This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles onReligion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help usassess and improve articles togood and1.0 standards, or visit thewikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related tophilosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join thegeneral discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
Here is a cite: Williams, George H. “Socinianism and Deism: From Eschatological Elitism To Universal Immortality?” Historical Reflections / Réflexions Historiques, vol. 2, no. 2, 1976, pp. 265–290. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41298669. Accessed 18 Apr. 2021.Hyperbolick (talk)02:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in it was about Deism. Corresponding articleGottgläubig makes one mention of Deism, only that it was one of many views members of the group could have (along with nondenominational Christianity, general Theism, Pantheism).Hyperbolick (talk)18:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gottgläubig was the recognized form of Deism in Nazi Germany, therefore it is pertinent to this article. No reason to delete that section.GenoV84 (talk)04:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to our ownGottgläubig page: "People who identified as Gottgläubig could hold awide range of religious beliefs, including non-clerical Christianity,[1] Germanic Neopaganism,[1] a generic non-Christian theism,[21] deism,[2] and pantheism.[2] Strictly speaking, Gottgläubigen were not even required to terminate their church membership, but strongly encouraged to.[1]"
Can you show me a source doctrinally restricting Gottgläubig to a reason-derived non-revalatory belief system? Cause if there isn't then it isn't Deism.Hyperbolick (talk)05:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adolf Hitler: A Biography by Ileen Bear explicitly calls it deist:
According to Evans, by 1939, 95% of Germans still called themselves Protestant or Catholic, with 3.5% ‘Deist’ (gottgläubig) and 1.5% atheist—most in these latter categories being “convinced Nazis who had left their Church at the behest of the Party, which had been trying since the mid- 1930s to reduce the influence of Christianity in society”. Gottgläubig” (lit. “believers in God”), had a non-denominational, nazified outlook on divine beliefs, often described as predominantly based on creationist and deistic views.
The Third Reich in Power, 1933-1939 byRichard J. Evans indeed does refer to it as deist, too:
The Interior Ministry ruled that people leaving their Church could declare themselves to be 'Deists' (gottglaubig), and the Party decreed that office-holders could not simultaneously hold any office in the Catholic or Protestant Church.
Lastly,The Polish Catholic Church under German Occupation: The Reichsgau Wartheland, 1939–1945 by Jonathan Huener also notes thatgottgläubig can be understood as simply deism (p.156).Brat Forelli🦊11:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We might be misunderstanding the point of Wikipedia articles a bit here. If there is a political party that has an article, then the ideology and character of this party is not determined by a bunch of Wikipedians discussing what the party represents and what it does not. This is not really up to us. It is up to sources - how the party is described in books, journal and articles, by commentators, journalists, historians or political scientists. And we cite these sources.
I do not think we have any right to limit this article to subjects that only meet a specific criteria of what we think Deism is. It is not needed to prove whetherGottgläubigkeit is "a reason-derived non-revalatory belief system" or not. What the sources I have shown do prove is thatGottgläubigkeit is considered a form of Deism. That is more than enough to justify a section for it in this article. It is not possible to confuse it with 'ceremonial deism' or 'moralistic therapeutic deism', becauseGottgläubigkeit was never considered either of these things by anyone, and it would be impossible to even find a book that mentions either of those together withGottgläubigkeit.
The relevance is completely sufficient. It does not need to meet the criteria that you established here. In fact, let me citeDeism Historically Defined by S. G. Hefelbower:
There is no accepted definition of Deism. If you try to find out what it is from the books and articles that discuss it you will be left in confusion.
And yetGottgläubigkeit does meet the criteria for Deism in the eyes of Evans, Huener and Bear. It might not meet yours. But that is okay. For its relevancy to Deism is shown.Brat Forelli🦊13:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heck, I'd argue the result ofProtestantism omitting strong links to Nazism is the result of an anglocentric bias that English Wikipedia has. Given anti-Catholicism that the anglosphere was traditionally engaged in, it sadly does make sense why the article for Catholicism would have so many references to Nazism while Protestantism none.
Making glitch a feature is not something we want though. TheGottgläubigkeit is relevant to Deism, though by no means does it reflect badly on it. It is a very odd child created for the NSDAP's propagandist and anti-clerical purposes that was merely an opportunistic cooptation of Deist tenets rather than a consequence of it.Brat Forelli🦊00:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the talk about Nazism on theCatholic Church page seems to be about building a narrative of the church being against the Nazis, or oppressed by the Nazis, without mention the church being the Nazis. More critical point is that there is zero influence of Nazism on the development of Deism as a metaphilosophy. it is no more appropriate here than it would be inTheism orPantheism, orPandeism, orChristianity for that matter. Here, it’s aWP:COATRACK.Hyperbolick (talk)07:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hyperbolick: The amount of academic, reliable references which demonstrate thatGottgläubig was the officially recognized form of belief in a creator God/personal God/Deism by the Nazi regime, with demographic data on the religious landscape of Nazi Germany and prominent adherents among the SS too, is more than enough to prove that the Nazism section should stay here and there was no justification to remove it from this encyclopedia.GenoV84 (talk)08:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No anglocentric forces at play then. Excuse my ignorance then, it is actually a relief to hear that there is no attempt there to link Catholicim to Nazism politically or ideologically. Your point is still interesting though - as in, that there is no mention of it in the Protestantism article. Actually feels like something that should be there.
As for what you also said, this is actually a very interesting argument.Theism is a general article on theism itself that lists types of theism, including deism. WhileGottgläubigkeit would also be theist (after all,gottgläubig means nothing more than "believing in God"), it would be inappropiate to give a section for it there beyond a simple mention, given how it is not consider a type of theism in itself on par with deism or pantheism. Yes.
Pantheism definitely has nothing to do withGottgläubigkeit whatsoever and it would be a complete mess. It was never consider it. We do agree.
Christianity, hm. I'd argue it could be mentioned there since it was connected to Christianity in that it was an attempt to undermine Christianity as a social and cultural force in Germany, in addition that it did try to pose as some kind as a vague form of "nondemoninational Christianity" that in reality just meant submerging onself in the NaziWeltanschauung.
As for Deism, the argument for inclusion ofGottgläubigkeit is based on the fact that it is considered a form of Deism. It is not something contested. Like, it just is. We have sources for that. This is notWP:COATRACK since it is not a fringe theory or anything. It surely had no influence on development of Deism, but it is included in the Deist world. It should be included.Brat Forelli🦊08:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the historical and political contexts are necessary for readers to understand how Deism was perceived and practiced under the religious policies of the Nazi regime. By following the same argument, the sections about 17th-18th century Deism in continental Europe and the United States should be almost completely deleted and left with only two paragraphs. I would advise against such a proposal; it doesn't sound beneficial to the article.GenoV84 (talk)11:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the thing to do is go through the section line by line and ask as to each: how does this impact the philosophical development of Deism as a theological position? Just as we might do for a section of equal proportion on Nazism and Christianity in the Wikipedia page on Christianity.Hyperbolick (talk)18:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem like the development of Deism in Nazi Germany has had any impact on the theological or philosophical basis of this belief, which has been basically the same since antiquity: belief in a Creator that doesn't interact with the universe after the act of creation, and therefore it's not even involved in human affairs.
Rather, what is most noticeable here is thatGottgläubigkeit (Deism) was a recognized irreligious group in the demographics on religion of the Nazi regime, unlike atheism which was outlawed (this is also explained in the same section).
Considering that, historically, the only two other countries where Deism has been officially recognized by their respective governments as alegitimate belief are revolutionary France and the Republic of Turkey, and the fact that this article about Deism also includes several sections about the history of Deism, I think that this section should stay just like the other ones.GenoV84 (talk)10:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with this opinion and I would find it quite inappropiate if this article was to limit itself to elements that affected "the philosophical development of Deism as a theological position". It would put into a question most of this article in fact, including the entire Turkish section.
Not to mention that we already lack many important groups that did impact the development of Deism, such asSocinianism which "was a forerunner of Deism and the Enlightenment".[1] But that is something for me to work on, I suppose.Brat Forelli🦊10:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still haven't seen an explanation of why a comparable proportiin of content shouldn't exist atProtestantism orChristianity. Add the section there and see what happens, and we'll follow the same outcome here. In the meantime there are two complete paragraphs in this section about "Positive Christianity" and Nazis "leaving their church" that have no relation to Deism. Not a single one proclaimed Deism.Hyperbolick (talk)17:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considering thatGottgläubigkeit (Deism) is annoverated among the otherreligious aspects of Nazism, alongside Occultism, Germanic Neopaganism, Theosophy, etc., I don't see why you keep making comparisons withProtestantism andChristianity or proposing to add the same content of this section to any of those two articles.
Anyway, I see that you have removed the paragraphs about prominent members of the NSDAP leaving their respective Christian churches, which is fine.GenoV84 (talk)18:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still much to trim. No need for excess duplication of what's already on the other page. This is no more than a footnote in the history of Deism.Hyperbolick (talk)17:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The section looks fine in the current version, with all of its paragraphs mentioning theGottgläubige; if readers need any further information, they can just click on the main article. There's no point to trim anything further, in the exact same way as there was no point to delete this section out of nowhere without any previous discussion in the first place. I think that we have found an acceptablemiddleground in order to establish afair consensus for all parties involved in this discussion.GenoV84 (talk)18:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about that, but we have already adjusted the section twice ([1],[2]). It looks exhaustive enough. Anyway, I'm open to further suggestions from you and Brat Forelli.GenoV84 (talk)09:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Williams, G. H. (1976). Socinianism and Deism: From Eschatological Elitism To Universal Immortality? Historical Reflections / Réflexions Historiques, 2(2), 265–290.http://www.jstor.org/stable/41298669
Wiki Education assignment: HNRS 2000Critical Analysis and Social Responsibility
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between27 August 2024 and6 December 2024. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):Chase N. Comardelle (article contribs).
level-4 vital article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between27 August 2024 and6 December 2024. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):Chase N. Comardelle (article contribs).
