Thinking About Theism: Some Worldview Terminology
Some suggestions about how to understand the terminology figuring in the debate concerning the existence of God
Terminological confusion pervades the debate concerning the existence of God. Here, I offer some definitions of key terms which, by my lights, help to carve up the conceptual landscape in such a way as to facilitate clear thinking and communication about a topic which, by its nature, invites confusion and miscommunication.
God
God is, by conception, the ultimate, or absolute, being — and, as such, the metaphysical source, or ground, of all things, who is worthy of worship. According to classical theism, which has its roots in Ancient Greece and came to prominence during the Middle Ages, the ultimate being is by its nature unlimited, simple (in the sense of consisting of no parts), and maximally perfect. Some classical theists have held that God is, in fact, identical to existence itself. In contrast to classical theists, theistic personalists conceive of God as a person (albeit, the ultimate, and greatest possible, person), who is subject to change (e.g., by passing from one emotional state to another). Panentheists hold that the universe is part of God, and pantheists identify God with the universe (usually because they imbue the universe with properties, like consciousness, which make it seem more like God, as typically conceived).1
gods
Lowercase “g” gods are finite supernatural agents with great powers who are, nevertheless, finite and limited. They can be conceived as existing either within the universe or outside of it, but they are not conceived as ultimate; indeed, such beings themselves seem to cry out for explanation.
Theism
Theism is the view according to which God, or gods, exist. Theism comes in three major forms: standard monotheism (only God exists), henotheism (gods exist along with God), and polytheism (gods exist, but there is no God). In contemporary western cultures, an affirmation of theism is generally an affirmation of standard monotheism, such that if someone identifies as a theist, it’s safe to assume to that the person believes in God, not gods. It should be noted theism is not necessarily connected to religious beliefs: One can be a theist but entirely irreligious (and, conversely, one can be religious but not a theist; such is the condition of many Buddhists, for example).
Atheism
Atheism, then, is the view according to which neither God, nor gods, exist. I would add that atheism also holds that there exists nothing like God — for, given the way the term is normally used, it would be odd to call someone an atheist if, say, the person denied the existence of a perfect being but affirmed the existence of imperfect divine agents, such as Zeus or Thor. Although in some online communities it’s become popular to insist that atheism is the mere lack of a belief in God or gods, this is not plausible: Rocks, infants, dogs, and adult humans who’ve never been in possession of the concepts necessary to contemplate the relevant questions are not plausibly classified as atheists.
Supernaturalism
Supernaturalism is the more general view that there exists some dimension of reality beyond the spatiotemporal causal order (i.e., beyond the order that we experience by way of the sensory faculties and study by means of the natural sciences). One could be a supernaturalist without believing in any God or gods: one could, for example, merely believe in supernatural forces (e.g., The Force, magic, Qi, etc.) or supernatural non-deities (e.g., ghosts, demons, angels, etc.). So, by my definitions, atheism and supernaturalism are not mutually exclusive.
Naturalism
Naturalism is the view according to which reality consists only of those entities and properties posited by our best scientific theories (or, perhaps more precisely, by the correct scientific theories, whatever those turn out to be). We might also describe it simply as the view on which all that exists are those entities and properties posited by the natural sciences. Naturalism, therefore, entails a rejection of both theism and supernaturalism, but it’s more than just the rejection of those views, given that it offers a positive account of what does exist (it is in that way a grand metaphysical theory). Naturalism does not seem to be a common view among the general public, but in the 20th century it became quite dominant in science and academic philosophy.
Atheistic Non-Naturalism
Non-naturalism is a view distinct from both supernaturalism and naturalism and tends to be explicitly affirmed only by philosophers. Atheistic non-naturalists affirm the existence of things like moral and numerical entities (e.g., irreducible normative reasons and numbers), but they do not believe in supernatural forces or agents.
Agnosticism
In general, agnosticism is a stance of uncertainty with respect to a particular domain, or a particular proposition. With respect to the existence of God, an agnostic is someone for whom the cases for and against the existence of such a being seem roughly evenly-matched, such that confident belief either in atheism or in theism strikes the person as unjustifiable (some agnostics think that it is in-principle impossible to have a justified belief in either atheism or theism, though few philosophers take this line — for good reason, I think: It’s extremely difficult to defend2). Agnostics, as I understand them, can have leanings that fall short of full-fledged beliefs. So for example, one might be agnostic but lean slightly towards theism (or atheism).
Indifferentism
Indifferentism is a stance of indifference towards God’s existence and the nature of fundamental reality. The Indifferentist is not a theist — but is also too unconcerned with the ultimate questions to count as a naturalist, atheist, or even an agnostic. It seems to me that current age is replete with indifferentists — and that indifferentism, though common, is quite irrational: the relevant stakes are too high for mere indifference to be rationally defensible. It is, in part, a product of the anti-intellectualism and irrationalism that the modern world is, for all its virtues, given to mass producing.
I think it’s reasonable to wonder whether pantheists really believe in God at all. Whether they do, I think, will depend upon what properties they regard the universe as having.
I plan to elaborate on this in a future post reason post on varieties of agnosticism.
Good write up. But a complaint about the word supernatural being included in the lexicon….
The meaningfulness of that word depends on first accepting the naturalist conception of nature, or the physical. I’d personally vote to ban the use of the word supernatural in discussions of theism, because it confuses the conceptual categories rather than clarifies. If you start from nature as understood by naturalists, you’ll inevitably misconstrue theism.
For example, an idealist doesn’t think there is anything “beyond” the spatio-temporal causal order, they just think the spatio-temporal causal order (i.e. nature) is, in fact, states of consciousness.
Classical theism doesn’t think nature consists of the spatio-temporal causal order as science conceives of it, a free-standing category called nature and then God is a plus one entity extra to it. They think nature consists of God as “he in whom we live and move and have our being”.
Thanks, this is helpful. Especially the difference between supernaturalism and non-naturalism, which I wasn't aware of.
Would you say the platonic idea of the One would count as supernatural or non-natural? That's (roughly) what I've recently been moving towards.