Talk:Theism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

Contents


[edit] Theism: solely explicit?

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Anybody here?

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

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

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

Well it seems actually that most dictionaries prefer your definition of theism. Simon Blackburn has some amusing definitions in The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy:
  • theism Belief in the existence of God. Theism is also a morbid condition brought on by excessive tea-drinking, but this is a different sense of the word, or an instance of homonymy. See also deism, monotheism, polytheism, and different topics within the philosophy of religion.
  • monotheism Belief in one God. It is not always easy to count gods. See polytheism.
This Wikipedia article has made the whole issue very simple, by defining theism as "at least one god". But it might be that the issue is more complicated, especially with God in Hinduism. It seems having at least some concept of God with a capital 'G' is quite central to theism. --Merzul 20:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pantheism, panentheism, and deism are misclassified

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

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

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

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

My major complaint, however, is with the classifications.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

[edit] Theism and Atheism harmony

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

[edit] Confucianism/Buddhism

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

[edit] What is the subject of this article

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

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

[edit] Definition of theism

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

[edit] Theism and Buddhism

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

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

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

[edit] Playing the game

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Less ranting, more communicating, please. I'm going to divide my response into two parts: Criticising your version of the article and defending the current version. First, criticising yours:
  1. Theism is the belief that god(s) exist, and that there is sufficient reason to believe that god(s) exist
    1. The parentheses around s license two readings of the sentence: Theism is the belief that god exist and Theism is the belief that gods exist. The latter is fine, the former is hopelessly broken. The original version (the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities), perhaps sans the 'divinities' part, is far superior. This "god(s)" construction appears in various places through your version of the article.
    2. Belief in justifiability isn't part of any common definition of theism.
  2. 'Theism' is not an umbrella term for the various words that end with -theism. Why are you defining what theism is not? It sounds like you are just preaching about something that annoys you, rather than trying to deliver useful information. People can make their own conclusions on what theism implies based on the definition given.
  3. The antonym of 'theism' is 'nontheism', of which the most extreme form is 'atheism', which is the lack of belief in god(s),[1] to include the disbelief that god(s) exist[2] (or the affirmation of their nonexistence[3])
    1. That's not an antonym.
    2. There's no reason to be dedicating so much of this article (this sentence and others in the same paragraph) to defining atheism.
    3. In its broadest form, atheism is nontheism. In its more narrow form, atheism is indeed narrower than nontheism, but on what ground do we say that makes it more 'extreme'?
    4. The entire sentence just seems unclear to me, especially the "to include" part.
  4. "There are several different—but not necessarily mutually exclusive—approaches to theism, all within the framework of the assumption that god(s) exist:".
    1. It is wrong for "the assumption that god(s) exist" to link to "Existence of God". That's a much more narrow subject.
    2. Is it necessary to say, when describing approaches to theism, that they are subject to the assumption that one or more gods exist? Isn't that kind of redundant?
And now defending the current state:
"While briefly sane in the etymology, it confuses matters everywhere else, including in the lead (which merrily provides a "narrower"sez? sense purportedly# based on the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1911,# and which then mistreats the sui generis as generic#)". Your problem is with this sentence?
“ There is also a narrower sense in which theism refers to the belief that one or more divinities are immanent in the world, yet transcend it, along with the idea that divinity(s) is/are omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent ”
Then remove that sentence. Don't completely rewrite the lead, replacing all the good parts, just to remove one bad sentence.
"The bulk of this article is devoted to directories,# presently called "Divisions by numbers of deities" and "Divisions by natures of deities." That theism has a relationship with these "divisions" is creative and novel, but alas, coatracking". I'm beginning to doubt that you've read the various policies you cite. From WP:COAT: "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject". The theism article, in its present state, discusses a variety of ways theism can manifest, just as your version does. Discussion of axes of categorisation (number, nature, etc) is a way of clearly presenting the information, making it easy to see what positions are incompatible - for example, a person cannot simultaneously be a monotheist and a polytheist. Nobody is saying that theism has a "relationship" with anything, only that subdivisions of theism can be usefully classified.
"[the] article not only contradicts every dictionary (not just of philosophy), but also contradicts itself". Did you at any point consider substantiating this claim? Ilkali (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Good work. Thanks for that. Will add to it in a few minutes.
Responding to Ilkali: Failing to respond to the issue is not an answer. The issue is (again) the reversion on the false assumption of "consensus" and "resistance". The revert remains unjustified, even if one should choose to sweep that fact under the carpet.
I'll justify my edits when my edits need justification. That is, when the goalposts are where they should be, and not where someone arbitrarily choses to put them.
Responding to the "defense" of the present state, which -- it may be noted -- are barely themselves a defense but are instead arguments against my original text (which is incidentally also older that the defended version). Nonetheless...
  • "Then remove that sentence": My problem is not with any one sentence. And that sentence is not incorrect. In another context it might have been fine. It is its presentation that is inappropriate, and in that it was symptomatic for all the problems in the article.
  • Apropos: "Don't completely rewrite the lead, replacing all the good parts, just to remove one bad sentence." a) that "one bad sentence" was in fact the one sentence in the lead that I removed. b) Why shouldn't anyone "completely rewrite the lead"?
  • And yes, COAT is quite valid -- those directories are not related to the nominal subject, but are orthogonal to it (in COAT parlance "tangentially related"). Hence COAT.
  • While off topic, yes, actually a person can simultaneously be a monotheist and a polytheist. The presumption that they cannot is based on the assumption that there is a universal understanding of what a "god" is. Not only is that not so, "mono" and "poly" are not mutually exclusive either—beliefs are not math. Besides, those words are steeped in missionary polemic and should not be thrown about like confetti.
  • The article does not "in its present state, discusses a variety of ways theism can manifest". Theism does not "manifest" itself as "divisions by numbers/nature of deities." Theism is not at all subdivided in such a fashion, and consequently even the idea that "subdivisions of theism can be usefully classified" is a fallacy.
    What theism manifests itself as is a) interminable philosophical discussions from the Enlightenment era onwards, b) 19th/20th century Protestant notions of "religious experience."
-- Fullstop (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Definitions

  • The doctrine that there is one transcendent, personal God who freely created all that exists out of nothing, and who preserves and governs it. He is believed to be self-existent, present everywhere, all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good, and therefore worthy of human worship. Theism is nowadays distinguished from Deism: the latter denies God's personal governance of the world, usually by ruling out the possibility of providence, miracles, and revelation.[1]
  • A term which refers to the belief in the existence of a divine being, especially in the existence of a single God, who is thought to be personal and who is the Creator of the universe. Theism involves the idea of divine revelation, and consequently is contrasted with deism, the rational belief in divinity independently of faith in a revealed truth. See also monotheism; religion.[2]
  • Any of various philosophical and theological systems that profess belief in the existence of one supreme being, who is the creator of the universe. In most theistic systems, human beings have free will, and religious doctrines are usually based on divine revelation. See also monotheism; polytheism.[3]
  • In current usage the word denotes a philosophical system which accepts a transcendent and personal God who not only created but also preserves and governs the world, the contingency of which does not exclude miracles and the exercise of human freedom. In various forms it is the view common to orthodox Christian philosophers, to Judaism, and to Islam.[4]
  • Belief in the existence of God. Theism is also a morbid condition brought on by excessive tea-drinking, but this is a different sense of the word, or an instance of homonymy. See also atheism, deism, monotheism, polytheism, and different topics within the philosophy of religion.[5]
  • Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures. The word is recorded from the late 17th century, and comes from Greek theos ‘god’.[6]
  • Belief in one God, esp. as creator and supreme ruler. XVII. f. Gr. theós god.[7]

 

  • The theist is a man firmly persuaded of the existence of a Supreme Being equally good and powerful, who has formed all extended, vegetating, sentient, and reflecting existences, who perpetuates their species, who punishes crimes without cruelty, and rewards virtuous actions with kindness. (Le théiste est un homme fermement persuadé de l´existence d´un Être suprême aussi bon que puissant, qui a formé tous les êtres étendus, végétants, sentants, et réfléchissants ; qui perpétue leur espèce, qui punit sans cruauté les crimes, et récompense avec bonté les actions vertueuses.[8]) ...
    [The theist thinks that] Providence pervades all places and all ages. United in this principle with the rest of the universe, he does not join any of the sects, who all contradict themselves; his religion is the most ancient and the most extended: for the simple adoration of a God has preceded all the systems in the world.[9][reiterated in full in [10]]
  • Theism is the belief that there is a God and God is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent, distinct from the universe that he has created and ni which he intervenes. To be a theist is not in itself to hold a philosophical theory, but it is to be committed on philosophical issues both of truth and of meaning. [...]
    The grounds on which the existence of the God of theism has been asserted are very various [: Cartesian/'ontological', cosmological and ideological]. [...]
    Critics of the theistic proofs argue that there are no good reasons for believing that God exists; exponents of the problem of evil are apt to claim that there are good reasons for believing that God does not exist; neither skepticism cuts as deep as that which claims that it is equally meaningless to assert or to deny the existence of God. [...]
    There is no one problem or group of problems which can be labelled 'the theistic question'. Proof, introspection, laws of nature, free-will, falsifiability -- almost all the topics of philosophy -- can arise in theistic contexts. [...] See Religion.[11]

[edit] References

  1. ^ John Bowker (2000). "Theism". The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. Oxford University Press. 
  2. ^ John Scott and Gordon Marshall (2005). "Theism". A Dictionary of Sociology. Oxford University Press. 
  3. ^ "Theism". World Encyclopedia. (2008). Oxford University Press. 
  4. ^ E. A. Livingstone (2006). "Theism". The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Oxford University Press. 
  5. ^ Simon Blackburn (1996). "Theism". The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford University Press. 
  6. ^ Elizabeth Knowles (2006). "Theism". A Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. Oxford University Press. 
  7. ^ T. F. Hoad (1996). "Theism". The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. Oxford University Press. 
  8. ^ Voltaire (1764), “Théiste”, Dictionnaire philosophique, Paris: Didier de Neuvillé .
  9. ^ Voltaire (1824), “Theist”, A Philosophical Dictionary: From the French, J. & H. L. Hunt, p. 258 .
  10. ^ Hyland, Paul; Gomez, Olga & Greensides, Francesca, eds. (2003), “Theist”, The Enlightenment: A Sourcebook and Reader, New York: Routledge, p. 82 .
  11. ^ Maci, A. (2005), “Theism”, in Rée, Jonathan, The Concise Encyclopedia of Western Philosophy (3rd ed.), New York: Routledge, pp. 374-377, ISBN 0-415-32923-X .

[edit] Comments

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

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

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

Yes. And his second sentence is humorous too. Oh wai... :)
Seriously though ... All those definitions are in and of themselves correct; some are incomplete or have systemic issues (and so -- unless carefully contextualized -- could be misleading), but taken together the basic stuff is all there.
I've added Voltaire as representative of the Enlightenment, and the relevant bits of a current encyclopedia description in order to put (I hope) all the preceding snippets into perspective. -- Fullstop (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The question is now simply how we integrate these ideas to form our own first few sentences about theism. I will maybe look at a few more definitions based on what appear in books such as The Coherence of Theism by Swinburne. Let's see. Those may also suggest a bit more about how to expand this entry. Could you perhaps suggest an outline. At the very least, we should provide an overview of the rationale for theism, just as we have in the atheism article. What do you guys think? Merzul (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
How about this (the only "rationale" for theism that I can think of I've flagged in gray):
At its core, theism is the "belief in the existence of a divine being" (to use the dic. of soc. phrase), especially a belief in the existence of a Creator principle. Add "This divine being of theism intervenes in the functioning of the world" ??
Central to the philosophical discussions of theism (and also of deism) are theoretical arguments for the existence of the divine. But theism -- unlike deism -- has a personal aspect, and does not discount divine intervention (for example, revelation and miracles) as evidence of existence. In this, theism (which is younger than deism) may be understood to be a conciliation between established religion and deism's natural theology.
That is, assuming the contrast to deism needs to be made from the outset, as many of the snippets above do. I don't really agree that it needs to be done like that, but then again, we don't have the space limitations those authors presumably did.
-- Fullstop (talk) 02:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
On second thought... I think the first sentence needs to make clear that theism is not a common noun. Otherwise we are going to end up with the same mess we have now. -- Fullstop (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)