Neo-Pantheism
| Part of a series on |
| Theism |
|---|
Neo-Pantheism (Greek: νέος ( 'neos' ) = new, πάν ( 'pan' ) = all and θεός ( 'theos' ) = God) is an umbrella term term used to describe a number of present day renditions of Pantheism, and to distinguish them from earlier, more theistic conceptions. Many of these have their own descriptive adjective such as Scientific Pantheism, Naturalistic Pantheism, Classical Pantheism, Christian Pantheism, Logical Pantheism, New Age Pantheism or Zen Pantheism. Each of these have slightly different perspectives and range from the theistic to atheistic on the spectrum of religious belief. Neo-Pantheism also has much in common with Religious Naturalism, Religious Humanism and Spiritual Naturalism. Some liberal congregations of Jews, Quakers and Unitarians have similar orientations in their adoption of Religious Naturalism beliefs.
Neo-Pantheism is better defined as a modern pluralistic paradigm that is devoid of supernatural assumptions – a kind of Humanism or non-theistic Religious Naturalism. In that it advocates an emotional, spiritual interpretation of, feeling for and behavior towards existence, it is both a spiritual and intellectual approach to human life. It is intellectual in that it uses science, reason and confirmed truth to understand what is rather than mystic explanations. Some proponents however still maintain a naturalized concept of a deity.
Evolution from Pantheism to neo-Pantheism
Pantheisms can be categorized as traditional (native), classical (theistic), naturalistic (Spinozian) and contemporary (neo-Pantheism). Both modern Pantheisms and neo-Pantheism today include a varieties of beliefs that include neo-theistic (some process theologies, god concept of some kind), non-theistic (agnostic), not-theistic (non-militant atheism) and a hodgepodge of individual outlooks. Most Pantheisms today tend to be atheistic while neo-Pantheisms are more agnostic. The term Pandeism has been used in the past as a synonym for Pantheism but is not generally used in that way now.
Pantheism is one of the oldest religious beliefs of mankind preceding Christianity. It has been prevalent in indigenous peoples (American Indians for example). Taoism and Hinduism have some pantheistic features. Some of the Greek philosophers were also pantheistic. Zeno (333-BC 264), founder of Stoicism, said "God is not separate from the world; He is the soul of the world, and each of us contains a part of the Divine Fire. All things are parts of one single system, which is called Nature…… Virtue consists in a will which is in agreement with Nature"[1]
An essay in an 1838 edition of The Dublin Review declares that "the founders of Neo-Pantheism... have no wish for a moment to depreciate the world that has gone before them; and, therefore, not that portion of it which, though they know it not, still subsists in pristine strength, and will alone survive the coming catastrophe! Hence the admirable and grave sincerity of those admirable delineations of the middle ages, and their actors, so especially the ages of faith and faithful men; hence the Voigts, the Hurters, and their colleagues".[2]
"[T]he God-idea in Japanese Buddhism …….. There is among educated Japanese quite a large number of those who would class themselves as Buddhists, but who know little or nothing of the specific teachings of Buddhist philosophy…….. And there are still more whose conception is less theistic but rather neo-pantheistic. They draw their inspiration from modern science, which in its most reverent moods recognizes dimly an eternal mysterious life or energy permeating all things. This neo-pantheism differs from the old Oriental pantheism in that it puts a greater value upon the physical universe".[3]
Early Christianity had some pantheistic elements to it (Gnosticism and Gospel of Thomas). These were purged out and many current Christian faiths with the exception of some liberal neo-Christians and process theologians now contest it. Rev. Dix in 1901 wrote - "The denial of the supernatural would appear to involve that conception of the universe commonly known as pantheistic…. it gives the only rational explanation of the universe if Christian dogma be not true. At the same time we insist that it is impossible to reconcile the positions of pantheistic philosophy with the Articles of the Christian Faith…. The relation between the neo-pantheist and the readjuster of Christianity is close".
However, many of the early uses of neo-Pantheism were belittling. Mary Fisher wrote in 1912 that "[n]either the God of the old Pantheism nor that of the neo-pantheism of Fröbel is the all-seeing, all-loving Father to whom the weary and the suffering turn for rest and consolation. The belief that the divine is in us may flatter and sustain us in the sunshine; but in the hours of pain and desolation, we repeat the cry of agony that rang out from the cross, and we know that we are human, not divine, and that we need help from some source that is higher than ourselves.[4]
The Catholic Encyclopedia today says – "In forming its conception of God, pantheism eliminates every characteristic that religion presupposes…..and…. The Church has repeatedly condemned the errors of Pantheism……and the Vatican Council anathematizes those who assert that the substance or essence of God and all things is one and the same, or all things evolve from God's essence".
The modern philosophy of Pantheism begins with Baruch Spinoza in the late seventeeth century and variations since then may be considered new as opposed to ancient Taoism and Gnosticism. However the title neo-Pantheism is currently more applicable to the version being proposed to congeal both ancient and modern, theistic and atheistic, objective and spiritual, viewpoints in to one comprehensive new paradigm. Consequently it is a much broader term than Pantheism in that it is a composite of many prevailing philosophies both pantheistic and otherwise. It also includes Religious Naturalism, Religious Humanism and Spiritual Naturalism.
The concepts Spinoza put forth in his Ethics[5] still remains the principle narrative for Pantheism today. His work has been said to be "one of the most profound and basic works in all philosophical literature" and "one of the most beautiful philosophical systems ever created". Spinoza called his treatise "the road to inner freedom". In it he wrote "God, or substance, consists of infinite attributes, of which each express eternal and infinite essentiality, necessarily exist....Besides God no substance can be granted or conceived....Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived. God is the indwelling, and not the transient cause of all things".[6]
Historian Will Durant credits Spinoza with significant influence on many philosophers by stating that "It was by combining Spinoza with Kant's epistemology that Fichte, Schelling and Hegel reached their varied pantheisms; it was from conatus sese perservandi, the effort to preserve one's self, that Fichte's' 'Ich' was born, and Schopenhauser' 'will to live', and Nietzsche's 'will to power' and Bergson's 'élan vital'". Numerous 19th and 20th century philosophers such as John Dewey, George Santayana, Bertrand Russell, and Ayn Rand were probably influenced by Spinoza.
Bertrand Russell wrote " Spinoza (1634-77) is the noblest and most lovable of the great philosophers, Intellectually, some others have surpassed him, but ethically he is supreme… the Jews excommunicated him. Christians abhorred him equally; although his whole philosophy is dominated by the idea of God, the orthodox accused him of atheism". Many of the Founding Fathers including Ben Franklin and Jefferson were probably more comfortable with Spinoza's brand of philosophy and God than that of Christianity. Many of them believed in Deism which is in some ways akin to neo-Pantheism.
Durant also credits Spinoza's Pantheism for influencing the poetry of Goethe, Coleridge, Wordsworth, Shelly, Tennyson. Spinoza may have inspired some of the American naturalist poets. Mark Twain may have been an admirer. "I chanced upon Mark Twain's 'What is Man?' and was startled to see how many Spinozistic Ideas he expressed—so much so, that I was moved to write this commentary. I was surprised to learn later that no Spinoza books were found in Mark Twain's personal library".[7]
“For certain types of mind, pantheism will doubtless always be alluring. Many of Emerson's utterances had a pantheistic ring, as when, standing on the summit of Greylock, he ejaculated: ‘God ! It's all God !’ His friend Carlyle was more thoroly pantheistic — and not afraid of the term, as his reply to Sterling's accusation witnesses: ‘Pantheism! Pantheism! What does it matter, it's religion.’ Coming to our own day, the veteran and beloved John Burroughs equates the terms ‘God’ and ‘Nature.’ ‘We must get rid,’ he says, ‘of the great moral governor or head director. He is a fiction of our own brains. We must recognize only Nature, The All; call it God if we will, but divest it of all anthropological conceptions.’
"Similarly, ex-President Eliot, in his famous address on ‘The Religion of the Future,’ declares that "the new thought of God will be its most characteristic element.’ ‘The Infinite Spirit pervades the universe, just as the spirit of a man pervades his body, and acts, consciously or unconsciously, in every atom of it.’ This neo-pantheism is wide-spread enough to induce one of our leading publishing houses to reprint Seeley's ‘Natural Religion,’ a treatise once famous but lately out of print.” [8]
“Wordsworth replaces the neo-platonic view of Vaughan's speaker that the world and flesh pollute the spirit that was once part of God with a kind of neo-pantheism that sees God everywhere, especially in nature, and a belief that we can ‘rekindle’ that celebration of truth. Indeed, ‘Though nothing can bring back the hour ‘Of Splendour in the Grass, we can find "strength in what remains behind" (Wordsworth 178-80). [9]
Author Rebecca Goldstein writes "The Declaration of Independence, that extraordinary document first drafted by Thomas Jefferson, softly echoes Spinoza…….. we can also catch the sound of Spinoza addressing us in Jefferson's appeal to the "laws of nature and of nature's God". This is the language of Spinoza's universalist religion, which makes no reference to revelation, but rather to ethical truths that can be discovered through human reason……. for Spinoza, democracy was the most superior form of government — only democracy can preserve and augment the rights of individuals".[10]
Spinoza saw God as Nature and divine. New age Pantheists for the most part also say "The cosmos is divine. The earth is sacred ".God as physical reality rules out the theistic transcendentalism prevailing in most major religions. neo-Pantheism differs in that it proposes that the Earth and the Cosmos are indeed awesome and certainly merit wonder and respect, however they are neither sacred nor divine closing the door to any hint of supernaturalism. Actions are the consequences of innate natural laws, not the caprice of a separate entity.
Modern views
Pantheism and thus neo-Pantheism has been categorized as a non-theistic monotheism - a term used by Michael Levin in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. He also said “in the context of natural theology there is reason to believe that pantheism may fare well if compared with theism. This may be part of the reason why it has been the classic religious alternative to theism.” The non-theistic portion is humanistic and similar to Naturalistic Pantheism. It is like-minded with many environmentalists and scientists who have a reverence for but godless view of Nature. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin found that "a preliminary examination is sufficient to reduce possible types of belief to three. The group of Eastern religions, the humanist neo-pantheisms, and Christianity".[11] A monotheism like Christianity, Islam, or Judaism has only one concept for deity. Similarly, neo-Pantheism sees the natural world as the single source for understanding why we are. Also, neo-Pantheism is pluralistic like them having different approaches to perceiving the oneness. However it includes both theistic and atheistic perspectives under the same philosophical roof.
The monotheism part is akin to traditional Pantheism and in some ways similar in its philosophy to many current liberal religious positions. It postulates a goddess-like essence for the Universe This essence may be seen as either a coherent interpretation of existence or as an unconventional deity embedded in Nature. This deity is neither supernatural nor divine but a product of human spirituality. The choice of viewpoint is up to the individual neo-Pantheist.
A non-theistic monotheism is unconventional but not as much a paradox as one might assume. It contains aspects of the various sects of Pantheism, Religious Naturalism, Taoism, Western Hinduism, Bahai, along with the philosophy of Spinoza. Neo-Pantheism incorporates some of the thinking of such modern philosophers as John Stuart Mill, William James, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Paul Kurtz.
Religious Naturalism is a form of neo-Pantheism (or vice versa) which is defined as - "a pluralistic paradigm that proposes a spiritual/intellectual approach to life devoid of supernatural assumptions. It is religious in that it advocates a sincere subjective interpretation of, feeling for and behavior towards life and the world. Those things considered most important are deemed sacred and respected. It is naturalistic in that it uses objective science, evidential truth and reason to understand what is rather than supernatural explanations, although some proponents maintain a god concept. Some sectors of it may use cultural sources to form like-minded communities. Religious Naturalists find commonality in their ethical values, spiritual development and tolerance for diversity of thought".[12]
Both paradigms are pluralistic having very similar tenets and goals. Both can be termed religious or spiritual naturalisms. Neither accepts supernatural explanations for what is. Religious Naturalism like neo-Pantheism is a post-modern concept evolving out of the discussions at the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science [1]that began in the late 1950s. The book by Ursula Goodenough The Sacred Depths of Nature [13]laid out the basics for the philosophy in 2000.
A history of Pantheism can be found in Paul Harrison's Elements of Pantheism[14]. Michael Levine's Pantheism, A Non-theistic Concept of Deity[15]discusses aspects of the paradigm. Information on neo-Pantheism can be found on several Web sites. A book on neo-Pantheism is planned for release in late 2009.
Pantheism is one of the world's oldest beliefs. It dates as far back as seventh century B.C (Taoism). A form of it was active in the ancient regions of both the East and West. It had a resurrection in the nineteenth with naturalistic American philosophers and poets. It has been a belief of many native tribes throughout the ages. It is undergoing modernization today in a number of internet sites and at the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science in discussions there on Religious Naturalism. Neo-Pantheism is emerging as a consilience of this long history of Pantheism, liberal religions of today and rationalism.
Ontology
Neo-pantheism takes the ontological position that supernatural entities probably do not exist as there is no evidence that they do. Existence is that which is, a materialistic position. The fundamental entities are those that can be or have the potential to be measured by some means. Energy and matter can not be destroyed though they can be converted one to the other - they can not go out of existence but merely changed. Whatever is, is describable by physics — not just matter and energy but space, time, physical forces, structure, physical processes/activities, information, state, etc. Because it claims that only physical things exist, neo-Pantheism is also a form of monism and physicalism.
The subjectivity of the human mind is a physical process in a physical mind operating via physical forces that can be evaluated by objective means. The behaviors that result from subjective interpretations, evaluations and judgments are physical evidence of their activity. Though they may be unique to an individual, that in no way negates their objective existence. Subjectivity includes a person's awareness, perspective, particularly feelings, beliefs, and desires.
neo-Pantheism views such questions as: What is existence?; What is a physical object?; Why does anything exist rather than nothing?; and What is the meaning of it all? are questions for philosophers to wasting time on. Neo-Pantheism does focus on themeaning of life and is equally interested in living life in the here and now in a rational, happy way. The meaning of life constitutes a down-to-earth religious/philosophical question about the purpose (destiny) and significance (evolutionary process) of Homo sapiens . It is also concerned about the concepts of understanding, awareness and well-being and the question - What is the meaning of my life and does it have a purpose?. It attempts to combine the scientific examination of reality with the subjective sensory experiences of spirituality and aesthetics.
Varieties of neo-Pantheism
Neo-Pantheism includes many variations in philosophical thinking. This reflects individual takes on various issues (god, Nature, free will), to some extent various schools of thought, such as basic naturalism, Religious Naturalism, religious humanism, materialistic pantheism and spiritual naturalism that are on the conceptual stage.
Current discussions often relates to the issue of whether belief in a God or God- language and associated concepts, such as the idea of something above and beyond Nature have any place in a paradigm that treats the physical universe as its essential frame of reference and the methods of science as the preeminent means for determining what Nature is. There are at least four varieties of neo-Pantheism as there are with Religious Naturalism. They are: [2]
- neo-theistic – process theology, progressive religions
- non-theistic - agnostic, naturalistic concepts of god, neo-Pantheism
- not-theistic - no God concept, some modern Pantheisms, non-militant atheism
- numerous individual perspectives
Bishop Spong
The first category has as many sub-groups as there are distinct definitions for god. Believers in a supernatural entity transcendent) are by definition not neo-Pantheists however the matter of a naturalistic concept of God (Immanence) is an individual elective. Hard core militant atheists are also not considered neo-Pantheists in this differentiation. Some individuals call themselves Religious Naturalists or Pantheists but refuse to be categorized.
Some very liberal Christian theologians such as John Shelby Spong and Paul Tillich have embraced thinking similar to neo-Pantheism. “Spong has jettisoned all of Christianity and replaced it with his mentor Paul Tillich's Ground of Being which is basically neo-pantheism. His latest book "Why Christianity Must Change or Die" simply rehashes his ideas from such books as "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism".* G. Zeinelde Jordan These fall into the individual perspectives or neo-theistic or may even be a fifth category unto themselves.
Panentheism is not a variety of Pantheism. Panentheism sees God as being in Nature but also transcendent to it. The Universe is one manifestation of God but not the all of God. Naturalistic Pantheism however sees God as The All while many contemporary Pantheists and neo-Pantheists question if an entity such a God exists at all. Neither should neo-Pantheism be considered a form of Deism because Deism also proposes a God beyond Nature.
References
- ^ Sharon M. Kaye, Paul Thomson - Philosophy for Teens: Questioning Life's Big Ideas, Prufrock Press Inc., 2006, page 72, ISBN 1593632029, 9781593632021
- ^ Nicholas Patrick Wiseman, ed., The Dublin Review (1838) p. 353.
- ^ August Reischauer, Studies in Japanese Buddhism (1917), p. 232.
- ^ Mary Fisher - A Valiant Woman: A Contribution to the Educational Problem, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1912, page 242
- ^ Benedict de Spinoza,The Ethics of Spinoza, Citadel, 1976, ISBN -10 0806505362
- ^ Runes 1957
- ^ Joephef Yesselman.
{{citation}}: Empty citation (help) - ^ Durant Drake, The God of the Future is in the Making, Current Opinion (1917), page 246
- ^ Bill Thierfelder, Wordsworth's Ode: Intimations of Immortality, The Explicator (March 22, 2005), p. 136(3) Vol. 63 No. 3 ISSN: 0014-4940
- ^ Rebecca Goldstein, Betraying Spinoza, 2006, Schocken Books, ISBM 0-8052-4209-0
- ^ Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, "How I Believe" (1934), reprinted in Christianity and Evolution (2002), p. 121.
- ^ Religious Naturalism.
- ^ Ursula Goodenough,Sacred Depths of Nature, Oxford University Press, 2000, ISBN-10 100195136292
- ^ Paul Harrison, Elements of Pantheism: Llumina Press; 2004, ISBN-10: 1595263179
- ^ Michael Levine, A Non-theistic Concept of Deity: Routledge; 1994, ISBN-10: 0415070643
External links
- Institute on Religion in and Age of Science (IRAS) [3]
- Religious Naturalism [4]
- Religious Naturalism Information [5]
- Neo-Pantheism [6]
- World Pantheist Movement [7]
- Universal Pantheist Society [8]
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [9]
- Pantheism, All is One
- Pantheism-Spinoza
- Religious Pantheism
- Paganpedia
- New Age –neo-Pantheism
- Buddhism Portal
- neo-Pantheism - form of Religious Naturalism
- A New Pantheism
- neo-Pantheism - a new paradigm