Contents

Articles
Deism Theistic evolution Religious naturalism Philosophical theism Theism Agnostic theism Anthropotheism Christian deism Classical theism Creationism Dipolar theism Divine law Dystheism Illuminationism Love of God Moral universe Physitheism Post-theism Preformation theory Providentialism Skeptical theism Theistic Personalism Theocentricism 1 20 32 40 43 47 49 53 58 59 84 85 85 86 89 94 96 97 99 100 101 102 102

References
Article Sources and Contributors Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 103 106

Article Licenses
License 107

Deism

Deism
Part of a series on

God
General conceptions

Agnosticism Apatheism Atheism Deism Henotheism Ignosticism Monotheism Panentheism Pantheism Polytheism Theism Transtheism Specific conceptions

Creator Demiurge Devil Father Great Architect Monad Mother Supreme Being Sustainer The All The Lord Trinity Tawhid Ditheism Monism Personal Unitarianism In particular religions

Abrahamic Bah' Christianity Islam Judaism Ayyavazhi Buddhism Hinduism Jainism Sikhism Zoroastrianism Attributes

Deism

2
Eternalness Existence Gender Names "God" Omnibenevolence Omnipotence Omnipresence Omniscience Experiences and practices

Belief Esotericism Faith Fideism Gnosis Hermeticism Metaphysics Mysticism Prayer Revelation Worship Related topics

Euthyphro dilemma God complex Neurotheology Ontology Philosophy Problem of evil Religion Religious texts Portrayals of God in popular media

Deism ( i/di.zm/[1][2] or /de.zm/) is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of God, accompanied with the rejection of revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge.[3][4][5][6][7] Deism gained prominence in the 17th and 18th centuries during the Age of Enlightenmentespecially in Britain, France, Germany and Americaamong intellectuals raised as Christians who believed in one god, but found fault with organized religion and could not believe in supernatural events such as miracles, the inerrancy of scriptures, or the Trinity.[8] Deism is derived from deus, the Latin word for god. The earliest known usage in print of the English term deist is 1621,[9] and deism is first found in a 1675 dictionary.[][] Deistic ideas influenced several leaders of the American and French Revolutions.[10] Two main forms of deism currently exist: classical deism and modern deism.[11]

Overview
Deism is a theological position concerning the relationship between "the Creator" and the natural world. Deistic viewpoints emerged during the scientific revolution of 17th century Europe and came to exert a powerful influence during the eighteenth century enlightenment. Deism stood between the narrow dogmatism of the period and skepticism. Though deists rejected atheism,[] they often were called "atheists" by more traditional theists.[] There were a number of different forms in the 17th and 18th century. In England, deism included a range of people from

Deism anti-Christian to un-Christian theists.[] Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world in any way, allowing it to run according to the laws of nature. For Deists, human beings can only know God via reason and the observation of nature, but not by revelation or supernatural manifestations (such as miracles) phenomena which Deists regard with caution if not skepticism. See the section Features of deism, following. Deism does not ascribe any specific qualities to a deity beyond non-intervention. Deism is related to naturalism because it credits the formation of life and the universe to a higher power, using only natural processes. Deism may also include a spiritual element, involving experiences of God and nature.[12] The words deism and theism are both derived from words for god: the former from Latin deus, the latter from Greek thes (). Prior to the 17th century the terms ["deism" and "deist"] were used interchangeably with the terms "theism" and "theist", respectively. ... Theologians and philosophers of the seventeenth century began to give a different signification to the words... Both [theists and Deists] asserted belief in one supreme God, the Creator... and agreed that God is personal and distinct from the world. But the theist taught that God remained actively interested in and operative in the world which he had made, whereas the Deist maintained that God endowed the world at creation with self-sustaining and self-acting powers and then abandoned it to the operation of these powers acting as second causes.Category:Self-contradictory articles[13] Perhaps the first use of the term deist is in Pierre Viret's Instruction Chrtienne en la doctrine de la foi et de l'vangile (Christian teaching on the doctrine of faith and the Gospel) (1564), reprinted in Bayle's Dictionnaire entry Viret. Viret, a Calvinist, regarded deism as a new form of Italian heresy.[14] Viret wrote, as translated following from the original French: There are many who confess that while they believe like the Turks and the Jews that there is some sort of God and some sort of deity, yet with regard to Jesus Christ and to all that to which the doctrine of the Evangelists and the Apostles testify, they take all that to be fables and dreams... I have heard that there are of this band those who call themselves Deists, an entirely new word, which they want to oppose to Atheist. For in that atheist signifies a person who is without God, they want to make it understood that they are not at all without God, since they certainly believe there is some sort of God, whom they even recognize as creator of heaven and earth, as do the Turks; but as for Jesus Christ, they only know that he is and hold nothing concerning him nor his doctrine.[14] In England, the term deist first appeared in Robert Burton's The Anatomy of Melancholy (1621).[9][10] Lord Herbert of Cherbury (15831648) is generally considered the "father of English Deism", and his book De Veritate (1624) the first major statement of deism. Deism flourished in England between 1690 and 1740, at which time Matthew Tindal's Christianity as Old as the Creation (1730), also called "The Deist's Bible", gained much attention. Later deism spread to France, notably through the work of Voltaire, to Germany, and to America.

Features of deism
The concept of deism covers a wide variety of positions on a wide variety of religious issues. Following Sir Leslie Stephen's English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, most commentatorsWikipedia:Avoid weasel words agree that two features constituted the core of deism: Critical elements of deist thought included: Rejection of all religions based on books that claim to contain the revealed word of God. Rejection of all religious dogma and demagogy. Rejection of reports of miracles, prophecies and religious "mysteries". Constructive elements of deist thought included: God exists, created and governs the universe.

Deism God gave humans the ability to reason. Specific thoughts on aspects of the afterlife will vary. While there are those who maintain that God will punish or reward us according to our behavior on Earth, likewise there are those who assert that any punishment or reward that is due to us is given during our mortal stay on Earth. Individual deists varied in the set of critical and constructive elements for which they argued. Some deists rejected miracles and prophecies but still considered themselves Christians because they believed in what they felt to be the pure, original form of Christianity that is, Christianity as it existed before it was corrupted by additions of such superstitions as miracles, prophecies, and the doctrine of the Trinity. Some deists rejected the claim of Jesus' divinity but continued to hold him in high regard as a moral teacher (see, for example, Thomas Jefferson's famous Jefferson Bible and Matthew Tindal's Christianity as Old as the Creation). Other, more radical deists rejected Christianity altogether and expressed hostility toward Christianity, which they regarded as pure superstition. In return, Christian writers often charged radical deists with atheism. Note that the terms constructive and critical are used to refer to aspects of deistic thought, not sects or subtypes of deism it would be incorrect to classify any particular deist author as "a constructive deist" or "a critical deist". As Peter Gay notes: All Deists were in fact both critical and constructive Deists. All sought to destroy in order to build, and reasoned either from the absurdity of Christianity to the need for a new philosophy or from their desire for a new philosophy to the absurdity of Christianity. Each Deist, to be sure, had his special competence. While one specialized in abusing priests, another specialized in rhapsodies to nature, and a third specialized in the skeptical reading of sacred documents. Yet whatever strength the movement had and it was at times formidable it derived that strength from a peculiar combination of critical and constructive elements. Peter Gay, Deism: An Anthology, p. 13' It should be noted, however, that the constructive element of deism was not unique to deism. It was the same as the natural theology that was so prevalent in all English theology in the 17th and 18th centuries. What set deists apart from their more orthodox contemporaries were their critical concerns. Defining the essence of English deism is a formidable task. Like priestcraft, atheism, and freethinking, deism was one of the dirty words of the age. Deists were stigmatized often as atheists by their Christian opponents. Yet some Deists claimed to be Christian, and as Leslie Stephen argued in retrospect, the Deists shared so many fundamental rational suppositions with their orthodox opponents... that it is practically impossible to distinguish between them. But the term deism is nevertheless a meaningful one.... Too many men of letters of the time agree about the essential nature of English deism for modern scholars to ignore the simple fact that what sets the Deists apart from even their most latitudinarian Christian contemporaries is their desire to lay aside scriptural revelation as rationally incomprehensible, and thus useless, or even detrimental, to human society and to religion. While there may possibly be exceptions, ... most Deists, especially as the eighteenth century wears on, agree that revealed Scripture is nothing but a joke or "well-invented flam." About mid-century, John Leland, in his historical and analytical account of the movement [View of the Principal Deistical Writers], squarely states that the rejection of revealed Scripture is the characteristic element of deism, a view further codified by such authorities as Ephraim Chambers and Samuel Johnson. ... "DEISM," writes Stephens bluntly, "is a denial of all reveal'd Religion." James E. Force, Introduction (1990) to An Account of the Growth of Deism in England (1696) by William Stephens' One of the remarkable features of deism is that the critical elements did not overpower the constructive elements. As E. Graham Waring observed,[] "A strange feature of the [Deist] controversy is the apparent acceptance of all parties of the conviction of the existence of God." And Basil Willey observed[15]

Deism M. Paul Hazard has recently described the Deists of this time 'as rationalists with nostalgia for religion': men, that is, who had allowed the spirit of the age to separate them from orthodoxy, but who liked to believe that the slope they had started upon was not slippery enough to lead them to atheism.

Concepts of "reason"
"Reason" was the ultimate court of appeal for deists. Tindal presents a Lockean definition of reason, self-evident truth and the light of nature: By the rational faculties, then, we mean the natural ability a man has to apprehend, judge, and infer: The immediate objects of which faculties are not the things themselves, but the ideas the mind conceives of them.... Knowledge [is]... the perception of the agreement or disagreement of our ideas. And any two of these, when joined together so as to be affirmed or denied of each other, make what we call a proposition... Knowledge accrues either immediately on the bare intuition of these two ideas or terms so joined, and is therefore styled intuitive knowledge or self-evident truth, or by the intervention of some other idea or ideas ...... this is called demonstrative knowledge... If there were not some propositions which need not to be proved, it would be in vain for men to argue with one another [because there would be no basis for demonstrative reasoning] ... Those propositions which need no proof, we call self-evident; because by comparing the ideas signified by the terms of such propositions, we immediately discern their agreement, or disagreement: This is, as I said before, what we call intuitive knowledge.... [Intuitive knowledge] may, I think, be called divine inspiration as being immediately from God, and not acquired by any human deduction or drawing of consequences: This, certainly, is that divine, that uniform light, which shines in the minds of all men... Matthew Tindal, Christianity as Old as the Creation (II)[16] Deists did appeal to "the light of nature" to support the self-evident nature of their positive religious claims. By natural religion, I understand the belief of the existence of a God, and the sense and practice of those duties which result from the knowledge we, by our reason, have of him and his perfections; and of ourselves, and our own imperfections, and of the relationship we stand in to him, and to our fellow-creatures; so that the religion of nature takes in everything that is founded on the reason and nature of things. I suppose you will allow that it is evident by the light of nature that there is a God, or in other words, a being absolutely perfect, and infinitely happy in himself, who is the source of all other beings.... Matthew Tindal,Christianity as Old as the Creation (II)[17] Once a proposition is asserted to be a self-evident truth, there is not much more to say about it. Consequently, deist authors attempted to use reason as a critical tool for exposing and rejecting what they saw as nonsense. Here are two typical examples. The first is from John Toland's Christianity Not Mysterious.[18] I hope to make it appear that the use of reason is not so dangerous in religion as it is commonly represented. ... There is nothing that men make a greater noise about than the "mysteries of the Christian religion." The divines gravely tell us "we must adore what we cannot comprehend." Some of them say the "mysteries of the Gospel" are to be understood only in the sense of the "ancient fathers." ... [Some] contend [that] some mysteries may be, or at least seem to be, contrary to reason, and yet received by faith. [Others contend] that no mystery is contrary to reason, but that all are "above" it.[19] On the contrary, we hold that reason is the only foundation of all certitude, and that nothing revealed, whether as to its manner or existence, is more exempted from its disquisitions than the ordinary phenomena of nature. Wherefore, we likewise maintain, according to the title of this discourse, that there is nothing in the Gospel contrary to reason, nor above it; and that no Christian doctrine can be properly called a mystery. ... Now, as we are extremely subject to deception, we may without some infallible rule, often take a questionable proposition for an axiom, old wives' fables for moral certitude, and human impostures for divine revelation....

Deism I take it to be very intelligible from the precedent section that what is evidently repugnant to clear and distinct ideas,[20] or to our common notions,[21] is contrary to reason. ... No Christian that I know of expressly says reason and the Gospel are contrary to one another. But very many affirm that ... according to our conceptions of them [i.e. reason and the Gospel] they seem directly to clash. And that though we cannot reconcile them by reason of our corrupt and limited understandings, yet that from the authority of divine revelation we are bound to believe and acquiesce in them; or, as the fathers taught them to speak, to "adore what we cannot comprehend." This famous and admirable doctrine is the undoubted source of all the absurdities that ever were seriously vented among Christians. Without the pretense of it, we should never hear of transubstantiation, and other ridiculous fables of the Church of Rome. Nor should we be ever bantered with the Lutheran impanation.... The first thing I shall insist upon is that if any doctrine of the New Testament be contrary to reason, we have no manner of idea of it. To say, for instance, that a ball is white and black at once is to say just nothing, for these colors are so incompatible in the same subject as to exclude all possibility of a real positive idea or conception. So to say as the papists that children dying before baptism are damned without pain signifies nothing at all. John Toland, Christianity Not Mysterious: or, a Treatise Shewing That There Is Nothing in the Gospel Contrary to Reason, Nor above It (1696) I have known some, who have alleged as a reason why they have forsaken the Christian faith, the impossibility of believing. Many doctrines (say these) are made necessary to salvation, which 'tis impossible to believe, because they are in their nature absurdities. I replied, that these things were mysteries, and so above our understanding. But he asked me to what end could an unintelligible doctrine be revealed? not to instruct, but to puzzle and amuse. What can be the effect of an unintelligible mystery upon our minds, but only an amusement? That which is only above reason must be above a rational belief, and must I be saved by an irrational belief? ... You all agree that the belief of your Trinity is absolutely necessary to salvation, and yet widely differ in what we must believe concerning it; whether three Minds or Modes, or Properties, or internal Relations, or economies, or Manifestations, or external Denominations; or else no more than a Holy Three, or Three Somewhats... If I should be persuaded that an explanation of the Trinity were necessary to save my soul, and see the Learned so widely differing and hotly disputing what it is I must believe concerning it, I should certainly run mad through despair of finding out the Truth... William Stephens,An Account of the Growth of Deism in England (1696), pp. 1920'

Arguments for the existence of God

Thomas Hobbes a 17th-century deist and important influence on subsequent deists used the cosmological argument for the existence of God at several places in his writings. The effects we acknowledge naturally, do include a power of their producing, before they were produced; and that power presupposeth something existent that hath such power; and the thing so existing with power to produce, if it were not eternal, must needs have been produced by somewhat before it, and that again by something else before that, till we come to an eternal, that is to say, the first power of all powers and first cause of all causes; and this is it which all men conceive by the name of God, implying eternity, incomprehensibility, and omnipotence. Thomas Hobbes, Works, vol. 4, pp. 5960; quoted in John Orr, English Deism, p. 76

Deism

History of religion and the deist mission

Most deists saw the religions of their day as corruptions of an original, pure religion that was simple and rational. They felt that this original pure religion had become corrupted by "priests" who had manipulated it for personal gain and for the class interests of the priesthood in general. According to this world view, over time "priests" had succeeded in encrusting the original simple, rational religion with all kinds of superstitions and "mysteries" irrational theological doctrines. Laymen were told by the priests that only the priests really knew what was necessary for salvation and that laymen must accept the "mysteries" on faith and on the priests' authority. This kept the laity baffled by the nonsensical "mysteries", confused, and dependent on the priests for information about the requirements for salvation. The priests consequently enjoyed a position of considerable power over the laity, which they strove to maintain and increase. Deists referred to this kind of manipulation of religious doctrine as "priestcraft", a highly derogatory term.[citation needed] Deists saw their mission as the stripping away of "priestcraft" and "mysteries" from religion, thereby restoring religion to its original, true condition simple and rational. In many cases, they considered true, original Christianity to be the same as this original natural religion. As Matthew Tindal put it: It can't be imputed to any defect in the light of nature that the pagan world ran into idolatry, but to their being entirely governed by priests, who pretended communication with their gods, and to have thence their revelations, which they imposed on the credulous as divine oracles. Whereas the business of the Christian dispensation was to destroy all those traditional revelations, and restore, free from all idolatry, the true primitive and natural religion implanted in mankind from the creation. Matthew Tindal,Christianity as Old as the Creation (XIV)[22] One implication of this deist creation myth was that primitive societies, or societies that existed in the distant past, should have religious beliefs that are less encrusted with superstitions and closer to those of natural theology. This became a point of attack for thinkers such as David Hume as they studied the "natural history of religion".

Freedom and necessity

Enlightenment thinkers, under the influence of Newtonian science, tended to view the universe as a vast machine, created and set in motion by a creator being, that continues to operate according to natural law, without any divine intervention. This view naturally led to what was then usually called necessitarianism[23] (the modern term is determinism): the view that everything in the universe including human behavior is completely causally determined by antecedent circumstances and natural law. (See, for example, La Mettrie's L'Homme machine [24].) As a consequence, debates about freedom versus "necessity" were a regular feature of Enlightenment religious and philosophical discussions. Because of their high regard for natural law and for the idea of a universe without miracles, deists were especially susceptible to the temptations of determinism. Reflecting the intellectual climate of the time, there were differences among deists about freedom and determinism. Some, such as Anthony Collins, actually were necessitarians.[25]

Deism

Beliefs about immortality of the soul

Deists hold a variety of beliefs about the soul. Some, such as Lord Herbert of Cherbury and William Wollaston,[26] held that souls exist, survive death, and in the afterlife are rewarded or punished by God for their behavior in life. Some, such as Benjamin Franklin, believed in reincarnation or resurrection. Others such as Thomas Paine were agnostic about the immortality of the soul: I trouble not myself about the manner of future existence. I content myself with believing, even to positive conviction, that the power that gave me existence is able to continue it, in any form and manner he pleases, either with or without this body; and it appears more probable to me that I shall continue to exist hereafter than that I should have had existence, as I now have, before that existence began. Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, Part I, Recapitulation Still others such as Anthony Collins,[27] Bolingbroke, Thomas Chubb, and Peter Annet were materialists and either denied or doubted the immortality of the soul.[28]

Deist terminology
Deist authors and 17th- and 18th-century theologians in general referred to God using a variety of vivid circumlocutions such as: Supreme Being Divine Watchmaker Grand Architect of the Universe Nature's God used in the United States Declaration of Independence Father of Lights Benjamin Franklin used this terminology when proposing that meetings of the Constitutional Convention begin with prayers[29]

The history of classical deism

Historical background of the emergence of deism
Deistic thinking has existed since ancient times. Among the Ancient Greeks, Heraclitus conceived of a logos, a supreme rational principle, and said the wisdom "by which all things are steered through all things" was "both willing and unwilling to be called Zeus (God)". Plato envisaged God as a Demiurge or 'craftsman'. Outside ancient Greece many other cultures have expressed views that resemble deism in some respects. However, the word "deism", as it is understood today, is generally used to refer to the movement toward natural theology or freethinking that occurred in 17th-century Europe, and specifically in Britain. Natural theology is a facet of the revolution in world view that occurred in Europe in the 17th century. To understand the background to that revolution is also to understand the background of deism. Several cultural movements of the time contributed to the movement.[30] The discovery of diversity The humanist tradition of the Renaissance included a revival of interest in Europe's classical past in ancient Greece and Rome. The veneration of that classical past, particularly pre-Christian Rome, the new availability of Greek philosophical works, the successes of humanism and natural science along with the fragmentation of the Christian churches and increased understanding of other faiths, all helped erode the image of the church as the unique source of wisdom, destined to dominate the whole world. In addition, study of classical documents led to the realization that some historical documents are less reliable than others, which led to the beginnings of biblical criticism. In particular, when scholars worked on biblical manuscripts, they began developing the principles of textual criticism and a view of the New Testament being the product of a

Deism particular historical period different from their own. In addition to discovering diversity in the past, Europeans discovered diversity in the present. The voyages of discovery of the 16th and 17th centuries acquainted Europeans with new and different cultures in the Americas, in Asia, and in the Pacific. They discovered a greater amount of cultural diversity than they had ever imagined, and the question arose of how this vast amount of human cultural diversity could be compatible with the biblical account of Noah's descendants. In particular, the ideas of Confucius, translated into European languages by the Jesuits stationed in China, are thought to have had considerable influence on the deists and other philosophical groups of the Enlightenment who were interested by the integration of the system of morality of Confucius into Christianity.[31][32]

"Life and works of Confucius", by Prospero Intorcetta, 1687.

In particular, cultural diversity with respect to religious beliefs could no longer be ignored. As Herbert wrote in De Religione Laici (1645), Many faiths or religions, clearly, exist or once existed in various countries and ages, and certainly there is not one of them that the lawgivers have not pronounced to be as it were divinely ordained, so that the Wayfarer finds one in Europe, another in Africa, and in Asia, still another in the very Indies. Religious conflict in Europe Europe had been plagued by sectarian conflicts and religious wars since the beginning of the Reformation. In 1642, when Lord Herbert of Cherbury's De Veritate was published, the Thirty Years War had been raging on continental Europe for nearly 25 years. It was an enormously destructive war that (it is estimated) destroyed 1520% of the population of Germany. At the same time, the English Civil War pitting King against Parliament was just beginning. Such massive violence led to a search for natural religious truths truths that could be universally accepted, because they had been either "written in the book of Nature" or "engraved on the human mind" by God. Advances in scientific knowledge The 17th century saw a remarkable advance in scientific knowledge, the scientific revolution. The work of Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo set aside the old notion that the earth was the center of the universe. These discoveries posed a serious challenge to biblical and religious authorities, Galileo's condemnation for heresy being an example. In consequence the Bible came to be seen as authoritative on matters of faith and morals but no longer authoritative (or meant to be) on science. Isaac Newton's (16421727) mathematical explanation of universal gravitation explained the behavior both of objects here on earth and of objects in the heavens in a way that promoted a worldview in which the natural universe is controlled by laws of nature. This, in turn, suggested a theology in which God created the universe, set it in motion controlled by natural law and retired from the scene. The new awareness of the explanatory power of universal natural law also produced a growing skepticism about such religious staples as miracles (violations of natural law) and about religious books that reported them.

Deism

10

Precursors of deism
Early works of biblical criticism, such as Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan and Spinoza's Theologico-Political Treatise, as well as works by lesser-known authors such as Richard Simon and Isaac La Peyrre, paved the way for the development of critical deism.

Early deism
For main article, see Deism in England and France in the 18th century Lord Edward Herbert of Cherbury (d. 1648) is generally considered the "father of English deism", and his book De Veritate (On Truth, as It Is Distinguished from Revelation, the Probable, the Possible, and the False) (1624) the first major statement of deism.[33][34] Like his contemporary Descartes, Herbert searched for the foundations of knowledge. In fact, the first two thirds of De Veritate are devoted to an exposition of Herbert's theory of knowledge. Herbert distinguished truths obtained through experience, and through reasoning about experience, from innate truths and from revealed Edward Herbert, portrait by Isaac Oliver (15601617) truths. Innate truths are imprinted on our minds, and the evidence that they are so imprinted is that they are universally accepted. Herbert's term for universally accepted truths was notitiae communes common notions. In the realm of religion, Herbert believed that there were five common notions.[] There is one Supreme God. He ought to be worshipped. Virtue and piety are the chief parts of divine worship. We ought to be sorry for our sins and repent of them Divine goodness doth dispense rewards and punishments both in this life and after it. Lord Herbert of Cherbury,The Antient Religion of the Gentiles, and Causes of Their Errors, pp. 34, quoted in John Orr, English Deism, p. 62 The following lengthy quote from Herbert can give the flavor of his writing and demonstrate the sense of the importance that Herbert attributed to innate Common Notions, which can help in understanding the effect of Locke's attack on innate ideas on Herbert's philosophy: No general agreement exists concerning the Gods, but there is universal recognition of God. Every religion in the past has acknowledged, every religion in the future will acknowledge, some sovereign deity among the Gods. ... Accordingly that which is everywhere accepted as the supreme manifestation of deity, by whatever name it may be called, I term God. While there is no general agreement concerning the worship of Gods, sacred beings, saints, and angels, yet the Common Notion or Universal Consent tells us that adoration ought to be reserved for the one God. Hence divine religion and no race, however savage, has existed without some expression of it is found established among all nations. ...

Deism The connection of Virtue with Piety, defined in this work as the right conformation of the faculties, is and always has been held to be, the most important part of religious practice. There is no general agreement concerning rites, ceremonies, traditions...; but there is the greatest possible consensus of opinion concerning the right conformation of the faculties. ... Moral virtue... is and always has been esteemed by men in every age and place and respected in every land... There is no general agreement concerning the various rites or mysteries which the priests have devised for the expiation of sin.... General agreement among religions, the nature of divine goodness, and above all conscience, tell us that our crimes may be washed away by true penitence, and that we can be restored to new union with God. ... I do not wish to consider here whether any other more appropriate means exists by which the divine justice may be appeased, since I have undertaken in this work only to rely on truths which are not open to dispute but are derived from the evidence of immediate perception and admitted by the whole world. The rewards that are eternal have been variously placed in heaven, in the stars, in the Elysian fields... Punishment has been thought to lie in metempsychosis, in hell,... or in temporary or everlasting death. But all religion, law, philosophy, and ... conscience, teach openly or implicitly that punishment or reward awaits us after this life. ... [T]here is no nation, however barbarous, which has not and will not recognise the existence of punishments and rewards. That reward and punishment exist is, then, a Common Notion, though there is the greatest difference of opinion as to their nature, quality, extent, and mode. It follows from these considerations that the dogmas which recognize a sovereign Deity, enjoin us to worship Him, command us to live a holy life, lead us to repent our sins, and warn us of future recompense or punishment, proceed from God and are inscribed within us in the form of Common Notions. Revealed truth exists; and it would be unjust to ignore it. But its nature is quite distinct from the truth [based on Common Notions] ... [T]he truth of revelation depends upon the authority of him who reveals it. We must, then, proceed with great care in discerning what actually is revealed.... [W]e must take great care to avoid deception, for men who are depressed, superstitious, or ignorant of causes are always liable to it. Lord Herbert of Cherbury ,De Veritate According to Gay, Herbert had relatively few followers, and it was not until the 1680s that Herbert found a true successor in Charles Blount (16541693). Blount made one special contribution to the deist debate: "by utilizing his wide classical learning, Blount demonstrated how to use pagan writers, and pagan ideas, against Christianity. ... Other Deists were to follow his lead."[35]

11

Deism in Britain
John Locke The publication of John Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689, but dated 1690) marks a major turning point in the history of deism. Since Herbert's De Veritate, innate ideas had been the foundation of deist epistemology. Locke's famous attack on innate ideas in the first book of the Essay effectively destroyed that foundation and replaced it with a theory of knowledge based on experience. Innatist deism was replaced by empiricist deism. Locke himself was not a deist. He believed in both miracles and revelation, and he regarded miracles as the main proof of revelation.[36] After Locke, constructive deism could no longer appeal to innate ideas for justification of its basic tenets such as the existence of God. Instead, under the influence of Locke and Newton, deists turned to natural theology and to arguments based on experience and Nature: the cosmological argument and the argument from design.

Deism The flowering of classical deism, 16901740 Peter Gay places the zenith of deism "from the end of the 1690s, when the vehement response to John Toland's Christianity Not Mysterious (1696) started the deist debate, to the end of the 1740s when the tepid response to Conyers Middleton's Free Inquiry signalled its close."[] Among the Deists, only Anthony Collins (16761729) could claim much philosophical competence; only Conyers Middleton (16831750) was a really serious scholar. The best known Deists, notably John Toland (16701722) and Matthew Tindal (16561733), were talented publicists, clear without being deep, forceful but not subtle. ... Others, like Thomas Chubb (16791747), were self-educated freethinkers; a few, like Thomas Woolston (16691731), were close to madness. Peter Gay, Deism: An Anthology[] During this period, prominent British deists included William Wollastson, Charles Blount, and Henry St John, First Viscount Bolingbroke. The influential author Anthony Ashley-Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury is also usually categorized as a deist. Although did not think of himself as a deist, he shared so many attitudes with deists that Gay calls him "a Deist in fact, if not in name".[37] Notable late-classical deists include Peter Annet (16931769), Thomas Chubb (16791747), Thomas Morgan (?1743), and Conyers Middleton (16831750). Matthew Tindal Especially noteworthy is Matthew Tindal's Christianity as Old as the Creation (1730), which "became, very soon after its publication, the focal center of the deist controversy. Because almost every argument, quotation, and issue raised for decades can be found here, the work is often termed 'the deist's Bible'."[38] Following Locke's successful attack on innate ideas, Tindal's "Deist Bible" redefined the foundation of deist epistemology as knowledge based on experience or human reason. This effectively widened the gap between traditional Christians and what he called "Christian Deists", since this new foundation required that "revealed" truth be validated through human reason. In Christianity as Old as the Creation, Tindal articulated a number of the basic tenets of deism: He argued against special revelation: "God designed all Mankind should at all times know, what he wills them to know, believe, profess, and practice; and has given them no other Means for this, but the Use of Reason." David Hume The writings of David Hume are sometimes credited with causing or contributing to the decline of deism. English deism, however, was already in decline before Hume's works on religion (1757,1779) were published.[] Furthermore, some writers maintain that Hume's writings on religion were not very influential at the time that they were published.[39] Nevertheless, modern scholars find it interesting to study the implications of his thoughts for deism. Hume's skepticism about miracles makes him a natural ally of deism. His skepticism about the validity of natural religion cuts equally against deism and deism's opponents, who were also deeply involved in natural theology. But his famous Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion were not published until 1779, by which time deism had almost vanished in England.

12

David Hume

Deism In the Natural History of Religion (1757), Hume contends that polytheism, not monotheism, was "the first and most ancient religion of mankind". In addition, contends Hume, the psychological basis of religion is not reason, but fear of the unknown. The primary religion of mankind arises chiefly from an anxious fear of future events; and what ideas will naturally be entertained of invisible, unknown powers, while men lie under dismal apprehensions of any kind, may easily be conceived. Every image of vengeance, severity, cruelty, and malice must occur, and must augment the ghastliness and horror which oppresses the amazed religionist. ... And no idea of perverse wickedness can be framed, which those terrified devotees do not readily, without scruple, apply to their deity. David Hume, The Natural History of Religion, section XIII As E. Graham Waring saw it;[] The clear reasonableness of natural religion disappeared before a semi-historical look at what can be known about uncivilized man "a barbarous, necessitous animal," as Hume termed him. Natural religion, if by that term one means the actual religious beliefs and practices of uncivilized peoples, was seen to be a fabric of superstitions. Primitive man was no unspoiled philosopher, clearly seeing the truth of one God. And the history of religion was not, as the deists had implied, retrograde; the widespread phenomenon of superstition was caused less by priestly malice than by man's unreason as he confronted his experience. Experts dispute whether Hume was a deist, an atheist, or something else. Hume himself was uncomfortable with the terms deist and atheist, and Hume scholar Paul Russell has argued that the best and safest term for Hume's views is irreligion.[40]

13

Deism in Continental Europe

English deism, in the words of Peter Gay, "travelled well. ... As Deism waned in England, it waxed in France and the German states."[41] France had its own tradition of religious skepticism and natural theology in the works of Montaigne, Bayle, and Montesquieu. The most famous of the French deists was Voltaire, who acquired a taste for Newtonian science, and reinforcement of deistic inclinations, during a two-year visit to England starting in 1726. French deists also included Maximilien Robespierre and Rousseau. For a short period of time during the French Revolution the Cult of the Supreme Being was the state religion of France. Kant's identification with deism is controversial. An argument in favor of Kant as deist is Alan Wood's "Kant's Deism," in P. Rossi and M. Wreen (eds.), Kant's Philosophy of Religion Re-examined (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991); an argument against Kant as deist is Stephen Palmquist's "Kant's Theistic Solution" [42].

Voltaire at age 24 by Nicolas de Largillire

Deism

14

Deism in the United States

In the United States, Enlightenment philosophy (which itself was heavily inspired by deist ideals) played a major role in creating the principle of religious freedom, expressed in Thomas Jefferson's letters and included in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. American Founding Fathers, or Framers of the Constitution, who were especially noted for being influenced by such philosophy include Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, and Hugh Williamson. Their political speeches show distinct deistic influence. Other notable Founding Fathers may have been more directly deist. These include James Madison, possibly Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen,[43] and Thomas Paine (who published The Age of Reason, a treatise that helped to popularize deism throughout the USA and Europe). A major contributor was Elihu Palmer (17641806), who wrote the "Bible" of American deism in his Principles of Nature (1801) and attempted to organize deism by forming the "Deistical Society of New York".

Thomas Paine

In the United States there is controversy over whether the Founding Fathers were Christians, deists, or something in between.[44][45] Particularly heated is the debate over the beliefs of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington.[46][47][48] Benjamin Franklin wrote in his autobiography, "Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist. My arguments perverted some others, particularly Collins and Ralph; but each of them having afterwards wrong'd me greatly without the least compunction, and recollecting Keith's conduct towards me (who was another freethinker) and my own towards Vernon and Miss Read, which at times gave me great trouble, I began to suspect that this doctrine, tho' it might be true, was not very useful."[49][50] Franklin also wrote that "the Deity sometimes interferes by his particular Providence, and sets aside the Events which would otherwise have been produc'd in the Course of Nature, or by the Free Agency of Man.[51] He later stated, in the Constitutional Convention, that "the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men."[52] For his part, Thomas Jefferson is perhaps one of the Founding Fathers with the most outspoken of Deist tendencies, though he is not known to have called himself a deist, generally referring to himself as a Unitarian. In particular, his treatment of the Biblical gospels which he titled The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, but which subsequently became more commonly known as the Jefferson Bible, exhibits a strong deist tendency of stripping away all supernatural and dogmatic references from the Christ story. However, Frazer, following the lead of Sydney Ahlstrom, characterizes Jefferson as not a Deist but a "theistic rationalist", because Jefferson believed in God's continuing activity in human affairs.[53][54] Frazer cites Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia, where he wrote, "I tremble" at the thought that "God is just," and he warned of eventual "supernatural influence" to abolish the scourge of slavery.[55][56]

Deism

15

The decline of deism

Deism is generally considered to have declined as an influential school of thought by around 1800. After the writings of Woolston and Tindal, English deism went into slow decline. ... By the 1730s, nearly all the arguments in behalf of Deism ... had been offered and refined; the intellectual caliber of leading Deists was none too impressive; and the opponents of deism finally mustered some formidable spokesmen. The Deists of these decades, Peter Annet (16931769), Thomas Chubb (16791747), and Thomas Morgan (?1743), are of significance to the specialist alone. ... It had all been said before, and better. . Peter Gay, Deism: An Anthology[] It is probably more accurate, however, to say that deism evolved into, and contributed to, other religious movements. The term deist became rarely used, but deist beliefs, ideas, and influences remained. They can be seen in 19th-century liberal British theology and in the rise of Unitarianism, which adopted many of its beliefs and ideas. Commentators have suggested a variety of reasons for the decline of classical deism. the rise, growth, and spread of naturalism[] and materialism, which were atheistic the writings of David Hume[][] and Immanuel Kant[] (and later, Charles Darwin), which increased doubt about the first cause argument and the argument from design, turning many (though not all) potential deists towards atheism instead criticisms (by writers such as Joseph-Marie de Maistre and Edmund Burke) of excesses of the French Revolution, and consequent rising doubts that reason and rationalism could solve all problems[] deism became associated with pantheism, freethought, and atheism; all of which became associated with one another, and were so criticized by Christian apologists[][] frustration with the determinism implicit in "This is the best of all possible worlds" deism remained a personal philosophy and had not yet become an organized movement (before the advent in the 20th century of organizations such as the World Union of Deists) with the rise of Unitarianism, based on deistic principles, people self-identified as Unitarians rather than as deists[] an anti-deist and anti-reason campaign by some Christian clergymen and theologians such as Johann Georg Hamann to vilify deism Christian revivalist movements, such as Pietism or Methodism, which taught that a more personal relationship with a deity was possible[]

Deism today
Contemporary deism attempts to integrate classical deism with modern philosophy and the current state of scientific knowledge. This attempt has produced a wide variety of personal beliefs under the broad classification of belief of "deism". The Modern Deism web site includes one list of the unofficial tenets of modern deism.[57] Classical deism held that a human's relationship with God was impersonal: God created the world and set it in motion but does not actively intervene in individual human affairs but rather through Divine Providence. What this means is that God will give humanity such things as reason and compassion but this applies to all and not individual intervention. Some modern deists have modified this classical view and believe that humanity's relationship with God is transpersonal, which means that God transcends the personal/impersonal duality and moves beyond such human terms. Also, this means that it makes no sense to state that God intervenes or does not intervene, as that is a human characteristic which God does not contain. Modern deists believe that they must continue what the classical deists started and continue to use modern human knowledge to come to understand God, which in turn is why a human-like God that can lead to numerous contradictions and inconsistencies is no longer believed in and has been replaced with a much more abstract conception.

Deism A modern definition[58] has been created and provided by the World Union of Deists (WUD) that provides a modern understanding of deism: Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation. Because deism asserts God without accepting claims of divine revelation, it appeals to people from both ends of the religious spectrum. Antony Flew, for example, was a convert from atheism, and Raymond Fontaine [59] was a Roman Catholic priest for over 20 years before converting. The 2001 American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS), which involved 50,000 participants, reported that the number of participants in the survey identifying themselves as deists grew at the rate of 717 percent between 1990 and 2001. If this were generalized to the US population as a whole, it would make deism the fastest-growing religious classification in the US for that period, with the reported total of 49,000 self-identified adherents representing about 0.02% of the US population at the time.[60][61]

16

Modern deistic organizations and websites

In 1993, Bob Johnson established the first Deist organization since the days of Thomas Paine and Elihu Palmer with the World Union of Deists. The WUD offered the monthly hardcopy publication THINK! Currently the WUD offers two online Deist publications, THINKonline! and Deistic Thought & Action! As well as using the Internet for spreading the Deist message, the WUD is also conducting a direct mail campaign. 1996 saw the first Web site dedicated to deism with the WUD site Deism.com. In 1998, Sullivan-County.com[62] was originally the Virginia/Tennessee affiliate of WUD and the second deism site on the Web. It split from Deism.com to promote more traditional and historical Deist beliefs and history. From these effort, many other Deist sites and discussion groups have appeared on the Internet such as Positive Deism [63], Deist Info [64], Modern Deism [65] and many others. In the last few years, the Deist Alliance [66] was created so that many of the sites on the Internet could come together to support each other and advocate deism. The Enlightened Worldview Project [67], a member of the Deist Alliance, was created to explore the relationship between deism and other subjects including morality and spirituality. Another Deist Alliance member, the Center for Reasoned Spirituality, retains a focus on deism but is also meant to also be inclusive to members who do not necessarily identify with deism. In 2009, the World Union of Deists published a book on deism, Deism: A Revolution in Religion, A Revolution in You written by its founder and director, Bob Johnson. This book focuses on what deism has to offer both individuals and society. In 2010, the Church of Deism was formed in an effort to extend the legal rights and privileges of more traditional religions to Deists while maintaining an absence of established dogma and ritual. Today there are a number of deistic Web sites.

Subcategories of contemporary deism

Modern deists hold a wide range of views on the nature of God and God's relationship to the world. The common area of agreement is the desire to use reason, experience, and nature as the basis of belief. There are a number of subcategories of modern deism, including monodeism (this being the default standard concept of deism), polydeism, pandeism, panendeism, spiritual deism, process deism, Christian deism, scientific deism, and humanistic deism. Some deists see design in nature and purpose in the universe and in their lives (Prime Designer). Others see God and the universe in a co-creative process (Prime Motivator). Some deists view God in classical terms and see God as observing humanity but not directly intervening in our lives (Prime Observer), while others see God as a subtle and persuasive spirit who created the world, but then stepped back to observe (Prime Mover).

Deism Pandeism Pandeism combines elements of deism with elements of pantheism, the belief that the universe is identical to God. Pandeism holds that God was a conscious and sentient force or entity that designed and created the universe, which operates by mechanisms set forth in the creation. God thus became an unconscious and nonresponsive being by becoming the universe. Other than this distinction (and the possibility that the universe will one day return to the state of being God), pandeistic beliefs are deistic. The earliest allusion to pandeism found to date is in 1787, in translator Gottfried Groes interpretation of Pliny the Elders 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 Schpfung im Konkreto, und eben so scheint es mit seiner Gottheit beschaffen zu seyn.[] Here Gottfried says that Pliny is not Spinozist, but 'could be called a Pandeist' whose Nature or God 'is not a being separate from the world. Its nature is the whole creation in concrete form, and thus it seems to be designed with its divinity.' The term was used in 1859 by German philosophers and frequent collaborators Moritz Lazarus and Heymann Steinthal in Zeitschrift fr Vlkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft. They wrote: Man stelle es also den Denkern frei, ob sie Theisten, Pan-theisten, Atheisten, Deisten (und warum nicht auch Pandeisten?)[68] This is translated as: So we should let these thinkers decide themselves whether they are theists, pan-theists, atheists, deists (and why not even pandeists?) In the 1960s, theologian Charles Hartshorne scrupulously examined and rejected both deism and pandeism (as well as pantheism) in favor of a conception of God whose characteristics included "absolute perfection in some respects, relative perfection in all others" or "AR", writing that this theory "is able consistently to embrace all that is positive in either deism or pandeism", concluding that "panentheistic doctrine contains all of deism and pandeism except their arbitrary negations".[69] Panendeism Panendeism combines deism with panentheism, the belief that the universe is part of God, but not all of God. A component of panendeism is "experiential metaphysics" the idea that a mystical component exists within the framework of panendeism, allowing the seeker to experience a relationship to Deity through meditation, prayer or some other type of communion.[] This is a major departure from classical deism. A 1995 news article includes an early usage of the term by Jim Garvin, a Vietnam veteran who became a Trappist monk in the Holy Cross Abbey of Berryville, Virginia, and went on to lead the economic development of Phoenix, Arizona. Despite his Roman Catholic post, Garvin described his spiritual position as "pandeism' or 'pan-en-deism,' something very close to the Native American concept of the all-pervading Great Spirit..."[70] Spiritual deism Spiritual deism is the religious and philosophical belief in one indefinable, omnipresent god who is the cause or the substance (or both) of the universe. Spiritual Deists reject all divine revelation, religious dogma, and supernatural events and favor an ongoing personalized connection with the divine presence through intuition, communion with nature, meditation and contemplation. Generally, Spiritual Deists reject the notion that God consciously intervenes in human affairs. Spiritual deism is extremely general and is not bound by any ideology other than the belief in one indefinable god whose spiritual presence can be felt in nature. As such, spiritual deism is not infected by political principles or partisanship of any kind. Because of this, Spiritual Deists are extremely welcoming and tolerant to all except dogma, demagoguery, and intolerance itself. Therefore, most Spiritual Deists are more comfortable contemplating the

17

Deism universe as a mystery than they are in filling it with belief systems such as eternal reward, reincarnation, karma, etc. Some Spiritual Deists label themselves Spiritual But Not Religious.

18

Contemporary deist opinions on prayer

Many classical deists were critical of some types of prayer. For example, in Christianity as Old as the Creation, Matthew Tindal argues against praying for miracles, but advocates prayer as both a human duty and a human need.[71] Today, deists hold a variety of opinions about prayer: Some contemporary deists believe (with the classical deists) that God has created the universe perfectly, so no amount of supplication, request, or begging can change the fundamental nature of the universe. Some deists believe that God is not an entity that can be contacted by human beings through petitions for relief; rather, God can only be experienced through the nature of the universe. Some deists do not believe in divine intervention, but still find value in prayer as a form of meditation, self-cleansing, and spiritual renewal. Such prayers are often appreciative (that is, "Thank you for ...") rather than supplicative (that is, "Please God grant me ...").[72] Some deists, usually referred to as Spiritual Deists, practice meditation and make frequent use of Affirmative Prayer, a non-supplicative form of prayer which is common in the New Thought movement.[citation needed]

Recent discussion of the role of deism

Charles Taylor, in his 2007 book A Secular Age, showed the historical role of deism, leading to what he calls an exclusive humanism. This humanism invokes a moral order, whose ontic commitment is wholly intra-human, with no reference to transcendence.[73] One of the special achievements of such deism-based humanism is that it discloses new, anthropocentric moral sources by which human beings are motivated and empowered to accomplish acts of mutual benefit.[74] This is the province of a buffered, disengaged self, which is the locus of dignity, freedom and discipline, and is endowed with a sense of human capability.[75] According to Taylor, by the early 19th century this deism-mediated exclusive humanism developed as an alternative to Christian faith in a personal God and an order of miracles and mystery.

References
[1] . [4] p [14] See the entry for "Deism" (http:/ / xtf. lib. virginia. edu/ xtf/ view?docId=DicHist/ uvaBook/ tei/ DicHist1. xml;chunk. id=dv1-77;toc. depth=1;toc. id=dv1-77;brand=default) in the on-line Dictionary of the History of Ideas. [18] Quoted in Deism and Natural Religion: A Source Book, pp. 112 [19] Some mysteries are "above" reason rather than "contrary" to it. This was Locke's position. [20] Note the reference to Descartes' "clear and distinct ideas" [21] Note the reference to Lord Herbert of Cherbury's "common notions" [23] David Hartley, for example, described himself as "quite in the necessitarian scheme. See Ferg, Stephen, "Two Early Works of David Hartley", Journal of the History of Philosophy, vol. 19, no. 2 (April 1981), pp. 17389. [24] http:/ / www. cscs. umich. edu/ ~crshalizi/ LaMettrie/ Machine/ [25] See for example Liberty and Necessity (1729). [30] The discussion of the background of deism is based on the excellent summary in "The Challenge of the Seventeenth Century" in The Historical Jesus Question by Gregory W. Dawes (Westminster: John Knox Press, 2001). Good discussions of individual deist writers can be found in The Seventeenth Century Background and The Eighteenth Century Background by Basil Willey. [31] "Windows into China", John Parker, p.25, ISBN 0-89073-050-4 [32] "The Eastern origins of Western civilization", John Hobson, p194-195, ISBN 0-521-54724-5 [42] http:/ / www. hkbu. edu. hk/ ~ppp/ srp/ arts/ KTS. html [51] Benjamin Franklin, On the Providence of God in the Government of the World (http:/ / www. historycarper. com/ resources/ twobf2/ provdnc. htm) (1730). [55] Frazer, Religious Beliefs of America's Founders, p. 128 quoting Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia, 1800 ed., p. 164.

Deism
[56] [57] [59] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [70] [71] Other scholars call Jefferson a "theistic rationalist" (although that term was coined later), such as http:/ / www. moderndeism. com/ html/ deism_defined. html http:/ / www. deism. com/ to-natures-god. net http:/ / www. positivedeism. com http:/ / www. deist. info http:/ / www. moderndeism. com http:/ / www. deistalliance. org http:/ / www. enlightenedworldview. com Moritz Lazarus and Heymann Steinthal, Zeitschrift fr Vlkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft (1859), p. 262. Albuquerque Journal, Saturday, November 11, 1995, B-10. External link to portion of text (http:/ / www. dynamicdeism. org/ library/ christianity_as_old_as_the_creat. htm#_Toc86950608)

19

Bibliography
Paine, Thomas (1795). The Age of Reason (http://www.deism.com/theageofreason.htm). Palmer, Elihu. The Principles of Nature (http://www.deism.com/principlesofnature.htm). Deism: A Revolution in Religion, A Revolution in You (http://www.deism.com/deismbook.htm). Herrick, James A. (1997). The Radical Rhetoric of the English Deists: The Discourse of Skepticism, 16801750. University of South Carolina Press.

Important discussions of deism can be found in: English Deism: Its Roots and Its Fruits by John Orr (1934) European Thought in the Eighteenth Century by Paul Hazard (1946, English translation 1954) A History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century by Sir Leslie Stephen, 2 volumes (1876, 3rd ed. 1902) A History of Freethought: Ancient and modern, to the period of the French revolution by John Mackinnon Robertson (1915)

Other studies of deism include: Early Deism in France: From the so-called 'deistes' of Lyon (1564) to Voltaire's 'Lettres philosophiques' (1734) by C. J. Betts (Martinus Nijhoff, 1984) The Seventeenth Century Background: Studies on the Thought of the Age in Relation to Poetry and Religion by Basil Willey (1934) The Eighteenth Century Background: Studies on the Idea of Nature in the Thought of the Period by Basil Willey (1940) Simon Tyssot de Patot and the Seventeenth-Century Background of Critical Deism by David Rice McKee (Johns Hopkins Press, 1941) The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus During the Deist Controversy by William Lane Craig (Edwin Mellen, 1985) Deism, Masonry, and the Enlightenment. Essays Honoring Alfred Owen Aldridge. Ed. J. A. Leo Lemay. Newark, University of Delaware Press, 1987. Anthologies of deist writings include: Deism: An Anthology by Peter Gay (Van Nostrand, 1968) Deism and Natural Religion: A Source Book by E. Graham Waring (Frederick Ungar, 1967) The American Deists: Voices of Reason & Dissent in the Early Republic by Kerry S. Walters (University of Kansas Press, 1992), which includes an extensive bibliographic essay

Deism

20

External links
English Deism (http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/deismeng.htm) Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy French Deism (http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/deismfre.htm) Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy Unified Deism (http://deism.co) Deism Community

Theistic evolution
Theistic evolution or evolutionary creation is a concept that asserts that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life. According to the American Scientific Affiliation, a Christian organization of scientists: A theory of theistic evolution (TE) also called evolutionary creation proposes that God's method of creation was to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve. Usually the "evolution" in "theistic evolution" means Total Evolution astronomical evolution (to form galaxies, solar systems,...) and geological evolution (to form the earth's geology) plus chemical evolution (to form the first life) and biological evolution (for the development of life) but it can refer only to biological evolution.[1] Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to religious belief and interpretation. Theistic evolution supporters can be seen as one of the groups who reject the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science that is, they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not contradict. Proponents of this view are sometimes described as Christian Darwinists.[2][3]

Terminology
The term was used by National Center for Science Education executive director Eugenie Scott to refer to the part of the overall spectrum of beliefs about creation and evolution holding the theological view that God creates through evolution. It covers a wide range of beliefs about the extent of any intervention by God, with some approaching deism in rejecting continued intervention. Others see intervention at critical intervals in history in a way consistent with scientific explanations of speciation, but with similarities to the ideas of Progressive Creationism that God created "kinds" of animals sequentially.[4]

Acceptance
This view is generally accepted by major Christian churches, including the Catholic Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Episcopal Church USA, and some other mainline Protestant denominations; virtually all Jewish denominations; and other religious groups that lack a literalist stance concerning some holy scriptures. Various biblical literalists have accepted or noted openness to this stance, including theologian B.B. Warfield and evangelist Billy Graham. With this approach toward evolution, scriptural creation stories are typically interpreted as being allegorical in nature. Both Jews and Christians have considered the idea of the creation history as an allegory (instead of a historical description) long before the development of Darwin's theory. An example in Christianity would be the earlier writings by St. Augustine (4th century), though he later rejected allegory in favor of literal interpretation. By this Augustine meant that in Genesis 1 the terms "light", "day", and "morning" hold a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, and that this spiritual morning is just as literal as physical morning. Augustine recognizes that the creation

Theistic evolution of a spiritual morning is as much a historical event as the creation of physical light.[5] [In later work, Augustine said that "there are some who think that only the world was made by God and that everything else is made by the world according to his ordination and command, but that God Himself makes nothing".[6]] Three noted Jewish examples are that of the writings of Philo of Alexandria (1st century),[] Maimonides (12th century) and Gersonides (13th century).[7][8] Theistic evolutionists argue that it is inappropriate to use Genesis as a scientific text, since it was written in a pre-scientific age and originally intended for religious instruction; as such, seemingly chronological aspects of the creation accounts should be thought of in terms of a literary framework. Theistic evolutionists may believe that creation is not literally a week long process but a process beginning in the time of Genesis and continuing through all of time, including today. This view affirms that God created the world and was the primary causation of our being, while scientific changes such as evolution are part of "creatio continua" or continuing creation which is still occurring in the never ending process of creation. This is one possible way of interpreting biblical scriptures, such as Genesis, that seem otherwise to be in opposition to scientific theories, such as evolution.[9]
Religious Differences on the Question of Evolution (United States, 2007) Percentage who agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth [10] Source: Pew Forum Buddhist Hindu Jewish Unaffiliated Catholic Orthodox Mainline Protestant Muslim Hist. Black Protest. Evang. Protestant Mormon Jehovah's Witness Total U.S. population 81% 80% 77% 72% 58% 54% 51% 45% 38% 24% 22% 8% 48%

21

Definition

....creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis. Judaic-Christian faith is radically creationist, but in a totally different sense. It is rooted in a belief that everything depends upon God, or better, all is a gift from God.

Fr George Coyne, Director, Vatican Observatory, 1978-2006

Theistic evolution holds that the theist's acceptance of evolutionary biology is not fundamentally different from the acceptance of other sciences, such as astronomy or meteorology. The latter two are also based on a methodological assumption of naturalism to study and explain the natural world, without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural. In this view, it is held both religiously and scientifically correct to reinterpret ancient religious texts in line with modern-day scientific findings about evolution. St. Anselm described theology as "Faith seeking understanding"[] and theistic evolutionists believe that this search for understanding extends to scientific

Theistic evolution understanding.[citation needed] In light of this view, authors writing on the subject, such as Ted Peters and Martinez Hewlett, say that "The best science and our best thinking about God belong together."[9] Peters and Hewlett see science as a means of evaluating, understanding, and using to our benefit the intricacies of the world that God has created for us.

22

Spectrum of viewpoints
Many religious organizations accept evolutionary theory, though their related theological interpretations vary. Additionally, individuals or movements within such organizations may not accept evolution, and stances on evolution may have adapted (or evolved) throughout history.

Bah'
In the Bah' Faith, `Abdul-Bah, the son of the founder of the religion, wrote about the origin of life. A fundamental part of `Abdul-Bah's teachings on evolution is the belief that all life came from the same origin: "the origin of all material life is one..."[11] He states that from this sole origin, the complete diversity of life was generated: "Consider the world of created beings, how varied and diverse they are in species, yet with one sole origin"[12] He explains that a slow, gradual process led to the development of complex entities: "[T]he growth and development of all beings is gradual; this is the universal divine organization and the natural system. The seed does not at once become a tree; the embryo does not at once become a man; the mineral does not suddenly become a stone. No, they grow and develop gradually and attain the limit of perfection"[13]

Christianity
Evolution contradicts a literalistic interpretation of Genesis; however, according to Catholicism and most contemporary Protestant denominations, biblical literalism in the creation account is not mandatory. Christians have considered allegorical interpretations of Genesis since long before the development of Darwin's theory of evolution, or Hutton's principle of uniformitarianism. A notable example is St. Augustine (4th century), who, on theological grounds, argued that everything in the universe was created by God in the same instant, and not in six days as a plain reading of Genesis would require.[5] Modern theologians such as Meredith G. Kline and Henri Blocher have advocated what has become known as the literary framework interpretation of the days of Genesis. Contemporary Christian denominations All of the traditional mainline Protestant denominations support or accept theistic evolution. For example, on 12 February 2006, the 197th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth was commemorated by "Evolution Sunday" where the message that followers of Christ do not have to choose between biblical stories of creation and evolution was taught in classes and sermons at many Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Unitarian, Congregationalist, United Church of Christ, Baptist and community churches.[14] Additionally, the National Council of Churches USA has issued a teaching resource to "assist people of faith who experience no conflict between science and their faith and who embrace science as one way of appreciating the beauty and complexity of God's creation." This resource cites the Episcopal Church, according to whom the stories of creation in Genesis "should not be understood as historical and scientific accounts of origins but as proclamations of basic theological truths about creation."[15] The positions of particular denominations are discussed below.

Theistic evolution Anglicanism Anglicans (including the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, the Church of England and others) believe that the Bible "contains all things necessary to salvation," while believing that "science and Christian theology can complement one another in the quest for truth and understanding." Specifically on the subject of creation/evolution, some Anglicans view "Big Bang cosmology" as being "in tune with both the concepts of creation out of nothing and continuous creation." Their position is clearly set out in the Catechism of Creation Part II: Creation and Science.[16] In an interview, the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams expressed his thought that "creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories. Whatever the biblical account of creation is, it's not a theory alongside theories... My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it."[17] His view is that creationism should not be taught in schools. United Methodist Church The United Methodist Church affirms a Creator God and supports the scientific study of evolution. We recognize science as a legitimate interpretation of Gods natural world. We affirm the validity of the claims of science in describing the natural world and in determining what is scientific. We preclude science from making authoritative claims about theological issues and theology from making authoritative claims about scientific issues. We find that sciences descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology. [18] Church of the Nazarene The Church of the Nazarene, an evangelical Christian denomination, sees "knowledge acquired by science and human inquiry equal to that acquired by divine revelation," and, while the church "'believes in the Biblical account of creation' and holds that God is the sole creator, it allows latitude 'regarding the "how" of creation.'"[19] While Richard G. Colling, author of Random Designer[20] and professor at Olivet Nazarene University, received criticism from elements within the denomination in 2007 for his book (published in 2004),[19] Darrel R. Falk of Point Loma Nazarene published a similar book in 2004,[21] and Karl Giberson of Eastern Nazarene, the first Nazarene scholar to publish with Oxford University Press, has published four books since 1993 on the tensions between science and religion,[22] including his most recently published Saving Darwin.[19] Theologians of note in the denomination whose work on science and religion shows the promise of cooperation include Thomas Jay Oord (Science of Love, The Altruism Reader, Defining Love), Michael Lodahl (God of Nature and of Grace), and Samuel M. Powell (Participating in God). These theologians see no major problem reconciling theology with the general theory of evolution.[citation needed] The Nazarene Manual, a document crafted to provide Biblical guidance and denominational expression for Church members, states: "The Church of the Nazarene believes in the biblical account of creation (In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth . . .Genesis 1:1). We oppose any godless interpretation of the origin of the universe and of humankind. However, the church accepts as valid all scientifically verifiable discoveries in geology and other natural phenomena, for we firmly believe that God is the Creator. (Articles I.1., V. 5.1, VII.) (2005)[23] Eastern Orthodox Church The Eastern Orthodox Church is divided in two large categories, which might be labeled as compatibilism and dualism. On the one hand, compatibilists hold that science and theology are compatible and view them as complementary revelations of God. As God is the source of both his specific revelation of himself in the Christian faith and the source of the general revelation of himself in nature, the findings of science and theology cannot really contradict; the contradictions must be merely apparent and a resolution possible which is faithful to the truth of God's revelation. Nicozisin (Father George) is a compatibilist.[24]

23

Theistic evolution On the other hand, dualists hold that science can be incompatible with faith. They usually argue either that science is philosophically based on a kind of naturalism or that God's specific revelation is infallible and therefore trumps the findings of human reason in the case of any conflict between them. This is often based on a suspicion of human reason to arrive at reliable conclusions in the first place. Their stance is somewhat similar to Averroism, in that there is one truth, but it can be arrived at through (at least) two different paths, namely Philosophy and Religion. Bufeev, S. V, is a dualist, preferring to see the spiritual level above the mechanical, physico-chemical, or biological levels; he attributes discrepancies between spiritual matters and scientific matters to be because of the purely naturalistic views of evolutionists.[25] Roman Catholic Church The position of the Roman Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has changed over the last two centuries from a large period of no official mention, to a statement of neutrality in the 1950s, to limited guarded acceptance in recent years, rejecting the materialistic and reductionist philosophies behind it, and insisting that the human soul was immediately infused by God, and the reality of a single human ancestor (commonly called monogenism) for all of mankind. The Church does not argue with scientists on matters such as the age of the earth and the authenticity of the fossil record, seeing such matters as outside its area of expertise. Papal pronouncements, along with commentaries by cardinals, indicate that the Church is aware of the general findings of scientists on the gradual appearance of life. Indeed, Belgian priest Georges Lematre, astronomer and physics professor at the Catholic University of Louvain, was the first to propose the theory of expansion of the universe, often incorrectly credited to Edwin Hubble. Under Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the International Theological Commission published a paper accepting the big bang of 15 billion years ago and the evolution of all life including humans from the microorganisms that formed approximately 4 billion years ago.[26] The Vatican has no official teaching on this matter except for the special creation of the human soul.[27] The Pontifical Biblical Commission issued a decree ratified by Pope Pius X on June 30, 1909 stating that special creation applies to humans and not other species.[28]

24

Deism
Deism is belief in a God or first cause based on reason, rather than on faith or revelation. Most deistsWikipedia:Avoid weasel words believe that God does not interfere with the world or create miracles. Some deistsWikipedia:Avoid weasel words believe that a Divine Creator initiated a universe in which evolution occurred, by designing the system and the natural laws, although many deists believe that God also created life itself, before allowing it to be subject to evolution. They find it to be undignified and unwieldy for a deity to make constant adjustments rather than letting evolution elegantly adapt organisms to changing environments. One recent convert to deism was philosopher and professor Antony Flew, who became a deist in December 2004. Professor Flew, a former atheist, later argued that recent research into the origins of life supports the theory that some form of intelligence was involved. Whilst accepting subsequent Darwinian evolution, Flew argued that this cannot explain the complexities of the origins of life. He also stated that the investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved."[29] He subsequently clarified this statement in an interview with Joan Bakewell for BBC Radio 4 in March 2005: "What I was converted to was the existence of an Aristotelian God, and Aristotle's God had no interest in human affairs at all."[30]WP:TOPIC

Theistic evolution

25

Evolutionary creation
Evolutionary creation[31] (EC, also referred to by some observers as evolutionary creationism) states that the creator god uses evolution to bring about his plan. Eugenie Scott states in Evolution Vs. Creationism that it is a type of evolution rather than creationism, despite its name, and that it is "hardly distinguishable from Theistic Evolution".[3] According to evolutionary creationist Denis Lamoureux, although referring to the same view, the word arrangement in the term "theistic evolution" places "the process of evolution as the primary term, and makes the Creator secondary as merely a qualifying adjective."[32]

Hinduism
Hindu views on evolution include a range of viewpoints with regard to evolution, creationism, and the origin of life within the traditions of Hinduism. The accounts of the emergence of life within the universe vary, but classically tell of the deity called Brahma, from a Trimurti of three deities also including Vishnu and Shiva, performing the act of "creation", or more specifically of "propagating life within the universe". with the other two deities responsible for "preservation" and "destruction" (of the universe) respectively.[33] Some Hindu schoolsWikipedia:Avoid weasel words do not treat the scriptural creation myth literally and often the creation stories themselves do not go into specific detail, thus leaving open the possibility of incorporating at least some theories in support of evolution. Some HindusWikipedia:Avoid weasel words find support for, or foreshadowing of evolutionary ideas in scriptures, namely the Vedas.[34] Day and night of Brahma Science writers Carl Sagan and Fritjof Capra have pointed out similarities between the latest scientific understanding of the age of the universe, and the Hindu concept of a "day and night of Brahma", which is much closer to the current known age of the universe than other creation myths. The days and nights of Brahma posit a view of the universe that is divinely created, and is not strictly evolutionary, but an ongoing cycle of birth, death, and rebirth of the universe. According to Sagan: The Hindu religion is the only one of the world's great faiths dedicated to the idea that the Cosmos itself undergoes an immense, indeed an infinite, number of deaths and rebirths. It is the only religion in which time scales correspond to those of modern scientific cosmology. Its cycles run from our ordinary day and night to a day and night of Brahma, 8.64 billion years long, longer than the age of the Earth or the Sun and about half the time since the Big Bang.[35] Capra, in his popular book The Tao of Physics, wrote that: This idea of a periodically expanding and contracting universe, which involves a scale of time and space of vast proportions, has arisen not only in modern cosmology, but also in ancient Indian mythology. Experiencing the universe as an organic and rhythmically moving cosmos, the Hindus were able to develop evolutionary cosmologies which come very close to our modern scientific models.[36] Davatras and evolution The British geneticist and evolutionary biologist J B S Haldane observed that the Dasavataras (ten principal avatars of Lord Vishnu) provide a true sequential depiction of the great unfolding of evolution. The avatars of Vishnu show an uncanny similarity to the biological theory of evolution of life on earth.[37]Wikipedia:Verifiability

Theistic evolution

26

Avatars Matsya.

Explanation First avatar is a fish, one which is creature living in water.

Evolution If we compare it with biological evolution on different Geological Time Scale first developed life was also in the form of fish which originated during Cambrian period.

Kurma

Second avatar was in the form In geology also first reptiles comes as second important evolution which originated in Mississippian of Tortoise (reptiles). period just after Amphibians. Third avatar was in the form of Boar. The Man-Lion (Nara= man, simha=lion) was the fourth avatar. Evolution of the amphibian to the land animal.

Varaha

Narasimha

But in geology no such evidences are mentioned. It may have been related with Ape Man The term may sometimes refer to extinct early human ancestors.

Vamana

Fifth Avatar is the dwarf man. It may be related with the first man originated during Pliocene. It may be related with Neanderthals. Neanderthals were generally only 12 to 14cm (45 in) shorter than modern humans, contrary to a common view of them as "very short" or "just over 5 feet". It has the similarities with the first modern man originated during Quaternary period or the man of Iron Age.

Parashurama, The man with an axe was the sixth avatar.

Lord Rama, Lord Krishna and Lord Buddha were the seventh, eighth and ninth other avatars of Lord Vishnu. It indicates the physical and mental changes and evolution in the man from its time of appearance.

Islam
Few Muslims believe in evolutionary creationism, most notably the Ahmadiyya movement.[citation needed] Some literalist MuslimsWikipedia:Avoid weasel words reject origin of species from a common ancestor by evolution as incompatible with the Qur'an. However, even amongst Muslims who accept evolution, many believe that humanity was a special creation by God. For example, Shaikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller, an American Muslim and specialist in Islamic law has argued in Islam and Evolution[38] that a belief in macroevolution is not incompatible with Islam, as long as it is accepted that "Allah is the Creator of everything" (Qur'an 13:16) and that Allah specifically created humanity (in the person of Adam; Qur'an 38:71-76). Shaikh Keller states in his conclusion however: "As for claim that man has evolved from a non-human species, this is unbelief (kufr) no matter if we ascribe the process to Allah or to "nature," because it negates the truth of Adam's special creation that Allah has revealed in the Qur'an. Man is of special origin, attested to not only by revelation, but also by the divine secret within him, the capacity for ma'rifa or knowledge of the Divine that he alone of all things possesses. By his God-given nature, man stands before a door opening onto infinitude that no other creature in the universe can aspire to. Man is something else." The Ahmadiyya movement also universally accepts the principle of the process of evolution with divine guidance.[39]

Judaism
In general, three of the four major denominations of American Judaism (Reconstructionist, Reform, and Conservative) accept theistic evolution. Within Orthodoxy, there is much debate about the issue. Most Modern Orthodox groups accept theistic evolution and most Ultra-Orthodox groups do not. This disagreement was most vociferous in the Natan Slifkin controversy which arose when a number of prominent Ultra-Orthodox Rabbis banned books written by Rabbi Natan Slifkin which explored the idea of theistic evolution within Jewish tradition. These Rabbis forming part of Jewish opposition to evolution considered that his books were heresy as they indicated that the Talmud is not necessarily correct about scientific matters such as the age of the Earth.

Theistic evolution Advocates of theistic evolution within Judaism follow two general approaches. Either the creation account in the Torah is not to be taken as a literal text, but rather as a symbolic work, or, alternatively, that the 'days' do not refer to 24-hour periods. The latter view, called day-age creationism, is justified by how the first day in the biblical account actually precedes the creation of the sun and earth by which 24 hour days are reckoned and by how the seventh day of rest has no evening and morning. In the day-age view, Jewish scholars point out how the order of creation in Genesis corresponds to the scientific description of the development of life on Earththe sun, then earth, then oceans, then oceanic plant life, fish preceding land-based life, with mammals and finally humans lastand in no way specifies the method of creation in a manner prohibitive of evolution. Karaite Judaism is a Jewish a movement which is distinct in that they do not accept the Talmud (a series of Rabbinic commentaries) as law and follow the Hebrew scriptures as they are written. Karaites are currently divided on the question of evolution with many or most Karaite Jews leaning in favor of Theistic Evolution. The Samaritans, who do not consider themselves to be Jewish but who hold similar beliefs, generally accept Theistic Evolution.

27

Pantheism
Pantheists (for instance in Naturalistic Pantheism) may view natural processes, including evolution, as work or emanations from the impersonal, non-anthropomorphic deity.[40][41]

Proponents
Evolutionary biologists who were also theists
Although evolutionary biologists have often been agnostics (most notably Thomas Huxley and Charles Darwin) or atheists (most notably Richard Dawkins), from the outset many have had a belief in some form of theism. These have included Alfred Russel Wallace (18231913), who in a joint paper with Charles Darwin in 1858, proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection. Wallace, in his later years, was effectively a deist who believed that "the unseen universe of Spirit" had interceded to create life as well as consciousness in animals and (separately) in humans.[citation needed] Darwin had a longstanding close friendship with the American botanist Asa Gray who was a leading supporter of Darwin's theory, and a devout Presbyterian.[42] Gray wrote a series of essays on the relationship of natural selection to religious belief and natural theology, and supported the views of theologians who said that design through evolution was inherent in all forms of life.[43] Darwin had Gray and Charles Kingsley in mind when he wrote that "It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent theist & an evolutionist".[44] An early example of this kind of approach came from computing pioneer Charles Babbage who published his unofficial Ninth Bridgewater Treatise in 1837, putting forward the thesis that God had the omnipotence and foresight to create as a divine legislator, making laws (or programs) which then produced species at the appropriate times, rather than continually interfering with ad hoc miracles each time a new species was required. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (18811955) was a noted geologist and paleontologist as well as a Jesuit Priest who wrote extensively on the subject of incorporating evolution into a new understanding of Christianity. Initially suppressed by the Roman Catholic Church, his theological work has had considerable influence and is widely taught in Catholic and most mainline Protestant seminaries. Both Ronald Fisher (18901962) and Theodosius Dobzhansky (19001975), were Christians and architects of the modern evolutionary synthesis. Dobzhansky, a Russian Orthodox, wrote a famous 1973 essay entitled Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution espousing evolutionary creationism: "I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's, method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way... Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy

Theistic evolution Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts... the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness." In the realm of biology and theology, the saying coined by Thomas Jay Oord is perhaps appropriate: "The Bible tells us how to find abundant life, not the details of how life became abundant."

28

Contemporary advocates of theistic evolution

Contemporary biologists and geologists who are Christians and theistic evolutionists include: Paleontologist Robert T. Bakker R. J. Berry, Professor of Genetics at University College London Microbiologist Richard G. Colling of Olivet Nazarene University, author of Random Designer: Created from Chaos to Connect with Creator Geneticist Francis Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Health and director of the Human Genome Project and author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief in which he has suggested the term BioLogos for theistic evolution. Collins is also the founder of the BioLogos Foundation. Biologist Darrel Falk of Point Loma Nazarene University, author of Coming to Peace with Science Biologist Denis Lamoureux of St. Joseph's College, University of Alberta, Canada who has co-authored with evolution critic Phillip E. Johnson Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins (Regent College, 1999) Evangelical Christian and geologist Keith B. Miller of Kansas State University, who compiled an anthology Perspectives on an Evolving Creation (Eerdmans, 2003) Kenneth R. Miller, professor of biology at Brown University, author of Finding Darwin's God (Cliff Street Books, 1999), in which he states his belief in God and argues that "evolution is the key to understanding God" (Dr. Miller has also called himself "an orthodox Catholic and an orthodox Darwinist" in the 2001 PBS special "Evolution") Biologist Joan Roughgarden at Stanford University is author of various books including Evolution and Christian Faith: Reflections of an Evolutionary Biologist Paleobiologist Prof. Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge University, well known for his groundbreaking work on the Burgess Shale fossils and the Cambrian explosion, and author of Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe Philosophers, theologians, and physical scientists who have supported the evolutionary creationist model include: Christian apologist and philosopher William Lane Craig Political commentator and apologist Dinesh D'Souza Eco-theologian Fr. Thomas Berry Eco-theologian and evolutionary evangelist Rev. Michael Dowd Fr. George Coyne of the Vatican Observatory Astronomer Owen Gingerich Physicist Karl Giberson of Eastern Nazarene College, author of several books: Worlds Apart: The Unholy War between Religion and Science, Species of Origins: Americas Search for a Creation Story, The Oracles of Science: Celebrity Scientists Versus God and Religion, and Saving Darwin. Theologian and New Testament scholar N.T. Wright, Anglican Bishop of Durham and contributor to the BioLogos Foundation. Theologian John Haught of Georgetown University. Biochemist and theologian Alister McGrath, Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford. Theologian Thomas Jay Oord of Northwest Nazarene University (known for saying, "The Bible tells us how to find abundant life, not the details of how life became abundant.")

Theistic evolution Pope John Paul II, who is famous for praising evolutionary biology and calling its accounts of human origins "more than a hypothesis"[45] Ted Peters, co-author of the book Can You Believe in God And Evolution? Physicist and theologian Rev. John Polkinghorne of Cambridge University. Theologian Rev. Keith Ward, former Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Oxford, author of God, Chance, and Necessity Theologian-philosopher Rev. Micha Heller, professor of philosophy at the Pontifical Academy of Theology in Krakw, Poland, and an adjunct member of the Vatican Observatory staff. Theologian-philosopher catholic archbishop Jzef yciski, professor of philosophy at the Pontifical Academy of Theology in Krakw, Poland. Theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg, University of Munich, author of "Toward a Theology of Nature." Many members of the American Scientific Affiliation [46] and contributors to its journal Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. [47]

29

Criticism
The major criticism of theistic evolution by non-theistic evolutionists focuses on its essential belief in a supernatural creator. These critics argue that by the application of Occam's razor, sufficient explanation of the phenomena of evolution is provided by natural processes (in particular, natural selection), and the intervention or direction of a supernatural entity is not required.[48] Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins considers theistic evolution as a superfluous attempt to "smuggle God in by the back door".[49] Young Earth creationists criticise theistic evolution on theological grounds, finding it hard to reconcile the nature of a loving God with the process of evolution, in particular, the existence of death and suffering before the Fall of Man. They consider that it undermines central biblical teachings by regarding the creation account as a myth, a parable, or an allegory, instead of believing that it is historical. They also fear that a capitulation to what they call "atheistic" naturalism will confine God to the gaps in scientific explanations, undermining biblical doctrines, such as God's incarnation through Christ.[50] Theistic evolutionists deny these claims.

Relationship to intelligent design

A number of notable proponents of theistic evolution, including Kenneth R. Miller, John Haught, Michael Dowd, and Francis Collins, are critics of Intelligent design.

Notes
[2] pp 34-38 [3] Evolution Vs. Creationism, Eugenie Scott, Niles Eldredge, p62-63 [4] The Creation/Evolution Continuum (http:/ / www. ncseweb. org/ resources/ articles/ 1593_the_creationevolution_continu_12_7_2000. asp) by Eugenie Scott, December 2000, National Center for Science Education [5] Davis A. Young, "The Contemporary Relevance of Augustine's View of Creation" from Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 40.1 (http:/ / www. asa3. org/ aSA/ PSCF/ 1988/ PSCF3-88Young. html) [6] Taylor, JH (trans) (1982) "St. Augustine. The Literal Meaning of Genesis", Paulist Press, New York, p171 [7] The Guide for the Perplexed 2:17 [8] Milchamot Hashem 6:8 [9] Can You Believe in God and Evolution, Ted Peters and Matrinez Hewlett [10] Religious Groups: Opinions of Evolution (http:/ / pewforum. org/ docs/ ?DocID=392), Pew Forum (conducted in 2007, released in 2008) [14] Churches urged to challenge Intelligent Design -20/02/06 (http:/ / www. ekklesia. co. uk/ content/ news_syndication/ article_060220creationism. shtml) [15] Science, Religion, and the Teaching of Evolution in Public School Science Classes (http:/ / www. ncccusa. org/ pdfs/ evolutionbrochurefinal. html) (pdf), The National Council of Churches Committee on Public Education and Literacy, Teaching Evolution (http:/ / www. ncccusa. org/ news/ 060330evolution. html), March 2006 [16] Catechism of Creation Part II: Creation and Science (http:/ / www. episcopalchurch. org/ 19021_58398_ENG_HTM. htm)

Theistic evolution
[17] The Guardian, March 21, 2006 (http:/ / www. guardian. co. uk/ religion/ Story/ 0,,1735404,00. html) [18] (http:/ / www. umc. org/ site/ apps/ nlnet/ content3. aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH& b=3082929& ct=6715227) The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church 2008, The United Methodist Publishing House. [19] "Can God Love Darwin, Too?" by Sharon Begley, Newsweek, Sept. 17, 2007 issue (http:/ / www. msnbc. msn. com/ id/ 20657204/ site/ newsweek/ ) [20] Random Designer: Created from Chaos to Connect with the Creator, Browning Press, 2004, ISBN 0-9753904-0-6 [21] Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology, InterVarsity Press, 2004, ISBN 0-8308-2742-0 [22] Worlds Apart: The Unholy War between Religion and Science, Beacon Hill Press, 1993 ISBN 0-8341-1504-2 With Donald Yerxa, Species of Origins: America's Search for a Creation Story, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2002 ISBN 0-7425-0764-5 With Mariano Artigas, The Oracles of Science: Celebrity Scientist Versus God and Religion, Oxford University Press, 2006 ISBN 0-19-531072-1 [23] Manual, p.371 (http:/ / media. premierstudios. com/ nazarene/ docs/ Manual2005_09. pdf) [24] http:/ / www. orthodoxresearchinstitute. org/ articles/ dogmatics/ nicozisin_creationism. htm [25] http:/ / www. creatio. orthodoxy. ru/ sbornik/ sbufeev_whynot_english. html [26] "Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God." Vatican: The Holy See. International Theological Commission, 2002. Web. 19 Mar. 2012. ch.3 p.63 <http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html>. [29] Atheist Philosopher, 81, Now Believes in God | LiveScience (http:/ / www. livescience. com/ strangenews/ atheist_philosopher_041210. html) [30] BBC interview, Professor Antony Flew (http:/ / www. bbc. co. uk/ religion/ programmes/ belief/ scripts/ antony_flew. html) March 22, 2005. [31] Evolutionary creation (http:/ / www. ualberta. ca/ ~dlamoure/ 3EvoCr. htm), Denis Lamoureux [35] p. 258. [36] p. 198 [37] http:/ / www. americanchronicle. com/ articles/ view/ 101713 [38] Evolution and Islam (http:/ / www. masud. co. uk/ ISLAM/ nuh/ evolve. htm) [39] Jesus and the Indian Messiah 13. Every Wind of Doctrine (http:/ / itl-usa. org/ ahmadi/ ahmadi13. html) [41] Owen, H. P. Concepts of Deity. London: Macmillan, 1971, p. 65. [45] Pope John Paul II, "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth", New Advent, ed. Kevin Knight, 15 Feb 2009 <http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm> [46] http:/ / network. asa3. org/ [47] http:/ / network. asa3. org/ ?page=PSCF [48] Krauss, Lawrence M. (2012) A Universe from Nothing Free Press, New York. ISBN 978-1-4516-2445-8 p.146 f. [49] Numbers(2006) p374 [50] answersingenesis.org: 10 dangers of theistic evolution (http:/ / www. answersingenesis. org/ creation/ v17/ i4/ theistic_evolution. asp)

30

References
Numbers, Ronald (November 30, 2006). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition. Harvard University Press. ISBN0-674-02339-0.

Books
Collins, Francis; (2006) The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief ISBN 0-7432-8639-1 Michael Dowd (2009) Thank God for Evolution: How the Marriage of Science and Religion Will Transform Your Life and Our World ISBN 0-452-29534-3 Falk, Darrel; (2004) Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology ISBN 0-8308-2742-0 Miller, Kenneth R.; (1999) Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution ISBN 0-06-093049-7 Miller, Keith B.; (2003) Perspectives on an Evolving Creation ISBN 0-8028-0512-4 Corrado Ghinamo; (2013) The Beautiful Scientist: a Spiritual Approach to Science ISBN 1621474623; ISBN 978-1621474623

Theistic evolution

31

External links
Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution (http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/ Lamoureux_Scholarly_Essay.pdf) by Denis Lamoureux (St. Joseph's College, Edmonton) About: Agnosticism/Atheism on 'Theistic Evolution & Evolutionary Creationism' (http://atheism.about.com/ od/creationismcreationists/p/theistic.htm) by Austin Cline; overview of various viewpoints Creationism: What's a Catholic to Do? (http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac1007.asp) by Michael D. Guinan, O.F.M.; critical assessment of creationism and intelligent design from a Roman Catholic perspective. What is Creationism? (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html) by Mark Isaak, presents various forms of creationism What is Evolution? (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html) by Laurence Moran, presents a standard definition for evolution Answers In Creation (http://www.answersincreation.org) Old Earth Creationism, with section on theistic evolution Evolution & Creation: A Theosophic Synthesis (http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sunrise/52-02-3/ sc-wtst3.htm) Surveys critical problems in Darwinist explanations and common theistic views; explores ancient and modern "excluded middle" alternatives The Vatican's View of Evolution: The Story of Two Popes (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html) by Doug Linder (2004) Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes on evolution and "intelligent design" (http://www.berkeley.edu/news/ media/releases/2005/06/17_townes.shtml) Spectrum of Creation Beliefs (http://www.allviewpoints.org/RESOURCES/EVOLUTION/spectrum.htm) From Flat Earthism to Atheistic Evolutionism, including Theistic Evolution OrthodoxWiki article on Evolution (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Evolution).

Proponents of theistic evolution

Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution (http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml) by Theodosius Dobzhansky (see also: Wikipedia's article) Kenneth R Miller's homepage (http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/) Thank God for Evolution (http://ThankGodforEvolution.com) Michael Dowd's evolutionary ministry God and Evolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html) at the TalkOrigins Archive Evolutionary Creationist Ghinamo Corrado's homepage (http://www.ghinamo.com) Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences: On Evolution subtitled "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth" (http:// www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM), by Pope John Paul II, 22 October 1996. On Cosmology and Fundamental Physics (http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2COSM.HTM), by Pope John Paul II, 3 October 1981. Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (http://www.vatican.va/ roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en. html) Statement on creation and evolution from the International Theological Commission headed by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), 23 July 2004. Science Does Not Need God, or Does It? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution (http://www.catholic.org/ national/national_story.php?id=18504) transcript of talk by astronomer George V. Coyne, S.J. Perspectives on Theistic Evolution (http://www.theisticevolution.org/) An examination of both the theological and scientific aspects of theistic evolution. The "Clergy Letter" Project (http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/clergy_project.htm) signed by thousands of clergy supporting evolution and faith

Theistic evolution DMD Publishing Co. home page (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm) Essays arguing that even a literal treatment of Genesis requires theistic evolution. Thomas Jay Oord Science of Love: The Wisdom of Well-Being, Templeton, 2003. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin Le Milieu Divin (Tome 4: Essai de vie intrieure), Seuil (1 January 1998) ISBN 2-02-020136-4 Denis R Alexander, Can a Christian believe in evolution? (http://www.eauk.org/resources/idea/bigquestion/ archive/2005/bq7.cfm), The Evangelical Alliance, 12 May 2006 Let There Be Light: An Orthodox Theory of Human Evolution For the 21st Century (http://www.theandros. com/protozoe.html), John P. Maletis, Theandros, Vol. 5 No.3 Norman Hughes (http://seaver.pepperdine.edu/academics/catalog/2008seavercatalog.pdf), Professor Emeritus of Biology, Pepperdine University. See his letter to the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1986/PSCF12-86Hughes.html) and the response by Apologetics Press (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1990).

32

Religious naturalism
Religious naturalism is an approach to spirituality that is devoid of supernaturalism. The focus is on the religious attributes of the universe/nature, the understanding of it and our response to it (interpretive, spiritual and moral). These provide for the development of an eco-morality.[1] Although it has an ancient heritage in many philosophical cultures, this modern movement is currently not well defined.[2] Theistic or nontheistic religious naturalism is a basic theological perspective of liberal religion and religious humanism, according to some sources.[3] Religious naturalism is concerned about the meaning of life, but it is equally interested in living daily life in a rational, happy way. An alternative, more anthropocentric approach, is to look at it as answering the question: "What is the meaning of one's life and does it have a purpose?" It is an approach to understanding the natural world in a religious way and does not offer a detailed system of beliefs or rituals.[4] Religious naturalism also attempts to amalgamate the scientific examination of reality with the subjective sensory experiences of spirituality and aesthetics. As such, it is a combination of objectivity with religious emotional feelings and the aesthetic insights supplied by art, music and literature. It is a promising form of contemporary religious ethics and pluralism responding to the challenges of late modern religious transformations and ecological peril. In so doing, it is emerging as an increasingly plausible and potentially rewarding form of religious moral life consistent with the insights of the natural sciences.[5][6]
The interconnectivity of nature is a key postulate in religious naturalism.

Naturalism
All forms of religious naturalism, being naturalistic in their basic beliefs, assert that the natural world is the center of our most significant experiences and understandings. Consequently, nature is considered as the ultimate value in assessing one's being. Religious naturalists, despite having followed differing cultural and individual paths, affirm the human need for meaning and value in their lives. They draw on two fundamental convictions in those quests: the sense of Nature's richness, spectacular complexity, and fertility, and the recognition that Nature is the only realm in which people live out their lives. Humans are considered interconnected parts of Nature.

Religious naturalism Science is a fundamental, indispensable component of the paradigm of religious naturalism. It relies on mainstream science to reinforce religious and spiritual perspectives. Science is the primary interpretive tool for religious naturalism, because, scientific methods are thought to provide the most reliable understanding of Nature and the world, including human nature. "Truth is sought for its own sake. And those who are engaged upon the quest for anything for its own sake are not interested in other things. Finding the truth is difficult, and the road to it is rough."[7] Therefore, the seeker after the truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration, and not to the sayings of a human being whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.[]

33

Religious
Religious naturalism is religious in its approach to morality which is seen as coming from humans' biological and social evolution rather than divine revelations. Human evolution has produced a brain complex enough both for symbolic contemplation and for participating in unique human forms of social life. Since humans are hardwired for flexibility, morality varies from culture to culture. However, most world cultures adhere to the same basic 24 virtues.[8] P. Roger Gillette of Meadville Lombard Theology School says that religious naturalism is a religion "in that it is a system of A religious attitude towards nature belief and practice that demands and facilitates one's intellectual and emotional reconnection with one's self, one's family, one's local and global community and ecosystem, the universe of which the global ecosystem is a part, and (perhaps) the creative source of this universe". It is also a theology, an ethics, and a full service" belief that requires a "radical spiritual transformation".[]

History
Religious naturalism is a relatively new religious movement. Early uses of the term include the American Whig Review in 1846 describing "a seeming 'religious naturalism'",[9] In 1869 "Religious naturalism differs from this mainly in the fact that it extends the domain of nature farther outward into space and time. ...It never transcends nature". was expressed in American Unitarian Association literature.[10]WP:RS Ludwig Feuerbach wrote that religious naturalism was "the acknowledgment of the Divine in Nature" and also "an element of the Christian religion", but by no means that religion's definitive "characteristic" or "tendency".[11]

Religious naturalism

34

In 1864, Pope Pius IX condemned religious naturalism in the first seven articles of the Syllabus of Errors.WP:NOTRS Many modern religious naturalistsWikipedia:Avoid weasel words find philosophical similarity with ancient philosophers in the stoic or skeptical traditions, for example Zeno (founder of Stoicism) who said: All things are parts of one single system, which is called Nature [] Virtue consists in a will which is in agreement with Nature.[12] Mordecai Kaplan (18811983), one of the great rabbis of the 20th century and the founder of the Jewish reconstructionism movement.,[13] was an early advocate for religious naturalism. He believed that a naturalistic approach to religion and ethics was possible in a desacralizing world. He saw God as the sum of all natural processes.[14]WP:NOTRS

Another of the currently verified usages was in 1940 by George Perrigo Conger[15] and Edgar S. Brightman.[16] Shortly thereafter, H. H. Dubs wrote an article entitled Religious Naturalism an Evaluation (The Journal of Religion, XXIII: 4, October, 1943), which begins "Religious naturalism is today one of the outstanding American philosophies of religion" and discusses ideas developed by Henry Nelson Wieman in books that predate Dubs's article by 20 years. In 1991 Jerome A. Stone wrote The Minimalist Vision of Transcendence explicitly "to sketch a philosophy of religious naturalism".[17] Use of the term was expanded in the 1990s by Loyal Rue, who was familiar with the term from Brightman's book. Rue used the term in conversations with several people before 1994, and subsequent conversations between Rue and Ursula Goodenough [both of whom were active in IRAS (The Institute on Religion in an Age of Science) led to Goodenough's use in her book "The Sacred Depths of Nature" and by Rue in "Religion is not about god" and other writings. Since 1994 numerous authors have used the phrase or expressed similar thinking. Examples are Chet Raymo, Stuart Kauffman and Karl E. Peters. Mike Ignatowski states that "there were many religious naturalists in the first half of the 20th century and some even before that" but that "religious naturalism as a movement didnt really come into its own until about 1990 [and] took a major leap forward in 2000 when Ursula Goodenough published The Sacred Depths of Nature, which is considered one of the founding texts of this movement."[] Biologist Ursula Goodenough states: I profess my Faith. For me, the existence of all this complexity and awareness and intent and beauty, and my ability to apprehend it, serves as the ultimate meaning and the ultimate value. The continuation of life reaches around, grabs its own tail, and forms a sacred circle that requires no further justification, no Ursula Goodenough Creator, no super-ordinate meaning of meaning, no purpose other than that the continuation continue until the sun collapses or the final meteor collides. I confess a credo of continuation. And in so doing, I confess as well a credo of human continuation[18][19] Donald Crosbys Living with Ambiguity published in 2008, has, as its first chapter, Religion of Nature as a Form of Religious Naturalism.[20]

Lao Tzu, traditionally the author of the Tao Te Ching

Religious naturalism

35

Religious Naturalism Today: The Rebirth of a Forgotten Alternative is a history by Dr. Jerome A. Stone (Dec. 2008 release) that presents this paradigm as a once-forgotten option in religious thinking that is making a rapid revival. It seeks to explore and encourage religious ways of responding to the world on a completely naturalistic basis without a supreme being or ground of being. This book traces this history and analyzes some of the issues dividing religious naturalists. It covers the birth of religious naturalism, from George Santayana to Henry Nelson Wieman and briefly explores religious naturalism in literature and art. Contested issues are discussed including whether natures power or goodness is the focus of attention and also on the appropriateness of using the term "God". The contributions of more than twenty living Religious Naturalists are presented. The last chapter ends the study by exploring what it is like on the inside to live as a religious naturalist.[21]

Jerome A. Stone

Chet Raymo writes that he had come to the same conclusion as Teilhard de Chardin, "Grace is everywhere",[22] and that naturalistic emergence is in everything and far more magical than religion-based miracles. A future humankind religion should be ecumenical, ecological, and embrace the story provided by science as the "most reliable cosmology".[23] As P. Roger Gillette summarizes: Thus was religious naturalism born. It takes the findings of modern science seriously, and thus is inherently naturalistic. But it also takes the human needs that led to the emergence of religious systems seriously, and thus is also religious. It is religious, or reconnective, in that it seeks and facilitates human reconnection with one's self, family, larger human community, local and global ecosystem, and unitary universe () Religious reconnection implies love. And love implies concern, concern for the well-being of the beloved. Religious naturalism thus is marked by concern for the well-being of the whole of nature. This concern provides a basis and drive for ethical behavior toward the whole holy unitary universe.[24]

Tenets
Due to the rationality and feelings provided by science and a naturalistic spirituality, some religious naturalists have a strong sense of stewardship for the Earth. Luther College professor Loyal Rue has written: Religious naturalists will be known for their reverence and awe before Nature, their love for Nature and natural forms, their sympathy for all living things, their guilt for enlarging the ecological footprints, their pride in reducing them, their sense of gratitude directed towards the matrix of life, their contempt for those who abstract themselves from natural values, and their solidarity with those who link their self-esteem to sustainable living.[25]

Varieties
The literature related to religious naturalism includes many variations in conceptual framing. This reflects individual takes on various issues, to some extent various schools of thought, such as basic naturalism, religious humanism, pantheism, panentheism, and spiritual naturalism that have had time on the conceptual stage, and to some extent differing ways of characterizing Nature. Current discussion often relates to the issue of whether belief in a God or God-language and associated concepts have any place in a framework that treats the physical universe as its essential frame of reference and the methods of science as providing the preeminent means for determining what Nature is. There are at least three varieties of religious naturalism, and three similar but somewhat different ways to categorize them. They are: Michael Cavanaugh God-language

Religious naturalism A kind of naturalism that does use God-language but fundamentally treats God metaphorically. A commitment to naturalism using God-language, but as either (1) a faith statement or supported by philosophical arguments, or (2) both, usually leaving open the question of whether that usage as metaphor or refers to the ultimate answer that Nature can be. Neo-theistic (process theology, progressive religions) Gordon Kaufman, Karl E. Peters, Ralph Wendell Burhoe, Edmund Robinson[26] Non-theistic (agnostic, naturalistic concepts of god) - Robertson himself, Stanley Klein, Stuart Kauffman Not-theistic (no God concept, some modern naturalisms, non-militant atheism) Jerome A. Stone, Michael Cavanaugh, Donald A. Crosby,[27] Ursula Goodenough A hodgepodge of individual perspectives - Philip Hefner The first category has as many sub-groups as there are distinct definitions for god. Believers in a supernatural entity (transcendent) are by definition not religious naturalists however the matter of a naturalistic concept of God (Immanence) is currently debated. Strong atheists are not considered Religious Naturalists in this differentiation. Some individuals call themselves religious naturalists but refuse to be categorized. The unique theories of religious naturalists Loyal Rue, Donald A. Crosby, Jerome A. Stone, and Ursula Goodenough are discussed by Michael Hogue in his 2010 book The Promise of Religious Naturalism.[28] Jerome A. Stone God concepts[29] Those who conceive of God as the creative process within the universe example, Henry Nelson Wieman Those who think of God as the totality of the universe considered religiously Bernard Loomer. A third type of religious naturalism sees no need to use the concept or terminology of God, Stone himself and Ursula Goodenough Stone emphasizes that some Religious Naturalists do not reject the concept of God, but if they use the concept, it involves a radical alteration of the idea such as Gordon Kaufman who defines God as creativity. Ignatowski divides RN into only two types theistic and non-theistic.[]

36

Religious naturalism

37

Shared principles
There are several principles shared by all the aforementioned varieties of religious naturalism:[30] All varieties of religious naturalism see humans as an interconnected, emergent part of nature. Accept the primacy of science with regard to what is measurable via the scientific method. Recognize science's limitations in accounting for judgments of value and in providing a full account of human experience. Thus religious naturalism embraces nature's creativity, beauty and mystery and honors many aspects of the artistic, cultural and religious traditions that respond to and attempt to interpret Nature in subjective ways. Approach matters of morality, ethics and value with a focus on how the world works, with a deep concern for fairness and the welfare of all humans regardless of their station in life. Seek to integrate these interpretative, spiritual and ethical responses in a manner that respects diverse religious and philosophical perspectives, while still subjecting them and itself to rigorous scrutiny. The focus on scientific standards of evidence imbues RN with the humility inherent in scientific inquiry and its limited, albeit ever deepening, ability to describe reality

Emergence of Life

(see Epistemology). A strong environmental ethic for the welfare of the planet Earth and humanity. Belief in the sacredness of life and the evolutionary process The concept of emergence has grown in popularity with many Religious Naturalists. It helps explain how a complex Universe and life by self-organization have risen out of a multiplicity of relatively simple elements and their interactions. The entire story of emergence is related in the Epic of Evolution - the mythic scientific narrative used to tell the verifiable chronicle of the evolutionary process that is the Universe. Most religious naturalist consider the Epic of Evolution a true story about the historic achievement of Nature.[31][32][33] The Epic of Evolution is the 14 billion year narrative of cosmic, planetary, life, and cultural evolutiontold in sacred ways. Not only does it bridge mainstream science and a diversity of religious traditions; if skillfully told, it makes the science story memorable and deeply meaningful, while enriching one's religious faith or secular outlook.[34] A number of naturalistic writers have used this theme as a topic for their books using such synonyms as: Cosmic Evolution, Everybodys Story, Evolutionary Epic, Evolutionary Universe, Great Story, New Story, Universal Story. Epic of evolution is a term that, within the past three years(1998), has become the theme and title of a number of gatherings. It seems to have been first used by Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson in 1978. The evolutionary epic, Wilson wrote in his book On Human Nature, is probably the best myth we will ever have. Myth as falsehood was not the usage intended by Wilson in this statement. Rather, myth as a grand narrative that provides a people with a placement in timea meaningful placement that celebrates extraordinary moments of a shared heritage. The epic of evolution is science translated into meaningful story.[35] Evolutionary evangelist minister Michael Dowd uses the term to help present his position that science and religious faith are not mutually exclusive (a premise of religious naturalism). He preaches that the epic of cosmic, biological, and human evolution, revealed by science, is a basis for an inspiring and meaningful view of our place in the universe. Evolution is viewed as a spiritual process that it is not meaningless blind chance.[36] He is joined by a number of other theologians in this position.[37][38][39]

Religious naturalism

38

Notable proponents and critics

Proponents
Ralph Wendell Burhoe Donald A. Crosby Michael Dowd Willem B. Drees Ursula Goodenough Philip Hefner Mordecai Kaplan Gordon D. Kaufman Stuart Kauffman Stanley A. Klein Karl E. Peters Varadaraja V. Raman Chet Raymo Loyal Rue Jerome A. Stone Brian Swimme Paul Tillich Henry Nelson Wieman C. Robert Mesle George Santayana

Critic
John Haught

Prominent communities and leaders

Religious naturalists sometimes use the social practices of traditional religions, including communal gatherings and rituals, to foster a sense of community, and to serve as reinforcement of its participants' efforts to expand the scope of their understandings. Some known examples of religious naturalists groupings and congregation leaders are:[40] World Pantheist Movement - largely web-based but with some local groups.[41] The WPM is the worlds largest religious naturalist organization [42] Universal Pantheist Society founded 1975 Pantheism is an intercepting concept with religious naturalism [43] Gaia Community - similar viewpoints[44] Congregation Beth Or, a Jewish congregation near Chicago led by Rabbi David Oler[43] Congregation of Beth Adam in Loveland Ohio led by Rabbi Robert Barr[45] Pastor Ian Lawton, minister at the Christ Community Church in Spring Lake, West Michigan and Center for Progressive Christianity [46][47] Religious Naturalism is growing in the academic community.[citation needed] Articles appear frequently in Zygon, Religious Humanism and the Journal of Liberal Religion. There are three major electronic discussion groups.[48]

Religious naturalism

39

References
[5] The Promise of Religious Naturalism - Michael Hogue, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Sept.16, 2010, ISBN 0742562611 [6] http:/ / meadville. academia. edu/ MichaelSHogue/ Books/ 325740/ The_Promise_of_Religious_Naturalism [7] Alhazen (Ibn Al-Haytham) Critique of Ptolemy, translated by S. Pines, Actes X Congrs internationale d'histoire des sciences, Vol I Ithaca 1962, as referenced in [8] Peterson, Christopher & Seligman, Martin E. P. (2004). Character Strengths and Virtues. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [13] Alex J. Goldman - The greatest rabbis hall of fame, SP Books, 1987, page 342, ISBN 0933503148 [14] Rabbi Emanuel S. Goldsmith - Reconstructionism Today Spring 2001, Volume 8, Number 3, Jewish Reconstructionist Federation (http:/ / jrf. org/ showrt& rid=524) retrieved 4-1-09 [21] Religious Naturalism Today: The Rebirth of a Forgotten Alternative (http:/ / www. sunypress. edu/ details. asp?id=61660) [22] When God is Gone Everything is Holy The Making of a Religious Naturalist, Chet Raymo, 2008, p 136 [23] Chet Raymo - When God is Gone Everything is Holy, Soren Books, 2008, page 114, ISBN 1-933495-13-8 [25] Loyal D. Rue - RELIGION is not about god, Rutgers University Press, 2005, page 367, ISBN 0813535115 [28] The Promise of Religious Naturalism - Michael Hogue, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Sept.16, 2010, ISBN 0742562611 [31] How Grand a Narrative Ursula Goodenough (http:/ / www. thegreatstory. org/ HowGrand. pdf) [32] Epic, Story, Narrative Bill Bruehl (http:/ / www. thegreatstory. org/ EpicStoryNarrative. pdf) [33] How Grand a Narrative Philip Hefner (http:/ / www. thegreatstory. org/ HowGrand. pdf) [35] Connie Barlow - The Epic of Evolution: Religious and cultural interpretations of modern scientific cosmology. Science & Spirit (http:/ / www. science-spirit. org/ article_detail. php?article_id=31) [37] Eugenie Carol Scott, Niles Eldredge, Contributor Niles Eldredge, - Evolution Vs. Creationism: An Introduction, University of California Press, 2005, page 235, ISBN 0520246500 - (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=03b_a0monNYC& pg=PA235& vq=epic+ of+ evolution& dq=epic+ of+ evolution& source=gbs_search_r& cad=1_1) [38] John Haught - God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution, Westview Press, 2008, ISBN 0813343704 (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=v5G-kaQ9WoYC& dq=epic+ of+ evolution& lr=& ei=EKuISaWFIpGeyASi04H4Dw) [39] Quotes of Berry and Hefner (http:/ / www. thegreatstory. org/ ClassicQuotes. pdf) [40] Jerome A. Stone - Religious Naturalism Today: The Rebirth of a Forgotten Alternative, State U. of New York Press (Dec 2008), pages 10, 11, 141,ISBN 0791475379 [42] Jerome A. Stone - Religious Naturalism Today: The Rebirth of a Forgotten Alternative, State U. of New York Press (Dec 2008), pages 10, 11, 141 [43] Jerome A. Stone - Religious Naturalism Today: The Rebirth of a Forgotten Alternative, State U. of New York Press, page 10 (Dec 2008) [44] Jerome A. Stone - Religious Naturalism Today: The Rebirth of a Forgotten Alternative, State U. of New York Press, page 11 (Dec 2008) [45] A Jewish Perspective (http:/ / www. religiousnaturalism. org/ Perspectives_on_Religious_Naturalism. html) retrieved 2/15/2010 [48] Religious Naturalism Demystified comments by Jerome A. Stone (http:/ / frederikmortensen. com/ all-post/ religious-naturalism-demystified/ ) retrieved 8/25/09

Further reading
2011 Loyal Rue - Nature is Enough, State University of New York Press, ISBN 1438437994 2010 Michael Hogue The Promise of Religious Naturalism, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Sept.16, 2010, ISBN 0742562611 2009 Michael Ruse & Joseph Travis Evolution: The First Four Billion Years, Belknap Press, 2009, ISBN 067403175X 2008 Donald A. Crosby - Living with Ambiguity: Religious Naturalism and the Menace of Evil, State University of New York Press, ISBN 0791475190 2008 Michael Dowd Thank God for Evolution:, Viking (June 2008), ISBN 0670020451 2008 Kenneth R. Miller Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for Americas Soul, Viking Adult, 2008, ISBN 067001883X 2008 Eugenie C. Scott Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, Greenwood Press, ISBN 978-0313344275 2007 Eric Chaisson Epic of Evolution, Columbia University Press (March 2, 2007), ISBN 0231135610 2006 John Haught Is Nature Enough?, Cambridge University Press (May 31, 2006), ISBN 0521609933 2006 Loyal Rue Religion Is Not About God, Rutgers University Press, July 24, 2006, ISBN 0813539552 2004 Gordon Kaufman In the Beginning.Creativity, Augsburg Fortress Pub., 2004, ISBN 0800660935 2003 James B. Miller The Epic of Evolution: Science and Religion in Dialogue, Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2003, ISBN 013093318X

Religious naturalism 2002 - Donald A. Crosby - A Religion of Nature - State University of New York Press, ISBN 0791454541 2000 Ursula Goodenough Sacred Depths of Nature, Oxford University Press, USA; 1 edition (June 15, 2000), ISBN 0195136292 2000 John Stewart Evolution's Arrow: The Direction of Evolution and the Future of Humanity, Chapman Press, 2000, ISBN 0646394975 1997- Connie Barlow Green Space Green Time: The Way of Science, Springer (September 1997), ISBN 0387947949 1992 Brian Swimme The Universe Story: From the Primordial Flaring Forth to the Ecozoic Era, HarperCollins, 1992, ISBN 0062508350 Reading lists Evolution Reading Resources (http:/ / evolutionarychristianity. theooze. com/ 2009/ 01/ 01/ best-evolution-resources/ ), Books of the Epic of Evolution (http:/ / epicofevolution. info/ epicbooks. html), Cosmic Evolution (http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/fr_1/fr_1_future.html)

40

External links
The Great Story (http://www.TheGreatStory.org) leading RN educational website Naturalism.org (http://www.naturalism.org/) The New Cosmology (http://www.brianswimme.org) SacredRiver.org (http://www.sacredriver.org) The Spiritual Naturalist Society (http://spiritualnaturalistsociety.org)

Philosophical theism
Philosophical theism is the belief that God exists (or must exist) independent of the teaching or revelation of any particular religion.[1] It represents belief in a personal God entirely without doctrine. Some philosophical theists are persuaded of God's existence by philosophical arguments, while others consider themselves to have a religious faith that need not be, or could not be, supported by rational argument. Philosophical theism has parallels with the 18th century philosophical view called Deism. Philosophical theism is sometimes also used as a synonym for classical theism.

Relationship to organized religion

Plato, an early proponent of philosophical theism.

Philosophical theism conceives of nature (science), humanity (logic), and rational thought (reason), although possibly never completely understandable. It implies the belief that nature is ordered according to some sort of dual relations to existence and the ever changing matter in motion, however incomprehensible or inexplicable. However, philosophical theists do not endorse or adhere to the theology or doctrines of any organized religion or

Philosophical theism

41

church. They may accept arguments or observations about the existence of God advanced by theologians working in some religious tradition, but reject the tradition itself. (For example, a philosophical theist might believe certain Christian arguments about God while nevertheless rejecting Christianity.)

Notable philosophical theists

Socrates (469-399 B.C.) was a classical Greek Athenian philosopher; he is the earliest known proponent of the teleological argument,[2] though it is questionable if he abandoned polytheism. Plato (428-347 BC), a student of the Athenian sage Socrates, provided early medieval Christianity with a philosophical paradigm and is widely acknowledged as the father of Western philosophy. While his influence on theistic thought has been great, his own status as a theist is arguable. Aristotle (384-322 BC) founded what are currently known as the "cosmological arguments" for a God (or "first cause").[3] Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) was a Roman philosopher, statesman, lawyer, political theorist, and Roman constitutionalist. Immanuel Kant (17241804) was a German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (16461716) was an important German polymath, regarded as the father of digital computing. Although Leibniz embraced Christianity, as a philosopher he argued for the existence of God on purely philosophical grounds.Leibniz wrote: "Even by supposing the world to be eternal, the recourse to an ultimate cause of the universe beyond this world, that is, to God, cannot be avoided."[4] Thomas Jefferson (17431826) was an American Founding Father who was the principal author of the United States Declaration of Independence, although he was a Unitarian, he argued for God's existence on teleological grounds without appeal to revelation.[5]

Kurt Gdel, established, beyond comparison, as the most important logician of our times, in the words of Solomon Feferman (Feferman 1986), founded the modern, metamathematical era in mathematical logic

Bust of Socrates in the Vatican Museum.

Alfred Russel Wallace (18231913) was a British naturalist, biologist and co-discoverer of natural selection. Wallace later began to doubt his own theory of natural selection and advocated a teleological form of evolution, in a letter to James Marchant he wrote "The completely materialistic mind of my youth and early manhood has been slowly molded into the socialistic, spiritualistic, and theistic mind I now exhibit"[6] Charles Sanders Peirce (18391914) was an American philosopher, logician, mathematician, and scientist who sketches, for God's reality, an argument to a hypothesis of God as the Necessary Being[7] Alfred North Whitehead (18611947) was a philosopher and non-theologian who found that following through on the development of an innovative philosophy led to the inclusion of God in the system. Miguel de Unamuno (18641936) was a Spanish philosopher Ralph Barton Perry (18761957) was an American philosopher

Philosophical theism Kurt Gdel (19061978) was the preeminent mathematical logician of the twentieth century who described his theistic belief as independent of theology,[8] he also composed a formal argument for God's existence known as Gdel's ontological proof. Martin Gardner[9](19142010) was a mathematics and science writer who defended philosophical theism and was actively hostile to some religious traditions because of their belief that God has performed miracles or revelations. Gardner believed that many liberal Protestant preachers, such as Harry Emerson Fosdick and Norman Vincent Peale, were really philosophical theists without admitting (or realizing) the fact. Antony Flew (19232010) was an atheist philosopher who converted to philosophical theism on the basis of scientific discoveries and related reasoning, which had convinced him that there is an intelligent designer of the natural universe[10]

42

References
[1] Swinburne, Richard (2001), Entry, "Philosophical Theism" in Phillips, D.Z. and T.Tessin (eds.), Philosophy of Religion in The 21st Century, Palgrave. [2] Xenophon, Memorabilia I.4.6; [3] Aristotle's Physics (VIII, 46) and Metaphysics (XII, 16) [4] Leibniz, G. W. (1697) On the ultimate origination of the universe. [5] To JOHN ADAMS vii 281 1823 Jefferson Cyclopedia, Foley 1900 [6] When I was alive by Alfred Russel Wallace, THE LINNEAN 1995 VOLUME 11(2), pp. 9 [7] Peirce (1908), "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God", published in large part, Hibbert Journal v. 7, 90112. Reprinted with an unpublished part, CP 6.45285, Selected Writings pp. 35879, EP 2:43450, Peirce on Signs 26078. [8] Wang 1996, pp. 104105. [9] According to Gardner: "I am a philosophical theist. I believe in a personal god, and I believe in an afterlife, and I believe in prayer, but I dont believe in any established religion. This is called philosophical theism.... Philosophical theism is entirely emotional. As Kant said, he destroyed pure reason to make room for faith." Carpenter, Alexander (2008), "Martin Gardner on Philosophical Theism, Adventists and Price" Interview, 17 October 2008 (http:/ / www. spectrummagazine. org/ node/ 1091), Spectrum. [10] My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism: an exclusive interview with former British atheist Professor Antony Flew by Gary Habermas, Philosophia Christi, Winter 2005.

Theism

43

Theism

Gods in the Triumph of Civilization

Part of a series on

God
General conceptions

Agnosticism Apatheism Atheism Deism Henotheism Ignosticism Monotheism Panentheism Pantheism Polytheism Theism Transtheism Specific conceptions

Creator Demiurge Devil Father Great Architect Monad Mother Supreme Being Sustainer The All The Lord Trinity Tawhid Ditheism Monism Personal

Theism

44
Unitarianism In particular religions

Abrahamic Bah' Christianity Islam Judaism Ayyavazhi Buddhism Hinduism Jainism Sikhism Zoroastrianism Attributes

Eternalness Existence Gender Names "God" Omnibenevolence Omnipotence Omnipresence Omniscience Experiences and practices

Belief Esotericism Faith Fideism Gnosis Hermeticism Metaphysics Mysticism Prayer Revelation Worship Related topics

Euthyphro dilemma God complex Neurotheology Ontology Philosophy Problem of evil Religion Religious texts Portrayals of God in popular media

Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[1] In a more specific sense, theism is commonly a monotheistic doctrine concerning the nature of a deity, and that deity's relationship to the universe.[2][3][4][5] Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. As such theism describes the classical conception of God that is

Theism found in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism and some forms of Hinduism. The use of the word theism to indicate this classical form of monotheism began during the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century in order to distinguish it from the then-emerging deism which contended that God, though transcendent and supreme, did not intervene in the natural world and could be known rationally but not via revelation.[6] The term theism derives from the Greek theos meaning "god". The term theism was first used by Ralph Cudworth (161788).[7] In Cudworth's definition, they are "strictly and properly called Theists, who affirm, that a perfectly conscious understanding being, or mind, existing of itself from eternity, was the cause of all other things".[8] Atheism is rejection of theism in the broadest sense of theism; i.e. the rejection of belief that there is even one deity.[9] Rejection of the narrower sense of theism can take forms such as deism, pantheism, and polytheism. The claim that the existence of any deity is unknown or unknowable is agnosticism.[10][] The positive assertion of knowledge, either of the existence of gods or the absence of gods, can also be attributed to some theists and some atheists. Put simply theism and atheism deal with belief, and agnosticism deals with (absence of) rational claims to asserting knowledge.[]

45

Types
Monotheism
Monotheism (from Greek ) is the belief in theology that only one deity exists.[11] Some modern day monotheistic religions include Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Baha'i Faith, Sikhism, Eckankar and some forms of Hinduism.

Polytheism
Polytheism is the belief that there is more than one deity.[12] In practice, polytheism is not just the belief that there are multiple gods; it usually includes belief in the existence of a specific pantheon of distinct deities. Within polytheism there are hard and soft varieties: Hard polytheism views the gods as being distinct and separate beings; an example of this would be the Egyptian and Greek Religions; along with certain schools of Hinduism. Soft polytheism views the gods as being subsumed into a greater whole. Some forms of Hinduism such as Smartism/Advaita Vedanta serve as examples of soft polytheism. Polytheism is also divided according to how the individual deities are regarded: Henotheism: The viewpoint/belief that there may be more than one deity, but only one of them is worshipped. Kathenotheism: The viewpoint/belief that there is more than one deity, but only one deity is worshipped at a time or ever, and another may be worthy of worship at another time or place. If they are worshipped one at a time, then each is supreme in turn. Monolatrism: The belief that there may be more than one deity, but that only one is worthy of being worshipped. Most of the modern monotheistic religions may have begun as monolatric ones, although this is disputed.

Theism

46

Pantheism and panentheism

Pantheism: The belief that the physical universe is equivalent to a god or gods, and that there is no division between a Creator and the substance of its creation.[13] Examples include many forms of Saivism. Panentheism: Like Pantheism, the belief that the physical universe is joined to a god or gods. However, it also believes that a god or gods are greater than the material universe. Examples include most forms of Vaishnavism. Some people find the distinction between these two beliefs as ambiguous and unhelpful, while others see it as a significant point of division.[14]

Deism
Deism is the belief that at least one deity exists and created the world, but that the creator(s) does/do not alter the original plan for the universe.[15] Deism typically rejects supernatural events (such as prophecies, miracles, and divine revelations) prominent in organized religion. Instead, Deism holds that religious beliefs must be founded on human reason and observed features of the natural world, and that these sources reveal the existence of a supreme being as creator.[16] Pandeism: The belief that a god preceded the universe and created it, but is now equivalent with it. Panendeism combines deism with panentheism, believing the universe is a part (but not the whole) of deity Polydeism: The belief that multiple gods existed, but do not intervene with the universe.

Autotheism
Autotheism is the viewpoint that, whether divinity is also external or not, it is inherently within 'oneself' and that one has a duty to become perfect (or divine). This can either be in a selfish, wilful, egotistical way or a selfless way following the implications of statements attributed to ethical, philosophical, and religious leaders (such as Jesus,[17][18] Buddha, Mahavira and Socrates[citation needed]). Autotheism can also refer to the belief that one's self is a deity (often the only one), within the context of subjectivism. This is a fairly extreme version of subjectivism, however.

Value-judgment theisms
Eutheism is the belief that a deity is wholly benevolent. Dystheism is the belief that a deity is not wholly good, and is possibly evil. Maltheism is the belief that a deity exists, but is wholly malicious.

Notes
[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Perspectives of reality: an introduction to the philosophy of Hinduism - Page 20, Jeaneane D. Fowler - 2002 The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Second Edition, OUP The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (1997). Encyclopdia Britannica. John Orr (English Deism: Its Roots and Its Fruits, 1934) explains that before the seventeenth century theism and deism were interchangeable terms but during the course of the seventeenth century they gained separate and mutually exclusive meanings (see deism) [8] Cudworth, Ralph (1678). The True Intellectual System of the Universe, Vol. I. New York: Gould & Newman, 1837, p. 267. [10] [11] [12] [15] (page 175 in 1967 edition) (page 56 in 1967 edition) Monotheism, in Britannica, 15th ed. (1986), 8:266. AskOxford: polytheism (http:/ / www. askoxford. com/ concise_oed/ polytheism) AskOxford: deism (http:/ / www. askoxford. com/ concise_oed/ deism)

[16] Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language (G. & C. Merriam, 1924) defines deism as "belief in the existence of a personal god, with disbelief in Christian teaching, or with a purely rationalistic interpretation of Scripture". [17] Matthew 5:38 "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect" [18] Luke 17:21 "The Kingdom of God is within you"

Agnostic theism

47

Agnostic theism
Part of a series on

Irreligion

Irreligion

Secular humanism Secularism Secularity Freethought Post-theism Nontheism Anti-clericalism Antireligion Criticism of religion Parody religion Atheism

Demographics History State New Implicit and explicit Negative and positive Criticism Discrimination Existence of God Antitheism Atheism and religion Agnosticism

Strong Weak Agnostic atheism Agnostic theism Apatheism Ignosticism Naturalism

Humanistic Metaphysical Methodological Religious People

Agnostic theism

48

Atheists Agnostics Humanists Pantheists Deists Books

The God Delusion God Is Not Great The End of Faith Letter to a Christian Nation Why I Am Not a Christian Why I Am Not a Muslim The System of Nature Organizations

Atheist Alliance International Freedom From Religion Foundation Reason Rally World Pantheist Movement Atheism portal WikiProject Atheism

Agnostic theism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist believes in the existence of at least one deity, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable.[] The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the god(s) they believe in.

Views of agnostic theism

There are numerous beliefs that can be included in agnostic theism, such as fideism, however not all agnostic theists are fideists. Since agnosticism is a position on knowledge and does not forbid belief in a deity, it is compatible with most theistic positions. The classical philosophical understanding of knowledge is that knowledge is justified true belief. The founder of logotherapy, Viktor Frankl, may have well exemplified this definition. Seidner expands upon this example and stresses Frankl's characterization Agnostic theism is belief but without knowledge, as of unconscious.[1] Agnostic theism could be interpreted as an shown in purple and blue (see Epistemology). admission that it is not possible to justify one's belief in a god sufficiently for it to be considered known. This may be because they consider faith a requirement of their religion, or because of the influence of plausible-seeming scientific or philosophical criticism. Furthermore, a philosopher such as Sren Kierkegaard believed that knowledge of God is actually impossible, and because of that people who want to be theists must believe: "If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe." Christian Agnostics practice a distinct form of agnosticism that applies only to the properties of God. They hold that it is difficult or impossible to be sure of anything beyond the basic tenets of the Christian faith. They believe that God exists, that Jesus has a special relationship with him and is in some way divine, and that God should be

Agnostic theism worshipped. This belief system has deep roots in Judaism and the early days of the Church.[2]

49

References
[1] Seidner, Stanley S. (June 10, 2009) "A Trojan Horse: Logotherapeutic Transcendence and its Secular Implications for Theology" (http:/ / docs. google. com/ gview?a=v& q=cache:FrKYAo88ckkJ:www. materdei. ie/ media/ conferences/ a-secular-age-parallel-sessions-timetable. pdf+ "Stan+ Seidner"& hl=en& gl=us). Mater Dei Institute.

External links
Epistemology (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/) - from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/) AGNOSTICISM (http://xtf.lib.virginia.edu/xtf/view?docId=DicHist/uvaBook/tei/DicHist1.xml;chunk. id=dv1-03;toc.depth=1;toc.id=dv1-03;brand=default) - from Dictionary of the History of Ideas (http://etext.lib. virginia.edu/DicHist/dict.html)

Anthropotheism

Detail of Sistine Chapel fresco Creation of the Sun and Moon by Michelangelo (c. 1512), a well-known example of the anthropomorphic depiction of God the Father in Western art

Anthropotheism

50

Part of a series on

God
General conceptions

Agnosticism Apatheism Atheism Deism Henotheism Ignosticism Monotheism Panentheism Pantheism Polytheism Theism Transtheism Specific conceptions

Creator Demiurge Devil Father Great Architect Monad Mother Supreme Being Sustainer The All The Lord Trinity Tawhid Ditheism Monism Personal Unitarianism In particular religions

Abrahamic Bah' Christianity Islam Judaism Ayyavazhi Buddhism Hinduism Jainism Sikhism Zoroastrianism Attributes

Eternalness Existence Gender

Anthropotheism

51
Names "God" Omnibenevolence Omnipotence Omnipresence Omniscience Experiences and practices

Belief Esotericism Faith Fideism Gnosis Hermeticism Metaphysics Mysticism Prayer Revelation Worship Related topics

Euthyphro dilemma God complex Neurotheology Ontology Philosophy Problem of evil Religion Religious texts Portrayals of God in popular media

Anthropotheism is ascribing human form and nature to gods, or the belief that gods are deified human beings. Associated with classical Greek and Roman beliefs, a type of anthropotheism finds a modern expression in the Mormon world-view of eternal progression. Vestiges of Hebrew anthropotheism can be discerned throughout the Hebrew Bible. It is a type of physitheism. The attribution of human general qualities to divine beings may be called anthropopathy.

Early anthropotheism
Early religion, among its many objects of worship, includes animals, considered, in the more refined theology of the later Greeks and Romans, as metamorphoses of the great gods. Similarly we find "therianthropic" formshalf animal, half humanin Egypt or Assyria-Babylonia. In contrast with these, it is considered one of the glories of the Olympian mythology of Greece that it believed in happy manlike beings (though exempt from death, and using special rarefied foods etc.), and celebrated them in statues of the most exquisite art. Israel shows us animal images, doubtless of a ruder sort, when Yahweh is worshipped in the northern kingdom under the image of a steer. (Some scholars suggest that the title "mighty one of Jacob" from Psalm 132:25 et al., ( abir) as if from ( avir) is really "steer" (, abir) "of Jacob.") But the higher religion of Israel inclined to morality more than to art, and forbade image worship altogether. This prepared the way for the conception of God as an immaterial Spirit. True mythical anthropomorphisms occur in early parts of the Old Testament (e.g. Genesis 3:8, cf. 6:2), though in the majority of Old Testament passages such expressions are merely verbal (e.g. Isaiah 59:1). In the Christian Church (and again in early Islam) simple minds believed in the corporeal nature of God. Gibbon and other writers quote

Anthropotheism from John Cassian the tale of the poor monk, who, being convinced of his error, burst into tears, exclaiming, "You have taken away my God! I have none now whom I can worship!" According to a fragment of Origen (on Genesis 1:26), Melito of Sardis shared this belief. Many have thought Melito's work, (peri ensomatou theou), must have been a treatise on the Incarnation; but it is hard to think that Origen could blunder so. Epiphanius tells of Audaeus of Mesopotamia and his followers, Puritan sectaries in the 4th century, who were orthodox except for this belief and for Quartodecimanism. Tertullian, who is sometimes considered anthropotheist, stood for the Stoical doctrine, that all reality, even the divine, is in a sense material.

52

Reaction against Anthropotheism

Ancient
The reaction against anthropotheism begins in Greek philosophy with the satirical spirit of Xenophanes (540 BCE), who puts the case as broadly as any. The "greatest God" resembles man "neither in form nor in mind." In Judaismunless we should refer to the prophets' polemic against imagesa reaction is due to the introduction of the codified law. God seemed to grow more remote. The old sacred name Yahweh is never pronounced; even "God" is avoided for allusive titles like "heaven" or "place." Still, amid all this, the God of Judaism remains a personal, almost a limited, being. In Philo we see Jewish scruples uniting with others drawn from Greek philosophy. For, though the quarrel with popular anthropotheism was patched up, and the gods of the Pantheon were described by Stoics and Epicureans as manlike in form, philosophy nevertheless tended to highly abstract conceptions of supreme, or real, deity. Philo followed out the line of this tradition in teaching that God cannot be named. How much exactly he meant is disputed. The same inheritance of Greek philosophy appears in the Christian fathers, especially Origen. He names and condemns the "anthropomorphites," who ascribe a human body to God (on Romans 1, sub fin.; Rufinus' Latin version). In Arabian philosophy the reaction sought to deny that God had any attributes. And, under the influence of Islamic Aristotelianism, the same paralysing speculation found entrance among the learned Jews of Spain, with Maimonides.

Modern
Till modern times the philosophical reaction was not carried out with full vigour. Spinoza (Ethics, i. 15 and 17), representing here as elsewhere both a Jewish inheritance and a philosophical, but advancing further, sweeps away all community between God and man. So later J.G. Fichte and Matthew Arnold ("a magnified and non-natural man"),strangely, in view of their strong belief in an objective moral order. For the use of the word "anthropomorphic," or kindred forms, in this new spirit of condemnation for all conceptions of God as manlikesee J.J. Rousseau in mile iv. (cited by Littr),"Nous sommes pour la plupart de vrais anthropomorphites". Rousseau is here speaking of the language of Christian theology,a divine Spirit: divine Persons. At the present day this usage is universal. What it means on the lips of pantheists is plain. But when theists charge one another with "anthropomorphism," in order to rebuke what they deem unduly manlike conceptions of God, they stand on slippery ground. All theism implies the assertion of kinship between man, especially in his moral being, and God. As a brilliant theologian, B. Duhm, has said, physiomorphism is the enemy of Christian faith, not anthropotheism.

Extension of the term anthropomorphism

As for anthropomorphism, the latest extension of the word, proposed in the interests of philosophy or psychology, uses it of the principle according to which man is said to interpret all things (not God merely) through himself. Common-sense intuitionalism would deny that man does this, attributing to him immediate knowledge of reality. And idealism in all its forms would say that man, interpreting through his reason, does rightly, and reaches truth. Even here then the use of the word is not colourless. It implies blame. It is the symptom of a philosophy which confines knowledge within narrow limits, and which, when held by Christians (e.g. Peter Browne, or H.L. Mansel),

Anthropotheism believes only in an "analogical" knowledge of God.

53

References
This articleincorporates text from a publication now in the public domain:Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Anthropomorphism". Encyclopdia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. Hill, Robert H. A Dictionary of Difficult Words, Signet, 1969. Widtsoe, John A., "Is Progress Eternal or Is There Progress in Heaven?", Improvement Era 54 (Mar. 1951):142; see also Evidences and Reconciliations, pp. 17985, Salt Lake City, 1960.

Christian deism
Christian deism, in the philosophy of religion, is a standpoint that branches from deism. It refers to a deist who believes in the moral teachingsbut not divinityof Jesus. Corbett and Corbett (1999) cite John Adams and Thomas Jefferson as exemplars.[1] The earliest-found usage of the term Christian deism in print in English is in 1738 in a book by Thomas Morgan,[2] appearing about ten times by 1800.[3] The term Christian deist is found as early as 1722,[4][5] in Christianity vindicated against infidelity by Daniel Waterland (he calls it a misuse of language), and adopted later by Matthew Tindal in his 1730 work, Christianity as Old as the Creation.[6] Christian deism is influenced by Christianity, as well as both main forms of deism: classical and modern. In 1698 English writer Matthew Tindal (16531733) published a pamphlet "The Liberty of the Press" as a "Christian" deist.[citation needed]Wikipedia:Disputed statement He believed that the state should control the Church in matters of public communication.[7]Wikipedia:Stay on topic

John Locke is often credited for his influence on Christian deism.

It adopts the ethics and non-mystical teachings of Jesus, while denying that Jesus was a deity. Scholars of the founding fathers of the United States "have tended to place the founders' religion into one of three categoriesnon-Christian deism, Christian deism, and orthodox Christianity."[8] John Locke and John Tillotson, especially, inspired Christian deism, through their respective writings.[9] Possibly the most famed person to hold this position was Thomas Jefferson, who praised "nature's God" in the "Declaration of Independence" (1776) and edited the "Jefferson Bible"a Bible with all reference to revelations and other miraculous interventions from a deity cut out. In an 1803 letter to Joseph Priestley, Jefferson states that he conceived the idea of writing his view of the "Christian System" in a conversation with Dr. Benjamin Rush during 179899. He proposes beginning with a review of the morals of the ancient philosophers, moving on to the "deism and ethics of the Jews", and concluding with the "principles of a pure deism" taught by Jesus, "omit[ting] the question of his divinity, and even his inspiration."[10] Christian deists see no paradox in adopting the values and ideals espoused by Jesus without believing he was God. Without providing examples or citations, one author maintains, "A number of influential seventeenth- and eighteenth-century thinkers claimed for themselves the title of 'Christian deist' because they accepted both the Christian religion based on revelation and a deistic religion based on natural reason. This deistic religion was consistent with Christianity but independent of any revealed authority. Christian deists often accepted revelation because it could be made to accord with natural or rational religion."[11]

Christian deism

54

Overview
Deism
Deism is a theological position (though encompassing a wide variety of view-points) concerning God's relationship with the natural world which emerged during the scientific revolution of seventeenth century Europe and came to exert a powerful influence during the eighteenth century enlightenment. Several of the Founding Fathers openly considered themselves to be deists or professed beliefs very similar to those of deists.[12] Deists reject atheism,[] and there were a number of different types of deists in the 17th and 18th century. Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world in any way, allowing it to run according to the laws of nature that he configured when he created all things. Because God does not control or interfere with his self-sustaining Creation, its component systems work in concert to achieve the balanced natural processes that make up the physical world. As such, Human beings are "free agents in a free world." A "free agent" is someone who has authority and ability to choose his/her actions and who may make mistakes. A "free world" is one which ordinarily operates as it is designed to operate and permits the consequential properties of failure and accident to be experienced by its inhabitants. God is thus conceived to be wholly transcendent and never immanent. For deists, human beings can only know God via reason and the observation of nature but not by revelation or supernatural manifestations (such as miracles)phenomena which deists regard with caution if not skepticism.

History
Williston Walker, in A History of the Christian Church, wrote: "In its milder form, it emerged as 'rational supernaturalism,' but in its central development it took the form of a full Christian Deism, while its radical wing turned against organized religion as anti-Christian Deism."[9] "English Deism on the whole was a cautious, Christian Deism, largely restricted in influence to the upper classes. But a radical anti-Christian Deism, militant in its attack on organized Christianity, though with few supporters, accompanied it."[13] An early Christian deist wrote: For God, according to these Philosophers, makes and governs a natural World that is capable of governing itself, and that might have made itself as well, had they not pass'd a needless and insignificant Compliment upon, the Creator. But I hope they will mend their Scheme, and compound this Matter for their own Honour, and not pretend to fay, that God has made a necessary World, or a self-existent System of Creatures. Yet this is the philosophical Scheme of Atheism, which its Patrons would fain call Deism, and in which the Christian Jews or Jewish Christians assist them, by joining inadvertently in the fame Cry. But if this be not a fine Scheme of Philosophy, let Christian Deism stand for an odd Sort of Religion, and let the Christian Jews be for ever orthodox, and be allow'd as the only religious Men in the World. It is certain, that if God governs moral Agents at all, he must; govern them by Hope and Fear, or by such a wise and suitable Application of Rewards and Punishments, as the different Circumstances of Persons, and the Ends of Government require. And these Rewards and Punishments must be such as are not the natural, necessary Consequences of the Actions themselves, themselves, since every one must see that this would be no Government at all, and that the Case, in this Respect, must be the very same whether we suppose any rectoral Justice, or any Presence or Operation of God in the World or not. And yet this which is really no Government at all, is all the general Providence which some seem willing to allow. But since those Gentlemen are all deep Philosophers, and above the gross Ignorance of the common Herd, I would here only ask them, What are the Laws of Nature ? What is the Law of Gravity, the Law of communicating Motion from one Body to another by Impulse, and the Law of the Vis -Inertia of Bodies ? Are these natural, essential and inherent Properties of the Bodies themselves, or are they the regular Effects of some universal, extrinsick Cause acting incessantly upon the whole material System, by such and such general Laws and Conditions of Agency?[14]

Christian deism Another wrote: This may give the Reader some Notion of this Writer's Candour and Sincerity, and what we are to think of his pretended Regard for Christianity, which in Effect amounts to this: That the Christianity revealed in the Writings of the New Testament is Jewish Christianity; that is, Christianity corrupted and adulterated with Judaism, which according to him is the worst Religion in the World. But the true and genuine Christianity is Christian Deism, to be learned not from the Writings of the New Testament, but from the Volume of Nature, from every Man's own Breast, from the Heavens, the Earth, and especially the Brute Creatures,the genuine uncorrupted Instructors in our Author's Christianity. So that the "Gentlemen that assume to themselves the Title of Deists, seem resolved that for the future they only shall be called the true Christians too. Those that look upon the New Testament to be divinely inspired, and receive it as the Rule of their Faith, and take their Religion from thence, must be called Christian Jews, who only put a strange Mixture of inconsistent Religions upon the World for Christianity : whereas these Christian Deists teach it in its Purity, and in order to propagate pure uncorrupted Christianity they do their utmost to discard.the Writings of the New Testament, that Is, the Writings that give us aft Account of the Doctrines taught by Christ and his Apostles, But since these Gentlemen will not allow; us the honourable Title of Christians, it is but fair that they should leave us that of Free-Thinkers, to which I really think the Advocates for the Gospel Revelation have a much juster Pretension than they.[15]

55

Christian foundation
In conjunction with deistic perspectives, Christian deism incorporates Christian tenets. Christian deists believe that Jesus Christ was a deist. Jesus taught that there are two basic laws of God governing humankind. The first law is that life comes from God and we are to use it as God intends, as illustrated in Jesus' parable of the talents. The second law is that God intends for human beings to live by love for each other, as illustrated in Jesus' parable of the good Samaritan. Jesus summarized two basic "commandments" or laws of God as "love for God and love for neighbor." These two commandments through Christian deism were known to Jesus from the Hebrew scriptures but Jesus expanded the definition of "neighbor" to include everyone concerned in the natural world. "Love for God" means having appreciation for God as the creator of the world and the source of human life. "Love for neighbor" means having appreciation for the value of every human life. These are not laws or "truths" that Jesus received through some supernatural "revelation" according to Christian deism. In his "parable of the sower," Jesus taught that the "word of God" is known naturally because it is sown "in the heart" of everyone. For instance, the apostle Paul, who was a Jew, recognized that God's laws are known naturally by everyone. Paul wrote, "When Gentiles (non-Jews) who do not have the (Mosaic) law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts" (Romans 2:14-15). Christian deism is therefore based on appreciation for all creation and on appreciation for every human life. In his teachings, Jesus used examples from the natural world and from human nature to explain basic truths about life. In his parables, Jesus spoke of mustard seeds, wheat, weeds, fishing nets, pearls, vineyards, fig trees, salt, candlelight and sheep to illustrate his points. Jesus also used illustrations from human nature to teach basic concepts such as repentance, forgiveness, justice, and love. Jesus called for people to follow God's laws, or commandments, so the "kingdom of God" could come "on earth as it is in heaven." As Jesus preached the "gospel", or good news, that the "kingdom of God is at hand," Christians deists believe the Romans viewed Jesus as a Jewish revolutionary seeking to liberate the Jews from Roman rule. Jesus refused to stop preaching his "gospel" even though he knew that he was risking crucifixion, the usual Roman penalty for revolutionaries. Jesus called for his followers to take this same risk, "If a man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life

Christian deism for my sake and the gospel's will save it" (Mark 8:34-35). After his crucifixion, Jesus' cross became a symbol of commitment to establishing the "kingdom of God" on earth. Christian deists are committed to following God's natural laws, as summarized in the two "commandments" to love God and love our neighbor.

56

Different schools of thought

The broad spectrum of thought available within the idea of a Christian deism encompasses models of classical deism and pandeism with simple reverence for the message of tolerance claimed as espoused by the human Jesus, to belief in Jesus as a sort of naturally occurring divine figure, a mystical product of the rational processes of a rational universe. An example of the broadness attributed to Christian deism is found in this criticism of the position: Christian Deist, i.e., a man who alleges that the Christian religion is nothing else than pure natural religion. The Deist, whom he introduces speaking, speaks with great presumption, as the ignorant are accustomed to do: that he neither possessed any acquaintance with the ancient languages nor with history, which he betrays in the very beginning, awakens no good anticipations in favour of Morgan, who appears in the person of the Deist. Morgan alleges with great boldness, that his religion of reason alone is divine, that the Christian is a mere invention and device of man, and through all ages since its introduction, has been regarded as such by a small but oppressed party: that the character of Judaism, which is not only human, but altogether devilish, cleaves still to the followers of a blind faith': that the apostle Paul was the chief of the freethinkers who wished to have no connexion with Judaism, and alone preached Christianity in its purity, whilst the other apostles were merely the chiefs of a political party who in the spirit of Judaism had attached themselves to it. .... The freer Paulinian party, according to Morgan's view, had been from the first always persecuted and oppressed by the others; and although the Jewish Christians had afterwards fallen asunder and separated into various hostile sects, the same intolerant Jewish spirit still, in a greater or a less degree, animated them all, and they would not consent to relinquish the service of sacrifices; this spirit has given birth to a religion of priests among all those sects, which is immeasurably removed from the true religion. In addition, Morgan will not at all admit that his opinions approach in any respect to atheism, or that his object is to defend any thing similar to it; he alone, as he alleges, is a teacher of the true moral religion. It will not therefore be a matter of surprise, that a division of his book treats of the public forms of divine worship, and especially upon prayer. On the other hand, his Christian Deist will have nothing to do with sacrifices or satisfaction,nothing with the vicarious death of Christ,nothing with sacrifices and ceremonies,with grace or election, which does not depend upon the merit of the person elected.[16] Christian deists do not worship Jesus as God. However, there are differing views concerning the exact nature of Jesus, as well as differing levels of hewing to traditional, orthodox deistic belief on this issue. There are two main theological positions.

Jesus as the Son of God

Of the Christian deists who look upon Jesus as the Son of God, (but not God himself), the Christian aspect of their faith is drawn from three main aspects of prior Christian thought.[17] They take a modified view of Pelagius, that there is no need for divine aid in performing good works and that the only "grace" necessary is the declaration of the law. They also hold a mild version of the Christus Victor philosophy of atonement. They combine these two philosophies with certain aspects of classical Unitarian theology. Indeed, mainstream deistic thought contributed to the rise of Unitarianism itself, with people in the 19th century increasingly self-identifying as Unitarians rather than as deists.[18]

Christian deism

57

Jesus as a moral teacher

Christian deists who do not believe in Jesus as the son of God strongly reject any theories of atonement. Different theories receive different levels of rejection, the strongest rejection being reserved for the theory of penal substitution, that claims that Jesus had to die as a sacrifice to pay the "death penalty" for humankind and save them from the "wrath" of God. And they do not view God as a whimsical tyrant who sends plagues and pestilence to punish people on earth and who plans to torture people in "hell" in the future. Christian deists reject these superstitious ideas as products of human hatred and a failure to recognize God's natural laws of love for others. Christian deists consider themselves to be disciples, or students, of Jesus because Jesus taught the natural laws of God. But Christian deists recognize that Jesus was only human.[19] Jesus had to struggle with his own times of disappointment, sorrow, anger, prejudice, impatience, and despair, just as other human beings struggle with these experiences. Jesus never claimed to be perfect but he was committed to following God's natural laws of love.

Diverging from Christianity and deism

Christian deism can differ from both mainstream deism and orthodox Christianity. This can occasionally be on the same subject but most often, Christian deism finds itself in agreement with one on a given theological topic, only to disagree on the next theological topic. Christian deism is opposed to the doctrine of predestination in which everything that happens is thought to be "the will of God." John Calvin was a proponent of the theory of predestination in which God allegedly determines everything that happens, whether good or bad. Christian deists believe that it is never "God's will" for anyone to be sick or injured. In that bad things occur as a result of prior interactions that resulted in a specified outcome. These bad things may be caused by interfering with naturalistic processes that result in negative consequences to carbon-based life, or by human interaction on the surface of the Earth that leads to degrees of inhospitable conditions for others. Christians deists believe God gifted the human intellect to heal many illnesses, but God does not directly intervene to heal people on demand by some "supernatural" occurrence. Humans are believed to already have the endowed capacity to create synergies and contribute in some way toward the development of fairer societies on Earth, whether it be through scientific understanding or spiritual enlightenment. However, Christian deists also strongly oppose the mainstream deistic notion that sacred texts like the Bible contain no revealed truths.[20][21]

References
[1] Michael Corbett and Julia Mitchell Corbett, Politics and religion in the United States (1999) p. 68 [3] In most cases it was used to name a group that the author opposed. [7] Anthony C. Thiselton, Hermeneutics: An Introduction (2009) p 137 [8] The faiths of the founding fathers, by David Lynn Holmes, p. 163 (2006) [9] A history of the Christian church, by Williston Walker, 579 (1985) [10] Excerpts from the Correspondence of Thomas Jefferson (http:/ / www. cooperativeindividualism. org/ jefferson_m_03. html) Retrieved 12 Jul 2011 [11] Jesus Christ in history and Scripture, Edgar V. McKnight, p. 96 (1999) [12] See, e.g., Religioustolerance.org/Deism (http:/ / www. religioustolerance. org/ deism. htm), Jim Peterson (2007) "The Revolution of Belief: Founding Fathers, Deists, Orthodox Christians, and the Spiritual Context of 18th Century America (http:/ / earlyamericanhistory. net/ founding_fathers. htm) Robert L. Johnson, "The Deist Roots of the United States of America" (http:/ / www. deism. com/ deistamerica. htm) [13] A history of the Christian church, by Williston Walker, 584 (1985) [14] The moral philosopher: in a dialogue between Philalethes, a Christian deist and Theophanes a Christian Jew. By Thomas Morgan, 189-190 (1737). [15] The divine authority of the Old and New Testament asserted, by John Leland, p viii-ix (1739) [16] History of the Eighteenth Century and of the Nineteenth, by F.C. Schlosser, p. 47 (1843) [17] http:/ / www. enlightenmentdeism. com/ ?page_id=156 [18] Mossner, Ernest Campbell (1967). "Deism". The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 2. Collier-MacMillan. pp. 326336 [19] http:/ / christiandeism. com/ Jesus. html [20] http:/ / christian-deist. blogspot. com/

Christian deism
[21] http:/ / christiandeism. com/ beliefs/

58

External links
Deist.org (http://deist.org) ChristianDeism.com (http://christiandeism.com/) ChristianDeistFellowship.com (http://www.christiandeistfellowship.com/aredeist.htm) Christian-Deist.Blogspot.com (http://christian-deist.blogspot.com/) Spiritual Deism From The Source (http://TheThreeLies.com#Deism)

Classical theism
Classical theism refers to the form of theism in which God is characterized as the absolutely metaphysically ultimate being (the first, timeless, absolutely simple and sovereign being, who is also devoid of any anthropomorphic qualities), in contrast to other conceptions such as Theistic Personalism, Open Theism and Process Theism. Whereas most theists agree that God is, at a minimum, all-knowing, all-powerful, and completely good,[1] classical theists go farther and conceive of God as the ultimate reality, with a broad set of attributes including transcendence (total independence from all else), simplicity (being without parts), immutability, impassibility, timelessness, and incorporeality.[2] Classical theism is, historically, the mainstream view in philosophy and is associated with the tradition of writers like Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, St. Anselm, Maimonides, Averroes and Thomas Aquinas.[2] In opposition to this tradition, there are, today, philosophers like Alvin Plantinga (who rejects divine simplicity), Richard Swinburne (who rejects divine timelessness) and William Lane Craig (who reject both divine simplicity and timelessness), who can be viewed as theistic personalists. Since classical theistic ideas are influenced by Greek philosophy and focus on God in the abstract and metaphysical sense, they can be difficult to reconcile with the "near, caring, and compassionate" view of God presented in the religious texts of the main monotheistic religions, particularly the Bible.[3]

Notes
[1] Pojman and Rea, 2 [2] Craig, 98 [3] Pojman and Rae, 3; Jansen, 2

References
Edward Craig, ed. (1998). "God, concepts of" (http://books.google.com/books?id=5m5z_ca-qDkC& printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false). Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor & Francis. Henry Jansen (1995). Relationality and the concept of God (http://books.google.com/ books?id=_NaIdA7KPhYC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false). Rodopi. Louis Pojman; Michael Rea (2011). Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology (http://books.google.com/ books?id=Lj1sucLzZmUC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false). Cengage Learning.

Creationism

59

Creationism
Part of a series on

Creationism

History of creationism Neo-creationism Types of creationism Young Earth creationism Old Earth creationism Gap creationism Day-age creationism Progressive creationism Intelligent design Theology Genesis creation narrative Framework interpretation Genesis as an allegory Omphalos hypothesis Creation science Baraminology Flood geology Creation geophysics Creationist cosmologies Intelligent design Controversy Creation myth History Public education Teach the Controversy Particular religious views Hindu Islamic Jewish
Book Category Portal

Creationism is the religious belief that life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being. As science developed during the 18th century and forward, various views aimed at reconciling science with the Abrahamic creation narrative developed in Western societies.[1] Those holding that species had been created separately (such as Philip Gosse in 1847) were generally called "advocates of creation" but were also called "creationists", as in private correspondence between Charles Darwin and his friends. As the creationevolution controversy developed over time, the term "anti-evolutionists" became common. In 1929 in the United States, the term "creationism" first became associated with Christian fundamentalists, specifically with their rejection of human evolution and belief in a young Earthalthough this usage was contested by other groups, such as old Earth creationists and evolutionary creationists, who hold different concepts of creation.[2][3][]

Creationism Today, the American Scientific Affiliation recognizes that there are different opinions among creationists on the method of creation, while acknowledging unity on the Abrahamic belief that God "created the universe."[][4] Since the 1920s, literalist creationism in America has contested scientific theories, such as that of evolution,[5][6][7] which derive from natural observations of the universe and life. Literalist creationists[8] believe that evolution cannot adequately account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on Earth.[9] Fundamentalist creationists of the Christian faith usually base their belief on a literal reading of the Genesis creation narrative.[8][] Other religions have different deity-led creation myths,[10][11][12][13] while different members of individual faiths vary in their acceptance of scientific findings. When scientific research produces empirical evidence and theoretical conclusions which contradict a literalist creationist interpretation of scripture, young earth creationists often reject the conclusions of the research[14] or its underlying scientific theories[15] or its methodology.[16] The rejection of scientific findings has sparked political and theological controversy.[5] Two offshoots of creationismcreation science and intelligent designare pseudoscience.[17] The most notable disputes concern the evolution of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geological history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system and the origin of the universe.[18][19][20][21] Theistic evolution reconciles theistic religious beliefs with scientific findings on the age of the Earth and the process of evolution. It includes a range of beliefs, including views described as evolutionary creationism and some forms of old earth creationism, all of which embrace the findings of modern science and uphold classical religious teachings about God and creation.[22][23]

60

History
The history of creationism is part of the history of religions, though the term itself is modern. The term "creationist" to describe a proponent of creationism was first used by Charles Darwin in 1856.[24] In the 1920s the term became particularly associated with Christian fundamentalist movements that insisted on a literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative and likewise opposed the idea of human evolution. These groups succeeded in getting teaching of evolution banned in United States public schools, then from the mid-1960s the young Earth creationists promoted the teaching of "scientific creationism" using "Flood geology" in public school science classes as support for a purely literal reading of Genesis.[25] After the legal judgment of the case Daniel v. Waters (1975) ruled that teaching creationism in public schools contravened the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the content was stripped of overt biblical references and renamed creation science. When the court case Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) ruled that creation science similarly contravened the constitution, all references to "creation" in a draft school textbook were changed to refer to intelligent design, which was subsequently claimed to be a new scientific theory. The Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005) ruling concluded that intelligent design is not science and contravenes the constitutional restriction on teaching religion in public school science classes.[26] In September 2012, Bill Nye ("The Science Guy") warned that creationist views threaten science education and innovations in The United States.[][](video [27])

Judaism and early and medieval Christianity

The Genesis creation narrative appears in the Jewish Torah. Early Jewish teachers believed that the biblical text contained layers of meaning, with the spiritual and allegorical interpretations of Genesis often being seen as more important than the literal. The first century Jewish writer Philo admired the literal narrative of passages concerning the Patriarchs, but in other passages viewed the literal interpretation as being for those unable to see an underlying deeper meaning. For example, he noted that Moses said the world was created in six days, but did not consider this as a length of time as "we must think of God as doing all things simultaneously" and the six days were mentioned because of a need for order and according with a perfect number. Genesis was about real events, but God through Moses described them in figurative or allegorical language. The tradition of such writers as Abraham ibn Ezra

Creationism consistently rejected overly literal understandings of Genesis.[28] To a large extent, the early Christian Church Fathers read creation history as an allegory, and followed Philo's ideas of time beginning with an instantaneous creation, with days not meant literally. Christian orthodoxy rejected the second century Gnostic belief that Genesis was purely allegorical, but without taking a purely literal view of the texts. Thus Origen believed that the physical world is literally a creation of God, but did not take the chronology or the days as literal. Similarly, Saint Basil in the fourth century while literal in many ways, described creation as instantaneous and timeless, being immeasurable and indivisible.[] Augustine of Hippo in The Literal Meaning of Genesis was insistent that Genesis describes the creation of physical objects, but also shows creation occurring simultaneously, with the days of creation being categories for didactic reasons, a logical framework which has nothing to do with time. For him, light was the illumination of angels rather than visible light, and spiritual light was just as literal as physical light. Augustine emphasized that the text was difficult to understand and should be reinterpreted as new knowledge became available. In particular, Christians should not make absurd dogmatic interpretations of scripture which contradict what people know from physical evidence.[] In the 13th century Thomas Aquinas, like Augustine, asserted the need to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering while cautioning "that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should not adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."[]

61

Impact of the Reformation

From 1517 the Protestant Reformation brought a new emphasis on lay literacy, with Martin Luther advocating the idea that creation took six literal days about 6000 years ago, and claiming that "Moses wrote that uneducated men might have clear accounts of creation".[citation needed] John Calvin also rejected instantaneous creation, but criticised those who, contradicting the contemporary understanding of nature, asserted that there are "waters above the heavens".[] Discoveries of new lands brought knowledge of a huge diversity of life, and a new belief developed that each of these biological species had been individually created by God. In 1605 Francis Bacon emphasized that the works of God in nature teach us how to interpret the word of God in the Bible, and his Baconian method introduced the empirical approach which became central to modern science.[] Natural theology developed the study of nature with the expectation of finding evidence supporting Christianity, and numerous attempts were made to reconcile new knowledge with the biblical Deluge myth and story of Noah's Ark.[29] In 1650 the Archbishop of Armagh, James Ussher, published the Ussher chronology based on Bible history giving a date for Creation of 4004 BC. This was generally accepted, but the development of modern geology in the 18th and 19th centuries found geological strata and fossil sequences indicating an ancient Earth. Catastrophism was favoured in England as supporting the biblical flood, but this was found to be untenable[29] and by 1850 all geologists and most Evangelical Christians had adopted various forms of old Earth creationism, while continuing to firmly reject evolution.[]Wikipedia:Verifiability

Modern science
From around the start of the 19th century, ideas such as Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's concept of transmutation of species had gained a small number of supporters in Paris and Edinburgh, mostly amongst anatomists.[] The anonymous publication of Vestiges of Creation in 1844 aroused wide public interest with support from Quakers and Unitarians, but was strongly criticised by the scientific community, which emphasized the need for solidly backed science. In 1859 Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species provided that evidence from an authoritative and respected source, and within a decade or so convinced scientists that evolution occurs. This acceptance was resisted by conservative evangelicals in the Church of England, but their attention quickly turned to the much greater uproar about Essays

Creationism and Reviews by liberal Anglican theologians, which introduced into the controversy "the higher criticism" begun by Erasmus centuries earlier. This book re-examined the Bible and cast doubt on a literal interpretation.[30] By 1875 most American naturalists supported ideas of theistic evolution, often involving special creation of human beings.[25] At this time those holding that species had been separately created were generally called "advocates of creation", but they were occasionally called "creationists" in private correspondence between Darwin and his friends.[] The term appears in letters Darwin wrote between 1856 and 1863,[31] and was also used in a response by Charles Lyell.[32]

62

Creationism internationally
Creationism is widely accepted and taught throughout the Middle East. Although it has been prominent in the United States but not widely accepted in academia, it has been making a resurgence in other countries as well.[][33][]

Europe
In recent years the controversy has become an issue in a variety of countries including Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Serbia.[33][][34][35] Creation science has been heavily promoted in immigrant communities in Western Europe, primarily by Adnan Oktar (also known as Harun Yahya).[] On 17 September 2007, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted The dangers of creationism in education, a resolution on the attempt by American-inspired creationists to promote creationism in European schools. It concludes "The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism closely linked to extreme right-wing political movements... some advocates of creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy... If we are not careful, the values that are the very essence of the Council of Europe will be under direct threat from creationist fundamentalists".[36] Germany In 1978, British Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith, who came to Germany after World War II and lectured at Marburg and other cities, published a book arguing against evolution with a secular, well known publishing house, titled "The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution."[37] At the end of the year Horst W. Beck became a creationist. Both an engineer and theologian, he was a leading figure in the already mentioned "Karl-Heim-Gesellschaft" and had previously published articles and books defending theistic evolution. Together with other members of the society, which they soon left, he followed the arguments of Willem Ouweneel, a Dutch biologist lecturing in Germany. Beck soon found other scientists who had changed their view or were "hidden" creationists. Under his leadership, the first creationist society was founded ("Wort und Wissen"Word and Knowledge). Three book series were soon published, an independent creationist monthly journal started ("Factum"), and the first German article in the Creation Research Society Quarterly was published.[38] In 2006, a documentary on the Arte television network, Von Gttern und Designern ("Genesis vs. Darwin") by filmmaker Frank Papenbroock demonstrated that creationism had already been taught in biology classes in at least two schools in Gieen, Hessen, without this being noticed. This raised public discussion about creationism in Germany.[39] During this, the Education Minister of Hessen, Karin Wolff, said she believed creationism should be taught in biology class as a theory, like the theory of evolution: "I think it makes sense to bring up multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary problems for discussion".[40] " Approximately 20% of people disbelieve evolutionary theory in Germany[41]

Creationism Romania In Romania, in 2002, the Ministry of Education approved the use of a biology book endorsing creationism, entitled Divine Mastery and Light in the Biosphere, in public high schools. Following a protest of the Romanian Humanist Association the Romanian Ministry of Education replied that the book is not a "textbook" but merely an "accessory." The president of the Association labeled the reply as "disappointing" since, whether a textbook or an accessory, the book remains available for usage in schools. Reports indicate that at least one teacher, in Oradea did use the book.[42] Russia Russia is home to the Moscow Creation Society.[43] The department of extracurricular and alternative education of the Russian ministry of education has cosponsored numerous creationist conferences. Since 1994 Alexander Asmolov, the previous deputy minister of education, has urged that creationism be taught to help restore academic freedom in Russia after years of state-enforced scientific orthodoxy.[44] In Russia, a 16-year-old girl launched a court case against the Ministry of Education, backed by the Russian Orthodox Church, challenging the teaching of just one "theory" of biology in school textbooks as a breach of her human rights.[] A 2005 poll reportedly found 26% of Russians accepting evolution and 49% accepting creationism.[45] But a 2003 poll reported that 44% agreed with "Human beings are developed from earlier species of animals",[46] and a 2009 poll reported (PDF) that 48% of Russians who "know something about Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution" agreed that there was sufficient evidence for the theory (in comparison, only 41% of Americans agreed).[47] The 2009 poll indicated that 53% of Russians agreed with "Evolutionary theories should be taught in science lessons in schools together with other possible perspectives, such as intelligent design and creationism", with 13% preferring that such perspectives be taught instead of evolution; only 10% agreed with "Evolutionary theories alone should be taught in science lessons in schools."[47] Serbia On 7 September 2004 the Serbian Minister of education Ljiljana Colic temporarily banned evolution from being taught. After state-wide outcry she resigned on 16 September 2004 from her post.[48] Switzerland A 2006 international survey found that 30% of the Swiss reject evolution, one of the highest national percentages in Europe.[] Another survey in 2007, commissioned by the fringe Christian organization Pro Genesis, controversially claims 80%. This resulted in schools in canton Bern printing science textbooks that presented creationism as a valid alternative theory to evolution. Scientists and education experts harshly criticized the move, which quickly prompted school authorities to revise the books.[] United Kingdom Since the development of evolutionary theory by Charles Darwin in England, where his portrait appears on the back of the 10 note, significant shifts in British public opinion have occurred. A 2006 a survey for the BBC showed that "more than a fifth of those polled were convinced by the creationist argument,"[49] a massive decrease from the almost total acceptance of creationism before Darwin published his theory. A 2010 Angus Reid poll found that "In Britain, two-thirds of respondents (68%) side with evolution while less than one-in-five (16%) choose creationism. At least seven-in-ten respondents in the South of England (70%) and Scotland (75%) believe human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years."[50] A subsequent 2010 YouGov poll on the Origin of Humans found that 9% opted for creationism, 12% intelligent design, 65% evolutionary theory and 13% didn't know.[51] Speaking at the British Association Festival of Science at the University of Liverpool last year, Professor Reiss estimated that about only 10% of children were from a family that supported a creationist rather than evolutionary viewpoint.[] Richard Dawkins has been quoted saying "I have spoken to a lot of science teachers in schools here in Britain who are finding an increasing number of students coming to them and saying they are Young Earth

63

Creationism creationists." The director of education at the Royal Society has said that creationism should be discussed in school science lessons, rather than be excluded, to explain why creationism had no scientific basis.[52] Wales has the largest proportion of theistic evolutionists - the belief that evolution is part of God's plan (38%). Northern Ireland has the highest proportion of people who believe in 'intelligent design' (16%), which holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.[53] Some private religious schools in the UK teach creationism rather than evolution.[54] However the teaching of creationism is illegal in any school that receives state funding.

64

Muslim world
A 2007 study of religious patterns found that only 8% of Egyptians, 11% of Malaysians, 14% of Pakistanis, 16% of Indonesians, and 22% of Turks agree that Darwin's theory is probably or most certainly true, and a 2006 survey reported that about a quarter of Turkish adults agreed that human beings evolved from earlier animal species.[55] Surveys carried out by researchers affiliated with McGill Universitys Evolution Education Research Centre found that in Egypt and Pakistan, while the official high school curriculum does include evolution, many of the teachers there dont believe in it themselves, and will often tell their students so.[] Currently in Egypt, evolution is taught in schools but Saudi Arabia and Sudan have both banned the teaching of evolution in schools.[] In recent times, creationism has become more widespread in other Islamic countries.[56] In 2008 during the XIII IOSTE Symposium in Izmir (Turkey), a survey was undertaken of the adherence to creation science of 5,700 teachers from 14 countries. Lebanon, Senegal, Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria had 62% to 81% of creationist teachers (with no difference between biologists and others). Romania and Burkina Faso had 45% to 48% of creationist teachers in Romania and Burkina Faso, with no difference between biologists and other in Romania, but a clear difference (p<0.001) in Burkina Faso (with 61% of creationists for the not biology teachers). Portugal and Cyprus had 15% to 30% of creationist teachers, with no significant difference between biologists, but a significant difference in Portugal (p=0.004, 17% and 26%).[citation needed] Iran The Iranian clerical establishments vision of evolution, in which a divine hand guides the process, is closer to intelligent design than to the mainstream version of evolution.[] Turkey Since the 1980s, creationism in Turkey has grown significantly and is now the government's official position on origins.[] In 1985 the conservative political party then in control of the countrys education ministry added creationist explanations alongside the passages on evolution in the standard high school biology textbook. In Turkey, unlike in the United States, the public school curriculum is set by the national government. In 2008, Richard Dawkins website was banned in Turkey.[57] Since July 2011 it is back online again.[58]

Australia
In the late 1970s, Answers in Genesis, a creationist research organization, was founded in Australia. In 1994, Answers in Genesis expanded from Australia and New Zealand to the United States.[59] It subsequently expanded into the United Kingdom, Canada, South Africa and New Zealand. Creationists in Australia have been the leading influence on the development of creation science in the USA for the last 20years. Two of the 3 main international creation science organizations all have original roots within Australia - Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries. Ken Ham,[60] geologist Dr Andrew Snelling,[61] astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle,[62] chemical engineer Dr Jonathan Sarfati[63] and geologist Dr Tasman Bruce Walker [64] have all had significant impact on the development of creationism in Australia, and have brought their teaching to the USA.

Creationism In 1980 the Queensland state government of Joh Bjelke-Petersen allowed the teaching of creationism as science to school children. On 29 May 2010 it was announced that creationism and intelligent design will be discussed in history classes as part of the new national curriculum. It will be placed in the subject of ancient history, under the topic of "controversies".[65] One Australian scientist who adheres to creation science is Dr Pierre Gunnar Jerlstrm.[66] The teaching professor Ian Plimer, an anti-creationist geologist, reported being attacked by creationists.[67] A few public lectures have been given in rented rooms at Universities, by visiting American speakers, and speakers with doctorates purchased by mail from Florida sites.[68] A court case taken by Plimer against prominent creationists found "that the creationists had stolen the work of others for financial profit, that the creationists told lies under oath and that the creationists were engaged in fraud."[] The debate was featured on the science television program Quantum.[69] In 1989, Plimer debated American creationist Duane Gish.

65

South Korea
Since 1981, the Korean Association for Creation Research has grown to 16 branches, with 1000 members and 500 Ph.Ds. On August 2224, 1991, recognizing the 10th anniversary of KACR, an International Symposium on Creation Science was held with 4,000 in attendance.[][70] In 1990, the book The Natural Sciences was written by Dr. Young-gil Kim and 26 other fellow scientists in Korea with a creationist viewpoint. The textbook drew the interest of college communities, and today, many South Korean universities are using it. Since 1991, Creation Science has become a regular university course at Myongji University, which has a centre for creation research. Since that time, other universities have begun to offer Creation Science courses. At Handong Global University, creationist Dr. Young-gil Kim was inaugurated as president in March 1995. At Myongji University, creationist Dr. Woongsang Lee is a biology professor. The Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology is where the Research Association of Creation Science was founded and many graduate students are actively involved.[] In 2008 a survey found that 36% of South Koreans disagreed with the statement that "Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.". In May 2012, references to evolution were removed from South Korean science textbooks.[71][72]

Americas
Brazil Brazil has had two creationist societies since the 1970s - the Brazilian Association for Creation Research and the Brazilian Creation Society. According to a 2004 survey, 31% of Brazil believe that "the first humans were created no more than 10,000 years ago."[73] United States In the United States some religious communities have refused to accept naturalistic explanations and tried to counter them. The term started to become associated with Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth in 1929.[] Several U.S. states passed laws against the teaching of evolution in public schools, as upheld in the Scopes Trial. Evolution was omitted entirely from school textbooks in most of the United States until the 1960s. Since then, renewed efforts to introduce teaching creationism in American public schools in the form of flood geology, creation science, and intelligent design have been consistently held to contravene the constitutional separation of Church and State by a succession of legal judgments.[26] The meaning of the term creationism was contested, but by the 1980s it had been co-opted by proponents of creation science and flood geology.[] Most of the anti-evolutionists of the 1920s believed in forms of Old Earth creationism, which accepts geological findings and other methods of dating the earth and believes that these findings do not contradict Genesis, but rejects evolution. At that time only a minority held to Young Earth creationism, proponents of which believe that the Earth is thousands rather than billions of years old, and typically believe that the days in chapter one of Genesis are 24

Creationism hours in length. In the 1960s this became the most prominent form of anti-evolution. From the 1860s forms of theistic evolution had developed; this term refers to beliefs in creation which are compatible with the scientific view of evolution and the age of the Earth, as held by mainstream Christian denominations. There are other religious people who support creationism, but in terms of allegorical interpretations of Genesis. By the start of the 20th century, evolution was widely accepted and was beginning to be taught in U.S. public schools. After World War I, popular belief that German aggression resulted from a Darwinian doctrine of "survival of the fittest" inspired William Jennings Bryan to campaign against the teaching of Darwinian ideas of human evolution.[25] In the 1920s, the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy led to an upsurge of fundamentalist religious fervor in which schools were prevented from teaching evolution through state laws such as Tennessees 1925 Butler Act,[74][75] and by getting evolution removed from biology textbooks nationwide. Creationism became associated in common usage with opposition to evolution.[76] In 1961 in the United States, an attempt to repeal the Butler Act failed.[26] The Genesis Flood by Henry M. Morris brought the Seventh-day Adventist biblically literal flood geology of George McCready Price to a wider audience, popularizing the idea of Young Earth creationism,[] and by 1965 the term "scientific creationism" had gained currency.[77] The 1968 Epperson v. Arkansas judgment ruled that state laws prohibiting the teaching of evolution violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits state aid to religion.[] and when in 1975 Daniel v. Waters ruled that a state law requiring biology textbooks discussing "origins or creation of man and his world" to give equal treatment to creation as per Book of Genesis was unconstitutional, a new group identifying themselves as creationists promoted "creation science" which omitted explicit biblical references.[26] In 1981 the state of Arkansas passed a law, Act 590, mandating that "creation science" be given equal time in public schools with evolution, and defining creation science as positing the "creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing," as well as explaining the earths geology by "the occurrence of a worldwide flood".[77] This was ruled unconstitutional at McLean v. Arkansas in January 1982 as the creationists' methods were not scientific but took the literal wording of the Book of Genesis and attempted to find scientific support for it.[77] Louisiana introduced similar legislation that year. A series of judgments and appeals led to the 1987 Supreme Court ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard that it too violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.[75] "Creation science" could no longer be taught in public schools, and in drafts of the creation science school textbook Of Pandas and People all references to creation or creationism were changed to refer to intelligent design.[75] Proponents of the intelligent design movement organised widespread campaigning to considerable effect. They officially denied any links to creation or religion, and claimed that "creationism" only referred to young Earth creationism with flood geology;[78] but in Kitzmiller v. Dover the court found intelligent design to be religious, and unable to dissociate itself from its creationist roots, as part of the ruling that teaching intelligent design in public school science classes was unconstitutional.[75] The percentage of people in the U.S. who accept the idea of human evolution declined from 45% in 1985 to 40% in 2005.[] A Gallup poll reported that the percentage of people in the U.S. who believe in a strict interpretation of creationism had fallen to 40% in 2010 after a high of 46% in 2006. The highest the percentage has risen between 1982 and 2010 was 47% in 1994 and 2000 according to the report. The report found that Americans who are less educated are more likely to hold a creationist view while those with a college education are more likely to hold a view involving evolution. 47% of those with no more than a high school education believe in creationism while 22% of those with a post graduate education hold that view. The poll also found that church attendance dramatically increased adherence to a strict creationist view (22% for those who do not attend church, 60% for those who attend weekly).[] The higher percentage of Republicans who identified with a creationist view is described as evidence of the strong relationship between religion and politics in the United States. Republicans also attend church weekly more than Democratic or independent voters. Non-Republican voters are twice as likely to hold a nontheistic view of evolution than Republican voters.[]

66

Creationism Among US states, acceptance of evolution has a strong negative correlation with religiosity and a strong positive relationship with science degrees awarded, bachelor degree attainment, advanced degree attainment, average teacher salary, and GDP per capita. In other words, states in which more people say that religion is very important to their lives tend to show less acceptance of evolution. The better the education of individuals, their educational system, or the higher their income, the more they accept evolution, though the US as a country has a comparatively well educated population but lower acceptance of evolution than other countries.[79]

67

Movements
Creationist movements exist among peoples with various religious perspectives such as Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity and Islam.

Christianity
As of 2006[80] most Christians around the world accepted evolution as the most likely explanation for the origins of species, and did not take a literal view of the Genesis creation narrative.[] The United States is an exception where belief in religious fundamentalism is much more likely to affect attitudes towards evolution than it is for believers elsewhere.[] Political partisanship affecting religious belief may be a factor because whilst political partisanship in the U.S. is highly correlated with fundamentalist thinking, unlike in Europe.[] Most contemporary Christian leaders and scholars from mainstream churches,[] such as Anglicans[] and Lutherans,[81] consider that there is no conflict between the spiritual meaning of creation and the science of evolution. According to the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, "...for most of the history of Christianity (and I think this is fair enough) an awareness that a belief that everything depends on the creative act of God, is quite compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely that unfolds in creative time."[82] Leaders of the Anglican[83] and Roman Catholic[84][85] churches have made statements in favor of evolutionary theory, as have scholars such as the physicist John Polkinghorne, who argues that evolution is one of the principles through which God created living beings. Earlier supporters of evolutionary theory include Frederick Temple, Asa Gray and Charles Kingsley who were enthusiastic supporters of Darwin's theories upon their publication,[86] and the French Jesuit priest and geologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin saw evolution as confirmation of his Christian beliefs, despite condemnation from Church authorities for his more speculative theories. Another example is that of Liberal theology, not providing any creation models, but instead focusing on the symbolism in beliefs of the time of authoring Genesis and the cultural environment. Many Christians and Jews had been considering the idea of the creation history as an allegory (instead of historical) long before the development of Darwin's theory of evolution. For example, the first century Jewish neoplatonic philosopher Philo of Alexandria, whose works were taken up by early Church writers, wrote that it would be a mistake to think that creation happened in six days, or in any set amount of time.[][87] Saint Augustine of the late fourth century who was also a former neoplatonist argued that everything in the universe was created by God at the same moment in time (and not in six days as a literal reading of Genesis would seem to require);[88] It appears that both Philo and Augustine felt uncomfortable with the idea of a seven-day creation because it detracted from the notion of God's omnipotence. In 1950, Pope Pius XII stated limited support for the idea in his encyclical Humani Generis, 36.[89] In 1996, Pope John Paul II stated that, "New findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis," but, referring to previous papal writings, he concluded that "If the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God."[90] In the United States, Evangelical Christians have continued to believe in a literal Genesis. Members of Protestant (70%), Mormon (76%) and Jehovah's Witnesses (90%) denominations are the most likely to reject the evolutionary interpretation of the origins of life.[91] The historic Christian literal interpretation of creation requires the harmonization of the two creation stories, Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25, for there to be a consistent

Creationism interpretation.[92][93] They sometimes seek to ensure that their belief is taught in science classes, mainly in American schools. Opponents reject the claim that the literalistic biblical view meets the criteria required to be considered scientific. Many religious groups teach that God created the Cosmos. From the days of the early Christian Church Fathers there were allegorical interpretations of Genesis as well as literal aspects.[] Christian Science, a system of thought and practice derived from the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, interprets Genesis figuratively rather than literally. It holds that the material world is an illusion, and consequently not created by God: the only real creation is the spiritual realm, of which the material world is a distorted version. Christian Scientists regard the story of the creation in the Book of Genesis as having symbolic rather than literal meaning. According to Christian Science, both creationism and evolution are false from an absolute or "spiritual" point of view, as they both proceed from a (false) belief in the reality of a material universe. However, Christian Scientists do not oppose the teaching of evolution in schools, nor do they demand that alternative accounts be taught: they believe that both material science and literalist theology are concerned with the illusory, mortal and material, rather than the real, immortal and spiritual. In regards to material theories of creation, Mary Baker Eddy showed a preference for Darwin's Theory of Evolution over others.[]

68

Hinduism
According to Hindu creationism all species on earth including humans have "devolved" or come down from a highly state of pure consciousness[citation needed]. Hindu creationists claim that species of plants and animals are material forms adopted by pure consciousness which live an endless cycle of births and rebirths.[94] Ronald Numbers says that: "Hindu Creationists have insisted on the antiquity of humans, who they believe appeared fully formed as long, perhaps, as trillions of years ago."[95] Hindu creationism is a form of old earth creationism, according to Hindu creationists the universe may even be older than billions of years. These views are based on the Vedas which depict an extreme antiquity of the universe and history of the earth.[96][97]

Islam
Islamic creationism is the belief that the universe (including humanity) was directly created by God as explained in the Qur'an. It usually views Genesis as a corrupted version of God's message. The creation myths in the Qur'an are vaguer and allow for a wider range of interpretations similar to those in other Abrahamic religions. Most Muslims accept the scientific positions on the age of the earth and the age of the universe. Islam also has its own school of theistic evolutionism, which holds that mainstream scientific analysis of the origin of the universe is supported by the Qur'an. Some Muslims believe in evolutionary creation, especially among liberal movements within Islam. Khalid Anees, president of the Islamic Society of Britain, at a conference called 'Creationism: Science and Faith in Schools', made points including the following:[] There is no contradiction between what is revealed in the Qur'an and natural selection and survival of the fittest. "Without a Book of Genesis to account for ... Muslim creationists have little interest in proving that the age of the Earth is measured in the thousands rather than the billions of years, nor do they show much interest in the problem of the dinosaurs. And the idea that animals might evolve into other animals also tends to be less controversial, in part because there are passages of the Koran that seem to support it. But the issue of whether human beings are the product of evolution is just as fraught among Muslims."[98] However, some Muslims, such as Adnan Oktar, do not agree that one species can develop from another.[] But there is also a growing movement of Islamic creationism. Similar to Christian creationism, there is concern regarding the perceived conflicts between the Qur'an and the main points of evolutionary theory. The main location for this has been in Turkey, where fewer than 25% of people believe in evolution.[99] There are several verses in the Qur'an which some modern writers have interpreted as being compatible with the expansion of the universe, Big Bang and Big Crunch theories:[100][101][102]

Creationism "Do not the Unbelievers see that the skies (space) and the earth were joined together, then We (Allah) clove them asunder and We (Allah) created every living thing out of the water. Will they not then believe?"[Quran 21:30 [103]] "Then turned He to the sky (space) when it was smoke, and said unto it and unto the earth: Come both of you, willingly or loth. They said: We come, obedient."[Quran 41:11 [104]] "And it is We (Allah) Who have constructed the sky (space) with might, and it is We (Allah) Who are steadily expanding it."[Quran 51:47 [105]] "On the day when We (Allah) will roll up the sky (space) like the rolling up of the scroll for writings, as We (Allah) originated the first creation, (so) We (Allah) shall reproduce it; a promise (binding on Us); surely We will bring it about."[Quran 21:104 [106]] The Ahmadiyya Movement is perhaps the only denomination in Islam that actively promotes evolutionary theory.[107] Ahmadis interpret scripture from the Qur'an to support the concept of macroevolution and give precedence to scientific theories. Furthermore, unlike more orthodox Muslims, Ahmadis believe that mankind has gradually evolved from different species. Ahmadis regard Adam as being the first Prophet of God as opposed to him being the first man on Earth.[108] Rather than wholly adopting the theory of natural selection, Ahmadis promote the idea of a "guided evolution", viewing each stage of the evolutionary process as having been selectively woven by God.[109] Mirza Tahir Ahmad, Fourth Caliph of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has stated in his magnum opus Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth that evolution did occur but only through God being the One who brings it about. It does not occur itself, according to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.

69

Judaism
Judaism has a continuum of views about creation, the origin of life and the role of evolution in the formation of species. The major Jewish denominations, including many Orthodox Jewish groups, accept evolutionary creation or theistic evolution. Many Conservative Rabbis follow theistic evolution, although Conservative Judaism does not have an official view on the subject. Conservative Judaism however, does generally embrace science and therefore finds it a "challenge to traditional Jewish theology."[110] Reform Judaism does not take the Torah as a literal text, but rather as a symbolic or open-ended work. For Orthodox Jews who seek to reconcile discrepancies between science and the Bible, the notion that science and the Bible should even be reconciled through traditional scientific means is questioned. To these groups, science is as true as the Torah and if there seems to be a problem, our own epistemological limits are to blame for any apparent irreconcilable point. They point to various discrepancies between what is expected and what actually is to demonstrate that things are not always as they appear. They point out the fact that the even root word for "world" in the Hebrew language ( Olam) means hidden (Neh-Eh-Lahm). Just as they believe God created man and trees and the light on its way from the stars in their adult state, so too can they believe that the world was created in its "adult" state, with the understanding that there are, and can be, no physical ways to verify it. This belief has been advanced by Rabbi Dr. Dovid Gottlieb, former philosophy professor at Johns Hopkins University. Also, relatively old Kabbalistic sources from well before the scientifically apparent age of the universe was first determined are in close concord with modern scientific estimates of the age of the universe, according to Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, and based on Sefer Temunah, an early kabbalistic work attributed to the 1st century Tanna Nehunya ben ha-Kanah. Many kabbalists accepted the teachings of the Sefer Temunah, including the Ramban, his close student Yitzhak of Akko, and the RADBAZ. Other interesting parallels are derived, among other sources, from Nachmanides, who expounds that there was a Neanderthal-like species with which Adam mated (he did this long before Neanderthals had even been discovered scientifically).[111][112][113][114]

Creationism

70

Types of creationism
Several attempts have been made to categorize the different types of creationism, and create a "taxonomy" of creationists.[115][116][117] Creationism covers a spectrum of beliefs which have been categorized into the broad types listed below. As a matter of popular belief and characterizations by the media, most people labeled "creationists" are those who object to specific parts of science for religious reasons; however many (if not most) people who believe in a divine act of creation do not categorically reject those parts of science.[citation needed]

Comparison of major creationist views

Acceptance Young Earth creationism 40% (US) Humanity Biological species Directly created by God. Macroevolution does not occur. Earth Less than 10,000 years old. Reshaped by global flood. Age of Universe Less than 10,000 years old (some hold this view only for our solar system). Scientifically accepted age. Scientifically accepted age.

[] Directly created by God.

Gap creationism

Scientifically accepted age. Reshaped by global flood. 38% (US) [] Directly created by God (based on primate anatomy). Proponents hold various beliefs. for example, Behe accepts evolution from primates Evolution from primates. Direct creation + evolution. No single common ancestor. Scientifically accepted age. No global flood.

Progressive creationism

Intelligent design

Divine intervention at some point in the past, as evidenced by what intelligent-design creationists call "irreducible complexity"

Some adherents accept common descent, others not. Some claim the existence of Earth is the result of divine intervention Scientifically accepted age. No global flood.

Scientifically accepted age

Theistic evolution (evolutionary creationism)

Evolution from single common ancestor.

Scientifically accepted age.

Young-Earth creationism
Young-Earth creationism fosters the belief that God created the Earth within the last ten thousand years, literally as described in the Genesis creation narrative, within the approximate time-frame of biblical genealogies (detailed for example in the Ussher chronology). Most Young-Earth creationists believe that the Universe has a similar age as the Earth. A few assign a much older age to the Universe than to Earth. SomeWikipedia:Avoid weasel words creationist thinkers attempt with Creationist cosmologies to give the universe an age consistent with the Ussher chronology and other Young-Earth time frames. Other Young-Earth creationists believe that the Earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age, so that the world appears to be much older than it is, and that this appearance is what gives the geological findings and other methods of dating the earth and the universe their much longer timelines. However, this view has theological implications - an intentional appearance of age is form of false evidence and so a form of deception. The Christian organizations Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and the Creation Research Society (CRS) both promote Young-Earth creationism in the USA. Another organization with similar views, Answers in Genesis (AIG) Ministries - based in both the US and United Kingdom - has opened a Creation Museum to promote Young-Earth creationism. Creation Ministries International promotes Young-Earth views in Australia, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Among Catholics, the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation promotes similar ideas.

Creationism

71

Old Earth creationism

Old Earth creationism holds that the physical universe was created by God, but that the creation event of Genesis is not to be taken strictly literally. This group generally believes that the age of the Universe and the age of the Earth are as described by astronomers and geologists, but that details of modern evolutionary theory are questionable. Old-Earth creationism itself comes in at least three types: Gap creationism Gap creationism, also called "Restitution creationism", holds that life was recently created on a pre-existing old Earth. This theory relies on a particular interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2 [118]. It is considered that the words formless and void in fact denote waste and ruin, taking into account the original Hebrew and other places these words are used in the Old Testament. Genesis 1:1-2 is consequently translated: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Original act of creation.) "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Thus, the six days of creation (verse 3 onwards) start sometime after the Earth was "without form and void." This allows an indefinite "gap" of time to be inserted after the original creation of the universe, but prior to the creation according to Genesis, (when present biological species and humanity were created). Gap theorists can therefore agree with the scientific consensus regarding the age of the Earth and universe, while maintaining a literal interpretation of the biblical text. Some gap theorists expand the basic theory by proposing a "primordial creation" of biological life within the "gap" of time. This is thought to be "the world that then was" mentioned in 2 Peter 3:3-7.[119] Discoveries of fossils and archaeological ruins older than 10,000 years are generally ascribed to this "world that then was", which may also be associated with Lucifer's rebellion. These views became popular with publications of Hebrew Lexicons such as the Strong's Concordance, and Bible commentaries such as the Scofield Reference Bible and the Companion Bible. Day-Age creationism Day-Age creationism states that the "six days" of Book of Genesis are not ordinary 24-hour days, but rather much longer periods (for instance, each "day" could be the equivalent of millions, or billions of years of human time). This theory often states that the Hebrew word "ym", in the context of Genesis 1, can be properly interpreted as "age." Some adherents claim we are still living in the seventh age ("seventh day"). Strictly speaking, Day-Age creationism is not so much a creationist theory as a hermeneutic option which may be combined with theories such as progressive creationism. Progressive creationism Progressive creationism holds that species have changed or evolved in a process continuously guided by God, with various ideas as to how the process operatedthough it is generally taken that God directly intervened in the natural order at key moments in Earth/life's history. This view accepts most of modern physical science including the age of the earth, but rejects much of modern evolutionary biology or looks to it for evidence that evolution by natural selection alone is incorrect.[citation needed] Organizations such as Reasons To Believe, founded by Hugh Ross, promote this theory. Progressive creationism can be held in conjunction with hermeneutic approaches to the Genesis creation narrative such as the day-age theory or framework/metaphoric/poetic views.

Creationism

72

Neo-Creationism
Neo-Creationists intentionally distance themselves from other forms of creationism, preferring to be known as wholly separate from creationism as a philosophy.[citation needed] Neo-Creationism aims to re-state creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, education-policy makers and the scientific community. It aims to re-frame the debate over the origins of life in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture, and to bring the debate before the public. Neo-Creationism sees ostensibly objective orthodox science as a dogmatically atheistic religion. Neo-Creationists argue that the scientific method excludes certain explanations of phenomena, particularly where they point towards supernatural elements. They argue that this effectively excludes any possible religious insight from contributing to a scientific understanding of the universe. Neo-Creationists also argue that science, as an "atheistic enterprise", lies at the root of many of contemporary society's ills including social unrest and family breakdown.[citation needed] The Intelligent Design movement arguably represents the most recognized form of Neo-Creationism in the United States. Unlike their philosophical forebears, Neo-Creationists largely do not believe in many of the traditional cornerstones of creationism such as a young Earth, or in a dogmatically literal interpretation of the Bible. Common to all forms of Neo-Creationism is a rejection of naturalism[citation needed], usually made together with a tacit admission of supernaturalism, and an open and often hostile opposition to what they term "Darwinism", meaning evolution.

Intelligent design
Intelligent design (ID) is the claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection".[] All of its leading proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute,[120] a think tank whose Wedge strategy aims to replace the scientific method with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" which accepts supernatural explanations.[75][121] It is widely accepted in the scientific and academic communities that intelligent design is a form of creationism,[122][116][117][123] and some have even begun referring to it as "intelligent design creationism".[124][125][126] ID originated as a re-branding of creation science in an attempt to get round a series of court decisions ruling out the teaching of creationism in U.S. public schools, and the Discovery Institute has run a series of campaigns to change school curricula.[26] In Australia, where curricula are under the control of State governments rather than local school boards, there was a public outcry when the notion of ID being taught in science classes was raised by the Federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson; the minister quickly conceded that the correct forum for ID, if it were to be taught, is in religious or philosophy classes.[127] In the United States, teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools has been decisively ruled by a Federal District court to be in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the court found that intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.", and hence cannot be taught as an alternative to evolution in public school science classrooms under the jurisdiction of that court. This sets a persuasive precedent, based on previous Supreme Court decisions in Edwards v. Aguillard and Epperson v. Arkansas, and by the application of the Lemon test, that creates a legal hurdle to teaching Intelligent Design in public school districts in other Federal court jurisdictions.[75][128]

Creationism

73

Creation science
Creation science is the attempt to present scientific evidence interpreted with Genesis axioms that supports the claims of creationism. Various claims of creation scientists include such ideas as creationist cosmologies which accommodate a universe on the order of thousands of years old, attacks on the science of radiometric dating through a technical argument about radiohalos, explanations for the fossil record as a record of the destruction of the global flood recorded in Book of Genesis (see flood geology), and explanations for the present diversity as a result of pre-designed genetic variability and partially due to the rapid degradation of the perfect genomes God placed in "created kinds" or "Baramin" (see creation biology) due to mutations.

Theistic evolution (evolutionary creation)

Theistic evolution, or evolutionary creation, asserts that "the personal God of the Bible created the universe and life through evolutionary processes."[129] According to the American Scientific Affiliation: A theory of theistic evolution (TE) also called evolutionary creation proposes that God's method of creation was to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve. Usually the "evolution" in "theistic evolution" means Total Evolution astronomical evolution (to form galaxies, solar systems,...) and geological evolution (to form the earth's geology) plus chemical evolution (to form the first life) and biological evolution (for the development of life) but it can refer only to biological evolution.[130] Through the 19th century the term creationism most commonly referred to direct creation of individual souls, in contrast to traducianism. Following the publication of Vestiges there was interest in ideas of Creation by divine law. In particular, the liberal theologian Baden Powell argued that this illustrated the Creator's power better than the idea of miraculous creation, which he thought ridiculous.[131] When On the Origin of Species was published, the cleric Charles Kingsley wrote of evolution as "just as noble a conception of Deity".[][132] Darwin's view at the time was of God creating life through the laws of nature,[133][134] and the book makes several references to "creation", though he later regretted using the term rather than calling it an unknown process.[135] In America, Asa Gray argued that evolution is the secondary effect, or modus operandi, of the first cause, design,[136] and published a pamphlet defending the book in theistic terms, Natural Selection is not inconsistent with Natural Theology.[][][137] Theistic evolution, also called, evolutionary creation, became a popular compromise, and St. George Jackson Mivart was among those accepting evolution but attacking Darwin's naturalistic mechanism. Eventually it was realised that supernatural intervention could not be a scientific explanation, and naturalistic mechanisms such as neo-Lamarckism were favoured as being more compatible with purpose than natural selection.[] Some theists took the general view that, instead of faith being in opposition to biological evolution, some or all classical religious teachings about Christian God and creation are compatible with some or all of modern scientific theory, including specifically evolution; it is also known as "evolutionary creation". In Evolution versus Creationism, Eugenie Scott and Niles Eldredge state that it is in fact a type of evolution.[138] It generally views evolution as a tool used by God, who is both the first cause and immanent sustainer/upholder of the universe; it is therefore well accepted by people of strong theistic (as opposed to deistic) convictions. Theistic evolution can synthesize with the day-age interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative; however most adherents consider that the first chapters of Genesis should not be interpreted as a "literal" description, but rather as a literary framework or allegory. From a theistic viewpoint, the underlying laws of nature were designed by God for a purpose, and are so self-sufficient that the complexity of the entire physical universe evolved from fundamental particles in processes such as stellar evolution, life forms developed in biological evolution, and in the same way the origin of life by natural causes has resulted from these laws.[] In one form or another, theistic evolution is the view of creation taught at the majority of mainline Protestant seminaries[139] For Catholics, human evolution is not a matter of religious teaching, and must stand or fall on its own

Creationism scientific merits. Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church are not in conflict. The Catechism of the Catholic Church comments positively on the theory of evolution, which is neither precluded nor required by the sources of faith, stating that scientific studies "have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man."[140] Roman Catholic schools teach evolution without controversy on the basis that scientific knowledge does not extend beyond the physical, and scientific truth and religious truth cannot be in conflict.[141] Theistic evolution can be described as "creationism" in holding that divine intervention brought about the origin of life or that divine Laws govern formation of species, though many creationists (in the strict sense) would deny that the position is creationism at all. In the creation-evolution controversy its proponents generally take the "evolutionist" side. This sentiment was expressed by Fr. George Coyne, (Vatican's chief astronomer between 1978 and 2006): ...in America, creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis. Judaic-Christian faith is radically creationist, but in a totally different sense. It is rooted in a belief that everything depends upon God, or better, all is a gift from God.[142] While supporting the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science, the proponents of theistic evolution reject the implication taken by some atheists that this gives credence to ontological materialism. In fact, many modern philosophers of science,[143] including atheists,[144] refer to the long standing convention in the scientific method that observable events in nature should be explained by natural causes, with the distinction that it does not assume the actual existence or non-existence of the supernatural.

74

Obscure and largely discounted beliefs

The 17th century position of the Roman Catholic Church was that God recently created a spherical world, and placed it as an immobile location in the center of the universe.[citation needed] The Sun, planets and everything else in the universe revolve around it once per day. The members of the Flat Earth Society hold that a literal interpretation of the Bible demands that the Earth is a disk with the North Pole at the center and a wall of ice at the Antarctic rim.[citation needed] The famous pictures of a spherical Earth taken from space are claimed by members to be either hoaxes or illusions.

Omphalos hypothesis
The Omphalos hypothesis argues that in order for the world to be functional, God must have created a mature Earth with mountains and canyons, rock strata, trees with growth rings, and so on; therefore no evidence that we can see of the presumed age of the earth and universe can be taken as reliable.[145] The idea has seen some revival in the twentieth century by some modern creationists, who have extended the argument to light that originates in far-off stars and galaxies (see Starlight problem).

Creationism

75

Prevalence
Most vocal literalist creationists are from the United States, and strict creationist views are much less common in other developed countries. According to a study published in Science, a survey of the United States, Turkey, Japan and Europe showed that public acceptance of evolution is most prevalent in Iceland, Denmark and Sweden at 80% of the population.[]

Australia
A 2009 Nielsen poll showed that almost a quarter of Australians believe [146][147] "the biblical account of human origins" Views on human evolution in various countries. rather than the Darwinian account. Forty-two percent believe in a "wholly scientific" explanation for the origins of life, while 32 percent believe in an evolutionary process "guided by God".[148]

Canada
A 2008 Canadian poll revealed that "58 percent accept evolution, while 22 percent think that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years."[149]

Europe
In Europe, literalist creationism is more widely rejected, though regular opinion polls are not available. Most people accept that evolution is the most widely accepted scientific theory as taught in most schools. In countries with a Roman Catholic majority, papal acceptance of evolutionary creationism as worthy of study has essentially ended debate on the matter for many people. In the United Kingdom, a 2006 poll on the "origin and development of life" asked participants to choose between three different perspectives on the origin of life: 22% chose creationism, 17% opted for intelligent design, 48% selected evolutionary theory, and the rest did not know.[150][151] A subsequent 2010 YouGov poll on the correct explanation for the Origin of Humans found that 9% opted for creationism, 12% intelligent design, 65% evolutionary theory and 13% didn't know.[51] The former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, views the idea of teaching creationism in schools as a mistake.[152] In Italy, prime minister Silvio Berlusconi wanted to retire evolution from schools in the middle level; after one week of massive protests, he reversed his opinion.[153] There continues to be scattered and possibly mounting efforts on the part of religious groups throughout Europe to introduce creationism into public education.[154] In response, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has released a draft report entitled The dangers of creationism in education on June 8, 2007,[155] reinforced by a further proposal of banning it in schools dated October 4, 2007.[156] Serbia suspended the teaching of evolution for one week in September 2004, under education minister Ljiljana oli, only allowing schools to reintroduce evolution into the curriculum if they also taught creationism.[157] "After a deluge of protest from scientists, teachers and opposition parties" says the BBC report, oli's deputy made the

Creationism statement, "I have come here to confirm Charles Darwin is still alive" and announced that the decision was reversed.[158] oli resigned after the government said that she had caused "problems that had started to reflect on the work of the entire government."[159] Poland saw a major controversy over creationism in 2006 when the deputy education minister, Mirosaw Orzechowski, denounced evolution as "one of many lies" taught in Polish schools. His superior, Minister of Education Roman Giertych, has stated that the theory of evolution would continue to be taught in Polish schools, "as long as most scientists in our country say that it is the right theory." Giertych's father, Member of the European Parliament Maciej Giertych, has opposed the teaching of evolution and has claimed that dinosaurs and humans co-existed.[160]

76

United States
According to a 2001 Gallup poll,[] about 45% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Another 37% believe that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process",[] and 14% believe that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process".[] Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; of those with postgraduate degrees, 74% accept Anti-evolution car in Athens, Georgia [161][162] evolution. In 1987, Newsweek reported: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly.'"[163][164] A 2000 poll for People for the American Way found 70% of the United States public felt that evolution was compatible with a belief in God.[] According to a study published in Science, between 1985 and 2005 the number of adult North Americans who accept evolution declined from 45% to 40%, the number of adults who reject evolution declined from 48% to 39% and the number of people who were unsure increased from 7% to 21%. Besides the United States the study also compared data from 32 European countries, Turkey, and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was Turkey (25%).[] According to a 2011 Fox News poll, 45% of Americans believe in Creationism, down from 50% in a similar poll in 1999.[] 21% believe in 'the theory of evolution as outlined by Darwin and other scientists' (up from 15% in 1999), and 27% answered that both are true (up from 26% in 1999).[] In September 2012, Bill Nye ("The Science Guy") warned that creationist views threaten science education and innovations in The United States.[][](video [27])

Creationism Education controversies In the United States, creationism has become centered in the political controversy over creation and evolution in public education, and whether teaching creationism in science classes conflicts with the separation of church and state. Currently, the controversy comes in the form of whether advocates of the Intelligent Design movement who wish to "Teach the Controversy" in science classes have conflated science with religion.[128]

77

The Truth fish, one of the many creationist responses to the Darwin fish.

People for the American Way polled 1500 North Americans about the teaching of evolution and creationism in November and December 1999. They found that most North Americans were not familiar with Creationism, and most North Americans had heard of evolution, but many did not fully understand the basics of the theory. The main findings were:
Americans believe that: Public schools should teach evolution only Only evolution should be taught in science classes, religious explanations can be discussed in another class Creationism can be discussed in science class as a 'belief,' not a scientific theory Creationism and evolution should be taught as 'scientific theories' in science class Only Creationism should be taught Teach both evolution and Creationism, but unsure how to do so No opinion
[]

20% 17% 29% 13% 16% 4% 1%

In such political contexts, creationists argue that their particular religiously based origin belief is superior to those of other belief systems, in particular those made through secular or scientific rationale. Political creationists are opposed by many individuals and organizations who have made detailed critiques and given testimony in various court cases that the alternatives to scientific reasoning offered by creationists are opposed by the consensus of the scientific community.[][165]

Criticism
Christian criticism
Many Christians disagree with the teaching of creationism. Several religious organizations, among them the Catholic Church, hold that their faith does not conflict with the scientific consensus regarding evolution.[166] The Clergy Letter Project, which has collected more than 13,000 signatures, is an "endeavor designed to demonstrate that religion and science can be compatible". In his 2002 article "Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem", George Murphy argues against the view that life on Earth, in all its forms, is direct evidence of God's act of creation (Murphy quotes Phillip Johnson's claim that he is speaking "of a God who acted openly and left his fingerprints on all the evidence."). Murphy argues that this view of God is incompatible with the Christian understanding of God as "the one revealed in the cross and resurrection of Jesus." The basis of this theology is Isaiah 45:15, "Truly, thou art a God who hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Savior." Murphy observes that the execution of a Jewish carpenter by Roman authorities is in and of itself an ordinary event and did not require Divine action. On the contrary, for the crucifixion to occur, God had to limit or "empty" Himself. It was for this reason that Paul wrote, in Philippians 2:5-8,

Creationism Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Murphy concludes that, Just as the son of God limited himself by taking human form and dying on the cross, God limits divine action in the world to be in accord with rational laws God has chosen. This enables us to understand the world on its own terms, but it also means that natural processes hide God from scientific observation. For Murphy, a theology of the cross requires that Christians accept a methodological naturalism, meaning that one cannot invoke God to explain natural phenomena, while recognizing that such acceptance does not require one to accept a metaphysical naturalism, which proposes that nature is all that there is.[167]

78

Teaching of creationism
Other Christians have expressed qualms about teaching creationism. In March 2006, then Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the leader of the world's Anglicans, stated his discomfort about teaching creationism, saying that creationism was "a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories". He also said: "My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it." The views of the Episcopal Church - a major American-based branch of the Anglican Communion - on teaching creationism resemble those of Williams.[168] In April 2010 the American Academy of Religion issued Guidelines for Teaching About Religion in K12 Public Schools in the United States which included guidance that creation science or intelligent design should not be taught in science classes, as "Creation science and intelligent design represent worldviews that fall outside of the realm of science that is defined as (and limited to) a method of inquiry based on gathering observable and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." However, they, as well as other "worldviews that focus on speculation regarding the origins of life represent another important and relevant form of human inquiry that is appropriately studied in literature or social sciences courses. Such study, however, must include a diversity of worldviews representing a variety of religious and philosophical perspectives and must avoid privileging one view as more legitimate than others."[169] Moore and Cotner, from the biology program at the University of Minnesota, reflect on the relevance of teaching creationism in the article The Creationist Down the Hall: Does It Matter When Teachers Teach Creationism? They conclude that "despite decades of science education reform, numerous legal decisions declaring the teaching of creationism in public-school science classes to be unconstitutional, overwhelming evidence supporting evolution, and the many denunciations of creationism as nonscientific by professional scientific societies, creationism remains popular throughout the United States."[170]

Scientific criticism
Science is a system of knowledge based on observation, empirical evidence and testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena. By contrast, creationism is based on literal interpretations of the narratives of particular religious texts. Some creationist beliefs involve purported forces that lie outside of nature, such as supernatural intervention, and often do not allow predictions at all. Therefore, these can neither be confirmed nor disproved by scientists.[] However, many creationist beliefs can be framed as testable predictions about phenomena such as the age of the Earth, its geological history and the origins, distributions and relationships of living organisms found on it. Early science incorporated elements of these beliefs, but as science developed these beliefs were gradually falsified and were replaced with understandings based on accumulated and reproducible evidence that often allows the accurate prediction of future results.[171][172] Some scientists, such as Stephen Jay Gould,[173] consider science and religion to be two compatible and complementary fields, with authorities in distinct areas of human experience,

Creationism so-called non-overlapping magisteria.[174] This view is also held by many theologians, who believe that ultimate origins and meaning are addressed by religion, but favour verifiable scientific explanations of natural phenomena over those of creationist beliefs. Other scientists, such as Richard Dawkins,[175] reject the non-overlapping magisteria and argue that, in disproving literal interpretations of creationists, the scientific method also undermines religious texts as a source of truth. Irrespective of this diversity in viewpoints, since creationist beliefs are not supported by empirical evidence, the scientific consensus is that any attempt to teach creationism as science should be rejected.[176][177][178]

79

Organizations
Creationism (in general) American Scientific Affiliation Christians in Science Intelligent design Access Research Network Centre for Intelligent Design Center for Science and Culture

Young Earth Creationism

Evolutionary creationism Answers in Genesis, a group promoting Young-Earth Creationism Creation Ministries International, an organisation promoting biblical creation BioLogos Foundation Evolution Creation Research Society Institute for Creation Research, "a Christ-Focused Creation Ministry" National Center for Science Education TalkOrigins Archive Old Earth Creationism Reasons To Believe led by Hugh Ross [179] Answers In Creation led by Greg Neyman

Notes on terminology
[6] For example, the Scopes Trial of 1925 brought creationism and evolution into the adversarial environment of the American justice system. The trial was well-publicized, and served as a catalyst for the wider creationevolution controversy; Giberson & Yerxa (2002), pp. 3-4. [7] Evolution's status as a "theory" has played a prominent role in the creationevolution controversy. In scientific terminology, "theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts". It is understood, therefore, that evolution is a scientific fact and a theory. In contrast, when literalists creationists refer to evolution as a theory, they often mean to characterize evolution as an "imperfect fact", drawing upon the vernacular conception of "theory" as "part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess"; Gould SJ (May 1981). Evolution as fact and theory (http:/ / www. stephenjaygould. org/ library/ gould_fact-and-theory. html). Retrieved 12 April 2010; Moran L (2002). Evolution is a fact and a theory (http:/ / www. talkorigins. org/ faqs/ evolution-fact. html). Retrieved 12 April 2010. Original work published 1993. [8] Campbell D (2006, 21 February). "Academics fight rise of creationism at universities" (http:/ / www. guardian. co. uk/ world/ 2006/ feb/ 21/ religion. highereducation). The Guardian. Retrieved 07 April, 2010. [9] For the biological understanding of complexity, see Evolution of complexity. For a creationist perspective, see Irreducible complexity. [10] While the term myth is often used colloquially to refer to "a false story", this article uses the term in the academic meaning of "a sacred narrative explaining how the world and mankind came to be in their present form" (Dundes A, 1996. "Madness in method plus a plea for projective inversion in myth". In LL Patton & W Doniger (Eds.), Myth & method (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=OgsTmeRHpeUC). Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia pp. 147-162 (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=OgsTmeRHpeUC& pg=147)). [19] National Association of Biology Teachers Statement on Teaching Evolution (http:/ / www. nabt. org/ sub/ position_statements/ evolution. asp) [20] IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution (http:/ / www. interacademies. net/ Object. File/ Master/ 6/ 150/ Evolution statement. pdf) Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the United Kingdom's Royal Society (PDF file) [21] From the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society: , AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws (http:/ / www. aaas. org/ news/ releases/ 2006/ 0219boardstatement. shtml) [25] " Creationism (http:/ / encarta. msn. com/ text_761580511___0/ Creationism. html)" Contributed By: Ronald L. Numbers, William Coleman: Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2007. Archived (http:/ / www. webcitation. org/ query?id=1257023127596318) 2009-10-31. [26] Creationism/ID, A Short Legal History (http:/ / www. talkreason. org/ articles/ HistoryID. cfm) By Lenny Flank, Talk Reason [27] http:/ / www. youtube. com/ watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU [28] The Works of Philo Judaeus (http:/ / www. earlychristianwritings. com/ yonge/ index-2. html), translated from the Greek by Charles Duke Yonge: Philo: Allegorical Interpretation, I (http:/ / www. earlychristianwritings. com/ yonge/ book2. html)

Creationism
[29] History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth (http:/ / www. bringyou. to/ apologetics/ p82. htm), adapted from The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence (Eerdmans, 1995) by Davis A. Young. Retrieved 2007-06-30. [33] / [36] Resolution 1580 (2007) The dangers of creationism in education (http:/ / assembly. coe. int/ main. asp?link=/ documents/ adoptedtext/ ta07/ eres1580. htm) Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, paras. 13, 18 [37] A.E. Wilder-Smith, Die Naturwissenschaften kennen keine Evolution, 1978, Schwabe Verlag, Basel. [38] Factum. "Schwengeler Verlag, Postfach 263, CH-9435 Heerbrugg." [44] The creationists: from scientific creationism to intelligent design (Ronald L. Numbers) [47] http:/ / www. britishcouncil. org/ darwin_now_survey_global. pdf [51] YouGov / Prospect Survey Results (http:/ / today. yougov. co. uk/ sites/ today. yougov. co. uk/ files/ YG-Archives-Pol-Prospect-Evolution-181110. pdf) YouGov.co.uk. [56] This article gives a worldwide overview of recent developments on the subject of the controversy. [59] (http:/ / www. answersingenesis. org/ us/ history. asp) [68] Plimer, Ian "Telling lies for God- Reason versus Creationism," (Random House) [73] The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design (Ronald L. Numbers). Harvard University Press (November 30, 2006) [74] s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#Page 19 of 139 [75] A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy Barbara Forrest. May, 2007. [76] TalkOrigins Archive: Post of the Month: March 2006 (http:/ / www. talkorigins. org/ origins/ postmonth/ mar06. html), The History of Creationism by Lenny Flank. [77] McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (http:/ / www. talkorigins. org/ faqs/ mclean-v-arkansas. html), Decision January 5, 1982. [78] Evolution News & Views: Dover Judge Regurgitates Mythological History of Intelligent Design (http:/ / www. evolutionnews. org/ 2005/ 12/ post_6. html), Discovery Institute, Posted by Jonathan Witt on December 20, 2005 4:43 PM. Retrieved 2007-07-01 [80] http:/ / en. wikipedia. org/ w/ index. php?title=Creationism& action=edit [84] What Catholics Think of Evolution? They don't not believe in it (http:/ / slate. com/ id/ 2122506/ ), Keelin McDonell, Explainer, Slate Magazine, July 12, 2005. [85] See also the article Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church. [86] see e.g. John Polkinghorne's Science and Theology pp6-7 [88] ASA3.org (http:/ / www. asa3. org/ ASA/ topics/ Bible-Science/ PSCF3-88Young. html), Davis A. Young, "The Contemporary Relevance of Augustine's View of Creation" (From: Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 40.1:42-45 (3/1988)), The American Scientific Affiliation [94] Science & Religion: A New Introduction, Alister E. McGrath, 2009, p. 140 [95] The creationists: from scientific creationism to intelligent design, Ronald L. Numbers, 2006, p. 420 [96] James C. Carper, Thomas C. Hunt, The Praeger Handbook of Religion and Education in the United States: A-L, 2009, p. 167 [97] A history of Indian philosophy, Volume 1, Surendranath Dasgupta, 1992, p. 10 [100] Harun Yahya, The Big Bang Echoes through the Map of the Galaxy (http:/ / www. harunyahya. com/ articles/ 70big_bang. html) [101] Maurice Bucaille (1990), The Bible the Qur'an and Science, "The Quran and Modern Science", ISBN 81-7101-132-2. [102] A. Abd-Allah, The Qur'an, Knowledge, and Science (http:/ / www. usc. edu/ dept/ MSA/ quran/ scislam. html), University of Southern California. [103] http:/ / www. usc. edu/ org/ cmje/ religious-texts/ quran/ verses/ 021-qmt. php#021. 030 [104] http:/ / www. usc. edu/ org/ cmje/ religious-texts/ quran/ verses/ 041-qmt. php#041. 011 [105] http:/ / www. usc. edu/ org/ cmje/ religious-texts/ quran/ verses/ 051-qmt. php#051. 047 [106] http:/ / www. usc. edu/ org/ cmje/ religious-texts/ quran/ verses/ 021-qmt. php#021. 104 [107] ITL: Jesus and the Indian Messiah - Every Wind of Doctrine (http:/ / textonly. itl-usa. org/ ahmadi/ ahmadi13. html) [109] http:/ / www. alislam. org/ library/ articles/ Guided_evolution_and_punctuated_equilibrium-20081104MN. pdf [110] Judaism and Evolution (http:/ / www. jewishvirtuallibrary. org/ jsource/ Judaism/ jewsevolution. html), Jewish Virtual Library [111] Aviezer, Nathan. In the Beginning: Biblical Creation and Science. Ktav, 1990. Hardcover. ISBN 0-88125-328-6 [112] Carmell, Aryeh and Domb, Cyril, eds. Challenge: Torah Views on Science New York: Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists/Feldheim Publishers, 1976. ISBN 0-87306-174-8 [113] Schroeder, Gerald L. The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom Broadway Books, 1998, ISBN 0-7679-0303-X [114] Jeffrey H. Tigay, Genesis, Science, and "Scientific Creationism", Conservative Judaism, Vol. 40(2), Winter 1987/1988, p.20-27, The Rabbinical Assembly [115] The Creation/Evolution Continuum (http:/ / ncse. com/ creationism/ general/ creationevolution-continuum), Eugenie Scott, NCSE Reports, v. 19, n. 4, p. 16-17, 23-25, July/August, 1999. [116] Wise, D.U., 2001, Creationism's Propaganda Assault on Deep Time and Evolution, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, n. 1, p. 30-35. [117] Who Believes What? Clearing up Confusion over Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism (http:/ / nagt. org/ files/ nagt/ jge/ abstracts/ Ross_v53n3p319. pdf), Marcus R. Ross, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, n. 3, May, 2005, p. 319-323 [118] http:/ / bibref. hebtools. com/ ?book=%20Genesis& verse=1:1-2& src=!

80

Creationism
[120] Kitzmiller v. Dover Testimony (http:/ / www. talkorigins. org/ faqs/ dover/ day6pm. html), Barbara Forrest, 2005. [121] Wedge Strategy (http:/ / www. antievolution. org/ features/ wedge. pdf), Discovery Institute, 1999. [122] "for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design (http:/ / www. hcs. harvard. edu/ ~hsr/ fall2005/ mu. pdf), David Mu, Harvard Science Review, Volume 19, Issue 1, Fall 2005. "Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudoscience of intelligent design theory." Professional Ethics Report (http:/ / www. aaas. org/ spp/ sfrl/ per/ per26. pdf), American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2001. Conclusion of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Ruling [123] The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition, Ronald L. Numbers, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, November 30, 2006, ISBN 0-674-02339-0. [124] ; Forrest, B.C. and Gross, P.R., 2003, Evolution and the Wedge of Intelligent Design: The Trojan Horse Strategy, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 224 p., ISBN 0-19-515742-7 [125] "Dembski chides me for never using the term "intelligent design" without conjoining it to "creationism." He implies (though never explicitly asserts) that he and others in his movement are not creationists and that it is incorrect to discuss them in such terms, suggesting that doing so is merely a rhetorical ploy to "rally the troops". (2) Am I (and the many others who see Dembski's movement in the same way) misrepresenting their position? The basic notion of creationism is the rejection of biological evolution in favor of special creation, where the latter is understood to be supernatural. Beyond this there is considerable variability...", from Wizards of ID: Reply to Dembski (http:/ / www. metanexus. net/ magazine/ ArticleDetail/ tabid/ 68/ id/ 2645/ Default. aspx), Robert T. Pennock, p. 645-667 of Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives, Robert T. Pennock (editor), Cambridge, MIT Press, 2001, 825 p., ISBN 0-262-66124-1; Pennock, R.T., 1999, Tower of Babel: Evidence Against the New Creationism, Cambridge, MIT Press, 440 p. [126] The Creation/Evolution Continuum (http:/ / ncse. com/ creationism/ general/ creationevolution-continuum), Eugenie Scott, NCSE Reports, v. 19, n. 4, p. 16-17, 23-25, July/August, 1999.; Scott, E.C., 2004, Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, Westport, Greenwood Press, 296p, ISBN 0-520-24650-0 [127] Intelligent design not science: experts (http:/ / www. smh. com. au/ news/ national/ intelligent-design-not-science-experts/ 2005/ 10/ 20/ 1129775902661. html), Deborah Smith Science Editor, Sydney Morning Herald, October 21, 2005. [128] Full text of Judge Jones' ruling, dated December 20, 2005 [138] Evolution Vs. Creationism, Eugenie Scott, Niles Eldredge, p62-63 [139] Science, Religion, and Evolution (http:/ / ncse. com/ evolution/ education/ science-religion-evolution) by Eugenie Scott (accessed at 2007-07-09). [143] The Tower of Babel (http:/ / www. amazon. com/ gp/ product/ product-description/ 026216180X) by Robert T. Pennock, Naturalism is an Essential Part of Science and Critical Inquiry (http:/ / www. freeinquiry. com/ naturalism. html) by Steven D. Schafersman, The Leiter Reports (http:/ / webapp. utexas. edu/ blogs/ archives/ bleiter/ 001072. html), Report on "Naturalism, Theism and the Scientific Enterprise" conference (http:/ / www. arn. org/ docs/ odesign/ od182/ ntse182. htm), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion, 11: God, Science, and Naturalism (http:/ / www. oxfordscholarship. com/ oso/ public/ content/ philosophy/ 0195138090/ acprof-0195138090-chapter-12. html) by Paul R. Draper, Philosophy Now: The Alleged Fallacies of Evolutionary Theory (http:/ / www. philosophynow. org/ issue46/ 46pigliucci. htm), Statement on Intelligent Design (http:/ / www. biology. uiowa. edu/ ID. html), Science and fundamentalism (http:/ / www. nature. com/ embor/ journal/ v6/ n12/ full/ 7400589. html) by Massimo Pigliucci, Justifying Methodological Naturalism (http:/ / www. infidels. org/ library/ modern/ michael_martin/ naturalism. html) by Michael Martin (philosopher) [144] Butterflies and wheels article (http:/ / www. butterfliesandwheels. com/ articleprint. php?num=158) by Raymond D. Bradley, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the Simon Fraser University (New Zealand). [145] Gosse, Henry Philip, 1857. Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot. J. Van Voorst, London [150] "Britons unconvinced on evolution" (http:/ / news. bbc. co. uk/ 2/ hi/ science/ nature/ 4648598. stm), BBC News, 26 January 2006 [151] "BBC Survey On The Origins Of Life" (http:/ / www. ipsos-mori. com/ researchpublications/ researcharchive/ poll. aspx?oItemId=262), Ipsos MORI for BBC Horizon, 30 January 2006 [152] Archbishop: stop teaching creationism-Williams backs science over Bible (http:/ / education. guardian. co. uk/ schools/ story/ 0,,1735731,00. html), Stephen Bates, religious affairs correspondent, The Guardian, Tuesday March 21, 2006. [153] Italy Keeps Darwin in its Classrooms (http:/ / www. dw-world. de/ dw/ article/ 0,2144,1188423,00. html), Deutsche Welle, 3 May 2004 [154] In the beginning: The debate over creation and evolution, once most conspicuous in America, is fast going global (http:/ / www. economist. com/ world/ displaystory. cfm?story_id=9036706), ISTANBUL, MOSCOW AND ROME, Evolution and religion, The Economist, April 19th 2007. [155] The dangers of creationism in education (http:/ / assembly. coe. int/ main. asp?Link=/ documents/ workingdocs/ doc07/ edoc11297. htm), Committee on Culture, Science and Education, Rapporteur: Mr Guy LENGAGNE, France, Socialist Group, Doc. 11297, Parliamentary Assemble Council of Europe, June 8, 2007. [156] The dangers of creationism in education - Resolution 1580 (http:/ / assembly. coe. int/ Main. asp?link=/ Documents/ AdoptedText/ ta07/ ERES1580. htm), Committee on Culture, Science and Education, Rapporteur: Mr Guy LENGAGNE, France, Socialist Group, Doc. 11297, Parliamentary Assemble Council of Europe, October 4, 2007. [157] "Darwin is off the curriculum for Serbian schools" (http:/ / www. telegraph. co. uk/ news/ 1471367/ Darwin-is-off-the-curriculum-for-Serbian-schools. html), telegraph.co.uk, 9 September 2004 [158] "Serbia reverses Darwin suspension" (http:/ / news. bbc. co. uk/ 2/ hi/ europe/ 3642460. stm), BBC News, 9 September 2004

81

Creationism
[159] "'Anti-Darwin' Serb minister quits" (http:/ / news. bbc. co. uk/ 2/ hi/ europe/ 3663196. stm), BBC News, 16 September 2004 [160] " And finally... (http:/ / www. wbj. pl/ ?command=article& id=35336& type=wbj)", Warsaw Business Journal, 18 December 2006 [161] Frank Newport, "Evolution Beliefs." (http:/ / www. gallup. com/ video/ 27838/ Evolution-Beliefs. aspx) Gallup Organization, June 11, 2007. [162] "Public beliefs about evolution and creation." (http:/ / www. religioustolerance. org/ ev_publi. htm) From: religioustolerance.org. Retrieved on November 11, 2007. [165] "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution" Finding the Evolution in Medicine (http:/ / www. nih. gov/ nihrecord/ 07_28_2006/ story03. htm) National Institutes of Health [167] Murphy, George L., 2002, "Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem," in Covalence: the Bulletin of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Alliance for Faith, Science, and Technology [173] Gould, S. J. (2002). Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New York: Ballantine Books.

82

Notes References
Barlow, Nora, ed. (1963). "Darwin's Ornithological Notes" (http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/ frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F1577&pageseq=1). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Historical Series 2 (No. 7). pp.201278. Retrieved 2009-06-10. Bowler, Peter J. (2003). Evolution: The History of an Idea (3rd ed.). University of California Press. ISBN0-520-23693-9. Barlow, Nora, ed. (1958). The Autobiography of Charles Darwin | 18091882 | With the Original Omissions Restored. Edited and with Appendix and Notes by his Granddaughter Nora Barlow (http://darwin-online.org. uk/EditorialIntroductions/Freeman_LifeandLettersandAutobiography.html). London: Collins. Retrieved 2009-01-09. Desmond, Adrian (1989). The Politics of Evolution: Morphology, Medicine, and Reform in Radical London. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN0-226-14374-0. Desmond, Adrian; Moore, James (1991). Darwin. London: Michael Joseph, Penguin Group. ISBN0-7181-3430-3. Dewey, John (1994). "The Influence of Darwinism on Philosophy". In Martin Gardner. Great Essays in Science. Prometheus Books. ISBN0-87975-853-8. Forster, Roger; Marston, Dr Paul (1999). "Genesis Through History" (http://www.ivycottage.org/group/group. aspx?id=6826). Reason Science and Faith (Ivy Cottage: E-Books ed.). Chester, England: Monarch Books. ISBN1-85424-441-8. Retrieved 2009-03-24. Hayward, James L. (1998). The Creation/Evolution Controversy: an annotated bibliography. Scarecrow Press/Salem Press. p.253. ISBN0-8108-3386-7. Miles, Sara Joan (2001). "Charles Darwin and Asa Gray Discuss Teleology and Design" (http://www.asa3.org/ ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Miles.html). Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 53. pp.196201. Retrieved 2008-11-22. Moore, James (2006). Evolution and Wonder - Understanding Charles Darwin (http://speakingoffaith. publicradio.org/programs/darwin/transcript.shtml). Speaking of Faith (Radio Program). American Public Media. Retrieved 2008-11-22. Quammen, David (2006). The Reluctant Mr. Darwin. New York: Atlas Books. ISBN0-393-05981-2. Secord, James A. (2000). Victorian Sensation: The Extraordinary Publication, Reception, and Secret Authorship of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN0-226-74411-6.

Creationism

83

Further reading
Adams Leeming, David (1996). A Dictionary of Creation Myths. OUP. ISBN978-0-19-510275-8. Anderson, Bernhard W. (editor) Creation in the Old Testament (ISBN 0-8006-1768-1) Anderson, Bernhard W. Creation Versus Chaos: The Reinterpretation of Mythical Symbolism in the Bible (ISBN 1-59752-042-X) Ian Barbour When Science Meets Religion, 2000, Harper SanFrancisco Ian Barbour Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues, 1997, Harper SanFrancisco. Stephen Jay Gould Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the fullness of life, Ballantine Books, 1999 Aryeh Kaplan, Immortality, Resurrection, and the Age of the Universe: A Kabbalistic View, Ktav, NJ, in association with the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists, NY, 1993 Stuart Kauffman Reinventing the Sacred, 2008 Michael Roberts, Evangelicals and Science (Greenwood Guides to Science and Religion). Greenwood Press, London, 2008 Numbers, Ronald (November 30, 2006). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition. Harvard University Press. ISBN0-674-02339-0. Joel R. Primack and Nancy Ellen Abrams In a Beginning...: Quantum Cosmology and Kabbalah, Tikkun, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp.6673

External links
Creationism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/) by Michael Ruse HowStuffWorks: How creationism works (http://www.howstuffworks.com/creationism.htm) Evolution, Creationism & ID Timeline (http://www.allviewpoints.org/RESOURCES/EVOLUTION/timeline. htm) Focuses on major historical and recent events in the scientific and political debate Evolution and Creationism (http://images.derstandard.at/20051012/Evolution-and-Creationism. pdf)PDF(204KB). A Guide for Museum Docents What is creationism? (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html) from talk.origins The Creation/Evolution Continuum (http://ncse.com/creationism/general/creationevolution-continuum) by Eugenie Scott. 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist) from Scientific American

Dipolar theism

84

Dipolar theism
In process theology dipolar theism is the position that in order to conceive a perfect God, one must conceive Him as embodying the "good" in sometimes-opposing characteristics, and therefore cannot be understood to embody only one set of characteristics. For instance, here are some characteristics commonly associated with God: One Many Transcendent Immanent Eternal Temporal Mutable Immutable Merciful Just Simple Complex Dipolar theism holds that in each pair, both of the characteristics contain some element of good. In order to embody all perfections, therefore, God must embody the good in both characteristics, and cannot be limited to one, because a God limited to one would suffer the limits of the one, and lack the good in the other. For instance, there is a "good" in being just, and also a good in being merciful. In being just, God determines that the good are rewarded and the evil are punished. In being merciful, God forgives those who sin. It follows, therefore, that a God that was only just or only merciful would be less than perfect. Dipolar theism holds that a perfect God must embody the good in both of those characteristics. Thus, a perfect God has the "good" characteristics of justice and the good characteristics of mercy. Alternatively, there is good in having absolute power, and good in leading by persuasion. For a God to be perfect, he cannot rule solely by predestination, because then he would lack the good possessed by a God who led by persuasion. God must therefore embody the "good" in both power and persuasion. From this conclusion, some reject the existence of an omnipotent God.

Critique of dipolar theism

Those rejecting dipolar theism argue that it fails to distinguish between what we think God is and what God actually is. Just because we think God should be a certain way in order to embody our idea of perfection does not mean he embodies those characteristics in reality. This critique is analogous to the critique of Anselm's ontological argument by Gaunilo: "Just because I can imagine a perfect island does not mean that it actually exists. Things are what they are no matter what I think they should be."

Divine law

85

Divine law
Divine law is any law that, according to religious belief, comes directly from the will of God, in contrast to man-made law. Like natural law (which may be seen as a manifestation of divine law) it is independent of the will of man, who cannot change it. However it may be revealed or not, so it may change in human perception in time through new revelation. Divine law is eternal law, meaning that since God is infinite, then his law must also be infinite and eternal. In Thomas Aquinas's Treatise on Law, divine law, as opposed to natural law, comes only from revelation or scripture, hence biblical law, and is necessary for human salvation. According to Aquinas, divine law must not be confused with natural law. Divine law is mainly and mostly natural law, but it can also be positive law.

External links
Catholic Encyclopedia: Moral Aspect of Divine Law [1]

References
[1] http:/ / www. newadvent. org/ cathen/ 09071a. htm

Dystheism
Dystheism (Greek "bad god"), is the belief that a god or God is not wholly good, and is possibly evil. Trickster gods found in polytheistic belief systems often have a dystheistic nature. One example is Eshu, a trickster god from Yoruba mythology who deliberately fostered violence between groups of people for his own amusement, saying that "causing strife is my greatest joy." Dystheists may themselves be theists or atheists, and in the case of either, concerning the nature of the God of Abrahamic faiths, will assert that God is not good, and is possibly, although not necessarily, malevolent, particularly to those who do not wish to follow that faith. Such attitudes have often stemmed from ideas similar to that of Mikhail Bakunin, who stated that "if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him" (an inversion of Voltaire's phrase "If God did not exist, it would be necessary for man to invent Him") in response to [God's] perceived antagonism to freedom.

Illuminationism

86

Illuminationism
Illuminationism is a doctrine in theology according to which the process of human thought needs to be aided by God. It is the oldest and most influential alternative to naturalism in the theory of mind and epistemology.[1] It was an important feature of ancient Greek philosophy, Neoplatonism, medieval philosophy, and in particular, the Illuminationist school of Persian Islamic philosophy.

Early history
Socrates says in The Apology that he had a divine or spiritual sign that began when he was a child. It was a voice that turned him away from something he was about to do, although it never encouraged him to do anything. Apuleius later suggested the voice was of a friendly demon [2] and that Socrates deserved this help as he was the most perfect of human beings. The early Christian philosopher Augustine (354 430) also emphasised the role of divine illumination in our thought, saying that "The mind needs to be enlightened by light from outside itself, so that it can participate in truth, because it is not itself the nature of truth. You will light my lamp, Lord [3] and "You hear nothing true from me which you have not first told me.[4] Augustine's version of illuminationism is not that God gives us certain information, but rather gives us insight into the truth of the information we received for ourselves.

Socrates

If we both see that what you say is true, and we both see that what I say is true, then where do we see that? Not I in you, nor you in me, but both of us in that unalterable truth that is above our minds.[5]

Illuminationism

87 Augustine's theory was defended by Christian philosophers of the later Middle Ages, particularly Franciscans such as Bonaventura and Matthew of Aquasparta. According to Bonaventura: Things have existence in the mind, in their own nature (proprio genere), and in the eternal art. So the truth of things as they are in the mind or in their own nature given that both are changeable is sufficient for the soul to have certain knowledge only if the soul somehow reaches things as they are in the eternal art.[6] The doctrine was criticised by John Pecham and Roger Marston, and in particular by Thomas Aquinas, who denied that in this life we have divine ideas as an object of thought, and that divine illumination is sufficient on its own, without the senses. Aquinas also denied that there is a special continuing divine influence on human thought. People have sufficient capacity for thought on their own, without needing "new illumination added onto their natural illumination".[7]

Augustine

The theory was defended by Henry of Ghent. Henry argued against Aquinas that Aristotle's theory of abstraction is not enough to explain how we can acquire infallible knowledge of the truth, and must be supplemented by divine illumination. A thing has two exemplars against which it can be compared. The first is a created exemplar which exists in the soul. The second is an exemplar which exists outside the soul, and which is uncreated and eternal. But no comparison to a created exemplar can give us infallible truth. Since the dignify of man requires that we can acquire such truth, it follows that we have access to the examplar in the divine mind.[8] Henry's defence of illuminationism was strongly criticised by the Franciscan theologian Duns Scotus, who argued that Henry's version of the theory led to scepticism.

Iranian school of Illuminationism

Influenced by Avicennism and Neoplatonism, the Persian[9][10][11][12] or Kurdish,[13][14][15][16] Iranian philosopher Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi (11551191), who left over 50 writings in Persian and Arabic, founded the school of Illumination. He developed a version of illuminationism (Persian hikmat-i ishrq, Arabic: ikmat al-ishrq). The Persian and Islamic school draws on ancient Iranian philosophical disciplines,[17][18] Avicennism (Ibn Sinas early Islamic philosophy), Neoplatonic thought (modified by Ibn Sina), and the original ideas of Suhrawardi. In his Philosophy of Illumination, Suhrawardi argued that light operates at all levels and hierarchies of reality (PI, 97.798.11). Light produces immaterial and substantial lights, including immaterial intellects (angels), human and animal souls, and even 'dusky substances', such as bodies.[19] Suhrawardi's metaphysics is based on two principles. The first is a form of the principle of sufficient reason. The second principle is Aristotle's principle that an actual infinity is impossible.[20] None of Suhrawardi's works were translated into Latin, and so he remained unknown in the Latin West, although his work continued to be studied in the Islamic East.

Illuminationism

88

Further reading
Suhrawardi and the School of Illumination by Mehdi Amin Razavi Islamic Intellectual Tradition in Persia by Seyyed Hossein Nasr

Notes
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ illumination/ ) De deo Socratis, XVIIXIX) Confessions IV.xv.25 ibid X.ii.2 'ibid XII.xxv.35 De scientia Christi, q.4 resp Summa theologiae 1a2ae 109.1c A Companion to Philosophy in the Middle Ages, ed. Gracia and Noone John Walbridge, The leaven of the ancients: Suhraward and the heritage of the Greeks, State University of New York Press, 1999. Excerpt: Suhrawardi, a 12th-century Persian philosopher, was a key figure in the transition of Islamic thought from the neo-Aristotelianism of Avicenna to the mystically oriented philosophy of later centuries. [10] Seyyed Hossein Nasr, The need for a sacred science, SUNY Press, 1993. Pg 158: Persian philosopher Suhrawardi refers in fact to this land as na-kuja abad, which in Persian means literally utopia. [11] Matthew Kapstein, University of Chicago Press, 2004, "The presence of light: divine radiance and religious experience", University of Chicago Press, 2004. pg 285:"..the light of lights in the system of the Persian philosopher Suhrawardi" [12] Hossein Ziai. Illuminationsim or Illuminationist philosophy, first introduced in the 12th century as a complete, reconstructed system distinct both from the Peripatetic philosophy of Avicenna and from theological philosophy. in: Encyclopaedia Iranica. Volumes XII & XIII. 2004. [15] =C. E. Butterworth, M. Mahdi, The Political Aspects of Islamic Philosophy, Harvard CMES Publishers, 406 pp., 1992, ISBN 0-932885-07-1 (see p.336) [16] M. Kamal, Mulla Sadra's Transcendent Philosophy, p.12, Ashgate Publishing Inc., 136 pp., 2006, ISBN 0-7546-5271-8 (see p.12) [17] Henry Corbin. The Voyage and the Messenger. Iran and Philosophy. Containing previous unpublished articles and lectures from 1948 to 1976. North Atlantic Books. Berkeley, California. 1998. ISBN 1-55643-269-0. [18] Henry Corbin. The Man of Light in Iranian Sufism. Omega Publications, New York. 1994. ISBN 0-930872-48-7. [19] Philosophy of Illumination 77.178.9 [20] Philosophy of Illumination 87.189.8

External links
Augustine (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/augustine) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Duns Scotus (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/duns-scotus/) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy suhrawardi (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/suhrawardi) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Illuminationist philosophy (http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/rep/H054.htm)

Love of God

89

Love of God
Part of a series on

God
General conceptions

Agnosticism Apatheism Atheism Deism Henotheism Ignosticism Monotheism Panentheism Pantheism Polytheism Theism Transtheism Specific conceptions

Creator Demiurge Devil Father Great Architect Monad Mother Supreme Being Sustainer The All The Lord Trinity Tawhid Ditheism Monism Personal Unitarianism In particular religions

Abrahamic Bah' Christianity Islam Judaism Ayyavazhi Buddhism Hinduism Jainism Sikhism Zoroastrianism Attributes

Love of God

90
Eternalness Existence Gender Names "God" Omnibenevolence Omnipotence Omnipresence Omniscience Experiences and practices

Belief Esotericism Faith Fideism Gnosis Hermeticism Metaphysics Mysticism Prayer Revelation Worship Related topics

Euthyphro dilemma God complex Neurotheology Ontology Philosophy Problem of evil Religion Religious texts Portrayals of God in popular media

Love of God can mean either love for God or love by God. Love for God (philotheia) is associated with the concepts of piety, worship, and devotions towards God.[1] Love by God for human beings (philanthropia) is lauded in Psalm 52:1 [2]: "The steadfast love of God endures all the day"; Psalm 52:8 [3]: "I trust in the steadfast love of God forever and ever"; Romans 8:39 [4]: "Nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God"; 2Corinthians 13:14 [5]: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all"; 1John 4:9 [6] : "In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him"; etc. The Greek term theophilia means the love or favour of God,[7] and theophilos means friend of God, originally in the sense of being loved by God or loved by the gods;[8][9] but is today sometimes understood in the sense of showing love for God.[10][11][12] The Greek term agape is applied both to the love that human beings have for God and to the love that God has for man.[13]

Love of God

91

Bah' Faith
The teachings of the Bah' Faith hold that the love of God (philanthropia) is the primary reason for human creation, and one of the primary purposes of life. The love of God purifies human hearts and through it humans become transformed and self-sacrificing, as they reflect more the attributes and qualities of God.[14][15] `Abdu'l-Bah, the son of the founder of the religion wrote: "There is nothing greater or more blessed than the Love of God! It gives healing to the sick, balm to the wounded, joy and consolation to the whole world, and through it alone can man attain Life Everlasting. The essence of all religions is the Love of God, and it is the foundation of all the sacred teachings."[16]

Christianity
The Old Testament uses a rich vocabulary to express the love of God, as a concept that appears in many instances.[17] However, the exegesis of the love of God in the Old Testament has presented problems for modern scholars.[18] The love of God appears in a number of texts (e.g. Hosea 1-3, and then in Ezek 16 and Isa 62) but resolving the references to produce a consistent interpretation has been challenging and subject to debate.[18] Both the terms love of God and love of Christ appear in the New Testament. In cases such as in Romans 8:35 and Romans 8:39 their use is related in the experience of the believer, without asserting their equality.[19] In John 14:31 Jesus expresses his love for God the Father.[20] This verse includes the only direct statement by Jesus in the New Testament about Jesus' love for God the Father.[20]

Greek polytheism
In polytheism, that which is loved by the gods ( ) was identified as the virtuous or pious. Socrates famously asked whether this identification is a tautology, see Euthyphro dilemma.

The Greek "philotheos" and "theophilos"

In Greek philotheos [21] means "loving God, pious", as philosophos means a lover of wisdom (sophia). 2Timothy 3:4 [22], using the word philotheos in the plural form, speaks of certain people as (lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God). The word Theophilos was and is used as a proper name, but does not appear as an adjective or common noun in Greek,[23] which uses instead the form theophils, [24] which means "dear to God" but also "loving God". However, Eric Voegelin used theophilos to mean "lover of God": "In the Phaedrus, Plato has Socrates describe the characteristics of the true thinker. When Phaedrus asks what one should call such a man, Socrates, following Heraclitus, replies that the term sophos, one who knows, would be excessive: this attribute may be applied to God alone: but one might well call him philosophos, a lover of wisdom. Thus in the classic sense and reference of 'philosophy', actual knowledge is reserved to God; finite man can only be the lover of knowledge, not himself the one who possesses knowledge. In the meaning of the passage, the lover of the knowledge that belongs only to the knowing God, the philosophos, becomes the theophilos, the lover of God."[25]

Hinduism
In Hinduism, in contrast to kma, which is selfish, or pleasurable love, prema or prem refers to elevated love. Karuna is compassion and mercy, which impels one to help reduce the suffering of others. Bhakti is a Sanskrit term, meaning "loving devotion to the supreme God". A person who practices bhakti is called a bhakta. Hindu writers, theologians, and philosophers have distinguished nine forms of bhakti, which can be found in the Bhagavata Purana and works by Tulsidas. The philosophical work Narada Bhakti Sutras, written by an unknown author (presumed to be Narada), distinguishes eleven forms of love.

Love of God On the mystic side of Hinduism, one of the forms of Yoga includes Ishvarapranidhana, or self-surrender to God, and His worship.

92

Bhakti movements
Devotees of Krishna worship him in different emotional, transcendental raptures, known as rasas. Two major systems of Krishna worship developed, each with its own philosophical system. These two systems are aishwaryamaya bhakti and madhuryamaya bhakti. Aishwaryamaya bhakti is revealed in the abode of queens and kingdom of Krishna in Dwaraka. Madhuryamaya Bhakti is revealed in the abode of Braja. Thus Krishna is variously worshipped according to the development of devotee's taste in worshipping the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Sri Krishna, as father, friend, master, beloved and many different varieties which are all extraordinary. Krishna is famous as Makhanchor, or butter thief. He loved to eat butter and is the beloved of his little village in Gokul. These are all transcendental descriptions. Thus they are revealed to the sincere devotees in proportion to the development in their love of Godhead. Vaishnavism is a form of monotheism, sometimes described as 'polymorphic monotheism', with implication that there are many forms of one original deity, defined as belief in a single unitary deity who takes many forms. In Krishnaism this deity is Krishna, sometimes referred as intimate deity as compared with the numerous four-armed forms of Narayana or Vishnu.[26] It may refer to either of the interrelated concepts of the love of God towards creation, the love of creatures towards God or relationship between the two as in bhakti.

Islam
The love of God, and the fear of God, are two of the foundations of Islam. The highest spiritual attainment in Islam is related to the love of God. "Yet there are men who take (for worship) others besides God, as equal (with God): They love them as they should love God. But those of Faith are overflowing in their love for God." (Quran 2:165) Islam, as Christianity, has numerous mystics and traditions about the love of God, as in: "O lovers! The religion of the love of God is not found in Islam alone. In the realm of love, there is neither belief, nor unbelief." (Rumi)[27]

Judaism
The love of God has been called the "essence of Judaism". "And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might." (Deut6:5 [28])

Other
Goethe expresses the sentiment of love of God alongside the opposite sentiment of hatred of God in his two poems Ganymed and Prometheus, respectively.

Notes
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Liddell and Scott: (http:/ / artfl. uchicago. edu/ cgi-bin/ philologic/ getobject. pl?c. 78:6:121. lsj) http:/ / bibref. hebtools. com/ ?book=%20Psalm& verse=52:1& src=! http:/ / bibref. hebtools. com/ ?book=%20Psalm& verse=52:8& src=! http:/ / bibref. hebtools. com/ ?book=%20Romans& verse=8:39& src=! http:/ / bibref. hebtools. com/ ?book=2%20Corinthians& verse=13:14& src=! http:/ / bibref. hebtools. com/ ?book=1%20John& verse=4:9& src=! Liddell and Scott: (http:/ / artfl. uchicago. edu/ cgi-bin/ philologic/ getobject. pl?c. 27:2:118. lsj) Liddell and Scott: (refers the reader to (http:/ / artfl. uchicago. edu/ cgi-bin/ philologic/ getobject. pl?c. 27:2:120. lsj) Liddell and Scott: (http:/ / artfl. uchicago. edu/ cgi-bin/ philologic/ getobject. pl?c. 27:2:117. lsj)

[10] Teofil (http:/ / www. orgsites. com/ wa/ facab/ names. doc) [11] The Baby Name Bible: The Ultimate Guide (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=oXY6wkc_ikgC& pg=PT590& vq=Theophilos& source=gbs_search_r& cad=0_2)

Love of God
[12] Theophilos (http:/ / www. babynamer. com/ theophilos) [13] , Liddell and Scott: Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford: Clarendon Press [17] Theology of the Old Testament, Volume One by Walther Eichrodt 1961 ISBN 0-664-22308-7 pages 250-251 [18] Theologies in the Old Testament by Erhard Gerstenberger 2007 ISBN 0-567-08812-X page 87 [19] The Epistle to the Romans by Douglas J. Moo 1996 ISBN 0-8028-2317-3 page 547 [20] Preaching the Gospel of John: proclaiming the living Word by Lamar Williamson 2004 ISBN 0-664-22533-0 page 192 [21] http:/ / www. perseus. tufts. edu/ cgi-bin/ ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999. 04. 0057%3Aentry%3D%23111163 [22] http:/ / bibref. hebtools. com/ ?book=2%20Timothy& verse=3:4& src=! [23] The word does not appear in the great Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon [24] http:/ / www. perseus. tufts. edu/ cgi-bin/ ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999. 04. 0057%3Aentry%3D%2348342 [25] Eric Voegelin, Science, Politics, and Gnosticism (ISI Books ISBN 1-932236-48-1), p. 41 [26] Scheweig, (2004) pp. 13-17 [27] Rumi's Quatrain no. 768, translated by Gamard & Farhadi. Versions of this quatrain have been made by Shahram Shiva, "Hush: Don't Tell God", p. 17 and by Azima Kolin (based on Mafi), "Rumi: Whispers of the Beloved", p. 71. [`shiq to yaqn dn, ke musulmn na-bd dar maZhab- `ishq, kufr-o mn na-bd] [28] http:/ / www. biblegateway. com/ bible?passage=Deut%206%3A5;& version=ESV;

93

References
Nathan,Maungo (1898). Krishna and Krishnaism. S.K. Lahiri & Co. Thomas Jay Oord Defining Love: A Philosophical, Scientific, and Theological Engagement Brazos Press, 2010. 1-58743-257-9. Thomas Jay Oord The Nature of Love: A Theology Chalice Press, 2010. ISBN 978-0-8272-0828-5. SCHWEIG, G.M. (2005). Dance of divine love: The Rasa Lila of Krishna from the Bhagavata Purana, India's classic sacred love story. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ; Oxford. ISBN 0-691-11446-3. HAWLEY, John Stratton: Three Bhakti Voices. Mirabai, Surdas, and Kabir in Their Time and Ours. 2nd impression. Oxford 2006. Bah'u'llh (1991) [1856-63]. The Seven Valleys and the Four Valleys (http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/ SVFV/). Wilmette, Illinois, USA: Bah' Publishing Trust. ISBN0-87743-227-9.

External links
Flash Animation About the Love of God (3.6 MB) (http://www.e-water.net/viewflash. php?flash=loveletter_en) Why Love God? Study Topics Site (http://www.whylovegod.org/home.html) About the Divine Love of God for Man (http://new-birth.net) Spiritual Methods to Help One Practice Loving God (http://www.howtolovegod.org) What Is Divine Love? (http://divine-love.us/divine-love-what-is-it.html) What Is God's Love Like? (http://www.christians.eu/god-is-love/)

Moral universe

94

Moral universe
Moral universe has two distinct meanings which are found throughout the literature. One relates to the moral nature of the universe as a whole and thus to human life, and the other refers to the many moral universes of people, groups, things and concepts.

A moral universe
The first meaning of the term implies that we live in a basically spiritual universe[1] that is somehow ordered by a higher power, by invisible feelings of good and bad, a 'cosmic order' reminiscent of the early Greeks [2] that underpins and motivates our actions. Or a 'moral force' that means our actions must have definite effects which we carry with us. In this respect its meaning comes close to the Hindu concept of Karma. Those who reject this idea tend to believe that the universe is just physical, has no spiritual component at all, that events are random and have no deeper meaning or purpose, and that there can be no consequences of any kind to our actions and thus that we live in an amoral or nihilistic universe,[3] as in Nietzsche's "God is dead," aphorism.[4] Such might be the position of "anti-moral free spirits-nihilists."[5] It is in Dostoyevsky's oft-quoted saying, "if God does not exist, then everything is permitted,"[6] that the notion of an amoral universe, and its implications, are explored. Similarly, some atheists, pagans and most Buddhists believe that we live in a moral universe (see Buddhist morality), but without the God aspect. The concept of a moral universe also implies that the good and bad events in our lives happen to us for a reason that life is good, and has a purpose, that human beings are basically good, that nature is good.[7] In a moral universe, these meanings might be subtly discerned (see Hermeneutics), while it also offers the prospect of spiritual development, growth and enlightenment, whereas if we live in an amoral universe, these notions are utterly denied and in fact impossible (see Moral nihilism and Nihilism). Foucault, for example, is sometimes depicted as an amoral nihilist.[8] The concept of a moral universe seems also to underpin spirituality and forms the basis for kindness, compassion, altruism,[9] and caring for others in human behaviour, including ecological activism and conservation.[citation needed] This is because it places a value on human life and living things that goes beyond what would seem suitable if we regarded people and living things merely as agglomerations of atoms essentially no different from any other unfeeling, non-sentient molecular structures such as rocks, soil, mountains or planets.

Immanent justice
Belief in a moral universe often involves "deciding that negative experiences are punishment for prior misdeeds, even when plausible causal links are missing...(or) immanent justice."[10] The term is also "used to describe the young child's tendency to affirm the existence of punishments that emanate from things themselves...(which) implies a causal relation between the behaviour and the outcome."[11] In other words, it means "punishment for misdeeds (immanent justice)."[12] Studies have repeatedly shown that "children use the belief in a just world in immanent justice judgements,"[13] to try to make sense of life events. It involves the belief that "combinations of good or bad prior behavior [are] followed by a lucky or unlucky event."[14] Many people "believe they are living in a just world in which everybody gets what he deserves and deserves what he gets."[15] One study has even "demonstrated more evidence of immanent justice responding among adults than among elementary school children."[16] Arguably, immanent justice is a form of moral reasoning, and an aspect of the notion of a moral universe in which our actions are deemed to have consequences. Immanent justice is similar to the notion that 'what goes around comes around' or the proverb, 'we reap what we sow.'[citation needed] (See also panglossianism).

Moral universe

95

Many moral universes

In its second meaning, the term is often used to describe a form of morality, or 'moral code,' associated with a specific place, a person, a group of people, an activity, a nation or a concept. The "characteristics of one's moral code determine how often and in what life situations inner conflict is aroused."[17] This meaning attempts to explore variations in what are usually termed "traditional moral codes."[18] Examples of this second meaning include the following: "the moral universe of sport and physical activity,"[19] "accidents in a moral universe,"[20] the "moral universe of mystic river,"[21] "expanding our moral universe,"[22] "the moral universe of aggrieved Chinese workers,"[23] "the moral universe of Mr Chips,"[24] "the moral universe of William Bennett,"[25] "the moral universe of 'healthy' leisure time,"[26] "the moral universe of Edward Houston's Yard,"[27] and of parents who "fail to define a moral universe for their children."[28] This second meaning implies moral relativism, as opposed to moral absolutism, which holds that a universal basis for morality exists.[29]

Bibliography
Tom Bentley, Daniel Stedman Jones, The Moral Universe, Demos, 2001 Joshua Cohen, The Arc of the Moral Universe and Other Essays, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010 George W. King, The Moral Universe, Eaton & Mains, 1901 Nancey C. Murphy, George Francis Rayner Ellis, On the Moral Nature of the Universe: Theology, Cosmology, and Ethics, Augsburg Fortress, 1996 Michael W. Pelczar, The Moral Universe, Amherst College, 1993 E. Plumridge & J. Chetwynd, The Moral Universe of Injecting Drug Users in the Era of AIDS: Sharing Injecting Equipment and the Protection of Moral Standing, AIDS Care, Volume 10, Issue 6, 1998, pages 723-733 Shalom H. Schwartz, Universalism Values and the Inclusiveness of Our Moral Universe, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, November 2007, vol. 38 no. 6, pp.711728 Fulton J. Sheen, The Moral Universe: A Preface to Christian Living, Kessinger Publishing, 2010 Yi-Fu Tuan, The City as a Moral Universe, Geographical Review, Vol. 78, No. 3 (Jul., 1988), pp.316324

References
[1] [2] [3] [4] Fred A Wolf, The Spiritual Universe: How Quantum Physics Proves the Existence of the Soul, Simon & Schuster, 1996 William Allan, Divine Justice and Cosmic Order in Early Greek Epic, The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 126, (2006), pp.1-35 J K Hyde, Concepts of Power in Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, UK: Ashgate, 2010, p.11 Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Adrian Del Caro, Robert B. Pippin, Nietzsche: Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, p.5 [5] David Davidson, From Virgin to Dynamo: The "Amoral Woman" in European Cinema, Cinema Journal, Vol. 21, No. 1, Psychological Aspects (Autumn, 1981), pp.31-58 [6] Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, 1880, p.6 [7] Stephen R. Kellert, Timothy J. Farnham, The Good in Nature and Humanity: Connecting Science, Religion, and Spirituality with the Natural World, Island Press, 2002, p.16 [8] O'Farrell, Clare D. Foucault and Post Modernism, The Sydney Papers, 18(3-4), 2006, pp.182-194, (specific citation on p.5) [9] James R Ozinga, Altruism, Greenwood Press, 1999 [10] Mitchell J. Callan, John H. Ellard & Jennifer E. Nicol, The Belief in a Just World and Immanent Justice Reasoning in Adults, Pers Soc Psychol Bull, December 2006, vol. 32 no.12, pp.1646-1658 [11] Rachel Karniol, A Conceptual Analysis of Immanent Justice Responses in Children, Child Development, Vol. 51, No.1 (Mar., 1980), pp.118-130 (p.118) [12] Ken Springer, Beliefs About Illness Causality Among Preschoolers with Cancer: Evidence Against Immanent Justice, J. Pediatr. Psychol. (1994), 19 (1), pp.91-101 [13] P E Jose, Just-world reasoning in children's immanent justice judgements, Child Development, 1990 Aug, 61(4), pp.1024-33 [14] Percival, Pamela; Haviland, Jeannette M., Consistency and retribution in children's immanent justice decisions. Developmental Psychology, Vol 14(2), Mar 1978, pp.132-136

Moral universe
[15] Jrgen Maes & Manfred Schmitt, More on Ultimate and Immanent Justice: Results from the Research Project 'Justice as a Problem within Reunified Germany', Social Justice Research, Volume 12, Number 2, 1999, pp.65-78, p.65 [16] Lakshmi Raman & Gerald A. Winer, Evidence of more immanent justice responding in adults than children: A challenge to traditional developmental theories. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22.2, June 2004, pp.255-274 [17] Wesley Allinsmith, Conscience and Conflict: The Moral Force in Personality, Child Development, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Dec., 1957), pp.469-476 [18] Candida Rifkind, Screening Modernity:Cinema and Sexuality in Ann-Marie MacDonalds Fall On Your Knees, Studies in Canadian Literature/tudes en littrature, 2002 Vol. 27; Part 2, pp.29-50 (specific citation on p.40) [19] Zanker, Cathy; Gard, Michael, Fatness, Fitness, and the Moral Universe of Sport and Physical Activity, Sociology of Sport Journal. 25, no. 1, (2008): 48 (18 pages) [20] Blessing, Lee, Departments - Commentary - Accidents in a Moral Universe, American Theatre. 18, no. 8, (2001): 10 [21] Wootton, Adrian, Play Madigan for me - Clint Eastwood has returned to pre-Dirty Harry days to make a crime film that matches the best of his Westerns. Adrian Wootton dissects the moral universe of Mystic River, Sight and Sound. 13, no. 11, (2003): 12 (4 pages) [22] Shriver Jr, Donald W, Reflections - Expanding Our Moral Universe, World Policy Journal. 21, no. 4, (2004): 63 (14 pages) [23] Thireau, Isabelle; Linshan, Hua, The Moral Universe of Aggrieved Chinese Workers: Workers' Appeals to Arbitration Committees and Letters and Visits Offices, The China Journal = Chung-kuo yen chiu. no. 50, (2003): 83 (24 pages) [24] McCulloch, Gary, The Moral Universe of Mr Chips: Veteran Teachers in British Literature and Drama, Teachers and Teaching 15, no. 4 (2009): 409-420 [25] Connolly, William E., Drugs, the Nation and Free Lancing: Decoding the Moral Universe of William Bennett, Theory & Event 1, no. 1 (1997) [26] Grieves, Jim, Acquiring a Leisure Identity: Juvenile Jazz Bands and the Moral Universe of 'healthy' Leisure Time, Leisure Studies 8, no. 1 (1989): 1-9 [27] Gundaker, G., African-American History, Cosmology and the Moral Universe of Edward Houston's Yard, Journal of Garden History. 14, no. 3, (1994): 179 [28] Hymowitz, Kay S, Parenting: The Lost Art - When parents fail to define a moral universe for their children, they set them adrift -Unmoored and vulnerable -- In a sensationalist, media-saturated world, American Educator. 25, no. 1, (2001): 4 (6 pages) [29] Steven Lukes, Moral Relativism, Profile Books, 2009, p.16

96

Physitheism
Physitheism is the attribution of a physical form and attributes to deities, a practice associated with the ancient Greeks and to a lesser extent the Romans. In modern Jewish and Christian theology the Abrahamic God is held to be a transcendent spirit with no body parts. However, a vestige of physitheism is apparent in certain passages of the Hebrew Bible such as Exodus 33:23 where God tells Moses, "And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen." God is also described in a manner similar to a physical person in Genesis 3:8, "And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden." Such apparently Physitheistic verses are a matter of controversy; the early followers of Gnosticism considered them evidence that the Judeo-Christian god was in fact an imperfect demiurge, wholly separate from the higher, transcendental God.

Post-theism

97

Post-theism
Part of a series on

Irreligion

Irreligion

Secular humanism Secularism Secularity Freethought Post-theism Nontheism Anti-clericalism Antireligion Criticism of religion Parody religion Atheism

Demographics History State New Implicit and explicit Negative and positive Criticism Discrimination Existence of God Antitheism Atheism and religion Agnosticism

Strong Weak Agnostic atheism Agnostic theism Apatheism Ignosticism Naturalism

Humanistic Metaphysical Methodological Religious People

Post-theism

98

Atheists Agnostics Humanists Pantheists Deists Books

The God Delusion God Is Not Great The End of Faith Letter to a Christian Nation Why I Am Not a Christian Why I Am Not a Muslim The System of Nature Organizations

Atheist Alliance International Freedom From Religion Foundation Reason Rally World Pantheist Movement Atheism portal WikiProject Atheism

Post-theism is a variant of nontheism that proposes to have not so much rejected theism as rendered it obsolete, that God belongs to a stage of human development now past. Within nontheism, post-theism can be contrasted with antitheism. The term appears in Christian liberal theology and Postchristianity.

Overview
Frank Hugh Foster in a 1918 lecture announced that modern culture had arrived at a "post-theistic stage" in which humanity has taken possession of the powers of agency and creativity that had formerly been projected upon God.[1] Denys Turner argues that Karl Marx did not choose atheism over theism, but rejected the binary "Feuerbachian" choice altogether, a position which by being post-theistic is at the same time necessarily post-atheistic.[2] For example, at one point Marx argued "there should be less trifling with the label 'atheism,' as he insisted "religion in itself is without content, it owes its being not to heaven but to the earth, and with the abolition of distorted reality, of which it is the theory, it will collapse of itself."[3] Related ideas include Friedrich Nietzsche's pronouncement that "God is dead", and less pessimistically, the transtheism of Paul Tillich or Pema Chdrn. The Hindu school of Samkhya posits that God was a necessary metaphysical assumption demanded by circumstances, but ultimately cannot be admitted to exist.

Post-theism

99

References
[1] Gary J. Dorrien , The Making of American Liberal Theology: Idealism, Realism, and Modernity, 1900-1950 (2003), ISBN 978-0-664-22355-7, p. 177f. [2] D. Turner, "Religion: Illusions and liberation", in: Terrell Carver (ed), The Cambridge Companion to Marx (1991), ISBN 978-0-521-36694-6, p. 337. [3] Karl Marx, Letter from Marx to Arnold Ruge In Dresden (1842) (http:/ / www. marxists. org/ archive/ marx/ works/ 1842/ letters/ 42_11_30. htm)

H. de Vries (Editor), H. a. Krop, Post-Theism: Reframing the Judeo-Christian Tradition (http://www. peeters-leuven.be/boekoverz.asp?nr=7002) (2000), ISBN 978-90-429-0853-6

External links
Post-colonialism and Post-theism (http://cpxbrex.livejournal.com/167943.html) by Christopher Bradley (2007) Entry on "Atheism" at Marxists Internet Archive: Encyclopedia of Marxism (http://www.marxists.org/ glossary/terms/a/t.htm#atheism)

Preformation theory
Preformation theory is a theistic epistemological theory that states that knowledge is possible only because God has endowed humans with certain innate ideas along with dispositions or aptitudes in certain ways. This was recognized by Immanuel Kant as an alternative to his theory regarding the categories of understanding and their source.

Overview
According to Kant's view the aptitudes are both innate and a priori not given by a creator. Contrary to Kant's position, the preformation theory avoids skepticism about the nature of the noumenal world (Kant believed that the real world is unknowable). It does so by claiming that the rational structures of the human mind are similar to the rational order of the real world because both are created by God to work together, and this similarity makes the attaining of accurate knowledge about the real world possible. Also, see Preformationism.

References
Nash, R.H. (1999). Life's Ultimate Questions. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. ISBN 0-310-22364-4.

Providentialism

100

Providentialism
Providentialism is a belief that God's will is evident in all occurrences. It can further be described as a belief that the power of God (or Providence) is so complete that humans cannot equal his abilities, or fully understand his plan. Another aspect of providentialism is the belief that God's plan is beyond the control of humans, and that sometimes this may be expressed in seemingly bad things happening to good people. It may further be understood as a belief that all that occurs is for the greater good. Providentialism was frequently featured in discussions in European circles seeking to justify imperialism in the 19th century, on the grounds that the suffering caused by European conquest was justified under the grounds of furthering God's plan and spreading Christianity to distant nations.[][]

Quiverfull movement
Providentialism is also a term sometimes used to refer to the general philosophy of Quiverfull adherents. Quiverfull is a small movement among conservative evangelical Christians. Advocates oppose the general acceptance among Protestant Christians of deliberately limiting family size through use of birth control. Advocates believe God controls via providence how many children are conceived and born, pointing to Bible verses that describe God acting to "open and close the womb". Continual "openness to children", to conception during routine sexual intercourse, irrespective of timing of the month during the ovulation cycle, is considered by Quiverfull adherents as part of their Christian calling in submission to the lordship of Christ.[]

References Further reading

Linker, Damon (2010). The Religious Test: Why We Must Question the Beliefs of Our Leaders. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN978-0393067958.

Skeptical theism

101

Skeptical theism
Skeptical theism is a view taken in response to the evidential problem of evil in the philosophy of religion. Skeptical theists accept that God exists and that we can know general truths about God but denies that in any particular case we can know the reasons for God acting in a particular way.

Background
The argument that skeptical theism is primarily responding to is the evidentiary problem of evil, which argues for the impossibility of God upon this basis: 1. If an omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent God exists, there should be no gratuitous evil. 2. There exists instances of gratuitous evil. 3. Therefore, an omniscient, omnibenveolent and omnipotent God does not exist. The skeptical theist argues that on the basis of our limited knowledge of the reasons for God's actions, we cannot know the second premise.[1] In other formulations of the skeptical theism hypothesis, it has been described as the denial of the proposition that "If, after thinking hard, we cant think of any God-justifying reason for permitting some horrific evil then it is likely that there is no such reason."[]

Consequences for morality

A critical response to the skeptical theist proposal is that accepting the argument is akin to adopting a skeptical approach to morality. The argument goes that if one is unable to determine whether some particular good or evil is truly good or evil, such that we cannot even believe that there exists at least one instance of gratuitous evil, how can we be said to have any meaningful morality?[][]

References
[1] Skeptical Theism (http:/ / www. iep. utm. edu/ skept-th/ ), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Theistic Personalism

102

Theistic Personalism
According to Dagobert D. Runes, Dictionary of Philosophy, 1942, theistic personalism is "the theory most generally held by Personalists that God is the ground of all being, immanent in and transcendent over the whole world of reality. It is pan-psychic but avoids pantheism by asserting the complementary nature of immanence and transcendence which come together in and are in some degree essential to all personality. The term used for the modern form of theism. Immanence and transcendence are the contrapletes of personality." [1]

References
[1] www.ditext.com (http:/ / www. ditext. com/ runes/ t. html)

Theocentricism
Theocentricism is the belief that God is the central aspect to our existence, as opposed to anthropocentrism or existentialism.[citation needed] In this view, meaning and value of actions done to people or the environment are attributed to God. The tenets of theocentrism, such as humility, respect, moderation, selflessness, and mindfulness, can lend themselves towards a form of environmentalism.[1] In modern theology, theocentricism is often linked with stewardship and environmental ethics or Creation care.[citation needed] It is the belief that human beings should look after the world as guardians and therefore in the way in which God wants them to. Humans should be considerate to all, from animals to plants to humans themselves. It maintains that human beings are merely here for a short time and should be looking after the world for future generations. In Christian theology, theocentricism has sometimes been used to describe theologies that focus on God the Father, as opposed to those which focus on Christ (Christocentric) or the Holy Spirit (Pneumocentric). Theocentrism was a key element of the Christology of Saint Augustine.[2] This view is resisted among some theologians on the grounds that it poses a challenge to trinity. One of these theologians is Carl Baaten who said, "If one can speak of God who is really God apart from Christ, there is indeed no reason for the doctrine of the Trinity. Some kind of Unitarianism will do the job."[3] Paul F. Knitter, in his defense as a Theocentric Christian, said it depends on how the unity between God and Jesus Christ within trinity is seen. He says that, "we cannot so neatly or exclusively affirm that the Logos/Christ is Jesus. The 'incarnating' activity of the Logos is actualized in but not restricted to Jesus. The God manifested in and as Jesus of Nazareth is the only true God"[4] However, the term can be confusing because theocentrism can also refer to a theology that does not center on any one person of the Trinity, but rather emphases the entire Godhead as a whole. Theologies that center on the Father are sometimes referred to as paterocentric instead.[] It is popular with Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Notes
[2] Orthodox readings of Augustine by George E. Demacopoulos, Aristotle Papanikolaou 2008 ISBN 0-88141-327-5 page 271

References
Definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Theocentricism)

Article Sources and Contributors

103

Article Sources and Contributors

Deism Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=557797064 Contributors: "alyosha", 200.255.83.xxx, 21655, 5000fingers, A8UDI, ABF, Aarondaniel652, Abdullais4u, Adraeus, Adrian.benko, AdrianLozano, Aeolians, Agarg3258, Agari, AgentPeppermint, Ahoerstemeier, Aj00200, Ajraddatz, Aka042, Alai, Alansohn, Alexf, Allanrevich, AlphaLinkX, Alwaysthinkingdeism, American Eagle, AnasElghafari, Ancheta Wis, Anclation, Andre Engels, Andres, Andrew Norman, Andrew Zito, AndrewHowse, Andrewzito, Angela, Animum, Anomie, AnonMoos, Anupam, Aquillion, Aramilalpha, Arb, Arevich, Arker, Arthena, Arthur Rubin, Asdfgg, Ashley Y, Astral, Astynax, Atmospherica, Atropos, Audacity, Austinsj13, Avenged Eightfold, Avengerx, Awawawawoo, Axeman89, BD2412, Bakemaster, Balanceddeist, Banno, Bbbbrain2000, Bejnar, Belovedfreak, Bgwhite, BiT, Bkonrad, BlackTerror, Blueboar, BobTheTomato, Bobo192, Bolt Vanderhuge, Bornintheguz, Bowei Huang 2, Brandon, Brandonlee25, Brian0918, Brighterorange, Brion VIBBER, Bwanab, C Hanna, CSWarren, CWii, Cadiomals, Caiverzi, Calton, Capricorn42, Cazort, Ccirulli, Cclendenen, Cenarium, Cerireid, ChicXulub, Chris 73, ChrisCork, Chrislk02, Christofurio, Chsbcgs, ChungHo, CinnamonApril, Ckatz, ClamDip, CliffC, CodeMonk, Cognita, CommonsDelinker, Conversion script, Coolrunnings1, Coralshin, Corwin8, Councilor, Crontron, Curtholr, CuteHappyBrute, Cwoyte, Cybercobra, Cymru.lass, CyrilThePig4, D, DLH, DWayne08, DanielCD, Dante Alighieri, Dark Laughter, Dbachmann, Dbenbenn, Decltype, Decora, Deflective, Deist, DeistCosmos, Deistreview, Delia Peabody, Delirium, Dennis Brown, DerechoReguerraz, Derickson28, Dezastru, Diannaa, Dino, Dirac66, Discospinster, Dolovis, Don4of4, Dookiefart, Dream of Nyx, Dsomeone, DukeTwicep, Durral, Dwane E Anderson, ESkog, Eagre, Ed Poor, Eequor, Eggoeater, Egosintrick, Einsteinjb, Eisnel, Eldamorie, Entheta, Eparksbuckeye, Ericandstacey, Ethan c.00, Evans1982, Evercat, Evil Monkey, Falcon8765, Fang 23, Favonian, FeloniousMonk, Feureau, Filmfluff, Fingerz, Flauto Dolce, Flo98, Flowerpotman, Former user, Fox Lombardi, Foxymamma, Francis Hoar, Francs2000, Frecklefoot, Freethought Deist, Fuzheado, G Wainright, GDP852, Gabbe, Gaius Cornelius, Galorr, Gary D, Gary King, Gaytan, GeoffHoeber, Georgeglass81, Ginsengbomb, Giremino, Gj1946, Glacialfox, Glloq, Gogo Dodo, GoingBatty, Gon-no-suke, Grandeandy, Greenback, Gregbard, Grim Revenant, Griswaldo, Grmzo, Guanaco, Guerrilla of the Renmin, Gurtejnz, Gusme, Gyrobo, Haipa Doragon, Hammaad, Hardyplants, HarryHenryGebel, Headbomb, Hedrick2, Herbal Hi, Hinschelwood, Homagetocatalonia, Honza Zruba, HopsonRoad, Hugheser, Huon, IRWolfie-, IZAK, IceCreamAntisocial, IceUnshattered, Iconoclastithon, Ilkali, Infrogmation, Intoronto1125, Intranetusa, Inuraku, Iridescent, J M Rice, J04n, JDefauw, JJ4sad6, JSpung, JVersteeg, Jadestone42, Jagged 85, Japanese Searobin, Jazzwick, Jcw69, Jeff3000, Jeffq, Jeffseaver, JimWae, Jocke666, John, John Paul Parks, John254, Johnjosephbachir, Jojalozzo, Jonathan.s.kt, Jordansmith, Jorfer, Joyous!, Jshjamaarx3, Jumpingfrenchman, Jweiss11, Kahriman, Katieh5584, Kenjacobsen, KeyStroke, Khazar2, Kimberly Lauren, Kimon, Kintetsubuffalo, Kjb, Koavf, Kotra, Kross, Kuru, Kurykh, Kwamikagami, Lairor, LanceNJoe, Langdell, Lathrop1885, LcawteHuggle, Lcopling, LedgendGamer, LenW, Lexicon, LiDaobing, Liam987, Lifebaka, Lighthead, Loadmaster, Lolitatronic, Lollipop Lady, Lord Rishartha, Luis Dantas, Lupo, MC Wrench, MMcCaghrey, Machobaby, Maddie!, Madeleine Price Ball, Mahmudmasri, Maikeli, Makltheninja, Mangoe, Marc-Olivier Pag, Markdaniel213, MartinHarper, Mav, Maximus Rex, Meatsgains, Mefirefox, MegX, MegaSloth, Mel Etitis, Melesse, Mets501, Michael A. White, Michael Hardy, Midnightcomm, Mimihitam, Mirv, MistrBlue, Mkdw, Modargo, Moe Epsilon, Moink, Monobi, MonsignorB, Morwen, Ms2ger, Mufka, My76Strat, NantucketNoon, Nathanielfirst, NawlinWiki, Nealmcb, Netkinetic, Neutrality, Nexous, Nforbes, Nite-Sirk, NoWaiYaWai, Node ue, Nozdref, Obscurans, Odie5533, Olve Utne, Onecanadasquarebishopsgate, OrangeDog, Osbus, Other Choices, Owen, PTJoshua, Pacific PanDeist, Paine Ellsworth, PamD, Pandeism debate, Pass a Method, Pax:Vobiscum, Pcastellina, Per Honor et Gloria, Philip Trueman, Pichpich, Pigman, Pigsnart, Pimpinseacow, PlaneCDR, Plastikspork, Pnoble805, Poccil, Polsmeth, Portillo, Postdlf, Prari, Prhartcom, Progressivepantheist, Promking, Prumpf, Psc239, Ptr123, Pzion, Q Chris, Qoan, Quadell, Quaker24, Quintote, R, RDF, RG2, RK, RadioFan, RandomDSdevel, RandomLittleHelper, RandomP, Rbccstmrtn, Rchamberlain, Rdsmith4, Redheylin, Rengifo777, Retired user 0001, Rhedrick, RickK, Rjensen, Rjwilmsi, Robbiewolf, Robina Fox, Robynwilde, Rosiestep, RoyBoy, Rursus, Ruslik0, Ryan, SDC, SMcCandlish, SQGibbon, Saddhiyama, Sam Spade, Sambamswan, SamuelTheGhost, Samzane, Sardanaphalus, Scapler, SchfiftyThree, Scott Burley, Scott97007, Scottwlms, Sebesta, Sfacets, Sglarson, Shanafeltc, Shirimasen, Silleegyrl, Silly rabbit, SilverCobweb, Sketch051, Slightsmile, Slygly, Sol1, Some jerk on the Internet, Someone65, Sonicsuns, Southleft, Sowinskija, Spellmaster, Spurn, Squishymoose, Starwarsrules3, Stebenthom, Stephen MUFC, StephenFerg, Stewartadcock, Storm Rider, Straw Cat, Stroppolo, Stuart.clayton.22, Sumbuddi, Sunray, Swid, T3gah, TOR, TTOUSNA, TUF-KAT, Tbc, Technogiddo, Teddywithfangs, Tediouspedant, TeunSpaans, Tevildo, The Anome, The Egyptian Liberal, The Haunted Angel, The Thing That Should Not Be, TheOtherStephan, Thechiefgood, Thembonesareme, ThreeDee912, Tiddly Tom, Tide rolls, Tizio, Tjh1234, Tom Morris, Tom harrison, Tommy2010, Tomsega, Torquemama007, Trut-h-urts man, Tryforceful, Trdel, Twinsday, TyA, UNHchabo, Ukexpat, Undead Herle King, UnicornTapestry, Universist, User2004, Userper, UtherSRG, Uzerzero, V111P, Verada, Voiceofreason01, Voxpolaris16, Wars, Wavelength, Wayward, Wesley, West.andrew.g, Wetman, Weyes, WhisperToMe, Widders, Wiki alf, Wikieditor1988, Wikipediaphile, Wikipelli, Wikiwikifast, Will Beback, William Avery, Winston365, Wolfdog, Wolfnix, Wookipedian, WriterListener, Xanthoxyl, Xanzzibar, Xlemur, Yaleguan, YrPolishUncle, Yst, Zef, Zenmobster1023, ZooFari, , 1039 anonymous edits Theistic evolution Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=557481106 Contributors: Aardvark92, Administer, Adraeus, Adriatikus, Aepoutre, Aitias, Alan Liefting, Altar, AmanUwellCant, Andycjp, Angr, Anupam, Arbeiter, Arjun024, Armchair info guy, Aronzak, Atlan, Aunt Entropy, Avant Guard, Avb, Awayforawhile, BD2412, Backnumber1662, Barak Sh, Barbara Shack, Basileias, Bensaccount, Big iron, Biglin, Blacice, Blobglob, BlueMesa171, Bobo192, Brian0918, Briansaccount, Bryan Derksen, Bueller 007, Burgeson, C.Logan, Callandor, Celebrei, Central2, Charles Matthews, Chocolatepizza, Chris 73, Chris G, ConfuciusOrnis, Contemptuous, CptKirk, Csernica, Csmiller, Csrempert, Cyde, Cynthreab, DJ Clayworth, DLand, DRosenbach, Damian Yerrick, Dave souza, Dcoetzee, Decoratrix, Dfarrar, Dialectric, Dlb012, DoC352, Dominus Vobisdu, Don Marques, Doulos Christos, DrKiernan, Dracil, Draco 2k, Dream of Nyx, Drfrogsplat, Drunkayatollah, Duality-theory, Duncharris, EMSchmittgen, Ec5618, Ed Poor, Edison, Edward, Eeve ee, Endomion, Epbr123, Evercat, Everyking, Fang 23, Farsight001, Fastfission, Feeeshboy, FeldBum, FeloniousMonk, Filll, Fluffernutter, Flyingpuck9, Folksong, ForestDim, FrancoGG, FuelWagon, GCliffordGibson, Gaius Cornelius, GameLegend, Gary.gibson.writer, Gingabox, Glushchenko, Goethean, Goodlookinrebel, Goodoldpolonius2, Goplat, GorgeCustersSabre, Gpvos, Grantmidnight, Greatal386, Gregbard, Grutter, Gudeldar, Gueringe, Guettarda, Halsteadk, Hathaldir, Headbomb, Heironymous Rowe, Heuyrhkljljl, Hmains, Hpa, Hrafn, Husond, IGlowInTheDark, IRWolfie-, IZAK, Ian Pitchford, Igilli, Intranetusa, Intravenus de Milo, Iridescent, Isaac.holeman, Isaackight, Isaacsurh, Isnow, JForget, Jagged 85, Java7837, Jc-S0CO, Jdog556, Jeff3000, Jemappelleungarcon, Jerome Charles Potts, Jersyko, Jigglyfidders, Jmc, Jnestorius, Joe Kress, John D. Croft, John of Reading, JohnChrysostom, Johnbod, Johnstone, Johnuniq, Johnwhitejr, Jonadin93, JoshuaZ, Josiah Rowe, Jossi, Joy, Jtle515, Juliancolton, K, Kaal, Kazak, Keahapana, Ken g6, KillerChihuahua, Kingpin13, Kittyhawk63, KnowledgeOfSelf, Koavf, Konrad2012, Krator, Kray0n, Kyknos, Kyorosuke, Lawsinium, Layb, Leinad-Z, LexCorp, LilHelpa, Lilac Soul, Londers, LtPowers, Lyonscc, MBDowd, Macdonald-ross, Malo, Mamalujo, Mange01, Marek69, Mark Renier, MarkBolton, Markhoney, MartinHarper, Meangreentexan, Medz, Mel Etitis, Melchoir, Mercury98, Merzul, Metzenberg, Mholland, Mikker, Mindmatrix, Mistress destiny, Mushoo, Muzhogg, Myopic Bookworm, NBeale, NanoMat, NastalgicCam, Nathanielfirst, Netkinetic, Nickptar, Nikeell, Node ue, Notpayingthepsychiatrist, Nunh-huh, Obsidian Soul, Oerjan, Ohnoitsjamie, Orangemarlin, P. S. Burton, PDB1-8 fromB.C.+thought, Panek, Pasado, Patalbwil, Patricksfranklin, PeRshGo, Phatius McBluff, Phiddipus, PhilVaz, PigFlu Oink, Pinkadelica, Pintail55349, Placid, Plumbago, Pollinator, Porlob, Portillo, Postdlf, Previously ScienceApologist, Professor marginalia, Pseudo-Richard, Pseudomonas, Puddleglum Marshwiggle, Quintote, R'n'B, RK, Ragesoss, Random account 47, RavShimon, Reinis, Rich Farmbrough, Richard David Ramsey, Richard001, Rjwilmsi, Rlsheehan, Robofish, Rockhopper10r, RoyBoy, Runwiththewind, Rursus, SFC9394, SFK2, SMcCandlish, Sacr1fyce, Saeed.Veradi, Saforrest, Sam Spade, Samboy, SamuelTheGhost, Saxophilist, Schaefer, Schissel, Scientist Of The Worlds, Scientizzle, Scythia, SebastianI, Seddon, Serapio, Sfullman, Shark96z, Shawnc, Sicamous, Silly rabbit, SimonATL, Simratpal, Simulcra, Skiddum, Skoosh, Skywalker, SmittysmithIII, Smjwalsh, Smoggyrob, Snemmers, Sofsonline, Sometimesthinking, Spontaneous generation, Stevertigo, Storytellershrink, Svick, Syncategoremata, Techibun, Tevildo, Thane, Thanos6, The Anome, The Egyptian Liberal, The Mysterious El Willstro, The Thing That Should Not Be, TheRedSquirrel, Theroadislong, TicketMan, Tide rolls, TimBentley, Timwi, Tiramisuloverr, Tjoord, Tommy2010, Tonicthebrown, Tsumetai, Tuibguy, Turian, Tznkai, UAucklandLibr, Ucanlookitup, UnitarianUniversalism, User01014, User2004, Utahraptor40, Vanished User 0001, Vedek Wren, Vicki Rosenzweig, Vitovino, Vsmith, Vuvar1, W00tboy, WGee, Widr, Wiki alf, Wikidude1, Will2k, William Avery, Wolfgang84, Xitsis, Yahel Guhan, Yobbo14, Zero37, 444 anonymous edits Religious naturalism Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=555048384 Contributors: 613kpiggy, A D Stevenson, ADM, Adartsug, Anarchia, BD2412, Bcaulf, Bobblehead, Cbarlow, Chealer, Chris the speller, ChrisCork, Ckatz, CommonsDelinker, Cybercobra, D6, DT Strain, David s graff, David wallace croft, DaydreamOutsiders, Deathphoenix, Dougweller, Editor2020, Enviroboy, Flowerpotman, Gadget850, General Nolledge, Gregbard, Headbomb, Hrafn, J. Ash Bowie, Jlrobertson, JonHarder, Jrleighton, Kafziel, Koavf, Lemmio, LilHelpa, Lotje, Lyonscc, MBDowd, Macdonald-ross, Milad10us1985, Mxn, Nathanielfirst, Naturalistic, Nmcnamara, OakMt, Ordermaven, Pigman, ProductionsGuy, Prototime, Ren Sydrick, Reubzz, Rex Diablo, Reyk, Rga man, Singinglemon, SoWhy, Stardust1043, Stvltvs, Tevildo, The Anome, Thewildplaces, Toussaint, Twinsday, Tyrianfishmonger, Woohookitty, 74 anonymous edits Philosophical theism Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=540809088 Contributors: Calmer Waters, Dogwood123, Dr-ashok-malhotra, Falcon8765, GreggW, Jhbswart, Kendroberts, Khazar2, Koavf, MichaelPolanyi, MithrandirAgain, Niceguyedc, Optikos, RP88, Stevenmitchell, Tassedethe, Valerius Tygart, 93 anonymous edits Theism Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=557186623 Contributors: Abdullais4u, AdelaMae, Adrigo, Alan Liefting, Alansohn, AlexChurchill, Alexjohnc3, Alfvaen, Alphathon, Anastrophe, Andre Engels, Andres, Andycjp, Antandrus, Arb, Ashley Y, Awitherden, AzureCitizen, BD2412, Bamtelim, Beland, Bhumiya, Bigh Whigh, Bobo192, Bogartotron, Bryan Derksen, Buddhaamaatya, Butros, Byelf2007, Caduon, Calvin 1998, Canthusus, Captain-n00dle, Cezarika1, Chris Strolia-Davis, Chsbcgs, Clawson, Conversion script, Cote d'Azur, Craig Pennington, Craig zimmerman, Cybercobra, DanielRigal, Dannyno, David Latapie, Dbachmann, Dchmelik, DerHexer, Derek Ross, Discospinster, Distal24, Dream of Nyx, Dshin, Dv82matt, Dnadan, ESkog, Ec5618, Editorius, Eequor, Egern, Eloquence, Enigmaman, Erik9, Extremophile, Falcon8765, Fang 23, Farras Octara, FeloniousMonk, Fireflame786, Florian Blaschke, Francs2000, FrostyBytes, Fryed-peach, Fullstop, Furbush, Gary King, Go for it!, Graham87, Gregbard, Grenavitar, Gwib, Gz33, H2g2bob, Hadal, Heartofgoldfish, Homestarmy, HopsonRoad, Humdinger111, IIXVXII, IZAK, Ilkali, Illudin, Immunize, ImperatorExercitus, Infinity0, InternetMeme, Intothewoods29, Iridescent, Irishguy, Irmgard, Izakalka, J.delanoy, JLaTondre, JahSun, Jason.grossman, Jcvamp, Jesus of Nazareth's prophet, Jiang, JimWae, Joe Kress, Joewski, John85710, Johnpseudo, Jordansmith, Jorfer, Joseph Solis in Australia, Jossi, Jules.LT, Justin W Smith, Justinep, Juzeris, Jwarrior007, K, KillerChihuahua, Killerserv, Koavf, Kokoriko, Kristofer0, Kubra, L Kensington, Langdell, Le Anh-Huy, Leandrod, LiDaobing, Loom91, LtPowers, Lucyintheskywithdada, Mandarax, Mann jess, Martin Berka, Matwat22, Maxis ftw, McSly, Mdiamante, Mdwh, Mentifisto, Merlion444, Merzul, Michael Hardy, Miketwo, Millerc, Mistermustard, Mjquinn id, Mladifilozof, Motegole, Mrdmidbar, Murphyec, NHJG, Nat Krause, Nat Miller, Nathan Ladd, Nathanielfirst, Neutrality, Neverpitch, Nick Graves, Nicke Lilltroll, Nickptar, Nikai, Ninly, Nixdorf, Node ue, Noetica, Northernmatt82, Ocee, Odie5533, Oli Filth, Omnipaedista, Oudentheist, Pacific PanDeist, Paine Ellsworth, Palica, Pass a Method, Petmule, PhilKnight, Pigman, Pitman6787, Pollinosisss, Postdlf, Previously ScienceApologist, Prince153, PrincessPimpernel, Puffin, Qualities108, Quinsareth, RDF, RG2, Raj2004, Recon 1, Reddi, Reinis, Retsudo, Rfl, Rich Farmbrough, Rlsheehan, RoyBoy, RucasHost, Rushtoc13, Ruud Koot, RyanParis, SD5, Sabbut, Sam Spade, Sardanaphalus, Savant1984, Savaril, Schicagos, Scifiintel, Scott Burley, Scyldscefing, Selfworm, Silence, Slackbuie, SocratesJedi, Someguy1221, Spargue, SpectrumDT, Spell.ufb, SpyMagician, StephenFerg, Stoneyy, StuartDouglas, Summer Song, SusanLesch, Tarus, Tendel69, Tgeairn, ThAtSo, The Anome, The Transhumanist, Theismcontrib, Tide rolls, Tinalouise83, Tommy2010, Trongphu, Tryptofish, Tsemii, Twinsday, UDScott, UnDeadGoat, Ungtss,

Article Sources and Contributors

UnitarianUniversalism, Unomi, Vanisheduser12345, Vigyani, Viperphantom, Wargreyrurumon, Wassermann, Wesley, WikiParker, Wimt, Wolfnix, Wongo31, Woohookitty, Yakker21, Yidisheryid, Zoemushi, Zzyzx11, le flottante, 419 anonymous edits Agnostic theism Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=553727222 Contributors: Adamantios, Adraeus, Adriatikus, Aechris, AgnosticPreachersKid, AlecMcEachran, AlphaEta, Alphachimp, Andycjp, Bc33, Beland, Blooy, BobTheTomato, Bpeps, Bradeos Graphon, Bryan Derksen, Btyner, Charles Matthews, ChrisRed, Clive12, ConfuciusOrnis, CrazyLegsKC, Crimpshrine27, DIREKTOR, Davea0511, Dhidalgo, ELinguist, Elembis, Favonian, GManNickG, Geraldo Perez, Gnome Economics, Hairy Dude, Hencethus, Ilkali, Imnotminkus, IronGargoyle, JimWae, Jimvanm, JocK, Jonhanson, Jorfer, Jtikeda, Jules.LT, Keilana, Kencomer, KillerChihuahua, King kong922, Kirobos, Koavf, Kukini, Kzzl, Lcannady, LedgendGamer, Leinad-Z, Magroo444222, Mann jess, Mdwh, Miketwo, MrLee S, Msasscts, Nathanielfirst, Nightscream, Noleander, Ntsimp, Oreojojo, Pearle, Pschemp, RJFJR, Randee15, RichSatan, Saint91, Satori Son, Schmeitgeist, Silence, Slon02, Somerset219, Stephen B Streater, Stev0, SteveSims, StoatBringer, Texture, The Dumbest Man Alive, The Transhumanist, ThunderPeel2001, Tritium6, Tsinoyboi, Tsinoyman, Tstrobaugh, Unomi, Windchaser, Wiwi Samsul, Wjmummert, XP1, Zaharous, ZuluPapa5, 130 anonymous edits Anthropotheism Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=547088001 Contributors: Deville, Dwiakigle, Eastlaw, Endomion, Good Olfactory, Newmanyb, SchreiberBike, Stephendcole, Twinsday, Yarnalgo, 1 anonymous edits Christian deism Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=550032473 Contributors: Aeternus, Afaprof01, Arisedrew Rises Again, AutomaticStrikeout, Avicennasis, Biologos101, Brhebert, Ccirulli, Chris the speller, Clubmarx, DeistCosmos, EdGl, Eparksbuckeye, Erielhonan, Griswaldo, Huon, InverseHypercube, Jafeluv, JimWae, Jncraton, Jojalozzo, Koavf, Mandarax, Mattg82, Modal Jig, MonsignorB, MusikAnimal, Nathanielfirst, Nazirene, Nick Number, Nirvana2013, Oceansawake, Oldag07, Pigman, Rjensen, RyanChamberlyn, Tamariki, TheBalkan, TheKillerPawletzki, Ttonyb1, Twinsday, Vanished user ewfisn2348tui2f8n2fio2utjfeoi210r39jf, Woohookitty, 13 anonymous edits Classical theism Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=550759459 Contributors: 06RBambe, BD2412, Blainster, Bloodknight, Carl.bunderson, Cerebellum, Ckatz, Dppowell, FeralOink, Gregbard, Hrafn, J04n, Joelmaceiras, Khazar, Miguel de Servet, Olir, Omnipaedista, Pammalamma, Pigman, Pollinosisss, Radagast83, Reedy, Reyk, Rjwilmsi, Rob Shanahan, ShelfSkewed, Skandha, StAnselm, The Transhumanist, Tisthammerw, Torquemama007, Vejlefjord, WilsonjrWikipedia, 21 anonymous edits Creationism Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=557611684 Contributors: -Midorihana-, 100110100, 129.128.164.xxx, 144.132.75.xxx, 14ledzeppelin, 1exec1, 1rachelkanter, 200.191.188.xxx, 203.109.250.xxx, 206pm, 213.253.39.xxx, 2toise, 5 albert square, 5-HT8, 6024kingedward1, 62.158.193.xxx, 65.68.87.xxx, 65.96.132.xxx, 92random, A Quest For Knowledge, A.J.Chesswas, AJR, AVPsagaman, Aaarrrggh, Aaron Bowen, Ab762, Abhishikt, AbstractEpiphany, Abtract, Acalamari, Achowat, Acroterion, AdamRetchless, Adashiel, Addihockey10, AdjustShift, Administer, Admiral Rupert, Adraeus, Adriancurrier, AdultSwim, Against the current, Agarner, Agathman, Ahoerstemeier, Aidje, Ajraddatz, Aktonin, Al3209, Alai, Alan Liefting, Alan d, Alansohn, AlexiusHoratius, Algont, Allinthebrain, Allstarecho, AlphaEta, Alphathon, Amalthea, Amcaja, Amd628, Amorymeltzer, Andre Engels, Andrewa, Andreworkney, Andrewrp, Andy Johnston, Andy Marchbanks, Andycjp, Anetode, Angela, Anjouli, Annoyed with fanboys, Anon vict, Antandrus, Antihelios, Antwon Bob, Anupam, Aparker62, Apokryltaros, Apologistdb, Appleeater5, Appostle, Arb, Arcanine678, Arctic Kangaroo, ArcticFrog, ArglebargleIV, Argyrios Saccopoulos, Arjun01, Armchair info guy, Art LaPella, Arthena, Arthur3030, Artichoker, ArtifexMayhem, Asav, Ashenai, Ashmoo, Asldfjk, Assmar975, Astrale01, Astronautics, Athiest123, Atradaemion, Atwarwiththem, Aude, Aunt Entropy, Australopithecus, AuxBuissonets, Avb, Avengerx, Aveytare, AxelBoldt, Axfy15e, Az1568, Az7997, BD2412, BYOB2795, Badger Drink, BadgerBadger, Barnaby dawson, BarrackStubbs, Bartledan, Barwick, Basawala, Bassplr19, BatteryIncluded, Bbatsell, Beardnomore, Beeblebrox, Ben D., Ben Standeven, Benanhalt, Bensaccount, Bento00, BerndH, Bfigura's puppy, Bhadani, Bibliomaniac15, Big iron, BigJim707, Bigfun, Biggreenjelly, Bigroger27509, Black Kite, Bloopa1, Bluehotel, Bluemoose, Bmancini42, Bob A, Bob frasier, Bobblewik, Bobby D. Bryant, Bobbyboi271, Bobianite, Bobo192, Bobrayner, Bogey97, Bokiva, Bonalaw, Bongwarrior, Bonkerzbanks, Boogeryspok, BoomerAB, Borb, Bradeos Graphon, Brandmeister, Brandon5485, Braninja, Breawycker public, Brettgoodrich, Brharris, Brian Kendig, Brian0918, Brilliand, Bronks, Brownlowj, Brutaldeluxe, Bryan Derksen, BryceChapman, Buckelz, Bucko2007, Bueller 007, C56C, CAF51, CO, Caasiopia68, Cadiomals, Callanecc, Caltas, Calton, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, Canadian-Bacon, CanadianLinuxUser, Caper13, Capricorn42, Cardigan3000, Cardsharque, Cardsplayer4life, Casper2k3, Cassivs, Caster23, CatTruck, Catbar, Catwizzle, Causa sui, Cbrown1023, Ccrashh, CeoMaj, Chaag123, ChadThomson, Chanting Fox, ChaosElf, Charlayy, Charles Matthews, Charlesdarwin, Charlesdrakew, CharlieEchoTango, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Chaser, CheeseDreams, Cheeseypooofs, ChemoEmarles, Cherlin, Chowbok, Chris 73, Chris3145, Chris55, ChrisGualtieri, ChrisO, Chrisjj, Christian *Yendi* Severin, Christopher Parham, Chrono1084, Chunky Rice, Cielomobile, Ciroa, Cirt, ClairSamoht, Clawson, Closedmouth, Cmdrjameson, Cntras, CodeWeasel, Coelacan, Coffee, Coldhardfactsonly, Colin MacLaurin, Collinhasaids, Columcille, CommonsDelinker, Como, ConfuciusOrnis, Conroyous, Conscious, Conversion script, Coocoo200234, CoolMike, Cosmic Latte, Coviepresb1647, Cpl Syx, CptHowdy, Craigjmoss, Crasch23, Crathen Spiroth, Crazycomputers, Crazynas, Creationist Zoo, CrimsonLine, Crispmuncher, Crogers79, Cromwellt, CruftCutter, Crzer07, Cunado19, Curps, Curtmack, Cxz111, CyberAnth, Cyberia3, Cybermonsters, Cyde, Czeese, D24m0p, D6, DARTH SIDIOUS 2, DJ Clayworth, DLH, DMacks, DVD R W, DVdm, Dabbler, Dacer, Dacxjo, Dahoud, Dancingspring, DanielCD, DanielJosphXhan, Danielrcote, Dantaeos, DarkFalls, Darthvader023, Dastryaize, Dave souza, DaveTheRed, Davepin, Daverocks, Davewho2, David Gerard, David Levy, David hogan, David.Mestel, DavidCary, Davril2020, Dawn Bard, Day21 07, Dbabbitt, Dbachmann, DeadEyeArrow, Deadbarnacle, Deeptrivia, Dejongm, Dejvid, Delirium, Delusion23, Demack, Demonsoul5, Deor, DerHexer, Devicus, Dharris6877, Diannaa, Diberri, Didactohedron, Diego, DigitalEnthusiast, DinoDude65, Discospinster, Dmerrill, Doc Tropics, Documentarylover, Doggtown, Dolescum, Dolovis, Dominick, Dominus Vobisdu, DonaldRichardSands, DoubleBlue, Douglasers, Dougp59, Dougweller, Dpol, Dpr, Dr U, Draco 2k, DragonflySixtyseven, Drbogdan, Dreaded Walrus, Dreamyshade, Drmies, Drummingboi, Dsmith77, Dude1818, Duefiori, Dugganjim, Duileasc, Duncharris, Dungodung, Durac.t, Durin, Dwacwise, Dylan Flaherty, Dysprosia, Dzubint, E. Novachek, EALacey, EMC125, ESkog, Earthisalive, Ec5618, Ed Poor, EdJohnston, Edgar181, Edison, Editor2020, Edward, Edwardsvaguilard, Egern, El Cubano, Eldamorie, Eldrebreath, Elembis, Elliskev, Elm-39, Eloquence, Emijrp, Emoonypie, Emperorbma, Empiric, Endomion, Enormousdude, Eob, Epbr123, Epsilon60198, Erdal Ronahi, Erik Lumberjack, Erik the Red 2, Ermeyers, Esrogs, Esurnir, Ethereal, Eugene van der Pijll, Eugenides, Evil Monkey, Excirial, Exert, Ezra Wax, FF2010, Fairandbalanced, Falcon8765, Falphin, Farsight001, Fastnet, Favonian, Fbartolom, Fbc215, Fecc, FeloniousMonk, Ferengi, FergusM1970, FestivalOfSouls, Fieldday-sunday, Figma, Filll, FilmFan69, Finalius, Fingerz, Finlay McWalter, FireBrandon, Firsfron, Flabreque, Fleacircus, Flex, Flowerpotman, Floydfan821, ForgottenTruthSpeaker, Foxj, Foxyrockets, Frad70, Fradulent Ideas, Frahod, Francs2000, Frank G Anderson, Frankchris2, Frasierwise, Fred Hsu, Fredrik, FreezBee, FreplySpang, FridayFourthMay2007, Frowanda, Fubar Obfusco, Fubulover023, Func, Fuseau, Fuzheado, F, GB fan, GCarty, GDonato, GLGermann, GSlicer, Gabbe, Gail, Gaius Cornelius, Galadrien, Galoubet, Gamescoper, Gareth McCaughan, Garganthaclopes, Gary D, Gcbirzan, Gdo01, Gekritzl, Geogeogeo, GeorgeOrr, Gerfinch, Gerrit, Geschichte des Bambiteletubbies, Ghostintheshell, Gilderien, GirasoleDE, Glane23, Gmlk, Gniw, Goal2004, Goatasaur, God Emperor, Godardesque, Goethean, Gogo Dodo, GoldenTorc, Goldom, Gonzo fan2007, Goobergunch, GoodDamon, Goodone121, Gracer-t-racer, GraemeL, Graham87, Grammarxxx, Grant Gussie, Grantmidnight, Grayshi, Gregbard, Gregkaye, GregorB, Grice, Grondemar, Gscshoyru, Guettarda, Gurch, Gzkn, Gzuckier, H.Sdraulig, H2g2bob, HIScouter, Habfellow, Hadal, Haiduc, HairyNevus, Hajatvrc, Halbwolf, HalfShadow, HamSquidLllamaHam, Hammer1980, Hanacy, Handface, Haney cody, Hannes Rst, Hans-Friedrich Tamke, Harizotoh9, Harmil, Harryboyles, Hassandoodle, Hauskalainen, Havermayer, Hazhk, Hazza85, Hburg, Hdt83, Headbomb, Heegoop, HeikoEvermann, Heimstern, Hektor, Hello578, Henrik46, Henrygb, Hephaestos, Heqwm, Hermione1980, Heron, HiLo48, Hilighter555, Hipocrite, Hkabla, Hmrox, Hob Gadling, Home Computer, Homestarmy, Honest cretan, Hrafn, Hroulf, Htrbabaseball, Hunnieyes, Hut 8.5, Hzcummi, IRWolfie-, IW.HG, IZAK, Iamblichus, Iamthebordestpersononearth, Ian Pitchford, Ian a wright, Ian13, Icairns, Ida Shaw, Iketsi, Ilkali, Illnab1024, Im not a vanal, Imaglang, Imgi12, IndulgentReader, Inflow, Intelligentsium, Inter, InverseHypercube, Invidus, Irate, IreverentReverend, Iridescent, Irishguy, IronGargoyle, Islamanswering, Ithae, Its devie whoa, Itsabouttime, Itsnotaboutme, Itsovabliss, Ivan Bajlo, J-beda, J.delanoy, JEmfinger, JForget, JGrusd, JNeal, Jabal al Lawz, Jabberwocky03, JackH, Jacksoncw, Jacob Haller, Jacobolus, James086, JamesG, Jamht1972, JamieS93, Jan.Kamenicek, Jandalhandler, Janejellyroll, Janet1983, Jasballz, Jason.McBratney, Javierito92, Javit, Jaxl, Jay-Sebastos, Jayjg, Jbeans, Jdavidb, Jean-Jacques Georges, JeanandJane, Jebba, Jecar, Jeff G., Jeff3000, Jefffire, Jelle564, Jelson25, Jemcalex, Jessica Simmonds, JesusrodeDinos, Jhemdal, Jhenderson777, Jiang, Jigglyfidders, Jim Apple, Jim Ellis, Jim1138, Jim62sch, Jimfbleak, Jj137, Jjjsixsix, Jkelly, Jkennedy561, Jlujan69, Jnestorius, Jnine8, JoanneB, Joe Kress, Joffan, John Callender, John D. Croft, John of Reading, John254, JohnArmagh, JohnChrysostom, JohnOwens, JohnWoolsey, Johnleemk, Johnny8899, Johnnysmitthy, Johnuniq, Jointquest, Jok2000, Joker828, JonHarder, Jonathan.s.kt, Jonkerz, Jonny34567, Jorend, Jose Ramos, Josh Keen, JoshuaZ, Jparenti, Jpgordon, Jrbfrank, Jtocci, Juggerboyy, JugglerPLL, Juicedboi, Julia W, Junjk, Junjunone, Just plain Bill, Justice is Needed, Justinbrown, Jzick33, K.lee, KGasso, KHM03, KRS, KSchutte, Kainer2000, Kairos, Kaisershatner, Karn, Kbh3rd, Kbolino, Kdbuffalo, Kedi the tramp, Keepyouhonest, Keihar, Keimzelle, Keio, Kelovy, Kenatipo, Kenmiller7883, Kentfowl, Kevin B12, KeyStroke, Khaosworks, Khazar2, Khehreb, Khym Chanur, Kiewbra, KillerChihuahua, Kim Bruning, Kirbytime, Klilidiplomus, Kman543210, Knowledge Seeker, KnowledgeOfSelf, Koavf, Kobinks, Kolbasz, Kolega2357, Komodon, Kookoo114, Kosebamse, Kpjas, KrakatoaKatie, Krawi, Ksyrie, Kubigula, Kungfuadam, Kungming2, Kurieeto, Kutless fan1, Kwiki, Kww, Kyng, Kzollman, L Kensington, L337Pro, La Pianista, Lacerda, Lacrimosus, LadyofShalott, Larry_Sanger, Laughing Joker, Lawsinism, Lawsinium, Leafyplant, Leandrod, Lear's Fool, LeaveSleaves, Lee Daniel Crocker, Lee J Haywood, LeeHunter, Legendary aa, Legoktm, Leinad-Z, Lemmey, LemonTwinkle, Lemoranjelo, Leroy7, Leszek Jaczuk, Lethe, LexCorp, Lexein, Lexor, Lhagvasuren, LibLord, Lightdarkness, Lightmouse, Lights, Ligulem, Liken to a glove, Liliuokalani, Limideen, Lkjgnhrkjghnz, Llort, Lmtm, Localh77, Logicalthinker33, LoolTool, Lord Emsworth, Lord Yaar, LordCirth, LorettaSmith1014, Lotje, Low German, Lskil09, Luk, Lulzman70, Lulzworth, Luna Santin, M, MARussellPESE, MEGslayer, MER-C, MHess, MONGO, MZMcBride, Macaddct1984, MadGuy7023, Madchester, Magister Mathematicae, Make No Name, Makeemlighter, Malc82, Malcolm Farmer, Malerin, Malvenue, Mambaman, Mange01, Mann jess, Mannafredo, Manning Bartlett, ManningBartlett, Manta7, Maraman25, Mark oo00, MarkBrownlee, MarkSutton, Markb, Markhadman, Marknen, Markunator, Marriex, MarritzN, Martin451, MartinHarper, Mastahcheeph, Masterthief104, Matej Vela, Matipop, Matthew Yeager, MattieTK, Matturn, Maury Markowitz, Mav, Maximusveritas, Maxwelltron, Mbhiii, Mccarthyp64, Mdd4696, Meelar, Mel Etitis, Melchoir, Melvalevis, Meowmix4194, Mermaid from the Baltic Sea, Metamagician3000, Methcub, Mgiganteus1, Mholland, Michael Glass, Michael Hardy, Michael Johnson, MichaelGensheimer, Midnightblueowl, Mifter, Mighty Antar, Miguel, Mike Rosoft, Mike0001, Mikker, Mildly Mad, Milton jessub, Mindmatrix, Minimac, Ministry of Truth, Minna Sora no Shita, Mister Magotchi, Mjdellar, Mkmcconn, Mkweise, Mmxx, Mo0, Mohitkhullar, Momabdishu, Monado, Monedula, Monk Bretton, Monkdom, MonkeyPhantom, Monkeybait, Moogwrench, Mooveeguy, Morning277, Mortene, Morwen, Moswento, Mourn, Mr-largo, Mr. Lefty, Mr.PioT, Mrkwcz, Mrtrey99, Mthoodhood, Mukogodo, Musdan77, Mushroom, MvH, Mwazzap, Myanw, N5iln, NBeale, NPrice, NZUlysses, Naddy, Nakon, NameIsRon, Nasaman58, Nate slayer0, Natl1, NawlinWiki, Nawsum526, Ndenison, Necrogoth, Nefariousski, NeilN, Nescio, Netalarm, Netesq, Neurolysis, Neverquick, NewEnglandYankee, Newpost7, Nezzadar, Nhishands4ever, Niceguyedc, Nick-in-South-Africa, NickBush24, NigelCunningham, Ninahexan, Nivix, Nnp, NoPetrol, Node ue, Noformation, Noloop, Nomilkforsanta, Non-dropframe, Novalis, Nsaa, Ntr11023, Nufy8, Nutella002, Nutstoyoutoo, Obaidz96, Oblivious, Obsidian Soul, Ohnoitsjamie, Ohsimone, Old-copy-editor, Oliver Pereira, Oliver202, Ollie Liddycoat, OllieFury, OmSKIZNIT, Omegatron, Onebyone, Onorem, Orangemarlin, OverlordQ, Overseer19XX, OwenX, Oxyman42, Oxymoron83, PCHS-NJROTC, PTJoshua, PVCCLearning, Pablo-flores, Pachavi, Paine Ellsworth, Panpaniscus, PanzerHier, PaoloNapolitano, Paper45tee, Pass a Method, PatGallacher, Patrick0Moran, PatrickFisher, PatrickJBoylan, Paul Magnussen, Paul Murray, Paulbraveheart, Pbarnes, Pcpcpc, Pdn, PeaceNT, Peaceworld111, Peak, Perdy80, Peter Fleet, Peter G Werner, Petercksun, Peteruetz, Petri Krohn, Peyre, Pfranson, Pgreenfinch,

104

Article Sources and Contributors

PhDP, Pharaoh of the Wizards, Phenz, PhilHibbs, PhilKnight, Philc 0780, Philip J. Rayment, Philip Trueman, Philippe, Phlebas, Phoenix-forgotten, PiCo, Piano non troppo, Picturef1, Pilotguy, PinchasC, Pinethicket, Piotrus, Pir, Pkeck, Pkgx, Plasmic Physics, Pleasantville, Plommespiser, Plumbago, Pointillist, Pokk1, Pollinator, Polonium, Polsmeth, Poorsod, Populus, Portillo, Possum, Postdlf, Postmortemjapan, Praefectorian, Premeditated Chaos, Pretzelpaws, Previously ScienceApologist, Primalchaos, Profg, Project2501a, Prolog, Proverbs2221, Pspeck, Psy guy, Puddhe, Puddleglum Marshwiggle, Puppppt, Pwnage8, QuackGuru, QuantumEleven, Quasipalm, Questorsarrows, Quietmarc, Quux, Qwyrxian, R'n'B, R. Baley, R000t, RDF, RJN, RJaguar3, RK, RadioFan, Raelx, Ragesoss, RainbowOfLight, Rainer Wasserfuhr, Rainersax, Rama, Ramdrake, RandomP, Randy6767, RaspK FOG, Raspor, Raul654, RavShimon, Raverguy2k7, Rdsmith4, Reach Out to the Truth, RedMC, RedWordSmith, Reddi, Rednblu, Ref ward, Reggin500, Rei, Reinis, RekishiEJ, RememberingLife, RenamedUser01302013, RexNL, Reywas92, Rfl, Rholton, Ribbon Salminen, Rich Farmbrough, Richard David Ramsey, Richard001, Rick Norwood, RickK, Rickyrab, RiverBissonnette, Rjanag, Rjwilmsi, Rlove, Rlsheehan, Rndm85, Robert Merkel, Robert Stevens, Robert1947, RobertG, Robibrad, Robwingfield, Roflcpta, Roger4911, Rollingstoned413, RookZERO, Rosemaryamey, Rossami, Rossnixon, Rothery, RoyBoy, Royboycrashfan, Rpeh, Rtc, RucasHost, Runwiththewind, Rursus, RxS, Ryan Vesey, RyanParis, SH, SQGibbon, ST47, Saccerzd, Saedon, Safeguarded, Sahilm, Saints17, Saksjn, Salva31, Sam, Samboy, Samgb, Samwb123, Sango123, Sannse, Sanyongo1, SarahStierch, Satori Son, Saxifrage, Scherzbold3000, SchfiftyThree, Schicagos, Schneelocke, Schoolbox, Schweiwikist, Scientizzle, Scottfr, Sct72, Scwlong, Scythia, Seabhcan, Seba5618, Serenacw, Serg!o, Sever, Sfatman1, Sfvace, Shadow Puppet, Shadowjams, Shambalala, Shanel, Shanes, Shashamula, Shawnhath, Shawshankhank, Shearlined, SheffieldSteel, Shem, Shirahadasha, Shoaler, Shoeofdeath, Shorty2010, Shoujoubill, Showgun45, Shuipzv3, Sidewinder102, Sifaka, Silence, Silly rabbit, Simon J Kissane, SimonP, Simpletoremember, Simulcra, Sintau.tayua, SiobhanHansa, Sjakkalle, Sj, Skeetch, Skizzik, Skysmith, Slapthebass, Sleepyorangejuice, Slrubenstein, Smadmead, Smalljim, Smkolins, Snalwibma, Snemmers, Snickersnee, Snigbrook, Snowbird, Snoyes, Son of darwin, Sopher99, Sophie means wisdom, Sosmart101, Sp, Space Cadet, SpaceFlight89, Spark, SparrowsWing, Speed.2kx, Spintrian, Spirile, Spitfire, Sposer, Spotty11222, Spriteman8, Spy5295, SquidSix, Srich32977, Sriram sh, Srushe, StAnselm, Staffwaterboy, Stargate70, StasMalyga, Steel, Steinsky, Stephan Schulz, StephenBuxton, Stephenb, Stephensuleeman, Stern, Steve Dufour, SteveWilhelm, StevenJRossi, Stevertigo, Stewacide, Stfeeney, Stickee, Stickstickleyisafag, Stormwriter, Str1977, Stradkid27, Strangesad, Stu42, StuartH, Studerby, StudyAndBeWise, SuaveArt, Sugarcaddy, Supadawg, Supd00dlol, Supermanmanman, Sushiflinger, Svetovid, Svick, Swift as an Eagle, Swimmer1207, Swmeyer, Sylvester107, Syvanen, TCorp, TDaySpawn, THEN WHO WAS PHONE?, TML, Tablizer, Tacoboy42, Tad Lincoln, Taffboyz, Tannin, Tapir Terrific, Tartsonawire, Tawker, Tb, Tbhotch, Tbones1111, TeaDrinker, TechnoFaye, TehPhil, Telop, Telpardec, Temtem, Ten*10^23, TennisInMn, Tentacleguy, Terjen, Terraflorin, Tevanor, Texture, Tfnicholson, Th1rt3en, ThaddeusB, Thampran, Thatdoesntmakesense, Thaurisil, The Anome, The Devil's Advocate, The Squicks, The Thing That Should Not Be, The Transhumanist, The bellman, The obakeneko, The only expert, The wub, TheDJ, TheHerbalGerbil, TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa, TheTrueSora, Thecheesykid, Thechoipolloi, Theda, TheologyJohn, TheresaWilson, Thermometredupochard, Theroadislong, Therucks, Thethornofarose, Thewaya, Thinktank33, Thiseye, Thomas Waschke, Thompson.matthew, Thulesius, Tide rolls, TigerShark, Til Eulenspiegel, Timpo, Timwi, TippyGoomba, Tisimefilms, Tisthammerw, Titanium Dragon, Titoxd, Tizio, Tlogmer, Tmarse, Toa Nidhiki05, Toddst1, Tohd8BohaithuGh1, Tomchiukc, Tomlillis, Tommy2010, Tonicthebrown, Tony Fox, Torsin, Torve, Tosayit, Tothebarricades.tk, Towne, Tox, Transity, Traverlaw, Trc, TreasuryTag, Treescharm0987, Trek-a-Tolk-a-Lewisite, Tresiden, Trevor MacInnis, Trevorgoodchild, Treygdor, Trinirven, Triona, Triops, Trishm, Tritium6, Trusilver, Truth777, Tschel, Tslocum, Tsumetai, Turkeyphant, Turokone, Twilsonb, Twinsday, Tydude40, UberCryxic, UberScienceNerd, Ummel, Uncle G, UncleBubba, Ungtss, Unschool, Unsubnl, Useight, Uzimakiman2011, VVtam, Val42, Vanda1zew1kipedia, Vanished User 0001, Vanished user, Vanished user 19794758563875, Vanished user ewfisn2348tui2f8n2fio2utjfeoi210r39jf, Vanished user llkd8wtiuawfhiuweuhncu3tr, Vasthomoerotictension, Versus22, Vice regent, Vicki Rosenzweig, Vicki Virago, Viewfinder, Vilerage, Vinarm, Vishnava, Vistronic, Vogne87, Voltageman78, Vrenator, Vsmith, Vunecal212, Vzbs34, WAS 4.250, WAvegetarian, WLU, Waggers, WalkthrougheRr, Wapcaplet, Ward20, Wareware, Wassermann, Wavelength, Wdanwatts, Wdavies, Wdflake, We66er, Web-Crawling Stickler, Wekn reven i susej eht, Welzen, Wenteng, Wetman, Weyoun6, Wez the egineer, Wfward, WiffPleasure, Wik, Wiki alf, WikiDao, WikiLaurent, WikiRefundAdjuster, Wikieditor06, Wikimk, WikipedianMarlith, Wikiposter0123, Wild Deuce, Wildnox, Wildstarlights, Will-mansfield, William Avery, William M. Connolley, Williamb, Willthacheerleader18, Wimt, Winchelsea, Wizardofdos, Wknight94, Wndl42, Wnissen, Woland37, WolfieInu, Wolfkeeper, Woohookitty, WordyGirl90, Working for Him, Wotnow, Writ Keeper, Wtmitchell, X612NT13, XeZaR, Xhaoz, Xnuala, Xzese, Yamamoto Ichiro, Yandman, Yidisheryid, Yintan, Ymous, Yobol, Yoggysot, Yohoskebon, Yoninah, Yorick8080, Yousaf465, Yqbd, Yrusoad JDST, Yunshui, Zamphuor, Zandperl, Zarel, Zaslav, Zeeks, Zeeshanhasan, Zelmerszoetrop, Zenkai251, Zero0000, Zidonuke, Zilyuki, Zio tom78, Zondor, Zundark, Zzyzx11, ^demon, , , 2873 anonymous edits Dipolar theism Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=467657131 Contributors: Anna Lincoln, Eastlaw, Gregbard, Pigman, Staffelde, Ungtss, 5 anonymous edits Divine law Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=540447504 Contributors: Alansohn, Anonymous editor, Arrow740, Barbara Shack, Bowei Huang 2, DASonnenfeld, Editor2020, Epolk, Eyesnore, Ezestc, Funnyfarmofdoom, GCarty, Graham87, Gregbard, Hetar, Igrek, Int19h, Julian Mendez, Malcolma, Mike R, MrFish, Pass a Method, Pepsidrinka, Philosophy.dude, Rich Farmbrough, Robofish, Salvio giuliano, Scott Sanchez, 43 anonymous edits Dystheism Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=552769102 Contributors: Dbachmann, Editor2020, Iridescent, John Dhoe, North911, OlEnglish, Paulfromatlanta, 5 anonymous edits Illuminationism Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=540595961 Contributors: Anoushirvan, Antenor81, Beetstra, Billy Ockham, Bokan995, ChildofMidnight, Editor2020, Edward Buckminster, Fram, Gregbard, Hadrien, Hame fan harif, Iridescent, Jagged 85, Jarkeld, Jim1138, John Watkins LLD, Johnuniq, Materialscientist, Michael Hardy, Nick Number, Polisher of Cobwebs, Pollinosisss, Rizwah, Sopholatre, Tniggs16, Tomas e, Woohookitty, 8 anonymous edits Love of God Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=550147493 Contributors: -- -- --, Allens, Azcolvin429, Byron35, Ckatz, D6, DARTH SIDIOUS 2, DadaNeem, Daven200520, Dbachmann, EnochBethany, Esoglou, Goldenwinds, Gregbard, Itohacs, Jeff3000, Koavf, LilHelpa, Lima, Lkjowa, LoveMonkey, Niceguyedc, Nikil44, OlEnglish, Parves.inamdar379, Pevernagie, Phoenixthebird, Platia, Pymwiki, Risk one, ShelfSkewed, StAnselm, Thalo, Tjpob, VanishedUserABC, WalkingwithGod, Wikidas, 41 anonymous edits Moral universe Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=545809342 Contributors: Andrewaskew, Gregbard, Gurt Posh, JaGa, John of Reading, Machine Elf 1735, Orenburg1, Peter morrell Physitheism Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=547921608 Contributors: BD2412, Duncharris, Eastlaw, Endomion, Mmounties, Mrmrbeaniepiece, Newmanyb, 1 anonymous edits Post-theism Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=551356137 Contributors: Dbachmann, Enric, Gregbard, Noleander, Portillo, Rfr28264, Septegram, SethTisue, Skomorokh, SummerPhD, 7 anonymous edits Preformation theory Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=544363836 Contributors: Dawynn, Frederick0511, Gregbard, Iridescent, Isilanes, JubalHarshaw, NielsenGW, Nitpikr, Pak21, Pieter Kuiper, Tassedethe, 4 anonymous edits Providentialism Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=544080718 Contributors: ACielecki, Allofon, Auntof6, Banno, Beland, Ceyockey, CyberAnth, CyrilleDunant, Ewlyahoocom, Eyu100, FallingGravity, Giancarlo Rossi, Gregbard, Guettarda, Jim62sch, Joel7687, John Carter, Joie de Vivre, K-UNIT, Kathleen.wright5, Kross, Newport Backbay, RHal, Rich Farmbrough, Sherlockspock, Steven Zhang, Turzh, Wideangle, 10 anonymous edits Skeptical theism Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=449903240 Contributors: Gregbard, Tom Morris Theistic Personalism Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=496139536 Contributors: Ayzmo, Bearcat, Hairouna, Katharineamy, Miguel de Servet, Sarahj2107 Theocentricism Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=550630915 Contributors: AgentPeppermint, Alfonso Mrquez, Alvestrand, Brad101, Drernie, Editor2020, FiredanceThroughTheNight, Fordx12, Gregbard, Hynca-Hooley, Igrek, Jeepday, Nooth57, Pearle, Pollinosisss, Randy Moss Strikes Again, Redvers, Richard001, Rjwilmsi, SB Johnny, SkeletorUK, Textbook, Twinsday, Unixer, Vanished user ewfisn2348tui2f8n2fio2utjfeoi210r39jf, VanishedUserABC, Xxxzenicxxx, 10 anonymous edits

105

Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors

106

Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors

file:speakerlink-new.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Speakerlink-new.svg License: Creative Commons Zero Contributors: User:Kelvinsong Image:LifeAndWorksOfConfucius1687.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:LifeAndWorksOfConfucius1687.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Prospero Intorcetta, Philippe Couplet et al. Image:Edward Herbert 1st Baron Herbert of Cherbury by Isaac Oliver.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Edward_Herbert_1st_Baron_Herbert_of_Cherbury_by_Isaac_Oliver.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Andreagrossmann, Lotsofissues, Madmedea, PKM, Stan Shebs, Image:David Hume.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:David_Hume.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Beria, Bjankuloski06en, Boo-Boo Baroo, Diomede, Ecummenic, FA2010, Foroa, Gabor, Ham, Hannah, Huerlisi, Jonathan Oldenbuck, Mattes, Moogsi, Mutter Erde, Mxn, PKM, Red devil 666, Sabrebd, Shakko, Sir Gawain, Slomox, Thorvaldsson, 2 anonymous edits Image:D'aprs Nicolas de Largillire, portrait de Voltaire (Institut et Muse Voltaire) -002.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:D'aprs_Nicolas_de_Largillire,_portrait_de_Voltaire_(Institut_et_Muse_Voltaire)_-002.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Cirt, Mattes, Nicke L, Smuconlaw, Thorvaldsson Image:Thomas Paine.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Thomas_Paine.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Chowbok, Dcoetzee, Diomede, EMStephens, Greaterg, Haa900, Interpretix, Jdforrester, Kelson, Kilom691, Liberal Freemason, Nonenmac, Orlady, Phrood, Rupert Clayton, Zolo, 4 anonymous edits File:Ojibwecosmos.jpgsmallversion.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ojibwecosmos.jpgsmallversion.jpg License: GNU Free Documentation License Contributors: Jaawano, Themightyquill File:Spiritual Tree dsc06786 duo nevit.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Spiritual_Tree_dsc06786_duo_nevit.jpg License: GNU Free Documentation License Contributors: Nevit Dilmen File:LaoGod.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:LaoGod.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Miuki, Nyo, File:UrsulaG.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:UrsulaG.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Auntof6, Cirt, Jgheuser, Wst, Wadysaw Komorek File:Jerome A. Stone.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Jerome_A._Stone.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Jerroby File:Biological classification L Pengo tweaked.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Biological_classification_L_Pengo_tweaked.svg License: Public Domain Contributors: ArnoLagrange, Grafite, Mr. Absurd, Otourly, Pengo, Wickey-nl File:Plato-raphael.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Plato-raphael.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Aavindraa, Bibi Saint-Pol, Chris 73, Infrogmation, Maarten van Vliet, Mattes, Morio, Sailko, Tomisti, 3 anonymous edits File:1925 kurt gdel.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:1925_kurt_gdel.png License: anonymous-EU Contributors: Kl833x9, Magog the Ogre File:Vatsoc.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Vatsoc.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Wilson Delgado File:Gods.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Gods.jpg License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported Contributors: User:Grizzli, User:Grizzli File:Ephesians 2,12 - Greek atheos.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ephesians_2,12_-_Greek_atheos.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Image uploaded to en.wikipedia by en:User:Brian0918 on 15:48, 29 March 2007. File:Atheism template.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Atheism_template.svg License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Contributors: Atom_of_Atheism-Zanaq.svg: User:Zanaq Blank_template.svg: User:Urutseg derivative work: Teox (talk) Image:Classical-Definition-of-Kno.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Classical-Definition-of-Kno.svg License: Public Domain Contributors: Szczepan1990 12:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC) (original submission); FrostyBytes, 13 December 2006 (resubmission, minor aesthetic changes) File:Creation of the Sun and Moon face detail.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Creation_of_the_Sun_and_Moon_face_detail.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Aavindraa, Amandajm, Baisemain, Bukk, Cacophony, G.dallorto, Kramer Associates, Learnsales, Mattes, Nixdorf, Sailko, Salix, Shakko, TTaylor, Yann, 2 anonymous edits File:PD-icon.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:PD-icon.svg License: Public Domain Contributors: Alex.muller, Anomie, Anonymous Dissident, CBM, MBisanz, PBS, Quadell, Rocket000, Strangerer, Timotheus Canens, 1 anonymous edits File:TheSubstanceOfScripture JohnLocke.jpeg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:TheSubstanceOfScripture_JohnLocke.jpeg License: Public Domain Contributors: Arisedrew Rises Again, Sfan00 IMG Image:The Creation of Adam.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:The_Creation_of_Adam.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Barosaul, David Levy, G.dallorto, Mattes, Nard the Bard, PFHLai, PxMa, Sailko, 2 anonymous edits File:Symbol book class2.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Symbol_book_class2.svg License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.5 Contributors: Lokal_Profil File:Folder Hexagonal Icon.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Folder_Hexagonal_Icon.svg License: GNU Free Documentation License Contributors: Anomie, Mifter File:Portal-puzzle.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Portal-puzzle.svg License: Public Domain Contributors: Anomie File:Views on Evolution.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Views_on_Evolution.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Pbroks13 (talk) File:Creationist car.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Creationist_car.jpg License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.0 Contributors: Dodo, Karppinen, OSX, Para, Pixel ;-), Richard001 File:Truth fish.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Truth_fish.jpg License: GNU Free Documentation License Contributors: Original uploader was Ungtss at en.wikipedia File:David - The Death of Socrates detail.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:David_-_The_Death_of_Socrates_detail.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Tableau de Jacques-Louis David, "La mort de Socrate". File:Saint Augustine by Philippe de Champaigne.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Saint_Augustine_by_Philippe_de_Champaigne.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: AndreasPraefcke, Boo-Boo Baroo, Bukk, Crisco 1492, Darwinius, ItsZippy, Krinkle, Mattes, Sailko, Tangopaso, Thomas Gun, 2 anonymous edits

License

107

License
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported //creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/