| Revision as of 04:27, 27 September 2003 editNaturyl (talk | contribs)319 editsm oops, a typo.← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:46, 27 September 2003 edit undoNaturyl (talk | contribs)319 editsm left out a quotation markNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ] ] ] | ] ] ] | ||
| Simply stated, <b>Pantheism</b> is the view that everything is ]. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that nature and/or the universe (the terms are used synonomously in this sense) is somehow equivalent to the 'theological principle' of 'God.' There is no clear agreement that the difference between 'the universe is god' and 'the universe is equivalent to the idea of God' can be made obvious in a meaningful sense, but the distinction remains an important one among pantheism's more scholarly adherents. One possible reason for this is the tendency to dismiss atheistic objections to pantheism with rebuttals such as, "we aren't really saying that the Universe <i>is</i> God so much as we are saying the Universe is <i>like</i> God, or, better yet, like the <i>idea</i> of God. Some critics charge that such semantic clarification is confusing and even obscurant, but many pantheists maintain that the long-standing controversy over definitions and terminology within the pantheist community has made such attempts at precision necessary. | Simply stated, <b>Pantheism</b> is the view that everything is ]. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that nature and/or the universe (the terms are used synonomously in this sense) is somehow equivalent to the 'theological principle' of 'God.' There is no clear agreement that the difference between 'the universe is god' and 'the universe is equivalent to the idea of God' can be made obvious in a meaningful sense, but the distinction remains an important one among pantheism's more scholarly adherents. One possible reason for this is the tendency to dismiss atheistic objections to pantheism with rebuttals such as, "we aren't really saying that the Universe <i>is</i> God so much as we are saying the Universe is <i>like</i> God, or, better yet, like the <i>idea</i> of God." Some critics charge that such semantic clarification is confusing and even obscurant, but many pantheists maintain that the long-standing controversy over definitions and terminology within the pantheist community has made such attempts at precision necessary. | ||
| Pantheism is often attacked as being vacuous, since it appears to some to do little more than redefine the word 'God' to mean ']' or ']'. In the view of critics who maintain this position, the most important task for pantheists then is to show that the universe has properties which deserve it being called 'God'. This is most often accomplished through use of arguments which attempt to relate the nature of the universe to the theological attributes traditionally assigned to a deity. In this way, pantheists maintain that it is appropriate to regard nature in spiritual terms. It should be noted, however, that there is no significant agreement that making 'god' synonomous with 'world' must necessarily make either term less meaningful. Some pantheists would mainatin that such an arrangement serves to create a new and potentially more insightful conception of both terms. | Pantheism is often attacked as being vacuous, since it appears to some to do little more than redefine the word 'God' to mean ']' or ']'. In the view of critics who maintain this position, the most important task for pantheists then is to show that the universe has properties which deserve it being called 'God'. This is most often accomplished through use of arguments which attempt to relate the nature of the universe to the theological attributes traditionally assigned to a deity. In this way, pantheists maintain that it is appropriate to regard nature in spiritual terms. It should be noted, however, that there is no significant agreement that making 'god' synonomous with 'world' must necessarily make either term less meaningful. Some pantheists would mainatin that such an arrangement serves to create a new and potentially more insightful conception of both terms. | ||
Revision as of 04:46, 27 September 2003
Simply stated, Pantheism is the view that everything is God. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that nature and/or the universe (the terms are used synonomously in this sense) is somehow equivalent to the 'theological principle' of 'God.' There is no clear agreement that the difference between 'the universe is god' and 'the universe is equivalent to the idea of God' can be made obvious in a meaningful sense, but the distinction remains an important one among pantheism's more scholarly adherents. One possible reason for this is the tendency to dismiss atheistic objections to pantheism with rebuttals such as, "we aren't really saying that the Universe is God so much as we are saying the Universe is like God, or, better yet, like the idea of God." Some critics charge that such semantic clarification is confusing and even obscurant, but many pantheists maintain that the long-standing controversy over definitions and terminology within the pantheist community has made such attempts at precision necessary.
Pantheism is often attacked as being vacuous, since it appears to some to do little more than redefine the word 'God' to mean 'world' or 'universe'. In the view of critics who maintain this position, the most important task for pantheists then is to show that the universe has properties which deserve it being called 'God'. This is most often accomplished through use of arguments which attempt to relate the nature of the universe to the theological attributes traditionally assigned to a deity. In this way, pantheists maintain that it is appropriate to regard nature in spiritual terms. It should be noted, however, that there is no significant agreement that making 'god' synonomous with 'world' must necessarily make either term less meaningful. Some pantheists would mainatin that such an arrangement serves to create a new and potentially more insightful conception of both terms.
This article will focus on 'modern pantheism,' generally defined as that understanding or interpretation of pantheism which is most often practiced and promoted in contemporary times. The basic concept of pantheism has evolved significantly over the past several centuries, leading to a gradual division between the contemporary interpretation and the historical one. The latter is most often referred to as 'classical,' dualistic,' or 'archaic' pantheism, and while touched upon only briefly here, this subject will be treated more subtantially in a seperate article.
The distinguishing feature of the modern interpretation of pantheism is generally agreed to be the fact that it seeks to avoid many of the problems associated with traditional theology by placing little emphasis on the 'God' term. This, however, raises concern that 'modern pantheism' is really no longer pantheism at all, but something more like 'spiritual naturalism.' After all, critics ask, if we remove the God concept from pantheism, what is the purpose of retaining the 'theism' suffix? In answer to this objection, some pantheists maintain that the 'pan' prefix (meaning 'all') modifies the 'theism' suffix (meaning 'god') to such an extent that pantheism in fact has little to do with traditional theism. In the view of a considerable number of adherents, however, the objection to using the historical term 'pantheism' for the modern interpretation of the view is essentially valid, and these adherents usually admit that the term is maintained only for the sake of convenience.
A typical argument intended to show that the term 'pantheism' remains appropriate for the modern interpretation thereof is based on the aforementioned fact that the contemporary pantheist sees the term 'God' as a synonym for nature. If nature is equivalent to the theological concept of God, then saying 'all is God' (pan-theism) is the same as saying 'all is nature.' Accordingly, this is the way that most pantheists choose to view the term 'pantheism' - All is nature, nature is All. Pantheism, then, is (in the contemporary view) essentially a form of spirituality based on nature rather than on supernatural entities such as deities. Accordingly, it is widely accepted that the modern interpretation of pantheism is essentially naturalistic, and therefore constitutes a form of naturalistic spirituality.
However, general acceptance of natiralistic pantheism has been undermined to some extent by the existence of considerable disagreement within the pantheist community as to whether or not ideas such as 'sprituality' are truly applicable to a naturalistic worldview. Although there has been no clear conclusion reached to date, the rough concensus currently holds that within a pantheistic framework, 'spirituality' can be meaningfully and consisterntly interpreted as 'the human relation to the numinous,' as Carl Sagan and others have suggested.
In addition, a number of modern (naturalistic) pantheists further identify themselves as 'mystics,' creating another potential source of confusion, although the debate over this has been somewhat less heated than that over other terminology. It is widely (although not universally) accepted that the essence of mysticism within the context of pantheistic thought lies in 'direct knowledege or experience of God,' which is obviously readily attainable by the pantheist, considering that his or her 'God' is all that exists.
As the above elaborations show, the modern pantheist community is one that has, throughout its relatively brief but active history, been somewhat fragmented in terms of doctrine. Despite occassional efforts at unifying the community, the majority of people who adhere to pantheism have so far proven resistant to the establishment of official doctrine of any sort. Additionally, sectarianism has appeared within the community of pantheists, taking the form of two major organizations and a host of minor ones.
The two chief organizations which promote modern pantheism are the Universal Pantheist Society (UPS) and the World Pantheist Movement (WPM). Although the UPS is the older of the two, it has seen decreased activity in recent years. The WPM (founded by former UPS vice-president Paul Harrison), on the other hand, has expanded considerably due to its promotion of 'Scientific Pantheism,' which many critics submit is essentially nothing more than "atheism for nature lovers." This charge seems to stem from the fact that 'scientific pantheism' is not only naturalistic, but avowedly materialistic as well, with little tolerance for any reference to traditional theological concepts. Despite a history of controversy ignited by the WPM's appearance as sect within the UPS and its eventual seccession from that organization, the WPM approach has met with considerable acceptance, and while it may or may not constitute a strict pantheism, there is cleary room for it in today's religious/philosophical spectrum.
'Classical pantheism' of the sort that equates Nature and God without attempting to effectively redefine or minimize either term is essentially an archaic concept, represented most importantly by Spinoza. Although it is important historically, few contemporary thinkers who would describe themselves as pantheists actually subscribe to such an approach. The archaic pantheism is often referred to as 'dualistic pantheism' due to the imprtance placed on the concept of immanence, in which all matter is suffused with 'spirit' and the two are seen as cosubstantial. There is a small but rather vocal movement within the pantheist community which maintains that this archaic or dualistic pantheism is in fact the 'authentic' variety, whereas the modern or naturalistic approach is seen as a pseudo-pantheism.
Although the Universal Pantheist Society ostensibly accepts pantheists of all varieties, in practice, it too tends toward the 'modern' (naturalistic) pantheism. To understand this, it must be re-emphasized that the theological concept which the term 'pantheism' was originally intended to describe (the equivalence of the traditional God concept with nature) is considered to be essentially obsolete by many contemporary members of the pantheist community, whose intent in describing themselves as 'pantheist' is cheifly to identify themselves as adherents of a naturalistic spirituality by using an established term. Opponents of naturalistic pantheism and adherents of the 'classical' (archaic) interpretation charge that this constitutes the intentional misuse of terminology, but the validity of this objection is not widely accepted within the pantheist community as a whole.
One important (classical) pantheistic system was that advanced by Baruch Spinoza.
Other notable people who have held essentially pantheistic world-views are Albert Einstein, Giordano Bruno and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
See also: panentheism, universism