reasons given for religious belief

[Skeptisch]

Hardly; since the universe is seen as God, that means it's also sentient. Pantheism, when we remove the word God, means that there is an omnipresent Consciousness.

Take your pick, mine is pantheism.

Pantheism
Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God (or divinity) are identical.[1] Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god. The word derives from the Greek (pan) meaning "all" and the Greek (theos) meaning "God". As such, Pantheism denotes the idea that "God" is best seen as a process of relating to the Universe.[2] Although there are divergences within Pantheism, the central ideas found in almost all versions are the Cosmos as an all-encompassing unity and the sacredness of Nature.

Monist Idealist Pantheism
Monist idealist Pantheism or Monistic Idealism holds that there is only one type of substance, and that substance is mental or spiritual. Some versions hold that the ultimate reality consists of a single cosmic consciousness. This version is common in Hindu philosophies and Consciousness-Only schools of Buddhism, as well as in some New Age writers such as Deepak Chopra. This is distinguished from pandeism in that pandeism asserts that the whole of reality was at some time sentient.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

 

[Riverwolf]

Take your pick, mine is pantheism.

Pantheism
Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God (or divinity) are identical.[1] Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god. The word derives from the Greek (pan) meaning "all" and the Greek (theos) meaning "God". As such, Pantheism denotes the idea that "God" is best seen as a process of relating to the Universe.[2] Although there are divergences within Pantheism, the central ideas found in almost all versions are the Cosmos as an all-encompassing unity and the sacredness of Nature.

Monist Idealist Pantheism
Monist idealist Pantheism or Monistic Idealism holds that there is only one type of substance, and that substance is mental or spiritual. Some versions hold that the ultimate reality consists of a single cosmic consciousness. This version is common in Hindu philosophies and Consciousness-Only schools of Buddhism, as well as in some New Age writers such as Deepak Chopra. This is distinguished from pandeism in that pandeism asserts that the whole of reality was at some time sentient.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

Seems one is general, while the other is more specific. Both are pantheism, with the latter being a specific kind of pantheism.

But since the word has "theos" (i.e., "God") in the word, it makes sense, therefore, that we would assume that it teaches the entire universe is the body of a sentient Being, i.e., God.

Seeing the universe as simply "sacred" but not, in itself, sentient, is not pantheism when we go by the strict definition of the word. That's like saying the deification of science or pop stars is a form of theism, which, last time I checked, it isn't. Calling it "pantheism" basically betrays the etymology of the word, and is therefore worthy of rejection.

 

[Skeptisch]

Seems one is general, while the other is more specific. Both are pantheism, with the latter being a specific kind of pantheism.

It appears the cosmic “consciousness issue” is the main difference between the two. My handicap is that I am biased toward evidence and reason and since scientists like Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking subscribe to pantheism I tend to agree with them.

In the mono idealist camp we have the Hindu philosophies and Consciousness-Only schools of Buddhism and I know close to nothing about these great religions. But we also seem have the new age guru and spoon bender par excellence, Deepak Chopra, subscribing to it. I know a bit about him.

 

[Photonic]

It appears the cosmic “consciousness issue” is the main difference between the two. My handicap is that I am biased toward evidence and reason and since scientists like Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking subscribe to pantheism I tend to agree with them.

In the mono idealist camp we have the Hindu philosophies and Consciousness-Only schools of Buddhism and I know close to nothing about these great religions. But we also seem have the new age guru and spoon bender par excellence, Deepak Chopra, subscribing to it. I know a bit about him.

Another Edit actually*

Pantheism is similar to Atheism when it comes to scientific Pantheism, they simply ascribe terms that are deemed religious to the object of study.

 

[Riverwolf]

It appears the cosmic “consciousness issue” is the main difference between the two. My handicap is that I am biased toward evidence and reason and since scientists like Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking subscribe to pantheism I tend to agree with them.

If they don't believe that the universe is sentient, then they aren't pantheists. If they gave themselves this name, then they misused the term.

NOTE: This is not a slam against them or their intelligence; all three of these men are Great Men. But their fields are science, not language, so it stands to reason that they may end up misusing a few words that are normally beyond their field of study, much in the same way that people, all too often, misuse the word "theory."

In the mono idealist camp we have the Hindu philosophies and Consciousness-Only schools of Buddhism and I know close to nothing about these great religions. But we also seem have the new age guru and spoon bender par excellence, Deepak Chopra, subscribing to it. I know a bit about him.

And I've never heard of him.

 

[Riverwolf]

Another Edit actually*

Pantheism is similar to Atheism when it comes to scientific Pantheism, they simply ascribe terms that are deemed religious to the object of study.

Which is called "deification."

Like I said earlier, if the only qualification for "pantheism" is a deified view of the universe, then what kind of theism is deification of pop stars, or certain media types, or technology? Mediatheism? Famotheism? Technotheism?

 

[Photonic]

Which is called "deification."

Like I said earlier, if the only qualification for "pantheism" is a deified view of the universe, then what kind of theism is deification of pop stars, or certain media types, or technology? Mediatheism? Famotheism? Technotheism?

That's the point I had, scientific pantheism is just another name for atheism.

 

[Riverwolf]

That's the point I had, scientific pantheism is just another name for atheism.

Or, rather, atheism which deifies the universe.

...I think a more accurate term for that would be "metaphoric pantheism", or something...

 

[Photonic]

Or, rather, atheism which deifies the universe.

...I think a more accurate term for that would be "metaphoric pantheism", or something...

Probably something like that. Sounds like a way of avoiding saying you're an atheist. Which doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[Skeptisch]

If they don't believe that the universe is sentient, then they aren't pantheists.

Can you back up that statement with some names of scholars, educators, scientists or anybody who agree with you on that?

 

[Riverwolf]

Can you back up that statement with some names of scholars, educators, scientists or anybody who agree with you on that?

The word itself indicates this. Pan = everything. -theism = theos = God. God indicates a Supreme, sentient Being.

Is this not the case?

 

[Riverwolf]

Probably something like that. Sounds like a way of avoiding saying you're an atheist. Which doesn't make much sense to me.

Well, for a while, I was a pantheist, in that I believed the universe to be God; i.e., an omnipresent Consciousness. (Now, I'm a panentheist.)

 

[Skeptisch]

The word itself indicates this. Pan = everything. -theism = theos = God. God indicates a Supreme, sentient Being.
Is this not the case?

Fair enough but I wondered: “Can you back up that statement with some names of scholars, educators, scientists or anybody who agree with you on that?”

 

[Riverwolf]

Fair enough but I wondered: “Can you back up that statement with some names of scholars, educators, scientists or anybody who agree with you on that?”

Why is it needed? The word's etymology itself suffices. Those authorities you speak of are just as susceptible to degrading language as we are, and, especially with regards to those ones who don't study language, are expected to make linguistic mistakes. I've seen PLENTY of authorities like the ones you speak of forget the sequential final comma like you just did. (It should be "scholars, educators, scientists, or anybody else".)

 

[charles brough]

This sums up “my” pantheism quite nicely http://www.pantheism.net/paul/index.htm

It seems to say that you don't believe in any diety but have a belief better than atheism because you revel in the beauty of nature, including us as part of it, and that we are no better than the rest of it.

Yes, I think most atheists including myself do appreciate the natural world. Yes, and we too feel romantic (sexy?) when we and "the other one" watch the moon or sunset. I think most of us also think it is all here for us to take care of in a way that benefits us and our long term future and survival. To treat it as something we are here to serve, instead, is to worship it. That is what worship means, and I don't think most atheists do.

By the way, I think Einstein was a much better physicist than a philosopher. And judging from your quote below, Carl Sagan seems to be an agnostic.

Also, in his book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins has described Pantheism as “sexed-up atheism.” That may seem flippant, but it is accurate. Of all religious or spiritual traditions, Pantheism - the approach of Einstein, Hawking and many other scientists - is the only one that passes the muster of the world's most militant atheist.

Like mentioned before, it seems unfair to paraphrase someone when the original quote is at hand:
“A human being is part of the whole called by us universe ... We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive”. (Albert Einstein)

My hero Carl Sagan said this:
"An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god”.

Please consider my response a friendly challenge!:slap: After all, we are both non-theists.

 

[Skeptisch]

It should be "scholars, educators, scientists, or anybody else".

Sorry for lacking the “else”, I dabble in five languages and English is not my best.

I am not correct in pointing out that word definitions are dynamic? Sagan, Einstein and many others seem to use “God” incorrectly, since there god does not appear to be conscious.

Einstein: “I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”

Sagan: “But if by God one means the set of physical laws that governs the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity”.


What do you think?

 

[`mud]

It could be said that Einstein's "god" didn't shoot craps,
but the physics of Sagan's Cosmos, doesn't kiss any cheeks.
And Pascal's coin just keeps on flipping.
~
As always.....and inconsciously I remain,
`mud

 

[Skeptisch]

By the way, I think Einstein was a much better physicist than a philosopher. And judging from your quote below, Carl Sagan seems to be an agnostic.

.:yes:.

 

[Skeptisch]

Please consider my response a friendly challenge!:slap: After all, we are both non-theists.

I couldn’t care less what anybody calls me as long as it is non-theist, agnostic, pantheist or atheist. As admitted before, I have a huge handicap, or maybe it is an advantage, my brain always asks for scientific evidence. There is also a deep admiration for the magic of reality and I think science, better that anything else, can tell us what is really true. For me there is nothing beyond natural (super) or normal (para). :magic::no:

 

[Riverwolf]

Sorry for lacking the “else”, I dabble in five languages and English is not my best.

I am not correct in pointing out that word definitions are dynamic? Sagan, Einstein and many others seem to use “God” incorrectly, since there god does not appear to be conscious.

God denotes a Supreme Being, and by implication is conscious.

Einstein: “I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”

A VERY brief bit of research seems to indicate that Spinoza was a panentheist, not a pantheist. Einstein here seems to also be talking about a deistic God.

Sagan: “But if by God one means the set of physical laws that governs the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity”.

What do you think?

Well, Sagan here is just saying what God is not. From what I understand, Sagan was an agnostic.