Religions. Tribal units and a good way to appease our love of drama and war.

[Greatest I am]

The idea of 'theists' as a single, coherent category of people always struck me as one of the...odder things about Dawkinsite rhetoric.

Considering one of Dawkins' better-known bits is the spectrum of theistic probability, I'm not sure what you mean by this?

'Theists' as a single, coherent category of people requires 'theism' as an incredibly abstracted philosophical position (not even really a 'belief' as such), with very little specific content to it, of a kind that almost nobody other than a few old-school philosophers of religion actually holds. People who believe strongly in the God or gods of some religion in particular aren't fundamentally believing the same things as some Charles Sanders Peirce acolyte. They may or may not be believing the same things as one another, depending on the religions (and individuals!) concerned.

That's only the theoretical problem with the categorization. On the theoretical level it's still somewhat defensible. On any practical or political or sociological level, the problems with classifying people and their beliefs this way ought to be...very obvious.

If the issue is my use of the word 'Dawkinsite' to describe this sort of thinking then I'll gladly amend it, since it's been ages since I've actually sat down and read anything by Dawkins other than his tweets and various other bite-sized internet pronunciamientos. Please remind me whether the 'spectrum of theistic probability' is what the name makes it sound like?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV2VjdpVonY

Regards
DL

[Antonio the Sixth]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV2VjdpVonY

Setting aside the utter inanity of the analogy, the guy has an insufferably posh tone of voice.

[Greatest I am]

I prefer this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk41Gbjljfo

Regards
DL

[Alcon]

'Theists' as a single, coherent category of people requires 'theism' as an incredibly abstracted philosophical position (not even really a 'belief' as such), with very little specific content to it, of a kind that almost nobody other than a few old-school philosophers of religion actually holds.

I'm really not sure what you mean.  I assume you mean that treating "theists" as a cohesive category requires abstracting to the point where you lose "specific content."  That "specific content," I assume, somehow relates to some element(s) of theistic belief that somehow render the abstraction of "theists" a useless idea, in some or all situations, for some unspecified reason.  I think you probably understand why I'm confused here...

(I doubt you mean to say it's not a "coherent category," because "theist" is obviously a coherent category.  The fact that a descriptor is applied to some relevant abstract element of otherwise unalike items doesn't make that descriptor "incoherent.")

People who believe strongly in the God or gods of some religion in particular aren't fundamentally believing the same things as some Charles Sanders Peirce acolyte. They may or may not be believing the same things as one another, depending on the religions (and individuals!) concerned.

Are you pointing out that theists believe different things theologically and philosophically?  I feel like anyone who would understand your allusion to Charles Sanders Peirce (not me!) probably already know that concept

In any case, is your point that "theist" is useless as a category descriptor because theists have different theological views?  If so, I definitely don't think that makes the descriptor useless.  If you're saying it makes it useless in particular situations, you're going to have to give some context here.  I don't have much to go on: the only use of "theists" in this thread was the crazy OP writing "atheists do not need correcting as much as theists do."  I'm not really sure what "specific content" would be relevant there, especially assuming that "specific content" of theist beliefs is irrelevant by definition if that was simply a statement about probability (like, the average atheist doesn't need correction as often as the average theist).  [Although OP is crazy so who knows.]

That's only the theoretical problem with the categorization. On the theoretical level it's still somewhat defensible. On any practical or political or sociological level, the problems with classifying people and their beliefs this way ought to be...very obvious.

I feel like I felt half the time I heard the word "problematic" in college.  If it's italicized-very obvious, summarize your basic point in a couple of sentences, and I'm sure I'll understand it.

If the issue is my use of the word 'Dawkinsite' to describe this sort of thinking then I'll gladly amend it, since it's been ages since I've actually sat down and read anything by Dawkins other than his tweets and various other bite-sized internet pronunciamientos. Please remind me whether the 'spectrum of theistic probability' is what the name makes it sound like?

I guess it is.

By 'Dawkinsite,' did you basically mean you associate simplification/reification of 'theism' is something you associate with antitheists, and therefore attributed to the "specific content" of Dawkins' beliefs?  If so, isn't that kinda ironic, considering you're complaining abut simplification/reification of the "specific content" of theistic belief sets? 

[Greatest I am]

I prefer this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk41Gbjljfo

Regards
DL

Another fascinating seminar on the nature of theistical studies! But ah, I have an even better video, one that really gets to the heart of the issues facing our country...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yPYZpwSpKmA&autoplay=1

Regards,

Abraham Washingon, Lord of New York, Earl of Manhattan, Defender of the Faith, Knight of the Old Code, and Holy Emperor of America and its Empire.

I agree that that goes to the core of the U.S. being the Un-United States.

Lincoln said he would even ignore slavery for the power to unite the then and still Un-United States.

Regards
DL

[Antonio the Sixth]

This is a work of art.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

'Theists' as a single, coherent category of people requires 'theism' as an incredibly abstracted philosophical position (not even really a 'belief' as such), with very little specific content to it, of a kind that almost nobody other than a few old-school philosophers of religion actually holds.

I'm really not sure what you mean.  I assume you mean that treating "theists" as a cohesive category requires abstracting to the point where you lose "specific content."  That "specific content," I assume, somehow relates to some element(s) of theistic belief that somehow render the abstraction of "theists" a useless idea, in some or all situations, for some unspecified reason.  I think you probably understand why I'm confused here...

(I doubt you mean to say it's not a "coherent category," because "theist" is obviously a coherent category.  The fact that a descriptor is applied to some relevant abstract element of otherwise unalike items doesn't make that descriptor "incoherent.")

'Coherent category', no, that's not what I meant; 'cogent category', maybe. I suspect I may be biased because I find the existence of God a less interesting question than the definition of God (which I think precedes the former question in a way that makes it difficult to establish a really workable argument about His existence without first spending more time hashing out definitions than most people on either 'side' of this 'debate' seem interested in spending. Which I guess is the main point I was trying to make).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you pointing out that theists believe different things theologically and philosophically?  I feel like anyone who would understand your allusion to Charles Sanders Peirce (not me!) probably already know that concept [/quote]

That's what I'm pointing out, but not only that--my point is that these beliefs are different enough to in many (not all!) cases make the nature of their/our belief in God functionally, materially different. Although I'm willing to accept that differences that seem major 'from the inside' might seem uninteresting or irrelevant 'from the outside'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In this context I think it's not very useful to use it as a blanket term because somewhere from about half (assuming 'theist' means 'monotheist') to probably at least three-quarters (assuming it's some sort of term of abuse for anybody who follows a religion) of the people in the world are 'theists' and generalizations about such broad groups never strike me as useful. The only religions that OP, or people in the anti-religion 'movement' in general, often seem to really have much grasp on or interest in are Christianity and Islam, and even then, unacceptably (imo) reified versions of them. I'm remembering here especially my argument with WillipsBrighton a while back on whether or not it's appropriate to make judgments about a religion solely with reference to the letter of its holy texts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I feel like I felt half the time I heard the word "problematic" in college.  If it's italicized-very obvious, summarize your basic point in a couple of sentences, and I'm sure I'll understand it.[/quote]

'Theists' manifestly don't behave in interchangeable or even necessarily comparable ways--practically, politically, sociologically. There are obviously commonalities that can be drawn, but these are commonalities that come with following some religious teaching or other in general, not with believing in God specifically (which isn't remotely the same thing).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I guess it is.[/quote]

ayy lmao

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, it's ironic and I should have used a different word.

[Alcon]

'Coherent category', no, that's not what I meant; 'cogent category', maybe. I suspect I may be biased because I find the existence of God a less interesting question than the definition of God (which I think precedes the former question in a way that makes it difficult to establish a really workable argument about His existence without first spending more time hashing out definitions than most people on either 'side' of this 'debate' seem interested in spending. Which I guess is the main point I was trying to make).

That's what I'm pointing out, but not only that--my point is that these beliefs are different enough to in many (not all!) cases make the nature of their/our belief in God functionally, materially different. Although I'm willing to accept that differences that seem major 'from the inside' might seem uninteresting or irrelevant 'from the outside'.

In this context I think it's not very useful to use it as a blanket term because somewhere from about half (assuming 'theist' means 'monotheist') to probably at least three-quarters (assuming it's some sort of term of abuse for anybody who follows a religion) of the people in the world are 'theists' and generalizations about such broad groups never strike me as useful. The only religions that OP, or people in the anti-religion 'movement' in general, often seem to really have much grasp on or interest in are Christianity and Islam, and even then, unacceptably (imo) reified versions of them.

'Theists' manifestly don't behave in interchangeable or even necessarily comparable ways--practically, politically, sociologically. There are obviously commonalities that can be drawn, but these are commonalities that come with following some religious teaching or other in general, not with believing in God specifically (which isn't remotely the same thing).

I still think your point is suffering from lack of context here.  I get that you're saying, basically, that you can't over-generalize traits of theism.  That's fine, although probably true of every broad category group imaginable, so I think it's a little strange you're arguing that it somehow makes "theist" a useless categorical term.  You seem to be particularly arguing that there are internal debates over the nature of "theism" somehow make the categorical term useless.  I'm not sure how that would work, but I'm not sure it matters here.

I honestly think you're being a little silly.  There is no context in which it's useful to categorize theists, either to describe tendencies, correlated traits, etc.?  Why...because theists have distinct, individual traits that exist in addition to group averages, etc.?  Sure they do, but that doesn't mean you can't talk about tendencies, group averages, correlates that come along with theistic belief, distinctions between the theist group and the atheist group.  It's a little weird you called this "sociologically" problematic considering that sociology looks at issues like that as its bread-and-butter.  You may think it's more interesting to look at individuated groups within theism, but calling any broader considerations incoherent or non-cogent seems kinda baseless.  This is only a few degrees away from that guy who was complaining when Clinton explained that gangs serve as a family unit for many members, something which you called "universally accepted sociology."  Why are you totally comfortable considering broad-based traits and tendencies in the case of gang membership, but totally reject it for theistic beliefs?

It also seems a little strange to say it's pointless talking about something because it applies to the vast majority of the world.  Behavioral and belief traits that are nearly universal to humans are extremely useful to talk about.  I could give examples, but do I really need to?

I feel like all of this is a little like complaining it's unreasonable to talk about snow, because each individual snowflake has such a fascinating, distinct crystal pattern you'd prefer to engage.  OK, it's cool if you'd prefer to talk about something else, but I still think it's totally reasonable to discuss the abstract concept of snow in some capacities.

ayy lmao

...?

Yes, it's ironic and I should have used a different word.

Fair enough.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Probably you're actually right and this is just something that irritates me because, as a theology/religious studies person, I habitually hyper-finesse and thin-slice these things, and it's annoying to see public discussion of my field, including discussion led by many highly-regarded public intellectuals, revolve around concepts and arguments that seem sloppy and over-generalized to specialists. I don't think I'm wrong to feel this way and I'm not going to apologize for it, but that's probably what's going on.

[Alcon]

Probably you're actually right and this is just something that irritates me because, as a theology/religious studies person, I habitually hyper-finesse and thin-slice these things, and it's annoying to see public discussion of my field, including discussion led by many highly-regarded public intellectuals, revolve around concepts and arguments that seem sloppy and over-generalized to specialists. I don't think I'm wrong to feel this way and I'm not going to apologize for it, but that's probably what's going on.

Well, sure, but I don't think talking about general traits of a group precludes discussion of specific elements of those groups at all.  If it did, sociology would be a really tough field for you to tolerate   They're just different discussions; one isn't necessarily any less coherent/cogent/whatever than the other.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Probably you're actually right and this is just something that irritates me because, as a theology/religious studies person, I habitually hyper-finesse and thin-slice these things, and it's annoying to see public discussion of my field, including discussion led by many highly-regarded public intellectuals, revolve around concepts and arguments that seem sloppy and over-generalized to specialists. I don't think I'm wrong to feel this way and I'm not going to apologize for it, but that's probably what's going on.

Well, sure, but I don't think talking about general traits of a group precludes discussion of specific elements of those groups at all.  If it did, sociology would be a really tough field for you to tolerate   They're just different discussions; one isn't necessarily any less coherent/cogent/whatever than the other.

Very fair point.

Can we just say it's a pet peeve of mine and move on?

[Alcon]

Probably you're actually right and this is just something that irritates me because, as a theology/religious studies person, I habitually hyper-finesse and thin-slice these things, and it's annoying to see public discussion of my field, including discussion led by many highly-regarded public intellectuals, revolve around concepts and arguments that seem sloppy and over-generalized to specialists. I don't think I'm wrong to feel this way and I'm not going to apologize for it, but that's probably what's going on.

Well, sure, but I don't think talking about general traits of a group precludes discussion of specific elements of those groups at all.  If it did, sociology would be a really tough field for you to tolerate   They're just different discussions; one isn't necessarily any less coherent/cogent/whatever than the other.

Very fair point.

Can we just say it's a pet peeve of mine and move on?

Totally!