13,094
edits
Changes
From Nordan Symposia
Jump to navigationJump to search
mLine 3:
Line 3: − + − + − + − + + + − The [[pluralistic]] type of pantheism is found in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James William James]'s ''A Pluralistic Universe'' (1908) as a [[hypothesis]] that supersedes his earlier "piecemeal supernaturalism" in ''The Varieties of Religious Experience'' (1902). James's conception emphasizes the full [[reality]] of insistent particulars, embedded in a [[complex]] web of conjunctive and disjunctive relations in which manyness is as real as oneness. Religiously, pluralistic pantheism affirms that [[evil]] is genuine, the [[divine]] is [[finite]], and [[salvation]], in any sense, is an open question. Further exemplifications of pluralistic pantheism are found in a series of late twentieth-century movements, including James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis that the earth behaves like a single entity, the [[deep ecology]] movement, the feminist spirituality movement, and the [[New Age]] movement. In 1990 American historian [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Albanese Catherine Albanese], canvassing [[diverse]] forms of pantheistic [[piety]] since the early republic, considered [[nature]] [[religion]] in America "alive and well, growing daily, and probably a strong suit for the century to come" − + − + − + + Line 35:
Line 37: − +
Text replacement - "http://" to "https://"
==Origin==
==Origin==
French panthéisme, from panthéiste pantheist, from [[English]] pantheist, from pan- + [[Greek]] theos god
French panthéisme, from panthéiste pantheist, from [[English]] pantheist, from pan- + [[Greek]] theos god
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18th_century 1732]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18th_century 1732]
==Definitions==
==Definitions==
*1: a [[doctrine]] that equates [[God]] with the [[forces]] and laws of the [[universe]]
*1: a [[doctrine]] that equates [[God]] with the [[forces]] and laws of the [[universe]]
*2: the [[worship]] of all gods of [[different]] [[creeds]], [[cults]], or peoples indifferently; also : [[toleration]] of [[worship]] of all gods (as at certain periods of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_empire Roman empire])
*2: the [[worship]] of all gods of [[different]] [[creeds]], [[cults]], or peoples indifferently; also : [[toleration]] of [[worship]] of all gods (as at certain periods of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_empire Roman empire])
==Description==
==Description==
Derived from the [[Greek]] [[words]] pan (all) and theos ([[God]]), thus meaning "all is God," '''pantheism''' is the view that the [[universe]] or [[nature]] as a [[whole]] is [[divine]]. In relation to rival views, pantheism is defined as the [[doctrine]] that [[God]] is neither externally [[transcendent]] to the world, as in classical [[theism]], nor [[immanently]] present within the world, as in [[panentheism]], but rather is identical with the world.
Derived from the [[Greek]] [[words]] pan (all) and theos ([[God]]), thus meaning "all is God," '''pantheism''' is the view that the [[universe]] or [[nature]] as a [[whole]] is [[divine]]. In relation to rival views, pantheism is defined as the [[doctrine]] that [[God]] is neither externally [[transcendent]] to the world, as in classical [[theism]], nor [[immanently]] present within the world, as in [[panentheism]], but rather is identical with the world.
As a [[religious]] position, pantheism holds that [[nature]] is imbued with [[value]] and worthy of [[respect]], [[reverence]], and [[awe]]. As a philosophical position, pantheism is the [[belief]] in an all-inclusive [[unity]], variously formulated. Historically, the [[nature]] of the [[unity]] has been defined quite differently in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plotinus Plotinus]'s "One," Baruch [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinoza Spinoza]'s "Substance," [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegel Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]'s "Geist," and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Hartshorne Charles Hartshorne]'s "All-Inclusive [[Totality]]." Due to [[ambiguities]] in the chief [[analogies]] used by philosophers ([[whole]]-[[part]]; [[mind]]-[[body]]) the line between pantheistic and [[panentheistic]] positions is often difficult to draw. In general, pantheism represents an ''alternative'' to the classical theistic notion of [[God]] in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_philosophy Western philosophy] and [[theology]], and has close counterparts in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taosim Taoism], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta Advaita Vedanta], and certain schools of [[Buddhism]]. It is also the ism closest in [[spirit]] to Native American religions.
As a [[religious]] position, pantheism holds that [[nature]] is imbued with [[value]] and worthy of [[respect]], [[reverence]], and [[awe]]. As a philosophical position, pantheism is the [[belief]] in an all-inclusive [[unity]], variously formulated. Historically, the [[nature]] of the [[unity]] has been defined quite differently in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plotinus Plotinus]'s "One," Baruch [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinoza Spinoza]'s "Substance," [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegel Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]'s "Geist," and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Hartshorne Charles Hartshorne]'s "All-Inclusive [[Totality]]." Due to [[ambiguities]] in the chief [[analogies]] used by philosophers ([[whole]]-[[part]]; [[mind]]-[[body]]) the line between pantheistic and [[panentheistic]] positions is often difficult to draw. In general, pantheism represents an ''alternative'' to the classical theistic notion of [[God]] in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_philosophy Western philosophy] and [[theology]], and has close counterparts in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taosim Taoism], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta Advaita Vedanta], and certain schools of [[Buddhism]]. It is also the ism closest in [[spirit]] to Native American religions.
==Types of pantheism==
==Types of pantheism==
Two broad types of pantheism may be distinguished: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism monistic] pantheism and pluralistic pantheism. Examples of monistic pantheism are classical [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinoza Spinozistic] pantheism, which devalued the importance of [[dynamic]] and pluralistic categories, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism Hindu] forms of pantheism, which have relegated [[change]] and pluralism to the realm of the [[illusory]] and [[phenomenal]]. In addition, the [[romantic]] and [[idealistic]] types of pantheism that flourished in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th_century nineteenth-century] England and America were generally [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism monistic].
Two broad types of pantheism may be distinguished: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism monistic] pantheism and pluralistic pantheism. Examples of monistic pantheism are classical [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinoza Spinozistic] pantheism, which devalued the importance of [[dynamic]] and pluralistic categories, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism Hindu] forms of pantheism, which have relegated [[change]] and pluralism to the realm of the [[illusory]] and [[phenomenal]]. In addition, the [[romantic]] and [[idealistic]] types of pantheism that flourished in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th_century nineteenth-century] England and America were generally [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism monistic].
The [[pluralistic]] type of pantheism is found in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James William James]'s ''A Pluralistic Universe'' (1908) as a [[hypothesis]] that supersedes his earlier "piecemeal supernaturalism" in ''The Varieties of Religious Experience'' (1902). James's conception emphasizes the full [[reality]] of insistent particulars, embedded in a [[complex]] web of conjunctive and disjunctive relations in which manyness is as real as oneness. Religiously, pluralistic pantheism affirms that [[evil]] is genuine, the [[divine]] is [[finite]], and [[salvation]], in any sense, is an open question. Further exemplifications of pluralistic pantheism are found in a series of late twentieth-century movements, including James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis that the earth behaves like a single entity, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology deep ecology] movement, the feminist spirituality movement, and the [[New Age]] movement. In 1990 American historian [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Albanese Catherine Albanese], canvassing [[diverse]] forms of pantheistic [[piety]] since the early republic, considered [[nature]] [[religion]] in America "alive and well, growing daily, and probably a strong suit for the century to come"
==Challenges to pantheism==
==Challenges to pantheism==
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, [https://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 [https://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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th_century nineteenth-century] German philosopher [https://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 [https://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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grass_roots 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 [https://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]]".
==Bibliography==
==Bibliography==
*Albanese, Catherine. Nature Religion in America: From the Algonkian Indians to the New Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.
*Albanese, Catherine. Nature Religion in America: From the Algonkian Indians to the New Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.
*FRANKENBERRY, NANCY. "Pantheism." Encyclopedia of Science and Religion.
*FRANKENBERRY, NANCY. "Pantheism." Encyclopedia of Science and Religion.
*Ed. J. Wentzel Vrede van Huyssteen. Vol. 2. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2003. 645-647. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 9 Sept. 2010.
*Ed. J. Wentzel Vrede van Huyssteen. Vol. 2. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2003. 645-647. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 9 Sept. 2010.
*Document URL: http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?&id=GALE%7CCX3404200383&v=2.1&u=tel_a_uots&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w
*Document URL: https://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?&id=GALE%7CCX3404200383&v=2.1&u=tel_a_uots&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w
[[Category: Religion]]
[[Category: Religion]]
