Omnism is a style or way of believing, like pantheism or deism, and I think the definition is a bit tricky. Merriam-Webster doesn’t have a definition for omnism, but they have one for “omnist”:
“One that believes in all religions”
That seems vague, or at least it seems like it’s open to misunderstanding. For example, I wouldn’t think that omnists believe everything that every religion offers. Instead, I’d think that omnists either pick and choose bits from every religion they encounter to construct a worldview, or more common IMO, is that omnists simply think that there is validity in every religion in one way or another. Whatever the case, I’m guessing that there’s a wide variety of outlooks, just like the variety we find among atheists, monotheists, and polytheists.
Wikipedia: “Many omnists say that all religions contain truths, but that no one religion offers all that is truth.”
Christianity.com: “Omnism teaches that within every religion, there is an element of truth found within it.”
At first, I thought omnism was the antithesis of rational thought. Then I started thinking that rather than being bound by a religious tradition, an omnist can choose their beliefs without restrictions. By doing so, they can avoid some of the messiness of traditional religions, such as internal contradictions or errors. So maybe it’s more rational. But whatever the case, I think omnism is more ethical than most traditional religions in that it doesn’t deny anyone or persecute anyone based on what they believe. ISTM that most religions are exclusive by nature and often hostile to outsiders with different views. For an omnist, it’s all good.
- Thoughts on omnism?
- Are there any religions that are omnists or trend in that direction?
- Hypothetically, should a religion promote inclusion or exclusion of non-belivers in that religion? Why?
bonk
Article URL : https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/omnist