Can you be a Pantheist and an Atheist?

[AnnaTheBeast]

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 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.

I understand your point, and if it is viewed that way then no you cant be an athiestic Panthiest. At least I dont think so. You'd still be worshiping the nature, which would be a god in sense. so yea I understand what you mean.

 

[Rhizomatic]

Pantheist.
A[not]theist.

This seems difficult to reconcile to me. As I've said in another thread recently, arguing that pantheism is atheism seems to just be taking the stance that only the gods most familiar to Western culture qualify as gods, which seems to be more an application of cultural bias than categorical logic. Though I'm sure one could heavily probelmatize any distinctions between the two...

 

[brbubba]

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.

Spinoza is regarded as an atheist by some modern day people based around the ideas in this discussion from an interpretation of The Ethics. However, strictly speaking, he denied that he was an atheist.

The only difference I see between pulling off panentheist and pantheist is the extent to which science can actually describe the known cosmos. If you believed that there were realms outside the confines of the Universe, you could still potentially not believe in a "God." For instance, wouldn't a multi dimensional universe be panentheist???

 

[Magic Man]

Pantheist.
A[not]theist.

This seems difficult to reconcile to me. As I've said in another thread recently, arguing that pantheism is atheism seems to just be taking the stance that only the gods most familiar to Western culture qualify as gods, which seems to be more an application of cultural bias than categorical logic. Though I'm sure one could heavily probelmatize any distinctions between the two...

I think it's true that only the theistic God (as you say "the gods most familiar to Western culture) qualifies as God. If it's another concept, it should have a different name. Otherwise, it becomes meaningless. If I started referring to all fruits as apples, then apples becomes meaningless.

That's why I think atheism only refers to that one type of god-concept.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Pantheist.
A[not]theist.

This seems difficult to reconcile to me. As I've said in another thread recently, arguing that pantheism is atheism seems to just be taking the stance that only the gods most familiar to Western culture qualify as gods, which seems to be more an application of cultural bias than categorical logic. Though I'm sure one could heavily probelmatize any distinctions between the two...

One of the problems with language is that it sometimes does not adequately communicate something inherently personal: in this case, a person can view the world as a pantheist (interrelated and holistic) without having the spiritual aspect that would qualify him (to himself) as an atheist.

 

[doppelganger]

The only difference I see between pulling off panentheist and pantheist is the extent to which science can actually describe the known cosmos. If you believed that there were realms outside the confines of the Universe, you could still potentially not believe in a "God." For instance, wouldn't a multi dimensional universe be panentheist???

Not necessarily, though possibly. Many panentheists experience the universe of all things as having a "desire" "love" or other projected emotional or intellectual being. Borg for instance.

As for Spinoza, when you look at what he was calling "God" it allows for absolutely no assignment of attributes or thingliness, which is a precondition of the modern sense of term "theism," in the way that most (though not all) people use and understand it. His "God" was unitary and undifferentiated "substance."

 

[Caladan]

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

Lets see the first part of the Wiki post on Pantheism:

"Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God are identical,[1] 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"

This is pretty much how I see it (bold line), I have great moments of reverence to a fascinating landscape I may be traveling, or to a starry night, to the desert, to the universe as a whole. I think its very natural, and people all faiths, and lack of faith experience it.

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.

Is feeling at awe by the universe, or a sense of humility in the face of a greater reality a phenomenon which is supernatural? I don't find it so, I find it completely natural.

 

[doppelganger]

The other problem is that "atheism/theism", while symbolically simple and convenient for a conversation of limited substance, is a gross oversimplification of a very wide range of human experiences of spirituality, and the ensuing linguistic and other psychological and symbolic attempts to capture those experiences.

 

[brbubba]

I think it's true that only the theistic God (as you say "the gods most familiar to Western culture) qualifies as God. If it's another concept, it should have a different name. Otherwise, it becomes meaningless. If I started referring to all fruits as apples, then apples becomes meaningless.

That's why I think atheism only refers to that one type of god-concept.

And therein lies the crux of the debate. I suspect that you've hit the nail on the head for why many Pantheists still use the term Atheist.

You use the term in a popular traditional sense and I use the term in the dictionary sense.

 

[doppelganger]

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.

Certainly. And frequently, completely different perspectives are maintained because they satisfy very different needs. A sense of panentheism may fulfill a need to manage existential angst and emotional feelings of separation and isolation, even though on a purely rational/intellectual level, that same person bristles at superstitious notions of "God" that we typically label "theistic."

 

[doppelganger]

That's why I think atheism only refers to that one type of god-concept.

So do I. But as you know, attempts to define it as such are met with much gnashing of teeth. The term means nothing without some agreement between the people to a conversation to limit it to certain types of "God concepts." There is nobody - nobody - who rejects every concept that was ever labeled "God" as unreal to them.

 

[doppelganger]

And just a reminder (one that will be ignored by some people) - signifiers have the meanings we assign to them. They work as containers of meaning for communication when there is enough agreement about that meaning that they become useful. Intrinsically, they are nothing but noises, however.

 

[AnnaTheBeast]

You can be a naturalistic Pnathiest and still be athiest i think.

Naturalistic pantheism (also known as Scientific Pantheism) is a naturalistic form of pantheism that encompasses feelings of reverence and belonging towards Nature and the wider Universe, concern for the rights of humans and all living beings, care for Nature, and celebration of life. It is realist and respects reason and the scientific method. It is based on philosophical naturalism and as such it is without belief in supernatural realms, afterlives, beings or forces.http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/#cite_note-0

 

[brbubba]

Lets see the first part of the Wiki post on Pantheism:

"Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God are identical,[1] 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"

This is pretty much how I see it (bold line), I have great moments of reverence to a fascinating landscape I may be traveling, or to a starry night, to the desert, to the universe as a whole. I think its very natural, and people all faiths, and lack of faith experience it.


Is feeling at awe by the universe, or a sense of humility in the face of a greater reality a phenomenon which is supernatural? I don't find it so, I find it completely natural.

The wikipedia definition needs to be edited. Spinoza says nothing of reverence for nature nor would you ever find that passage in any dictionary. You can't escape the God = Everything clause, it's not an OR proposition.

This isn't about what you personally find natural, it's about what science finds natural. Otherwise I could argue that I find unicorns natural and it would be plausible.

I'm curious then, what is the difference between a moral/nature loving atheist, a naturalist and a pantheist?

You can be a naturalistic Pnathiest and still be athiest i think.

Naturalistic pantheism (also known as Scientific Pantheism) is a naturalistic form of pantheism that encompasses feelings of reverence and belonging towards Nature and the wider Universe, concern for the rights of humans and all living beings, care for Nature, and celebration of life. It is realist and respects reason and the scientific method. It is based on philosophical naturalism and as such it is without belief in supernatural realms, afterlives, beings or forces.http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/#cite_note-0

That is where the entire discussion lies. Naturalistic Pantheists are the only Pantheists that I've ever met that use Atheist.

 

[AnnaTheBeast]

Well that is athiest. They accept Evolution as the reason for life while respecting animals and nature its self . Not a bad concept.

 

[doppelganger]

Here's the thread I mentioned:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...144-atheism-theism-twins-separated-birth.html

And for a whole bunch of other very interesting perspectives on this, check out this thread:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/74300-atheists-who-believe-science-similar-theists.html

 

[Caladan]

The wikipedia definition needs to be edited. Spinoza says nothing of reverence for nature nor would you ever find that passage in any dictionary. You can't escape the God = Everything clause, it's not an OR proposition.

See post above yours for input on Naturalistic Pantheism.

This isn't about what you personally find natural, it's about what science finds natural. Otherwise I could argue that I find unicorns natural and it would be plausible.

Explain the relation between fantastic unicorns and natural sensations of awe and humility.

I'm curious then, what is the difference between a moral/nature loving atheist, a naturalist and a pantheist?

Im assuming the differences are numerous as the number of individuals and the people who feel the need to define a category or a label. however Naturalistic Pantheism may narrow it down considerably.

 

[Rhizomatic]

I think it's true that only the theistic God (as you say "the gods most familiar to Western culture) qualifies as God. If it's another concept, it should have a different name. Otherwise, it becomes meaningless. If I started referring to all fruits as apples, then apples becomes meaningless.

That's why I think atheism only refers to that one type of god-concept.

How is pantheism, the belief that "god is everything" not theism? Your apple/fruit analogy interests me, because I would argue that it is you who are saying that all fruit (theism) is apples (the particular kind of theism with which you are most familiar). I would argue that polytheism is an orange, peronsanlistic monotheism an apple, pantheism a blackberry, and so forth. Atheists don't have any fruit, blackberries included.

One of the problems with language is that it sometimes does not adequately communicate something inherently personal: in this case, a person can view the world as a pantheist (interrelated and holistic) without having the spiritual aspect that would qualify him (to himself) as an atheist.

Whenever we're defining terms we have to run into the problem of different people having different usage. Nonetheless, I think we can proceed with a discussion of the fine technical details of specific terms even when common usage might differ. In this sense an atheist has nothing to do with spirituality or lack thereof, even if some people use atheist to mean someone who doesn't follow a religion, take beliefs on faith, hold belief in anything supernatural, or possess a "spiritual" outlook (however we choose to define that). It's just someone who lacks belief in all gods.

 

[doppelganger]

How is pantheism, the belief that "god is everything" not theism?

Because not all "gods" fall within "theism." Those are different words.

Theism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

It is a very common usage of "theism" as indicated in that definition to understand "theism" as a reference to a specific notion of "God." That is to say, not every "god" relates to to theism, though "theism" always involves a "god."

 

[Magic Man]

How is pantheism, the belief that "god is everything" not theism?

Because theism is the belief in a theistic god, which is a personal, anthropomorphic god. It does encompass all god-concepts, and the pantheistic version of "God" is one that is not included.

Your apple/fruit analogy interests me, because I would argue that it is you who are saying that all fruit (theism) is apples (the particular kind of theism with which you are most familiar). I would argue that polytheism is an orange, peronsanlistic monotheism an apple, pantheism a blackberry, and so forth. Atheists don't have any fruit, blackberries included.

Actually, I'm doing the opposite. I'm using "belief in a god" to refer to "belief in a god" (the equivalent of using "fruit" to refer to "fruit"). Theism is a subset of belief in God. Where "belief in a god" is "fruit", "theism" is "an apple", "pantheism" is "a banana" and so on.

My point is that calling many different/distinct ideas by one name only serves to confuse matters. If I called all fruits "apples", then "apples" would become meaningless when trying to communicate. Just as if I use the term "God" for a personal, anthropomorphic supreme being, as well as Tao and Nature and several other ideas, then "God" is not useful for communication anymore.

It's just someone who lacks belief in all gods.

It is most certainly not someone who lacks belief in all gods. That would be impossible, as shown by pantheism. I believe in pantheism's god, but I don't find it necessary to revere it or call it god.