Can you be a Pantheist and an Atheist?

[autonomous1one1]

The whole awe thing doesn't sit well with me, as evidenced by the earlier discussion in this thread. The Ethics doesn't even use the word "awe." I'm still not convinced that it isn't a liberal interpretation by the WPM or some other group or individual. And as we already established, liberal interpretations are kosher when there are modifiers to properly express that interpretation, but the WPM doesn't use any modifiers.

Your explanation may have passed by but by WPM are you referring to the World Pantheist Movement on the web? Isn't 'naturalistic' the modifier for pantheism there?

 

[brbubba]

Your explanation may have passed by but by WPM are you referring to the World Pantheist Movement on the web? Isn't 'naturalistic' the modifier for pantheism there?

Yes, and it is a form of naturalistic pantheism, but they don't particularly stress that or even state it.

RE: doppelganger,
I just read part of Owen's Concepts of Deity in which he states,

Yet if God to any extent transcends the world -- if there is any element in his being that is not contained in the world -- pantheism, in the strict sense, is false. And that God to some extent transcends the world is implied by most pantheists. Merely to speak of the world as the self-expression of the One is to imply that the One has a separate nature to express. The same criticism applies to any other term of relationship -- to (logical) 'explication' or (historical) 'self-development'.

So by default Owen seems to think that Pantheism is atheistic. Although I might argue that we only speak of God's separate nature because our limited understanding can hardly conceive of a unity of nature, i.e., God and the universe are identical.

 

[autonomous1one1]

But if I were to claim that I agree with all of Spinoza's philosophy, AND, I considered myself both a pantheist and an atheist, the same people who think Spinoza is an "atheist" would label me as such as well. So in common usage, one can be both a pantheist and atheist, as Robert showed above.

But Dopp, if you knew and agreed with Spinoza's system from one perspective you probable would not say that you were an atheist as Spinoza did not. The missing ingredient in our discussion so far is why Spinoza did not consider himself an atheist; what was his God.

But then we go back to the notion that Spinoza claimed he wasn't an atheist! Is it really fair for current day philosophers to be saying otherwise? And conjecturing that he only said that due to possible negative consequences of being an atheist at the time seems specious at best.

There was an interesting part of the Einstein quote that Dopp posted:

"Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it."

The interesting phrase is 'it is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it' (you must have "exceptional endowments" to rise above the anthropomorphic and get it in the first place). And, many have taught that Spinoza's God was likely 'above' this 'religious feeling.' The God of the Pantheist is a unity to the universe that brbubba's SEP reference covered in the beginning of this thread and that Wanabe Yogi has been trying to get across based on science. For Spinoza it was termed the "universal substance." This quote from Tillich's Systematic Theology vol 1 is offered to support this:

Whether it is "being-itself" (Scholastics) or the "universal substance" (Spinoza), whether it is "beyond subjectivity and objectivity" (James) or the "identity of spirit and nature" (Schelling), whether it is "universe" (Schleiermacher) or "cosmic whole" (Hocking), whether it is "value creating process" (Whitehead) or "progressive integration" (Wieman), whether it is "absolute spirit" (Hegel) or "cosmic person" (Brightman) - each of these concepts is based on an immediate experience of something ultimate in value and being of which one can become intuitively aware."

Conclusion, there is an 'added element' to the God of Spinoza that most are not going to understand.

.....
RE: doppelganger,
I just read part of Owen's Concepts of Deity in which he states,
.......
So by default Owen seems to think that Pantheism is atheistic. Although I might argue that we only speak of God's separate nature because our limited understanding can hardly conceive of a unity of nature, i.e., God and the universe are identical.

Hey brbubba, Owen is not a familiar author, (is that the Christian Theologian), and are you convinced that Owen fully understands what is obviously very difficult to get? Because of the difficulty of understanding, and then explaining it, many Professors in philosophy used to teach that one must go to the original source. One perspective on your comment is that Panthiest do not speak of a 'separate nature' but of a unity that transcends across the totality of things within the whole. If God transcends the whole the 'philosophy' becomes panentheism.

 

[brbubba]

[/B]Conclusion, there is an 'added element' to the God of Spinoza that most are not going to understand.

Hey brbubba, Owen is not a familiar author, (is that the Christian Theologian), and are you convinced that Owen fully understands what is obviously very difficult to get? Because of the difficulty of understanding, and then explaining it, many Professors in philosophy used to teach that one must go to the original source. One perspective on your comment is that Panthiest do not speak of a 'separate nature' but of a unity that transcends across the totality of things within the whole. If God transcends the whole the 'philosophy' becomes panentheism.

I think that added element is inherent when looking at Spinoza, based upon my limited interpretation of reading between the lines.

Owen is a professor of Christian Theology at King's College. The Stanford Pantheist definition referenced him, so I grabbed his book at the library.

I would say transcendence across an infinite universe, but that would be a fancy way to describe what already is. In many ways that's the same argument Owen makes, by verbally distinguishing God and the Universe that it represents you lose the very meaning of pantheism.

My understanding of panentheism is that God transcends the universe due to the fact that the Universe is a part of it, not the whole of it. To me a spiritual belief is still part of the existing Universe, simply not currently seen nor fully understood. Although for arguments sake I might be better off calling myself a left leaning panentheist with the excuse that I believe in a multi dimensional universe, or existence of multiple universes. Speaking of which, if we discover other dimensions, or the existence of multiple universes, does Pantheism become null and void?

 

[Twig pentagram]

I think that added element is inherent when looking at Spinoza, based upon my limited interpretation of reading between the lines.

Owen is a professor of Christian Theology at King's College. The Stanford Pantheist definition referenced him, so I grabbed his book at the library.

I would say transcendence across an infinite universe, but that would be a fancy way to describe what already is. In many ways that's the same argument Owen makes, by verbally distinguishing God and the Universe that it represents you lose the very meaning of pantheism.

My understanding of panentheism is that God transcends the universe due to the fact that the Universe is a part of it, not the whole of it. To me a spiritual belief is still part of the existing Universe, simply not currently seen nor fully understood. Although for arguments sake I might be better off calling myself a left leaning panentheist with the excuse that I believe in a multi dimensional universe, or existence of multiple universes. Speaking of which, if we discover other dimensions, or the existence of multiple universes, does Pantheism become null and void?

Pantheism means ALL is divine, so if other dimensions or universes was discovered they would still fall under the ALL category.

 

[brbubba]

Pantheism means ALL is divine, so if other dimensions or universes was discovered they would still fall under the ALL category.

In that case how can you differentiate Pantheism and Panentheism?

 

[Twig pentagram]

In that case how can you differentiate Pantheism and Panentheism?

Panentheism means All is a part of God, but God is greater than All.

 

[brbubba]

Panentheism means All is a part of God, but God is greater than All.

Yeah, but if ALL is divine then God can never be greater than ALL.

 

[Twig pentagram]

Yeah, but if ALL is divine then God can never be greater than ALL.

Unless your're panentheist.

 

[autonomous1one1]

Yeah, but if ALL is divine then God can never be greater than ALL.

Panentheism means All is a part of God, but God is greater than All.

Pantheism means ALL is divine, so if other dimensions or universes was discovered they would still fall under the ALL category.

How does one define 'All?' Is All the same today as it was in Spinoza's time?

 

[doppelganger]

But Dopp, if you knew and agreed with Spinoza's system from one perspective you probable would not say that you were an atheist as Spinoza did not. The missing ingredient in our discussion so far is why Spinoza did not consider himself an atheist; what was his God.

Actually, I would because "atheist" does not mean to me what it might have meant to him. You cannot force me to attach your preferred meaning to a word. In the post-modern existentialist world, "theism" and "God" are little more than meaningless gobbledygook most of the time - a word to symbolize millions, if not billions, of very different things - and for that reason virtually useless to communicate any experience with as a word. Spinoza's "God" was a unitary and undifferentiated substance. It is essentially what Bohm talks about when he discusses the unity of all without the "fragmentation" of thought, what Nietzsche calls "the void", what Brunner calls the "Cogitant", what Nicholas calls the "Absolute Maximum," and is what many "pantheists" (including myself) and almost all mystics are symbolizing as the "object" (and yes that's an inappropriate word as explained above, but language can't do what it needs to in this arena) of their perceived pantheism.

And since that list includes people who either identified themselves as "atheist" or are regularly identified by others as "atheist" it continues to be established that "atheism" can be AND IS connstrued as a rejection of that "specific" form of "theism" mentioned in the Webster's definition I linked. The simple fact is that many, if not most, self-identified atheists do not reject any "god-concepts" other than those that have come to be associated with anthropomorphic theism in the modern world.

This is why Dawkins refers to pantheism as "sexed up atheism." You aren't going to tell me that Dawkins cannot be an "atheist" are you?

 

[doppelganger]

Pantheism as Sexed up Atheism


From "Pantheism.net"

Richard Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion, has described Pantheism as “sexed-up atheism.” That may seem flippant, but it is accurate. Of all religious or spiritual traditions, Pantheism - the approach of Einstein, Hawking and many other scientists - is the only one that passes the muster of the world's most militant atheist.

So what's the difference between Atheism and Pantheism? As far as disbelief in supernatural beings, forces or realms, there is no difference. World Pantheism also shares the respect for evidence, science, and logic that's typical of atheism.

However, Pantheism goes further, and adds to atheism an embracing, positive and reverential feeling about our lives on planet Earth, our place in Nature and the wider Universe, and uses nature as our basis for dealing with stress, grief and bereavement. It's a form of spirituality that is totally compatible with science. Indeed, since science is our best way of exploring the Universe, respect for the scientific method and fascination with the discoveries of science are an integral part of World Pantheism.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...144-atheism-theism-twins-separated-birth.html

This discussion is really rather silly. I would welcome a discussion about the similarities in experiences and attempts to symbolize those experiences shared by atheists, pantheists, mystics and existentialists, particularly if you're up for it Robert. But arguing that a word must be used only one way is an exercise in futility.

 

[brbubba]

Pantheism as Sexed up Atheism

From "Pantheism.net"

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...144-atheism-theism-twins-separated-birth.html

This discussion is really rather silly. I would welcome a discussion about the similarities in experiences and attempts to symbolize those experiences shared by atheists, pantheists, mystics and existentialists, particularly if you're up for it Robert. But arguing that a word must be used only one way is an exercise in futility.

That's the WPM's website. Aside from some major appeal to authority fallacies, their analysis isn't based on anything concrete.

You can use the word however you want, I'm just trying to determine whether you are semantically, historically and philosophically correct to do so.

 

[doppelganger]

That's the WPM's website. Aside from some major appeal to authority fallacies, their analysis isn't based on anything concrete.

You can use the word however you want, I'm just trying to determine whether you are semantically, historically and philosophically correct to do so.

Right, which is why you didn't ask the question you intended to ask, as I pointed out above.

I'm through wasting my time in this thread. Though I would be interested in continuing a discussion elsewhere about the similarities and overlap between various attempts to describe and capture mystic experience expressed by people of various traditions including "atheists."

Farewell.

 

[brbubba]

Right, which is why you didn't ask the question you intended to ask, as I pointed out above.

I'm through wasting my time in this thread. Though I would be interested in continuing a discussion elsewhere about the similarities and overlap between various attempts to describe and capture mystic experience expressed by people of various traditions including "atheists."

Farewell.

I think we had a useful discussion!

Start a new thread and let us know about it!

 

[LuisDantas]

Ditto here.

 

[Twig pentagram]

How does one define 'All?' Is All the same today as it was in Spinoza's time?

All means everything that exist, known or unknown if it exist then it falls into the all category. I don't know if all is the same today as it was in Spinoza's time.

 

[brbubba]

All means everything that exist, known or unknown if it exist then it falls into the all category. I don't know if all is the same today as it was in Spinoza's time.

Maybe we should analyze the word "ALL" semantically and historically? jk.

 

[autonomous1one1]

To those remaining, please accept apologies for contribution to wasting Dopp's time and driving away such a brilliant thinker. One's ignorance is often most prevalent in the misjudgment of receptivity of one's words by another. And, just for the record, it is probably apparent but from one perspective these non-debate discussions are for the purpose of understanding, not forcing someone to attach a preferred meaning to a word or to label someone (even Dawkins) at all. There is no intention in that direction.

 

[autonomous1one1]

All means everything that exist, known or unknown if it exist then it falls into the all category. I don't know if all is the same today as it was in Spinoza's time.

Maybe we should analyze the word "ALL" semantically and historically? jk.

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.