Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Atheists: What are your thoughts on pantheism?
Specifically naturalistic pantheism. Theists can feel free to answer too if they have something interesting to say, but "pantheism is wrong because God is personal and supernatural" is not what I'm looking for.
Some quick info so you know where I'm coming from: Pantheism is perhaps best defined as the recognition that all things are fundamentally part of one unified whole. We can call that whole the universe or God, but I prefer Oneness, to distance it from the scientific understanding of the universe and the theological understanding of God. When we do use the word God, it's not because we're monotheists, but because we view this mysterious Oneness as metaphorically equivalent to the deity that monotheists worship.
Just to be completely clear, (naturalistic) pantheism does not involve the supernatural. God is not a bearded man in the sky, but rather the sky itself. It is not a person, and it doesn't think, know, or act. It simply exists. The pantheistic afterlife is nothing but a dissolution of consciousness and a return in full to the Oneness. Unlike most belief systems, pantheism doesn't promise rewards after death or good fortune on Earth. It just affords a means of happiness and inner peace. It doesn't dictate any particular way of life, instead trusting that the transcendence experienced by communing with Oneness will come with intuitive behavioral changes.
I am mostly interested in hearing thought-provoking opposing viewpoints. Why is pantheism wrong? I will probably hang around to watch and respond to answers. Best answer goes not to the person I agree with but to the person who makes me think the most.
@Tao Man: I think you've confused pantheism with polytheism. Or something. I'm not sure where you're getting "thousands" of gods; pantheists do not believe in any deities.
@Reaper, Speed: The word "God" is used metaphorically. As I said in the question, I prefer the term Oneness to emphasize that this is not the God of monotheism.
It seems like the prevailing viewpoint is that pantheism is "sexed-up" naturalism, which is true. I don't see that as a failing of pantheism. The point of pantheism isn't to explain the origin or workings of the universe. It is to promote peace and happiness by offering a spirituality, without the supernaturalism and negative social value of other spiritualities.
9 Answers
- Anonymous9 years agoFavorite Answer
Redundant. Tautological.
Why exactly do I need to call the universe "god" when we already have a perfectly good word for it? It really just seems like naturalism dressed up in a religious costume.
Or, as Richard Dawkins puts it, "Pantheism is sexed-up atheism."
@Tao Man - that's polytheism, not pantheism.
- 9 years ago
I am a Scientific (Naturalistic) Pantheist and I would have to agree with most answers that Pantheism is just sexed up Atheism. It seems like most people answering are getting caught up in your use of the word 'god,' but there ultimately is no 'god' in Scientific Pantheism. Scientific Pantheism is an Atheistic religion, since it is completely compatible with Atheism. There are no supernatural forces. Scientific Pantheism, in my opinion, is more of a philosophy than a religion.
There are two other categories of Pantheism. Quoted from Wikipedia:
Monist physicalist pantheism or Naturalistic Pantheism holds that there is only one type of substance, and that substance is physical, i.e. able at its most basic level to be described by physics, though more complex phenomena such as life, consciousness and societies can appear through emergence. Physicalism is a strong form of metaphysical naturalism. This position was held by John Toland, Ernst Haeckel, D.H. Lawrence and Paul Harrison. This version is represented today by the World Pantheist Movement founded by Harrison. In this version, the term god — if used at all — is basically a synonym for Nature or Universe, seen from the point of view of reverence.[4]
Monist idealist pantheism holds that there is only one type of substance, and that substance is mental or spiritual. Physical reality is regarded as an illusion or projection of the individual mind which is seen as a part of the cosmic mind. This version is common in Hindu philosophies and Consciousness-Only schools of Buddhism, as well as in Religious Science and New Age writers such as Deepak Chopra.[4]
Dualist Pantheism holds that there are two major types of substance, physical and mental/spiritual, which interact or are unified in some way. This type of pantheism can be found in the Dvaita Vedanta tradition of Hinduism, which teaches that the Atman (Soul) is eternal but dependent on the Paramatman (Supreme God).
I personally find these two other beliefs illogical. I have always hated it when people try to argue that the world is an illusion, because it is impossible to argue against them but their viewpoint is illogical. I have no problem with Dualist Pantheism, but it seems illogical to me to believe in the supernatural.
Source(s): Myself - SpeedLv 69 years ago
This is just a definition for God that is true because the Pantheists say it is true. But, what then is the difference between all is God, and none is God? Why call it God?
- Vincent GLv 79 years ago
It is not about it being true or false, it is about it being relevant or not.
And believing in pantheism does not change anything at all.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous9 years ago
Better than Christianity
- Anonymous9 years ago
still better than most religions
