Talk:God (mythology)

Article title is offensive

The article title is offensive and I request "mythology" in brackets be removed from it. 54.252.166.176^{talk to me} 03:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't find it offensive, but I agree that the page should be moved. Wikipedia uses God for the monotheistic figure and Deity for gods in general, a much better solution which also avoids the need for disambiguation. "Mythology" isn't really accurate anyway, as God is also a philosophical concept, etc. PintlessMan ☎ 21:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, given that no DWU sources have come out and said that God belongs to the realm of mythology, this dab term is editorial at best and insensitive at worst. Mary (mythology) is a similar example. It probably wouldn't be hard to come up with a better dab to replace (mythology) on these pages as well as Zeus (mythology) et al. Maybe something as simple as (religion)? – n8 (☎) 21:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Wait, are we actually discussing this? These straightforwardly are instances of mythology. This is arguably a necessary component of them being part of a religious tradition - mythology has a real meaning that's not just pejorative. It's neither editorializing nor insensitive, it's true. Arguably it's overly technical, but, you know, look at where we are, and see our (still unresolved) discussion at Talk:Queer representation in Doctor Who. Najawin ☎ 02:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

No matter what dab term we use, I don't feel okay about certain gods being "exempt" from it, as I don't think it is within our right to say that one deity is "truer" than another.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

02:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd disagree with changing the "mythology" dab in general, as it's really not pejorative or contentious in most cases, but there are probably better ways of referring to a lot of religious figures. Mary is a historical personage, for instance, and it's flatly incorrect to call her Mary (mythology) - most readers who see that name will be jarred by it. Wikipedia has her page at Mary, mother of Jesus, which strikes me as ideal. PintlessMan ☎ 02:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

How is it incorrect? While it's largely the consensus that there's some form of "Historical Mary", even if this Historical Mary was completely identical to the one portrayed in the Bible it would still be part of mythology. The term "mythology" doesn't refer to tales that are inherently false. It refers to tales that fulfill a certain cultural role. Some of them may be false. Some may be true. It's completely irrelevant. Najawin ☎ 04:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

What you're saying is correct, but it's the worst kind of technically correct, and it ignores the obvious pejorative connotation of the word. We'd might as well move George Washington to George Washington (mythology). – n8 (☎) 18:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I feel strongly against the view that God should be the page about the monotheistic Abrahamic deity, which strikes me as pretty self-evidently biased. God has got to be dabbed, I'm sorry (though we could move the current "God" page to Deity with a redirect, to reduce confusion). As to what the dab term is, I'm not entirely married to "(mythology)"; aside from the possibility of something like "(religion)", perhaps we should give some consideration to God (individual)? But as to the wider issue, I do think that we should strive, again for reasons of avoiding some weird "Abrahamic religions are special" slant, to use the same dab term for all religious/mythological figures. If we change Mary to "(religion)" or whatever, we must also move e.g. Venus (mythology). Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 18:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, no one has suggested getting rid of (mythology) in some cases but not in others. I explicitly mentioned Zeus (mythology) as something we'd also want to change! – n8 (☎) 19:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

There is at least one case of a page using the (mythology) dab term where it would be obviously inappropriate to change it to (religion). Najawin ☎ 19:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed – hence the need for brainstorming! Maybe (belief), as that would generalise well to other scenarios as well. Also, on further reflection, I'll note that there's nothing exclusively Abrahamic about the concept of a singular God; it's a Platonic / Aristotelian idea. We certainly can't accuse Wikipedia of secretly bowing to religious bias! – n8 (☎) 19:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I could offer a reply to the latter point, but then we'd get bogged down in quite ancillary matters.

I think the problem with "(belief)" is that quite a few of these entities are just presented as materially real in the DWU; perhaps worshipped and/or the subject of myths, but not defined by belief, in particular. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 19:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it accurate to conflate "He Who Creates" with "The Form of the Good" or "Pure Actuality". It's more a neoplatonist thing, iirc? There's some subtle nuances that come about from them smuggling in some more specific assumptions that come up later in the history. I don't want to go searching through Kenny. >.> But as the article is written it's pretty explicitly Abrahamic, though the idea of a singular "God" is not Abrahamic. It just doesn't bear much relation to what's in this article. Najawin ☎ 19:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't want to get too into the weeds on this – it was just a minor point meant to defend the non-Abrahamic-centrism of Wikipedia's choice – but I find Gerson very convincing on the relationship of Plato and Plotinus 😛 – n8 (☎) 19:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair, I'll have to look into that, though I expect to be wildly unconvinced. Anything prior to Frege is a waste of time anyhow. Najawin ☎ 19:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)