Can you be a Pantheist and an Atheist?

[Wannabe Yogi]

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

The problem is how you define God. If you see God as a personal being then science really has nothing to do with it. If you define God as the unified whole of the cosmos with no supernatural beliefs then this form of pantheism is just the sexed up Atheism that Richard Dawkins writes about. This view cannot be rejected if you believe in modern science.

 

[autonomous1one1]

...I guess I could read the WPM's book and see how the founder actually came to his interpretation.

Which book is that and by 'founder' do you mean Spinoza?

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

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.

My point is not that you can reject the term pantheism. Not the unity. The word God in english has so many meanings it is at times hard to discern it's meaning.

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

Einstein
I do not believe in a personal God. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world
so far as our science can reveal it.

 

[Smoke]

My point is not that you can reject the term pantheism. Not the unity. The word God in english has so many meanings it is at times hard to discern it's meaning.

But there's no compelling reason to assume that the unity has anything to do with God, no matter how you define God.

If we see no theos in pan, it doesn't make sense to say that we are necessarily, even just in effect, pantheists.

 

[Smoke]

The problem is how you define God. If you see God as a personal being then science really has nothing to do with it. If you define God as the unified whole of the cosmos with no supernatural beliefs then this form of pantheism is just the sexed up Atheism that Richard Dawkins writes about. This view cannot be rejected if you believe in modern science.

Certainly it can be rejected, because there's not the slightest need to define the unified whole of the cosmos as God.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Certainly it can be rejected, because there's not the slightest need to define the unified whole of the cosmos as God.

Let me try to explain my idea from a different point of view. My son had two geckos that could climb up glass windows with no difficulty. I could never understand it because they had no suction cups on their feel. In fact their feet were very soft. It turns out that these gecko's have small hairs on the bottom of their feet. These microscopic hairs have a bad case of spit ends at the bottom of every hair. The split ends are so small that can bond with the molecular structure with the glass. So the feet of the gecko becomes one with the glass. This is how they are able to climb.

The gecko's were do the geckos feet start and the glass begins. They are in a way one. There is a unity in the universe. You can reject the term "God" as poor semantics. But the underlying unity is the very nature of the universe.

 

[Smoke]

You can reject the term "God" as poor semantics. But the underlying unity is the very nature of the universe.

But "underlying unity" isn't pantheism -- or at least, it need not be.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

At its simplest, pantheism can be ontologically indistinguishable from atheism. Such a pantheism would be belief in nothing beyond the physical universe, but associated with emotions of wonder and awe similar to those that we find in religious belief. I shall not consider this as theism.


Atheism and Agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

So it is possible to be an Atheist and a pantheist at the same time.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

But "underlying unity" isn't pantheism -- or at least, it need not be.

The problem you are having is not the rejection of the philosophy of Pantheism. It is a rejection of theos in the name.

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"-Shakespeare

 

[Smoke]

So it is possible to be an Atheist and a pantheist at the same time.

Certainly. I'm saying it's not necessary.

 

[brbubba]

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

At its simplest, pantheism can be ontologically indistinguishable from atheism. Such a pantheism would be belief in nothing beyond the physical universe, but associated with emotions of wonder and awe similar to those that we find in religious belief. I shall not consider this as theism.


Atheism and Agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

So it is possible to be an Atheist and a pantheist at the same time.

Except their entry on Pantheism states, "With some exceptions, pantheism is non-theistic, but it is not atheistic." Maybe two different people wrote those entries???

 

[Willamena]

Except their entry on Pantheism states, "With some exceptions, pantheism is non-theistic, but it is not atheistic." Maybe two different people wrote those entries???

Most likely. But the author of the article on atheism is talking about pantheism's resemblence to atheism, and the author of the article on pantheism is approaching it from another stance.

 

[doppelganger]

Most likely. But the author of the article on atheism is talking about pantheism's resemblence to atheism, and the author of the article on pantheism is approaching it from another stance.

This is why looking at the labels people use and going no further is an exercise in futility and obfuscation. It makes no difference what word is used if there's no examination of what it represents to the people using it. "Pantheism" means a lot of different things to a lot of different people, with some of those differences being subtle differences in the way they experience their relationship to the universe and some more profound. There is no one "Pantheism" or one "atheism" and there never has been since more than one person started using those terms.

The OP question has a very simple answer: "Can you be both a [arbitrary classifier #1] and an [arbitrary classifier #2]? The answer to these questions is always a resounding and definitive "YES" because the content of the experience associated with a classifier is subject to change. And because it is subject to change, and does change, and means different things to different people at different times, one can quite easily be both at once.

Having read his responses, I gather now that the author of the OP meant to ask something like the following: "Can you be both a [classifier #1, in the exclusive sense by which I intend it] and a [classifier #2, in the exclusive sense by which I intend it, which happens to be mutually exclusive of the sense I intend by classifier #1]?"

The answer to that question is "NO." Though that question would not likely facilitate any communication or productive dialog.

 

[brbubba]

Having read his responses, I gather now that the author of the OP meant to ask something like the following: "Can you be both a [classifier #1, in the exclusive sense by which I intend it] and a [classifier #2, in the exclusive sense by which I intend it, which happens to be mutually exclusive of the sense I intend by classifier #1]?"

The answer to that question is "NO." Though that question would not likely facilitate any communication or productive dialog.

I was thinking more from a semantics point of view.

So let me ask you this, using your logic would it not be correct to say that I can be both a Christian and an Atheist?

 

[doppelganger]

I was thinking more from a semantics point of view.

So was I.

So let me ask you this, using your logic would it not be correct to say that I can be both a Christian and an Atheist?

Yes, quite correct. I have, on various occasions, regarded both labels and simultaneously applicable to my views. And I've met and talked to many
"Christian atheists." I have many posts explaining why this is possible, if you're interested.

Thomas Altizer is an example of a thinker whose philosophy could be fairly described as "Christian Atheism." I think we might even have an Altizer scholar around RF someplace . . .

 

[brbubba]

Yes, quite correct. I have, on various occasions, regarded both labels and simultaneously applicable to my views. And I've met and talked to many
"Christian atheists." I have many posts explaining why this is possible, if you're interested.

Thomas Altizer is an example of a thinker whose philosophy could be fairly described as "Christian Atheism." I think we might even have an Altizer scholar around RF someplace . . .

Links please, I'd be curious how they reconcile that one.

 

[doppelganger]

Christian atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lo and behold . . . and Altizer features prominently, with reference to his book The Gospel of Christian Atheism.

 

[doppelganger]

Links please, I'd be curious how they reconcile that one.

Aside from Altizer, I highly recommend Spong's Jesus for the Non-Religious for an introduction to how it can make complete sense to be both a "Christian" and an "atheist." It's a quick read and well worth the ten bucks or so that you'll pay for a paperback copy of it.

 

[brbubba]

Christian atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lo and behold . . . and Altizer features prominently, with reference to his book The Gospel of Christian Atheism.

Although interesting that's a hard pill to swallow. I suppose I can accept these interpretations using the modifiers, e.g., Christian Atheist, Naturalistic Pantheist, Classical Pantheist, etc. The sticky part is distinguishing between an ideological leaning versus a religious one, but I suppose they are one and the same.

That being said, I would still argue against the term pantheism being atheistic, just as I would for christianity, islam, etc without the modifier.

 

[doppelganger]

Although interesting that's a hard pill to swallow. I suppose I can accept these interpretations using the modifiers, e.g., Christian Atheist, Naturalistic Pantheist, Classical Pantheist, etc. The sticky part is distinguishing between an ideological leaning versus a religious one, but I suppose they are one and the same.

I suggest you read the cited works before you judge them. You might learn something new about yourself even.

That being said, I would still argue against the term pantheism being atheistic, just as I would for christianity, islam, etc without the modifier.

Of course you would. This is because you did not ask the question that you intended to ask.