Talk:Pantheism/Critique

Contents

1 Archives 2 Critique 3 Have a look 4 Classical Pantheist's 5 Panentheism 6 From the Pantheist page:

Archives

• Talk:Pantheism/Archive 1
• Talk:Pantheism/Archive 2
• Talk:Pantheism/listing of some Historical Pantheists

Critique

A detailed critique of the current article is now available online.

http://naturyl.humanists.net/pantheism.html

Nat 19:52, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

We disagree on almost everything, and are likely refering to two quite seperate concepts when we state the term. That is why I created naturalistic pantheism for you. If you would like, I invite you to not only discuss matters with me, but also to create a section within this article wherein you explain the distinctions between your form of (atheistic) pantheism, and my form of (theistic) pantheism/panentheism. Your objections (while far from complimentary or balanced) are based less upon ignorence on your part, and more apon extremely divergent POV. While this may seem an obstacle insurmountable to some, I find the option of allowing all interpretations to be expressed (particularly when we have as much verifiability and as many citations as possible) to be the best opportunity for a useful article. Your denomination of "naturalistic" or "modern" or "atheistic" (as I call it) pantheism has very little to do w my own classical pantheism, so it is understandable there would exist some confusion. I am happy to discuss this as much as neccessary, and by no means intend to exclude your POV, nor mention of your organization. Cheers, Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 04:36, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

How come classical pantheism has its own article which praises the view and fails to mention any criticism, and yet the main pantheism article is also biased toward classical pantheism? Contrast this with the Naturalistic Pantheism article (which you rather interestingly claim to have "given me" as if it were some gracious concession), which discusses criticism almost exclusively. To tell you the truth, I've lost hope for these articles. Pantheism is not going to be accurately represented here, that much is clear. I re-worked the NatPan article, but it is still damaged due to edits by certain individuals and also due to the hugely exaggerated focus on criticism. Even though naturalistic pantheism is by far the dominant view in modern times, it was ejected from the main pantheism article and replaced with what I consider to be a whopping load of misinformation, most of which was addressed in my critique. As if this wasn't enough, a POV "praise article" was created for your "classical pantheism," even though the main pantheism article is already plenty biased toward that interpretation.

These articles were ruined, in my opinion. The Wikipedia concept clearly does not always encourage the creation of high-quality content. This is why Wikipedia has few genuine subject matter experts on board. People who know what they are talking about (such as directors of worldwide organizations relating to the subject matter) do not enjoy having their contributions re-worked by any random internet user with a POV. If you can't see that POV bias is precisely what has infected these articles, I can't help you. I do plan to ask some of the world's (other) leading authorities on pantheism to have a look, though. I think they will agree.

Again, and as always, nothing personal. I just strongly disagree with how these articles have been handled since the beginning. I won't edit the main article, because I've seen enough wiki-wars to know better. I did, however, post my critique, which I saw as the next best thing to actually fixing the article. As it is, the main pantheism article could be far better, and my critique will remain up until someone whose authority on the subject is greater than mine manages to make a good edit stick.

Nat 07:14, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Because I wrote classical pantheism largely by myself, and you wrote the other w my help and vogel/needles? That would have an impact, of course. Feel free to lend a hand anytime. Your rambling pomposity fails to impress me. I am not a member of your organization, and your status there is not an issue here. The haughtiness is unhelpful, and your organization is but a sliver of world pantheism, if it is patheism at all (IMO it is not). How could atheism be? Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 07:17, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, I would hardly call Needle's misrepresentations and frequent vandalisms "help." With that kind of "help," who needs harm? If I ever need something perfectly good ruined in a jiffy, Needle's "help" might come in handy. Otherwise, I can do without it. Honestly, I can't believe Wikipedia hasn't gotten rid of the guy yet. Come on, I mean how many times has he been listed on vandalism and dispute pages? How long are you going to look the other way while he ruins articles?

I wouldn't be interested in editing a classical pantheism article because I have little to say about it. I am qualified to discuss it, of course, but I see no reason to do so. In my opinion, both classical and naturalistic pantheism should be addressed in the main pantheism article, with equal time given to both, and all of the inaccuracies listed in my critique should be removed. Until that is accomplished, I have little interest in contributing anything further (besides maybe some grumbling on this talk page).

You now blatantly claim that naturalistic pantheism is not a genuine pantheism. How can you say this and fail to see how your own POV bias has affected these articles? It's amazing. This is why I've given up hope for an accurate, NPOV representation of pantheism on Wikipedia. What you term "a tiny sliver" of pantheism is pretty much all of pantheism in the 21st century. The view you are promoting due to your own POV bias belongs in the 17th century, and is all but irrelevant in modern times. Every major pantheist organization promotes naturalistic pantheism. Of course, you continue to assert otherwise, and you dismiss your opposition's credentials as meaningless. It's a typical tactic of the faithful who are immune to reason and facts. As long as you keep imagining yourself in control of this article, it is going to be substandard, but I won't stand in your way. If Wikipedia wants crappy articles, they can have them.

I plan to link to this page from my critique. I think it will be instructive.

Nat 07:40, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Needle was banned, actually. I tried to provide him with some defense, but after he went on the mailing list and upset the owner and the arbitrators... I recused myself from the case. He still pops in from time to time, but spends a good deal less time here since he was outlawed.

I do see my bias, and I see yours. Everybody is biased; it’s our ability to be aware of it, and being modest in our infliction of POV that is key. My primary technique is to ensure that all POV's are included, and that the article is minimally acceptable to all (lowest common denominator).

You guys are "pretty much all of pantheism"??? The hubris titillates. I suppose you have forgotten Hinduism (Jainism, Sikhism, Buddhism...), Judaism, or the MANY pantheistic Christians? I would find your pride and bile offensive if they were not so charmingly thoughtless. Do you have any evidence that your organization is any larger than say... cosmotheism? Yes, we are talking about completely different things when we say "pantheism". No, your tiny "feel-good atheism" club is not a significant portion of the pantheistic community. By my definition you aren’t included at all, name not withstanding. However you think you are, and that’s good enough for me. I'll gladly have your opinions mentioned, and links to your organizations websites placed. I will not have your POV written as fact however, nor the truth diminished. If you are interested in effective communication I suggest you minimize insult and maximize mutual understanding. Is there anything our 2 interpretations have in common? Reverence for nature I'd say, wonder at the cosmos, and probably nothing other. Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 22:19, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Have a look

[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pantheism/Archive_1#the_nature_of_God) We’ve been arguing the same point since we've met, w no progress! That’s a black eye for both of us, I'd say. Shall we begin to openly discuss some of the important particulars (conscious vs. unconscious, personal vs. impersonal, God vs. atheism) ? Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 02:52, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanx, I will likewise try to be more polite. The distinction here is the significance of including "pantheism" in the title of ones religion. If we see this as important, than you are correct, your pantheistic movement is quite significant in consideration of the others who use that term. I personally find the use of the term in ones religions title irrelevant. I am concerned only w pantheistic qualities, such as those possessed by various world religions, in comparison to which your religion is outrageously small in number (not to mention fails to meet the basic requirements of pantheism, such as being theistic). I should not have said "insignificant", that was rude.

Cosmotheism is another outrageously small organization, and is no more a front for racism than yours is for atheism. ;)

Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 17:33, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In summary, modern pantheism has everthing to do with "Cosmotheist" racism, it is perfectly compatible with communism. All pantheist are atheists, but some are also gay, and that's fine. You aren't a gay atheist, but other pantheists are. No problem! Why can't the pantheist community get past this small-mindeness and realize that pantheism's greatest strength is its broad diversity?

Nat 01:20, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

atheists arn't theists, mon frere (of any kind, including pan-theists). And you missed my point. I wasn't trying to say cosmotheism isn't racist. I was pointing out that his organization is designed as "a front" for racism as much as yours is for atheism. Atheism has nothing to do w pantheism. Atheists are atheists (or sometimes agnostics, or "angry at God theists" if their mislabled, but whatever). Mislabeling is anti-intellectual. Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 02:32, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Classical Pantheist's

• Hinduism
• Jainism
• Sikhism
• Buddhism
• Judaism
• MANY Christians, including Eastern Orthodoxy, Liberal Catholic, and the early Christian church. It is the Roman view of God that is "Zeuslike"!!!!
• and many more, of course (including some muslims and many "pagans" as well).

02:03, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

What's the point of the above list? As mentioned in my critique, the majority of Hindus are panentheists rather than pantheists. Jainism is explicitly atheistic, and Buddhism generally does not concern itself with the "god question" at all. If anything, Buddhism espouses a dialectical monism, which is compatible with the atheistic transcendentalism of naturalistic pantheism, but not with the explicit theism of 'classical pantheism.' There is no god term in either Jainism or Buddhism.

Why add more POV misinformation? That is exactly what my critque was pointing out, and what the article does not need. I must once again request that you recuse yourself from editing this article. Since you will undoubtedly refuse to do so, where can we go to address this? Is there a process of arbitration for editing disputes?

Nat 05:14, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

for starters I vigorously protest everything you have said just above, without exception this posting is riddled w innaccuracy and false assumptions. Jains are not atheistrs, nor are Buddhists, etc... As far as arbitration... feel free to try Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, but I strongly reccomend against it, it would seem almost impossible that they would accept a case of this nature (I'm pretty sure neither of us would be seen as intentionally violating policy in a severe and non-compliant manner after multiple warnings). There is also Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles and Wikipedia:Conflict resolution, as well as wikipedia:mediation (thats if you think this is a personal problem betwixt us). Good luck w policy, my advice is to try debate/logic, but it's your call ;) Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 05:42, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, debate clearly isn't going to do us (and more importantly this article) any good. For a period of many months, I've been protesting pretty much everything you've said, and you've been objecting to my assertions in return. We have made pretty much zero progress trying to come to an agreement or compromise.

You say that Jains and Buddhists are not atheistic, but The Oxford Companion to Philosophy says they are. Who is right, you or Oxford? You claim that naturalistic pantheism hardly deserves to be called a pantheism at all, but the only organizations in the world which specifically use the term "pantheist" disagree with you. Who is right, you or the pantheist organizations? You keep making all sorts of assertions, but so far, only the banned user Paul Vogel has agreed with most of them. Who is right, you and Vogel, or the rest of the pantheist community?

I may or may not look into Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles and Wikipedia:Conflict resolution. Then again, I may find that I'm not sufficiently motivated to do so. As I've said before, if Wikipedia tends to lead to this sort of situation, I'm not sure that the project is worth bothering with. A better article on pantheism would be great, but it is not up to me to spend hours and hours bickering over it.

What I may end up doing is trying to enlist some other writers on pantheism to have a look at the article and see what they think. Personally, I'm confident that any such review will come out soundly in my favor.

I don't think we need to go to wikipedia:mediation. We've had a history of strong disagreement and occassional sniping, but overall, I don't feel like this is a personal issue, and I don't get a sense of there being any strong personal conflict between us. To me, it is simply a disagreement about article content.

As an aside, in the five years I've been actively involved in the pantheist community, I've never ceased to be surprised at just how much divisivness there can be over interpretations of pantheism. One would think that the view would tend to encourage unity, but in reality, the opposite has always been the case. I've seen more doctrinal squabbling among pantheists than among any other group with which I have been involved. This seems to be due to the fact that pantheism allows for such a broad range of personal interpretations. So, if it is any consolation, what we are going through here is hardly unique or even unusual.

Nat 07:04, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A brief observation. Naturyl's positions a pretty close to what I understand as pantheism (or at least as "classical pantheism"). I'm not an authority on the sectarian infighting between various factions, however. older≠wiser 11:07, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't going to say anything about it, but the fact is, Sam's contentions do not even match what most people refer to as "classical pantheism," much less any other form. To put it simply, Sam is a panentheist, without any doubt in my mind. In my view, he is redefining panentheism as "classical pantheism." As it is understood by the majority of pantheists, "classical pantheism" refers to a position in which the divine is seen as co-substantial with nature. The example most often used is the classical pantheist system of Spinoza. The only important difference between this "classical pantheism" of Spinoza and the modern naturalistic pantheism is that the former places significant emphasis on theological terminology and concepts, while the latter does not. Both Spinoza and modern pantheists agree with the basic idea of "Deus Siva Natura," meaning that Nature is equivalent to God, they are one and the same. Classical pantheism simply takes the term "God" more literally and therefore places more emphasis on that end of the equation, while naturalistic pantheism focuses on the "Nature" side, considering the "God" term less important.

Sam means well in all of this, I think, and he is a pretty nice type of guy as far as it goes. However, I feel he is inadvertantly doing a POV hack job on pantheism here at Wikipedia. The pantheism article needs to be about pantheism, not panentheism. The latter article is what Sam should be editing.

Nat 16:28, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Panentheism

This is indeed a key issue, but one which I have intentionally avoided discussing w you, due to its controvercial, subjective, personal nature, encompassing, amongst other things, original research. Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 01:01, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Meaning what? What do you mean by "original research" and why should that be something you avoid discussing with me? Nat 05:02, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The subtlety betwixt pantheism and panentheism is not one that I find useful, as you might well be aware. As to the particulars of my theology, I'm not very confident that this is the right place for that, and it would be required for an in depth explanation of my opinions on pantheism = panenthism. Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 15:51, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The_nature_of_God#Kabbalistic_definition_of_God This may help. Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 17:21, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

From the Pantheist page:

"Pantheism, literally, means "God is All" and "All is God". It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent God; or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent"

While the concepts: "God is All" and "All is God" are used, The terms being used are in themselfs prone to cultural and religious mis/re-interpratation, for example God is actually a product of a Judo-christian type notation, for this type of deity, and with that the metaphysical languge that goes with it. For this reason in most cases, it serves merely has a description and a rough rule, to some beleifs systems. however "all-encompassing" nature is all, are acceptable.

The term God is all, is often used in order to answer from a pro-pantheist...in answer to mono-theists (and some forms of pantheists)

However it is noted that in some philosophs, Nature and God is deemed the ultermate, such has in the philosophies of spinoza.

---

"Pantheism has features in common with panentheism, such as the idea that the universe is part of God. Technically, the two are separate, inasmuch as pantheism finds God synonymous with nature, and panentheism finds 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, whereas naturalistic pantheism cannot (not seeing God as more than nature alone). For example, elements of both panentheism and pantheism are found in Hinduism. Certain interpretations of the Gita and Shri Rudram support this view." - in the article.

Not quite right, traditionaly and a strict reading of the Shatapatha Brahmana makes clear that the whole universe has its origin in nonexistence! "asat"

thus, existence must be a product of manifestion of umanifested potentialities!

However:

Brahman has actually two aspects!! Imananent, or manifested and transcedent, or unmanifested!

So what we have is a ideological Brahman and a manifested one, that brings about the Gods..etc, the reason for this process is Brahmans Desire to be born and become many (Taittiriya up 2,6,1) which to a strict pantheist is a bit inconsistent, has the impersonal can not have "ideas" it has thus been suggested, that it was necessity that brought about the manifestion and thus in this respect, fundermentally the upanishads and vedic philosophy is one of pantheism not panetheism.

However in other versions, the theistic hindu's see the personal creator god (Vishnu) as having no preceding origin, and thus is the ONE, he thus controls the creation and "disintegrates" at will! in this line Hundi is more panentheism.

"Pantheism has features in common with panentheism, such as the idea that the universe is part of God"

this is false! Pantheists sees god in the all - the realm of nature, (those Gods are often elevated to control nature, and be beyond the human realm), thus subject to nature, nature being all in this context!, while a panentheist would see nature, has PART of the Godhead, that must have a transcendent and a personal as well as that we find to be nature (eg trees etc) in union. in this defintion the ultermate is personal and transcedent - while apart of the whole. while pantheists are not comment to having the ultermate reality being personal.