Pantheism vs. Theism

There are people on this site who have a misunderstanding of what Pantheism is, and what the difference is between Pantheism and Theism. I intend to set the record straight.

Pantheism: The belief that nature is God. No supernatural deity is involved in this.

Theism: The belief in a personal God, generally described by religious doctrines. This God is a supernatural deity and is separate from nature (is that not what supernatural means?).

Some have had the urge to lump Pantheism with Theism, but this is pure equivocation of the term "God."

Does anyone else here see the difference? Or do you think they are the same?

lol, If there were no supernatural element to pantheism, then it wouldn't be a theism. God is a supernatural entity. By nature being god, pantheists suggest that nature has supernatural abilities.

If they didn't believe this, they'd just be atheists.

Geo, the point isn't that there is a clear cut difference between pantheism and theism.

The point was that the majority of Christians are not that conclusive in what their idea of God is. You say that this isn't following Scripture, and only those that follow literally are Christians. I dispute this, because not only are you absolutely not in the position to choose another's beliefs for them, but you didn't respond to my request where in the Bible is specifically states that the Bible must be followed, word for word. But I don't dispute the difference between pantheism and theism.

Another thing; pantheism still fits into the idea that divine law and natural law are the same thing. If nature is somewhat of a divine presence, then the difference is semantic.

At 12/31/2009 3:50:15 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:
lol, If there were no supernatural element to pantheism, then it wouldn't be a theism. God is a supernatural entity. By nature being god, pantheists suggest that nature has supernatural abilities.

Pantheists either have a strong reverence for nature as it is, or some Pantheists believe nature is intelligent. There is nothing "supernatural" about intelligence. No Pantheist posits an extra element such as a supernatural being to the Universe.

Panentheists, however, posit that there is a God, and all things that exist are in God. That's different than Pantheism though.

If they didn't believe this, they'd just be atheists.

As Richard Dawkins quite rightly said, "Pantheism is sexed up Atheism." I don't believe in any God in the religious sense of the word. However, any other use of the word God is purely metaphorical, not literal. Kind of like how Einstein used the word God. He was an atheist with regards to personal religious gods, but he used the word God metaphorically or poetically.

For me, this is the bottom line:

"The trouble is that God in this sophisticated, physicist's sense bears no resemblance to the God of the Bible or any other religion." - Richard Dawkins

I don't see the point in pantheism though -- as Geo quoted from Dawkins, it's just sexed up atheism, a romanticized view of reality without any significant philosophical "meat" to it.

So what's the point of calling someone a pantheist then? Why not just say "I really like nature," if you don't believe that nature is a deity that can think intelligently?

LOL @ Dawkins. I've begun to chuckle every time his name is mentioned now a days. Sexed up atheism, yeah ok :) Atheists don't go declaring nature is a part of god - that would imply something supernatural.

A deity is supernatural. Pantheism begs of a universe that intelligently and consciously goes about it's business. That's a god. It's, in short, what you believe.

At 12/31/2009 3:51:40 PM, Volkov wrote:
Geo, the point isn't that there is a clear cut difference between pantheism and theism.

The point was that the majority of Christians are not that conclusive in what their idea of God is.

Christians =/= Christianity. Like I said, there's a "Christian" Bishop who doesn't think the Bible is a legitimate book and finds no good reason to believe Jesus' resurrection. Does he represent Christianity? Probably not. Or that priest from Religulous.

You say that this isn't following Scripture, and only those that follow literally are Christians. I dispute this, because not only are you absolutely not in the position to choose another's beliefs for them, but you didn't respond to my request where in the Bible is specifically states that the Bible must be followed, word for word.

"If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD; Then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance." - Deuteronomy 28:58,59

There you have it Volkov. The Bible requires that you follow every word of it.

But I don't dispute the difference between pantheism and theism.

You say that the Christian God is the Pantheist God. I dispute that.

At 12/31/2009 4:03:36 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:
So what's the point of calling someone a pantheist then? Why not just say "I really like nature," if you don't believe that nature is a deity that can think intelligently?

But I do believe nature is intelligent as opposed to blind chemical reactions.

LOL @ Dawkins. I've begun to chuckle every time his name is mentioned now a days. Sexed up atheism, yeah ok :) Atheists don't go declaring nature is a part of god - that would imply something supernatural.

Not if he was referring to Naturalistic Pantheism.

A deity is supernatural. Pantheism begs of a universe that intelligently and consciously goes about it's business. That's a god. It's, in short, what you believe.

This does not follow logically.

P1. Deity = supernatural

P2. Pantheism = intelligent/conscious Universe

Therefore, the Universe is a deity.

There's no point arguing with them, Geo. You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themself in to.