Can you be a Pantheist and an Atheist?

[Caladan]

If I experience unicorns then I can posit that they are natural. If you experience a sense of awe and humility then you can posit that it feels natural to you. But both unicorns and awe are beyond the the purview of science. In fact, science would simply say that any emotions you feel are biochemical reactions in the brain. So if all you are doing is "feeling," then you are an emotional atheist, but if you are positing that there is something more to it, then you have to go beyond science.

I have never attributed more to awe and humility than awe and humility, awe and humility are not supernatural nor do I find them inspired by the supernatural.

I'm intrigued with this question on the basis of semantics. As a classical pantheist if someone called me an atheist, the entire notion would be very very far from my mindset. So I think there is value in standardizing a base for the word pantheist. Just as there is a base for someone calling themselves a christian.

However in which of the standardization do you find Pantheism to be related to the supernatural?

 

[doppelganger]

However in which of the standardization do you find Pantheism to be related to the supernatural?

Philosophical pantheists like Spinoza, Brunner and Nietzsche are generally very suspicious of superstitious thinking and the use of the supernatural to fix logical problems in thought.

We have our senses and we have our memory and we have a process we think of as "I am" that integrates sensations with memory. Thought does not experience the "existence" of things. Thought experiences sensations and categorizes them according to forms stored in memory. When these sensations are paired to forms or signifiers, they become things, i.e. they then "exist." If the sensations change or the forms change, the things change, because thingliness only "exists" through the interpretation and categorization of experience in thought.

 

[brbubba]

I have never attributed more to awe and humility than awe and humility, awe and humility are not supernatural nor do I find them inspired by the supernatural.

I posited a rationale for why attributing awe and humility to the universe is a supernatural thing. You just ignored that rationale. If you attribute properties to something that is beyond the purview of science it becomes supernatural.

Supernatural:
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

So if you're an emotional atheist then, why differentiate yourself from atheism if the beliefs are one and the same to you?

Philosophical pantheists like Spinoza, Brunner and Nietzsche are generally very suspicious of superstitious thinking and the use of the supernatural to fix logical problems in thought.

Don't confuse supernatural and superstitious, they are not one and the same. Spinoza would have been suspicious of the supernatural only so much as it applies to the judeo christian tradition. Anything beyond the purview of science, aka the supernatural, would be superfluous anyway since it's all part of God.

 

[Caladan]

I posited a rationale for why attributing awe and humility to the universe is a supernatural thing. You just ignored that rationale. If you attribute properties to something that is beyond the purview of science it becomes supernatural.

I have addressed your rationale, but you seem to ignore mine. again, being inspired, being at awe, and the sense of humility that may take me when im traveling, when I am 'out there' in the wilds, in nature, in the desert under a starry night are all natural, not only to me, but to most people I'd imagine. we are inspired by nature, and our sensations as a result of this are natural.
Im puzzled by your idea that I attribute humility and awe to the universe, since it doesn't make much sense, the awe and humility are mine in the face of the universe.

Supernatural:
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

In what way do you find a human being who is feeling at awe to transcend the laws of nature?

So if you're an emotional atheist then, why differentiate yourself from atheism if the beliefs are one and the same to you?

I'm responding to a thread, and my position is that as an atheist, I can relate to pantheistic elements, it seems that you are reading alot into it because you find it very important to define your own pantheism.
and again I have to ask, which definitions of pantheism include a belief in the supernatural?

 

[brbubba]

I'm responding to a thread, and my position is that as an atheist, I can relate to pantheistic elements, it seems that you are reading alot into it because you find it very important to define your own pantheism.
and again I have to ask, which definitions of pantheism include a belief in the supernatural?

Whoaa that's a little different. So you firmly believe that you are an atheist, but you tend to appreciate some of the naturalistic pantheist tendencies? I'm even more confused now. I thought you were firmly entrenched in the dualist camp?

The main problem I see with revering, having awe for, etc., nature, meaning the universe, is that reverence is typically discussed in relation to forests, stars, etc, but never discussed when talking about coal mines, factories, etc. You can't cherry pick elements and ignore the rest. This notion of what is natural, not man made, is exclusionary and largely propagated by the WPM.

Although Spinoza doesn't specifically state that the supernatural is inherent to a pantheist school of thought I think the belief that God=Universe necessitates it. To make the claim that God=Universe there needs to be a connection between the elements of the universe that is not explained fully by science. Spinoza states, "Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived." To me, this implies that connection. Without a connection the pantheist universe is fully atheistic, in which case there would be no cause for coming up with the philosophy in the first place. This goes back to my other point about why one would differentiate oneself at all if it was a fancy way of saying you're an atheist.

I'm not arguing for my brand of pantheism, simply arguing against the notion that pantheism is or can be atheistic; a charge that many critics have levied over the years.

 

[fantome profane]

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)


Song of Myself
Walt Whitman

 

[Caladan]

Whoaa that's a little different. So you firmly believe that you are an atheist, but you tend to appreciate some of the naturalistic pantheist tendencies? I'm even more confused now. I thought you were firmly entrenched in the dualist camp?

What dualism are you talking about?

The main problem I see with revering, having awe for, etc., nature, meaning the universe, is that reverence is typically discussed in relation to forests, stars, etc, but never discussed when talking about coal mines, factories, etc. You can't cherry pick elements and ignore the rest. This notion of what is natural, not man made, is exclusionary and largely propagated by the WPM.

Im sorry, but... what?

Although Spinoza doesn't specifically state that the supernatural is inherent to a pantheist school of thought I think the belief that God=Universe necessitates it.
To make the claim that God=Universe there needs to be a connection between the elements of the universe that is not explained fully by science. Spinoza states, "Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived." To me, this implies that connection. Without a connection the pantheist universe is fully atheistic, in which case there would be no cause for coming up with the philosophy in the first place. This goes back to my other point about why one would differentiate oneself at all if it was a fancy way of saying you're an atheist.

Lets see what the guys at 'World Pantheism' have to say about this issue:

Richard Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion, has described Pantheism as “sexed-up atheism.” That may seem flippant, but it is accurate. Of all religious or spiritual traditions, Pantheism - the approach of Einstein, Hawking and many other scientists - is the only one that passes the muster of the world's most militant atheist.

So what's the difference between Atheism and Pantheism? As far as disbelief in supernatural beings, forces or realms, there is no difference. World Pantheism also shares the respect for evidence, science, and logic that's typical of atheism.

However, Pantheism goes further, and adds to atheism an embracing, positive and reverential feeling about our lives on planet Earth, our place in Nature and the wider Universe, and uses nature as our basis for dealing with stress, grief and bereavement. It's a form of spirituality that is totally compatible with science. Indeed, since science is our best way of exploring the Universe, respect for the scientific method and fascination with the discoveries of science are an integral part of World Pantheism.

and

Our completely naturalistic Pantheism does not believe in any supernatural beings, forces or realms and is fully compatible with atheism and skepticism. As Richard Dawkins writes:

Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a nonsupernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings.
​

In practice, while a significant minority of our members like and use the word God to express the depth of their feelings for Nature and the wider Universe, the majority do not use the word about their own beliefs.

Source: Pantheism as Sexed up Atheism

I'm not arguing for my brand of pantheism, simply arguing against the notion that pantheism is or can be atheistic; a charge that many critics have levied over the years.

Apparently that might be what you are doing. many people have developed distinct world views that spring out of their own character and experience, you and me are no exception, you claim to be a pantheist but not an atheist, and I claim that sometimes the two overlap for me.

 

[Breathe]

Nobody answered my question. *whines*

 

[Magic Man]

Don't confuse supernatural and superstitious, they are not one and the same. Spinoza would have been suspicious of the supernatural only so much as it applies to the judeo christian tradition. Anything beyond the purview of science, aka the supernatural, would be superfluous anyway since it's all part of God.

See my signature.

 

[brbubba]

What dualism are you talking about?


Im sorry, but... what?


Lets see what the guys at 'World Pantheism' have to say about this issue:

Apparently that might be what you are doing. many people have developed distinct world views that spring out of their own character and experience, you and me are no exception, you claim to be a pantheist but not an atheist, and I claim that sometimes the two overlap for me.

The dualism of being pantheistic and atheistic.

The WPM expresses views of reverence and awe for nature. This contextual usage of nature means that which is not man made though. Case in point from the WPM site, "Do you feel a deep sense of peace and belonging and wonder in the midst of Nature, in a forest, by the ocean, or on a mountain top? Are you speechless with awe when you look up at the sky on a clear moonless night and see the Milky Way strewn with stars as thick as sand on a beach?"

So in essence they are revering non man made things. This is an exclusionary idea that contradicts the very definition of pantheism, that everything is one. So hence they are cherry picking what they like and ignoring what they don't like, but in a Pantheist universe you accept the good with the bad.

Quoting the WPM as a source is just as bad as Wikipedia. They never substantiate their case for pantheism. They do have some logical fallacies, more specifically Appeal to Authority, but other than I see nothing discussing Spinoza's work or any other related work. The WPM was started by some random guy and his interpretation of what "pantheism" is.

At the end of the day I could care less if you call yourself a pantheist and an atheist. But why do it at all? Seriously, the one question no Naturalistic Pantheist can answer me is why differentiate yourself if you are an atheist? Why play the smoke and mirrors game to describe something in a highly complex way that is essentially simple?

See my signature.

I'm 100% ok with that. Getting people to admit that though is another story. Under that guise I could see how people can view themselves as atheistic, but I still don't think they should use the word. Then again, under that guise we could extrapolate that all religion is atheistic.

 

[Caladan]

The dualism of being pantheistic and atheistic.

Duality for you, you mean.

The WPM expresses views of reverence and awe for nature. This contextual usage of nature means that which is not man made though. Case in point from the WPM site, "Do you feel a deep sense of peace and belonging and wonder in the midst of Nature, in a forest, by the ocean, or on a mountain top? Are you speechless with awe when you look up at the sky on a clear moonless night and see the Milky Way strewn with stars as thick as sand on a beach?"

So in essence they are revering non man made things. This is an exclusionary idea that contradicts the very definition of pantheism, that everything is one. So hence they are cherry picking what they like and ignoring what they don't like, but in a Pantheist universe you accept the good with the bad.
Quoting the WPM as a source is just as bad as Wikipedia. They never substantiate their case for pantheism. They do have some logical fallacies, more specifically Appeal to Authority, but other than I see nothing discussing Spinoza's work or any other related work. The WPM was started by some random guy and his interpretation of what "pantheism" is.

Well I've brought pantheists speaking of pantheism, you can now bring your own resources that speak about pantheism and the supernatural from contermporary pantheists.

At the end of the day I could care less if you call yourself a pantheist and an atheist. But why do it at all? Seriously, the one question no Naturalistic Pantheist can answer me is why differentiate yourself if you are an atheist? Why play the smoke and mirrors game to describe something in a highly complex way that is essentially simple?

With all due respect, its seems to be eating you
why do it? why not do it? it makes it easier for me to discuss my experiences. I dont think I have done any differentiating, I have said that I have pantheistic tendencies, I truly thought that's a pretty nuetral and unprovocative thing to say, but you take issue with it. I discuss pantheism as a natural phenomenon, and you discuss pantheism as related to the supernatural. you might be feel more at ease with panentheism.

 

[brbubba]

Well I've brought pantheists speaking of pantheism, you can now bring your own resources that speak about pantheism and the supernatural from contermporary pantheists.


With all due respect, its seems to be eating you
why do it? why not do it? it makes it easier for me to discuss my experiences. I dont think I have done any differentiating, I have said that I have pantheistic tendencies, I truly thought that's a pretty nuetral and unprovocative thing to say, but you take issue with it. I discuss pantheism as a natural phenomenon, and you discuss pantheism as related to the supernatural. you might be feel more at ease with panentheism.

I thought my source to the Stanford Philosophical Dictionary was pretty good. Pantheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). They even use citations!

It is eating me! It's infuriating. I'm trying to show that they are irreconcilable semantically. But most people don't care about semantics and outright ignore it!

The only difference I see between a pantheist and panentheist is the scope; universe=God vs universe is in God. I just picked up a book about panentheism at the library, we'll see what it has to say.

 

[doppelganger]

It is eating me! It's infuriating. I'm trying to show that they are irreconcilable semantically.

No . . . actually you aren't. You are making tautological and grammatical arguments, but you are not engaging in any sort of precise semantic argument. If you are suggesting that I either ignore semantics or don't care simply because I don't agree that words have but one meaning and it's the one that YOU have decided on . . . then you neither know much about me, nor are you being respectful of the modes of inquiry involved in semantics and semiotics.

 

[brbubba]

No . . . actually you aren't. You are making tautological and grammatical arguments, but you are not engaging in any sort of precise semantic argument. If you are suggesting that I either ignore semantics or don't care simply because I don't agree that words have but one meaning and it's the one that YOU have decided on . . . then you neither know much about me, nor are you being respectful of the modes of inquiry involved in semantics and semiotics.

In that case why bother using any labels if you can just claim that you are "respecting the modes of inquiry." I could just make that statement and language suddenly has no meaning at all.

The meaning is not the one that I have chosen, but that history has, that Spinoza and Toland have generated based upon a set of ideas. The WPM has extrapolated unstated meaning in the works of Spinoza and attributed that to the definition. Spinoza even denied he was an atheist!

At this stage I realize that the term pantheist is so fraught with debate and confusion that it's probably best not to use pantheist by itself at all and instead rely on one of the many modifiers typically accompanying the term.

 

[Smoke]

Brbubba, why do you describe yourself as a "Classical Pantheist," rather than just a "Pantheist"?

Does that distinction imply that there's some diversity of opinion among pantheists?

It is eating me! It's infuriating. I'm trying to show that they are irreconcilable semantically. But most people don't care about semantics and outright ignore it!

That really doesn't sound very healthy to me.

From my perspective, "pantheism" only makes sense if it refers to reverence for nature and a sense of the unity of all things. Literally believing that everything is God is rather strange, isn't it? If the Universe is God, if everything is God, why do we need to talk about God at all? What are the distinguishing characteristics of such a god?

 

[doppelganger]

In that case why bother using any labels if you can just claim that you are "respecting the modes of inquiry." I could just make that statement and language suddenly has no meaning at all.

As always, language has the meanings we assign. It's a very precise problem that is causing your frustration. YOU don't determine what a word means. "History" doesn't determine what a word means (really, to say "history" determines the meaning of a word is just a coy way of saying you do and now you're engaging in the old argument by appeal to authority).

No. Words have the meanings their users intend. Period. If atheists recognize an unbroken unity of the natural world as a sort of highest order of things (and if you'd taken my link, you'd know that many of them do), then dividing them from "pantheists" (who do the same thing) on the basis of a tantrum about proper word meanings leads to impression that they are different when, in point of fact, they are not.

Rather, words should facilitate communications - not hinder them. If all you hear is one connotation of a word when you hear it and you aren't interested in exploring the meaning it has for some other person when they use that word (or recognize that in common usage the meanings of words change as culture and technology changes), I think you are likely to go through life with many frustrations like the one you are having now.

 

[Twig pentagram]

At this stage I realize that the term pantheist is so fraught with debate and confusion that it's probably best not to use pantheist by itself at all and instead rely on one of the many modifiers typically accompanying the term.[/quote]

I would have to agree with you on this one brbubba.

 

[Twig pentagram]

Brbubba, why do you describe yourself as a "Classical Pantheist," rather than just a "Pantheist"?

Does that distinction imply that there's some diversity of opinion among pantheists?

There's a variety of opinions among pantheist. Iv'e heard of Classical, Neo, Scientific, Natural, and my very own LHP. I might be the first one of my kind though.

 

[brbubba]

Brbubba, why do you describe yourself as a "Classical Pantheist," rather than just a "Pantheist"?

Does that distinction imply that there's some diversity of opinion among pantheists?

From my perspective, "pantheism" only makes sense if it refers to reverence for nature and a sense of the unity of all things. Literally believing that everything is God is rather strange, isn't it? If the Universe is God, if everything is God, why do we need to talk about God at all? What are the distinguishing characteristics of such a god?

There is very much diversity among pantheists. I've met christian pantheists, atheist pantheists, you name it.

There are no distinguishing characteristics because it's everything. In essence it's a redefinition of the judeo christian God into a non sentient form. The unity of all things is maintained through the fact that God=Universe.

As always, language has the meanings we assign. It's a very precise problem that is causing your frustration. YOU don't determine what a word means. "History" doesn't determine what a word means (really, to say "history" determines the meaning of a word is just a coy way of saying you do and now you're engaging in the old argument by appeal to authority).

No. Words have the meanings their users intend. Period. If atheists recognize an unbroken unity of the natural world as a sort of highest order of things (and if you'd taken my link, you'd know that many of them do), then dividing them from "pantheists" (who do the same thing) on the basis of a tantrum about proper word meanings leads to impression that they are different when, in point of fact, they are not.

Rather, words should facilitate communications - not hinder them. If all you hear is one connotation of a word when you hear it and you aren't interested in exploring the meaning it has for some other person when they use that word (or recognize that in common usage the meanings of words change as culture and technology changes), I think you are likely to go through life with many frustrations like the one you are having now.

It's not considered an appeal to authority if that authority coined the term pantheism!!! The debate over the term should stem from an interpretation of Spinoza and Toland. The actual meaning doesn't suddenly change because some person wants it to.

 

[Willamena]

It's not considered an appeal to authority if that authority coined the term pantheism!!! The debate over the term should stem from an interpretation of Spinoza and Toland. The actual meaning doesn't suddenly change because some person wants it to.

If "pantheism" can only mean one thing --an "actual meaning" --and this actual meaning is not one you yourself intend for it, to express something of yourself, then there you have made an appeal to authority, to something outside yourself.