Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Why Pantheism Instead Of Atheism?

Inasmuch as I don't hold a belief in a person deity, which is what theism implies, it is fair to call me an atheist and understand that my worldview is atheistic, or as I prefer to refer to it: non-theistic.

Yet I don't care to self-identify as an atheist, chiefly for two reasons.

First, and the biggest reason, is I feel that the label does too little to explain who I am and what makes me tick. I should be as contented to simply call myself a man and leave it at that.

Second, atheism has very bad connotations in the minds of most people, especially here in the Bible Belt, which is and has been my home my entire life (up to the present moment, and I expect for what time I have remaining).

To the many monotheists who follow one of the revealed religions (religions centered on the concept that a personal God has revealed his will to men), to be non-theistic in outlook is to be an enemy of and in rebellion against the Almighty.

Well, that certainly is wide of the mark!

The truth is, that those of us who find a sense of the sacred in the universe and the great mystery of life do endeavor to live in harmony with God, or nature. At the least we seek to understand the laws of nature and allow them to shape our outlook.

Therefore, to a pantheist, the mischaracterization of being haters or enemies of God is a very huge and quite inaccurate insult.

There is something of a religious impulse inherent in the human animal (a byproduct of our expanded brains), and for pantheists such as myself this impulse finds fulfillment in sense of wonder and rapture we experience when contemplating the Cosmos.

Scientists have well expressed this, as for example this passage from the writings of Albert Einstein:

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.

And the nineteenth-century scientist and polymath Johann Wolfgang von Goeth, who wrote:

He who possesses art and science has religion; he who does not possess them, let him get religion.

One of today's best know atheists is biologist, lecturer, and author Richard Dawkins. In his book The Good Delusion he styled pantheism as "sexed up atheism."

Cute.

But I truly feel my sense of awe and reverence for nature as the intricate system it is is best expressed the way the ancient Stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius expressed it:

Everything is interwoven and the web is holy.

Now admittedly that is a matter of personal taste. I have few stones to throw at atheists such as Dawkins and those who prefer not to use any religious or spiritual jargon to describe their naturalistic worldview. We just have different perspectives. However, I see no good reason to cede religious terminology and expression to the supernaturalists.

For me and many of us, the atheist label just does not do enough to describe who we are, and, what is worse, it gives a negative and false picture of our understanding of things.

For me, the atheist label is a poor fit.

8 comments:

Christian said...

the label that fits you best is heretic.

Get over yourself, loser.

Follow Christ or burn in hell forever, rebel nutbar/self-involved navel gazer/self-worshipping reprobate....

http://pirate.is/alangreenspan/

DoOrDoNot said...

Doug B,
Thanks for the in depth response. I just read a study which found a significant number of atheists describe themselves as spiritual in some way and would likely fit under the pantheist label. Though I haven't had personal religious experiences I have always held this sense of wonder and respect for nature and have had a deep need for meaning in my life. Whatever the reasons are, I don't see that changing. I've been pondering whether these are simply properties of our emerging consciousness as humans or if it necessarily points to something/someone transcendant. How did you make the determination?

Beau said...

Doug B

I agree with you that atheist is a poor label that describes very little. I don't call myself an "alochnessmonsterist" or an "asasquatchist".

However, I respectfully can't join you as a pantheist. For me, theist jargon carries to much baggage and association with conservative religious belief.

For me, it is enough to use words such as awe, wonder, spectacular, dumbfounded, when contemplating the scope and complexity of the universe.

I still enjoy your reflections, though, and will keep coming back.

Don said...

I gave up on traditional theism some time ago. I accept John Shelby Spong's definition of theism....and I am not a theist by that definition.

Doug B said...

@ Christian - Jesus himself couldn't have said it better!

Doug B said...

@ DoOrDoNot - I just suggest we thoroughly explore all that is within before looking outside.

Doug B said...

@ Beau - Well, it is fine you can't join me on that. I still think we agree more than we disagree, and I'm happy to have you as a reader and encourage you to continue offering your comments here.

Certainly, I can respect what you are saying about religious jargon. But I believe that monotheism (and so conservative religious belief) came much later in the development of man's attempt to understand the universe, and therefore it is they who have co-opted our jargon.

Doug B said...

@ Don - I have read several of Spong's books and find them helpful. I just don't understand why people such as he don't come out of the Christian tradition altogether and stop muddying the waters by trying to redefine it. Just my take on the matter.