• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is scientific pantheism a form of atheism?

Iti oj

Global warming is real and we need to act
Premium Member
Dawkins calls it sexed up atheism and i concur.
 

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
Scientific Pantheism is more of a philosophy than anything. A Scientific Pantheist can have any theological view. They can be atheist though.

Since it is a belief that any theological viewpoint can fit in, it's not claiming anything about the metaphysics, it is considered a philosophy.

Pantheism as a general term refers to the universe being God in a literal form, unlike Scientific Pantheism.

Pandeism kind of thinks God is the cause of the universe, and the universe itself. Like the universe is the remains of God... I guess.



Sources:

Pantheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pandeism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Naturalistic pantheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (plus my knowledge of it as a former Naturalistic Pantheist myself)
 

Road Warrior

Seeking the middle path..
Not true atheism since it still believes in "woo".

atheism | American Atheists
Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are "super" natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
I think it is a form of atheism, yes, in that it dispenses with any profound mystery in favour of upholding a mystery external to oneself, that is uncovered by science.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Pantheism as a general term refers to the universe being God in a literal form, unlike Scientific Pantheism.

Pandeism kind of thinks God is the cause of the universe, and the universe itself. Like the universe is the remains of God... I guess.
This is the best depiction of pantheism I've heard lately:

When we say that all things in the universe are the creative activity of God, this is really like putting legs on a snake or painting the reflection on a mirror. It is not to be compared to seeing that activity as it is, although we say that it is God's activity to draw attention to it in a particular way. But the trouble is that people spend so much energy looking for the God that they fail to see the activity, which is surely a sad state of affairs. What is this activity? The rivers flow; the flowers bloom; you walk down the street. Really we should need to say no more than this, but it is sometimes called the activity of God to point out a certain understanding to the sort of person who might retort, "The rivers flow; the flowers bloom; you walk down the street--so what?"

So what? Well, what else are you looking for? Here is someone who eats out the grocer's store and still complains that he is starving. But the word and concept God, Brahmin, Tao or what you will, was really introduced for such unappreciative stomachs. It is a way of emphasizing actual life to draw attention to it in much the same way as we underline words or put them in italics. Thus we call the universe the activity of God to induce the so-whatter to pay some attention and reverence to it, because he always bolts his life instead of rolling it appreciatively round his tongue.

Alan Watts, Tomorrow Never Comes

The snow is falling on the windowsill. Is this the activity of God? Maybe. But if anyone watches it in order to see God he will surely be disappointed... and in looking for God, he may fail to see the snow... Yet all this trouble has started because people have taken a simple device much too far. The idea of God is a finger pointing the way to Reality, but when people try to join God and Reality, to identify the one with the other, to find the former in the latter, they are trying to join together two things that were never in need of being joined. This is like trying to make the eyes see themselves.
(Emphasis mine.)
 
Last edited:

Road Warrior

Seeking the middle path..
It implies nothing besides that there is no deity.

Tell that to the Atheist organization quoted.

To believe in "woo", even a godless "woo", is still a belief. Something which is taken on faith with no way to prove it. What makes one person who believes in the supernatural different from another? Neither can prove their position. It's a matter of faith.
 

gnomon

Well-Known Member
I have been looking online and a lot say no but as I look at these links I think it is.

PANTHEISM: basic principles of Scientific Pantheism.

Science and pantheism

The divine attributes: God and the cosmos

I think it is but I want opinions of atheist.

Thank you guys :)

It sure is. Some called it "sexed up" because they think replacing the traditional concepts of a Creator/God(s) that is outside the set of the universe with an ideal of the universe or some other form of pantheism to not quite be atheism.

I don't really care. If a pantheist calls themselves an atheist that's fine with me. If a pantheist calls themselves a theist that's fine as well.

Unfortunately atheist has gone from a term meaning non-belief in "my" God to a more reasonable definition of just not theistic to now being considered an outright rejection of all things supernatural in popular usage. I guess that's why we see the use of non-theist as opposed to a-theist in referencing a-theistic Buddhists and other similar religious sects that do not adhere to belief in a deity.

The misuse and abuse of the prefixes is inevitable but sad.
 

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
Tell that to the Atheist organization quoted.

To believe in "woo", even a godless "woo", is still a belief. Something which is taken on faith with no way to prove it. What makes one person who believes in the supernatural different from another? Neither can prove their position. It's a matter of faith.

And?

Also, that site is very off the rails
 

gnomon

Well-Known Member
Tell that to the Atheist organization quoted.

To believe in "woo", even a godless "woo", is still a belief. Something which is taken on faith with no way to prove it. What makes one person who believes in the supernatural different from another? Neither can prove their position. It's a matter of faith.

As someone who loves to reach into their little grab bag of logical fallacies you might want to revisit some of them.
 

Road Warrior

Seeking the middle path..
As someone who loves to reach into their little grab bag of logical fallacies you might want to revisit some of them.
Did you read it?

What do you call someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community?

If you support the concept of the "Reason Rally", don't you think it is better to use reason rather than simply stalking me around the forum with your little jabs?

Why do you persist in this demeaning behavior instead of posting your own links, presenting your own evidence or at least giving your own opinion on the topic? Do you really enjoy bullying people so much that you can't see what you are doing to yourself???

Yes, I read my own links. I also read this one: Pantheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One should note that there are different types of Pantheism. The one Dawkins addresses is Naturalistic Pantheism.

If you have problems with a link or a quote, such as the definition I posted from Atheists.org, why don't you present examples of what you this is a better definition or something other than obtuse remarks more befitting a troll than a serious person with an opinion on a matter?
 

gnomon

Well-Known Member
What do you call someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community?

If you support the concept of the "Reason Rally", don't you think it is better to use reason rather than simply stalking me around the forum with your little jabs?

Why do you persist in this demeaning behavior instead of posting your own links, presenting your own evidence or at least giving your own opinion on the topic? Do you really enjoy bullying people so much that you can't see what you are doing to yourself???

Yes, I read my own links. I also read this one: Pantheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One should note that there are different types of Pantheism. The one Dawkins addresses is Naturalistic Pantheism.

If you have problems with a link or a quote, such as the definition I posted from Atheists.org, why don't you present examples of what you this is a better definition or something other than obtuse remarks more befitting a troll than a serious person with an opinion on a matter?

What are you on about?

The OP asked for opinions. We are giving them. Not linking to narrow views by other people and implying that such a view is a true in general. That would be fallacious.

You alluded to Dawkins site as very off the rails and I asked if you read it. Yes, he's talking about Naturalistic Pantheism. At least you read it. Doesn't show how it's "off the rails".

Now you are accusing me of being a bully. Brilliant.
 

Road Warrior

Seeking the middle path..
At least you got the part about Naturalistic Pantheism correct. Have a really great life,
gnomon. From your constant complaining, it sounds like you are not enjoying it very much. What is your 50 year plan? More of the same or an early exit? In the end, does it really matter which choice you make?
 

gnomon

Well-Known Member
At least you got the part about Naturalistic Pantheism correct. Have a really great life,
gnomon. From your constant complaining, it sounds like you are not enjoying it very much. What is your 50 year plan? More of the same or an early exit? In the end, does it really matter which choice you make?

Wow.

Now I present to you hypocrisy.

Someone who finds mocking so offensive apparently has no issues with being a dick. An "early exit"? Is that an allusion to suicide? Wow. If only you could read some of my threads on depression on this forum. Your words would be considered.....mocking in tone.

But I have learned one thing from you. That the name Dawkins is synonymous with "troll biscuit".
 
Top