Your thoughts on what I think is a big flaw in pantheism

[sidetrack]

If the planet Earth is a deity then what happens when the planet is physically destroyed (same goes for stars like the sun which suppoesdly are dieties) ?.Oh man,this really makes me wonder why early societies didn’t seem to consider this when they were still doing animism.

 

[snarflemike]

Because they thought the world was static and would be the same forever.

 

[Sair]

If the planet Earth is a deity then what happens when the planet is physically destroyed (same goes for stars like the sun which suppoesdly are dieties) ?.Oh man,this really makes me wonder why early societies didn’t seem to consider this when they were still doing animism.

A couple of points to consider - animism is not pantheism, first of all, but the belief that all entities have a spirit, an “animating” force - hence the name.

Now that’s out of the way, pantheism is, broadly speaking, the belief that the earth, the universe, the whole shebang, so to speak, is an ultimately unified, divine entity. We are now well aware that the earth has not been around forever and will not be around forever, but as far as our ancestors were concerned, the earth, and what could be seen of the sky from the earth, might as well have been the totality of existence.

It doesn’t actually matter for the central concept of pantheism - that is, all that exists is part of the one divine whole - that particular entities within the universe will cease to exist as they are; any more than it matters that when we die, our bodies will decay and return to the elements of which they were composed. The universe itself - that is, the matter and energy of which the universe consists - as far as we can discern, has existed in some form and will exist in some form (though probably not the one we presently live in) always, literally from the beginning to the end of time and perhaps beyond. But that is getting into far more complex cosmological stuff than I readily comprehend. Time to go back and read Lawrence Krauss again…

Suffice to say that modern pantheism, sometimes called naturalistic pantheism, is a variety of monism which holds that all that exists is natural, and as such, we are all ultimately part of the same whole. Our bodies contain elements forged in the hearts of stars; the universe made us, sustains us, is us. It really doesn’t matter to the set of beliefs and attitudes attendant upon pantheism that the forms within the universe, from the tiniest atom to the immense red giant, to the vastest of galaxies, are not immutable - everything that exists now is part of the great dance of time and change.

 

[cornbread_r2]

If the planet Earth is a deity then what happens when the planet is physically destroyed (same goes for stars like the sun which suppoesdly are dieties) ?.Oh man,this really makes me wonder why early societies didn’t seem to consider this when they were still doing animism.

Aren’t Catholics animists?

 

[meltzerboy]

A couple of points to consider - animism is not pantheism, first of all, but the belief that all entities have a spirit, an “animating” force - hence the name.

Now that’s out of the way, pantheism is, broadly speaking, the belief that the earth, the universe, the whole shebang, so to speak, is an ultimately unified, divine entity. We are now well aware that the earth has not been around forever and will not be around forever, but as far as our ancestors were concerned, the earth, and what could be seen of the sky from the earth, might as well have been the totality of existence.

It doesn’t actually matter for the central concept of pantheism - that is, all that exists is part of the one divine whole - that particular entities within the universe will cease to exist as they are; any more than it matters that when we die, our bodies will decay and return to the elements of which they were composed. The universe itself - that is, the matter and energy of which the universe consists - as far as we can discern, has existed in some form and will exist in some form (though probably not the one we presently live in) always, literally from the beginning to the end of time and perhaps beyond. But that is getting into far more complex cosmological stuff than I readily comprehend. Time to go back and read Lawrence Krauss again…

Suffice to say that modern pantheism, sometimes called naturalistic pantheism, is a variety of monism which holds that all that exists is natural, and as such, we are all ultimately part of the same whole. Our bodies contain elements forged in the hearts of stars; the universe made us, sustains us, is us. It really doesn’t matter to the set of beliefs and attitudes attendant upon pantheism that the forms within the universe, from the tiniest atom to the immense red giant, to the vastest of galaxies, are not immutable - everything that exists now is part of the great dance of time and change.

Do pantheists believe only that we are parts of the whole universe, or do they also believe that the whole universe is contained within each of us?

 

[prodigalson2011]

That is not what pantheists believe. They believe that there really is no Earth, sun, people, etc. All of these things (and the rest of reality) are illusory manifestations of god. So the destruction of the planet is no different to pantheists than the death of an animal. They simply return to the source (their idea of god) and then manifest as something else (what pantheists like Hindus call reincarnation).

 

[sidetrack]

A couple of points to consider - animism is not pantheism, first of all, but the belief that all entities have a spirit, an “animating” force - hence the name.

Now that’s out of the way, pantheism is, broadly speaking, the belief that the earth, the universe, the whole shebang, so to speak, is an ultimately unified, divine entity. We are now well aware that the earth has not been around forever and will not be around forever, but as far as our ancestors were concerned, the earth, and what could be seen of the sky from the earth, might as well have been the totality of existence.

It doesn’t actually matter for the central concept of pantheism - that is, all that exists is part of the one divine whole - that particular entities within the universe will cease to exist as they are; any more than it matters that when we die, our bodies will decay and return to the elements of which they were composed. The universe itself - that is, the matter and energy of which the universe consists - as far as we can discern, has existed in some form and will exist in some form (though probably not the one we presently live in) always, literally from the beginning to the end of time and perhaps beyond. But that is getting into far more complex cosmological stuff than I readily comprehend. Time to go back and read Lawrence Krauss again…

Suffice to say that modern pantheism, sometimes called naturalistic pantheism, is a variety of monism which holds that all that exists is natural, and as such, we are all ultimately part of the same whole. Our bodies contain elements forged in the hearts of stars; the universe made us, sustains us, is us. It really doesn’t matter to the set of beliefs and attitudes attendant upon pantheism that the forms within the universe, from the tiniest atom to the immense red giant, to the vastest of galaxies, are not immutable - everything that exists now is part of the great dance of time and change.

Oh dear…ಠ_ಠ …I’m very sorry I didn’t mean any offense to pantheism and yes I know that it’s not the same thing as animism.Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the concept of the divine being in everything in the universe (has a monist feel to it) more so a feature of panentheism?.

 

[Sair]

Do pantheists believe only that we are parts of the whole universe, or do they also believe that the whole universe is contained within each of us?

As far as I am aware - and that means you may need to do some further reading, starting with Spinoza and moving on to the Universal Pantheist Society (google the latter - you’ll come up with their website) - there is no belief that the universe is contained within the individual. What is held to be true, rather, is that what we are is contained within the universe, so the understanding that the universe is an entity much greater than ourselves is preserved.

 

[Sair]

Oh dear…ಠ_ಠ …I’m very sorry I didn’t mean any offense to pantheism and yes I know that it’s not the same thing as animism.Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the concept of the divine being in everything in the universe (has a monist feel to it) more so a feature of panentheism?.

No offence taken, I assure you

Again, as far as I am aware, the difference between pantheism and panentheism is that the latter considers the divine essence to both suffuse and extend beyond the universe - that God, so to speak, is both within the universe and outside it. Pantheism, by contrast, considers that the universe itself is the divine essence, and that all that exists within the universe is part of that divinity - and thus worthy of reverence. It is, perhaps, the most important aspect of pantheism (especially modern naturalistic pantheism) that all existence is worthy of reverence in its own right, rather than simply in relation to an external divinity. I might even go so far as to say that a contemporary understanding of pantheism is far more centred upon attitude than upon specific beliefs about the nature of the universe, which, as science advances, are continually changing anyway.

 

[Sair]

That is not what pantheists believe. They believe that there really is no Earth, sun, people, etc. All of these things (and the rest of reality) are illusory manifestations of god. So the destruction of the planet is no different to pantheists than the death of an animal. They simply return to the source (their idea of god) and then manifest as something else (what pantheists like Hindus call reincarnation).

It sounds like you might be confusing pantheists with polytheists, particularly if you think Hindus are pantheists.

You might even be confusing pantheism with meditative religions like Buddhism, which do seem to deny the reality of any physical entities.

I can assure you that pantheists are fully cognizant and fully appreciative of the physical nature of reality - particularly naturalistic pantheists, such as myself.

Death is part of the natural process, certainly, just as the ultimate death of planets and of stars is part of the natural process. But pantheism recognises that existence is valuable, even if it isn’t eternal. We are, as far as we know, the only entities that can recognise the value of our present, so we should make the most of it while we can. The time and space that we occupy as particular entities will always be ours, just as the time and space occupied by the earth, by our galaxy, will always have been so, and nothing that happens after our time will change the fact that our time is now.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

… my dearest friends ,

… a few points may interest you …

… i’m just adding a definition for pantheism so you know where i’m coming from dear folks —

PANTHEISM. Any of a variety of views that claim that all things are divine, or that God and the universe are really identical, or that there is ultimately no real distinction between God and what believers in creation call the world. (Etym. Greek pan, all + theos, god.)

… 1 ) using the concept of something or nothing ( but true nothing which is as it says : nothing / ness – and as such cannot and does not exist ) , let’s say there is a begining and a choice of whether something or nothing will exist , if somethig exists this is fine , but can nothing exist ??? , no , it cannot as
nothig is non - existence and cannot exist , so either way whether something or a supposed " nothing " exists something exists , as – if nothing exists then nothing existing it has become something , so either way somethig must exist , whatever this something is it must be an absolute total something given it can be lacking nothing , so no nothingness can exist in it at all , this most infinitely perfect something that can possibly be is what we call god , if god had to create more of himself he would be lacking in someway and thus would have a degree or amount of nothing / ness in him – if this were so then nothing exists – impossible , this something god cannot lack or need anything either , for if god lost something there would be some nothing / ness in him , we know things come and go in creation so how can they be god if so ??? , they cannot , so pantheism is seriously flawed philosophically when thought through i think …

… 2 ) one may say how can all exist if god is all and al is in god and nothing can be separate from god or apart from god ??? , the answer is simple , use the human mind as an example : we have thoughts that exist in us and are truly a part of us and our very own thoughts but they are not us , they are just our thoughts , gods creation is a thought in his mind much the same , the thought or creation is not god in the same sense as human thoughts are not the human , gods ability to bring his thoughts into being does not make them god or a part of god either , god just has different thoughts and abilities to man – that is all – and these thoughts of gods are dreams , if gods dreams become real and god or a part of god then this shows god was lacking something and if they go he is once again lacking somethig – the nature of god is that he must be the most infiitely perfect conceivable something that can possibly be and never lacking anything , so pantheism has some serious shortfalls , but i’d love to talk more if you want to chat …

… I hope this helps with the discussion , chat with me any of you if you want …

… bless you +++

… i am john …

 

[prodigalson2011]

It sounds like you might be confusing pantheists with polytheists, particularly if you think Hindus are pantheists.

You might even be confusing pantheism with meditative religions like Buddhism, which do seem to deny the reality of any physical entities.

I can assure you that pantheists are fully cognizant and fully appreciative of the physical nature of reality - particularly naturalistic pantheists, such as myself.

Death is part of the natural process, certainly, just as the ultimate death of planets and of stars is part of the natural process. But pantheism recognises that existence is valuable, even if it isn’t eternal. We are, as far as we know, the only entities that can recognise the value of our present, so we should make the most of it while we can. The time and space that we occupy as particular entities will always be ours, just as the time and space occupied by the earth, by our galaxy, will always have been so, and nothing that happens after our time will change the fact that our time is now.

No, I don’t think so. Most Hindus are, at the root, pantheists. Their many “gods” are all believed to be manifestations of different aspects of the one Supreme Being, otherwise known as Brahman. They believe that we, too, and everything else, are part of this supreme being, but must perfect ourselves before we can be fully reintegrated into that reality; hence, the need for incarnation. It is not a truly polytheistic religion.

And I think it is you, rather, who have the misguided notion of pantheism. The textbook definition of pantheism is “the doctrine that God is the transcendent reality of which the material universe and human beings are only manifestations: it involves a denial of God’s personality and expresses a tendency to identify God and nature.” Perhaps I worded it poorly in saying that they deny the existence of “things.” Rather, I should say that they deny the separateness of things. Ultimately, still, they believe that all things are manifestations of God, which is obviously different than the OP’s notion that they hold individual planets to be separate gods.

 

[Sair]

No, I don’t think so. Most Hindus are, at the root, pantheists. Their many “gods” are all believed to be manifestations of different aspects of the one Supreme Being, otherwise known as Brahman. They believe that we, too, and everything else, are part of this supreme being, but must perfect ourselves before we can be fully reintegrated into that reality; hence, the need for incarnation. It is not a truly polytheistic religion.

The difference would be that we are already integrated into reality, without the need for any kind of “perfection” - subjective notions of “perfection” are not a part of pantheism.

And I think it is you, rather, who have the misguided notion of pantheism. The textbook definition of pantheism is “the doctrine that God is the transcendent reality of which the material universe and human beings are only manifestations: it involves a denial of God’s personality and expresses a tendency to identify God and nature.” Perhaps I worded it poorly in saying that they deny the existence of “things.” Rather, I should say that they deny the separateness of things. Ultimately, still, they believe that all things are manifestations of God, which is obviously different than the OP’s notion that they hold individual planets to be separate gods.

The definition you offer seems to be confusing pantheism and panentheism - the latter considers God to extend beyond the universe, whilst the former takes the universe and all its extant forms to be the ultimate reality. God and nature are one and the same, the source and substance of all that is. Of course pantheism denies the “personality” of God - to do otherwise would be to impose an anthropomorphic limitation upon a reality that extends far beyond human consciousness. Nevertheless, all extant forms are indeed manifestations of the ultimate reality; in that context, the OP’s suggestion that the finitude of the earth interferes with the central beliefs of pantheism is misguided.

 

[prodigalson2011]

The difference would be that we are already integrated into reality, without the need for any kind of “perfection” - subjective notions of “perfection” are not a part of pantheism.

You say this as though there is one school of pantheism with a definitive dogma, which I do not believe is the case.

The definition you offer seems to be confusing pantheism and panentheism - the latter considers God to extend beyond the universe, whilst the former takes the universe and all its extant forms to be the ultimate reality. God and nature are one and the same, the source and substance of all that is. Of course pantheism denies the “personality” of God - to do otherwise would be to impose an anthropomorphic limitation upon a reality that extends far beyond human consciousness. Nevertheless, all extant forms are indeed manifestations of the ultimate reality; in that context, the OP’s suggestion that the finitude of the earth interferes with the central beliefs of pantheism is misguided.

I don’t see where the definition I offered says that at all.

 

[ReapReason]

Oh dear…ಠ_ಠ …I’m very sorry I didn’t mean any offense to pantheism and yes I know that it’s not the same thing as animism.Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the concept of the divine being in everything in the universe (has a monist feel to it) more so a feature of panentheism?.

I believe in esse-panentheism.

There is only one act of reality, but there are many essences that are contingent upon reality in-order to be actual.

There are not many realities, but only many essences which come in and out of one reality. But none of these essences are by their own nature “real” even though they participate for a time in reality, and this is because that which is intrinsically reality itself cannot cease to be reality, for it is its nature to be real.

Pantheism is flawed because it presents the act of being real as being intrinsic to all things which are actual, and therefore ignores the evident distinction between esse and essence, God and the Universe.

 

[sidetrack]

No offence taken, I assure you

Again, as far as I am aware, the difference between pantheism and panentheism is that the latter considers the divine essence to both suffuse and extend beyond the universe - that God, so to speak, is both within the universe and outside it. Pantheism, by contrast, considers that the universe itself is the divine essence, and that all that exists within the universe is part of that divinity - and thus worthy of reverence.

Thanks for the reply and if you dont mind me asking what would a pantheist (or a panentheist you think) would think if the totality of existance actually consisted of multiverses?.Would that worthy of reverance be applied to those other universes as well : - / ?.Would it might have to change it’s name from pantheism to something else in that case?.

 

[Sair]

Thanks for the reply and if you dont mind me asking what would a pantheist (or a panentheist you think) would think if the totality of existance actually consisted of multiverses?.Would that worthy of reverance be applied to those other universes as well : - / ?.Would it might have to change it’s name from pantheism to something else in that case?.

I shouldn’t think that a name change would be necessary - ‘pantheism’ roughly translates to “all is god”, hence all that exists, the totality of existence, is what is revered as divine. Essential to the concept of pantheism, though, is the idea of unity and interdependence - in more modern terms, the notion that everything is connected within the web of causality, since everything springs from the same ultimate source. Now, I’m not terribly well-versed, so to speak, in the physics of the multiverse theory, but from what I do understand, if there are separate universes, they are actually separate, not interdependent; on the other hand - at least, as far as I can follow - the multiverse theory arises from the concept of quantum probability, in the sense that our particular universe is just one of many possibilities, all of which may be realised in the form of other universes. I’ve seen a lot of people argue that the multiverse theory is just a way of avoiding the God hypothesis for the origins of the universe, but if indeed there are multiple universes, all having arisen from collapsing wave functions or whatever, that still implies an essential unity of nature, that all universes, all existence, arises from natural processes rather than supernatural intervention.

I’m not sure that answers your question, exactly, but you’re right that it’s quite interesting to consider the implications of the multiverse theory from a pantheistic perspective…