Pantheism

[Fyre Faery Queen]

I have spent quite a lot of time really trawling through exactly what I believe and come to the conclusion that I strongly believe in 'source energy' and 'mother nature' as being the supreme force of the universe. I believe this energy is in everything, but I also believe all the dieties exist, as we have created them and given them power of pockets inside this immense energy.

Is anyone else here a Pantheist and would they like to describe their belief system?

[thalassa]

Re: Pantheism

I am an agnostic pantheistic polytheistic humanist. Or maybe thats a polytheistic humanist pantheistic agnostic...humanist agnostic polytheistic pantheist....anyhow, to explain in a nutshell:

1) The only intellectually sound and honest position I can take on the position of the nature of Divinity in the absence of empirical evidence is one of agnosticism (as defined by TH Huxley--"Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him."). Science is a method of inquiry, not a method of proving things, and as such, you can't prove a negative. And certainly, while extraordinary claims ought to require extraordinary evidence, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Which, in my book, comes down to this: believe what you want, but stop ******** that the other guy is wrong and you are right because you don't know and can't know (and will probably never know) due to the limits of scientific inquiry and the faultiness of human experiences. Ergo, I be agnostic.

2) The best guide we have to morality and ethics is rooted in the affirmation that "human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives" (The International Humanist and Ethical Union), and that we are "a part of nature and holds that values-be they religious, ethical, social, or political-have their source in human experience and culture" that "derives the goals of life from human need and interest rather than from theological or ideological abstractions, and asserts that humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny" (The Humanist Magazine), andthat "those efforts are most effective when they involve both compassion and the scientific method - which includes reliance on reason, evidence, and free inquiry" (Joseph C. Sommer). Therefore, humanism. (quotes from http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism...ns_of_Humanism)

3) When it comes to the nature of existence, the limit of human experience is within our own Universe, and the limit of our rational enquiry is within the potentiality of a Multiverse. Either way, we know one Existence. As such, there is one knowable Reality. And, if there is only one Existence, divinity (if it exists) must originate as it or as an emination of it (enter Spinoza: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/s...pinoza/#GodNat). Or, more simply, the Universe is god. And so, I am a pantheist. ...Cosmos doesn't really need much in the way of worship though. Sort of unsatisfying.

4) Our experience of the Universe is limited in nature and scope. Additionally, we have a number of biological and cultural quirks. One of them being pareidolia--AKA, people see faces where none exist (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22686500). Another being the problem of false memories (http://science.time.com/2013/11/19/r...fflict-us-all/, http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...ence.research1), selective attention (http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/g...xperiment.html), synaptic plasticity (http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.o.../1633/20130288), synesthesia (http://www.livescience.com/169-rare-real-people-feel-taste-hear-color.html ) ---I could go on and on. As such, it makes perfect sense to me that people can very real, personal, and authentic experiences of the Divine in whatever culturally and personally relevant form that exists for them. And I think that is good (unless people take it too far). Religion is a cultual adaptation for human beings. Our experience of ritual and the gods is part of the complexity that drove our development as a species. The gods exist because they are part of our biological and cultural evolution, they are what makes us human (for better or worse). And these gods do need acknowlegement, they do need someone to tell their story. Because they are of us. They are a reflection of us--at our best and worst. They are enduring, larger than life, projections of ourselves against time. And thus, I am a polytheist.

[Thorbjorn]

Re: Pantheism

Is anyone else here a Pantheist and would they like to describe their belief system?

I guess I'd call myself a pantheist, if only because everything is connected. I don't believe in an overarching Supreme Being, though I believe in some kind of cosmic force. I believe the Norse creation stories are a colorful way of describing natural events as the Norse understood them. How and why the universe began isn't really uppermost in most Heathens' minds, I think. That said, because everything does have a divine spark, having been created by Odin, his brothers and Rig, in that regard it's all part of the Gods.

[Jaxxie]

Re: Pantheism

I consider my self a soft monotheist/hard pantheist. I believe the Divine energy is in all living, created things. How I fall into the soft monotheist category is my belief that the central force of this Divine energy is one guiding force, not multiple Divine sources, that people from different religious paths view and worship differently. God, Allah, Yahweh, Shiva - I personally believe are all the same central Deity, just seen differently and called by different names. I see the gods and goddesses from the various pantheons as archetypes to focus on and draw inspiration from, but not literal deities that existed (and continue to exist) on the spiritual plane. So if I called upon Isis, I would personally perceive that as drawing inspiration from the characteristics of her that are present in the Divine one. The soft part comes from the fact that I am never 100% certain about this belief and am open to evidence to the contrary. With all of that said I do see the Divine as genderless, but espousing masculine and feminine characteristics with a broad spectrum of emotions/behaviors/powers/energies which we see in nature.

I also see a stronger Divine presence in certain people, who I also look at historical accounts and choose to draw inspiration from. Not from a Divine perspective, as a deity or demigod, but from an inspirational standpoint. Historical spiritual mentors. People like Jesus, Gandhi, Dr. King, people along those lines.

[Wonder]

Re: Pantheism

Is anyone else here a Pantheist and would they like to describe their belief system?

I think it would be too reductionist to equate the physical, observable world to God and close our eyes on the possiblity of anything else that could lie beyond as so many naturalistic pantheists are doing nowadays.

If the Universe as a 'soul', if it is alive at all, if it has a purpose as it's governing dynamics suggest, then it must be the manifestation, realization of another and perhaps grander principle of which we know nothing about or are simply unaware of in our (very convincing) illusion of concreteness. Hence, Panentheism seems like a much more reasonable position to me, as it takes into account the facts of our existence but also of that which may yet transcend the physical Universe. Panentheists acknowledge that the Universe/Multiverse is in fact 'God's body but probably not the whole of 'God'.

So I am not a pantheist, if only because I believe there could be a 'Principle', an Ultimate Reality (for lack of better terms) beyond the Universe as we experience it.

1) The only intellectually sound and honest position I can take on the position of the nature of Divinity in the absence of empirical evidence is one of agnosticism (as defined by TH Huxley--"Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him."). Science is a method of inquiry, not a method of proving things, and as such, you can't prove a negative. And certainly, while extraordinary claims ought to require extraordinary evidence, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Which, in my book, comes down to this: believe what you want, but stop ******** that the other guy is wrong and you are right because you don't know and can't know (and will probably never know) due to the limits of scientific inquiry and the faultiness of human experiences. Ergo, I be agnostic.

I do not define myself as 'agnostic' but I think what you are saying is common sense, really. I may be a Panentheist, but I can't prove that my theological position is the right one, that it should be considered the ''Truth''. This is because I don't know, I choose to believe. It makes sense to me but I also accept the possiblity that I could very well be mistaken, due to my limited human mind. Even the mystic who had experiences will admit that the Ultimate Reality is far greater than words and logical concepts. Only the dogmatics and fanatics will not admit that possiblity, and will brandish religious texts as Absolute Truths and carry on deluding themselves. The way I see it, agnosticism is the notion that the existence of God(s) is unknown or unknowable. The agnostic is sitting on the fence, and prefer to avoid 'beliefs' pending more evidence.

As such, I am open-minded and humble, yes, but not agnostic so to speak.

[Fyre Faery Queen]

Re: Pantheism

I went to an amazing lecture and slide show in which spirituality and creation were aligned with quantum physics. The focus was on the spaces inside of atoms, that fact that even at a sub atomic level the microcosm reflects the macrocosm. There is so much space between the revolving planets and so much space between the revolving electrons in the atom also. So most of our bodies and 'solid' objects are made up of space. Then when you start examining some of these sub atomic particles it gets even crazier. Sometimes electrons disappear from the atom, and then reappear. When they have disappeared all the other electrons continue to behave the same way, as if the 'gravity' or whatnot generated by the missing electron is still in place. Where do these missing electrons go? Some scientists believe forwards or backwards in time.

Anyway, if most sold things are actually empty space, with rotating planets, atoms, electrons etc inside them, what holds it all together? The principals of gravity do on operate at a sub atomic level, the force that is holding particles in orbit at this level needs a new name and new principals. And this force can also be applied to the greater universe.

So at the lecture I went to the speaker explained to me that many of the older religions already had theories about this force thousands and thousands of years ago, and had given it names, such as 'the great OM' that created the world, etc etc. The speaker labeled it 'love or conciousness'. I think it is perhaps the force of nature. But what ever it is it is in everything, holding everything together. And when we as humans can connect with it with our own consciousness we can start shaping our own world.

I really enjoyed that theory. I can see how it works. I don't know if I believe 'God' is a thinking feeling diety or rather just a universal pool of energy that holds everything together that we can shape with our own minds....

[Näre]

Re: Pantheism

The gods exist because they are part of our biological and cultural evolution, they are what makes us human (for better or worse). And these gods do need acknowlegement, they do need someone to tell their story. Because they are of us. They are a reflection of us--at our best and worst. They are enduring, larger than life, projections of ourselves against time. And thus, I am a polytheist.

I don't know why but I find this extremely beautiful/insightful.

I could describe myself as (agnostic) Pantheist too, but it depends on the moment/day/my current needs or leanings so much. Some days I go talking to trees and deities (okay, not that much and certainly not in public), some days I am almost atheist.
But for me, Pantheism means openness, curiosity, flexibility, fluidity, wonder but also responsibility for my words actions. After wading throat-deep in old religious legends from foreign cultures (though I still love legends, myths and everything related) I learned to respect science and the phenomena of my ordinary life and the nature around me. It's both about being curious and accepting that I will never find out everything about the Universe, as well as building a relationship to life and nature as it is.

[thalassa]

Re: Pantheism

The agnostic is sitting on the fence, and prefer to avoid 'beliefs' pending more evidence.

Agnosticism isn't sitting on the fence, unless one is actually sitting on a fence--one can be a theistic agnositc or a non-theistic agnostic (Huxley was a non-theistic agnostic)...and I have known both. I've known very few however that use it as a means to get out of making a decision, when it comes to what they do (or don't do) on the subject of religion. Defining the term in this way is both an oversimplification and a misrepresentation of what agnosticism means, at least, if someone has read the writing of the guy that coined the term.

[Spiral Arms]

Re: Pantheism

What Nare said, minus the deities part.

P.S. If I revere Carl Sagan, is that a form of ancestor worship?

[Threshold]

Re: Pantheism

I'm a Pantheist...who is agnostic about deities. I don't know any personally (not for lack of trying) but I don't think other people are making stuff up (not most of them anyway)...so something is going on there.

My current way of describing it is this...I think each person has some sort of "contract" with the Universe, or in my language, each "thing" is a function of the Universe. So..it may well be that there are deities and that certain people have responsibilities to them etc etc. My contract is not with those deities, and I'm only responsible for keeping MY contract.

I sort of have no comment on other people's deities because I don't know them, or their realities, because I don't know them either.

Sometimes people will say to me. "Well, if you believe the Universe is the Ultimate Reality then how do you explain...insert astro/quantum physical conundrum here?" And I say " I don't know." and then they say that means my faith is invalid.

I believe in it, that doesn't mean I can explain it or need to understand exactly how it works. I just know it's amazing and real. Other people say the same about the deities they interact with, and I accept that. They don't need to be able to explain or defend their gods to me.

[Bacab]

Re: Pantheism

I've always found pantheism to be an incredibly fuzzy concept and seeing the posts of people here, I can't help but feel my opinion to be confirmed. Agnostics call themselves "pantheists", even though the traditional definition of pantheism is the belief that the universe is God, so believing that you can't know the existence of any god and believing that the universe is God is contradictory. In fact, pantheists themselves don't seem to agree on what pantheism actually is, to the point that the term seems to be more "I have an alternative spirituality that is not of any Abrahamic religion" than anything else.

Moreover, even if we take the traditional definition of pantheism as the universe being God, we come to the problem of defining what the universe is, because it has multiple definitions depending on who you ask. When modern cosmologists talk about the universe, they refer to our spatio-temporal plane composed of matter and energy and a multiplicity of galaxies, of which several such parallel planes exist (the "multiverse", as they call it) rather than just one. Does this mean that there are many gods because there's a multiplicity of universes? Pretty sure few self-termed pantheists believe this. Not only that, but the universe also had a beginning and will have an eventual end. Does this mean God came into existence at a time when he didn't and will also die? Again, I don't think that this is what pantheists believe.

So I take it that by the universe, pantheists mean everything that exists, including all the parallel "universes" and higher dimensions that modern scientists talk about. But wouldn't this be panentheism instead, the belief that the universe is part of God rather than the totality of God? So it seems that pantheism has become a rather outdated term. Not only has it become confusing, but even the traditional definition no longer holds up to modern science which has pretty much confirmed panentheism with the existence of things outside of this universe. So I think that this term should be abandoned altogether unless a fixed definition is given.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Pantheism

Now I have a headache.

[thalassa]

Re: Pantheism

Now I have a headache.

Me too.

I could explain why, but I'd have to infract myself for bad behavior.