Pantheism and Deism - Richard Dawkins' comment

[Dionysus]

I'm all for sexed-up atheism! Maybe that's why pantheism and paganism appeal to me.

 

[Quintessence]

I am highly skeptical that it ever possible to understand someone else's map in their own terms. If we ever achieve any level of understanding it is through a process of translation of their ideas into our "language". Which is why understanding is always imperfect.

Indeed. Some bias and blindness is inevitable. That said, avoiding the creation of unnecessary walls is a good thing, I think. The idea is to deconstruct those and to listen to each other. What I've generally noticed amongst the "New Atheist" crowd (and frankly within my culture in general, regardless of (a)theistic persuasion) is a rather telescopic understanding of both religions and theisms. That's kind of inevitable when you have a public education system that doesn't bother to instruct its populace about religious and theological diversity, and when people's exposure to that diversity in their lives is usually very limited.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

“Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down theism.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

I'm not a fan of Dawkins, but having said that, it's interesting how he sees these two concepts. What say you?

I can see where he's coming from when he describes deism as watered down theism

But what he said about pantheism I disagree with. This misconception probably comes from the fact that a large portion of pantheist are natural pantheists and most classical pantheists cling more to a religion. I for one am a classical pantheist, and I do identify as a pantheist.

I have no idea how extreme natural pantheists are - probably varies person to person. But they often do live a lifestyle that makes it seem as if they are environmentalists and call the universe God only metaphorically. I can tell you one thing, though, pantheism could be seen as the opposite of atheism; "There is no God" compared to "God is everything"

Not a lot of people truly understand pantheism on the deeper scale, and that misunderstanding exiists among many self proclaimed pantheists. People look at the surface of pantheism, but little do they know beneath this surface is perhaps one of the most complex theological beliefs - the complexity can't be summarized, only experienced

 

[gsa]

I actually disagree with Dawkins, insofar as he is including advaita or something along those lines in the definition of "pantheism." I actually think he has in mind "scientific" or "natural" pantheism, which is basically awe and reverence for the universe, a sense of interconnectedness, etcetera.

I believe in the latter, but not the former. Although I think the former, "consciousness is imbued in the universe" might arise out of the latter.

To me, the important part is that pantheism and deism are both more aligned socially, politically, historically and even theologically with atheism, as opposed to the revealed religions. Unless one is inclined to apply some sort of postmodern interpretation to the Abrahamic texts, they’re vile assaults on reason, compassion, decency and reality. On the other hand, I think that deism, atheism and pantheism (qualified versions anyway) are rationally acceptable, although I believe that atheism is the most rationally justifiable position. The superstitions, though, are unworthy of respect.

 

[Deidre]

I'm all for sexed-up atheism! Maybe that's why pantheism and paganism appeal to me.

Still trying to wrap my head around Dawkins uttering the phrase ''sexed up''...
^_^

 

[Deidre]

Atheism doesn't have a theology. That's a large part of the point. Abrahamic religions are vile bonkers; deism and pantheism are just bonkers, but bonkers all the same.

But with the likes of Dawkins, it shows how atheists can be every bit as ''dogmatic'' in their viewpoints as say religious fundamentalists. I think it's more ''bonkers'' to obsess over a god you supposedly don't believe in, as many atheists do...than to be into religion. If you don't believe, that's fine. Why do so many atheists feel the need to 'preach' about their unbelief? lol

''Hey everyone! I'm an atheist, and if you follow religion, you're nuts!'' (why many atheists do this, is beyond me) The very thing many atheists detest with religious fundies (in your face 'you're wrong, I'm right' tact), is the very thing they often do, themselves. When I identified with atheism, I remember debating some theists, and I always came away feeling bad that I had seemed self righteous.

 

[Deidre]

I agree with Dawkins at least on the pantheism part. I tried to argue in a thread that pantheism and atheism are the same in an important sense, but almost no one agreed with me. In my opinion people were being a bit irrational, getting weirdly hung up on words.

I don't think pantheism and atheism are the same. Pantheism still suggests that there is such a thing as divinity, which atheism opposes.

 

[JRMcC]

Well, I do agree with you.

One distinction to make though is that pantheism is quite wide when it comes to the idea of God. I'd say naturalistic pantheism is basically atheism, only with a greater vocabulary. Metaphysical pantheism and other forms are closer to theism than atheism.

Yeah it looks like there are different kinds of pantheism. This sounds like the subject for a thread . I'm actually thinking naturalistic pantheism would be transtheistic rather than atheistic.

 

[JRMcC]

I don't think pantheism and atheism are the same. Pantheism still suggests that there is such a thing as divinity, which atheism opposes.

Yeah after thinking about it I agree with you. See my post #29.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yeah it looks like there are different kinds of pantheism. This sounds like the subject for a thread . I'm actually thinking naturalistic pantheism would be transtheistic rather than atheistic.

And I think I can agree with that. I consider myself a naturalistic pantheist (panentheist, transtheist). Basically, the word "God" is a human word that we use to describe something, and what exactly what we're describing with it, that's what the real question is about. Not if the word "God" exists or not. What it stands for, that's what can move us all forward.

 

[gsa]

Atheism doesn't have a theology. That's a large part of the point. Abrahamic religions are vile bonkers; deism and pantheism are just bonkers, but bonkers all the same.

Sure it does, just a minimal one: No belief in God.

Deism is a hypothesis that will, presumably, be falsifiable or confirmable at some point. Pantheism has "hard" (i.e., advaita) and "soft" (i.e., naturalistic pantheism) varieties. The idea of awe and reverence for the natural world, and a sense that it is interconnected, is not bonkers, I don't think.

I don't think pantheism and atheism are the same. Pantheism still suggests that there is such a thing as divinity, which atheism opposes.

Depends on the pantheism. Naturalistic pantheism is indistinguishable from atheism.

 

[Ouroboros]

I don't think pantheism and atheism are the same. Pantheism still suggests that there is such a thing as divinity, which atheism opposes.

Atheism opposes a divine entity, not divinity. I see a difference. The divine force, spirit, soul, or whatever we can call it, has to do with something natural, without referring to a specific supernatural being.

Atheists can technically believe in the supernatural, soul, spirit, etc, while having disbelief in a divine creature that created the world.

 

[Deidre]

I'm finding myself growing indifferent to all of this. As long as what someone believes, doesn't hurt others, I don't care. It is interesting how much time humans spend pondering, discussing, debating....beliefs about a supernatural realm, or lack thereof.

Reading through the thread, I find myself letting go of concerning myself with it, anymore. Maybe I'm just tired from my own journey. But, at the end of the day, if it makes you happy, and you aren't hurting others...that's fine by me.

 

[Sees]

I'm finding myself growing indifferent to all of this. As long as what someone believes, doesn't hurt others, I don't care. It is interesting how much time humans spend pondering, discussing, debating....beliefs about a supernatural realm, or lack thereof.

Reading through the thread, I find myself letting go of concerning myself with it, anymore. Maybe I'm just tired from my own journey. But, at the end of the day, if it makes you happy, and you aren't hurting others...that's fine by me.

The semantic mish-mash can get very tiring

 

[Deidre]

The semantic mish-mash can get very tiring

I don't mind healthy debates, but maybe I'm just worn out with it all. Coming to Deism, I finally have some rest. lol

 

[Jumi]

As long as what someone believes, doesn't hurt others, I don't care.

That's pretty much my view as well.

I could call myself a naturalistic pantheist, but people would misunderstand me even more than they do now. I just use the agnostic or atheist label for convenience.

 

[Koldo]

I think re: pantheism Dawkins has in mind something like Spinoza's "God or Nature", the sort of idea of the divine which Einstein said he could believe in. And I think the idea is that it is the kind of conclusion (in Spinoza's case, this doesn't necessary apply as well to something like a demythologized advaita) that is reached from premises that are more naturalistic, and so it is kind of naturalistic (read "atheist") view that deifies that nature.

On the other hand, deism in practice tended to begin with the worldview of something more like the Abrahamic traditions, hence the idea of the deistic God as a creator, but retreated from the claims of those traditions which can't be justified rationally or be reconciled with science, i.e the supernatural claims.

From the little I know about Dawkins, I would say you are spot on.

 

[Deadtroopers]

Sure it does, just a minimal one: No belief in God.

Semantics. "No belief in God" is an anti-theological statement; surely?

Deism is a hypothesis that will, presumably, be falsifiable or confirmable at some point. Pantheism has "hard" (i.e., advaita) and "soft" (i.e., naturalistic pantheism) varieties. The idea of awe and reverence for the natural world, and a sense that it is interconnected, is not bonkers, I don't think.

But I have awe and reverence for the natural world; it's interconnection is self-evident and has been proven umpteen times over. That is to God what homeopathy is to medicine. I applaude the sentiment of deism as a falsifiable hypothesis.

Depends on the pantheism. Naturalistic pantheism is indistinguishable from atheism.

Apart from irrationally dragging a god-concept after it; I would agree.

 

[Kirran]

That is to God what homeopathy is to medicine.

To be honest, I feel this shows you don't have much of an understanding of the possibilities of theistic concepts, and their capacities for inspiring awe and reverence.

 

[Deadtroopers]

To be honest, I feel this shows you don't have much of an understanding of the possibilities of theistic concepts, and their capacities for inspiring awe and reverence.

I am a gnostic atheist and epistemological monist. I don't do god basically. Why would I need much of an understanding of the possibilities of theistic concepts? They don't get the pots washed or put bread on the table. They are unnecessary to explain reality or anything else. Reality renders most, if not all, of them wildly improbable and downright silly. Cognition error, neuroscience and psychology satifactorily explain the phenomona.