The Popular State of Pantheism Worldwide.

[vulcanlogician]

[All information cited from THIS LINK.]

According to a 2016 survey, Only about 7,700 people in the world identify as pantheists. That's miniscule. I know the poll is a little dated, but I doubt much has changed since it was taken.

What's your opinion on these numbers? Would you like to see pantheism grow in influence?

I don't. I think the numbers are right where they ought to be.

If any religious outlook is antithetical to evangelism or making it's impression felt upon the world, it's pantheism. Pantheism is something that one should "arrive at on one's own accord." If someone tries to convert you to pantheism, he isn't a pantheist.

Or am I wrong about that? Reading it back, it kinda sounds like a pithy truism. Perhaps there are some righteous dudes out there who DO evangelize pantheism... and perhaps in a way that isn't profane at all.

Under 8,000 pantheists in the entire world? Fine with me. That number could double, or be divided in half and I still wouldn't care.

But what say you, fellow pantheists? Would it be better if more of the world subscribed to a more pantheistic outlook?

 

[Quintessence]

They are seriously lowballing those numbers as pantheism is more or less implicit in any theology where gods and nature are not viewed as fundamentally separate essences. Most Pagan and indigenous religions fall into that category, but these groups will generally not identify themselves solely by one component of their theology. I know I don't.

As for whether or not "the world" would be "better" with more theologies that are implicitly or explicitly pantheistic? Setting aside that I find it the height of hubris to make normative proclamations like that for various reasons, I think about it this way. The most pressing issues of contemporary society are all ecological in nature. And if the world were viewed less as a commodity and full of inanimate things to be used - and instead viewed as full of spirits, as sacred, and as divine - there is a possibility that we wouldn't be continuing to perpetuate a sixth mass extinction event and shooting our species (and countless other species) in our own feet. There are many contemporary writers hearkening to a need to re-divine the world around us to enter into a more respectful and healthy relationship with it. But that is a very tall order.

 

[vulcanlogician]

They are seriously lowballing those numbers as pantheism is more or less implicit in any theology where gods and nature are not viewed as fundamentally separate essences.

Well, my source was a pro-pantheism website, so I wouldn't think they'd be motivated to to "lowball" the numbers. But IIRC, it was based on generic polls simply asking folks about their religious identity. Perhaps some genuine pantheists felt inclined to tick another box (like "atheist") and that's why the numbers came out the way they did.

The most pressing issues of contemporary society are all ecological in nature. And if the world were viewed less as a commodity and full of inanimate things to be used - and instead viewed as full of spirits, as sacred, and as divine - there is a possibility that we wouldn't be continuing to perpetuate a sixth mass extinction event and shooting our species (and countless other species) in our own feet. There are many contemporary writers hearkening to a need to re-divine the world around us to enter into a more respectful and healthy relationship with it.

Wise words. But I still hold that pantheism should not be evangelistic. I get the impression you might agree, but I thought that needed some clarification.

 

[George-ananda]

[All information cited from THIS LINK.]

According to a 2016 survey, Only about 7,700 people in the world identify as pantheists. That's miniscule. I know the poll is a little dated, but I doubt much has changed since it was taken.

What's your opinion on these numbers? Would you like to see pantheism grow in influence?

I don't. I think the numbers are right where they ought to be.

If any religious outlook is antithetical to evangelism or making it's impression felt upon the world, it's pantheism. Pantheism is something that one should "arrive at on one's own accord." If someone tries to convert you to pantheism, he isn't a pantheist.

Or am I wrong about that? Reading it back, it kinda sounds like a pithy truism. Perhaps there are some righteous dudes out there who DO evangelize pantheism... and perhaps in a way that isn't profane at all.

Under 8,000 pantheists in the entire world? Fine with me. That number could double, or be divided in half and I still wouldn't care.

But what say you, fellow pantheists? Would it be better if more of the world subscribed to a more pantheistic outlook?

pan·the·ism
[ˈpanTHēˌizəm]

NOUN

1. a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God.
2. worship that admits or tolerates all gods.
   
   
   
   There's literally millions and millions that would qualify under the definition. Including a lot of the billion Hindus. People would identify as Hindu and not 'pantheist' in a survey like you are citing.

 

[vulcanlogician]

There's literally millions and millions that would qualify under the definition. Including a lot of the billion Hindus.

So, some of those folks might be inclined to check the Hindu box rather than the pantheist box.

 

[George-ananda]

So, some of those folks might be inclined to check the Hindu box rather than the pantheist box.

Yes. Pantheism is not a common identification term but pantheism might be in their beliefs.

 

[Quintessence]

@George-ananda elaborated on why I said that website was seriously lowballing the numbers, @vulcanlogician . Even if we go by just the stricter understanding of "identifies gods with the universe" that's just inherent in many theological paradigms. But those folks are usually part of a broader religious auspice - indigenous religions or Pagan religions in most cases - and they will identify with their cultural religion rather than check "pantheist" on a box. As I said, if I were given a survey and only permitted to check one box "pantheist" would not be the box I check. It's kind of stupid if a survey only permits you to check one box, but that is often how they are designed. It means you don't get accurate counts at all for things because religion and theology are not mutually exclusive check boxes.

 

[vulcanlogician]

@George-ananda elaborated on why I said that website was seriously lowballing the numbers, @vulcanlogician . Even if we go by just the stricter understanding of "identifies gods with the universe" that's just inherent in many theological paradigms.

I see what you mean. After having given it some thought, perhaps the site was being more narrow and/or exclusionary in its definition of pantheism. Perhaps what it means are atheistic pantheists, as elsewhere on the site, pantheism as a whole is defined in these terms.

I understand why other religions (some strains of Hinduism in particular) are described as pantheistic. Many Hindus ARE pantheists. So I don't agree with that particular definition. It's too narrow.

But there are two ways to resolve the issue if that's the case. Each way, I think, deserving of consideration. The author of the article specifically meant "atheistic pantheism" -- in which case, it discloses real information about the worldwide popularity of atheistic pantheism. OR: Expressing the criticism that you have expressed: that many pantheists were excluded from consideration, and the worldwide popularity of pantheism is just fine.

 

[Ella S.]

I think "pantheism" like "polytheism" or "deism" only describes one very particular issue. Currently, the people who self-identify as pantheists tend to do so for fairly similar reasons and, I think, are often of similar mindsets and backgrounds. There's no reason to believe that has to be the case, or even that it will continue to be the case.

For me, I am more concerned about the amount of people who adopt my moral framework, which is intellectualist teleology. That can be done with or without pantheism, so I don't care about whether people are pantheists or not.

I also don't really care about whether people adopt the same ethical framework as me, because it doesn't really affect me. I can act according to my ethic whether or not other people adopt it. I only care marginally because I could be more effective at achieving moral consequences if I could cooperate with other like-minded individuals more.

Unfortunately, utilitarianism currently dominates conversations on teleology, with welfarism as the only real competitor. Very few people hold knowledge to be the only intrinsic good, so I'm forced to stay at the fringes of the conversation. At the same time, most people arrive at utilitarianism through intuitionism, which is often incorrectly conflated with rationalism, and I don't trust the judgment of anyone who seriously views intuition as a valid source of information. I'd rather continue being alone as an intellectualist than see the position watered down by intuitionists.

I do think that an intellectualist position, arrived at through deduction alone, would also logically lead itself to a kind of pantheism in the same way that it has for me. Whether those other intellectualists would self-identify as a pantheist or see it as too socially loaded of a term, I don't know. They might prefer to describe themselves as non-religious or even atheist.

If, however, pantheism is a logical consequence of my ethical framework, which I think it kind of is to some degree, then in that case I would like to see the number of pantheists increase. I would only care about that number increasing if they were pantheists for the same reasons that I am, though, which is a consequence of valuing logic (as an instrument for achieving knowledge) and a recognition of the underlying logical order of the natural world.

This is a bit of a long-winded response, but I have a bit of a long-winded take.

 

[ChieftheCef]

They are seriously lowballing those numbers as pantheism is more or less implicit in any theology where gods and nature are not viewed as fundamentally separate essences. Most Pagan and indigenous religions fall into that category, but these groups will generally not identify themselves solely by one component of their theology. I know I don't.

As for whether or not "the world" would be "better" with more theologies that are implicitly or explicitly pantheistic? Setting aside that I find it the height of hubris to make normative proclamations like that for various reasons, I think about it this way. The most pressing issues of contemporary society are all ecological in nature. And if the world were viewed less as a commodity and full of inanimate things to be used - and instead viewed as full of spirits, as sacred, and as divine - there is a possibility that we wouldn't be continuing to perpetuate a sixth mass extinction event and shooting our species (and countless other species) in our own feet.

It sucks but it takes time. Nature herself does not change quickly unless cataclysmic, or at least in the sense of a form of happiness (the typical hurray I got a chocolate, which actually does with everything else cumulatively boost your happines), powerfully. Imagine this, earth quakes, flooding, etc all very quick and also very violent. Take a minute to run full speed and then abruptly stop, or at least think about it. But we're getting there. We're making it a matter of funding which will come. There's been since I've began counting (mid late 2010s, to 22) upwards of 30 new ways we're able to help with ecological disaster.

There are many contemporary writers hearkening to a need to re-divine the world around us to enter into a more respectful and healthy relationship with it. But that is a very tall order.

But I entirely agree with that and everything else. Well wishes.