The Names of God
[This topic aroused more fury than any other. Some of us wished to have no reminders of the theist beliefs we have left behind; others were more relaxed. PH]A short lecture to a religious group at my university about how semantics should not be such a big deal, the president of the group stood up and said: "You think semantics are not important? Do you realize that hundreds of our Muslim brothers and sisters are fighting with their lives over whether or not Holy Scripture is the spoken Word of God or a creation of God?" I could do nothing but laugh on the inside, while also crying that such folly was regarded as logic. SAIF PATEL
MY name for "god" has changed about yearly since I was 7 or 8 years old. I think this is appropriate. We don't have to pin this "force", this "ISness"this "flow" down to a single term, or even a single symbology. At present I get great inspiration and connection through the Wiccan symbology of Maid, Mother, and Crone (and their "male" counterparts). These are poor symbolic representations of the natural forces which make up my life and the other organized matter/energy around me, but they are the best ones for me to relate to right now. I trust that in time this will change. The last thing I want to do is "tame the river" or try to anchor myself in it (ever forgotten to let go the rope when falling from water-skiing?!). There have been many names for God in the past, and I see no reason why you can't make up your own. The purpose is to encapsulate some semblance, actually more of a reminder, of the EXPERIENCE. The name itself is irrelevant. J. D. STILLWATER.
Here are some of my favorite terms for "God": Silence; The Whole; The One; Ground of Being; Wholly Other Death Fate Void All Mystery Cosmos Universe Hope Love Wisdom Creator Sustainer Destroyer Evolution Eros God I AM The Absolute First Cause Prime Mover Truth Realest Real First Equation The Uncreated Time. MICHAEL SHANK
I appreciate Mike's long list, though I disliked some of the terms.
Wholly other: no, we're part of it.
Void: no, it's FULL.
Hope & love: it doesn't have feelings.
Creator, the absolute, first cause, prime mover, the uncreated: it is its own cause and creator. PAUL HARRISONWe should tell it like it is--the Universe/Nature/Cosmos; all of these words are perfect to explain the objects of our reverence, thoughts/meditation, and celebratory ceremony; what more do we need? SAIF PATEL
Shouldn't we make a clean break from established religions. Let's not use the words and phrases they use anymore. Couldn't we come up with our own? Agree on a singular name that Sci Pan's can use to describe the name god in conversations. Think of our own name for what they call prayer. LEE ANDERSON
Setting up 'OUR' own vocabulary with 'OUR' own definitions creates exclusion for new individuals in my humble opinion. It sounds 'cultish' (using the negative social understanding of the word) to the average new comer. BRUCE BLAISDELL
I "Personally" feel that using words like "god" when speaking to others, and indeed, new members, only confuses the issues and makes it hard for us to gain and convey a clear understanding of what we are all about. RON HOOFT.
Using "God" may imply that you see the "source" as a separate, conscious entity. For that matter, the use of any proper name at all may give such an impression. JOOLIKINS.
Now, maybe it's MY problem. Maybe it's ME who can't stomach the word god without thinking of the fundamentalist sitting on high and telling me I am going to hell. That the earth doesn't matter, that it is just a sinful waste land and will continue to be until Jesus christ returns to save us all. That it is the ANTI Christ who will first unit the earth, and when that day comes, god will punish all who follow him with eternal torturous hell.. Fundamentalism is the antithesis of Pantheism and it's jargon is anti-humanity, anti earth, and anti universe. I am of German decent, but you will never hear me telling anyone that I am pure "Aryan". The Nazis made it a dirty word to ME, in the same way the fundamentalist has made "god" a dirty word to ME. RON HOOFT
I personally only use the word "God" as a kind of shorthand, and to simplify things for people from other traditions. Apart from that I couldn't bear to say it, it would really get between me and It. I use the words Reality, Being, or Universe or Nature.
As an expression of my *personal* opinion, of my *personal* usage of words eg on my Web site, I would say that: "God" should be used only as shorthand for beginners or when talking to other religions.
"Holy" shouldn't be used. "Sacred" is okay, because it's more Roman than Christian.
"Prayer" shouldn't be used - we don't have anything that corresponds to prayer, the begging of favours from a supernatural being. "Meditation" is okay.
"Dogma" is what rigid religions teach. Pantheism has "beliefs" or "system."
"Worship" is that other religions do with eyes closed. Pantheists "revere" with eyes open.
"Preaching, converting, proselytizing, recruiting" are words we all seem to dislike. We can say things like "discussing, presenting, informing, spreading the message." PAUL HARRISONAs a Unitarian Universalist I strongly disagree with these prescriptive/proscriptive suggestions. Many of these terms have gained new (and treasured) meaning for some of us UUs with pantheist leanings and I suspect also for others you'd like to welcome into pantheistic circles. To try to police our language with such instructions as "prayer should not be used at all... [as it's] begging ...favors from a supernatural being" is totally disrespectful of those of us who have other ideas about what prayer is all about. YVONNE SCHUMACHER
Placing a proper name on the focus may give the impression that you see the focus as a separate, conscious entity. Furthermore, giving it a proper name may confine it, just as giving Yahweh or God a male name immediately confined that entity's personality. If I'm right, you have no intention of doing that to your focus. You want it to retain the totality of the universe. Picking a name will be tricky business then. At this time, the only term I can honestly think of that comes close to what I'm looking for is the "Essence." JOOLIKINS
I think each of us has our own separate ideas about what the ultimate reality is, and we each have given it a name. I began thinking about his awhile ago when, in a response to Charlie, I used the term "Force" to describe the process that is reality. Then, Ron replied "I think it is a process rather than a force", and as soon as I read that, I laughed out loud. "Exactly" I thought. Still, I said "Force", but when I did, I had the same idea as in my mind as Ron. At the time, the word Force, seemed appropriate, and to me, it was. Heck, I could have made up any old word, and if worked for me, that's great. The problem with the word "Force", and many other terms that we've used, it that it has to many connotations associated with it and, therefore, is a poor word for communicating the idea of, well, whatever we want to call it. JEFF PITCHER
There seems to be an obsession among the pantheist here to avoid using the word "God". Although I agree the term may not fit in the pantheist concept as it is used in the "Christian" and some other religious concepts "We" Pantheist should not have such a fear of the term on such a strong aversion to it. The "TERM" can function very well as a bridge to other religious views. REGINALD ATKINS Why God, Why not table . Why table , Why not God . Concepts confine , They do not define . Why grass , Why not trees . Why door , Why not floor ; Why house , Why not mouse . Why God , WHY NOT ??? RICHARD TRAFFORD Earlier in this intriguing debate about language I made it clear that I personally did *not* favour a separate new or rigid vocabulary for pantheism as a firm rule, and felt that even the word "God" could be used with outsiders - or by insiders, if they felt like it, though I wouldn't do so myself. I have not changed my views on that, and I am not speaking with a forked tongue. I have my own usage, and I accept that others have theirs.
Everything I have learned since I started promoting pantheism on the Web has shown that there are almost as many religions as people: everyone has their own slant, their own priorities, their own way of expressing things.
Accepting this does not mean total relativism. It does not mean that one does not argue for one's own ideas. But it does mean that imposition of any kind of strict rules or vocabulary for pantheism is out of the question. Again, this does not mean that smaller groups with a more closely shared viewpoint could not develop such a vocabulary if they wanted to. PAUL HARRISONTop.
Soul or matter?
Pantheism should have no difficulty with belief in "soul" as it is nothing more than an identity of a single part of "creation". From the Scientific Pantheism view, the very basic laws of physics and matter tell us "Energy is neither created nor destroyed, only changed in form". I would suggest that pantheist have little or no fear of dying because there is no threat of "hell" as there is no guarantee of "heaven" Transition beyond death is indefinable, as is creation, in the pantheist view. REGINALD ATKINSAs I see my naturalistic Pantheist "faith" nothing even hints that there is such a being that even remotely can be called God. The Universe doesn't have a Soul as far as I know, and I can not see how any of us can have a soul. But we do suffer and have only each other to count on. BERNT ROSTROM
Mind and the Universe
WE KNOW that the brain is a function of memories that are actively linked by a communication network. Why then, do we assume that the limit of our mind is our brain. Tell me, where does the universe stop and where does individuality begin? We can't answer that question because we are part of the universe. So, the mind extends into the rest of the universe and, thus it is an on-going process. As Ron said, many days ago, The "I" is an illusion. JEFF PITCHER.I personally see a family link between our materialist beliefs and those pantheists who believe in personal and cosmic soul. We all believe in the essential unity of humans, nature and the universe. We have different ways of expressing that unity. I personally prefer the materialist approach because it is scientific, non-dualistic, and easier to defend philosophically. PAUL HARRISON
A cosmic soul?
A question that arises is: how anthropomorphic should pantheists be. Is it anthropomorphic (in a bad sense) to say that the universe is rational? If you do, does that commit you to thinking that the universe has a soul which makes it like a person? . . . As a pantheist now I can regard the cosmos as a creative being, indeed, as an agent in the fullest sense, and therefore as subject of praise (or maybe celebration, but surely gratitude), even though I don't think of it as a person or a moral agent or that it is capable of forming and acting on intentions, or that it would make sense to hold it responsible for its actions (as we do humans). It is good, yes, but in a way that surpasses our usually distinctions between good and bad among human beings. The trick is to make sense out of that special notion of goodness. JAN GARRETTProcess thinkers [like Whitehead and Hartshorne[ believe that there is sentient activity (a sort of feeling, probably very dim) in plants, probably at the cellular level, and even at the molecular and atomic level of material organization. The most persuasive argument which they give for this idea is essentially this: it is hard to make sense out of the evolutionary emergence of what we recognize as feeling at, say, the animal level, if there isn't something like it, call it proto-sentience, if you like, at the pre- or sub-animal level. JAN GARRETT
Are humans part of the cosmic mind?
I believe we are a way for the universe to know itself. That is our function and the reason for our evolution. We are at our most human when we seek and question. MICHAEL SHANKWe are built to investigate the universe. Mike is right, we are in fact a way for the Universe to know itself - along with any other intelligent species that exist out there. Whether that is the original *reason* for our evolution, I don't know - wouldn't that imply that some mind or other designed things that way? Does there have to be a reason? For me, we're just here, we happened, and I'm happy with that. On the other hand, now we are here we are free to choose knowledge - whether scientific or aesthetic or just the appreciation of nature - as the reason for our function and our existence, and I guess that's a good choice. PAUL HARRISON
Quantum physics: miracles and mysteries?
To be a competent Physicist today requires a distinct belief in impossibilities and contradictions. This magical mystical universe is not finished with surprises, paradox and mysteries. Faith and Awe are indeed part and parcel of the Pantheist vision, in my opinion. The only question is Faith in WHAT. Let us not be like those "scientists" who dismiss the power of Acupuncture simply because they can't explain it. There's a great line from an Ayn Rand book, in which one of these types says: "We can't ALLOW this to be true!" Paradox lives! JD STILLWATERThere is a very great difference between accepting assertions about impossible events made by a few people in superstitious times two thousand years ago, with no corroborating evidence - and accepting the results of modern experiments repeated hundreds of thousands of times under rigorous controls, always with the same results.
Quantum physics contains many mysteries that we don't yet understand, and perhaps never will. But these are not *impossibilities* like the miracles - they happen every day in physics labs. Nor is wave-particle duality a contradiction like the doctrine of the Trinity. It seems, to us, a paradox, because we can't form concepts corresponding to our everyday experience which could encompass what is happening. But it is a paradox only for our thought. Reality harbours no paradoxes: it is simply there. PAUL HARRISON.
Do pantheists "pray"?
[This topic created almost as much dissension as the Names of God problem, again because of the theist heritage that many people wanted to dissociate from. P.H.] I just lately got to thinking: As a pantheist, do I have anything to thank? There is no outside God to thank, but does the Force within the Universe have an awareness? Note: this is different than "being thankful." It's not that I'm LOOKING or NEED for something to thank for the world, but I was curious as to if it was possible. CHARLIE SHAPIROIf the idea of prayer offends your sensibilities, consider it as an act of self-affirmation, a tool of self-psychotherapy. J. D. STILLWATER.
If we are to thank God for the good things, should we not also curse him for the bad things. I find it disturbing when people say, "Thank God for the lovely sunset," but never stop to think about tornadoes. MICHAEL SHANK.
One of the worse things about being brought up Catholic, was being told:
"Oh. You want to find something. Pray."
"Oh. You want something from god. Pray."
"Oh. That was a terrible thing that happen to you. You must not have prayed right." LEE ANDERSONI believe that the function of ritual, including 'prayer', is to create a feeling of reverence and awe towards the object of concern. Now whether you pray to a god-being or reflect inward toward your own self (meditation) is of no concern to me; if you use it to create reverence towards the earth and life then you are doing a good thing. From the beginnings of religion in spiritual animism (where all natural objects have their own spirit) man has created a sense of reverence for the natural world...as we moved farther and farther from this point toward a god removed from this 'sinful' world, we as a culture have less and less reverence for the earth...resulting in the destruction we see about us today. I need to routinely create that feeling of reverence for life and the world, within myself...so I ritually worship and pray...religiously. It fills an important need for me personally. BRUCE BLAISDELL.
The question of thanks giving has come up in relation to the topic of "inner dialogue", and I see THAT as affirmation of our love for existence and wonder at the splendor of our totality. Thankfulness is a "feeling" that, as Lee pointed out, is not required to be directed at anyone. RON HOOFT.
Our need to pray or pay homage to a higher level of being is a manifestation of our desire to "connect" with our surroundings; to seek a receiver of our gratitude and revelry for life. JOOLIKINS
I personally dislike the word prayer. There's no-one there to pray to. It's preparing yourself for action, perhaps attuning yourself to the energy of the Universe. I prefer the word meditation, or just "thought". PAUL HARRISON
Our need to pray or pay homage to a higher level of being is a manifestation of our desire to "connect" with our surroundings; to seek a receiver of our gratitude and revelry for life. JOOLIKINS
It is incorrect to say that there is no means of prayer in pantheism; It exists, but with a totally different form and purpose. Pantheism technically does not involve asking for benefit or granting of wishes. However, if a pantheist stands in Glacier National Park and silently respects what is being viewed then, therein is a form of pantheist prayer. No words need be spoken; It is that momentary union with creation and all that we are that counts. If one stops to recognize the small humming bird or a piece of architecture the same occurs. Pantheist ask nothing, but share and give of what they are. Pantheism must have art, poetry, engineering marvels, music and its own philosophy in order to grow and survive. Poems can often be considered forms of prayer; in the pantheist sense these show appreciation, wonder, and beauty, but never asking favors or grants. REGINALD ATKINS
I just can't understand why the hell we need a GOD who's to be PRAYERed in a CHURCH, when our (at least mine) aim is to seek the KNOWLEDGE (pertaining to the Universe around us)? **> GOD is always the mystery round us - its concept has developed a no. of digitations (or branches) as it passed through the ages and through the people. **> A CHURCH musta been a place for a congregation where people come and discuss things over LIFE and the UNIVERSE round them. **> PRAYER - I can't think what's the need of it.
All of us have a common goal- to explore and find answers to all the questions like- >>>>>>what-where-why-when-how- are we, and the things around us??? And I don't need a GOD-CHURCH-PRAYER system for this! RATAN MOHAPATRA
Digest index.
Scientific pantheism index.
