![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Returned the premble containing the reference to ancient Greek which had been edited out with little explanation. I've added an explanation with the well known example of Socrates alleged atheism.
I’ve broken up the initial statement separating the primary and secondary meanings in order to bring out the two distinct meanings of the word. Leaving them together only adds to the confusion. The primary meaning and it’s history logically belong together, the secondary, derived and possibly loaded term should come after.
I’ve broken up the section including Henotheism & Kathenotheism as these refer only to practices concerning the worship of polytheistic deities and placed them later on in the section. I’ve also included further academic distinctions within polytheism & monotheism respectively.
I've also changed the preamble to. Theism (from Greek Θεϊσμός, theismos is used in two meanings: As the previous one presumed to make theism derive from theos, which it does not and also linked theos = God to an exlusivley monotheistic definiton of the word which the etymology wont allow.
To whomever did the original definition, I changed some of the terminology to some more standard theological terms and added the more general initial definition. Since there was also no talk section, I added this one.
By definition, wouldn't monotheism, pantheism, and panentheism all be considered different sorts of theism? How can a monotheistic religion be only "typically" theistic? If a few adherents claim to be atheistic, then it would seem that those adherents are therefore neither monotheistic nor theistic as a consequence. -- Wesley
Panentheism definitely is a form of theism! In fact, it is a specific type of monotheism. Pantheism (note the subtle spelling difference) is debateable. Some forms of pantheism are indistinguishable from atheism, while others are in effect a form of monotheism. If we get technical, even polytheism can be thought of as a form of theism; however, in everyday English useage the word "theism" refers to a belief in only one God, while polytheism is thought of as very distinct from this! RK
More specifically, in everday English usage, "theism" refers to a belief not merely one god, but a creator God who is active in the Universe. I think the article should focus on this usage of theism, but should note the more general technical usage as well. - Craig
More thoughts. Regarding God and the world: God is the world (Pantheism), the world is completely seperated from God (Deism is one example, but I suspect that it's possible to view God as completely transcendent yet influencing the world), God is partly the world, and the world is wholly contained in God (Panentheism) and the world is partly God and God is partly the world (???). Regarding the nature of God: personal God vs. nature/&c type non-personal God (see Spinoza or Einstein's theology for good examples of the latter.) - Craig
I don't think so. The traditional Jewish and Christian view has been that it is a sin to claim that God is completely transcendent. In fact, most Christians teach that in some aspects, God is the exact opposite of transcendent; God in one form - Jesus - is completly immanent. Any claim to the contrary has traditionally been the biggest theological sin that a Christian could commit. If Jesus is not literally God made immanent in some way, then most of Christianity throughout history is false. As for the Jewish view, rabbinic literature sometimes describe God as immanent, and other times as transcendent. This would seem to be a paradox: If God is fully transcendent, than God cannot be known in any way; if God is fully immanent, then God has no transcendence, and is not greater than His own creation. However, classical Jewish texts do not actually say that God is fully one or the other; rather, they imply that God has a di-polar nature. God has both transcendent and immanent characteristics, and one or the other is more apparent depending on the situation involved, or the question asked. RK
There are evidently two really different definitions for theism: one including deism and pantheism in theism, the other one differentiating between theism, deism and pantheism. I changed the beginning to make this clear. Nothing against a general definition, but the other one is valid as well, and to mix them will confuse things more than clear them up. -- 80.219.20.69 21:52, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC) -- Irmgard 21:53, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I just added a table that was being worked out in Talk:Agnosticism/Archive_2#Table_Suggestion, but which seemed increasingly unlikely to be used in that article since it's not really about agnosticism specifically. So rather than let it go to waste, I've moved it here since it seems to me to fit in better here - this article feels like more of an overview of related concepts. There's also an earlier variaton of the table at Talk:Agnosticism/Archive_2#Another_approach_to_that_logic_section.
The table seems a little confused to me. "Empirical Agnostic" - if a person believes that the existence/non-existence of God can be proven, they aren't an agnostic. As far as I can tell, the first column applies to theists, the second to agnostics, and the third to atheists. "Empirical Theist" would be a better label for that category. "Apatheist" - according to the person who coined the term [1], it isn't synonymous with "theist", "atheist" or "agnostic" and shouldn't be used in place of either of those three terms. Given how broad it is, it could be applied to the entire right hand column and bottom row. "Non-religious" and "non-practicing" - far too vague to assign to just one point each. "Apatheistic Agnostic" would be a better term for the former.
My interpretation of the definitions provided:
|
Believes that God's existence can be proven |
Does not believe that God's existence can be proven or disproven |
Believes that existence in God can be disproven |
Does not care if God's existence can be proven or disproven |
Has faith in the existence of God |
Theist |
Agnostic Theist |
Atheistic Theist (contradictory) |
Apatheistic Theist |
Unsure of the existence or non-existence of God |
Agnostic Theist |
Agnostic |
Weak Atheist |
Apatheistic Atheist |
Has no faith in God because of personal conviction or disillusionment |
Atheistic Theist (contradictory) |
Agnostic Atheist |
Strong Atheist |
Apatheistic Atheist |
Has no faith in god because of disinterest in religion or God |
Apatheistic Atheistic Theist (contradictory) |
Apatheistic Agnostic |
Apatheistic Atheist |
Apatheist |
I think that the last two rows are poorly labelled; a person who lacks belief in God can't be labelled a theist. - Sean Curtin 03:10, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Believes at least one god exists | Believes no gods exist | Does not have any beliefs regarding the existence of gods | Believes gods are irrelevant | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Believes proof/disproof is possible and is known | theist | strong atheist | weak atheist | apatheist |
Believes proof/disproof may be possible but is not currently known | weak agnostic theist | weak agnostic strong atheist | weak agnostic weak atheist | weak agnostic apatheist |
Believes proof/disproof is not possible | strong agnostic theist | strong agnostic strong atheist | strong agnostic weak atheist | strong agnostic apatheist |
Believes proof/disproof is irrelevant | Theist apatheist | Strong atheist apatheist | Weak atheist apatheist | Apatheist (possible weak atheist) |
Looks great. I've replaced the main article table with this one now, the axes seem much clearer this way. :) Bryan 19:46, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Believes at least one god exists ( Theists) |
Believes no gods exist ( Strong atheists) |
Does not believe that God exists or that he does not ( Agnostics) |
Believes gods are irrelevant | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Believes proof/disproof is possible and is known | theists | strong atheists | conspiracy theorists who believe someone is holding the truth but is not disclosing it | apathetic
theists / apathetic strong atheists |
Believes proof/disproof may be possible but is not currently known | Weak agnostic theists | strong atheists |
weak agnostics (who are often also weak atheists) |
weak agnostic apatheists |
Believes proof/disproof is not possible | Strong agnostic theists | strong atheists |
strong agnostics (who are often also weak atheist) |
strong agnostics apatheists |
Believes proof/disproof is irrelevant | Theists | Strong atheists | Agnostics | Apatheists |
Note that those who think gods are irrelevant but still believe the proof exists can't really be labelled apatheists.
Jules LT 22:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
How could one be a strong atheist under this circumstance? Isn't that illogical? I'm ok w it saying that if it's true (is it? I don't know any "strong" atheists to ask) but there will need to be some mention of the curious nature of anyone possessing a degree of certainty in an area where they admit they have little evidence. I would say the same about theism, but there aren’t strong/weak categories for theists (in common usage anyways, I would say these are probably valid concepts, even if there are not terms for them, many theists are IMO "weak" theists). A similar yet lesser question is inspired by a "strong" theist/atheist who "believes proof/disproof is not possible". These positions would all seem to be hinged upon inductive reasoning, and not a particularly sound usage of it either. Sam [ Spade] 19:51, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I suspect that I am not alone in my using the term Theism in reference to atheism, alone, and esentially for no other purpose. Theism is generally seen as merely a componenent of a given religion. I think its interesting to consider those who are theistic (focused on a personal God) and yet are not religious (ascribing to any set religion or its tenants intentionally). The problem is the are anonymous by their very essense, and thus not very verifiable. Sam [ Spade] 23:28, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This article is nothing more than a list. It has virtually no substance. Banno 04:27, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
The following table is an attempt to categorize some of these positions systematically relative to each other:
Believes at least one god exists | Believes no gods exist | Does not have any beliefs regarding the existence of gods | Believes gods are irrelevant | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Believes proof/disproof is possible and is known | theist | strong atheist | weak atheist | apatheist |
Believes proof/disproof may be possible but is not currently known | weak agnostic theist | weak agnostic strong atheist | weak agnostic weak atheist | weak agnostic apatheist |
Believes proof/disproof is not possible | strong agnostic theist | strong agnostic strong atheist | strong agnostic weak atheist | strong agnostic apatheist |
Believes proof/disproof is irrelevant | Theist apatheist | Strong atheist apatheist | Weak atheist apatheist | Apatheist (possible weak atheist) |
Some of the positions on this table may seem contradictory, or at least unfounded, but where theism is concerned a great many people rely on faith and thus can believe strongly in things which they do not believe have been or can be rigorously proven.
Deity is no longer neutral, Bryan. Have a look at the deity article. Were finially starting to make some progress w the religious articles, and distinctions are being made. Deity has decided to exclude monotheism. If you don't agree, hash it out on talk:deity. Until then, we need to be consistant. Sam [ Spade] 01:21, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Returned the premble containing the reference to ancient Greek which had been edited out with little explanation. I've added an explanation with the well known example of Socrates alleged atheism.
I’ve broken up the initial statement separating the primary and secondary meanings in order to bring out the two distinct meanings of the word. Leaving them together only adds to the confusion. The primary meaning and it’s history logically belong together, the secondary, derived and possibly loaded term should come after.
I’ve broken up the section including Henotheism & Kathenotheism as these refer only to practices concerning the worship of polytheistic deities and placed them later on in the section. I’ve also included further academic distinctions within polytheism & monotheism respectively.
I've also changed the preamble to. Theism (from Greek Θεϊσμός, theismos is used in two meanings: As the previous one presumed to make theism derive from theos, which it does not and also linked theos = God to an exlusivley monotheistic definiton of the word which the etymology wont allow.
To whomever did the original definition, I changed some of the terminology to some more standard theological terms and added the more general initial definition. Since there was also no talk section, I added this one.
By definition, wouldn't monotheism, pantheism, and panentheism all be considered different sorts of theism? How can a monotheistic religion be only "typically" theistic? If a few adherents claim to be atheistic, then it would seem that those adherents are therefore neither monotheistic nor theistic as a consequence. -- Wesley
Panentheism definitely is a form of theism! In fact, it is a specific type of monotheism. Pantheism (note the subtle spelling difference) is debateable. Some forms of pantheism are indistinguishable from atheism, while others are in effect a form of monotheism. If we get technical, even polytheism can be thought of as a form of theism; however, in everyday English useage the word "theism" refers to a belief in only one God, while polytheism is thought of as very distinct from this! RK
More specifically, in everday English usage, "theism" refers to a belief not merely one god, but a creator God who is active in the Universe. I think the article should focus on this usage of theism, but should note the more general technical usage as well. - Craig
More thoughts. Regarding God and the world: God is the world (Pantheism), the world is completely seperated from God (Deism is one example, but I suspect that it's possible to view God as completely transcendent yet influencing the world), God is partly the world, and the world is wholly contained in God (Panentheism) and the world is partly God and God is partly the world (???). Regarding the nature of God: personal God vs. nature/&c type non-personal God (see Spinoza or Einstein's theology for good examples of the latter.) - Craig
I don't think so. The traditional Jewish and Christian view has been that it is a sin to claim that God is completely transcendent. In fact, most Christians teach that in some aspects, God is the exact opposite of transcendent; God in one form - Jesus - is completly immanent. Any claim to the contrary has traditionally been the biggest theological sin that a Christian could commit. If Jesus is not literally God made immanent in some way, then most of Christianity throughout history is false. As for the Jewish view, rabbinic literature sometimes describe God as immanent, and other times as transcendent. This would seem to be a paradox: If God is fully transcendent, than God cannot be known in any way; if God is fully immanent, then God has no transcendence, and is not greater than His own creation. However, classical Jewish texts do not actually say that God is fully one or the other; rather, they imply that God has a di-polar nature. God has both transcendent and immanent characteristics, and one or the other is more apparent depending on the situation involved, or the question asked. RK
There are evidently two really different definitions for theism: one including deism and pantheism in theism, the other one differentiating between theism, deism and pantheism. I changed the beginning to make this clear. Nothing against a general definition, but the other one is valid as well, and to mix them will confuse things more than clear them up. -- 80.219.20.69 21:52, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC) -- Irmgard 21:53, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I just added a table that was being worked out in Talk:Agnosticism/Archive_2#Table_Suggestion, but which seemed increasingly unlikely to be used in that article since it's not really about agnosticism specifically. So rather than let it go to waste, I've moved it here since it seems to me to fit in better here - this article feels like more of an overview of related concepts. There's also an earlier variaton of the table at Talk:Agnosticism/Archive_2#Another_approach_to_that_logic_section.
The table seems a little confused to me. "Empirical Agnostic" - if a person believes that the existence/non-existence of God can be proven, they aren't an agnostic. As far as I can tell, the first column applies to theists, the second to agnostics, and the third to atheists. "Empirical Theist" would be a better label for that category. "Apatheist" - according to the person who coined the term [1], it isn't synonymous with "theist", "atheist" or "agnostic" and shouldn't be used in place of either of those three terms. Given how broad it is, it could be applied to the entire right hand column and bottom row. "Non-religious" and "non-practicing" - far too vague to assign to just one point each. "Apatheistic Agnostic" would be a better term for the former.
My interpretation of the definitions provided:
|
Believes that God's existence can be proven |
Does not believe that God's existence can be proven or disproven |
Believes that existence in God can be disproven |
Does not care if God's existence can be proven or disproven |
Has faith in the existence of God |
Theist |
Agnostic Theist |
Atheistic Theist (contradictory) |
Apatheistic Theist |
Unsure of the existence or non-existence of God |
Agnostic Theist |
Agnostic |
Weak Atheist |
Apatheistic Atheist |
Has no faith in God because of personal conviction or disillusionment |
Atheistic Theist (contradictory) |
Agnostic Atheist |
Strong Atheist |
Apatheistic Atheist |
Has no faith in god because of disinterest in religion or God |
Apatheistic Atheistic Theist (contradictory) |
Apatheistic Agnostic |
Apatheistic Atheist |
Apatheist |
I think that the last two rows are poorly labelled; a person who lacks belief in God can't be labelled a theist. - Sean Curtin 03:10, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Believes at least one god exists | Believes no gods exist | Does not have any beliefs regarding the existence of gods | Believes gods are irrelevant | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Believes proof/disproof is possible and is known | theist | strong atheist | weak atheist | apatheist |
Believes proof/disproof may be possible but is not currently known | weak agnostic theist | weak agnostic strong atheist | weak agnostic weak atheist | weak agnostic apatheist |
Believes proof/disproof is not possible | strong agnostic theist | strong agnostic strong atheist | strong agnostic weak atheist | strong agnostic apatheist |
Believes proof/disproof is irrelevant | Theist apatheist | Strong atheist apatheist | Weak atheist apatheist | Apatheist (possible weak atheist) |
Looks great. I've replaced the main article table with this one now, the axes seem much clearer this way. :) Bryan 19:46, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Believes at least one god exists ( Theists) |
Believes no gods exist ( Strong atheists) |
Does not believe that God exists or that he does not ( Agnostics) |
Believes gods are irrelevant | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Believes proof/disproof is possible and is known | theists | strong atheists | conspiracy theorists who believe someone is holding the truth but is not disclosing it | apathetic
theists / apathetic strong atheists |
Believes proof/disproof may be possible but is not currently known | Weak agnostic theists | strong atheists |
weak agnostics (who are often also weak atheists) |
weak agnostic apatheists |
Believes proof/disproof is not possible | Strong agnostic theists | strong atheists |
strong agnostics (who are often also weak atheist) |
strong agnostics apatheists |
Believes proof/disproof is irrelevant | Theists | Strong atheists | Agnostics | Apatheists |
Note that those who think gods are irrelevant but still believe the proof exists can't really be labelled apatheists.
Jules LT 22:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
How could one be a strong atheist under this circumstance? Isn't that illogical? I'm ok w it saying that if it's true (is it? I don't know any "strong" atheists to ask) but there will need to be some mention of the curious nature of anyone possessing a degree of certainty in an area where they admit they have little evidence. I would say the same about theism, but there aren’t strong/weak categories for theists (in common usage anyways, I would say these are probably valid concepts, even if there are not terms for them, many theists are IMO "weak" theists). A similar yet lesser question is inspired by a "strong" theist/atheist who "believes proof/disproof is not possible". These positions would all seem to be hinged upon inductive reasoning, and not a particularly sound usage of it either. Sam [ Spade] 19:51, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I suspect that I am not alone in my using the term Theism in reference to atheism, alone, and esentially for no other purpose. Theism is generally seen as merely a componenent of a given religion. I think its interesting to consider those who are theistic (focused on a personal God) and yet are not religious (ascribing to any set religion or its tenants intentionally). The problem is the are anonymous by their very essense, and thus not very verifiable. Sam [ Spade] 23:28, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This article is nothing more than a list. It has virtually no substance. Banno 04:27, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
The following table is an attempt to categorize some of these positions systematically relative to each other:
Believes at least one god exists | Believes no gods exist | Does not have any beliefs regarding the existence of gods | Believes gods are irrelevant | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Believes proof/disproof is possible and is known | theist | strong atheist | weak atheist | apatheist |
Believes proof/disproof may be possible but is not currently known | weak agnostic theist | weak agnostic strong atheist | weak agnostic weak atheist | weak agnostic apatheist |
Believes proof/disproof is not possible | strong agnostic theist | strong agnostic strong atheist | strong agnostic weak atheist | strong agnostic apatheist |
Believes proof/disproof is irrelevant | Theist apatheist | Strong atheist apatheist | Weak atheist apatheist | Apatheist (possible weak atheist) |
Some of the positions on this table may seem contradictory, or at least unfounded, but where theism is concerned a great many people rely on faith and thus can believe strongly in things which they do not believe have been or can be rigorously proven.
Deity is no longer neutral, Bryan. Have a look at the deity article. Were finially starting to make some progress w the religious articles, and distinctions are being made. Deity has decided to exclude monotheism. If you don't agree, hash it out on talk:deity. Until then, we need to be consistant. Sam [ Spade] 01:21, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)