• 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!

The Goat Man

Kungfuzed

Student Nurse
Willamena told me I should add Pantheism to my Religion title so I decided to look into it. I've really never heard of it. When I hear Pan I think of that little goat man dancing around with his pipes. I'd imagine Pantheism would be the worship of a little goat man. I think the word PanAtheism or Pannaturalism would be better. That way I can at least be a little goat man with no belief in God or just a natural little goat man.



I've been reading some of the links provided in the thread by Lux et Umbra. What I've learned so far is that Pantheism does agree a great deal with many of my ideas. I do believe that we are one with the universe. We are completely natural physical beings. I do have a reverence for nature and do feel especially spiritual when I witness some of the beauty it is capable of.



There are also some differences. I do not refer to nature or this world or the universe as "God". Nature is just nature. The universe is just the universe. I do not personify it. It is not an intelligent living being. For me nature is not always warm and beautiful. Nature can be very ugly and make me miserable sometimes. It is not always a spiritual high to be out in nature.



There also seems to be some confusion among Pantheists when it comes to determinism and free will. I still stand firm on the side of causal determinism.

For the time being I still don't know much about Pantheism. Natural Pantheism seems to be closest out of all the categories of Pantheism. For now I'll change my Religion title to Naturalism while I look into things further. I can definitely identify with Naturalism and I'm still an Atheist.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Wow! I've never been the first word in a post before. :D

I've been reading some of the links provided in the thread by Lux et Umbra. What I've learned so far is that Pantheism does agree a great deal with many of my ideas. I do believe that we are one with the universe. We are completely natural physical beings. I do have a reverence for nature and do feel especially spiritual when I witness some of the beauty it is capable of.

There are also some differences. I do not refer to nature or this world or the universe as "God". Nature is just nature. The universe is just the universe. I do not personify it. It is not an intelligent living being. For me nature is not always warm and beautiful. Nature can be very ugly and make me miserable sometimes. It is not always a spiritual high to be out in nature.
That's cool. "God" can simply be that which supports existence and still be God.

There also seems to be some confusion among Pantheists then it comes to determinism and free will. I still stand firm on the side of causal determinism.

For the time being I still don't know much about Pantheism. Natural Pantheism seems to be closest out of all the categories of Pantheism. For now I'll change my Religion title to Naturalism while I look into things further. I can definitely identify with Naturalism and I'm still an Atheist.
Causal determinism need not be contradictory to free will unless you maintain a particular view of the world. For every way, there is a means, grasshopper.
 

Kungfuzed

Student Nurse
I don't hug trees or dance around campfires or celebrate the new moon or the solstice or equinox. I have no prayers or rituals or ceremonies. I wouldn't even know about daylight savings time if it wasn't for my computer. I'm not quite sure where people draw the line between Pantheism and Paganism.

I do drive a car with ultra low emissions. I don't litter. If I see a recycle bin instead of a trash can, I use it. But to me, that's just all part of being a responsible human being. I do it out of consideration for others and also for myself. As far as my actions go, I don't seem to revere the earth much more than average.

I do believe that we came from the earth (we were the earth before we were born) and are an inseperable part of it, and will continue to be the earth after we die. People are born and die every day. I don't believe in a soul, some invisible supernatural being inside me that lives on after I die. The earth is not living or consious, but it is full of life. You can't go anywhere on this planet without finding some living thing.

Am I a Pantheist? What's the difference between a Naturalist and a Pantheist? I know you can also combine the two. It seems to me that Pantheism is a more romanticized version of Naturalism.
 

bflydad

Member
I'm not familiar with Naturalism. But I think what you are describing is pantheism. Pantheism does not require an intelligence; in fact, some would argue that intelligence implies a separateness that implies panentheism.

IMO, Paganism implies practices although not necessarily worship or formal rituals. Also, practices are more about gettings things in the here-and-now. Although I think many (most?) Pagans are either pantheists or panentheists, this is not a requirement.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
I would completely agree. I would argue that you can be panentheistic and polytheistic.

Also, I didn't say that all pagans are either panetheists or panentheists, only that many/most are.
Panentheism is the essential monotheism. It's the idea of god as 'everything and nothing', the nothing part being an unknowable that supports the knowable everything part. It differs from any-theism in not having an 'imaged' god, that is a god with characteristics of any sort --the unknowable or 'great mystery' has no characteristics.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Am I a Pantheist? What's the difference between a Naturalist and a Pantheist? I know you can also combine the two. It seems to me that Pantheism is a more romanticized version of Naturalism.
I think only you can answer the first question; I'll take a stab at the second.

Naturalism holds that nature is everything, and it is explainable with science. If we understand 'nature' as all things, then pantheism is naturalistic. Pantheism holds that there is no "supernatural" to god, that god is everything that is in the universe. As I understand it, it finds unity in the 'Creation' --by being a part of the universe we are "one with god". But the description I linked to above goes on to point at the Vedas, Neoplatonism and mysticism, which suggests to me that there is more to pantheism than meets the eye. I'm still learning. This is what I've learned, though as always there is room for improvement:

From what I have seen, just about every '-theism' there is comes in two types that either takes into account the mystic view or doesn't acknowledge it at all (not incorporate it in the underlying philosophy). If it is left out, you are left only with God=Universe, period; if it is included, you have God=everything knowable and unknowable=universe.

If God=Universe, then you are looking at god as the actual forces and matter/energy that we are exploring though our science. God is also every thought everyone has thought, the meaning in everything, and everything we can imagine. In my opinion, if God=Universe, then you simply have two words for the same thing, and that is how some interpret it.

The other, God=everything knowable and unknowable=universe, incorporates the agnostic's view that holds that our perception of the universe is necessarily limited by the very nature of way we know things. This view also looks at the unity of 'all things' holding an idea of 'all things' that allows for the possibility of there being more than we can ever know with our science, because science is a product of our observation and experimentation, and those are part of the way we know things. In other words, 'God as the universe' is 'everything that is' even apart from the all things we can know --God is things in their 'true' state, not things as we perceive them to be.

The religions person then, such as the mystic Vedic, is the person who has taken a 'leap' of perspective, and views the world as unity from the perspective of things beyond what we know. This is where pantheism becomes panentheism, because when the mind makes this shift of perspective the idea of 'god' necessarily moves with it: 'God' is perspective dependent. God shifts from being 'all things' to being 'beyond time' and 'beyond our understanding'.

This description is made with the understanding, of course, that perspectives are part of the way we know things; which brings us full circle and creates necessary contradictions of language. It becomes like a Zen puzzle, with our own ignorance staring us in the face. The question then becomes, "What is language?"
 

bflydad

Member
Panentheism is the essential monotheism. It's the idea of god as 'everything and nothing', the nothing part being an unknowable that supports the knowable everything part. It differs from any-theism in not having an 'imaged' god, that is a god with characteristics of any sort --the unknowable or 'great mystery' has no characteristics.

That's an interesting perspective. I hadn't thought of it like that. Personally, when I think of polytheism I think of the multiple Gods as different aspects/archetypes (which would be compatible with panentheism). I realize this is not a universal perspective on polytheism, just my own.
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
That's an interesting perspective. I hadn't thought of it like that. Personally, when I think of polytheism I think of the multiple Gods as different aspects/archetypes (which would be compatible with panentheism). I realize this is not a universal perspective on polytheism, just my own.
I actually think it's misleading to divide things into atheistic and theistic and then list monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, panentheism, etc as subsets. The fact is that you can be polytheistic and believe that there are multiple gods AND a greater God, or you can be polytheistic and believe that there are multiple gods with no greater God. If the latter, then you essentially believe in beings with greater powers than humans but still no unifying divine force. It's a very different view. From my perspective - because for me it's mostly about unity - the latter kind of polytheist is more similar to an atheist than to my view.

Just to confuse things even further, the word pan means "all" so at least traditionally, the word pantheist can mean "all is God" but it can also mean "all gods." Meaning someone who worships all gods. Tho I haven't seen it used in the latter case for quite a while now.
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
I don't hug trees or dance around campfires or celebrate the new moon or the solstice or equinox. I have no prayers or rituals or ceremonies. I wouldn't even know about daylight savings time if it wasn't for my computer. I'm not quite sure where people draw the line between Pantheism and Paganism.

I do drive a car with ultra low emissions. I don't litter. If I see a recycle bin instead of a trash can, I use it. But to me, that's just all part of being a responsible human being. I do it out of consideration for others and also for myself. As far as my actions go, I don't seem to revere the earth much more than average.

I do believe that we came from the earth (we were the earth before we were born) and are an inseperable part of it, and will continue to be the earth after we die. People are born and die every day. I don't believe in a soul, some invisible supernatural being inside me that lives on after I die. The earth is not living or consious, but it is full of life. You can't go anywhere on this planet without finding some living thing.

Am I a Pantheist? What's the difference between a Naturalist and a Pantheist? I know you can also combine the two. It seems to me that Pantheism is a more romanticized version of Naturalism.
It seems to me that you are confusing several terms - pantheism, paganism, naturalism, and environmentalism. You need not hug trees or recycle to be a pantheist or a naturalist, or a pagan for that matter.

Einstein was a pantheist, as were Leibniz and Spinoza, which may be why Willamena suggested that you check it out. One can certainly be a pantheist and value reason above all else. But if the word "God" doesn't work for you regardless of how you conceive of it, then it doesn't work for you. :)
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
That's an interesting perspective. I hadn't thought of it like that. Personally, when I think of polytheism I think of the multiple Gods as different aspects/archetypes (which would be compatible with panentheism). I realize this is not a universal perspective on polytheism, just my own.

Whenever I read the word "archetype" I always have to go back to references and remind myself what the Jungian archetype means. I think it's a lovely idea in its originality. The way I remember it, loosely, is the example of the woman who is attracted to certain characteristics of men because of an image in the unconscious based on a father figure in her life. The particular characteristics that attract her comprise the archetype. That is entirely consistent with the "image" I mention --it doesn't have to be a visual image, or even a verbal one, it is simply a product of our imag-inative faculty.
So basically we think of "multiple Gods" in the same way.
 

EverChanging

Well-Known Member
I don't identify as pantheist -- labels aren't working too well for me, so I'm leaving my religious title as it is rather than trying to find something better for that reason -- but there is much in it that appeals to me, and I've been labeled that by others. I am also capable of relating to and experiencing the divine as Father and Mother and personalized friends that come to me, as well. Yet I still consider myself an agnostic/atheist, not because I don't experience the divine, but because I see it as experience...not a being or force out there. It is like a taste or a smell...subjective.

The part that troubled me most about pantheism was the idea that, as you mentioned, nature can be very ugly. But thinking it over, even the ugly things in life can fill us with reverence, open our hearts, and inspire our compassion. They humble us and make us see how small and fragile we really are. They dash our security and arrogance. And they remind us of what it is to be human, to be mortal, to be a part of life. And so in that sense, I can reverence even the terrifying aspects of nature. I have reverence for it all. It is only our sense of separation that creates fear. We really are not separate from nature. We are not separate from what we fear.
 

brbubba

Underling
OP, I would say you are not a Pantheist since you admit that you don't believe that God is everything. Obviously this is fundamental to the definition of the word, but many naturalistic pantheists skirt this by redefining God. Although I've never had a naturalistic pantheists explain it fully to me, I assume they think that since everything is energy then everything is God. Although I don't know how they would properly explain a void in space where it is theoretically possible to be completely devoid of energy.
 
Top