Talk:Pantheism

Removal of serious confusions with Theism and Panentheism plus non-existent versions of Pantheism

The article as it stood at January 7th 2010 was very seriously misleading and a serious disservice to Wikipedia readers. Many ideas not found in Pantheism but derived from Panentheism or even Theism had been inserted. Non-existent theistic and panentheistic "versions" of Pantheism (Classical Pantheism and Biblical Pantheism) had been inserted. My edit removes many of these errors but more work is needed in inserting citations. Naturalistic ✉ 01:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. I had begun to think you had vanished into thin air :) Ren ✉ 02:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I had been discouraged by the continual edit wars here caused by a small number of people intent on inserting erroneous or newly invented versions into the subject. I got tired of having to come back every single day and see some new act of vandalism. Frequently my efforts were deleted within half an hour of making them. Now that the Wikipedia article is the number one Google result for Pantheism, I believe it is a public duty to get this right, to make it accurate and unbiassed, and to keep it that way. I hope to bring along some more people who know this subject and its history very well indeed, and enough of them to keep the article in good shape. There's still much work to be done here. Naturalistic ✉ 18:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I know the feeling. Now that google gives way too much credit to wikipedia, we're obliged to make it good... At least, although I myself only know of the basic principles of pantheism, we could clearly see there was something terribly wrong with this article. (And one particular editor's actions come to mind)Ren ✉ 20:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The pandeism part is abbreviated and merged it into the section on panentheism. Torquemama007 (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ren, I restored just this one section from Archive 4, the reason being that this is the first part of what will be a whole sequence related to upgrading this article and making more accurate and objective. It will be useful for people to see the development. Naturalistic (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think having a whole section on Spinoza overstates his relative importance in respect to the doctrine. Torquemama007 (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree Torquemama, and it should not be a special section but go in the History of pantheism part. In the next week or two I am going to give the whole thing a thorough makeover. Naturalistic (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Issues with Cosmotheism

Given the extreme marginality of this term, I do not think it belongs here. The article Cosmotheism was changed so it redirects here. I don't think that's a great idea. In my view the best approach would be to restore that article and remove the redirect, and insert in that article the material from here. This would reduce the vandalism and sabotage of the Pantheism article by certain parties. I cannot find any reference to H. G. Wells use of the term cosmotheism, other than here, so I have removed that paragraph. Naturalistic (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorted. There are no refs for Cosmotheism though, if you know where to find them let me know.Ren ✉ 15:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I also find it hard to believe that cosmotheism has anything to do with Pantheism if it is indeed promoting the idea that god is created by humans through social planning and eugenics. I'm also looking into bringing back a version of that article from 6 years ago. Ren ✉ 19:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point Ren, and I agree regarding the relation with Pantheism. Hence there is a case for removing the links between these two articles. Naturalistic (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. The word "cosmotheism" is similar to "pantheism". If the two are indeed related (there are suggestions cosmotheism and "classical pantheism" are the same), then the links should stay. It says on other places that cosmotheism shares with some form of panentheism, with the worst stuff being that white people are god, basically. We need to find some sort of university professor I think. There are some things google doesn't know about, and that greatly limits my abilities to contribute in this area. Many Pantheism-like pages have suffered a lot of vandalism, complete OR and rubbish over the years, surely someone other than us would be interested in helping.Ren ✉ 01:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

As you may have guessed, I am an acknowledged expert on pantheism. I also asked Michael Levine - author of a "Pantheism" - book to help out, but he did not respond. He is more into the detail of the philosophical debates, which may not be quite what is wanted here. Also he authored the Stanford article, which comes in at no 4 on Google. Naturalistic (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There is and never has been any such thing as "classical pantheism." In so far as the term has ever been used in books, it refers (eg in Elements of Pantheism) to pantheism of the classical period ie Greece and Rome. The deleted material showed that this term was being used here as a cover for theistic distortions that were actually completely incompatible with any definition of pantheism, and was made up by one or other of the main POV pushers here, to make their own preferred version seem more authoritative. The trouble with cosmotheism is that its current use relates almost entirely to white supremacy. Also the description of the two main cosmotheists indicate that their idea was that humans were in the process of creating God via eugenics/social engineering. That idea has nothing to do with Pantheism. Naturalistic (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's what I had been suspecting all along. I thought cosmotheism was some kind of theistic pantheism, but apart from mumblings on the talk pages, I can find no evidence of that.

Btw, it would be interesting to write something to show the difference between pantheism and theistic omnipotence/omnipresence, to make things clear. Also something must be done about the unreferenced sections on other religions. I can definitely see what Taoism is doing there, the others, such as christianity, I'm really not sure.(I had looked before, and could not find any evidence of any kind of pantheism in christianity) Ren ✉ 06:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that the German article de:Kosmotheismus does describe what sounds like a kind of pantheism or cosmos worship, identifying it with Eastern religions, and none of that white supremacy bullshit. It also lists two books in German as sources which seem to be serious, scholarly works on religions. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Major edit of History section

Today I placed all historical material in the history section - except for the detailed coverage of individual religions. I still have to add references here, which I will do soon. I also removed the separate section on Spinoza, which was 1. Pushing a POV 2. Original research and 3. Belongs, if anywhere at all, in the article on Spinoza. Naturalistic (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

New "Issues within Pantheism" and "Criticisms of Pantheism" sections

Since the section on Ethics was just stuck in there by itself, I created a new "Issues within Pantheism" section which can cover use of religious vocabulary, rituals or no rituals, and other issues and internal debates. I also added a "Criticisms of Pantheism" section including Christian critiques and Schopenhauer. This will prove a useful section to avoid random criticisms being stuck inside other explanatory sections.Naturalistic (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Copy of "See also" for easy salvage in the future

I have never seen so many wikilinks at the bottom of a page on wikipedia, not even in a tamplate. They had to go. What really deserves to be there should stay. Consider a philosophy template.

• Deism
• Atheism
• Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
• Collective unconscious
• Cosmology
• Dualism
• Emergence
• Great Spirit
• Paul Harrison
• Hermetic Qabalah
• Holism
• Infinitism
• Kabbalah

• Mana
• Monism
• The Nation of Gods and Earths
• Naturalism
• Naturalistic pantheism
• Nature worship (disambiguation)
• Noosphere
• Oneness (disambiguation)
• Oversoul
• List of Pantheists
• Quakerism
• Ranters
• Religious naturalism

• Baruch Spinoza
• Stoicism
• Sufi metaphysics
• Sufism
• John Toland
• Unitarian Universalism
• Universal Pantheist Society
• Vedanta
• World Pantheist Movement
• Cosmotheism

Ren ✉ 01:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I restored a severely pruned version of this long list, removing articles that were unconnected as well as articles that were directly connected inside the main body. Naturalistic (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Issues within Pantheism

The issues found within Pantheism (as stated by the article) can be found in the article too. I find the inclusion of a "part of a series on God" box and "theism" template to be extremely confusing, since the words "God" and as such "theism" have unusual definitions in Pantheism. I'd rather only keep the philosophy of religion template (auto-expanded) at the bottom, and find a similarly appropriate box at the top, or make on of our own if necessary. What do you think?Ren ✉ 02:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Naturalistic (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ross Douthat's critique of "Avatar"

We should say something in here about conservative columnist Ross Douthat's New York Times editorial on the movie Avatar (titled "Heaven and Nature", which is just a naked broadside against Pantheism:

The Na’Vi are saved by the movie’s hero, a turncoat Marine, but they’re also saved by their faith in Eywa, the “All Mother,” described variously as a network of energy and the sum total of every living thing.

If this narrative arc sounds familiar, that’s because pantheism has been Hollywood’s religion of choice for a generation now. It’s the truth that Kevin Costner discovered when he went dancing with wolves. It’s the metaphysic woven through Disney cartoons like “The Lion King” and “Pocahontas.” And it’s the dogma of George Lucas’s Jedi, whose mystical Force “surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together.”

Hollywood keeps returning to these themes because millions of Americans respond favorably to them. From Deepak Chopra to Eckhart Tolle, the “religion and inspiration” section in your local bookstore is crowded with titles pushing a pantheistic message.

....<more of the same snipped>....

Pantheism offers a different sort of solution: a downward exit, an abandonment of our tragic self-consciousness, a re-merger with the natural world our ancestors half-escaped millennia ago.

But except as dust and ashes, Nature cannot take us back.

This has sparked up a whirlwind, mostly for the subtext of the Christian fear of Pantheism's resurgence, but hardly any attention has been paid to Douthat's ignorance of what exactly Pantheism is. Torquemama007 (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That's because of the works of Joseph campbell ( the hero with a thousand faces is a scriptwriter's must-read), and also because pantheistic concepts keep everyone happy. (And I actually think that's why Pantheism was 'created' for.) Weird, yet simple mystical stuff works. I doubt Avatar is related though. Avatar is more like naturalistic Matrixism. I see their hair as a USB port and their forest as a supercomputer. Pantheism, on the other hand, goes beyond the gaia concepts and similar.Ren ✉ 17:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

But there's still this popular misconception out there, and a steady drumbeat of Christian attacks on their straw man version of pantheism. Torquemama007 (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually Avatar and Douthat have caused a goodly increase in visits to Pantheism pages and numbers joining Pantheist social sites. Along with the Vatican attacking Pantheism, all this publicity and visibility is helping Pantheism quite a bit. With enemies like these, who needs friends? Let them attack Pantheism, and let pantheists respond right there on the same Web pages. As far as Wikipedia covering this, personally I don't think that this overview article should debate the latest controversy of the day, nor can it take a partisan view. This particular article has for a long time been wrecked because it was simply a battleground among different types of pantheists, and between pantheists and anti-pantheists. Naturalistic (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Is that not exactly why they should be remarked upon in the article? Tho the attack comes from a stunningly misinterpreted form of Pantheism, it does expose the anti-pantheist workings of those committed to theistic mindsets. It is part of a seemingly coordinated attack. Consider the similar misrepresentation of Deism in Moralistic therapeutic deism, and conservative blogger Mark Finkelstein attack on Pandeism in the New York Times last year (titled "Happy Pan-Deism Day From Gail Collins"), falsely insisting that "Pandeists worship trees and brooks." Now think about that, we are talking about editorials carried in the New York Times. Imagine if someone wrote an editorial similarly virulent against a major theistic faith, Judaism maybe, or Mormonism? They'd get their throat handed to them. But throw out scornful and misinformed bigotry against Pantheism and Pandeism (or, probably, Deism) and you get a pat on the back and nationwide publication. Torquemama007 (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I sympathize with your viewpoint Torquemama, however, there are always going to be attacks and criticisms on Pantheism from theistic viewpoints. There have been very prominent attacks by atheists on theism in recent years, and those guys are still alive and thriving and selling 100,000s of books.

If this Wikipedia article is used to report and respond to everyday attacks, then the attackers will come right in here and start messing the article up with Point Of View stuff, and the job of keeping it clean and neutral would get much much harder - just like it used to be a few years back when it became impossible to keep up with the critical POV people and they ran away with this article. This Wikipedia article is the number one result in a Google Pantheism search, it's crucial to keep it accurate and non-partisan.

This is just one article by one guy, and the main body of it actually presented Pantheism reasonably fairly, he just drew a couple of wrong conclusions and had a dismal view of nature. His article actually reflected worse on his own Catholic beliefs than on Pantheism. Of more significance I think is that Avatar, the biggest grossing movie of all time, was widely and correctly identified with Pantheism, and also that the Vatican attacked Pantheism in official Papal statements twice within six months. These are very significant developments and are worthy of note, I will write something on that. Douthat can be mentioned en passant, he was the one who first pointed out the association and many other people picked up that point. --Naturalistic (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That's reasonable I guess. Maybe a separate article altogether is needed, on pop-culture incorporations of Pantheism. Here's another thing to add to the pile, a sustained campaign against Oprah Winfrey also characterizing her, in a negative tone, as a Pantheist. Torquemama007 (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What to do with Jewish, Christian and Islamic Pantheism sections?

These need some serious work before they are accurate and neutral, but there's a bigger problem than that. Strictly speaking, there are no versions of Pantheism as such that form part of any of these religions. There are individual writers like Ibn al Arabi who have suggested than nothing exists except God (because He is perfect and therefore has no need of anything extra). It follows then that everything that exists is a part of God and everything in Holy. There are also emanationists like Plotinus or the Kabbalists, who see the Universe as an emanation of or extension of God, and therefore in some sense made out of God, though the outer reaches are much more distant from God. This certainly has some similarity with Pantheism, but Pantheism's start and end point is the Universe - only the Universe exists. The start and end point of these theisms is God - only God exists. In these theistic versions, God is really God, not just a way of looking at nature and the universe. So my view is that they do not classify as versions of pantheism. Nor for that matter are they versions of panentheism. Probably a new term is needed for them. My personal inclination would be to remove the sections relating to Jewish, Christian and Islamic pantheism. I have found only two very minor examples of modern people who claim to be Christian pantheists, ie. two individuals, and no movements or organizations. Some people suggest that Matthew Fox or Michael Dowd are pantheists, but both of them are well aware of the term and yet do not use it. Naturalistic (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I favour deletion. Obviously if new evidence comes to light these sections can be brought back, but as they are now they apparently only present OR.Ren ✉ 03:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice move. Removes a great deal of confusion. Naturalistic (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Abraham Kook wrote in more than one essay that the view of Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov is truly pantheistic, although not in the Spinozan sense, but a step beyond. The view presented in Sefer HaTanya can be seen as pantheistic, or at least panentheistic, and these assertions are supported there by quotations from Maimonides, Rabbi Moshe Cordovero and Rabbi Isaac Luria.Flange the Flee (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Taoism

There needs to be a division between Philosophical and Religious Daoism, because the two ARE separate schools, they should not be treated as if though they are the same thing. Lao Tzu's "The Tao Te Ching" was never meant to be a work of mysticism, nor was it a religious work, all it was, was a way of observing things, nothing more. Overanalyzing "The Tao Te Ching" is a mistake, because strictly speaking Daoist Philosophy is all about simplicity. Additionally, even if Lao Tzu were talking about God, which likely he wasn't;

1) Since Daoist Philosophy urges humility, the philosopher Lao Tzu would not have claimed to know God, and out of humility, even Lao Tzu had met him (God), he would not have bragged about it, being the accomplished master that he was.

2) Daoism is all about paradoxes, example; "high and low set measure by each other," which is a simple paradox. It basically says, you only know something, when you have something else to compare it to. In the strictest Daoist logic, God would have to exist, because we know, there is no God. Lets stop and think about that for a minute; if high and low set measure by each other, if you can only know one thing unless you know the other, since we know there is no God, then it stands to reason, God exists. That does not seem to make logical sense, unless, you see it as a paradox; this falls into a commonly used counter argument against atheists, namely the fact that God needs to exist, in order to be denied. Is it commonly used, or am I the first? To say God does not exist, is a paradoxical statement, because according to Daoist philosophy everything has its opposite. If there are conclusive facts, I am talking facts here, observable facts, that God does not exist, then strictly speaking, God exists, the statement is a paradox. Are there scientific facts, God does not exist? Absolutely, here's the problem though; in a binary system you have "1" and you have "0," quantity, and emptyness. Since everything in the universe has an opposite, then, it stands to reason, that the opposite, of facts that prove God does not exist, are facts, that he does exist. I could go around in circles all day with this, so I'll get to the point; paradoxical as Taoism is, the way of thinking does not lend itself to extremism. What I mean is, no self-respecting Daoist, would claim the universe is "impersonal," because, that's extremism, it is an unbalanced look at things. If in Daoist philosophy God were acknowledged, he would be simultaneously both personal, and impersonal, that is, paradoxical, creative, and destructive, merciful, yet ruthless, and so on.

3) Even in religious Daoism however, there are literally hundreds of schools, so that part of the article needs a cleanup.

I hope these suggestions were constructive, my second point was overlong and seemed like discussing things but I wasn't, I barely understand Daoist Philosophy myself even though I've studied the Tao Te Ching for years now. I can not claim to know the mind of Lao Tzu, but I can say with a fair degree of certainty, it is over analyzed. Lao Tzu, was all about simplicity, hence, it is best to approach any of his philosophies, with simplicity in mind, simplicity but at the same time, being prepared to have paradoxes thrown at you. Ultimately the Philosophy is all about balance, in order for harmony to exist, while balance does not require a creator, the idea of balance nevertheless strongly implies, a tremendously powerful force would be needed, to maintain it.

Hence if Lao Tzu did ever talk about God, "Shangdi" if you Chinese purists prefer, is only HINTED at, in the Tao Te Ching, never explicitly talked about. Anyway I have overstated my suggestion for the article; I just think the part on Daoism needs a clean up, again Daoism, is divided into two categories, namely Philosophical Daoism, and Religious Daoism, and both branches have a myriad of schools. Again Philosophical Daoism is exactly that; no different from the Greek school of Cynics of which Diogenes is the most famous member. To the Chinese, Diogenes would be a Daoist; both the Cynical Greek school, and Daoist Philosophy, are decidedly anti materialist. Of course, Diogenes could be accused of taking his philosophy of "simplicity" to an extreme..... and Daoist thinking doesn't like that. Oh no, no extremes; its all about balance. Long point overstated; there is Philosophical Daoism, which in and of itself has a large number of schools, some of which, the texts were burned by the Qin emperor, then there is Religious Daoism which follows some of the precepts of Philosophical Daoism, however, again its a separate branch, and even within that branch there are numberless sub-branches.

Again please make the distinction between the two.

67.148.120.103 (talk) 10:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)stardingo747

Philosophical and religious Taoism aren't "separate". The differences between the two aren't relevant to this article. The pantheist god is the equivalent of the Tao, and taoists, religious or not, do not worship the tao, in the same way pantheists do not worship their 'god'. Religious taoism brings ethics (pantheism doesn't), organization (temples and such, pantheism doesn't either), and, depending on the school, deities that are borrowed from other traditions. Pantheism is only related to the Tao and the Tao is present in 'both' Taosim(s).Ren ✉ 17:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section

Subject to agreement from editors committed to accuracy, I have removed the criticism section. I think this section crept in for two reasons: 1. The early framers of this article and several of the frequent editors were actually critics of Pantheism. 2. People like myself were not very familiar with Wikipedia and thought that neutral meant "covering both sides of the controversy." I just checked similar Wikipedia entries (Atheism, Humanism, Deism, Theism, Christianity) and I did not find any "Criticism" sections even though plenty of academics have plenty of critiques of all of these. I think Pantheism should be treated in a similar manner. It makes sense to have each article explaining what that belief system is. Critiques of each type of belief are legion - eg Atheists, Moslems and Jews each have their own (and different) sets of critiques of Christianity. It would be arbitrary to select any particular set of critiques and leave out the rest, and ridiculous to include them all. I suggest that the Ethics question be covered as a separate section - not as part of a criticism section. Naturalistic (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Subject to agreement from editors committed to accuracy, I have removed the criticism section. I think this section crept in because the early framers of this article and several of the frequent editors were actually critics of Pantheism and inserted their own POV criticisms. (Changed by User:Naturalistic on 4 July 2010, noted here by BCorr|Брайен 23:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC))

I have reintroduced the Grounding of Ethics section again under the "issues" section as suggested in the discussion above, as it was very helpful to the article in my opinion. 203.166.39.162 (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Arroneous

The particular form which the ethics section took was just another criticism of Pantheism by a non-Pantheist. Schopenhauer's objection is simply based on a misunderstanding of Pantheism, or is addressed only at the most simplistic and fairy tale version of Pantheism. Responding to such critiques is not part of what readers expect of a Wikipedia article, nor do we find this type of critique in the similar articles I cite above (Atheism, Humanism, Deism, Theism, Christianity). An Issues within Pantheism section should present precisely that - not issues that non-Pantheists raise about Pantheism. Ethics within Pantheism relate to, for example, vegetarianism, hunting, the status of human technologies etc. Naturalistic (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding references

I started expanding the references as requested. --Naturalistic (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Other religions section

Next step is to address this section, to simplify, clarify and add refs. --Naturalistic (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It says here "There are many elements of pantheism in some forms of Buddhism, Neopaganism, and Theosophy along with many varying denominations and individuals within and without denominations." Naturally, more is needed, especially for Buddhism. What forms of Buddhism? When, how where? Torquemama007 (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Taoism

I completely rewrote this section, added references and removed the "needs references" tag. --Naturalistic (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Theopanism

I have just discovered this article, Theopanism, and I'm not sure what to do with it. A little research shows that it is mostly expressed as some kind of parallel to Pantheism. To make things even more confusing, there's a number of of references to a "Theopantism" which is similar but also distinct. Torquemama007 (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

By coincidence I came across this in the last few days, and was impressed by it as a concept. Admittedly, it is very little used so far, but it could be very helpful in cxlearing up some confusions about Pantheism. I personally would find it very useful indeed to distinguish that type of Pantheism that starts out from the idea of God, and proceeds to show that since God is perfect, self-sufficient, in need of nothing etc etc that therefore nothing exists except God. Therefore everything we see is God. This is actually a very different position from Pantheism and starts at the opposite extreme from Pantheism. Examples include Ibn Al'Arabi and other sufis, and (it can be argued) even Spinoza. I would suggest not trying to delete it. I will try to dig out more stuff about it. --Naturalistic (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection??

I am inclined to request semi-protection for this page, on the basis of recurrent vandalism by frivolous visitors. Three recent examples from the last three or four weeks, all by unregistered visitors 1. Pantheist women are hot (true but doesn't belong here :D) 2. Pantheism means humans were created by a group of panthers 3. "Athiesm (sic) is poopy. Semi-protection would limit editing to registered Wikipedia users (correct me if I'm wrong). This would probably avoid most example of vandalism and stupid edits. I'm interested to here what others think. --Naturalistic (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: the powers that be decided that we don't need semi-protection (against users who have not registered or signed in). I can understand that viewpoint, which leaves Wikipedia at it's maximal crowd-sourced wisdom (or folly or chaos). What it does mean is that those people who care about accuracy have to keep vigilant against vandalism, inaccuracy, theorizing, and other unhelpful changes. --Naturalistic (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins and Pantheism

" Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion gave Naturalistic Pantheism increased credibility among atheists by describing it as "sexed-up atheism." Is this really correct? To me it sounds as if Dawkins is mocking pantheism rather than promoting it. And it seems unlikely that a single paragraph in one of his books would significantly alter atheist's opinions of pantheism. -- 90.228.208.15 (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2010

If you read the section of the book (page 18) you will see that Dawkins not at all mocking pantheism, he's serious - and he's accurate, at least about Naturalistic Pantheism. And Dawkins goes on to say he is religious in the same sense that Einstein said he was religious (p19). The reason that quote is important is that it gives Pantheism increased credibility in atheist circles. Moreover the direct quote has been extensively used in ads by the World Pantheist Movement. --Naturalistic (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, having read the section in the book I believe Dawkins is mocking Pantheism - he is dismissive of it, believing that Atheists should openly declare their non-belief.

More importantly there is no evidence that pantheism has 'increased credibility among atheists' as a result of Dawkins. The notion that one line in a book (even one by a noted atheist and scientist such as Dawkins) is anything more than a symptom of the resurgence of Pantheism is ludicrous. It should be removed. Aapter (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

A near endorsement by the world's most famous atheist is in and of itself an expression of "increased credibility among atheists," and cannot fail to have an effect beyond Dawkins. Please read The God Delusion pp 18-19 carefully. There is no doubt that Dawkins suggests that pantheism is sexed-up atheism and "uses the word God as a non-supernatural synonym for Nature"; that Einstein was pantheistic; and that Dawkins himself is religious in the same sense that Einstein was (though he prefers not to use the word religious). Note also that Naturalistic Pantheism as represented in the World Pantheist Movement does not use the word God or other god-related expressions, and two thirds of people surveyed by the WPM are uncomfortable using the word God of their own beliefs (ie they are atheistic). Naturalistic (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Much better than in January 2010, but still needs work

A lot of very good and helpful editing has been done on this article over the last few months, but it still needs a lot of work, andf in particular it is promoting one POV about what Pantheism is over others. Material is repeatedly excised saying it is POV, but without detailed explanation or clarification -- it seems to be replacing one point of view with another. It would be very helpful if people who have not heavily edited this article since January could work on it, and so I am tagging it.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 13:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I would request that you read the following comment and consider removing the tags. All edits and reversions by me since January 2000 have been made on the basis of very careful academic accuracy. If the article looks way better now, it is because of this approach. The revisions I have made are not at all POV - I am extremely careful to avoid that. The major types of pantheism are presented in a neutral fashion without bias towards any one version. However, it is very important to keep in mind the distinction between pantheism and panentheism, which is not at all the same as pantheism.

Many of the people occasionally popping in to edit this article are unregistered. Many of the changes they made have been unsourced, inaccurate, and very clearly written off the top of their heads. The space provided to explain an edit is very brief and so I give brief explanations. If you think I should explain every reversion in detail in this talk page, please say so, as it is easy to do so. However, I think it is questionable whether changes by non-registered passers-by merit such treatment. --Naturalistic (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Naturalistic. I appreciate your explanation and I think it makes sense. I do think it would be quite helpful to add even a few words to your edit summaries giving an indication of why something removed was POV content or how the edit promotes NPOV. Having limited familiarity and knowledge of the topic, it has not been clear as I look at the edits and reversions. Also, I do have a sensitivity to situations where it might appear that someone is "guarding" an article, but it isn't clear to what end or with what understanding (even assuming good faith) -- perhaps based on my own tendency to do the same in my early days as an editor.

Thanks again, BCorr|Брайен 01:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful position BCorr. In future, with registered users, I will give more detailed reasons if they will fit and if not add an entry on the talk page.

I'd be very grateful if you could remove the "needs attention from an expert" tag. I am actually one of the three leading experts with published books on the subject. I tried to get the author of the other two books also involved here, but they did not respond. Re the God Pan etymology, I did actually respond in user Aregakn's talk page but probably should have done so in the Pantheism talk page. The basic point is that Pan as in the God Pan did not play any part in the etymology of the word, which was a neologism newly created in the late 17th/early 18th century. It's questionable if the fact that some people erroneously believe the god Pan has something to do with Pantheism is sufficient reason to include it. As to "guarding" it's true that I frequently "watch" this article, because like many religious or political articles it attracts controversial insertions which, 90% of the time, are not well founded. My only aspiration here is to keep this article in line with the dictionaries and philosophy texts and sources. --Naturalistic (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Several Recent Edits

I have tried to address several of the topics brought up as well as clarify some issue I found myself. Everything I have added is referenced so please do not delete anything without first looking at the reference. I would propose that further expansions are put in one of the three sub categories of Pantheism to prevent the page from becoming too long. Perhaps we then should add a specific page on dualist pantheism for more information on that topic. There is plenty of history on the idealism and Naturalism_(philosophy) pages, perhaps some paraphrasing and references would be good to add here so that it is easy for people to redirect. I have finished my editing for now and will move on to other topics. Edmonds University Mainz Jan 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.93.128.12 (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Pantheism

Dudes, I was just now looking at Portal:Christianity and I saw that there's actually like a dozen portals for Christianity alone -- I'm talking, different portals just for Christianity in India, and Christianity in China. So why no Portal:Pantheism? DeistCosmos (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC) We aren't really big enough or developed enough to get a portal yet...yet ;) Kungfukats2 (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Questionable reversion

Earlier this month, there was obviously a lot of work by a knowledgeable person, who cited their improvements. It was reverted for the reason "of POV and original research additions by non-identified person." (It was an IP, but please understand that an IP can be a first class editor.) I think the work should be pretty much returned to the article. — CpiralCpiral 21:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I reverted it. The person was using a very inaccurate definition of pantheism (which he or she calls the "technical" definition). They call the definition that's in the dictionaries and textbooks and which was previously included in this article the "popular" definition. So from square one their viewpoint was ill-informed and highly tendentious. There is not even an academic controversy which takes that person's viewpoint.

Giving citations is no protection against being seriously misinformed about the fundamental issues of the subject concerned. Original research means making original arguments that are not based on a published source. Wikipedia can not be used for people with bees in their bonnet to argue their own personal viewpoints. I would have reverted it whether the person was identified or not, and for exactly the same reasons. --Naturalistic (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not convinced yet. There is no record of "technical" V.S. "popular" definition in this forum. But please let me help you convince me.

• I want Dawkin's.
• I want Webster's dictionary.
• I want Beiser. I want Einstein. I esp. want Tillich.

Why should the article have zero presentation on these things I would rather see than not? Granted, the lead was not the place for nuance, and the wording was poor. — CpiralCpiral 07:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it was late and I didn't do much rewriting... I'd meant to say my impression was that the contributor made up the part about a popular vs. unpopular/technical distinction. I don't think it was intentional, it just needed explaining, something like: Warts & All vs. Cosmos, the Good Parts... or so I imagine, that's just WP:OR. The terms were fashionable for so long, it's hard to tell what anyone meant without research. But certainly not that, so the editor has my sympathizes, although I find their explanation even less plausible.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 18:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Agreed with Naturalistic: The edits were less than WP:NPOV in several respects, especially with regard to Einstein and the so-called "supernaturalist" view of pantheism, While hardly accurate in a "technical" sense, (and no doubt unpopular among pantheists), it's arguable the point of view should be included... just without the WP:UNDUE emphasis and given proper citations (which it lacked). For Schelling and Hegel, WP:UNDUE is a bit more complicated in so far as the quaint details of pantheism having been a term of theological abuse (synonymous with atheism in a pejorative sense) are easily overlooked today, but historically, they're important when weighing the defense those philosophers enjoyed against allegations of pantheism... (whatever merit an "allegation" might still possess if divorced from context).

It's not evident in the above diff, because it missed the first edit to the lede, but [edit conflict] the contributor's peculiar, and entirely uncited, "technical definition", (i.e., the "supernaturalist" view), was simply given as an established fact, despite being contrary to the Webster's definition and Dawkins quote added later:

“But the popular definition strays from the technical definition of pantheism. Any god that is more than metaphorical (figurative) must be supernatural: supernaturalism is the essence of belief in God, or in gods. And, correctly defined, pantheism is a supernaturalistic concept. Pantheism holds that everything in nature contains an invisible, nonmaterial, supernatural "essence" or "substance" (Spinoza) that binds the parts of the universe into a whole that is "God."”

The contributor conflates notions of essence and substance with what they call supernaturalism: “the essence of belief in God”. (As an obscure "ism", it would seem to contrast with deism). They proceed to editorialize in light of this throughout their contributions. A somewhat amusing example:

“However, Harrison's interpretations seem to be based on the popular (nonsupernaturalistic) rather than the technical (supernaturalistic) definition of pantheism. Certainly in the case of Einstein, the Harrison view seems to clash sharply with what Einstein actually wrote: "I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive." <ref> Albert Einstein, quoted in Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2006), 15. </ref>”

(Famously, Einstein is quoted as saying he believes in the God of Spinoza...) The WP:OR is contrary to (or at best, a naïve WP:SYNTHESIS of) cited material. That doesn't necessarily imply a merely personal disposition, it's entirely possible the POV stems from a quasi-historical orthodoxy, (like Scholasticism/Catholicism). It's easy to see how "essence" and "substance", as found in the Tillich and Beiser cites, could be misunderstood in that regard... (it being unlikely that historical theologians would have failed to integrate the concepts). Still, the terms are ultimately derivative of Aristotle and philosophy, rather than theology, from a more or less Platonic, Cartesian, Heraclitian, or even Scholastic perspective, depending on who's pontificating. But it should go without saying that Aristotle wasn't a very good Catholic, and the terms imply neither the supernatural nor the belief in God.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 10:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Nautilus math

The article image's caption says the "[nautilus] embodies the Fibonacci series and the golden ratio", but does it really, in fact? Not very closely. Should an encyclopedia say that it in fact does? In this article there needs be either a succinct representation of the popular misconception concerning such wonders, or the matter needs to be noted, or the statement put in quotes, or simply deleted. Falbo, a mathematician, concludes from "experiments" (the details to prove it was legitimate are left out of the documents that I've seen), that the shells are in the 1.2-1.4 range, not 1.6. Note also that the nautilus are a family containing six species.— CpiralCpiral 17:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)