From PhilPapers forum PhilPapers Surveys:

2009-12-14
Theism, Atheism, Agnosticism?
Reply to Jim Stone
RE: 'Agnosticism' is much harder to get a grip on.".

Agnosticism is simplicity itself to get a grip on, though not if one attempts to define it as non-belief in something called "theism" - a strange proposition that simply muddies the waters.

As for theism, we seem no closer to clarity. Apparently, I gather, it can mean belief in several gods - so the Aztecs presumably were good theists (despite the mass human sacrifices) as were the Egyptians - though some recent scholarship suggests that the Egyptian gods were not really what we mean by gods at all (and what do we mean by "gods" by the way?)

Alternatively, I gather, theism means, "more or less", belief in god "as traditionally conceived by Jews, Christians and Muslims."  I don't suppose there is any point in reiterating that there are major differences in the way Jews, Christians and Muslims understand god (remembering, too, that all three religions are themselves broken into various, different "traditions")?  

What all this underlines, in my view, is the pointlessness of the question in the questionnaire.  It was far too blunt an instrument to be of any value - except, I imagine, in an extremely restricted "in-house" kind of way. When one thinks of the vast differences between religions throughout history and across so many different cultures, and then thinks of the question in the questionnaire, the mind fairly boggles. I assume this does not reflect the quality of thinking in contemporary philosophy of religion generally. That would be a depressing thought.

DA