Pantheism vs Panentheism

[Treks]

Is the difference between pantheism and panentheism a significant one, in your opinion?

Does it affect how the pan(en)theist conducts themselves in the world?

Wikipedia:

Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) "all"; ἐν (en) "in"; and θεός (theós) "God"; "all-in-God") is a belief system which posits that the divine (be it a monotheistic God, polytheistic gods, or an eternal cosmic animating force[1]) interpenetrates every part of nature and timelessly extends beyond it. Panentheism differentiates itself from pantheism, which holds that the divine is synonymous with the universe.[2] Unlike pantheism, panentheism maintains the identity and significance of the non-divine in the world.[3]

 

[Quintessence]

I think that in order to make any meaningful distinction between the two, you also need to lay out some sort of baseline ontology. In particular, it needs to be defined what "nature" and "universe" are.

I have to say, I haven't seen that component with that third citation put into the definition of panentheism before.

 

[Desert Snake]

I think that in order to make any meaningful distinction between the two, you also need to lay out some sort of baseline ontology. In particular, it needs to be defined what "nature" and "universe" are.

I have to say, I haven't seen that component with that third citation put into the definition of panentheism before.

Dude, that citation is necessary for the definition. :yes:

 

[Quintessence]

Dude, that citation is necessary for the definition. :yes:

To be honest, I don't even understand what that sentence means or what it is trying to get at. It's phrased very awkwardly, and is totally counter to all other definitions of panentheism I've run across. If I'm understanding it correctly, it's saying panentheism maintains that everything is not divine/sacred, yet every description of the term I've ever seen has considered panentheism to be "everything is divine/sacred, plus things that extend beyond universe/nature." So naturally, I'm very confused.

 

[Madhuri]

I personally think that there is a huge difference between Pantheism and Panentheism. It might not sound like much but the fact that God exists beyond the universe as an independent Being is a significant difference to considering the divine and the universe to be one and the same.

 

[Treks]

Quint: I was actually thinking about leaving that bit OUT of the quote. What does it even mean??

Here's the sentence in context of the original source from here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panentheism/

“Panentheism” is a constructed word composed of the English equivalents of the Greek terms “pan”, meaning all,“en”, meaning in, and “theism”, meaning God. Panentheism considers God and the world to be inter-related with the world being in God and God being in the world. It offers an increasingly popular alternative to both traditional theism and pantheism. Panentheism seeks to avoid either isolating God from the world as traditional theism often does or identifying God with the world as pantheism does. Traditional theistic systems emphasize the difference between God and the world while panentheism stresses God's active presence in the world. Pantheism emphasizes God's presence in the world but panentheism maintains the identity and significance of the non-divine.

I still don't understand. :/

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Is the difference between pantheism and panentheism a significant one, in your opinion?

Does it affect how the pan(en)theist conducts themselves in the world?

Wikipedia:

First of all, it's wikipedia--while often a reliable source, individual entries can have significant problems. Just looking at the third citation, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy online, the first paragraph is:

"Panentheism

First published Thu Dec 4, 2008; substantive revision Tue Feb 5, 2013
“Panentheism” is a constructed word composed of the English equivalents of the Greek terms “pan”, meaning all, “en”, meaning in, and “theism”, meaning God. Panentheism considers God and the world to be inter-related with the world being in God and God being in the world. It offers an increasingly popular alternative to both traditional theism and pantheism. Panentheism seeks to avoid either isolating God from the world as traditional theism often does or identifying God with the world as pantheism does. Traditional theistic systems emphasize the difference between God and the world while panentheism stresses God's active presence in the world. Pantheism emphasizes God's presence in the world but panentheism maintains the identity and significance of the non-divine. Anticipations of panentheistic understandings of God have occurred in both philosophical and theological writings throughout history (Hartshorne and Reese 1953; Cooper, 2006). However, a rich diversity of panentheistic understandings has developed in the past two centuries primarily in Christian traditions responding to scientific thought (Clayton and Peacocke 2004). While panentheism generally emphasizes God's presence in the world without losing the distinct identity of either God or the world, specific forms of panenethism, drawing from a different sources, explain the nature of the relationship of God to the world in a variety of ways and come to different conclusions about the significance of the world for the identity of God."

What follows is a rather lengthy history of the use of the term and dissection of the meanings as used by various writers. Trying to fit that richness into that one clause in the wikipedia quote for the purposes of discussion is, well, not working very well, in my opinion.

That said, as an animist, I think everything is/has spirit, whether or not it also has mundane aspects. I'm not sure I even comprehend the vastness of what we call "The Universe," much less anything beyond. However, as an animist, I would think that if everything that is, is/has spirit, then that would apply outside "The Universe" as much as inside.

 

[Treks]

It's just a matter of getting my head around this kind of terminology, the last part of that 'beenherebeforeagain' posted:

While panentheism generally emphasizes God's presence in the world without losing the distinct identity of either God or the world, specific forms of panenethism, drawing from a different sources, explain the nature of the relationship of God to the world in a variety of ways and come to different conclusions about the significance of the world for the identity of God.

It's the terminology I'm not familiar with.

Definitely a panentheist, disciple

 

[Desert Snake]

It's just a matter of getting my head around this kind of terminology, the last part of that 'beenherebeforeagain' posted:



It's the terminology I'm not familiar with.

Definitely a panentheist, disciple

That just looks like religi-semantics/differentiation, to me.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

It's just a matter of getting my head around this kind of terminology, the last part of that 'beenherebeforeagain' posted:

It's the terminology I'm not familiar with.

Definitely a panentheist, disciple

To me, the difficult part is that it's almost always couched in terms of God, as in a singular divinity grown out of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and I'm just not with that anymore.

Intellectually, I can envision the Universe as, say a basketball, and tell myself that the basketball represents the universe we are in that is many billions of lightyears across, or whatever, and that there is something outside the universe, like me, contemplating it. So I can think of deity being the basketball and all its contents, or the basketball and contents, plus the room I'm in, the planet I'm on, etc....

But when it comes right down to it, I can't comprehend anything so vast. And it it's all spirits anyway, what's the difference between the basketball and its contents, and the room, me, the planet, etc., in which the basketball and contents exists?

 

[Willamena]

Unlike pantheism, panentheism maintains the identity and significance of the non-divine in the world.

Quint: I was actually thinking about leaving that bit OUT of the quote. What does it even mean?

To the pantheist, for whom god is the world, god has no identity separate from the world. Very often, the individual self also has no separate identity.

 

[illykitty]

If god and the universe are one, that means god has a begining and an end.
In panentheism, divinity is outside of the universe, unaffected by what mentioned above. Unlike other forms of theism though, god is not seperate. It can be interpreted as sparks of the divine are within everything... Or personally I think the universe is a manifestation of the divine.

Here's an example of what differences are between the main forms of theism:

Of course this is simplified and there's many other flavours but let's stick to understanding this first.

 

[Treks]

OK good! This has been my understanding, but Illykitty Ji has articulated it very well, including pictures which is helpful! Thank you

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

If god and the universe are one, that means god has a begining and an end.
In panentheism, divinity is outside of the universe, unaffected by what mentioned above. Unlike other forms of theism though, god is not seperate. It can be interpreted as sparks of the divine are within everything... Or personally I think the universe is a manifestation of the divine.

Here's an example of what differences are between the main forms of theism:

Of course this is simplified and there's many other flavours but let's stick to understanding this first.

I like the picture, but I think the polytheism illustration is incorrect: the gods should be either entirely within the universe, or if outside, overlapping with the universe, interpenetrating it.

 

[Quintessence]

I like the picture, but I think the polytheism illustration is incorrect: the gods should be either entirely within the universe, or if outside, overlapping with the universe, interpenetrating it.

Or just relabel it "a classical monotheist interpretation of polytheism." I don't know of any polytheistic theology that doesn't stress divine immanence, at least partially or completely.

Can I also confess it drives me kind of bonkers that the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - which I regard as an excellent source - uses the term "traditional theism" to describe what would be more properly called "classical monotheism?" I mean, I think polytheism (or perhaps animism) when I think "traditional theism" considering that has been the cultural norm or standard tradition for the vast majority of human history. 'Tis a fine example of history and terminology being determined by the current majority/victors in our culture, though. It reminds me of the strangeness of the terms "alternative medicine" and "traditional medicine." What people call "alternative" I think of as traditional, and what people call "traditional" I think of as "modern/contemporary." XD

 

[idav]

The line begins to get crossed once pantheism begins to make god impersonal while a panentheist will insist god is something more. I think panentheists would agree the mind and body aspect is not seperate but to what extent?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Or just relabel it "a classical monotheist interpretation of polytheism." I don't know of any polytheistic theology that doesn't stress divine immanence, at least partially or completely.

Can I also confess it drives me kind of bonkers that the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - which I regard as an excellent source - ...

lol, I agree!:yes:

As for the SEP, as I understand it, each article is written by one author, who volunteers or is selected by the editors because of their knowledge/scholarship in the area. The writing quality, accessibility, and sometimes philosophical perspectives are sometimes quite dramatically different than one might expect or hope for--some are quite elementary and engaging, others are clearly written by and for professional philosophers. And in some articles I've read there, there is clearly little effort by the writers to be impartial about different viewpoints. Changes and updates may occur, but it's not like wikipedia where basically anyone can edit.

 

[Willamena]

Here's an example of what differences are between the main forms of theism:

Of course this is simplified and there's many other flavours but let's stick to understanding this first.

The first describes only a classically transcendent image of god. Monotheism does not stand in contrast to panentheism or pantheism. The monotheist may be panentheist or pantheist.

Theological terms as understood by panentheists:

1. Classical or Traditional Theism: The understanding that ultimate reality is a being which is distinct from the world and any other reality. This distinction often develops into an ontological separation between God and the world that makes any interaction between God and the world problematic.

2. Pantheism: A type of theism that stresses the identity of God and the world ontologically. This identity is expressed in different manifestations so distinctions can be made, but the distinctions are temporary. There is often a strong sense of necessity in God's creation of the world so that God as God must express deity in creation.

3. Transcendence: Generally, God's externality to the world so that God is unlimited by any other being or reality. Hegel and then Hartshorne understand transcendence as including all that is in order to avoid any reality external to God that limits God.

4. Immanence: God's presence and activity within the world. Panentheists assert that traditional theism limits its affirmation of God's immanence by understanding immanence as the transcendent presence of the supernatural Being within the natural realm. When this divine presence is understood as distinctly transcendent, God's presence and activity within the world as natural is an intervention of the supernatural within the natural. God, then, is absent from the natural except in specific cases of intervention.

5. Kenosis: Divine self-emptying, or withdrawal, of infinite being while present in the world.
Panentheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[The Sum of Awe]

A slight difference. But if the common pantheist did believe there was more beyond the universe, then they'd consider that as God too in the same way as the universe. I know I would at least.

 

[no-body]

A slight difference. But if the common pantheist did believe there was more beyond the universe, then they'd consider that as God too in the same way as the universe. I know I would at least.

Yeah that's kind of what I was thinking. I don't really see a difference from pantheism and panentheism within my beliefs. They both sound ultimately the same to me. God is outside but still paradoxically impersonal and the interconnected universe.