Can you be a Pantheist and an Atheist?

[brbubba]

Your question may have far surpassed one's capabilities. That comment about 'all' in Spinoza's time was bad humor. But actually, if All means everything that exists, then 'exists' requires definition, keeping in mind Dopp's quote above of Tillich that "God does not exist." Tillich would say that 'God is.' 'Exist' puts on limits for God. Such discussion which will get into epistemology and theories of how we know anything will probably divert this thread.

From the perspective here, brbubba, your thread has been very worthwhile.

I was trying to make light of the fact that, if we so chose, we could deconstruct the entire english language. :angel2:

I think he left more from the fact that the thread seems to have been exhausted. We generally came to a conclusion/agreement that interpretations of underlying, base, concepts are so diverse that they don't properly convey the diversity of opinions. As such, it may be a better practice to use these base terms with modifiers to properly convey individual meaning.

Part of the difficulty in this thread is that so many sub topics cropped up which I had no way of foreseeing. Case in point was the discussion on the very meaning of atheism which I thought would have been a foregone conclusion. Oh well, the best laid plans...

 

[No Robots]

Spinoza’s use of the word atheist is what we today would understand as materialist monism, as we see when he states, “[a]theists are wont greedily to covet rank and riches, which I have always despised, as all who know me are aware.” (Letter to Ostens).

The word pantheism was devised by John Toland specifically to apply it to Spinoza. Spinoza certainly never referred to himself as such. Constantin Brunner denies that Spinoza was a pantheist, writing:

Spinoza knows countless attributes while pantheism knows only the two human attributes of extension and thought which, unlike Spinoza, it regards not, by any means, as attributes of the substance but as substances.—Science, Spirit, Superstition, p. 476n.​

Brunner goes on to state that, “Fortlage suggests quite rightly that Spinozism and Hegelianism should be described as logotheistic rather than pantheistic” (Our Christ, p. 447), meaning that it is best to understand Spinoza as anchoring his thought-realm in the abstract principle of absolute active Beingness.

In order to overcome the problems involved with the close connection of atheism with materialism, Brunner uses godlessness to designate the thought-realm based on freedom from god concepts, but remaining open to the spiritual/intellectual (geistig) infinite, what Brunner calls the Cogitant (das Denkende).

 

[Storm]

Oh, I see. It all depends on how exactly you define atheism, then. If it is in relation to a personal, creator or human-like God, then pantheism is a variety of atheism. If it is any possible conception of God, then not.

Well, by that definition, I'm an atheist. I don't think that's helpful.

 

[doppelganger]

Brunner goes on to state that, “Fortlage suggests quite rightly that Spinozism and Hegelianism should be described as logotheistic rather than pantheistic” (Our Christ, p. 447), meaning that it is best to understand Spinoza as anchoring his thought-realm in the abstract principle of absolute active Beingness.

In order to overcome the problems involved with the close connection of atheism with materialism, Brunner uses godlessness to designate the thought-realm based on freedom from god concepts, but remaining open to the spiritual/intellectual (Geistig) infinite, what Brunner calls the Cogitant (das Denkende).

Ah, one of the three other people on the planet interested in Brunner. (I assume, since this is your first post at RF, a Google search for Brunner brought you to this thread, in which case, welcome!)

While I like Brunner, he has a tendency to not see the forest through the trees when he talks about what other philosophers meant. Nowhere is that easier to see than in his critique of Nietzsche. But setting that aside . . .

Brunner's notion of "godlessness" is certainly to be distinguished from atheist materialism. As would Spinoza's conception of "God." The problem, as this thread dealt with ad nauseum is that not all "atheists" in this day and age are strict materialists of the sort with which Brunner was concerned when he made that distinction. Indeed, you'll find quite a few self-proclaimed atheists who profess "belief in free will" - which is at odds with both Spinoza as well as strict materialism. And you'll find a sense (ill-defined as it may be) among many "atheists" of a higher realm of order beyond the universe of material appearance - but merely accompanied by a distaste for the constructs imagined and presented in theism.

 

[No Robots]

I would love to get a Brunner thread going. Just the kind of high colonic that's needed around here (I mean our culture in general, not specifically this forum).

 

[Storm]

I would love to get a Brunner thread going. Just the kind of high colonic that's needed around here (I mean our culture in general, not specifically this forum).

Start one, then.

I don't believe I've ever heard of him.

 

[doppelganger]

Start one, then.

I don't believe I've ever heard of him.

We could learn quite a bit about him from "No Robots," since he is one of a handful of Brunner "devotees" in the world. I think I may have actually first heard about Brunner from a comment "No Robots" made on an old philosophy blog I used to write a few years ago. The details are hazy . . . :drool:

I've not read all of Brunner's works. I own a copy of an English translation of Our Christ: Revolt of the Mystical Genius, which I read about three years ago and which is heavily dog-eared to mark the many interesting passages and ideas.

 

[No Robots]

Sure, I'd love to start the thread. Any suggestions on an appropriate forum? It would have to be somewhere that wide-ranging discussion is permissible. Brunner is a holistic, anti-categorical thinker. His work touches on everything from Christology to sexology.

 

[Storm]

Well, I'm kinda guessing blind here, but there's a Pantheism DIR (debate-free subforum) listed under Theological Concepts/ Theism.

Or, if you want debate, Religious Debates would work fine.

 

[doppelganger]

Sure, I'd love to start the thread. Any suggestions on an appropriate forum? It would have to be somewhere that wide-ranging discussion is permissible. Brunner is a holistic, anti-categorical thinker. His work touches on everything from Christology to sexology.

I would suggest the "Philosophy" forum.

 

[doppelganger]

I would suggest the "Philosophy" forum.

You could also discuss his thought in the context of the "Mysticism" forum or "Theological Concepts" quite appropriately, too.

 

[No Robots]

Well, on the Brunnerian premise that all categories are only relative, I've gone ahead with Storm's suggestion to start the thread in pantheism.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I would certainly be an Atheist in the Abrahamic sense as I do not believe in any supernatural beings, let alone one that is omnipotant enough to create and control the universe and be at the same time be everyone's little imaginary friend.

 

[no-body]

I consider myself a theist, atheist and agnostic.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I consider myself a theist, atheist and agnostic.

I guess it all depends on what one's definition of God is as it is such an ambiguous concept.

 

[no-body]

I guess it all depends on what one's definition of God is as it is such an ambiguous concept.

Exactly. God is just a word.

 

[brbubba]

Exactly. God is just a word.

That was never my initial objection. My objection stems from the fact that people were saying, "I'm an atheist because I believe in a non traditional God." But in reality they were anything but atheist based upon the word's definition and that their clinging to this word was solely done to contradict popular beliefs rather than assert their personal beliefs.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Pantheist = Everything is God
Atheist = Nothing is God


So how can "Pantheist-Atheist" be anything but a contradiction?

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Pantheist = Everything is God
Atheist = Nothing is God


So how can "Pantheist-Atheist" be anything but a contradiction?

God is just a word and an extremely ambiguous word at that, which God do you believe in?
And I could asked a similar question to atheists, which God don't you believe in?

 

[LuisDantas]

Pantheist = Everything is God
Atheist = Nothing is God


So how can "Pantheist-Atheist" be anything but a contradiction?

By applying dialetics and realizing how arbitrary the very concept of God is to begin with, perhaps.