Why call that god?

[Quintessence]

Pantheistic theology is distinctive in that it goes against our prevailing cultural mindset of what gods are. Abrahamic monotheisms dominate our cultural landscape, so the idea of seeing reality/nature/universe as god(s) is foreign. Theologies that are different from one's own are often difficult to understand, and a question pantheists often get from both Abrahamic monotheists and atheists alike is "why call that god instead of just the universe?"

How do you, as a pantheist (or panentheist if you feel this also applies to you) respond to that question?

(friendly reminder - this thread is in the pantheism/panentheism DIR, so it is for these two groups only)

 

[Orbit]

Pantheistic theology is distinctive in that it goes against our prevailing cultural mindset of what gods are. Abrahamic monotheisms dominate our cultural landscape, so the idea of seeing reality/nature/universe as god(s) is foreign. Theologies that are different from one's own are often difficult to understand, and a question pantheists often get from both Abrahamic monotheists and atheists alike is "why call that god instead of just the universe?"

How do you, as a pantheist (or panentheist if you feel this also applies to you) respond to that question?

(friendly reminder - this thread is in the pantheism/panentheism DIR, so it is for these two groups only)

As an panentheist, for me the use of "God" is just a metaphor for the unknowable life force in the universe that also manifests in ourselves as consciousness. I use it because it implies the idea of omnipresence.

 

[Ouroboros]

Theologies that are different from one's own are often difficult to understand, and a question pantheists often get from both Abrahamic monotheists and atheists alike is "why call that god instead of just the universe?"

Because I believe there's more than just this universe. When I think of the universe, I think of this particular universe, not other universes that could exist within a multiverse or in higher dimensions. So "universe" isn't all encompassing.

Secondly, calling it reality, all, everything, etc, is also difficult because it tends to only hint at the material, physical, the "it" of all things. There is no good word to describe the concept of everything. The best words might be ground of all being, ein sof, tao, ... and also god. Since we live in a western world with the concept of "God" already in place, it's the one that I think many times come closest to describe it.

Also, I believe that it's time to change peoples' thoughts and ideas about God, away from the ancient warlord God who has a physical body in some sky-city, to a more science friendly and compatible understanding, which means the word needs to be used in new contexts and with new explanations.

Those are some of my thoughts why I'm using it.

 

[Sapiens]

As an panentheist, for me the use of "God" is just a metaphor for the unknowable life force in the universe that also manifests in ourselves as consciousness. I use it because it implies the idea of omnipresence.

If you accept the friendly amendment of changing "unknowable" to "as yet unknown, possibly even unknowable," I'd agree.

 

[nazz]

Pantheistic theology is distinctive in that it goes against our prevailing cultural mindset of what gods are. Abrahamic monotheisms dominate our cultural landscape, so the idea of seeing reality/nature/universe as god(s) is foreign. Theologies that are different from one's own are often difficult to understand, and a question pantheists often get from both Abrahamic monotheists and atheists alike is "why call that god instead of just the universe?"

How do you, as a pantheist (or panentheist if you feel this also applies to you) respond to that question?

(friendly reminder - this thread is in the pantheism/panentheism DIR, so it is for these two groups only)

God is simply the name I apply to the Source of the All. But I also use that word for the highest form of divinity which I call the Father. I see this aeon (timespace dimension of this universe) as the extension/expression of the demiurge, a lesser deity, who can also be called the god of this world. So it gets complicated. I think what most pantheists mean by "God" would be that last application.

 

[Quintessence]

As an panentheist, for me the use of "God" is just a metaphor for the unknowable life force in the universe that also manifests in ourselves as consciousness. I use it because it implies the idea of omnipresence.

Interesting. The word god doesn't imply omnipresence to me, but this is likely because I'm a polytheistic pantheist and omni-whatever is a rather foreign concept to non-monotheist theologies. So in this sense, "God" is like the x-factor, or the unknown variable?

 

[George-ananda]

"why call that god instead of just the universe?"

Because in normal understanding in the Abrahamic and atheist cultures the word 'universe' generally means all the matter, space and energy in the cosmos. Their word 'universe' does not include consciousness as the fundamental property creating and sustaining the universe.The best word I have is 'Brahman' not 'universe'.

 

[Quintessence]

Because I believe there's more than just this universe. When I think of the universe, I think of this particular universe, not other universes that could exist within a multiverse or in higher dimensions. So "universe" isn't all encompassing.

Secondly, calling it reality, all, everything, etc, is also difficult because it tends to only hint at the material, physical, the "it" of all things. There is no good word to describe the concept of everything. The best words might be ground of all being, ein sof, tao, ... and also god. Since we live in a western world with the concept of "God" already in place, it's the one that I think many times come closest to describe it.

Also, I believe that it's time to change peoples' thoughts and ideas about God, away from the ancient warlord God who has a physical body in some sky-city, to a more science friendly and compatible understanding, which means the word needs to be used in new contexts and with new explanations.

Those are some of my thoughts why I'm using it.

I certainly can get behind expanding our undestanding of god(s) beyond the simplistic caricature that is all to often the focus of discussion. I'm skeptical that many of us actually hold to that simplistic, literalistic model though; I think that we need to engage in more dialogue discussing how we see god(s) instead of making assumptions.

It's interesting that you feel the word "reality" refers to the material. I suppose that is the prevailing viewpoint in our culture, but I use the word reality to mean... well... literally everything. This-world. Otherworlds. All of it. It's all real, and it's all reality.

With what you've posted here, I feel like I need some clarity on how you conceptualize god(s). How would you describe your understanding of god(s)?

 

[Quintessence]

God is simply the name I apply to the Source of the All. But I also use that word for the highest form of divinity which I call the Father. I see this aeon (timespace dimension of this universe) as the extension/expression of the demiurge, a lesser deity, who can also be called the god of this world. So it gets complicated. I think what most pantheists mean by "God" would be that last application.

I'm not sure that is the case, but that could be because I'm only partially following what you're saying here. I'm going to have to pontificate upon it. You'll have to expand upon your understanding of God for us some time.

Just to frame where I'm coming from, I tend to see pantheism as an affirmation of the intrinsic value or sacredness of all things. It represents a refusal to divorce the material and the magical, the sacred and profane; and in terms of religion it sources ritual and worship.

 

[Quintessence]

Because in normal understanding in the Abrahamic and atheist cultures the word 'universe' generally means all the matter, space and energy in the cosmos. Their word 'universe' does not include consciousness as the fundamental property creating and sustaining the universe.The best word I have is 'Brahman' not 'universe'.

Ah, so there's a spiritual component to it, then? I know that some pantheists are naturalistic pantheists, meaning they wouldn't include these sorts of things under the framework of their pantheistic ideas. But we mustn't forget that pantheism need not be materialistic or naturalistic. This might be something I could use, because to me, the universe/reality definitely includes the otherworlds, not just this-world.

 

[George-ananda]

Ah, so there's a spiritual component to it, then? I know that some pantheists are naturalistic pantheists, meaning they wouldn't include these sorts of things under the framework of their pantheistic ideas. But we mustn't forget that pantheism need not be materialistic or naturalistic. This might be something I could use, because to me, the universe/reality definitely includes the otherworlds, not just this-world.

Right, I think the question of why not just call it 'the universe' is rightly asked of materialist pantheists.

 

[nazz]

I'm not sure that is the case, but that could be because I'm only partially following what you're saying here. I'm going to have to pontificate upon it. You'll have to expand upon your understanding of God for us some time.

Just to frame where I'm coming from, I tend to see pantheism as an affirmation of the intrinsic value or sacredness of all things. It represents a refusal to divorce the material and the magical, the sacred and profane; and in terms of religion it sources ritual and worship.

Yes, and this is where gnostics would part company with other pantheists/panentheists. On one extreme we have those who viewed the material world as completely evil and of a substance not divine at all. On the other hand there are those like myself who see and appreciate the beauty and goodness of the created world while also acknowledging its unsavory aspects.

 

[Orbit]

Interesting. The word god doesn't imply omnipresence to me, but this is likely because I'm a polytheistic pantheist and omni-whatever is a rather foreign concept to non-monotheist theologies. So in this sense, "God" is like the x-factor, or the unknown variable?

Yes, God is a metaphor for the unknown.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Because the connection I feel with the universe reveals that its properties are more than 'just a universe'. My relationship with the Allness has provided me with an awareness of a quality of divinity to it that makes it sacred.

The difference between an atheist and I is; I believe all existence is ONE being, that all existence is alive and active, that all existence is a manifestation of God, that the will of nature is indeed a conscious will, and that the fact that there is existence instead of nonexistence says something about the way things are, it gives everything a meaning and a purpose. That meaning and purpose is automatically fulfilled, and it is revealed by simply observing all that happens. (the meaning to your existence is defined through the way your existence as an individual effects everything else as a whole).

 

[George-ananda]

Yes, God is a metaphor for the unknown.

Why not just call it 'unknown'. The word 'God' implies something more than a metaphor for the unknown as western society knows the word.

 

[Orbit]

Why not just call it 'unknown'. The word 'God' implies something more than a metaphor for the unknown as western society knows the word.

Hi. I explained this in my first post. It's because the word god in western culture implies omnipresence, and I like that.

 

[Ouroboros]

I certainly can get behind expanding our undestanding of god(s) beyond the simplistic caricature that is all to often the focus of discussion. I'm skeptical that many of us actually hold to that simplistic, literalistic model though; I think that we need to engage in more dialogue discussing how we see god(s) instead of making assumptions.

Agree.

It's interesting that you feel the word "reality" refers to the material. I suppose that is the prevailing viewpoint in our culture, but I use the word reality to mean... well... literally everything. This-world. Otherworlds. All of it. It's all real, and it's all reality.

It does, but it's hard to say that it does or not. Considering that some scientists are suggesting that our world is just a hologram and not "real". We perceive it as our "reality", but it's not. So reality, somehow, can refer both to the non-real (hologram world) and the real-real (whatever it is beyond the hologram world). Anyway, the word "reality" (just like God) have different interpretations and brings about different ideas in people. I use words like reality, nature, world, God, etc, interchangeably. I mix them up here and there, while actually thinking about the same thing at the end.

With what you've posted here, I feel like I need some clarity on how you conceptualize god(s). How would you describe your understanding of god(s)?

I conceptualize God in a way that can't be described in words. I can see it within myself and visualize it to some degree, but its description also relates to how I feel and experience the world. I see all things connected in one giant reality, existence, blob, which conveniently can be labelled "God". Is it the best word for it? Don't know. I've been thinking about starting to use the word GoB (ground of being) instead or SoE (substrate of existence), but they both suggest that God is separate (duality) which is not my intention, so I guess I stick with "God" for now until something better comes along.

 

[Ouroboros]

Because in normal understanding in the Abrahamic and atheist cultures the word 'universe' generally means all the matter, space and energy in the cosmos. Their word 'universe' does not include consciousness as the fundamental property creating and sustaining the universe.The best word I have is 'Brahman' not 'universe'.

That's very true.

Also, the word Universe is synonymous with Cosmos, which from its origin was considered the opposite to Chaos. Cosmos is order. Chaos is disorder. I believe both Chaos and Cosmos form one unity, like yin-yang. God to me is both the circle around the yin-yang, the black area, the white area, the dots, the spinning motion, all of it.

 

[Baladas]

I use the word "God" partly out of habit. I was a devout Christian for around ten years, and my wife and most of my other family members still are. So, I don't necessarily want to go out of my way to alienate them all. Besides, I am comfortable with the word.

On occasion I also refer to or address my concept of God as "The Absolute", "Brahman", "Tao", "Great Spirit" etc.

 

[Ouroboros]

I use the word "God" partly out of habit. I was a devout Christian for around ten years, and my wife and most of my other family members still are. So, I don't necessarily want to go out of my way to alienate them all. Besides, I am comfortable with the word.

I was Christian for 30, then I was atheist for 10. It was very uncomfortable for me. My current view makes it easier to use it and interact with other believers of same or other faiths. That's another reason why the use of the term helps. Everyone has their own idea of God, so there's nothing wrong with yet another one.

On occasion I also refer to or address my concept of God as "The Absolute", "Brahman", "Tao", "Great Spirit" etc.

Same here. Many words for the same idea, but no word fits exactly.