Pantheism

[Naturyl]

QRS actively espouse pantheism, although I have never heard them use the term explicitly. Essentially, pantheism is the idea that Nature is equivalent to the theological principle of God. Metaphysically, it replaces supernaturalism with naturalism, and is generally not ultimately dualistic. God becomes a synonym for Nature. In a pantheistic sense, either term suffices to describe our creator and the ultimate ground of being.

I serve on the Board of Directors of the Universal Pantheist Society, the world's oldest membership organization for pantheists. I would be curious to see what participants here at GF know about pantheism, and how it is regarded. At appropriate junctures, I may add comments or clarifications based on my knowledge of the subject matter.

[WolfsonJakk]

Would a pantheist include someone who feels that all current descriptions of "god" are essentially variations on a common theme?

[voce io]

Pantheism is God.

[birdofhermes]

I'm either a pantheist or animist. I didn't know about the Society. I'm interested.

[suergaz]

Everyone knows that nature is all there is.

Call your club anything.

[WolfsonJakk]

The Anything Club

[David Quinn]

Even though I equate God with Nature, I don't like the term "pantheism" and would never call myself a pantheist. In my experience, pantheists are either materialists who believe that the Universe is physical and objective in nature, or mystics who believe that the Universe is composed of a divine essence. In reality, neither of these conceptions are even remotely close to the mark.

Pantheism is obviously a step upwards from Christianity and Islam and the like, but it's still a long way short of true wisdom.

[krussell2004]

Quote:Quote:<hr>but it's still a long way short of true wisdom.<hr>

A long way short? I'm not sure why, but I like the unification of opposites in that statement.

[suergaz]

To equate god with nature is a long way short of wisdom.

I am the great pan!

[Naturyl]

Interesting comments. Such objections are among those which contribute to the fact that despite my position in the UPS, I no longer actively refer to myself as 'pantheist.' Like David, I continue to espouse something that could easily be called 'pantheism' in practice, but have gradually become dissatisfied with identifying myself as such. Because I remain sympathetic toward the worldview and its aims, however, I maintain my position in the organization.

For Bird, here is an older site of mine that I keep updated. You can find a lot of information about pantheism and the various organizations there.

<a href="http://naturyl.humanists.net/panaware/" ... naware/</a>

[birdofhermes]

Thanks, I had a look. I believe pantheism is the innate human spiritual sense. From this we have fallen. Fallen into Monotheism and Buddhism.

[Naturyl]

Basically, I'd agree, but ideally, pantheism would never be called 'pantheism,' because without the fall into religion, the term 'theism' would never have been meaningful to begin with. Nature would be Nature, and that would be spiritually sufficient.

[Thomas Knierim]

Though the word 'pantheism' is an oxymoron, I am very sympathetic to the cause of pantheism. It runs in the family. My granddad was a pantheist. At the age of 20, when I read the classics, I would not have hesitated to accept the label. By now it seems too Greek to me. The 'theism' part is somewhat irritating.

Thomas

[birdofhermes]

That is why I prefer to think of myself as an animist. Although at the site I discovered I am a bit of a monist as well.

[Naturyl]

I am a dialectical monist.

Bird, why would you feel that you are an animist? Do you believe that every object has its own 'spirit,' 'soul,' or 'intelligence?' If so, in what sense? It is very rare to run into anyone who understands what animism is and refers to themselves as such. Since I'm sure you understand what the term means, I'm curious as to why you would adopt it.

[birdofhermes]

Uh-oh, I hope I'm not in trouble.

Quote:Quote:<hr>Do you believe that every object has its own 'spirit,' 'soul,' or 'intelligence?' If so, in what sense?<hr>

Well, the short answer is "probably." I think the world is a sacred place and everything in it is holy. It is much harder to discern quite what to think re items that are "inanimate" but I give them the benefit of the doubt.

I find a great and ponderable mystery between the reality of Oneness and the reality of the individual life. It is a very grand scheme.

There is a sense in which each individual, a plant say, has its own soul and also partakes in the spirit or soul of its kind. Layers upon layers of belonging.

You can see and feel the life force, the intelligence, and joy of life everywhere. You just have to be willing. The wisdom QRS promote is one of deduction, but it is possible to understand something simply by seeing it.

For example, I feel black people, and they are different than white people. Lately, for some reason, there are Africans in America. When I saw them, I was horrified at what we have done. But the best of the American blacks are still retaining something of their African magnificence, and their racial tones. Sometimes, as a nurse, I will have a patient's room filled with family, and when it is good folks, the feeling is wonderful and I enjoy being inside of it. But white people are lighter and thinner. When in a room full of fine, relaxed and loving black family members, the feeling is so palpable that it is like an electric humming. It is sheer pleasure to breathe and move within it.

But today I went to the meat counter and an African waited on me. I can usually spot them even before they speak (that they are not American). Once they speak of course, it is all over. Have you ever heard Swahili or an African tongue? It makes French sound gutteral and silly.

I would have liked to sit in a corner just to be near his speech and within his vibrational space. There is no other word but magnificence to describe the soul-emotive presence of Africans.

[Thomas Knierim]

<span style="color:white;">Naturyl: It is very rare to run into anyone who understands what animism is and refers to themselves as such. Since I'm sure you understand what the term means, I'm curious as to why you would adopt it.</span>

Yeah, that would interest me too. It seems that animism is presently experiencing a small comeback in the form of panpsychism (<a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panps ... sychism</a> ), which is one of the more exotic theories one encounters in the conext of the philosophy of mind.

Thomas

[jimhaz]

For example, I feel black people, and they are different than white people. Lately, for some reason, there are Africans in America. When I saw them, I was horrified at what we have done. But the best of the American blacks are still retaining something of their African magnificence, and their racial tones.

BATES, DAISY 1859-1951
"There are a few fortunate races that have been endowed with cheerfulness as their main characteristic," she said, "the Australian Aborigine being among these."

The QRS goal is not happiness, but contentment. I have always found happiness to be transient, whereas contentment achieved through wisdom can be more lasting.

Although it is quite sad that white people have destroyed this happiness, so what. Do you not think that at some stage some other culture would have become like whites and developed sufficent technology to launch an assualt on Australia. I can assure you they would have. For instance the mongols may have taken over Europe and the UK at some stage. The rolling stone of wisdom gathers no moss.

What choice do the aboriginies have now? None except to apply wisdom to the way they approach things. They presently don't for the most part, so they are very unhappy and will remain so until they do.

[Naturyl]

Bird,

No, you're not in any trouble. :-) You're obviously a very spiritual person by nature. The left-brain or 'feminine' penchant for direct intuitive experience has served you well, it seems. As regards the only marginally-important issue of classification, it looks to me like you are in some sort of middle ground between animism and pantheism, which is a reasonably uncommon place to be in modern times (although the ancients of prehistory knew nothing else). As far as I can tell, it is not a position which necessarily conflicts with reason, so you're safe from 'trouble' with me. If it's working for you and it doesn't require faith in absurdities, there's really no reason to look elsewhere. To your credit, it's a very ancient and authentic sort of spirituality, and one which many are beginning to rediscover.

[edited because I am an excellent speller, but a horrendous typist] ;-) Edited by: Naturyl  <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://www.imgmag.org/images/zway/naticon.gif" BORDER=0> at: 1/27/04 3:08 pm

[birdofhermes]

Quote:Quote:<hr>What choice do the aboriginies have now? None except to apply wisdom to the way they approach things.<hr>It is time for us to apply some wisdom, and realize that the ultimate end for a species that does not live within nature is death. We are headed that way, and taking others with us.

There are serious problems with this thing called civlization. For example, Japanese fishermen actually kill dolphins on sight because dolphins are also fishers of fish.

The idea that it is OK to make species war to prevent other species from existing, or from reaching their food, is a morally and spiritually bankrupt notion, divorced from respect for life and our place within it.

The diversity of life shows that diversity wins out, and a species that makes war on the rest of life (ours) will have to end up with a destroyed web of life. It is irrational to eliminate dolphins, (and wolves, and bears, and forests, and indirectly through insecticides and pollution the fish in the ocean and rivers, and wild birds, and frogs, and tigers, and elephants....) so as to turn the entire planet into a giant farm for the production of human food. Irrational not because it would turn this planet into a garish hell, nor even because it would ultimately backfire and we would die, but irrational because once the entire planet is farmed and paved, we still would have to finally limit our population.

No, I do not think it was humane or moral to overrun the aboriginees and south sea islanders and the americas with their hundreds and thousands of stable cultures and languages, in order to overrun the world with English people. Edited by: birdofhermes at: 1/27/04 3:17 pm

[jimhaz]

for a species that does not live within nature is death

The ultimate end for any species that does not try and bend nature to its will is death. As all we do is nature we have no choice in that matter.

If humans had not developed and bears had, would not they now eat us.

Where are the creatures from 100 million years ago? I hope you like sharks, crocodiles and cockroaches.

I think it is the motherness in you that is saying that.

[Naturyl]

Well, in the animal kingdom, such things are the way of survival. As we are animals, it is understandable that we would carry with us these tendencies to overrun others and destroy competition for resources. However, I am not excusing such behavior by explaining it, for to consider excusable based on its animal origins would be to commit the naturalistic fallacy. I feel that we are animals, but we are not only animals. We are also something more. I am by no means suggesting that we have a 'soul' or some other simplistic dualistic notion, nor am I suggesting that we were created by any means other than that which creates all other animals. Still, and to great puzzlement, we find that we are somehow different in a way so important as to be considered fundamental. We have self-awareness, and with self-awareness comes a burden of responsibility shared by no other species. We find ourselves in the highly bizzare (perhaps even 'absurd, as Camus might say) position of being animals who must behave as more than animals. It is both a boon and a curse, I suppose.

So, essentially, despite the fact that the things Bird laments are quite natural and expected in animals, and the fact that human beings are animals, I still must agree with her. We've got to do better. It's our burden and our reward, the lot in life of the strangest beast of them all.

[birdofhermes]

Quote:Quote:<hr>The ultimate end for any species that does not try and bend nature to its will is death. As all we do is nature we have no choice in that matter.<hr>

A bizarre remark. No species, including QRS, is intelligent enough to interfere with the devlopment of nature, and none has ever bent nature to its will. I'm not saying there is no striving or competition, but their are bounds and laws which cannot be crossed.

Quote:Quote:<hr>If humans had not developed and bears had, would not they now eat us.<hr>Another bizarre remark. Bears have developed wonderfully. As to dolphins, they are probably more intelligent than chimps. They more lack hands, than brains. But back to bears - what an androcentric view. Bears are developing as bears. That's what bears do - they be bears. Do you want all species to be human? Is that not just the derangement I was talking about? An entire planet full of creatures unworthy of life because they have "not developed." Into what? Why into humans - the only worthy ones. And who else gets to live? Corn, wheat, rice, fruit, vegetables, chickens, pigs, cows. That's about it. No, Jimmy, it's not a question of eating. It's a question of making species war. The lion does not make war on the gazelle. The lion does not make war on the hyena because its presence in the world is inconvenient for lions.

Quote:Quote:<hr>Where are the creatures from 100 million years ago? I hope you like sharks, crocodiles and cockroaches.<hr>

Well, they are here.

Quote:Quote:<hr>I think it is the motherness in you that is saying that.<hr> Let it be so.

[jimhaz]

with self-awareness comes a burden of responsibility

I have to agree with your statement. Trouble is are we really doing anything about it. We are in some small ways but I sense it will be too late, particularly as developing countries where much of the worlds population reside are likely to make all the same mistakes the western world has. Competition means they have to cut costs to compete, and unless you have a 'New World Order' controlling them, they will do so at the cost of the environment. Edited by: jimhaz at: 1/27/04 3:33 pm

[Naturyl]

Jimhaz,

I don't know. It may be too late, as you suggest. However, even if it is, dwelling on the fact will accomplish nothing. When in doubt, we must assume that it is not too late - but in so doing, we must also avoid the pitfall of complancency which whispers "if it's not too late, we'll just wait until it is." Laziness, greed, and indifference tempt us to ignore the problem until it goes away, but we are seeing increasing amounts of evidence that it won't. The time for procrastination is quite clearly at an end, and we need to do something significant about this environmental situation immediately.

Having said that, I personally tend to doubt that it is too late, and I think that we will probably make it through the worst times, although not without some difficulty along the way.