 |
The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!
Why Pantheism? Isn't it a step backwards?
From http://pantheism.net/:
When scientific pantheists say WE REVERE THE UNIVERSE we are not talking about a supernatural being. We are talking about the way our senses and our emotions force us to respond to the overwhelming mystery and power that surrounds us.
We are part of the universe. Our earth was created from the universe and will one day be reabsorbed into the universe.
We are made of the same matter and energy as the universe. We are not in exile here: we are at home. It is only here that we will ever get the chance to see paradise face to face. If we believe our real home is not here but in a land that lies beyond death - if we believe that the numinous is found only in old books, or old buildings, or inside our head, or outside this reality - then we will see this real, vibrant, luminous world as if through a glass darkly.
The universe creates us, preserves us, destroys us. It is deep and old beyond our ability to reach with our senses. It is beautiful beyond our ability to describe in words. It is complex beyond our ability to fully grasp in science. We must relate to the universe with humility, awe, reverence, celebration and the search for deeper understanding - in many of the ways that believers relate to their God, minus the grovelling worship or the expectation that there is some being out there who can answer our prayers.
This overwhelming presence is everywhere inside you and outside you and you can never be separated from it.
Whatever else is taken from you, this can never be taken from you.
Wherever you are, it's there with you.
Wherever you go, it goes with you.
Whatever happens to you, it remains with you.
When scientific pantheists say WE REVERE THE UNIVERSE we are not talking about a supernatural being. We are talking about the way our senses and our emotions force us to respond to the overwhelming mystery and power that surrounds us.
We are part of the universe. Our earth was created from the universe and will one day be reabsorbed into the universe.
We are made of the same matter and energy as the universe. We are not in exile here: we are at home. It is only here that we will ever get the chance to see paradise face to face. If we believe our real home is not here but in a land that lies beyond death - if we believe that the numinous is found only in old books, or old buildings, or inside our head, or outside this reality - then we will see this real, vibrant, luminous world as if through a glass darkly.
The universe creates us, preserves us, destroys us. It is deep and old beyond our ability to reach with our senses. It is beautiful beyond our ability to describe in words. It is complex beyond our ability to fully grasp in science. We must relate to the universe with humility, awe, reverence, celebration and the search for deeper understanding - in many of the ways that believers relate to their God, minus the grovelling worship or the expectation that there is some being out there who can answer our prayers.
This overwhelming presence is everywhere inside you and outside you and you can never be separated from it.
Whatever else is taken from you, this can never be taken from you.
Wherever you are, it's there with you.
Wherever you go, it goes with you.
Whatever happens to you, it remains with you.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Polymath on -
So why is it called pan*theism*? That is the main issue I have, not with the actual beliefs, but with the idea that we have to be theists at all in order to have respectability or to have a sense of awe in the universe.
The difficulty is that pantheism is a philosophy that identifies the universe as God and is opposed to panentheism, polytheism, and monotheism. It is a type of theistic belief. Because of this, 'scientific pantheism' is a bit of a misnomer. -
-
Permalink Reply by Nate on -
It's just a way to fake out the believers, dude. :) Nothing more, nothing less. Do you feel a high when you observe the Universe? Then you're pantheist. Nothing theist about it, IMHO.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Polymath on
-
LOL. I just object to it being called theism. While I definitely fall under the local definition of pantheism, since I'm not a theist, I feel the local definition is somewhat dishonest. *shrug* I also play with the concept of spiritual atheism. I don't believe in spirits (no supernatural), but I definitely feel the 'spiritual' emotions of awe, connection to others, etc.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Nate on
-
There is nothing supernatural about this. "Referring to [the universe as] a being"? How so? We are products of it, sustained by it, ultimately destroyed by it, inherently part of it. What about that promotes irrational fear? Reverence and gratitude need not to be confused with worship.
-
-
Permalink Reply by mthoreau on -
The ideas of Pantheism were first introduced in the West by Spinoza at a time when atheism was punishable by death. He suffered a great deal for his beliefs and I think that the "theism" part was just to make it more palatable.
The Universe IS omnipresent. It doesn't have a conciousness or a plan, but I do believe that it is deterministic.
Human beings are much deeper and complex beings than a pile of wants and desires. I think that the biggest failing of Atheism has been it's inability to address the fundamental human desire to connect with something infinite. To suppress or deny this desire is to be either ignorant of how deep the human sense of wonder is, or to be guilty of intellectual dishonesty. -
CONNECT WITH ATHEIST NEXUS
Latest Activity
- Top News
- Everything
Debra Stevenson replied to matthew greenberg's discussion Pope Francis says even Atheists go to HeavenDebra Stevenson replied to matthew greenberg's discussion Pope Francis says even Atheists go to Heaven
Dr. Terence Meaden replied to Dr. Terence Meaden's discussion Atheist Sees Image of the Creation of the World in a Piece of Burnt Toast in the group ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN
Joan Denoo replied to Ruth Anthony-Gardner's discussion Rossby waves - what happens in the Arctic doesn't stay in the Arctic in the group Climate ConcernsDebra Stevenson replied to Debra Stevenson's discussion Joseph Smith's life before Mormonism in the group Ex-Mormon Atheists
Ruth Anthony-Gardner replied to Ruth Anthony-Gardner's discussion Rossby waves - what happens in the Arctic doesn't stay in the Arctic in the group Climate Concerns
Gordon Clay replied to Debra Stevenson's discussion Joseph Smith's life before Mormonism in the group Ex-Mormon Atheists
 |
 |
 |
 |
© 2013 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.
