Threads about Theism and what it is

[Quintessence]

the·ism
ˈTHēˌizəm/
noun

1. belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

...Why is the above insufficient? And why do skeptics make things complicated, when Paul warns us to "avoid straying from the simplicity found in Christ, and so destroy yourselves?"

Have you read some of the threads debating the definition of atheism around here? In those threads, it doesn't matter how many dictionary definitions someone throws out. People argue about nuances endlessly with it. When I first joined, I found it oddly amusing. Then, it happened so routinely I started finding it oddly annoying. Now, I attempt to be indifferent.

Such threads do have their value. Dictionary definitions are incredibly poor reference points for understanding complex topics. I find the dictionary definitions for both atheism and theism woefully inadequate to convey the depths. But especially for theism. The definitions only beg another question. What are gods? What does it mean to "believe in" that?

 

[Quintessence]

I mean, we all have to admit that atheists don't (or very very rarely) attack atheism, right? So, we establish that theists are the attackers of atheism. They are the ones who have a vested interest in trying to wrangle the meaning of "atheism" into something that meets their need to be able to refute, or at the very least, to dismiss it. So, this plethora of threads on what the term atheism means are usually either theists attacking the term with a bunch of assumptions, incorrect assertions and blatantly self-serving inferences, or it is an atheist attempting to correct misconceptions brought about by that former type of thread. So all of those threads are created by, or in response to THEISTS.

I think this idea has some merit, but I think there's a piece missing here. You suggest that there are all these threads debating the definition of atheism because of, essentially, misconceptions about atheism coming from (mostly) theists. However, there are also tons of misconceptions about theism coming from both other theists and atheists. Why aren't there a bunch of threads discussing those misconceptions? Why do we see all these call outs on what atheism "really is" but not frequent and systematic call outs along the lines of "no, theism is not religion, stop conflating them!" or "no, theism is not monotheism" or "no, theism does not mean the god or gods you accept are supernatural" and the like.

It lends to the impression that there must be something else going on here. Demographics are certainly part of it, I wager. Non-theists are disproportionately represented on the forums. But when at least half of our members are some type of theist, you'd think we'd have more to argue about when it comes to what theism is.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I think this idea has some merit, but I think there's a piece missing here. You suggest that there are all these threads debating the definition of atheism because of, essentially, misconceptions about atheism coming from (mostly) theists. However, there are also tons of misconceptions about theism coming from both other theists and atheists. Why aren't there a bunch of threads discussing those misconceptions? Why do we see all these call outs on what atheism "really is" but not frequent and systematic call outs along the lines of "no, theism is not religion, stop conflating them!" or "no, theism is not monotheism" or "no, theism does not mean the god or gods you accept are supernatural" and the like.

It lends to the impression that there must be something else going on here. Demographics are certainly part of it, I wager. Non-theists are disproportionately represented on the forums. But when at least half of our members are some type of theist, you'd think we'd have more to argue about when it comes to what theism is.

Your analysis of the situation holds up with what we see. And yes, I admit, there are many times atheists (including myself) need to be corrected about the actual meanings of certain terms or the application of labels.

At this point, to answer your question, I would probably turn (as others in this thread have already alluded to) to the idea that atheism has only one, distinct meaning. Or at least it should have. But the term "theism" is known to encompass such a vast array of items that it may even be difficult to know whether something an atheist (or anyone else for that matter) is putting "under fire" is even qualified/disqualified from the umbrella term "theism."

 

[Quintessence]

At this point, to answer your question, I would probably turn (as others in this thread have already alluded to) to the idea that atheism has only one, distinct meaning. Or at least it should have. But the term "theism" is known to encompass such a vast array of items that it may even be difficult to know whether something an atheist (or anyone else for that matter) is putting "under fire" is even qualified/disqualified from the umbrella term "theism."

To me, the sheer diversity in forms of theism suggests to me atheism can't possibly have only one, distinct meaning. Not if we look beyond the most superficial interpretation of the terms, at any rate.

Maybe I should start getting more aggressive again in calling out some of the things I see. Trouble is, that isn't really my style and it will just get annoying. Not just to others, but to me also.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Maybe I should start getting more aggressive again in calling out some of the things I see. Trouble is, that isn't really my style and it will just get annoying. Not just to others, but to me also.

I am sure there are quite a lot of similarities and shared ideas/beliefs among significant counts of atheists... but there should probably be another label for those sorts of things if one is warranted, because the term "atheism" already has a meaning, and it is pretty cut-and-dry. I agree though that "atheists", on the other hand, are NOT cut-and-dry. Because we're humans, and like theists we come pre-packaged with all sorts of opinions on every other topic under the sun.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Most, that I've paid attention to, attack specific religions. Christianity, Islam etc... Not really theism in general.

Are there any common characteristics to "theism in general" in the first place? It would be hard to attack it without them.

Attacks on things like Wicca and Druidry usually come from other religious folks.

Right: because the problems that outsiders to religion usually have the biggest cause to complain about are the problems that come from a majority religion. Wicca and Druidry aren't majority religions anywhere.

IMO, most of the problems with religion come when it's imposed on people.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Are there any common characteristics to "theism in general" in the first place?

Of course, but it's damn difficult to put a finger on them

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

To me, the sheer diversity in forms of theism suggests to me atheism can't possibly have only one, distinct meaning. Not if we look beyond the most superficial interpretation of the terms, at any rate.

Thinking on this more, perhaps the meaning of "theism" or "theist" should be recognized to also be something incredibly simple. Like

• theism - belief in the existence of a one or more god(s)
• theist - someone holding belief in the existence of a one or more god(s)

Which has me interested to know what the cases are in which atheists have miscategorized or wrongfully assumed or attributed items to "theism" that it doesn't support? If you have mentioned examples in other posts within this thread, just let me know and I will read back through to find them.

Some quick, top-of-mind examples of things that have been incorrectly attributed to "atheism" or "atheists":

• sexual hedonism/misconduct
• immorality
• lack of empathy
• similarities to Hitler/Stalin
• blind support of anything "science"

 

[Quintessence]

Thinking on this more, perhaps the meaning of "theism" or "theist" should be recognized to also be something incredibly simple. Like

• theism - belief in the existence of a one or more god(s)
• theist - someone holding belief in the existence of a one or more god(s)

Which has me interested to know what the cases are in which atheists have miscategorized or wrongfully assumed or attributed items to "theism" that it doesn't support?

In debates about atheism, it's the components of the definition that get argued over. Use of words like "belief in" or "existence" and so forth. The same arguments can be had about theism. Three elements come out in the definitions you describe above that are common sources of bad assumptions and attributions:

• "Believe in." Personally, I would not describe my acceptance of the gods as a "belief." Certainly not when many conflate "belief" with "faith" and then "faith" with "blind faith," specifically. There are subtexts assumed when someone says "belief" that may or may not be accurate.
• "Existence." A top wrongful assumption I see made about theism is to approach theistic mythos like it's a science textbook and perceive no other options. Put another way, literalism is assumed. For example, it's assumed that you believe Apollo is literally a humanoid entity driving a literal chariot hoisting the sun across the sky. Allegory and metaphor? Nah, those don't exist. And archetypalism? What's that?
• "God(s)." The first two items are problematic sources of assumptions, sure, but this one takes the cake. Any thread around here with the word "god" in it will have them. If we're really honest with ourselves, (a)theism says nothing about anything because of the ambiguity of this word alone. But that's not the assumptions people make, right?

 

[Jumi]

Some quick, top-of-mind examples of things that have been incorrectly attributed to "atheism" or "atheists":

• sexual hedonism/misconduct
• immorality
• lack of empathy
• similarities to Hitler/Stalin
• blind support of anything "science"

Yes some theists say things like that, but then there are some atheists who say things like (this is from RF) only what his street view of the three major religions(whatever those might be) ideas of god matter and I guessed that by extension us who aren't part of them or disagree with them shouldn't voice our views. Or to quote another atheist on RF, a theist can't be a skeptic, because he's sure that he'll find something (what he didn't want to define or discuss) that would eventually show that no theist could have a skeptical worldview.

 

[Augustus]

I would probably turn (as others in this thread have already alluded to) to the idea that atheism has only one, distinct meaning. Or at least it should have... the term "atheism" already has a meaning, and it is pretty cut-and-dry.

Isn't the reason for the discussions precisely the fact that it has more than one definition, and it isn't cut and dry?

 

[Quintessence]

Some quick, top-of-mind examples of things that have been incorrectly attributed to "atheism" or "atheists":

• sexual hedonism/misconduct
• immorality
• lack of empathy
• similarities to Hitler/Stalin
• blind support of anything "science"

You must have added this after I made my initial reply... haha. I can make a list like this too (though I do so somewhat begrudgingly as it's basically a nasty stereotype list):

• Things incorrectly attributed to "theism" and "theists" -
  • a particular god-concept (usually classical monotheism)
  • a particular religion (usually Protestant Christianity)
  • a particular set of morals (usually social conservatism or puritanism)
  • a desire to proselytize or convert
  • dogmatism or fundamentalism
  • irrationality or stupidity
  • mythological literalism (by extension, rejection of science)
  • acceptance of the supernatural
  • deniers of "reality" or wishful thinking

I could keep going. But I'll stop.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

In debates about atheism, it's the components of the definition that get argued over. Use of words like "belief in" or "existence" and so forth. The same arguments can be had about theism. Three elements come out in the definitions you describe above that are common sources of bad assumptions and attributions:

• "Believe in." Personally, I would not describe my acceptance of the gods as a "belief." Certainly not when many conflate "belief" with "faith" and then "faith" with "blind faith," specifically. There are subtexts assumed when someone says "belief" that may or may not be accurate.
• "Existence." A top wrongful assumption I see made about theism is to approach theistic mythos like it's a science textbook and perceive no other options. Put another way, literalism is assumed. For example, it's assumed that you believe Apollo is literally a humanoid entity driving a literal chariot hoisting the sun across the sky. Allegory and metaphor? Nah, those don't exist. And archetypalism? What's that?
• "God(s)." The first two items are problematic sources of assumptions, sure, but this one takes the cake. Any thread around here with the word "god" in it will have them. If we're really honest with ourselves, (a)theism says nothing about anything because of the ambiguity of this word alone. But that's not the assumptions people make, right?

With the generally accepted definition of "theism" being "belief in the existence of a god(s)," I would have to say that:

1. if your worldview/religion/whatever doesn't adhere to or fit with the generally accepted definition of the word "belief"
2. ...and your idea of deity/god/whatever doesn't adhere to or fit with the generally accepted definition of the word "existence"
3. ...and your deity/god/whatever doesn't adhere to or fit with the generally accepted definition or idea set brought forth with the invocation of the word "god"

... then, if I were you, I probably wouldn't go around calling myself a "theist," for it seems the word doesn't apply to you.

In the end, we can't all go around tailoring every single thing we say to the special edge-cases that may get annoyed or offended because they decide to use words differently than most everyone else who is using them, can we? If you have specific complaints with the accepted definitions of these terms... maybe take it up with the writers of dictionaries?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Isn't the reason for the discussions precisely the fact that it has more than one definition, and it isn't cut and dry?

I would say it only has "more than one definition" because people tend to want to use it in ways other than the officially accepted one. This causes all sorts of problems, obviously.

If we all want to use a term meaningfully, then there should be accepted and unaccepted defining characteristics of that term. And all disputes should probably be taken back to a source of authority on what the word should mean. i.e. a dictionary. At that point, ideas contradicting the dictionary on the meaning of a word should be understood as incorrect the first time they are pointed out, without contest.

It's like if I understood "hammer" to mean "any tool capable of being wielded with one hand", and you were talking about driving screws into wood using phillips-head versus flat-head screwdrivers. And I kept saying things like:

"Well, you can't use a phillips-head hammer with flat-head screws, but the other way around tends to be fine."

You would likely, at some point, say something like:

"Why the hell do you keep doing that?! Here's the definition of hammer, and the definition of screwdriver."

And at that point you set me to looking at the dictionary definitions of the words. Do you think it's fine if I ignore that information and continue to confuse matters by using the word "hammer" however I want to?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Yes some theists say things like that, but then there are some atheists who say things like (this is from RF) only what his street view of the three major religions(whatever those might be) ideas of god matter and I guessed that by extension us who aren't part of them or disagree with them shouldn't voice our views. Or to quote another atheist on RF, a theist can't be a skeptic, because he's sure that he'll find something (what he didn't want to define or discuss) that would eventually show that no theist could have a skeptical worldview.

I didn't say there weren't atheists who make the same errors in attributing more characteristics to the word "theist" than are warranted by that words definition. In fact, I have probably done this myself in the past, and have admitted as such in posts within this very thread!

Doesn't make it okay, and doesn't mean any of us should be fine with people continuing to ignore the consensus-accepted meaning of words so that they can twist their use to suit their own agendas.

 

[Quintessence]

Doesn't make it okay, and doesn't mean any of us should be fine with people continuing to ignore the consensus-accepted meaning of words so that they can twist their use to suit their own agendas.

I think that folks need to be careful with the accusation someone is twisting the accepted meaning of words to suit an alleged agenda. That smells more than a bit like ethnocentric bias to me. Usages of words in dictionaries are not the be-all and end-all of the English language, and their intent is to describe how words are used, not prescribe how words are to used. Generalist dictionaries will fail to accurately describe how words are used in all contexts, especially within specific disciplines.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You must have added this after I made my initial reply... haha. I can make a list like this too (though I do so somewhat begrudgingly as it's basically a nasty stereotype list):

• Things incorrectly attributed to "theism" and "theists" -
  • a particular god-concept (usually classical monotheism)
  • a particular religion (usually Protestant Christianity)
  • a particular set of morals (usually social conservatism or puritanism)
  • a desire to proselytize or convert
  • dogmatism or fundamentalism
  • irrationality or stupidity
  • mythological literalism (by extension, rejection of science)
  • acceptance of the supernatural
  • deniers of "reality" or wishful thinking

I could keep going. But I'll stop.

I can definitely see those being implied by many - myself included at times, yes.

• I don't know if I have ever assumed a "set of morals" outside of what one can usually assume most of humanity buys into... not sure how common that one is.
• I definitely know not everyone proselytizes - I reserve that one for talking about Christianity mostly.
• Dogma is the same for me... I tend to not even assume there are "sacred texts" or doctrine being followed unless we're talking one of the major religions for which this is established.
• I'm guilty of thinking the "irrationality or stupidity" bit to myself at times... but I make a point to never actually voice or write it - there is no point, and it only undermines one's actual arguments.
• I may have overstepped on the idea of "rejection of science", not sure.
• Acceptance of the supernatural is probably a big one I have a problem with attributing... mostly because of the whole "belief in god" idea. Which, again, is PART OF THE DEFINITION of the word "theism." There's not really a way around that one. I mean... you can say you call "nature" by the name "god", but this isn't what anyone using the accepted meaning of the word "god" is going to infer in your usage. Almost every single definition in the dictionary that I have seen uses terms that specifically convey a personage or supernatural entity/agency. For example (Note the words in red, which tend to anthropomorphize or personify "god" - that is, make it all about it god as a "being" out there somewhere):

• • the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
  • the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute
  • one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
  • a supreme being according to some particular conception:
  • the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
  • an image of a deity; an idol.
  • any deified person or object.
• And the last I definitely fall into quite often. Wishful thinking, absence from reality, etc.

In the end, I will vow to try and curtail my usage of the term "theist" for anything but what it means. Which I will STILL insist means that the person believes that a god exists, and 99% of the time, that "god" believed in is thought of as a being. I will attempt to adhere only to the definition as cited from the dictionary, and not add in any of the other stereotypical attributes, but instead call those out by name if the perceived need to use them arises. I obviously don't like when theists attribute more to the term "atheist" than it actually means, and so I need to respect that feeling that others might have about their own umbrella labels.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I think that folks need to be careful with the accusation someone is twisting the accepted meaning of words to suit an alleged agenda. That smells more than a bit like ethnocentric bias to me. Usages of words in dictionaries are not the be-all and end-all of the English language, and their intent is to describe how words are used, not prescribe how words are to used. Generalist dictionaries will fail to accurately describe how words are used in all contexts, especially within specific disciplines.

What on Earth is a "generalist dictionary?"

Are you saying that it is simply okay for people to use words however they see fit? That is certainly what it sounds like you are getting at.

If you don't like how I phrased that question above, please see the part where you accused me of accusing anyone else of twisting the accepted meaning of words to suit an agenda. Mine was a mere statement that those types of things do happen (which can scarcely be denied) and that it is not okay.

In the end... where do you go if you do not know the meaning of a word? Should the dictionary not be considered a valid source for acquiring information on words? What, do you feel, is a better source?

 

[Quintessence]

What on Earth is a "generalist dictionary?"

Exactly what it sounds like - general use dictionaries that reflect more common, non-specialist, everyday usages of words. There are, for example, botanical dictionaries that contain numerous scientific and technical usages of words in the field of plant science. See - Specialized dictionary - Wikipedia

Sorry if the term threw you. I added the qualifier to distinguish from specialized or technical dictionaries. In any event, not that important, because...

In the end... where do you go if you do not know the meaning of a word? Should the dictionary not be considered a valid source for acquiring information on words? What, do you feel, is a better source?

For highly complex terms and ideas like "theism" and "god?" A library. At a minimum, an encyclopedia. Ideally, every single reference material at a well-stocked university library.

Acceptance of the supernatural is probably a big one I have a problem with attributing... mostly because of the whole "belief in god" idea. Which, again, is PART OF THE DEFINITION of the word "theism." There's not really a way around that one.

Yeah, I listed that one because it's a major assumption people make that isn't necessarily the case. Gods need not be supernatural, but it's assumed that they have to be. It's one of the lovely consequences of living in Western culture where everyone assumes god must be God.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Exactly what it sounds like - general use dictionaries that reflect more common, non-specialist, everyday usages of words. There are, for example, botanical dictionaries that contain numerous scientific and technical usages of words in the field of plant science. See - Specialized dictionary - Wikipedia

Sorry if the term threw you. I added the qualifier to distinguish from specialized or technical dictionaries. In any event, not that important, because...

For highly complex terms and ideas like "theism" and "god?" A library. At a minimum, an encyclopedia. Ideally, every single reference material at a well-stocked university library.

My only point to follow this, then, is that it should be expected that communications are going to break down, and that there are going to be problems like the ones we are talking about if there are multiple accepted meanings to words, and everyone who wants to use them has to go to a library or a college-campus first to be sure they are using the term correctly. Does that, at least, make sense?

Yeah, I listed that one because it's a major assumption people make that isn't necessarily the case. Gods need not be supernatural, but it's assumed that they have to be. It's one of the lovely consequences of living in Western culture where everyone assumes god must be God

I suppose I have to accept that a god needn't be supernatural after thinking more on it. If even an anthropomorphic god existed,and presented itself in this world to all of us, I would probably not think of this being as "supernatural," but rather my view of what was naturally occurring would simply expand.

(and forget about the idea of gods, plural).

One might be tempted to forget that I wish I could forget about the idea of ALL "gods."