Pantheism
Offline Hey everybody, I have been an atheist for many years, and recently discovered Pantheism.
I really like what this 'religion' is about, it seems to be more of a philosophy really.
So I have taken the plunge (after 5 or so years of rejecting all religion) and converted, though I still hold all of my atheistic ideals.
The reason for this post is... I wish to know what fellow atheists think and feel about Pantheism.
"Those who dwell...among the beauties and mysteries of the earth are never alone or weary of life. . . Those who contemplate the beauty of the earth find reserves of strength that will endure as long as life lasts. The more clearly we can focus our attention on
the wonders and realities of the universe about us,
the less taste we shall have for destruction."
-Rachel Carson
- Login to post comments
For the most part we disregard it as we do other religions.
Defined: the doctrine or belief that God is the universe and its phenomena (taken or conceived of as a whole) or the doctrine that regards the universe as a manifestation of God
It doesn't add anything to our knowledge of the universe. Though to be fair, at least it doesn't force steps backward, and has a built in capacity to evolve alongside scientific understanding. I don't and won't believe in it, but I neither see much harm in it. It is quite possibly the future of theism. It strips god of sentience, omnipotence, omniscience, and will. All of which are critical flaws in the vast majority of religions.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Yeah I have no problem with pantheism. God is the universe or what ever, seems fair enough. If there was ever something to call god the universe seems the best thing imo. But I don't see the point in the religion... it seems to me something that people who cannot believe there is no god turn to as a last hope. I mean it isn't a very meaningful position to hold is it? In the end it changes nothing... but thats true of most things. But what do I know?
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Most Pantheists (including myself) dislike the use of 'god' to describe Pantheism, though i guess we can't complain too much as it is by nature, still a theology.
Pantheism to me is an important position to hold, greater that of just Atheism.
-What Pantheism provides that Atheism does not-
"Those who dwell...among the beauties and mysteries of the earth are never alone or weary of life. . . Those who contemplate the beauty of the earth find reserves of strength that will endure as long as life lasts. The more clearly we can focus our attention on
the wonders and realities of the universe about us,
the less taste we shall have for destruction."
-Rachel Carson
I don't feel a need for spirituality, I think what I can see is incredible and wondrous enough as it is.
As for nature, I think we should take care of ourselves, and that necessitates the need to care for the environment and ecosystems of Earth.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I don't see the point in it (much like Deism), but I don't see any harm in it either.
I think you will see more theists turn to Deism and Pantheism as time goes on. The nice thing about them is they are impossible to falsify because of their broad definitions and lack of an actual message. The bad thing about them is...well, what do they accomplish? Why bother? All you are doing is playing word games.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Now, while i could have commented on other things in your post... i felt that this would lead me to a far more interesting discussion
Firstly, How and Why are we inseperable from " mother nature" ?
Secondly, Why is it our duty (as intelligent beings or otherwise) to care for the earth? (especially as anything other than an inanimate object)
What Would Kharn Do?
I reject pantheism for one simple reason: What do the letters g-o-d get you? Nothing, IMO. If 'god' is nature, then why call it 'god'? Why not just 'nature'? If you're not talking about 'god', then you're not really a pantheist, you're just a naturalist.
This is why, long ago, I chose the username 'natural'. I don't believe in the supernatural, I believe in the natural.
This is similar to 'bright', but I never liked 'bright'. So, I picked 'natural' instead. E.g. where you might use the word 'bright', an equally good alternative would be to use the word 'natural'. I have a naturalistic worldview, hence I'm a 'natural'. Someone else has a supernaturalistic worldview, hence they're a 'super' (stolen from Dan Dennett). Naturals and supers. Works better than brights and supers, IMO.
So, if I'm a natural, what does pantheism get me? If it's just the word 'god', then I don't need that. If it's not the word 'god', then I don't need pantheism.
Aside from 'natural', I've developed my own philosophy based on wonder, which I call wonderism. These days, I'm more likely to identify as a wonderist than as a natural. However, this is my old username here, so I've kept it. I'm still a natural, as wonderism is a naturalistic philosophy. See http://www.youtube.com/user/wonderist.
Given that I have wonderism, I have *even less* need for pantheism.
But, I have no problem with pantheists. Except perhaps when they use the word 'god'. Then I'll ask them why they don't just use the word 'nature'.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
"Those who dwell...among the beauties and mysteries of the earth are never alone or weary of life. . . Those who contemplate the beauty of the earth find reserves of strength that will endure as long as life lasts. The more clearly we can focus our attention on
the wonders and realities of the universe about us,
the less taste we shall have for destruction."
-Rachel Carson
"care for the Earth" is meaningless. The Earth could be like any other terrestrial planet in our solar system and would be fine. What we need to have some respect for is the state of the living creatures currently living on Earth. So burning fossil fuels like we don't understand what increased CO2 levels do to our atmosphere might not be a good idea. Dumping wastes that most creatures can't deal with all over the place might not be a good idea. A worldwide nuclear conflagaration might not be in the best interests for us or our fellow animals either.
I agree we should be good stewards toward our fellow organisms on this rock. After all, we all come from the same ancestor.
P.S. My current favorite self title is Scientific Materialist. Seems just as hated a term as atheist and at least it tells what I DO believe in and not what I don't.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
I think the universe is cool too, but I don't feel the need to form an organized belief system around it.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
And this is how pantheist topics generally die. With all sides shrugging and returning to the spectacle of the universe.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Now this is disagree with. Why again is it our duty to "care, love, and protect" our home? Why does it matter that we've "damaged" the planet? The planet is an inanimate object. We have no duty to it whatsoever. We have some minor duty to life, because living beings tend to care about living. However, our greatest duty is to mankind, which is made up of rational individuals who have dignity. If it comes down to a choice between mankind and planet Earth, (ie, causing species to go extinct so we can produce more food, or polluting horribly to advance science and industry), then so be it.
However, it is pragmatically imperative that we protect the Earth and the enviornment -- not because of some absolute moral imperative related to nature, but because people live on it. We should protect the environment to protect human beings. Protecting a dead environment would be fruitless.
Indeed. I'd say that the notion that "everything is God" essentially lacks any coherence. It is a vacuous statement.