What do people think "theist" means?

[Quagmire]

Pfft. Cop-out answer. That's like defining biologists as someone who studies biology. Doesn't tell us what biology is. Come on, now!



Wait... wouldn't that be aatheist? Non-atheist? Still kind of leads us to a circular definition, though, doesn't it? I'm confused.

No, and AAthiest is someone who believes in a higher power, and likes sitting in folding chairs for some reason.

 

[Wilson Wilson]

Although there is all sorts of arguing and controversy about what "atheist" means, a similar fervor is not had over what "theist" means. Similar problems plague both of these imprecise terms, yet only one of these two has been argued about on RF to the point of nausea. Thus, I think it's high time to start arguing about what "theism" means.

If someone told me they are a theist I would be interested to listen. People have only ever told me what theist religion they belong. I would assume they had some belief in a god or gods just not what god or gods.

 

[Nakosis]

Although there is all sorts of arguing and controversy about what "atheist" means, a similar fervor is not had over what "theist" means. Similar problems plague both of these imprecise terms, yet only one of these two has been argued about on RF to the point of nausea. While I don't find this surprising, I do find it rather odd. Thus, I think it's high time to start arguing about what "theism" means. So what are you waiting for? And if I don't see a lot of senseless arguing all going in circles and treading nowhere, I will be extremely disappointed in all of you! If you all can manage years of this with "atheism" you can do it for "theism" dag gummit!

It's the absence of a belief that the universe exists without deities.

 

[Quintessence]

No matter what they claim to "know" about their gods, they are still strongly held beliefs.

In the sense that all human knowledge is ultimately a "strongly held belief," then sure. But I think it's worth taking a step back and look at the common colloquialisms and connotations. Folks don't read "I believe" statements the same as "I know" statements. And, on the whole, if a particular theist actively worships their gods, it seems very strange to me to suppose that they do anything other than "know" their gods are a thing. I mean... who would spend all that time and effort worshiping a "maybe?" I sure wouldn't.

And I agree. It's not a very good definition of deities. Tough to define. How would you define the term?

I tend to default to "that which a person or culture deifies" or "that which a person or culture deems worthy of worship" (with "worship" being understood as worth-whip... or worth honoring, valuing, celebrating, calling sacred, etc.). It's the only culturally-neutral way of defining it I've figured out. All other attributes depend on what is being deified.

"Knows" implies a justified true belief (or, colloquially, a belief held with a high degree of certainty), so "believe" covers both.

That is certainly true, but in the context of everyday conversation, do we really think that people consider "knowledge" to be understood as "justified true belief" or have any clue what that means? It seems more often to see people go "oh, belief... you mean blind faith?" I suppose I find that annoying. And by using the word "knowledge" it avoids that rubbish.

 

[Nakosis]

That is certainly true, but in the context of everyday conversation, do we really think that people consider "knowledge" to be understood as "justified true belief" or have any clue what that means? It seems more often to see people go "oh, belief... you mean blind faith?" I suppose I find that annoying. And by using the word "knowledge" it avoids that rubbish.

I just look at it in degrees of certainty. There's no absolute certainty. If I have a great deal of certainty, I'd classify it as knowledge. Only a little certainty then belief. So it depends more on my certainty than the fact of anything.

 

[Quintessence]

Theist: Somebody who finds value in one or more gods?

That's actually a very interesting way of putting it. The more I've pontificated upon and examined the notion of religions - and whether someone comes to a theistic or atheistic variety thereof - it seems to centrally be about values and then the meaningfulness that is derived from said values. We can definitely say a theist finds value or meaning in some particular theological paradigm. But would it be accurate to say that atheists do not see this value?

Of course, we can always move beyond seeing atheism as a mere antithesis of theism. Which, really, would probably be for the best given the heterogeneity of theism, as you remark later on.

Theist is a word used to create the illusion that people of different religions all have something in common. When there's an atheist in the room, they're all theists - once the atheist leaves, they're all suddenly just christians, muslims, etc. again.

I'd wager to the philosophical perennialists, this illusion of all religions having common ground or being "the same" or "one" is quite desirable within their agenda.

Though I have to say, in the interfaith groups I've participated in, I wouldn't quite characterize the dynamic that emerges when an atheist in the room is theists being all lumped together. As a polytheist/pantheist/animist whose gods are things like the sun, I tend to find more peerage within the atheists then the classical monotheists.

 

[Quintessence]

It's the absence of a belief that the universe exists without deities.

Or, in the case of those with pantheistic leanings in their theology, the absence of a belief that a universe can exist without the universe.

 

[Quintessence]

I just look at it in degrees of certainty. There's no absolute certainty. If I have a great deal of certainty, I'd classify it as knowledge. Only a little certainty then belief. So it depends more on my certainty than the fact of anything.

That's how I tend to do it too. And then, inevitably, you'll get someone coming along "but you don't know that's the case, blah, blah."

Yup. Because they're totally in a position to tell me what went on in my private Summer Solstice ritual. Apparently, they were there, hiding in the bushes of my inner otherworldly grove like some sort of creepy stalker.

 

[Bunyip]

Theism generally refers to a belief in a personal interventionist God, as opposed to the deist or pantheist conception of a God that does not interact with us.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Although there is all sorts of arguing and controversy about what "atheist" means, a similar fervor is not had over what "theist" means.

This is only true if one choose to ignore centuries of religious warfare, schism, persecution, crusades, pogroms, The Protestant Reformation, The Counter-Reformation, the Inquisition, and a horde of other items relating to the ongoing debate over the "correct" definition of "theist."

Similar problems plague both of these imprecise terms

Actually, the terms are quite cut and dried. A theist is one who is convinced that a god (or gods) exist, and an atheist is one who remains unconvinced. Easy peasy.

If you're going to assert that the terms are imprecise, perhaps you'd care to illustrate your argument with some examples so that the rest of the forum can be clear about exactly what you're trying to say? Thanks in advance.

yet only one of these two has been argued about on RF to the point of nausea.

Really? Which one?

While I don't find this surprising, I do find it rather odd. Thus, I think it's high time to start arguing about what "theism" means.

Again, I'll point to the evidence as cited above and maintain that there is a lively, ongoing debate over what "theism" means.

...

The only thing we've seen change in recent years is the gradual realization that religious beliefs in no way deserve the entitled, privileged position that they've enjoyed down through the ages.

Nothing that makes such outrageously unsubstantiated claims does.

 

[Sees]

Theism generally refers to a belief in a personal interventionist God, as opposed to the deist or pantheist conception of a God that does not interact with us.

Pantheistic conceptions most definitely interact as much or more so. Non-interaction is actually impossible It's just not in the mythology at face-value type of way. I understand what you were getting at though.

 

[Bunyip]

Pantheistic conceptions most definitely interact as much or more so. Non-interaction is actually impossible It's just not in the mythology at face-value type of way. I understand what you were getting at though.

No offence, but you are mistaken - not all forms of pantheism posit an interventionist God. I do understand that some do. As I understand it many forms of pantheism posit a God that does not intervene.
There are of course a lot of grey areas when defining people's beliefs - which is why a few polite questions will achieve far more than arguing about definitions.

 

[Laika]

Although there is all sorts of arguing and controversy about what "atheist" means, a similar fervor is not had over what "theist" means. Similar problems plague both of these imprecise terms, yet only one of these two has been argued about on RF to the point of nausea. While I don't find this surprising, I do find it rather odd. Thus, I think it's high time to start arguing about what "theism" means. So what are you waiting for? And if I don't see a lot of senseless arguing all going in circles and treading nowhere, I will be extremely disappointed in all of you! If you all can manage years of this with "atheism" you can do it for "theism" dag gummit!




(Quintessence may or may not be doing much participating in this thread, which is mostly a joke)

[insert a pedantic yet provoative reference about how theism is biased towards Abrahamic Religions and how the definition is a form of cultural imperialism to exclude "primitive" religions as a sinister Eurocentric conspiracy to waste everybody's time; then proceeding to include examples which are culturally insensitive, sensationalist and involve gross mis-charactersation of "savage" belief systems, concluding with the phrase] and that's why Aztec human sacrifice is covered by the First Amendment.

 

[David M]

A theist is someone who believes in the existence of a theistic god or gods i.e. those that intervene in the world. Includes the 2 most common categories of human religion monotheism and polytheism (of course some theistic religions may have other elements such as animism which is present in modern Shinto alongside the Kami who do actively intervene in human affairs).

Pantheism is an area with some overlap with theism, some religions have interventionist deities and some don't.

 

[David M]

I'd agree if that word "believes" wasn't in there. Why not a word like "knows?" Or "accepts?" Or "feels?" What if it isn't particularly a "belief" to them?

Belief covers both cases, someone can believe but not know but if they know then they do also believe.

 

[Quintessence]

Belief covers both cases, someone can believe but not know but if they know then they do also believe.

Do they, though?

It feels very silly and improper to say I "believe in" the sun (which is one of my gods).

 

[David M]

Do they, though?

It feels very silly and improper to say I "believe in" the sun (which is one of my gods).

If you know that the sun exists and is one of your Gods it would seem silly to say that you have no belief that the sun exists and is one of your gods.

 

[Augustus]

That's actually a very interesting way of putting it. The more I've pontificated upon and examined the notion of religions - and whether someone comes to a theistic or atheistic variety thereof - it seems to centrally be about values and then the meaningfulness that is derived from said values. We can definitely say a theist finds value or meaning in some particular theological paradigm. But would it be accurate to say that atheists do not see this value?

It comes back to whether or not the key aspect is belief, which is a bias towards some forms of contemporary monotheism, and is not the traditional criterion of judgement, arguably even within Abrahamic monotheism never mind most other 'religions'.

If an atheist finds value in 'one or more gods', then is it right to call them an atheist. Is there any practical difference between being an atheist Christian, an agnostic Christian or a theistic Christian?

If you find value in the Norse Gods, does it matter if you 'believe in their existence'?

Religion/Mythology is about meaning, not objective 'existence', and defining terms in regard to existence is, ultimately, the acceptance of cultural hegemony.

I suppose the best way to subvert this cultural hegemony is not to give a sh!t about the definition of theism, for it is a silly word. Freeeedooooomm!

insert a pedantic yet provoative reference about how theism is biased towards Abrahamic Religions

Done

But don't forget referring to Abrahamic religions without suitably smug "quotes" is also Christian cultural hegemony at its most sinister, you proto-fascist chauvinistic tyrant!

[I'll get my coat...]




Anyway, why isn't there a thread on militant agnosticism yet?

 

[Laika]

Anyway, why isn't there a thread on militant agnosticism yet?

Because RF is run by a secret government conspiracy to keep us agnostic about the existence of militant agnostics. Then when they take away our certianties, and destroy our way of life, we won't be sure it ever happened.

And Dick Chency rang. he wants his known unknowns back. they're becoming a little conspicious.

 

[Ouroboros]

Anyway, why isn't there a thread on militant agnosticism yet?

There should be.

Btw, they just started a new party. The Extreme Middle Party of Militant Agnostics. It's an offshoot of the Fundamentalist Center Party, combined with ideas from the Fringe Moderates. Their slogan is "We don't know!" It's working really great, especially in the very young crowd, under 3.