User talk:BD2412/Archive - Pandeism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Citations

    1. Belief in a God who is both pantheistic and deistic.
    Pastor Bob Burridge, Theology Proper - Lesson 4: The Decrees of God (1997):
    • If God was the proximate cause of every act it would make all events to be "God in motion". That is nothing less than pantheism, or more exactly, pandeism. The Creator is distinct from his creation. The reality of secondary causes is what separates Christian theism from pandeism.
    Albuquerque Journal "Marine's Ballad Honors Soldiers, Trappist Monks", (Saturday, November 11, 1995) p. B-10:
    • He describes his current spiritual position as pandeism or pan-en-deism, something very close to the Native American concept of the all- pervading Great Spirit.
    American Jewish Congress, Judaism: A Quarterly Journal of Jewish Life and Thought (1975) p.41:
    • Is Gordon a pan-deist, or a monotheist?
    Francis E. Peters, Greek Philosophical Terms: A Historical Lexicon (1967), p. 169:
    • What appeared here, at the center of the Pythagorean tradition in philosophy, is another view of psyche that seems to owe little or nothing to the pan-vitalism or pan-deism (see theion) that is the legacy of the Milesians.
    Charles Hartshorne, Man's Vision of God and the Logic of Theism - (1964) p. 348:
    • Just as [absolute perfection in some respects, relative perfection in all others] is the whole positive content of perfection, so CW, or the conception of the Creator-and-the-Whole-of-what-he-has-created as constituting one life, the super-whole which in its everlasting essence is uncreated (and does not necessitate just the parts which the whole has) but in its de facto concreteness is created - this panentheistic doctrine contains all of deism and pandeism except their arbitrary negations.
    William Harbutt Dawson, Matthew Arnold and His Relation to the Thought of Our Time (1904, republished 1977), p. 256:
    • [W]hatever the deity which satisfied Arnold's personal experience may have been, the religion which he gives us in Literature and Dogma and God and the Bible is neither Deism nor bare Pan-Deism, but a diluted Positivism.
    Cambridge Book and Print Gallery [1].
    • The copy is inscribed to the great English poet Alfred Lord Tennyson whose own religious beliefs also defied convention, leaning towards agnosticism and pandeism.
    1. Worship that admits or tolerates favorable aspects of all religions; omnitheism.
    Conrad Baker, The Three Powers Of Armageddon : An Exposition of Revelation 16:13-16, (2005):
    • The Church of Rome uses the term "pandeism", to describe her current program of bringing under her wing the non-Christian religions of the world.
    J. Sidlow Baxter, The Most Critical Issue (1991):
    • If the Bible is only human lore, and not divine truth, then we have no real answer to those who say, 'Let's pick the best out of all religions and blend it all into Pan-Deism - one world religion with one god made out of many' .
    Yale University Sheffield Scientific School, Yale Sheffield Monthly (1918) p. 463:
    • We hear men prophecy that this war means the death of Christianity and an era of Pandeism or perhaps even the destruction of all which we call modern civilization and culture. We hear men predict that the ultimate result of the war will be a blessing to humanity.

[edit] Preface

The following background information provides a necessary preface to the discussion that arose regarding the original version of the article on pandeism.

In 1996, I was in my fifth year as an undergraduate at Florida International University (you might say I was taking the scenic route, having opted to double-major in Sociology and Philosophy). At that point, I had already taken a number of courses on philosophy and religion, and was comfortable in the parlance of these topics. In the Spring of 1996, I enrolled in a seminar course titled "The History of Ideas", taught by a venerable professor named Ramon Mendoza, who I knew to be well-regarded within his department.

The course covered a wide variety of topics, covering such developments as the Copernican Revolution, the changes brought about by the work of Giordano Bruno and Galileo, and the development of pantheism, deism, and pandeism. I found the relationship between the latter three topics particularly intriguing, and spoke to the professor about them outside of the class. The class required a paper, and mine covered these topics.

To the best of my recollection (and I believe my recollection of this course is pretty good), the exact scope of the discussion of pandeism was as follows:

  1. Pandeism, like deism, characterizes God as having been an intelligent designer/creator of the universe.
  2. Pandeism, like pantheism, characterizes God as currently being identical with the universe, and unresponsive to human activities.
  3. The logical step is that God designed the universe and then created it by becoming it - transforming the infinite energy that was God into an infinite universe (which is still God).
  4. A modern pandeist would probably look to the Big Bang as the point at which this transformation took place.
  5. Some of the proofs of the existence of God - particularly the cosmological argument and the teleological argument - are equally applicable to deist and pandeist theories which presuppose a God who with whom we can not interact.
  6. Some ancient mythologies have pandeistic characteristics, characterizing the physical world (or what was then known to be the physical world) is actually being the body of a deity (who was either slain by newer deities, or chose to become the physical world).
  7. The ideas presented by Giordano Bruno and Baruch Spinoza were closer to pandeism than to any of the other theological systems, and they should be considered pandeists.

Although the course itself was fascinating, I didn't give much thought to the subject of pandeism for about nine years after the class - when I started editing Wikipedia.

I made my first Wikipedia edits poking about in February of 2005. As I became acquainted with Wikipedia, I noticed that articles existed for three of the four key religious theories of which I had been taught - Theism, Deism, Pantheism - and for theories in that genre of which I had not yet heard - Panentheism and Panendeism - but this collection was incomplete due to the glaring omission of another theory of which I had learned. Therefore, at 03:54, 2005 Mar 13, I created the original Pandeism page.

[edit] Orlando Alcántara email exchange

In the course of doing research in support of the meaning of pandeism as I had been taught it, I contacted Orlando Alcántara Fernández (who goes by Orlando Alcántara, or by Cristorly) the author of a web-post in which he had identified Spinoza as a pandeist (correctly, according to the subject as it had been explained to me). We had the following email exchange:

[edit] My email to Orlando Alcántara

Dear Orlando Alcántara, Hi, I'm working on a project on pandeism, and am having trouble finding source material explaining exactly what it means. I found a post of yours on a forum where you wrote:

"God is inmanent, trascendent and holistic. That is Pantheism, not Pandeism. Pantheism is right, because we are speaking about a personal, individual, trascendent God. Pandeism (like Spinoza's) is not right, due to the fact that is not a trascendent God, a God beyond Creation."

I was wondering if you could give me some guidance as to how you heard of pandeism, and what it means. It was my understanding that pandeism referred to a Deistic form of Pantheism - that a Creator God created the Universe by becoming the universe, and that under this theology, God does not have an existence separate from the material universe.

Thanks

[edit] Orlando Alcántara's response

Hello, Brian! Thanks for reading the post in the forum. I will give you a detailed explanation of the different terms involved in my own Theognosis. I have arrived at those definitions out of my belief in Biblical Unitarian Universalism taught at God'sTruthForToday.Org (http://www.godstruthfortoday.org), especially out of the teachings of A. E. Knoch, A. P. Adams and Adlai Loudy, among many others. We have to talk about Panentheism (Krause). I didn't mention that term in the forum. I want to talk to you about the following terms:

1.- Theism;

2.- Deism;

3.- Panentheism;

4.- Panendeism;

5.- Pandeism;

6.- Pantheism (this is the correct view in my Theognosis (epi-gnosis according to John 17:3, or Correct Knowledge) ).

My definitions are discretional. It means that I integrate the 6 definitions into a coherent corpus or canon and at the same time my definitions are valid by knowing what I really understand of those 6 definitions. If you look those words in a dictionary like Webster's they will give you conflicting answers. In order to define one term in my taxonomy you have to know what I mean about the other terms. That is why it is a discretional definition. So I want you to give a little time to write a short essay explaining all the terms so it can be useful for a wider audience. By writing an essay in a formal way I can publish it over the Internet so more people can learn about our topic.

Brian, feel free to visit my homepage (http://geocities.com/cristorly) where you can read some literature in English about my theological views (The Sovereignty of Grace -essay-, etc.). Thanks for reading. Thanks for being ecclectic. Thanks for contacting me. May God in Jesus Christ lead us to a correct understanding of the Bible. Feel free to contact me whenever you wish. Blessings and happiness in Christ Jesus. Cristorly

[edit] And Who is Orlando Alcántara?

Obviously Orlando Alcántara is doing his own original work: "My definitions..." "I integrate the 6 definitions...", "...in my taxonomy..." "...you have to know what I mean..." What theological training, background, legitimacy (or even notoriety) does he have? This "Biblical Unitarian Universalism" is NOT to be confused with Unitarian Universalism. You can see that this is self published work...He says so. It is also religious and dogmatic in nature rather than descriptive/scholarly. Placing these sort of extreme minority religious musings on the par with widely accepted theological and philosophical concepts is to do us all a disfavor. If the citations for the concept "pandeism" come down to mere links between a few odd web pages and one link to an esoteric magical religious pseudo-historical 18th century text of dubious soundness, what you have here seems curiously like a Flat Earth tract. Now don't get me wrong; I appreciate the Flat Earth article and enjoyed reading it. It would have bothered me though, if it had been put forward as serious geo-science. The lack of any real connection with the legitimate scholarly academy makes this "Pandeism" article seem like a trick done with smoke and mirrors. I may have to eat my words once I've gone to the Harvard libraries and checked out Higgins' books (yes, there are copies there... But I need to find out in what section and how they are classified and what scholars say about his stuff...); but something still doesn't smell right here. Is there a "No bull shit" award that can be given out? Or, perhaps the article can be reworked down the line of the aforementioned Flat Earth article. That I could swallow. Emyth 23:01, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Frankly, I'm not exactly sure who Orlando Alcántara Fernández is ("Orlando Alcántara" gets about 150 unique Google hits; strangely enough, "Orlando Alcantara" without the accent gets about 200, but they're completely different; Cristorly gets about 130, mostly in Christian discussion forums). The important thing, to me, is his comment about Spinoza. You see, almost a decade ago, my humanities professor said that Giordano Bruno and Baruch Spinoza were properly classified as pandeists, not as pantheists. Now, I don't know how many people are very familiar with Spinoza, but this Orlando Alcántara stated in a webpost that "Pantheism is right, because we are speaking about a personal, individual, trascendent God. Pandeism (like Spinoza's) is not right, due to the fact that is not a trascendent God, a God beyond Creation."[2]. In January of 2004, one Roncelin de Fos posted a discussion which states that "The labeling of Spinoza's philosophy as "pantheism" by the Church was meant more as an invective and indictment than a true analysis of his writings. It was really a variant of Deism -- a "pandeism," if I may."[3] Now, granted the second guy sounded like he was "coining" the word, but since I'd heard it used before in exactly that context, I can't help thinking that he got it from somewhere - kind of like if someone came up to me and said, "I've invented a device with four legs supporting a flat level surface -- a "table" if I may." There are no references saying "Thomas Jefferson was really a pandeist" or "Augustine was really a pandeist" or "Socrates was really a pandeist" - but I have three (these two and my professor) who have specifically identified Spinoza as a pandeist, and I find that a bit tight for a coincidence. -- BD2412 thimk 00:12, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
    • After my discussions with Cristorly, he was kind enough to write an essay outlining his theognosis - including his concept of Pandeism. http://jesus.50webs.com/god.html

[edit] Natalie Kita email exchange

In the course of doing research in support of the meaning of pandeism as I had been taught it, I contacted Natalie Kita (see [4]), who had posted a comment on a forum indicating that she is a "transcendental pandeist." We had the following email exchange:

[edit] My email to Natalie Kita

Dear Natalie Kita,

Hi, I'm working on a project on pandeism, and am having trouble finding source material explaining exactly what it means. I found a post of yours on a forum where you wrote that you classify yourself as a "transcendental pandeist."

I was wondering if you could give me some guidance as to how you heard of pandeism, and what it means to you. It was my understanding that pandeism referred to a Deistic form of Pantheism - that a Creator God created the Universe by becoming the universe, and that under this theology, God does not have an existence separate from the material universe.

Thanks

[edit] Natalie Kita's response

Hello Brian,

I will gladly write more when I have the time, but in short, my classification of my own beliefs as "transcendental pandeism" means that I believe most of what you outlined, except that I believe God not only is, always was, and always will be the universe, but that the Universe is contained within God, and God transcends that which we know as the Universe. I also believe that all living beings contain the knowledge/wisdom of God/the Universe within them, if only they open their minds to it. I view God not so much as a being, but as a force of pure spirit and energy, containing all the knowledge/wisdom there is, and sharing it with all. Of course, I also believe that human beings are only housed in physical bodies, and are themselves really just spirit and energy, with the ability to transcend the universe as well. In other words, we are all just little pieces of God, living in an illusion of separateness. To put the concept into an analogy---Imagine an endless ! ! ocean, filled with amoebas. The ocean flows in and out of, through and around every one. We are the amoebas, and the enless ocean is God. The only separation is the thin membrane that is our human bodies, complete with experiences and the chemical processes that create our distinct "personalities." I believe all that is always was, and is only "created" in the moment we allow ourselves to see it. I believe that miracles do occur, and that God intervenes, but not as a distant being with a watchful eye, but as the God within us. We create miracles through our thoughts and the energy that we put out into the world.

Of course, all of this is only theory that makes sense to me, and my overriding belief is that noone really knows the secrets of God and the Universe, and noone ever will until the moment when they leave their physical body and return to the whole (God). When and if our spirits return to earth, I believe that most of the secrets learned are temporarily forgotten, so that we may return to a new physical body---perhaps intact as the same "one" spirit, perhaps intermingled with other spirits, creating a new and distinct "person"---and learn (and/or teach) a new lesson or lessons to/from humanity.

To be honest, I don't really believe in classifying a set of beliefs, but since this world seems to require labels (even if there are widely varying definitions of each one), I thought transcendental pandeism fit me best. Interestingly, in talking to many, many people about my beliefs, I have found that many people (often secretly) share them to a great extent, regardless of the label they have chosen for their own beliefs. This has led me to believe that many (if not most) of the differences between the TRUE beliefs of people of many "religions" are merely a matter of semantics. I have a "church" and a website that are still in their infancy----both free of labels and classifications. If you are interested, feel free to check it out at www.onespiritunited.com

I suppose you could classify my beliefs as being on par with the ideas of Jung & Emerson---with God cast in the role of the Oversoul/Collective Unconscious. This may seem vague, but as I said, I will be happy to expand on my beliefs at a later date. Right now I have to get back to the material world and go to work.

Have a nice day!

Natalie Kita

[edit] Pandeism ???

What is this nonsense? Is the whole article your own original "research"??? It has virtually no hits on Google (of the 29 that don't mention Wikipedia, the majority are copies of Wikipedia's content, or references to the content) --brian0918™ 19:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I assure you, this was not "original research" - I had a humanities class as an undergrad where the professor (Ramon Mendoza) spent several classes on the subject. I thought the prof had himself written in his book (which was assigned for the class) that Giordano Bruno was truly a pandeist, not a pantheist, as he is popularly described. I tried googling the term myself, and have gotten few hits, but I've seen the term in print more than once. Someone else added the part about "spiritual pandeism", which I'd never heard of, but I have no way of discounting it, so I haven't touched it, except to edit for style. -- 8^D gab 20:11, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
Please provide the full book reference including the ISBN so that this can be checked out, because right now, it looks like your article has no place in the encyclopedia. Has this book been published? Was it by a vanity press? Do any other academics use the term? — Trilobite (Talk) 20:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • There are quite serious issues with verifiability here. Even if it is not your own original research, it might very well be your professor's. "Pandeism" is not in Merriam-Webster, the American Heritage Dictionary, Britannica, or the Catholic Encyclopedia (which does have pantheism). Either this concept does not exist at all outside of the humanities class you followed or it is only slightly less obscure. If not other sources can be provided than your assertion that Ramon Mendoza lectured on it, this article would be in serious danger of deletion if nominated—notwithstanding the fact that it is well-written, and notwithstanding that I don't doubt you created it in good faith. Your own remark that "someone else added the part about "spiritual pandeism", which I'd never heard of, but I have no way of discounting it, so I haven't touched it" clearly illustrates the problem: at present we have no reason to assume anyone will ever be able to discount anything on the topic. JRM · Talk 20:30, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
The name of the professor's book that was assigned to the class was The Acentric Labyrinth, [5]. I have no direct knowledge that this term has been used by other academics, beyond the fact that the Professor Mendoza discussed it as though he was passing on someone else's earlier idea; however, I'm quite certain I've seen it in print on other occasions, either in books or articles. I should mention that I took this class nearly a decade ago, and did not give it much thought until I came across pantheism on Wikipedia, and remembered this philosophy in the same category. However, if you have any suspicions about the possibility that I would put "nonsense" in Wikipedia, please look to my contributions. -- 8^D gab 20:45, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
Your reputation built up by your other contributions doesn't really enter into it, I'm afraid, because you need to cite sources, and the article as it stands cites none. It should be possible for any reader to verify the factual accuracy of an article by following the paper trail and looking things up in the books you've listed. Your professor may have been doing valuable research and talking about a valid topic, but unless this term is recognised and discussed by others, it can't be considered a part of the sphere of human knowledge that encyclopedias exist to document. I don't like to point the finger of suspicion at you without good reason, but when the term appears so rare as to only show up in Google in Wikipedia and its mirrors (and usually I strongly discourage the Google test, but you'd expect this to appear on the internet somewhere), this does begin to look like a fraud. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
For the record, I do not have any suspicions about this whatsoever. But it doesn't really matter: the issue here is that the article must be independently verifiable. I'm willing to take your word for it, but the reader should not be required to. JRM · Talk 21:00, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
Looking at my comments above I'd like to make clear that I don't think it's likely you've made this up, just that it looks made up and is unverifiable. I'd tend to think it should go under the "no original research" rule, as I have no evidence that you've made it up and it would be wrong to accuse you of such a malicious act. However, articles that look like frauds don't belong. — Trilobite (Talk) 21:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Look, I completely understand your point of view, but the internet is not the fount of all human knowledge it's made out to be. My intention in writing this article was to fill a gap in the collection of knowledge based on a theory I know to exist from my personal experience of having been taught about it in a classroom, by a professor who I understand to be respected in the field. Maybe the term is out of vogue, but I am certain this term is not one person's passing fancy. Also, not every reference that comes up on Google is a wiki mirror. See, e.g., [6]. -- 8^D gab 21:09, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
Even panendeism has a much larger number of hits on Google. I'm not sure we can trust a rough translation of a page to be accurate. Check out one of the other few hits for pandeism on Google:
Since I'm a mixture of Pantheist and Deist, I woke up this morning with the brand new word Pandeist, in my mind. Too cool. Before breakfast I googled it to see if it was unique. There were 4 hits.... But Pandeism was used as a descriptor by folks describing others philosophical view, no one used it to describe themselves. As near as I can tell I'm the first to use it to describe my own outlook. [7]

If you aren't already aware, I recommend mentioning all this on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pandeism, which will do wonders for turning around the vote. JRM · Talk

  • The above quote from [8] is not from me, and there is absolutely no basis to present it as though it were. I have requested brian0918 to clarify this on the vfd. -- 8^D gab 21:38, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
    • Where did I say you said it? I didn't. "Of those <30 results, nearly all of them appear to be references to Wikipedia, or for example, this interesting entry: ..." --brian0918™ 21:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, and immediately following that, you wrote "I'm not sure if the user who created all of this has been purposely deceptive, but according to him on his talk page..." - which suggests that the preceding quote is part of the "all of this" authored by the same person who authored the following quote. If you did not intend to present it that way, then I don't see why you would have a problem making that clear on the vfd, unless your intent is, as JRM seems to suggest, to "do wonders for turning around the vote." -- 8^D gab 21:50, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
        • I don't have a problem with it. You just brought it to my attention, and in the same sentence suggested that I might have a problem with it. I'll fix it now. --brian0918™ 21:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Thanks. I hope you're willing to accept that I was attempting to make a legitimate contribution, not perpetrate a fraud. I apologize if I failed to properly gauge the notablity of this term before placing it in Wikipedia. -- 8^D gab 21:56, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

Well, I can only repeat that I have never come across the term, and have been unable to find it in any of my books. ("Spiritual pandeism" is obvious flannel.) The article doesn't really make much sense of it either. I'd contact your ex-teacher, but I haven't been able to find his e-mail address anywhere. Do you have any idea where I might look (what university was it)? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • He's in the philosophy department at Florida International University. I'll look it up after dinner (it's that time here). -- 8^D gab 22:46, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)


Sure, panendeism is fine. That word gets 1300+ non-wiki hits on Google. It's the word "pandeism" that we're contesting. --brian0918™ 01:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I made all of those edits before I started the VFD. I can't go back and change the edit summaries. The article has been removed from all other articles, so this won't happen in the future. --brian0918™ 03:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pandeism vfd

Please consider changing the basis for your vote on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pandeism from "original research" to "non-notable." I believe I have adduced sufficient referential evidence to show that this article was not "original research," but simply an exposition on a philosophy which, although real, lacks enough adherents/proponents to be notable enough for inclusion. I apologize for having overestimated the importance of this topic. It was, after all, one of my first posts, when I was new to Wikipedia and not yet familiar with the criteria for notability. -- 8^D gab 04:40, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

  • I will consider it. There is nothing on Google or Britannica though which can reference this word. Megan1967 05:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Pandeism as original research. I applied that label principally because there is no sign of any external references. So assertions like "Spiritual pandeists point to ..." or "Some pandeists believe that..." seem to have been pulled out of thin air. I'd be very happy to see this develop into a good article, and if you can share with us how you know what "some Pandeists" believe then I'd be willing to change my vote. Thanks for your many contributions to Wikipedia, above and beyond this one. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:31, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

There are a number of articles in Wikipedia based upon the work of a single professor. But it is important that they indicate that fact. If the article said "'Pandeism' is a term coined by Professor Ramon Mendoza to characterize beliefs that...." or something like that then it would be grounded in some kind of reality. However, that being the case, it should explicitly be a summary of the Mendoza's idea along with a summary of responses to it. -Willmcw 06:18, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
If you think a redirect is the best solution then you might want to make that suggestion prominently on the VfD page. -Willmcw 09:08, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

There is no need to apologize at all. First of all, Wikipedia is a wiki; its capacity for self-repair is virtually limitless. All in a day's work, no harm done. Second, you were making a good-faith addition. Even if we decide it was wrong, the encyclopedia is still better off for you having made it. While some might be personally offended by someone adding something to the encyclopedia that they truly considered beneficial, I'm not one of those people. Keep up the good work.
For the record: I do not vote on notability, for lack of sufficiently objective criteria; I do vote on verifiability, which was the problem here. As it stands, I will not change my vote to merge and redirect (redirect implies there's nothing to merge, but this would mean de facto deleting of the article, so I'd rather have an explicit delete) because I have still not seen any evidence that pandeism exists as anything more than an obvious neologism coined independently by multiple people, and that there are any independent sources for the precise concept you describe other than your class notes (which, for obvious reasons, are not suitable material for cites). Keep in mind that I do not even contest that what you've written is true (both in the article and on it)! But when a reader asks "how do I know what you've written here is not nonsense?" we can only answer "one of our contributors had a professor who lectured on the concept, and some people have independently coined the word". In my opinion, this is not good enough. JRM · Talk 10:36, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Update: just seen your pandeism reference. This seems to be yet another independent coining of the word, with yet another meaning. Reading the pages preceding the introduction, I absolutely cannot find "pandeism" being used in the way it's described in the article: instead, the writer argues for a common origin of a god or Gods whose names start with "Pan-" (note the capitalization of the word). We may now conceivably have enough verifiable information for an article on the word pandeism and how it's been used by various people, but whether such an article is encyclopedic is another matter altogether. JRM · Talk 10:36, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
"Why would a man in Higgins position make up a word like that, and use it as he does?" I don't know. If you know anyone else who does, who has written on this particular metaphorical sleight of hand, and can back it up with references, feel free to add it. Again: you only establish that the word "pandeism" exists! I'm quite convinced of that by now. But we still have no references that describe pantheism as "a theological system of belief that combines the major elements of pantheism (that God and the universe are one) and deism (that a creator God created a self-regulating universe, but subsequently ceased to actively intervene in its operations)". Higgins at best establishes that Toland may have used the word—how and why is left open. The obvious etymology of "pandeism" is not good enough, because I can conceive of many internally consistent belief systems like that, and claim people in the past have avowed beliefs that match it rather well—which would still be original research. And though I completely believe you when you say it's not original research, and that someone else thought of it first, they apparently didn't go through the trouble of documenting it in such a fashion as to make it suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. JRM · Talk 10:58, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Are you aware of the exchange of meanings of deism and theism around 1700? See Atheism#Etymology. The old meanings lingered, although I am surprised to find them in use in the 1880s. In any case, you would need to find a reference contrasting pandeism and pantheism. dab (ᛏ) 11:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello, BD2412! After looking at your explaination on my page, I must say I'm still hesitant to change my vote. The conclusive evidence that you speak of is located on a Tripod page. Even if this is correct, I would not call ANYTHING found on Tripod or similar hosts "authoritative". Secondly, if this is the only site that you have to prove this, then I wouldn't consider that "conclusive", either. Sorry.. Linuxbeak 11:46, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

The article is original research. You did not use any of these "sources" you keep citing as sources for the article. Half of your "sources" are forum posts that likely utilized your very article. Also, showing that the word was used once almost 200 years ago doesn't mean that it gets its own article. For example, duck tape doesn't have its own article, despite it being the original term for duct tape (and being 100 years newer than the 1833 book). Why? Because the latter term is the popular usage today. --brian0918™ 12:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re: Pandeism

Thanks! I'm a hero! :-)

I attempted to clearly describe the difference between pandeism and pantheism in the pandeism article (since showing that the term is different means that it definitely deserves it's own article), but I am not an expert on the concepts--I only know what is written on those two pages and what Higgins wrote in the quotes that were provided. I paraphrased from existing information. Let me know if I got it right.

- Pioneer-12 16:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Now I wish I'd said exactly that in the article". Heh, and now you are probably about to do just that. I've found that when I describe something to someone else, I also describe it to myself.... It's true that the meaning has shifted since Higgins first used it. Hmmm, probably the shift of the meaning since his time should be mentioned in that paragraph, too.

- Pioneer-12 16:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, it seems like sufficiant explaination has been submitted for me to withhold my vote. I will do so right away. Linuxbeak 19:28, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Heh, well, don't take it personally, BD. Some of us ARE trigger happy, and I think that you meant well. If this article is destined to continue, let it be so! Go get some sleep ;-) Linuxbeak 19:48, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] How to deal with people who won't stop yelling

Brian0918 seems to be a talented and dedicated Wikipedian, but he lacks people skills. It seems he is not going to stop yelling and antagonizing even after you have asked him to. His latest edit summary on the pandeism vfd is "i can add bs header titles too! weee" That is NOT how an administrator is supposed to act. It may be helpful if you find an old, wise administrator to step in. Wikipedia:Resolving disputes should help.

- Pioneer-12 08:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note: In fairness to Brain, whose comments are below, it looks like he was having a really bad week. - Pioneer-12

[edit] Pandeism Discussion

Yeah, sorry about that as well. I've been involved with several true vandals who have created fake articles and stuck them in various legitimate articles, and other vandals who've made up fake -theism articles and then vandalized other legitimate articles with that religion's take on the issue, so I quickly jumped to the conclusion that you were the same way. Plus, this is hell week for me, so I've been on the edge the whole week. I'm just going to stay away from disputes for the next couple weeks when all the rage has dissipated :) brian0918™ 17:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it must get tiresome dealing with all the vandals. I can see how that could cause a bit of cynicism... it's like seeing a string of bad movies in a row... then you see one thing wrong in a decent movie and go "not again!" - Pioneer-12 23:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Analysis of the "extensiveness" of the article

You've presented all of these "sources" (one-word references in a small handful of pages), but have yet to source any of the information you put in pandeism. You were able to write an article that extensive from memories of class lectures a decade ago? (or did you keep your notes) --brian0918™ 03:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  1. The article is hardly that extensive.
  2. I already explained above (and the edit history shows) that I did not write that section on "spiritual pandeism", which is about a fifth of the whole thing.
  3. I remember my class lectures from a decade ago very well because I found the concept to be an interesting part of an interesting class, and I conversed with the professor after class about it. The class included a writing assignment, and my paper also addressed the topic. I no longer have either the notes or the paper, but how hard is it to remember the core concept that God was sentient, and then became the universe?
  4. Most of what is in the article, aside from the core concept, was neither in the lecture, nor "original research", but rather descriptive of the obvious. For example:
The word "pandeism" comes from the Greek root 'pan' (meaning 'all') fused to the word deism, itself originally derived from the Latin deus, meaning God, but which was later adopted by the Deist movement, and came to have the meaning ascribed by its members. The term is an intentional play on the term "pantheism," itself a variation of "pantheist," a word purportedly first used by Irish writer John Toland in his 1705 work, Socinianism Truly Stated, by a pantheist.
  • Now, the professor didn't tell the class that the root words came from the Greek and the Latin respectively, just that it was a combination of pan (as in pantheism) and deism. I would hardly say that going beyond the lecture to identify the meanings of roots words is "original research". Obviously the professor didn't mention the John Toland part, but it's a matter of historical fact that John Toland made up the term pantheism (300 years ago - frankly it's preposterous to think that for 300 years, no one put pantheism and deism together) - unless you'd like to delete pantheism also.
Some people incorrectly interchange pantheism and pandeism, or use the term pandeism to describe a world in which all of the gods of the various world religions and mythologies are equally real, and coexist - a common fixture in certain role-playing games.
  • We've already seen these on the blogs to which you cite as a means of deriding the existence of the term. At the very least, this supports a redirect to pantheism.
A more appropriate (if cumbersome) word for such a belief would be panpantheonism (a pantheon literally refers to "all of the gods" within a belief system), or omnitheism (which supposes a kernal of truth in all religions, rather than all being simultaneously true in their entirety).
  • Not about pandeism itself, just clarifying what it is not (and what that other stuff should be called).
Some ancient mythologies employ elements of pandeism, suggesting that the world was created from the physical substance of a dead deity or a being of similar power. Norse mythology for example, posits that Odin and his brothers of Vé and Vili defeated a frost giant, Ymir and then created the world from Ymir's body. Similarly, later Chinese mythology recounts the creation of elements of the physical world (mountains, rivers, the sun and moon, etc.) from the body of a creator called Pan Gu. Because these myths were developed by people unaware of the true scope of the universe, they can fairly be said to describe the creation of the "entire world" from the body of one being. However, such stories rarely go so far as to identify the designer of the world as being one with the being whose body provided the material.
  • I'm pretty sure I didn't make up the Ymir and Pan Gu myths, and I didn't say they were examples of pandeism either, just myths that employ elements of it. The use in early mythology of the body of a dead god as the material of the physical world is a pretty obvious precursor to this theory.
The universe, according to pandeistic theory, is just as the universe described in naturalistic pantheism. Pandeism can therefore be considered a subset of natural pantheism, with the distinction that pandeism necessarily encompasses the belief in a sentient God that existed before the formation of the universe. The esoteric nature of such beliefs has resulted in significant numbers of people who would be considered pandeists being totally unaware that a term exists to describe their system of beliefs.
  • I never heard of "naturalistic pantheism" before I came to Wikipedia, but it's clearly the kind of pantheism into which pandeism would fall. The rest is just restatement of the core concept, and an observation that people may believe this without knowing the name for it (another thing we've seen in the blogs).
Pandeism is also compatible with evolutionary creationism in that it posits the creation of the universe by intelligent design. Pandeism differs from more widely followed creationist theories by suggesting that the designer has ceased to have an independent existence. Many pandeists point to the Big Bang as the event signifying the transformation of God into the universe.
  • Obvious observation on the similar points between this and another theory; restatement of the core concept; point that the professor made (that the Big Bang is a likely point of departure in a pandeistic universe). The class discussed the theological implications of the Big Bang to a fair extent.
Panentheism also has some surface similarities with pandeism, to the extent that both suggest a universe designed by a sentient diety, and composed of matter derived from that diety. The belief systems part, however, on the point that panentheism asserts that God is greater than the universe, and therefore continues a separate existence alongside it, while pandeism asserts that everything that was God became incorporated into the universe.
  • I also never heard of panentheism before coming to Wikipedia - this paragraph is merely a comparison with panentheism which is, again, a restatement of the core concept of each, with the difference highlighted.
Some arguments for the existence of God support a pandeistic universe. Both the cosmological argument (that there must be a first cause) and the teleological argument (that the existence of complex patterns in the universe show intentional design) point to a pandeistic universe as readily as one with an activist God.
  • We actually spent the bulk of the course discussing the various arguments for and against the existence of God. This paragraph is an obvious point of logic. As I said before, the other stuff was written by someone else (except for the See Also section). Now, where is this extensive article from my memory of which you speak? -- 8^D BD2412gab 03:51, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
    • NOTE The above discussion has been crossed out because the article referenced therein no longer exists, but instead has been replaced by completely, source-verifiable material. -- 8^D gab 22:22, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
    • By the way, I looked up my transcript, and the class was HUM-3306, The History Of Ideas, which I took in the Spring of 2006 1996. I took it pass/fail and I passed. Did well enough on the paper that I didn't bother taking the final exam. I was taking the Philosophy of Religion that semester, and many of the concepts (e.g. proof of God) dovetailed between the classes. -- 8^D gab 04:18, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

[edit] Pandeism

Hi! I snuck a peek over at SuperDude115's talk page to see how things were doing and I caught your end of the discussion about this article. So, off I went to see what the brouhaha was. Lemme see if'n I got this here straight: A top-notch article is being considered for deletion. Now I know I've been hanging around this site far too long when half-baked and barely literate nanostubs are vigorously defended and articles like yours are run through a wood chipper.  :^P For the record, I voted to keep it. Be of good cheer, lad. - Lucky 6.9 06:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Really? Seems like you've been here a helluva lot longer! Nevertheless, I'll stand by my assessment. Getting late here, so I'll say good night. Later! - Lucky 6.9 07:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pandeism VfD

Thanks for updating. It seemed like a marginal use to me, even though it was old. Jayjg (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)