Pantheism

[Taure]

Inspired by a discussion with my friends.

For information purposes, pantheism, or at least naturalistic pantheism, is the idea that God is not any kind of sentient being, but simply a name given to the essence of existence, substance, the foundation of reality, the totality of being, the universe: everything.

It's a belief similar in its holistic nature to an atheistic view of the soul. This being that the soul is not something separate from the body in a Cartesian sense, but instead simply the sum of all of the body and experiences and so on which combine to make something unique - the character and person. It's a purely natural, not supernatural belief.

One example: Einstein is famous for saying "God does not play dice". This was said under the pantheist definition of God. What Einstein was meaning was "The universe is not random".

This pantheist definition of God is so far from the "classical" definition of God that some would say that it's not a God at all, and thus should not use the term God.

So what do you think? Should pantheists drop the term God and come up with something else to describe it? Or are things fine as they are?

Personally, I think that's it's ridiculous than one group of people should be told that their definition of a word is wrong, simply because a larger group of people disagree with them.

I also think that the term God is an appropriate one. Using the term God rather nicely encapsulates the many aspects of what the pantheist God is (essence of existence, substance, the foundation of reality, the totality of being, the universe: everything) and having to list all these things separately whenever a pantheist wants to refer to his/her beliefs would be a chore. The word God works well, and I see no reason to change it. Simply changing it to another word would also be inferior, as this new word would not carry the some of the implications and inferences that the word "God" does.

Opinions?

Both on if you think pantheism is a belief in God at all, and your opinions on if the term should be changed.

 

[Washington]

"God" is commonly considered to describe a being distinct from the universe. A sentient operator with a brain, or at least a capacity to make decisions. So I think it would be an inappropriate label for the pantheist construction.

 

[Received]

Alan Watts was unambiguously pantheistic. He said something interesting: "matter is spirit named". That sounds like nonsense, and in many if not all cases it's impossible to prove (can we really observe something without nearly intuitively naming it?), but somehow it seems to work. In naming we typically instrumentalize -- "matter" is that "that which can be used". Consequently, the phenomena that we name "matter" loses its intrinsic value, which in turn means it loses its beauty (something is beautiful in proportion to its having its goal within itself). Pantheism seems to be related to this reascertainment of beauty inherent in all things. It's probably impossible to find beauty in something instrumentalized -- a desk, a chair. But not in nature; not in human beings; not in art.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

I don't think pantheists should be pressed to stop using the word 'God'--it's up to them to use the word however they wish.

But I would suggest that I don't see it as a belief in God really. To me it just looks like a belief that the universe and everything in it exists, and nothing else does. Every atheist believes that (apart from solipsists, but I doubt the existence of any genuine believers in solipsism as much as they would doubt mine). So what really distinguishes pantheists from atheists? If it's just a vague feeling of the sanctity or singularity of the universe, again, an awful lot of atheists believe that. So what is it?

 

[elcapitan]

I don't think pantheists should be pressed to stop using the word 'God'--it's up to them to use the word however they wish.

But I would suggest that I don't see it as a belief in God really. To me it just looks like a belief that the universe and everything in it exists, and nothing else does. Every atheist believes that (apart from solipsists, but I doubt the existence of any genuine believers in solipsism as much as they would doubt mine). So what really distinguishes pantheists from atheists? If it's just a vague feeling of the sanctity or singularity of the universe, again, an awful lot of atheists believe that. So what is it?

In that case, it's just a "less offensive" way to say "atheist".

 

[Received]

Dawkins (who often is off track on extrascientific matters) isn't far off track when he says that pantheism is sexed up atheism.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

I agree with the definition given in the op, actually, well, everything except for the non-sentient part.