Is Pantheism atheistic or theistic?

[idav]

I am reading a book that charges pantheism with being a form of atheism for denying a personal god. Is pantheism more theistic or atheistic in nature? The book argues that the reasoning that brings an atheist to that conclusion matters and that pantheists accept that materialistic world view. He even goes as far as to say atheism doesnt really exist since nobody can deny an active power in nature. I wanted to hear thoughts and opinions on those ideas. The book is from a Christian theist perspective. "Modern atheism under its forms of pantheism, materialism, secularism, development, and Natural law"

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Pantheism is theistic for sure.

...but only because it doesn't shy away from the word "God".

 

[StarryNightshade]

It depends on the individual, I guess.

I would say that, I think, many (if not most) Pantheists are non-theistic in nature. However, just because one denies a "personal God", doesn't automatically make them an atheist per se. I should know, as I identify as a Pantheist, but not as a non-theist. I believe in a non-personal God similar in nature to the Tao and Brahman: an unchanging, eternal reality.

Conversely, I'm sure there are many Pantheists who are theistic in nature. I think they're called Monistic or Idealistic Pantheists.

 

[Quintessence]

Honestly, the only reliable distinction between "atheist" and "theist" in the first place is whether or not they use the word "god(s)" or not. That said, last time I checked, it was panTHEISM, not panATHEISM. I'm not surprised that a commentary on pantheism written from a Christian theological perspective would deny that it's "real" theism. They insist that gods must be personal, so if you can't have a personal relationship with something, that thing isn't "really" a god. They play the same sort of cards when it comes to addressing any other god-concept that isn't the "correct" one.

 

[Twig pentagram]

I lean more towards theistic, but I use to lean the other way......
Go figure.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I am reading a book that charges pantheism with being a form of atheism for denying a personal god. Is pantheism more theistic or atheistic in nature? The book argues that the reasoning that brings an atheist to that conclusion matters and that pantheists accept that materialistic world view. He even goes as far as to say atheism doesnt really exist since nobody can deny an active power in nature. I wanted to hear thoughts and opinions on those ideas. The book is from a Christian theist perspective. "Modern atheism under its forms of pantheism, materialism, secularism, development, and Natural law"

Scientific (Naturalistic) Pantheism is pretty much atheistic, in the sense that it doesn't literally view it as God, but treat it as if it were.

However, there are pantheists who believe that the universe is literally God, which is similar to my theology (which gets a lot more complex).

What interests me is that Christians who believe God is omnipresent do not admit to being pantheists or panentheists.

Also, atheism exists in the sense that they do not perceive the universe as one working force, or else they do not recognize this working force (Nature) as a deity.

 

[nazz]

I am reading a book that charges pantheism with being a form of atheism for denying a personal god. Is pantheism more theistic or atheistic in nature? The book argues that the reasoning that brings an atheist to that conclusion matters and that pantheists accept that materialistic world view. He even goes as far as to say atheism doesnt really exist since nobody can deny an active power in nature. I wanted to hear thoughts and opinions on those ideas. The book is from a Christian theist perspective. "Modern atheism under its forms of pantheism, materialism, secularism, development, and Natural law"

Pantheism is not atheism. Atheist believe in no gods, period.

 

[Badran]

I consider it theistic, since i don't define theism as the belief in a "certain" type of god.

However, since some people consider themselves atheists only because of rejection of such certain types of gods, and then might embrace a pantheistic view point, it is a world view that i think is equally relevant to both people who identify as atheists and people who identify as theists.

 

[Ouroboros]

I am reading a book that charges pantheism with being a form of atheism for denying a personal god.

In a sense, yes. I suspect it all depends on what kind of pantheism. There might be some who believe God, the Universe, is all a huge being that is personal and conscious.

Is pantheism more theistic or atheistic in nature?

I see it as something in between. The third path.

The book argues that the reasoning that brings an atheist to that conclusion matters and that pantheists accept that materialistic world view. He even goes as far as to say atheism doesnt really exist since nobody can deny an active power in nature.

It all depends on definitions. Atheism rejects a certain and specific kind of God, or gods. Pantheism accepts the label God as something different than what atheists are rejecting. So the answer is, in my opinion, yes and no.

I wanted to hear thoughts and opinions on those ideas. The book is from a Christian theist perspective. "Modern atheism under its forms of pantheism, materialism, secularism, development, and Natural law"

Since I consider myself both an atheist and naturalistic panentheist, the author might have a point and be wrong at the same time.

 

[dawny0826]

I am reading a book that charges pantheism with being a form of atheism for denying a personal god. Is pantheism more theistic or atheistic in nature? The book argues that the reasoning that brings an atheist to that conclusion matters and that pantheists accept that materialistic world view. He even goes as far as to say atheism doesnt really exist since nobody can deny an active power in nature. I wanted to hear thoughts and opinions on those ideas. The book is from a Christian theist perspective. "Modern atheism under its forms of pantheism, materialism, secularism, development, and Natural law"

As a Christian, I can't reconcile pantheism as being a nontheistic concept.

There is divinity within most pantheist concepts. To many pantheists God is found both within the material world as well as the immaterial and spiritual realm.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Also, how is pantheism denying a personal god if we are all a part of God?

 

[StarryNightshade]

Also, how is pantheism denying a personal god if we are all a part of God?

To most, a "personal" God is one that is omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient. Basically the "Abrahamic" God-concept; although I do think that term might be slightly overused.

Although I view God as being equal with the universe, and thus we are a "part of God", I still don't believe it to be personal. As I don't believe it to be all-knowing, micromanaging or that it listens to prayers and grants them like wishes.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

To most, a "personal" God is one that is omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient. Basically the "Abrahamic" God-concept; although I do think that term might be slightly overused.

Although I view God as being equal with the universe, and thus we are a "part of God", I still don't believe it to be personal. As I don't believe it to be all-knowing, micromanaging or that it listens to prayers and grants them like wishes.

So a majority of religions do not believe in a personal God?

 

[StarryNightshade]

So a majority of religions do not believe in a personal God?

I don't know. I'm only speaking for myself and from what I understand. So to answer your question:

Maybe? Maybe not? I don't know all 7 billion people in the world nor am I a mind reader.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I don't know. I'm only speaking for myself and from what I understand. So to answer your question:

Maybe? Maybe not? I don't know all 7 billion people in the world nor am I a mind reader.

Considering a majority of organized religions do not have an omni-God concept, though.

 

[StarryNightshade]

Considering a majority of organized religions do not have an omni-God concept, though.

I think even if most organized religions themselves didn't have an Omni-God concept, the big 3 (Judaism, Christianity & Islam), according to most statistics, constitue at least 50% of theists in the world.

And even then, not everyone in those religions agrees on the nature of God. So there is that, I suppose.

 

[nazz]

I think even if most organized religions themselves didn't have an Omni-God concept, the big 3 (Judaism, Christianity & Islam), according to most statistics, constitue at least 50% of theists in the world.

I think the God of Hinduism could be included in that. Also the God of many minor religions like Baha'i Faith.

 

[idav]

Also, how is pantheism denying a personal god if we are all a part of God?

Personal god as in a god that directs reality by a conscious will. The writer was viewing stoic type beliefs as types of atheism. However it was focused on extremes where either reality is directed or by chance.

 

[Quintessence]

To most, a "personal" God is one that is omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient. Basically the "Abrahamic" God-concept; although I do think that term might be slightly overused.

I'm confused. I thought a "personal god" was simply one that could be related to directly like a person. What you're describing just sounds like a partial description of classical monotheism.

 

[Ouroboros]

Personally, I don't understand how some being could be a person and still be omnipresent and omniscient. The definition of "person" doesn't fit. A person is limited, finite in both space and time, and has a temporal consciousness. To me, it's a contradiction.