Naturalistic Pantheism vs. Atheism

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 :smile:

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 :smile:, 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.

This article, and this article can probably explain this much better than I can.

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. :content:

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 :smile:
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.

:lol: 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 :smile: 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. :smile:[/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 :content: ), but I don’t think disbelief in the supernatural has to be one of them :smile:

…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 :tongue: ).

Ah ok then.

Also apologies, i didn’t notice the necromancy responsible for resurecting the thread and failed to notice how old it was.

As for the supernatural im with you, always found it to be a superfluous concept.

Not to mention all the flow on effects of adopting atheism (maybe we should start those tangent conversations you talked about)

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.

…and yes, it is a bit like Taoism :yes:

I’m up for it if you are! :smile:

It’s strange how an old discussion can be resumed after an 14 month hiatus. You have to love the internet. :wink:

I feel inclined to mention something here, after reading back over this thread. Firstly, I don’t see a reason why atheism and naturalistic pantheism cannot be compatible. Atheism is the belief that there are no supernatural deities controlling or creating this reality, and it sounds as though a naturalistic pantheist shares that view. While the NP might consider nature, or the force that bind this reality together a kind of “god”, it’s a loose definition that wouldn’t ruffle an atheist’s feathers. So long as you’re not talking about a conscious being who watches and responds to our actions on a personal level, then you aren’t talking about a deity.

However, I think there’s a little confusion here. See, people love to use the terms “natural” and “supernatural” as though any sign of the latter must be a whole different ballgame to our understanding of the former. But I just don’t see this distinction. If there is a universal force that controls physical reality and holds everything together according to a consistent set of laws, then wouldn’t that force be part of nature? Just because we can’t detect it with our human sensors, nor can we build a machine that can see it, doesn’t mean it exists in a separate realm, or implies some kind of supernatural activity. Anything and everything that exists, physical or spiritual, is all nature to me.

I actually quite like the NP attitude, even if I think it’s essentially no different from an atheistic point of view. There’s no reason why people can’t be spiritually fulfilled just because they don’t believe in a conscious deity. I love the universe, and the possibilities it presents to us. I don’t feel a need for a higher being to watch and judge me all the time. I deeply respect this physical realm, and I feel at peace when I consider my own existence as an emergent property of complex physical laws. There’s undoubtedly more to the universe than we can see, but whatever it is, it’s only helping to maintain this reality that we live in–not to hide an entirely different one from us until we die.

I agree athe :smile:

Lately I’ve also been thinking about the idea of a spiritual atheist. Like I said a few posts ago I think that if I were to call myself a pantheist, even if it is perfectly compatible or even indistinguishable with atheism, that would still tend to invite confusion (which I already get a lot of from my religious friends). But to call myself spiritual fits in with my beliefs (or un-beliefs) nicely. Even though words like ‘spiritual’ are tossed around a lot today, especially within New Age circles and things like that, I think it would be more accurate. After all the word spirit comes from the Latin word for breath, so I think the different connotations that the word ‘spiritual’ carries are more numerous and diverse than what you get with pantheism.

There are a few quotes from Carl Sagan that sum up how I feel since starting this thread:

“Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others — for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein — considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws.”

But Sagan continued elsewhere, “But if by ‘God,’ one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying… it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.”

So, rather than call the universe God, I just call it The Universe (with a capital U).

Im with Atheist on the compatibility of the two, no dogma to deal with, no worship just a slightly different world view that is almost trivial. Also? is that Agent 47 as your avatar?

[mod]Yes, that’s 47 in my avatar. Glad to see a few people recognize him. :razz:[/mod]

Same, i for one reject any notion of there being some sort of higher purpose for human beings and believe that there is no “meaning of life” or anything like it, however in contrast to a great many others who hold this belief and then be depressed on it i find it to be a simple fact of life and get on with loving it.

For me any sort of “spiritual” (man that word has become loose in definition eh?) comes from Objectivism, Rands view of the heroic human producing and discovering has been an inspiration for me and will be all i need to philosiphically deal with spirituality (well maybe not all)