Talk:Indifferentism

Needs work

This text reads completely like a Catholic article instead of a Wiki article! It needs to be "de-perspectivized" so that all readers may equally benefit, both Catholic and non-Catholic alike. Otherwise readers will get more use from a Catholic Encyclopedia instead of coming to this website. (NTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.250.2.10 (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

While most Catholic Encyclopedia texts need editing and work, this one is worse than most. I am wondering whether at least some of this material is obsolete after Vatican II, but any emendations to that are probably best left to a RC editor. What I can do is add a bit to the text explaining how the belief that a heresy called "indifferentism" exists underlies traditional Roman Catholic hostility to freedom of religion. Smerdis of Tlön 21:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Nothing in Catholic doctrine was made obsolete by Vatican II, but I certainly would agree that Vatican II and the new Catechism do a better job at proper emphasis than the century-old, predominantly lay publication that is the Catholic Encyclopedia. But, if you interpret indifferentism as hostility to freedom of religion, I'd suggest you leave the task of updating that source to the experts.

The idea that all religions are equal, and thus are equal to Catholicism, is still rejected by Catholicism as far as I know. DIGNITATIS HUMANAE, in Vatican II, clearly states

"that God Himself has made knownto mankind the way in which men are to serve Him, and thus be saved in Christ and come to blessedness. We believe that this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church" and that "Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion (my emphasis) in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ."

Traditionalist Catholics state that the Church has become modernist and indifferentist, but personally I think that's based on interpreting pre-Vatican II ideals more narrowly then is necessary or even plausible. The rejection of coercion in religion goes back to at least St. Augustine. For example it is true that once baptized a baby was to be raised Catholic, leading to controversies regarding Jews sheltered during the Holocaust, but baptizing babies without parental consent was expressly forbidden as in principle were all coercive baptism.

So what does all that mean? Well essentially Catholics still can, and ideally should, believe Catholicism is the true faith. They can, maybe even should I'm less clear on that, seek to make elements of Catholic social teaching public policy. However they can, and should, protect religious minorities from coercion on matters of religion. Defending the rights of say Jehovah's Witnesses to avoid saying the Pledge of Allegiance does not mean deeming Jehovah's Witnesses to be correct or equal to Catholicism. Vatican II does not affirm the idea, condemned by Pius IX, that people should join a religion based on reason alone or that Catholics can leave the faith without facing criticism. (This is a conservative interpretation, I admit, but it's "liberal" compared to what I see on many conservative Catholic websites)--T. Anthony 12:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's at all unreasonable to rely on a Catholic source explain a Catholic doctrine, but it should be remembered that "the Catholic Encyclopedia" was published a century ago by largely lay Catholics; it's not an ultimate source, and is certainly inferior to the new Catholic Catechism, inasmuch as it is an inferior authority and has a problematic context.

Text cut from Catholic Encyclopedia article

I have removed entirely the following text from the Catholic Encyclopedia article

Liberal or latitudinarian indifferentism

Origin and growth

The foregoing types of Indifferentism are conveniently called infidel, to distinguish them from a third, which, while acknowledging the unique Divine origin and character of Christianity, and its consequent immeasurable superiority over all rival religions, holds that what particular Christian Church or sect one belongs to is an indifferent matter; all forms of Christianity are on the same footing, all are equally pleasing to God and serviceable to man. On approaching this third error one may advantageously inquire into the genesis of Indifferentism in general. In doing so we shall find that liberal Indifferentism, as the third type is called, although it arises in belief, is closely akin to that of infidelity; and this community of origin will account for the tendency which is today working towards the union of both in a common mire of scepticism. Indifferentism springs from Rationalism. By Rationalism here we understand the principle that reason is the sole judge and discoverer of religious truth as of all other kinds of truth.

It is the antithesis of the principle of authority which asserts that God, by a supernatural revelation, has taught man religious truths that are inaccessible to our mere unaided reason, as well as other truths which, though not absolutely beyond the native powers of reason, yet could not by reason alone be brought home to the generality of men with the facility, certitude, and freedom from error required for the right ordering of life. From the earliest ages of the Church the rationalistic spirit manifested itself in various heresies. During the Middle Ages it infected the teachings of many notable philosophers and theologians of the schools, and reigned unchecked in the Moorish centres of learning. Its influence may be traced through the Renaissance to the rise of the Reformation.

From the beginning of the Reformation the rationalistic current flowed with ever-increasing volume through two distinct channels, which, though rising apart, have been gradually approaching each other. The one operated through purely philosophic thought which, wherever it set itself free from the authority of the Church, has on the whole served to display what has been justly called the "all-corroding, all-dissolving scepticism of the intellect in religious matters". Rationalistic speculation gave rise successively to the English Deism of the eighteenth century, to the school of the French Encyclopaedists and their descendants, and to the various German systems of anti-Christian thought. It has culminated in the prevalent materialistic, monistic, and agnostic philosophies of today. When the Reformers rejected the dogmatic authority of the living Church they substituted for it that of the Bible. But their rule of faith was the Bible, interpreted by private judgment.

This doctrine introduced the principle of Rationalism into the very structure of Protestantism. The history of that movement is a record of continually increasing divisions, multiplications of sects, with a steady tendency to reduce the contents of a fixed dogmatic creed. In a few words Cardinal Newman has summed up the lesson of that history: "Experience proves surely that the Bible does not answer a purpose for which it was never intended. It may be accidentally the means of converting individuals; but a book after all cannot make a stand against the wild living intellect of man, and in this day it begins to testify, as regards its own structure and contents, to the power of that universal solvent which is so successfully acting upon religious establishments" (Apologia pro Vita Sua, London, 1883, v. 245). As divisions increased in the general body of Protestantism, and as domestic dissentions arose in the bosom of particular denominations, some of the leaders endeavoured to find a principle of harmony in the theory that the essential doctrines of Christianity are summed up in a few great, simple truths which are clearly expressed in Scripture, and that, consequently, whoever believes these and regulates his life accordingly is a true follower of Christ. This movement failed to stay the process of disintegration, and powerfully promoted the opinion that, provided one accepts Christianity as the true religion, it makes little difference to what particular denomination one adheres. The view spread that there is no creed definitely set forth in Scripture, therefore all are of equal value, and all profitable to salvation. Large numbers in the Church of England adopted this opinion, which came to be known as Liberalism or Latitudinarianism. It was not, however, confined to one form of Protestantism, but obtained adherents in almost every body inheriting from the Reformation. The effort was made to reconcile it with the official confessions by introducing the policy of permitting every one to interpret the compulsory formulae in his own sense.

Indifferentism, liberal and infidel, has been vigorously promoted during the past half century by the dominance of Rationalism in all the lines of scientific inquiry which touch upon religion. The theory of evolution applied to the origin of man, Biblical criticism of the Old and New Testament, the comparative study of religions, archaeology, and ethnology, in the hands of men who assume as their primary postulate that there is no supernatural, and that all religions, Christianity included, are but the offspring of the feeling and thought of the natural man, have propagated a general atmosphere of doubt or positive unbelief. As a result, large numbers of Protestants have abandoned all distinctly Christian belief, while others, still clinging to the name, have emptied their creed of all its essential dogmatic contents. The doctrine of Scriptural inspiration and inerrancy is all but universally abandoned. It would not, perhaps, be incorrect to say that the prevalent view today is that Christ taught no dogmatic doctrine, His teaching was purely ethical, and its only permanent and valuable content is summed up in the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. When this point is reached the Indifferentism which arose in belief joins hands with the Indifferentism of infidelity. The latter substitutes for religion, the former advocates as the only essential of religion, the broad fundamental principles of natural morality, such as justice, veracity, and benevolence that takes concrete form in social service. In some minds this theory of life is combined with Agnosticism, in others with a vague Theism, while in many it is still united with some vestiges of the Christian Faith.

Along with the intellectual cause just noted, another has been what one might call the automatic influence proceeding from the existence of many religions side by side in the same country. This condition has given rise to the political indifferentism referred to in the opening of this article. Where this state of affairs prevails, when men of various creeds meet one another in political, commercial, and social life, in order that they may carry on their relations harmoniously they will not demand any special recognition of their own respective denominations. Personal intercourse fosters the spirit of tolerance, and whoever does not unflinchingly hold to the truth that there is but one true religion is apt to be guided in his judgments by the maxim, "From their fruits ye shall know them." On observing that probity and good intention mark the lives of some of his associates who differ in their religious beliefs, he may easily come to the conclusion that one religion is as good as another. Probably, however, many who speak thus would acknowledge the fallacy of this view if pushed by argument. On the other hand, great numbers of theoretical Indifferentists display unmistakable hostility to the Catholic Church; while, again, persons devoid of all religious belief, favour the Church as an efficient element of police for the preservation of the social order.

Criticism

It would be beyond the scope of this article to develop, or even briefly sketch, the argument contained in the Scriptures and in the history of the Church for the truth that, from the beginning, Christianity was a dogmatic religion with a rule of faith, a rule of conduct, a definite, if not fully developed, system, with promises to be fulfilled for those who adhered to the creed, the discipline, and the system, and with anathemas for those who rejected them. The exposition and the proof of these facts constitute, in theology, the treatise on the Church (see CHURCH). One obvious consideration may be briefly pointed out which lays bare the inconsistency of liberal indifferentism. If, as this theory admits, God did reveal any truth to men, then He surely intended that it should be believed. He can not have meant that men should treat His revelation as of no importance, or that it should signify one thing to you and something entirely different to me, nor can He be indifferent as to whether men interpret it correctly or incorrectly. If He revealed a religion, reason certainly tells us that such a religion must be true, and all others that disagree with it false, and that He desires men to embrace it; otherwise, why should He have given any revelation at all? It is true that in many places the Scriptures are obscure and furnish to those who assume to interpret them by the light of private judgment alone many occasions of reaching irreconcilable conclusions. This fact, however, proves only the falseness of the Protestant rule of faith. The inference that flows from it is not that all interpretations are equally trustworthy, but that, since God has given us a revelation which is not so clearly or fully expressed in the Scriptures that reason can grasp it with certitude, He must have constituted some authority to teach us what is the burden of revelation.

The cogency of this reasoning when set forth at adequate length has led into the Catholic Church many sincere non-Catholics, who have observed how Rationalism is rapidly dissolving religious faith over wide areas once occupied by dogmatic Protestantism. Present signs seem to indicate that, in the near future, the religious struggle shall be, not between this or that form of religion, but between Catholicism and no religion at all. It is true, of course, that reason, as the Vatican Council teaches, can, by its own native powers, reach with certitude the truths which suffice to form the basis of a natural religion. But it is also true that, as Newman has said, the tendency of the human intellect, as such, has been, historically, towards simple unbelief in matters of religion: "No truth, however sacred, can stand against it in the long run; and hence it is that in the Pagan world, when our Lord came, the last traces of the religious knowledge of former times were all but disappearing from those portions of the world in which the intellect had been active and had a career" (Apologia, chap. v). These words might stand with but little modification as a description of present-day conditions where the rationalistic spirit is in control. The only effective barrier to resist its triumphant march, leading scepticism in its train, is the principle of authority embodied in the Catholic Church.

Problems I see with the foregoing

Basically, it isn't true.

The text seems to say that Protestantism constantly tends to move in the direction of rationalism, apparently because Protestantism is based on the authority of a Biblical text instead of an institution that promulgates doctrine. At minimum, the recent history of Protestantism in the United States seems not to bear out its predictions, which strike me as representing a pre-World-War-I viewpoint that sees liberal rationalism on the ascendant. From our own equally limited standpoint, this seems not to have been the case. Of course, the Roman POV is fairly strongly in evidence here, as throughout the remaining text, but this part especially seems to be more unfocused musing and speculation about how the future looked in the early twentieth century than an explanation of the doctrine of indifferentism in any case. I am preserving these bits in case anyone wants to try to fix them. -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Reliable sources for the term dharmic religions?

Where are the reliable sources that use the term dharmic religions in the context of this article? Dharmic religions is a now deleted obscure neologism and should not be used throughout Wikipedia. A good alternative is Indian religions. Andries 15:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The number of google scholar results for "Indian religions"+"Indian religion" is (45.600 + 84.200) while it is only (492+475) for "dharmic religions" +"dharmic religion". See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_8. Andries 19:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Why I struck "Indifferentism and freedom of religion"

The entire passage confuses civil and ecclesiastical functions. The doctrine against indifferentism asserts what truth is, but does not assert that Catholics should seek the intervention of secular authorities in establishing such doctrines, legally.

Whereas the contributor states, "[t]hese traditional Roman Catholic beliefs in "indifferentism" underlie the long hostility exhibited by Roman Catholicism towards the principles of freedom of religion and separation of church and state," the contributor should stick to the facts, not interpreting the motivations of other people's religion.

Whereas the contributor states, "[t]he Roman Catholic doctrine of "indifferentism" condemns by implication the idea that religious faiths other than Roman Catholicism have a right to exist and to proselytize. " the Catholic Church's notion that it's own doctrine is correct and unique in no way implies that the force of government is a proper or effective means of establishing that doctrine.

Where the author states ,"[s]tatements such like Connell's are part of the basis for traditional American and British suspicion of the intentions of the Roman Catholic Church as a corporate body and political institution."

The contributor should not ascribe his own suspicions to the American people, for whom Catholicism is the largest religious denomination. That there has, historically, been some suspicion of Catholics is a fact, but the contributor appears to be justifying such suspicion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.226.212 (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Misdirected link?

The "Inclusionism" link in the "see also" section goes to the page Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. From context one would have expected it to link to something more relevant to religion. I would just edit the link myself to point to its real target, only in this case I don't know what the person who added the link was actually thinking of. Anyone with more knowledge able to sort this out? 80.252.125.10 (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

False Dichotomy

The article conflates four asertions: 1. The nature of God, heaven, hell, and other supernatural entities, as well as historic events of religious significance, are real in the sense that a well-formed statement about them is either entirely true or not entirely true. Either certain people are sent after death to a place of eternal fiery torment or it never happens. Either angels of God, eternal sentient beings who were never human beings, exist in some form or they do not. Moses received carved stone tablets from God on Mount Sinai or he never did. 2. Humans are capable of understanding the nature of these things with enough depth and certainty to answer these questions accurately. 3. God has disclosed the nature of these things in a clear manner intelligible to humanity. 4. God seriously prefers that humans have an accrate understanding of these things, even if wrong understanding does not lead to wrongful acts within the secular domain.

I would assert that the first statement is probably true because it is simpler for the Creator to create a world subject to the same laws of logic as those binding the Divinity. Of course, the biblical God exists outside of time in the sense that He knows the future even when He chooses not to interfere with human free will, but the laws of Aristotelian logic do not encompass the flow of time.

There are clearly things that are unknowable by humans because we lack the scope in time and space to see or understand the totality of creation. We are perfectly capable of understanding the divine laws governing our own actions, though perhaps not the logic behind them.

While the bible itself gives ambiguous hints about theology, it spells out in repetitive detail how humans should treat one another another. Even many ritual rules such as keeping the Sabbath boil down to secular behavior in a Godly cause. There are also purely ritualistic commandments in the Bible (far fewer than most religions prescribe), but they are to be carried out by humans. There is no attempt to characterize heaven, hell, angels, or God Himself except in passing remarks found in discussions of Earthly events and topics. Even the ultimate question of why God created the world is barely mentioned, while the reason God created two human genders is clearly stated because it bears on human needs.

From this I conclude the while God does not object to human speculations about divine entities, He does not care about their conclusions. Instead, God cares about how we treat ourselves, our fellow humans, and our world. Seen that way, using any form of coercion, whether physical or social, to enforce a particular theological viewpoint would be religiously pointless and offensive to God's law.

As for ritual compliance, check out the detail provided for building the Ark of the Covenant or seeking annual atonement for sin, and you will see how specific God gets when the details are important to Him. When those laws are broken, God can wield summary justice, whether by allowing war and conquest or by allowing the Earth to open up and swallow the miscreants.

Going beyond the biblical prescriptions may not be a bad thing. Enforcing those embellishments in God's name is both presumptuous and very human. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeg3 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Religion as dogma vs. Religion as people

When certain people assert that all religions are equal, it's likely that they mean that all people are equal, and not necessarily that all doctrines are equal. For instance, there is a common confusion between Christianity and the Christian people, between Judaism and the Jewish people, or between Islam and the Muslim people. In this particular context, denying that all religions are equal is tantamount to asserting that not all people are equal, which is certainly not the intent of the person who is talking about dogmas and not about people. On the other hand, there are certain strands of modern relativism that do talk of all dogmas as being equal because they feel that such a view is a pre-requisite for a correct appreciation of value pluralism, which would mean that the equal treatment of opinions is held to be foundational in a democratic society. ADM (talk) 04:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This statement "denying that all religions are equal is tantamount to asserting that not all people are equal" is absurd. This is a disscusion of the theological concept of Indifferentism, not freedom of religion. I am catholic I do NOT believe that for instance the hindu faith is equal to mine because from MY perspective my religion is exclusively correct theirs is false. However I full acknowledge their religion as legitimate to them, and I actually have a great deal of respect for their culture and traditions, i've even read their holy books partially. They are my equals, the accuracy of their religion is not. This is what the concept implies and nothing more. Smitty1337 (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody treats a fool as their equal. Get off your moral pedestal before you fall off, you fool. 203.129.23.146 (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding changes i just made.

I just changed the article to have an intro that defines the concept from a neutral perspective. Indifferentism is not strictly a catholic word so that material i moved tot he catholic section. i added a citation to support this. in the catholic section i added a papel statement that takes some of the traditionalist catholic edge off. Post vatican2 catholic dogma is less severe, we (yes im catholic) still hold that ours is the one true faith but well JP2 kinda said it better then i care to attempt "This does not lessen the sincere respect that the Church has for the various religious traditions, recognizing in them elements of truth and goodness" Smitty1337 (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Please if anyone has more knowledge regarding the protestant perspective, or better yet some other religions outside christianity this could greatly improve the article. Islam for instance would be fantastic. I will research this and make some minor edits myself later but i'm by no means a theologian so an expert would be helpful Smitty1337 (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Overhaul

This article needs to be completely overhauled. I'm not certain that this is really a legitimate standalone concept outside of Catholic doctrine, despite its presence in LCSH. I'm going to look around and see if I can find any non-Catholic sources that refer to indifferentism - if not, I'm not sure it wouldn't belong better as part of a larger article on Roman Catholic theology. It seems like there's consensus that this deserves a standalone page, so I'm going to spend some time doing some research and come back in a few weeks and make some sourced changes - either to reflect a more balanced view or to reframe this article as part of RC perspectives on other religions and not part of philosophy of religion as a whole. Eldamorie (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

Short and sweet, it belongs under Apatheism clearly listed in the "Indifference" portion of sub-parts of the philosophical stand point, to which that portion needs a less condescending tone to become a lot more encyclopedic in nature. The current page Agnostic neutralism which is under grounds for deletion is the exact same subject and concept under a different name. DudelRok (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I incorporated the majority of the content from this article into Apatheism. I'm thinking that this article can probably be trashed and converted to a redirect now but I don't want to make the decision unilaterally.Eldamorie (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

"Apatheism" would appear to be a neologism, and "indifferentism" is the established term, at least in RC theology. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree that Apatheism is definitely the neologism - my issue is that Indifferentism is such a broad term in RC theology and gets thrown around all over the place to describe anything that the author doesn't consider suitably rigorous. It gets used in a very different context by philosophers (i.e. RC uses indifferentism to describe deism). It seems like neologisms seem to be the way these articles are getting filed (see the Agnostic neutralism issues). If this article is going to stay (and not become the "new" Apatheism article) then I'd suggest, as I considered above, framing it as an article of Roman Catholic theology and not how it is now.Eldamorie (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd happily agree that the RC notion of "indifferentism" seems to be rather scattershot. In practice it seems to mean "any theological or philosophical position that does not acknowledge the one true faith". Historically, this article was started as a long excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia, and the POV problems of that text were worse than usual given the source. Most of that text has been discarded without replacement, leaving the article rather hard to follow. At least when that text was in place, it was obvious that it was discussing a concept in RC theology. I'm not convinced, though, that "apatheism", which seems to be rather too clever even if it was coined in 1961, is a better place for the material than here.

And I have no idea why the article was tagged as an advertisement, either. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

As to which is the better title, this interesting Google gadget tells the tale of the tape. "Indifferentism" is used; "apatheism" hardly at all. And now that I've shown that to you we'll all get nothing done over the rest of the afternoon. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll admit to cutting a lot of that text in an attempt to make the article less RC -- in my defense, so much of the original Catholic Encyclopedia text had already been cut so it wasn't clear that this article was on RC theology and not a more general philosophy of religion. I had assumed that the advertising tag was because of the standard Catholic Encyclopedia POV issues, but that's just a guess as it was there when I got to this article. I've tried to make some changes that will hopefully balance this out better so the article doesn't come across like an attack on all non-RC religions (which was the form it was in when I first started editing it) but still represents the perspective. Eldamorie (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Problematical statement re. ethics and their cultural context

Under the heading "Restricted indifferentism", this assertion is made: "This idea (i.e., that a god does not care which belief system we follow, so long as we are sincere) appears to be tenable only in a cultural context that takes most core ethical beliefs for granted: it runs into serious trouble as soon as the basis of ethics comes into question." No reference is offered to support this assertion nor, I think, does it sound sensible. I would appreciate it if someone could defend this view and provide sources to support it. Otherwise, I think it should be stricken. Bricology (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hilarious

What else could we expect on a wikipedia page about catholicism but obedience to catholic dogma? I naively expected something a little less pro-catholic than this. It seems probable a catholic is not free to debate religion, but rather to obey superiors who make decisions, and write the official line. This seems to leave few choices open to a catholic writer who has to defend the received dogma, and the one on display here seems to be 'assert superiority at all costs'. It has worked for almost two thousand years it must be right, mustn't it? Never mind truth, see how strong I am. Hilarious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.6.185.102 (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)