03-17-25 • Religious Terms
Jim of The Sci Forums: Let's define our terms for the 21st century.
Theism and atheism - definitions:
A theist is a person who believes that one or more deities exist. That is, they are convinced that the claim "One or more deities exist" is either true or very likely to be true.
An atheist is a person who does not believe that one or more deities exist. That is, they are not convinced that the claim "One or more deities exist" is true. It could be that they are convinced that there are no deities. It could be that they are convinced that there is a low probability that one or more deities exist.
Theism and gnosticism each come in only one "flavour". The theist definitely believes that one or more deities exist; if she didn't, she would be an atheist, by definition. The gnostic definitely believes that it is possible to know whether one or more deities exist; if she didn't, she would be agnostic, by definition.
On the other hand, both atheism and agnosticism come in two "flavours", generally speaking, which are often referred to using the adjectives "hard/soft" or "strong/weak".
I haven't posted here since 2010, but I'm glad to see things haven't changed!
I'm still not a theist or an atheist but I have come to appreciate the psychology of religion.
I'm still not a theist or an atheist but I have come to appreciate the psychology of religion.
Jim of SF: Don't "theist" and "atheist" cover all the possibilities? How can you not be one or the other?
There aren't any other possibilities, as far as I can tell. Either you're convinced that God exists, or you're not convinced. In the former case, you're a theist; in the latter case you're an atheist.
Hi Jim, thanks so much for the reply! I'm glad for a chance to speculate on the topic, but I'm not married to these ideas so there's plenty of room for debate.
First of all, I don't agree that there is one flavor of theist, The Convinced. I know a lot of theists of the "Are you there God? It's me" variety, who have beliefs and act on them, but if pressed will admit that they don't really know for sure. They still regard themselves as theists, so I don't find the categories that rigid.
Secondly, I am trying to avoid belief about gods generally, either "for" or "against". Some god stories obviously do not conform to observable reality; others might. It's a big universe, I think it's very likely there have been 'godlike' entities and true god stories. Either way, I find gods to be an incredibly useful organizing principle, and so I make use of the concept often without regard to their actual existence. They could be real or not for my purposes, and it would work exactly the same.
Really, the gods are the least interesting part...as Loyal Rue says, religion is NOT about God. Theism or non-theism are beside the point.
Perhaps that makes me one or the other in your book but it's not at all useful to me to make the distinction. Thanks for speaking about it with me! I look forward to chatting with you further.
____________________________________________________________________
Jim, it's been a while since I have had the honor and pleasure of speaking in depth about this topic. I thank you.
First of all, I don't agree that there is one flavor of theist, The Convinced. I know a lot of theists of the "Are you there God? It's me" variety, who have beliefs and act on them, but if pressed will admit that they don't really know for sure. They still regard themselves as theists, so I don't find the categories that rigid.
Secondly, I am trying to avoid belief about gods generally, either "for" or "against". Some god stories obviously do not conform to observable reality; others might. It's a big universe, I think it's very likely there have been 'godlike' entities and true god stories. Either way, I find gods to be an incredibly useful organizing principle, and so I make use of the concept often without regard to their actual existence. They could be real or not for my purposes, and it would work exactly the same.
Really, the gods are the least interesting part...as Loyal Rue says, religion is NOT about God. Theism or non-theism are beside the point.
Perhaps that makes me one or the other in your book but it's not at all useful to me to make the distinction. Thanks for speaking about it with me! I look forward to chatting with you further.
Jim, it's been a while since I have had the honor and pleasure of speaking in depth about this topic. I thank you.
Jim of SF: It sounds to me, then, like you are a theist in that you are convinced that gods existed at one time, even if they don't exist now.
Only in the Arthur C. Clarke sense that any sufficiently advanced technology would seem like magic. Perhaps we would be gods to some, lol.
Jim of SF: What you seem to be saying is that it doesn't matter to you whether gods are real. You're going to believe in them regardless, because the concept is somehow an "incredibly useful organizing principle"?
I don't have to "believe" in gods to use them as an organizing principle. As I said, I am interested in the psychology of religion, and I can see the psychological utility of the god concept. It organizes a set of human needs into a self-delivering package. It gives people the ability to channel their own wisdom in ways that support personal well-being and provide social cohesion.
Additionally, theism seems to be spontaneously occurring in large numbers of people and fairly resistant to logical persuasion, so it's extremely useful to accept that this is how some people think, and work with it instead of against it.
Additionally, theism seems to be spontaneously occurring in large numbers of people and fairly resistant to logical persuasion, so it's extremely useful to accept that this is how some people think, and work with it instead of against it.
Jim of SF: I would ask: incredibly useful for organising what?
Psychological phenomenon. Confirmation bias, synchronicity, placebo effect, hyperactive agency detection. Inner voice, problem solving, emotional catharsis. Meaning-making, personal narratives, anxiety-management. Resilience. Hope against insurmountable odds. This is what it's for. It's a big part of human psychology that evolved with our consciousness. That makes it a powerful lever.
Jim of SF: Religion without gods really reduces to things like mythology, moral philosophy, human power heirarchies, politics and other things. Religion is what you get when you add ideas about supernatural entities to all of that.
That is a lot of what religion is, but you don't have to have supernatural entities, for example Buddhism often does not. The mythology, the moral philosophies, the hierarchies, the politics and the other things ARE the interesting parts of what makes religions work for personal and social needs. "The gods" are just a cipher.
Jim of SF: What use are the gods if they are not real - other than as opium for the masses and such?
They are fun. :-)
Jim of SF: I'm curious. Do you care whether the things you believe are true? Or do you only care whether they are useful to you?
As I said, I try to avoid belief. I care that the things I claim are accurate. If I claim something is true, then it's something that you yourself can verify to be true, or why bother? That is one reason I specifically avoid making existential claims about gods. But I don't have to believe in them to use them for what they are for.
Again, this has been an exhilarating conversation, so thank you very much.
Again, this has been an exhilarating conversation, so thank you very much.
Read more in the Archives.