sign in sign up
<<
Home , Irreligion

EPC Exhibit 136-13.1 February 14, 2013

THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Dewey Section

To: Caroline Kent, Chair Decimal Classification Editorial Policy Committee

Cc: Members of the Decimal Classification Editorial Policy Committee Karl E. Debus-López, Chief, U.S. General Division

From: Rebecca Green, Assistant Editor Dewey Decimal Classification OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.

Via: Michael Panzer, Editor in Chief Dewey Decimal Classification OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc

Re: 211 Concepts of

The current development under 211 has gone largely unchanged since DDC 19. Changes to 211 and 212 made between DDC 17 and DDC 18 and then again between DDC 18 and DDC 19 appear to have addressed duality in the treatment of , but seem to have failed to recognize the larger distinction between (religious) concepts of God and (typically nonreligious) viewpoints on the concept of God.

We start with the DDC 17 development:

DDC 17 211 Knowledge of God 211.3 Theism 211.4 (Free thought) 211.5 211.6 , , humanitarianism 211.7 and skepticism 211.8

1

212 of God 212.2 212..3 Dualism 212.4 212.5 Including 212.8 Anthropomorphism

In the DDC 18 development, note the new centered entry at 211.3–211.8 for Concepts of God:

DDC 18 211 God For nature of God, see 212 ______> 211.3–211.8 Concepts of God Class comprehensive works in 211 211.3 Theism 211.4 Rationalism (Free thought) 211.5 Deism 211.6 Humanism, secularism, humanitarianism 211.7 Agnosticism and skepticism 211.8 Atheism 212 Nature of God 212.2 Polytheism 212.3 Dualism 212.4 Monotheism 212.5 Pantheism and derived beliefs Including Subud 212.52 Theosophy 212.53 212.8 Anthropomorphism

2

With DDC 19, note the series of relocations of topics related to theism from 212 to 211:

DDC 19 211 Concepts of God Including anthropomorphism [formerly 212.8] Class here comprehensive works on God, on The Holy For nature of God, see 212 211.2 Pantheism [formerly 212.5] 211.3 Theism 211.32 Polytheism [formerly 212.2] 211.33 Dualism [formerly 212.3] 211.34 Monotheism [formerly 212.4] 211.4 Rationalism (Free thought) 211.5 Deism 211.6 Humanism and secularism 211.7 Agnosticism and skepticism 211.8 Atheism 212 Nature of God 212.1 Including proofs 212.6 Knowability Class proofs in 212.1 212.7 Attributes Examples: omniscience, love

3

The current development at 211 largely mirrors that in DDC 19:

DDC 23 211 Concepts of God Including anthropomorphism Class here comprehensive works on God, on The Holy Class God, and in comparative in 202.11 For existence of God, ways of knowing God, attributes of God, miracles, see 212 211.2 Pantheism 211.3 Theism For pantheism, see 211.2 211.32 Polytheism 211.33 Dualism 211.34 Monotheism 211.4 Rationalism (Free thought) 211.5 Deism 211.6 Humanism and secularism Standard subdivisions are added for either or both topics in heading 211.7 Agnosticism and skepticism Standard subdivisions are added for either or both topics in heading 211.8 Atheism

DDC 17 and DDC 18 maintained a distinction between a block of topics called ―Knowledge of God‖ (DDC 17) / ―Concepts of God‖ (DDC 18) and a block of topics labeled ―Nature of God.‖ Under this distinction, theism was subordinated to Knowledge of God / Concepts of God, while polytheism, dualism, monotheism, etc., were subordinated to Nature of God. Or, perhaps more insightfully, in these editions theism appeared in 211 alongside rationalism, deism, atheism, etc., as a general viewpoint on in God and appeared in 212 (as represented by its specific forms, polytheism, dualism, and monotheism) alongside pantheism and anthropomorphism as types of concepts of God possible within belief in God. With DDC 19, the distinction between the two blocks of topics was dropped; polytheism, dualism, monotheism, etc., were relocated from 212 to 211.

When the phrase ―concepts of God‖ was introduced in DDC 18, it occurred at a centered entry for 211.3–211.8. Given the lack of other subdivisions under 211 and the presence of a see

4 reference from 211 God to 212 Nature of God, it appears that ―concepts of God‖ was not deemed at that time to encompass the whole of 211 and 212. But pulling 211 and 212 under the same umbrella was seen as desirable in DDC 19, presumably because of the appearance of theism at 211.3 and the appearance of polytheism, dualism, and monotheism at 212.2–212.4.

We note that the use of ―concepts‖ here and elsewhere in the 200s (viz., 231.044 General concepts of God, Including non-Trinitarian concepts) differs from its use in other parts of the DDC (more particularly, and psychology, but also the social sciences). The idea that ―concepts of God‖ is meant to convey is various ways in which God is conceived; the word ―conception‖ might be a better choice, except that it has a special meaning in the 200s (cf. 232.911 Immaculate Conception).

A Google search on “concept of God” OR “concepts of God” retrieves about 1,940,000 results, while a Google search on “conception of God” OR “conceptions of God” retrieves about 3,540,000 results. While the search using forms of ―conception‖ retrieves almost twice as many results as the search using forms of ―concept,‖ still the phrase ―concept of God‖ is widely used. For example, Brian Morley’s article on ―Western Concepts of God‖ in the peer-reviewed Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://www.iep.utm.edu/god-west/) includes in its scope 211.2 Pantheism, 211.3 Theism (211.32 Polytheism, 211.34 Monotheism [122.33 Dualism being excluded by the western perspective of the article]), 211.5 Deism, as well as 212.6 Ways of knowing God, and 212.7 Attributes of God. The inclusions/exclusions in this article are consistent with a narrow scope of ―concepts of God,‖ in which the existence of the divine is presupposed. But Google searches on ―concept of God‖ and various forms of unbelief also retrieve substantial results, not in terms of a specific concept of God that is espoused, but more often in terms of lack of belief in, doubt about, or rejection of the concept of God. These can be encompassed within the phrase ―concepts of God,‖ taken more broadly.

We have seen that the distinction between concepts of God and viewpoints on the concept of God was present in DDC 17 and DDC 18, but dropped from DDC 19 with the disappearance of the dual role of theism, which had previously been both a specific concept of God and a general viewpoint on the concept of God. Establishing a slightly different distinction—that between religious concepts of God and nonreligious viewpoints on the concept of God—would clarify the present structure of 211.

The search dd: 21* and su: irreligion (the corresponding LCSH) retrieves 113 results in WorldCat, 79 of which are from 2000-2013; it so happens that 34 of these are records for Richard Dawkins’ . That duplication notwithstanding, the literary warrant count is great enough to justify designating a comprehensive number for free thought, humanism and secularism, agnosticism and skepticism, and atheism.

The appropriate terminology to use in conjunction with such works (that is, an appropriate broader term above free thought, humanism and secularism, agnosticism and skepticism, and atheism) is not immediately clear. Indeed, significant objections can be raised to each of the alternatives that have been considered. (See the appendix.) We propose to piggyback on our current use of ―Irreligion‖ as a Relative Index term for purposes of indexing, but not to use any specific term within the schedule itself.

5

One mechanism for establishing the distinction between religious concepts of God and nonreligious viewpoints on the concept of God would be through the creation of centered entries. However, the relevant spans for the centered entries (211.2–211.3 and 211.6–211.8) are not of sufficient magnitude to warrant centered entries. Instead, we propose to add a class-here note for comprehensive works on religious concepts of God at 211.2 Theism and to add a class-here note for comprehensive works on nonreligious viewpoints on the concept of God, on exhibiting lack of belief in, doubt about, or rejection of the concept of God at 211.8 Atheism. These are the numbers with the greatest literary warrant; moreover, their captions nicely capture the contrast in the distinction. See references lead to component subjects.

Previously approved changes are incorporated in the records shown.

6

211 211

211 Concepts of God Including anthropomorphism Class here comprehensive works on God, on The Holy Class God, gods and goddesses in in 202.11 For existence of God, ways of knowing God, attributes of God, miracles, see 212 .2 Pantheism Class comprehensive works on religious concepts of God in 211.3 .3 Theism Class here comprehensive works on religious concepts of God For pantheism, see 211.2; for deism, see 211.5 .32 Polytheism .33 Dualism .34 Monotheism .4 Free thought Class here rationalism Class comprehensive works on nonreligious viewpoints on the concept of God, on philosophies exhibiting lack of belief in, doubt about, or rejection of the concept of God in 211.8 .5 Deism Class comprehensive works on religious concepts of God in 211.3 .6 Humanism and secularism Standard subdivisions are added for either or both topics in heading Class here Class comprehensive works on nonreligious viewpoints on the concept of God, on philosophies exhibiting lack of belief in, doubt about, or rejection of the concept of God in 211.8 .7 Agnosticism and skepticism Standard subdivisions are added for either or both topics in heading Class comprehensive works on nonreligious viewpoints on the concept of God, on philosophies exhibiting lack of belief in, doubt about, or rejection of the concept of God in 211.8

7 211 Dewey Decimal Classification 211

.8 Atheism Class here comprehensive works on nonreligious viewpoints on the concept of God, on philosophies exhibiting lack of belief in, doubt about, or rejection of the concept of God For free thought, see 211.4; for humanism and secularism, see 211.6; for agnosticism and skepticism, see 211.7

8 Appendix: Ruminations on terminology The LCSH term Irreligion has the following scope note: ―Here are entered works on the absence of, indifference towards, or hostility towards religion.‖ The word ―irreligion‖ is used in the current scholarly literature in a manner that is appropriate to our needs; representative titles include Irreligion: a mathematician explains why the arguments for God just don't add up and Subjectivity and irreligion: atheism and agnosticism in Kant, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche. However, the term has a long history of polemic use, as seen in these titles representative of earlier centuries: A treatise of the corruption of Scripture, councels, and fathers, by the prelats, pastors, and pillars of the Church of , for maintenance of popery and irreligion and An exposure of a new system of irreligion: which is in opposition to the Holy Scriptures, and is called "The new moral world," promulgated by Robert Owen, Esq., whose doctrine proves him a child of the devil, and is here exploded. The LCSH and current use notwithstanding, we deem it wise, if an acceptable alternative can be identified, to avoid the historic polemic use. Possibilities to consider include the 450s in the LCSH authority record for Irreligion, viz., Non- belief and Unbelief. However, these terms are too broad/vague, in that they do not specify what is not believed. Indeed, ―unbelief‖ sometimes refers to an insufficient degree of within the context of a religious belief system. Another way of capturing what doesn’t quite work with Non-belief and Unbelief is that they are not the right semantic type for the broader term. ―Philosophies of [non-belief/unbelief],‖ ―systems of [non-belief/unbelief],‖ or ―forms of [non- belief/unbelief]‖ might be considered instead. Of these, ―forms of unbelief‖ is the only one with any established pattern of use. However, how to word a class-here note for comprehensive works on, e.g., free thought, humanism and secularism, agnosticism and skepticism, and atheism, that uses ―forms of unbelief‖ and captures the distinction between such works and comprehensive works on religious concepts of God has proved elusive. Another possibility to consider is ―nonreligion.‖ This is a term that appears to be gaining traction, as in the following contexts: Secularism and Nonreligion, a peer-reviewed journal whose first issue appeared in 2012; the Nonreligion and Research Network, an international network of researchers, founded in 2008; Nonreligion and the Secular: New Horizons for Multidisciplinary Research, conference held at the University of in 2012. A potential drawback is that, at least in these contexts, nonreligion is paired only with secularism, a single form of unbelief. Another alternative is the phrase ―nonreligious belief systems,‖ which is taken from a website promoting ―the addition of nonreligion to public school curricula which include instruction about religion‖ (http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org/backgroundnonreligion.html): Nonreligion There exist today many philosophical variants of nonreligious belief systems. , rationalism, secular humanism, atheism, brights, and methodological skepticism, along with agnosticism, are the most common perspectives. Outlooks that fall under the umbrella description ―nonreligious‖ presented here have in common that they do not contain any beliefs.

9

The contrast between ―nonreligious belief systems‖ and ―forms of unbelief‖ is striking, as the former casts these perspectives as belief systems that do not contain beliefs of a certain sort, while the latter casts them as perspectives that do not qualify as belief systems at all, because they lack beliefs of that certain sort. While the former characterization is probably better in an overall sense, in the context of 200 Religion, characterizing nonreligious belief systems as forms of unbelief may be appropriate. In any case, like ―forms of unbelief,‖ how to word a class-here note for comprehensive works on, e.g., free thought, humanism and secularism, agnosticism and skepticism, and atheism, that uses ―nonreligious belief systems‖ and captures the distinction between such works and comprehensive works on religious concepts of God has proved elusive. If ―nonreligion‖ were understood as being equivalent to ―nonreligious belief systems,‖ as implied above, it would prove a strong candidate. However, ―nonreligion‖ is not (yet?) recognized as a word in standard dictionaries. In the end, no good (neutral, established) term (word or phrase) appears to exist.

10