| Personal Views on Pantheism by Contemporary Pantheists |
| Beliefs, Believing & the Future by Oliver Chadwick, June, 2002 In an excellent post, over on the WPM Community List, Rick Bamford said, "I, for one, will not cheapen the grandeur of the universe by projecting my frail human perspectives upon it." For me, being a pantheist is less to do with WHAT we believe but HOW we organise the believing process, and the key lies in the ability to differentiate between different shades of belief, a concept that seems foreign to all theistic religions. Beliefs are the driving forces of everything we do. They visit us from worlds of Fantasy, Imagination, Self-Delusion, Wishful-Thinking and Possibility as well as from that of Fact. They can be empowering allies, but can be treacherous deceivers when we fail to discern which world they’re originating from. All too often they present themselves as immigrants from Fact Land and we forget to check their passports. Some beliefs are incontrovertible. I believe that I’ve got two arms and I can confirm that belief as knowledge any time I want. I also believe that the Moon will be full on 24th June. I can’t be absolutely certain of this, however, as I have to rely on scientific prediction plus my own previous experiences to anticipate the event. Chances are that I’ll be proved right though, so that belief is pretty close to being knowledge as well. Currently I have the belief that I’ll enjoy a good dinner later today. I’m probably correct in that too, but that’s certainly not knowledge. All sorts of things might prevent from me doing so. Straying a bit further into subjectivity, I believe that I’m quite a likeable fellow, and I conduct my life as if it were fact. I’ve got some evidence for the belief, since there certainly some people who like me but, equally, I know that there are others who don’t. Consequently my belief is something that I’m choosing to have, and I could, with as much justification, choose to believe the complete opposite. As Rick says, I’m writing my own book on that one. It’s generally quite a helpful belief but I’d be in trouble if I started to treat it as absolute fact. Venturing even further into strange territory, if I believed that I’ve got a guardian angel watching over me, that belief might make me feel safer and, conceivably, I could even be right. On the other hand, since I’ve got no scrap of evidence for the belief, the chances are that I’m mistaken and that it’s just a denizen of Fantasy Land creeping in to make me feel better. If I can’t recognise that, then I AM in trouble. Each of us is in a relationship with the Universe, whether we recognise that consciously or not, and our attitudes of awe and wonder are inevitable when confronted by its majesty, beauty, power and mystery. By allowing ourselves to feel this way, at the same time as keeping tabs on where our beliefs are coming from, we create the best framework for constructive and realistic living. Nevertheless, it’s conceivable that our future evolution and increasing knowledge might drastically alter our perception of the nature of this relationship with the Universe. With a bit of luck, we’re going to continue to learn and that learning will constantly enhance our understanding of the relationship. At some stage in our brief but dramatic evolution we’ve developed a very different sort of consciousness, and this has resulted in our current domination of the planet. As our creativity, knowledge, wisdom and ability have increased, so too has our capacity for cruelty, irrational behaviour and destruction. As with most things, the greater the reward, the greater the danger. Pantheism offers a way forward that combines the spiritual with the scientific in a way that doesn’t expose huge areas vulnerable to informed argument. It’s important that we never stagnate in our beliefs and that we continue to respond appropriately to new knowledge, whatever that might be. We’re just at the start of our possible journey. A few weeks ago I recalled Carl Sagan’s device of compressing the entire history of the Universe into the confines of one year. In that analogy the dinosaurs collectively managed a very respectable run of about 5 days from 24th to 28th December before they were snuffed out. Humanity, on the other hand, has only clocked up around an hour and a half so far and, of that, most of what we know in any sort of detail has occurred in only the past few moments. Julius Caesar invaded Britain at about 11:59:56 pm on New Year’s Eve and the European Renaissance took place just a second or so ago. How far will our little timeline extend into the New Year, I wonder? A couple of thousand more years in real time would only take us to a few seconds past midnight in Sagan’s illustration. Even then, our survival is conditional upon all manner of potential eventualities from simple self-annihilation to random asteroid collision. Assuming catastrophes are avoided, the accelerating pace at which knowledge and technology continue to advance means that it’s totally unrealistic to attempt to anticipate even a few decades ahead. How might out beliefs and attitudes need to become modified or changed in this unknown future? We can’t begin to guess but, if we maintain the HOWS of our believing, we can safely allow the WHATS to evolve in whatever ways are appropriate at the time. One of my teachers, a leading developer of NLP [Neuro-Linguistic Programming], once said something to us along the lines of, "Hopefully, in 20 years time, much of what I'm teaching you now will be perceived to be simplistic or even mistaken. If so, it will mean that progress has been made". That seems a good maxim to me. We're doing the best we can with the information we've got, but so far that information is very limited. Copywright - Oliver Chadwick, 6/2000 |
 |
| Theism, Atheism, Pantheism, Scientific Pantheism by Karl Slinkard, June, 2002 A problem we continue to confront: how do we style ourselves as a religion with no god, and if we have no god, why don't we simply call ourselves agnostics, atheists, humanists or whatnot? In many respects, it is the same problem confronted by Buddhism, and it goes to the heart of the question: "What constitutes a religion?" Personally, I think Thomas Schenk did a more than credible job of responding to the string of questions posed regarding the differences between "scientific pantheism" and any other similar "ism." I even sent copies of it to several of my friends that have been perplexed by my "religious" beliefs, saying that it did not fit me exactly, but it came as close as anything to explaining in a few words my religious outlook. Part of the problem, I think, comes from our religious heritage. Most of us were raised where the communities were either Christian, Jewish or Muslim--all religions that claim exclusivity. "There is no God but God..." "I am a jealous God..." etc. It is hard for most of us to think in terms of having multiple religious identities. Personally, however, in a religious sense, I am the equivalent of a person with multiple personalities! On a rational scientific level, I think it would be fair to say I was an atheistically inclined agnostic. That is, I approach any problem of "evidence" with a general assumption that no supernatural force is intervening and monkeying with the data. However, I leave to door slightly ajar and style myself "agnostic" rather than simply "atheist." In terms of practice, I think I am more a Buddhist of the Zen tradition. I get most of my religious inspiration and solace from meditation and Buddhist praxis. I am also strongly drawn to the Buddhist notion of the "sangha," the community of believers. I am also attracted to the notion that "religion" is essentially about "internal" transformation, and far less about "external" validation. On a mystical level, I might style myself a philosophical Taoist. I would be hard pressed to define the "tao" ("goat trail" in the oldest Chinese graphs), but the notion is something like there is a "way" to the universe. This "way" shifts constantly. This points to life as journey and to the importance of the totality of emotional and sensory valences, not simply "rational" thought. In a sense, Pantheism brings all of these elements together. My religion does not conflict with rationality. They are complementary--not competing, modes of understanding. My reverence and identity with the universe connects my inner religious process with the totality. My mystical Taoism imbues my understanding of my connection/identity with the all and its processes. When I see a butte or taste cold clear mountain water I am reminded on multiple levels of the taste of life; my infinite smallness (but part of an infinite vastness); that taste and touch and sight (experience) are as important as "rational understanding." I think our religion is somewhat difficult to explain, but simple to experience, and it all begins with the notion that god, the universe, and I are one. Just my usual 2 cents (US) worth or less. Take what you like and leave the rest. Copywright - Karl Slinkard, 6/2002 |
| Religion - or philosophy? Atheism - or not? by Paul Harrison, June,2002 These are perennial questions which come up at regular intervals. They have never been resolved and I don't believe they ever will be. What most of us by and large share is a profound reverence for the physical universe and a disbelief in all types of supernatural entity. The words we use to describe these positions differ. The WPM does not seek to impose any approach at all but encourages mutual tolerance of vocabulary or practice. As clause 9 of our "notice on the door" says: "We recognize the freedom of all pantheists to express and celebrate their beliefs, as individuals or in groups, in any non-harmful ritual, symbol or vocabulary that is meaningful to them." Some of us (including me) are happy or proud to call ourselves, inter alia, atheists as well as pantheists and prefer to avoid most words that are strongly associated with theist religions such as church, prayer, ritual, minister and so on. We prefer neutral words mostly stemming from philosophy or ancient non-theist religions or even newly invented terms. Atheism does not, however, fully express our views (nor does humanism let alone agnosticism) since they do not in any way convey the reverence we feel towards nature. Others dislike to call themselves or be called atheists at all and feel quite comfortable with the vocabulary of theist religions. It often depends what your personal experience has been of churches etc. Speaking personally, I have belonged for some years to the "avoidance of theist vocabulary" group. But that does not mean I avoid all religious vocabulary. For example, I do use the word religion. The word religion in texts on religion is not at all synonymous with theism or faith in supernatural stuff. Buddhism is described as a religion, though some schools of Buddhism are atheist and Buddha was clearly an atheist. The original Taoism of La Tzu and Chuang Tzu is described as a religion, though it is definitely atheistic. Personally, I regard natural or scientific pantheism as a religion because for me it is way more than just a philosophy, it enters into my ethics, my everday thinking, my ways of seeking relief from stress and so on. Again, that's my personal choice. If others wish to call it philosophy, that's their choice. To avoid taking sides, the WPM [World Pantheist Movement] site uses words like "spiritual approach" "naturalistic spirituality" and so on rather than "religion." If the word has crept in anywhere referring to us, please let me know. (I know my personal scipan [Scientific Pantheism] uses it). Similarly, some of us like to celebrate our reverence in expressive actions ranging from spontaneous tree-hugging to the most elaborate and church-like ritual. Others of us feel uncomfortable with such actions and prefer meditation or debate. None of us should seek to impose our choice on others. (I am a tree-hugger). None of us can speak for the rest on these matters of vocabulary or celebration, none of us can impose on the others their choices in these matters. Thus it is definitely not accurate to say things, as if speaking for all members, like: "we" are not atheists. Neither is it accurate to say "we" are atheists, as if all of us are happy with that label. These are matters of personal taste. Copywright - Paul Harrison, 6/2002 |
 |