Talk:Pantheism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Removal of serious confusions with Theism and Panentheism plus non-existent versions of Pantheism

The article as it stood at January 7th 2010 was very seriously misleading and a serious disservice to Wikipedia readers. Many ideas not found in Pantheism but derived from Panentheism or even Theism had been inserted. Non-existent theistic and panentheistic "versions" of Pantheism (Classical Pantheism and Biblical Pantheism) had been inserted. My edit removes many of these errors but more work is needed in inserting citations. Naturalistic ✉ 01:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. I had begun to think you had vanished into thin air :) Ren ✉ 02:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I had been discouraged by the continual edit wars here caused by a small number of people intent on inserting erroneous or newly invented versions into the subject. I got tired of having to come back every single day and see some new act of vandalism. Frequently my efforts were deleted within half an hour of making them. Now that the Wikipedia article is the number one Google result for Pantheism, I believe it is a public duty to get this right, to make it accurate and unbiassed, and to keep it that way. I hope to bring along some more people who know this subject and its history very well indeed, and enough of them to keep the article in good shape. There's still much work to be done here. Naturalistic ✉ 18:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I know the feeling. Now that google gives way too much credit to wikipedia, we're obliged to make it good... At least, although I myself only know of the basic principles of pantheism, we could clearly see there was something terribly wrong with this article. (And one particular editor's actions come to mind)Ren ✉ 20:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The pandeism part is abbreviated and merged it into the section on panentheism. Torquemama007 (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ren, I restored just this one section from Archive 4, the reason being that this is the first part of what will be a whole sequence related to upgrading this article and making more accurate and objective. It will be useful for people to see the development. Naturalistic (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think having a whole section on Spinoza overstates his relative importance in respect to the doctrine. Torquemama007 (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree Torquemama, and it should not be a special section but go in the History of pantheism part. In the next week or two I am going to give the whole thing a thorough makeover. Naturalistic (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Issues with Cosmotheism

Given the extreme marginality of this term, I do not think it belongs here. The article Cosmotheism was changed so it redirects here. I don't think that's a great idea. In my view the best approach would be to restore that article and remove the redirect, and insert in that article the material from here. This would reduce the vandalism and sabotage of the Pantheism article by certain parties. I cannot find any reference to H. G. Wells use of the term cosmotheism, other than here, so I have removed that paragraph. Naturalistic (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorted. There are no refs for Cosmotheism though, if you know where to find them let me know.Ren ✉ 15:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I also find it hard to believe that cosmotheism has anything to do with Pantheism if it is indeed promoting the idea that god is created by humans through social planning and eugenics. I'm also looking into bringing back a version of that article from 6 years ago. Ren ✉ 19:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point Ren, and I agree regarding the relation with Pantheism. Hence there is a case for removing the links between these two articles. Naturalistic (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. The word "cosmotheism" is similar to "pantheism". If the two are indeed related (there are suggestions cosmotheism and "classical pantheism" are the same), then the links should stay. It says on other places that cosmotheism shares with some form of panentheism, with the worst stuff being that white people are god, basically. We need to find some sort of university professor I think. There are some things google doesn't know about, and that greatly limits my abilities to contribute in this area. Many Pantheism-like pages have suffered a lot of vandalism, complete OR and rubbish over the years, surely someone other than us would be interested in helping.Ren ✉ 01:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

As you may have guessed, I am an acknowledged expert on pantheism. I also asked Michael Levine - author of a "Pantheism" - book to help out, but he did not respond. He is more into the detail of the philosophical debates, which may not be quite what is wanted here. Also he authored the Stanford article, which comes in at no 4 on Google. Naturalistic (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There is and never has been any such thing as "classical pantheism." In so far as the term has ever been used in books, it refers (eg in Elements of Pantheism) to pantheism of the classical period ie Greece and Rome. The deleted material showed that this term was being used here as a cover for theistic distortions that were actually completely incompatible with any definition of pantheism, and was made up by one or other of the main POV pushers here, to make their own preferred version seem more authoritative. The trouble with cosmotheism is that its current use relates almost entirely to white supremacy. Also the description of the two main cosmotheists indicate that their idea was that humans were in the process of creating God via eugenics/social engineering. That idea has nothing to do with Pantheism. Naturalistic (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's what I had been suspecting all along. I thought cosmotheism was some kind of theistic pantheism, but apart from mumblings on the talk pages, I can find no evidence of that.

Btw, it would be interesting to write something to show the difference between pantheism and theistic omnipotence/omnipresence, to make things clear. Also something must be done about the unreferenced sections on other religions. I can definitely see what Taoism is doing there, the others, such as christianity, I'm really not sure.(I had looked before, and could not find any evidence of any kind of pantheism in christianity) Ren ✉ 06:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that the German article de:Kosmotheismus does describe what sounds like a kind of pantheism or cosmos worship, identifying it with Eastern religions, and none of that white supremacy bullshit. It also lists two books in German as sources which seem to be serious, scholarly works on religions. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Major edit of History section

Today I placed all historical material in the history section - except for the detailed coverage of individual religions. I still have to add references here, which I will do soon. I also removed the separate section on Spinoza, which was 1. Pushing a POV 2. Original research and 3. Belongs, if anywhere at all, in the article on Spinoza. Naturalistic (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

New "Issues within Pantheism" and "Criticisms of Pantheism" sections

Since the section on Ethics was just stuck in there by itself, I created a new "Issues within Pantheism" section which can cover use of religious vocabulary, rituals or no rituals, and other issues and internal debates. I also added a "Criticisms of Pantheism" section including Christian critiques and Schopenhauer. This will prove a useful section to avoid random criticisms being stuck inside other explanatory sections.Naturalistic (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Copy of "See also" for easy salvage in the future

I have never seen so many wikilinks at the bottom of a page on wikipedia, not even in a tamplate. They had to go. What really deserves to be there should stay. Consider a philosophy template.

• Deism
• Atheism
• Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
• Collective unconscious
• Cosmology
• Dualism
• Emergence
• Great Spirit
• Paul Harrison
• Hermetic Qabalah
• Holism
• Infinitism
• Kabbalah

• Mana
• Monism
• The Nation of Gods and Earths
• Naturalism
• Naturalistic pantheism
• Nature worship (disambiguation)
• Noosphere
• Oneness (disambiguation)
• Oversoul
• List of Pantheists
• Quakerism
• Ranters
• Religious naturalism

• Baruch Spinoza
• Stoicism
• Sufi metaphysics
• Sufism
• John Toland
• Unitarian Universalism
• Universal Pantheist Society
• Vedanta
• World Pantheist Movement
• Cosmotheism

Ren ✉ 01:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I restored a severely pruned version of this long list, removing articles that were unconnected as well as articles that were directly connected inside the main body. Naturalistic (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Issues within Pantheism

The issues found within Pantheism (as stated by the article) can be found in the article too. I find the inclusion of a "part of a series on God" box and "theism" template to be extremely confusing, since the words "God" and as such "theism" have unusual definitions in Pantheism. I'd rather only keep the philosophy of religion template (auto-expanded) at the bottom, and find a similarly appropriate box at the top, or make on of our own if necessary. What do you think?Ren ✉ 02:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Naturalistic (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ross Douthat's critique of "Avatar"

We should say something in here about conservative columnist Ross Douthat's New York Times editorial on the movie Avatar (titled "Heaven and Nature", which is just a naked broadside against Pantheism:

The Na’Vi are saved by the movie’s hero, a turncoat Marine, but they’re also saved by their faith in Eywa, the “All Mother,” described variously as a network of energy and the sum total of every living thing.

If this narrative arc sounds familiar, that’s because pantheism has been Hollywood’s religion of choice for a generation now. It’s the truth that Kevin Costner discovered when he went dancing with wolves. It’s the metaphysic woven through Disney cartoons like “The Lion King” and “Pocahontas.” And it’s the dogma of George Lucas’s Jedi, whose mystical Force “surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together.”

Hollywood keeps returning to these themes because millions of Americans respond favorably to them. From Deepak Chopra to Eckhart Tolle, the “religion and inspiration” section in your local bookstore is crowded with titles pushing a pantheistic message.

....<more of the same snipped>....

Pantheism offers a different sort of solution: a downward exit, an abandonment of our tragic self-consciousness, a re-merger with the natural world our ancestors half-escaped millennia ago.

But except as dust and ashes, Nature cannot take us back.

This has sparked up a whirlwind, mostly for the subtext of the Christian fear of Pantheism's resurgence, but hardly any attention has been paid to Douthat's ignorance of what exactly Pantheism is. Torquemama007 (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That's because of the works of Joseph campbell ( the hero with a thousand faces is a scriptwriter's must-read), and also because pantheistic concepts keep everyone happy. (And I actually think that's why Pantheism was 'created' for.) Weird, yet simple mystical stuff works. I doubt Avatar is related though. Avatar is more like naturalistic Matrixism. I see their hair as a USB port and their forest as a supercomputer. Pantheism, on the other hand, goes beyond the gaia concepts and similar.Ren ✉ 17:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

But there's still this popular misconception out there, and a steady drumbeat of Christian attacks on their straw man version of pantheism. Torquemama007 (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually Avatar and Douthat have caused a goodly increase in visits to Pantheism pages and numbers joining Pantheist social sites. Along with the Vatican attacking Pantheism, all this publicity and visibility is helping Pantheism quite a bit. With enemies like these, who needs friends? Let them attack Pantheism, and let pantheists respond right there on the same Web pages. As far as Wikipedia covering this, personally I don't think that this overview article should debate the latest controversy of the day, nor can it take a partisan view. This particular article has for a long time been wrecked because it was simply a battleground among different types of pantheists, and between pantheists and anti-pantheists. Naturalistic (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Is that not exactly why they should be remarked upon in the article? Tho the attack comes from a stunningly misinterpreted form of Pantheism, it does expose the anti-pantheist workings of those committed to theistic mindsets. It is part of a seemingly coordinated attack. Consider the similar misrepresentation of Deism in Moralistic therapeutic deism, and conservative blogger Mark Finkelstein attack on Pandeism in the New York Times last year (titled "Happy Pan-Deism Day From Gail Collins"), falsely insisting that "Pandeists worship trees and brooks." Now think about that, we are talking about editorials carried in the New York Times. Imagine if someone wrote an editorial similarly virulent against a major theistic faith, Judaism maybe, or Mormonism? They'd get their throat handed to them. But throw out scornful and misinformed bigotry against Pantheism and Pandeism (or, probably, Deism) and you get a pat on the back and nationwide publication. Torquemama007 (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I sympathize with your viewpoint Torquemama, however, there are always going to be attacks and criticisms on Pantheism from theistic viewpoints. There have been very prominent attacks by atheists on theism in recent years, and those guys are still alive and thriving and selling 100,000s of books.

If this Wikipedia article is used to report and respond to everyday attacks, then the attackers will come right in here and start messing the article up with Point Of View stuff, and the job of keeping it clean and neutral would get much much harder - just like it used to be a few years back when it became impossible to keep up with the critical POV people and they ran away with this article. This Wikipedia article is the number one result in a Google Pantheism search, it's crucial to keep it accurate and non-partisan.

This is just one article by one guy, and the main body of it actually presented Pantheism reasonably fairly, he just drew a couple of wrong conclusions and had a dismal view of nature. His article actually reflected worse on his own Catholic beliefs than on Pantheism. Of more significance I think is that Avatar, the biggest grossing movie of all time, was widely and correctly identified with Pantheism, and also that the Vatican attacked Pantheism in official Papal statements twice within six months. These are very significant developments and are worthy of note, I will write something on that. Douthat can be mentioned en passant, he was the one who first pointed out the association and many other people picked up that point. --Naturalistic (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That's reasonable I guess. Maybe a separate article altogether is needed, on pop-culture incorporations of Pantheism. Here's another thing to add to the pile, a sustained campaign against Oprah Winfrey also characterizing her, in a negative tone, as a Pantheist. Torquemama007 (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What to do with Jewish, Christian and Islamic Pantheism sections?

These need some serious work before they are accurate and neutral, but there's a bigger problem than that. Strictly speaking, there are no versions of Pantheism as such that form part of any of these religions. There are individual writers like Ibn al Arabi who have suggested than nothing exists except God (because He is perfect and therefore has no need of anything extra). It follows then that everything that exists is a part of God and everything in Holy. There are also emanationists like Plotinus or the Kabbalists, who see the Universe as an emanation of or extension of God, and therefore in some sense made out of God, though the outer reaches are much more distant from God. This certainly has some similarity with Pantheism, but Pantheism's start and end point is the Universe - only the Universe exists. The start and end point of these theisms is God - only God exists. In these theistic versions, God is really God, not just a way of looking at nature and the universe. So my view is that they do not classify as versions of pantheism. Nor for that matter are they versions of panentheism. Probably a new term is needed for them. My personal inclination would be to remove the sections relating to Jewish, Christian and Islamic pantheism. I have found only two very minor examples of modern people who claim to be Christian pantheists, ie. two individuals, and no movements or organizations. Some people suggest that Matthew Fox or Michael Dowd are pantheists, but both of them are well aware of the term and yet do not use it. Naturalistic (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I favour deletion. Obviously if new evidence comes to light these sections can be brought back, but as they are now they apparently only present OR.Ren ✉ 03:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice move. Removes a great deal of confusion. Naturalistic (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Abraham Kook wrote in more than one essay that the view of Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov is truly pantheistic, although not in the Spinozan sense, but a step beyond. The view presented in Sefer HaTanya can be seen as pantheistic, or at least panentheistic, and these assertions are supported there by quotations from Maimonides, Rabbi Moshe Cordovero and Rabbi Isaac Luria.Flange the Flee (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Taoism

There needs to be a division between Philosophical and Religious Daoism, because the two ARE separate schools, they should not be treated as if though they are the same thing. Lao Tzu's "The Tao Te Ching" was never meant to be a work of mysticism, nor was it a religious work, all it was, was a way of observing things, nothing more. Overanalyzing "The Tao Te Ching" is a mistake, because strictly speaking Daoist Philosophy is all about simplicity. Additionally, even if Lao Tzu were talking about God, which likely he wasn't;

1) Since Daoist Philosophy urges humility, the philosopher Lao Tzu would not have claimed to know God, and out of humility, even Lao Tzu had met him (God), he would not have bragged about it, being the accomplished master that he was.

2) Daoism is all about paradoxes, example; "high and low set measure by each other," which is a simple paradox. It basically says, you only know something, when you have something else to compare it to. In the strictest Daoist logic, God would have to exist, because we know, there is no God. Lets stop and think about that for a minute; if high and low set measure by each other, if you can only know one thing unless you know the other, since we know there is no God, then it stands to reason, God exists. That does not seem to make logical sense, unless, you see it as a paradox; this falls into a commonly used counter argument against atheists, namely the fact that God needs to exist, in order to be denied. Is it commonly used, or am I the first? To say God does not exist, is a paradoxical statement, because according to Daoist philosophy everything has its opposite. If there are conclusive facts, I am talking facts here, observable facts, that God does not exist, then strictly speaking, God exists, the statement is a paradox. Are there scientific facts, God does not exist? Absolutely, here's the problem though; in a binary system you have "1" and you have "0," quantity, and emptyness. Since everything in the universe has an opposite, then, it stands to reason, that the opposite, of facts that prove God does not exist, are facts, that he does exist. I could go around in circles all day with this, so I'll get to the point; paradoxical as Taoism is, the way of thinking does not lend itself to extremism. What I mean is, no self-respecting Daoist, would claim the universe is "impersonal," because, that's extremism, it is an unbalanced look at things. If in Daoist philosophy God were acknowledged, he would be simultaneously both personal, and impersonal, that is, paradoxical, creative, and destructive, merciful, yet ruthless, and so on.

3) Even in religious Daoism however, there are literally hundreds of schools, so that part of the article needs a cleanup.

I hope these suggestions were constructive, my second point was overlong and seemed like discussing things but I wasn't, I barely understand Daoist Philosophy myself even though I've studied the Tao Te Ching for years now. I can not claim to know the mind of Lao Tzu, but I can say with a fair degree of certainty, it is over analyzed. Lao Tzu, was all about simplicity, hence, it is best to approach any of his philosophies, with simplicity in mind, simplicity but at the same time, being prepared to have paradoxes thrown at you. Ultimately the Philosophy is all about balance, in order for harmony to exist, while balance does not require a creator, the idea of balance nevertheless strongly implies, a tremendously powerful force would be needed, to maintain it.

Hence if Lao Tzu did ever talk about God, "Shangdi" if you Chinese purists prefer, is only HINTED at, in the Tao Te Ching, never explicitly talked about. Anyway I have overstated my suggestion for the article; I just think the part on Daoism needs a clean up, again Daoism, is divided into two categories, namely Philosophical Daoism, and Religious Daoism, and both branches have a myriad of schools. Again Philosophical Daoism is exactly that; no different from the Greek school of Cynics of which Diogenes is the most famous member. To the Chinese, Diogenes would be a Daoist; both the Cynical Greek school, and Daoist Philosophy, are decidedly anti materialist. Of course, Diogenes could be accused of taking his philosophy of "simplicity" to an extreme..... and Daoist thinking doesn't like that. Oh no, no extremes; its all about balance. Long point overstated; there is Philosophical Daoism, which in and of itself has a large number of schools, some of which, the texts were burned by the Qin emperor, then there is Religious Daoism which follows some of the precepts of Philosophical Daoism, however, again its a separate branch, and even within that branch there are numberless sub-branches.

Again please make the distinction between the two.

67.148.120.103 (talk) 10:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)stardingo747

Philosophical and religious Taoism aren't "separate". The differences between the two aren't relevant to this article. The pantheist god is the equivalent of the Tao, and taoists, religious or not, do not worship the tao, in the same way pantheists do not worship their 'god'. Religious taoism brings ethics (pantheism doesn't), organization (temples and such, pantheism doesn't either), and, depending on the school, deities that are borrowed from other traditions. Pantheism is only related to the Tao and the Tao is present in 'both' Taosim(s).Ren ✉ 17:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section

Subject to agreement from editors committed to accuracy, I have removed the criticism section. I think this section crept in for two reasons: 1. The early framers of this article and several of the frequent editors were actually critics of Pantheism. 2. People like myself were not very familiar with Wikipedia and thought that neutral meant "covering both sides of the controversy." I just checked similar Wikipedia entries (Atheism, Humanism, Deism, Theism, Christianity) and I did not find any "Criticism" sections even though plenty of academics have plenty of critiques of all of these. I think Pantheism should be treated in a similar manner. It makes sense to have each article explaining what that belief system is. Critiques of each type of belief are legion - eg Atheists, Moslems and Jews each have their own (and different) sets of critiques of Christianity. It would be arbitrary to select any particular set of critiques and leave out the rest, and ridiculous to include them all. I suggest that the Ethics question be covered as a separate section - not as part of a criticism section. Naturalistic (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Subject to agreement from editors committed to accuracy, I have removed the criticism section. I think this section crept in because the early framers of this article and several of the frequent editors were actually critics of Pantheism and inserted their own POV criticisms. (Changed by User:Naturalistic on 4 July 2010, noted here by BCorr|Брайен 23:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC))

I have reintroduced the Grounding of Ethics section again under the "issues" section as suggested in the discussion above, as it was very helpful to the article in my opinion. 203.166.39.162 (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Arroneous

The particular form which the ethics section took was just another criticism of Pantheism by a non-Pantheist. Schopenhauer's objection is simply based on a misunderstanding of Pantheism, or is addressed only at the most simplistic and fairy tale version of Pantheism. Responding to such critiques is not part of what readers expect of a Wikipedia article, nor do we find this type of critique in the similar articles I cite above (Atheism, Humanism, Deism, Theism, Christianity). An Issues within Pantheism section should present precisely that - not issues that non-Pantheists raise about Pantheism. Ethics within Pantheism relate to, for example, vegetarianism, hunting, the status of human technologies etc. Naturalistic (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding references

I started expanding the references as requested. --Naturalistic (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Other religions section

Next step is to address this section, to simplify, clarify and add refs. --Naturalistic (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It says here "There are many elements of pantheism in some forms of Buddhism, Neopaganism, and Theosophy along with many varying denominations and individuals within and without denominations." Naturally, more is needed, especially for Buddhism. What forms of Buddhism? When, how where? Torquemama007 (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Taoism

I completely rewrote this section, added references and removed the "needs references" tag. --Naturalistic (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Theopanism

I have just discovered this article, Theopanism, and I'm not sure what to do with it. A little research shows that it is mostly expressed as some kind of parallel to Pantheism. To make things even more confusing, there's a number of of references to a "Theopantism" which is similar but also distinct. Torquemama007 (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

By coincidence I came across this in the last few days, and was impressed by it as a concept. Admittedly, it is very little used so far, but it could be very helpful in cxlearing up some confusions about Pantheism. I personally would find it very useful indeed to distinguish that type of Pantheism that starts out from the idea of God, and proceeds to show that since God is perfect, self-sufficient, in need of nothing etc etc that therefore nothing exists except God. Therefore everything we see is God. This is actually a very different position from Pantheism and starts at the opposite extreme from Pantheism. Examples include Ibn Al'Arabi and other sufis, and (it can be argued) even Spinoza. I would suggest not trying to delete it. I will try to dig out more stuff about it. --Naturalistic (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection??

I am inclined to request semi-protection for this page, on the basis of recurrent vandalism by frivolous visitors. Three recent examples from the last three or four weeks, all by unregistered visitors 1. Pantheist women are hot (true but doesn't belong here :D) 2. Pantheism means humans were created by a group of panthers 3. "Athiesm (sic) is poopy. Semi-protection would limit editing to registered Wikipedia users (correct me if I'm wrong). This would probably avoid most example of vandalism and stupid edits. I'm interested to here what others think. --Naturalistic (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: the powers that be decided that we don't need semi-protection (against users who have not registered or signed in). I can understand that viewpoint, which leaves Wikipedia at it's maximal crowd-sourced wisdom (or folly or chaos). What it does mean is that those people who care about accuracy have to keep vigilant against vandalism, inaccuracy, theorizing, and other unhelpful changes. --Naturalistic (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins and Pantheism

" Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion gave Naturalistic Pantheism increased credibility among atheists by describing it as "sexed-up atheism." Is this really correct? To me it sounds as if Dawkins is mocking pantheism rather than promoting it. And it seems unlikely that a single paragraph in one of his books would significantly alter atheist's opinions of pantheism. -- 90.228.208.15 (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2010

If you read the section of the book (page 18) you will see that Dawkins not at all mocking pantheism, he's serious - and he's accurate, at least about Naturalistic Pantheism. And Dawkins goes on to say he is religious in the same sense that Einstein said he was religious (p19). The reason that quote is important is that it gives Pantheism increased credibility in atheist circles. Moreover the direct quote has been extensively used in ads by the World Pantheist Movement. --Naturalistic (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, having read the section in the book I believe Dawkins is mocking Pantheism - he is dismissive of it, believing that Atheists should openly declare their non-belief.

More importantly there is no evidence that pantheism has 'increased credibility among atheists' as a result of Dawkins. The notion that one line in a book (even one by a noted atheist and scientist such as Dawkins) is anything more than a symptom of the resurgence of Pantheism is ludicrous. It should be removed. Aapter (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

A near endorsement by the world's most famous atheist is in and of itself an expression of "increased credibility among atheists," and cannot fail to have an effect beyond Dawkins. Please read The God Delusion pp 18-19 carefully. There is no doubt that Dawkins suggests that pantheism is sexed-up atheism and "uses the word God as a non-supernatural synonym for Nature"; that Einstein was pantheistic; and that Dawkins himself is religious in the same sense that Einstein was (though he prefers not to use the word religious). Note also that Naturalistic Pantheism as represented in the World Pantheist Movement does not use the word God or other god-related expressions, and two thirds of people surveyed by the WPM are uncomfortable using the word God of their own beliefs (ie they are atheistic). Naturalistic (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Much better than in January 2010, but still needs work

A lot of very good and helpful editing has been done on this article over the last few months, but it still needs a lot of work, andf in particular it is promoting one POV about what Pantheism is over others. Material is repeatedly excised saying it is POV, but without detailed explanation or clarification -- it seems to be replacing one point of view with another. It would be very helpful if people who have not heavily edited this article since January could work on it, and so I am tagging it.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 13:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I would request that you read the following comment and consider removing the tags. All edits and reversions by me since January 2000 have been made on the basis of very careful academic accuracy. If the article looks way better now, it is because of this approach. The revisions I have made are not at all POV - I am extremely careful to avoid that. The major types of pantheism are presented in a neutral fashion without bias towards any one version. However, it is very important to keep in mind the distinction between pantheism and panentheism, which is not at all the same as pantheism.

Many of the people occasionally popping in to edit this article are unregistered. Many of the changes they made have been unsourced, inaccurate, and very clearly written off the top of their heads. The space provided to explain an edit is very brief and so I give brief explanations. If you think I should explain every reversion in detail in this talk page, please say so, as it is easy to do so. However, I think it is questionable whether changes by non-registered passers-by merit such treatment. --Naturalistic (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Naturalistic. I appreciate your explanation and I think it makes sense. I do think it would be quite helpful to add even a few words to your edit summaries giving an indication of why something removed was POV content or how the edit promotes NPOV. Having limited familiarity and knowledge of the topic, it has not been clear as I look at the edits and reversions. Also, I do have a sensitivity to situations where it might appear that someone is "guarding" an article, but it isn't clear to what end or with what understanding (even assuming good faith) -- perhaps based on my own tendency to do the same in my early days as an editor.

Thanks again, BCorr|Брайен 01:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful position BCorr. In future, with registered users, I will give more detailed reasons if they will fit and if not add an entry on the talk page.

I'd be very grateful if you could remove the "needs attention from an expert" tag. I am actually one of the three leading experts with published books on the subject. I tried to get the author of the other two books also involved here, but they did not respond. Re the God Pan etymology, I did actually respond in user Aregakn's talk page but probably should have done so in the Pantheism talk page. The basic point is that Pan as in the God Pan did not play any part in the etymology of the word, which was a neologism newly created in the late 17th/early 18th century. It's questionable if the fact that some people erroneously believe the god Pan has something to do with Pantheism is sufficient reason to include it. As to "guarding" it's true that I frequently "watch" this article, because like many religious or political articles it attracts controversial insertions which, 90% of the time, are not well founded. My only aspiration here is to keep this article in line with the dictionaries and philosophy texts and sources. --Naturalistic (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Several Recent Edits

I have tried to address several of the topics brought up as well as clarify some issue I found myself. Everything I have added is referenced so please do not delete anything without first looking at the reference. I would propose that further expansions are put in one of the three sub categories of Pantheism to prevent the page from becoming too long. Perhaps we then should add a specific page on dualist pantheism for more information on that topic. There is plenty of history on the idealism and Naturalism_(philosophy) pages, perhaps some paraphrasing and references would be good to add here so that it is easy for people to redirect. I have finished my editing for now and will move on to other topics. Edmonds University Mainz Jan 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.93.128.12 (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Pantheism

Dudes, I was just now looking at Portal:Christianity and I saw that there's actually like a dozen portals for Christianity alone -- I'm talking, different portals just for Christianity in India, and Christianity in China. So why no Portal:Pantheism? DeistCosmos (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC) We aren't really big enough or developed enough to get a portal yet...yet ;) Kungfukats2 (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Questionable reversion

Earlier this month, there was obviously a lot of work by a knowledgeable person, who cited their improvements. It was reverted for the reason "of POV and original research additions by non-identified person." (It was an IP, but please understand that an IP can be a first class editor.) I think the work should be pretty much returned to the article. — CpiralCpiral 21:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I reverted it. The person was using a very inaccurate definition of pantheism (which he or she calls the "technical" definition). They call the definition that's in the dictionaries and textbooks and which was previously included in this article the "popular" definition. So from square one their viewpoint was ill-informed and highly tendentious. There is not even an academic controversy which takes that person's viewpoint.

Giving citations is no protection against being seriously misinformed about the fundamental issues of the subject concerned. Original research means making original arguments that are not based on a published source. Wikipedia can not be used for people with bees in their bonnet to argue their own personal viewpoints. I would have reverted it whether the person was identified or not, and for exactly the same reasons. --Naturalistic (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not convinced yet. There is no record of "technical" V.S. "popular" definition in this forum. But please let me help you convince me.

• I want Dawkin's.
• I want Webster's dictionary.
• I want Beiser. I want Einstein. I esp. want Tillich.

Why should the article have zero presentation on these things I would rather see than not? Granted, the lead was not the place for nuance, and the wording was poor. — CpiralCpiral 07:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it was late and I didn't do much rewriting... I'd meant to say my impression was that the contributor made up the part about a popular vs. unpopular/technical distinction. I don't think it was intentional, it just needed explaining, something like: Warts & All vs. Cosmos, the Good Parts... or so I imagine, that's just WP:OR. The terms were fashionable for so long, it's hard to tell what anyone meant without research. But certainly not that, so the editor has my sympathizes, although I find their explanation even less plausible.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 18:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Agreed with Naturalistic: The edits were less than WP:NPOV in several respects, especially with regard to Einstein and the so-called "supernaturalist" view of pantheism, While hardly accurate in a "technical" sense, (and no doubt unpopular among pantheists), it's arguable the point of view should be included... just without the WP:UNDUE emphasis and given proper citations (which it lacked). For Schelling and Hegel, WP:UNDUE is a bit more complicated in so far as the quaint details of pantheism having been a term of theological abuse (synonymous with atheism in a pejorative sense) are easily overlooked today, but historically, they're important when weighing the defense those philosophers enjoyed against allegations of pantheism... (whatever merit an "allegation" might still possess if divorced from context).

It's not evident in the above diff, because it missed the first edit to the lede, but [edit conflict] the contributor's peculiar, and entirely uncited, "technical definition", (i.e., the "supernaturalist" view), was simply given as an established fact, despite being contrary to the Webster's definition and Dawkins quote added later:

“But the popular definition strays from the technical definition of pantheism. Any god that is more than metaphorical (figurative) must be supernatural: supernaturalism is the essence of belief in God, or in gods. And, correctly defined, pantheism is a supernaturalistic concept. Pantheism holds that everything in nature contains an invisible, nonmaterial, supernatural "essence" or "substance" (Spinoza) that binds the parts of the universe into a whole that is "God."”

The contributor conflates notions of essence and substance with what they call supernaturalism: “the essence of belief in God”. (As an obscure "ism", it would seem to contrast with deism). They proceed to editorialize in light of this throughout their contributions. A somewhat amusing example:

“However, Harrison's interpretations seem to be based on the popular (nonsupernaturalistic) rather than the technical (supernaturalistic) definition of pantheism. Certainly in the case of Einstein, the Harrison view seems to clash sharply with what Einstein actually wrote: "I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive." <ref> Albert Einstein, quoted in Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2006), 15. </ref>”

(Famously, Einstein is quoted as saying he believes in the God of Spinoza...) The WP:OR is contrary to (or at best, a naïve WP:SYNTHESIS of) cited material. That doesn't necessarily imply a merely personal disposition, it's entirely possible the POV stems from a quasi-historical orthodoxy, (like Scholasticism/Catholicism). It's easy to see how "essence" and "substance", as found in the Tillich and Beiser cites, could be misunderstood in that regard... (it being unlikely that historical theologians would have failed to integrate the concepts). Still, the terms are ultimately derivative of Aristotle and philosophy, rather than theology, from a more or less Platonic, Cartesian, Heraclitian, or even Scholastic perspective, depending on who's pontificating. But it should go without saying that Aristotle wasn't a very good Catholic, and the terms imply neither the supernatural nor the belief in God.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 10:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Nautilus math

The article image's caption says the "[nautilus] embodies the Fibonacci series and the golden ratio", but does it really, in fact? Not very closely. Should an encyclopedia say that it in fact does? In this article there needs be either a succinct representation of the popular misconception concerning such wonders, or the matter needs to be noted, or the statement put in quotes, or simply deleted. Falbo, a mathematician, concludes from "experiments" (the details to prove it was legitimate are left out of the documents that I've seen), that the shells are in the 1.2-1.4 range, not 1.6. Note also that the nautilus are a family containing six species.— CpiralCpiral 17:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Changes made by unidentified user 86.4.173.168

Unidentified user 86.4.173.168 has made repeated extensive changes that need to be discussed, and that could very easily lead to edit wars. The latest changes of May 12 are less objectionable than the first set of May 1 & 2 - however 86.4.173.168 should explain the reasons for changes, provide references, and not insert Original Research or Point of View material. I would like also to request that if 86.4.173.168 wishes his or her changes to be taken seriously, they should cease to be anonymous and acquire a proper Wikipedia identity. --Naturalistic (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

==Another bunch of changes were made by the same anonymous user on May 11, often inaccurate, mostly without references, and repetitive. At least most of it was not a reversion. The addition of neutral monist pantheism is a good one. I tidied much of this up. It is particularly inaccurate to say that Richard Dawkins criticized Pantheism when he called it "sexed-up atheism." See God Delusion p18 where his treatment is very sympathetic and largely accurate of Naturalistic Pantheism. --Naturalistic (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding a new addition to article Neutral Monist Pantheism and Baruch Spinoza.

Baruch Spinoza is mentioned in both the more recently added Neutral Monist Pantheism section (which does not have it's own article, and in a search on the UPS site Pantheist.net did not yield a single result) and the pre existing Dualist Pantheism article

1. REDIRECT [[1]]

which appears to have more citation. Each are very different definitions of pantheism but both make claim to being "held" by or "the philosophy of" Baruch Spinoza. Can anybody provide the source material required to resolve this and determine if both are valid with citations, or determine if one has been a POV based edit to try and look more powerfully endorsed. I bring this up because the conflicting appearance of the two undermines the reliability of both from a 3rd party perspective.

The text from under the Neutral Monist subheading: "This type of pantheism was held by Baruch Spinoza (1632-77), a Jewish philosopher who identified God and Nature. For Spinoza, God was the underlying reality and had infinite attributes of which humans could perceive only two: extension (space and matter) and thought.[6]" to be compared with:

"Spinozism is the philosophy of Baruch Spinoza and is a classical example of pantheism. Although Spinoza himself stated that he did not "identify god with nature",[2] pantheism was coined by John Toland to describe the philosophy of Spinoza.[3] Since it predates the concept of Pantheism entirely it is more a predecessor to pantheism than a variant. Martial Guéroult suggested the term "Panentheism", rather than "Pantheism" to describe Spinoza’s view of the relation between God and the universe. The universe is not God, but it is, in a strong sense, "in" God. Not only do finite things have God as their cause; they cannot be conceived without God.[4] In other words, the world is a subset of God. Spinozism is truly dualist in the sense that the mind and body are separate but is panentheistic in that they are unified by god.[5]" which is a direct quote from the Dualist page. It would also help the case for keeping the addition of Neutral Monist pantheism if it could be defined more clearly and have it's own article with citations, and sources that do not conflict with other types.

I would also like to thank the user Naturalistic however for their clean up of the original text by the IP address identified user. Asdfwasd (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

What you quote from Dualist Pantheism looks like highly misinformed and misleading stuff to me. Spinoza was definitely not a dualist and definitely was a neutral monist. See Neutral Monism and the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy article on same. Thanks for pointing this out. It's not on my watch list. When I get time I will go see and edit.--Naturalistic (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Pantheism and Universe

I have a problem about the Universe expression used in this article. Especially when Multiverse theories seem to gain more and more credibility. To base a "view" like Pantheism in Universe and not in ALL is to me a risky thing since it seems the first is probably not the same as the second. Tacv (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a valid point. Probably we are reaching a stage where the word Cosmos may be more appropriate. --Naturalistic (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree, Universe is correct till now, but it's very probable that soon it will not. Whole is to me the closest word, but i'm sure this will be a matter for discussion among Pantheists in the next decades, when the idea of existence and everything goes beyond our Universe. Tacv (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The Solution

Pantheism means that the word "Nature" can everywhere be simply substituted for the word "God." This was the rational 18th century's way of solving the problem of the increasing inability to believe in the Abrahamic God. This eliminates all discussion of how God can be "in" the universe or other senseless questions. Lestrade (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)Lestrade

Allisgod's changes

Allisgod has been making changes that ignore the meaning of terms. It is a policy of Wikipedia that editors should not insert their personal opinions or original research. The first change - removing Nature and inserting Universe - changes the meaning and just adds another version of "reverence for the cosmos" and removes the shared position of versions of pantheism that Nature (ie Nature on Earth) is sacred. The second point made is that some people think pantheism is compatible with panentheism. Well so they might, but they are mistaken. This is simply a personal point of view (POV) unsupported by any source, and flies in the face of academic texts and dictionary definitions. The URL you cited does NOT state that these two terms are compatible. You have misread the source - read the next paragraph right underneath where the site says on what matters they agree. These two terms are different. In Pantheism, there is only the Cosmos, which is viewed as a kind of divinity and sometimes referred to as "God." In Panentheism, there is a God existing prior to the Universe, who created the Universe, but is also present throughout the Universe. The two terms have some connection, but they are not compatible. I will continue to revert this change on the grounds of POV and plain inaccuracy. --Naturalistic (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturalistic (talk • contribs)

Agendas? Allisgod v. Naturalistic

Pantheism does not belong to "The World Pantheist Movement". You have a very specific idea of what pantheism means to you and are apparently trying to force it onto this page and pigeonhole the word pantheism. I haven't nearly edited enough and am trying to compromise with all these "Naturalistic Pantheism" ideas on this page. A couple examples:

1) Nature is a word emphasized by "Naturalistic Pantheism". It does not mean the same thing as Cosmos or "All". Pantheism for many (including the man who coined the term) is an abstract idea that goes beyond what the word "Nature" implies. While I don't have a problem with the word being used as a part of the description for pantheism, I do have a problem when it is used again and again and pantheism which means "All is God" is turned into "God is Nature", which is not the same.

2) The idea that pantheists who believe panENtheism is a variety of pantheism is a "mistake" is an opinion, not a fact. Pantheism is an inclusive broad abstract concept. PanENtheism is a derivation of the abstract concept. "Naturalistic Pantheists" apparently agree with the distinction and like to emphasize it. Others do not. In fact, it appears the man who coined the term pantheism to describe his own philosophy would be considered a panentheist according to the "Naturalistic Pantheist" - which is a pretty big 'inconvenient truth'. The man creates the word to describe an abstract concept that "All is God" and that "All" and "God" are concepts no man will fully understand, and now "Naturalistic Pantheists" want to say that "All" means "Nature" and God has a specific meaning and "does not" mean creator and "does not" mean whatever else they do not agree with.

Sorry, this page is for Pantheism, not Naturalistic Pantheism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allisgod (talk • contribs) 00:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted your reversion. This page is neutral and accurate and those qualities are my only agenda. It covers four main versions of pantheism and does not attempt to prioritize any one of them. It does not in any way prioritize Naturalistic Pantheism.

John Toland was a physicalist and clearly a Naturalistic Pantheist - however that is irrelevant.

Panentheism is NOT a version of Pantheism - you have cited no sources to show that anyone other than yourself thinks it is. The Wikipedia Panentheism article accurately describes the difference in the same way that this page does (without your changes).

The naturepantheist.org page you cited as source does not say that panentheism is a version of pantheism.

In fact it says:

"Note: PANENTHEISM, coined by K.C.F.Krause (1781-1832) means God is immanent in the universe, as a part though not the whole of his being. This view preserves the idea of God as Creator. . . . Panentheism grades into theism, polytheism, and spiritualism, which may acknowledge divinity in Nature (and in so doing can lead to confusion with Pantheism)." --Naturalistic (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is the perfectly accurate intro to the Wikipeda Panentheism article, which agrees with the description in the Pantheism article (minus Allisgod's changes:

Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) "all"; ἐν (en) "in"; and θεός (theós) "God"; "all-in-God") is a belief system which posits that the divine exists (be it a monotheistic God, polytheistic gods, or an eternal cosmic animating force), interpenetrates every part of nature and timelessly extends beyond it. Panentheism is differentiated from pantheism, which holds that the divine is not a distinct being or beings but is synonymous with the universe.[1] Simply put, in pantheism, the divine is the whole; however, in panentheism, the whole is in the divine. This means that the universe in the first formulation is practically the whole itself. In the second formulation, the universe and the divine are not ontologically equivalent. In panentheism, God is viewed as the eternal animating force behind the universe. Some versions suggest that the universe is nothing more than the manifest part of God. In some forms of panentheism, the cosmos exists within God, who in turn "pervades" or is "in" the cosmos. While pantheism asserts that God and the universe are coextensive, panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe. In addition, some forms indicate that the universe is contained within God.[2]--Naturalistic (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The person who coined the word Pantheism to describe his own philosophy was Joseph Raphson, not John Toland (Toland got the word pantheismus from Raphson and translated it to English). Raphson, according to your limited view of pantheism, would have to be labeled a panENtheist, since he clearly left open the possibility that All is a part of God. You are trying to limit and redefine the word pantheism away from the man who coined the term! (along with others who do not agree with you) You even seem to be applying your "Naturalistic Pantheism" POV onto the Pantheism page and bullying anyone who edits this page otherwise. Ironically, what you call Naturalistic Pantheism he called "panhylism" (which means "All is Wood" - i.e. "All is NATURE"). He believed your view to be atheism and did not call it pantheism! Let me repeat: the man who coined the term pantheism to describe his own philosophy would be called a possible panENtheist by your definition and would in turn have called your view "panhylist" rather than pantheistic. How inconvenient it must be for your agenda to promote your own limited viewpoint of pantheism that the man who invented the word to describe his own philosophy would say that you - who here in 2012 are trying to control this page on pantheism on Wikipedia and editing out perfectly reasonable views of pantheism - are not even a pantheist! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allisgod (talk • contribs) 00:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Allisgod, your own agenda is blatantly betrayed by your ID as well as by your edits and attempts to confuse Pantheism with Panentheism. Raphson's "definition" of pantheism centered not around an undefined "All" but around abstract space, which he identified with God. Raphson's view has no privileged status, and in fact did not make it into the prevailing post-Toland discussion of Pantheism and what it means. Raphson was never part of the ongoing discussion of Pantheism until Stephen Daniel, in the 1990s, unearthed his first use of the word in Latin.

The meaning that prevailed was that Pantheism considers Universe and God (however God is defined) to be identical. There is no such thing as "Classical Pantheism".

It would be good for the history section to quote what Raphson actually said. I have made efforts to locate the Latin text but as yet have not found it anywhere. Certainly the British Library would have it.

As I already pointed out, the page considers four varieties of pantheism, of which Naturalistic Pantheism is only one. It does not make any arguments for Naturalistic Pantheism being more valid than the other varieties nor does it give more space to Naturalistic Pantheism than to the others.--Naturalistic (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You are a revisionist trying to promote made up words and ideas from your book (I presume you are P. Harrison) that have no basis in history. I have compromised with you by not removing stuff like "Neutral Monist Pantheism" (which has 67 Google search results) and meanwhile you continue your bullying by removing a section called Classical Pantheism (which has 8,000+ results on Google search) and pretending it doesn't exist. Your agenda is clear - you are trying to turn this Pantheism page into your own "Naturalistic Pantheism" page to promote yourself, your version of pantheism, and your "World Pantheist Movement". You are even discounting the man who coined the term pantheism, which is absurd. You are completely out of line.

Your criticisms apply more to yourself than to me. References to Classical Pantheism on the Internet derive from an early version of this article which was at the time dominated by a critic of Pantheism. Otherwise I defy you to find any academic source or book that includes Classical Pantheism as defined by you.

Your summary of Raphson's definition of pantheism is completely inaccurate. Raphson's "God" was abstract space - it was not "the all" meaning everything, and he excluded matter from his definition. Therefore Raphson himself is not even an example of your preferred version of pantheism. You are simply pushing your own agenda here and you have not even read your own sources carefully. Here is the complete chapter from Koyre: http://www.sacred-texts.com/astro/cwiu/cwiu11.htm

You can find more in "John Toland's Christianity not Mysterious" pp 303-312. and also at http://naturepantheist.org/raph-son.html

As I keep repeating, the article as it stands minus your material does not in any way favor Naturalistic Pantheism, and my only agenda is accuracy and neutrality. I do compromise with accurate material, but IMHO one should not compromise with inaccuracy.

If you are right about panentheism being a version of pantheism, then maybe you should head over to the Panenetheism article and start messing around with that article also, and see how the other editors there treat you. They agree totally with me on the difference.--Naturalistic (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

That's like saying Christians agree that God means an Abrahamic God, therefore pantheists must also agree that is what God means. Pantheism is not simply defined by a panentheist's POV (or a Naturalistic Pantheist POV for that matter). It is an abstract word which happens to have been created by a man who would disagree with your attempt to limit its definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allisgod (talk • contribs) 02:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The Panentheism people have nothing to do with me - they came to the same conclusion using reliable sources, and every textbook on religious philosophy makes the same distinction. If panentheism is a version of pantheism, why don't you go and insert that position in that article and see how people respond to you there? You have not even read your own sources properly. I cite them above - please reread them. You are wrong on what Raphson believes. As I said, he does not include matter in his definition of "God." The Basics of Philosophy page you cite as your source is merely a reprint of the ancient version of this Wikipedia article and is not an independent source.--Naturalistic (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you are unable to understand Raphson's philosophy. Raphson does not fit into any of your contrived categories. And that's exactly what they are - YOUR categories. YOUR point of view. I have not edited those out in an effort to compromise with you, yet you make no compromises and insist on deleting a perfectly valid category and attempt to bully away anybody who disagrees with you. I've reviewed the history of this page and it is obvious what you are trying to do. You believe this Pantheism page belongs to you and your "World Pantheist Movement" and are using it to promote yourself and your version of pantheism. You are free to believe what you will but you are not free to control the word Pantheism to suit your purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allisgod (talk • contribs) 04:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You have not answered any of my substantive points. Your only source for the existence of Classical Pantheism is a pirated and highly erroneous ancient version of the Wikipedia page. This is not an independent external source. Unfortunately, several similar sites reproduced this same page. --Naturalistic (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Charles Hartshorne referred to "Classical Pantheism" Spinoza's and the Stoics' philosophies, along with 8,000+ Google results including many individuals who have referred to it and use it to describe it for themselves versus YOUR contrived categories which come up with fewer than 100 Google search results. You are an inventor of words and categories which you flood onto this page and then you quickly delete others who offer perfectly reasonable categories. Here's a question to you regarding YOUR categories:

Where does a pantheist who believes that 'All is God' but who is open to the possibility that God may or may not be bigger than All, fit into your categories. Does this not exist in your mind? Are you trying to make these people disappear (to fit into your agenda)?

Further, where does Joseph Raphson fit into your categories? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allisgod (talk • contribs) 05:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

According to this interpretation of Pantheism, both Naturalistic and Allisgod are God, and I am also, and so are you, and so is Joseph Raphson. Do you feel like God? Is this sensible? However, if we follow the Enlightenment philosophers and merely substitute the word “Nature” for the word “God,“ then it makes perfect sense.Lestrade (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Lestrade

Okay we need a pause to find a way forward, we cannot continue with reversions repeated several times a day. As a small start I have accepted your change of "sacredness of the Universe" and added "and of Nature" - without which Nature is omitted from the common concepts. In any religion sacredness can be attributed to any particular thing not just the "deity." So both the Universe and Nature on Earth can be sacred.

As for where Raphson fits and "classical pantheism" and whether panentheism is a variety of pantheism agreement is not so simple.

We need to consider these issues in a calm and rational and well-evidenced manner. Since these three can be considered separately, I am starting three new sections of Talk:Pantheism where we can discuss each one with the relevant evidence. This will make it easier for others to see each one and will move this discussion away from all three issues being parts of an edit war across the board.

I think we should both avoid ad hominem attacks. Ad hominem arguments are always irrelevant: what matters is, is the statement accurate and well-referenced.--Naturalistic (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe you are looking for compromise or agreement. You are looking to impose your views and kick out other views, as evidenced by immediately deleting the category on Classical Pantheism and continuing to impose the word Nature onto the page. God forbid anybody remove or edit the several links and content from your single source (your own book). This has become your personal playground to promote "The World Pantheist Movement" and your limited "Naturalistic Pantheism" view of pantheism, and you are looking to protect it. My experience is limited with Wikipedia and how these things work out, but this much is clear to me. (Allisgod (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC))

Is Panentheism a variety of Pantheism?

The question here is: are there any widely accepted/published/accredited sources that state that Panentheism is a variety of Pantheism?

Allisgod, you quote two sources. Levine p11 says "Panentheism ... is a VARIANT of both pantheism and theism." He does not say that it is a VARIETY of Pantheism. This is not just a quibble about synonyms. Levine goes on to say "although DISTINCT FROM BOTH it is best taken as a theistic variant."

Gary Suttle in http://naturepantheist.org/ is a little more muddied, but in his little diagram he sums up Pantheism as "GOD IS NATURE" and Panentheism as "GOD IN AND ABOVE NATURE." The rest of the text makes it plain that by "God in Nature" Pantheism means "God is Nature, period." God is not anything else or beyond Nature. It's pretty clear that this position is logically incompatible with the Panentheist idea that God is in but also above and beyond Nature.

Allisgod, you ask "Where does a pantheist who believes that 'All is God' but who is open to the possibility that God may or may not be bigger than All, fit into your categories. Does this not exist in your mind? Are you trying to make these people disappear."

I accept that this is your position and that you have a right to it. However, because one person can simultaneously hold aspects of both does not mean that one position is in fact a variety of the other. For example, there are people who call themselves Buddhist Pantheists - does this mean that Buddhism is a variety of Pantheism? No. There are people who call themselves Christian Pantheists, Pagan Pantheists and all manner of combinations. These combinations means that the person takes aspects of each that they feel comfortable with.

As for your situation it seems to me that 1. Your basic position is pantheist. 2. You are agnostic about Panentheism. If you want a label for yourself I would suggest Agnostic Panentheist Pantheist.

However, the existence of such a combination has no bearing on the question of whether Panentheism is a variety of Pantheism. It is not. The two are logically distinct and logically incompatible.

Wikipedia is not about the personal viewpoints of editors. It does not condone insertion of personal points of view, unless these are solidly backed by external published evidence. Your two sources are acceptable sources - but you have misread or misunderstood them.--Naturalistic (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

All accepted/published/accredited sources agree that panentheism is a derivative of pantheism. "The two are ...logically incompatible" is your viewpoint, which is also the viewpoint of panentheists. But it is not a fact and not accepted by all pantheists. Wikipedia is not about the personal viewpoints of editors, so this is not a place for you to impose your personal "logic". Gary Suttle's view is not "muddied", it's actually well thought out. He shows that one side of pantheism (yours) is closer to atheism and the other is closer to theism. Many accepted/published/accredited sources also use both pantheism and panentheism to refer to the same beliefs (Spinoza, Kaballah, etc).

Your point about "Pagan Pantheists" etc. would then raise the question of whether or not "Naturalistic Pantheism" is really pantheism. Wikipedia is not about the personal viewpoints of editors, and you have turned this page into your personal viewpoint of limited atheistic pantheism, removing some forms of pantheism that you determine are not pantheism and protecting your own version - which some have also called atheism, not pantheism. Further, your position on Raphson, who coined the word pantheism to describe his own philosophy, that he is "not a pantheist" suggests you are attempting to revise history and imposing a personal points of view. Wikipedia is not the place for that. Impose your viewpoints on your own pages. (Allisgod (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC))

All sources do not agree that one is derivative of the other. Christianity is commonly panentheistic and as a rule has no use for pantheism. Mangoe (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The word itself is a derivative of pantheist - that is what I was referring to. The word was created by those who wish to distinguish themselves from pantheists. Panentheists are passionate about the distinction. But not all pantheists believe that this distinction is relevant to them (Raphson, who coined the term would not have cared for this distinction). Naturalistic wants to call it "Abstract panentheist pantheism" (which sounds even more ridiculous than "Monist Neutral Pantheist". I believe Classical Pantheism is a sufficient expression which has been used in the past to distinguish from Modern and New Age pantheism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allisgod (talk • contribs) 18:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not just my personal opinion that they are logically incompatible Pantheism says God = Cosmos (A = B). Panentheism says God = Cosmos plus extra bits of God (A = B + C). And it says that C is not equal to zero. These two positions are logically incompatible. How can you show that they are not? If these two both appeal to you, it's up to you to balance or reconcile them, but that's your personal problem. What you call your own viewpoint personally is your affair - I was merely making a suggestion.--Naturalistic (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing logic into the picture, because it may make this point more clear. Sure, A=B. But the debate is about whether or not we as humans have access to what A and B really mean. Spinoza (and Raphson, and others) believed that a human's understanding is limited, leaving open the possibility of variables inaccessible to humans - which leaves open the possibility of panentheism. If I understand Naturalistic Pantheism correctly, you believe that you DO have full access to what A and B mean - for you it means Nature and nothing beyond that. You are not acknowledging possibilities beyond human understanding because if you did, you would open the door to panentheistic possibilities. So for you it's A=B. For others it's A=b. The capitalization represents full understanding of the concept; lowercase represents acknowledging limits of full understanding of the concept. Panentheism, on the other hand, is indeed A=B+C because it is also a claim of full understanding, since it is limited to the view that God is bigger than the universe.

Spinoza would not care for this distinction, that's why he never brought it up. For him, the distinction is meaningless because it's A=b - which includes a concept of which we have a limited understanding and can turn this equation upside down (including into A=B+C). When you claim for understanding of A and B, then you can break pantheism apart and make the panentheism distinction since you are claiming full understanding. But it's not so simple once you acknowledge limits of understanding. And some pantheists acknowledge those limits, and therefore do not (or would not) view these words as being incompatible.

So I guess that would make Spinoza an "Agnostic Panentheist Pantheist" according to you. (Allisgod (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC))

I think we all agree that human understanding is limited and that there may be things inaccessible to humans. However, that's very different from saying that those inaccessible bits are of a totally different "non-natural" character or that they could be some transcendent non-physical creator God. What matters for the Wikipedia article is not whether some individuals such as yourself have versions of pantheism that are compatible with Panentheism, but: Is there really a controversy in acceptable sources outside of Wikipedia as to whether Pantheism and Panentheism are compatible? Surely if Levine and Suttle were stating this novel viewpoint they would devote a lot more space and reasoned argument to defending it? As I say, I don't think either of them are saying that Pantheism and Panentheism are compatible.--Naturalistic (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I have been reading John Cooper's Panentheism book. It's clear that Cooper maintains the exact same distinctions as I do when deciding if someone is pantheist or panentheist. However, it's also plain from his book that in many cases scholars have disagreed about which side a particular philosopher falls on and this is even true of Spinoza. The decision in individual cases is difficult because there are all kinds of ways that individuals can dream up in which the God part can be related to the Universe part, ranging from total identity to just a teeny weeny bit of difference to complete separation. I think the formulation I inserted today (Sunday June 10 2012) expresses the logical distinction, while recognizing the fact that individuals have come up with all manner of combinations. I have changed the word "incompatible" into the word "distinct." This does not mean that the two concepts are logically compatible, nor does it make panentheism a variety of pantheism, nor does it show that there are any reliable sources that say either of these things. Hence I remain concerned about any statements like that. However it does show that in individual cases the boundaries can get blurry.--Naturalistic (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The edits you've made once again removed all of my contributions and put back your original one-sided POV. It is clear you want to dictate this page with your POV (and at the same time accuse anyone else of POV bias). We may need some kind of third party dispute resolution because this page should not be completely controlled by one person and one agenda.(Allisgod (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC))

Since God is in me and I am in God, I declare that all problems on this talk page are solved.Lestrade (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Lestrade

Allisgod, you made three principle changes.

1. You arbitrarily and without any source or basis removed the word Nature from the intro. My eventual formulation embraced yours but added back Nature which is indisputably a significant feature of most forms of Pantheism. So you did have an influence there.

2. You inserted a category of pantheism: "Classical Pantheism" - for which there are no reliable sources, and with a definition taken from a website written by a web-designer with no official training in philosophy. When asked, you provided no reliable sources for the existence of this category.

3. You inserted the point that some people believe that Panentheism is a variety of Pantheism. The sources you cited for this are reliable sources, however you did not respond to my point that you had misread the sources, both of them maintain a clear distinction between Pantheism and Panentheism. It is true that some individuals, eg yourself, believe they are compatible, but you would have to write a published book or journal article or a widely-used website before your opinion can be used in Wikipedia as a reliable source for this point. In response to the core of your position, my eventual formulation does not use the term "incompatible" but uses the term "distinct" instead, and adds the point that there are many individual variations that are hard to classify as one or the other. Those changes are due to your influence and they do improve the article, for which I thank you.

You have also repeatedly made the charge that I am controlling this page from a Naturalistic Pantheist perspective. Of course it's obvious from my ID that I am naturalistic - however my goal in contributing to this page is to maintain accuracy and neutrality.

The page:

1. Does not use a naturalistic definition up front or anywhere else.

2. Cites three other varieties at equal length.

3. Includes sections on Taoism, Hinduism and Wicca that I have had no hand in creating or editing.

You have not responded to my points or provided any evidence of bias in the editing. My rejection of your points was based ENTIRELY on accuracy and use of accepted sources.--Naturalistic (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

There are many references to "Classical Pantheism" coined by Charles Hartshorne, a major American Philosopher, which I have sourced and included in an update to the "Varieties" portion of the page.

Although - based on many sources - there are really only two main varieties of pantheism discussed in published works on pantheism, I have preserved some of these "substance" distinctions made before and put it in a "Modern Pantheism" classification. I am open to changing that name and how this distinction is organized, but I think it's clear from my extensive research of the subject and plenty of sources that the main distinction that is made in pantheist literature are between the Theistic/Deterministic form of Pantheism versus Atheistic/Materialist form.

As for the panentheistic variety discussion, I have added a note on Classical Pantheism explaining how Classical Pantheists relate to panentheism, borrowing your language that they are "agnostic" to panentheism (which is what causes them to be labeled panentheists by some). The source I cite calls Spinoza a "variety of pantheist" and he is coming from a panentheist perspective.

I've done a lot of work to reorganize this section and have a new appreciation for the work you put into it, and I thank you for doing it. I just hope you are sincere in being objective rather than imposing your viewpoint. (Allisgod (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC))

For your reference, here's another source for "Classical Pantheism" (I haven't read this book, but my guess is the reference is to Stoic/Spinoza philosophy and Hartshorne's defintion) - http://books.google.com/books/about/Divine_Benevolence_Human_Suffering.html?id=udzROwAACAAJ

One added note - my personal opinion is that the two main varieties should be "Classical Pantheism" and "Naturalistic Pantheism" because those two represent what much of the published works on pantheism agree are opposing - Theistic/Deterministic vs. Atheistic/Materialistic (and I found more than one source that explains the distinction in the way Columbia Encyclopedia does it). I think this is a more clear and understandable/logical distinction and I believe "Dualistic Pantheism" and "Idealist Pantheism" belong in some kind of "other" category. But again, I have attempted to preserve the categories by putting them in the "Modern" category. And although the use of the term "Modern" is slightly arbitrary, there are many sources that use the phrase "modern pantheism", although they have different definitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allisgod (talk • contribs) 06:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there a distinct school or category of Pantheism called Classical Pantheism?

Bottom line: no, there isn't. The problem here is that the word "classical" has several meanings, it is widely used as an adjective with all kinds of ideas and usually means either "related to Greece and Rome" or "the version represented by the most famous/ most respected examples." People add the adjective classical to nouns relating to movements in art, literature and so on all the time. An example of this use which seems contradictory but it's there is "classical romanticism" - Google it.

Here are the meanings as given in Wiktionary: classical (comparative more classical, superlative most classical)

• Of or relating to the first class or rank, especially in literature or art.
• Of or pertaining to established principles in a discipline.

(music)

• Describing European music and musicians of the late 18th and early 19th centuries'
• Of or pertaining to the ancient Greeks and Romans, especially to Greek or Roman authors of the highest rank, or of the period when their best literature was produced; of or pertaining to places inhabited by the ancient Greeks and Romans, or rendered famous by their deeds.
• Conforming to the best authority in literature and art; chaste; pure; refined; as, a classical style.

My viewpoint is that there is not and never has been any particular school of Pantheism known as Classical. There are as far as I know no accepted or academic external sources that would list "Classical Pantheism" as one of the types of Pantheism. This is why I remain opposed to any suggestion that such a school or type has ever existed.

Web references to such a type of Pantheism are either referring to the best known Pantheists (eg Spinoza), or to Pantheism in classical antiquity (eg the Stoics). Or they are citing or reproducing the old version of the Wikipedia article where the idea of a "Classical Pantheism" originated (along with "Biblical Pantheism.") This old version was created and sustained by an editor who was an admitted critic of Pantheism and was passing off his own version of Panentheism as "Classical Pantheism." There are many websites that bundle content cobbled from other places, especially WIkipedia, and that section of the old article has been reproduced in many places.--Naturalistic (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

There are countless references to "New Pantheism" and "Modern Pantheism" etc. "Naturalistic Pantheism" is an example which YOU YOURSELF have called "Modern Pantheism". Modern implies that there is an Ancient or "Classical" form which is closer to theism, since most of the references suggest modern pantheism as being atheistic. There are 8,000+ references to "Classical Pantheism" that come from Google search alone. Charles Hartshorne was one example of an author who used the term "Classical Pantheism". You say: "My viewpoint is that there is not and never has been any particular school of Pantheism known as Classical." Let me remind you that Wikipedia is not a place to impose personal opinions of editors. You have added categories such as "Monist Neutral Pantheism" which are contrived categories from what appears to be your own book, and you are limiting the categories of pantheism to your own atheistic version of pantheism. There are countless numbers of pantheists who do not limit their view of what the "theism" in pantheism means to them. You choose to do that, many do not. This is noted in debates and articles from pantheist.net that you yourself were involved with. Stop trying to impose your viewpoints on this page (Allisgod (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC))

Allisgod, I did NOT add Neutral Monist Pantheism, someone else did. I checked it out and factually it does apply to Spinoza, so I did not dispute it. How can you keep saying that I impose a naturalistic pantheist view when the article quotes three other varieties at equal length, and goes on to mention Wiccan pantheism which is mostly dualist (section not by me) and Hindu Pantheism which is mostly monist idealist (also not by me). It's false to say that the article is biased one way or the other. It contains no arguments favoring one or the other. The term "Modern Pantheism" is not used on the World Pantheist Movement pages at all - that's a term used by the Universal Pantheist Society, which claims to represent all types of Pantheism.--Naturalistic (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add that the source you cited for your definition of Classical Pantheism (http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_pantheism.html) is written by a Luke Mastin, a web designer who admits he has no official training in philosophy and who cites Wikipedia as his main source (http://www.philosophybasics.com/general_faq.html). The page is copyrighted 2008. The Wikipedia article version at that time offered an unsourced and erroneous definition of Classical Pantheism which was blatantly theistic (check out the History and see versions in 2008).--Naturalistic (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"Neutral Monist" is a description of one part of Spinoza's view. It does not deserve to be a major category that separates Spinoza's philosophy from other pantheists. As for my sources, I will work on this. However, it should at least be agreed that categories such as "Neutral Monist" are not at all helpful with very little to back up that it deserves to be a major acknowledged "variety" of pantheism. (Allisgod (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC))

There are many references to "Classical Pantheism" coined by Charles Hartshorne, a major American Philosopher, which I have sourced and included in an update to the "Varieties" portion of the page. Although - based on many sources - there are really only two main varieties of pantheism, I have preserved some of these "substance" distinctions made before and put it in a "Modern Pantheism" classification. I am open to changing that name and how this distinction is organized, but I think it's clear from my extensive research of the subject and plenty of sources that the main distinction that is made in pantheist literature are between the Theistic/Deterministic form of Pantheism versus Atheistic/Materialist form.(Allisgod (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC))

Well, Allisgod, we are coming closer to something where we might agree here. There is a distinction between pantheist thinkers who have a strong theistic flavor (and they include Spinoza) and those that have a more atheistic flavor (including Naturalistic Pantheism). It's only a flavor - both types equate Universe with the God or divinity concept. However, the one type takes God as its starting point and assumes that only God exists therefore the Universe and God are one and the same (Spinoza, Ibn Al'Arabi). The other type takes the Universe as its starting point and attributes divine-like qualities to it (Naturalistic Pantheism, Einstein, Jeffers). I am open to bringing in this distinction, and I consider it as much more valid and fruitful than the idea of there being a distinct school or category called Classical pantheism. I will continue to oppose use of the term Classical pantheism in this way, since I believe it is inaccurate and misleading and also tends to imply that Classical pantheism is more "correct" pantheism. Don't forget that Hartshorne was CRITICIZING Pantheism in order to prove the superiority of his Panentheism, which would incline him to focus mostly on the DEFECTS he found in various pantheists - he was not trying to present a "correct" version of Pantheism.

The three categories I originally included would be a second and different way of cutting the same cake. I think there is room for both these ways of looking at the distinctions and they are both fruitful and enlightening. I propose a new division of the "Varieties" section in two major parts: The Theism/Atheism Axis and Monisms and Dualism. I could not care less about Neutral Monist Pantheism, it wasn't my idea in the first place and I agree with you that it is not well referenced or supported. However, in doing the above we must be careful to get reliable sourcing and to avoid Original Research (OR) or personal Point of View material (POV).--Naturalistic (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Removing well sourced material just because youre paranoid how it makes your version of pantheism look is highly inappropriate. Classical pantheism is noted in more published work than "naturalistic pantheism". Hartshorne is a major philosopher and he created the category to distinguish deterministic pantheism from varieties like yours. Removing all mention of it continues to show that your interest here is in protecting your brand. (Allisgod (talk) 04:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC))

Allisgod, you personally have stated that the theistic/atheistic distinction is the most common distinction made. How can you object to that distinction being highlighted? I added this in response to your comment, and I find it a valuable addition and change for which I thank you.

My basis for rejecting Classical pantheism is not just how it makes all other forms (not just Naturalistic) look - it's that there is no such category except for Hartshorne's personal selection of who to include and what features of their pantheism to emphasize. Where in the sources is the distinction classical/non-classical pantheism made?

Your insertion and characterization of Classical pantheism coincides with your own brand. Whereas my changes do not. If people read the varieties section objectively, they will see absolutely no bias there in favor of Naturalistic Pantheism. I am extremely careful to avoid bias in Wikipedia.

Well sourced does not just mean giving a citation - it means correctly reporting what the source says or shows, which several of yours do not. In the case of Classical pantheism many of the sources mean something different from Hartshorne's presentation: it can mean pantheism in classical times (eg the Stoics) or it can be added by many different people to mean "typical or archetypical" in their judgement. For more on this see Talk:Classical pantheism.--Naturalistic (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, you do not own this page. You are trying to "reject" the only variety of Pantheism EVER created by a major philosopher - the ONLY one. And by the way, determinism IS the factor that makes the theistic/atheistic distinction. This is why it is the only category of Pantheism that has ever been made distinct in a major published work by a renowned philosopher, with others acknowledging the distinction. Your attempts to remove this information and belittle these facts are a result of what you have admitted twice now - that you are concerned with how it makes your version of pantheism look. Sorry, but that is not a valid concern nor is it appropriate to remove the information because of how it makes your brand look or how you disagree with it. You cannot even disagree with the fact that there is a distinction between deterministic and non deterministic varieties of pantheism. I am adding it back without any controversial material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allisgod (talk • contribs) 17:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Everyone, please take great care to remain civil in discussion. There are many perspectives on complex topics like Pantheism, and people use words in different ways - Classical pantheism certainly can mean 'pantheism in classical times', among other things. It is easy to find sources that support a point of view; far harder to ensure that different points of view are covered in a balanced way. Let's do our best together. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Was Joseph Raphson a Pantheist or Panentheist?

It is accepted these days that Raphson was the first known person to coin the term "pantheism" in his Latin work De Spatio Reali, and John Toland got the word from Raphson.

There is no translation of De spatio reale into English but Koyre gives an extensive summary here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/astro/cwiu/cwiu11.htm.

It's clear that Raphson was a strong critic of Spinoza's identification of God with Nature. Raphson identified Space with God. Space is indivisible, infinite, all-containing, all-penetrating, incorporeal, immutable, eternal, perfect and incomprehensible to us (Koyre). He identifies it with the First Cause or Creator. Matter, by contrast, is none of the above, and is created.

Raphson's position is not Biblical theism - but it is theism. In fact it is a type of Panentheism. The fact that Raphson used the term pantheism to describe his own beliefs is irrelevant. Obviously, if his usage had spread, that would be what Pantheism meant today. But Raphson's usage and his arguments did not come to play a role in the subsequent development of the word Pantheism and the current definition. His origination of the word was more or less unknown until the 1990s. The fact that he first used the word is simply a matter of etymological history - and etymology does not define current usage.

It was Toland's usage - "no other eternal being but the Universe" - that shaped the subsequent discussions up until today, probably because Toland had very extensive contacts across Europe.

Current definition and usage is very clear. Pantheism means the belief that there is no God (or godlike entity) other than the Universe or Cosmos. By that definition, Raphson, the originator of the word Pantheism, was not a pantheist. He was a panentheist. Unfair, perhaps, but true.--Naturalistic (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

And by "current definition and usage" you mean your Naturalistic Pantheist definition and usage. Your personal opinion. It is not my definition and usage and there are countless examples of people who use pantheism in an abstract way and many sources that contradict your claim that it has a single "current definition and usage".

It is utterly ABSURD of you to impose your viewpoint that Raphson's view of pantheism is actually panentheism when you are talking about the man who coined the term to describe his own philosophy. Raphson believed that "All is God". That is why he called his position "pantheismus". He did not go a step further and try to pretend he had access to what "God" means - whether it is wholly part of the "All" or extends beyond it. His refusing to do so leads you to label him a panentheist, which is your limited viewpoint. His position is that of being open to possibilities. Your 'modern pantheism' has a specific idea of what "theism" means to you. But you do not have the right to impose that on all pantheists. (Allisgod (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC))

Raphson coined the term but had no influence on how it then developed. We can't just reverse history and restore the term's meaning to what a little known mathematician writing in Latin in an appendix to a book on equations thought. The definition used in the article is not my personal definition, nor is it a naturalistic one. It's the one found in all reputable sources.--Naturalistic (talk) 04:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, Raphson was influenced by Spinoza and termed his philosophy pantheism. Toland then called this guy a genius and now you're trying to make him out to be a nobody just because he would disagree with you. So what exactly is the point of this 'Talk' section if you are just intent on always being right and getting your way? (Allisgod (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC))

You are not really reading what I am saying. Raphson was intrinsically highly intelligent, however what determines the direction of a tradition or definition of a concept is what survives. Raphson's definition did not survive. Toland rejected Raphson's definition and Toland's definition did survive. Raphson's priority in using the word was not discovered until the 1990s by Stephen Daniel. Spinoza never used the word Pantheism.--Naturalistic (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

"Raphson's definition did not survive." - nonsense, especially given the fact that Toland knew full well where he got the word. YOU are the one trying to pigeonhole the word and make it your own. That was not the interest of these historical figures. Also, based on your logic, the next step would be to throw Spinoza out of pantheism, because he and Raphson are both panentheists according to YOUR way of looking at pantheism - when clearly, Spinoza is a well noted pantheist. This page has turned into the "Naturalistic Pantheist and Panentheist point-of-view of Pantheism" page. Any edits to the contrary here are a waste of time since you are imposing your POV and quickly removing any and all dissent.(Allisgod (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC))