2tadpoles

Can a pantheist call themselves an atheist? A theist is someone who believes in a personal god that interacts with the world, from what I understand. I do not believe in that sort of deity. I do believe in a sort of "life force", and pantheistic views really appeal to me. But when discussing my views I don't want to appear like I believe in "God", because I don't. Since most people haven't heard of pantheism, the word atheist would be easier to get across... I just don't know how accurate it is. Any opinions?

Eudaimonist

My view is that pantheists are atheists who feel awe towards the Universe. But perhaps that only applies to naturalistic or materialistic pantheists. I suppose there could be a dualistic variety that might be better classified as theistic.

Good question! Perhaps devnet will clarify the issue, as he seems to be the resident expert pantheist.

telemachus

Frogsmoocher wrote:
Apparently so. A pantheist friend of mine declares that the two are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, there seems to be very little diffence between Taoism and pantheism, although Taoism is more like agnosticism than atheism, in my opinion.

Have you looked into Gaia theory?

Regarding pantheism, you may find these links of use:

Scientific Pantheism.

Einstein's Pantheism.

World Pantheist Movement.

Pantheism.

Pantheism again.

The Resurrection

Pantheism

emotional

Hi.

First of all, pantheism isn't uniform. As you can read in Paul Harrison's website, there are many forms: world-affirming, world-denying, spiritual monist (all is spirit, matter is illusion), materialist monist (all is matter, spirit is product) and many more. The type I adhere to is naturalistic, world-affirming, materialist monist pantheism: nature all there is, the supernatural most probably doesn't exist, mind the product of matter, no external creator-sovereign apart from the creation, creator immanent, inherent in the creation (new entities are formed by modification of existing matter and not ex nihilo), and a general feeling of awe towards the natural Universe.

Atheist: a- (not) theist. All right, I'm an atheist with regard to Zeus, Ra, Toutatis, Biblegod, Jesus, Allah and all those ficititious personal deities. But I'm NOT going to define myself by what I'm not; it's like saying I'm a not-woman or not-fish. I believe in metaphysical naturalism, the worldview that nature is all there is, which is the foundation for much of present-day atheism; but instead of, like Richard Dawkins, carrying it over to a negative conclusion of bleak meaninglessness, I wish to affirm. You just have to tune yourself to a different concept of the Holy: you're not the centre of the Universe, you're not the crown of creation, the cosmos is indifferent; BUT we're all special, we're all part of the family of Matter, and the Idea of the Holy can be found in what's put in front of us, with no need to cancel oneself or lift the veil of the hidden. My pantheism is spirituality of this real world, not of hidden, occult concepts like the ever-elusive God of theism. To me, it is infinitely more elevating to watch the full moon at an unlit park than to stand in a closed house kissing the behind of a deity who never cares to show himself.

Right, you'll find a load of stuff on this on my website, the Metaphysical Naturalism Pages. Among the articles I recommend you to read are:


The Idea of Allgod

Pascalians against Divinity

Gazing at Stars

Worldliness

Discerning It

You may also find the Hymn to Nature and the Quatrains of interest.

It is clear that we have not created ourselves, but something has created us; but why should that something be the God of the Bible and Qur'an? No, the creator is in no way separate from the creation, but is immanent in it, inherent in our matter. We're the notes resounding in the music of Matter, played by the instruments of Nature; we're heard for a period and then other notes take our place. We're special members in this whole natural Universe, which is most probably all there really is.

Phew! Thanks for the lovely subject. And thx Eudaimonia for the credentials

HelenM

jess

Why is it clear?

doodad

It seems to me that the primary difference between pantheism and atheism is that the pantheist has a belief system where the atheist claims not to have one. The meaning of atheist, i.e., without belief in god, which I take to be a supernatural god, was discussed in another forum I used to visit,
and we agreed that the classic definition of
atheist doesn't leave much room for discussion. It's as if we need another word
for our non-belief. In closing I can see that a pantheist might be classified as an atheist because he does not believe in a supernatural god, but that doesn't say much about his beliefs. He has some, where the atheist claims to have none.

emotional

We know that we in our present form have not brought ourselves to our present form, but have been formed by the precedents (descent by modification, or evolution).

When theists say to me, "it's obvious we have a creator", I say I agree, and then I add: all right, but what creator? Theists say the creator is a supreme personal being transcending the creation, external to it; I say the creator is an impersonal single principle (blind flow of material modification etc) immanent to the creation, inherent in it. So of course we have a creator, but it's not what the theists think. A surprise against the intuitive (who'd have thought of a round earth, for instance?).

Evolution is in no way compatible with theism; evolution refutes theism and affirms naturalism. A new cosmology (round earth, vast space and formation through evolution) requires a change of theology. In other words: it's time to update God. The personal God of theism is fiction and fantasy and must be thrown to the same graveyard of myths as have been the former polytheistic deities.

sailor74

Devnet wroteI say the creator is an impersonal single principle (blind flow of material modification etc) immanent to

You are right devnet.

In my opinion, what ever is responsible for all we know, wheather it be. Atoms, Dna, A black hole, Hydrogen, Electricity,magnetism, Photons or a combination of all of the above. It's certainly something different from what religious fundies know or belive in.

danny