Naturalistic Pandeism

[dyanaprajna2011]

According to Wikipedia:

an approach to spirituality that is devoid of supernaturalism. The focus is on the religious attributes of the universe/Nature, the understanding of it and our response to it (interpretive, spiritual and moral)

is a term describing beliefs incorporating or mixing logically reconcilable elements of pantheism (that "God", or its metaphysical equivalent, is identical to the Universe) and deism (that the creator-god who designed the Universe no longer exists in a status where it can be reached, and can instead be confirmed only by reason). It is therefore most particularly the belief that the Creator of the Universe actually became the Universe, and so ceased to exist as a separate and conscious entity

Would Naturalistic Pandeism be a rational way to describe god and religion/spirituality? Does this answer questions reconciling the idea of god as first cause with science? Could this be the rational primary religion of the future? Or are there inherent problems in attempting to reconcile this type of religion with reason and science? Is this just an idealist view of attempting to rationalize religion in some way? Discuss, debate, and pose questions of your own. I started this thread, with the hopes of seeing what everyone thinks, and if there's anything to this point of view.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I like it as a means of getting theists closer to scientific truth, but it's still not quite there.

 

[Knowledge]

Alot of -rationalizing- goes on - in atttempt to reduce the fullness of one's religion to limited concepts that we can understand.

 

[Splarnst]

Many religions view gods as people, people that you can talk to, receive messages from, and have a relationship with. To someone who views gods like that, you can't really substitute the universe and expect them to be happy. Some of them just want an authority figure to tell them how to behave. Some want a judge who will punish all the bad people and let all the good people live together forever. I don't think naturalistic pandeism would appeal to such people.

As for naturalists like myself, I find the idea pandeism really boring and pointless. If I liked poetry and interpretive dance and stuff like that, it could be cool. But playing with words and re-defining god to mean whatever you want just doesn't interest me.