What is this “Meta-Theism” of which you speak, and more importantly, who cares?

First, the etymology of the word itself.

meta-

1. a prefix appearing in loanwords from Greek, with the meanings “after,” “along with,” “beyond,” “among,” “behind,” and productive in English on the Greek model: metacarpus; metagenesis; metalinguistics.
   (source: dictionary.com)

the·ism

–noun

1. the belief in one god as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation ( distinguished from deism).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods ( opposed to atheism).
   (source: dictionary.com)

For rhetorical purposes, it was suggested to me to incorporate a hyphen so as not to mislead a casual glance into seeing “metATHEISM” and thus associating it inappropriately. From these definitions and with my own interpretation, we arrive at a word representing the concept “beyond god/gods”.

Meta-Theism has been an idea floating around in my head for longer than I could put a name on it. So much fruitless debate happens amongst the religious and the non-religious; pitting faith against science, no one has gained or lost ground, but what we have lost are time and energy. A pervasive element of philosophy permeates both the scientific and the faithful, so it seems that one could go beyond the level in which we get bogged down in differences and find an idea under which all can be discussed without the incorporation of theistic boundaries.

• Pick any religion, and you will find do's and do not's. It sometimes comes to the point where the do not's are believed in so strongly that even discussion of them is offensive and grounds debate or even personal musing to a halt. However, it has been my human experience that there are differing levels of direct control one has over one's actions versus one's ideas. If you believe stealing is bad and do not want to be bad, you can exert the effort not to steal. However, covetous ideas infiltrate the human mind as surely as innocuous, impertinent, or invalid ideas. Strange, strange things come into our human minds, and we are without the faculties for preventative measures. I ask you, reader: Why then would ideas be bad if you can entertain them without acting upon them? I am an advocate for learning, thinking, empiricism, testing boundaries, continually asking why, learning how to be satisfied when the answer is negative or unknowable... Is it wrong to expound upon ideas without limit? That, I feel, is where the fundamental difference between theism and meta-theism lies.
• Joe Nickell at Skepticon 3 brought forth a very interesting point in his lecture. He contends, essentially, if an atheist asserts that there is no god, the burden of proof is upon him/her to uphold that claim. Here, we get into what differentiates meta-theism from atheism. There's no need to get into the debate of theistic existence whatsoever. Do your cognitive exploration above and beyond those bounds. We human beings exist on this tiny planet, whatever your definition of existence may be. I assert that we are allowed to entertain, explore, and expound upon any ideas without needing to take theism into OR out of account. Thus, meta-theism, the idea of philosophy, empiricism, anything and everything at all being discussed beyond the consideration of theistic beings, breathes life into fields that previously got stuck due to an inability to get past the asinine debate of whether or not god/gods exist.

From this description, one may infer who I hope to target and incorporate to be a part of this project. In a word: EVERYONE. The beauty of this idea is the emphasis on the individual, the impossibility of perfect cohesiveness across cultures, neighbors, even on the level of the individual him/herself. We all have different ideas, and there exists no person now nor before who has the authority to say your thoughts, feelings, ideas, etc. shouldn't matter. They matter to you. They matter to others who are interested in what you have to say. I am one such individual, and I implore anyone who has anything to say on any topic to please become a part of this project.

To contribute to this blog, please email your contributions to metatheism@gmail.com. Please include how, if at all, you would like to be credited. In general, I can't think of any guidelines to adhere to. If you want to talk about explicit material, we can incorporate disclaimers. If you want to troll, well, some people find that funny. If you cannot convey your contribution in an intelligible fashion, just don't blame me if other people flame you. Nothing is off limits here, not even the discussion of theistic ideas. Meta-theism as an idea exists only to become the ideological medium through which it's considered perfectly okay to talk about whatever you want to talk about without a burden of proof unless you declare something as FACT. Sourcing is a MUST to maintain the integrity of this blog. If your contribution lacks a source, do not be surprised to see [source needed] added in. I will always be willing to update your posts with whatever evidence you can provide. May I suggest, in general, to simply be open and honest when something is your opinion. Don't burden yourself with proof you can't find. Simply concede that it's your opinion or your experience.

So that is the idea of meta-theism. Who cares? At least I do, and I wager there are plenty more who do as well. Please, world wide web. Share yourselves with me. With us. Personal anecdotes, art, music, essays/research articles, pictures... Name something. Then send it to me, please.

Cheers,

Rachel