Comment

Comment by Mike Layfield on June 10, 2009 at 8:33pm

Hi Paul. I think I've seen your postings on the Religious Naturalism Yahoo Group. I agree there is entirely too much God-talk over there (mostly Stan) sigh. My aversion to the term "theism" nested in pantheism is not so different than my aversion to the same term nested in atheism. I suppose I am too picky about language. I don't mind the word "religious" so much, but I am troubled by the word "spiritual" because of its historical meaning having to do with spirits and animism. I've tried to stop using such words, but when I accidentally bump my head, I still catch myself saying, "Goddamnit!" Then, when I realize I just said "God", I catch myself saying, "Jesus! I just did it again!" Old habits die hard.

Comment by shaman sun on June 10, 2009 at 7:22pm

I rather like the idea of "no idols before me," except "idols" would be to idealize any one way as THE way, and "before me" as, well, having an open, faith not in a deity but in the universe, the cosmos, the natural forces and our existence here. Life is sacred, but not in any mythical way. Isn't it? Our very existence can be awe inspiring. The writing of Dogen on mystery comes to mind, where he describes a mystery not as something apart, unknown, but as an "intimacy with." In this sense, the mystery of existence is also realizing we are inseparable from the cosmos, intimate with whatever "reality" actually is...

Comment by shaman sun on June 10, 2009 at 6:20pm

Hey Nate, I haven't been around these parts in a while. Hope to get involved in some interesting discussions this week!

Comment by Nate on June 10, 2009 at 6:11pm

Thank all of you for your interest and thoughts.

Comment by SBrooks on June 10, 2009 at 5:17pm

Hello everyone.

thanks for the invite Nate, i look foward to the discussions.

Comment by Paul Harrison on June 9, 2009 at 2:32pm

Mike wrote:
"I have a life-long aversion to the "theism" contained in its name. For that reason I have tended to avoid pantheism."
The naturalistic pantheism of the World Pantheist Movement is utterly non-theistic and explicit rejects belief in the supernatural. I call the -theism part an "etymological remnant."
Dawkins calls pantheism "sexed up atheism" - a nice endorsement.

Mike continues:
"The term I prefer is "religious naturalism" which constitutes pretty much the same thing."
Note that this term contains the word "religious" which is unacceptable to many atheists - and pantheists.
As constituted around the yahoogroup and Institute for Religion in an Age of Science religious naturalism is not the same as scientific pantheism. It is explicitly open to theists as well as non-theists.
I have constantly challenged them in the yahoogroup as to how theism can possibly be naturalistic. "God" is the biggest supernatural entity one could possibly imagine! But this argument does not seem to weigh with them.
They are aiming at what they call a "big tent" approach and think that by combining theists and non-theists they will have a wider reach. Actually I think that greatly reduces their appeal to atheists. humanists etc.

Comment by Kitty on June 7, 2009 at 4:37am

Delight in the natural, appreciation for all of life, this has been my way since very young childhood; probably all my life. I see now the true "religion" was with me all along the journey!
Thanks for starting this group, I look forward to learning and sharing more!

Comment by Paxdora Kosmosian on June 5, 2009 at 8:45pm

Hi Nate! Check out my page at World Pantheism

Comment by eagle eyes on June 5, 2009 at 7:52pm

thanks for the invite .........i couldn't find it in the site but was looking page by page....i never would have found it without your email........thank again....

Comment by Nate on June 1, 2009 at 10:18am

Nicely put, Mike.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next ›
• Page