Elfie

Is scientific pantheism really just a bit more spiritual form of atheism, or does the word theism in pantheist make it theism by necessity? I would feel weird calling myself a theist just because I'm somewhat attracted to the idea of pantheism, but I don't really believe in any supernatural entity. By pantheism I'm only talking about my relationship with the universe-that my emotional response to it is very similar to that of a believer to a god.

Can a god really be defined into existence by naming something that already exists a god, because it has attributes that are vaguely alike to the highly abstract attributes given to god? Can a mere game of language really make the jump from atheism to theism, when one fully acknowledges it as a game of language and not a change in the outward reality? To me pantheism is experiencing the universe as a bit more than the sum of it's parts, just like one experiences music as something more than sounds of different length and frequency. Both generate an emotional experience of abstract qualities, like what we call beauty.

mithy73

From my POV:

1. Naturalistic pantheism is poles apart from theism, because it rejects the idea of a divine entity that possesses certain attributes that are a prerequisite of theism (such as sapience, transcendence and a personal interest in the everyday lives of sentient creatures that exist in the Universe). Even the attribute of sentience is rejected by some naturalistic pantheists on the grounds that supporting arguments amount to a fallacy of composition.
2. Naturalistic pantheism is essentially a tautology; invoking the 'God term' with respect to the Universe or the entirety of material existence is essentially superfluous. (Why not just call it 'the Universe' or 'Existence'?) Furthermore, invocation of the 'God term' is potentially confusing or even damaging, as it leads to attempts by theists to appropriate certain 'leading lights' who misuse the 'God term' in this fashion in their own (admittedly fallacious, but still potentially convincing to some) fraudulent appeals to authority, such as those who quote Einstein out of context.

As such, I see naturalistic pantheism as no different from atheism in practice. If anything, it is an appreciation of the sheer magnitude and wonderous nature of the Universe - but any atheist might feel much the same way and not refer to themselves as a naturalistic pantheist, but stick with the term 'atheist'. In short, it's atheism with warm fuzzy feelings.

I, personally, am inclined to drop the moniker 'naturalistic pantheist' (or just 'pantheist') in favour of the term 'non-theist'.

moonwatcher

I think an emotional response of wonder and awe in contemplating the cosmos is perfectly consistent with a naturalistic worldview.

So much so, in fact, that as an artist who prefers astronomical subjects evoking that response is my primary goal.

Here's my most recent astronomical piece, if you're interested in seeing it:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7...on%20small.jpg

But, personally, I'm a bit wary of the term "pantheist". I agree with mithy that a word with the term "theist" in it is better dropped.

Surely we can come up with some better word for someone with a deep sense of wonder at the cosmos than pantheist.

Does anyone know or would like to invent any alternatives?

Something to think on.

Alethias

I don't see the conflict. The initial philosophy may be different; I have no desire to see the universe as a deity, but my naturalist perspective tells me that I am a miniscule speck in a vast system.

The starting points may be tangential, but I think we end up in the same place in how our disparate philosophies affect our actions.

Alethias.

show_no_mercy

No... that's why I switch between the two depending on my mood

Richard Kuyper

To me, pantheism is really just atheism-writing-poetry.

moonwatcher

A good description.

At least in the case of naturalistic pantheism.

Johan

There are several soy and textured vegetable protein products marketed to vegetarians that explicitly self-describe on the label as "meatless meatballs" (I happen to be eating some.)

On the level of practice, meatless meatballs work out quite well, especially with a good arrabiatta sauce. But going strictly eymologically, there is no such thing as meatless meatballs.

So whether pantheism and atheism are compatible depends on the level at which you're approaching the description, words or practice.

Morgana

It seems like scientific pantheism describes atheists who wish there was a god.

Elfie

I liked that. I'm actually quite surprised of the response this question got. I was quite expecting atheists telling me naturalistic pantheism is "theism disguised as atheism" and theists to tell me it's "atheism disguised as theism". I think naturalistic pantheism suffers from the fact that is uses words so strongly associated with supernatural religious claims, it does not really uphold. I believe in the idea, but maybe it should be searching for a language of its own to avoid confusion...:huh:

(Thank you for the glimpse of your art moonwatcher. I really enjoyed it!)