Is Panentheism a form of Pantheism?

[bflydad]

Although the universe is infinite, there are levels of infinity. Just as the number of integers is infinite, the number of irrationals is also infinite but at a high level of infinity (I can give you the math behind that if someone is interested). In the same sense, although the universe is infinite, God can be infinite on a higher level.

Here is my thought on what panentheism is. If at the sub-atomic level we are all energy, then we are all connected. If you then accept to call that God then God is everything. Now, the question comes up does God have a consciousness. If so, where does it reside? If it did then it would be manifest somewhere; therefore it must exist outside of the universe, hence God is panentheistic.

It is very late and I realize that argument is probably full of holes big enough to drive trucks through but I think that is the basis of my thought on panentheism. If god has a consciousness separate from the collective unconsciousness, then I'd call myself a panentheism; if not, then I'd call myself a pantheist.

Wicca believes a God and Goddess duality. The question comes up, do they have a consciousness separate from the collective unconscious. I have yet to reconcile myself to one answer or the other so I keep waffling. However, Wicca does believe that God is in everything so I am at least pantheistic. I hope that makes sense. I'm so tired....

 

[gmelrod]

Although the universe is infinite, there are levels of infinity. Just as the number of integers is infinite, the number of irrationals is also infinite but at a high level of infinity (I can give you the math behind that if someone is interested). In the same sense, although the universe is infinite, God can be infinite on a higher level.

I take the definition of God's infinity as the highest level possible. If the universe is not fully infinite (for example if it as one of an inifinite number of parallel universes there is them some new term (multiverse) which then becomes synonemous with God. What Spinonza's pantheism denies is a consciousness external to all possible being. Such a conscious could not exist because it is outside of the set of all existing things. No matter how high up you push God there is always another name for where God was plus the extra space you put God into.

To make this more clear
God=G
Universe=U
Spinoza claims that G=U therefore G is U
Ted says "but there is a higher plane M that is made of many U's and so is of a greater infinity
Spinoza replies ok G=M

this continues until
G=E(the set of all things that exist)
Ted says that there are also things that could exist and do not so the set of possible objects (P) is infinitly larger than E
Spinoza says ok G=P
There is nowhere else for Ted to push God to.

So under modern Pantheism God is all that which is and could be. But is still just a bunch of things, diffrent in size but no diffrent in content then G=U.

(and no I am not a Pantheist but I do incorperate elements of the Ethics into my personal philosophy.)

 

[lilithu]

Hi bflydad, thanks for your response.

Here is my thought on what panentheism is. If at the sub-atomic level we are all energy, then we are all connected. If you then accept to call that God then God is everything. Now, the question comes up does God have a consciousness. If so, where does it reside? If it did then it would be manifest somewhere; therefore it must exist outside of the universe, hence God is panentheistic.

I'm not sure why God's consciousness must exist outside the universe. Our consciousness doesn't exist outside of us, does it? Perhaps I am misunderstanding you.

Wicca believes a God and Goddess duality. The question comes up, do they have a consciousness separate from the collective unconscious. I have yet to reconcile myself to one answer or the other so I keep waffling. However, Wicca does believe that God is in everything so I am at least pantheistic. I hope that makes sense. I'm so tired....

Just a question for clarification: when you say "God," do you always mean God as in "God and Goddess" or does "God" sometimes signify something else? I'm just confused about - if God is in everything - where is the Goddess? Is she in everything too? If so, what is the difference between God and Goddess? And if not, what is their relationship?

I'm not arguing with you, honest. Just trying to understand where you're coming from.


Oooh, one last question: did your kid draw your avatar?

 

[lilithu]

(and no I am not a Pantheist but I do incorperate elements of the Ethics into my personal philosophy.)

Pantheist ethics?? Do tell!

 

[uumckk16]

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.

I'd agree with Lilithu! (That seems to happen a lot ) I am also a panentheist but I would definitely consider myself a theist. Theist in the broadest sense just means a person who believes in God, so panentheism is just a form of theism.

Edit: Ha, oops, didn't mean to rekindle that debate. I posted that before I'd read the rest of the thread. Great discussion!

 

[Willamena]

(in reply to 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.

In a similar vein, I consider panentheism to provide a suitable definition of the supernatural image of god. To me, 'supernatural' in terms of an entity that defies nature is as shallow an image as the literalists' interpretation of God.

 

[Willamena]

Ok, since this kind of got lost in all the disagreements (that I agree didn't have anythign to do with panentheism) what about the question of "If the universe, by definition, is everything-- can God be both a part of the universe and separate from it?" I think that was a statement, but now I am wording it as a question. I don't really mean though that God IS the universe-- just that being everything God can't be a part from the universe.
I think this is a question of whether I am technically a panentheist, but I think it is also a valid question in of itself.


--des

As lilithu said, it depends on how you define "be". Some views recognize the conscious perspective as primary, and some place primary importance on the objective perspective. It was Doppleganger's posts on language that convinced me that my instinct to place primary importance on the conscious perspective was reasonable.

Both attitudes inform two aspects for just about every type of theology I've read about here on these forums; but panentheism, if understood, is supported by the conscious perspective. 'What is' in terms of what exists, is 'what is to us', because apart from us there is no definition to the universe. It is our function in "the grand scheme of things" (if you like) to give form and defintion to 'things'. This is what I see as man's purpose, metaphorically expressed in Bible literature as Adam going around the Garden naming things, as God gave him to do.

If the universe is "everything by definition," and with our language we define things, then what exists apart from the universe is simply "that which cannot be defined" within the scope of our perception.

 

[Metempsychosis]

Panenthiem is not a part of pantheism.They are different.One classic example of panentheism(in its monistic version) is Hinduism.Namaste

 

[brbubba]

Without turning this into a debate, I'd be curious if anyone has any scholarly sources from which to provide a definition of panentheism, pantheism, pandeism, and theism (and no, wikipedia is not a scholarly source). Until someone provides something from something that has been peer reviewed, written by people with lots of letters after their names, you can debate definitions without ever resolving anything. A definition only exists within a community. In this case, I would suggest either a religious academic community or a religious theological community. Simply asserting "I'm right, you're wrong" won't move the discussion along. Oh, and in terms of religion, even within the sociology of religion community there is no current agreement on what it is (Weber, Durkheim, Marx for starters), so probably better to try to avoid defining it.

Is this good enough?
Panentheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Twig pentagram]

Is this good enough?
Panentheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

No, because most pantheist don't believe in creation and unless I read that wrong it stated that pantheist do.

 

[Willamena]

No, because most pantheist don't believe in creation and unless I read that wrong it stated that pantheist do.

Pantheism is "the world as an expression of God". That is an image of creation.

 

[Storm]

No, because most pantheist don't believe in creation and unless I read that wrong it stated that pantheist do.

Obviously, one of those "pantheist"s was supposed to be "panentheist," and I'm guessing the latter.

Not all panentheists believe in Creation. I do, but I'm pretty weird. (I believe that another, mature Godiverse made ours.) I'm just guessing, but I think few strict panentheists would believe in Creation.

OTOH, it's been pointed out to me that panentheism and theism are not quite as incompatible as I would have thought. Those who adhere to both would be much more likely to believe in Creation. I don't know how common that is, though.

 

[Twig pentagram]

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?

Pantheism is more self centered and panentheism is more god centered. In pantheism self is the god-head, and in panentheism a transcendent entity is the god-head.

 

[brbubba]

No, because most pantheist don't believe in creation and unless I read that wrong it stated that pantheist do.

What are you talking about? The link was to the definition for panentheist, not pantheist. And it doesn't say that either panentheists or pantheists believe in creation.

 

[Twig pentagram]

Pantheism is "the world as an expression of God". That is an image of creation.

I think pantheism is "everything is it's own god". I think everything evolved and was not created, and I think most pantheist think the same. Creation introduces seperation, If everything was created then the creator would have to be something different from everything.

 

[Twig pentagram]

What are you talking about? The link was to the definition for panentheist, not pantheist. And it doesn't say that either panentheists or pantheists believe in creation.

I said I could've read that wrong.

 

[Willamena]

Creation introduces seperation, If everything was created then the creator would have to be something different from everything.

That is panentheism.

Pantheism is in harmony with monism.

 

[brbubba]

I think pantheism is "everything is it's own god". I think everything evolved and was not created, and I think most pantheist think the same. Creation introduces seperation, If everything was created then the creator would have to be something different from everything.

Pantheism is quite clear that there are no separate Gods, since everything is part of the universe which is considered God. Pantheists do vary considerably though in the level that spirituality and the supernatural play a part in the universe.

 

[Twig pentagram]

Pantheism is quite clear that there are no separate Gods, since everything is part of the universe which is considered God. Pantheists do vary considerably though in the level that spirituality and the supernatural play a part in the universe.

Pan= all. Theism = god. This could mean that all things are gods or god is all things. Pantheism is not monotheistic in any way, shape or form. I've never met a pantheist that did'nt think that we are our own gods. We are seperate individuals we just evolved from the same materials. The materials and the individuals are divine.

 

[Willamena]

Pan= all. Theism = god. This could mean that all things are gods or god is all things. Pantheism is not monotheistic in any way, shape or form. I've never met a pantheist that did'nt think that we are our own gods. We are seperate individuals we just evolved from the same materials. The materials and the individuals are divine.

I disagree. I think that "god is all things" can describe the "only god" of monotheism quite well. Many monotheists are monists. Monism recognizes oneness of self and God. All selves (all things).