Pantheism

[Samuel]

Dear Samuel,

Thank you, first atheist to come out, I do value your input but can I ask, do you think there is confirmation bias working in your post.

possibly... can you elaborate? and anyway, what do you mean by 'first atheist to come out'? come out of where? was it out of your wildest dreams? if it was I'm not surprised, I should think they were a lot to handle.

The way I see it, this pantheism is a beginning, a way to start thinking of the bigger picture, a way of showing that you are part of this bigger picture, to recognise that we all have a part to play, as in the environment, it is not somebody else's problem, we are all involved.

Gonnagle.

Those things can be established without needing to refer to pantheism though. However, if pantheism was an affective means to galvanise those ideas in people, help them to act on them, it would become meaningful. Do you see what I mean? Not an either /or... but an and.

[Rhiannon]

Yes, because pantheism doesn't involve a consciousness on the part of the universe, or divinity as understood by other religion, there is the question of why have it at all. And it's not easy to answer. I suppose the closest I can come to is that although not conscious the universe isn't 'dead' either. And it's my way of looking at the natural world and seeing and saying that it matters. It's the best expression I can find for it.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Samuel,

possibly... can you elaborate? and anyway, what do you mean by 'first atheist to come out'? come out of where? was it out of your wildest dreams? if it was I'm not surprised, I should think they were a lot to handle.

Check the posts, first atheist to attempt a more in depths look at pantheism.

But am I  / could I be a pantheist... I doubt it. I don't know why exactly. Maybe its as simple as not feeling the need to seek meaning on those terms.

I was referring to the above when I asked about confirmation bias, you don't know exactly but then you go on to mention "seek meaning" which from the many atheist posts I have read, there is no meaning, no purpose.

Off out now, I will return tonight.

Gonnagle.

[Samuel]

I was referring to the above when I asked about confirmation bias, you don't know exactly but then you go on to mention "seek meaning" which from the many atheist posts I have read, there is no meaning, no purpose.

Gonnagle.

Got ya. I suppose I meant personal meaning and purpose, not a universal one. Like Rhiannon says, it works for her, and that's great. If find meaning and purpose in other things. If you were to ask me what exactly I'd have to think long and hard. All I can say is that concepts like pantheism and other religions don't work for me.

You might remember that I used to call myself a Christian some years ago. I'd wade into discussions to defend those beliefs... eventually I realised it was a hollow effort on my part. I never really believed. I don't feel bad about it, perhaps a little disappointed as in some ways it would make my life a little more interesting if I could. In the end the pretence was too much of a burden, and in the immortal words of Elsa, queen of Arendelle, I just had to let it go. I think it made me a little reticent to tread that road again, so maybe you are right, there is a little confirmation bias in there.

[Samuel]

And it's my way of looking at the natural world and seeing and saying that it matters. It's the best expression I can find for it.

Interesting. From the way you describe your pagan practices I've always understood them to be deeply personal, and because of that to have profound integrity. In a way I'm surprised that something so conceptual as pantheism is something you find useful. Is it something you contemplate much? or is it simply a useful term to describe your perception of the world?

[Shaker]

Interesting. From the way you describe your pagan practices I've always understood them to be deeply personal, and because of that to have profound integrity. In a way I'm surprised that something so conceptual as pantheism is something you find useful. Is it something you contemplate much? or is it simply a useful term to describe your perception of the world?

I think this last sentence sums up how most pantheists probably view it - it isn't a religion to subscribe to, and is a philosophy only in the loose, non-specialist, everyday sense of the term: it's just a convenient term for a particular way of viewing the world, in this case in emotional and aesthetic terms. Harrison justifies the use of the term 'God' by saying that for pantheists Nature/the cosmos form the same focal point of reverence, awe and mystery as a personal god does for the traditional theist. Personally I don't know if that can be defended on linguistic grounds - it seems to have what Richard Dawkins called a proven capacity to confuse - but it doesn't strike me as nonsense.

[Samuel]

No, it isn't nonsense, and your description of it as a term for emotional and aesthetic perceptions is helpful. I still think there is am implicit element of activity involved though, which means it's more than simply a way of thinking about something. Reverence is a verb too, not just a noun.

[Nearly Sane]

I think once you are at the stage of saying people who do not have a belief in gods can be theist, we may have moved beyond meaningless into not even meaningless. I also just feel the whole reverence/awe but honestly it's not worship, I'd never do the hard amazement, I only do soft stuff like awe, just indulgent.


It's not 'sexed up atheism', it's meretricious inclusivism, and pointless at the same time. The stuff we need to find common ground on isn't awe, it's day to day my stuff.. I'm not interconnected to everything, hard solipsism gets in the way of that, never mind what everything is. To get anything to work, this new age-y 'we are starburst, we are golden' has the benefit of not being immediately exclusive but for those of us with fuck a' awe, it ends just as exclusionary.


On the whole, I'd rather be in Philadelphia

[Rhiannon]

Interesting. From the way you describe your pagan practices I've always understood them to be deeply personal, and because of that to have profound integrity. In a way I'm surprised that something so conceptual as pantheism is something you find useful. Is it something you contemplate much? or is it simply a useful term to describe your perception of the world?

Yes, for me it is deeply personal. And we've talked before about labels and how we then get stories around those, which isn't always helpful. But at the same time there does come a point at which you want to explain to others what it is that you do/think/experience/are, and for me a pantheistic pagan fits the bill better than anything else.

I can't remember ever not looking at nature and not seeing God. My ideas of 'God' have changed vastly. But to me pantheism isn't something I think about. It's a useful term to help explain what I experience and who I am.

[Samuel]

I think once you are at the stage of saying people who do not have a belief in gods can be theist, we may have moved beyond meaningless into not even meaningless. I also just feel the whole reverence/awe but honestly it's not worship, I'd never do the hard amazement, I only do soft stuff like awe, just indulgent.


It's not 'sexed up atheism', it's meretricious inclusivism, and pointless at the same time. The stuff we need to find common ground on isn't awe, it's day to day my stuff.. I'm not interconnected to everything, hard solipsism gets in the way of that, never mind what everything is. To get anything to work, this new age-y 'we are starburst, we are golden' has the benefit of not being immediately exclusive but for those of us with fuck a' awe, it ends just as exclusionary.


On the whole, I'd rather be in Philadelphia

Bless you NS. 'Meritricious inclusivism', yeah man.

Based on what Rhiannon has been saying I'm happy to think of pantheism simply as a useful term to describe a certain point of view. Anything more than that is, I suspect, a trip round the edge of our own navals, pondering which angle it would look best from in a painting by escher.

[Nearly Sane]

Bless you NS. 'Meritricious inclusivism', yeah man.

Based on what Rhiannon has been saying I'm happy to think of pantheism simply as a useful term to describe a certain point of view. Anything more than that is, I suspect, a trip round the edge of our own navals, pondering which angle it would look best from in a painting by escher.

I'm working on the idea that that if the certain point of view includes I believe in gods, and, I don't believe in gods its not a certain point of view

[Jack Knave]

The last sentence is an interesting ontological view. Can you justify it further?

Well, in some sense the phenomenology of the Unconscious as mapped out in part by Jung could be one such method or approach to the non-material of the human condition.

[Shaker]

Well, in some sense the phenomenology of the Unconscious as mapped out in part by Jung could be one such method or approach to the non-material of the human condition.

Blimey. Shaker's bar is definitely open after that. Anybody fancy a tincture?

[Jack Knave]

Why?

When I say observer I mean to see itself as separate from what is being observed in a significant way. A camera takes in data from the outside world but it does not observe it, in this sense, and see this outside world as separate from itself - it is not conscious in anyway. Matter, stuff, has no element of consciousness to it and so consciousness has to be a different agent to material entities.

[Jack Knave]

Blimey. Shaker's bar is definitely open after that. Anybody fancy a tincture?

?? ?? ?? 

[Jack Knave]

No. It doesn't imply anything about my knowledge being better to point out that you simply made an unsubstantiated assertion.

So what part of it didn't you understand, old boy?

[Rhiannon]

When I say observer I mean to see itself as separate from what is being observed in a significant way. A camera takes in data from the outside world but it does not observe it, in this sense, and see this outside world as separate from itself - it is not conscious in anyway. Matter, stuff, has no element of consciousness to it and so consciousness has to be a different agent to material entities.

What I don't see is why you think that discounts pantheism.

[Nearly Sane]

So what part of it didn't you understand, old boy?

Nothing, why did you feel the need to lie in that way?

[Gonnagle]

Dear enki,

I like Len's words 'our acute aesthetic sense'. My emotional responses to the natural world can very much at times includes these emotional/aesthetic feelings of wonder, of connectedness, of inspiration, of mind expanding exhilaration, of humility which Shaker deliniates so successfully in his OP. I have no problem describing this as 'spiritual' either. I suppose, in this manner my attitudes may well have pantheistic overtones.

My problem arises when the divine is mentioned. For me, the divine suggests some sort of conscious presence, and, in this context(i.e. the natural world) I certainly don't have feelings, and have never had feelings which suggest this at all. You may well be right, Gonners, there may indeed be some 'all encompassing immanent God'. You certainly seem to suggest that your  own feeling lie in that direction, and who am I to even want to diss such feelings?

I would only say that to experience this connectedness to the world around us, and without having to imbue it with some sort of divine essence,  this surely does not have to stop us from bemoaning the selfish and material attitudes  which surround us and, indeed, are part of ourselves.

How could I have missed this post,

I have no problem describing this as 'spiritual' either. I suppose, in this manner my attitudes may well have pantheistic overtones.

I think this is quite brave of you to admit, it steps away from the dogmatic "there is no God" to me it says, I am open to discussion, problem for me is describing my God, the book, the Bible is a start, just like Pantheism, it is a beginning.

Gonnagle.

[Enki]

Dear enki,

How could I have missed this post,

I think this is quite brave of you to admit, it steps away from the dogmatic "there is no God" to me it says, I am open to discussion, problem for me is describing my God, the book, the Bible is a start, just like Pantheism, it is a beginning.

Gonnagle.

Actually Gonners I have never said that there is no God, only that I don't have any belief in any God which, to me, are entirely different approaches.

I think that you have probably got the wrong idea here. This isn't the first time I have mentioned the fact that, like many others,  at times I have had such experiences. Arguably I don't think that the fact that my experiences are accompanied by a strong feeling of the absence of any divine element stops me from describing them as 'spiritual' in some way.

I hope I am always open to rational, sensible discussion by the way.

[Jack Knave]

What I don't see is why you think that discounts pantheism.

Isn't pantheism where matter and the deity or Life force etc. are seen as being one and the same thing. Just two aspects of the same stuff?

Whereas panentheism is where the Life force is seen as a separate entity to matter or the material world, something with a different nature or essence to matter.

[Jack Knave]

Nothing, why did you feel the need to lie in that way?

More unqualified assertions, Nearly. On what basis do you make that claim?

[Jack Knave]

Just reading through part of the OP, who's number system seems to have gone awry, the term Naturalistic pantheism means just plainly Naturalism, judging by the mission statement that follows it. The pantheistic bit seems to be superfluous. It would need at the minimum to define what it means by God/gods with reference to the -theism part. And the same for Scientific pantheism.

In particular the bit by Paul Harrison could almost be a Green or political party statement. Shakes, are you willing to discuss his definition of matter which though technically plausible looks a little suspect to me, and does start to touch on the divine side of things.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Shaker,

I suspect that this refers to the belief that God and creation are separable - indeed, according to the personalistic deity of bog-standard theism, God has always existed and has never not existed, but there was a time when there was no universe. On this view, you can in principle have a God without a creation - if the universe was to disappear (assuming for the moment that such talk even makes sense) there would still be God.

Post 27 to refresh your memory.

And from your OP.

8. Scientific pantheism does not believe that science will necessarily be able to explain everything in the universe. Above all, the fundamental mystery of the sheer existence of matter/energy is likely to remain impenetrable.

God has always existed, so has the Universe, the only reason we say the Universe had a beginning is because of scientific thinking, this is another flaw in science which we have all swallowed, it is the old question, how can something come from nothing, well it can't.

The Universe may have been entirely different from what we observe now but it was still there, the latest scientific thinking is two black holes colliding, colliding in what!

What this Pantheism says to me, science is limited in how it describes the Universe just like we are limited in how we describe God, a human flaw that we think we are intelligent enough to answer, what is God/Universe.

The Universe, Oxford English,

all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago.

All, even the stuff it is supposedly expanding into, What we believe, our very limited knowledge.

To end, how can the Universe disappear, magic, woo, yes your right, it don't make sense


Gonnagle.

[SweetPea]

Yes, I was drawn to pantheism for a time.... it goes hand-in-hand with New Age. Very subtle teaching, attractive and seductive in it's concept.

But each to their own....