Is Panentheism a form of Pantheism?

[Starlight001]

Hello everyone

I was thinking about Pantheism and Panentheism before, and I'm not sure about one thing with them... According to Wikipedia, Pantheism is generally a belief that "God is All" and "All is God". There are two main kinds of it, Naturalistic Pantheism and Classical Pantheism. While the first kind is a kind of an "atheistic Pantheism" and doesn't include the belief in any personal God/universal consciousness/etc., the second kind states that there's a personal God, which is the sum of all existence.

At the same time, Panentheism also views God in a personal way, and states that the Universe is contained within God, but God is much more than just the Universe.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that Panentheism is just a form (or maybe even just another name for) Classical Pantheism, and the only differences in the definitions are semantical... for example, Panentheism states that God encompasses the Universe, but also goes beyond it... and Pantheism states that God is All, and the classical version of it states that God is conscious and personal. In the first definition, the Universe is just a fragment of existence, so it's just a part of "All". That's how I think that Panentheism also states that God is All, and All is God, but just defines All as something more than just the physical Universe.... so it perfectly fits the definition of Pantheism. So, I'm curious... Do you think that what I posted makes sense?

 

[Wandered Off]

My understanding is that panentheism allows for the possibility that a part of God is separate from the material universe, while pantheism does not. The way I first learned it is that pantheism has no place for a 'personal' God, while panentheism allows for one.

I realize this conflicts with the Wiki definition of "classical pantheism", but nevertheless, that was my understanding. Wiki's definition looks equivocal, IMO, and I can see how it would lead to the conclusion that the two are essentially the same.

 

[Starlight001]

Thanks for the reply! Maybe the naturalistic version of pantheism is more well known... Wikipedia says that most people who self-identify as pantheists are naturalistic pantheists.

 

[giant space amoeba]

My understanding is that panentheism allows for the possibility that a part of God is separate from the material universe

That sounds more like pandeism

 

[Starlight001]

That sounds more like pandeism

I think that pandeism is a little different... it says that God was personal in the beginning, and then he created the Universe by actually becoming it, so now God is the impersonal Universe... and it says that everything will be brought back together to form a personal God again in the end.

 

[lilithu]

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that Panentheism is just a form (or maybe even just another name for) Classical Pantheism, and the only differences in the definitions are semantical...

Pantheism says that God and creation are identical, whereas panentheism says that God is in the universe but is also more than just the universe. I see that as more than just a semantic difference.

 

[Starlight001]

Pantheism says that God and creation are identical, whereas panentheism says that God is in the universe but is also more than just the universe. I see that as more than just a semantic difference.

It all depends if you define pantheism as "the creation is God" or as "all is God", because in the second case there's nothing to prevent "all" from being more than just the universe.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

I believe the term 'panethism' was created in order to distinguish a type of though from the other term. From what little I've read, I think there's a major difference between the two.

 

[Storm]

Is Panentheism a form of Pantheism?

No, though it's a common mistake.

In fact, pantheism and panentheism aren't even forms of theism.

Reposting from another forum:

Storm Wrote:
Theists believe that God is a deity (an entity that is by definition supernatural and separate from the universe, unbound by the laws of nature) who created the cosmos.

Panentheists are much closer to pantheists than theists, the only difference being the scope of the divine being. As an atheist believes that his body is his entire being, the source of his consciousness and lacking any immortal aspect beyond the atoms that compose it, so the pantheist believes that the universe is the totality of God. As the Christian believes that his body is only a vessel, and his true being an eternal soul, so I - a panentheist - believe that the universe as we know it is only a single (and possibly likewise mortal, however long-lived) aspect of God.

Both theologies are incompatible with any concept of the supernatural (being outside of, or capable of overriding the laws of nature), and do not believe that God is a deity, or the deliberate Creator of the universe. To us, the universe is simply an aspect of a living entity - God. The laws of nature are functions of God, as vital and binding to it as the functions of biology are to us. As your heart must beat, and your blood must have oxygen if you are to be alive, so the laws of nature are inviolate to the divine being.

However, both theologies are open to the possibility of phenomena that are commonly referred to as "supernatural, " such as psychic abilities, ghosts, angels, and the like. We simply believe that these are things which human science is currently unable to explain. (Quite possibly for no reason beyond the fact that, for the most part, it steadfastly refuses to acknowledge the possibility that such things might exist, and thus refuses to seriously investigate them.)

BTW, am I the only actual panentheist here?

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Namaste and welcome, Storm! Glad to have you with us!

In fact, we have a number of members that are panentheists. (Or at least involve that as an aspect of their path.)

 

[Storm]

Thank you. *namaste*

I just thought it odd that none of the replies seemed to from panentheists...

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Hehee, panentheists tend to frequent the 'debates' section more than the 'discussion' area.

Off-topic, I know, and you may already be headed this way, but if you haven't yet made a post in the "Introductions" section, you might like to. (Okay, okay... it's just an excuse to let us get to know our newer members and welcome them! My clever ruse is blown!)

 

[Storm]

>sigh< I suppose I should....

 

[lilithu]

No, though it's a common mistake.

In fact, pantheism and panentheism aren't even forms of theism.

Reposting from another forum:BTW, am I the only actual panentheist here?

I consider myself to be a panentheist, amongst other things, but I also call myself a theist.

No, I don't believe in a deity that is supernatural and separate from the universe. While I recognize that is the most common conception of theism, that's not what theism means to me.

I call myself a theist because I do believe that there is meaning in the universe, and that God interacts with us (or with Godself actually, since that is what we are in my belief) on a constant basis.

 

[lilithu]

Thank you. *namaste*

I just thought it odd that none of the replies seemed to from panentheists...

With all due respect, panentheism isn't a religion. All Christians are theists. But when you ask them what they're religion is, they're not going to answer "I'm a theist." They're going to say "I'm Christian." My religion is Unitarian Universalism. My view of God is panentheistic.

 

[Storm]

I consider myself to be a panentheist, amongst other things, but I also call myself a theist.

No, I don't believe in a deity that is supernatural and separate from the universe. While I recognize that is the most common conception of theism, that's not what theism means to me.

I call myself a theist because I do believe that there is meaning in the universe, and that God interacts with us (or with Godself actually, since that is what we are in my belief) on a constant basis.

Well, I'm sorry, but that's just not what theism means.* Theism is deity-belief. Deities are by definition supernatural. Creator-deities are by definition separate from their Creation. An architect is not part of the building he designs, whether or not he's inside it.

What you're describing is lovely, but it isn't a reason to call yourself a theist. It's neither necessary nor exclusive to theism, it can be seamlessly integrated into any form of God-belief, panentheism included.

I believe the exact same thing, and I'm not remotely theistic.

* I tried to link to the Wiki on theism, but apparantly, I haven't made enough posts to have URL priviledges.

With all due respect, panentheism isn't a religion. All Christians are theists. But when you ask them what they're religion is, they're not going to answer "I'm a theist." They're going to say "I'm Christian." My religion is Unitarian Universalism. My view of God is panentheistic.

No, it isn't, and I never said it was. It's a base theology, which is radically different from theism (also a base theology).

Unitarian Universalism isn't really a religion, either - it's more of an interfaith community - so claiming that as your religion tells exactly nothing of what you actually believe. I happen to attend a UU church, and consider myself UU as well. I don't know about your community, but mine includes Christians, Buddhists, Taoists, atheists, agnostics, etc.

However, when someone calls it their religion, I assume they're referring to the origins of the movement, which was based on Christianity.

PS ~ The quote function keeps including the OP, even though it's not in the posts I'm quoting. It also won't quote the quoted sections of said posts. Is this a malfunction, or just a quirk of the site?

 

[lilithu]

What you're describing is lovely, but it isn't a reason to call yourself a theist.

Unitarian Universalism isn't really a religion, either - it's more of an interfaith community...

Well I'm so glad that you feel authorized to tell me what I should or should not call myself, and to tell me that my religion is not a religion. :sarcastic

PS ~ The quote function keeps including the OP, even though it's not in the posts I'm quoting. It also won't quote the quoted sections of said posts. Is this a malfunction, or just a quirk of the site?

I have not experienced that problem.

 

[lilithu]

Hehee, panentheists tend to frequent the 'debates' section more than the 'discussion' area.

Is that the impression that you get of us?

I think I frequent debates and discussion pretty evenly. And I know this is hard to believe but I don't really like debates. They just seem to happen anyway.

 

[Storm]

Well I'm so glad that you feel authorized to tell me what I should or should not call myself, and to tell me that my religion is not a religion. :sarcastic

>sigh<

Look, I'm not trying to tell you what you believe. But what you described simply isn't theism. It had nothing to do with theism. Theism is a theological stance on the nature of God, not the belief that there's an answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything, or that it's possible to commune with God. You're misusing the word.

As for UU, I'm a member of that community, too. It has no set doctrines, tenets, or beliefs, beyond equality. There's not a single thing that you have to believe to be UU. It's not a freaking religion.

I'm sorry, because we're definitely getting off on the wrong foot here, but you're misusing the terms. You can't just decide that "what theism means to [you]" is something entirely irrelevant to what the word actually describes, use the word with that completely irrelevant definition, and expect to have a productive discussion. It's like saying "I'm a Christian, but what 'Christian' means to me is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true God."

It just doesn't work.

I don't care if you call yourself a theist or a panentheist, so long as you actually are whatever you decide to call yourself. As far as I can see, the two are incompatible. If you've found a way to reconcile the them, that's amazing, and I'd love to hear about it at length. But what you described wasn't theism. It just wasn't.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Is that the impression that you get of us?

I think I frequent debates and discussion pretty evenly. And I know this is hard to believe but I don't really like debates. They just seem to happen anyway.

Hehee! It would help if you weren't so good at 'em! (But most of the members I'm aware of who identify with panentheism tend to excell in debates- with me being a choice exception.)