Talk:Nontheism/Archive 1

Nontheistic Religions?

The article contains this sentence: "The term has been applied to the ideas of atheism (both weak and strong), agnosticism, ignosticism, and skepticism, as well as to describe the philosophies of certain established religions, including Confucianism, Taoism, Jainism, Buddhism, Falun Gong."

From the Wikipedia article on Confucianism: "Confucianism...is an ancient Chinese ethical and philosophical system..." The article also says that Confusianism includes "quasi-religious thought", i.e. not religious thought, but thought that resembles religious thought in some way. So why does this article class Confucianism as a religion?

From the Wikipedia article on Taoism: "Most traditional Chinese Taoists are polytheistic." Philosophical Taoism may be nontheistic, but philosophical Taoism isn't a religion. Religious Taoism is clearly theistic.

Jains believe in devas, celestial beings. They are variously called gods or demi-gods in English, but belief in demi-gods can hardly be called non-theist. Similar to Buddhist thought, since Jains acknowledge the existence of devas, but don't put undue importance on them I don't see why this was removed? Gods in Jainism is the same as demons. You can be born as either, and then you die, and get reincarnated again. They are not creators, nor are they worshipped. The only beings worshipped are the conquerors, who were not gods but men who managed to conquer their inner selves. The English connotations associated with the word god seem to imply a creator or at least all powerful being, in Jainism this is far from the case. They are respected as all forms of life are, but not for any particular power or attributes. To call Jainism polytheistic, which is what the above would seem is laughable for a religion where you can be born a god. If there's a section on Hinduism, and one on Buddhism, it seems lacking not to include on one Jainism. Especially since the majority of thought concerning the birth and death cycle is a major tenant of the religion, predating Buddhism by a good many years.

From the Wikipedia article on Buddhism: "The quest of the Bodhisattvas is for ultimate Buddhic knowledge so as to be able to effect the salvation of all humanity (and indeed all living beings, including animals, ghosts and gods)." So Buddhists are theists.

It's not clear that Falun Gong is a religion. The Wikipedia article on Falun Gong doesn't call it a religion, and it seems to have more to do with Chinese traditional medicine, particularly qigong, than with religion.

I'm going to wait a bit to see if there's a response to this comment, and then I'm going to delete the following: "as well as to describe the philosophies of certain established religions, including Confucianism, Taoism, Jainism, Buddhism, Falun Gong." RenGalskap 01:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, it is pretty clearly not the case that ALL forms Buddhism are non-theistic - but Theravada Buddhism seems to be. With regard to Buddhism in general, while Siddhartha apparently held there were gods, from what I have read, he did not consider them important. If this is quite right, one could argue the gods are then not "part of" the official tenets of Buddhism (though they may be part of an individual's path to .... detachment). I WISH Taoism were nontheistic, but apparently it teaches it is good to pay attention to the godS. Despite wikipedia saying Confucianism is "quasi-religious", I think most people consider it close enough to a religion to be a religion. Falun Gong seems to have some "magical thinking", but that might be my interpretation. Still, it appears the article does need to be cleaned up in that section - or clarified more. There seem to be nontheistic religions, and the topic would be relevant to the article even if an examinination of some religions cannot clearly determine if they qualify as such.--JimWae (talk) 06:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• I've removed much of it - simply because those religions are never heard about again after their appearance in the lede--JimWae (talk) 07:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Theravada Buddhism has been described as non-theistic. However, it is largely theistic in actual practice. Ethnographic studies by anthropologists, Gombrich for example, show that Theravada Buddhists engage in a wide variety of devotional practices, many of them directed at the Buddha. While the suttas don't give the Indic gods a crucial role, Buddhism has created its own deities to take their place. Various Buddhas, gods, and bodhisattvas are petitioned for help and considered to be effective in providing their worshipers with help.

• • To the extent that Confusianism is a religion, it involves ancestor worship. These ancestors function as deities. If you remove the devotional aspects of Confusianism, you're left with a philosophy. So either Confusianism is a theistic religion, or it is a non-theistic philosophy.

• • • I believe that Confusianism is a non-theistic philosophy developed by generations of philosophers including Confucius, Mencius and many others. Additionally, distinguishes should be made clearer between religious and philosophical Taoism, since philosophical Taoism clearly involves no diety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.97.220 (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• • You may consider qigong to be magical. It's practitioners consider it to be medicine. :)--RenGalskap 15:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The article currently says: "Some forms of Buddhism, and also some developments of Christianity, have also been described as nontheistic."

Theism can have the meaning "belief in a creator god". This article uses theism in the sense of belief in god in general, not necessarily a creator god. When Buddhism is called non-theistic, it means lacking a creator god. For example, the Dalai Lama frequently contrasts Buddhism with Xtianity, calling Xtianity theistic and Buddhism godless. This is in spite of the fact that Tibetan Buddhism has many gods. If you look at the context, he states that Xtianity is theistic because it has a creator god, and Buddhism is godless because it lacks a creator god.

Since Buddhism is described as non-theistic only in the sense of having no creator god, and this article is using the term "theism" in a different sense, the sentence quoted above is misleading. --RenGalskap 10:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

How is Buddhism non-theistic?

I don't understand how anyone could classify Buddhism as non-theistic since Gautama Buddha clearly said many gods and goddesses existed throughout his teachings, so then by definition, since Gautama Buddha says personal gods/goddesses exist, it cannot be non-theistic in ANY imaginable extent..nontheism is not "saying gods exist, but centering your teachings around other things" --Mdsats (talk) 02:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Gautama Buddha might not be a non-theist, but that doesn't mean his teachings weren't non-theistic. I've removed the reference from the article, as it doesn't seem to make much sense to claim the person was a non-theist. Mdwh (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What? So then by that reasoning Jesus's teachings are non-theistic also, so why don't we put Jesus and Christianity under non-theism too?

Buddha did not believe in a singular, omnipotent creator God, so in that sense he was nontheistic. The Buddhist concept of devas may be translated as "gods" or as "spirits." Buddhism does not require belief in a God. Even though not all Buddhists are nontheists, many are, and theism is not an essential component of the faith. It has been identified as nontheistic by reliable sources. Belief in God is much more central to Christianity, so it is not nontheistic, although there are a few Christians who could be called nontheistic: Paul Tillich, for instance, who did not believe in the existence of God. Nick Graves (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

But theism isn't "believing in a singular, omnipotent creator God", by that reasoning lots of ancient religions like that of the ancient Egyptians, Indians, etc...should also be labeled as "nontheistic" they too don't require a belief in a omnipotent creator God. Reliable sources is an appeal to authority...it doesn't refute anything I said

Theism is affirming the positive belief in the existence of god or gods...so how is Buddhism not theistic but instead non-theistic?

The Buddha affirmed the positive belief in the existence of many devas, Brahmas, and also the Great Brahma (the false creator God)...how then is it to be considered non-theistic when other pagan religions who don't believe in a singular omnipotent creator God are considered theistic?

Also since many of Jesus's teachings are non-theistic (not involving any belief in God), why isn't Jesus considered a non-theist then if The Buddha is?

Also there is the Primordial Buddha in some forms of Buddhism, so again how is Buddhism non-theistic in any imaginable extent?--Mdsats (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

God_in_Buddhism#God_in_early_Buddhism elaborates on this subject, and includes references and quotations. -- Crowsnest (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to Irreligion

Nontheist seems to be without a solid definition so I personally don't think it needs an article of its own. Although there have been several suggestions for maintaining the page, none of them have given any particularly good reason to do so. In addition to that fact, the majority of this article is POV and original research, so I suggest this article redirect to Irreligion. I find it difficult to see the neccesity in having an encylopedia entry on a topic that doesn't even have a solid definition. Jhall1468 22:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Deism

Where's "Deism"? Deism is a form of nontheism. Especially many of the modern deists have elements of agnosticism,atheism, and anti0theism in their deism. Deism postulates belief in the probability of some kind of impersonal god, and the arttiicle mentions Tillich, whose conception is veyr close to that of PanDeism or PanenDeism as well; and deisms god in general is first cause, not a personal beeing to have relatrionship with. I think,therefore, that Deism should be in the list of nontheisms in the article. --Iconoclastithon 20:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

2005

I find this statement requires futher discussion in the article or some sort of validation: "This usage is somewhat misleading, however." Otherwise, it is hardly a neutral POV.

I have my doubts about this term, see Talk:Atheism. Since there is only a single reference given, I assume that the article is based on usage in that book (without having seen the book; for all I know, people could just have pieced this article together on a whim), so I will say "according to Caporale & Grumelli" dab (ᛏ) 22:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Some things in here seem utterly incorrect. For instance, "An agnostic, by definition, views the question of God's existence to be necessarily unanswerable", but that only applies to hard agnosticism, which is probably less common than weak agnosticism anyway. How the article is it states the divide between agnosticism and "nontheism" based on this single point, which makes it confusing. I'm really not seeing how this differs from agnosticism at all. Sarge Baldy 09:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I am aware of a pedantic difference, though this article doesn't delineate it, and is actually rather incorrect. Here's how I understand the matter: strictly, nontheism is the position that discussion of the numinous is meaningless, because assertions about the numinous are unfalsifiable. Basically, it's strong agnosticism by falsifiability. I use the term myself, but I don't think it's particularly widespread or encyclopedic. I suggest it be redirected to strong agnosticism. All of its content belongs there. Bhumiya 10:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, note that "nontheist" is frequently used as a blanket term for atheists, agnostics, ignostics, and anyone else who can't be classified as a theist. This seems to be the only other common use for the term. There should probably be a disambiguation page. Bhumiya 11:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused. Why strong and not weak? Strong believes that it's impossible to know whether higher forms exist, and weak says that we don't know, but it isn't necessarily impossible to know. I fail to see how this is different from the latter. When this article refers to agnosticism it refers to "strong agnosticism" and justifies its existence based on this relationship. I would think this article should be redirected and merged into weak agnosticism, although I'm interested in why you see it the other way. Either that, or the article needs to reflect whatever nontheism is supposed to be, because it's left pretty unclear. Sarge Baldy 21:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• I have no idea whether this is a theologically recognized term or a neologism. If it's real, though, it should definitely NOT be merged, but rather should be cross-linked, because it's very different. It's certainly a useful term -- I know of a lot of people who get very offended at being called Atheists when all they are is non-Christian/non-Jews. --Mareino 16:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Based on the Google search, I'd say "nontheist" is most commonly used as a catch-all term for atheists, agnostics, and people with related beliefs. It's also commonly used as a simple synonym for "atheist", generally by those who find "atheist" derogatory. It's also used within Quakerism, Judaism, and other religious communities, to denote members who don't profess conventional theistic beliefs. And the term sometimes refers (neologistically) to a specific type of strong agnosticism based on falsificationism. I suspect the latter meaning has actually been popularized by the Wikipedia article, since I can find very little independent evidence of it (I knew about it, but I may have picked it up here). Anyway, I suggest making a disambiguation page, since the term has so many subtly different meanings, most of which are extensively covered in other articles. Bhumiya 01:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I am confused about the definition. There are numerous hindu sects that have a non-Theist belief system (like Advaita Vedanta), but are clearly not atheist and do not consider the question of divinity irrelevant. Andries 22:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call Advaita Vedanta nontheistic in any sense of the word. Though Advaita doesn't recognize the personal Abrahamic deity (and the concepts associated with it), its concept of Brahman is clearly theistic. Because of its transcendental epistemology, it may be classified as agnostic theism, which is very rarely grouped into "nontheism". Bhumiya 04:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I always thought that theism is defined as faith in a personal God. Brahman is not personal so Advaita Vedanta is not theist. In contrast other Hindu sects like ISKCON do have a personal God and are hence theist. Andries 11:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

"Theism" is the belief in the existence of any deity, personal or not. In the western world, where personal gods are the rule rather than the exception, this is often forgotten. Although Advaita certainly doesn't have a discrete personal deity, its concept of Brahman meets the definition of divinity, i.e. something singular, numinous, and supernatural, "beyond the mundane". Although the language used to describe it is different, and the term "deity" is not used, the concept is similar to Maimonides' indescribable Yahweh, from a philosophical standpoint. If I understand correctly, followers of Advaita believe they are a part of Brahman, in the same general way that, for example, Rastafarians consider themselves extremities of a single god. Some theologians may classify Advaita differently, to make it appear more like western religions, but the matter is actually simple. Consider that there are only two categories available when speaking in theistic terms: theism and its absence, atheism. Forget these terms' western connotations. Theism is not necessarily Abrahamic. Either Advaita is theism or it is atheism. There is no way around this distinction. Either its believers have a belief in a deity, whatever its attributes, and whatever their attitude to it, in which case they are theists of some kind, or else they do not have a belief in a deity, in which case they are atheists of some kind. Keep in mind that atheism is necessarily an absence of belief, but not necessarily a belief in absence. Whether Advaita is gnostic or agnostic is another question, entirely unrelated to the first question. Bhumiya 17:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

What about Zen? — goethean ॐ 16:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Buddhism (and Zen, by extension) are considered atheist. Which to me kind of weakens the importance of identifying all religious belief as either theistic or atheistic. Sarge Baldy 20:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Original research

Virtually this whole article constitutes original research. There are countless assertions in it that need to be sourced or removed. For example:

"Used in the strict sense, as by those who self-identify as nontheists or nontheistics, the term describes a particular worldview for which the question of divinity is regarded as irrelevant and meaningless."

Who specifically does this sentence refer to? Which people who "self-identify as nontheists or nontheistics"? Name them. Or at least provide a citation for this assertion.

Another example:

"Many modern-day weak atheists could be described as agnostic nontheists, in that they regard the existence of God as both meaningless and unknown. Conversely, many modern-day strong atheists could be described as non-agnostic nontheists, in that they regard the existence of God as both meaningless and definitely false."

Once again, this is unsourced original research. Who are these "many modern-day weak atheists"? Where does this assertion come from? Please provide a citation.

Virtually every single sentence of this article is similarly in violation of Wikipedia policy. As such this whole article needs a major cleanup. -- noosphere 02:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I just added the "article incorrect" section below in regards to this, since there hasn't been much response or discussion as of yet. Simply put the idea that non-theism BROADLY concieved is a "worldview for which the question of divinity is regarded as irrelevant and meaningless" seems grossly inaccurate from what I know if the usage of the term. The most popular usage is by Michael Shermer, and as coined by him, the term simply means "not a theist." Yet Shermer isn't even mentioned in the article. The article has it almost entirely backwards. The BROAD definition of the term is simply "not a theist." There may be particular obscure and bizarre usages by theologians, but these should be subheadings, not held to the broadest concept of the term. Plunge 19:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-theism is atheism

Atheism means anything which is not theism. How is non-theism different?

This article should be merged with atheism or deleted. 194.80.32.8 01:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Is agnosticism the same as athiesm also? --Jaycorrales 22:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Some people identify as agnostics who hold the same lack of a belief in god(s). Atheism is a lack of a belief in god(s), while those who identify as agnostics tend to hold the belief, "I don't know if god(s) exist." Since those agnostics don't hold a belief in any god(s) they [i]are[/i] atheistic. -AlexJohnc3 19:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Some agnostics believe in gods, while asserting that the truth of god's existence cannot be know. Fidelists, for instance are one such group of agnostics.

To be clear: atheists believe god/s do not exist. It is an assertion. Nontheists on the other hand find the entire question irrational. 17:34 1 June 2006

When you say "nontheists," do you mean noncognitivists? Because there are lots of people who aren't theists who think the question is rational. Wiploc 03:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I am not grounded in the philosophical literature of atheism. But why would an atheist take a special stance on religion? I mean, we are all atheists on almost all topics. We do not suspend disbelief. We do not believe in theories that cannot be falsified. The atheist stance is the neutral one, wheneter the topic is religion or not. A monotheist is an atheist that makes one exception.

I mean, surely nontheists aren't agnostic about the existance of leprechauns? To me any form of atheism that is not nontheism is silly. In that case one has to admit to applying a different kind of logic and reason than one applies to other topics. And this 'corruption of reason' has to be justified.

To me the nontheist argument of unfalsifiability comes first. One does not belief in something because it cannot be disproved. Then we have all the other atheist arguments on top of that. I agree with all the basic arguments for atheism. I just find that after the nontheist one the others are superfluous.

So to me it seems that nontheists are atheists that apply logic and reason in the correct order.

I do not need to belief that god does not exist. Naturally you can assume something does not exist if there is nothing to support it.

"A nontheist, by definition, views the question to be necessarily irrelevant" - I thought nontheism was a broad term to describe people who were not theists? Somebody who sees the question of god as irrelevant is a nontheist, but also an atheist. Somebody who sees the question of god as unknowable, is a nontheist and an agnostic, I was led to believe. This sentence is in contradiction to the sentence, "The word is often employed as a blanket term for all terms which are not theistic." By that reasoning, Nietzsche would be a nontheist (sec 1. of Why I am so Clever of Ecce Homo), and he uses this reason to speak of his atheism! That is my reasoning for changing it.--75.2.166.125 00:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

A + theism from Greek means "not theism" or "non-theism." This article, and this term, has no basis. Atheism is nontheism. 24.239.106.17 (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"non-theism" is not a greek word. It seems that the English word "atheism" has a slightly different meaning than its Greek etymology implies. Mitsube (talk) 05:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Major deletion

The first paragraph defines nontheism. The second paragraph is a disclaimer. The rest of the article is misleading and self-contradictory. It should be killed with an axe. But when I tried a major deletion, it was called vandalism and reverted.So now I don't care what order the rest of the paragraphs are in so long as the first two stay where they are. Wiploc 05:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

My last edit was reversed and called "vandalism," so this time I'll try inserting a clarifying comment at the top. As it stands, this entry gives the definition of weak atheism rather than the definition of nontheism. Then it modifies that in very strange ways. The entry won't be coherent until big deletions are made. But for now I'll try just insterting a note at the top. Wiploc 02:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both of these previous statements. This article reaks of contradiction and misconception with no sources. The entire entry should be deleted.

Whole article incorrect?

I think this whole article is ill-concieved. Simply put, non-theism isn't anything more complicated than someone not being a theist: it's a definition of negation, NOT ANY PARTICULAR POSITIVE VIEWPOINT. It is used in this sense all over the place, and the widely read Michael Shermer uses it in just this way. Also, the atheist article references this article with the implication that non-theist simply means "not a theist." However, this article treats non-theism as if it were a particular worldview and position on theism. While perhaps there are people who use the term in this way, it is very very far from the common usage, and most non-theists would disagree with it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plunge (talk • contribs) 20:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article is incorrect, incoherent, and misleading. It should be deleted or radically edited.Wiploc 02:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I will add a number of cleanup tags to the page and will contemplate a comprehensive to-do-list for this discussion page in the next neek or so. Any other suggestions as to how to begin performing a major operation on this internally bleeding article? Jarryd Moore 17:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein Logical Positivists?

I am sure that Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein are NOT Logical Positivists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.161.106.84 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's obviously wrong. --Dannyno 17:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Requesting Feedback

When I first came across this article, the definition for nontheism was buried within tons of other related information and the meaning was hard to find until it was put in bold. Now, I feel that a more logical order for the paragraphs should be (note that the original numbering is kept for reference)

2 Nontheistic worldview
3 Insentient life, infants, etc.
4 Nontheism in philosophy
5 Nontheism in Buddhism
1 Relationship to Agnosticism
6 See also
7 References
8 External links

with "Relationship to Agnosticism" moved to later paragraphs after all the nontheism paragraphs are presented first. Since the topic is nontheism, shouldn't we discuss it first before getting into other topics like agnosticism?

Giving the agnosticism paragraph first priority by placing it on the top of all the other paragraphs--even the nontheism paragraphs--again, buries the topic of nontheism and makes it seem less distinct when compared to other concepts like agnosticism or atheism. Please advise. 06:32, 10 October 2006.

Personal, SELECTIVE point of view?

Hi, I think that simply stating "non" + "theism" = atheism (rather than nontheism) is an intellectually dishonest, SELECTIVE word manipulation. According to the dictionary "non" can ALSO MEAN "of little or no consequence" like nonissue, which doesn’t mean a lack of an issue or no issue. To not mention the MULTIPLE MEANINGS of the word “non” may reveal personal points of view being asserted. The new "non" + "theism" = atheism definition misses the point entirely that nontheism is not about believing or not believing but rather about escaping the wasteful or unimportant dualistic cycle of the belief versus non-belief debate/ideology. A political analogy could be that rather than the dualistic extremes of being a liberal (atheist) or being a conservative (theist), the nontheist would be an independent or moderate (please note that this analogy may be inaccurate and was only meant to provide a real-world example of MORE THAN JUST TWO CHOICES OR CONDITIONS IN NATURE--NOT JUST HOT OR COLD BUT ALSO WARM). 07:30, 22 October 2006

At least I can tell what you are talking about now. I will try to work up a reasonable compromise. Wiploc 23:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken. "Non-" means "not". It cannot mean "of little or no consequence": "nonissue" derives its "of little or no consequence" from the fact that "issue" can mean "a point, matter, or dispute, the decision of which is of special or public importance". In other words, since "issue" can signify an important or significant matter, "non + issue" = "unimportant, insignificant matter". Unless you can think of any other word where "non-" means "of little or no consequence", consider your interpretation debunked (not to mention original research). -Silence 23:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

http://experts.about.com/e/n/no/Nontheism.htm has the same article. Is our article a copyright violation? Wiploc 01:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it says at the bottom the page is taken from Wikipedia. Mdwh 02:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Wiploc 03:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Do we have any reason to think your version of nontheism really exists? For instance, are you a nontheist of that stripe? Or do you know of any nontheists of that stripe? Or have you read the cited book? If you've read it, is it true that the editors make the claim alledged? Or are is it one of the authors represented in the book?

Is our article copied from another web site without attribution?

Given that our article may be a copyright violation, and may be entirely wrong (there may not be any "nontheists" matching this description) and given that it is intolerably confusing and self contradictory, why shouldn't we delete it entirely? Wiploc 03:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You're asking the wrong questions. Who cares whether there are a handful of people in the world who call themselves "nontheists" under definition, perhaps and a couple of his friends? What matters is that it's still a violation of Wikipedia:No original research if it's not attributed to a reputable source, and thus unacceptable for inclusion in the article. Furthermore, who cares whether all the contents of the current article are wrong? If they are, then delete those contents and replace them with cited, verifiable information; only delete the article itself if the term nontheism doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability and other standards for articles. -Silence 11:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. Nontheism isn't notable enough to be in my Webster's Unabridged or my Shorter OED or the online OED. "Nontheist" appears, but its meaning is "not a theist"; it in no way supports the use of "nontheism" given here. This article should be removed entirely.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. We have articles for thousands of terms which do not appear in the OED, including Weak and strong atheism, Adevism, and Ignosticism. The OED is not our only criterion for whether a term merits inclusion, and, as you yourself note, nontheist is in the OED, even if nontheism is not. A little more research and analysis is merited before we decide definitively whether to delete this article, or simply to rewrite it from scratch. Perhaps we should nominate this article for deletion simply to see if anyone can scrounge up some better references than the ones we already have, verifying the usage and meaning of this term? -Silence 01:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.Wiploc 01:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

So how do we do it? I'm new here.Wiploc 04:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

concerns with recent edits / a category with various connotations / some citations / plan of action

Since early October 2006, various rounds of edits to this article have changed definitions and introductory summaries. I'd call it a low-intensity edit war. As a result, the article is in shambles. New definitions decapitate the introduction from the legacy (since April 2005) body of information which follows, which was full of its own original research. Recent edits make some attempt to respect older definitions, but in trying to resolve the dissonance in definitions and purpose, those edits have completely abandoned tone befitting an encyclopedia. Instead, these recent edits mark out sub-concept territory with abbreviations, disagree in-line in a conversational tone, and use defensive rather than clarifying wording in the introductory definition. Editors are frustrated, and deletion has even been mentioned in this talk page. This is no way to decide matters on Wikipedia. Nontheism must be a more complicated topic than the original writers expected... More citations, and a plan for unification, must be necessary to write about it using NPOV.

So, let's discuss what Wikipedia should say about classes of non-belief. Already, Wikipedians have provided lots of specific categorization, from the standard Weak and strong atheism, down to Apatheism, Apathetic agnosticism, and Agnostic atheism.

Michael Shermer uses nontheism in an explicitly Western context, mostly as a synonym to atheism. Here he writes regarding academic distinctions:

"I still find my own distinction between atheism (there is no God) and nontheism (no belief in God) as statements about personal beliefs to be adequate. [...] For our purposes at the beginning of the new millennium in the Western world, it is safe to assume that when we are discussing "God", we all know what we mean by this term: an all-powerful all-knowing, all-good higher being who created the universe and us and grants ever-lasting life. If you believe this, you are a theist, if you do not believe this, you are a nontheist. If you believe God is unknowable through science or reason, you are an agnostic." (italics in original)

— Michael Shermer, How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God

It's possible to read the above quote as including agnosticism in nontheism, although that doesn't seem likely as Shermer's intent.

Pema Chodron, speaking for a non-Western attitude, quickly moves beyond categorization questions, and into heart advice, the topic of her book:

The difference between theism and nontheism is not whether one does or does not believe in God. It is an issue that applies to everyone, including both Buddhists and non-Buddhists. Theism is a deep-seated conviction that there's some hand to hold: if we just do the right things, someone will appreciate and take care of us. It means thinking there's always going to be a babysitter available when we need one. We are all inclined to abdicate responsibilities and delegate our authority to something outside ourselves. Nontheism is relaxing with the ambiguity and uncertainty of the present moment without reaching for anything to protect ourselves. ... finally realizing that there's no babysitter you can count on.

— Pema Chodron, When Things Fall Apart: Heart Advice for Difficult Times

This is possibly an Agnostic atheism, or a form of Apatheism, which could fit in implicit atheism, but does not fit well in strong atheism. This usage suggests a narrower nontheism, with connotations distinct from atheism in general - unlike Shermer's usage.

So, nontheism is intuitive (not rigorous) in meaning and usage, citable in contemporary literature, overlapping in various connotations, and sometimes distinct from atheism.

Our resulting article on nontheism should begin with defining the simplest common aspects of the concept, then express the fuzziness of the category, provide links to specific categorizations, and in subsections gently clarify which meanings are important in various separate domains. If certain supporting examples are deemed not a good fit for nontheism in general, then before throwing them away, effort should be made to agree on a better place to express those concepts.

The following sentence from the existing article is a good start at expressing the common aspects:

 "The word is often employed as a blanket term for all terms which
 are not theistic and yet somehow related to spirituality, including
 atheism (both strong and weak) and agnosticism, as well as certain
 Eastern religions like Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism."

Rgrant 00:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-trivial difference of Atheism, Agnosticism, Theism and Nontheism

The key difference of Nontheism from other denominations is simple.

Atheism is the belief[1][2] that the answer to the question of "is there a god?" is no.

Theism is the belief that the answer to the question of "is there a god?" is yes.

Agnositism is the view that the answer has not be validated empirically, and therefore can not be answered affirmitively either way.

Nontheism is the view that the question and it's underlying presuppositions are, or maybe, either wrong, and/or irrelevant. See Fallacy_of_many_questions.

Also I would like to note that in the case of Atheism and Theism, both assume the burden of proof. Agnostism, and Nontheism make no assertions about the answer. (KickAssClown 05:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC))

Yes, theism is the belief in one or more deities. Agnosticism is correct. However, atheism is incorrect some of the time. Atheism is either lack of belief in deities or the assertion that deities do not exist. The assertion is called "antitheism". The burden of proof lies on the antitheists as the (soft) atheists would not assert such a belief. So the answer to atheism on "is there a god?" is either "unknown" OR "no". LtDonny 21:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you give us more of a hint than "the underlying presuppositions are, or" may be "either wrong and/or irrelevant"? I'd like some idea of what this type of nontheist believes, and why she believes it. Wiploc 16:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a very small group (of which I am a member) called Reform Taoists whose basic Creed states "We believe in the formless and eternal Tao, and we recognize all personified deities as being mere human constructs. We reject hatred, intolerance, and unnecessary violence, and embrace harmony, love and learning, as we are taught by Nature. We place our trust and our lives in the Tao, that we may live in peace and balance with the Universe, both in this mortal life and beyond." In the explanation of beliefs there is an elaboration, "We rest comfortably knowing, however, that what happens to our souls after mortal death is determined by the same laws of the Universe which govern our mortal life. Therefore, if we learn to live in harmony with the Tao during our mortal lives, we will be in harmony with the Tao after our mortal death. If we can manage that, then everything else will fall into place; that is Nature's way." The position is, then, that the question of the existence of a personified god, and the existence of an afterlife are truly irrelevant; for whatever principles govern such matters must (as an axiomatic article of faith) be the same principles which govern right behavior in this life. The "underlying presuppositions" include the necessity of salvation, original sin, the existence of a personified god, the existence of an afterlife, and the need for divine justice or a final reckoning. The quotes can be found at http://www.reformtaoism.org/home.phpJmarsh48 01:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The assertation you make about Atheism is wrong. This is sometimes the case but not all forms of Atheism positively assert there is no god. I suggest you read the article on Atheism and the relevent sections on its discussion page. I also think you simply Nontheism too much, it is not always used in this way. Jarryd Moore 10:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Why nontheism is so hard to define

First of all, nontheism seems to be a relatively new word, developed primarily from within a religious context to evade some of the unwanted connotations of atheism, agnosticism, humanism and the like. Those who are using in are in the process of defining it, and they are not finished.

A central difficulty is, the most liberal modern theology envisions God in a manner that has very little in common with traditional understandings of what a god is. The God envisioned by folks like John Shelby Spong or Paul Tillich, is not a being, does not do things, does not have a consciousness separate from the world itself. Connotatively, the word atheist firmly rejects all notions of God, and does not show a great deal of concern over what sort of God is being rejected. In practice, most who claim the title nontheist have been associated with liberal religious associations--Quaker, Jewish, in Spong's case Anglican--and are looking for a religious understanding that does not put supernatural beliefs or notions at the center. Some of these religious nontheists use the word God to express purely humanistic or secular ideals, others avoid use of the word God altogether. Love, compassion, altruism, the complex mystery of the universe--all of these are potential objects of worship, but in a thoroughly non-theistic sense.

So, a nontheist can reject all understandings of God, or only those with supernatural underpinnings. Anyone who reads modern liberal theology will see how notions of God can be separated from notions of the supernatural.

One attempt to define nontheism, by the author of this comment, along with justifications for that attempt, is made within the context of an informal group of nontheistic Quakers.

Hey, great post. I want to paste it in place of our existing article. Is that okay? Or you could expand on it a bit if you'd like. Almost anything would be better than the nonsense we have now, but what you write is actually good. ```` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wiploc (talk • contribs) 02:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm not skilled or experienced at wiki editing, which is probably why my original comment was unsigned--I probably didn't realize I wasn't logged in. But I gladly grant permission to use this snippet here, or the linked article on nontheistfriends.org, which I also wrote, or both combined/edited, and released under the GDFL. I'll leave any reference work to others. Any number of Spong's books could be used for references, or the collection "Godless for God's Sake: Nontheism in Contemporary Quakerism." The interesting thing about such references is, they themselves make POV assertions all over the place. So, in either case there is a POV, but with a reference the POV is once-removed.

To be honest I'm confused about the objection that there is no clear single definition for the word, or the objection that so much of it is POV, or that the word is a neologism. To make these objections may well reflect the culture of Wikipedia, but it doesn't show a very sophisticated understanding of language and how it works and develops. Word meanings are generally much more subjective when the words are relatively new, or when they refer to abstractions like nontheism, or for that matter atheism or agnosticism (the distinction between weak/strong is an opinion which many atheists and agnostics find artificial and unhelpful). Even the most exhaustively referenced articles on Wikipedia fundamentally involve a certain degree of opinion. To express an opinion and reference it to a book, does not mean it is not an opinion. It simply means one or more people with access to a printing press agreed with you. But the actual meaning keeps changing as people keep using the word in different ways. --Jriemerm 18:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC) also known as James Riemermann, nontheistfriends.org

pov dispute

Someone included obviously POV statements in parentheses in one paragraph. pls fix them. thanks. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Bcorr, terrific job. Vastly better than what we had before.Wiploc 04:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Wiploc. I appreciate your kind words. One small thing -- since "Culture and Unbelief" are a less prominent part of the article, I think we should avoid "responding" to it. Also, I think I understand why you are working to qualify and characterize certain positions, but I feel that it unfortunately tends to make the article an apologetic for a certain view of nontheism, when this article is trying to cover the full range of what might be considered nonthiesm.

Thanks again, BCorr|Брайен 14:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The last two paragraphs are specifically about that peculiar kind of nontheism. Nobody can think that the first three sections are about that. They offer a variety of different meanings for the word. But when we get to the end, the last two sections, we aren't making any sense if we are talking about strong atheism plus weak atheism, and we aren't making sense if we're talking about the ground of all being. We are making sense only if we are talking about the "Culture and Unbelief" meaning of "nontheism." So, if we don't want to confuse people, and if we don't want to leave people thinking that the "Culture and Unbelief" definition is the real definition, then, when we are using that peculiar definition, we ought to identify it.

There's a problem in the fourth section too. It says, "A large number of philosophers have historically been nontheists, although, for the sake of convenience and comprehension, many of these have publicly categorized themselves as atheists or agnostics." That has to be referring to the C&U meaning, but it isn't identified as such. The result is that people will either be confused, or they will think that we think the C&U meaning is the real or standard meaning.

I think the article would be improved by the deletion of that that sentence. It's left over from when the article was exclusively about the eccentric definition from C&U.

We could do without the "Relationship to Agnosticism" section too, but since I don't anticipate you wanting to delete that, I'm suggesting that we just identify what it's about so it will make sense and not mislead people. Wiploc 06:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Another possibility: We could kill the "Relationship to Agnosticism" headline, put that material up in the "Nontheistic Worldview" section. Then it wouldn't need to be identified as still on being on that topic. It would be nice to change the "Nontheistic Worldview headline too, though I'm not sure to what. That section is only about the worldview of C&U type nontheists. I like this solution best: conflate the last two sections, and give them a better headline, something parallel to "Nontheism in Christianity," and "Nontheism in Buddism." "Nontheism in The Culture of Unbelief, if we can't think of anything else. Wiploc 06:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just done that. I also added T.H. Huxley as an example. I need to find a citation on that addition. Wiploc 16:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"Nontheism in philosophy " moved to talk page

I removed the following section from the article after reading User:Wiploc's comments above, looking back at the article history, and realizing that this is pretty much original reasearch:

Nontheism in philosophy

A large number of philosophers have historically been nontheists, although, for the sake of convenience and comprehension, many of these have publicly categorized themselves as atheists or agnostics. The most famously nontheistic school were the Logical Positivists and the Analytic philosophers, including Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and A.J. Ayer. The Positivist position, as formulated by Ayer, was that "asking whether God exists is simply not meaningful." The perceived dichotomy between theism and atheism (strong atheism) was merely a case of mutually exclusive suppositions, neither of which could be empirically tested, and neither of which made any kind of meaningful assertion. According to the Positivists, neither assertion has meaning, since both involve the creation of a separate entity, one having wings and another not having wings. The fact that neither creature is observable renders the issue meaningless. By recognizing the dilemma of divinity as a similar fallacy, the Positivists hoped to escape the endless cycle of belief and disbelief.

If you look at the articles referenced in the section, they neither support nor disprove the assertions, but unless someone can work on this, it seems like it doesn't belong in the article for now. BCorr|Брайен 22:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Agnosticism

I think I understand why Wiploc combined the section on agnosticism into the section on nontheistic worldview, but I actually disagree that this only applies to the "kind of nontheism" presented in the Corporale book. This is an issue that comes up in relationship to nontheism in general, and I think merits its own section. Also, I would like to work on the tone, and rework the references to Huxley, et al. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 02:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

As presented in The Culture of Unbelief[6], "nontheism" can be a synonym for ignosticism. when faced with the question of whether gods exist, an ignostic nontheist would respond that the question itself is unimportant, that it concerns information that is unfalsifiable, meaningless, superfluous, etc. To a nontheist of this stripe, the issue of God's existence is no different than, for example, the existence of invisible, intangible elephants. If you can't tell whether they exist, if it doesn't doesn't make any difference whether they exist, then there is no reason to care whether they exist. An ignostic nontheist might say that Gods are like invisible elephants in this respect: if they never come out of hiding, their existence should be a nonissue. This conviction attitude is generally based on skepticism and empiricism, although it may also be motivated by the pragmatic desire to rid oneself of an inconvenient and irresolvable dilemma.

Additional pragmatic motivations arise from considering the various functions that the concept of a deity serves, and finding those functions either unimportant or unresolved by the concept of a deity. For instance, if one entertains the existence of a deity in order to face concerns over the end of life, then the loss of a concern over the end of life diminishes the need to consider the existence of a deity. Likewise if the concept of a deity provides a resolution to ontological questions such as "how did the universe begin?" then the need for the concept will be lessened to the extent that one no longer finds troubling his or her ignorance about the possible ontology of the universe. In short, if the concept of deity has no functional value for a person, that person is likely to be comfortable as an ignostic nontheist.

This kind of Ignostic nontheism is sometimes conflated with agnosticism, but there are differences. An agnostic, by definition, doesn't know the answer to the question of whether God exists,; but they may care about the question. but doesn't necessarily think the answer to that question is irrelevant. So, the concepts are distinct: it's entirely possible that one could be either ignostic or agnostic without being the other both. Many agnostics consider religious questions to be worthwhile and important. The French Proto-Fascist Charles Maurras, for instance, was an avowed agnostic; however, he was also a staunch clericalist, viewing the Catholic religion as a necessary part of society, and the question of divinity as an integral part of the (typical) human psyche. Maurras could be said to be an agnostic, but not a nontheist. Thomas Henry Huxley, coiner of the term "agnostic," said people should spend their lives trying to learn whether god exists, despite the fact that this can never be learned. So he is another example of an agnostic who is not an ignostic.

I'm curious about your comment that more than ignostic nontheists can be mistaken for agnostics. Weak atheists can of course be called agnostics, but nontheism (non-Corporalli style nontheism) includes the strong atheists too.

In any case, I've taken another pass at it, as you see (boldface for potential new stuff, and strike out for potential removals). I'll be interested to see what you come up with. Wiploc 04:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold, and be completely honest: perhaps the whole section about "The Culture of Unbelief" and agnosticism should just be taken out of this and put in a separate article. The more I think about this and read Wiploc's valiant attemps to clarify the matter and as I try to work on it as well, I've come to a conclusion. This is turning into an essay about the ideas as opposed to an encyclopedic article on nontheism. This is the sort of thing that would make an excellent paper in grad school or college, but just doesn't seem suitable for a Wikipedia article. Perhaps we could ove the whole section to a separate article The Culture of Unbelief (book) and include the agnosticism isues and the relationship between them, as well as the differences and similarities between ignostic and agnostic, and then just put that article into the see also section.

How does that sound? Thanks, 15:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yaaay! I deleted it. Our problem is that we only have a rumor that the book said something. We don't know what it really said. The champions of the book (and perhaps the book itself?) have been incoherent. We know people wanted the book's opinion represented here, but since the rumors about the book were confused, every attempt to represent its opinion made the article confused. Wiploc 17:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Are Deists Nontheists?

Above somebody wrote: "Deism is a form of nontheism."

I think that this is not the case.

It is true that the deists reject some parts of the theistic conception of God, but the god of deism is still as personal as the god of theism. A nontheist does not believe in the existence of personal gods, whereas the deists doubtless do. Thus, deists cannot be rightly called nontheists. To call them paratheists would be more accurate. — Editorius 14:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The Aspect of Personality

Above somebody wrote: "Theism is the belief in the existence of any deity, personal or not."

I think that this is inaccurate.

The aspect of God's being a person or having a personality is essential to the theistic god conception. An impersonal god is not a theistic god. Thus, nontheism is to be characterized as the lack of belief in the existence of God or other personal or person-like deities.

Generally, a nontheist ought to be strictly against using "God" to stand for some impersonal, non-living entity, considering it a terminological perversion. — Editorius 15:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Why Nontheism is not so Hard to Define

The meaning of "nontheist" is as straightforward as that of "nonsmoker":

x is a nontheist = _def x is not a theist

Expressed in the language of set theory:

x is a member of the set of nontheists = _def x is a member of the complementary set of the set of theists

That is to say:

x is a nontheist = _def x does not believe in the existence of God or other (personal or person-like) deities

According to this definition, all atheists, agnostics, ignostics, religiously indifferent persons, and nontheistically religious persons are nontheists. So, "nontheism" is best used as the catch-all term for all those from whose mind the belief in mono- or polytheism is absent. (Whether pantheism is justifiably called a theism is doubtful. Indeed, pantheists don't regard their god as a person, and in this respect they may be called nontheists. But since they still play around with the notions of God and Divinity, they'd better be called paratheists, like the deists. Perhaps "pandivinism" would be a better name than "pantheism".)

Editorius 15:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Is religion X in set Y / Buddhism

I think you're missing something here: Buddhism is a bit different; it has gods, many of them, but they're not seen as an ultimate goal, since Buddhism is about Nirvana (purifying the mind), not about Gods or being reborn among Gods. Gods exist, but they take a backseat: you don't really need to pay too much attention to them, it's even ok not to believe in their existence, as long as one takes care of the mind in a good way (no hate, no greed, no delusion). Greetings, Sacca 16:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If the metaphysics of Buddhism includes gods — which as you say is the case —, then Buddhism cannot really be rightly called nontheistic (or atheistic). Nontheism consists not only in the nonbelief in important supreme gods but also in the nonbelief in any gods whatsoever, whatever their role and importance within a religious system. — Editorius 16:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That's really a very interesting point. Why is Buddhism so frequently described as a nontheistic religion when it in fact accepts the existence of gods?!

"Buddhists have no objection to the existence of the Hindu gods, although they deny completely the existence of God as spoken of in e.g. orthodox Christianity, understood as the omnipotent, omniscient, all-good, and primordially existent creator deity, who can be thought of as in some sense a person." (p. 4)

"The Buddhist cosmology, with its realms of rebirth including hells and gods who occupy physical space and undergo sensory experiences as humans do, is reasonably comprehensible." (p. 78)

"Technically the gods of the form and formless realms are known not as 'gods' ('deva'), but as 'Brahmas'." (p. 77)

(Williams, Paul, and Anthony Tribe. Buddhist Thought: A Complete Introduction to the Indian Tradition. London: Routledge, 2000.)

Now, what does that mean? It seems that Buddhism is definitely not deity-free, which means that it is not nontheistic, i.e. theistic. Of course, it's only theistic in a specific sense that differs from the specific sense in which Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are theistic. At least one thing seems clear: Buddhism is not nontheistic in the strict sense. It is nontheistic or even atheistic with regard to Judeo-Christian-Islamic theism, but not with regard to any concept of god. So it might be called semi-nontheistic. Editorius 17:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Buddhists in some unspecified aggregate hold beliefs as discerned above. But the defining characteristics of Buddhism don't fall along these splitting points, because theistic questions are not the main criteria for deciding who is a Buddhist. Buddhist cosmology seems to dive right into such concerns, but the Fourteen unanswerable questions provide immediate balancing perspective. This article at one time (in fact, at the time of this subthread origin) contained the topic "Nontheism in Buddhism"[3], which avoids suggesting anything about whether Buddhists in aggregate do, or do not, hold theistic notions. This allows NPOV, without original research.

- Rgrant 01:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

defining terms is not the job of Wikipedia

The term is not in the OED. The article as it stands collects a few interesting tidbits about absence of theism in various fields, but it fails to establish that this is a topic to be treated under the heading "nontheism". The only source quoted as using the term is talking of a nontheistic God, but abstraction of this adjectival use to a full -ism seems undue synthesis. I unearthed an author coining the term in 1852, but already in 1857, it was rejected in favour of equivalent secularism, and its absence from the OED seems to show that it never gained currency since. Because of this, it would seem advisable to merge this whole thing into secularism (and other articles such as atheism for the bits that deal directly with the supposed difference of "nontheism" from atheism). dab (𒁳) 14:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The term may not be in the OED — so what?

"nontheist" and "nontheistic" are in Merriam-Webster's:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=nontheist

Anyway, a word that already occurred in 1852 (see: http://books.google.com/books?id=eX0BAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA1-PA214&dq=non-theism+date:1700-1900&num=100&hl=de) cannot be rightly called a neologism. The earliest occurrence of "non-theist" I found is from 1842:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=de&id=sz4YWKQyLxsC&q=non-theist#search.

Furthermore, I don't think the article on nontheism should merge with the one on secularism, but I do think that it needs to be improved upon, because it needs to be mentioned that the term "nontheism" covers not only nontheistic religions but also nonreligious attitudes such as agnosticism, ignosticism, and religious indifference.

Editorius 16:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

why are you telling me this? I just wrote the entire section discussing the 1852 coining, and also mentioned that non-theist and non-theistic figure in OED. So what? Holyoake coined the term in 1852. That makes it a neologism. Holytoake himself shortly after replaced the term by synonymous "secularism". That the -ism doesn't figure in dictionaries is significant: We are here writing an article about a term that was briefly in use in the 1850 and has since fallen in disuse. There is no such thing as 'nontheism' that is in any way different from 'atheism'. Holyoake himself admits he coined the hybrid term just because 'atheism' had connotations of immorality. This is no argument today. In Holyoake's time you could still be convicted for blasphemy. Today, we have major atheist associations who very much insist that atheism does not imply immorality at all. This page can never be more than a discussion of the term itself, that is, its coinage and disappearance. As it is, it adds two sections which simply rehash material that should properly be treated in (a) secular theology/liberal theology and (b) God in Buddhism. We should avoid such articles consisting of nothing but rehashes of other articles. As it is, this is a mish-mash of material associated with a fuzzy term without proper attribution. dab (𒁳) 08:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

you say: "nontheism" covers not only nontheistic religions but also nonreligious attitudes such as agnosticism, ignosticism, and religious indifference. Does it now? In my book, Latin non- is exactly equivalent to Greek a-. As such, the term cannot be self-explanatory in any way different from atheism. If it is at all different from atheism, this is something that needs to be attributed to notable definitions. Hoalyoake, the guy who coined the term, intended it to replace atheism, which he considered a flawed term, but later coined secularism as a term equivalent to non-theism. OED has " Not having or involving a belief in God, esp. as a being who reveals himself to humanity." for non-theistic, but it expressedly avoids listing the -ism, because, according to the Wise Clerks of Oxenford, there is no such -ism. If you think otherwise: WP:CITE. dab (𒁳) 08:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: "Holyoake coined the term in 1852. That makes it a neologism."

(1) We do not know whether Holyoake was actually the one who coined, i.e. devised or invented "non(-)theism". The word may well be older, especially as "non-theist" already occurs ten years earlier in 1842.

I presume you searched GoogleBooks for "non(-)theism" as I did, but we mustn't forget that Google's book inventory is incomplete.

(2) Your second sentence is plainly wrong!

The correct formulation is (provided Holyoake is in fact the coiner of "non(-)theism"): That made it a neologism in 1852.

An expression that was new in 1852 can hardly still be called new in 2007!

That's pretty obvious, isn't it?!

Editorius 15:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, "nontheism" is nowadays generally used as a synonym of "weak/negative atheism".

Everybody from whose mind the belief in a god is absent is a nontheist.

Everybody who does not accept theism is a nontheist.

"Non-theism (...) implies the simple non-acceptance of the Theist's explanation of the origin and goverment of the world."

(Holyoake, George. Quoted in: James Buchanan, Modern Atheism Under Its Forms of Pantheism, Materialism, Secularism, Development, and Natural Laws. Boston: Gould & Lincoln, 1857. p. 363. <http://www.google.de/books?id=L3AI7c8sXRwC&dq=buchanan+atheism>)

All secularists are certainly nontheists, but not all nontheists are secularists.

"secularist"/"secularism" and "nontheist"/"nontheism" are not interchangeable in all contexts.

Even if "non(-)theism" was actually coined by the secularists, there is nowadays no essential connection with the secularist movement.

It is simply used as a catch-all term for all those who lack the belief in one or more gods.

Editorius 15:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

did a literature search

alright, I did a literature search (which, I might add, would have been your job, seeing that you argued against merging). It turns out that the spelling without hyphen becomes current in the 1990s in the field of Christian apologetics. I thus agree we should keep the article, but we have to make clear that it discusses an expert jargon term used in Christian theology. I have been unable to trace the spelling without hyphen beyond Cox [correction: found an isolated occurrence in Norman Nathan Blake and Nontheism, PMLA 1960], I imagine because earlier authors tended to have more classical learning and felt it jarring to combine the macaronic elements seamlessly. dab (𒁳) 08:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC) I would still insist it is a neologism, since it appears to be only in wider use from the later 1980s, but If you object, I won't insist on saying that in the intro, since with the information now given, the readers can judge on this themselves. dab (𒁳) 09:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

One is free to write "nontheism" with or without a hyphen.

I conjecture that the usage tendency goes to the latter variant.

(18.100 Google hits for "non-theism", 56.800 for "nontheism".)

That the Christian apologetics may prefer the former variant is totally irrelevant.

And once again, it's simply a verbal misuse to call a word a neologism, i.e. a novel expression, which already occurred 155 years ago (at least). — Editorius 15:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Your wrote: "We have to make clear that it discusses an expert jargon term used in Christian theology."

No, we do not have to make that clear because it completely misleads the readers about the general meaning of "nontheism", which is not particularly associated with Christian theology. — Editorius 15:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't follow you here. What do you base what you just said on? You are free to write anything you like, except on Wikipedia mainspace, where you need to justify your writings by revealing the source of your knowledge. I found that usage of the hyphen does make a difference, and I traced the history of the term's attestation. Since the term is not in any dictionaries, we are reduced to corpus linguistics, i.e. we have to report notable authors employing it. It is utterly irrelevant how many google hits you get for people using the term in one or another spelling on internet fora, unless you want to argue this is an internet meme. As I have pointed out, Holyoake's 1852 coinage is unrelated to the re-emergence of the term from the 1960s. It really only sees anything like widespread use from the later 1990s. This makes it a clear neologism in my book. Not that I think there's anything wrong with neologisms, we can of course have perfectly respectable articles about neologisms. The burden is, of course, on you, to show that the term sees any use at all without the fields I have mentioned. dab (𒁳) 12:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again, to call a word a neologism that is at least 155 years old is absurd.

Whether "nontheism" is written with or without a hyphen is completely irrelevant, since it doesn't make any semantic difference at all. (With regard to style, I consider the hyphenless variant more appealing, more modern.)

By the way, I don't think deism can be rightly called nontheistic, because it actually is just a particular kind of theism. Deism is paratheistic but not nontheistic.

Is pantheism nontheistic? — It seems so, but calling pantheism nontheistic certainly sounds odd. I think that "pantheism" is an unfortunate term, practically a misnomer. The term "pandivinism" would be more appropriate.

Editorius 13:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

you did not pay attention. I repeat that the term was coined in the 1850s, and then fell out of use, and resurfaces only in the 1960s, apparently coined independently. It sees some use in apologetic literature over the past 30 years or so. Not enough for it to figure in the OED though. That's clearly either a neologism, or a jargon term, or both. We cannot just pretend this is a regular word. I also repeat that the hyphen is significant. Spelling with hyphen betrays some classical learning, while spelling without hyphen suggests devil-may-care postmodernism. You do not address these points, all based on notable publications, by informing me of your personal opinions. At present, we have evidence that the term is used in (a) Christian apologetics, (b) liberal/secular theology and (c) Buddhism. Not more and not less. Let the intro reflect this accurately. dab (𒁳) 14:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

(1) Your formulation misleads the readers, because it is simply not the case that "nontheism" primarily or even exclusively refers to religious views. I don't accept such a distortion.

(2) You can repeat it as many times as you like, but you cannot alter the fact that calling a word a neologism that is more than 150 years old is nonsense!

(3) And once again, your obsession with hyphens is pointless.

Editorius 17:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

well, apparently you do not want to consider the points I raised. I cannot force you to, of course, we're all volunteers here. --dab (𒁳) 12:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Belief in nondeity Divines?

I've copied the following discussion from my talk page: --Evb-wiki 02:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your editing of non-theism, aiming for concision. "God," for many, has specific connotations (which often relate to one "supreme being"), and which doesn't necessarily include the divine (or "devine," as you spelled it), meaning supernatural (i.e. non-material, in the sense I mean). I wonder if we might possibly please include the word divine in the "nontheism" entry, to encompass a wider sphere of meaning?

Thanks, Aphilo

Can you provide an example of what you mean by divine? I don't understand the difference you are suggesting. --Evb-wiki 23:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

For example, the Greeks and Romans each considered their pantheon of Gods and Goddesses divine, yet Pan, or Venus/Aphrodite, were not supreme, and Pan wasn't a God or God, yet was divine. Similarly, in Hinduism, there are many! expressions of the divine, yet they are not Gods. -Aphilo

I do not see where nontheism expresses an opinion on mythical creatures that are not deities. I imagine a belief in fairies, goblins, Pan, Cyclops, elves, etc. would not equate to theism. I'm I still missing something? I'm going to move this to Talk:Nontheism so others con comment as well. --Evb-wiki 02:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If "god" may be operationally defined as a being refered to as a "god" in just about all standard references, including his/her/its Wikipedia entry, Pan is one. Orcoteuthis (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

A naturalistic nontheist rejects any belief in a supernatural living being, be it divine or non-divine.

But in the strictly technical sense, nontheism is merely the nonacceptance of any belief in a divine living being.

The set of divine living beings is a subset of the set of supernatural living beings.

Editorius 15:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism section

The Hinduism section seems to be coming from a source with a strong agenda. This isn't a problem but the section is misleading. "The nontheistic schools of Sankhya and Mimamsa schools" mentioned are extinct. Advaita is closer to "nontheism" but this school also has a God who assigns karma and so forth. As for the last sentence, "Hinduism as a religion is centred not so much in the belief in God, as in faith in the reality of spirit and the spiritual order of the world", it is misleading because the majority of Hindus are, according to our articles on Vaishnavism and so forth, staunch monotheists! Mitsube (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The schools of Sankhya and Mimamsa may be extinct, but they should be noted when considering historical Hinduism, and more importantly, they illustrate the nontheistic forms that the religion can take while remaining 'orthodox'.

In Hindu thought, just as in Buddhist or any other Dharmic faith, Karma is impersonal force rather than assigned by a God. "Karma is the 'law' which sets forth the relation that obtains between one's actions and one's state of being." (Deutsch, Eliot S. Karma as a "Convenient Fiction" in the Advaita Vedānta Philosophy East and West, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Jan., 1965), pp. 3-12)

The Advaitin sage, Sankara writes that when Maya is "perfectly eliminated, there is neither Ishwara nor Jiva." (Swami Madhavananda (Trans.), Vivekachudamani of Adi Sankaracharya, Vs 244, Publ. Advaita Ashram, Kolkatta) thus casting belief in God, or indeed an individual self, as illusory. I wouldn't want to speak for the 'majority of Hindus', but while many may be monotheistic dualists, many others may well see the ultimate aim of their devotion to God as the final absorbtion in that and final redundancy of the concept.

The essential point is that Hinduism is a very catholic faith to which the theism/athiesm debate that rages around the God of Abrahamic religions is somewhat limited. And although God is often referred to, it does not 'exist' in the way that theists maintain. Thus, the author uses the terms "the reality of spirit" instead of God, and "the spiritual order of the world" which I suppose refers to dharma.--Evenmadderjon (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Even in Advaita (I believe), karma is still assigned by God. This is as "true" as any other apparent truth. It "actually" isn't and nothing "actually" changes because everything is "actually" unchanging brahman, etc. There is still "God" in Advaita but God isn't as "real" as brahman.

Hinduism is theistic. Most Hindus are monotheists. A large reason why Hinduism successfully outcompeted Buddhism in India is that once Hinduism had absorbed much of Buddhist ideas, the atheistic message of Buddhism was the main apparent difference, while Hinduism was worship focused. But now the shoe is on the other foot and atheism is becoming more popular so people produce sources claiming that Hinduism is nontheistic. It's not accurate. Mitsube (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Please give the support for this sentence: "there are nontheistic and 'supertheistic' schools." Please define "supertheistic." Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You may well believe that karma is assigned by a god in Advaita, but obviously there is some diversity of opinion on this matter. The point with Wikipedia is not to represent personal beliefs, but an impartial overview of the competing central positions (cf. neutrality). This means that you must represent fairly all significant views.

It would be incorrect according to Wikipedia neutrality guidelines to say 'The Bhagavad Gita upholds theism over monism.', rather we should rewrite this to say:

'The Bhagavad Gita contains non-theistic perspectives: Prince Arjuna refers to God as both 'existent, non-existent, and beyond both!'[10],{which surely cannot be taken as theistic} although some scholars insist that the Bhagavad Gita upholds theism over monism.[11] More broadly 'Hinduism' holds to a diversity of beliefs, thus Indian, Hindu philosopher Chatterjee holds 'it is perfectly possible to be a good Hindu whether one's personal views incline toward monism, monotheism, polytheism, or even atheism.'

After all, Robinson in her preface to Interpretations... (which you quote) mentions that the Bhagavad Gita 'continues to be the basis of many versions of the Hindu tradition' (P. XI), a tradition which she goes on to say, 'has been adjudged to be one, though often its unity has been asserted in the face of a plurality of perspectives and an immense variety of beliefs and practises.'(P.17) Plurality of interpretation of the Gita specifically, and Hinduism more generally, seems to be the view taken in Robinson's book. After all, she mentions Radhakrishnan, a respected Indian philosopher, who she says resolves the Bhagavad Gita into non-dualism, but for her this is only one of many competing perspectives, none of which is upper most.

It would seem that 'Hinduism is theistic. Most Hindus are monotheists.' is a personal opinion. Certainly it has strong theistic strands, however there are also powerful nontheistic schools too. This article is on nontheism, so we must represent the nontheistic strands of the religion. No doubt some Hindus would disagree with this tradition, but our job is fair representation rather than taking a sectarian approach and asserting the primacy of certain viewpoints. The advaitic view is a significant tradition (at least seven of the 12 saints on the Hindu saints page have an advaitic standpoint etc etc), and these advaitic schools do not represent a conventional 'theistic' standpoint.

As regards 'supertheistic', in the essay by Dandekar found in The Religion of the Hindus... defines this as 'not [being] required to posit the existence of a personal god in order to answer the various cosmological, psychological, metaphysical and even ethical questions..however...Hinduism is certainly god-conscious.' --Evenmadderjon (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You cannot personally disagree with a scholarly source. If you find a (unbiased, nonpartisan) scholarly source that contradicts another, then we include both views with attribution. As a side not, my own opinion is that if you have read the Bhagavad Gita then you know that it is as theistic as it could be.

Please put the definition of "supertheistic" into the article with the proper attribution. Mitsube (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with the source, rather your reading of it. From my reading of Interpretations..., the Bhagavad Gita and 'Hinduism' (which she also attempts to deconstruct) are subject to a diversity of beliefs and interpretations. These include theism, but are not limited to it. Thus, it would be incorrect to say that 'Hindism is theistic' or that 'devotion to a personal deity as the ultimate reality is the last and perhaps most significant stage of Hinduism's development'. It would be better to say that there are schools/strands of belief and thought in Hinduism that are theistic, but others that are not. As we are looking at nontheism here, we can mention the theistic schools, but focus on nontheistic ones.

I originally put both a definition of 'supertheism' and attribution. I said that 'For Chatterjee, 'supertheistic' religions "cannot be properly characterised as theistic because to all intents and purposes they really transcend theism"[15] but they nonetheless hold that the divine principle or brahman is impersonal, 'indeterminate and characterless'." - In simpler terms, 'supertheism' is not thiestic, but still holds to some 'divine principle'.--Evenmadderjon (talk) 12:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You were using the term in a way that implied that the reader knew its definition.

I have made my objections to your edits clear in my edit summaries. If you want to undo them, please address my concerns either here on in your edit summaries. I'm also concerned about the Chatterjee source. Is she a scholarly source? Is she neutral? If not, should we be giving her perspective this much prominence in an article about comparative religion? Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I contained the definition of 'supertheism' contained in the article, thus the reader should know what it meant. Since you have now changed the edit that said 'The Bhagavad Gita contains nonthiestic elements' together with an example supporting this, as well as removing the diversity of opinion over the Gita, this makes me think you did this because the statement does not fit with your personal agenda rather than any scholarly opinion. I think we need to seek mediation on this section. As far as you request for verification on the last point goes - please read the source quoted, a book that represents the advaitic and broadly nontheistic postition as "last and perhaps most significant stage of Hinduism's development". --Evenmadderjon (talk) 08:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If you add material you are responsible for answering questions people have about what you have added. Do you no longer have the book? I'm just asking for the quote that led you to add the sentence I tagged. Mitsube (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Google has the entire book online: http://books.google.com/books?id=ulz9mO9cK54C&pg=PA191&dq=isbn:8120803876 --Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You never gave the material you were quoting. I do not believe you are quoting your material accurately. Please give the original source for the following as well;

• "it is a religion that neither depends on the existence or non-existence of God or Gods." Mitsube (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there Mitsube, the source of the quotation you query is RC Zaehner's book 'Hinduism' (OUP, 1966), from the first and second pages of the Introduction: 'Hinduism is quite free from any dogmatic affirmations concerning the nature of God, and the core of religion is never felt to depend on the existence or non-existence of God, or on whether there is one God or many; for it is perfectly possible to be a good Hindu whether one's personal views incline towards monism, monotheism, polytheism, or even atheism. This is not what ultimately matters.'

I have a few queries with your last edits, most especially with removal of points and sources, citing them as 'partisan'. What exactly is wrong with them:

1. 'Hinduism is generally regarded as being characterised by extremely diverse beliefs and practises' found in Robinson page 17 - she gives many scholarly sources for this.
2. Hinduism is 'not a dogmatic creed' from Radhakrishnan The Hindu View of Life, p.21. His is a well respected reading of the religion.
3. 'The earliest Hindu scriptures, the Vedas are largely devoted to invocation and rituals devoted to the gods. However the tenth and final Mandala (or chapter) of the Rig Veda contains a metaphysical speculation on the nature of creation' linked to the Swami Tattwamayananda article. I think this source, although not from a western scholar, is a good example of (one of the diverse) contemporary Hindu understanding of the Vedas. I will add scholarly sources for both points (on the preponderance of ritual in the Vedas in general, and the metaphysical speculation in the Nasadiya Sukta), but I think source is valuable too. Both these points are necessary explanations of the Vedas.
4. The use of Swami Gambhirananda's translation of the Bhagavad Gita with Sankara's commentary. Sankara's commentary well illustrates a Hindu school of thought that isn't theistic, so surely we should be allowed to cite it as an example.
5. The revision on 18:16, 28 October 2008 has changed nontheistic to theistic. This is simply not the case. Robinson's book looks at numerous interpretations of the Gita, some of which are nontheistic. These can be found on the pages quoted.

You may be interested to read Richardson's conclusion on the final page of her book: 'The significance of the different interpretations of the Bhagavad Gita is thus that they have proved to be particularly influential on images of the Hindu tradition. This reflects the primacy accorded to the Bhagavad Gita in the construction of the Hindu tradition in the modern period and indicates, whatever changes have occurred, that the Bhagavad Gita is still central to its character in the contemporary world.' The key phrases with regard to this discussion is 'different interpretations'. Her book is an examination of how the Hindu tradition is constructed in the modern world through interpretations of the 'BG'. She does not say which is the right one - theistic/non theistic or any other.--Evenmadderjon (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

She does not indicate what the different interpretations are in this paragraph. Mitsube (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No she doesn't, these interpretations can be found in the main body of the book. She mentions that Monier-Williams holds that the personal nature of the divine in the Gita is undermined by the positing of a more fundamental reality, the impersonal absolute. Mahesh Yogi 'facilitated a more monistic ...interpretation.' She mentions that Sivananda, Prabhavananda and Isherwood, Radhakrishnan all share this opinion, while Sri Chinmoy, Prabhupada, and of course Zaehner take the more theistic approach. She also mentions Rudolf Otto who uses the term Supertheism, and Bede Griffiths for whom 'personal deity and impersonal absolute two aspects of the same thing'. We could also mention Georg Feuerstein who holds that the Gita contains a panentheist message. As this article is on nontheism we should surely include these nontheistic interpretations of this text. The following sentence is partial and should be changed: 'Generally, the book as a whole has been interpreted by some who see it as containing a primarily theistic message, and by others give it a theistic message.' .

Zaehner's belief that 'devotion to a personal deity as the ultimate reality is the last and perhaps most significant stage of Hinduism's development' is a value judgement and not pertinent to the presentation at hand. Hinduism is extremely diverse, as Richardson says. It is not the place of this article to make judgements over which tradition amongst this diversity is the 'most significant'. This would be like saying Calvinism is the most significant development in an article on Christianity - contestable and not helpful.

Can we replace the points you cut? It will make for a better article.--Evenmadderjon (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to ask you this if you have already done so, but could you give the direct quotes regarding the monistic interpretation? We can then put that in. We can give the Zaehner quote less prominence. I took the quote to mean that Hinduism is now primarily characterized by theism, and in terms of percentages that is true. Is that not how you interpreted it? Mitsube (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have given some examples in the source quoted: pages 45, 98, 115, 136. Readers can then refer to these pages in the book, so I don't think it is strictly necessary to give quotes. We could add more references from the book if you like, or mention names used by Richardson so readers can examine their wiki pages and resources on these.

Here's my interpretation of Zaehner's 'personal deity...last and perhaps most significant stage of Hinduism's development' quote: A) This refers to the fact that theism is the 'last' development - because the Upanishads came earlier and generally less concerned with a personal deity and more focused on an impersonal 'reality'. Further, the great devotional cults blossomed in the Middle Ages. B) 'most significant stage' - this is Zaehner's opinion about its spiritual worth. He was of course a Roman Catholic, so might be more likely to judge the theistic tradition more favourably as it fitted better with his personal belief system. Most importantly however this article is neither an overview of the religion as a whole, nor a look at which tradition is 'most significant' (in whatever sense) or more popular within Hinduism. It is an overview of the nontheistic schools of Hinduism, so we should concentrate on these.

As to which school is more popular, it's difficult to say. Certainly ISKON followers are very active on wikipedia putting their theistic viewpoint across. However, if you look at the religion as a whole you see a more complex story. The Shankaracharyas are extremely powerful figures in Hindu popular religion and they trace their lineage to the (Monistic Idealist) Shankara. Plus, many popular saints and religious figures see themselves as part of a tradition of advaita - Sai Baba of Shirdi and Sathya Sai Baba, Ramakrishna, Ramana Maharshi, Swami Sivananda, Nityananda, Anandamayi ma etc etc. Once more, the point of this article is not which is more important/significant, but that such a tradition exists (which most scholars seem to agree on) and to trace its development.--Evenmadderjon (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As it's been several weeks since I posted my queries with the five unnecessary deletions, and there's been no response I think it's time to restore them. The Zaehner quote should also be cut a) this article is not addressing whether theistic or non-theistic traditions are more 'significant', but that they exist. (The Tillich article does not have any criticism of him, as it is equally out of place.) b) The quote betrays Zaehner's pro-theistic bias and thus is not helpful. In The Routledge Companion to Religion, chapter 17, section entitled 'How many types of mysticism are there?'. The author explains that Zaehner regarded theistic mysticism as superior to other types and that this view has been criticised by a number of scholars for the 'theological violence his approach does to non-theistic traditions, forcing them into a framework which privileges Zaehner's own liberal Catholicism.'--Evenmadderjon (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, we can cut the Zaehner quote. Regarding the other statements you want to reinstate, please include in the ref the sentence from the book you are paraphrasing and if the source is reliable and nonpartisan I won't have any objection. I think that Radhakrishnan should be used sparingly, but his is a notable POV. Mitsube (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave out the Radhakrishnan, but if we can't include Shankara's non-dualist interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita in an article on nontheism in Hinduism, we may as well cut out Tillich from the Christian section. I.E. His interpretation is a central.--Evenmadderjon (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed uncited sentence

The following had a {{fact}} tag added in March:

Some developments or forms of Buddhism and Christianity have also been described as nontheistic.

I removed it as it's been a while. Many thanks, Drum guy (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)