Pantheism

Pantheism (Greek: pan = all and Theos = God) literally translates to mean "God is All" or similarly "All is God". This refers to the view in religion and philosophy that everything in existence is subsumed within an all-encompassing immanent God. Pantheists, then, typically deny God's transcendence. Similarly, the term can also refer to the belief that the universe (or nature), and God are equivalent. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that natural law, existence, and/or the universe (the sum total of all that is, was, and shall be) is represented or personified in the theological principle of 'God'. The term "pantheism" is a relatively recent one, and it is commonly accepted that the term "pantheist" was first used by Irish writer John Toland in his 1705 work, Socinianism Truly Stated, by a pantheist. Although concepts similar to pantheism have been discussed as far back as the time of the Ancient Greek philosophers, they have only recently been categorized as such retrospectively by modern academics.

Pantheism as a Category of Religion

Related Terms

Pantheism should not be confused with some other closely related concepts in religious classification. Most notably, pantheism has features in common with panentheism, a belief system which holds that God exists in the universe as well as beyond it. Obviously, both systems consider the universe to be of the same ontological variety as God, however, for the pantheist the universe is the whole of God, while for the panentheist it is only a small part. Technically, the two are separate, inasmuch as pantheism conceives God to be synonymous with nature, while panentheism conceives God to be greater than nature alone. Some find this distinction unhelpful, while others see it as a significant point of division. Many of the major faiths described as pantheistic could also be described as panentheistic; for example, elements of both panentheism and pantheism are found in Hinduism. In contrast, no such example exists where panentheistic beliefs could also be considered pantheistic: pantheism simply cannot be described as panentheistic, since God could never exceed the scope of the universe alone.

"Cosmotheism", like the terms "pantheism", "monotheism" and "polytheism" was not used in antiquity. While the term cosmotheism is rarely used, and is most often treated as a synonym for pantheism, it can also refer to the belief that God is something created by man, perhaps even an end state of human evolution, which can be reached most expediently through social planning, eugenics and other forms of genetic engineering. Contemporaneously,Cosmotheism refers to a small but controversial racialist group which considers itself a form of pantheism. These cosmotheists adhere to an evolutionary interpretation of God, seeing the deity to be impersonal, but not taking a clear stance as to his sentience. Similarly, H. G. Wells subscribed to a form of Cosmotheism, which he called the "world brain". The philosophical system this world-brain entails implores mankind to set up a socialist system, structuring itself on social and genetic statistics, education, and eugenics, so that humanity could oneday equate and even merge itself with and the Pantheistic god. In the 20th century United States, William Luther Pierce, a white nationalist associated with the American Nazi Party and founder of the National Alliance also utilised the term "Cosmotheism". In his view, reaching God would be the end result of eugenic efforts and racial hygiene (See: Nazism and Francis Galton). Cosmotheism should not be considered pantheism in the strictest sense, as the cosmotheist "god in all things" is only partially formed, and in its gradual formation is more dependent on the actions of humanity than the true pantheist notion of a God which is already fully formed and as such fully capable of being realized as it exists.

Similarly, pantheism can easily be confounded with monism, which is not surprising since the two terms attempt to describe very similar views concerning reality. Monism refers to the metaphysical and theological view that the totality of existence is derived from a single, uniform essence, principle, substance or energy. Thus, monism is often seen as synonymous with pantheism. However, pantheism can be differentiated from monism since, for the pantheist, the monistic essence which underlies the universe is distinctly identified as divine. Whereas a monistic explanation could reduce all things to a non-spiritual principle (such as in materialist theories which reduce all phenomena to physical processes), pantheist beliefs always conceive reality as singularly infused with the divine. Thus, monism is a necessary condition for declaring a doctrine pantheistic, but not a sufficent one.

Implications and Debates

Pantheism has been a topic of much contention in religious and philosophical spheres alike, spurring many debates over the implications of its doctrines. An oft-cited feature of pantheism is that each individual human, being part of the universe or nature, is part of God. This raises the issue of whether or not humans can have free will. In answer, the following analogy is sometimes given (particularly by classical pantheists): "you are to God, as an individual blood cell in your vein is to you." The analogy further maintains that while a cell may be aware of its own environs, and even has some choices (free will) between right and wrong (killing a bacterium, becoming malignant, or perhaps just doing nothing, among countless others) it likely has little conception of the greater being of which it is a part. Another way to understand this relationship is the Hindu concept of Jiva, wherein the human soul is an aspect of God not yet having reached enlightenment (moksha), after which it becomes Atman. However, it should be noted that not all pantheists accept the idea of free will, with determinism being particularly widespread among naturalistic pantheists. Although individual interpretations of pantheism may suggest certain implications for the nature and existence of free will and/or determinism, pantheism itself does not include any requirement of belief either way. However, the issue is widely discussed, as it is in many other religions and philosophies.

The viewpoints encompassed within the pantheistic community are unavoidably diverse, but the central idea of the universe being an all-encompassing unity and the sanctity of both nature and its natural laws are found throughout. Some pantheists also posit a common purpose for nature and man, while others reject the idea of purpose and view existence as existing "for its own sake." Religious and philosophical scholarship typically distinguishes between two divergent groups of pantheists. First, there is Classical pantheism, a form of theological determinism which asserts that God determines everything, including the choices made by humans. This view was upheld by the Greeks as well as modern thinkers such as Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677). which is expressed in the immanent God of Kabalistic Judaism, Advaita Vedanta Hinduism, and Monism, generally viewing God in a personal manner. The other form is Naturalistic pantheism, based on the relatively recent views of Jewish rationalist Baruch Spinoza and Toland, as well as contemporary influences. Classical pantheists generally accept the religious doctrine that there is a spiritual basis to all reality, while naturalistic pantheists generally do not and thus see the world in scientific terms. The vast majority of persons who can be identified as "pantheistic" are of the classical variety (such as Hindus), while most persons who self-identify as "pantheist" alone (rather than as members of another religion) are of the naturalistic variety. The division between the two varieties of pantheism is not entirely clear in all situations, and remains a source of some controversy in pantheist circles.

Another common criticism of pantheism is that it can be reduced to atheism. Rudolf Otto, a famed Christian theologian, claimed that pantheism denies the personality of the deity, and therefore represents disbelief in the traditional concept of God. Similarly, Schopenhauer commented that by referring to the natural world as "god", pantheists were merely creating a synonym for the world, and therefore denying the essence of God and rendering their belief atheistic. However, pantheists reply to these thinker's arguments and others of the like by claiming that such criticisms are rooted in a mindset holding that God must be anthropomorphic. Pantheist thinkers such as Michael P. Levine see this kind of demarcation of what beliefs in god must be as "stipulative" and illustrative of an attitude which "unduly" restricts the extent to which alternative theories of diety can be formulated" (p. 4). Even among the pantheists themselves are similar questions about the nature of God. Classical pantheism believes in a personal, conscious, and omniscient God, and sees this God as uniting all true religions. Naturalistic pantheism, in contrast, believes in an unconscious, non-sentient universe, which, while being holy and beautiful, is seen as being a God in a non-traditional and impersonal sense.

Pantheistic concepts in Religion and Philosophy

Ancient Greek

The ancient Greeks were among the first to lay out pantheistic doctrines, at least in philosophical form. Among the physicists and philosophers of the sixth and fifth centuries B.C.E., a monistic uniformity was hinted at. These thinkers commonly noted the idea that all things must spring from some common source in all things. Such a primordial substance was sometimes vaguely described as alive or animate in nature. Anaximenes believed it to be air; Thales thought the substance was water. Later on, Aetius interpreted Thales to mean that the god in all things was the divine energy of the water; hence, such an idea could be interpreted as an inchoate form of pantheism. In the works of Anaximander, this concept became more obvious, as the author proposed the existence of an uncreated and indestructable being which was indeterminate, yet had all things embedded within it. This being embraced all things and ruled them all, thus it could be classified as divine and therefore pantheistic. Diogenes of Appolloni furthered these pantheistic tendencies by by claiming that reason must dwell in the air, since air travels everywhere and is present in all things.

For Pythagoreans, all things were ruled by mathematics and geometry, hence numbers were seen to constitute the essence of all things, responsible for the harmony in the world. Xenophanes believed God to be changeless and undestroyable and unified in all things. This unity which was endowed with infinite intelligence, and Xenophanes called this unity God. The world of plurality, he contended, was merely a manifestation of this great changeless entity. Heraclitus also stressed the process of transformation as the essence of reality, claiming that all things are merely forms of a great primordial substance, which he called fire. The change upon which all thing's existence is dependent, Heraclitus claimed, was simply the act of divine wisdom taking action in the material world. Heraclitus claimed that humans could never truly know of this great force, although it was in them at all times. Plato often referred to the world as a "blessed god", conceiving of God as the supreme, ideal Form embracing all other forms within itself. That is, it represented a untiy comprehending all the true essences of things. Each idea, as well, is a unity which comprehends the many manifestations of matter within itself. All ideas are comprehended in the supreme idea of the Good, of which the entire world is a manifestation. However, Plato's ideas cannot be called true pantheism as there is a dualism proposed between good and evil, precluding the possibility that these moral categories originate from the same source.

It was among the school of Stoicism that the truest form of Greek pantheism developed. The Stoics proclaimed that God and nature are one and the same, and that the universe is the evolution of a germ of reason in all things. This "germ" was considered to be fire or breath, the intelligent, purposeful material which represented spirit and matter in absolute union. All elements in the world, even those which were inanimate and lifeless, were simply transformations of the original fire. From the fire, everything has arisen and proceeded to evolve; further, the Stoics held that everything will return to this state. The fire contains the germ of reason which acts in all things, and this germ proceeds to determine everything. Thus, the Stoic pantheism is markedly deterministic, as everything is subject to its own predestined fate. However, the Stoics were reluctant to deny humanity free will, claiming humans could fall away from their fate if they acted in discord with the logic of the pantheistic germ of reason.

The Neo-Platonists also followed a philosophy which could be described as a form of pantheism. While they did not identify god with the world as blatantly as did the Stoics, they did place the world of sensations on the lowest scale in a series of emanations from God. That is, on a gradient of Godly perfection, human sensations were of the lowest degree, and Gods on the opposite end of the spectrum as the most perfect. The Neo-platonists insisted, however, that humans could attain this level of Godly perfection, becoming absorbed in it through subjective feelings of ecstacy. Thus, the neo-Platonists fall into a category academics have labelled emanationistic pantheism, where the multiple phenomena perceived by humans are actually ematations or immediaries of the power of the greater God.

Hinduism

Although early Hinduism, as evidenced in the Vedas, is henotheisitic, there are some shades of early pantheistic ruminations similar to those of the early Greeks. In order to appease some of the philosophical difficulties of polytheism, some Vedic authors unified all existences into one substance or concept. This singularity was often represented by Agni, a god of fire who appeared in the earliest Hindu texts. Fire, the representative of Agni's power, was seen as pervasive in all things, since heat was such an important aspect in maintaining health. Throughout the Vedas, many other names are associated with this one pantheistic force, such as hiranya-garbha (the golden germ), narayana (the primordial man) and the phrase "tat tvam asi", which translates to "that thou art." This concept of "that" refers to the oneness in the universe that subsumes all persons and objects. Finally, nearing the end of the Vedas, the concept of Brahman is introduced, which would go on to become the supreme principle from which all things originated and were maintained.

This notion of Brahman was developed in many later works in the Hindu canon, including the Upanishads, a series of commentaries on the Vedas. In Hindu theology Brahman is both transcendent and immanent, the absolute infinite existence, the sum total of all that ever is, was, or ever will be. As the sun has rays of light which emanate from the same source, the same holds true for the multifaceted aspects of God emanating from Brahman. In this philosophy, God is conceived of as one unity, with the individual personal Gods being aspects of the One; thus, the worship of many multifarious deities by adherents of Hinduism represents a conceivable means by which Hindus can connect to the larger, inconceivable pantheistic force of Brahman. This philosophy has permeated the worship practices of innumerble Hindus from antiquity until today.

Vedanta, has throughout history placed much emphasis this process. Shankara, perhaps the most famous Vedantist, declared that all in the universe except for the highest, indescribable form of Brahman, is essentially an illusion. Thus, Brahman is the only thing that exists, a variation of pantheistic thought which is often called acosmic pantheism, the belief that the absolute God makes up the totality of reality, with the universe representing an unreal entity. Similarly, most other Vedantic adherents such as the Advaita school are monists or "non-dualists" (i.e. Advaita Vedanta), seeing multiple manifestations of the one God or source of being in various deities, a view which is often confused by non-Hindus as being polytheistic. This can be viewed as a form of Neoplatonic or emanationistic pantheism. This belief lives on today in both the Eastern and Western worlds within the Smartist tradition.

Other subdivisions of Vedanta do not strictly hold this sort of divine conception. For example, the Dvaita school of Madhva ascertains Brahman to be only Vishnu. In contrast, Arya Samaj believes in worshipping Brahman directly, without conceptualizing God through form such as a personal god or an icon. Arya Samaj only takes into consideration the formless Brahman while Advaita states that the formless Brahman (Nirguna Brahman) and the formful God Saguna Brahman are the same and hence worship of either is valid and equivalent. However, Advaita agrees with Arya Samaj that the Ultimate Reality is attributeless, in contrast to the theistic schools of Ramanuja, who stressed panentheism, and Madhva, an advocate of duality.

Taoism

The concept of the Tao is one of the best examples of a truly pantheistic belief. The Tao is The Ultimate, ineffable principle, containing the entirety of the universe yet embodying nothingness as its nature. Further, it is a natural law and a system of self-regulating principles. Thus, the Tao, in its totality, represents the central unifying metaphysical and naturalistic principle pervading the entire universe. This allows it to be classified as a form of naturalistic pantheism.

Jewish Tradition

The Jewish philosopher Philo was deeply influenced by the Neo-Platonists and, as such, softened the deeply developed Jewish notion of a transcendent God with some pantheistic ideas. Philo argued that without the continual action of God, the universe could not maintain itself as it does and could not continue to exist. Thus, Philo concluded that God must be all pervasive throughout His creation. God's divine ideas, or else his divine word and wisdom, were seen by Philo as the preserving force in the world. The world then, according to Philo, was a copy of divine reason. These concepts of the divine wisdom illustrate how seminal Jewish concepts can be incorporated within the framework of pantheism. However, these kind of pantheistic assertion presenting God as He who maintains everything also imply that God was responsible for the evil in the world. This was an issue which Philo did not address, and his failure to do so prevented his thoughts from gaining credence in the Jewish religious tradition.

It was Spinoza who developed the first system of pantheism is modern Western philosophy. He adhered to the idea that rationally there could only be one unlimited substance with infinite attributes throughout the entire universe. From this he concluded that the natural world and God were merely synonyms referring to identical reality; if this were not the case, then the combination of God and the world would actually be a greater union than God alone. Thus, God is as necessary as the world, and as a corollary, human free will is denied under Spinoza's assertions. Although Spinoza was Jewish, his pantheism was generally rejected by the orthodox Jewish communities, though it was highly respected among more secular thinkers such as Albert Einstein.

Spinoza's ideas were supposedly inspired by the decidedly immanent sense of the divine in the Jewish mystical Kabbalah tradition. The standard Kabbalah formulation of the nature of God and the universe contrasts the transcendental attributes of God described in the Torah. Jewish mystics typically have asserted that "God is the dwelling-place of the universe; but the universe is not the dwelling-place of God". Possibly the designation ("place") for God, so frequently found in Talmudic-Midrashic literature, is due to this conception, just as Philo, in commenting on Genesis 28:11 says, "God is called ha makom ("the place") because God encloses the universe, but is Himself not enclosed by anything" (De Somniis, i. 11). Kabbalists interpret this in pantheistic terms, although mainstream Judaism generally rejects such interpretations and instead accepts a more panentheistic view.

Christianity

Several Christian groups throughout history have entertained pantheistic beliefs. Many gnostics believed that the universe consisted of emanations from God by way of Pleroma, which refers to the totality of God's powers or fullness. Human wisdom, for example, was one of the weakest manifestations of this power. Much later, the Brethren of the Free Spirit, heretical pantheistic movement, arose the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Followers preached that "all things are One, because whatever is, is God." This assertion lead to their rejected the Christian concepts of creation and redemption, saying that since all was God, there could be no sin, and any action whatsoever was permitted. As could be expected, their beliefs were highly persecuted by the mainstream Catholic church.

Some modern Christian movements have also incorporated pantheistic elements. The gnostic revivalists refeerring to themselves as the Gnostic Illuminists of the Thomasine Church proclaim that they follow a more naturalistic pantheism or even a “scientific pantheism.” In their interpretations of Hymn of the Pearl they find what they consider to be a 2000 year old allegory of M-theory, a contemporary theory of physics which extends superstring theory, and, quite simply, describes the complex physical roots of reality. Similarly, Creation Spirituality, a set of beliefs about God and humanity promoted by the theologian and Episcopal priest Matthew Fox, emphasizes the idea that humans experience the divine in all things and that all things are in the divine. Unitarian Universalists maintain a creedless, non-dogmatic approach to spirituality and faith development, and accept all beliefs. Among many other beliefs, numerous Unitarian Universalistsconsider themselves to be pantheists.

Significance of Pantheism

Although pantheism has found its way into many traditions, it has usually done so only through the efforts of one or two thinkers, and is usually rejected by orthodox members. Due to this fact, pantheism has been a more popular worldview in philosophical and scientific circles rather than in established, mainstream religious traditions. This may serve as an insight into the nature of the belief. While monotheism, polytheism and other terms in religious categorizations refer to conceptions of the divine which are relatively easy to comprehend, pantheism brings with it some difficult philosophical questions which have proved challenging even to some of the greatest human thinkers. Is a god in the universe the same as no god at all? Does the conception of an entirely immanent god mitigate the powers of a God more transcendentally conceived? These are just a few of the questions that pantheistic beliefs will encourage as long as they are prevalent. Despite its lack of mainstream support, many pantheists believe that their fresh ideas concerning the deity could create a shift in the way we think about God, and that these ideas can serve to create both a new and a potentially far more insightful conception of both our own existence and that of God.

References

ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

• Garvey, A.E. “Pantheism (introductory)” Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. James Hastings, ed. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1910. 609-613.
• Geden, A.S. “Pantheism (Hindu)” Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. James Hastings, ed. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1910. 617-620.
• Hartsthorne, Charles. "Pantheism and Panentheism" Encyclopedia of Religion, Mercia Eliade, ed. New York: MacMillan Publishing, 1987. 165-171.
• Levine, Michael P. Pantheism: A non-theistic concept of deity. London: Routledge. 1994.
• "Pantheism." The New Encyclopedia Britannica: Volume 9 Micropaedia. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 2002. 118-119.
• "Systems of Religious and Spiritual Belief." The New Encyclopedia Britannica: Volume 26 Macropaedia. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 2002. 530-577.
• Thilly, Frank. “Pantheism (Greek and Roman)” Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. James Hastings, ed. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1910. 613-617.

See also

• Acosmism
• Collective unconscious
• Cosmology
• Cosmotheism
• Deism
• Emergence
• Hinduism
• Holism
• Kabbalah
• List of Pantheists
• Mordekhay Nesiyahu
• Naturalistic spirituality
• Oneness
• Pandeism
• Panentheism
• Ranters
• Tao
• Theism
• Theopanism
• Universal Pantheist Society
• World Pantheist Movement

External links

• Pantheistic Quotes
• Universal Pantheist Society Home Page
• World Pantheist Movement
• Pantheist Association for Nature
• Pantheist Awareness Network
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry
• Thomasine Church

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

• Pantheism  ^history

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

• History of "Pantheism"

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.