Broadening Our Thinking About Theism

[Quintessence]

To introduce the topic, as spoken with words more eloquent than my own:

For quite a few centuries now, a particular set of ideas has dominated talk about gods in the Western world. In that branch of philosophy known as philosophy of religion, these ideas have been gathered up under the label of "classical theism," which may be defined as the belief in only one god, the unique, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent creator of the universe.

...

This term "classical theism" misleads, since other theisms – beliefs in the existence of one or more gods – have at least as good a claim to classical status. A better term might be classical monotheism, and this latter phrase will be used here. Still, the habit of using the word "theism" as though it inevitably implies monotheism points up a very widely held and rarely questioned broader frame of mind.

A broader and more complete understanding of theism must get outside this frame, because classical monotheism is by no means the only possible or reasonable way of believing in gods, nor the only one believed in by people today, even in Western industrial societies. Nor is it the only view with something to contribute to conversations about religion and spirituality. ... Yet among theologians and philosophers, precisely those people who might have been expected to find other possibilities worth discussing, the grip of classical monotheism has been all but total.

Greer, J.M. 2005. A World Full of Gods: An Inquiry into Polytheism. ADF Publishing, Tuscon, AZ. Pg 1-2.

This, I think is a problem. It's a problem that doesn't often get direct attention or discussion because classical monotheism doesn't just grip the minds of theologians and philosophers, but your average Western citizen as well. Spend enough time on RF and you'll observe that threads and conversations almost always center around a god-concept that fall under the classical monotheism header. The criticisms and problems pointed out by the non-theists often fail to apply to other theisms, but these are scarcely given much notice. Instead, we narrow down our thinking to a subset of theism rather than consider theism in its full diversity.

I challenge us to broaden our thinking about theism. Let's get these ideas out on the table for consideration. In my time here, my theism has faced little to no significant challengers. Part of this is because I personally have a habit of avoiding arguments, but much of it, I think, is because anything that falls outside of classical monotheism is deemed irrelevant, not applicable, off-topic, or otherwise brushed aside. Let's consider all the theisms: animism, autotheism, deism, duotheism, henotheism, monolatry, pantheism, panentheism, polytheism... am I missing some? I probably am. There are so many, many understandings of god(s) in the world's religions. Let us remember this!

(Yes, I have every intention of starting some topics around RF in the spirit of this thread; I encourage others to do the same!)

 

[StarryNightshade]

To introduce the topic, as spoken with words more eloquent than my own:


Greer, J.M. 2005. A World Full of Gods: An Inquiry into Polytheism. ADF Publishing, Tuscon, AZ. Pg 1-2.

This, I think is a problem. It's a problem that doesn't often get direct attention or discussion because classical monotheism doesn't just grip the minds of theologians and philosophers, but your average Western citizen as well. Spend enough time on RF and you'll observe that threads and conversations almost always center around a god-concept that fall under the classical monotheism header. The criticisms and problems pointed out by the non-theists often fail to apply to other theisms, but these are scarcely given much notice. Instead, we narrow down our thinking to a subset of theism rather than consider theism in its full diversity.

I challenge us to broaden our thinking about theism. Let's get these ideas out on the table for consideration. In my time here, my theism has faced little to no significant challengers. Part of this is because I personally have a habit of avoiding arguments, but much of it, I think, is because anything that falls outside of classical monotheism is deemed irrelevant, not applicable, off-topic, or otherwise brushed aside. Let's consider all the theisms: animism, autotheism, deism, duotheism, henotheism, monolatry, pantheism, panentheism, polytheism... am I missing some? I probably am. There are so many, many understandings of god(s) in the world's religions. Let us remember this!

(Yes, I have every intention of starting some topics around RF in the spirit of this thread; I encourage others to do the same!)

:clap

A thousand times this! It saddens me that on a religious education forum, many don't want to take the time to see the diversity within theism. It's either:

a.) The abrahamic concept

or

b.) Not important

Take me for example: I believe myself to be a Transtheist. Not classical monotheism in any way. I believe that God is impersonal, but we as humans have given it many faces (the various pantheons throughout history) and philosophies (the various world religions). I believe religious rituals are our way of expression to try and know the nature of God's being.

 

[Bunny]

Yay for this topic! I really like the idea of making it a point to start emphasizing the different types of theism(s) more often. There are lots of us out there who believe in...something...but aren't classical monotheists, and, like y'all said, it often gets pushed aside.

*Says the rabbit with the panentheistic/soft polytheistic thing going on*

 

[Me Myself]

Agreed.

Theism means believe in one or more deities and there are many ways for this.

Another sample of christianocentrism this would be IMHO.

 

[Quintessence]

I think it would be really interesting to get a sense of what people's god-concepts really are across various countries. Surveys on religion don't tend to go into that much detail, though perhaps there are some academic studies out there that do. Anyone got university peer-reviewed article access?

 

[vtunie]

A god is a secondary instrument of religion.

One can have faith without it being driven by worship, or explained by creation myths (not even the one called the standard cosmological model), or stroked by an unnecessary and anthropocentric humanism, secular or otherwise.

Evil and suffering coact to produce faith, which is just an expression of ethics and a desire for responsibility.

As for that mix of love and wisdom that drives responsibility, call it God, or call it the holy spirit, or whatever you choose, but don't lessen it by worship alone. If you must have it, then live it and hope for the best.

 

[Breathe]

I, for one, welcome our broader definition of theism.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I find that other "theisms" are often nothing more than a mixed collection of ever-changing opinions, projections, ideas, philosophies, and aesthetic tendencies - or, they reduce definitions of god(s) to nothing more than semantic vagaries, creative labeling, or vague, esoteric mush. In either of these cases, other "theisms" don't really end up presenting anything meaningful or particularly cogent about god(s), and what ramifications it/they have in any consistent or discussable manner. I think this is often the problem with atheists, agnostics, rationalists, etc. discussing or debating topics related to many other "theisms" as presented by posters.

 

[Quintessence]

I'd like to remind you guys that this is not a debate thread.

Thank you for knocking it off.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I'd like to remind you guys that this is not a debate thread.

Thank you for knocking it off.

Knocking off now. (Turns away abashed).:run:

 

[Quintessence]

I'm totally open for discussing this in a new topic somewhere.
I need to make another thread for the cause, but haven't quite decided what I want it to be yet.

 

[Straw Dog]

I typically avoid threads about monotheism anymore. For starters, I just find them to be boring and understimulating after years of the same arguments since I was 12. I have yet to see any progress towards a better understanding. Perhaps I haven't genuinely explored other facets of theology, however. I just wonder if the field is well-founded to begin with.

 

[Quintessence]

Not all monotheism is the classical variety. Pantheism can be monotheistic, for example, but that god-concept can be non-supernatural and immanent. Those I find interesting. The perpetual insistence that anything the word "god" is applied to must be omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, supernatural, transcendent, eternal, and the creator is what I find a touch boring. I sometimes wonder how many non-theists consider the full spectrum of theism before declaring themselves one. Then again, I doubt if many theists consider the full spectrum of theism either before settling on their particular variety. We go with what we're exposed to, and in Western society, that's classical monotheism. I think that's changing though, as society becomes more pluralistic.

 

[nazz]

Bravo!!!

 

[nazz]

Another sample of christianocentrism this would be IMHO.

astute observation

 

[nazz]

I find that other "theisms" are often nothing more than a mixed collection of ever-changing opinions, projections, ideas, philosophies, and aesthetic tendencies - or, they reduce definitions of god(s) to nothing more than semantic vagaries, creative labeling, or vague, esoteric mush. In either of these cases, other "theisms" don't really end up presenting anything meaningful or particularly cogent about god(s), and what ramifications it/they have in any consistent or discussable manner. I think this is often the problem with atheists, agnostics, rationalists, etc. discussing or debating topics related to many other "theisms" as presented by posters.

But maybe that is because believers in alternative theisms are less dogmatic and more open minded to various possible forms deity might take? Plus I think there is the issue of ineffability when speaking about certain aspects of God.

 

[Quintessence]

But maybe that is because believers in alternative theisms are less dogmatic and more open minded to various possible forms deity might take? Plus I think there is the issue of ineffability when speaking about certain aspects of God.

That might be part of it. Though to be frank, Kilgore's attitude is exactly what I was talking about in the OP when I spoke of folks brushing aside other theisms as unworthy of consideration. I will grant that if you attempt to take all theism as a whole, you do end up with an unmanageable pile of mush that makes structuring a conversation difficult. There's no reason why we can't take a specific concept of god(s) from that big pile of god-concepts and give it a good look, though. Trying to understand these variations helps us grasp cultural diversity, and in our increasingly multicultural world, I feel these discussions are important. If someone calls something "god," it's worth asking why, even if we disagree with calling that thing "god."

 

[nazz]

That might be part of it. Though to be frank, Kilgore's attitude is exactly what I was talking about in the OP when I spoke of folks brushing aside other theisms as unworthy of consideration. I will grant that if you attempt to take all theism as a whole, you do end up with an unmanageable pile of mush that makes structuring a conversation difficult. There's no reason why we can't take a specific concept of god(s) from that big pile of god-concepts and give it a good look, though. Trying to understand these variations helps us grasp cultural diversity, and in our increasingly multicultural world, I feel these discussions are important. If someone calls something "god," it's worth asking why, even if we disagree with calling that thing "god."

Yes, I totally agree

 

[Straw Dog]

Not all monotheism is the classical variety. Pantheism can be monotheistic, for example, but that god-concept can be non-supernatural and immanent. Those I find interesting. The perpetual insistence that anything the word "god" is applied to must be omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, supernatural, transcendent, eternal, and the creator is what I find a touch boring. I sometimes wonder how many non-theists consider the full spectrum of theism before declaring themselves one. Then again, I doubt if many theists consider the full spectrum of theism either before settling on their particular variety. We go with what we're exposed to, and in Western society, that's classical monotheism. I think that's changing though, as society becomes more pluralistic.

Other forms of theology are more interesting, but I still personally question whether the field of theology itself has any real foundation to begin with. It really does seem like an anthropocentric aesthetic quality that we apply to greater reality. I believe that aesthetic reasoning can be sufficient enough to justify certain beliefs such as "Life is beautiful". Whenever the reasoning becomes overly-abstract beyond the context of experience, however, is when it begins to lose utility and can possibly become distracting or dangerous.

 

[idav]

I sometimes wonder how many non-theists consider the full spectrum of theism before declaring themselves one. Then again, I doubt if many theists consider the full spectrum of theism either before settling on their particular variety.

I'm not sure many people put a lot thought into their theological beliefs. I agree that people tend to just believe in what they are exposed to. I myself put a lot of thought into it before I came to my conclusions of what I think God is. Then went about respectfully testing it against other concepts.