Can you be a Pantheist and an Atheist?

[LuisDantas]

This most often is a rejection of a supernatural God or Gods. Maybe before the new physics it was also rejection of the unity of the cosmos. To day it is no longer possible to see the universe as a big machine. It is a collective whole. So now at a base level both ideas can and do at times end in the same place.:yes:

I must still ask: why so?

 

[doppelganger]

Good point, Dopp, but would you say that one who calls himself a pantheist-atheist has two different meanings for God.

I think more likely that "theist" is no longer regarded as the focus of "pantheist," and they think of it as something entirely unrelated to "gods." As noted above, a common notion of "theism" in modern English is the belief in supernatural or divine personalities. When a personality is superimposed over a "pantheistic" view, we usually regard that as "panentheism" ala your favorite theologian, Robert.

Pantheism of the sort discussed by Spinoza, Einstein, Constantin Brunner, Lao Tsu, Nietzsche, Robert Anton Wilson, and other mystics does not have personal gods nor gods with personalities/beingness/mind.

Einstein said it well:

Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.

The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this.

The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.

How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.

Emphases added. Note, in Einstein's list of enlightened heretics, it appears that he too regards Spinoza's pantheism as atheistic.

 

[autonomous1one1]

Not really. It is my understanding that I would have to believe in some sort of sacred impulse for transcendence inherent to reality itself to be a pantheist. It turns out that I don't believe that such an impulse exists.

Agnostic.

No, I can't quite claim to be aware of any and all god concepts that claim to be Christian. Neither had I known of those two authors. A quick Wikipedia consultation shows me that Theosis is, well, far too god-oriented for my tastes. The idea of New Being is slightly better, but also outside my interests. Nothing really wrong with them, but I'm just not the theist type of person.

Why are you always so reasonable? "Ath/Agn" would seem to be the best designation for any atheist that had not examined all concepts of God.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why are you always so reasonable?

Thanks, I try to be! As to why, deep down it is due to an intense dislike of the people who are not that I met through life. I give a very wide berth indeed to my desire to claim contrast to them.

"Ath/Agn" would seem to be the best designation for any atheist that had not examined all concepts of God.

Is it even humanly possible to examine all concepts of God? For that matter, is it at all important?

I'm atheist because I don't believe in God. I'm agnostic because I make no claim for having access to any true proof either way (and I think it is a bit naive to believe that such a proof is accessible to anything non-divine, regardless of what the ultimate truth may be). It is really that simple, and of actual little consequence.

 

[autonomous1one1]

I think more likely that "theist" is no longer regarded as the focus of "pantheist," and they think of it as something entirely unrelated to "gods." As noted above, a common notion of "theism" in modern English is the belief in supernatural or divine personalities.....Pantheism of the sort discussed by Spinoza, Einstein, Constantin Brunner, Lao Tsu, Nietzsche, Robert Anton Wilson, and other mystics does not have personal gods nor gods with personalities/beingness/mind.

One can agree with all of this, Dopp, (not sure about 'beingness') but does it really change anything. Please aid the understanding and indicate where this simple logic goes wrong: regardless of how 'theism' is defined, may it be called for this point 'whatever;' pan(whatever) means all is whatever and a(whatever) means without whatever. Can you reconcile those to be the same?

When a personality is superimposed over a "pantheistic" view, we usually regard that as "panentheism" ala your favorite theologian, Robert.

One is not sure how to get from God as the Ground of Being and Power of Being which is prior to and the source of finitude (eg.s source of time, space, substance, causality, and prior to subject-object) to 'personality superimposed over pantheism' but that may be a subject for another thread. Tillich described 'panentheism' because in his view God transcends (ie. goes beyond) the universe.

Einstein said it well:.........

Emphases added. Note, in Einstein's list of enlightened heretics, it appears that he too regards Spinoza's pantheism as atheistic.

One cannot help but love the brainpower of Einstein related to any subject on which he cares to offer an opinion. Here, however, he is wrong. hoho, just kidding. One interpretation of the Einstein text that you have provided says that Einstein thought the contemporaries of the heretic often considered the heretic to be atheist, not that Einstein necessarily did.

 

[brbubba]

Emphases added. Note, in Einstein's list of enlightened heretics, it appears that he too regards Spinoza's pantheism as atheistic.

I would say that rejection of an anthropomorphic God is far from atheistic. I fully reject a supreme thinking anthropomorphic God, but I could never fathom calling myself an atheist. I've yet to see a quote where Einstein says, "I'm an atheist."

 

[Smoke]

I would say that rejection of an anthropomorphic God is far from atheistic. I fully reject a supreme thinking anthropomorphic God, but I could never fathom calling myself an atheist. I've yet to see a quote where Einstein says, "I'm an atheist."

There's one that comes pretty close. Referring to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had convinced him there was a god, Einstein wrote: "I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist." (2 July 1945)

He also said of Bertrand Russell, "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."

However Einstein preferred not to refer to himself as an atheist: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

 

[autonomous1one1]

Is it even humanly possible to examine all concepts of God? For that matter, is it at all important?

In this day and age it is possible to examine many if not most of the concepts, perhaps. Importance? is a very interesting question and the answer would undoubtedly depend upon who provides it. Since you ask here, let the answer be 'from one unique perspective of God, yes, of critical importance.' This importance stems from two reasons: one particular 'examination' can lead to trans-formative Self-Realization that overcomes any suffering, any fear, and death with the realization of eternal life and addition of a great underlying joy to life; and this Self-Realization, this breakthrough to Being, is often viewed as the aim of life.:angel2: Well, you asked.

I'm atheist because I don't believe in God. I'm agnostic because I make no claim for having access to any true proof either way (and I think it is a bit naive to believe that such a proof is accessible to anything non-divine, regardless of what the ultimate truth may be). It is really that simple, and of actual little consequence.

Interesting that you should put it that way my friend, for with the unique perspective mentioned above of Self-Realization, the Divine is discovered within and one receives one's own proof of God. For more information if there is any interest:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/100917-really-what-your-religion-going-teach-7.html#post2090513

 

[doppelganger]

One can agree with all of this, Dopp, (not sure about 'beingness') but does it really change anything. Please aid the understanding and indicate where this simple logic goes wrong: regardless of how 'theism' is defined, may it be called for this point 'whatever;' pan(whatever) means all is whatever and a(whatever) means without whatever. Can you reconcile those to be the same?

I think what you are not understanding Robert is that a word may have a root that originally had a particular meaning, but the word incorporating that root may no longer have a meaning that comports with the connotations of a root within that word. Does that make sense? The words we are comparing are not "theism" and "theism." They are "theism" and "pantheism." My point was that "theism" has, in modern language, more often than not taken on the character of belief in belief in one or more anthropomorphic gods. Many pantheists do not place attributes on "that which is signified" by "pantheism" - that means they do not place anthropomorphic attributes or even the quality of otherness on what used to be fairly called "God." You want to have a classifier that has a definite content. Most pantheists and particularly mystics do not do that. "Theists" do, on the other hand. I daresay doing so is the sine qua non of "theism."

Robert Anton Wilson has a nice passage that gets to the meat of the issue in Quantum Psychology:

The only "thing" (or process) precisely equal to the universe remains the universe itself. Every description, or model, or theory, or art-work, or map, or reality tunnel, or gloss, etc. remains somewhat smaller than the universe and hence includes less than the universe.

What is left in our sensory continuum when we are neither talking nor thinking remains non-symbolic, non-verbal, non-mathematical - ineffable, as the mystics say. One can speak poetically of that non-verbal mode of apprehension as Chaos, like Nietzsche, or the Void, like Buddha; but "Chaos" and the "Void" remain only words and the experience itself stubbornly remains non-verbal .

Now go back and look at the quote from Einstein. The pantheists and mystics I have been talking about (and many of the atheists mentioned in the two other threads I linked to above) are hypersensitive to idolatry and reject "theism" because it places limitations and "thingliness" (as Brunner would put it) on "God." So you do indeed, as Einstein points out, have spiritual geniuses who are both "saints" and "atheists" who share a common "cosmic religious feeling" with one another and it is a very different thing that what is going on with much of what is commonly categorized as "theism."

In short the "-theism" in pantheism is no longer related in meaning to "theism" as a stand-alone term for many of the people using the word "pantheism." Does that make any sense to you?

One is not sure how to get from God as the Ground of Being and Power of Being which is prior to and the source of finitude (eg.s source of time, space, substance, causality, and prior to subject-object) to 'personality superimposed over pantheism' but that may be a subject for another thread. Tillich described 'panentheism' because in his view God transcends (ie. goes beyond) the universe.

Though even he ultimately admits in his more lucid moments that he has no idea what he means when he says that. One gets the distinct impression when reading Tillich that he really needs to feel a love for himself and direction for the universe and thus clings to this tiniest thread of what he cannot define even against his own logic and better judgment. That's my impression anyway. [Spong does the same thing, btw, particularly in A New Christianity For A New World] And that, btw, is why I say that belief in "God" has been secretly replaced with belief in "belief in God" - not unlike how they replaced the fine coffee usually served at this establishment with Folger's crystals . . . and almost nobody noticed.

To say that "God" is something other or something more is to assign it a meaning that includes an "otherness" to distinguish "god" as a thing that stands in contrast to things that are 'not God.' This does not comport with pantheism. There's a nice passage from Nicholas of Cusa's De Docta Ignorantia which brings this error to light. It is worth noting that Nicholas was writing 500 years ago and is frequently regarded by modern philosophy (as is Spinoza) as a non-"Theist" (agnostic or atheist).

[FONT="]It is self-evident that there is no comparative relation of the infinite to the finite . . . Therefore, it is not the case that by means of likenesses a finite intellect can precisely attain the truth about things. For truth is not something more or something less but is something indivisible. Whatever is not truth cannot measure truth precisely. (By comparison, a noncircle [cannot measure] a circle, whose being is something indivisible.) Hence, the intellect, which is not truth, never comprehends truth so precisely that truth cannot be comprehended infinitely more precisely. For the intellect is to truth as [an inscribed] polygon is to [the inscribing] circle.19 The more angles the inscribed polygon has the more similar it is to the circle. However, even if the number of its angles is increased ad infinitum, the polygon never becomes equal [to the circle] unless it is resolved into an identity with the circle. Hence, regarding truth, it is evident that we do not know anything other than the following: viz., that we know truth not to be precisely comprehensible as it is . . .

[/FONT] [FONT="]Therefore, opposing features belong only to those things which can be comparatively greater and lesser; they befit these things in different ways; [but they do] not at all [befit] the absolutely Maximum, since it is beyond all opposition. Therefore, because the absolutely Maximum is absolutely and actually all things which can be (and is so free of all opposition that the Minimum coincides with it), it is beyond both all affirmation and all negation. And it is not, as well as is, all that which is conceived to be; and it is, as well as is not, all that which is conceived not to be.[/FONT][FONT="] But it is a given thing in such way that it is all things; and it is all things in such way that it is no thing.[/FONT]

You can read almost the same thing in Brunner, Nietzsche and (in a more poetic version) the Tao te Ching. Compare this with Tillich in his more lucid moments:

"Thus the question of the existence of God can neither be asked nor answered. If asked, it is a question about that which by it's very nature is above existence, and therefore the answer - whether negative or affirmative - implicitly denies the nature of God. It is as atheistic to affirm the existence of God as it is to deny it. God is being itself, not a being." - Systematic Theology, Volume I.

Considered thus, it makes sense of a famous Tillich quote:

"God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."

Was Tillich an "atheistic panentheist"?

 

[doppelganger]

And for the record, despite the quote above, Einstein clung to certain ideas that were inconsistent with his "cosmic religious feeling." This need to believe that the theories and models of "science" were the Truth was ultimately the bone of contention between Einstein and the EPR folks and Niels Bohr and the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It is in this context that Einstein told Bohr "God does not play dice." which garnered Bohr's response: "Einstein! Stop telling God what he must do!"

I highly, highly recommend philosopher and Quantum physicist David Bohm's book Wholeness and the Implicate Order for a nice place to see pantheism and modern physics converge. I think you'll especially like it if you are a Tillich fan.

Bohm's concept of the errors of "fragmentation" is yet another "pantheist" approach to reality by a person who avowedly rejected for himself anything that resembles belief in the existence of "God."

 

[LuisDantas]

Autonomous, aren't you ultimately making claims that coincide with understanding that God is a completely personal matter? That is does indeed exists (or fails to exist) in different manners for different people, and might in fact even come into being or fade out of existence for a specific person during the passing of time?

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I must still ask: why so?

I don't know were to go with this question. I must be misunderstanding you. I answered it in two different ways on this thread.

Big Bang comment post#90

Gecko story post#106

This is one more answer. If this doesn't help please be more specific with you question my friend. I am just a bit slow.

In 1944 Schrodinger wrote the influential book, What is Life? Which everyone agrees used Vedic ideas. A clear continuity exists between Schrodinger's understanding of Vedanta and his research, according to his biographer, Walter Moore:

In 1925, the worldview of physics was a model of a great machine composed of separable interacting material particles. During the next few years, Schrodinger and Heisenberg and their followers created a universe based on superimposed inseparable waves of probability amplitudes. This new view would be entirely consistent with the Vedantic concept of All in One.


http://pq.v.five.tripod.com/erwin_schrodinger_quotable_excerpts_notes.pdf

The universe is not seen as made up of all separate and completely independent parts.

 

[autonomous1one1]

post 149 in its entirety

Thank you for taking the time to clarify so much. You make many good and interesting points that one would like to address. However, there is the fear of subterfuge to this thread because of the sheer volume that would be required. Perhaps we could come back on some of them once the thread slows. Discussion on Tillich and God would be fun as would the Christian Bishop Nicholas of Cusa who wrote of the Self-Realization as in post #148 (although he didn't call it that).

Please forgive one comment off thread now: Tillich did give us "God does not exist" but in the same breath offers that one must say instead "God is." Tillich's "New Being" is 100% human and 100% God as exemplified in Jesus as Christ. It does not seem that he would subscribe to "atheistic panentheist" although in this modern age of freedom and changing definitions who knows. Even the meaning of 'exist' would need definition with today's understanding.

Perhaps there are some succinct points that participants can agree on. For this thread, the primary comparison is pantheism and atheism. First do you agree with brbubba in the following post?

I would say that rejection of an anthropomorphic God is far from atheistic. I fully reject a supreme thinking anthropomorphic God, but I could never fathom calling myself an atheist. I've yet to see a quote where Einstein says, "I'm an atheist."

Einstein never said that Spinoza was an atheist either, but put Spinoza into a list of individuals who 'had' a non-anthropomorphic 'view' of God and said that contemporaries of that list sometimes considered them atheist. (using here 'anthropomorphic' to represent the supernatural, intervening God of one interpretation of theism)

In the 'early days' pantheism meant 'all is God' and atheism meant 'without God' which in the simplest interpretation obviously means the two terms could never be applied to the same individual. However, the 'theos' of pantheism was never the same as the 'theos' of atheism. Pantheism's God was always non-anthropomorphic. Atheism on the other hand was most often interpreted to refer to 'without any God' so the two were still mutually exclusive.

In one perspective of modern times the term pantheism has been reduced to the totality of the things in the universe coupled with a grand wondrous awe and other feelings of the universe. In other words, there is no God and the feeling is a super one that atheist feel somewhat also. Atheism primarily refers to 'without the non-anthropomorphic God.' Thus, an individual can be both pantheist and atheist.

....
I highly, highly recommend philosopher and Quantum physicist David Bohm's book Wholeness and the Implicate Order for a nice place to see pantheism and modern physics converge. I think you'll especially like it if you are a Tillich fan...

Since the highly, highly recommendation comes from you it will be added to the Kindle. Do you consider it better than Bohm's The Essential David Bohm?

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

In one perspective of modern times the term pantheism has been reduced to the totality of the things in the universe coupled with a grand wondrous awe and other feelings of the universe. In other words, there is no God and the feeling is a super one that atheist feel somewhat also. Atheism primarily refers to 'without the non-anthropomorphic God.' Thus, an individual can be both pantheist and atheist.

Well said, Thank you for organizing my thoughts

 

[brbubba]

In one perspective of modern times the term pantheism has been reduced to the totality of the things in the universe coupled with a grand wondrous awe and other feelings of the universe. In other words, there is no God and the feeling is a super one that atheist feel somewhat also. Atheism primarily refers to 'without the non-anthropomorphic God.' Thus, an individual can be both pantheist and atheist.
Since the highly, highly recommendation comes from you it will be added to the Kindle. Do you consider it better than Bohm's The Essential David Bohm?

The whole awe thing doesn't sit well with me, as evidenced by the earlier discussion in this thread. The Ethics doesn't even use the word "awe." I'm still not convinced that it isn't a liberal interpretation by the WPM or some other group or individual. And as we already established, liberal interpretations are kosher when there are modifiers to properly express that interpretation, but the WPM doesn't use any modifiers.

 

[doppelganger]

Please forgive one comment off thread now: Tillich did give us "God does not exist" but in the same breath offers that one must say instead "God is." Tillich's "New Being" is 100% human and 100% God as exemplified in Jesus as Christ. It does not seem that he would subscribe to "atheistic panentheist" although in this modern age of freedom and changing definitions who knows. Even the meaning of 'exist' would need definition with today's understanding.

And Tillich was doing exactly that - teasing out the strange sense that is now attached to this idea of how things "exist." Of course, he was way late to the game as there was a whole, developed school of philosophy by Tillich's time that takes it's name from that very quandary. Which reinforces my overall point that what constitutes "theism" is not in any way a black and white affair, and consequently, neither is the question of whether one could be an pantheist atheist.

Perhaps there are some succinct points that participants can agree on. For this thread, the primary comparison is pantheism and atheism. First do you agree with brbubba in the following post?
Originally Posted by brbubba
I would say that rejection of an anthropomorphic God is far from atheistic. I fully reject a supreme thinking anthropomorphic God, but I could never fathom calling myself an atheist. I've yet to see a quote where Einstein says, "I'm an atheist."

I agree that he would say that, of course, and that he rejects an anthropomorphic God. As for the last part, he missed the point. It's not whether Einstein says "I'm an atheist" but whether Einstein acknowledged that atheists and pantheists can be engaged in expressing the same experiences, which he unequivocally said they can - both "saints" and "atheists" can share his "cosmic religious feeling."

If you mean the implication that because brbubba doesn't define "theism" as "belief in an anthropomorphic god" that therefore nobody does or could . . then no, I don't agree with that at all.

Einstein never said that Spinoza was an atheist either, but put Spinoza into a list of individuals who 'had' a non-anthropomorphic 'view' of God and said that contemporaries of that list sometimes considered them atheist. (using here 'anthropomorphic' to represent the supernatural, intervening God of one interpretation of theism)

Emphasis added. Exactly. So there are interpretations of theism under which a "pantheist" like Spinoza would be considered an "atheist." I said that on page one of this thread specifically with reference to Spinoza. If it was not possible to reconcile a view being both "atheist" and "pantheist" then no "contemporary" of Spinoza (who was clearly a pantheist) would be able to call him an "atheist." But to this day, he is widely regarded as an "atheist."

In one perspective of modern times the term pantheism has been reduced to the totality of the things in the universe coupled with a grand wondrous awe and other feelings of the universe. In other words, there is no God and the feeling is a super one that atheist feel somewhat also. Atheism primarily refers to 'without the non-anthropomorphic God.' Thus, an individual can be both pantheist and atheist.

Precisely.

 

[autonomous1one1]

Autonomous, aren't you ultimately making claims that coincide with understanding that God is a completely personal matter? That is does indeed exists (or fails to exist) in different manners for different people, and might in fact even come into being or fade out of existence for a specific person during the passing of time?

Greetings LuisDantas. Thank you for your questions. One could not say that the notions you have put forward here would never be used with Self-Realization. It is true that Self-Realization may be put into different 'languages' in accord with the circumstances, environment, the recipient, etc. when trying to convey it to others; but it always will have certain characteristics such as a non-dual perspective. This 'mystic experience' does have similar characteristics and descriptions throughout many different cultures, all historical time periods, different languages, varying religious persuasions, etc. One dare say that once realized it cannot fade out of existence.

 

[brbubba]

Emphasis added. Exactly. So there are interpretations of theism under which a "pantheist" like Spinoza would be considered an "atheist." I said that on page one of this thread specifically with reference to Spinoza. If it was not possible to reconcile a view being both "atheist" and "pantheist" then no "contemporary" of Spinoza (who was clearly a pantheist) would be able to call him an "atheist." But to this day, he is widely regarded as an "atheist."

But then we go back to the notion that Spinoza claimed he wasn't an atheist! Is it really fair for current day philosophers to be saying otherwise? And conjecturing that he only said that due to possible negative consequences of being an atheist at the time seems specious at best.

 

[doppelganger]

But then we go back to the notion that Spinoza claimed he wasn't an atheist! Is it really fair for current day philosophers to be saying otherwise? And conjecturing that he only said that due to possible negative consequences of being an atheist at the time seems specious at best.

But if I were to claim that I agree with all of Spinoza's philosophy, AND, I considered myself both a pantheist and an atheist, the same people who think Spinoza is an "atheist" would label me as such as well. So in common usage, one can be both a pantheist and atheist, as Robert showed above.

 

[autonomous1one1]

In one perspective of modern times the term pantheism has been reduced to the totality of the things in the universe coupled with a grand wondrous awe and other feelings of the universe. In other words, there is no God and the feeling is a super one that atheist feel somewhat also. Atheism primarily refers to 'without the non-anthropomorphic God.' Thus, an individual can be both pantheist and atheist.

Precisely.

We agree! (on your starting point at least.)