Can you be a Pantheist and an Atheist?

[brbubba]

Do you, or can you ascribe to both terms simultaneously and why?

My own personal view is that no, you cannot, by definition, ascribe to both beliefs simultaneously. I have found that in many cases, where this dual dependency exists, it is typically to assert one's differing views on God when approached from a Judeo Christian perspective. However, I posit that this is an antagonistic stance, that is likely done simply to be contrary instead of attempting to describe one's true feelings regarding Pantheism. Furthermore, it doesn't help the debate when people like Dawkins refer to Pantheism as "sexed up atheism," leading to even more confusion.

Here's a nice online source that might be good for the discussion. Is Pantheism Atheistic?

 

[blackout]

Two sides of the same coin.

 

[Magic Man]

I consider pantheism to be atheistic, so I consider pantheists atheists. I think Dawkins's description of it as "sexed-up atheism" is pretty much right.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't see how one can claim to be atheist AND pantheist at the same time. I do, however, see how Dawkins' comment can make sense; for many practical purposes it is indeed very hard to tell pantheism from atheism, particularly from the outside.

 

[AnnaTheBeast]

Yes you can be a athiestic pantheist.

Pantheism is the view that the Univers (Nature) and God are identical,or that the Universe is the only thing deserving the deepest kind of reverence. Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Carl Sagan seemed to suggest something similar to, though not completely pantheism that has a flair of atheism:

Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws

Carl Sagan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Problem is, once someone defines God and professes belief in that "God," can they really say they are "a-theist"?

At one point I made that claim, since I see "God" as a symbol that may be useful, though it is malleable and ephemeral in nature. But, I feel it is more of a practical agnosticism.

 

[LuisDantas]

Oh, I see. It all depends on how exactly you define atheism, then. If it is in relation to a personal, creator or human-like God, then pantheism is a variety of atheism. If it is any possible conception of God, then not.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Yes you can be a athiestic pantheist.

Pantheism is the view that the Univers (Nature) and God are identical,or that the Universe is the only thing deserving the deepest kind of reverence. Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god.

But atheism literally refers to a belief in no God. Once you use the title "God" on something, can you really assert yourself as an atheist?

 

[brbubba]

Yes you can be a athiestic pantheist.

Pantheism is the view that the Univers (Nature) and God are identical,or that the Universe is the only thing deserving the deepest kind of reverence. Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god.

Yes, the God of Pantheism may not be anthropomorphized, but it is still a God none the less. True, you are redefining the traditional sense of God, but you can't suddenly turn around and say, my redefinition applies to my pantheistic side while the traditional definition applies to my atheistic side.

Also isn't giving reverence to nature anthropomorphizing it? The way I see it, the line between Atheist and Pantheist is drawn in the realm of the supernatural or spiritual. While some pantheists may fully believe in the spirit realm and some not at all, I would argue that giving reverence to anything is assuming a supernatural connection, i.e., one not prescribed under the purview of science.

For all those Pantheists that still cling to the term Atheist, what do you say when people ask you what religion/belief system/etc you subscribe to?

EDIT: From the link I posted,

It is the belief in one God, a God identical to the all-inclusive unity, but pantheists (generally) do not believe God is a person or anything like a person....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.

 

[Caladan]

I am an atheist, but at the same time I always had pantheistic tendencies, the sensation of interconnectedness for example, to relate to a universal perspective, all without narrowing it down to anthropomorphic frame.

 

[Caladan]

Yes, the God of Pantheism may not be anthropomorphized, but it is still a God none the less. True, you are redefining the traditional sense of God, but you can't suddenly turn around and say, my redefinition applies to my pantheistic side while the traditional definition applies to my atheistic side.

Only if you feel its needed to call the universe 'God'.

Also isn't giving reverence to nature anthropomorphizing it? The way I see it, the line between Atheist and Pantheist is drawn in the realm of the supernatural or spiritual. While some pantheists may fully believe in the spirit realm and some not at all, I would argue that giving reverence to anything is assuming a supernatural connection, i.e., one not prescribed under the purview of science.

What connection do you see between reverence and the supernatural?
I believe that most scientists have deep respect to the vast phenomenon they are exploring, whether it is deep space, biological evolution, or geology.

For all those Pantheists that still cling to the term Atheist, what do you say when people ask you what religion/belief system/etc you subscribe to?

I normally don't really define myself religiously and it is rare in real life that people ask me this question, im surrounded by people who automatically define me as secular for the most part.

 

[AnnaTheBeast]

But atheism literally refers to a belief in no God. Once you use the title "God" on something, can you really assert yourself as an atheist?

I'm not quiet understand the consept of Pantheism then. :S explain?

 

[Magic Man]

But atheism literally refers to a belief in no God. Once you use the title "God" on something, can you really assert yourself as an atheist?

I'd say so, since it's "a-theism", not "a-deism" or a-any other kind of belief in god. When I say I'm an atheist, I simply mean that I don't think there's a theistic god, but if I started to revere nature as if it was a supreme power, I wouldn't consider that theism, so I'd still consider myself an atheist.

 

[brbubba]

Only if you feel its needed to call the universe 'God'.

That's kind of the whole point of Pantheism, by definition.

What connection do you see between reverence and the supernatural?
I believe that most scientists have deep respect to the vast phenomenon they are exploring, whether it is deep space, biological evolution, or geology.

You are bestowing traits to the universe that science does not ascribe to. Just because a scientist has respect for something doesn't make it science.

I'd say so, since it's "a-theism", not "a-deism" or a-any other kind of belief in god. When I say I'm an atheist, I simply mean that I don't think there's a theistic god, but if I started to revere nature as if it was a supreme power, I wouldn't consider that theism, so I'd still consider myself an atheist.

The link I posted at the beginning makes the claim that it is a non personal theism. As for considering nature a supreme power, wouldn't nature in that case be the God?

However, the bigger issue is that logistically why even use the word God when attempting to describe this ideology? Seriously, if it was intended to be Atheistic, then why would Spinoza equate the word God with the universe or better yet why wouldn't he use the word atheist at all in The Ethics?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I'm not quiet understand the consept of Pantheism then. :S explain?

For me, Pantheism refers to a God that is theologically immanent, as in, found everywhere at once. In other words, God is inseparable from the Universe and is not transcendent (does not go beyond it--that would be panentheism).

I'd say so, since it's "a-theism", not "a-deism" or a-any other kind of belief in god. When I say I'm an atheist, I simply mean that I don't think there's a theistic god, but if I started to revere nature as if it was a supreme power, I wouldn't consider that theism, so I'd still consider myself an atheist.

I'd thought of this, actually! Our use of atheism, though, tends to include all forms of God, so that a person who still believes in deism would not qualify as an atheist.

But I can certainly understand this point of view.

 

[doppelganger]

Do you, or can you ascribe to both terms simultaneously and why?

My own personal view is that no, you cannot, by definition, ascribe to both beliefs simultaneously. I have found that in many cases, where this dual dependency exists, it is typically to assert one's differing views on God when approached from a Judeo Christian perspective. However, I posit that this is an antagonistic stance, that is likely done simply to be contrary instead of attempting to describe one's true feelings regarding Pantheism. Furthermore, it doesn't help the debate when people like Dawkins refer to Pantheism as "sexed up atheism," leading to even more confusion.

Here's a nice online source that might be good for the discussion. Is Pantheism Atheistic?

Sure you can. Spinoza was famously both a pantheist and generally regarded as an atheist. A "Panentheist" and an "atheist" would be much trickier to pull off.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I'd thought of this, actually! Our use of atheism, though, tends to include all forms of God, so that a person who still believes in deism would not qualify as an atheist.

But I can certainly understand this point of view.

Now, this isn't to say I see it as not possible. In fact, I think that contradictory beliefs can exist within the individual as we are more complex than simple dichotomies and bigger than labels. I think one can believe both in "no theism" and "all-theism" simultaneously.

 

[doppelganger]

Sure you can. Spinoza was famously both a pantheist and generally regarded as an atheist. A "Panentheist" and an "atheist" would be much trickier to pull off.

And I would add that because of views like Spinoza's (what someone already noted Dawkins called "sexed-up atheism") "atheism" is a very misunderstood term. See my thread about "theism and atheism: twins separated at birth?" for some interesting perspectives from numerous self-described "atheists" at this very forum who describe their atheism in terms that are perfectly consistent with pantheism.

Quite frequently, people who describe themselves using the term "atheist" are profoundly and spiritually impacted by and experience of wonder at the universe, but just hypersensitive to superstitious thinking and idolatry.

 

[Willamena]

Do you, or can you ascribe to both terms simultaneously and why?

Of course. They're just perspectives on the world. You can also be a liberal and a conservative at the same time.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

A "Panentheist" and an "atheist" would be much trickier to pull off.

I think shifting perspectives can allow for this, though.

Sometimes I feel that "Universe" accounts for all that I can know, and what is immanent is also all that there is in normal awareness.

And sometimes I feel that my awareness is transcending the normal and the "Universe" is bigger than the former one.