Is Pantheism atheistic or theistic?

[mycorrhiza]

What do you think about Panentheism ?

That it's most definitely theistic . I'm neutral towards it.

 

[Windwalker]

The term "person" is tricky.

Maybe I should redefine it from before. I think we have slightly different ideas of what constitutes a person, but you had some valid points. In my view, a person is a being that is limited in time and space, able to experience, interact with environment and other beings (persons), and have a limited life.

This just described all animal life on the planet, outside of the fact people normally don't call an amoeba a person. But they definitely fit this definition of what a person is. They are able to experience, interact with the environment, and other being, they have a limited life, etc.

But to your point about calling God a sort of sentient being that exists in time and space in order for humans to project their own face of "Him" and call that a person, that's a much trickier thing to do. Obviously anything that puts a boundary around God in order to call God a person, such as dropping these boundaries around our collective "we's" in our bodies (cells, molecules, atoms, etc), and calling that an "I", or a "person" in human designations, would be to reduce God to an object in a sort of quasi space-time paradox. God transcends all boundaries, including that one.

But in that reality, God is not excluded from time-space either. (This will make the head hurt). Inasmuch as God is also all that is, we can from multiple perspectives understand God as a person. Let me explain. I know you're familiar with what I've brought up before elsewhere about the three faces of God, or Spirit. This is a Ken Wilber insight that I find enormously helpful, and will help unravel this confusing speak I'm trying to get at by way of a deconstruction of terms.

We as humans in all that we do in a dualistic reality of subject/object distinctions assume and communicate through 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person perspectives. We experience ourselves in 1st person perspective and identify ourselves as "I" or "Me". We experience another "person" through a 2nd person perspective in a "you" personal relationship. We experience the world through a 3rd person perspective, and see the world of objects as an "it".

Experiencing God through a 3rd person perspective is to look at the vastness of the universe or all manifest objects and seeing them as an expression of the divine, that both speaks of and contains that Spirit of creation, much in the way if you were to listen to a work of music that speaks deep hidden truths in its form. The music is alive with the energy of the creator. You are looking at the object and experiencing something in yourself through its form. This is in line with a pantheistic view of God.

Experiencing God through a 2nd person perspective is to relate to what is manifest to you as a "thou", a "Holy Other". You are in active relations with it, rather than a passive observer taking in an experience of what is observed. You participate with your "I" with the Other in an exchange, in a dialog, in a receive and return relationship. This is experiencing God through objectifying God externally through many, or any forms, where you distinctly are bringing your ego-self into relation the Holy Other. This is more your traditional theism, and also can be accessed through a panentheistic approach, a pantheism that see the world as alive, rather than a dead mechanical machine of materialism.

Experiencing God through a 1st person perspective is to identify yourself as God. God is experienced within you, and you are That. "Before Abraham was, I AM". You are in touch with your eternal Self, the true Face of who you were, and are, before the Big Bang. You identify with all that is, with all others through your true Face. This is the approach of the mystic entering into the causal and nondual states of conscious awareness.

Now where this calling God a "Person", comes in you can probably see would be in a 2nd person perspective, mentally projecting a Face upon what arises in the heart that is divine, as the Holy Other. It is extremely personal, and can be called a "person" that you are in communion, or an intimate relationship with. The "Person" can also be seen in the manifest world, as the "Artist" who is the creative impulse behind the observable world. We can interact with Nature as God. We don't say the rock IS God, but the rock is God's. To touch the rock, is to touch God. God is in the rock. The rock is a living manifestation of God, vibrating with energy. And this is how I see where God in nature, Nature mysticism arises through a 3rd person, pantheistic perspective. Pan (everything, everywhere) theism (a view of God). God is immanent in all manifest creation. And furthermore the Person can be seen in 1st person, subjective experience. You are a person. You are God.

Each approach has a genuine and necessary value to add to our overall growth as a spiritual human being. We live life in these three perspectives, and we should not exclude any of them in that continued growth. This is why I am a pantheist, a theist, and a mystic. Or, you could just say I'm a panentheist mystic.

The real issue I'm coming to see regarding pantheism being called atheistic in the modern sense, "sexed up atheism" as the unastute Richard Dawkins so strangely called it, is what I touched on earlier, seeing nature as a living thing, or seeing it as a dead, dumb, blind mechanical thing through the eyes of philosophical materialism. If it is the latter, than saying God at all is utterly pointless! It's not pantheism, but panmaterialsm, or better put, panatheism. But if it is alive, if it is animate with living divine energy, then it is pantheism.

I think I'm going to save this explanation in order to quote it again later and not have to rethink and retype all of that again. I can take this further, but let me know if this is making more sense now.

 

[Ouroboros]

I can take this further, but let me know if this is making more sense now.

Good points, but I need to think about it.

 

[SageTree]

What interests me is that Christians who believe God is omnipresent do not admit to being pantheists or panentheists.

I'm not sure if you mean A Christian who believes or THE Christians who believe.

Google Panentheism and Eastern Orthodox Church Either way,
for something different.

 

[Avi1001]

..... This is more your traditional theism, and also can be accessed through a panentheistic approach, a pantheism that see the world as alive, rather than a dead mechanical machine of materialism....

...... This is why I am a pantheist, a theist, and a mystic. Or, you could just say I'm a panentheist mystic.....

So if a panentheist is a theistic pantheist, what differentiates it from Humanism ? Naturalism ?

 

[Contemplative Cat]

You have faith in the whole universal organism, beings are not isolated, each being acts as organisms in a universal body, Gaia.
Dissolution or enlightenment is another goal of panentheistic traditions.
It is every quality of Nature's duty to promote healthy vibes in the universe, other wise(by being mean or hateful) organism start to bring us down, they become cancer. not to say we should get rid of them, negativity only produces more negativity. Our only hope is to become more loving people.

 

[MD]

Ibelieve the Universe is the mind of God and I am a part of that mind. Definitely theistic.

 

[Windwalker]

So if a panentheist is a theistic pantheist, what differentiates it from Humanism ? Naturalism ?

Humanism has the focus on humans themselves. They believe in the power of humans to do good in the world and to create a world of peace. Now a humanist can be either a religious humanist who incorporate a God into their lives and actions as humans (as opposed to praying alone for divine intervention), or a secular humanist where a faith in God has been replaced by a faith in humanity that through reason, science, and technology they will affect the course of human history instead of a God. So a humanist can be a theist, a pantheist, a panenthiest, or an atheist.

Naturalism philosophically tends to be on the focus on the nature of nature itself. It's focus is not about the nature of God, other than it excludes anything supernatural having anything to do with the world, past, present, or future. It sees the world as purely materialistic, without any soul, spirit, God, or even mind, etc. What I suppose differentiates pantheism, theism, and panentheism from Naturalism is that all of these include God in some fashion in relation to Nature, be that outside and transcendent to it in in theistic or deistic thought, immanent within it in pantheism, or both transcendent and immanent paradoxically as in panentheism.

 

[Avi1001]

Humanism has the focus on humans themselves. They believe in the power of humans to do good in the world and to create a world of peace. Now a humanist can be either a religious humanist who incorporate a God into their lives and actions as humans (as opposed to praying alone for divine intervention), or a secular humanist where a faith in God has been replaced by a faith in humanity that through reason, science, and technology they will affect the course of human history instead of a God. So a humanist can be a theist, a pantheist, a panenthiest, or an atheist.

Naturalism philosophically tends to be on the focus on the nature of nature itself. It's focus is not about the nature of God, other than it excludes anything supernatural having anything to do with the world, past, present, or future. It sees the world as purely materialistic, without any soul, spirit, God, or even mind, etc. What I suppose differentiates pantheism, theism, and panentheism from Naturalism is that all of these include God in some fashion in relation to Nature, be that outside and transcendent to it in in theistic or deistic thought, immanent within it in pantheism, or both transcendent and immanent paradoxically as in panentheism.

These explanations make sense, thank you.

However, I see these approaches as complementary. For example, as a theistic Jew, I believe some phenomenon are nicely described by humanistic and some by naturalistic descriptions.

 

[Windwalker]

These explanations make sense, thank you.

However, I see these approaches as complementary. For example, as a theistic Jew, I believe some phenomenon are nicely described by humanistic and some by naturalistic descriptions.

They can be, yes. As I said, a humanist approach that puts in on humans to improve the world can be benefited by have a view that the world is infused with God's nature as that should be default changes the approach we have as a certain reverence towards it, as opposed to some dead resource to exploit for gain and when that's dried up move on to the next area to deplete. Naturalism or reductionism certainly has its uses in doing science, but when it moves into a worldview, it can put blinders on that prevent seeing the living soul of things, or the reality of the world beyond that view.