Introduction / Anybody want to discuss Pantheism?
Talk Pantheists
This group has been archived. Find out more.
Join LibraryThing to post.
1summerstargarden
Hi
This doesn't seem to be a very active group, but I'm joining anyway, because Pantheism is the best description of my philosophy.
I was raised in a family that had a scientific/agnostic/atheist viewpoint. My family went to the Unitarian Universalist church for a while. My sister and her family are still nvolved in UU. I am not, mainly because I have a hard time getting up on sunday morning.
From early in my life I was attracted to magic, folklore, fantasy, and so-called "primitive" beliefs. I thought of myself as a Pagan for a long time. I used to feel I had a very close relationship with The Goddess (for me the Universe or, on a smaller scale, the Living Earth, visualized in female form so that I could trust her to protect and help me). I used to feel I could talk to her, as well as communicate with her through art and ritual, and that I got answers. I no longer have that feeling, at least not very often.
I now question the existance of any personified diety, and I am uncertain whether magic and prayer really contact or influence anyone or anything other than one's own mind. However, I still feel that the ultimate nature of the universe is a mystery, and I feel reverence and love for that mystery, and I see my life as a kind of dance with the forces that make up the Universal Dance. (Not that this dance is necessarily completely orderly and predictable - as I said, there is mystery). I ask myself, if religious ideas are metaphors, what are they metaphors for? There must be something there that we are subliminally aware of, something we are trying to describe with our religious metaphors? I think we are trying to describe Nature and our relationship to it.
To me Nature is what is. I can't accept an idea of God as outside Nature, dominating and controlling it. I find that very repugnant and wouldn't want to live in that world. On the other hand, Nature itself really does provide us with all our opportunities and limitations, all our joys, hopes, and sorrows. I am not saying Nature is only the world we see. Everything we can experience is part of it. Its possible to view Nature as one thing or many things (one god or many - it doesn't matter to me - and the gender of dieties is, I think, just a matter of projecting our own ideas about gender onto universal forces).
I think this is a bit too long for an introduction...Sorry....I don't know many people who want to talk to about these things. So I'm starting a new topic instead of posting this as an introduction. I hope someone else might want to discuss their views.
This doesn't seem to be a very active group, but I'm joining anyway, because Pantheism is the best description of my philosophy.
I was raised in a family that had a scientific/agnostic/atheist viewpoint. My family went to the Unitarian Universalist church for a while. My sister and her family are still nvolved in UU. I am not, mainly because I have a hard time getting up on sunday morning.
From early in my life I was attracted to magic, folklore, fantasy, and so-called "primitive" beliefs. I thought of myself as a Pagan for a long time. I used to feel I had a very close relationship with The Goddess (for me the Universe or, on a smaller scale, the Living Earth, visualized in female form so that I could trust her to protect and help me). I used to feel I could talk to her, as well as communicate with her through art and ritual, and that I got answers. I no longer have that feeling, at least not very often.
I now question the existance of any personified diety, and I am uncertain whether magic and prayer really contact or influence anyone or anything other than one's own mind. However, I still feel that the ultimate nature of the universe is a mystery, and I feel reverence and love for that mystery, and I see my life as a kind of dance with the forces that make up the Universal Dance. (Not that this dance is necessarily completely orderly and predictable - as I said, there is mystery). I ask myself, if religious ideas are metaphors, what are they metaphors for? There must be something there that we are subliminally aware of, something we are trying to describe with our religious metaphors? I think we are trying to describe Nature and our relationship to it.
To me Nature is what is. I can't accept an idea of God as outside Nature, dominating and controlling it. I find that very repugnant and wouldn't want to live in that world. On the other hand, Nature itself really does provide us with all our opportunities and limitations, all our joys, hopes, and sorrows. I am not saying Nature is only the world we see. Everything we can experience is part of it. Its possible to view Nature as one thing or many things (one god or many - it doesn't matter to me - and the gender of dieties is, I think, just a matter of projecting our own ideas about gender onto universal forces).
I think this is a bit too long for an introduction...Sorry....I don't know many people who want to talk to about these things. So I'm starting a new topic instead of posting this as an introduction. I hope someone else might want to discuss their views.
2JanWillemNoldus
Hello summerstargarden and anyone else who may be interested,
Pantheists are not very active on LT since quite some time, and regrettably so as I think Pantheism is probably one of the forms of spirituality with a brilliant future.
In my experience, people with a pantheist sensibility are not very prone to discuss their ideas. Even less outside the Anglo-saxon world than inside it. Why? Maybe simply because it is difficult to formulate thoughts that are encompassing the whole of reality and besides that very different from ideas circulating in mainstream society. It's a real challenge to share articulated thoughts (and not just intuitions, feelings, impressions,...).
My impression is that many people with a pantheist sensibility (I donot call them Pantheists because they may not consider themselves as such) feel at home in an open atmosphere like the one offered by many UU communities in the Anglo-saxon world. Being there, reading some texts about Earth - or Nature oriented spirituality, paying attention to some environmental questions, and passing some time in the woods or their garden, is fulfilling their spiritual needs. It is not necessary for them to develop an articulated "philosophy".
This makes those who really feel the need to go further on the road to a coherent worldview (other than those presented by the major religions or spiritual movements) all the more isolated. This is still more true for those who -like me - live in Continental Europe where UU isn't an option (the rare UU communities here are essentially meeting places for American expatriates where "outsiders" are not always welcome). Nor is Paganism (as an organized spirituality).
The few people I've met here, who are really attracted by Pantheism, are not at ease in English.
Well, after this long discourse on the reasons (which however are no more than my hypotheses) that may probably cause this group on LT to stay rather confidential, I have to make a sincere declaration: I would ADORE discussing Pantheism with you, summerstargarden!!! And of course with anyone else interested in any form of Pantheism as a more or less elaborated worldview or spirituality.
As this message is already very long, I just propose this:
-in a few days I will present myself as concisely as I can. If anyone else would like to do so too to get the discussion started, you are kindly and enthousiastically invited. You did this already, summerstargarden, and thank you so much for it!
-let's concentrate on Pantheism as such. I mean: discussions about our experiences with UU, or other spiritual communities may be really interesting from a sociological or psychological point of view, but they donot per se help us to get a better understanding of the nature of Pantheism. (I'm afraid the focus on UU and its politics was the reason the first thread in this group "fell asleep"...)
By the way: though I'm interested in Pantheism (and studied many of its aspects) since a very long time, I stay extremely eager to discover other people's points of view.
Only together we can develop our understanding .
Pantheist regards,
Jan Willem
Pantheists are not very active on LT since quite some time, and regrettably so as I think Pantheism is probably one of the forms of spirituality with a brilliant future.
In my experience, people with a pantheist sensibility are not very prone to discuss their ideas. Even less outside the Anglo-saxon world than inside it. Why? Maybe simply because it is difficult to formulate thoughts that are encompassing the whole of reality and besides that very different from ideas circulating in mainstream society. It's a real challenge to share articulated thoughts (and not just intuitions, feelings, impressions,...).
My impression is that many people with a pantheist sensibility (I donot call them Pantheists because they may not consider themselves as such) feel at home in an open atmosphere like the one offered by many UU communities in the Anglo-saxon world. Being there, reading some texts about Earth - or Nature oriented spirituality, paying attention to some environmental questions, and passing some time in the woods or their garden, is fulfilling their spiritual needs. It is not necessary for them to develop an articulated "philosophy".
This makes those who really feel the need to go further on the road to a coherent worldview (other than those presented by the major religions or spiritual movements) all the more isolated. This is still more true for those who -like me - live in Continental Europe where UU isn't an option (the rare UU communities here are essentially meeting places for American expatriates where "outsiders" are not always welcome). Nor is Paganism (as an organized spirituality).
The few people I've met here, who are really attracted by Pantheism, are not at ease in English.
Well, after this long discourse on the reasons (which however are no more than my hypotheses) that may probably cause this group on LT to stay rather confidential, I have to make a sincere declaration: I would ADORE discussing Pantheism with you, summerstargarden!!! And of course with anyone else interested in any form of Pantheism as a more or less elaborated worldview or spirituality.
As this message is already very long, I just propose this:
-in a few days I will present myself as concisely as I can. If anyone else would like to do so too to get the discussion started, you are kindly and enthousiastically invited. You did this already, summerstargarden, and thank you so much for it!
-let's concentrate on Pantheism as such. I mean: discussions about our experiences with UU, or other spiritual communities may be really interesting from a sociological or psychological point of view, but they donot per se help us to get a better understanding of the nature of Pantheism. (I'm afraid the focus on UU and its politics was the reason the first thread in this group "fell asleep"...)
By the way: though I'm interested in Pantheism (and studied many of its aspects) since a very long time, I stay extremely eager to discover other people's points of view.
Only together we can develop our understanding .
Pantheist regards,
Jan Willem
3JanWillemNoldus
Dear all,
When I was a boy animals, flowers, the stars and planets, and human creativity opened my senses to the beauty and mystery of the Universe. Though my Dutch family was nominally Christian, there was no pression to adhere to a formal belief-system. I discovered rather early I had no sense whatever for prayer, ritual and celebration. Even now, when for some reason (simple curiosity, sometimes...) I attend a religious service of any spiritual community or church, what happens is very interesting to me - I would say from an anthropological (and aesthetic - the music!)point of view. But I never feel a spiritual elevation or satisfaction, though I respect what is happening.
A beautiful landscape, a book about theoretical physics, a work of art, animals and flowers, and of course my fellow humans, are on the contrary continuously inspiring a profound sense of admiration, of wonder, of unity with all that IS.
As an adolescent I liked to read books about science, art and philosophy. At 18 I discovered Spinoza, and had the strong intuition I had found what I had looked for. Though I learned to admire other thinkers too: Goethe, Einstein, Plotinus, the Stoics, Aristotle, Hegel, Nietzsche, ..., Spinoza is still, more than 30 years later, my spiritual beacon. Living with open senses and an open mind is essential too, however.
My intention is not to give my autobiography here. Therefore I'll try to summarize some ideas that are fundamental to my form of Pantheism.
"God" is a convenient term (because of its shortness) to indicate Ultimate Reality or the Totality of Being. "Nature" is another word with exactly the same meaning. For that reason the concept of gender or person cannot be applied (IMO) to God or Nature.
I donot consider God as someone or something existing outside, besides or inside the Universe, but as the Universe itself and everything that is participating (or existing) in it.
The Universe (aka Ultimate Reality or the Totality of Being) is everything there IS, not only our known universe (well, known as far as we know it), but all dimensions, all parallel universes etc. The Universe is not something existing in itself as a container, a "place", apart from its "content", but as content, i.e.the totality of all forces, matter, and thus of all things animate or inanimate.
Matter is a form of energy, as are all forces. Being could therefore be described as a kind of " generalized wave function".
Matter and mind are not essentially different, but they are different expressions of the same Reality. You could say: thoughts are born in the brain, but they ARE not the brain. However, although not consisting of matter, they are as real as matter. Another way to put it: thoughts, feelings, dreams, are waves, but of another frequency than matter, heat, light, sound, electricity, etc.
All forces, matter, energies, are manifestions of the one fundamental energy we could call Being or God. We donot know all possible forms of energy, however we should consider the fundamental energy not as existing "before" the manifested energies, but as existing "in" them or "through" them.
We can suppose all forms of energy can be transformed into each other, although we donot always know how to do it.
All beings (as forms of Being) are so to speak condensations of energy, of Reality, of Being. Being is flowering in all beings. Our aim should be to to favorize this flowering, to help Being to realize itself in all things. In other words: we should live as fully as we can, and to do so we must also help other beings to live as fully as they can.
This isn't a message anymore, but becomes an essay. So I take a breath for today, but not before adding that anything I've said -though it may look peremptory - is proposed as hypothesis. And many ideas are not as fine-tuned as they should be. But it's a beginning, and I hope there will be many readers who feel the need or the pleasure to react.
A toast to Life!
Jan Willem
When I was a boy animals, flowers, the stars and planets, and human creativity opened my senses to the beauty and mystery of the Universe. Though my Dutch family was nominally Christian, there was no pression to adhere to a formal belief-system. I discovered rather early I had no sense whatever for prayer, ritual and celebration. Even now, when for some reason (simple curiosity, sometimes...) I attend a religious service of any spiritual community or church, what happens is very interesting to me - I would say from an anthropological (and aesthetic - the music!)point of view. But I never feel a spiritual elevation or satisfaction, though I respect what is happening.
A beautiful landscape, a book about theoretical physics, a work of art, animals and flowers, and of course my fellow humans, are on the contrary continuously inspiring a profound sense of admiration, of wonder, of unity with all that IS.
As an adolescent I liked to read books about science, art and philosophy. At 18 I discovered Spinoza, and had the strong intuition I had found what I had looked for. Though I learned to admire other thinkers too: Goethe, Einstein, Plotinus, the Stoics, Aristotle, Hegel, Nietzsche, ..., Spinoza is still, more than 30 years later, my spiritual beacon. Living with open senses and an open mind is essential too, however.
My intention is not to give my autobiography here. Therefore I'll try to summarize some ideas that are fundamental to my form of Pantheism.
"God" is a convenient term (because of its shortness) to indicate Ultimate Reality or the Totality of Being. "Nature" is another word with exactly the same meaning. For that reason the concept of gender or person cannot be applied (IMO) to God or Nature.
I donot consider God as someone or something existing outside, besides or inside the Universe, but as the Universe itself and everything that is participating (or existing) in it.
The Universe (aka Ultimate Reality or the Totality of Being) is everything there IS, not only our known universe (well, known as far as we know it), but all dimensions, all parallel universes etc. The Universe is not something existing in itself as a container, a "place", apart from its "content", but as content, i.e.the totality of all forces, matter, and thus of all things animate or inanimate.
Matter is a form of energy, as are all forces. Being could therefore be described as a kind of " generalized wave function".
Matter and mind are not essentially different, but they are different expressions of the same Reality. You could say: thoughts are born in the brain, but they ARE not the brain. However, although not consisting of matter, they are as real as matter. Another way to put it: thoughts, feelings, dreams, are waves, but of another frequency than matter, heat, light, sound, electricity, etc.
All forces, matter, energies, are manifestions of the one fundamental energy we could call Being or God. We donot know all possible forms of energy, however we should consider the fundamental energy not as existing "before" the manifested energies, but as existing "in" them or "through" them.
We can suppose all forms of energy can be transformed into each other, although we donot always know how to do it.
All beings (as forms of Being) are so to speak condensations of energy, of Reality, of Being. Being is flowering in all beings. Our aim should be to to favorize this flowering, to help Being to realize itself in all things. In other words: we should live as fully as we can, and to do so we must also help other beings to live as fully as they can.
This isn't a message anymore, but becomes an essay. So I take a breath for today, but not before adding that anything I've said -though it may look peremptory - is proposed as hypothesis. And many ideas are not as fine-tuned as they should be. But it's a beginning, and I hope there will be many readers who feel the need or the pleasure to react.
A toast to Life!
Jan Willem
4Makifat
Thanks, Jan, for introducing me to this group/thread.
At this point I have some random notes - concepts which I hope will coalesce as the discussion continues...
I suppose I should start with a question that may seem paradoxical: Does one need to believe in some kind of deity in order to be a Pantheist? The "theism" part of the name might suggest so. Another alternative is one Jan suggested privately, perhaps tongue-in-cheek, to suggest "Panism" as a kind of atheistic pantheism, retaining the sense of wonder inherent in a contemplation of the universe (as we understand it in the 21st century), without giving that universe any attribute of deity.
I largely agree with #3. For myself, however, using theological concepts such as "God" or "deity" is adding an unnecessary complication - a cultural hold-over. I think of Occam's Razor: is the concept of deity necessary for a feeling of reverence for the universe -of thinking of the universe as sacred?
The theories and discoveries of physicists in the last 100 years are more astounding than anything ever dreamed up by a theologian. The intricacies and complexities of the universe serve to make "God" little more than a quaint concept, a fairytale dreamed up around a distant campfire.
From what I understand, the Pantheist attributes divinity to the universe as a whole.* Is this a theological concept, or a poetic one? For me, personally, I see it as poetic, a description of the universe as sacred. But the word is loaded, assuming a supernatural origin. Yet to be able to see the universe as entirely natural – with no deus ex machine as explanation – that is truly a breathtaking concept. In this concept “sacred” doesn’t mean “supernatural”, but rather signifies something inspiring wonder.
My question to the Pantheists is: do you consider the universe as having been formed by a deity, or is deity an attribute of the universe as a whole - a characteristic which the universe took on after creation?
*I believe it was Emerson, a latter-day pantheist and bright light of American transcendentalism, who wrote of the "oversoul".
At this point I have some random notes - concepts which I hope will coalesce as the discussion continues...
I suppose I should start with a question that may seem paradoxical: Does one need to believe in some kind of deity in order to be a Pantheist? The "theism" part of the name might suggest so. Another alternative is one Jan suggested privately, perhaps tongue-in-cheek, to suggest "Panism" as a kind of atheistic pantheism, retaining the sense of wonder inherent in a contemplation of the universe (as we understand it in the 21st century), without giving that universe any attribute of deity.
I largely agree with #3. For myself, however, using theological concepts such as "God" or "deity" is adding an unnecessary complication - a cultural hold-over. I think of Occam's Razor: is the concept of deity necessary for a feeling of reverence for the universe -of thinking of the universe as sacred?
The theories and discoveries of physicists in the last 100 years are more astounding than anything ever dreamed up by a theologian. The intricacies and complexities of the universe serve to make "God" little more than a quaint concept, a fairytale dreamed up around a distant campfire.
From what I understand, the Pantheist attributes divinity to the universe as a whole.* Is this a theological concept, or a poetic one? For me, personally, I see it as poetic, a description of the universe as sacred. But the word is loaded, assuming a supernatural origin. Yet to be able to see the universe as entirely natural – with no deus ex machine as explanation – that is truly a breathtaking concept. In this concept “sacred” doesn’t mean “supernatural”, but rather signifies something inspiring wonder.
My question to the Pantheists is: do you consider the universe as having been formed by a deity, or is deity an attribute of the universe as a whole - a characteristic which the universe took on after creation?
*I believe it was Emerson, a latter-day pantheist and bright light of American transcendentalism, who wrote of the "oversoul".
5JanWillemNoldus
Dear all,
The absence of any reaction from me to any message in this thread is no sign that I'm no longer interested in continuing to discuss Pantheism (or any other subject...). I've been off for some days, and very busy besides that. This is something that will happen regularly (e.g. I know already that for the whole month of August I will be unable to be on the net).
I'm afraid that an important part (more than half) of my life is not evolving according to Internet time-lines or time-logic. (For one, I've no lap-top or access to ICT apart from my home computer, which must be rare nowadays.)This makes that often I can not participate in exchanges on the net in general (and on LT in particular) for some days or even weeks. But I donot abandon!
Therefore, please, have some patience - I will post to this thread very soon!
Warm pantheist greetings,
Jan Willem
The absence of any reaction from me to any message in this thread is no sign that I'm no longer interested in continuing to discuss Pantheism (or any other subject...). I've been off for some days, and very busy besides that. This is something that will happen regularly (e.g. I know already that for the whole month of August I will be unable to be on the net).
I'm afraid that an important part (more than half) of my life is not evolving according to Internet time-lines or time-logic. (For one, I've no lap-top or access to ICT apart from my home computer, which must be rare nowadays.)This makes that often I can not participate in exchanges on the net in general (and on LT in particular) for some days or even weeks. But I donot abandon!
Therefore, please, have some patience - I will post to this thread very soon!
Warm pantheist greetings,
Jan Willem
6JanWillemNoldus
Dear all,
In #4, makifat put some questions that seem essential in any discussion of Pantheism.
The notion of orthodoxy doesn't make sense in Pantheism because
-a:there isn't a text or corpus of texts to be considered as unquestionable basis of this worldview.
-b: there isn't any kind of hierarchy. Pantheists consider themselves as essentially equal depositories of the mystery of being with liberty for all to formulate their ideas.
However most people considering themselves as pantheists agree about a certain number of points:
-There is no deity, god or divinity outside the universe. Universe and deity are two words for the same concept, aka reality, nature or being.
The notion of creation presupposes a creator exterior to his/her/its work. Most modern pantheists would rather consider the universe as "creating" itself. In other words: the universe, nature, reality or being (call it by any name you like) isn't a result in this vision, but a neverending process. It isn't possible to speak of an "after" (or, for that matter,a "before") creation, because that would fix a starting and an ending point, which is impossible in a continuous process.
Even if we accept the "Big Bang"theory, we can suppose there was something before the Big Bang even if actually we cannot define this "something". Personally I see our universe as part of an infinite chain (or "cloud"?) of universes. Perhaps one universe gives birth to other universes, but this only enlarges the scale of the process without putting terms to it.
- The word "sacred" designates a feeling humans can experience. This means "sacredness" isn't an intrinsic property of things, but an attitude towards things. I would tentatively define this attitude as "a profound sense of wonder and reverence" (the latin word "sacer" means something like "inspiring awe") and as "an intense awareness of being". Monotheists cultivate this attitude towards a transcendant creator, pantheists towards all beings and being as a whole. By the way: "holy" and "whole" are etymologically extremely close or even identical.
I hope to have (implicitly) answered some of the questions makifat has put. There is so much more to be said, to be discussed.
Will future be long enough?
In #4, makifat put some questions that seem essential in any discussion of Pantheism.
The notion of orthodoxy doesn't make sense in Pantheism because
-a:there isn't a text or corpus of texts to be considered as unquestionable basis of this worldview.
-b: there isn't any kind of hierarchy. Pantheists consider themselves as essentially equal depositories of the mystery of being with liberty for all to formulate their ideas.
However most people considering themselves as pantheists agree about a certain number of points:
-There is no deity, god or divinity outside the universe. Universe and deity are two words for the same concept, aka reality, nature or being.
The notion of creation presupposes a creator exterior to his/her/its work. Most modern pantheists would rather consider the universe as "creating" itself. In other words: the universe, nature, reality or being (call it by any name you like) isn't a result in this vision, but a neverending process. It isn't possible to speak of an "after" (or, for that matter,a "before") creation, because that would fix a starting and an ending point, which is impossible in a continuous process.
Even if we accept the "Big Bang"theory, we can suppose there was something before the Big Bang even if actually we cannot define this "something". Personally I see our universe as part of an infinite chain (or "cloud"?) of universes. Perhaps one universe gives birth to other universes, but this only enlarges the scale of the process without putting terms to it.
- The word "sacred" designates a feeling humans can experience. This means "sacredness" isn't an intrinsic property of things, but an attitude towards things. I would tentatively define this attitude as "a profound sense of wonder and reverence" (the latin word "sacer" means something like "inspiring awe") and as "an intense awareness of being". Monotheists cultivate this attitude towards a transcendant creator, pantheists towards all beings and being as a whole. By the way: "holy" and "whole" are etymologically extremely close or even identical.
I hope to have (implicitly) answered some of the questions makifat has put. There is so much more to be said, to be discussed.
Will future be long enough?
8Makifat
From #4, above:
"My question to the Pantheists is: do you consider the universe as having been formed by a deity, or is deity an attribute of the universe as a whole - a characteristic which the universe took on after creation?"
Reading over this, I have to chide myself for the "after creation" remark. If creation implies a creator, then I have implied that I believe in such a thing, when I am in fact quite skeptical about the matter.
I don't tend to think of the "big bang" as creation per se, but as perhaps the beginning of the current cycle only. Maybe someone better versed in physics can explain what the current thinking is on this.
"My question to the Pantheists is: do you consider the universe as having been formed by a deity, or is deity an attribute of the universe as a whole - a characteristic which the universe took on after creation?"
Reading over this, I have to chide myself for the "after creation" remark. If creation implies a creator, then I have implied that I believe in such a thing, when I am in fact quite skeptical about the matter.
I don't tend to think of the "big bang" as creation per se, but as perhaps the beginning of the current cycle only. Maybe someone better versed in physics can explain what the current thinking is on this.
