Pantheism

[Jotto999]

It's been mentioned here and there but I don't think I've seen it's own thread made yet.

I have been checking out this website,
http://www.pantheism.net/

Pantheism seems like the way to fill in the holes that I'm sure many theists would propose atheism creates. I mean the kinds of feelings associated with spirituality, which I suppose plain atheism would not include.

I think I was some sort of pantheist before deciding I was an atheist, to be honest, or even thinking about what my beliefs were.

The sorts of sentiments described by pantheists when they describe walking in forests and touching a plant, or gazing into a valley from a mountaintop, meditating, or seeing the curve of the ocean, or being mesmerized by the night's sky...I can totally dig all that, and always did. It's a feeling I've had most of my life. Me feeling that joy from nature seems like a pantheistic thing. Does that make me a pantheist?

I want to know what you think about pantheism.

"Pantheism is sexed up atheism" --Richard Dawkins

 

[Ozymandyus]

I'm not much a fan. I don't need to be 'sexed up' about the world. I'm a humanist - I feel plenty of 'spiritual' feelings in my relationships with my friends and feel plenty of wonderment at the complexities and curiosities of the natural and sociological world. I feel that adding some sort of theism to it completely pollutes those feelings themselves, which are simply human reactions of being drawn towards beauty and love. I'm not sure I'll ever understand the need to bring 'theism' into it.

 

[obsidianavenger]

well spinoza is sexed up atheism, and i rather like him.

but really, the whole idea seems unnecessary and kind of silly to me. first you have no real reason to think of "everything" as god any more than you have reason to believe Yahweh is god, and second, such a belief would really make no difference in your life except in the matter of how you feel (ie connected to everything or whatever). but you don't even need pantheism to feel that connectedness, so... meh.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I'm a Pantheist - with some Pagan, tree-higging, dirt-worshipping mumbo jumbo tossed in along with Ghosties and Ghoulies that I can only prove to myself.

Hey, if you can't laugh at yourself... ^^

 

[MRaverz]

Pantheism is the hippy's take on lacking a clear definition of God, but claiming that God is simple 'everything'.

No... everything is everything.

 

[e2iPi]

It seem to me that what many refer to a "spiritual" is simply emotional. The only difference is in the fact that one does not need a spirit in order to have an emotional experience.

I still clearly remember what was probably the most spiritual experience of my life - watching the sun rise into the (unusually) crystal clear sky above the Himalayas. I was brought to tears as I took in the awesome beauty of the scene - to this day, I regret not having a camera readily available, but the image in my mind is probably better than any camera could capture.

I have had other "spiritual" experiences as well, but this one sticks out more than any other. No gods required, simply an appreciation (awe is probably a better word) for what nature has wrought. That is my spirituality.

-1

 

[5810Singer]

Blah.

 

[Andiferous]

I think Pantheism is the closest thing to atheism. It doesn't take a huge leap to see everything as equal and divine, to see everything is equal and not divine. I think there is something to be said for Buddhism and the idea that we are the stuff of the universe (or from Babylon five: "we are the universe trying to figure itself out") and that we should respect the life force within every living thing; for that life force is the same mechanism that drives us. And I can say all that without once referencing god...

I can only accept the idea that spirituality is emotional, if respect is considered an emotion.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Are you sure you mean respect and not empathy?

Anyway, respect is hardly a feeling I think most people would call spiritual. Empathy yes, feeling oneness with the world around you, sure. But again calling those ways of feeling divine or god-like only confuses the situation - I do not see the point. We have perfectly good descriptive words for these things already, ones that are not attached to mysterious entities with strange powers.

I will admit that there are ways of thinking about the universe in which you can speak about its 'spirit' or about its 'purpose'. I believe calling that 'god' in whatever way clouds things instead of making them clearer - which is what theisms always do. Anyway, I refuse to use a word that is so completely unhelpful and shrouds what is true about the universe and the human condition in mystery rather than shining a light on it. Mystery has it's purpose, don't get me wrong, but the mysterious will always exist, and does not need our help to make it more mysterious.

 

[Andiferous]

Are you sure you mean respect and not empathy?

Anyway, respect is hardly a feeling I think most people would call spiritual. Empathy yes, feeling oneness with the world around you, sure. But again calling those ways of feeling divine or god-like only confuses the situation - I do not see the point. We have perfectly good descriptive words for these things already, ones that are not attached to mysterious entities with strange powers.

I will admit that there are ways of thinking about the universe in which you can speak about its 'spirit' or about its 'purpose'. I believe calling that 'god' in whatever way clouds things instead of making them clearer - which is what theisms always do. Anyway, I refuse to use a word that is so completely unhelpful and shrouds what is true about the universe and the human condition in mystery rather than shining a light on it. Mystery has it's purpose, don't get me wrong, but the mysterious will always exist, and does not need our help to make it more mysterious.

I was thinking of the Sanscrit term Namaste. Some people see it as "I see the god in you," but I think I like the Wiki version better:

Namaste (Sanskrit: नमस्ते, Hindustani pronunciation: [nʌmʌsˈteː], from external Sandhi between namaḥ and te) is a common spoken greeting or salutation in Nepal, India. It has multi-religious or else common usage where it may simply mean "I bow to you". The word is derived from Sanskrit namas, to bow, obeisance, reverential salutation, and te, "to you".[1]

When spoken to another person, it is commonly accompanied by a slight bow made with hands pressed together, palms touching and fingers pointed upwards, in front of the chest. This gesture, called Aà±jali Mudrā, can also be performed wordlessly and carries the same meaning.

I don't consider myself a "spiritual" person and like yourself, I think ascribing superfluous meaning to things is unecessary. But I don't think that what makes some people "spiritual" is limited to any particular belief, and to describe it as an emotional response is a bit simplistic.

Empathy can be a good descriptor as well, but I was thinking specifically of the "irrational" idea of respecting other people, life forms, ideas, etc. This idea for me is more of a crossover between religious spirituality and ethics. Assigning value to people and things around us isn't always logical, but it is very important to our study of moral systems, ethics, philosophy, political systems, etc. Does that make sense?

 

[Ozymandyus]

I don't consider myself a "spiritual" person and like yourself, I think ascribing superfluous meaning to things is unecessary. But I don't think that what makes some people "spiritual" is limited to any particular belief, and to describe it as an emotional response is a bit simplistic.

Empathy can be a good descriptor as well, but I was thinking specifically of the "irrational" idea of respecting other people, life forms, ideas, etc. This idea for me is more of a crossover between religious spirituality and ethics. Assigning value to people and things around us isn't always logical, but it is very important to our study of moral systems, ethics, philosophy, political systems, etc. Does that make sense?

I think that when we respect other people it is because we recognize that we ourselves want to be respected. Rather than seeing God in you as some people translate that word, we are really seeing ourselves in them. When we respect other life it is because we have felt pain and can understand it, and do not wish that upon other creatures. And I find that a perfect blend of the logical and emotional... if it is simplistic, I would argue that it is simple in a beautiful sense rather than some sort of unnecessarily reductionist sense.

But yes, I understand what you mean.

 

[Andiferous]

I think that when we respect other people it is because we recognize that we ourselves want to be respected. Rather than seeing God in you as some people translate that word, we are really seeing ourselves in them. When we respect other life it is because we have felt pain and can understand it, and do not wish that upon other creatures. And I find that a perfect blend of the logical and emotional... if it is simplistic, I would argue that it is simple in a beautiful sense rather than some sort of unnecessarily reductionist sense.

But yes, I understand what you mean.

Well said, I have to agree.

 

[obsidianavenger]

I think that when we respect other people it is because we recognize that we ourselves want to be respected. Rather than seeing God in you as some people translate that word, we are really seeing ourselves in them.

ah yes, atheists consider themselves gods :mrgreen: :roll:

 

[Ozymandyus]

Or rather, we considers God merely an enshrining of good human traits, which religious people seem to think humans are too flawed to attain and therefore put out of our reach. It's not that I see myself as a God, but that religious people seem to think humans incapable of goodness without some external power.

 

[obsidianavenger]

Or rather, we considers God merely an enshrining of good human traits, which religious people seem to think humans are too flawed to attain and therefore put out of our reach. It's not that I see myself as a God, but that religious people seem to think humans incapable of goodness without some external power.

true dat. and they say atheists tend to have bleak worldviews...

 

[Andiferous]

Or rather, we considers God merely an enshrining of good human traits, which religious people seem to think humans are too flawed to attain and therefore put out of our reach. It's not that I see myself as a God, but that religious people seem to think humans incapable of goodness without some external power.

Exactly. Might help explain why most world religions revolve around men, and why Christians worship the human incarnation of god rather than the god itself. I remember the idea being facetiously termed "mannism" at one point; but can't find the reference....

 

[e2iPi]

I can only accept the idea that spirituality is emotional, if respect is considered an emotion.

Respect certainly has an emotional component.

-1

 

[eqfan592]

well spinoza is sexed up atheism, and i rather like him.

but really, the whole idea seems unnecessary and kind of silly to me. first you have no real reason to think of "everything" as god any more than you have reason to believe Yahweh is god, and second, such a belief would really make no difference in your life except in the matter of how you feel (ie connected to everything or whatever).

I know I'm dredging up an old topic here, but it seems pretty clear from the tone and content of the replies above that the point of the organization linked in the OP was completely misunderstood. Pantheism can include a belief in a supernatural deity and realms. However, Naturalistic Pantheism (also known as Scientific Pantheism), which is what the above organization is built around, does not. It does not promote any belief in a god or gods, nor in any other supernatural things. Nor does it appear to promote the ideal that "everything is god" as one poster here has claimed it does (http://www.pantheism.net/manifest.htm).

but you don't even need pantheism to feel that connectedness, so... meh.

Please provide a source for your claim that the above organization promotes an ideal that you NEED that organization in order to "feel that connectedness." Given that nobody on this thread made any such claim, I have to assume you found it listed on the site in question, but I have been unable locate any such thing when reading through the materials on the organizations site. Instead, it would appear that the organization is a community of like-minded individuals (people who already "feel that connectedness" before even joining, if you will).

And for the record, I have no direct affiliation with this organization. In fact, I only first read about it this morning when doing some research on related topics. I did a search on the subject on this forum to see what, if anything, had been spoken about it, which brought me to this thread.

 

[Ozymandyus]

well spinoza is sexed up atheism, and i rather like him.

but really, the whole idea seems unnecessary and kind of silly to me. first you have no real reason to think of "everything" as god any more than you have reason to believe Yahweh is god, and second, such a belief would really make no difference in your life except in the matter of how you feel (ie connected to everything or whatever).

I know I'm dredging up an old topic here, but it seems pretty clear from the tone and content of the replies above that the point of the organization linked in the OP was completely misunderstood. Pantheism can include a belief in a supernatural deity and realms. However, Naturalistic Pantheism (also known as Scientific Pantheism), which is what the above organization is built around, does not. It does not promote any belief in a god or gods, nor in any other supernatural things. Nor does it appear to promote the ideal that "everything is god" as one poster here has claimed it does (http://www.pantheism.net/manifest.htm).

but you don't even need pantheism to feel that connectedness, so... meh.

Please provide a source for your claim that the above organization promotes an ideal that you NEED that organization in order to "feel that connectedness." Given that nobody on this thread made any such claim, I have to assume you found it listed on the site in question, but I have been unable locate any such thing when reading through the materials on the organizations site. Instead, it would appear that the organization is a community of like-minded individuals (people who already "feel that connectedness" before even joining, if you will).

And for the record, I have no direct affiliation with this organization. In fact, I only first read about it this morning when doing some research on related topics. I did a search on the subject on this forum to see what, if anything, had been spoken about it, which brought me to this thread.

Pretty sure the idea that pantheism includes an idea that everything is god is contained right there in the word. Don't need to go to a website to find it: including 'theism' as part of the word means you are talking about a belief in some sord of deity... the only word including theism as part which is not at all about a belief in deities is A-theism.

If the site you talk about has no appeal to god or gods then they are operating under a very misleading name.

 

[eqfan592]

Pretty sure the idea that pantheism includes an idea that everything is god is contained right there in the word. Don't need to go to a website to find it: including 'theism' as part of the word means you are talking about a belief in some sord of deity... the only word including theism as part which is not at all about a belief in deities is A-theism.

If the site you talk about has no appeal to god or gods then they are operating under a very misleading name.

While I agree that the name can indeed be misleading, that is not in and of itself an excuse for jumping to conclusions about a specific organization without first bothering to actually read what the organization is about, and instead basing your conclusions only on the literal meaning of one of the words in the organizations name.