First, to some degree, you are not understanding what I am saying (because I am not being clear). I am not saying that Israel believes every atheist was a radical (Hume is a good example of one who was not). But, in regard to Jefferson, Israel says the radical elements of his thought come not from Locke, but from anti-religious thinkers like Bolingbroke, Gordon, and "perhaps" Paine (Democratic Enlightenment, p. 456.) So, even if one is a Deist, the radical thought one had was derived from non-religious thinkers (or, more accurately,
non-providential thinkers; more on this below). So I probably mislead you when I referred to Jefferson's Deism, a Deist could be a radical, but would derive his radical thought from outside of Deism beliefs.
I think we are in agreement about the political and social goals of Israel's two groups of Enlightenment thinkers. The distinction between "moderates" and "radical" is that moderates wanted some "improvements" but wanted to hold on to vestiges of monarchy, aristocratic privilege, and/or ecclesiastical authority. The radicals wanted to replace all of that with egalitarianism, republican government, and full equal rights across social classes. It is in the radicals that Israel finds the development of revolutionary impulses that drove the American and French Revolutions, and not in the discourse of more well known "moderate" Enlightenment thinkers in history like Hume, Voltaire, Rousseau, Montesquieu (although a few 'radicals" like Diderot and Paine are "well known". But d'Holbach, Helvetius and many others Israel focuses on were not mentioned in a course I took on the Enlightenment in 1990s). At the highest level, I think Israel undoubtedly succeeds in showing that previous historians who have posited all Enlightenment thinkers with the same basic goals were very wrong. There was a lot of contention between the groups Israel labels radicals and moderates. (I think every historian has recognized there were counter-Enlightenment thinkers, so I haven't read Israel's book on that yet. Right now I'm focused on understanding what Israel is saying about the two other groups).
But I think we see Israel's difference in religious distinctions differently. I think Israel does divide the two groups with a pretty specific distinction of religious beliefs, but it is not "atheist" vs. "religious fundamentalist;" it is more subtle than that:
"These two fundamentally different concepts of progress - the radical democratic and, in metaphysics, materialist-deterministic. or alternately Christian-Unitarian, one one hand, and the "moderate" and positively providential (Deist or religious), championing the monarchical-aristocratic order , on the other, were diametrically opposed to each other in their social and political consequences." (
Revolution of the Mind, p. 12). So it does seem to me that Israel sees a pretty strict metaphysical distinction between providential and non-providential thinkers in relation to radicals and moderates. Besides atheists, he ties Christian-Unitarians to the radicals, but Unitarians are not atheists. And he ties Deism to the moderates, but I don't think it is accurate to label a Deist a "religious fundamentalist."
It seems to me that Isreal is trying to tie (almost?) all of what he calls "radical" thought back to Spinoza. One did not have to be directly influenced by Spinoza. For instance, Jefferson doesn't seem to have read Spinoza . But I think Israel is saying the thinkers from whom Jefferson inherited his radical tendencies were influenced by Spinoza's deterministic and non-providential view of the universe.
So, to get back to my first post, while Israel wants to cast Price, Priestly and Wollstonecraft as radicals, when they clearly believed in a providential universe, to be consistent, Israel should show their radical influences were derived from some non-providential thinkers (like he shows Jefferson's were). I don't see him doing that in
A Revolution of the Mind or in
Democratic Enlightenment. I'm thinking perhaps he does it in
Radical Enlightenment, 1680 - 1750, which I haven't read yet. I also need to find out more about the history of Christian-Unitarian thought. I knew their views on there being only one God, but never before heard that they did not see the universe as providential as Israel seems to be saying they did in the 18th century. (this has confused me because almost every historians labels Jefferson a Deist, and his belief in a provident universe is clear in several of his writings. But the one time Jefferson actually labeled his religious beliefs, he called himself a Unitarian.)
I hope that clears up how I understand Israel and why I am pursuing his distinction between providential moderates and non-providential radicals. At the core of it, I am trying to convince myself that this metaphysical / religious distinction is indeed a key factor in the revolutionary impulses of the times. So far I'm about 75% convinced that Israel has it right. I am just testing whether I can be even more convinced by his thesis than I am now.