I’ve been reading up about naturalistic pantheism and I’ve been wondering about what other theists/atheists/pantheists think about the difference between atheism and naturalistic pantheism, ie; are they similar enough to be compatible with each other?
Strong atheism is the belief that there is no god, however weak atheism is closer to agnosticism, in that you don’t really not believe in God, you simply don’t see the need to believe that there is or isn’t a god because of lack of evidence.
Naturalistic pantheism, however, holds that it is the nature of the Universe, not God, that can provide a mystical fullfillment, and that you could think of nature as god in the non-traditional sense if you wanted to, but it would be in an impersonal and informal sense.
So here’s where the dillemma comes in - atheism seems to only deal with the ‘personal’ type of god, either the Christian god, a Universal Consciousness, etc., but not an impersonal ‘way’ of the Universe, which can still provide a great deal to study in the way of mysticism. My question for discussion purposes here is, do you think that Atheism is meant to deal with such an idea like Naturalistic Pantheism? Personally I feel that traditional Atheism is not in conflict with naturalistic pantheism, in that naturalistic pantheism does not imply deity, only a way for the Universe to exist. It’s like someone once said, 'I believe in God, though I spell it N-A-T-U-R-E."
Well, what exactly do they mean by “the universe can provide mystical fulfillment”? This seems rather vague to me. How do they define “mystical fulfillment”?
From what I understand, mystical fulfillment from pantheism breaks down like this - mysticism is connecting with the ‘ultimate reality’. This could be God, or Tao, or the Void, depending on one’s beliefs. In naturalistic pantheism, the sum of the Universe, it’s laws, and our perception of all of this, could be called mystical, and mystical fulfillment would be the realization of all of this. At least, that’s what I make of all of this so far
Isn’t there a difference between the two in the degree of certainty they hold to their respective beliefs? While weak atheists seem more agnostic in the way they’re not really sure what to believe, naturalistic pantheists seem to have a more certain faith in that there’s “something out there”. What do you think?
That’s certainly true. Infact I guess that’s one of the reasons I’m reading about this stuff now. I’ve always been a weak atheist in that I don’t believe in God in the traditional sense, but on the other hand, I also believe there’s something out there, like some kind of logial ‘way of the universe’ that allows for everything to be the way it is. So, this naturalistic pantheism is starting to look appealing to me
Its not about being sure. For an atheist, for example, it doesnt really matter if the Christian God really exist or not. Even if that particular God just opened the door and entered the room, and even proved himself to be an actual GOD - that still wouldnt give an atheist any reason for worship.
Now, nature doesnt require any worship. If you dig into pantheism - no spirit, or being, or any of the gods, actually require a continual worship. Well, they do , but if you dont - you are just denied some benefits, like, your crops will grow not as fast, or you find less berries in the forest, but surely you wont grill on a frying pan in hell for all eternity. If you dont want to worship any of the gods - they are not actually forcing you to, scaring you into submitment, like Christianity.
Like i said, nature doesnt really need any worship, it only needs respect. A…a mutual silent agreement of a sort. And that i can live with.
What exactely is the naturalistic pantheism you are talking about? is it the belief that everything in the universe is just an aspect of one essential entity, that difference is only an illusion? Because I don’t see how just taking the set of everything and calling it God can provide mystical fulfillment, other than the acceptance that “what you see is what you get” and that there is nothing beyond that. Unless that is what you actually mean by mystical fulfillment.
I’m not sure that worship is actually a part of pantheism though. Worship of nature is something you might see in paganism, but not pantheism.
The best I can explain naturalistic pantheism is similar to the notion of Tao, expect without the magic and folklore, although this would be a very simplified explanation.
By mystical fulfillment, I mean the realization of the true nature of the universe (whatever than may be), since nature is only considered godlike in the impersonal, no-traditional sense…although I’m still not very familiar with the whole idea of this type of pantheism, so some of my info here might be a little bit wrong.
I consider myself an atheist, and to me it means that I don’t really believe in much of anything. In fact, I’m starting to get into the habit of forgetting that I exist…I guess I’m starting to not believe in reality sometimes. It’s hard to explain.
It’s like I’m truly beginning to understand what it would feel like to be non-existant, and it’s very enlightening when I remember that I do in fact exist. The experience has given me some real perspective on things in life. A little off-topic I guess, but interesting nonetheless. I’m trying to write a poem about it.
Although, I guess I’m sort of a “weak” atheist in the sense that, if proven, I would believe in a god. Otherwise there wouldn’t really be a difference between a believer and a non-believer, would there? I pride myself on my ability to choose one belief over another logically without having to rethink my entire life’s decisions and moral grounding. It’s perfectly normal to be hypocritical in life, it’s just when you don’t know that you are, or you don’t know why, that it is wrong.
This is pretty much my set of beliefs to a tee. I dont believe in God, or a god, but I do believe in an order of things. There is Balance in the chaos of the infinite.
When you break it down (religion I mean), it all inevitably reads the same. We are all seperate entities, but we are all connected in some way. Whether people believe we are connected by God, nature or energy doesn’t really matter. The belief is what is important.
Religion has had a few thousand years of bad press and poor spokesmen, but the key message has never changed. We’re all in this together and everything has a purpose.
I’ve always maintained that spirituality is the path over religion because spirituality gives you choice and freedom of belief.
As far as I am aware “naturalistic” pantheism is not in conflict with atheism. I am not entirely sure what you mean by naturalistic pantheism can you define it in terms of other forms of panthesim such as paganistic, buddist, etc? Thanks.
I suppose the easiest way to say it would be ‘Atheism for nature lovers’, in that nature, the universe, etc. is emaphazised as god-like, but only in a non-traditional, non-personal sense. Ie., God would be more like the Tao, or ‘The Force’, rather than a deity.
By definition in this case, Josh, your talking about actual pantheism which means in Greek “God is all”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism For a check. Your “naturalistic” pantheism is no different than a normal form of believing the whole is the “the force”.
Also I would like to add that there is no means for it to get along with Atheism as by definition that means “there is no god or none we can speak of”, if anything what you seem to propose is more a sort of agonistic pantheism. Its more like saying “I think there may be a universal force but I am not sure”.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe in God and have 99.99% conviction that I’m on the right track, but if God walked into the room, and proved himself creator of all things, I think I might owe him a little worship or at the very least, respect. I’m an atheist, but I’m not stubborn
But of course, then I’d have a couple of choice questions for him. Who WOULDN’T love to pick God’s brain?
Oddly enough, it seems like a good thought experiment for atheists… I mean – what would YOU GUYS do? Honestly?
By “Way of the Universe” do you mean in a natural or supernatural sense? If it supernatural then i think the definition of atheist could be broadened to include “lack of belief or disbelief in the supernatural” (or would that simply be being a skeptic? hmmm)
Not for me, so far said God has done nothing worthy of worship in my mind, in said scenario/thought experiment he may have created the universe but maaann, did he ever screw up when it came to the inhabitants.
I decided to keep toastertester’s post because it was a good post and didn’t speak to anyone specifically. But since we now have another reply which is direct to a specific user, I think I should make a notice.
[mod]Hi there this topic is 2 years old. Although it is by no means against the rules to discuss it if you wish, I should warn you guys that not all the people involved in the original topic are still members of LD4all, and that as for the others, one can’t guarantee their presence here in the short run.
So go ahead and post, but try to discuss ideas in general rather than personified ideologies here, as the people who posted in this thread, back in 2006, in a board that not even exists anymore, might not be replying to you anytime soon. [/mod]
When I use the words ‘way of the universe,’ I mean them in a natural sense. For reasons that would require a whole other discussion (which I wouldn’t be opposed to having), I think ‘supernatural’ is an unnecessary (and somewhat nonsensical) term. Anywho, I do know a few atheists who believe in what you might call ‘supernatural’ phenomena, but most atheists (and even naturalistic pantheists too) who I know, including myself, don’t. I think that just comes along with the skepticism of being an atheist. But that’s not to say that theists aren’t also skeptical - I know lots of skeptical theists.
But in the end I don’t think there is any need to widen or narrow the definition for the word ‘atheist’, since atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods. I think there are a few metaphysical implications that follow from that (…again, that’s a whole other discussion ), but I don’t think disbelief in the supernatural has to be one of them
…and in case anyone is wondering, I did eventually decide just to stick with ‘atheist’. I think calling myself a pantheist, and calling the universe god, might have invited some misunderstanding from my religious friends (which I already get enough of ).
mmm sounds like taoism but whatever way you swing on this you need to realise that something non-physical can never be accurately descriped/labelled in physical terms because it transcends mere words.
That’s one of the reasons I think that the idea of the supernatural nonsensical. If something supernatural is non-physical then it has nothing to do with this universe so far as we can tell, and is of no concern to us. But if supernatural things can and do have effects in physical reality (a bit like The Force in Star Wars) then there is no reason that we shouldn’t have discovered it already.
I decided to keep toastertester’s post because it was a good post and didn’t speak to anyone specifically. But since we now have another reply which is direct to a specific user, I think I should make a notice.
), but I don’t think disbelief in the supernatural has to be one of them 
).