Agnostic.com

15 1

Is pantheism compatible with atheism?

Like most things, how one chooses to define one's terms will determine your response. Just curious.

  • 4 votes
  • 49 votes
  • 1 vote
contravalid 4 July 30
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

15 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Im going to go out on a limb and say it’s nuanced. It depends on what the person using the label pantheism means by god. For the purpose of argument Im going to use Kissedbythesun’s definition since shes the only pantheist I see here. Literally speaking the words’ definitions do oppose each other. But if you unpack what a person means by god in pantheism: if everything is god then nothing is. You’re just expanding the concept to include the totality of what is known to exist and calling it a large system of order. Youre throwing a dart and drawing the target around it when you talk about the ultimate order of the universe. Sure it appears to have order but it’s our perspective and pattern seeking habits that impart that order. You still can’t point to a single concept of god like you can in any religion that believes literally in a god. So yeah as far as I can tell most pantheists are, for all practical purposes, no different from atheists by my definition. If they start fearing that their universal order is conspiring to help or hurt, reward or punish them then I might say their case is different.

2

I'm kinda into pan pizza-ism.

I know right?! Those thin crust infidels can kick rocks!

1

It depends upon what powers are attributed to the imagined critters.

Hugo is my personal god. It gets all the blame, but none of the glory. we get along well. I doubt that it will turn on me.

JacarC Level 8 July 31, 2018
2

Look it up! Google is your friend!

1

Not with atheism. Maybe agnostic?

1

Negative ghost rider.

0

Not even a little bit nuanced...monotheism is close to atheism than pantheism

Teter Level 4 July 30, 2018

I'm also confounded by your statment, but genuinely intrigued. If you have the time, could you please elaborate?

@contravalid & @Gwendolyn2018
I see it as a form of shell gaming the 'god of the gaps' tactic. Religion guides, answers questions, provides a moral framework, and comforts...each in their own way and often at the direction of an divine ethereal figure(s). As society matures we find errors, contradictions, and new/logical answer's to our questions. When this happens it becomes increasingly easy to chip away at whole notion built around these divine ethereal figures. The unexplained bits are clung to even more tightly to preserve their narative. Those (yet) unexplained bits tend to be the very big, very small, very old, or very extreme.

Pantheism, to me, (and very generally) does two things to very artfully insulate itself... 1) it removes the specific divine ethereal figure. So, there can be no error or contradictions. 2) it takes those (yet) unexplained bits tend to be the very big, very small, very old, or very extreme and suggests that there is where the god resides.

Pantheism suggests the contradiction that the supernatural is natural.

I am just not wired to settle for explaining what we don't understand with a supernatural explanation...even as a last resort. We may never get the answers we look for but we should certainly keep looking

@Teter wow... Beutifully said! Couldn’t agree more with your words.

@Teter I totally get what you're saying. I was just confused and still am as to how monotheism can be closer to atheism than pantheism. Ok, your "god of the gaps" argument is sound with the way you constructed it. But, I'm curious if it really comports with my understanding. I'm in no way accusing you of "strawmanning," it's much more likely do to the media of our engagement. There is so much to be discovered and better understood. But, I'm not advocating that science will one day render any supernatural claim natural phenomena. What I'm suggesting is that, perhaps, science will one day reveal such a marvelous, inspiring, structure that will evoke a fundamental paradigm shift, which may provide the evidence required to seriously cause even the most ardent atheist to concede the likelihood of some sort of teleology. As a corollary to this discussion, I'm assuming that you also believe that "atheistic" types of Buddhism are likewise theistic as well. Again, thank you. If I'm completely missing something, I'm counting on you guys to straighten me out. I'd much rather be wrong then remain ignorant.

2

So the question is do you believe in all gods but also no gods? Good luck with that.

Wrytyr Level 7 July 30, 2018
3

It would appear not all of your ducks ate on the same pond. Try rethinking that question after a trip to your Funk & Wagnalls.

Sorry, but I may be operating under the false assumption that our Dear Supreme Leader has freed us from the absurdity of truth. Anyway, I sincerely appreciate your responses. However, I believe this is a discussion worth having.

0

Hard no

weeman Level 7 July 30, 2018

See above. Thanks

6

Just like the definition states. Pantheism is the BELIEF -With no proof or evidence - that God was the energy that created the universe AND the universe itself. You don’t need a new word to describe the universe. There’s already a word: UNIVERSE. If God IS the universe, then the concept is meaningless.

Pantheists usually justify the need for both words by saying universe means materialistic universe, while pantheism adds counciousness or will or plan or design to the universe. God is an organism made of many individual parts that alone aren’t aware of being part of a bigger being but combined are God. Just like we are an organism but also made of billions of individual cells. Neurons alone are not self aware, but combined they make you. The idea that planet hearth follows the same pattern has also being suggested. We would constitute its neurons and combined we make the planet conscious of itself.

It all sounds fun and inspiring. Unfortunately there is not a single reason to believe it’s actually true. I don’t think there is any justification for holding beliefs that can’t be proven or that have no evidence to support them. If one believes such things without evidence then he/she can’t call him/her self atheist.

See above. Thanks

1
3

Of course not.
To suggest it is absurd.

3

Definition:

pan·the·ism
ˈpanTHēˌizəm/Submit
noun

  1. a doctrine that identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God.
    2.rare
    worship that admits or tolerates all gods.

Nope

Betty Level 8 July 30, 2018
3

A-theism in a non-belief in any god(s). Pantheism is a belief in god(s). How can that be in any way compatible?

@KissedbySun Then they don't understand what words mean.
One cannot call themself an atheist if they are calling themself a pantheist.
That's just not how it works.
Get a dictionary, and quit making up your own definitions for things.

@KissedbySun From my understanding, the universe itself is god.

@KissedbySun is this like the belief in "What the bleep do we know?" I didn't read the book, but I watched the movie.

@KissedbySun there were some interesting things in the movie about the "observer", and I guess some pretentious things too. I'm just curious, I don't think I've heard the word or belief before. Do you have books or sources you recommend?

@KissedbySun Thanks for defending my point. Right after posting, things came up. Anyway, it appears we might be on the same page--a minority amongst a minority. Don't you think this site is in desperate need of a few true "gadflies?" The "echo-chamber" here is deafening. Fortunately, like you, I have better ways to spend my time. However, it would be a noble cause nonetheless. Maybe, we should find others who are similarly predisposed and take shifts. Perhaps, a perfect follow up question should be: Is free-thinking and antitheism compatible? I'm game, if you are.

@KissedbySun I was being kind of tongue-in-cheek and wordplay got the best of me. I'm not at all some sort of passive aggressive contrarian. Like you, instead of trying to make a point, I'm by far more interested in what others with similar proclivities have discovered. I don't have any reason to believe in reincarnation, therefore I'm inclined to expedite my curiosity by soliciting those like yourself to perchance provide me with the "cliff notes" of your endeavors. I'm not sure why we are more agreeable to the "belief" component you speak of and have no issue with accommodating what is commonly referred to as "spiritual." While I know I am far from alone in my affinity to this unique philosophical hybrid, I have yet to run into anyone who flirts with such a philosophical contradiction as I. I have been using pantheism as convenient identifier. Nevertheless, it is quite deficient. Anyhow, I was wondering do you see any merit in teleology? Also, when you were more involved in pantheism, how did you pursue it? Since I'm more inclined to Shamanism than Taoism. I've taken a sort of cultural anthropological/method acting type of approach. I believe that there is power in belief, and I want to tap into it. As I'm sure you know, placebos are ironically potent; but the only way they work is for you to not know that they are placebos. Hence, I've learned to temporarily become sort of schizophrenic. Then, I'm open to receive all the value and insight that any religion and their respective god(s) have to offer. Please, if you find the time, I would love to here your take on the insanity I'm spewing. Thanks.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:143513
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.