Not my ‘picture’ (what’s your ‘picture’, by the way, and will your picture remain constant, or will you modify your picture to fit the changing profiles of the personalities you wish to identify as ‘Deist’?). In the meantime, my ‘picture’ is the picture held by a number of different personalities. For example:
The Compact Oxford English Dictionary of current English, third edition, 2005
Deism / noun / belief in the existence of an all-powerful creator who does not intervene in the universe. Compare with theism.
Or another:
Merriam’s Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1953
Deism / n. / Belief in a personal God as creator of the world and final judge of men, but as remaining in the interval completely beyond the range of human experience. – Syn. See Atheist.
Webster’s Universal Dictionary of the English Language, 1937. An unabridged descendant of the original Webster’s.
deism / n / The doctrine or creed of a deist; usually, belief in the existence of a Supreme Being as the source of finite existence, to the exclusion of revelation and the supernatural doctrines of Christianity.
And, finally, a more thoroughgoing definition from the original Webster’s, and one closer to the time of Franklin himself:
American Dictionary Of The English Language, modern reproduction of Noah Webster’s original 1828 dictionary, fifteenth printing, May 2002
DEISM / n / The doctrine or creed of a deist; the belief or system of religious opinions of those who acknowledge the existence of one God, but deny revelation: or deism is the belief in natural religion only, or those truths in doctrine and practice, which man is to discover by the light of reason, independent and exclusive of any revelation from God. Hence deism implies infidelity or a disbelief in the divine origin of the scriptures.
It seems more than passing strange that whenever I get into one of these ‘definition wars’, it’s not long before the suggestion is put forward that I am insincere in my efforts, and that I am angling to give the meaning I ‘want’ to a word. Does that look like what I am doing? (I don’t, by the way, ascribe this accusation to you, except, perhaps, in its most gentle form.) I don’t know that either Franklin or I are entitled to our own understanding of the meaning of the term Deism, but I doubt that either one of us are.
What is, after all, the point in identifying Franklin, and others of the Founding Fathers, as a Deist, if it is not to deny that the Judeo-Christian faith had any influence on the founding of the Union? None that I know of. That is the point driving the discussions of this subject on all the atheist websites of which I am aware. You’ve already observed, on the other hand, that Christianity did have a profound influence on Franklin, so what is the point of our discussion other than a self-edifying one? That’s sufficient a reason for me. We’ve already gotten crosswise on this subject once, and I have no desire to repeat the experience. (The observation that Christianity has had a profound influence on America’s destiny, by the way, can get you into a lot of trouble with The Masters of the Universe. Their reaction will be similar to the reaction you get when you show a silver cross or a gilded mirror to a vampire. This is what impelled js1138 to accuse boop of a fabrication over Franklin’s speech at the convention. He couldn’t stand boop’s point to go unchallenged).
”To call Franklin a Deist is to take him at his word.”
Oh splendid! What’s the word? What was Franklin’s definition of ‘Deism’? And, did he ascribe that definition to himself? How did it compare to the definitions above?
Why not take the man at his word? He said he was a Deist. Why would you doubt his own statement about his own beliefs?