How often do pantheists use the word "God?"

[Ella S.]

According to this article by World Pantheism, most of the pantheists they're involved with don't use the word "God:"

Pantheism as "Sexed-up Atheism"

"His one caveat is that scientific pantheists should not use words like “God.” Well, we don’t...In practice, while a significant minority of our members like and use the word God to express the depth of their feelings for Nature and the wider Universe, the majority do not use the word about their own beliefs."

Obviously, scientific pantheism is only one subset of pantheism, so I was wondering how people in this forum view the word.

I've stated my own position in other threads elsewhere, but I'll re-state them here. I would say that I am a classical pantheist. Every now and then I might slip into talking about God, but I generally prefer using words like "nature," "fate," or "universe" because I feel like they're less likely to be confused with the God of classical theism.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

I tend to use the word "The Omniverse" to describe God, because I believe The Omniverse is like, the NAME and IDENTITY of the God I believe. Some pantheists only go so far to say that the Universe is God, and others will be more general I just say "all", "everything" or "nature" as God. All, everything and nature is synonymous with The Omniverse. For most pantheists using the word God is too broad of a concept and they have to narrow it down in order for most people to get what they are trying to say.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I do use "God" as a way to communicate my patheistic concept of my relationship with the rest of the Universe to others. It amounts to the same idea: "God": an omnipotent, omnipresent creator and "God": me as part of the whole Universe, which by definition is everything, so therefore omnipotent and omnipresent as well as the ultimate creator of everything (essentially itself).

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I tend to use the word "The Omniverse" to describe God, because I believe The Omniverse is like, the NAME and IDENTITY of the God I believe. Some pantheists only go so far to say that the Universe is God, and others will be more general I just say "all", "everything" or "nature" as God. All, everything and nature is synonymous with The Omniverse. For most pantheists using the word God is too broad of a concept and they have to narrow it down in order for most people to get what they are trying to say.

I tend to use "Universe" because it encapsulates everything that is currently known. While omniverse is certainly possible, for me, I would just consider multiple dimensions as part of the Universe, just undiscovered.

 

[George-ananda]

As a believer in Advaita Vedanta (Hindu) non-dual (god and creation are not-two) I guess that makes me a pantheist.

However, my acceptance of pantheism is then something very different from scientific pantheism. Advaita Vedanta holds Consciousness/Brahman to be the Oneness in the non-dual terminology

Advaita Vedanta Pantheism: Consciousness is primary and matter is a derivative of consciousness

Scientific Pantheism: Matter is primary and consciousness is a derivative of matter.


Now the dictionary:

pan·the·ism
[ˈpanTHēˌizəm]
NOUN

1. a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God.

I can see how Advaita Vedanta classifies as 'pantheism' but the scientific pantheism you speak of is better described by Dawkins as 'Sexed-Up Atheism' than pantheism. This scientific pantheism seems to me like awe for the material universe and not pantheism.

 

[vulcanlogician]

As a believer in Advaita Vedanta (Hindu) non-dual (god and creation are not-two) I guess that makes me a pantheist.

However, my acceptance of pantheism is then something very different from scientific pantheism. Advaita Vedanta holds Consciousness/Brahman to be the Oneness in the non-dual terminology

Advaita Vedanta Pantheism: Consciousness is primary and matter is a derivative of consciousness

Scientific Pantheism: Matter is primary and consciousness is a derivative of matter.


Now the dictionary:

pan·the·ism
[ˈpanTHēˌizəm]
NOUN

1. a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God.

I can see how Advaita Vedanta classifies as 'pantheism' but the scientific pantheism you speak of is better described by Dawkins as 'Sexed-Up Atheism' than pantheism. This scientific pantheism seems to me like awe for the material universe and not pantheism.

I am not sure all "scientific pantheists" (as we're calling the more atheistic type of pantheist) necessarily has something definite to say about the primacy of consciousness or matter. Science itself has been unable to make a solid determination on the issue, although an application of Occam's razor leaves you with the assumption that states of matter cause conscious states.

Regardless, it is conceivable for one to be a more scientifically inclined pantheist and yet remain agnostic concerning things like panpsychism. In other words, there is room for a panpsychist outlook within scientific pantheism.

I vehemently disagree with the "sexed up atheism" bit. (Atheistic) pantheism is more a set of attitudes about the natural world than it is a set of metaphysical claims.* The sense of awe, wonder, and reverence the theist has toward God, the pantheist retains... only toward existence itself. I don't see any good argument that only a conscious, willful being deserves such awe and reverence. The kneeling, praying, and/or groveling... doesn't make sense for a pantheist to engage in. But other than that, many modes of "worship" (like, say, singing in gratitude, or spending time in silence and contemplation) remain available to the atheistic pantheist. This isn't a "sexing up" of an atheistic outlook. It is looking at the world differently than the way both atheists and theists look at it.

* On metaphysical issues, the atheistic pantheist may differ from your "typical atheist". Namely when considering the relation of a whole to its parts. That's a bit of a detailed and nuanced topic, but I'm down for discussing it if anyone has an opinion on it.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I vehemently disagree with the "sexed up atheism" bit. (Atheistic) pantheism is more a set of attitudes about the natural world than it is a set of metaphysical claims.* The sense of awe, wonder, and reverence the theist has toward God, the pantheist retains... only toward existence itself. I don't see any good argument that only a conscious, willful being deserves such awe and reverence. The kneeling, praying, and/or groveling... doesn't make sense for a pantheist to engage in. But other than that, many modes of "worship" (like, say, singing in gratitude, or spending time in silence and contemplation) remain available to the atheistic pantheist. This isn't a "sexing up" of an atheistic outlook. It is looking at the world differently than the way both atheists and theists look at it.

Singing in gratitude? Do you mean hymns? It seems redundant and odd to me that someone would decide to sing hymns to something impersonal and unaware, as the universe would be under the metaphysics of scientific pantheism.

* On metaphysical issues, the atheistic pantheist may differ from your "typical atheist". Namely when considering the relation of a whole to its parts. That's a bit of a detailed and nuanced topic, but I'm down for discussing it if anyone has an opinion on it.

One being a monist doesn't make them a pantheist, nor does panpsychism necessarily. I honestly don't see the purpose of proclaiming oneself as a pantheist when you don't view existence as literally divine. And to perceive the universe as impersonal and unaware like scientific pantheism would have it, how could existence at all be divine?

 

[vulcanlogician]

Singing in gratitude? Do you mean hymns?

No. Could be Led Zeppelin.

As you point out, it is pointless to sing hymns to an unaware, impersonal force. I mean expressing gratitude for what exists, if one feels so inclined. One way of expressing such gratitude might be song. There are other ways, of course.

One being a monist doesn't make them a pantheist, nor does panpsychism necessarily. I honestly don't see the purpose of proclaiming oneself as a pantheist when you don't view existence as literally divine. And to perceive the universe as impersonal and unaware like scientific pantheism would have it, how could existence at all be divine?

I agree with all this. Except I think we could have a good debate about whether autonomy is a necessary quality in an object of reverence. I might contemplate an unconscious object (like the sun) and be grateful for what it provides, and be in awe of its power while still remaining a reasonable person. Expressing gratitude for the universe is likewise justified, and like in the case of the sun, it could be argued that such gratitude is justified.

 

[Willamena]

Singing in gratitude? Do you mean hymns?

Or Bowie. Whatever floats your boat.

I like Leonard.

One being a monist doesn't make them a pantheist, nor does panpsychism necessarily. I honestly don't see the purpose of proclaiming oneself as a pantheist when you don't view existence as literally divine. And to perceive the universe as impersonal and unaware like scientific pantheism would have it, how could existence at all be divine?

But being an idealist pantheist makes them a monist. What makes you think the divine is lacking?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

No. Could be Led Zeppelin.

As you point out, it is pointless to sing hymns to an unaware, impersonal force. I mean expressing gratitude for what exists, if one feels so inclined. One way of expressing such gratitude might be song. There are other ways, of course.



I agree with all this. Except I think we could have a good debate about whether autonomy is a necessary quality in an object of reverence. I might contemplate an unconscious object (like the sun) and be grateful for what it provides, and be in awe of its power while still remaining a reasonable person. Expressing gratitude for the universe is likewise justified, and like in the case of the sun, it could be argued that such gratitude is justified.

Or Bowie. Whatever floats your boat.

I like Leonard.


But being an idealist pantheist makes them a monist. What makes you think the divine is lacking?

I've always taken theological positions as literal statements of metaphysics rather than holding something in high regard. Something isn't divine unless it's literally God or a god if you ask me.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I've always taken theological positions as literal statements of metaphysics rather than holding something in high regard. Something isn't divine unless it's literally God or a god if you ask me.

So, what exactly is a god, then? What specific things separate God (as he is imagined to be) from the totality of existence (as I conceive it)? That's not rhetorical. I'm sure you have a list of things. I think we should discuss each item on that list (if you're in the mood). That way, we can be clearer about what we both mean by divinity and God.

It may be that I do not qualify as a pantheist in your view, according to how you define the word. That's fine with me. After all, plenty of professing Christians and Muslims do not qualify as Christian or Muslim according to certain ways of defining those religions.

I don't really "proclaim" myself a pantheist, either. Maybe I'm not. I joined this subforum because "I'm some sort of Spinozist."

Because the term "pantheism" was first coined to describe Spinozism, maybe that makes me a pantheist? But then again, maybe not. It's not like I agree with Spinoza or pantheism doctrinally or anything. I disagree with a few of Spinoza's assertions... namely his necessitarian take on determinism. At the very least, I think Spinoza's necessitarian ideas need to be restructured to account for quantum mechanics. So maybe I'm not even a Spinozist.

It really depends on where one draws the lines. That's not to say your lines are drawn arbitrarily. (They are not.) But a discussion needs to happen before I'll become convinced that the way you draw the lines is more compelling than where I'm prone to draw them.

But, really, what I'd most like to do is go over the list of things that separate a conscious God from an "unconscious" godless universe. Which is holier? Which is more divine?

I'll get us started with what *I* think is a description of divinity. An excerpt of Thoreau's Walden:

"In the midst of a gentle rain while these thoughts prevailed, I was
suddenly sensible of such sweet and beneficent society in Nature, in
the very pattering of the drops, and in every sound and sight around
my house, an infinite and unaccountable friendliness all at once like
an atmosphere sustaining me, as made the fancied advantages of
human neighborhood insignificant, and I have never thought of them
since. Every little pine needle expanded and swelled with sympathy
and befriended me. I was so distinctly made aware of the presence of
something kindred to me, even in scenes which we are accustomed to
call wild and dreary, and also that the nearest of blood to me and
humanest was not a person nor a villager, that I thought no place
could ever be strange to me again."

Does this passage describe divinity in your opinion? If not, why not? If so, where is the necessity of a conscious God in this passage?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

So, what exactly is a god, then? What specific things separate God (as he is imagined to be) from the totality of existence (as I conceive it)? That's not rhetorical. I'm sure you have a list of things. I think we should discuss each item on that list (if you're in the mood). That way, we can be clearer about what we both mean by divinity and God.

I can only speak for myself when I say that I consider the universe "God" because, while I don't know exactly how personal or interactive It is and while I don't know if It has an overarching conscious of Its own (aside from the individual consciousnesses existing within and as part of it), I believe It to be something literally mystical and divine, that Its existence is a sort of... "song" "learning experience" "story" whatever you want to view it as, there's no wrong way. In other words the universe is meaningful and not just random. In that way there's a Will behind It, and presumably a Will of Its own.

So I will ask you, why do you consider the universe to be "God" with a capital G instead of just "an extraordinary thing" - surely It being an extraordinary thing alone doesn't make It God?
(Okay, I have no more patience to capitalize the 'I' in "it" when referring to the universe, lol)

It may be that I do not qualify as a pantheist in your view, according to how you define the word. That's fine with me. After all, plenty of professing Christians and Muslims do not qualify as Christian or Muslim according to certain ways of defining those religions.

I don't really "proclaim" myself a pantheist, either. Maybe I'm not. I joined this subforum because "I'm some sort of Spinozist."

I'm not the one who decides who qualifies for what, that's for each and every individual to decide for themselves. If you view yourself as a pantheist then that's what you are. I'm moreso debating that if one views the universe as without a Will or Consciousness (or at least without an objective meaning, reason, or "message" so-to-speak for its existence) then in what way could they say they are "theistic" and not just atheist existentialists who highly revere the universe?

Because the term "pantheism" was first coined to describe Spinozism, maybe that makes me a pantheist? But then again, maybe not. It's not like I agree with Spinoza or pantheism doctrinally or anything. I disagree with a few of Spinoza's assertions... namely his necessitarian take on determinism. At the very least, I think Spinoza's necessitarian ideas need to be restructured to account for quantum mechanics. So maybe I'm not even a Spinozist.

I'm not well versed in Spinoza's philosophy, can you clue me in on what principles you agree with in Spinozism?

I'm also confused on how a pantheist could be anything but a hard determinist. In my opinion, realizing that the universe is God implies that there are no "individuals" and that everything is a part of God (the only thing that exists), therefore the only 'Will' that exists belongs to God (or the universe), we have no control over acts of nature.

It really depends on where one draws the lines. That's not to say your lines are drawn arbitrarily. (They are not.) But a discussion needs to happen before I'll become convinced that the way you draw the lines is more compelling than where I'm prone to draw them.

But, really, what I'd most like to do is go over the list of things that separate a conscious God from an "unconscious" godless universe. Which is holier? Which is more divine?

I'll get us started with what *I* think is a description of divinity. An excerpt of Thoreau's Walden:

"In the midst of a gentle rain while these thoughts prevailed, I was
suddenly sensible of such sweet and beneficent society in Nature, in
the very pattering of the drops, and in every sound and sight around
my house, an infinite and unaccountable friendliness all at once like
an atmosphere sustaining me, as made the fancied advantages of
human neighborhood insignificant, and I have never thought of them
since. Every little pine needle expanded and swelled with sympathy
and befriended me. I was so distinctly made aware of the presence of
something kindred to me, even in scenes which we are accustomed to
call wild and dreary, and also that the nearest of blood to me and
humanest was not a person nor a villager, that I thought no place
could ever be strange to me again."

Does this passage describe divinity in your opinion? If not, why not? If so, where is the necessity of a conscious God in this passage?

I'm not sure how to interpret that passage, maybe I'm taking it too literally but I don't see how "every little pine needle expanded and swelled with sympathy and befriended me." and how "every sight and sound around my house was an infinite and unaccountable friendliness" unless these things were actually capable of feeling sympathy and befriending you. It's one thing to look at nature poetically but is that really 'theism' or just personification? So I return to my original question: what makes the universe 'God' to you and not just an 'extraordinary thing'?

 

[vulcanlogician]

I'm also confused on how a pantheist could be anything but a hard determinist. In my opinion, realizing that the universe is God implies that there are no "individuals" and that everything is a part of God (the only thing that exists), therefore the only 'Will' that exists belongs to God (or the universe), we have no control over acts of nature.

I am a hard determinist. What I disagree with is "necessitarianism" or the view that everything that happens must happen, as Spinoza assumed. I'm not saying Spinoza is wrong here, but I think that quantum mechanics is incongruent with this view. Were Spinoza aware of centuries later discoveries concerning physics, maybe he would have adjusted his necessitarian take on things. That's all I was saying. I didn't mean to imply that hard determinism is false. Because, as far as I can tell, it isn't.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I'm not sure how to interpret that passage, maybe I'm taking it too literally but I don't see how "every little pine needle expanded and swelled with sympathy and befriended me." and how "every sight and sound around my house was an infinite and unaccountable friendliness" unless these things were actually capable of feeling sympathy and befriending you. It's one thing to look at nature poetically but is that really 'theism' or just personification? So I return to my original question: what makes the universe 'God' to you and not just an 'extraordinary thing'?

I think Thoreau was using metaphor when he supposed sympathy in the surrounding pine needles, but (I think) the community he sensed is real. I'm not sure if you are taking the passage too literally, but the truth is: the passage can be taken too literally.

 

[Jainarayan]

My sect of Hinduism (Vaishnava, devotees of Vishnu) is pantheistic and panentheistic. And we’re very much theists, to us Vishnu is God, the God. He says in the Bhagavad Gita that he is everything that exists (he is Brahman), yet he is beyond it. He is immanent and transcendent.