Can you be a Pantheist and an Atheist?

[Twig pentagram]

You're going to have to provide a reference on that one. The word God is in the definition of Pantheism, which is pretty much universally accepted. How you define God is what differentiates a classical vs a naturalistic Pantheist.

The god word in the definition of pantheism means universe. It's not the same as the god word in the definition of monotheism which means creator of the universe. In pantheism the universe has no creator. That's why pantheism is atheistic.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

That sounds like supernatural to me. Also I've argued that awe is a supernatural feeling because science makes no presumptions about awe other than its place as a biochemical reaction in the brain. Attributing characteristics to the universe that don't actually exist is very non scientific IMO.

No, not at all I just view the "self" as like a program like windows 7 that is run by some randomly selected brain that comes to its conscious attention. I don't think there is anything supernatural about my computer.

 

[Storm]

The god word in the definition of pantheism means universe. It's not the same as the god word in the definition of monotheism which means creator of the universe. In pantheism the universe has no creator. That's why pantheism is atheistic.

So what? Who declared monotheism the standard for God-concepts?

 

[brbubba]

The god word in the definition of pantheism means universe. It's not the same as the god word in the definition of monotheism which means creator of the universe. In pantheism the universe has no creator. That's why pantheism is atheistic.

Again, you're going back to earlier arguments. Sure God and the Universe are synonymous, but once you make that definition you have to follow through on it. Pantheism is only Atheistic from a strict Judeo Christian perspective, but it is not Atheistic.

This also goes back to arguments regarding the moralistic atheist perspective. Just because you are a moral atheist doesn't mean you are anything other than a moral atheist. Just because you feel awe when you look at the night sky doesn't mean that you are anything other than an atheist that feels awe. The one thing that WPM can't sufficiently provide is an explanation as to why they should or would differentiate themselves as Pantheists.

So what? Who declared monotheism the standard for God-concepts?

Precisely! Like I said before, it's an antagonistic stance that people take simply to be contrary to traditional Judeo Christian theology.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

The god word in the definition of pantheism means universe. It's not the same as the god word in the definition of monotheism which means creator of the universe. In pantheism the universe has no creator. That's why pantheism is atheistic.

Yes it has, it created itself. Well that's Stephen Hawking's take on it.

 

[Willamena]

Yes it has, it created itself. Well that's Stephen Hawking's take on it.

Stephen Hawking's declared a pantheist?

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Stephen Hawking's declared a pantheist?

IMO he thinks like a pantheist with be similar philosophies, even if he does not state openly he is one. There is a mention about his pantheist preferances here

Some western philosophers such as Baruch Spinoza and scientists like Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking are Pantheists. Albert Einstein is not a pantheist, contrary to popular belief.
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God." —Albert Einstein

 

[Willamena]

IMO he thinks like a pantheist with be similar philosophies, even if he does not state openly he is one. There is a mention about his pantheist preferances here

Neat!

 

[idav]

Pantheists just give more credit to the entire universe being capable of intelligence as a whole. It is an optimistic view but the last grasp of straws before becoming an atheist. Atheists might agree that intelligence is everywhere in the universe but on little planets with as much knowledge of the beginning as us. What of the beginning? Aside from the all powerful being creating the universe from some laboratory. A more semi-intelligent evolving universe seems more plausible.

 

[Shahzad]

I don't see the point in calling it pantheism if you don't believe the universe has a transcendent, more than physical aspect to its nature. There's no theism involved in the boring watered down incarnation of it, so it hardly deserves the name of pantheism at all.

 

[idav]

I don't see the point in calling it pantheism if you don't believe the universe has a transcendent, more than physical aspect to its nature. There's no theism involved in the boring watered down incarnation of it, so it hardly deserves the name of pantheism at all.

That would be more panentheism where god transecends beyond as well. In pantheism god doesn't transcend. What do you mean more than physical aspect to its nature? No need for it to be supernatural IMO.

 

[Twig pentagram]

Yes it has, it created itself. Well that's Stephen Hawking's take on it.

If it created itself than it has no creator.

 

[Shahzad]

That would be more panentheism where god transecends beyond as well. In pantheism god doesn't transcend. What do you mean more than physical aspect to its nature? No need for it to be supernatural IMO.

I'm aware of that being more of a panentheist or panendeist myself. What are the characteristics of your god then? Is it a person or sentient? If the universe is no more than a mindless physical system then why call it theism? What I want to know is, how does your belief differ in any meaningful way from atheism?

 

[idav]

I'm aware of that being more of a panentheist or panendeist myself. What are the characteristics of your god then? Is it a person or sentient? If the universe is no more than a mindless physical system then why call it theism? What I want to know is, how does your belief differ in any meaningful way from atheism?

Without getting into what cause the start of the universe I see that beginning as a sort of semi-intelligent "awareness". With us being a combination of the same material since the beginning of time I find it likely that the same material could have been aware of itself since but evolving to that state. As if the universe was an egg from an unknown source that evolved to what it is today. Not transcendent or supernatural but not completely oblivious though I'm not sure the universe would have been conscious of it's awareness if that makes any sense. Kinda like how we don't remember being conceived. We were aware without being conscious of it since memory is required for that.

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

Not in my opinion. Pantheists believe in at least one god.

 

[blackout]

I think it suffices to say that when you speak of nothing, you've made it something (else, you know... there'd be nothing to talk about).

*Waits for her copy of Willamena in Wonderland*

(cheshire smiley)

 

[Hoonaw]

I have come across this interesting thread while reading on Pantheism, which lead me to create an account on this forum so I could also give my share on the matter.

I do not think there is a single etymological truth in relation to the concept of Pantheism. Especially with so many variables of the term. A naturalistic pantheist, it seems, uses the word 'God' mainly as a metaphor to describe the mystery and grandiosity of the Universe - the origin of and home to all things. A naturalistic pantheist abstains completely from all that is supernatural and not only concepts related to an anthropomorphic God. The Universe or Nature itself, as well as the feelings of reverence and awe caused by it, have nothing supernatural. An atheist can consider himself a pantheist as far as I'm concerned.

The reason why so many atheists consider themselves pantheists (naturalistic) is because they feel the need to allocate an additional, concise definition, and demonstrate their spiritual and philosophical beliefs beyond the mere denial of God or gods.

As mentioned here already, the theos in Pantheism is not the actual theos. That is why Richard Dawkins described Pantheism as "Sexed-up Atheism":

Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a non-supernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings. [...] Deists differ from pantheists in that the deist God is some kind of cosmic intelligence, rather than the pantheist's metaphoric or poetic synonym for the laws of the universe. Pantheism is sexed-up atheism.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It entirely depends on the beliefs of the pantheist, doesn't it? To me, personally, naturalistic/non-literal pantheism is true pantheism.

 

[Desert Snake]

....No.

 

[Hoonaw]

It entirely depends on the beliefs of the pantheist, doesn't it? To me, personally, naturalistic/non-literal pantheism is true pantheism.

Yes, it depends. Since there are no dogmas in Pantheism it will always vary on one's perspective towards it. Naturalistic pantheism is perfectly compatible with atheism for it is nothing else than the addition of a spiritual - not religious - dimension to one's life. Spiritual =/= Supernatural.

One can be an atheist and feel indifferent to the Cosmos. Therefore, an atheist who feels deep connection to Nature and all that belongs to it, is an atheistic pantheist. At certain point it ceases to be religion and becomes philosophy only.

....No.

To what exactly?