khpiryv:

Yesterday, I read a debate between a couple pantheists and several atheists, arguing the validity and value of pantheism. As a pantheist who previously identified as an atheist, I found that they were discussing a lot of the same questions that came to my mind when I first started looking into pantheism. Unfortunately the pantheists were unable to articulate their points well, and I felt the need to write a quick post responding to their questions.

I see naturalistic pantheism as a sort of natural next step from atheism. After my slow deconversion from Christianity had safely concluded, I found myself in need of some sort of spirituality to replace what I had rejected. As someone who, at that time, was really dedicated to rationalism and had an existentialist philosophy (“life is meaningless, but since we’re here we might as well make the best of it”), that was something that was a bit embarrassing to admit to myself. I wanted a way to experience transcendence without having to rely on a religious tradition that espouses negative social values.

Eventually my research brought me to pantheism. I initially heard pantheism described as “believing that God and the universe are the same thing” or “revering the universe like theists revere God”. I don’t like either of these descriptions, because of the ambiguous use of the word God, and I think that probably turns off a lot of atheists from pantheism.

It needs to be made clear that most pantheists strictly use the word God as a metaphor. Pantheism’s God is not omniscient, it is not omnipotent, and it is certainly not omnibenevolent—these simply aren’t adjectives that are even applicable to this conception of God. Pantheism’s God is not something to be personified, it is not something with which you can communicate or have a relationship, it does not perform supernatural miracles, it is not a genie that grants wishes upon request. The only thing the pantheistic God shares in common with the monotheistic God of the Abrahamic faiths is omnipresence, simply by definition, because everything is a part of the pantheistic God. Frank Lloyd Wright is talking about this God when he says, “I believe in God, only I spell it N-A-T-U-R-E.” To avoid this confusion, I try to avoid the word God when speaking of pantheism. I tend to call it the universe, the cosmos, or Oneness.

Naturalistic pantheism’s fundamental difference from atheism is not in belief but in perspective. It’s about recognizing that, fundamentally, all things are part of one unified whole, and some of us call that whole “God”. Admittedly rationalists and skeptics will probably get nothing out of that concept. Pantheism is something that I came to understand through a series of epiphanies, and I suspect it’s something that, like zen, can only be learned, not taught. From a strictly utilitarian point of view, though, I think it behooves even those who have no interest in spirituality to make an effort to “learn” pantheism. Positive psychology research indicates that having spirituality can significantly increase happiness, and since atheists can adopt pantheism without changing any of their beliefs, it is probably the easiest way for them to experience those mental health benefits.