"Pantheism is sexed up atheism. Deism is watered down theism."
-Richard Dawkins
Quite some time ago, I got into a mock debate on AF with two users in which I defended pantheism. I didn't do all that good of a job, but I've had some time to collect my thoughts on the matter enough that I'd like to give it another shot. The purpose of this thread is to open a debate among members, so that they may weigh the merits of a pantheistic way of thinking. I will also defend the concept of pantheism from objectiors, and further explain what it is to those who are unfamiliar.
First, let's give a definition of the subject: Pantheism (sometimes called spiritual naturalism ) is the belief that the entire universe, or infinitude of universes assuming a multi-verse, deserves the moniker "God," and that everything contained within the universe is a part of God. This includes you, your computer, the pile of dog poo in your back yard, the package of microwave burritos in your freezer, and everything else that can be said to exist.
Pantheism doesn't posit that any supernatural entity exists. Rather, it looks at the totality of what does exist and pronounces it holy. To the pantheist, things that the religious have always claimed as their own (lie a sense of the spiritual or numinous) are instead understood as properties of the natural world-- not attributes of a supernatural being. One of the main reasons I sympathize with this way of thinking is that the religious have done the same thing with morality. They say things like: "How can you have a sense of right and wrong without there being a cosmic being who declares some things right and other things wrong." Obviously, theists are trying to claim a monopoly on moral objectivity. And I wonder if they might not have done the same thing with concepts like "holy" or "numinous."
Here is the entire Dawkins quote from The God Delusion:
I don't think that pantheism is "sexed up atheism." There's more to it than that. But Dawkins' assessment isn't entirely inaccurate. And besides, what's wrong with "sexing atheism up" a little bit?
Einstein was a pantheist. In every way having to do with logic and science, pantheism is indistinguishable from atheism. I like to think of it as an emotional disposition or attitude rather than a claim about reality.
Anyway, there is more to be said for it, so hopefully some people are interested in debating it/asking questions.
-Richard Dawkins
Quite some time ago, I got into a mock debate on AF with two users in which I defended pantheism. I didn't do all that good of a job, but I've had some time to collect my thoughts on the matter enough that I'd like to give it another shot. The purpose of this thread is to open a debate among members, so that they may weigh the merits of a pantheistic way of thinking. I will also defend the concept of pantheism from objectiors, and further explain what it is to those who are unfamiliar.
First, let's give a definition of the subject: Pantheism (sometimes called spiritual naturalism ) is the belief that the entire universe, or infinitude of universes assuming a multi-verse, deserves the moniker "God," and that everything contained within the universe is a part of God. This includes you, your computer, the pile of dog poo in your back yard, the package of microwave burritos in your freezer, and everything else that can be said to exist.
Pantheism doesn't posit that any supernatural entity exists. Rather, it looks at the totality of what does exist and pronounces it holy. To the pantheist, things that the religious have always claimed as their own (lie a sense of the spiritual or numinous) are instead understood as properties of the natural world-- not attributes of a supernatural being. One of the main reasons I sympathize with this way of thinking is that the religious have done the same thing with morality. They say things like: "How can you have a sense of right and wrong without there being a cosmic being who declares some things right and other things wrong." Obviously, theists are trying to claim a monopoly on moral objectivity. And I wonder if they might not have done the same thing with concepts like "holy" or "numinous."
Here is the entire Dawkins quote from The God Delusion:
Quote:Let's remind ourselves of the terminology. A theist believes in a supernatural intelligence who, in additionhttps://archive.org/stream/GodDelusionTh...s_djvu.txt
to his main work of creating the universe in the first place, is still around to oversee and
influence the subsequent fate of his initial creation. In many theistic belief systems, the deity is intimately
involved in human affairs. He answers prayers; forgives or punishes sins; intervenes in the world by
performing miracles; frets about good and bad deeds, and knows when we do them (or even think of doing
them). A deist, too, believes in a supernatural intelligence, but one whose activities were confined to
setting up the laws that govern the universe in the first place. The deist God never intervenes thereafter,
and certainly has no specific interest in human affairs. Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at
all, but use the word God as a non- supernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the
lawfulness that governs its workings. Deists differ from theists in that their God does not answer prayers,
is not interested in sins or confessions, does not read our thoughts and does not intervene with capricious
miracles. Deists differ from pantheists in that the deist God is some kind of cosmic intelligence, rather
than the pantheist's metaphoric or poetic synonym for the laws of the universe. Pantheism is sexed-up
atheism. Deism is watered-down theism.
I don't think that pantheism is "sexed up atheism." There's more to it than that. But Dawkins' assessment isn't entirely inaccurate. And besides, what's wrong with "sexing atheism up" a little bit?
Einstein was a pantheist. In every way having to do with logic and science, pantheism is indistinguishable from atheism. I like to think of it as an emotional disposition or attitude rather than a claim about reality.
Anyway, there is more to be said for it, so hopefully some people are interested in debating it/asking questions.
![[Image: 1268357574066_1268357574066_r.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=p2.img.cctvpic.com%2F20100312%2Fimages%2F1268357574066_1268357574066_r.jpg)
