Pantheists often say they worship the universe as god because it inspires awe, but I’m an atheist and certainly don’t worship the universe, yet I always feel awe when looking at an ocean, or two birds building a nest, just at how amazing the universe is.

Pantheism, to me, are simply renaming the universe god and worshipping it. What’s the point of this? Also, some pantheists belief that the universe is sentient, when this is non-falsifiable and comes off as slightly bogus.

I like the idea of pantheism that we affirm this life, but you can do that without worshipping the universe.

So simply, what is the point of pantheism? Was it merely a word romantics like Goethe used to not be tarred with the word ‘atheist’, that religious people look upon with disgust?

What is the point of starting numerous "what is the point of..." threads and never replying to them?

Umm... I responded.

What's the point of any religion?

In the words of Richard Dawkins, "Pantheism is just sexed up atheism."

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

In the words of Richard Dawkins, "Pantheism is just sexed up atheism."

Aye but whats wrong with that?

Dawkins was--pardon the vulgarity--talking out his ass here. Atheism denies ALL spirit--pantheism affirms--as does animism--the presence of spirit in everything.

Merely because one rejects the outmoded notion of God as a gaseous invertebrate with a long beard sitting on a cloud somewhere out there, one is not an atheist.

What I call "god," others might well call the Universe, or Mother Nature, or the Higher Mind, or the Force, or the Unified Field, or the Universal Intelligence. It is all the same.

[This message has been edited by ArmsMerchant (edited 09-27-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:

Dawkins was--pardon the vulgairty--talking out his ass here. Atheism denies ALL spirit--panthiesm affirms--as does animism--the presence of spirit in everything.

Merely because one rejects the outmoded notion of God as a gaseous invertebrate with a long beard sitting on a cloud somewhere out there, one is not an atheist.

What I call "god," others might well call the Universe, or Mother Nature, or the Higher Mind, or the Force, or the Unified Field, or the Universal Intelligence. It is all the same.

You're right, it is all the same, you agree with Dawkins exactly. Good job on the consistency there.

Half full, half empty, the entire world is spiritual or nothing is, it doesn't matter, and it doesn't change anything.

It's only a problem (and a pretty annoying one) when someone keeps trying to push theories along those lines, like trying to feel wise or inspirational by saying how all existence is God and the space that enables us to think and all that stuff is worth worshipping.

Pantheism is a nice little thought, as long as you remember that it's really just saying that we don't need to go above and beyond this existence to find wonder or beauty. There doesn't need to be a God of lighting for lightning to be fascinating. There doesn't need to be a creator for us to value and love life. Look around you; the world is amazing, and I think it's even more amazing that we can truly understand the reasons behind things. Let's not cheapen that.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

Pantheism, to me, are simply renaming the universe god and worshipping it. What’s the point of this?

In this post I'm going to paraphrase the start of Chapter Two in a book called Pantheism by Michael Levine, where he address this very point.

Levine would argue that first of all you have to specify which form of pantheism you are referring to, because in fact there are a few distinct types. There is one thing each has in common, and it is the idea that all things exist as elements in unity with each other, and that the all-inclusive unity is in some sense divine. Let's call this the pantheists' definition of their beliefs.

This definition is quite different from the one it's commonly given by critics. For instance, the most common criticism made of pantheism is that it merely says "God" is the same as "universe", which is nothing more than renaming one thing as another. This argument was originally put forward by Schopenhauer, who labeled the linguistic equivocation as "redundant" because it "says nothing".

But is Schopenhauer's definition of pantheism the same as that of the pantheists themselves? Short answer: no.

Schopenhauer is using a definition quite of his own. Here are his own words on the subject:

quote:The chief objection I have to pantheism is that it says nothing. To call the world "God" is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word "world". It comes to the same thing whether you say "the world is God," or "God is the world." ... if you start from "God" as something that is given in experience, and that has to be explained, and then say, "God is the world," you are affording what is to some extent an explanation... but it is only a verbal explanation.

If however, you start from what is really given, that is to say, from the world, and say, "the world is God," it is clear that you say nothing, or at least you are explaining what is unknown by what is more unknown... Hence Pantheism presupposes Theism; only in so far as you start from a god... can you end by identifying him with the world; and your purpose in doing so is to put him out of the way in a decent fashion.

In other words you do not start clear from the world as something that requires explanation; you start from God as something that is given, and not knowing what to do with him, you make the world take over his role This is the origin of Pantheism.

Taking an unprejudiced view of the world as it is, no one would dream of regarding it as a god. It must be a very ill-advised god who knows no better way of diverting himself than by turning himself into a world such as ours, such a mean, shabby world.."

There are some immediate, and fatal, objections to make about what he has said.

First of all, "Pantheism presupposes Theism" is utterly mistaken, in reality pantheism denies theism.

Second, claiming that pantheists "start from a god" and "end by identifying him with the world" is also inaccurate. Levine cites a specific example in Spinoza's Ethics (a text which produced one of the best known forms of pantheism) where he specifically denies an identity-relationship between "the world" and "God" (Ethics, I, Proposition XXIX). Or in his terms, natura naturans =/= natura naturata.

And so it is to most pantheists in reality. "God" is NOT a synonym for "the world", it's actually short-hand for describing a PROPERTY of the unity, which is the fact that it is divine in some way. As for "God" and "the world", they are still distinct entities. But what they have in COMMON is that they are referring to the same thing, this thing in common is the meaning of "unity".

The unity is definitely not "formal", in other words some kind of perceived classification. This would be the same as claiming two orangutangs share in a unity because they're members of one single species, and that human beings also share in a unity with organgutangs because we belong to one larger category such as hominids. In THIS sense we could claim a unity among all things in the world because ultimately there must be an ultimate genus in which all things belong. Namely, existence.

And this is NOT the sense what pantheists refer to when they say "unity". Levine cites MacIntyre denying such a notion of unity when he says

quote:Because existence is not a genus. To say that something exists is not to classify it at all... The notion of a unity that includes all that exists - or even all that exists and all that does not exist - is a notion devoid of content.

Clearly therefore Schopenhauers arguments are actually directed at a fictional pantheism, the definition he attacks is a distorted misrepresentation of what pantheism really is.

So to sum you up, "god" is the underlying substance that holds everything together, right? Kind of like atoms and energy...

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

So to sum you up, "god" is the underlying substance that holds everything together, right? Kind of like atoms and energy...

Yes kind of.

Here is the way it is described by the Khândogya Upanishad, giving one form of pantheism:

quote:1. 'Fetch me from thence a fruit of the Nyagrodha tree.'

'Here is one, Sir.' Break it.'

'It is broken, Sir.'

'What do you see there?'

'These seeds, almost infinitesimal.'

'Break one of them.'

'It is broken, Sir.'

'What do you see there?'

'Not anything, Sir.'

2. The father said: 'My son, that subtile essence which you do not perceive there, of that very essence this great Nyagrodha tree exists.

3. 'Believe it, my son. That which is the subtile essence, in it all that exists has its self. It is the True. It is the Self, and thou, O Svetaketu, art it.'

'Please, Sir, inform me still more,' said the son.

'Be it so, my child,' the father replied.

www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe01/sbe01130.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe01/sbe01130.htm)

quote:1. 'Place this salt in water, and then wait on me in the morning.'

The son did as he was commanded.

The father said to him: 'Bring me the salt, which you placed in the water last night.'

p. 105

The son having looked for it, found it not, for, of course, it was melted.

2. The father said: 'Taste it from the surface of the water. How is it?'

The son replied: 'It is salt.'

'Taste it from the middle. How is it?'

The son replied: 'It is salt.'

'Taste it from the bottom. How is it?'

The son replied 'It is salt.'

The father said Throw it away 1 and then wait on me.'

He did so; but salt exists for ever.

Then the father said: 'Here also, in this body, forsooth, you do not perceive the True (Sat), my son; but there indeed it is.

3. 'That which is the subtile essence, in it all that exists has its self. It is the True. It is the Self, and thou, O Svetaketu, art it.'

'Please, Sir, inform me still more,' said the son.

'Be it so, my child,' the father replied.

www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe01/sbe01131.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe01/sbe01131.htm)

And so on.

Now you might have the perception that Hinduism is polytheistic because it has so many gods. But this is just a perception of the surface, because fundamental to Hindu belief is the idea that there is only ONE god, and that all of their worshipped gods are simply facets of the one being.

The cosmic spirit, or divine consciousness, is called "Brahman". And the soul inside each conscious being is called "Atman". The initial message of Hinduism is that the Atman, or "little god" inside you is like a miniature version of Brahman. But the ultimate message is that Brahman and Atman ARE ONE AND THE SAME.

So yes, "God" is the energy that holds everything together - and God's all the stuff that needs to be held together as well - and God is you.

It just doesn't appear that way to man. It's what Einstein called an "optical delusion of his consciousness".

Hinduism is henotheistic and its modern form rose from polytheistic roots. Pardon me if I'm wrong but I believe that Hinduism was polytheistic and the concept of Brahman was established because of the Vedic influences.

I don't know much about the origins of Hinduism, but whether it was formed from a once-polytheistic religion or not, the form of pantheism described by Hinduism is derived from the post-polytheistic stage.

Hinduism is called henotheistic.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

What's the point of any religion?



Self reassurance of hope.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

What's the point of any religion?

To improve quality of life. They're just not very good at it.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

What's the point of any religion?



What's the point of a a virus?

I wouldn't call pantheism a religion, not the one I'd believe in. The one I'd believe, it'd merely be that all is one, and therefore I own the world, or something like that... just sexed-up atheism(I still think that's a cool term for it).

I don't know if that's what pantheism means. A pantheon is a religion with more than one god right? So wouldn't pantheism mean; believes in more than one god?

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

I don't know if that's what pantheism means. A pantheon is a religion with more than one god right? So wouldn't pantheism mean; believes in more than one god?

Read my posts above:

quote:Levine would argue that first of all you have to specify which form of pantheism you are referring to, because in fact there are a few distinct types. There is one thing each has in common, and it is the idea that all things exist as elements in unity with each other, and that the all-inclusive unity is in some sense divine. Let's call this the pantheists' definition of their beliefs.



As for the similarity with the word "pantheon", the two terms contain common linguistic roots, but have different meanings.

The element "pan" means "all". And "theos" means "God".

"Pantheon" = "all the gods"

"Pantheism" = "god in all things"

If "pantheism" meant "a belief in all the gods", it would be called "polytheism", since "poly" means "many".