Is Pantheism atheistic or theistic?

[nazz]

Personally, I don't understand how some being could be a person and still be omnipresent and omniscient. The definition of "person" doesn't fit. A person is limited, finite in both space and time, and has a temporal consciousness. To me, it's a contradiction.

or perhaps just mystery?

 

[StarryNightshade]

I'm confused. I thought a "personal god" was simply one that could be related to directly like a person. What you're describing just sounds like a partial description of classical monotheism.

In the western world, when the term "personal God" is used, it often is used as a synonym for classical monotheism. I used that as an example, because that's the most used definition for "personal God" that I've heard. At least in the U.S.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Personal god as in a god that directs reality by a conscious will. The writer was viewing stoic type beliefs as types of atheism. However it was focused on extremes where either reality is directed or by chance.

I sort of consider myself to be influenced by Stoic philosophy majorly, and I've never given it any thought about God (the mechanics of nature, therefore nature) is consciously willing it, though I wouldn't say it's impersonal either way, it's directly effecting everything that pertains to it.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

or perhaps just mystery?

Mystery for the restricted masses, contradiction for the curious few.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Pantheism is both. Pantheism will (normally not always) accept the power of prayer, will of God & karma, meditation and so on.
A personal God is exclusive, nothing is divine but it.
The Pantheist God is inclusive, everything is included in its grace. So although pantheism does not accept a personal God or deity-personality, God still exists and is relavent, but in no way separate from forms. Often the idea that living beings are organism or cells in Gods body.

Many people are going to pantheism as a healthy middle, because a personal God often seems rediculous, but they feel a connection to something divine none the less.
It often is mixed with a form if monism.

 

[Ouroboros]

or perhaps just mystery?

It's a mystery that people think God has to have these conflicting properties. There's no need to call God a "person" to create this contradiction to begin with. A person isn't omniscient or omnipresent. God is therefore a completely non-person just as he supposedly is non-temporal instead of temporal, and infinite instead of finite, etc. In the same manner, God must be a non-person , not a person.

 

[nazz]

It's a mystery that people think God has to have these conflicting properties. There's no need to call God a "person" to create this contradiction to begin with. A person isn't omniscient or omnipresent. God is therefore a completely non-person just as he supposedly is non-temporal instead of temporal, and infinite instead of finite, etc. In the same manner, God must be a non-person , not a person.

How exactly are you defining "person"?

 

[Ouroboros]

How exactly are you defining "person"?

A being that is conscious and intelligent. A being that is defined in space and time. A being that can reason and act according to decisions. A being that can communicate with other beings. And on top of this, somehow doing all this more than just animals or robots.

What's your definition of "person"?

 

[nazz]

A being that is conscious and intelligent. A being that is defined in space and time. A being that can reason and act according to decisions. A being that can communicate with other beings. And on top of this, somehow doing all this more than just animals or robots.

What's your definition of "person"?

that works for me and my conception of God.

 

[Ouroboros]

that works for me and my conception of God.

God is non-temporal and non-spatial. A person to me is temporal and spatial, as you can see above. So God isn't a person.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Honestly, the only reliable distinction between "atheist" and "theist" in the first place is whether or not they use the word "god(s)" or not. That said, last time I checked, it was panTHEISM, not panATHEISM. I'm not surprised that a commentary on pantheism written from a Christian theological perspective would deny that it's "real" theism. They insist that gods must be personal, so if you can't have a personal relationship with something, that thing isn't "really" a god. They play the same sort of cards when it comes to addressing any other god-concept that isn't the "correct" one.

I agree:

"I use my car to drive my family around and pick up groceries. Sports cars can't fit a family or groceries. Therefore, sports car drivers are pedestrians. "

 

[nazz]

God is non-temporal and non-spatial. A person to me is temporal and spatial, as you can see above. So God isn't a person.

We'll just have to disagree on this I guess

 

[Contemplative Cat]

In Hindu dharma, a personal God is often considered a gateway to an impersonal God.
people loke this idea, So sometimes pantheists do have a personal deity. Gaia, or any preferred deity.

Gaia is definitely the popular pantheist deity. Nowadays she has grown from a toga wearing Greek lady to a Cosmic Mother Goddess , pregnant with Earths globe.

Goddess religions normally apply all Goddess myths to a single divine goddess. So its become a popular deity.
Ive also heard the name star goddess.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

a person has space outside, therefore cannot be everywere are once or all knowing.

 

[Caladan]

To me Pantheism is absolutely not theistic. It is my philosophical outlook on the world, as an extension of Naturalistic thought.
While major religions occasionally touch Pantheism in their scripture and tradition, they certainly do not teach it. They teach classical theism in which a God created the world, a God which cannot be compared to his creation, which is what Pantheism teaches. The Pantheistic 'theism' is that God is all natural phenomena, and all natural elements (suns or galaxies for example) are part of a universal experience which has been referred to as God in religion throughout history.
My form of Naturalistic Pantheism is still receptive to theistic spiritual ideals, for example the sense of destiny of Jewish ancestry, but even these can fall under pantheist sensibilities. Another philosophical element I embrace is embodied in the Arabic term bi-la kayf, or 'without asking how', which is expressed to go beyond the problematic nature of attributing human characteristics to God. This to me embodies the reconciliation between the greatness of the world's theistic religions to personal instincts and the world as it is, without projecting our ideals on it. Every Human at some point experiences the sobering moment that all his/her ideals about the world are meaningless when faced with nature's raw circumstances.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

My understanding was that pantheism was generally used to refer to a concept closer to pandeism potentially with some monism thrown in but not really theistic as such; while Panentheism is probably further away from monism, more towards pandeism (though it is arguable that the 'en' might include some scope of intervention, it is unlikely that the 'pan' does). At least from my past readings. Then again depending on how you understand the concept, it could become exponentially more complex and certain theistic constructions could potentially be supported.

 

[Windwalker]

Although I view God as being equal with the universe, and thus we are a "part of God", I still don't believe it to be personal.

But if God is equal with the universe, and we are "part of God", and we are personal, then how is God not personal? Is God outside us? Are we outside God?

As I don't believe it to be all-knowing, micromanaging or that it listens to prayers and grants them like wishes.

These are simply expressions of anthropomorphic imaginations that exist within traditional theism. I don't believe they define what a personal God is.

 

[Windwalker]

A being that is conscious and intelligent.

Doesn't this describe the universe? What are we? Isn't this therefore God being personal?

A being that is defined in space and time.

By whom? And are we actually, if you are just looking at humans, defined by space and time? What are we exactly? Do I have all the same cells in my body that I did when I was born, or even the same cells from a few years ago? If not, then a person must be defined by having a sort of repeating form. Doesn't the universe have repeating forms?

A being that can reason and act according to decisions.

Doesn't this describe all sentient beings? And in a more rudimentary sense does this describe all of nature all the way from the subatomic to human mind? Nature is constantly making "decisions". It's how evolution works. It adapts itself to create stable forms.

A being that can communicate with other beings.

Communicate? You mean interact? That too describes all of nature. If by communicate you mean share thoughts and ideas, then that certainly isn't something humans alone do. This happens within all the animal species, and even plant life. Communication occurs that tells others of those species of things occurring, such as an insect invasion where suddenly other trees who are not being attacked directly begin to secrete sap in advance of invasion. Or any countless other examples of the transmission of knowledge this way.

And on top of this, somehow doing all this more than just animals or robots.

You know what I believe? I believe Western science has adopted this view that nature is purely mechanical, dumb, blind, impersonal, etc. That has skewed our understanding of the aliveness of nature itself as a whole. We try to explain things to make them mechanical, not alive.

But what is life? And then to the question, what is a "person"? Humans? I see all of it as personal, from the rock to the leaf, to the stars, to the air, to the planet, to your mind, to my body, to the universe within us, etc. It's all alive. And it all acts. It is bound together through forms. It interacts with itself as a body. We are not disjointed, disconnected, isolated, removed, separate, as persons from an impersonal universe or God. We are very much expressions of this living Reality.

So God, in a pantheistic view as being immanent in the universe would need to be personal. But I identify as panenthiestic, in that I additionally see the world of form, this body of God as it were, to be one of countless expressions of Infinity beyond it. And that Infinity is eternal and outside the body. So God is both wholly transcendent to, and wholly immanent in the universe. That God is both personal, and "impersonal" in the sense that it is the Uncreate, the Formless, the Source through which all form arises as the Personal. We are expressions of the Personal, as humans.

It's interesting we see ourselves alone as personal, like seeing the earth as the center of the universe, or humans as the pinnacle of God's creation. I see all these myths as expression of our existential disconnect with who we are in ourselves. It's no wonder why when we meditate, when we look into ourselves, we see we are not disconnected, that we are One. To know ourselves, is to know God. To know God is to know ourselves. And we are personal.

 

[Father Heathen]

I am reading a book that charges pantheism with being a form of atheism for denying a personal god. Is pantheism more theistic or atheistic in nature? The book argues that the reasoning that brings an atheist to that conclusion matters and that pantheists accept that materialistic world view. He even goes as far as to say atheism doesnt really exist since nobody can deny an active power in nature. I wanted to hear thoughts and opinions on those ideas. The book is from a Christian theist perspective. "Modern atheism under its forms of pantheism, materialism, secularism, development, and Natural law"

Why does god have to be personal, or possess a persona?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why does god have to be personal, or possess a persona?

There's one reason I see, though this is from my personal non-religious perspective and I imagine many theists will disagree, including the author of that book:

"Gods" are people's attempts to relate to things like nature, perfection, luck, morality, etc. If a god is crafted in such a way that it can't be related to, then it defeats the whole point of the exercise.

What's an anthropomorphism with no characteristics of a person?