this article Theory that God became the Universe, and the relevance is plain. LCS check (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, Brown is not a WP:RS, since it isn't peer-reviewed. The other two reference do not appear to be relevant to Pandeism except through Brown which brings us back to WP:COATRACK#The_Flea again. TippyGoomba (talk)

The other two are not through Brown, they are independent and must be considered independently. DeistCosmos (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Linking the other two to pandeism is WP:OR, since they make no mention of pandeism. TippyGoomba (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

In mythology

Removed because: "removed, OR"

Text was:

Many ancient mythologies suggested that the world was created from the physical substance of a dead deity or a being of similar power. In Babylonian mythology, the young god Marduk slew Tiamat and created the known world from her body. Similarly, Norse mythology posited that Odin and his brothers, Vili and Vé defeated a frost giant, Ymir and then created the world from his skull. Later Chinese mythology recounts the creation of elements of the physical world (mountains, rivers, the sun and moon, etc.) from the body of a creator called Pángǔ (盤古). Such stories did not go so far as to identify the designer of the world as being one as having used his or her own body to provide the material.

But, one such example exists in Polynesian myth, for in the islands of the Pacific, the idea of Supreme Deity manifests in a divinity that New Zealanders call Tangaroa, the Hawaiians Kanaroa, the Tongans and Samoans Tangaloa, the Georgian and Society islanders Taaroa. A native poetic definition of the Creator relates: " He was; Taaroa was his name; he abode in the void. No earth, no sky, no men. Taaroa calls, but nought answers; and alone existing, he became the universe. The props are Taaroa; the rocks are Taaroa; the sands are Taaroa; it is thus he himself is named."

In Jesus and the Lost Goddess the authors claim that some Gnostic Christians held to a pandeistic idea (while acknowledging that most believed in an a celestial disaster and an ignorant/evil demiurge).

Once again, title this article Theory that God became the Universe, and the relevance is plain. Last sentence needs a citation: 2006, Suzanne Olsson, Jesus in Kashmir: The Lost Tomb, page 33 (needs further looking into though). LCS check (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Last sentence is sourced but relevance is not clear. No source for the remaining content. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

And how does this differ from the identification of the Great Spirit with Panentheism? If this must go, surely it follows that that must as well, does it not? DeistCosmos (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we limit the discussion to this article. TippyGoomba (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Earliest use

Removed because: "maybe the german word is relevant on the german wikipedia, but not here"

Though often referenced as a New Age belief system, the earliest mention of pandeism found to date is in 1787, in a footnote of Gottfried Große’s translation of Pliny the Elder’s Natural History:

“ Beym Plinius, den man, wo nicht Spinozisten, doch einen Pandeisten nennen konnte, ist Natur oder Gott kein von der Welt getrenntes oder abgesondertes Wesen. Seine Natur ist die ganze Schöpfung im Konkreto, und eben so scheint es mit seiner Gottheit beschaffen zu seyn. ”

English translation:

“ In Pliny, whom one could call, if not a Spinozist, but perhaps a Pandeist, Nature is not a being divided off or separated from the world. His nature is the whole of creation, in concrete, and the same appears to be true also of his divinity. ”

What's described here appears to be a description of Pantheism rather than Pandeism. There is no mention of God existing before creation, but rather of a God synonymous with Nature.

Pandeism was next mentioned in 1838 by Italian phrenologist Luigi Ferrarese in Memorie Riguardanti la Dottrina Frenologica ("Thoughts Regarding the Doctrine of Phrenology"):

“ Dottrina, che pel suo idealismo poco circospetto, non solo la fede, ma la stessa ragione offende (il sistema di Kant): farebbe mestieri far aperto gli errori pericolosi, così alla Religione, come alla Morale, di quel psicologo franzese, il quale ha sedotte le menti (Cousin), con far osservare come la di lui filosofia intraprendente ed audace sforza le barriere della sacra Teologia, ponendo innanzi ad ogn'altra autorità la propria: profana i misteri, dichiarandoli in parte vacui di senso, ed in parte riducendoli a volgari allusioni, ed a prette metafore; costringe, come faceva osservare un dotto Critico, la rivelazione a cambiare il suo posto con quello del pensiero istintivo e dell' affermazione senza riflessione e colloca la ragione fuori della persona dell'uomo dichiarandolo un frammento di Dio, una spezie di pandeismo spirituale introducendo, assurdo per noi, ed al Supremo Ente ingiurioso, il quale reca onda grave alla libertà del medesimo, ec, ec. ”

Ferrarese was unequivocally critical, as he attacked the philosophy of Victor Cousin as a doctrine which "locates reason outside the human person, declaring man a fragment of God, introducing a sort of spiritual Pandeism, absurd for us, and injurious to the Supreme Being." Though Ferrarese's target, Cousin, has often been identified as a pantheist, it was said that he repudiated that label on the basis that unlike Spinoza, Cousin asserted that "he does not hold with Spinoza and the Eleatics that God is a pure substance, and not a cause."

A more optimistic note was struck in the 1859 German work, Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft by philosophers and frequent collaborators Moritz Lazarus and Heymann Steinthal, who wrote:

“ Man stelle es also den Denkern frei, ob sie Theisten, Pan-theisten, Atheisten, Deisten (und warum nicht auch Pandeisten?)... ”

This is translated as:

“ Man leaves it to the philosophers, whether they are Theists, Pan-theists, Atheists, Deists (and why not also Pandeists?)... ”

The earliest appearance in a dictionary occurs in 1849, again in German (of 'Pandeismus' and 'Pandeistisch').

Earlier in the 19th century, some figures (particularly religionist Godfrey Higgins, later echoed by occult figure John Ballou Newbrough) used an etymologically distinct variation of the term to describe the beliefs that they attributed to a particular cult or sect (see Pandeism (Godfrey Higgins) for this use). Higgins, in particular, used the term "Pandeism" as early as 1833 to describe his theorized cult of Pandu and the Pandavas.

Another view expressed is more by way of comparison:

“ Certo è che quel concetto forma una delle basi morali fondamentali di religioni i cui segnaci sono oltre i due terzi della popolazione del globo, mentre è influenzato dall'indole speciale di ciascuna di esse, cioè da un idealismo sovrumano nel Cristianesimo, da un nichilismo antiumano nel Buddismo, e da un pandeismo eclettico nell'incipiente ma progrediente Bramoismo indiano; e a queste credenze che ammettono il principio ideale della fratellanza universale, conviene aggiungere il naturalismo estetico scientifico greco-romano e moderno che inspira, in modo sostanziale, tutto l'insegnamento pubblico Europeo, e contro il quale protestarono sempre e molto logicamente gli ortodossi cristiani, da Paolo II papa a Giuseppe di Maistre. ”

It is certain that this concept [universal brotherhood] forms one of the fundamental moral bases of religions whose believers are more than two-thirds of the world's population, while it [that concept], at the same time, is influenced by the unique temperament of each of them; that is to say, by a superhuman idealism in Christianity, by an anti-human nihilism in Buddhism, and by an incipient but growing (progressing) pandeism of Indian Brahmanism. Furthermore, to this set of beliefs, all of which admit an ideal principle of universal brotherhood, it makes sense to include naturalism in all of its forms – aesthetic, scientific, Greco-Roman, and modern – which naturalism influences, to a significant degree, all of the public education (conducted) in Europe, and against which (all) orthodox Christians, from Pope Paul II to Joseph de Maistre, always protest with perfect logic (always and very logically).

Seems terribly cloistered to exclude referenced etymology because the term originates in Germany. LCS check (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR, we need to cite english literature which explains the etymology. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Now I happen to know from previous debates on this very question in other contexts that this "English-only" proposition is actually contrary to the vaunted "policy" of Wikipedia; to wit, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources, which expresses a preference for English sources but allows non-English sources, and even requires providing the "the original text and an English translation, either in the body of the article or in a footnote." And as to translations, this policy again expresses a preference for published translations, but allows both "translations by Wikipedians" and as needed, even machine translations. The only other concerns fretted upon by this policy are those of copyright, and so of no moment as to these ancient books (though I imagine even were these books published yesterday such snippets raise no such violation. Have I misread this policy or missed some other prohibition against non-English sources? DeistCosmos (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

A German text discussing the English etymology would be fine (although I don't know why such a thing would exist). That's not what's being discussed here. TippyGoomba (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

So what would be an appropriate use of these published sources in this article? Surely there is nothing to be gained from wholesale disposing of the work done in gathering and translating them. DeistCosmos (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I initially removed the section with the comment "maybe the german word is relevant on the german wikipedia, but not here". I don't see any relevance of the material here and including a translation is definitely WP:OR. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

So the quoted policy permitting such translations is incorrect, in your interpretation? DeistCosmos (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

To quote the policy you mention: Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. When using a machine translation of source material, editors should be reasonably certain that the translation is accurate and the source is appropriate

Inclusion may be warranted. I withdraw my objection until I can study the material more carefully. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Variations on the concept

resolved, removed from article

Removed because: "no sources, removed" Text was: Some uses to which the term has been put are etymologically disjunctive, as they ascribe a meaning to the term that does not reflect the roots of what is an obvious portmanteau within a well defined family of similar terms. Conversely, the term may describe a deistic pantheism, in which a God that has always been pantheistic has ceased a previously active interaction with the universe. The term has been used in some instances as a restatement of pantheism (the concept that God and the universe are one) or panendeism (the concept that God both is the universe, and transcends the universe). Others have specified that it is a concept distinct from pantheism, and have used it instead to describe a universe which combines elements of pantheism (for example, that God and the universe are one) and deism (for example, that a creator God created a self-regulating universe, but subsequently ceased to actively intervene in its operations). Seems repetitive, unnecessary. No quarrel with deletion. LCS check (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that this is resolved based on the opinions of two conversants, but I'm certain I "can't fight city hall" once minds are set. My hands are up, not in surrender, but in exasperation. DeistCosmos (talk) 04:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

My purpose in adding the cot was to remove article content from sight when it is not in discussion. I encourage you to remove the cot, if you have sources to support the removed content. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Criticisms

I deleted this again, un-delete and de-cot, if required

Removed because: "pandeism not in source" Text was: Critics typically level general criticisms of deism and pantheism against pandeism as well. Some theologians have criticised particular points of pandeism. An example is William Walker Atkinson, in his Mastery of Being: “ It will be seen that this fact of the Immutability of REALITY, when clearly conceived, must serve to confute and refute the erroneous theories of certain schools of Pantheism which hold that "God becomes the Universe by changing into the Universe." Thus it is sought to identify Nature with God, whereby, as Schopenhauer said, "you show God to the door." If God changes Himself into The Phenomenal Universe, then God is non-existent and we need not concern ourselves any more about Him, for he has committed suicide by Change. In such case there is no God, no Infinite, no Immutable, no Eternal; everything has become finite, temporal, separate, a mere union of diverse finite parts. In that case are we indeed adrift in the Ocean of Diversity. We have lost our Foundation of REALITY, and are but ever-changing "parts" of physical things governed by physical laws. Then, indeed, would be true the idea of some of the old philosophies that "there is No Being; merely a Becoming." Then would there, in truth, be nothing constant, the universe never the same for two consecutive moments, with no permanent ground of REALITY to support it. But the reason of man, the very essence of his mental being, refuses to so think of That-which-IS. In his heart of hearts he recognizes the existence of THAT-WHICH-CHANGES-NOT, THAT-WHICH-IS-ETERNAL, THAT-WHICH-IS-REALITY. .... Moreover, the idea of the immutability of REALITY must, serve to confute the erroneous idea of certain schools of metaphysics which assert the existence of "an Evolving God"; that is, a God which increases in intelligence, nature, and being by reason of the change of the universe, which is an expression of Himself. This conception is that of a Supreme Being who is growing, developing, and increasing in efficiency, wisdom, power, and character. This is an attempt to combine the anthropomorphic deity and the pantheistic Nature-God. The conception is clearly anthropomorphic, as it seeks to attribute to God the qualities and characteristics of man. It defies every fact of Ultimate Principle of REALITY. It is extremely unphilosophical and will not stand the test of logical examination. ” He claims that if God were evolving or improving, being an infinite being, it would have to be traceable back to some point of having "an infinitely undeveloped state and condition." But, this claim was made prior to the rise of scientific knowledge pinpointing the beginning of the universe in time, and connecting time with space, so that time would not exist as we know it prior to the universe existing. In Islam, a criticism is raised, wherein it is argued that "from the juristic standpoint, obliterating the distinctions between God and the universe necessarily entails that in effect there can be no Sharia, since the deontic nature of the Law presupposes the existence of someone who commands (amir) and others who are the recipients of the command (ma'mur), namely God and his subjects." Removal of a section for the source not using the word "pandeism" is silly. The criticism is addressed to: certain schools of Pantheism which hold that "God becomes the Universe by changing into the Universe." Rather like saying an article criticizing "a certain 43rd President of the United States" without naming him is not about George W. Bush. Fixed this by making clear it refers to the concept, not the word. LCS check (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC) I disagree with you analogy. "43rd President of the United States" is a property of "George W. Bush", not a definition. The content should be removed as WP:OR. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

General comments

There seems to be a general misconception that we can define Pandeism as X and then talk use things that can be reasonably interpreted as being about X as sources. This is exactly the kind of thing that we are excluded from doing, since it's WP:SYNTH ( and WP:OR). TippyGoomba (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

But we are not defining Pandeism as X, others have already so defined it. This is just as things are done in Deism, Pantheism, Panentheism, and other installments in the series of which this article is part (even Atheism) -- the definition is provided up front and examples from ancient history through the Renaissance, tho necessarily preceding the coining of these words as names for these philosophies, are provided as examples of their development. Socrates never declared, "I am Atheist!!" and neither Eriugena nor Spinoza ever wrote the words "Pantheism" or "Panentheism" or "Pandeism", but the absence of these terms from their works does not exclude them from being accurately described as examples within that initial definition provided. DeistCosmos (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

What we can't do is the following: Spinoza defines god as X, some other source defines Pantheism as X, therefore Spinoza believes in X. We need a source which explicitly calls Spinoza's god pantheistic. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I am reminded of the discussion over Moralistic therapeutic deism, a phrase which patently misuses the term Deism to promote the author's theism, but for which nobody was allowed for months to actually point out the simple fact of that misuse because no Deist (or academic of any stripe) had even heard of Moralistic therapeutic deism, much less written something pointing out this brazen misuse. Taken to its logical extreme, such interpretation reduces this website to naught but a string of quotes from other works, with no explanation or exposition, even where the quote is "2+2=5" -- or as here where the quote is "2+2" and we wish to mention this in discussing "4." DeistCosmos (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your analogy and disagree that the logical extreme is what you suggest. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Tippy's example is straight out of WP:SYNTH. If A = B, and B = C, on wikipedia we can't say A = C. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Changed opening line to "Some theologians have criticised the notion of a Creator wholly becoming the universe" to address issue entirely to idea, get away from nomenclature hangup. Certainly can't say, "'Pandeism' was coined in 1787; U.S. Constitution was adopted in 1787; therefore, Pandeism caused adoption of the U.S. Constitution." That would be the sort of line-drawing meant there. But now suppose Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris or some such person were to write an article saying: "The belief that a god impregnated a virgin, who then gave birth to his only begotten son, who then had to be crucified as a sacrifice for our sins, and was thereafter brought back to life, is false." Now, suppose this article goes on to make philsophical arguments against the notion of a virgin birth, a sacrifice for sins, or a bringing-back of a dead person to life, but this article nowhere metions the words "Christianity" or "Resurrection." Is there any sense, any modicum of common sense at all, in saying the author was not talking about Christianity, and not talking about the Resurrection of Christ? LCS check (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The example you give is a logical fallacy, whereas the WP:SYNTH issue is not. In fact, primacy research does WP:SYNTH. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Getting hard to open.

Don't mean to complain, but my browser takes longer and longer to open this page, as it grows. Dispense with some of the older chats? LCS check (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• I will setup a bot to auto archive the page in the morning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Weinstein reference

I am by the way intrigued by this Weinstein reference. Where did that come from? And if it states as much as that, why cite the review of it, instead of simply citing the source itself? DeistCosmos (talk) 03:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)]

Didn't see the question to me, sorry. Found Weinstein critique the same way anyone finds anything these days. Googled it. Here's the hit. Then searched the passage for keywords before and after to find beginning and end, and asked a somewhat Germanophilic friend's help to translate. Entire passage reads:

"Dem Verfasser hat anscheinend die Einteilung: religiöse, rationale und naturwissenschaftlich fundierte Weltanschauungen vorgeschwebt; er hat sie dann aber seinem Material gegenüber schwer durchführbar gefunden und durch die mitgeteilte ersetzt, die das Prinzip der Einteilung nur noch dunkel durchschimmern läßt. Damit hängt wohl auch das vom Verfasser gebildete unschöne griechisch-lateinische Mischwort des ,Pandeismus' zusammen. Nach S. 228 versteht er darunter im Unterschied von dem mehr metaphysisch gearteten Pantheismus einen ,gesteigerten und vereinheitlichten Animismus', also eine populäre Art religiöser Weltdeutung. Prägt man lieh dies ein, so erstaunt man über die weite Ausdehnung, die dem Begriff in der Folge gegeben wird. Nach S. 284 ist Scotus Erigena ein ganzer, nach S. 300 Anselm von Canterbury ein ,halber Pandeist'; aber auch bei Nikolaus Cusanus und Giordano Bruno, ja selbst bei Mendelssohn und Lessing wird eine Art von Pandeismus gefunden (S. 306. 321. 346s.)."

Or, as per my translator:

"The author apparently intended to divide up religious, rational and scientifically based philosophies, but found his material overwhelming, resulting in an effort that can shine through the principle of classification only darkly. This probably is also the source of the unsightly Greek-Latin compound word, 'Pandeism.' At page 228, he understands the difference from the more metaphysical kind of pantheism, an enhanced unified animism that is a popular religious worldview. In remembering this borrowing, we were struck by the vast expanse given the term. According to page 284, Scotus Erigena is one entirely, at p. 300 Anselm of Canterbury is 'half Pandeist'; but also Nicholas of Cusa and Giordano Bruno, and even in Mendelssohn and Lessing is a kind of Pandeism found (p. 306 321 346s.)."

As to original Weinstein book reviewed, Google offers no readable version. Odd, since the book had to be published before reviews, and those reviews are recognized as public domain. Interesting character, Weinstein. Should have an article. Friend of Max Planck's and translator of Maxwell's Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism. Einstein was his student, but Weinstein later lead criticism of the Theory of Relativity. Short question. Long answer. LCS check (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You know what, I have seen that snippet before, but didn't make anything of it because it was in German. I just didn't realize it contained all of that. DeistCosmos (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

name and focus

Seems to me some are hung up on whether the one word exists, without paying attention to whether the idea exists. If the idea exists, what to name this article?

So I suggest this.

First, are there sources for there being a school of thought, followed or not, wherein God (or the "Creator" or what have you) becomes (or some synonym of that) the Universe?

Second, if such school of thought exists, is it notable?

Third, if such school of thought exists and is notable, thereby requiring Wikipedia coverage, what to call it?

So if the concept must be covered but there's dissension over the name, we change the name without having to reinvent the wheel on the concept.

Anybody prefer reinventing the wheel here? LCS check (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• The sheer volume of hits shows the word exists. It isn't going to have the same number of sources that "Christianity" has, but the criteria for inclusion isn't a popularity contest and being a minority philosophy isn't a valid reason to delete an article, else most of the philosophy articles at Wikipedia would be deleted. As for notability, you can take it to WP:AFD if you choose, but we both know the outcome, so notability isn't really at play on the talk page, content is. Pandeism/pan-deism is already what it is called, so if you want to rename the article, then you would need to start a discussion or RFC to this effect. Pandeism is not pantheism, just as deism is not theism. Some would argue that "pandesim" is "pantheistic deism", although I would disagree with that unsubstantiated assumption. I'm not sure of the point of your post here, although your comment "if the concept must be covered" indicates a reluctance or bias against the topic, which makes we wonder why you are bothering at all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Point isn't that the concept shouldn't be covered - clearly it exists and probably should be - but that the argument seems to revolve almost entirely around whether the word "Pandeism" is used in one source or another, rather than whether such source addresses the concept of "God becomes the Universe." Just going through sources where "God becomes the Universe" is addressed without the specific use of the word "Pandeism" (like Atkinson and Warren Sharpe here, Douglas Adams in God's Debris, Haisch's books, Dawe's book, Rabbi Slifkin's writings) it's possible to construct an entire new article on the subject without making a single reference to "Pandeism." Should God becomes the Universe be made? Would it be redundant, a fork, or some such? If so, should all those books and authors just identified be discussed here, or are they correctly barred from it for not using the title word? LCS check (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Something like this: Talk:Pandeism/God becomes the Universe. LCS check (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
    • If the source doesn't specifically mention "pandeism", then it isn't valid. I already covered this point. If a source talks about "The god of Abraham", you can't assume it is about Christianity either. It could be about Jewish or Muslim beliefs. It is not an established fact that ONLY pandeism has at its core that "god becomes the universe", thus to assume a source is talking about pandeism when it refers to "god becomes the univers" is the textbook definition of WP:SYNTH, which we have a strict policy against. It is original research to make that jump of logic. This has nothing to do with pandeism, it is a strict Wikipedia policy that applies to all articles. As for another article that covers all the philosophies wherein "god becomes the universe", go for it, that is outside the scope of this article, however, and must stand on its own, independent of what is done in this article. Making it a subpage of this talk page is improper, however, and you should either move it to main space, or your own user space if you want to develop it. I haven't read it, short on time, but watchlisted it for reading later. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Can't move the page. Cut and paste? If so what happens to the existing title? If that's incorrect, please move draft to article. LCS check (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
        • That is the problem with start a page in main space. WP:RM is the best place to request a move, generally speaking. I haven't forgotten about the bot, I've just been busy today, and currently most of the way through a bottle of George DuBoeuf Beaujolais because it was a really rough week, and I'm a really cheap person. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Roncelin de Fos

Removed this, in the course of things:

“ The labeling of Spinoza's philosophy as "pantheism" by the Church was meant more as an invective and indictment than a true analysis of his writings. It was really a variant of Deism – a "pandeism,"... Theism, however, posits something very different. Theism believes that nature was not God, but created BY God. That God is a completely independent sentient and cognitive Being, and that God interacts with his "children" on a personal level (e.g., The Bible). ”

Was cited to Roncelin de Fos, Christian Origins of U.S., 2004. Couldn't see web page, nor find quote elsewhere, nor determine who exactly "Roncelin de Fos" is. LCS check (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)