This seems to be a question that is appropriate,
given thought and worry within our Yearly Meeting (that is, Britain
Yearly Meeting) at this time. I don't doubt there are other
unprogrammed Yearly Meetings with similar concerns. There's a lot of
discussion and worry about non-theism, and perhaps as a consequence,
much discomfort among some non-theist Friends that we are no longer
feeling as welcomed and a part of our Religious Society as we once
felt. For there can be no doubt that we've been around for quite a
while, but there is an almost sudden increase in worry about us.
Whether this is because of increased visibility, or because of
concerns being aired by visible or weighty voices among us, I
couldn't say. At least, without some in-depth study, and I doubt
anyone is going to fund me to do that.
So let's get right back to basics. What are we
talking about here anyway? What is this weird term, “non-theist”?
Is it the same as when it's written “nontheist”? How is this
different from “atheist”. What are atheists doing in a religious
society? You might be surprised how often I've heard things that seem
to amount to that last question...
The first, important point to cover is the
difference between non-theism and atheism. What I, and some other
non-theist Friends, have said on this is quite simple. Atheism is
taken by many, if not most people, to mean a complete rejection of
the transmundane – absolute materialism, philosophically speaking.
Most, but not all, non-theist Friends are not such absolute
materialists. Indeed, an atheist in a religious society seems so
contradictory largely because of this loaded meaning on the term
“atheist”. Thus, while linguistically, we might think that
“theism” and “atheism” are opposites, or complements, the
usage of the term “atheism” has drifted away from that meaning,
and the use of “theism” has, frankly, not been significant enough
for many people to be comfortable with it as a term.
However, non-theism is, to me, conceived of simply
as the complement of theism – if it isn't theism, it's non-theism.
That then rather relies on having a clear meaning of theism, which
there could be a lot of academic debate about. I will explain it in
terms that I consider practical, and that also happen to be based on
what my Religious Studies teacher taught us in school – and that
some online sources agree with, and others don't.
When I learned the term “theism”, it was in
terms of classification of beliefs independently of the usual
division of faith traditions and denominations. It was also
contrasted with deism. The latter is a belief in a creator god or
gods who do not interact with the world, while the former involves a
god or gods who interact with the world. More than that, however, it
was explained to me, the concept of theism also supposes that this
god (or these gods) have personal identity and desires, and the
ability and will to act on them, in relation to our world – usually
through great cosmic powers. Of course, the personality and desires
may be utterly beyond our ken, but that does not remove the idea of
them. Indeed, the related concept of classical
theism, in philosophy of religion, supposes all of this, and
omnipotence, omniscience, etc.
Thus, one might
be a non-theist by rejecting any element of this definition. A deist
is certainly a non-theist, as, in this conception, is one who views
their god as utterly impersonal, more a force of nature than a
personality. Potentially, even a god who has personality and desires
would not be sufficient for theism, if that god acted in the world,
could only act in the
world, by nudging the actions of people.
Theism is a very
broad category, including the mainstream theological positions of
most major world religions (at least, as I understand them; I am not
an expert in comparative theology, merely a knowledgeable amateur).
Likewise, so is non-theism. Pantheism and panentheism, viewing God
and the universe as in some way equivalent, may be theistic or
non-theistic, quite readily. Modern Pagans who worship or invoke
pantheons may or may not be theistic, depending on their view of the
objective/metaphysical reality of their gods. Buddhism is generally
considered non-theistic, though properly discussing it requires a
deeper understanding of south Asian spirituality than may be obtained
by reading simple translations of native texts, as concepts do not
map readily across.
Now, one of the
first things to understand about the definition(s) given so far is
that they are useful principally in categorising beliefs, not in
describing people. It is not usually helpful to apply labels to
others beliefs, but it is helpful to understand the identities they
apply to them for themselves. This is where it all gets awfully
fuzzy.
A person may
claim the identity of “Christian”, and most people would probably
assume some things from that – a reverence for the person of Christ
as depicted in the Gospels would probably be the usual minimum, while
others would assume trinitarianism, a belief in the resurrection, or
even the Nicene Creed. Those are not safe assumptions, especially
among Quakers, but they are most likely assumptions shared by most of
the population. If thinking about things in terms of theism and
non-theism, you would probably also assume theism. And yet, I have
known those who identified as Christian and as non-theist. I have
known those who urged me, despite my absence of most of the beliefs
seen as key in Christianity, that I should identify as Christian, and
simply define it in a way that makes sense to me. Certainly, the
latter doesn't seem to me to be compatible with the tradition of
plain speaking, but the former I have no problem with; that another
person's self-identification should not be questioned without great
reason is a precept I have long lived by, and furthermore, there are
non-theists who draw on the life of Christ as a great source of
wisdom and teaching. Indeed, I do not find it entirely barren myself,
no more or less than most religious stories.
For someone to
identify as a non-theist among Quakers can have many reasons and
meanings. It often means not accepting the literal meaning of our
business method as seeking “the will of God”. It sometimes means
a general identification as not affiliating with any mainstream
theological basis, be it Christian or otherwise. It certainly usually
means a rejection of special authority of scripture, though not
always a rejection of all value in it. Often, it reflects a degree of
agnosticism, or ietsism,
a term based on a borrowing from Dutch, that might be said as
“something-ism” – a belief that there is something
beyond the physical, the strictly material, but an uncertainty or
indifference as to what it might be.
So, I have given
you some idea of what non-theism means to me, intellectually. A
detailed account of what it means to me, personally, will have to
wait for another occasion. The important thing to take from this post
is that you cannot, simply cannot tell precisely what another's views
and beliefs are by simple labels and self-identifications. You have
to talk to each other and share ideas and experiences. You have to,
put simply and in Quaker cliché, get to know one another in that
which is eternal.
Though we could
spend a lot of time debating the precise meaning of that well-loved
(and well-used) quote!
PS: Oh, on the
question of the hyphen, I'm sure there are some who find it very
significant, but to me it is largely stylistic. I suppose, if
pressed, I would say that the hyphen form, non-theism, emphasises the
contrast with theism, while nontheism stands more on its own. Also,
my spellchecker prefers the hyphen.
