garthoverman

First, does anyone not know what pantheism is?

Basically it is the reverance of every part of the universe as a component of the collective which you might then call a deity. I don't suppose any of the anthropomorphic characteristics typically assigned to Jehovah, and for this reason I simultaneously call myself a weak atheist. In my experience and my understanding of metaphysics, I think the pantheist/holist principles are the most conforming with advanced scientific revelation and thus the first 'religion' actually supported by science. Not that I assert that pantheism/holism is proven scientifically. What I believe cannot be proven basically because of the non-physcial nature of it, and the inherent impossibility its its measurement by instruments so rooted in physicality.

Are their any atheists who would accept a pantheistic/holistic outlook? Does anybody have questions about it? Are there any others who purport a pantheistic/holistic stance? Does anybody staunchly oppose pantheism/holism?

Lemme have it.

Yours,

Garth

"Your world is not in dire straits because you trust yourselves, but precisely because you do not."--Seth

Perchance

Hi Garth,

I don't adopt or advocate a pantheistic stance, mainly because I don't understand the point. It seems to be mainly an attempt to reconcile atheism and theism (at best), or an attempt to avoid the atheist label (at worst). Of course, I've had atheists tell me the same thing about the agnostic label .

I think it's fine if someone wants to worship nature; I just don't see why it's a more 'reasonable' religious stance than any other. Since I have a problem understanding worship in general, I just extend this problem to nature-worship.

I think the thoughts of George Smith on the subject- from The Case Against God- sum up the way I feel pretty well:

</strong>

I can see why it might be as viable (or as pointless) as any other type of theism, and why it might be a comfort to some people. But as someone who doesn't really have an attachment to theism- I remain agnostic to things like the Deistic God, but atheistic to most specific gods- I don't really see the need to adopt the perspective myself.

-Perchance.

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: Perchance ]</p>

Tom Sawyer

For me, the problem I have with pantheism is the same problem I have with monotheism - there's no evidence for it.

When you say:

you run into the same problem that the xians have in that you are asserting a belief in something that there is no reason to believe in other than faith.

I'll give you the same answer so many people give them - show me some testable evidence and I'll readily admit that you have something. Until then, you have an interesting philosophy, but it doesn't do much to help explain the universe or anything in it.

luvluv

If you believe that the universe is a god then you are not an atheist, you do believe in a god. So wouldn't the two be mutually exclusive?

eh

The problem is that the word God can mean an infinite amount of different things. A taoist concept of a higher power would not look any like the personal, jealous Christian God. If we mean by God, a theistic personal deity, with the same sad emotional problems of humans, then I don't think it can be said that pantheists believe in such a God.

garthoverman

Yeah, you all have good points. I advocate it basically because of the beliefs I have about the metaphysical construction of our universe. Those tenets that have not been proven and may never be. The cool part about it is that I don't have to go about sputtering that I'll pray for all of you and warning you about hell, etc, etc... You don't have to be a pantheist in the way that Christians tell you you have to be Christian in order to have a good life, avoid hell, have eternal existence, etc.

I like pantheism, and I encourage others to consider it. Check out this link, its pretty sweet at covering a lot of the relationship of pantheism to science.

<a href="http://home.sprynet.com/~jowolf/essay.htm" target="_blank">http://home.sprynet.com/~jowolf/essay.htm</a>

Its long, I know. And its so cliche to be like: "I can prove god, my religion is right blah, blah........ here's a link."

Lastly, I consider myself a weak atheist because I don't really consider the Universe to be 'god' or 'a god.' It is simply the universe. Period. It is my belief about the mechanics of the universe that associate me with the pantheistic/holistic stance. Does that clear anything up?

Yours,

Garth

phlebas

I've always felt that pantheism is both harmless and meaningless.

If you claim that everything is holy, then the word "holy" means nothing. And if you revere absolutely everything, then reverence becomes meaningless too.

Jobar

Well, I spent nearly an hour writing a welcome to garthoverman as a fellow pantheist, and a detailed reply to several of the rest of the posters here- and managed to send it off to never-neverland. So I will try for a very condensed version.

First off- <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000588" target="_blank">look for my post here.</a> Just today I was writing about pantheism. Garthoverman, while many of the people here do not accept pantheism for their own worldview, many do. And they allow us to be moderators, too!

luvluv- the 'theos' in pantheism refers to a different meaning of the word God. An alternate meaning- actually much older than the Christian one. I prefer to call it something like Tao, or the Ground of Being. This variant has some of the properties of the Christian God- eternal and infinite, and the source and meaning of all things.

Tao is not above or separate from the universe. It is All- the Uni Versare (One Thing/Verse/Song.) Not over and above- each thing, each individual, is an aspect of it. Thou art That.

Petyh, admitted that it is not something we can prove. But I think we have considerable evidence in favor of pantheism. Look at the thrust of modern physics; don't we seek a Unified Field Theory? Pantheism can be seen as a verbal parallel of the mathematical formulation being sought; both attempt to describe the universe as one system. I have written on this elsewhere; I'll try to find that post and link to it. Added- <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000379&p=5" target="_blank">here, for one.</a>

Phlebas, there are objective reasons to accept pantheism; see above, for instance. But the best reason is a subjective one. Remember, the Buddha emphasized the use of enlightenment- an understanding of pantheism- as the way to deal with suffering. If you realize your body is starstuff, and your consciousness is a pattern inextricably unified with the patterns of the whole universe- then you can never be a stranger and afraid in a world you never made. It allows one to live wholly. Christians and Muslims and Jews cannot accept the implications of Thou art That- to them, saying 'I am God' is blackest heresy. But for pantheists, it's a simple fact.

Of course it may be fair to say that the God of pantheism is not a God at all. But if the word 'God' has any possible referent, it must be the Unity which pantheism speaks of.

(Blast. This isn't near as good as what I lost...)

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: Jobar ]</p>

Dr S

Gee, Garth if these tenets haven't been proven then there is no way for you to know if they are correct. If you don't know them to be correct why believe them?

bluefugue

Hey Garth, did you get your handle from Lawrence Watt-Evans' "Lords of Dus" books?