Is Theism the result of Tea-Drinking?

Jerome Gellman, in The Routledge Companion to Theism (2012) says yes, Theism is the result of tea-drinking … but not for Jews:

I can verify that this is indeed OED’s second definition of “theism”, coming after the more well-known definition of theism1 (which has to do with God and stuff):

I especially like that quote from the 1886 issue of Science, which explains that the form of “theism” in the reference to “acute, subacute and chronic ‘theism’ … has no connection with theological matters”. Nice.

As Simon Blackburn, in The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (2016), s.v. “theism”, confirms, what we have here with theism1 and theism2 is “homonymy”.

Homonymy. That certainly sounds like something that most forms of theism would frown upon.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s