Can you be a Pantheist and an Atheist?

[autonomous1one1]

Can you be a Pantheist and an Atheist? Do you, or can you ascribe to both terms simultaneously and why?
....

Greetings brbubba. Nice thread, thanks. It surfaces some important issues and seems worthy of further discussion.

One of the dangers of labeling in the modern era is the fact that interpretation of the label by others may not be what is intended; we are free, and can define terms/labels/symbols in any way that has meaning to us. This seems to be what has happened to provide the many interpretations of Pantheist and of Atheist to allow them to overlap.

I thought my source to the Stanford Philosophical Dictionary was pretty good. Pantheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). ...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.....

From the perspective of a specific collegiate philosophy/theology training in the 1960's there is no way one could be Pantheist and Atheist. You touch on one of the key points here - there has to be a 'connection' that transcends a collection of things. The SEP that you reference is pretty good and covers the 'Unity' required for many interpretations of Pantheism. The SEP mentions Paul Tillich as a possible Pantheist (actually a Panentheist) who writes in his Systematic Theology "Pantheism does not mean, never has meant, and never should mean that everything that is, is God....It is not the totality of natural objects." It always involves an underlying unity. Spinoza gave us "Universal Substance" and, mentioned in the SEP, Taoism gives us the Tao for examples.


"The primary reason for equating pantheism with atheism is the assumption that belief in any kind of "God" must be belief in a personalistic God, because God must be a person." is a quote from the SEP that surfaces another key point. Can one 'be an atheist' by selecting a specific concept of God not to believe in?

 

[brbubba]

Greetings brbubba. Nice thread, thanks. It surfaces some important issues and seems worthy of further discussion.

One of the dangers of labeling in the modern era is the fact that interpretation of the label by others may not be what is intended; we are free, and can define terms/labels/symbols in any way that has meaning to us. This seems to be what has happened to provide the many interpretations of Pantheist and of Atheist to allow them to overlap.

From the perspective of a specific collegiate philosophy/theology training in the 1960's there is no way one could be Pantheist and Atheist. You touch on one of the key points here - there has to be a 'connection' that transcends a collection of things. The SEP that you reference is pretty good and covers the 'Unity' required for many interpretations of Pantheism. The SEP mentions Paul Tillich as a possible Pantheist (actually a Panentheist) who writes in his Systematic Theology "Pantheism does not mean, never has meant, and never should mean that everything that is, is God....It is not the totality of natural objects." It always involves an underlying unity. Spinoza gave us "Universal Substance" and, mentioned in the SEP, Taoism gives us the Tao for examples.


"The primary reason for equating pantheism with atheism is the assumption that belief in any kind of "God" must be belief in a personalistic God, because God must be a person." is a quote from the SEP that surfaces another key point. Can one 'be an atheist' by selecting a specific concept of God not to believe in?

Well stated, welcome to the discussion!

 

[autonomous1one1]

Well stated, welcome to the discussion!

Thank you brb. The last point would be of particular interest for some atheists to question.

 

[LuisDantas]

Since you invited us so courteously...

is a quote from the SEP that surfaces another key point. Can one 'be an atheist' by selecting a specific concept of God not to believe in?

Sure, and it is in practice an unavoidable, if unchallenging, necessity.

And that is so because God is so ill-defined a concept. Some of us atheists are radical skeptics that will pretty much doubt anything that is not scientifically supported. Others may perhaps be Pantheists, Panentheists or even Deists without realizing it. A few will possibly refute the Abrahamic template of God and call it a day.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I am sorry my Atheist brothers and sisters unless you reject modern physics and want to return to the Cartesian physics of the 19th century. All you Atheists are stuck with pantheism, at least the material monist variety which is the least spiritual type of Pantheism you can believe in.

You may not want to call your selves Pantheists. You can only call your self an Atheist. You cannot reject pantheism out right unless you reject quantum physics.

 

[LuisDantas]

Is that so, however? What do Quantum Physics have to do with the idea of God?

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Is that so, however? What do Quantum Physics have to do with the idea of God?

Albert Einstein & Stephen Hawking define God as the universe IT self. I know this definition is both confusing and overly general. Still it is not new and it has been excepted for 100's of years in the term of pantheism.

 

[LuisDantas]

That may be true or not. Either way, it is not a scientific fact, at least not yet, even if we assume that both men believe so.

 

[brbubba]

Thank you brb. The last point would be of particular interest for some atheists to question.

That's clearly the question I should have asked from the get go. I've always assumed that atheist encompasses all conceptions of God, or reconceptions.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

That may be true or not. Either way, it is not a scientific fact, at least not yet, even if we assume that both men believe so.

I don't think I am communicating in a clear manor. Lets look at it in a new way. The big bang model is well established in cosmology, it is might be refined in the future but it is excepted. Our universe is coming from the place of unity. This fits completely with some forms of pantheism. To reject it is to reject modern science.

How Wiki defines Pantheism.

Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God are identical.[1] Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god. The word derives from the Ancient Greek: πᾶν (pan) meaning "all" and θεός (theos) meaning "belief that God is all".

You can reject reverence for the cosmos. (I can't see that coming to any positive ending) you can't reject the unity. If a pantheist defines God as the unity of nature. The Atheist can not reject this view of the universe with out rejecting modern science.

 

[brbubba]

I don't think I am communicating in a clear manor. Lets look at it in a new way. The big bang model is well established in cosmology, it is might be refined in the future but it is excepted. Our universe is coming from the place of unity. This fits completely with some forms of pantheism. To reject it is to reject modern science.

How Wiki defines Pantheism.

Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God are identical.[1] Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god. The word derives from the Ancient Greek: πᾶν (pan) meaning "all" and θεός (theos) meaning "belief that God is all".

You can reject reverence for the cosmos. (I can't see that coming to any positive ending) you can't reject the unity. If a pantheist defines God as the unity of nature. The Atheist can not reject this view of the universe with out rejecting modern science.

Don't cite wikipedia, I just changed the definition three days ago. ha ha.

 

[autonomous1one1]

Since you invited us so courteously...

Sure, and it is in practice an unavoidable, if unchallenging, necessity.

And that is so because God is so ill-defined a concept. Some of us atheists are radical skeptics that will pretty much doubt anything that is not scientifically supported. Others may perhaps be Pantheists, Panentheists or even Deists without realizing it. A few will possibly refute the Abrahamic template of God and call it a day.

Hey friend LuisDantas. Thank you for the response with the different perspectives; it sheds light for understanding our atheist brothers.

That's clearly the question I should have asked from the get go. I've always assumed that atheist encompasses all conceptions of God, or reconceptions.

Ahhhh, such naivete. ha ha. One can flag naivete without offense when one has had the same exact view.

Don't cite wikipedia, I just changed the definition three days ago. ha ha.

Hi bub, you might consider getting the notion of the 'unity' that transcends the totality of things into the definition. Or did you write the SEP reference also?

 

[brbubba]

Hi bub, you might consider getting the notion of the 'unity' that transcends the totality of things into the definition. Or did you write the SEP reference also?

Nothing so dramatic, just the first sentence. I edited out the phrase, "or that the Universe is the only thing deserving the deepest kind of reverence." Spinoza nor Toland state that, so I deleted it based on the lack of reference. Someone will probably edit it again in a few weeks.

People seem to be trying to drift away from the God=Everything metaphor, something very clearly stated and inherent to Spinoza. I guess I could read the WPM's book and see how the founder actually came to his interpretation.

 

[Twig pentagram]

Nothing so dramatic, just the first sentence. I edited out the phrase, "or that the Universe is the only thing deserving the deepest kind of reverence." Spinoza nor Toland state that, so I deleted it based on the lack of reference. Someone will probably edit it again in a few weeks.

People seem to be trying to drift away from the God=Everything metaphor, something very clearly stated and inherent to Spinoza. I guess I could read the WPM's book and see how the founder actually came to his interpretation.

Coining a phrase is'nt the same as finding the idea. The idea of pantheism existed long before your so called founder, or his coined phrase.

 

[brbubba]

Coining a phrase is'nt the same as finding the idea. The idea of pantheism existed long before your so called founder, or his coined phrase.

Yes, but the phrase was originally coined for his ideas. Coin your own term if you want! All this is about is finding commonality within words or base definitions.

 

[Twig pentagram]

Yes, but the phrase was originally coined for his ideas. Coin your own term if you want! All this is about is finding commonality within words or base definitions.

Do you seriously believe that he was the first person with those ideas? His words are not doctrine. In fact there is no doctrine for pantheism. His pantheism is not my pantheism, but since he coined the phrase I guess he owns the idea.

 

[brbubba]

Do you seriously believe that he was the first person with those ideas? His words are not doctrine. In fact there is no doctrine for pantheism. His pantheism is not my pantheism, but since he coined the phrase I guess he owns the idea.

Well that's kind of the point. If you coin the phrase then it typically means that it applies to a certain set of ideas. How you interpret those ideas is up to you, but you can't simply ignore them entirely.

 

[Twig pentagram]

Well that's kind of the point. If you coin the phrase then it typically means that it applies to a certain set of ideas. How you interpret those ideas is up to you, but you can't simply ignore them entirely.

When you put it this way, I would have to agree.

 

[Smoke]

If a pantheist defines God as the unity of nature. The Atheist can not reject this view of the universe with out rejecting modern science.

How does modern science show us that the unity of nature is God? What does that even mean?

 

[Smoke]

I don't think I am communicating in a clear manor. Lets look at it in a new way. The big bang model is well established in cosmology, it is might be refined in the future but it is excepted. Our universe is coming from the place of unity. This fits completely with some forms of pantheism. To reject it is to reject modern science.

How Wiki defines Pantheism.

Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God are identical.[1] Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god. The word derives from the Ancient Greek: πᾶν (pan) meaning "all" and θεός (theos) meaning "belief that God is all".

You can reject reverence for the cosmos. (I can't see that coming to any positive ending) you can't reject the unity. If a pantheist defines God as the unity of nature. The Atheist can not reject this view of the universe with out rejecting modern science.

In the same way, let's say I'm a Panmonocerist.

The Panmonocerist view is that the Universe (Nature) and Unicorn are identical.
Panmonocerists do not believe in a personal, alogomorphic or creator Unicorn.
The word derives from the Greek: pan meaning all, and monokeros meaning unicorn.

You can reject reverence for the cosmos. You can't reject the unity. If a Panmonocerist defines Unicorn as the unity of nature, the amonocerist cannot reject this view of the universe without rejecting modern science.

Our universe is coming from the place of unity. This fits completely with Panmonocerism. To reject it is to reject modern science.