Pantheism - a foundation for unity?

[Jim]

I'm not asking anyone to change anything - I'm asking whether pantheists might be more successful (if they really tried) in establishing some mutual understandings between different religions than theists are able to.

((You say “if they really tried.” Do you think that there’s anything that any of us reading this post can do, for pantheists to really try? If not, then what’s the point of speculating how successful they might be if they really tried?))

 

[Jim]

I am wondering if (for example) inter-religious dialogue facilitated on the basis of a pantheistic model of deity might be potentially more successful in promoting tolerance, cooperation and unity than inter-religious dialogue predicated on the basis of a revealed monotheistic faith?

((Why don’t you try it right here in these forums and see? Or is that what you’re doing?))

 

[Jim]

I'm asking whether pantheists might be more successful (if they really tried) in establishing some mutual understandings between different religions than theists are able to.

((The more I think about this, the more it angers me. Does that actually matter to you, establishing some mutual understandings, more than just something to debate about to pass the time of day? If so, why are you wasting your time bragging about how much better you can do it than some other people can? Why don’t you just do it, and show us how?))

 

[Marcion]

Pantheistic worldviews tend to be relatively inclusive, and could thus have many positive societal impacts.[/I]

For example, ... pantheists understand that “all are one.” Everything that exists is part of the one divine reality. The divine does not choose one people/species ... all people are divine. All species are divine. And all that is, from the glorious mountain, to the lowly ball of dung, is divine. Worldviews that encourage reverence for humanity and nature may increase the chances of cooperation, egalitarianism, and unity..."[/COLOR]

What do you think? Does pantheism really provide a better foundation than theism for tolerance, cooperation and unity among the the human family?

I think Neo-Humanism is the better alternative to Pantheism. How exactly people then view their (if any) God is secondary. Neo-Humanism recognises the innate sacredness of every creature in the universe because they are all directly connected to the same source or origin. The fast growing solidarity with the plant and animal kingdoms is a sign that Neo-Humanism is starting to become mainstream as a shared worldview and is competing with Consumerism or Capitalism.

 

[Jim]

@siti ((and everyone else vaunting your superiority across make-believe religious divides, this is not a game. Religious divides are not something to play with, just for entertainment, socializing and roleplaying games. I'm sick of this. These divides are causing horrible tragedies in the real world around us, and threatening to blow up the world. Maybe you're doing everything you can offline, and just taking a break here, but I think you could find more healthy games to play. Sorry for the intrusion. I'll try to stay away from these sick games from now on,))

 

[Vinayaka]

We accept each other’s world without one group trying to push their beliefs on another. Whoever hosts contributes an opening reflection or prayer.

Our meeting over the weekend was hosted by the Tibetan Buddhists. I like their parable of the poisoned arrow as it reminds us to focus on the urgent duty each of us needs to perform. The Buddha often took a neutral stance towards beliefs about God or gods, perhaps because discussions back then were like many discussions today, fruitless and divisive.

I'm curious. (not to mention a bit suspicious) What is your sense of the general sincerity? Do some folks just come for the show, and then, once back home, resort to a more intolerant view, or is the tolerance actually sustained? If there were 9 faiths in town, and you were the one that didn't show up, wouldn't it be a worth it to go just so you didn't look so intolerant, even though you didn't actually agree?

For example, in that 10 minute talk by the host, do some go on a little longer than 10 minutes, and sort of try to convince others, or does it stay cordial? Do some groups come for the meetings, but then don't contribute to joint action plans? I suspect you know what I'm getting at ... all talk and no action. I recall a recent pope's visit to India, where he was all nice for a few days, but then on the day he left, encouraged the Catholic flock to work harder on conversion of the non-believers.

You know how some politicians are ... lots of promises. Then lots of unfulfilled promises.

You seem to have a reasonably good handle on it, so yeah, I'm curious.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I'm not sure what you're saying here - how is a principled lack of interest in the existence/non-existence of deities a basis for unity in a world in which the existence of deities is a fundamental belief of so many people?

For one, I think it takes one layer of human division out of the equation. Pantheism still leaves a little wiggle room within people's minds for individualistic views about what "God" ultimately is, what it means to "be one", whether or not ultimate truth can be realized, etc. There are no "facts" to go on within these sort of "make-it-up-as-you-go-along" realms. While simply adhering to the idea that it doesn't matter one bit if god(s) exist or not leaves a lot of those potential argument hot-spots (and let's admit it, that's what they are... this has been proved time and time and time again) off the table.

And I think this is what was meant that it still falls short. I truly believe the ideal is that people just deal with reality as it is presented. Ultimately I feel it is a sign of incomplete psychological health when people express that they literally need augments to reality in order to deal with life.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm not surprised that theology is avoided - it is a problem for revealed theistic religion - do you think there might even be fruitful inter-faith discussion of theology if the impetus came from a pantheistic or panentheistic (see @shunyadragon's comments and my response above) - I mean if we stated openly that we believe all humans (and hence human constructs like religions) to be part of the greater divine reality at the outset, wouldn't that open the way for mutual respect of one another's 'theologies'? Isn't that (theology) the main obstacle to inter-religious cooperation? And how well does it really work when we just avoid talking about the 'elephant in the room'?

No, First, I do not think theology is avoided, it simple defined from the perspective of each worldview differently. Second, it is a problem for all religious worldviews to one extent or another not just theistic religions, see bold, I do not believe passing the buck to theistic religions contributes to a constructive dialogue, Pretty much all the different various conflicting religious worldviews claim they are point of dialogue and coming together to resolve the differences and conflict. Third I actually believe in the interfaith dialogue, and respect for the diverse theologies and non-theologies, and I believe the Baha'i Faith supports this. Fully 95%+ of the population of the world believes in a theistic religion based on Revelation from God, and this is totally in conflict with the pantheistic worldview. Nonetheless I find it a problem assuming one theology, ie pantheism, including the Baha'i Faith as the religious worldview that necessarily brings people together. Facing the reality of the nature of the diverse conflicting worldviews I am being honestly pessimistic about on world bring everyone to the table, though I believe the Baha'i Faith addresses the 95%. Though as long as all the religions and other beliefs like pantheism consider their view the only right one there is a very real problem.

 

[PureX]

Sydney Religious Studies Lecturer, Raphael Lataster, suggests that a pantheistic model of deity may be a more fertile basis (than, for example, a monotheistic revealed religion) on which religious "unity" and cooperation might be founded. In a recent paper he writes:

"The clear lack of dogmatic adherence to a particular god in many pantheistic models may foster more religious
tolerance, and could lead to wider acceptance of non-theistic and possibly more tolerant religions such as Buddhism, Daoism, or indigenous animisms. Pantheistic worldviews tend to be relatively inclusive, and could thus have many positive societal impacts.

For example, ... pantheists understand that “all are one.” Everything that exists is part of the one divine reality. The divine does not choose one people/species ... all people are divine. All species are divine. And all that is, from the glorious mountain, to the lowly ball of dung, is divine. Worldviews that encourage reverence for humanity and nature may increase the chances of cooperation, egalitarianism, and unity..."

What do you think? Does pantheism really provide a better foundation than theism for tolerance, cooperation and unity among the the human family?

I don't think the solution to religious disunity is to be found in anyone's image or conception of God/gods. I think it is to be found in the value and purpose of living by faith.

As a member of Alcoholics Anonymous for many years, I was always surprised and even a bit amazed by how such a disparate, confused, opinionated, and biased group of humans could come together on a daily and weekly basis to act universally, respectfully, and lovingly toward the health and well-being of themselves and each other. Structurally, every group was autonomous, and free to organize itself in whatever ways and according to whatever rules they chose, and yet the universality of their methods and goals was undeniable. And I believe the reason they were able to achieve that kind of universal cohesion was that they focused on the singularity of their collective purpose and NOT on their individual ways of conceptualizing and walking the path. They put progress before personalities, and results above beliefs.

If the various religious groups would focus their attention and energy on the ultimate goals they are seeking, rather then on the conceptualizations and characterizations that they use to seek those goals, they would be far better at setting aside their individual ideologies and personalities to act in unity, with each other's help and support, toward their universal goals.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't think the solution to religious disunity is to be found in anyone's image or conception of God/gods. I think it is to be found in the value and purpose of living by faith.

Like the sky is Carolina blue on a clear day this pretty much what everyone believes, but they strongly (to put it mildly) believe their conception is the only one and true way.

 

[PureX]

Like the sky is Carolina blue on a clear day this pretty much what everyone believes, but they strongly (to put it mildly) believe their conception is the only one and true way.

Yes. Which is why they need to put the righteousness of their individual conception behind the positive universal goal of living by faith.

 

[Quintessence]

And I think this is what was meant that it still falls short. I truly believe the ideal is that people just deal with reality as it is presented. Ultimately I feel it is a sign of incomplete psychological health when people express that they literally need augments to reality in order to deal with life.

This is totally off-topic, but it intrigued me because what you described is precisely what humans do with technology - augment reality. And at this point, to sustain human civilization as it is currently, humans need to augment reality in order to deal with life using technology. I wonder how many are critical of "augmenting reality" with imagination are as critical of doing so with technology?

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes. Which is why they need to put the righteousness of their individual conception behind the positive universal goal of living by faith.

Without further clarification I consider this view idealistic and naive. 'Living by which faith?'

 

[PureX]

Without further clarification I consider this view idealistic and naive. 'Living by which faith?'

You are assuming the wrong definition of faith, here. I am referring to faith as acting on a positive hope, not faith as the presumption of knowledge.

 

[Quintessence]

In any case, to more directly address the OP, I wanted to point out that Mr. Lataster is mistaken when he says pantheism is an "all are one" philosophy. This is the case only when pantheism is coupled with substance monism or monotheism, and pantheism need not be coupled with either of those things. I don't fault Mr. Lataster for making this error; substance pluralism or polytheism aren't exactly on most people's radars these days. Being a Pagan, though, it doesn't escape my notice. In the Pagan community, it is far more common to see pantheism intersecting with polytheism and pluralism (or even non-theism) than monotheism.

While pantheism is not an "all are one" philosophy, it is a declaration of sacredness and divinity for all things. How does this translate into practice? What does it really mean to hold the outlook that all things are gods? Exploring that provides insight into how pantheism doesn't really translate into some universal foundation for humanity either. To put it simply, it doesn't look the same for each pantheist. It's how we can have monotheistic pantheism and polytheistic pantheism, for example.

 

[shunyadragon]

You are assuming the wrong definition of faith, here. I am referring to faith as acting on a positive hope, not faith as the presumption of knowledge.

I do not believe the two can be conveniently separated in the very human view of faith.

 

[BSM1]

Actually Lataster's paper was discussing panentheism, but he made the points about pantheism that I picked out in the OP early in his paper...anyway, I think the same applies to panentheism - see my response to @shunyadragon.

Help me out here. It's my understanding that (in simple terms) 'pantheism' is basically God is in everything; whereas 'panentheism' is God is everything (including this very conversation). Your take?

 

[shunyadragon]

Help me out here. It's my understanding that (in simple terms) 'pantheism' is basically God is in everything; whereas 'panentheism' is God is everything (including this very conversation). Your take?

I do not believe pantheism is God is in everything, God is physical existence, or everything.

Panentheism comes cloer to God is in everything.

 

[PureX]

I do not believe the two can be conveniently separated in the very human view of faith.

I think the difference is subtle, but paramount. It's the difference between religion as a cult of self-righteousness, and religion as a means to a greater spiritual end.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

This is totally off-topic, but it intrigued me because what you described is precisely what humans do with technology - augment reality. And at this point, to sustain human civilization as it is currently, humans need to augment reality in order to deal with life using technology. I wonder how many are critical of "augmenting reality" with imagination are as critical of doing so with technology?

I honestly agree with your assessment of the technology aspect of "reality augmentation." Some technological advances are obviously not reality augments so much as knowledge enhancements - such as our forays into the technologies behind medical care. Even just investigating germs in order to develop the germ theory of disease was a huge leap that can't really be considered "augmenting" reality, so much as developing a greater understanding of the reality we inhabit.

But yeah, things like entertainment, video games, cellphones - we take these things too far, in my opinion. Put too much emphasis on them, and use them as "escapes" from the things we don't like as much about existence as it stands for us today. There are many areas of modern society in which I believe we could benefit from getting "back to basics" - but it is admittedly technology and our complacency with dependence on it that ends up holding us back in a way.