At Spinoza's blog there was a discussion regarding the pantheist position and the centuries-old criticism that pantheism is nothing but atheism in ill-fitting religious clothing. If you are equating the universe with God, why can't you just drop the God term entirely? Do we really need another synonym, especially one that carries such heavy connotations?
But I think that the pantheist position is a far cry from atheism. Granted, to the theist who insists on anthropomorphizing God they are equally heretical, but they are actually only superficially similar.
The major difference lies in the appreciation for existence. What is existence really? Is it some random backdrop in which we find ourselves or is it an integral part of who and what we are?
Pantheists are generally philosophical Monists, everything is 'one thing' and all comes from the same source. All things within the universe are interconnected.
Pantheists may also believe that there is value external to human judgement for things like morals and aesthetics. That these are not human constructions but that they are human fulfillments and recognitions of aspects of reality. The typical atheist position which undermines such things as epiphenomenal are actually integral (as are all things) to the pantheist position.
The Pantheist may understand a certain way that things ought to be, as opposed to the atheist which sees such ideas to be a matter of mere personal preference or irrelevant.
Atheists don't tend to make metaphysical assertions, they just harp on the failures of theism. If they follow scientific skepticism then their metaphysical views may be nothing but basic materialism.
The ultimate difference lies in what each side considers the basic substance of the universe to be like. The atheist conceives of nothing but subatomic particles whizzing about or random quantum fluctuations while the pantheist imagines a fundamental well-structured ground of being.
Personally, I don't know if I'd call myself a pantheist. Perhaps I'm more of a panentheist wherein physical existence is a manifestation of a higher existence, albeit a still integral one. The question is then what we mean when we use the term 'universe.' If it means just physical reality, then I'm a panentheist. If it means all things then I'd have to a pantheist.
Pantheism is a positive belief that the universe holds properties worthy of reverence for its own sake and that are truly integral for a meaningful existence. To refer to such ideas as simply the physical universe loses a lot of the intended meaning. The term 'God' as ultimate existence is not just a semantic ruse, it is truly a more apt expression of pantheistic beliefs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
The atheist conceives of nothing but subatomic particles whizzing about or random quantum fluctuations while the pantheist imagines a fundamental well-structured ground of being.
"Imagines" being the operative word.
Pantheists may also believe that there is value external to human judgement for things like morals and aesthetics. That these are not human constructions but that they are human fulfillments and recognitions of aspects of reality.
I don't understand how a rational person could believe this.
If a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody around, is it beautiful?
JA,
""Imagines" being the operative word."
So it is. I don't claim to have scientific evidence on my side, it just makes sense to me in my philosophical speculation.
"I don't understand how a rational person could believe this.
If a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody around, is it beautiful?"
If humans are not some sort of extra-universal observors, but are integrated into what the universe is in entirety then what is beautiful may have universal meaning through which human beings merely have the awareness required to appreciate it.
For some theorists, the conscious attributes of mankind are not merely lucky yet wholly irrelevant flukes, but are meaningful systems ingrained into and within the fabric of being.
I'm not saying that I necessarily believe that, but it's not irrational.
“If humans are not some sort of extra-universal observors, but are integrated into what the universe is in entirety then what is beautiful may have universal meaning through which human beings merely have the awareness required to appreciate it.”
Ideas I have gleaned from Stephen Hawkings, Richard Elliot Friedman and Rabbi Slifkin allude to a similar concept. They posit that the nature of the universe is such that its programming allows for complex life to evolve; ultimately to the level of some Being able to recognize the laws and structure of the very universe that allowed it to form.
The fact that we are able to ascertain the properties of the universe may indicate that we operate (and should operate) on a wavelength congruent to the same universal laws. Science is leading us closer to a unified theory so perhaps on some level that is the unity of ‘God’ that we are seeking. Recognizing the beauty of the unity of the universe may thus have some inherent benefit to those beings capable of comprehending it.
While pantheism is often hard to distinguish from atheism, there are forms of pantheism that merge with traditional theism. Remember, the Misnagdim accused the Hasidim of pantheism, though they were probably panentheists. I think people who are pantheists have a certain mystical bent that is hard for rationalists to comprehend. Most Eastern religions have a pantheistic feel to them, and the same goes for Westerners who have been attracted to such ideas (e.g. Ralph Waldo Emerson). In any case, pantheists force us theists to reassess what we mean when we refer to "God." However much we try to avoid such thinking, we tend to conceptualize God as a distinct entity separate from physical reality.
Smoo,
"Science is leading us closer to a unified theory so perhaps on some level that is the unity of ‘God’ that we are seeking. Recognizing the beauty of the unity of the universe may thus have some inherent benefit to those beings capable of comprehending it."
Yeah, I think it's fascinating how oftentimes science and religion can find many points of contact. My ideal is that scientists and religious seekers are looking at/for the same exact thing, just from different perspectives.
Kylopod,
"However much we try to avoid such thinking, we tend to conceptualize God as a distinct entity separate from physical reality."
I heard it once expressed by a philosopher (Tillich I think) that to say that "God exists" is to deny God, for it implies that God is an object within a larger reality, thus limiting him. To him, God is the essence of being itself.
>I heard it once expressed by a philosopher (Tillich I think) that to say that "God exists" is to deny God, for it implies that God is an object within a larger reality, thus limiting him. To him, God is the essence of being itself.
Exactly. This is Spinoza 101. I never heard of Tillich, so I looked him up on wikipedia and I saw this:
"With amazing courage Tillich boldly says that the God of the multitudes does not exist, and further, that to believe in His existence is to believe in an idol and ultimately to embrace superstition. God cannot be an entity among entities, even the highest. He is being-in-itself. In this sense Tillich's God is like the God of Spinoza and the God of Hegel. Both Spinoza and Hegel were denounced for their atheism by the theologians of the past because their God was not a Being or an Entity. Tillich, however, is one of the most foremost theologians of our time."
you might find Prof. Shaiya Rothberg's very-panentheistic presentation on Torah Min HaShamayim to be interesting. His background is largely academic and he teaches at USCJ's Conservative Yeshiva in Israel;
http://bitterchocolate.faithweb.com/Torah%20Min%20HaShamayim5769.pdf
Post a Comment