Pantheism - a foundation for unity?

[Dawnofhope]

Sydney Religious Studies Lecturer, Raphael Lataster, suggests that a pantheistic model of deity may be a more fertile basis (than, for example, a monotheistic revealed religion) on which religious "unity" and cooperation might be founded. In a recent paper he writes:

"The clear lack of dogmatic adherence to a particular god in many pantheistic models may foster more religious
tolerance, and could lead to wider acceptance of non-theistic and possibly more tolerant religions such as Buddhism, Daoism, or indigenous animisms. Pantheistic worldviews tend to be relatively inclusive, and could thus have many positive societal impacts.

For example, ... pantheists understand that “all are one.” Everything that exists is part of the one divine reality. The divine does not choose one people/species ... all people are divine. All species are divine. And all that is, from the glorious mountain, to the lowly ball of dung, is divine. Worldviews that encourage reverence for humanity and nature may increase the chances of cooperation, egalitarianism, and unity..."

What do you think? Does pantheism really provide a better foundation than theism for tolerance, cooperation and unity among the the human family?

In theory it makes sense. In the real world the trend is movement towards the Abrahamic faiths and Hinduism, and away from Buddhism, folk religions or no religion (where pantheism would be the best fit).

Muslims and Islam: Key findings in the U.S. and around the world

I think the future is finding inclusiveness within an Abrahamic paradigm that would extend to Hinduism, Buddhism, folk religions and atheism. No prizes for guessing which Abrahamic faith I think best promotes that inclusiveness!

 

[FragrantGrace]

Einstein won the Nobel prize in Physics in 1922 for his work in Quantum Mechanics - not General Relativity.
Niels Bohr won the Nobel prize in Physics in 1923.
Sorry for the hijack.

" ABSTRACT - When contemplating the theory of evolution, many people assume evolution belongs exclusively to the biological sciences. It's maintained here that complete comprehension also requires physics. Since discovery of gravitational waves in Sep. 2015 is a recent milestone in physics, it's fitting that evolution should be reassessed by that milestone.

Without a conviction that time doesn’t exclusively operate in a straight line and that time travel to the past is possible, science would have to totally agree with the evolutionary concepts Charles Darwin proposed. This article also attempts to combine Einstein's two Relativity theories and Unified Field Theory with quantum physics and tomorrow's hyper-computers. It also uses the concepts of "real", "imaginary" and "complex" time to try to bring cosmology's Big Bang theory, the Steady State's infinity and eternity, and the Inflationary theory into the 21st century. Einstein believed stars, planets, even quantum particles were part of, and not distinct from, the rubber-sheet geometry (the topology) comprising space-time.

To read an explanation in plain English of subuniverses or observable universes using topology, go to the intimately related - indispensably so - "Topological monoverse" at the end of this article. This says that, from a purely spatial aspect, there is no multiverse (universes existing alongside ours). But remember, it regards the 13.8 billion year old structure we live in as merely a subuniverse within an infinite universe. It's saying there are no other universes beyond our infinite universe. If each subuniverse is viewed as the entire universe, the multiverse does indeed exist.

From the temporal aspect of the space-time union: everything in space-time is unified into one thing - a product of the gravitational field. All past and future universes are unified with the present cosmos (is this the real meaning of the word "multiverse"?)..."
Sourced from and continues at link. Article title copied as is, in all caps.
PDF: THE CYBERPHYSICS OF TOMORROW'S WORLD - EVOLUTION UPDATED PLUS COMPUTERS USING IMAGINARY TIME AND HYPERSPACE Author - Rodney Bartlett

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Sydney Religious Studies Lecturer, Raphael Lataster, suggests that a pantheistic model of deity may be a more fertile basis (than, for example, a monotheistic revealed religion) on which religious "unity" and cooperation might be founded. In a recent paper he writes:

"The clear lack of dogmatic adherence to a particular god in many pantheistic models may foster more religious
tolerance, and could lead to wider acceptance of non-theistic and possibly more tolerant religions such as Buddhism, Daoism, or indigenous animisms. Pantheistic worldviews tend to be relatively inclusive, and could thus have many positive societal impacts.

For example, ... pantheists understand that “all are one.” Everything that exists is part of the one divine reality. The divine does not choose one people/species ... all people are divine. All species are divine. And all that is, from the glorious mountain, to the lowly ball of dung, is divine. Worldviews that encourage reverence for humanity and nature may increase the chances of cooperation, egalitarianism, and unity..."

What do you think? Does pantheism really provide a better foundation than theism for tolerance, cooperation and unity among the the human family?

Probably. But as foundations go, it's pretty bare.
I mean, I'm an atheist, but seeing atheism as a foundation is really just acknowledgement that it's better to start from zero than with mixed preconceptions.

Pantheism isn't much different unless you start adding dogma.

 

[siti]

It is healing.

I'm sorry, I'm not grokking again - are you saying the world is healing, in the sense that humanity is - already but ever so gradually - healing itself of dependence on belief in deities by becoming apathetic about the subject, or you offering apatheism as the panacea for all kinds of religious credulity?

 

[shunyadragon]

That's fine. Since the "universe is God" then, would that not naturally lead to a greater level of respect for other religious traditions - since they have clearly (even if they are in error) arisen among divine beings (we are all parts of the divine reality of the universe in a pantheistic model) in a divine universe? We might say we are all "manifestations" of the divine, might we not? And then there is no basis to deny the religious beliefs of another - at least insofar as it is not working against the good of all?

I do not consider the belief that the universe is God any more appealing than atheism to traditional theists. I am sympathetic with pantheism from the perspective of panentheism, which is close to the belief of the Baha'i Faith.

If anything it is an alternative to atheism, agnosticism, and maybe Deism. Deism is vague enough it could resemble atheism or pantheism.

There remains a pretty sharp divide between these alternatives, and the theist beliefs, particularly traditional theists that will have nothing to do with the above.

 

[shunyadragon]

Probably. But as foundations go, it's pretty bare.
I mean, I'm an atheist, but seeing atheism as a foundation is really just acknowledgement that it's better to start from zero than with mixed preconceptions.

OK

Pantheism isn't much different unless you start adding dogma.

Stay away from fire plugs.

 

[dingdao]

" ABSTRACT - When contemplating the theory of evolution, many people assume evolution belongs exclusively to the biological sciences. It's maintained here that complete comprehension also requires physics. Since discovery of gravitational waves in Sep. 2015 is a recent milestone in physics, it's fitting that evolution should be reassessed by that milestone.

Without a conviction that time doesn’t exclusively operate in a straight line and that time travel to the past is possible, science would have to totally agree with the evolutionary concepts Charles Darwin proposed. This article also attempts to combine Einstein's two Relativity theories and Unified Field Theory with quantum physics and tomorrow's hyper-computers. It also uses the concepts of "real", "imaginary" and "complex" time to try to bring cosmology's Big Bang theory, the Steady State's infinity and eternity, and the Inflationary theory into the 21st century. Einstein believed stars, planets, even quantum particles were part of, and not distinct from, the rubber-sheet geometry (the topology) comprising space-time.

To read an explanation in plain English of subuniverses or observable universes using topology, go to the intimately related - indispensably so - "Topological monoverse" at the end of this article. This says that, from a purely spatial aspect, there is no multiverse (universes existing alongside ours). But remember, it regards the 13.8 billion year old structure we live in as merely a subuniverse within an infinite universe. It's saying there are no other universes beyond our infinite universe. If each subuniverse is viewed as the entire universe, the multiverse does indeed exist.

From the temporal aspect of the space-time union: everything in space-time is unified into one thing - a product of the gravitational field. All past and future universes are unified with the present cosmos (is this the real meaning of the word "multiverse"?)..."
Sourced from and continues at link. Article title copied as is, in all caps.
PDF: THE CYBERPHYSICS OF TOMORROW'S WORLD - EVOLUTION UPDATED PLUS COMPUTERS USING IMAGINARY TIME AND HYPERSPACE Author - Rodney Bartlett

I was commenting on the error in the Einstein Pantheist article. A fundamental blunder that throws the rest of the article under suspicion.
The above article has only one author, which means that it could not have been peer reviewed. It looks more like SF.

 

[FragrantGrace]

Its hard to talk about, because I know humanity is bound to tragedy like white on rice. We keep looking for a way to make things better, and things have gotten somewhat better from time to time. Still there have been what like millions of years of horror. I'd have to say things are relatively good right now.

Good post.
Human ego leads us to think we are in control of all things. That is why we're in trouble now. Look at Denominationalism. We think we have a license not only on identifying something called God, but that he prefers a certain kind of people; I.E. those who live their entire life hoping to please an extra dimensional spirit with their behaviors. And this after they've created "him" in their image and likeness.
Ever notice that about the God of the Bible? He is said to be creator of all that exists and yet he has the same personality as the most egregious despot.

 

[FragrantGrace]

I was commenting on the error in the Einstein Pantheist article. A fundamental blunder that throws the rest of the article under suspicion.
The above article has only one author, which means that it could not have been peer reviewed. It looks more like SF.

"Good Science without Peer-Review

Some of the most important and groundbreaking work in the history of science first appeared in published form not in peer-reviewed scientific journal articles but in scientific books. That includes Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus and Newton’s Principia. Einstein’s original paper on relativity was published in a scientific journal (Annalen der Physik), but did not undergo formal peer-review.1 Indeed, Darwin’s own theory of evolution was first published in a book for a general and scientific audience — his Origin of Species — not in a peer-reviewed paper..."
Intelligent Design Is Peer-Reviewed, but Is Peer-Review a Requirement of Good Science?
Casey Luskin
February 10, 2012

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Stay away from fire plugs.

Sorry, mate, don't quite get the reference.
Might be an Aussie blind spot.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

"Good Science without Peer-Review

Some of the most important and groundbreaking work in the history of science first appeared in published form not in peer-reviewed scientific journal articles but in scientific books. That includes Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus and Newton’s Principia. Einstein’s original paper on relativity was published in a scientific journal (Annalen der Physik), but did not undergo formal peer-review.1 Indeed, Darwin’s own theory of evolution was first published in a book for a general and scientific audience — his Origin of Species — not in a peer-reviewed paper..."
Intelligent Design Is Peer-Reviewed, but Is Peer-Review a Requirement of Good Science?
Casey Luskin
February 10, 2012

That's kinda a strange viewpoint.
Peer review is a quality assurance method. The best science was the best science prior to peer review, and continues to be so afterwards.
The worst science is hopefully identifed and given a stern talking to.

 

[siti]

Probably. But as foundations go, it's pretty bare.
I mean, I'm an atheist, but seeing atheism as a foundation is really just acknowledgement that it's better to start from zero than with mixed preconceptions.

Pantheism isn't much different unless you start adding dogma.

OK - so here is the dogma I think might make it a bit more of a foundation - not my ideas - from the paper I quoted in the OP...

Pantheism holds that “all are one” - my caveat - we're "one" but we're not the same (apologies to Bono)
Pantheism holds that "everything that exists is part of the one divine reality."
Pantheism holds that "the divine does not choose one people/species ... all people are divine."

Please note, I am not speaking on behalf of pantheists, I am quoting a paper which so describes pantheism. I doubt there is much beyond "all is one" that could seriously be tagged "dogma" in pantheism in its various forms - but the other points follow from that...don't they?

 

[shunyadragon]

I was commenting on the error in the Einstein Pantheist article. A fundamental blunder that throws the rest of the article under suspicion.
The above article has only one author, which means that it could not have been peer reviewed. It looks more like SF.

The best that can be said was Einstein was a naturalist or a stretch pantheist. Not much difference really.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

OK - so here is the dogma I think might make it a bit more of a foundation - not my ideas - from the paper I quoted in the OP...

Pantheism holds that “all are one” - my caveat - we're "one" but we're not the same (apologies to Bono)
Pantheism holds that "everything that exists is part of the one divine reality."
Pantheism holds that "the divine does not choose one people/species ... all people are divine."

Please note, I am not speaking on behalf of pantheists, I am quoting a paper which so describes pantheism. I doubt there is much beyond "all is one" that could seriously be tagged "dogma" in pantheism in its various forms - but the other points follow from that...don't they?

I'd see it as a better foundation, given those parameters (even though I don't agree with it).
But I'm not sure what practical impact it would have. I don't think it's prescriptive enough to drive behaviour, so you'd need everyone to not just become pantheists, but to actually believe it in a very deep and real sense.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sorry, mate, don't quite get the reference.
Might be an Aussie blind spot.

Dogs-dogma hang out around fire plugs. 'My karma ate your dogma.'

or . . .

https://www.google.com/search?ei=sP.......1..0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71.RNBG5wPGy-k

“My karma just ran over your dogma.” ... According to the dictionary karma means, action, seen as bringing upon oneself inevitable results, good or bad and dogma means prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

"The clear lack of dogmatic adherence to a particular god in many pantheistic models may foster more religious
tolerance, and could lead to wider acceptance of non-theistic and possibly more tolerant religions such as Buddhism, Daoism, or indigenous animisms. Pantheistic worldviews tend to be relatively inclusive, and could thus have many positive societal impacts.

For example, ... pantheists understand that “all are one.” Everything that exists is part of the one divine reality. The divine does not choose one people/species ... all people are divine. All species are divine. And all that is, from the glorious mountain, to the lowly ball of dung, is divine. Worldviews that encourage reverence for humanity and nature may increase the chances of cooperation, egalitarianism, and unity..."

I guess it might if the inclusive attitude is the one that is emphasized, and it has an intellectual framework that is understood by the masses to nullify dogmatism. Then again I could envision dogmatism resulting if for example, an interpretation arises where serious rules regarding what is sacred are seen to be violated. And If everything is sacred, a division could arise where some are implicated as not taking due respects as regards everything or anything, especially the atheists I suppose. And then you are in a mess, because this time around it isn't just a single God implicated in sacredness, divided from the reality we see and abstract in concept.

Lately I was thinking of a similar argument for polytheism, though that too can be corrupted.

 

[siti]

We're going off track a bit...I am not suggesting that traditional theists or anyone else should change their religion...I am wondering if (for example) inter-religious dialogue facilitated on the basis of a pantheistic model of deity might be potentially more successful in promoting tolerance, cooperation and unity than inter-religious dialogue predicated on the basis of a revealed monotheistic faith?

 

[shunyadragon]

We're going off track a bit...I am not suggesting that traditional theists or anyone else should change their religion...I am wondering if (for example) inter-religious dialogue facilitated on the basis of a pantheistic model of deity might be potentially more successful in promoting tolerance, cooperation and unity than inter-religious dialogue predicated on the basis of a revealed monotheistic faith?

Your proposal for Pantheism - a foundation for unity? goes further than this.

The point was already made that pantheism is akin to atheism, and maybe Deism, and not remotely a starting point for a dialogue of traditional theism.

 

[siti]

I am sympathetic with pantheism from the perspective of panentheism, which is close to the belief of the Baha'i Faith.

This is a very interesting observation to me. So by panentheism I presume you mean that God is the universe and then some...essentially - so my tenets

"All are one...everything that exists is part of the divine reality...all people are divine..." apply under panentheism too, wouldn't they? I'm pretty sure these are encapsulated in Baha'i writings...so if that is panentheism, why is it not expressly promoted as such? Don't take this wrongly - I'm not criticizing - I'm wondering if it is counterproductive to the cause of "unifying" religion to use an unfamiliar term that many would object to - like pantheism or panentheism? But wouldn't the better way to tackle that be education?

 

[Sand Dancer]

The sense of the connectiveness of everything, to me, is a positive. No competition, division, hatred, etc.