Jump to content
Haylee Linton

Welcome Guest!

Welcome to UK Pagan; The Valley

Like most online communities we require you to register for an account before we give you access to read and post.

Only a small number of our forum areas can be read without registering for an account.

Please consider supporting us to help keep our Website and Facebook groups online. Become a Patron!

A Question For Pantheists


Earthdragon
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 1/23/2016 at 6:51 PM, Moonsmith said:

Once you start talking about the universe there ISN'T anything else. There isn't a "part" and nothing is either divine or not divine. The universe is just what is. I am the universe observing itself and as such, because I am equipped with an intellect want to explain those observations. A logical tool called "Science" and "The scientific method" are thus far achieving this. The descriptive term "God" is highly appropriate given the way that term is used generally. See my first response.

 

Just resurrecting this thread on Pantheism, Moonsmith. I realise you might need to re-visit the thread more fully than the segment that I have quoted above to answer this but in the paragraph above you  state that you see the Universe as apt to be given the title "God" and at the same time you are saying that nothing is either divine or not divine. This is confusing to me.

As divine means "god-like" or "connected with a god" then you seem to be using the concept for God/god at the same time as dispensing with it.

All of that occurred to me at the time but I think I was occupied by other replies to my OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please consider supporting us to help keep our Website and Facebook groups online.

On 1/21/2016 at 7:55 PM, Moonsmith said:

My take on Pantheism is very simple. I do not think of the Universe in numinous terms.

 

In what way are you using the term "numinous"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Earthdragon said:

As divine means "god-like" or "connected with a god" then you seem to be using the concept for God/god at the same time as dispensing with it

Oh no!  Not again!

I seem to remember an interminable exchange with Moonhinter over this!

Check back at the bit where I listed my etimology with references.

Then check out my reasoning for applying the term "God" to an entity with which nothing else exists.  

The universe demonstrates all the attributes normally associated with Deity.

If I didn't believe in the deity of the universe I would call myself a "Panist!"  Indeed I do not understand why the Naturalistic Pantheists, who say they are atheists, do not use this term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok so can I partly retell what you've said in those posts as "I see the Universe as God but don't use the term 'divine' when describing it". That's accurate, according to what you're saying, yes?

Edited by Earthdragon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No point in describing the universe as divine (Godlike) or God when there isn't anything else to compare it to.  "God" and "Existence " are the same thing to a Pantheist.

but

No less powerful, creative or nurturing for that.  

                .........................

Just a sidetrack but whenever I hear an archaeologist referring  to a find as "having ritual or religious significance" I tend to roll my eyes and think:

1. You have no idea what it's for.

or

2. I don't think that it's creator segregated the mundane from the divine as you are doing.  I think that the local God of fertility for instance was very real and immediately present.

 

Edited by Moonsmith
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Moonsmith said:

If I didn't believe in the deity of the universe I would call myself a "Panist!"  Indeed I do not understand why the Naturalistic Pantheists, who say they are atheists, do not use this term.

Maybe it would sound too much like they are followers of Pan ūüėĄ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonsmith said:

No point in describing the universe as divine (Godlike) or God when there isn't anything else to compare it to.  "God" and "Existence " are the same thing to a Pantheist.

So is that a "no" to my question? 

According to what you have said then you don't see yourself as a pantheist according to the standard dictionary definition, correct? And the statement that the universe is not numinous is a linguistic necessity in your eyes and is in keeping with your divergence from the dictionary definition...

Sorry to labour the point but just getting my thinking straight about where you're at.

The realisation that what you call massive intellectual process was at work when you contemplated the size and nature of the universe and the excitement that your belief that your and other's intellect represents the universe making an effort to understand itself - has this been a constant presence for you and does it relate to the love thread at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Earthdragon said:

Maybe it would sound too much like they are followers of Pan ūüėĄ

And what would be wrong with that?  Pan has always referred to everything, the whole of nature and the terrifying impression of nature.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Earthdragon said:

According to what you have said then you don't see yourself as a pantheist according to the standard dictionary definition, correct?

Are you enjoying this perversity ED?

Check outthe post where I explain my terminology.  I am precisely a Pantheist.

Most people who call themselves Pantheists are by their own statements dualist in some form or other.  I place you in that category.

Somewhere waaaaay above in this thread I postulated a belief system called Gaiism.  I made it up and once again apologise if Gaiism actually exists.

My construct was carefully put together from a host of statements made by people who called themselves Pantheists.  Every item in my Gaiist construct is in fact duallist - it implies the universe AND SOMETHING ELSE.

You may call my belief system anything you wish, I shall confidently refer to it as Pantheism.

You may paraphrase my posts how you will if you really want the last word!

Edited by Moonsmith
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Moonsmith said:

And what would be wrong with that?  Pan has always referred to everything, the whole of nature and the terrifying impression of nature.  

Atheists wouldn't believe in Pan because they are atheists!ūüėĀ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Moonsmith said:

Are you enjoying this perversity ED?

Check outthe post where I explain my terminology.  I am precisely a Pantheist.

Most people who call themselves Pantheists are by their own statements dualist in some form or other.  I place you in that category.

Somewhere waaaaay above in this thread I postulated a belief system called Gaiism.  I made it up and once again apologise if Gaiism actually exists.

My construct was carefully put together from a host of statements made by people who called themselves Pantheists.  Every item in my Gaiist construct is in fact duallist - it implies the universe AND SOMETHING ELSE.

You may call my belief system anything you wish, I shall confidently refer to it as Pantheism.

You may paraphrase my posts how you will if you really want the last word!

Perversity? I don't know what you mean. I am trying understand what you're saying that's all. Anyhow you are sounding a bit pee'd off so I'll leave it there. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I ask what it is in my post that you find funny, Maeve?

Nice to see you back by the way ūüôā

Edited by Earthdragon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/19/2020 at 4:49 PM, Moonsmith said:

I don't think that it's creator segregated the mundane from the divine

I said something like that to a Christian once, who promptly accused me of being a pantheist, using it almost as a term of abuse. I wonder if there is such a thing as a pan-athesit - we (everything made of atoms) - are all in this together. To me, things that have been here a very long time (stones, ancient trees, (very strangely I know...) rivers etc) are as they are because of all that they have experienced themselves individually and collectively, not (for me) because they're an aspect of divinity. Having said that, I do make presents for standing stones, but I don't claim to be consistent about anything really.

Edited by Stonehugger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Stonehugger said:

I wonder if there is such a thing as a pan-athesit - 

Naturalistic Pantheists are a Pantheistic group who are atheist. They have a very good website. Take a look.  Not my bag but very well argued.

I'm not atheist but I do inderstand where they are coming from.  It's hard to accept a deity that is of the mundane atoms, energies and consciousness of the potentially observable universe.  So many people associate deity with anthropomorphic imagery or some sort of invisible guardian/parental being.  As a pantheist I am (to use Brain Cox's words) the cosmos made conscious.  I inevitably believe that I am part of deity, part of those atoms that you refer to SH.  My own belief is that DNA is the sense organ of the universe.  There may be others.  Perhaps you are right, perhaps the rocks are aware.

Yes m, I've heard the word "Pantheist" used as a derogatory term by those of establishment religions.  I've heard "animist" used the same way indicating primitive or superstitious thinking. Never, I may say to me!

There is a narrow gap between animism and pantheism and it looks¬†as if you are in it StonehuggerūüėÄ

 

Edited by Moonsmith
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's possible to multiply categories of belief to the point we end up playing with definitions to the point we risk disappearing up our own fundements.

If I understand him correctly, Moonsmith is a pantheist because the universe is everything, everything is god and god is everything.  From the stone to the star, everything has its part in the universal identity.  He is as much the universe as the bricks in the wall of his house or the Pegasus galaxy.  It's about as inclusive as you can get, and requires no belief in anything supernatural (assuming that is a concept that makes sense anyway)

There's an element of the idea within my post of 31/01/2016 ante, though my version of it is rather different to MS's.

Quite agree about archaeologists.  There seems a fashion for assuming everything was "ritual", as if that is somehow a special category in the benighted minds of our primitive ancestors.  Nonsense.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like our posts crossed Ellinnas.  I think you've got me!

Doing without the supernatural does not limit the natural in any way whatsoever.  The universe has all the characteristics of the deities that I read of here and elsewhere plus many more.

If it creates like a deity, nurtures like a deity and smites like a deity then it's probably a deity.

Edited by Moonsmith
To add smartarse conclusion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Ellinas said:

If I understand him correctly, Moonsmith is a pantheist because the universe is everything, everything is god and god is everything.

Which he approves of but then if I quote him as saying

On 4/19/2020 at 4:49 PM, Moonsmith said:

No point in describing the universe as divine (Godlike) or God when there isn't anything else to compare it to

and try to probe him in order to understand his position a bit more and he thinks it is a perversity and that I am possibly enjoying that. Hmm I've taken a deep breath and now I'll move on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/20/2020 at 4:50 PM, Earthdragon said:

Can I ask what it is in my post that you find funny, Maeve?

Nice to see you back by the way ūüôā

The challenge to Moonsmith who is, indeed, an old friend of mine (I hope he still is ūüėĄ )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
5 hours ago, Moonsmith said:

For reference only.

IMG_5904.JPG

Can't get more than the avoce - can ou precis the contents and the pointy of discussion?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Warning.  Boring old fart taking centre stage.  No fun involved. Feel free to ignore.

It's just that somewhere above in this interminable thread, I quoted Tegmark (2018) on mattter and consciousness and suggested that a conscious universe was a logical extension of his conjecture.

The cover article above moves forward with some mathematical conjectures and conjectural models for consciousness from several mathematicians.

It might back my view of Pantheism - it could explain a thought that I had about 30 years ago that human/DNA consciousness might eclipse the universal consciousness.  However,  I have always said that ideas are ten a penny.  It's only when either the maths backs them up or they become predictive that they are of any use.  

This article might demonstrate Pantheism but at least one of the models might more usefully demonstrate animism.  Throughout the article work which contradicts or rejects the above is quoted, referenced and included.

Its just conjecture but a step that helps my ever changing thinking regarding my belief set.

please someone - say something funny!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surrly all this has something to do with quantum?

(My idea of doing your funny but am actually being serious too ūü§Ēūü§ď)

Edited by Earthdragon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Roundtuit
      Thank you.  Yes, I'm starting to think it's the journey that matters.   What a gorgeous image!  I'd love to get back to the fells, there's something new around very corner there.    
    • Stonehugger
      I've had varying degrees and natures of commitment to Christianity since I was at school but I've also always had pagan leanings and for quite a long time now my path has been entirely pagan. It's unproblematic in that my family and friends think it's harmless eccentricity, but I imagine it would be different if I took a strongly pagan stance on something. For me personally it's important to listen to what's going on around me and work out my path accordingly, so I celebrate the presence of many paths up the same mountain and have no concerns about reaching the top. I imagine that, like almost any walk in the fells, what currently looks like the top is just another place to see the next top from. Definitely!! ūüėĀ
    • Ellinas
      Well, I've been called many things in my time... I'm also a former Christian, with a chequered history (Anglican, in the guise of the Church in Wales, then Plymouth Brethren with the odd foray into the Baptists along the way).  I fell out with Christianity in the early 2000's, when I was late 30's, early 40's. Since then, the general nature of my meanderings has remained fairly constant, but the details and contents have changed over time.  That's fine.  The journey is the issue, not the destination.  Ithaca calls, but Phoenician markets and Egyptian cities have the greater import (poetic reference - just means follow your path and hope to arrive late, if at all).  What I believe tomorrow may be very different to what I believe today.  What I believed yesterday is just a stepping stone. In short, don't worry about what you have been, as it is merely the pathway that got you to what you are, and don't worry about where you are going, there are any number of bye-ways for you to explore. As to others - I have struggled with family pressures and the tyranny of monotheistic faith.  I understand your position and have no issue with a softly-softly approach such as you describe.  In fact, it is the best way unless you are prepared to create and weather a family rift. Dangerous statement.  Talk about tempting fate...!
    • Moonsmith
      Hi, Welcome.  While I rarely go to bed before three am, I am also in the habit of switching off my phone between uses.  This device is primarily outgoing.  Many of us have been Christians at some point in our histories.  Experiences vary considerably.  I was heavily involved but just lapsed.  No issues or problems. I know a lot of Pagans who have switched between different belief sets, pagan and non pagan over the years.  They have a tendency to carry over elements from each crossroads they come to.  My own beliefs have been evolving for decades.  I don’t suppose that they will change much more but if anyone gives serious thought to their beliefs there must always be the risk of a new realisation.  Don’t take any notice of what other people say, just be sure that whatever you believe is what you really believe.    There is no top to that mountain.  The road goes ever on. Take any path that leads in a direction that want to go.  Don’t worry about the destination.
    • Roundtuit
      Hi!  Welcome to my self-absorbed drivel. I don't quite know where to start about this, but after years of trying to be a Christian, I'm exploring being a Pagan.  Actually, I'd go as far as to say I am one, and was before in my late teens and early twenties.  I grew up in an Evangelical household and my parents are now Pentecostal deacons.  I started to question my faith from an early age, and later started to practice Wicca and study legends and folk customs.  I had some health problems that made me a lot more dependent on family.  I don't see any reason to ever let my parents or other family members know about my beliefs as that would be devastating for them, but they ask about church and my spiritual life every time I see them.  In my mid twenties I started to think that I had to compromise with my parents over my beliefs if they were ever to accept other life choices I made.  I have had relationships they wouldn't accept and didn't want to alienate myself from them even further.  I wanted to be pragmatic.  There was truth in virtually every belief system so I might as well re-adopt Christianity, find a progressive church and live as good a life as I could like that.  So I did that for years, as a secretly pantheistic Christian who went to a church that worshipped God using male, female and gender-neutral pronouns and lived what most people would describe as a secular life outside of church.  I'd left Christianity because so much harm was done in the name of a set of beliefs.  Then I came back because I didn't want to cause harm to my parents in the name of beliefs, religion or the lack of it.  How people are treated should always come first. Then aged 43, in January during the lockdown, I went 'pop'.  It was like I'd been getting more and more resentful and thirsting after Earth-based spirituality.  It was a need and I'm not sure it can be denied because I need to feel alive.  I've been studying various pagan traditions ever since and have taken a break from church (my vicar knows all of this and is great about it).  Not attending church is unacceptable in my family.  I feel so behind though.  Most people I meet or come across on social media has years of experience and say they've been practicing since they were teenagers.  I once heard someone say that yes, there are many paths up the same mountain but if you keep changing paths you never reach the top.  Do you agree, or not? Is anyone else here a new older pagan?  Is it at all common?  
×
×
  • Create New...