Pantheism - a foundation for unity?

[siti]

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?

@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

Jim - you don't have to be here - you have completely misread my intentions and taken the entire matter as a personal affront - again. Where have I "vaunted my superiority"? I mentioned an idea that I thought was interesting (it was not even my idea and neither did I attempt to claim any credit for it - I was quoting from an academic) and asked people what they think about it - isn't that what discussion forums are for? I think you should examine your own motives here to be honest and get some perspective - I have openly stated to you on several occasions that I am here to discuss religious ideas - not to save the world - if you are about saving the world I don't know what you are doing wasting your time in this backwater of electronically-enhanced human interaction for the privileged minority who have access to the internet and time to waste on it - who is really playing games here? I'm honest about my presence - I am entertaining myself - that's it - and learning something from others in the process. But nobody is going to live or die based on my involvement or lack thereof in RF discussions. Or yours!

 

[LuisDantas]

Absolutely...

Yes I suppose that's right - but I'm having trouble imagining any of the major religions relegating theology to the periphery, let alone abandoning it altogether. I know I'm taking my own thread off track a bit here, but what do you suppose a religion without theology would look like?

Sane and useful.

 

[siti]

Sane and useful.

So you're advocating a complete reversal then? But where's the beef? What would a religion that was sane and useful be saying and doing? Absent theology, what kind of doctrines would it have? And what kind of religious practices - rituals, if you like, would make it a religion at all?

 

[LuisDantas]

So you're advocating a complete reversal then?

No, I am saying that it is a minimal, even insignificant change - very little more than a bit of sobering up and expression of honesty, really.

Even in Christianity and Islaam I very much doubt that it would make that much of a difference to let go of theology.

Well, that would probably result in the extinction of Islaam, but that can't be helped and is still not a big deal if we are being quite honest.

But where's the beef? What would a religion that was sane and useful be saying and doing?

Fraternity, solidarity, morality, ecology, education, out of the top of my head.

Support networks for troubled families, too.

Absent theology, what kind of doctrines would it have? And what kind of religious practices - rituals, if you like, would make it a religion at all?

Rituals and practices come naturally to human beings. Theology was never necessary for that, nor really much of a boon, if a boon at all.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

While I certainly understand the lure of pantheism, I consider it a lesser form of religion.

There is an obvious awe and mystery of Nature that inspires us to a kind of worship. But that worship should be of the Source of nature, not of nature itself.

If you saw a great work of art, which would be more important: the artwork, or the artist?

 

[siti]

Rituals and practices come naturally to human beings. Theology was never necessary for that, nor really much of a boon, if a boon at all.

Perhaps - but the roots of ritual probably go deep into our evolutionary past...chimpanzees and bower birds (for example) engage in rituals that have even been interpreted as "spiritual" or "religious" by some (not saying I agree or disagree on that - I just don't think it is possible for humans to know what a chimpanzee, much less a bower bird, might be thinking/ imagining as they perform their ritual dances - but their behaviour is certainly ritualized.

What then, if not theology - i.e. one's conception of God or the greater reality - marks human religious ritual behaviour as different from that of the ritual behaviour of animals? Does religious ritual need to be different than that? Or is simply performing repeated behaviours that make us 'feel good' sufficient to qualify as religious ritual?

 

[BSM1]

Definitely including this conversation! But I think the difference (if there really is one) is the acceptance or non-acceptance of supernaturalism - pantheism means everything IS God whilst panentheism literally means everything IN (-en-) God. In either case, there is nothing that is not God, but in panentheism (apparently) there is some of God leftover that is not part of everything that exists naturally which is not the case for pantheism - in pantheism, nature exhausts all there is of God. So for both this conversation would be part of God, but for a panentheist there is a conversation (if you like) that God has with himself (I'm not sure what else God would do 'outside' of reality except converse with himself) that is not part of the manifest world of reality - and for most, it is a fairly big conversation - it is most of the infinite God.

My interest in this started when, to define my own concept of God, I determined that "God" is the 'known' and the 'not known'. God also is, by design, the 'knowing' and the 'not knowing'.

 

[LuisDantas]

Perhaps - but the roots of ritual probably go deep into our evolutionary past...chimpanzees and bower birds (for example) engage in rituals that have even been interpreted as "spiritual" or "religious" by some (not saying I agree or disagree on that - I just don't think it is possible for humans to know what a chimpanzee, much less a bower bird, might be thinking/ imagining as they perform their ritual dances - but their behaviour is certainly ritualized.

Looks like you are not really disagreeing with me.

What then, if not theology - i.e. one's conception of God or the greater reality - marks human religious ritual behaviour as different from that of the ritual behaviour of animals?

How do you know that anything does?

Does religious ritual need to be different than that?

I don't think so.

Or is simply performing repeated behaviours that make us 'feel good' sufficient to qualify as religious ritual?

It seems to me that such is indeed the case.

 

[siti]

If you saw a great work of art, which would be more important: the artwork, or the artist?

I have a particular fondness for a Canaletto that hangs - or at least used to hang - in the Art Gallery in Manchester when I lived there - I have no idea who Canaletto was - except that he was (obviously) an artist. Do I really need intimate knowledge of the artist to appreciate the art? Without the artist there can be no artwork - but without the artwork, what is the artist? Can you really know "the creator" apart from (through) the creation?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I have a particular fondness for a Canaletto that hangs - or at least used to hang - in the Art Gallery in Manchester when I lived there - I have no idea who Canaletto was - except that he was (obviously) an artist. Do I really need intimate knowledge of the artist to appreciate the art? Without the artist there can be no artwork - but without the artwork, what is the artist? Can you really know "the creator" apart from (through) the creation?

I am not saying one cannot appreciate nature. I'm saying that when it comes to assigning Godhood, it is the source or creator of nature that gets that honor, just as it is the artist and not the painting.

 

[siti]

I am not saying one cannot appreciate nature. I'm saying that when it comes to assigning Godhood, it is the source or creator of nature that gets that honor, just as it is the artist and not the painting.

OK - but my question is what is the artist without the painting? Apart from that painting (the one I mentioned), what possible distinction could I draw between Canaletto and any other person? The artist gets the credit only on account of the painting - unless I appreciate the painting, I cannot appreciate the artist. Everything I know, or can know about the artist is in the painting. Everything it is possible to know about the creator is in the creation. Is that not so?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Thank you for the detailed response. It seems to me that during times of stress like in your situation, momentum can be built. The challenge is continuing it, and not letting complacency settle in. Consistency over a much longer period of time is a far greater challenge. Things like just finding new suitable projects to work on need some creativity. Bottom line is that old folks can get stale. So probably a constantly shifting personage helps. Maybe just thinking that the next intolerant move could be just around the corner might help. I certainly don't know.

Personally, I no longer have the physical energy to get really involved, and I'm a bit jaded by past occurrences. I tend to look deeper, and when that happens, faults often come forward, as in the multi-faith chapel incident I told you about earlier.

Regardless, even if it brings a better relationship or understanding between any 2 groups, it's worth it. Best wishes for the challenges. In my city interfaith has basically run it's course, most likely for the very reasons we can see.

My experience with an interfaith council is reasonably limited with just this year and last year. Its obviously working really well in Dunedin and that's due to the energy, commitment and maturity of a number of our members. Having a good mix of Christians (the main religion in New Zealand) and other faiths is also critical. Its obvious people across the spectrum of faith feel a need for. I imagine if there wasn't the right mix of people, the whole enterprise would fall over quite quickly.

 

[Bear Wild]

While I certainly understand the lure of pantheism, I consider it a lesser form of religion.

There is an obvious awe and mystery of Nature that inspires us to a kind of worship. But that worship should be of the Source of nature, not of nature itself.

If you saw a great work of art, which would be more important: the artwork, or the artist?

Calling pantheism a lesser form of religion is an insult by the way. Nature is our source for all we know and all we are. Our imagination extends this further but that is imagination. If the source of nature is itself then it deserves all the worship and not worshiping the imagination. It is just as easy to say that Judaism is a lesser form of worship because in is so limited to one social groups origin. But then that gets into judging religions which becomes a slippery surface to tread.

 

[Bear Wild]

Perhaps - but the roots of ritual probably go deep into our evolutionary past...chimpanzees and bower birds (for example) engage in rituals that have even been interpreted as "spiritual" or "religious" by some (not saying I agree or disagree on that - I just don't think it is possible for humans to know what a chimpanzee, much less a bower bird, might be thinking/ imagining as they perform their ritual dances - but their behaviour is certainly ritualized.

What then, if not theology - i.e. one's conception of God or the greater reality - marks human religious ritual behaviour as different from that of the ritual behaviour of animals? Does religious ritual need to be different than that? Or is simply performing repeated behaviours that make us 'feel good' sufficient to qualify as religious ritual?

The basic brain structures and neurologic pathways of chimpanzees and other great apes are so similar to humans that related cognitive capacities are more likely than not even if to a lesser degree. The Wernicke's area so important to humans for language is present and well developed in chimpanzees even though they do not demonstrate the same language skills as humans. There is evidence the seem to understand language, however, better that we thought, and their communications through gesturing has clear evidence as a limited form of communication. Through convergent evolution birds have developed clear advance cognitive skills and complex song patterns with similar genetics along the foxp2 gene regulation so important in humans.

Even though we cannot say for certain that their ritual behaviors are aspects of "spiritual" or "religious" cognitive behaviors, the same is true that we cannot say for certain that they are not. The best we can do is recognize the that they are beyond the normal behavior needed to survive and remember that we are all in the long run related. It is clear from well documented behavior patterns that many animal recognize the death of others of their kind and especially those they are socially connected with. Certainly pantheism is open to the view that other living things can have a spiritual aspect.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Calling pantheism a lesser form of religion is an insult by the way. Nature is our source for all we know and all we are. Our imagination extends this further but that is imagination. If the source of nature is itself then it deserves all the worship and not worshiping the imagination. It is just as easy to say that Judaism is a lesser form of worship because in is so limited to one social groups origin. But then that gets into judging religions which becomes a slippery surface to tread.

As I said in another post, if you have the painting, you can understand that someone painted it, and it makes more sense to give honor to the painter.

 

[Bear Wild]

As I said in another post, if you have the painting, you can understand that someone painted it, and it makes more sense to give honor to the painter.

Your reference to the painter I can only imagine is in this discussion is a reference to a supernatural god. Our world is however not a painting and does not need a painter. The natural creative forces explain our would without paint or paint brush. Pantheism is not as limited as other religions and is definitely not lesser to any other religious belief. Only those with an arrogant attitude with the feeling of superiority would call pantheism a lesser religion.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Your reference to the painter I can only imagine is in this discussion is a reference to a supernatural god. Our world is however not a painting and does not need a painter. The natural creative forces explain our would without paint or paint brush. Pantheism is not as limited as other religions and is definitely not lesser to any other religious belief. Only those with an arrogant attitude with the feeling of superiority would call pantheism a lesser religion.

And I'm suggesting to you that those who do see the painting and deduce a painter have a higher understanding than those who think the painting has no need of a painter.

 

[KelseyR]

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 was taught that there are two forms of Pantheism, and that they cannot be considered a force for unity.

These theistic and atheistic forms exist only as minority fringe elements of two completely opposed positions: apologetic and largely insincere outreach attempts, if you will. They are designed to perpetuate disunity rather than create it.

And if we imagine what it would take for these two camps to reach consensus, taking away from each- there would be nothing left.

 

[Bear Wild]

And I'm suggesting to you that those who do see the painting and deduce a painter have a higher understanding than those who think the painting has no need of a painter.

Of course you are using a human activity about trying to represent the world or an idea using color, light and shape. A painting is a representation not the reality. Your analogy is flawed the universe does not need to have a higher understanding because it created the creatures that believe in a higher understanding and paint using the natural processes they posses. This still does not excuse the use of term of lesser religion in reference to pantheism. Please give me more examples of the "lesser" religions or is pantheism the only one in your list.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

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?

Yes, it can lead to to religious tolerance, but not necessarily. Pantheism is part of my worldivew, but I'm still a polytheist. To me, pantheism is saying that there's divinity in all things and this divinity is immanent, not transcendent or distant in any way. It's a way of looking at the world. Obviously that alone puts me in conflict with others who hold different views. It doesn't necessarily lead to cooperation, unity or whatever feel good thing you can think of because we're still animals who have evolved to compete with and fight with each other over resources. We just don't need to fight over religion.