Richard Dawkins in "The God Delusion" advances his opinion that "Pantheism is sexed-up Atheism". This left me somewhat puzzled. It occurred to me that perhaps I didn't really know what Pantheism was, though I thought I did. So what do you think the difference is?
I should be especially pleased to have answers from Pantheists and Atheists.
Anonymous
Favorite Answer
When you hear Richard Dawkins calling Pantheism "sexed-up atheism" he is referring to Natural/Scientific Pantheism---which is more or less belief sans religion. The link Universal Pantstheist provided you with to the World Pantheist Movement's website is for Natural/Scientific Pantheism. What makes it similar to atheism is the lack of belief in a personal god (or a god that meddles in human lives). Pantheism in general simply means that one believes all (pan) is god (theos). The "all is god" terminology came about at a time when the easiest way to explain this belief was to include theism in the name. The best definition (in my opinion) of Pantheism is that "nature is divine". This is not to say nature is a god, but more to say that nature is so amazing as it is, that there is no need to to make what is naturally awesome supernatural. If you know about James Lovelock's Gaia Theory, it is easily applied to the Pantheist perspective (Lovelock is actually an honorary adviser of the WPM). However, others will say "nature IS god", I just find this too difficult to explain to those who believe in a god who looks like a human.
Anyway, back to topic: Atheism is easily confused with Pantheism because Atheism is a religion, Pantheism is a philosophy. A philosophy can be applied to any religion. Philosophy is what creates the ethics and beliefs within a religion, whereas a religion is the ritual and mythology applied to these beliefs. So there are many Pantheist Atheists, but also Pantheist Christians, Pantheist Pagans, Pantheist Jews, etc... It really depends on individual interpretation. If you're interested in the belief system, I HIGHLY recommend joining this website so you can talk to other Pantheists (you don't even have to be a Pantheist to join we love everyone :D): http://pantheists.ning.com/
Lio
I totally disagree. Pantheism is both a religion and a philosophy. Who cares just live your life and be kind.
?
The definition comes from a well known atheist, therefore I can only imagine it being a not so veiled criticism to pantheism as a "revamped" and more glamourous (or trendy) version of atheism.
The difference between the two, apart from the obvious language conflict between pan- and a-, is the starting point; atheists think there is no god whatsoever, hence no debate on him/her/it is necessary. Even the definition of atheist is quite absurd, if you think about it, for what would happen if everyone were defined by what one is not or doesn't believe in? We would have a-dragonists, a-winnipooists, a-spidermanists, a-pinkelephantists and so on.
A pantheist, on the other hand, believes the whole universe is god and god is in everything . In doing so, he/she denies the existence of a transcendent deity, which is at the base of every religion from monotheist to pagan, hence Dawkins' odd simile.
Jerry J
Atheism is not, by definition, a religion, but a lack of a belief in a god. We are all born atheist (tabula rasa), and later choose between science (logic) and superstition (faith). An atheist can't disprove a god--the burden of proof belongs to those who claim there is one (or more). There is no such thing as an agnostic--being an agnostic is a little bit like being pregnant--either you is or you ain't. Some make the distinction between "soft" and "hard' atheists. A soft atheist doesn't make an effort to disprove God, while a hard atheist points to the logical absurdities in theist. claims.
Question Everything
Pantheism is finding a divine spark in nature. Atheism is the lack of belief in deities.
So, a pantheist could be an atheist(spiritual atheist) just as easily as they could be a polytheist.
Pantheist may or may not believe in the supernatural. Many these days do not believe in anything beyond the scientifically observable.