Pantheism. Friend or foe?

[Bagger_Vance]

I must admit that it holds a certain appeal to me. Is it a branch of atheism/agnosticism? It seems to me that it veers closer to a non-theist view especially in the traditional sense. But do we embrace it just because the theist would reject them? I say they should be welcome based on the fact that they don't have all the rules and regulations of the bureaucracy of organized religion. Their version of god isn't telling them to conquer lands or wait for raptures. It is about as non-religious as a viewpoint can get while still holding to the idea of the divine.

[Seasanctuary]

I have a hard time calling something non-personal "God." You have some point that everything-is-God and nothing-is-God comes out to about the same thing. Shouldn't a God be distinct from some non-God things?

But, I'm not familiar with practising pantheists. Maybe everything-is-God is an oversimplification by virtue of etymology.

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is about as non-religious as a viewpoint can get while still holding to the idea of the divine.But it is accomplished by rendering the idea of the divine superfluous or, conversely, by clinging to teleology and flirting with some panentheism/transnaturalism and process theology. Far better to simply suspense with God talk.

[LGM]

I have a hard time calling something non-personal "God." You have some point that everything-is-God and nothing-is-God comes out to about the same thing. Shouldn't a God be distinct from some non-God things?

But, I'm not familiar with practising pantheists. Maybe everything-is-God is an oversimplification by virtue of etymology.


For modern pantheists, (and I have dabbled in it), I think the point is to revere the universe, LIKE A GOD, but its not that pantheists think of the universe as having any of the traditional theist "god" attributes.

The term "god" is used simply as a common term of reverence, and to confuse Christians. :wink:

The point of pantheism is to allow people who don't believe in bronze age tribal deities, or the musings of Paul or Mohammed, to still feel a "spiritual" connection to something that is much GREATER than they are...the cosmos...as Sagan would say.

[zorathruster]

I must admit that it holds a certain appeal to me. Is it a branch of atheism/agnosticism? It seems to me that it veers closer to a non-theist view especially in the traditional sense. But do we embrace it just because the theist would reject them? I say they should be welcome based on the fact that they don't have all the rules and regulations of the bureaucracy of organized religion. Their version of god isn't telling them to conquer lands or wait for raptures. It is about as non-religious as a viewpoint can get while still holding to the idea of the divine.

I agree with your assessment however, "theism" implies not the naturalistic forces but forces that vary in accordance to a personality. Of which a human can supposedly have a relationship with that entity. Greek and Roman Gods actually had sex with humans, of course so did the Christian God. The Pantheism as I interpret it would imply a personality behind the force. The variance on that personality makes for interesting drama in mythical stories but cannot equate to the constants we find in nature. By the time you cancel out all the vagaries that make for a personality you arrive at nature or natural occurances that don't vary. You would no more want to have a relationship with gravity or the strong nuclear force than a rock and that would make Pantheism unappealing, after all whats the use in having a God if you can't influence, appeal, motivate or negotiate with?

[robrecht]

I have a hard time calling something non-personal "God." You have some point that everything-is-God and nothing-is-God comes out to about the same thing. Shouldn't a God be distinct from some non-God things?

But, I'm not familiar with practising pantheists. Maybe everything-is-God is an oversimplification by virtue of etymology.Personally, I don't agree that pantheism is necessarily non-personal. Conscious personal beings are part of the universe, the so-called noossphere of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. One could even say that the universe is evolving toward ever greater consciousness.

[yuzuha]

I agree with your assessment however, "theism" implies not the naturalistic forces but forces that vary in accordance to a personality. Of which a human can supposedly have a relationship with that entity. Greek and Roman Gods actually had sex with humans, of course so did the Christian God. The Pantheism as I interpret it would imply a personality behind the force. The variance on that personality makes for interesting drama in mythical stories but cannot equate to the constants we find in nature. By the time you cancel out all the vagaries that make for a personality you arrive at nature or natural occurances that don't vary. You would no more want to have a relationship with gravity or the strong nuclear force than a rock and that would make Pantheism unappealing, after all whats the use in having a God if you can't influence, appeal, motivate or negotiate with?

Ah, I'm sure you are familiar with all the gods and demons that populate the Tibetain Buddhist panthenon... Vajrayanists even meditate on various aspects of particular deities. Yet, at the same time, these deities and demons are but creations of your own minds (and have common themes because of the commonalities in the way people's brains are constructed). You might call that contradictory, but I'd call it a dualism... perhaps an anthropomorphic projection or picture frame to highlight the nature of some aspect of your own (or human in general) personality.

LakeGeorgeMan also has a point. As a human, I know how to relate to other humans. I don't have a clue how to relate to some indefinite impersonal force of nature. If I am walking in a forest and run into some grand splendid tree that fills me with a feeling of awe and makes me feel small and insignificant, I can attribute that to a kami that is in that tree and express my reverence and respect to that kami. I really have no clue if there are invisible beings wandering about the world that only make themselves known to us by affecting our feelings (yes there are invisible forces... magnetism for example, but I rather doubt they exist in any given form in the sense of the Greek gods or paintings of Susano etc., but envisioning them as such makes them easier to relate to)

[zorathruster]

I can attribute that to a kami that is in that tree and express my reverence and respect to that kami.



I believe it lessens the "reality" by proclaiming natural forces, manifestations and encounters as spiritual. Reality is what it is. Experiencing it as natural is a wonder in itself and does not require nor legitimately qualify as a supernatural experience or entity. Theism pantheism and polytheism implys something additional to the natural experience.

I respect a lot of the Budhist tradition and their meditative skills. The human mind has tremendous capability that the monks in particular have refined. There is a difference between a tree or insect which is trying to survive and a cognizant entity which understands itself and others. Humans and a very few animals have been able to achieve that level of understanding. To attribute that level to other entities lessens the experience and abilities of being cognizant.

[yuzuha]

I believe it lessens the "reality" by proclaiming natural forces, manifestations and encounters as spiritual. Reality is what it is. Experiencing it as natural is a wonder in itself and does not require nor legitimately qualify as a supernatural experience or entity. Theism pantheism and polytheism implys something additional to the natural experience.


I made no claim that there were supernatural entities. I'm with A.C. Clarke on the idea that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indestinguishable from magic" and I don't believe in magic. But, I do think reality can be spritual without blaming the world on supernatural entities (on that, I don't have a clue what all can exist in the universe, but am agnostic since I've seen no personal or vicarious evidence for Osiris, Thor, angels etc.)

Quite the contrary, I find that a lot of people reduce the wonder of reality to mere banality by pretending to understand it (for example: Being able to write out the equations for magnetism doesn't mean you understand it... only how it operates. But, I think some people turn to theism because they are afraid that science will turn the universe into something banal, mundane and boring for them. I think some are opposed to evolution because they are afraid that reducing life to chemistry will take the magic and meaning out of their lives). To me, "spiritual" is something emotional within a person in reaction to their external reality and has nothing at all to do with the supposed external physical existance of supernatural beings.

[Matthew]

I am a sympathetic critic of pantheism. I always thought that if I was going to embrace a religiosity of any sort, I would embrace a Spinoza-Einstein type of pantheism. I always thought that if the cosmos had to have any objective meaning to it, it would give itself meaning. But I don't believe that the cosmos has any objective meaning or that it needs to have any. I believe that the cosmos exists and is metaphysically necessary in itself. The chief difference between pantheism and philosophical naturalism/atheism that I embrace seems to be one of terminology. I share what I consider to be pantheism's awe and admiration of the cosmos, its laws, and its inner workings but do we need a language with religious terms of reverence to have such an admiration, wonder, or respect for the cosmos? I'm not sure that we do. I hope I am not oversimplifying pantheism and reducing it to something that it's not. As long as pantheism is a reverential way of thinking and speaking of one's love and admiration for the cosmos, I see no reason to regard it as a foe of any sort.

Matthew

[XaositectCrayon]

I just dont get the title of this thread... are we at war or something

I guess if you're a pantheist be a pantheist...

[LGM]

I am a sympathetic critic of pantheism. I always thought that if I was going to embrace a religiosity of any sort, I would embrace a Spinoza-Einstein type of pantheism. I always thought that if the cosmos had to have any objective meaning to it, it would give itself meaning. But I don't believe that the cosmos has any objective meaning or that it needs to have any. I believe that the cosmos exists and is metaphysically necessary in itself. The chief difference between pantheism and philosophical naturalism/atheism that I embrace seems to be one of terminology. I share what I consider to be pantheism's awe and admiration of the cosmos, its laws, and its inner workings but do we need a language with religious terms of reverence to have such an admiration, wonder, or respect for the cosmos? I'm not sure that we do.


This is a very good point, and the fact is when scientists, who are really atheistic towards the traditional personal deities of the ancient revealed religions, start using words like "god" or the "mind of god", it simply sends the wrong message to Christians who think the term god is their brand name.

Thus perhaps pantheism is more of a new age respect for the magnitude of the cosmos, a humility for our small role in it, and a new environmental consciousness of how utterly dependent we are on our biosphere.

[Augusta]

respect for the magnitude of the cosmos, a humility for our small role in it, and a new environmental consciousness of how utterly dependent we are on our biosphere.

This caught my eye. . . so well stated. The world would be a better place if more people had this kind of humility and respect.

[Bagger_Vance]

I just dont get the title of this thread... are we at war or something

I guess if you're a pantheist be a pantheist...

You didn't get the memo?

[XaositectCrayon]

You didn't get the memo?
oh.... I thought that was toilet paper sent from naturalist headquarters....

I guess my dualism makes me technically on the fence ^-^ but I am actually begining to lean towards pluralism.. it just seems like that's how it is... there is never 1 of anything

but that's a topic for another day...

[mithy73]

I am a sympathetic critic of pantheism. I always thought that if I was going to embrace a religiosity of any sort, I would embrace a Spinoza-Einstein type of pantheism. I always thought that if the cosmos had to have any objective meaning to it, it would give itself meaning. But I don't believe that the cosmos has any objective meaning or that it needs to have any. I believe that the cosmos exists and is metaphysically necessary in itself. The chief difference between pantheism and philosophical naturalism/atheism that I embrace seems to be one of terminology. I share what I consider to be pantheism's awe and admiration of the cosmos, its laws, and its inner workings but do we need a language with religious terms of reverence to have such an admiration, wonder, or respect for the cosmos? I'm not sure that we do. I hope I am not oversimplifying pantheism and reducing it to something that it's not. As long as pantheism is a reverential way of thinking and speaking of one's love and admiration for the cosmos, I see no reason to regard it as a foe of any sort.

From my POV, I'm inclined to view the cosmos as divine (though not as "God", because I think that term has specific connotations that don't really apply). I sit on the fence on the question of whether it might be self-aware, but I believe that if it is, it is in some sense utterly unknown and unknowable to us, and possibly irrelevant to us. Hence "agnostic pantheism".

I can't make up my mind as to whether that's a tautology or not. I guess people will have their own views on that.

Is that "friend" or "foe"? I think it depends on the individual.

[Bagger_Vance]

I meant nothing combatitive from the notion of them being a friend or foe. Simply stated could a panthiest post in a naturalist only forum? I say let them in but then again I lean to pantheistic tendencies on certain days.

[Bagger_Vance]

Hey, Bagger. Just noticed your Woody Guthrie guitar avatar. Cool. Have you ever heard his "Jesus Christ" rewrite of "Jesse James"? Like that song. Brilliant song.


No but I absolutely have to hear it! I love Woody Guthrie. Pure genius. Is it on any of his CD collections that you can buy?

[robrecht]

No but I absolutely have to hear it! I love Woody Guthrie. Pure genius. Is it on any of his CD collections that you can buy?Oops, I had already moved my post here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1503849#post1503849), where I thought it might not detract from the interesting pantheism discussion.

[mithy73]

I meant nothing combatitive from the notion of them being a friend or foe. Simply stated could a panthiest post in a naturalist only forum? I say let them in but then again I lean to pantheistic tendencies on certain days.

There's a good question. If pantheists couldn't post here, where could they post? Surely not in the "theist only" sections... pantheism and theism are worlds apart, I think.

[Griggsy]

Then there are those like John Dewey who find God to be our ideals.So, one can be atheistic and believe in God! Panthiests just do not get the press that we do. I understand that they are naturalists. I use the term naturalist vs. anaturalist to put the theists in a negative light.And i hope that all atheists would be naturalists,but some embrace the paranormal.Paul Kutrz's 'The Transcendent Temptation" shows both to be irrational and based on faith.