Talk:Theism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Theism: solely explicit?

I'm trying to put together an illustration explaining the relationships between the various positions regarding religion and theism, but I've hit a stumbling block.

Is all theism explicit, or can it also be implicit?

Can it be present without a conscious decision to hold a theistic belief? Or is that possible, but not the same as the belief being implicit? -FrostyBytes 09:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

A somewhat late response... I'm quite sure implicit theism is a view; you can look at the sources cited at Argument from nonbelief#Reasonable nonbelief: lack of evidence. And I know there are people who believe that we are born with an intuitive belief in God that can only be veiled by our own pride and so on. But the last question is more difficult, I don't have a source explicitly calling this "implicit theism". --Merzul 13:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest the definition of atheism is incorrect. It is not the belief that there isn't a god, but rather the lack of belief. While it may seem like semantics, I think it is an important distinction. Atheism, when used pejoratively, is frequently described as the denial of god...this definition like that, suggest athesim is a belief system, when it is infact the rejection of belief. --74.112.142.90 01:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Anybody here?

This is a start-class top-importance article, and compared to the atheism article it isn't doing very well. I'm going to be editing this article, I have read and archived the discussion; but I'm hoping I will have people here to discuss things with. The first plan is to just add sources for the current material. --Merzul 17:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. Here is a question. Why does the Theism article refer to "the belief in the existence of one or more Gods or deities" -- as I understanding, theism refers to belief in God, pantheism is that the Universe == God, and polytheism is that there are many gods. Ergo, there should be a distinction between theism and polytheism, and theism should simply say "the belief in the existance of God". I recognize that the existing definition is quoted on the web, but it isn't really correct -- that is why the term polytheism exists.

Now it can be argued I am sure that monotheism is the word opposed to polytheism but from the Greek, "theo" refers to god or divine -- singular; and "ism" originally referred to the action of forming nouns from verbs; now it refers to a doctrine or theory. So theism means a "doctrine of God" (singular). This leads to the modern usage of "belief in God". (As adding the "a" prefix leads to no belief in God or "without God".) SunSw0rd 19:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well it seems actually that most dictionaries prefer your definition of theism. Simon Blackburn has some amusing definitions in The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy:

• theism Belief in the existence of God. Theism is also a morbid condition brought on by excessive tea-drinking, but this is a different sense of the word, or an instance of homonymy. See also deism, monotheism, polytheism, and different topics within the philosophy of religion.
• monotheism Belief in one God. It is not always easy to count gods. See polytheism.

This Wikipedia article has made the whole issue very simple, by defining theism as "at least one god". But it might be that the issue is more complicated, especially with God in Hinduism. It seems having at least some concept of God with a capital 'G' is quite central to theism. --Merzul 20:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Pantheism, panentheism, and deism are misclassified

I'm brand new at this, so forgive any beginners' mistakes.

Common usage equates "theism" with "God-belief," just as it equates "theory" with "idea." However, just as scientific discussion gives "theory" a much more specific definition, the specific theological meaning of "theism" is "deity-belief."

Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more gods or deities.

While accurate, this sentence fails to distinguish between simple belief that there is a God ( the common usage of "theism") and the belief that God is a deity (the specific).

My major complaint, however, is with the classifications.

As the article points out, pantheism and panentheism are radically different stances from deity-belief. They disagree on the most fundamental definition of God, holding God to be not the Creator or ruler of the cosmos, but rather the universe itself (pantheism) or an entity which encompasses it (panentheism).

Deism is in fact a form of theism, believing in a non-personal Creator, and yet is catagorized separately with atheism and agnosticism. Meanwhile, pan/entheism, whose differences from theism are much more fundamental, are labeled as its subcategories, along with maltheism, which is simply theism with a malevolent Creator. Pantheism and panentheism should be listed in the other "categories of belief," and deism in the subcategories with differing characteristics.

It all comes down to the question of a Creator. In theism (and deism and maltheism), there is a God who created the cosmos. In pan/entheism, there is not. God either is or includes the cosmos, but is no more its creator than a man is the creator of his own skeleton. --KaleriaStorm 01:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Deism is NOT a branch of theism; anymore than Agnosticism is a branch of Atheism. Deism is it's own unique umbrella category of beleif{with offshoots, such as PanDeism and PanenDeism}; theism includes{at least in common understanding in todays world} that the god{s} is{are} "personal"- and furthermore personal towards humans, they are either anthropomorphic AND/OR Anthropocentric. The Deist conception is neither of those, it is undefined in nature or form. "Classic deists"{or "Monodeists"} as they are also known, held by the majority of the Deists of the enlightenment era, was indeed "borderline" liberal theism, but Deism has built into it the means for rational evolution of thought, and many Deists otday are far and away from the "borderline" liberal theism of some of those thinkers. The Deism of the enlightenment was;nt irrational for it's time, butit can be argued validly that it lacks substance and rationale today, and some Deists today are monodeists/classic deists, but most evolve past this, and it is often just a means to confortbaly grow out and apart from theism in general. Many Deists today are essentially closer to Agnosticism and Atheism, some even going as far as to be Anti-Theistic and live like and think like in most terms and are essentially kin with the other two main brances of nontheism{atheism and agnosticism}- and are loosely Deistic only in their intellectual leanings{lacking most or all subtle worship of the deistic first cause that the classic deists protrayed and portray}; myself for example, I am Agnostic-Deist in my intellectual leanings, but am functionally and even rhetorically not really any different from Atheists and am myself Anti-Theistic. But even the classic monodeism of the enlightenment was and is NOT a branch of theism; as I said it was/is "borderline" liberal theism, but was and is a category all it's own none the less{though it can be mixed with other categories or subcategories depending on individual intellectual or practical applications of it}; and certainly Deis itself, when seperated from even the clasic monodeism, is far and away from beeisn a subcategory of Theism;it is different from even liberal theism, and libeal theism is the end of the line for theism. Deism is essentially the mixture of some of the best characteristics of Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theism combined; but is itself a seperate category. As for Pantheism beeing a form of atheism with reverance for the universe; this is blatantly false as well. Yes, there are groups passing themselves off as Pantheist today{well respected groups}- which are as Dawkins puts it "sexed up atheists/atheism", but this is NOT "Pantheism", without the 'theistic" qualities of beeing "personal" and intelligent/sentient/etc, it is NOT "theism". Pantheism is truly held by some Pagans/neo-pagans and troibalist groups and new agers,etc, to whom nature/universe is a sentient and self-aware force or vast force/beeing which is also human-centered{or centered on sentienjt creature sin the cosmos} and through them. Same goes for Panentheism. There is a category of deism called Pandeism and panendeism, which posit their own theories, but none imply a anthropocentric/morphic or personal godforce in the panTHEISTIC/panenTHEISTIC sense. The "sesed up atheist" pantheists are NOT Pantheists at all, and should probably just call themselves "atheists whom love nature"{and their sites things such as atheists whom love nature.org}. PanDeists on the other ahnd may borderline "sexed up atheism" however. Hope that clarifies some things.--Iconoclastithon 21:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

How could someone believe there is a God without believing that this same God is a deity? And besides, the article also states that pantheism and panentheism are just the parts of a different taxonomy, not a subcategory of theism.... Homestarmy 02:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The answer is the first sentence of the deity article: A deity or god is a postulated preternatural or supernatural being, who is always of significant power, worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, or respected by human beings.

We don't believe that God is supernatural, we believe that nature is God/ part of God. (I'm a panentheist.)--KaleriaStorm 03:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You said above that we fail to distinguish "belief that there is a God ( the common usage of "theism")" and the "belief that God is a deity (the specific)". But can't you believe that God is (or would be) a deity, without believing that God exists? I believe that all unicorns have horns, even though I don't believe in the existence of unicorns. I think it's important to keep in mind the distinction between how people define words (e.g., the different definitions of "God") and what people actually believe (e.g., the different divine entities people believe in). I agree with you that we should do a much better job of addressing these issues here, but I also think we should keep in mind that the best way to discuss the former is at God; theism is better-suited for discussing the actual beliefs themselves, rather than semantic distinctions over what is or isn't "God". We can certainly accomodate both to an extent, though. -Silence 03:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Theism and Atheism harmony

The Wiki page referenced under this topic heading, "International Creed for Peace", has been nominated for deletion. I concur with deletion because I believe the content of the article violates Wikipedia policy as "content that does not belong in an encyclopedia." The content of the article is better disseminated as a standalone advocacy web page. The sentiments advocated have not yet developed a significant cultural impact worthy of reference in an encyclopedia. Therefore, I suggest that this paragraph likewise be deleted from the Theism article. 204.58.248.33 17:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Confucianism/Buddhism

I think it's slightly misleading to see either as atheistic. Both allow atheism, so I suppose that could make them weak atheism religions, but I think it could mislead readers. Confucianism itself was unconcerned with gods, but I don't think it made any statement on the matter and many to most Confucians believed in the gods. See God in Buddhism for that.--T. Anthony 10:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the subject of this article

The article is ostensibly about Theism, but it spends most of it's time moving back and forth comparing/contrasting/describing theism,atheism,deism etc. (and I thought deism was included in the definition of theism!) --99.247.120.178 (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there seems to be a lot of content here that's duplicated elsewhere. And I agree with you on deism. Ilkali (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Definition of theism

I find there is always an implicit assumption, when talking about theism, that the god(s) being contemplated cares about humans. Is there a term for a god that does not give humans special status in the universe? Or is that just non-theism? Should we add this assumption to the definition in the page? Sorry if this is a silly question - I'm not much of a philosopher - or religious person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.174.103 (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Theism and Buddhism

My dictionary gives "belief in the existence of a god or gods" as one definition of theism, and my philosophical dictionary has a similar definition, so I see no reason to change the first sentence of the article. Some people have their own personal definition of theism, often as a way to make "theism" fit into a classification scheme that includes pantheism and deism and other forms of belief. I see no reason to go along with that. Using theism in the widely accepted sense creates less confusion.

The article contains this sentence: "Some non-theistic religions are: Confucianism and Buddhism." However, the articles "God in Buddhism" and "Mahayana" both describe god-like Buddhas and bodhisattvas, which people petition for help or rely on to provide some function that humans can't perform. So I'm wondering what the justification is for calling Buddhism non-theistic. If there is no justification, then Buddhism should be removed from that sentence. RenGalskap 21:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I waited a couple of weeks, got no response, and so removed the reference to Confusianalism and Buddhism as non-theistic religions. According to the Wikipedia article on Confusianism, it is a philosophical system, not a religion. The Wikipedia article on Buddhism describes god-like beings that have superhuman powers and provide help for humans; hardly non-theistic. RenGalskap 15:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.186.138 (talk)

Playing the game

In this revert to unencyclopedic and specious content, an editor suggests that I need to get "consensus" since I "have faced resistance."

Unfortunately, the editor's notions of "consensus" and "resistance" were not checked against article history or talk space:

• he/she is basing his notions of "consensus" on exactly the same "resistance" that he/she himself was subject to. Same anon editor, same edit comment (03:44, 5 May 2008)(20:48, 10 May 2008). Note that my edit was 11 days earlier.
• the editor does not have "consensus" to begin with, leave alone since.
  In at least one section on this talk page it has already been noted that the article dicks around with stuff unrelated to theism. So even on the point of order of WP:BRD, consensus cannot be assumed to have existed previously.
  Then, even the supposition that there are any editors actually writing here is incorrect. The only significant edits in (at least) the last year are either my one edit (06:23, 24 April 2008), or the one edit (19:21, 5 May 2008) that happens is by the editor invoking "consensus." But, self-appointed one-man committees do not qualify as "consensus," least of all when they are based on the same "resistance" that they are themselves subject to.

While the edit of (19:21, 5 May 2008) is a vast improvement over the cruft of the preceding year (which did not change significantly), it remains screwed up:

• While briefly sane in the etymology, it confuses matters everywhere else, including in the lead (which merrily provides a "narrower"^sez? sense purportedly^# based on the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1911,^# and which then mistreats the sui generis as generic^#). Ironically, the article wikidicts w:theism, which happens to have a correct definition.
• The bulk of this article is devoted to directories,^# presently called "Divisions by numbers of deities" and "Divisions by natures of deities." That theism has a relationship with these "divisions" is creative and novel, but alas, coatracking.

The notion that flakiness needs to be maintained despite violating cardinal policies (WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NOT) is just gaming the system. The assumption that I need to seek consensus when other policies are blithely being violated simply does not wash.

I don't really have any particular interest in this article, and only took the time to fix it because its damaging to the credibility of an encyclopedia when an article not only contradicts every dictionary (not just of philosophy), but also contradicts itself. The rot needs to stop. And the directories need to go somewhere else. And the "consensus" and "resistance" is a nice try, but no cigar. -- Fullstop (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Less ranting, more communicating, please. I'm going to divide my response into two parts: Criticising your version of the article and defending the current version. First, criticising yours:

1. Theism is the belief that god(s) exist, and that there is sufficient reason to believe that god(s) exist
   1. The parentheses around s license two readings of the sentence: Theism is the belief that god exist and Theism is the belief that gods exist. The latter is fine, the former is hopelessly broken. The original version (the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities), perhaps sans the 'divinities' part, is far superior. This "god(s)" construction appears in various places through your version of the article.
   2. Belief in justifiability isn't part of any common definition of theism.
2. 'Theism' is not an umbrella term for the various words that end with -theism. Why are you defining what theism is not? It sounds like you are just preaching about something that annoys you, rather than trying to deliver useful information. People can make their own conclusions on what theism implies based on the definition given.
3. The antonym of 'theism' is 'nontheism', of which the most extreme form is 'atheism', which is the lack of belief in god(s),^[1] to include the disbelief that god(s) exist^[2] (or the affirmation of their nonexistence^[3])
   1. That's not an antonym.
   2. There's no reason to be dedicating so much of this article (this sentence and others in the same paragraph) to defining atheism.
   3. In its broadest form, atheism is nontheism. In its more narrow form, atheism is indeed narrower than nontheism, but on what ground do we say that makes it more 'extreme'?
   4. The entire sentence just seems unclear to me, especially the "to include" part.
4. "There are several different—but not necessarily mutually exclusive—approaches to theism, all within the framework of the assumption that god(s) exist:".
   1. It is wrong for "the assumption that god(s) exist" to link to "Existence of God". That's a much more narrow subject.
   2. Is it necessary to say, when describing approaches to theism, that they are subject to the assumption that one or more gods exist? Isn't that kind of redundant?

And now defending the current state:

"While briefly sane in the etymology, it confuses matters everywhere else, including in the lead (which merrily provides a "narrower"^sez? sense purportedly^# based on the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1911,^# and which then mistreats the sui generis as generic^#)". Your problem is with this sentence?

“ There is also a narrower sense in which theism refers to the belief that one or more divinities are immanent in the world, yet transcend it, along with the idea that divinity(s) is/are omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent ”

Then remove that sentence. Don't completely rewrite the lead, replacing all the good parts, just to remove one bad sentence.

"The bulk of this article is devoted to directories,^# presently called "Divisions by numbers of deities" and "Divisions by natures of deities." That theism has a relationship with these "divisions" is creative and novel, but alas, coatracking". I'm beginning to doubt that you've read the various policies you cite. From WP:COAT: "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject". The theism article, in its present state, discusses a variety of ways theism can manifest, just as your version does. Discussion of axes of categorisation (number, nature, etc) is a way of clearly presenting the information, making it easy to see what positions are incompatible - for example, a person cannot simultaneously be a monotheist and a polytheist. Nobody is saying that theism has a "relationship" with anything, only that subdivisions of theism can be usefully classified.

"[the] article not only contradicts every dictionary (not just of philosophy), but also contradicts itself". Did you at any point consider substantiating this claim? Ilkali (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This article would greatly benefit from some improvement, and I think both of you are making some valid points. I would like to try to sort it out an get a version taking some aspects of both of your ideas. And personally, I would disagree that the sentence about theism implying the immanence of God is irrelevant. It is perhaps the most significant part of theism, which distinguish it from deism. In any case, let's discuss one thing at a time.

First step would be to list definitions of theism from main reference works. I can start with the Oxford reference works; and I think I have REP somewhere, so let's do this properly. Merzul (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Good work. Thanks for that. Will add to it in a few minutes.

Responding to Ilkali: Failing to respond to the issue is not an answer. The issue is (again) the reversion on the false assumption of "consensus" and "resistance". The revert remains unjustified, even if one should choose to sweep that fact under the carpet.

I'll justify my edits when my edits need justification. That is, when the goalposts are where they should be, and not where someone arbitrarily choses to put them.

Responding to the "defense" of the present state, which -- it may be noted -- are barely themselves a defense but are instead arguments against my original text (which is incidentally also older that the defended version). Nonetheless...

• "Then remove that sentence": My problem is not with any one sentence. And that sentence is not incorrect. In another context it might have been fine. It is its presentation that is inappropriate, and in that it was symptomatic for all the problems in the article.
• Apropos: "Don't completely rewrite the lead, replacing all the good parts, just to remove one bad sentence." a) that "one bad sentence" was in fact the one sentence in the lead that I removed. b) Why shouldn't anyone "completely rewrite the lead"?
• And yes, COAT is quite valid -- those directories are not related to the nominal subject, but are orthogonal to it (in COAT parlance "tangentially related"). Hence COAT.
• While off topic, yes, actually a person can simultaneously be a monotheist and a polytheist. The presumption that they cannot is based on the assumption that there is a universal understanding of what a "god" is. Not only is that not so, "mono" and "poly" are not mutually exclusive either—beliefs are not math. Besides, those words are steeped in missionary polemic and should not be thrown about like confetti.
• The article does not "in its present state, discusses a variety of ways theism can manifest". Theism does not "manifest" itself as "divisions by numbers/nature of deities." Theism is not at all subdivided in such a fashion, and consequently even the idea that "subdivisions of theism can be usefully classified" is a fallacy.
  What theism manifests itself as is a) interminable philosophical discussions from the Enlightenment era onwards, b) 19th/20th century Protestant notions of "religious experience."

-- Fullstop (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitions

• The doctrine that there is one transcendent, personal God who freely created all that exists out of nothing, and who preserves and governs it. He is believed to be self-existent, present everywhere, all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good, and therefore worthy of human worship. Theism is nowadays distinguished from Deism: the latter denies God's personal governance of the world, usually by ruling out the possibility of providence, miracles, and revelation.
• A term which refers to the belief in the existence of a divine being, especially in the existence of a single God, who is thought to be personal and who is the Creator of the universe. Theism involves the idea of divine revelation, and consequently is contrasted with deism, the rational belief in divinity independently of faith in a revealed truth. See also monotheism; religion.
• Any of various philosophical and theological systems that profess belief in the existence of one supreme being, who is the creator of the universe. In most theistic systems, human beings have free will, and religious doctrines are usually based on divine revelation. See also monotheism; polytheism.
• In current usage the word denotes a philosophical system which accepts a transcendent and personal God who not only created but also preserves and governs the world, the contingency of which does not exclude miracles and the exercise of human freedom. In various forms it is the view common to orthodox Christian philosophers, to Judaism, and to Islam.
• Belief in the existence of God. Theism is also a morbid condition brought on by excessive tea-drinking, but this is a different sense of the word, or an instance of homonymy. See also atheism, deism, monotheism, polytheism, and different topics within the philosophy of religion.
• 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. The word is recorded from the late 17th century, and comes from Greek theos ‘god’.
• Belief in one God, esp. as creator and supreme ruler. XVII. f. Gr. theós god.

 

• The theist is a man firmly persuaded of the existence of a Supreme Being equally good and powerful, who has formed all extended, vegetating, sentient, and reflecting existences, who perpetuates their species, who punishes crimes without cruelty, and rewards virtuous actions with kindness. (Le théiste est un homme fermement persuadé de l´existence d´un Être suprême aussi bon que puissant, qui a formé tous les êtres étendus, végétants, sentants, et réfléchissants ; qui perpétue leur espèce, qui punit sans cruauté les crimes, et récompense avec bonté les actions vertueuses.) ...
  [The theist thinks that] Providence pervades all places and all ages. United in this principle with the rest of the universe, he does not join any of the sects, who all contradict themselves; his religion is the most ancient and the most extended: for the simple adoration of a God has preceded all the systems in the world.^{[reiterated in full in ]}
• Theism is the belief that there is a God and God is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent, distinct from the universe that he has created and ni which he intervenes. To be a theist is not in itself to hold a philosophical theory, but it is to be committed on philosophical issues both of truth and of meaning. [...]
  The grounds on which the existence of the God of theism has been asserted are very various [: Cartesian/'ontological', cosmological and ideological]. [...]
  Critics of the theistic proofs argue that there are no good reasons for believing that God exists; exponents of the problem of evil are apt to claim that there are good reasons for believing that God does not exist; neither skepticism cuts as deep as that which claims that it is equally meaningless to assert or to deny the existence of God. [...]
  There is no one problem or group of problems which can be labelled 'the theistic question'. Proof, introspection, laws of nature, free-will, falsifiability -- almost all the topics of philosophy -- can arise in theistic contexts. [...] See Religion.

Comments

Feel free to modify and add to the above list. Merzul (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

added Voltaire to reflect what the Enlightenment-era philosophers were thinking, and added a contemporary explanation from an encyclopedia of Philosophy. -- Fullstop (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, you have to love Simon Blackburn. :D But I think what he refers to is usually written theaism, or theinism. Merzul (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And his second sentence is humorous too. Oh wai... :)

Seriously though ... All those definitions are in and of themselves correct; some are incomplete or have systemic issues (and so -- unless carefully contextualized -- could be misleading), but taken together the basic stuff is all there.

I've added Voltaire as representative of the Enlightenment, and the relevant bits of a current encyclopedia description in order to put (I hope) all the preceding snippets into perspective. -- Fullstop (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The question is now simply how we integrate these ideas to form our own first few sentences about theism. I will maybe look at a few more definitions based on what appear in books such as The Coherence of Theism by Swinburne. Let's see. Those may also suggest a bit more about how to expand this entry. Could you perhaps suggest an outline. At the very least, we should provide an overview of the rationale for theism, just as we have in the atheism article. What do you guys think? Merzul (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

How about this (the only "rationale" for theism that I can think of I've flagged in gray):

At its core, theism is the "belief in the existence of a divine being" (to use the dic. of soc. phrase), especially a belief in the existence of a Creator principle. Add "This divine being of theism intervenes in the functioning of the world" ??

Central to the philosophical discussions of theism (and also of deism) are theoretical arguments for the existence of the divine. But theism -- unlike deism -- has a personal aspect, and does not discount divine intervention (for example, revelation and miracles) as evidence of existence. In this, theism (which is younger than deism) may be understood to be a conciliation between established religion and deism's natural theology.

That is, assuming the contrast to deism needs to be made from the outset, as many of the snippets above do. I don't really agree that it needs to be done like that, but then again, we don't have the space limitations those authors presumably did.

-- Fullstop (talk) 02:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

On second thought... I think the first sentence needs to make clear that theism is not a common noun. Otherwise we are going to end up with the same mess we have now. -- Fullstop (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

intro

The existing intro said that theism is "a philosophical system which interprets man's worthiness in terms of one God". This is true but so does deism hence such a definition is inadequate. Secondly, the intro said that theism is "the belief that at least one divinity is immanent in the world, yet transcends it". That is incorrect. That belief referred to is a specific form of theism called panentheism. The main point about theism as a theological doctrine is the belief that God is active in the universe - particularly the world - and has not 'taken a back seat' or withdrawn completely as deism suggests.Langdell (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

And to add to this why when referring to God is the gender specific "He" used. No one can prove/disprove God's gender so I believe either we change it to He/She or just keep using the word God (or even its, their, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.83.97 (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization

Someone has added, without source:

Polytheists capitalise the word 'Gods', usually in reference to the major Gods of the pantheon.

Capitalization is not "done as an honour", but to distinguish a proper name from a common name. We capitalize Senators for the name of the baseball team, but not when referring to the "pantheon" of 100 senators in the US. We capitalize Beowulf, because, though fictional, it is a proper name. Style guides (such as http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/592/01/) have more impact than loose practice. Notably, however, the pantheistic god is seldom capitalized by anyone. --JimWae (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Misclassification of deism and pantheism.

I agree with those that say deism and pantheism are misclassified.Theism is the belief in deity(s).A deity is a god that is personal and has human characteristics.Both pantheism and deism do not believe in such a thing. While pantheism includes the word theism it is far from the common understanding of the word theism.

The definition used is far to inclusive and most experts do not use that definition.Deism and pantheism both should be classified under something else,I suggest under non-theism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PJM17 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• The lede makes it clear that not all definitions agree. It is not up to wikipedia to determine which definition is "more correct", but rather to report which definitions are common. You will find a variety of definiions at http://www.onelook.com/?w=theism&ls=a --JimWae (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Improvements to the article

Somebody left a request for verification for note three in the introduction. The following definition of theism comes from the current edition (2006) of the Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (OUP) edited by E.A. Livingstone:

"Theism. In current usage the word denotes a philosophical system which accepts a transcendent and personal God who not only created but also preserves and governs the world, the contingency of which does not exclude miracles and the exercise of human freedom. In various forms it is the view common to orthodox Christian philosophers, to Judaism, and to Islam." (Copyright, OUP, 2006)

Following the assumption that Oxford University Press is authoritative on these matters, here is the current definition from the Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, Ed. John Bowker, 2000:

"Theism. The doctrine that there is one transcendent, personal God who freely created all that exists out of nothing, and who preserves and governs it. He is believed to be self-existent, present everywhere, all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good, and therefore worthy of human worship. Theism is nowadays distinguished from Deism: the latter denies God's personal governance of the world, usually by ruling out the possibility of providence, miracles, and revelation." (Copyright, OUP, 2000)

Polytheism, Pantheism and Deism, although they involve the belief in Deity/Deities do not belong as part of the point of view known as 'Theism'. Theism, as the above references show (if you are not satisfied with those I can paste some material from the current edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica which will add further support) is a monotheistic doctrine contrasting with the aforementioned theological points of view especially Deism. The main body of the article as it stands does not adequately reflect the standard usage of the term 'theism' as it is used these days. It is not the case that people do not agree what theism means. The dictionary references above do in fact reflect common standard usage of 'theism'.

John Orr qualifies the assertion that the more specific use of the word theism arose in the 17th century to contrast with deism (as opposed to atheism which was unthinkable in those days). Deism began its slow ascendance in the seventeenth century alongside the ideas of the scientific revolution. In the Deist worldview God does not really feature after creating the universe in the beginning. The universe is wound up like a clock then left to run along a more or less pre determined course. Deists do not really believe that you can call on God for help because He cannot intervene and override His own Laws of Nature. He is not available as it were. That's when Theism began to be used to refer to people who did believe that God could intervene because He did not withdraw after the Creation but remained as a living force organizing the affairs of the universe.

I've just noticed that a user (Merzul?) has already added some of the same material above which answers the previous request for verification. Please will somebody develop the article to reflect the standard contemporary use of the term theism. 81.109.10.218 (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

What, if not "theism", should we call the article that describes the various forms of deity-belief? Powers ^T 13:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

request (for anyone:) add material

This article needs to be written from the objective linguistic Philosophical viewpoint encyclopedia writers need to take.

It has 2 sections for no reason: etymology and then some too specific 'divisions' section. These are irrelevant because: the etymology section does not actually get into etymology, and the 'divisions' section was made because of someone's preference or limited linguistic knowledge.

The divisions section does a poor job of focusing on pan(en)theism. Pantheism implies a first cause and panentheism additionally implies a causeless cause. Either of these may be personified, and they may even be personified in deism, though (due to etymology) as discussion above points out, deism needs a separate article. Pantheisms do not conflict with henotheisms even if they uses personification, though in discussion above someone was arguing pantheism conflicts with abstraction about deities due to science. Well, as I have added, religion also has abstraction about deities, and it is not the place of a linguistic & objective-Philosophy-focused encyclopedia to debate conflicts between science/religion rather than explain viewpoints that each can take and leave it at that.

I do not know who started this article, but I suggest change the name of section 1 (etymology) to 'Types of Theism' or 'Theisms' and incorporate all the part about theism from section 2 (divisions) into section 1. Section 2 really does not have the linguistic & Philosophical notability needing a 2nd section unless you want to incorrectly leave deism there.

If no one discusses how to change this or does so, one day perhaps I will get back and just arbitrarily make these changes.--Dchmelik (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I have restored to March 27 version. There was too much to "cleanup" in what was put in on Apr 3. There were too many categories with no groupings, and including atheism as a type of theism (along with the text filled with empty jargon) was incomprehensible --JimWae (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There was not enough cleanup: the categories exist, and they are groupings of their own. Instead of being rude and saying 'empty jargon,' please say what you do not understand so the article can be improved. 'Atheism' is just a modification of the word 'theism,' and any religion that says 'God is unknowable' or something that God is not, e.g. knowable, is being atheistic in a sense of what is not God ('not theos;' a-theos.)

I have reduced this to stub-class rating in Philosophy because the Philosophical objectivity and detail were taken out. Jim, I think I have improved it in a way we can both agree (or soon with minor changes,) but I still only give it C-class in religion, though I think is an improvement from 'stub.' This is how to return objectivity and completeness: compare and contrast atheism, arithmo-theism (number-based ones,) autotheism, (kat)henotheism, pan(en)theism, and probably polytheism. You will find out they are all just different useful Philosophical viewpoints: not always beliefs. I do not like atheism either, but now that I thought of this more, IIRC the term is earlier and theism is a modification of it! In my earlier 'cleanup' described why it is linguistically relevant, even if some readers, including myself, do not like the term. To others, note words are expression of Logos, so 'tis best to use them fully and clearly.

(The relevance of the term 'atheism' is so it and 'theism' can be translated out of English without circular logic definitions in dictionaries, i.e. theism leading to 'god' leading to just as linguistically subjective terms as 'not god.' In other languages these terms usually have additional meanings and may lack the same objective antithesis term that helps clarify the thesis term: they may lack some of the meanings of the English term 'god.' I can give many examples of circular definitions in all English dictionaries, and even for speakers those are something to improve.)

I guess I should sum up that it was un-Philosophical to remove duotheism, tritheism, etc., because they all are other viewpoints of Judeo-Christian and Mazdaist sects, as well as polytheist ones. 'Infinite theism' would include combinations of pan(en)theism, i.e. omnipresence and monotheism, so it is an idea of many Christian mystics, though less ecumenical ones do not agree with outright pan(en)theism allowing polytheism or atheist science. I hope these ideas are clearer now.--Dchmelik (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

reply to 'request: add material' (and comments on some added)

Is anyone else finding the reply above and the changes to the article inconsistent, vague, original research, &/or barely intelligible? Furthermore, complete removal of deism section does not improve the article --JimWae (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's examine the new entry for the 2nd sentence of the article:

Part of the definition is, as opposed to deism, that that divinity has (some) control over the universe

1. There is no source given for this
2. Deism does not say the divinity has NO control over the universe - it generally says that the deity does not (normally at least) intervene in the design that "he" established at creation.
3. Since a complete def of theism has not yet been given, the 2nd sentence should still be talking about theism - not gving some original-research, incorrect, contrasting def of deism
4. there is no "THE definition" of theism. Theism has various defs

--JimWae (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The article should include discussions of both atheism & deism - but atheism cannot be (as it was) included as a kind of theism. Whether deism is a kind of theism depends on how strongly one thinks the specific meaning of theism is THE best meaning. Perhaps not so for all Xns, but for atheists & agnostics & deists, deism is a kind of theism --JimWae (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

However, if polytheism and even pantheism can be included as types of theism, there seems to be little justification for removing deism from being a subspecies --JimWae (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Panentheism and polytheism were already in the article. I am sorry you think my changes are still vague (as I said, please ask about them,) but the article was already not intelligible (having the definitions be under etymology, etc.)

The article still seems much better, but I will see.... My justification for removing deism is just because if God does not intervene in the universe, then God is not actively controlling the universe. That explanation I gave with 'control' is just a more succint one that mostly means the same thing: it is not an original explanation.

After I explained how atheism is also an exoteric, i.e. anti-questioning, i.e. anti-seeking viewpoint prevalent in religion as well as science, and that atheism easily defines the habit in religion to say 'we can only define God by what God is not' (paraphrased from some sort of Orthodox person,') i.e. 'theos defined by what is a-theos,' then I find your minsunderstanding of that unintelligible: if the term theism came from taking the 'a' off 'atheism' and since encyclopedias are concerned with linguistics, not just the popular Philosophical viewpoints. Atheism in this sense of not having a dogmatic theism is also a view closer to gnosticism in which Philosophers can combine all the positive views of the theisms without dogmatically adhering to any one. In other words weak atheism is like the Socratic agnosticism, not a dogmatic theism. By existing, weak atheism allows one to investigate rather than believe, and to explain better in the dictionary (as I have said.) It is not less relevant than deism.

For example, Elohim is 'God,' but 'beni-Elohim' are 'sons of God,' a choir of angels. From one necessary view they are also not-God, i.e. a-theos. I only tried to explain atheism from the viewpoint of 'zero-theism' related to the Asian (incl. Hebrew) idea God is 'zero,' i.e. not just 'one,' but infinite including zero and the unknowable; ineffable. In summary, do not get limited to the popular etymological definitions about what theisms are, because etymology requires other definitions which clear up popular misconceptions that keep definitions separative in most people minds. Jim, maybe you are trying to do original research when you re-order the article non-alphabetically. What is the research justification for that in an encyclopedia? (any of which are traditionally alphabetic, and the common wiki habit of putting definitions randomly inhibits research.) If you think what I say is 'vague' or my etymology & convention-based structuring is 'too original,' then, again, please give me examples.--Dchmelik (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: 'authotheism: vague?' and the general article

Autotheism, a *theism in the dictionary, has been tagged as vague.

Historical Examples of Authotheism:
• Heracles seemed only human, whether he was a demigod or historical human whose story took on mythic proportions in the way similar figures did worldwide, which has all been debated. However, Heracles became an Olympian, i.e. full god by definition of ancient Greek religion, and people even erected temples to him.
• Jesus Christ is reported to have said '[is it not written in your law, ye are gods]' (paraphrased close to KJV; check my earlier edit.) Many people think he could not have said something unlawful, and also he later said (paraphrased) '[those that believe... will do greater works than me,] i.e. not just doing e.s.p. and then healing on people, etc., and (another paraphrase from him) '[becoming perfect as one's father in heaven is,]' but becoming like Christ in the fullest sense of the latter statement: The Imitation of Christ is a well-known and probably widely-liked book. Any long-term mystic could explain the relation of my paraphrases and how they imply much more than title of that book: (s)he would probably at least say 'I and all human beings are in 'image of' so 'unity with' God.
• In Buddhism, some gods can become Buddhas. In Mahayahana Buddhism, some gods are Buddhas, so incarnating into the realms (among 6 realms) of gods rather than humans, or attaining a state of apoptheosis (suggested by my 1st 2 examples) involves autotheism in a common, widely accepted theology, and much more could be said about non-monotheism, etc. in Buddhism.

A good example of authotheist belief that is no more verified than monotheism, etc., is personality cults in which someone is said to be God or a god. Most major religions have such beliefs and their founders do both Prophecy (etc.) and proscribing ethics, so in that sense most believers would not contradict those who say the founders are spiritual/divine. When someone says it of herself/himself in a violent cult, that is problematic autotheism, but autotheism does exist in many cases.

In summary, autotheism is a type of (lesser-known) theism, so if it is vague ask me why or research it. On the topic of vagueness, such as 'beliefs rather than viewpoints,' which this article may still prefer to use, perhaps, for example, much of the rest could be called vague to the most scientific young person growing up in the most scientific family or town in the most scientific nation, whoever that may be. Such people may have little/no knowledge of any definition of theism-belief and will likely ignore it all outright as being vague.--Dchmelik (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

etc..." is the main reason for the vague tag - but there are other reasons as well.

Many who adhere to a specific def of theism would no more include autotheism than pantheism or deism. IF this qualifies for inclusion in the article, so does deism --JimWae (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, theoretically, autodeism, henodeism, pandeism, polydeism, etc., must exist, but deisms have the deism article: deisms have wholly different viewpoints about causality (in a chain of cause-effect) and determinism (free will, etc..)

Re: '[autotheism is a disambiguation]'

Check suitheism, the Latin term (I just prefer Greek). It also redirects somewhere instead of having an entry more like Wiktionary.org may have. It does not need to be a big section.--Dchmelik (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: 'monotheist Brahmanism?' citation request.

In asking for the citation it was said '[Advaita Vedanta strives to realize the self.]' Well, what do you think that 'selflessness' (a term I prefer) is? It is Brahman or Parabrahm, i.e. Parashiva, i.e. (IIRC) Maha-Vishnu. The idea is exactly the same as Aton. It is beyond Ahura Mazda and YHVH but beyond the latter is (euphemistically) said to be Ain Soph: equivalent to Aton and the The Absolute in Hinduism.--Dchmelik (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Re; 'Please demonstrate PRE-Vedic form is still practiced'

Well, two Trimurtis predate the Vedas: Agni & Vayu & Surya is one. The Brahmans, or at least other Philosophers were around, and they had the idea of The Absolute (causeless cause.) Even Vedic mythology has a story that someone came to the campfire of the modern Trimurti and did things the Trimurti could not, and then the visitor disappeared. That is a story about Brahman or Parabrahm. Maybe it does not really matter if it says pre-Vedic or Vedic, but Advaita Vedanta is Vedic, and the idea precedes Advaita Vedanta. The Vedas were also an oral tradition that some Indians and esoterists say is much older than Western historians say. However old it is, the idea was around before the writing of Vedas, though it may have been in the (oral) Vedic age. I am not a great expert on the topic, I just know the idea is old. It may be as easy to argue against it as it is to argue against Atenism.--Dchmelik (talk) 04:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see how any of this demonstrates pre-Vedic Brahmanism is EVER cited as "one of the earliest known forms of monotheism still in practice today". There is no article on this, anywhere I can find. --JimWae (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: 'Polytheism: personal/impersonal not supported by sources - pantheist & deistic deities are better-known examples of "impersonal"'

Well, many people pray as if God/gods are deist, and if theism is personal, then personal pan(en)theism exists. Actually none of the viewpoints on the page necessarily fully support 'personal' or 'impersonal:' it is also a completely different abstract topic that has no definitive terms yet. One would have to make a definition opposite 'autotheism,' i.e. that God/gods is/are external. Then one would have to state in the definition whether that 'external' (which may be panentheistically internal) is personal or not, sort of like the opposite of 'sui' (on suitheism--autotheism.)

Perhaps pantheism and henotheism are most often given as examples defining Hinduism, but Abrahamic religion mystics are also often pantheist as well as monotheist. However, if the article makes statements about henotheism as if causeless cause and first cause are non-existent, then people will be thinking henotheism is only some kind of polytheism (and is not that where it is in the article again?) My example of the Elohim and beni-Elohim is one that shows that is not correct--at least not fully correct, though the implication is both viewpoints explain reality somehow. I guess it is okay for now that henotheism is under polytheism, but it omits the word 'many' so puts the focus more on ideas such as the first cause.--Dchmelik (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Monolatrism is polytheism?!

I thought I moved monolatrism, but it looks like my change was put back into polytheism without returning possible earlier material: I fixed it for where it is, but you may want to check for older material.--Dchmelik (talk) 04:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Monotheism is the belief that only one deity exists. Monolatry does not assert a belief that only one deity exists -- it may sometimes be silent about the existence of other deities - but often clearly acknowledges other deities exist but that they are not worthy of worship. Most sources I found clearly included it as a form of polytheism. Did you read even the 1st paragraph of Monolatrism? --JimWae (talk) 06:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Monotheism is a viewpoint that is as fully reasonable to me as other *theisms except atheism, but I am gnostic and nihilist: I know what I know and can tell people methods to objectively verify knowable truth themselves. Of course I read the first paragraph on monolatrism: that is why I removed my modification. However, I thought it once said some of the things you just said right above; I was surprised at the article, but this section was just a 'FYI.'--Dchmelik (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Rationality / Irrationality

I would like to ask why the opening sentence of this article defines theism as "irrational." Such a conclusion seems under considerable debate and unwarranted in a truly neutral article. I suggest that the introduction of the article be revised to remove the terms "rational" and "irrational" from it, or mention that such a label is the topic of debate. 134.174.140.40 (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I see no such definition. Perhaps you were viewing a vandalized version of the article. Powers ^T 14:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Improvement

The main body of this article is misleading. The notion that Theism encompasses polytheism, pantheism, autotheism etc is a marginal rather than a mainstream point of view. By 'mainstream' is meant the view that is held by religious studies departments in universities throughout the western world. Some extremely well qualified contributors have tried to recast this article in line with conventional scholarship. However there are people who clearly have no professional knowledge of the subject with an axe to grind preventing this article from being improved and casting the article instead according to their POV. Instead of adding what may seem to these people as simply another subjective point of view I thought it might be more persuasive to post a few hundred words from the first part of the entry in the current edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Theism

The view that all limited or finite things are dependent in some way on one supreme or ultimate reality of which one may also speak in personal terms.

Theism's view of God can be clarified by contrasting it with that of deism, of pantheism, and of mysticism. Deism closely resembles theism; but for the deist, God is not involved in the world in the same personal way. He has made it, so to speak, or set the laws of it—and to that extent he sustains it in being. But subject to this final and somewhat remote control, God, as the deist sees him, allows the world to continue in its own way. This view simplifies some problems, especially those that arise from the scientific account of the world: one does not have to allow for any factor that cannot be handled and understood in the ordinary way. God is in the shadows or beyond; and, though men may still in some way centre their lives upon him, this calls for no radical adjustment at the human or finite level. The deist proceeds, for most purposes at least, as if there were no God—or only an absent one; and this approach is especially true of man's understanding of the world. This is why deism appealed so much to thinkers in the time of the first triumphs of modern science. They could indeed allow for God, but they had “no need of that hypothesis” in science or in their normal account of things. Religion, being wholly superadded, was significant only in a manner that involved little else in the world or in the way man lives. The theist, on the other hand, questions this view and seeks in various ways (as noted below) to bring man's relation to God into closer involvement with the way he understands himself and the world around him.

Theism also sharply contrasts with pantheism, which identifies God with all that there is; and with various forms of monism, which regards all finite things as parts, modes, limitations, or appearances of some one ultimate Being, which is all that there is. Some types of absolute Idealism, a philosophy of all-pervading Mind, while regarding every finite thing as comprising some limitation of the one whole of Being, seek also to retain the theistic element in their view of the world; and they do this normally—as in the works of A.E. Taylor, Andrew Pringle-Pattison, or G.F. Stout—by stressing the role of unifying finite centres, such as self-conscious human beings, in the way the universe as a whole functions. But there is no recognition here of the finality of what is technically known as “the distinctness of persons.” The theist, by contrast, considers the world to be quite distinct from its Author or Creator, human life being thus in no sense strictly the life of God, while also making room for a peculiarly intimate involvement of God in the world and in human life.

Mysticism in practice comes close to theism; but mystical thought, and much of its practice, has often involved a repudiation of the proper reality of finite things and sometimes (as in a work by W.T. Stace, Mysticism and Philosophy) tends to dismiss all of the finite manifold or multiplicity of things as some wholly unreal phantasm that has no place in the one undiversified Being, which alone is real. Theism is very far removed from ideas of this kind.

So the main point to glean from this section is that Theism is a kind of monotheism. Here is the entry from the current edition of The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions.

Theism

The doctrine that there is one transcendant, personal God who freely created all that exists out of nothing, and who preserves and governs it. He is believed to be self-existent, present everywhere, all powerful, all knowing, and perfectly good, and therefore worthy of human worship.

Now, whether or not one believes this to be true is beside the point. This is what Theism is and the main body of the article doesn't mention it.

As regards Polytheism which is the first topic in the main body of the Wikipeida article note the following from the entry in the Encyclopedia Brittannica:

Polytheism can bear various relationships to other beliefs. It can be incompatible with some forms of theism, as in the Semitic religions; it can coexist with theism, as in Vaishnavism; it can exist at a lower level of understanding, ultimately to be transcended, as in Mahayana Buddhism; and it can exist as a tolerated adjunct to belief in transcendental liberation, as in Theravada Buddhism.

Naturally, by Semitic religions is meant Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Which is to say that these are Theistic religions. Polytheism - as the article states - may be Theistic but not necessarily so.

I hope that this may be of some help to anyone wishing to improve the main body of the article. Please don't simply copy and paste the above passage from the Encyclopedia Brittannica unless you are going to provide a citation! Best wishes. 81.106.115.153 (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Simply disgraceful

In concurrence with the above author I would like to add that this is one of the worst, most shamefully poor articles in the whole of wikipedia. Put simply it does not discuss what it purports to. Polytheism, pantheism etc are the province of other articles and should be moved to those articles. Theism as you will encounter it in authoritative reference books is the view that there is one God on which everything is dependent for its existence. The most disgraceful thing as i see it is that there is noone who has encountered this article who is knowledgeable about the subject who can be bothered to put it right. The existing material may constitute a dessert or the cheese and biscuits but where is the main course? Two sentences in the lead section describe theism as a doctrine but nowhere in the main body of the article is the bones or the flesh of the topic. 81.107.150.246 (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

We discuss (in the lead, no less) the idea that theism is a form of monotheism. However, we have sources which sufficiently define theism as encompassing polytheism, pantheism, etc, and as such we have included that content as well. You'll have to provide quality sources showing that this is a minority view for us to remove sourced material like that. Also, please don't add a boatload of tags to the top of the article when there is no dispute on the talk page. That is not helpful, nor is it what tags are intended for.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted your addition of tags twice now. This is not what tags are used for. Please stop edit warring. You need to first establish via discussion that there is a problem with the article before you place 5 tags at the top. I've already responded to your objections above, and you must also discuss that content before you introduce it to the article; We need reliable sources demonstrating that definitions of theism which include polytheism and pantheism are a minority view which does not warrant coverage before we remove sourced content and restructure the article. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

IP addresses above

I agree with the Administrator who at WP:AN3 suggested that these IPs appear to be the same person. Dougweller (talk) 05:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Biased much?

This article is in serious need of help. Every sub-section starts with "While a specific definition of theism may exclude ______, it is included by the most general definition." Not only is this poor writing, the point of encyclopedic article is to cover facts about the topic. Writing this way conveys heavy bias towards the narrow, and not exclusively used, monotheistic connotation as though that is the only acceptable definition. The actual fact is, theism most literally describes belief in at least one god, NOT belief in only one god. These lines should be removed and they need nothing to replace them, as the monotheistic connotation is thoroughly described in the first paragraph. PrincessPimpernel (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent revert

I reverted this edit to the lead, which was made by an anonymous ip with no edit summary. I can only guess why he feels the change is necessary, but in contrast, I think the sources are quite clear. AFAICT, agnosticism is about "knowledge", not about "justification for belief". Our article on agnosticism covers this in some detail as well. If I've missed anything, or there's some reason this change is necessary, I'd be happy to discuss it! Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the William L. Rowe source is quite clear, "...an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God...". The statement, "...agnosticism deals with (absence of) rational claims to asserting knowledge" is no where contained in the source. This statement actually contradicts what the source is advancing, that agnosticism "deals with (absence of) rational claims to asserting belief." The source is advancing the position that agnosticism is a valid third alternative to theism and atheism, while the current statement advances that agnosticism is not a valid third alternative. It is clearly a misrepresentation of the source.IIXVXII (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It's been changed yet again, same user. I do like this new change direction but it needs to specify what agnosticism is (lack of knowledge) not just what it isn't (a matter of belief.) PrincessPimpernel (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no issues if others want to advance the view that agnosticism is not a valid third alternative, but the current source cited, is not advancing that view.IIXVXII (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

If you change this back again, then you are doing Original Research. No where in the citation does it imply what you want it to imply.IIXVXII (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi IIXVXII. I haven't responded again because I saw you got some input here, and are also having this same discussion on the Agnosticism talk page. We have other sources than the one to which you're referring. I'd be happy to swap out this current source with others if that's what you'd prefer. One is by George Smith here: "agnosticism is not a third alternative to theism and atheism...agnosticism refers to the impossibility of knowledge with regard to a god... Agnosticism can be either theistic or atheistic." (See page 10-11 for the full quote). Another is by Dan Barker, page 96 here. "The two words [Atheism and agnosticism] serve different concepts and are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism addresses knowledge; atheism addresses belief. The agnostic says, “I don't have a knowledge that God exists.". These are sources we're using in wikipedia already on this set of articles. I could find others if necessary, but I think what we have already should be sufficient.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the agnosticism talk page, where I showed the flaw of the quotation.

Now I'm dealing with you, and how you are violating WP:NPV by demanding the minority view be the only view presented. You even admit you will exchange the majority view source with a minority view source, in order to obtain your goal of advancing the minority view.

My compromise is to remove the entire sentence and let this debate continue in the agnosticism talk page. Afterall, the sentence offers nothing to the topic of theism.IIXVXII (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The sentence offers nothing to the topic of theism if we assume your premise that they are mutually exclusive. They are not always mutually exclusive. All we're doing here is summarizing the Agnosticism and Agnostic theism articles, so I agree that you should have this discussion on those pages first. I disagree that Rowe is in the majority, and Smith and Barker and Martin et al. are all in the minority. You're welcome to hash that out and demonstrate the majority position on the Agnosticism talk if you'd like. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Missing category

If a theism is not pantheist or panentheist then what is it?

(pandeism and panendeism does not count)--85.104.94.52 (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The article isn't claiming that all belief is either pantheist or panentheist. Those are simply presented as two types of theistic belief. Clearly there are belief systems in which their deity/deities are separate in substance from the universe (such as the vast majority of Abrahamic religions). Scyldscefing (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

And why would Pandeism and Panendeism not count? DeistCosmos (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Article lede changed in a manner to make it inaccurate.

In this edit User:TheCorduroyEffect changes the lede sentence in a manner that simplifies the sentence a little bit, but it changes the meaning from what used to be accurate to what is now inaccurate.

"the belief that at least one deity exists" is not the same meaning as "the belief in the existence of deities." And, of course, the difference is that the current version excludes the singular and only includes the plural. That is both a misrepresentation of the vast majority of theists (who are monotheistic), it is also just inaccurate.

I will change it to "the belief in the existence of a [[deity] or deities." Perhaps it should just be reverted, but I don't want to have a revert struggle, so I will try to take this edit and make it better rather than revert it. 173.48.60.68 (talk) 03:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Making a distinction with deism

We need sources here for reducing theism to belief in gods who intervene in the world. Cudworth's definition, in drawing a line between atheists and theists, plainly puts deists in the latter camp, and he is a contemporary of the originators of the idea, in the place of its origin. It would be fair to record deistic objection to being categorized with other believers in gods, but (a) if this distinction is more or less universally observed, we need a source for that, and (b) in any case we need a source for the deist perspective; you cannot just say it on your own authority. Mangoe (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiping out all the links on the page?

IP Editor 142.160.131.202 wiped out all the see also links on this page. When I reverted he reverted it back pointing to WP:EMBED. I looked at WP:EMBED and I see no justification for wiping out all the links as he/she is doing it. We can discuss specific links that may not deserve to be on the page, but the wiping out of all links does not seem right to me? Thanks, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Does the term exclude pantheism and deism?

I feel pretty sure that I once read somewhere that as theism is belief in a God who is both transcendent and immanent, it would be taken to exclude both pantheism (which rejects the transcendence of God) and deism (which rejects the immanence of God). This could be more clearly formulated in the article. Vorbee (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I like the suggestion, but the question is where is theism defined as "belief in a God who is both transcendent and immanent." Because, if that is the definition of theism, than it would be pretty close to pantheism? Thanks, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

My understanding of pantheism is that it defines God as the Cosmos (which would then preclude transcendence beyond the cosmos), where panentheism is closer to the understanding of God as both transcendent and imminent (i.e. fully present throughout the cosmos, but not the same substance as the Cosmos). Interestingly, the distinction between the two has parallels in the distinction between transubstantiation and consubstantiation (with regard to the Christian practice of Communion), and also reminds me of the distinction between homoousios (of the same substance) and homoiousios (of like substance) in the Christological debates of the 4th century.The Famous Adventurer (talk) 10:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

What about Pandeism then, where the Creator is formerly transcendent and presently immanent? Pandeist (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Weasel words regarding proof

This sentence from the article is problematic: "There have been many proofs of Monotheism postulated by a multitude of philosophers and academics throughout history." Even though the word "postulated" makes the sentence technically true, a careless reader could easily take the sentence to imply that there were many valid proofs of monotheism. This sentence should be removed or replaced with something with a neutral point of view linking to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God for example. 76.21.18.251 (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC) John Corbett

Thanks for the note. I for one agree with you, so you can try your hand at it, and I will be checking and adding comments and edits if needed, to what you come up with. Since you are apparently also signing your name, I'd suggest you login as a registered user to start making your edits. Thank you and good luck, warshy ^(¥¥) 20:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

And thank you as well, warshy. My preference would be to delete the sentence. If anyone has an interest in adding a history section, the link I mentioned and many others would be appropriate. I'm not inclined to try to fix the sentence again because last time I did, it got reverted. I do appreciate the encouragement to create an account, but I don't have time today. 76.21.18.251 (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC) John Corbett

Whenever you do have sometime, and if you feel so inclined, I'd encourage you to try your hand at a better statement, instead of the one you have identified. If I agree with your suggested edit, I don't think it would be reverted. Thank you for caring about the accuracy of the content of this page. Be well, warshy ^(¥¥) 14:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Function of the fact that in theology arguments are called proofs. Suggest reversing word order -- "Philosophers and academics throughout history have postulated many proofs of Monotheism." Could further make it "postulated many arguments claimed as proofs" for caution's sake. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)