• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Natural Pantheism

MaddLlama

Obstructor of justice
So, I've had a couple of people ask me what a Pantheist is, and why it's called Pantheism if it is not a form of Theism at all. Also, the recent discussion about theistic pathiesm made me think I should post this. I don't know if there are any Pantheists who believe as I do here, since it's a term that can be used in lots of ways and even Pantheism in this way is different for each person, so I thought it might be edifing for everyone if I explained my "religion".

Snippets from: http://www.pantheist.net/

Pantheism is a religion is a loose sense, because it does not claim a belief in any God, and is primarily a way of life for the athiest or the agnostic. Science in many of it's forms is favored to a belief in an anthropomorphic God. The God of Panthiesm is the Universe and the Earth itself.

[FONT=arial, Arial, Helvetica]Pantheists are persons who derive their fundamental religious experience through their personal relationship with the Universe. They feel that Nature is the ultimate context for human existence, and seek to improve their relationship with the natural world as their fundamental religious responsibility.[/FONT] [FONT=arial, Arial, Helvetica]Religion is seen as a system of reverent behavior toward the Earth rather than subscription to a particular creed. Because Pantheists identify God with Nature rather than an anthropomorphic being, Pantheists oppose the arrogant world-view of anthropocentrism.[/FONT]

Because the main focus is on the natural world and the universe and all that encompasses, the earth sciences are a large subject of interest to Panthiests. Everything has it's own complicated structure, and a way it fits in with everything else to make the whole work. And that is what makes it beautiful, rather than the idea that it is beautiful because it was created by supernatural means. To me, the natural is far more fantastic, wondeful and full of beauty than any supernatural explanation. I think this sums up the relationship between the Panthiest, Science and Nature very well:

Enjoyment of the beauty is necessary, but not sufficient. We should try to understand them with all our capacities, including scientific understanding and the use of reason. Some say that scientific understanding seems to make things cold and unfeeling. It has never seemed so to me. When I acknowledge a fir tree, my appreciation of its beauty and joy in its being is hugely increased by having some understanding of its familial relationships, and its ecological relationships, taught by the science of botany. By knowing what family, genus, and species a particular fir tree is, helps me to see it no longer as just part of the scenery, but to help me better understand it as a living being whom I acknowledge. The more I know about taxonomy or ecology of a plant or animal, the better I can appreciate it. For a Pantheist, a nature guidebook to local flora and fauna is like the Book of Common Prayer for an Episcopalian, or a Sutra to a Buddhist.
These concepts also work in reverse. Scientific understanding and the employment of reason is necessary, but not sufficient. We are aided in our appreciation of the world through decidedly non-scientific methods as well – art and poetry and music all have their place. I recently saw a sculpture of a frog, and though it was not absolutely anatomically correct, it seemed to express the essence of frogginess. It helped me to better understand how a frog moves and stretches as it leaps. It put me in touch with the other – the sacred outside of myself, ultimately helping me to find the sacred inside as well.

The point of religion is to enhance one's relationship with the sacred, and Patheism is no different. However unlike theistic religions which concentrate on books, creeds and sermons, I think that it is better to go outside - a bird in flight or a blooming flower is a sermon itself.



As Panthiesm is more of a way of living than a set of creeds (though, there is actually a Pathiest Manifesto http://www.pantheism.net/manifest.htm), there is more to say about the practices than the beliefs. Pantheism is also very personal, and a built from the ground up sort of way, so practices differ for every person. I have found though that many, like me, choose to link thier Pantheism with the practices of Paganism, since it also focuses on a reverence for nature. I celebrate the seasonal holidays of the Wheel of the Year, and some of the cross-quarter festivals. For me the seasonal changes are an important part of my practice.

The practice in general can be divided into three categories - knowledge, devotion, and works. Knowledge would be the study of nature, and [FONT=arial, Arial, Helvetica]includes everything from the most rigorous scientific research to personal observation of the natural world. Devotion is highly personal, but mainly focuses on one's communion with nature, but is always promoted by mindfulness and awareness. And works would be [/FONT][FONT=arial, Arial, Helvetica]a dedication to living an ethical life style, not only towards the natural environment, but to the community.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]When Pantheists “take a walk in the woods” – we engage in our most fundamental spiritual devotion. By so doing we refresh ourselves, and we feel peace and joy in Nature. No one can tell us our beliefs or faith is wrong, because we have touched and engaged in the reality. There is no argument about “your beliefs vs. my beliefs.” We simply know from our own experience that the practice of Pantheist mindfulness enhances the relationship with the sacred that is the whole point of religion.[/FONT]
 

Comet

Harvey Wallbanger
That was well put and clears up many questions that came out of the "poll thread" that I previously read as well.

If I may ask: Do you believe in an afterlife then? If so, what type?
 

MaddLlama

Obstructor of justice
Comet said:
That was well put and clears up many questions that came out of the "poll thread" that I previously read as well.

If I may ask: Do you believe in an afterlife then? If so, what type?

I don't believe in an afterlife, or rather I believe that if there is or isn't an afterlife the specifics can't be known to us living folks, so it's more important to focus on life. I know a few Panthiests who believe in reincarnation though.
 

Comet

Harvey Wallbanger
MaddLlama said:
I know a few Panthiests who believe in reincarnation though.

I was wondering if Panthiests were reincarnationists or not. I guess it is left open to the individual. Thanks
 

zombieharlot

Some Kind of Strange
All I have ever known about pantheism is the basic definition that God is nature and nature is God. Thanks for bringing light to me! This actually seems like something I might be interested in.
 

mr.guy

crapsack
Comet said:
Do you view Pantheism the same as Monism then?
I'm to understand that the former is usually a subset of the latter, but i personally have difficulty distinguishing the two. As best i can tell, monism has plenty of philosophical applications regarding the extinguishment of dualism without divine acknowledgement, but pantheism has a subscription of manifestation to and of god that the monist need not accept; i'm not certain that the monist position is reliant on a godhead.
 

MaddLlama

Obstructor of justice
zombieharlot said:
All I have ever known about pantheism is the basic definition that God is nature and nature is God. Thanks for bringing light to me! This actually seems like something I might be interested in.

The two sites I linked in my posts are excellent resources. There are a few others I have bookmarked if you'd like me to send them your way.
 

Comet

Harvey Wallbanger
mr.guy said:
I'm to understand that the former is usually a subset of the latter, but i personally have difficulty distinguishing the two. As best i can tell, monism has plenty of philosophical applications regarding the extinguishment of dualism without divine acknowledgement, but pantheism has a subscription of manifestation to and of god that the monist need not accept; i'm not certain that the monist position is reliant on a godhead.

Hmmm.... I find this very interesting indeed. I would like MaddLlama's input on this as well, should you have one you would like to share. I need not sites to reference, nor definitions of them. I am looking for how you two percieve them in relation to each other now. I do find Pantheism very interesting and haven't had the great opportunity to discuss this with Pantheists as I have never known any in my goings till now. (I must say, were I to swap sides of the mirror..... I'd more than likely be a Pantheist:) )

Can you please elaborate on what you meant, or how you came to that conclusion mr. guy?
 

MaddLlama

Obstructor of justice
The association between the two I think would be one of those relative things. I can't speak for the whole, but I think that someone would subscribed to monism would be more on the metaphysical end of the pantheism scale, rather than the scientific end which is where I fall.
 

Comet

Harvey Wallbanger
MaddLlama said:
The association between the two I think would be one of those relative things. I can't speak for the whole, but I think that someone would subscribed to monism would be more on the metaphysical end of the pantheism scale, rather than the scientific end which is where I fall.

Mostly I would agree with that :) Thank you for your answer. (Frubals coming) I guess I see it from the other side of the mirror again and await mr. guy's responce anxiously. I believe he views Pantheism as an end of the scale of Monism.

(off subject)
*I do so enjoy speaking with you MaddLlama. I have always felt that I have "rubbed you the wrong way" somehow though. If I have, I believe it is because we are so much alike and I never have meant you any offense.*

Were we to take theories that can't be proved nor disproved (scientific theory wise) - can you reverse your position on this for a moment......... OR try to see metaphysics as science in the sense of: the periodic table (elements we can only view for a brief moment) or quantum things (such as anti-particles that exist to our senses but for a brief moment via our recording devices) or from the standpoint that our "perception" is limited by our senses alone.

I truly see both as the same in a way.... curious as to your take on that.
 

Comet

Harvey Wallbanger
I am also curious as to how you came to view things this way. Were you raised in another religion and found your way here? etc.....
 

MaddLlama

Obstructor of justice
Comet said:
*I do so enjoy speaking with you MaddLlama. I have always felt that I have "rubbed you the wrong way" somehow though. If I have, I believe it is because we are so much alike and I never have meant you any offense.*

Not at all, like I told Feathers, I tend to be blunt and opinionated, and I get angry and offended very rarely. No harm done.

Were we to take theories that can't be proved nor disproved (scientific theory wise) - can you reverse your position on this for a moment......... OR try to see metaphysics as science in the sense of: the periodic table (elements we can only view for a brief moment) or quantum things (such as anti-particles that exist to our senses but for a brief moment via our recording devices) or from the standpoint that our "perception" is limited by our senses alone.

I truly see both as the same in a way.... curious as to your take on that.

I do think that there is something to metaphysics. I just think that metaphysical ideas and theories are not quantifiable in the way modern science would want it to be. I think that a lot of people make the mistake of thinking that if you can't prove something with science then it isn't real. However when it comes to the realm of the metaphysical and the supernatural, science has no real way of testing it. In order to prove such things, one needs to invent a new scientific method.
Anyway I hope that's what you were asking....

I am also curious as to how you came to view things this way. Were you raised in another religion and found your way here? etc.....

Well, to make a long story short, in all my years of boucing around religions, I have never had what one would call a "religious experience". Without that, I found I couldn't have faith in the supernatural as religion explained it. But, my enjoyment and awe of the natural world in all it's complexity is one thing that stuck with me, no matter what religion I wanted to be a part of. So, I decided that this was the best way, because it kept me from worrying if god was "really out there", and it allowed me to focus on the things that were truly important to me.
 
I like pantheism but not sure if i ascribe to these beleifs or not.

I beleive all in the universe is connected but that is natural. All is all but i wouldnt call it god. No rituals or anything (Though natural pagan celebrations interest me!).
 
Top