We
seek renewed reverence for the biosphere as the ultimate context for human
existence....
We
seek renewed reverence for the biosphere as the ultimate context for human
existence....
|
|
Home |
As the two letters in this issue indicate, there is sometimes confusion about the two different strains of pantheist philosophy. It is also important to note that the Universal Pantheist Society's bylaws strictly prohibit the Society from imposing any particular interpretation of religion or subscription to any particular religious belief, doctrine, or creed. This is one of our guiding principles because freedom of belief is inherent in the Pantheist tradition. Pantheism is not something which can be dogmatically defined like most
other world religions or philosophies. Such an approach leads of course to
a diversity of viewpoints -- as it should be, and which is why this
Pantheist Society is an "Universal" one. We have a huge variety of beliefs
and opinions among our members; many different from one another, but all
of which provide insights which are valuable to one another, and all of
which point to one consistent direction in looking toward the natural
world for our source of spiritual enrichment. If critics finds a duality
or "doublespeak" in our writings, it is simply a reflection of these
principles. It is undeniable that strict "Pantheism" differs from a similar
religious philosophy, known as "panentheism". The Society has strived to
be open to persons of both persuasions; but perhaps not all persons of one
emphasis or the other will remain comfortable with our willingness to
accept people with differing beliefs. According to the Encyclopedia Americana, "Several varieties of
pantheism are acknowledged. Some strictly equate God and the universe. Of
these, absolute pantheism defines God as the basic reality and the
universe merely as the way he appears.... In contrast, for
panentheism, the universe or its animating force are just part of
God, who is also transcendent." The definition for "Pantheism" given in the Dictionary of Cultural
Literacy is: "The belief that God, or a group of gods, is identical with
the whole natural world; pantheism comes from Greek roots meaning "belief
that everything is a god." By contrast, "panentheism" is the doctrine that God includes the world
as a part, though not the whole, of "his" being. An example of "Panentheism" is given by Fr. Charles Cummings, a
Trappist-Cistercian monk, author of Eco-Spirituality: toward a reverent
life. In Cummings approach, "Pantheism exaggerates divine immanence to
the point of identifying God and the universe. The Judeo-Christian
tradition maintains both that God is immanently in all things (or all
things are in God) and the God is transcendentally beyond all things.
" For Fr. Cummings, "Reverence for nature is not irreverence for God;
reverence for nature does not diminish our reverence toward God. God need
not compete with nature for our reverence. Rather, we can reverence God by
reverencing nature, because all creation is permeated with God's
presence." Similarly, Michael Fox has found value in a panentheistic approach. He
writes: "The pantheism that regards the totality of Nature as being God
(i.e.., that God is swallowed up in the unity of all) rather than an
aspect of divinity is quite distinct from monotheistic pantheism. This
monotheistic pantheism conceptualizes God as the all-inclusive essence or
substance, the first cause of the universe, with many attributes,
including intelligence, which we can perceive in Nature's lawful harmony.
This form of pantheism would be better termed panentheism." In short, the philosophy of "panentheism", as distinct from strict
"Pantheism", believes in the immanence of God, but also in its
Transcendence. By contrast, for strict Pantheists, like Ernst Haeckel,
John Burroughs, and Joseph Wood Krutch, God and the Universe are one and
the same, and the concept of a transcendent deity is abandoned. The reality of the two types of pantheistic philosophy notwithstanding,
is it sufficient to force UPS to divide into two factions? As Alasdair
MacIntyre writes in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy , "What is clear
is that pantheism as a theology has a source, independent of its
metaphysics, in a widespread capacity for awe and wonder in the face both
of natural phenomena and of the apparent totality of things." This; for
me, is the most crucial aspect of both Pantheism and panentheism, and the
single most important source of both our inspiration and our obligations.
The Encyclopedia Americana points out that "Both atheists and theists object to pantheism." (This is proven by our two letters to the editor this month!) It seems to me that UPS is much needed to defend both pantheists and panentheists, and we need the strength of numbers for both. I for one am quite disinclined to orthodoxy and sectarianism, and I believe most pantheists and panentheists alike tend to feel the same. Cannot we avoid the theological squabbles that have plagued so many other faiths? While concentrating on the philosophical aspects of pantheism can be an interesting diversion, I can only repeat, "the identification of sacredness in the Earth demands reverent behavior. In turn, such behavior necessitates a personal commitment toward living in greater harmony with the biosphere." If trying to accept people of all pantheistic persuasions is a problem for some, I am convinced that for most of our members, it is preferable not to impose a pantheist orthodoxy. |
Copyright is held by the indicated organization and/ or
author. All rights are reserved. Best viewed at 800*600 High
Color |
