• 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!

Nihilistic Pantheism?

idav

Being
Premium Member
I usually think of a pantheist as an existentialist. If one were nihilist they may as well call themselves atheist. Hmmm, so god is the universe but there is no purpose?
 

Otherright

Otherright
This is news to me. I guess I'll call building services and have them fix it.

There is really nothing that can be done about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You could, however, read a book to understand what that statement means.
 
Last edited:

idav

Being
Premium Member
The only approach I could see a person taking in this path would be to say God is nature, but nature is breaking down, so God is dying and there is nothing you can do about it. All is pointless.
Some "god" you describe there. I suppose he had a good run.
 

Otherright

Otherright
Does anyone see a better way to align these two other than:

God is nature, but nature is breaking down, so God is dying and there is nothing you can do about it. All is pointless.

This is fundamentally what nihilism is, and fundamentally what Pantheism is. If one wanted to merge the two, I think this state accurately sums up the thesis on which to build the ideology.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Does anyone see a better way to align these two other than:

God is nature, but nature is breaking down, so God is dying and there is nothing you can do about it. All is pointless.

This is fundamentally what nihilism is, and fundamentally what Pantheism is. If one wanted to merge the two, I think this state accurately sums up the thesis on which to build the ideology.
No that actually is pretty good. However with such a view I would have a hard time calling that "god" if there isn't any inherent worth or purpose for all of it. Which is why my first statement to the OP was that I would almost wanna call it atheism. Not that an atheist has to be nihilist like in buddhism and it is generally hard enough to label everything god without having some sort of god attributes.
 

blackout

Violet.
Do nihilists deny that human beings/intelligent beings
create/find purpose in the Universe
AS It relates to Them?
(and They relate to It?)
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Do nihilists deny that human beings/intelligent beings
create/find purpose in the Universe
AS It relates to Them?
(and They relate to It?)
For the nihilist, concrete things like "human beings" and "purpose in the Universe" would be empty of particular meaning. This doesn't necessarily entail denial, it may simply be envisioned as putting them in a particular context. For instance, in Kyoto Zen Buddhism, "Awakening to the emptiness of all things, to their lack of substantial own-being or egoity (Japanese: shogyômuga), thus frees one both from an ego-centered and reified view of things, and from the illusion of the substantial ego itself."
(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/monism/)
 
Last edited:

ManTimeForgot

Temporally Challenged
Its more than possible to reconcile the two ideologies once you give up the assumption that in order to be "God" this being must either be: A) an "Entity" as we understand the term to mean (if this being is beyond singular consciousness, then all might be meaningless simply because the creator being lacks the ability to form intent) or B) given over to intervening in the universe (reality as we know it). Just because there is a "God" doesn't mean that God has to be doing jack about anything. A painter can create a painting and then simply walk away. Similarly a modern art painter can create something without any meaning imbedded in the work; he merely lets people believe whatever they want to believe about the painting (not that I agree that this is art mind you). MTF
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Its more than possible to reconcile the two ideologies once you give up the assumption that in order to be "God" this being must either be: A) an "Entity" as we understand the term to mean (if this being is beyond singular consciousness, then all might be meaningless simply because the creator being lacks the ability to form intent) or B) given over to intervening in the universe (reality as we know it). Just because there is a "God" doesn't mean that God has to be doing jack about anything. A painter can create a painting and then simply walk away. Similarly a modern art painter can create something without any meaning imbedded in the work; he merely lets people believe whatever they want to believe about the painting (not that I agree that this is art mind you). MTF
No doubt a possibility. I've thought of this aspect before though what you describing sounds more like deism.
 

ManTimeForgot

Temporally Challenged
No doubt a possibility. I've thought of this aspect before though what you describing sounds more like deism.

The non-intervention is certainly a core tenet of deism, but consider the "modern art" angle. What if there is no meaning to existence because the "creator" chose to "create" everything randomly? Just splatter "formative substance" everywhere and every which way to see what happens and then come what may let the derived beings believe whatever they want.


The initial rejection due to lack of intent is consistent with pantheism, though it is I think more properly a tenet of panentheism. If you suffuse the cosmos with creator being, but this being is so diffuse as to be unable to consider anything singularly, then meaning might not be able to be attributed to anything except the totality of the cosmos (good luck attributing meaning to "God" though :) ).

MTF
 

Otherright

Otherright
No that actually is pretty good. However with such a view I would have a hard time calling that "god" if there isn't any inherent worth or purpose for all of it. Which is why my first statement to the OP was that I would almost wanna call it atheism. Not that an atheist has to be nihilist like in buddhism and it is generally hard enough to label everything god without having some sort of god attributes.

But Buddhism isn't nihilistic.
 
Top