A definition of pantheism

    To define pantheism, I think it's important to address whether 
it is a religious or philosophical position (or a mixture of both, 
which is my belief).  I think it's definition should also state its 
position on two philosophical issues:  ontology and epistemology.  
First things first.

    The dichotomy between philosophy and religion becomes less clear 
at the point of metaphysics, the branch of philosophy dealing with 
ultimate reality.  At its most basic level, the concept of God can be 
interpreted as ultimate reality.  Whereas metaphysics might restrict 
itself to discussing the nature of ultimate reality, religion goes further 
to propose the proper relationship of humans to ultimate reality. 
 
 This relationship often includes descriptive (how things are) 
as well as prescriptive (what to do about it) components.  
Given these assumptions, I would classify pantheism as a religion.

    There are some who believe that ultimate reality is a dualism 
of Creator and Creation.  One criterion for classifying a religion 
as dualistic in this sense is whether its myth of creation 
involves the actions of an entity distinct from the universe.  

The Babylonian, Hindu, and Judeo-Christian traditions all have this.  
Others believe that ultimate reality is a monism, simultaneously 
created and creating.  I propose that pantheism is of the latter variety.  
It holds ultimate reality to be monistic.

    What is pantheism's ontological position, that is, its position on 
the nature of ultimate reality?  Ontologically, I would say that most 
pantheists are materialists, in that they feel that matter is the 
fundamental essence of the universe.  Complexity theory makes this more 
palatable by saying that matter is capable of self-organization and 
that higher levels of organization are capable of influencing lower levels.  

    The real debate begins with the issue of whether ultimate reality 
has a center or centers of consciousness above the level of individual 
organisms.  If the answer is yes, then we should hammer out pantheism's 
ontology in terms of the nature of this consciousness.

    What about its epistemological position, that is, its position on how
knowledge is gained?  How do we learn about the nature of ultimate reality?
I feel that scientific pantheism has two strong approaches here.  One is
scientific empiricism, where knowledge is gained through controlled
observation and experiment.  The other is difficult to express and 
more controversial in that it draws not on environmental evidence 
but rather on conscious experience.  

   Lucien Levy-Bruhl called it "mystical participation,"
the experience of the dissolution of boundaries between oneself and 
the environment, a common element of the early religions of Native 
American, African, and Polynesian cultures.  It is an objective of Zen 
Buddhists and the Navajo, where it is called "hozon."  
It has been treated in Christian theologies as "numinous experience."  
It is that feeling of oneness with ultimate reality.  

    Should numinous experience be included in pantheism's 
epistemology? It smacks of "revelation," the pre-eminent source 
of knowledge for traditional religion.  However, I think that 
pantheism would be cold and empty without it.  
Furthermore, numinous experience does not inform particularities 
of ultimate reality (the details), just its monistic quality. 
Revelation, on the other hand, supplies whole systems of belief.

    Finally, how should people relate to the ultimate reality?  
Numinous experience is one way.  Some may use terms such 
as "reverence" or "worship," but others may prefer words with 
less ecclesiastic connotations such as "awe." 

Responses to this question will depend a great deal on responses 
to the ontological question.  Whiteheadian process theology 
suggests that the relationship of humans to ultimate reality 
(God, for short) is that of a cell to an organism.  

While it may seem like a trivial relationship, consider that there 
is mutual communication between cells and organisms, and that 
each influences the other.

Bill Altermatt