Is Pantheism a contradiction in terms?

I'm not extremely familiar with pantheism, but as I understand it, the pantheistic deity isn't a traditional type of deity. It isn't anthropomorphic, personal, interventionist, or even in most conceptions conscious, but it is still a deity in the sense that pantheists view it as divine and deserving of the reverence paid to any other deity.

Also, minor correction: "pan" means "all", not nature. Pantheism means the belief that all things are (part of) a deity.

I think Pantheists believe that the universe is a deity in the sense that it is conscious and self aware, rather than that it is a supernatural being. I have a lot of respect for Pantheism, but perhaps it needs to be defined more clearly.

My beliefs lean towards pantheism, but I see no contradiction here at all.

From pantheism.net:

"What Pantheism believes

At the heart of pantheism is reverence of the universe as the ultimate focus of reverence, and for the natural earth as sacred.

Scientific or Natural Pantheism - Pan for short - has a naturalistic approach which simply accepts and reveres the universe and nature just as they are, and promotes an ethic of respect for human and animal rights and for lifestyles that sustain rather than destroy the environment.

When scientific pantheists say WE REVERE THE UNIVERSE we are not talking about a supernatural being. We are talking about the way our senses and our emotions force us to respond to the overwhelming mystery and power that surrounds us.

We are part of the universe. Our earth was created from the universe and will one day be reabsorbed into the universe.

We are made of the same matter and energy as the universe. We are not in exile here: we are at home. It is only here that we will ever get the chance to see paradise face to face. If we believe our real home is not here but in a land that lies beyond death - if we believe that the numinous is found only in old books, or old buildings, or inside our head, or outside this reality - then we will see this real, vibrant, luminous world as if through a glass darkly.

The universe creates us, preserves us, destroys us. It is deep and old beyond our ability to reach with our senses. It is beautiful beyond our ability to describe in words. It is complex beyond our ability to fully grasp in science. We must relate to the universe with humility, awe, reverence, celebration and the search for deeper understanding - in many of the ways that believers relate to their God, minus the grovelling worship or the expectation that there is some being out there who can answer our prayers.

This overwhelming presence is everywhere inside you and outside you and you can never be separated from it."

Sorry for the c'n'p but he explains it quite well.

Pantheists are atheists.

Yeah, a "natural deity" is an oxymoron, but it's a harmless belief so I have nothing against it. I suppose it's possible for the universe to imerge consciousness, I just don't see any evidence for it.

Edit: Actually it's more than possible that the universe could emerge consciousness, because we are part of the universe and we emerged consciousness. I don't see any evidence for the entire universe being a greater consciousness though. Then again I don't see how we could ever know if it was. It would be like a brain cell realizing the consciousness of the brain.

Yes and no. Many pantheist groups today are what Richard Dawkin's best described as sexed up atheism. Also, panentheism puts god in the universe and outside of existence. There is naturalistic pantheism, and other variations such as monist, monist idealist and duelist. I humbly call myself an agnostic, but consider the plausibility of both pandeism and panendeism, so I could call myself a pandeist. You should go to YouTube and look up the account PanDeism, the person made a number of self made cartoon clips on pandeism, you could go to his homepage, go to videos, and going back to page 3, watch what he discusses on PanDeism. Keep in mind, the god of both Spinoza and Einstein was pandeistic, not pantheistic as many improperly label.

There would have been a creator who possessed intelligence and consciousness, the creator, or god, or deus, transformed itself (or part of itself, in panen) into the universe, maybe all other sentience are chinks of the collective consciousness or not, so the deus can learn.

I skipped slightly yet i trust I stuck your fairly question. "i ask your self, how ought to or not that is so as that the Christian God is all-powerful and omniscient and nevertheless we've loose will over sin. Thou mayest triumph over sin? How, if the precise is already standard?" i'm no longer Christian - even with the indisputable fact that the intelectual workout i imagine is potential -- imagine of the analogy of the "chosen your own journey" books (or a on line recreation for that be counted) the author creates a series of the conceivable consequences depending on the participant's moves. The payer can get any of a myriad of outcomes through the appliance of his loose will on the author's advent -- yet all of those outcomes may were standard to the author and meant through the author. be conscious how prophesy works into this besides -- the prophet is like the guy who regarded by ability of the e book or possibly is commonplace with lots of the game code.

Deity is supernatural<<

no proof to back that claim thats the problem

Pantheism.net

Thing is, "deity" isn't necessarily "supernatural" and pantheists don't believe their deity is outside of nature, they believe that nature IS their deity. So, no, it isn't a contradictory label.

you are confused on what a diety is.

Diety does not mean that it is outside of nature. there could have been a perfectly natural event that caused the existence of god. it could be natural.