Ever heard of this theism?
the "religion" of the future....IMO
any one?
~ wiki
the "religion" of the future....IMO
any one?
Pantheism - a one universe for all
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
The funny thing about Pantheists is Nature has only been "honored" recently. Until the last 250 years or so Nature had been killing humans with speedy efficiency. The Universe is just as likely, and probably more likely, to kill off the Human species as it is to benevolently safeguard humans.
In short, Mother Nature's a bitch!
I like the idea in all. It fit's better with our modern multicultural societies. Interestingly, I find Japanese to be reverent towards Nature but not in-tune. They love to recreate Nature in a way that's kind of prefect and symmetrical and most of all clean - and then enjoy it. Maybe they're secretly Pantheists?
In short, Mother Nature's a bitch!
I like the idea in all. It fit's better with our modern multicultural societies. Interestingly, I find Japanese to be reverent towards Nature but not in-tune. They love to recreate Nature in a way that's kind of prefect and symmetrical and most of all clean - and then enjoy it. Maybe they're secretly Pantheists?
Yeah. This is a part of "new age" belief system that’s been around for a very long time. It is the replacement of worship for the Creator to worship of the created. Nature worshippers have been around since ancient times there is nothing new about this at all.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
For me it is enough to admire nature, to enjoy it.
I marvel at the perfection, order and efficiency of the universe.
I do not have complex to admit that,I do not know who created man, nature, universe.
Are things more "Insignificant" that I would like to know.Even those we are not able to comprehend them.
Nature is nothing but an environment. If anyone wants to develop sentimental and romantic feeling towards it, its up to them. Yet, making a religion out of these emotions and imagining the future generations will need a religion is a wild guess.
Appreciation of nature because of its complexity and various systems do not necessarily require a religion. And trying to deduce an harmony like unity within nature is deceptive and will eventually cause disappointment for its followers. Nature is more like a situation that allows temporal orders/cycles within a chaotic coincidences. Getting a religion out of nature is similar to finding some religious aspects of internet.
I find human achievements more romantic; against nature, against its kind, against all odds...
Appreciation of nature because of its complexity and various systems do not necessarily require a religion. And trying to deduce an harmony like unity within nature is deceptive and will eventually cause disappointment for its followers. Nature is more like a situation that allows temporal orders/cycles within a chaotic coincidences. Getting a religion out of nature is similar to finding some religious aspects of internet.
I find human achievements more romantic; against nature, against its kind, against all odds...
That is why I put the word religion in "" in the OP.
From what I understand Pantheism is not a religion persee, but more an appreciation of the whole universe including all it's religions of which their are many and a way for humans to practice their innate desire to worship more holistically and inclusively rather than exclusively as seems to be the current state of most orthadox religions.
inclusivity vs exclusivity
yes I agree in the main with this interpretation.
However the "created" is the "creator" in this case don't you think?
Grounding the divine in all things instead of some fluffy, cloudy, dream scape somewhere else....as being separate and aloof to the creation.
Doesn't matter if you put neon lights around it; you are still using the word, and if you are not going to propose a brand new meaning (and/or "understanding"), there are already established perceptions on what religion is.
I am not going through Wikipedia definition of the word. Instead I would like to raise the well known implications of religion. Let's ignore the appreciation part. You might have meant only this feature of the religion, yet I suspect. In order to make sure, consider other well known elements of a religion, such as social, cultural and ethical faculties.
I say ignore this appreciation bit, because if you are talking about individual worship without defined rules , it's a very personal thing and can be done without a religion. Religion starts with other people, and I think you are already aware of this communal aspect when you say this:
What are the rituals, what kind of unity is aimed among human beings, what are the directions and directives, what is the position of human among all other existence (one of them, with them, prayers of existence, philosophers of creation -I hate this word, but anyway, already used it-, what?). What are the expected ethical values, what does it demand from an individual? When it comes to religion, even commonality of symbols are definitive and important.
You see, these are words. If we don't fill anything under these words, it will make different sense for different people. You can start here if you like. "Inclusivity vs exclusivity"; what do you mean by them?
there are no rules as far as I know of. No dogma nor "church"
and yes it is a personal approach to the issue of worship.
Pantheism is a bit like what used to be called Paganism but more comprehensive and contemporary.
Most Orthodox religions practice exclusion in some form or another. where by they isolate those that aren't of the faith. Including those that are ignorant of that faith be it a person or an animal.
"Can a dog or a cat know Jesus?" sort of thingo.
where as pantheism is all inclusive taking in the entire universe and all that it holds.
It is the atheists' religion if you like. There is no leader, no single divinity except that of the entire universe if one even wants to refer to it as divine.
It's tree hugging and mathematics, it's physics and wicca...etc etc
you get the picture I think...
Usually principles evolve into rules. And rules (depending upon given importance) might become dogma eventually. This is why I was interested in the ideas behind this world view, understanding or religion-to-be movement if you like.
Criteria, criteria and criteria: Otherwise how are we going to decide on the level of comprehensiveness and/or contemporary-ness? And mind you, it wasn't an accident Paganism was crashed by new type of religion; there was a need for a brand new mobilization for a brand new social projects of developed agricultural societies. So, what is the social project (where does Pantheism want to see individual/society?), what is the desired mental effect in people's minds?
Yes, but question is still there: Can a dog or cat know Pantheism? Some "We" (some humans) giving a new inclusive meaning to universe and all does not necessarily mean that all people will agree on it, let alone cats, dogs and atoms.
Hmm, ask an atheist how would they think about this idea after all these clash with already existing religions. If an atheist would need a religion, they would prefer to modify the existing ones rather than inventing new ones I guess. I don't call myself an atheist, I prefer "non-believer". Yet it wouldn't stop religious people to call me an atheist. I don't mind. But ask an atheist about how would they feel about a religion for themselves.
This sounds like "there is no need at all" to me. You see, when you start to talk about "divine", the problem of representation emerge. Who will tell us what is divine and what is not? If everything is divine (maximum inclusiveness), that includes literally "everything". So the divinity becomes unnecessary; a self-annihilated concept. Something like "Everything is energy"; so? What does it tell us distinctively?
You hope that I get the picture. But I think you would object if you knew what type of picture I got: Why do I hug a tree? To show my emotions and to display my political position against human policies. Yet I kill millions of bacteria when I complete a simple daily task. How does it fit? Does your Pantheism include bacteria as well, or is it restricted to trees only? Mathematics and physics are mind games, tools if you like. They have their own rule books. A mathematician can listen to music or paint a landscape in order to calm his/her mind, do some yoga; but when it comes to the job, none of them are relevant, and or necessary.
My point is this: Your Pantheism has social, moral and maybe political implications (the smell comes from this "-ism"). These things necessarily involves mobilisation of people; and talking about "people" also necessarily includes some sort of "exclusion" (human madness vs everything else). This is not optional, there is no escape.
It's pretty much just atheism with a healthy respect for nature.
Forget about OP and the topic for a second, but this "healthy respect for nature" bit is very tempting. I would like to open a new thread under General Philosophy or Ethics (depending upon the presentation), bring on Anthropocentric-ism, linguistic, object-subject relation between humans and nature and do some wild Sumo-wrestling on this subject.
But I'm too tired...
Come to think of it, maybe it's not so healthy. Respect for nature is fine, but worshiping it is just as dumb as worshiping a deity.
'Nature' was honored pretty much as far back as we can find. The Abrahamists have had a strong undercurrent distrust of nature, but other groups quite the opposite. As far as nature being a bitch...pantheism is more about everything being alive, not necessarily that everything in nice. And to say nature was killing humans is clearly oversimplified. I mean, where would they have been without nature?
Actuallly this is not correct at all. The creator and the universe are simply one. Further many believe that God/the divine is not limited to some transcendent place. Rather God is everywhere, including nature. The Abrahamists decided that God was separate from Nature, beyond. In this way they sidelined their own God.
If you are going to knock them, at least get their ideas right.
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
No the Creator wouldn't be limited if He wasn't one with the universe if the creator was not in any place at all including "a transcendent place" but still existed then He wouldn't be limited at all, say if He is in 0 dimensions i.e. He could be something completely separate from the universe, locations e.t.c.
Last edited:
The the creator is not in certain places. One could point at something beautiful, for example a tree, and say God is not there. That is a limit. Often in the Abrahamic religions God is seen as omnipotent, omniscient. Can do anything, can see anything. Odd that God is not omnipresent.
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
I'm saying if He's not in any place, or location at all. You can think of it this way that being in a place is a limitation.
That's limiting. That means he/she can't be here, or down the block.
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
That's not really a limitation the Creator being omnipotent has absolute power over everything else and then it's not a limitation.