"Sexed-Up Atheism"

[Storm]

OK, first off, I'm well aware that not all pantheists are "sexed up atheists." This thread, however, is for those that are.

My question is, what's the point? If your beliefs are indistinguishable from atheism, why call yourself a pantheist?

God = the cosmos. I get that. But we already have words for the cosmos, so why call it God?

And why does atheism need sexing up?

 

[Twig pentagram]

OK, first off, I'm well aware that not all pantheists are "sexed up atheists." This thread, however, is for those that are.

My question is, what's the point? If your beliefs are indistinguishable from atheism, why call yourself a pantheist?

God = the cosmos. I get that. But we already have words for the cosmos, so why call it God?

And why does atheism need sexing up?

Atheism and pantheism are in the same family but they are'nt the same. An atheist is a person lacking a belief in a deity. A pantheist is a person that think reality is the great deity. It's not just the cosmos we're talking about, it's everything. The known and unkown reality is divine, every single part individual and collectively.

I disagree with the phrase "sexed up atheist". I'm more of an agnostic when it comes to a God-head. I guess sexed up agnostic would be a better fit, but I like neo pantheist.

 

[EverChanging]

This could be a really old thread, but I'll give it a shot.

I've been called a pantheist more than once. My title says that I'm an atheist, which is true in regard to supernatural deities I suppose, but my view on deity is extremely hard to define. I don't think I've ever come across a definition encompassing my views on the matter. I am an atheist that very much feels the presence of God, and I do have personalized devotions and prayers as well as spirit guides, even though I acknowledge that it is quite possible (even probable) that these beings and deities/Deity do not objectively exist.

If these experiences are indeed merely subjective products of my brain, they must also be an extension of the entire universe -- the laws of physics, my genes, environment, evolutionary background, and so forth. Thus, in a sense, the universe is deity for me. (You might see why it is easier for me to merely tell people that I'm an atheist.) This may be some type of blend of pantheism and panentheism.

So, for someone in my shoes or in a similar boat, for whom neither the terms "theist" or "atheist" are quite accurate, pantheism could be a fitting term, and I've flirted with it myself. I did have one major objection to pantheism that seems to have been resolved for me. That objection was that nature can be quite cruel and ugly: hurricanes, plagues, tapeworms...you get the picture. Why reverence this? How is this divine or awe-inspiring?

The answer occurred to me quite unexpectedly, like poetry, I suppose. Even the horrors of life give me a sense of how fragile and fleeting life really is, and how precious is every sweet joy in life, so precious that suffering seems to dim in comparison. I believe this is what Buddhists call Tathata. Suffering is that. Beauty is that. Though these terms are subjective, they are interconnected within me and could not exist even as subjective states without the interconnection of all that is.

So even the ugly things in life can inspire awe and wonder and even a type of joy. I know "God" is not the best word for the universe, but neither, in my opinion, is the word "universe." Mere words cannot convey the depths of reality. "God" is merely a familiar term that reminds me of that which I cherish with awe and wonder and a reverence similar to, but not quite the same as, fear. After I began to see things this way, pantheism began to make sense.

But labels are very inadequate.

 

[Storm]

It's not that old.

Thanks for the thoughts.

 

[EverChanging]

Ah, it seems I've already talked about this under The Goat Man, but this one gives a slightly different twist anyway.

And you're welcome.

 

[Noaidi]

When Richard Dawkins used the term 'sexed up atheism' I think it was a nod to those atheists that feel a reverence towards the natural world (himself included). Dawkins agrees that, as humans, we have an innate need to acknowledge the wonder of the universe (but not necessarily attributing a deity behind that wonder), so pantheism seems to be the logical approach - allowing someone to be both an atheist and 'spiritual' at the same time ('spiritual' may not be the correct word here, but you know what I mean!).

 

[Tiapan]

Can not the universe inspire an atheist with awe and hence that warm cushy feeling of belonging often mistaken as spirituality or oneness with it. After all everyday coincidences reinforce our pattern detecting skill with false sense of ordained order that really doesn't exist. I feel that way, but I guess I would call myself a realist rather than pantheist.

Cheers

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

OK, first off, I'm well aware that not all pantheists are "sexed up atheists."

I use to like to sex up the Atheists when I was a young man. I just got tired of them always yelling. OH MY NONEXISTENT SUPREME BEING !!! when every they climaxed.

 

[EverChanging]

Can not the universe inspire an atheist with awe and hence that warm cushy feeling of belonging often mistaken as spirituality or oneness with it.

But we are one with the universe. Even an atheist can admit that. The matter composing our bodies, as far as we can tell, has existed with the rest of the matter of the universe for as long as it has been here. It is subject to the laws of physics, chemistry, and so forth. We are extensions of the universe, and only our subjective sense of self tricks us into believing that we're truly separate from it. No belief in the spiritual or supernatural is required to accept that. "I" could not exist were it not for the conditions of the universe drawing me into being.

 

[Boethiah]

My own view on Pantheism is a more literal view than the "sexed up atheism" view, but I suppose those who subscribe to Pantheism as a sort of atheism see the world from that perspective and wish to call themselves something else to reflect that. While one atheist just sees the universe, another atheist could see it in a more pantheistic way. That atheist could continue to be just an atheist or call him/herself a pantheist.

So, it really boils down to how the individual looks at it.

 

[Rhizomatic]

It's very rare that Richard Dawkins says something about religion (or, more often, what he claims religion to be) that doesn't infuriate me. Perhaps because his entire paradigm on the subject revolves around reducing all of religion to something that he can oppose to scientific reason and then rejecting it?

Calling everything god does a lot more than simply play with semantics. It's a definition of god and a definition of the universe that leaves us with a new understanding of both. I suppose the simplest way to explain it (at least from my own viewpoint; obviously pantheism is wildly diverse) is to look at two attributes of god: singularity and ultimate sacrality. To say that something is god is to say that it is one thing, not just a single category for a number of independent things. Saying the universe is god then means that when I look at all of existence as a single entity, not just singular because it's part of an all-inclusive category but singular because it is has an inherently interconnected unity, I have the fundamental foundation of what I find to be sacred and meaningful. Which is extraordinarily different from "I feel awed when I look at a big sky and see how big it is" (not to belittle experiences of the sublime in nature--for me they are one of the fastest routes to hierophany).

The problem with Dawkins is that because he is so desperate to define religion as fundamentally based on irrational faith in supernatural elements he reduces religion to supernaturalism, conveniently ignoring all of the religions/ dimensions of religion in general that don't conflict with a purely scientific/ rational/ naturalist understanding of existence. For him the necessary trait of a god is the part he doesn't like--the supernatural, magical being that controls your life. He completely ignores the traits of god that have made gods and god-esque figures (such as kami, which can simply be things like physical mountains or waterfalls that inspire a reverent sense of awe and exemplify the forces that drive natural existence in the minds of those who view them), because that has nothing to do with his notion of what religion is. Dawkins assumes that religions must be theistic, faith-based, and supernaturalist in books like The God Delusion because he's on a crusade against faith-based supernaturalism and is only familiar with a few religions. Similarly he assumes that a god must be personal, magical, and sentient because he is crusading against such beliefs and most likely hasn't encountered many others. Which is silly, because it misses the point as he normally does in religious topics.

 

[Storm]

It's very rare that Richard Dawkins says something about religion (or, more often, what he claims religion to be) that doesn't infuriate me. Perhaps because his entire paradigm on the subject revolves around reducing all of religion to something that he can oppose to scientific reason and then rejecting it?

Same here.

Calling everything god does a lot more than simply play with semantics. It's a definition of god and a definition of the universe that leaves us with a new understanding of both. I suppose the simplest way to explain it (at least from my own viewpoint; obviously pantheism is wildly diverse) is to look at two attributes of god: singularity and ultimate sacrality. To say that something is god is to say that it is one thing, not just a single category for a number of independent things. Saying the universe is god then means that when I look at all of existence as a single entity, not just singular because it's part of an all-inclusive category but singular because it is has an inherently interconnected unity, I have the fundamental foundation of what I find to be sacred and meaningful. Which is extraordinarily different from "I feel awed when I look at a big sky and see how big it is" (not to belittle experiences of the sublime in nature--for me they are one of the fastest routes to hierophany).

That was beautiful, thank you so much for sharing.

It makes sense now.

The problem with Dawkins is that because he is so desperate to define religion as fundamentally based on irrational faith in supernatural elements he reduces religion to supernaturalism, conveniently ignoring all of the religions/ dimensions of religion in general that don't conflict with a purely scientific/ rational/ naturalist understanding of existence. For him the necessary trait of a god is the part he doesn't like--the supernatural, magical being that controls your life. He completely ignores the traits of god that have made gods and god-esque figures (such as kami, which can simply be things like physical mountains or waterfalls that inspire a reverent sense of awe and exemplify the forces that drive natural existence in the minds of those who view them), because that has nothing to do with his notion of what religion is. Dawkins assumes that religions must be theistic, faith-based, and supernaturalist in books like The God Delusion because he's on a crusade against faith-based supernaturalism and is only familiar with a few religions. Similarly he assumes that a god must be personal, magical, and sentient because he is crusading against such beliefs and most likely hasn't encountered many others. Which is silly, because it misses the point as he normally does in religious topics.

I think you're right on the money.

 

[EverChanging]

Dawkins is a good scientist and does well when refuting fundamentalists, but he misses the entire point of religion in my opinion. Some people get it. Some don't. Extreme anti-religious atheists and extreme fundamentalists don't.

 

[fantome profane]

OK, first off, I'm well aware that not all pantheists are "sexed up atheists." This thread, however, is for those that are.

I am one of those "sexed up atheists"

My question is, what's the point? If your beliefs are indistinguishable from atheism, why call yourself a pantheist?

You ask why use the word if it has the same meaning, and for me anyway I concede that it does have the same meaning. The two words may have the same “definition” but they have very different “connotations”. Words convey more than just dictionary definitions, they convey feeling, they convey emotion. And the emotional reaction that I feel when I hear (or use) the term pantheism is very different from the emotion connected to the term atheism. The emotional impact of a word is not something that should be so casually dismissed.

And it is not just those words themselves. I find often for any question I am asked (whether it be about life, death, religion, spirituality, or peanut butter), I can give an atheistic answer, or I can give a pantheistic answer. Both answers will have the same meaning, but very different feelings.

God = the cosmos. I get that. But we already have words for the cosmos, so why call it God?

Why call it the cosmos? If there is only “One Thing” what is the point of giving it a name at all. We name things to distinguish them from other things, but you cannot distinguish the “One Thing” from other things because there are no other things, there is only “One Thing”. Call it “God”, call it “Tao”, call it “Brahman”, call it “Chucky” if you want to, it makes no difference. (It’s not like a dog that comes when you call it)

I do try to avoid actually using the term “God”, but I still use the term pantheism.

And why does atheism need sexing up?

Everything needs sexing up from time to time.

When Dawkins coined the term “sexed up atheist” I am not sure if he meant it as a compliment or as an insult, but I think he intended it as a dismissal. My first reaction to reading those words I think was much like Arthur Dent’s reaction to hearing the words “mostly harmless”. It is not that the description is inaccurate, but that it is extremely underwhelming.

 

[Storm]

Thanks fp, I see your point.

 

[brbubba]

It's very rare that Richard Dawkins says something about religion (or, more often, what he claims religion to be) that doesn't infuriate me. Perhaps because his entire paradigm on the subject revolves around reducing all of religion to something that he can oppose to scientific reason and then rejecting it?

Calling everything god does a lot more than simply play with semantics. It's a definition of god and a definition of the universe that leaves us with a new understanding of both. I suppose the simplest way to explain it (at least from my own viewpoint; obviously pantheism is wildly diverse) is to look at two attributes of god: singularity and ultimate sacrality. To say that something is god is to say that it is one thing, not just a single category for a number of independent things. Saying the universe is god then means that when I look at all of existence as a single entity, not just singular because it's part of an all-inclusive category but singular because it is has an inherently interconnected unity, I have the fundamental foundation of what I find to be sacred and meaningful. Which is extraordinarily different from "I feel awed when I look at a big sky and see how big it is" (not to belittle experiences of the sublime in nature--for me they are one of the fastest routes to hierophany).

The problem with Dawkins is that because he is so desperate to define religion as fundamentally based on irrational faith in supernatural elements he reduces religion to supernaturalism, conveniently ignoring all of the religions/ dimensions of religion in general that don't conflict with a purely scientific/ rational/ naturalist understanding of existence. For him the necessary trait of a god is the part he doesn't like--the supernatural, magical being that controls your life. He completely ignores the traits of god that have made gods and god-esque figures (such as kami, which can simply be things like physical mountains or waterfalls that inspire a reverent sense of awe and exemplify the forces that drive natural existence in the minds of those who view them), because that has nothing to do with his notion of what religion is. Dawkins assumes that religions must be theistic, faith-based, and supernaturalist in books like The God Delusion because he's on a crusade against faith-based supernaturalism and is only familiar with a few religions. Similarly he assumes that a god must be personal, magical, and sentient because he is crusading against such beliefs and most likely hasn't encountered many others. Which is silly, because it misses the point as he normally does in religious topics.

You are right on the money! Dawkins is a sensationalist and this is a point of contention I have with many many naturalistic pantheists, along with the WPM movement. And, as you touch upon, it really stems from a fear of the two "S" words, spirituality and supernatural.

Strictly by definition, you cannot be Atheist and Pantheist at the same time. The response to this is that I'm just playing with semantics, which is an absurd notion. Semantics and language are the only tools we have to communicate, so if you can't describe your beliefs through these tools you can't accurately convey what you are thinking.

Furthermore, there seems to be this focus on "nature" and how it should be revered. For starters, is this nature as in anything not man made or is this nature as in, the earth, the stars, the cosmos, everything? By the description it seems to often be the former, which would indicate that they are being exclusionary where pantheism doesn't allow for this. And of course, this begs the question, how does reverence not elevate this into the realm of the supernatural or spiritual? Science does not tell us anything about reverence, the need for reverence or the necessity for reverence, so would this not be something that is outside the realm of science? You bet your bottom it would be.

There are many many contradictions and inconsistencies in the naturalist/atheist thought train. After much discussion, I suspect that the atheist term is used by some naturalistic pantheists primarily as a point of antagonism to be contrary to certain established religions.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

What scientific pantheism does for me is draw attention to what I believe in and not distract to some entity I do not believe in, such as an intelligent designer or an Abrahamic God. I look on the universe with much awe and respect and take on board everything that science, especially modern cosmology uncovers. I am live in great awe about the universe particularly about its great size. And if one defines a God as the laws and principles that created the universe and it turns out that the universe spontaneously created itself with a quantum fluctuation then I think it is only fair to conclude the universe itself is God. An unconscious and non sentient God but a God of soughts just the same with nature and all its physical laws being synonymous with a scientific pantheist “God”. Just that instead of calling it "God" I give it righfull name the "Cosmos" which IMHO sounds far more dignified than just calling it "God"

 

[Jeneshisu]

Because it's not Atheism, it's pantheism. I may not believe in a God, but I believe that the universe/existence is truly divine. And as a result, I live my life mindfully knowing that all things are connected spiritually.

It's a much different experience from when I was an Atheist.

 

[Storm]

Because it's not Atheism, it's pantheism. I may not believe in a God, but I believe that the universe/existence is truly divine. And as a result, I live my life mindfully knowing that all things are connected spiritually.

It's a much different experience from when I was an Atheist.

What's the difference?

ETA: From what little you've said, I don't think you fall into the subcategory I was addressing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hooray! Thread necromancy!

And why does atheism need sexing up?

Have you seen the current crop of atheists?