Pantheism and Deism - Richard Dawkins' comment

[Deidre]

“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?

 

[JRMcC]

“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 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.

 

[columbus]

“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 pay no attention to Dawkins himself. But this is one of those posts where someone else quotes him and I say "Yeah, that's putting the truth better than I usually do!"


I consider myself a deist. I believe that the reason there is something rather than nothing is the best meaning for the concept "god". It can be empirically demonstrated to my satisfaction that the Universe exists. That is where evidence about god ends. There is no more.

I "water down" theism by sticking to what can be demonstrated, and ignore the humans claiming that they know more than I do about god. They only make these claims based on human authority. I am very skeptical about humans claiming to know things when the "evidence" is indistinguishable from hallucinations.

But I believe in god. So I am a deist. The difference between me and theists is that I don't trust humans to tell me what god wants me to know.

Tom

 

[Adramelek]

I like this quote:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

 

[fantome profane]

I agree with what he says about Pantheism, but I don't think being "sexed-up" is a bad thing.

 

[Adramelek]

I believe in a higher being or "God", but it is not the god of Christianity, Judaism or Islam, or even Buddhism, Hinduism for that matter. It is the God who infused within humanity the freedom of mind and will, hence, the ability to create personalized gods and religions, and philosophies.

 

[Quintessence]

I think that understanding various people's maps of the territory on their own terms instead of warping them thorough our own lenses is a great deal more impartial, objective, and respectful.

 

[George-ananda]

“Pantheism is sexed-up atheism.

I wonder how well Dawkins understands Advaita (non-dual Hinduism; which says Consciousness is the fundamental property of the universe) which is classified as pantheist?

 

[JRMcC]

I wonder how well Dawkins understands Advaita (non-dual Hinduism; which says Consciousness is the fundamental property of the universe) which is classified as pantheist?

Hmmm. That's tricky. Does Advaita say that the universe is ultimately unreal? If so that would seem rather un-pantheistc to me. Adi Shankara made an analogy about a rope and a snake right? Could you remind me about that and clarify what it means?

Could you say there is atheistic pantheism and then there is theistic pantheism?

 

[Quintessence]

I wonder how well Dawkins understands Advaita (non-dual Hinduism; which says Consciousness is the fundamental property of the universe) which is classified as pantheist?

He probably doesn't. He's a scholar of evolutionary biology. He's not a scholar of Vedic religions, or any other sort of religion that has pantheistic elements.

But who spoke the words is largely irrelevant with respect to their potential wisdom. From a certain point of view, the assessment is correct. That point of view is not, however, how those who actually identify with these terms necessarily see themselves. To avoid misunderstanding each other, it is good to seek to understand others on their own terms. That's how a good social scientist operates in order to avoid ethnocentric biases.

 

[illykitty]

I think it would be best to ask the person instead of making a blanket statement. Not everyone has the same definitions or understanding. For example, maybe some people would perceive pantheism as the universe being "something more" than just the materialistic description. While some others just plain worship the universe and skip the speculation of whether there's something more to it.

I fall in the latter category, as an agnostic pantheist. I revere the universe and don't really mind either way if it's literally a deity, something like the Tao or just the universe without anything more to it. It's my subjective deity and that's enough for me.

And if Dawkins decides people like me are sexed up atheists, then I say that's more fun for me than just plain atheism.

 

[Quintessence]

Whether one is a materialist, idealist, or some other such possibility strikes me as a separate issue One can be a materialist and either theistic or atheistic, just as one can be idealist and either theistic or atheistic. Or you can be like me and say "to hell with this (IMHO) false dichotomy of materialist and idealist, I worship things, and that means I'm a theist, damn it!"

 

[George-ananda]

Hmmm. That's tricky. Does Advaita say that the universe is ultimately unreal?

Brahman the unchanging is the only ultimate 'real'. That which is subject to change is ultimately not real.

If so that would seem rather un-pantheistc to me.

I am going by the definition (from Wikipedia): Pantheism is the belief that the universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity,[1] or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God.

Again from the same article: Hindu religious texts are the oldest known literature containing pantheistic concepts.[60][5] The Advaita Vedanta school of Hinduism teaches that the Atman (true self; human soul) is indistinct from Brahman (the unknown reality of everything).

Adi Shankara made an analogy about a rope and a snake right? Could you remind me about that and clarify what it means?

He talks of a person walking down the road in dark twilight and is seized by fear because he thinks he sees a snake before him in the road. When light (enlightenment) dawns he can then see the snake was just a rope. The point is that we are distressed by what is ultimately unreal but think it is real because of our unenlightened perspective.

Could you say there is atheistic pantheism and then there is theistic pantheism?

I might agree with Dawkins in saying atheistic pantheism is just sexed-up atheism.

 

[lovemuffin]

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.

 

[Deadtroopers]

So, some of the people on here think they are not real. Fine. It is my understanding that there is nothing outside the real; that is outside the physical universe. I base that on the findings of science rooted in reason and logic. Pantheism is not sexed-up atheism. Consciousness and agency are not things you can ascribe to rocks; they are an emergent property of increasingly complex animal lifeforms. I suspect that if there is anything to the 'god' idea it will turn out to be an emergent property of the human brain.

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.

Ah! that would make atheism watered-down deism! Homeopathic Deism in fact; with not even a molecule of the original element remaining.

 

[lovemuffin]

Ah! that would make atheism watered-down deism!

In a sense, yes. I think all of these propositions are evocative but dubious at best. "Watered down deism" reminds me of the complaint of the blogger gsa linked in this thread, in the sense that that blogger was complaining about atheists whose world view was (in his opinion) still too constructed around theism, even though it was in opposition to that theism.

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

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.

 

[Deadtroopers]

atheists whose world view was

still too constructed around theism, even though it was in opposition to that theism.

Which is akin to wanting darkness without light and good without evil. I boggle at the silliness.

 

[Zulk-Dharma]

I would say the opposite, Deism is the sexed-up atheism, since it's already sort of atheistic.

Pantheism is a watered down theism.

 

[fantome profane]

I think that understanding various people's maps of the territory on their own terms instead of warping them thorough our own lenses is a great deal more impartial, objective, and respectful.

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.

I think it is important to realize that understanding is always going to be imperfect and work to improve it, instead of taking offense at the imperfection.