Talk:Pandeism/Archive 3

Restored section blanking

Ping me if it needs explaining beyond the summary, please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought the summery was valid within the context of the ongoing discussions on the talk page. I removed the section again with an expanded edit summery. The section is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Provide sources which actually critizise pandeism and not pantheism if you want the content restored. TippyGoomba (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Looking closer, that was about pantheism, not pandeism, my mistake. Tried to revert back, EC'ed. I recommend waiting before reverting back yourself next time, via WP:BRD, as I was already in the middle of doing so. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Re-reverted, for there is but one theory which holds that "God becomes the Universe by changing into the Universe." I would invite you to raise this question on the Pantheism talk page, they will certainly tell you that this is not Pantheism. I fact, I'll start that discussion now. DeistCosmos (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

We need sources, not WP:OR from the pantheism talk page. TippyGoomba (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

There are sources already in the article which state with clarion clarity that Pandeism is the school of Pantheism (though really more a school of Deism) which holds that "God becomes the Universe by changing into the Universe." Would it help were the article titled Pantheistic Deism? DeistCosmos (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I've so made the introduction. Can we now cease obsessing over the eight-letter version, and consider whether there in fact exists a theological model wherein our Creator becomes our unfeeling Universe (there most definitely and assuredly being no dearth of support for this proposition)? DeistCosmos (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

We need sources using the word Pandeism, that's the title of the article. If you want to change the title to Pantheistic deism, then you'll need sources using the phrase "Pantheistic deism". TippyGoomba (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Easiest thing of all. DeistCosmos (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Suppose it were simply:

The theory that God became the Universe, sometimes called Pandeism, is....

DeistCosmos (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC) ?

Provide sources. TippyGoomba (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Tippy is right that you need sources. Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the god of Abraham, but they aren't the same philosophy/religion. If the sources do not mention pandeism specifically, then you are violating either WP:OR or WP:SYNTH by definition, and the WP:BURDEN is always on the person that wants to include the contentious material, not the one removing it. That is pretty much the textbook outcome at WP:DRN, by the way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Jews, Christians, and Muslims are all the same theological model, which is Theism. A substantial part of the problem here is the apparent treatment of this as a religion, not a theological model. DeistCosmos (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Want to also add, WP:BRD says we need to leave it out for now, as it was reverted out and continually adding it back and forth is warring. The talk page is where we need to be editing for now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Tippy and Dennis. We need the sources to be explicit to be sure we aren't doing original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • But see call for common sense next section up. LCS check (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
    • What the article needs is an axe, and to be stripped of everything that isn't firmly established by reliable sources. That is where common sense starts. It is better to have less information that is properly sourced and summarized than all the original research and synth it has suffered over its duration. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Better maybe create a new draft, build from the bottom up? LCS check (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Started new from-the-ground-up draft at Talk:Pandeism/Pandeism, with only sources referencing Pandeism, but for the precedent stuff for Deism/Pantheism. Have at it. LCS check (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I propose we replace the current article with your draft and work from there. If there is anything to be salvaged from the current article we can easily add it. Any objections? TippyGoomba (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Are we in a rush to do this? I'd have some issues with that. Firstly, it seems that some actual references to the term have been chopped out -- Uzielli, Dawson, Bruce Parry. And I see no reason whatsoevere to eliminate Atkinson, for at least some of that commentary can be worked into the Pantheism/Deism origin portion of the whole. And why the elimination of all headers? Is it really an improvement right this moment to replace what is now on the page with a monolith of text? I'm not entirely opposed to replacing the page with a refinement, but can we not at least first develop a better organized one? DeistCosmos (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

And the Encyclopedia of American Philosophy, missing as well. DeistCosmos (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The article is such a dramatic violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR that it would be much easier to start from scratch. If you think these references belong in the article, we should review them one by one. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Oversight on my part as to that encyclopedia, I've added it. Bruce Parry I left out because, well, so what? One reality TV personality calls himself a Pandeist (perhaps briely). Seems to me no more includable here than adding that Omarosa calls herself Christian in Christianity. Compare Garvin, a Trappist monk (more legitimate religious authority), who provides a measurable comparison of Pandeism to Native American Great Spirit. Don't see the significance of Dawson. What is "bare Pan-Deism"? All we get is that it's apparently not Positivism. Uzielli I thought was just repetitive, but now I see it describes the "pandeism of Indian Brahmanism"; still no need for that entire passage. I'll footnote the one line, and organize a bit. LCS check (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Ordered the page by a more-or-less historical progression. So Peters is first, though published in the 1960s, because he writes of the Milesians, who preceded all others discussed. Then Große (not because he wrote in 1787, but because he wrote about first-century Pliny). Then Caruth (writing of 18th century Alexander Pope; then Ferrarese (writing in 1838 of his contemporary, Victor Cousin); then the 1849 dictionary; then Lazarus and Steinthal; then the Encyclopedia of American Philosophy (writing of 19th century transcendental poets), and Tennyson (one of those poets). And so on in the same pattern into the 20th century sources. Eaten my morning doing this. LCS check (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I continue to object, and for numerous reasons. The organization is possibly minutely improved by the addition of one scant and uninformative header, but so long as there are sources for the proposition that Pandeism = "Creator became our Universe" I see no sense in excluding sources discussing theories of our Creator becoming our Universe -- these including at the least the Warren Sharpe description of Hinduism as such a theory, the mythological accounts of such theories (especially since nobody is trying to claim that those equate with Pandeism, but are simply historical predecessors to it), Scott Adams' God's Debris, and the Atkinson criticism.

And as to actual uses of the term, Bruce Parry may be no monk, but he has studied and lived with an incredibly diverse array of cultures and describes himself as a student of creation myths; I think his self-identification is significant. And Dawson was making an evaluation of the spiritual position of an equally significant historical figure. And there are other historical uses not reflected in the article, like Lüdke's description of Alberto Caeiros as a pandeist poet in Frankfurter Rundschau, and Allan R. Fuller's analysis in Thought: The Only Reality. DeistCosmos (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Purpose of Talk:Pandeism/Pandeism is not excluding other god-becomes-universe content, but establishing what's clearly sourced as Pandeism. Another page, Talk:Pandeism/God becomes the Universe, gathers those, later discussion will determine whether it should be its own article, covered in Pandeism, or nowhere at all. I agree it goes under this title, but our agreement doesn't make it the rule. If other sources specify Pandeism, add them to the draft. Added one myself: Otto Kirn's review of Max Bernard Weinstein's discussion of Pandeism in his 1910 Welt- und Lebensanschauungen. Hervorgegangen aus Religion, Philosophie und Naturerkenntnis. Review is in Emil Schürer, Adolf von Harnack, Theologische Literaturzeitung, Volume 35 (1910), criticises Weinstein's breadth of application of Pandeism. LCS check (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Cited Fuller, couldn't find any Lüdke reference. Someone else adds back Parry, I won't remove it. Square now? Any others object to TippyGoomba's replacement proposal? LCS check (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

so long as there are sources for the proposition that Pandeism = "Creator became our Universe" I see no sense in excluding sources discussing theories of our Creator becoming our Universe. This is baffling. Can you give me an example of WP:SYNTH so I know you understand what it means? Otherwise, there's very little left to be discussed on these terms. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Very well, my friend, here's an example. Suppose one source claims that Moses encountered a burning bush which did not burn, and which spoke to him. And another observes that there existed in ancient Egypt psychedelic herbs which could cause people who are exposed to them to experience hallucinations, including seeing things on fire, and hearing voices. Synthesis would therein be presenting in the Wikipedia piece the original hypothesis that Moses was exposed to these psychedelic herbs, as though this was what the source had stated. But this situation is more like the example that LCS made earlier, of a source discussing "a certain 43rd President of the United States"-- essentially naming the thing by the description of it, since "the Creator becomes our Universe" is how Pandeism is defined, and I know of no other theological model which is so defined. DeistCosmos (talk) 03:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)]

Perhaps the situation isn't so dire then. I still fear you're failing to grasp the subtlety. Do you agree that all of the examples in WP:NOR/EX#Original_synthesis are WP:SYNTH? TippyGoomba (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I understand why all of those examples require synthesis, but they generally seem to be implying cause-and-effect type relationships as with the Moses and the psychedelic herbs example. Consider by contrast the Taaroa myth. Nobody's claiming in this article or anywhere else that Taaroa followers were Pandeists, for they clearly were not. The existence of that myth is simply a waypoint in the history of ideas of which Pandeism (and Pantheism, and Theism) a similarly waypoints. It is akin to pointing out in an article on the automobile that at some point in ancient history, horse-drawn carriages came to typically have four wheels. This does not imply that horse-drawn carriages are actually a form of automobile, or that automobiles are actually horse-drawn carriages. It simply marks waypoints upon a path for which the two types of vehicle have a commonality. As to what I think is the bigger issue, the criticism section, and Atkinson's criticism specifically, the description Atkinson gives of the subject of his criticism is so exact, it is akin to a critic stating that "all of those passenger vehicles with four wheels and an internal combustion engine are bad for civilization." Even if he doesn't specify "automobiles," and even if there are things other than automobiles which might be included within that description, it is clear that this criticism encompasses automobiles. Even if there are other theories which might be included in a family of theories criticized by Atkinson, he is expressly finding fault with every notion of God-wholly-becomes-the-Universe, a set which necessarily includes this one. DeistCosmos (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

After this most recent exchange I hope you can better appreciate my frustration with the apparent zeal of some to strip from this article even those things that contain expressly the reference sought. Forgive me for being skeptical but it now appears to me that, my objection to LCS's skeletally stripped down draft notwithstanding, you now seek to duplicate that effort piecemeal by stripping this article down to what LCS proposes. DeistCosmos (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. I think that LCS's version doesn't go far enough but it's a better basis from which to work. I will require the removal or discussion of each bit of content until all the potential WP:OR issues are addressed. I would axe LCS's version further if there weren't any resistance. But I'm pleased to discuss the content piece by piece. At the moment, you're witnessing the process of my removing the most egregious examples of WP:ORTippyGoomba (talk) 04:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Then it seems your quest to "axe" content goes beyond what policy permits, and enters into malice towards the subject, and a determination to remove sourced content. I disagree with LCS's method and results, as it reduces the page to a list of only the quotes which actually employ a usage of the term "Pandeism" in context -- and even then I think it goes too far, removing some actual uses because LCS doesn't see their relevance or care for the import of the speaker. But I grant as well that nothing remains to that draft which lacks so direct or obtuse of a reference. And so I propose this. If there is more that you would remove from LCS's barren draft, remove it first there, not here, and when you've had your fill of axery, renew your proposal to move the draft over the current article, and then we will see what this Wikipedia community prefers. But to this proposition I add one additional request -- that you see to notifying all of the editors who've contributed to this article, so that this discussion is not carried on outside of the knowing of the appropriate watchful eyes. DeistCosmos (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Accusing me of "malice towards the subject" borders on WP:NPA, tread carefully. I no longer wish to replace the current article with LCS's version, since you raised an objection. I see no reason to not edit the article directly. TippyGoomba (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

My sentimentation on this point arises from your action earlier today, wherein you removed from the article a passage where the author expressly used the term "Pandeism", while providing an explanation which incorrectly stated that the source did not use that term. This was especially egregious because the source in this case was a 1967 book by Francis Edward Peters, a noted academic who has written extensively on religion and philosophy, and so an especially credible source in answer to some recent anonymous claims that Pandeism is a newly coined term, created with the advent of this article. There are two possibilities flowing from this edit on your part. One would be that you intentionally attempted to remove a valid reference which uses the term in a the context relevant to the usual meaning, while pretending that such reference made no use of the term at issue. But the other possibility, the one which 'assumes good faith,' would be that in taking it upon yourself to scourge this page of everything which you believe does not belong, you have become blind and careless as to whether the term actually exists in the references which you would remove. Let me, very simply, put the shoe on the other foot here and ask: had I made so careless and significant an error in seeking to include a reference, would you continue to trust my judgment in the editing of this page? DeistCosmos (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I understand almost nothing about the topic and I have very little interest in learning. Furthermore, it is not required for anyone to "trust my judgment", since errors can be easily reverted. That's why we have a talk page. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disappointed at your reversal on my draft, given the work I've now put in. Baffled that you'd take this position while going through a few of the same steps I've taken in the draft. But very well, point made. Copied the draft over now, will hope for merger of its edit history to preserve the sanctity of my efforts.

What I've done is: cut the piece very nearly in half by reducing to sources I've personally verified exist, discuss "Pandeism" (or "Pandeists" or such), and in context agreeing with topic as described in introduction. Checked ISBN numbers for those works published after development of same. Organized these references by order of the subjects referenced in them. Cut duplicated material. Footnoted quotes as useful to provide context. Eliminated histories of Deism/Pantheism duplicating what's already at those pages, instead only pointing to them. I do as it happens have a studied interest in matters theological, and an interest in learning of them what there is to learn, so will be glad to take it from here. LCS check (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

What is the point in having a discussion even if you are so obviously determined to eviscerate this page? I objected to these hasty actions when they were presented as a draft, and you take it as a solution to simply copy this barebones draft over the fleshed-out page, to the effect of elimanating all that is good. And this, without having really settled the question of whether materials discussing theories of our Creator becoming our Universe ought to be includable here, despite the small chorus of voices singing an inability to see the connection. I continue to object and I renew my request that all who have edited this page be notified of this discussion, so that it might not be left to the few whose sole interest seems to be reducing the page excessively. DeistCosmos (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't realise you were still putting in work. I'm pleased to have your draft replace the current article. My withdrawal of the suggestion was due to DeistCosmos's objection. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

@DeistCosmos, this is resolved with the new page God becomes the Universe, which captures all of those materials, mentions in a footnote (as appropriate) that some have called such a theory Pandeism. Try building support to merge them back together as you wish, but I don't see it.

@TippyGoomba, we are squared away, then. What do you think of the page now? LCS check (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I still don't feel I'm qualified to address the actual content of the page but I certainly feel that the major OR issues have been addressed. Very nice work and think you for your time. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Doctrine?

My concern is this most recent edit wherein "is a doctrine" is removed from the introduction apparently for no reason other than sparing a few words. It is all well and good to avoid excessive verbiage, but my impression is that in introductions generally it is first recited what categorization or classification of thing "it" is, before going into what it does or how it does it. And so we indicate at Heart, 'The heart is a muscle which pumps blood,' and not simply, 'The heart pumps blood'; and for Capitalism, ' Capitalism is an economic system based on private property,' and not simply ' Capitalism is based on private property.'

I would in fact go farther still, and begin: Pandeism is a theological doctrine which combines.... (as there are other ideologies which might be deemed doctrinal, but Pandeism is not anywhere presented as an economic or political or social doctrine). DeistCosmos (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Well seeing as how nobody has spoken to this point I guess I am going to go ahead with it. DeistCosmos (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This ought to do as good as any

Heaven Hell Or - Page 489, N Sabir - 2010:

• "Pandeism combines the major elements of deism and pantheism and holds that a transcendent God existed before the universe was created, but that this God became the universe in the course of creating it and thereby ceased to be an active participant in its operations."

This seems to have been done long ago. DeistCosmos (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Current version

I think we now have a much better current version to work from, stripped down but better sourced. As I've said elsewhere, I'm not an expert on the topic matter, which is one of the reasons I've avoided doing any substantial edits and relegated myself more to a support role here on the talk page. This appears to be much more inline with policy and is more informative and readable. There is so much confusion with pandeism vs pantheism or panentheism, I think we are better served by being a little extra strict on sourcing, sticking closer to the letter of policy, to avoid WP:SYNTH, which is a very easy trap to fall into on topics like this. Thanks to LCS check and everyone else for the efforts to get it pointed in a better direction for the reader. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've reverted out DeistCosmos additions. Not sure why the section "a biography concluded that Arnold's writing reflected neither deism nor pandeism" adds. Nor the section on Bruce Parry, where he says he is verging on atheism. Sourced or not, it isn't really adding any understanding on "Pandeism", which is what the topic is about. It isn't about who used to be or no longer is pandeist, or who is verging but not quite. The quotes around them are rendered meaningless in the context that they are not authorities on pandeism, nor do they really even identify as pandeists. As the WP:BURDEN is on the person wanting to add (via WP:BRD), do us all a favor and discuss before putting it back in. Perhaps there is more I don't know of and I will be happy to consider it, but as worded, addition is out of the scope for the article subject matter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I have no further comment to make on this matter, at this time. DeistCosmos (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment

This is a comment on Pandeism. It has a capital P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.228.45 (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The Christian Answer to Pandeism.

Pandeism is well and done away with by this Christian answer: http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/what-is-your-response-to-pandeism/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.144.218.66 (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

This is no "answer" to anything. Firstly, this is obviously not a "reliable source" as it is simply somebody's webpage on teh Internetz. And who is the author "John Oakes"? Some random person, surely no theologian nor any stripe of religious authority. Obviously no scholar of Pandeism. Judging from the timbre of the website, it is biased in favor of Christianity, and so cannot offer a reasoned evaluation anyway. And secondly, as to the content of this critique, it is nonsensical. As to proposition that Pandeism is not a theological model reflected in any religion, I would suggest the author read the Bhagavad Gita. As to the proposition that Pandeism is "created purely from human thinking," so is all religion. So is Christianity. So is theological thought generally. But the honest forms of it admit that they are so constructed, and Deism and Pandeism happen to accord with scientific knowledge without needing to mutilate the facts to meet ancient accounts, nor to posit a deceiver deity who makes things appears other than as they are. This is, simply put, a poor critique. DeistCosmos (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

No, John Oakes is not any random person, he is John Oakes (apologist), a famous and well-respected Christian author of apologetics with many books to his name. His criticism should be included word for word in this article, for it is undoubtedly correct. You are the one who seems to be a random person on the Internet in this situation. You are, of course, wrong about Christianity also, for which you need look no further than John 1:1,2, which tells us that in the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. He existed in the beginning with God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.144.218.66 (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I object to this addition and ask that it be removed immediately and in its entirety. I see several problems with it. Firstly it is simply propped up on some webpage, not published by a source. If we can't have physicist/philosopher Robert G. Brown's much more in depth analysis of Pandeism here because it is 'self-published' on his website, it follows that we can't have chemist/apologist John Oakes' similarly self-published surface scratching. Secondly, I am given to understanding that copying wholesale the content of a website is a violation of copyright. Not that I'm enamored of that notion, but it's a reason to be rid of this stuff, which the copying of includes even the author's own spelling errors and obvious confusion between Pantheism and Deism. Not to mention it quotes his quote of yet another unidentified source. Thirdly, the guy goes on at several points about how he is not an expert in this area, and has not studied it at an length. And so I would request intervention at the administrative level to determine that this material ought not to be included on this page. DeistCosmos (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that an administrator has already removed the offending section. I hope this stands as a testament to its noninclusability should this be further contested. Blessings!! DeistCosmos (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This has been partially restored. I agree with the restoration inasmuch as it is partial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.228.45 (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but this article is about a broad conception of God that does not warrant a 'criticism' section. It is clearly not a Christian conception of God, nor is it a Muslim conception and so on. NaturaNaturans (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)