HelenM

Amos, I don't know but he probably meant "one" as in the Biblical sense in which Jesus said "I and the Father are one".

One in mission, purpose, fellowship...not identically equal and indistinguishable though.

I could say I'm one with my husband in our enjoyment of this or that...I think he uses it in that sense...it's a real feeling...I know what he means

In fact I'm one with him on that thought perhaps

love
Helen

Amos

I understand Helen, and if you are one with him on that you are lost too and if you are one with the Father you are not . . . or the Father (nature) would not be. Therefore "to be is not to be."

Amos

Clarice

I don't know about anyone else, but this sums it up for me. I "became" a Scientific Pantheist because I do feel that awe at the sheer majesty of the universe, but I absolutely don't ascribe any supernatural qualities to it. I don't even go so far as devnet, to talk about a "creator."

To me, how the universe and life started are just great mysteries, perhaps even great Mysteries. But I won't mind if we solve those puzzles, because my religion doesn't rely on a "god of the gaps." I'm equally astounded at the things we do understand!

emotional

Sorry, I misunderstood. Well, self-cancellation of the individual is something I'm very much against. That's the main thing which repels me from Buddhism, which otherwise hasn't many weaknesses. I'm one with nature already, without doing anything; the only thing I do is affirmation. And affirmation of union with nature can be done as an individual. When I go for my nature walks and rituals, I don't stop thinking about myself or about my real-world problems. I just add thinking about the wonder of nature too.

emotional

Clarice, I agree with what you say, but just a little personal opinion, off the record: I don't like the term "Scientific Pantheism" anymore. It's because I distrust any tagging of the "scientific" label to worldviews. Science is not a worldview, although the findings of science can and do influence worldviews. There's no such thing as a scientific worldview. "Scientific Pantheism" strikes me as too similar to "Scientific Creationism" - it's oxymoronic. To science its own glory as objective research, and worldviews shouldn't take this crown. I always say "Naturalistic Pantheism", because naturalism, unlike science, is indeed a worldview.

Just a small personal blabbering, I hope I haven't offended.

Clarice

Excellent point, devnet. I think I shall adopt the title "Naturalistic Pantheist" for the reasons you state. Science is not up for debate, and is not something that each person can celebrate in his own way - it is what it is, regardless of beliefs. So I certainly agree with you - it just didn't occur to me till you brought it up!