Atheism, Agnosticism and Pantheism

[OSHMUNNIES]

I come to these forums every now and again for expertise on field-specific topics and help understanding various concepts, but I also really enjoy hearing what the science community has to say about deeper, more contemplative subjects.

 

I'm curious to hear what ya'll have to say about pantheism in particular. In your opinion, is it different from atheism? If so, how?

 

Are agnostics really separate from atheists? Or are they just "nicer" about their lack of belief?

 

I have my own opinions, mainly pertaining to how the deity in question is explicitly defined, but I'm very curious to see what you think.

 

Cheers!

Edited November 16, 2013 by OSHMUNNIES

[iNow]

I'm curious to hear what ya'll have to say about pantheism in particular. In your opinion, is it different from atheism? If so, how?

One is the belief that nature in its entirety... the universe or cosmos itself... is some sort of god. Atheism is the position that gods probably don't exist and so aren't considered a relevant variable. One is a belief in god (even though it is a different version than the more common judeochristian yahweh) and the other is the lack of belief in god(s).

 

Are agnostics really separate from atheists? Or are they just "nicer" about their lack of belief?

This question suggests a misuse of terms. Agnosticism is an issue of knowledge, whereas atheism is an issue of belief. One can be both agnostic and atheist, just as one can be both agnostic and theist.

 

You can read more about this here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Agnosticism

 

I have my own opinions, mainly pertaining to how the deity in question is explicitly defined, but I'm very curious to see what you think.

I think the evolution of the human mind suggests that god(s) are an understandable belief, but almost certainly just a human fiction.

[OSHMUNNIES]

One is the belief that nature in its entirety... the universe or cosmos itself... is some sort of god. Atheism is the position that gods probably don't exist and so aren't considered a relevant variable. One is a belief in god (even though it is a different version than the more common judeochristian yahweh) and the other is the lack of belief in god(s).

 

 

1.) God/deity (as defined by Wiki): a supernatural being (i.e. not subject to the laws of physics).

2.) My own (simplified) definition of pantheism: the equation of the universe with a deity

3.) In my experience, I've never interacted with a self-described pantheist who believes that the universe is supernatural

4.) In my experience, I've never interacted with a self-described atheist who believes that universe doesn't exist

 

Based on 1-4, I'm inclined to assert that atheism and pantheism are not fundamentally or significantly different from one another.

Agnosticism is an issue of knowledge

 

Would you mind expanding on this?

[pears]

How does a pantheist define a deity? A mind of some sort? If that's the case then it would be totally different to atheism.

[OSHMUNNIES]

I'm definitely aware of the classical definitions of agnosticism and atheism. But I maintain that agnostics are actually atheists that do not fully understand why they are atheists. Here's what I mean:

 

1.) Agnosticism is commonly defined as skepticism of the existence of a deity, and viewed as "less extreme" than atheism. The latter point seems to be based upon the assumption that atheists doubt the existence of a deity with absolute certainty.

2.) Atheism is commonly defined as a lack of belief in the existence of a deity based on the lack of empirical evidence for one. In my experience, I've never met an atheist that claimed to know with full certainty that a deity does not exist, understanding that one can not prove a negative. On a 1-7 scale (1 = full belief/certainty in a deity, 7 = full certainty in the non-existence of a deity), even Richard Dawkins, the atheist man-of-the-hour puts himself at a 6.9.

 

In other words, agnostics claim skeptical superiority by assuming that atheists are 100% certain of the non-existence of a deity, without understanding that almost no atheists actually hold such an extreme view. True atheists attribute their non-belief to a simple lack of evidence. These atheists generally concede that if sufficient, verifiable evidence suggested the existence of a flying spaghetti monster (as an appropriate example), then they would believe in His Noodleyness.

 

 

Of course, all of this depends on how the deity is defined. If it is defined simply as a supernatural being, how is supernatural defined? Outside of the laws of physics? Outside of humanity's current understanding of physics?

How does a pantheist define a deity? A mind of some sort? If that's the case then it would be totally different to atheism.

 

My understanding is that pantheists essentially equate all of existence/the Universe with "God." I'm under the impression that pantheists are more inclined to emphasize the mysterious wonder (so-to-speak) of the universe, and place less emphasis on condemning organized religion, yet still value science and reason. In this sense, it is my view that pantheists and atheists are not fundamentally distinct, they just communicate their non-belief differently.

Edited November 16, 2013 by OSHMUNNIES

[iNow]

Would you mind expanding on this?

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/21039-usas-view-on-athiesm-is-rather-startling/page-2#entry295192

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/62937-atheism-agnosticism-theism/

[pears]

My understanding is that pantheists essentially equate all of existence/the Universe with "God." I'm under the impression that pantheists are more inclined to emphasize the mysterious wonder (so-to-speak) of the universe, and place less emphasis on condemning organized religion, yet still value science and reason. In this sense, it is my view that pantheists and atheists are not fundamentally distinct, they just communicate their non-belief differently.

 

Interesting. I've never really pondered pantheism or thought deeply about it's definition. Is pantheism then the reverence of nature, i.e looking at the universe as is and calling nature God? Rather than defining God as something with attributes separate from nature - such as a mind? In that sense then it really doesn't seem so different.

[OSHMUNNIES]

 

Interesting. I've never really pondered pantheism or thought deeply about it's definition. Is pantheism then the reverence of nature, i.e looking at the universe as is and calling nature God? Rather than defining God as something with attributes separate from nature - such as a mind? In that sense then it really doesn't seem so different.

 

That's how I see it, but others may have different views or better knowledge of the subject. Some people study this sort of philosophy in much greater depth, but I really enjoy this subject.

 

I refer to myself simply as an atheist. But I'm now thinking that I'm an ignostic atheist who's partial to pantheism (is this getting ridiculous?). I doubt the existence of deities as they are commonly defined (atheism), but still acknowledge the need to properly define the deity before passing judgement (ignosticism), and am open to a philosophical view which emphasizes an appreciation of nature.