The definition of atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. The definition of pantheism is belief that all reality is identical with divinity or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god.
Pantheists do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god, and hold a broad range of doctrines differing with regards to the forms of and relationships between divinity and reality.
From my perspective, a simple way to describe pantheism is that the universe (or nature) is god. I don't mean to imply a sentient being (big guy with a white beard sitting on a throne on a cloud) but that everything in the universe is connected and relates to everything.
I'm interested in other opinions.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
it would make more sense then that of theism, but again unfalsifiable and unprovable.
If your definition of 'god' is just the universe, why not just call it the universe? Adding the word 'god' is adding a lot of baggage to it.
What is being added to "the universe" by adding the definition of 'god' that you can't explain just by calling it "the universe"?
Completely agree!
Since I didn't capitalize the word "god", I was trying to use it as a synonym for "universe" or "nature".
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by, "everything in the universe is connected and relates to everything."
Please expand.
I'm hoping in regards to the regress all the way back to the big bang.....
All matter, organic or inorganic, originated in the stars. From my perspective, it means that everything is connected, whether you're a butterfly or a blade of grass or an elephant or a human or a speck of sand. We're all made of the same material.
First you have to prove a universal god is real.
I don't believe in a "universal god" so I can't prove its existence. However, the universe is definitely real.
@Karl
No, the universe is not a god. Try again.
I really hate when people redefine things to fit THEIR FUCKING narrative!
we already have one or more words or terms that describe the universe and everything in it. But if you want to call the universe gods or god, go for it
Can I call the universe a blueberry muffin? That would make the universe delicious!
Personally, I prefer bacon cheeseburger.
This idea goes back to Wordsworth.
"Of something far more deeply interfused,
Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,
And the round ocean and the living air,
And the blue sky, and in the mind of man;
A motion and a spirit, that impels
All thinking things, all objects of all thought,
And rolls through all things." (Tintern Abbey)
I think the contemporary version of it was inspired by the Force in "Star Wars."
I see both versions as essentially meaningless examples of the pathetic fallacy. Humans have a habit of assigning personalities to inanimate things. I have frequent arguments with my car, for example.
A god that is everything in the universe but does nothing is the same as a god that doesn't exist. Of course everything in the universe is related. We're all made from the same particles, and we're all subject to the same forces, such as gravity. But that's as far as it goes for me.
I agree with "A god that is everything in the universe but does nothing is the same as a god that doesn't exist." On the other hand, the universe (or nature) essentially does everything.
@Karl: "the universe (or nature) essentially does everything."
"Does" implies a will or a direction. Do you perceive some kind of consciousness there? I would just say that everything happens in the universe (or nature).
No consciousness. From a scientific standpoint, there are natural/physical laws.
@mykcob4 "I really hate when people redefine things to fit THEIR FUCKING narrative!"
Not new thing. It started by the grandson of Muhammad himself by the name Husain son of Ali. But it did not took off until about 500 years later made it clear by Ibnu Arabi. But before him there was Al hallaj who publicly declared it and he was executed. Than Al Ghazzaly who mentioned al Hallaj in his book in positive manner. But his belief in Pantheism is beyond what we understand it today. It was Ibnu Arabi that shed so much of Wahdatul Wujuud (One face).
You know one Arab guy told me in his word: "The European were still in the caves when we were scanning the universe". Well he was right in some and wrong in some. He forgot the Romans were Europeans.
So anyway, yeah it is not new.
I am a pantheist and how I have delineated all the doctrines and literature is that yes, no god or deity is connected with the believe that it is only the Universe that connects all things in people and nature.
Do you believe the universe is a god?
May I ask how you came to pantheism?
I called myself pantheist for a short while, because I thought it described my feeling of being godless, but at the same time, close to any living being, and aware of the Universe splendor...
Then one day I understood that I could call myself an atheist and still embrace that idea. We share DNA with every animal and plant in our planet, and our same compounds are found in distant stars. It's amazing and also a proven fact! No supernatural forces needed.
@Karl:
Sorry, I'm not very interested in changing "god", or "gods", by nature, not even by science. In my view, nature must be understood as something in which we must and can develop with the help of science. Nothing else. To give it more self-help only helps one to believe that "nature" has anything divine, which would be like saying that the spiral, Fibonacci series, or golden sequence is "divine", or that the physics behind that geometry is, and it isn't true.
I believe that, as atheists, we should be very careful about how we treat words, concepts and how we use them. In this I completely agree with Michel Onfray when he warns that an atheist charged with good words is more dangerous than an Imam from a minaret. Although it is my point of view, of course Ôo)-♫
Greetings.
I agree with you in that nature must be understood through science. But, from my perspective, science is beautiful. Every new piece of knowledge that's discovered shows just how beautiful the universe is.
I see no reason to embellish nature with a godhead. Pantheism was an interesting idea in the time of Spinoza. Now , the pantheist god must fit into the same gaps as all the others.