This is a Digest of debates on the pantheist mailing list. It will grow I'm sure. It is the Begining of the Think Tank.

What pantheism means

Pantheism is an ideology that welcomes everyone. It is an ideology that can be practiced alone in the woods under a tree while the sun shine steams down upon you like golden mirth. When I look at the sun and the stars, and marvel at the fact that we are all just star dust, I am at peace and at one with it all. RON HOOFT

The divine cosmos

It is only when Existence Itself is recognized as the impenetrable Divinity that all the problems which religious apologetics cannot solve are solved; God is not a Being--He is Being Itself. SAIF PATEL.

I live every day in worship of my belief in god. But not worship to the point of being catatonic; worship in the sense that my actions reflect my belief in the holistic universe, everything tied together. ELJAY LOVE-JENSEN.

To be religious is to be profoundly moved, spiritually engaged, by the beauty and fragility and complexity of life all around us and the immensity of the universe. And to be attentive to that beauty and fragility and complexity in the brief time that I am here, out of all eternity. YVONNE SCHUMACHER

I don't think God is the driving force behind the universe, because the universe is the driving force. Rather, I believe that the universe is god, and i think this is the central theme to Pantheism -- God is everything, both substance and process -- The cosmos are not moved by the divine, they are divine. JEFF PITCHER

Question: What created the universe? Dualist: God Question: Who created
God? Dualist: God requires no creator. He is intrinsic to being.
Question: What created the universe?
"Old School Scientist": The laws of physics.
Question: Who created the laws of physics?
"Old School Scientist": The laws of physics require no creator. They are
intrinsic to being.
Question: What created the universe?
Pantheist: The universe is intrinsic to being.
The pantheist applies this logic: the simplest explanation is usually the correct one and removes the extra component or the argument. If something is capable of being intrinsic to being, why can't the universe simply be intrinsic to itself.
Someone asked me today, "So what is the pantheist view on hale-bop" I said "Its a comet." &That's what makes a pantheist special. When we look into the night sky, a stone, a waterfall, the back of our hands, we don't see the creations of a god, we don't seek a guru or a prophet for an explanation, we simply see stars, a stone, a waterfall, the back of our hand. And in each of these things, we see what some of us might call God. JEFF PITCHER

And I have known to be a throng A field of flowers, 10,000 strong I now address their fragrance and refrain And I have known The clouds as my own And beckoned their billows go through me Up, then out and all around I've merged with cosmos, sight and sound...... A heaven known of old. STEVE HUMMEL

The driving force - in or behind the Universe?

I think, according to what I've read, that the driving force would be the universe itself... that it's not "behind" anything but WITHIN. I would think that each strand of it was once ONE (ie. big bang, etc.) yet still somehow is. CHARLIE SHAPIRO.

Energy/matter is inherently alive and instinctive. The driving force here is interaction over time. We are all literally part of the big bang. We are an actual part of the expansion/evolution of the singularity.

Just as a single cell of our body is part of us, we are in turn part of something much more complex than just ourselves. Not a god, but the totality of existence. RON HOOFT.
We don't want to convey the idea that a something existed before our universe, then created it (or was responsible for the birth of) our universe. Again, this doesn't make sense for two reasons, #1 anything that existed is part of the universe. #2 There is no "such thing as "Before" the universe. "Before" is temporal, and the universe is space and time. Nothing, not even time exists without the universe. JEFF PITCHER

Pantheist empiricism

One of the advantages in Pantheism I believe is that one has the entirety of the natural world to contemplate and use as a stepping stone. Just looking at the natural environment is beneficial (its so incredibly diverse, there are experiences inside experiences in each object, form, line, shadow etc. STEVE HUMMEL.

The #1 thing that I like about pantheism is, we don't make things up and then say, "We believe in this because of our faith." NO! We believe things that are. When about hear of news of a new discovery, we don't secretly hope that it supports our cause. Sure, it would be neat it they found intelligent life (or any life) on another planet, but if we don't that's OK. On the other hand, I have two Christian friends who do not like the idea about life on other planets. They refuse to believe that God might have made other worlds with life and therefore, refute any evidence that supports finding of extra-terrestrial life. Ask them why -- "I just don't believe there it." For me, a Pantheist, whatever, discoveries that are made are wonderful per se. They are part of the universe, and we find delight in discovering more about our universe, whatever the news might be. JEFF PITCHER

Pantheism in daily life.

Do what you do, with a Pantheistic slant. JO ANN.

Revelry v. suffering

I disagree with the comment that "life is suffering." Life is to be. It is to know love as well as despair, joy as well as pain. To be fair, there is no judgement of "good" times vs. "bad" times; sunshine and hurricanes are a package deal. After all, if life were just sunshine, would it not then become commonplace and unnoticed? Hurricanes are needed to provide change and restore balance (physically as well as mentally). All experiences of life, then, sez I, are to be embraced and felt at the very core of one's being, from carnations to send-us-your-money-now-or-we're-kicking-you-out-of-your-house-come-Saturday notices (and I have experienced them both!); taken on the whole, this is to experience the richness of life itself in all its shades. Life is not suffering; to think so is to miss so much. Life is revelry! JOOLIKINS

Mystical experiences: union with the Real.

There is also something very fulfilling about stones. Paul said he meditates w/ beach granite pebbles. I'm partial to dark glacial stones with smooth yet complex shapes. When I did my research in Alaska, I got some of these stones from icebergs adrift in the fjords, and some from grab samples we took from the ocean floor. I also like to stack stones, and arrange them. My very first concrete pantheist ideas came to me when I was "playing" in my rock garden. I was a Christian, or at least a theist. I love to build things and I was a geology major so, I though it would be pretty neat to make a rock garden. I did, complete w/ gravel sand and a tiny wire rake to comb the stones. In the beginning, I found it neat, the relaxing, rake in one direction, then in another, then back in the same direction. Soon, I found that it freed me from distractions and emptied my mind. Here is a suggestion: Try going out to find your own stone, one that has a certain connection to you. Its a great adventure and very rewarding. JEFF PITCHER.

May I suggest a form of meditation that has yielded many interesting and joyful moments for me. Sit anywhere and just begin to notice things in your immediate environment. Look at them. If you look at a book, notice also its form, its color, its texture, whether or not it is worn or brand new, the material it is composed of, does it cast a shadow, etc. Look for things (experiences within the object of the book). Do this with as many objects as you feel comfortable with, and try to experience the space around you ,just in itself, as you consciously direct your attention onto your immediate environment. You may have some very pleasant experiences you haven't had for some time. Good luck and enjoy. STEVE HUMMEL

Death

The Suffering God.

This was when I turned to an idea that I think would be called Pantheism, maybe you can tell me if there is a distinction. I have been thinking that if the Universe is God's body then there really is no such thing as "the problem of evil". If, as a medic, I treat each patient as a part of God's body, much in the same way a single cell is part of the human body, then I must also realize that God suffers in this body as well as the patient. God is not sending this suffering as a punishment or test, God is feeling this pain also and is not responsible for it. In addition, this idea would create a new ethic for the medical community, considering that each human is sacred. What do you think of this idea? Does Pantheism only incorporate the natural world around us, or does it incorporate EVERYTHING in the Universe, including humans? CANDY

When people suffer, yes, the Universe/God suffers, too; but it is not as a conscious being; rather, it is simply through the people who experience the pain themselves; the Universe feels nothing, thinks nothing; it simply IS. This is the best way of looking at why one has an interest in ending suffering; not to end the suffering of the Universe, but of the people who are enduring it. my getting cancer is not analogous to a supernova because the Universe will not feel pain and will never die; my body will. SAIF PATEL

If you want to call the driving force behind evolution "God" okay. I am comfortable with that despite the difficulty of discussing that concept given peoples preconceived ideas. I certainly don't see an anthropomorphic conscious being at the wheel. God is the unknown and the unknowable that Ratan referred to and the universe at large. BRUCE BLAISDELL.

Tolerance.

Relativism can be dangerous. The belief that all beliefs are equally valid is also a belief, and a self-undermining one. Because then the belief that all belief systems are *not* equally valid would also be valid.
Beliefs are the basis for actions, and not all actions are equally good. Is there no difference between going out to see the comet because you think it's a marvelous thing in itself, and admiring its beauty - and looking at the comet as bringing a message that the world will be "spaded under," and that Jesus is coming, and joining in a mass suicide - having first castrated yourself because Jesus once said there are some who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven? This is an extreme example, but Christianity induces many people to devalue this life and martyr themselves and see life only as a stepping stone to the next. PAUL HARRISON

How many times have I gagged when my Fundamentalist Step-Mother-In-Law (figure that one out!) shakes her head, clucks, and says: "If only those poor souls had been touched by the true ministry of Jesus; this would never have happened." If everyone were pantheists, we would still have gullible, lunatic, deranged people, but they would be deranged Pantheists instead of deranged Christians. To be a competent Physicist today requires a distinct belief in impossibilities and contradictions. This magical mystical universe is not finished with surprises, paradox and mysteries. Faith and Awe are indeed part and parcel of the Pantheist vision, in my opinion. The only question is Faith in WHAT. Let us not be like those "scientists" who dismiss the power of Acupuncture simply because they can't explain it. There's a great line from an Ayn Rand book, in which one of these types says: "We can't ALLOW this to be true!" Paradox lives! JD STILLWATER

There is a very great difference between accepting assertions about impossible events made by a few people in superstitious times two thousand years ago, with no corroborating evidence - and accepting the results of modern experiments repeated hundreds of thousands of times under rigorous controls, always with the same results.
Sure quantum physics contains many mysteries that we don't yet understand, and perhaps never will. But these are not *impossibilities* - they happen every day in physics labs. Nor is wave-particle duality a contradiction like the doctrine of the Trinity. It seems, to us, a paradox, because we can't form concepts corresponding to our everyday experience which could encompass what is happening.
Yes there will always be gullible people. But there is a difference between a religion that instills respect for evidence and reason, and encourages open-mindedness to new evidence, and one that trains people from an early age to accept impossibilities and to believe that questioning them is evil and will be punished by God. PAUL HARRISON

I feel it is important to be politically incorrect. Many of us have been saying we should be tolerant of all faiths and beliefs. There is a great difference between tolerance and agreement. We must be free to speak our minds no matter what our opinions are. RON HOOFT

Tolerance means respecting the rights of free speech. It should mean polite debate about ideas, not about present persons. It means non-violence, friendly persuasion, accepting the same ground rules in the inevitable competition between belief systems.
I personally don't think it means not criticizing other religions. Criticism is the meat of debate, it is the means by which ideas test each others' validity. No system of ideas, no scientific theory ever spread without criticizing the systems that preceded it.
Imagine a market with stalls - like the ones they have at university when you arrive, for different societies you can join. At one stall are the Christians, offering a God who loves you through all your sufferings, and then eternal life, bliss in heaven, followed by resurrection on a magically transformed earth. A few stalls along are the pantheists - offering joy and acceptance and rationality in the present life. On the face of it, what the Christians offer seems better - with a few fatal provisos: these things are not really available to be offered, and all the evidence to support the offer is incredibly shaky, and accepting it can seriously damage the health of your relationship with this world.
Now if the pantheists at the pantheist stall don't point out these shortcomings, we don't stand much chance. PAUL HARRISON

Women and men

I am drawn to it not because of any connotation with masculinity or femininity (another anthropocentric tendency of ours), but because of its all-encompassing nature: All is in balance. All is as it is. There is no "male/female" "us/them" theme. While paganism provides a lot of support to women's value and an arena for women's camaraderie, it also perpetuates that division. Women like me are trying to find a balance. I'm breaking away from the paternalistic, misogynistic God of my childhood, but not to turn to a Goddess or female dominance to recapitulate the imbalance. I do not believe the universe is divided into male and female, or is a union of the two. The universe is as it is. Again, I seek the balance. JOOLIKINS

A Pantheist church?

Sci Pan and the mail list have no authority structure. I am comfortable with this: it is democratic, open-minded, ideas flow. It is like the Internet itself. However I know from religious history that religions like that (Buddhism is the clearest example) split up into hundreds of sects. However, they are all called Buddhism, and they all share a few fundamentals, and I think that may be the case with pantheism. If the message of "hereness" gets across, I don't see much wrong with that. There are dilemmas we will have to face before long. Should we try to set up a "church" with a clear message, vocabulary and rituals? Would we spread faster or slower if we did? Would we distort part of the message if we did? Would we get in the way of people directly relating to nature and the universe if we laid down ways in which this had to be done? On the other hand, if we remain simply a philosophy, like the Stoics, will pantheism remain a side-line as it always has till now? Note that atheists and humanists - who have philosophies not religions - are well organized and "proselytize" quite vigorously. I think the answer will probably lie in a combination of organization and flexibility - organization to spread, solidity and clarity in the core message, flexibility in the details and in how people express their religious impulse. PAUL HARRISON

Yes! Quakers adopted this policy. Every member tells what Quakers are officially. "The gathered meaning of our monthly meeting are that "so and so" but my personal opinion are "like this and this". One Quaker refer to it like Doctrine instead of Dogma. Doctrines are debatable but Dogmas are not so Quakers shun, dislike Dogmas. BERNT ROSTROM.

The names of god.

MY name for "god" has changed about yearly since I was 7 or 8 years old. I think this is appropriate. We don't have to pin this "force", this "ISness" this "flow" down to a single term, or even a single symbology. At present I get great inspiration and connection through the Wiccan symbology of Maid, Mother, and Crone (and their "male" counterparts). These are poor symbolic representations of the natural forces which make up my life and the other organized matter/energy around me, but they are the best ones for me to relate to right now. I trust that in time this will change. The last thing I want to do is "tame the river" or try to anchor myself in it (ever forgotten to let go the rope when falling from water-skiing?!). There have been many names for God in the past, and I see no reason why you can't make up your own. The purpose is to encapsulate some semblance, actually more of a reminder, of the EXPERIENCE. The name itself is irrelevant. J. D. STILLWATER.

"God" is a term that can rapidly become quite subjective and therefore inaccurate for serious discussion. What I mean here is that when someone is using the word 'god' and thinking about the meaning or the "essence of being" that the word 'god' represents; their conceptualization will differ from yours (or others) in such a way that the word 'god' now has several meanings. PHIL HUNT.

Here are some of my favorite terms for "God": Silence The Whole The One Ground of Being Wholly Other Death Fate Void All Mystery Cosmos Universe Hope Love Wisdom Creator Sustainer Destroyer Evolution Eros God I AM The Absolute First Cause Prime Mover Truth Realest Real First Equation The Uncreated Time MICHAEL SHANK

I appreciate Mike's long list, though I disliked some of the terms. Wholly other: no, we're part of it. Void: no, it's FULL. Hope & love: it doesn't have feelings. Creator, the absolute, first cause, prime mover, the uncreated: it is its own cause and creator. PAUL HARRISON

We should tell it like it is--the Universe/Nature/Cosmos; all of these words are perfect to explain the objects of our reverence, thoughts/meditation, and celebratory ceremony; what more do we need? SAIF PATEL

Shouldn't we make a clean break from established religions. Let's not use the words and phrases they use anymore. Couldn't we come up with our own? Agree on a singular name that Sci Pan's can use to describe the name god in conversations. Think of our own name for what they call prayer. LEE ANDERSON

Setting up 'OUR' own vocabulary with 'OUR' own definitions creates exclusion for new individuals in my humble opinion. It sounds 'cultish' (using the negative social understanding of the word) to the average new comer. BRUCE BLAISDELL

I "Personally" feel that using words like "god" when speaking to others, and indeed, new members, only confuses the issues and makes it hard for us to gain and convey a clear understanding of what we are all about. RON HOOFT.

Using "God" may imply that you see the "source" as a separate, conscious entity. For that matter, the use of any proper name at all may give such an impression. JOOLIKINS.

Now, maybe it's MY problem. Maybe it's ME who can't stomach the word god without thinking of the fundamentalist sitting on high and telling me I am going to hell. That the earth doesn't matter, that it is just a sinful waste land and will continue to be until Jesus christ returns to save us all. That it is the ANTI Christ who will first unit the earth, and when that day comes, god will punish all who follow him with eternal torturous hell.. Fundamentalism is the antithesis of Pantheism and it's jargon is anti humanity, anti earth, and anti universe. I am of German decent, but you will never hear me telling anyone that I am pure "Aryan". The Nazis made it a dirty word to ME, in the same way the fundamentalist has made "god" a dirty word to ME. RON HOOFT

I personally only use the word "God" as a kind of shorthand, and to simplify things for people from other traditions. Apart from that I couldn't bear to say it, it would really get between me and It. I use the words Reality, Being, or Universe or Nature.

As an expression of my *personal* opinion, of my *personal* usage of words eg on my Web site, I would say that: "God" should only be used as shorthand for beginners - and soon dropped. "Holy" shouldn't be used at all. "Sacred" is okay, because it's Roman. "Prayer" should not be used at all - we don't have anything that corresponds to prayer, the begging of favours from a supernatural being. "Meditation" is okay. "Dogma" is what rigid religions teach. "Worship" is that other religions do. Pantheists "revere." "Preaching, converting, proselytizing, recruiting" are words we all seem to dislike. We could say things like "discussing, presenting, informing, spreading the message." PAUL HARRISON

As a Unitarian Universalist I strongly disagree with these prescriptive/proscriptive suggestions. Many of these terms have gained new (and treasured) meaning for some of us UUs with pantheist leanings and I suspect also for others you'd like to welcome into pantheistic circles. To try to police our language with such instructions as "prayer should not be used at all... [as it's] begging ...favors from a supernatural being" is totally disrespectful of those of us who have other ideas about what prayer is all about. YVONNE SCHUMACHER

Placing a proper name on the focus may give the impression that you see the focus as a separate, conscious entity. Furthermore, giving it a proper name may confine it, just as giving Yahweh or God a male name immediately confined that entity's personality. If I'm right, you have no intention of doing that to your focus. You want it to retain the totality of the universe. Picking a name will be tricky business then. At this time, the only term I can honestly think of that comes close to what I'm looking for is the "Essence." JOOLIKINS

I think each of us has our own separate ideas about what the ultimate reality is, and we each have given it a name. I began thinking about his awhile ago when, in a response to Charlie, I used the term "Force" to describe the process that is reality. Then, Ron replied "I think it is a process rather than a force", and as soon as I read that, I laughed out loud. "Exactly" I thought. Still, I said "Force", but when I did, I had the same idea as in my mind as Ron. At the time, the word Force, seemed appropriate, and to me, it was. Heck, I could have made up any old word, and if worked for me, that's great. The problem with the word "Force", and many other terms that we've used, it that it has to many connotations associated with it and, therefore, is a poor word for communicating the idea of, well, whatever we want to call it. JEFF PITCHER

Soul or matter?

As I see my naturalistic Pantheist "faith" nothing even hints that there is such a being that even remotely can be called God. The Universe doesn't have a Soul as far as I know, and I can not see how any of us can have a soul. But we do suffer and have only each other to count on. BERN ROSTROM

Prayer

If the idea of prayer offends your sensibilities, consider it as an act of self-affirmation, a tool of self-psychotherapy. J. D. STILLWATER.

If we are to thank God for the good things, should we not also curse him for the bad things. I find it disturbing when people say, "Thank God for the lovely sunset," but never stop to think about tornadoes. MICHAEL SHANK.

One of the worse things about being brought up catholic, was being told; Oh. You want to find something. Pray. Oh. You want something from god. Pray. Oh. That was a terrible thing that happen to you. You must not have prayed right. LEE ANDERSON

I believe that the function of ritual, including 'prayer', is to create a feeling of reverence and awe towards the object of concern. Now whether you pray to a god-being or reflect inward toward your own self (meditation) is of no concern to me; if you use it to create reverence towards the earth and life then you are doing a good thing. From the beginnings of religion in spiritual animism (where all natural objects have their own spirit) man has created a sense of reverence for the natural world...as we moved farther and farther from this point toward a god removed from this 'sinful' world, we as a culture have less and less reverence for the earth...resulting in the destruction we see about us today. I need to routinely create that feeling of reverence for life and the world, within myself...so I ritually worship and pray...religiously. It fills an important need for me personally. BRUCE BLAISDELL.

The question of thanks giving has come up in relation to the topic of "inner dialogue", and I see THAT as affirmation of our love for existence and wonder at the splendor of our totality. Thankfulness is a "feeling" that, as Lee pointed out, is not required to be directed at anyone. RON HOOFT.

Our need to pray or pay homage to a higher level of being is a manifestation of our desire to "connect" with our surroundings; to seek a receiver of our gratitude and revelry for life. JOOLIKINS

I personally dislike the word prayer. There's no-one there to pray to. It's preparing yourself for action, perhaps attuning yourself to the energy of the Universe. I prefer the word meditation, or just "thought". PAUL HARRISON

Our need to pray or pay homage to a higher level of being is a manifestation of our desire to "connect" with our surroundings; to seek a receiver of our gratitude and revelry for life. JOOLIKINS

It is incorrect to say that there is no means of prayer in pantheism; It exist, but with a totally different form and purpose. Pantheism technically does not involve asking for benefit or granting of wishes. However, if a pantheist stands in Glacier National Park and silently respects what is being viewed then, therein is a form of pantheist prayer. No words need be spoken; It is that momentary union with creation and all that we are that counts. If one stops to recognize the small humming bird or a piece of architecture the same occurs. Pantheist ask nothing, but share and give of what they are. REGINALD ATKINS

I just can't understand why the hell we need a GOD who's to be PRAYERed in a CHURCH, when our (at least mine) aim is to seek the KNOWLEDGE (pertaining the Universe around us)? **> GOD is always the mystery round us - its concept has developed a no. of digitations (or branches) as it passed through the ages and through the people. **> A CHURCH musta been a place for a congregation where people come and discuss things over LIFE and the UNIVERSE round them. **> PRAYER - I can't think what's the need of it.
All of us have a common goal- to explore and find answers to all the questions like- >>>>>>what-where-why-when-how- are we, and the things around us??? And I don't need a GOD-CHURCH-PRAYER system for this! RATAN MOHAPATRA

Cults.

This is just the latest in a line of cult suicides or atrocities: Jonestown, Waco, Solar Temple, Heaven's Gate. What they all show is the frightening capacity for unreason that humans have in the departments of religion (and politics). Actually this unreason is the strongest reason why we need a rational religion.
But I think they all grow out of another ground too: the belief in an immortal soul and in an afterlife better than this life. The New Testament and the book of Revelation drum these concepts into every child's head in our societies, so they're pre-programmed. If those people believed firmly that this is the only life they'll ever get, and learned how to be positive about it, then they would not throw it away so lightly.
Mass lunacy is possible in any cult based on assertions without evidence and subjection to gurus (the two tend to go together, since only personal charisma can get people to believe a load of transparent nonsense.) Mass suicide is possible only where the suicides believe their souls are going on somewhere better.
Any pantheist's like that? I sure hope not. If they *were* like that, I don't think they would be pantheists anyway. Pantheism is empirical: everyone can see things for themselves using their senses, reason and science. They don't need gurus, and they have a habit of not believing things without good evidence.
And pantheism is positive about this earth and this life: there isn't a better place awaiting us anywhere, there's only here, so we must make the best of it. PAUL HARRISON

Our past religions

The fundamentalist is right. By strict interpretation of the bible, all they say is true. If you study and read it, as I have, you know that what they say is the right interpretation of the book. Their god is a monarch who DECREES sin and dishes out eternal punishment for the slightest transgression. To a human being who loves the earth and the universe and believes we are all part of the whole, it is a dangerous and destructive religion. That's why we have all left the churches we were brought up in, it doesn't make any sense to see "that" god as a loving father figure. RON HOOFT

As a young child I remember asking a preacher "Do birds go to heaven when they die?" The reply was something to the effect "No, they have no soul." How much that saddened me and still does to this day. Hence, the beginning of my disaffection with Christian religion. REGINALD ATKINS

Sundry comments and felicitous expressions

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page