| Revision as of 21:11, 30 November 2003 editSam Spade (talk | contribs)33,916 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:17, 30 November 2003 edit undoSam Spade (talk | contribs)33,916 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ] ] ] | ] ] ] | ||
| Simply stated, '''Pantheism''' is the view that everything is ]. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that nature and/or the universe (the terms are used synonymously in this sense) is somehow equivalent to the 'theological principle' of 'God'. There is a difference of opinion of whether 'the universe is God' is the best way to state the belief, or whether 'the universe is equivalent to the idea of God' would best express it. This brings up an extremely important distiction, namely if ] is simply another way to say 'existance' or all, not necessarilly godlike in any traditional sense (this view is often scoffed at by ]s and ] alike) or if God is a concious, personal sum total of all ]. One way to describe this is that man is to ] as an ] ] ] in ones ] is to you. While the blood cell may be aware of his environs, and even has choices (]) between right and wrong (killing a ], attacking other ] ]s, or perhaps doing nothing, among countless others) he has little conception of the greater being of which he is a part. This conception of ] is not terribly different from ] |
Simply stated, '''Pantheism''' is the view that everything is ]. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that nature and/or the universe (the terms are used synonymously in this sense) is somehow equivalent to the 'theological principle' of 'God'. There is a difference of opinion of whether 'the universe is God' is the best way to state the belief, or whether 'the universe is equivalent to the idea of God' would best express it. This brings up an extremely important distiction, namely if ] is simply another way to say 'existance' or all, not necessarilly godlike in any traditional sense (this view is often scoffed at by ]s and ] alike) or if God is a concious, personal sum total of all ]. One way to describe this is that man is to ] as an ] ] ] in ones ] is to you. While the blood cell may be aware of his environs, and even has choices (]) between right and wrong (killing a ], attacking other ] ]s, or perhaps doing nothing, among countless others) he has little conception of the greater being of which he is a part. This conception of ] is not terribly different from ] ]ism. | ||
| 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' synonymous with 'world' must necessarily make either term less meaningful. Some pantheists would maintain 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' synonymous with 'world' must necessarily make either term less meaningful. Some pantheists would maintain that such an arrangement serves to create a new and potentially more insightful conception of both terms. | ||
Revision as of 21:17, 30 November 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 synonymously in this sense) is somehow equivalent to the 'theological principle' of 'God'. There is a difference of opinion of whether 'the universe is God' is the best way to state the belief, or whether 'the universe is equivalent to the idea of God' would best express it. This brings up an extremely important distiction, namely if God is simply another way to say 'existance' or all, not necessarilly godlike in any traditional sense (this view is often scoffed at by atheists and theists alike) or if God is a concious, personal sum total of all existance. One way to describe this is that man is to God as an individual blood cell in ones vein is to you. While the blood cell may be aware of his environs, and even has choices (freewill) between right and wrong (killing a bacteria, attacking other blood cells, or perhaps doing nothing, among countless others) he has little conception of the greater being of which he is a part. This conception of God is not terribly different from Brahman Hinduism.
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' synonymous with 'world' must necessarily make either term less meaningful. Some pantheists would maintain that such an arrangement serves to create a new and potentially more insightful conception of both terms.
Some modern interpretations of pantheism place little emphasis on the concept of 'God' at all. This, however, raises concern that this '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, this group of 'modern 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. Traditional patheists regard this 'modern pantheism' as simply a more reverent and naturalistic form of atheism, since this unusual conception of god bends the traditional definition so far as to make it meaningless.
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 naturalistic 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 consensus currently holds that within a pantheistic framework, 'spirituality' can be meaningfully and consistently 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 knowledge 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 pantheist community is one that has, in modern times, been somewhat fragmented in terms of doctrine. Additionally, sectarianism has appeared within the community of 'modern 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 on the one hand by Spinoza, and on the other by Hinduism and even Kabbalistic Judaism. This pantheism is often referred to as 'dualistic pantheism' due to the importance 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 'modern pantheist' community which maintains that this dualistic pantheism is in fact the 'authentic' variety, whereas the modern or naturalistic approach is seen as a pseudo-pantheism. The majority of people with 'pantheistic' beliefs of course do not refer to themself as "pantheistic" at all, and few have likely even heard of the term.
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 'modern pantheist' community, whose intent in describing themselves as 'pantheist' is chiefly to identify themselves as adherents of a naturalistic spirituality by using an established term. Opponents of naturalistic pantheism and adherents of the 'classical' interpretation charge that this constitutes the intentional misuse of terminology, and the attempt to justify atheism by deceptively mislabeling it as pantheism. One important pantheistic system was that advanced by Baruch Spinoza.
a few of the notable people who have held pantheistic world-views are Albert Einstein, Giordano Bruno and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
See also: Hinduism, kabbalah, panentheism, universism