Changes

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: [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].

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"  

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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology 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"

 

==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, [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]].