Changes

The chief [[challenge]] to pantheism, according to critics, is the [[difficulty]] of deriving a warrant for the criteria of [[human]] [[good]]. How is one to [[establish]] any priority in the ordering of [[values]] and commitments if nature as a whole is considered [[divine]] and known to contain [[evil]] as well as [[good]], destruction as much as [[creation]]? In light of this concern, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cobb John Cobb] and other [[process]] theologians recommend a [[fundamental]] distinction between [[creativity]] as the [[ultimate]] [[reality]] and God as the [[ultimate]] [[actuality]]. In this way, the [[divine]] [[character]] is identified only with the [[good]]. Other theologians, like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Tracy David Tracy], view such a metaphysical distinction as dubious and point out that the denial of any [[identity]] between ultimate [[reality]] and the [[divine]] may foster the view that ultimate reality is not finally to be [[trusted]] as radically relational and self-manifesting. The pantheistic [[model]] is capable of countering both of these concerns. On the first point, pantheism underscores the blunt [[fact]] that the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike, whatever model of the [[divine]] one holds. Critics of pantheism [[observe]] that human [[efforts]] toward [[compassion]] and [[justice]] are frequently not reinforced by ultimate reality. [[Nature]] is often indifferent to human [[desires]] and deaf to moral urgencies. Pantheists say this is indicative of the remorselessness of [[things]], not of the superiority of either the theistic or the panentheistic model. In the second place, by collapsing the distinction between [[creativity]] and the [[divine]], pluralistic pantheism does identify the religious ultimate with the metaphysical ultimate, but this identification may or may not entail the further ([[Christian]]) specification of [[ultimate]] [[reality]] as radically relational and self-[[manifesting]]. Due to its extreme generality, the pantheistic model is susceptible to multiple specifications of various kinds, on lesser levels of generality as found within the more concrete [[symbols]] and images of the world's religious [[traditions]].

The chief [[challenge]] to pantheism, according to critics, is the [[difficulty]] of deriving a warrant for the criteria of [[human]] [[good]]. How is one to [[establish]] any priority in the ordering of [[values]] and commitments if nature as a whole is considered [[divine]] and known to contain [[evil]] as well as [[good]], destruction as much as [[creation]]? In light of this concern, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cobb John Cobb] and other [[process]] theologians recommend a [[fundamental]] distinction between [[creativity]] as the [[ultimate]] [[reality]] and God as the [[ultimate]] [[actuality]]. In this way, the [[divine]] [[character]] is identified only with the [[good]]. Other theologians, like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Tracy David Tracy], view such a metaphysical distinction as dubious and point out that the denial of any [[identity]] between ultimate [[reality]] and the [[divine]] may foster the view that ultimate reality is not finally to be [[trusted]] as radically relational and self-manifesting. The pantheistic [[model]] is capable of countering both of these concerns. On the first point, pantheism underscores the blunt [[fact]] that the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike, whatever model of the [[divine]] one holds. Critics of pantheism [[observe]] that human [[efforts]] toward [[compassion]] and [[justice]] are frequently not reinforced by ultimate reality. [[Nature]] is often indifferent to human [[desires]] and deaf to moral urgencies. Pantheists say this is indicative of the remorselessness of [[things]], not of the superiority of either the theistic or the panentheistic model. In the second place, by collapsing the distinction between [[creativity]] and the [[divine]], pluralistic pantheism does identify the religious ultimate with the metaphysical ultimate, but this identification may or may not entail the further ([[Christian]]) specification of [[ultimate]] [[reality]] as radically relational and self-[[manifesting]]. Due to its extreme generality, the pantheistic model is susceptible to multiple specifications of various kinds, on lesser levels of generality as found within the more concrete [[symbols]] and images of the world's religious [[traditions]].

For [[secular]]ist critics, the most significant objection to pluralistic pantheism is the semantic question. Why call it "[[God]]" or [[divine]]? According to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th_century nineteenth-century] German philosopher [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur Schopenhauer Arthur Schopenhauer], calling [[nature]] or the [[universe]] God does not [[explain]] anything, but only serves "to enrich our [[language]] with a superfluous synonym for the word 'world'" (p. 40). Pantheists are apt to concede this point but to urge attentiveness to nature's terrible [[beauty]] all the same. In the words of the early twentieth-century American poet [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet Monroe Harriet Monroe], "Call the Force God and [[worship]] it at a million [[shrines]], and it is no less [[sublime]]; call it Nature, and worship it in [[scientific]] gropings and [[discoveries]], and it is no less divine. It goes its own way, asking no homage, answering no questions". Recoiling from [[anthropomorphic]] [[myth]]-making, modern pantheists like Monroe [[express]] astonishment over the way religious creeds impose a [[name]] and person-like traits upon the [[creative]] force animating the [[universe]]. Avoidance of personalistic imagery and preference for vague talk of a "force" in nature is characteristic of contemporary pantheism.

For [[secular]]ist critics, the most significant objection to pluralistic pantheism is the semantic question. Why call it "[[God]]" or [[divine]]? According to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th_century nineteenth-century] German philosopher [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer Arthur Schopenhauer], calling [[nature]] or the [[universe]] God does not [[explain]] anything, but only serves "to enrich our [[language]] with a superfluous synonym for the word 'world'" (p. 40). Pantheists are apt to concede this point but to urge attentiveness to nature's terrible [[beauty]] all the same. In the words of the early twentieth-century American poet [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Monroe Harriet Monroe], "Call the Force God and [[worship]] it at a million [[shrines]], and it is no less [[sublime]]; call it Nature, and worship it in [[scientific]] gropings and [[discoveries]], and it is no less divine. It goes its own way, asking no homage, answering no questions". Recoiling from [[anthropomorphic]] [[myth]]-making, modern pantheists like Monroe [[express]] astonishment over the way religious creeds impose a [[name]] and person-like traits upon the [[creative]] force animating the [[universe]]. Avoidance of personalistic imagery and preference for vague talk of a "force" in nature is characteristic of contemporary pantheism.

 

==Science and religion==

==Science and religion==

Without using the term pantheism, many people who are not [[traditionally]] [[religious]] acknowledge the feeling that [[nature]] is [[sacred]]. While [[panentheism]] is a theological construction, pantheism probably has more [[grass roots]] appeal among ordinary people, [[artists]], and [[scientists]]. As the most important [[challenge]] that [[the sciences]] pose to [[traditional]] [[religion]] is their [[skepticism]] about the existence of "another world" not of [[human]] making or open to human [[inquiry]], [[supernaturalism]] is less and less an [[option]] among scientifically educated [[populations]]. In the [[engagement]] of science and religion issues, the relevant religious alternatives tend to reduce either to pantheism or to [[panentheism]]. Astrophysicist [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan Carl Sagan] spoke for those who prefer a straightforward pantheistic [[orientation]] over what they regard as the equivocations of [[panentheism]]: "A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by [[modern]] [[science]], might be able to draw forth reserves of [[reverence]] and [[awe]] untapped by the [[conventional]] [[faiths]]. Sooner or later, such a religion will [[emerge]]".

Without using the term pantheism, many people who are not [[traditionally]] [[religious]] acknowledge the feeling that [[nature]] is [[sacred]]. While [[panentheism]] is a theological construction, pantheism probably has more [[grass roots]] appeal among ordinary people, [[artists]], and [[scientists]]. As the most important [[challenge]] that [[the sciences]] pose to [[traditional]] [[religion]] is their [[skepticism]] about the existence of "another world" not of [[human]] making or open to human [[inquiry]], [[supernaturalism]] is less and less an [[option]] among scientifically educated [[populations]]. In the [[engagement]] of science and religion issues, the relevant religious alternatives tend to reduce either to pantheism or to [[panentheism]]. Astrophysicist [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan Carl Sagan] spoke for those who prefer a straightforward pantheistic [[orientation]] over what they regard as the equivocations of [[panentheism]]: "A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by [[modern]] [[science]], might be able to draw forth reserves of [[reverence]] and [[awe]] untapped by the [[conventional]] [[faiths]]. Sooner or later, such a religion will [[emerge]]".