"I believe in God . . .

[SLD]

I just spell it N A T U R E." Frank Lloyd Wright.

So does Wright get kicked out of the atheist club? Or is pantheism logically defensible?

SLD

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I just spell it N A T U R E." Frank Lloyd Wright.

So does Wright get kicked out of the atheist club? Or is pantheism logically defensible?

SLD

Anything is logically defensible, conditionally speaking. And the dude builds these really cool houses of which I've seen a couple, my favorite being Kentuck Knob which is not far from my home.

Is Wright atheist? Couldn't we just call it Wright atheism, something that involves awe and respect and wonder, but not worship of believing that invisible space creatures are interested in our sex organs? That would work for me. So no, we don't kick him out of the club and take his fob. He still has access.

I've probably been pantheistic - minus the worship thingy - all my life, just didn't know it. And that makes sense because my ancestors were largely Druidic. The Slavs before the 12th century when christianity was imposed were people who took their spirituality from stone and trees. They were people of the soil and the forest, practicing a line of inspiration that likely went back to Cro-Magnon times, so much older than theistic religious practice that it is laughable to compare the two.

And I often think of my dad, an avid gardener and orchardist. If there was one thing that identified him it was his connection to the land. My siblings know that I am atheist but when I tell them I practice the same "religion" as the old man they just don't get it. Sure, dad was catholic but he spent far more time connecting with nature than he did in some stodgy, poorly lit building. He was passionate about the land and inherited this aspect of his behavior from his ancestors.

Wright is okay with me. Nature as god is a quantum leap for humanity presently, all things considered.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I just spell it N A T U R E." Frank Lloyd Wright.

So does Wright get kicked out of the atheist club? Or is pantheism logically defensible?

SLD

Pantheism is a vaguely defined non-philosophy which allows one to sound deep and insightful without the need to ever actually say anything at all about anything.

As lame as real religions are, at least they have the balls to take a position, even if it's a really stupid one.

 

[Elixir]

Pantheism is a vaguely defined non-philosophy which allows one to sound deep and insightful without the need to ever actually say anything at all about anything.

Exactly! That's why I'm a pantheist.

As lame as real [organized?] religions are, at least they have the balls to take a position, even if it's a really stupid one.

As lame as pantheism is, it doesn't posit a lot of bullshit about God, nor is it "organized". (AFAIK)

 

[Angry Floof]

If calling nature "God" means a reverence for nature, a respect, a recognition that nature drives everything and that we don't and can't fully understand its influence over us or our place in it, and if this view helps to mitigate the problems of ego, delusion, and hubris, then I am with Wright most definitely. No magic required, and an abundance of awe and wonder leaving little room for our misguided human tendency to make everything personal.

 

[abaddon]

If the "theism" is key to his pantheism, then he is a theist but not in the conventional sense.

If "theism" is not the key thing the pantheist wants to emphasize, then the description of "poetic atheist" is basically correct.

I've considered that I'm pantheist, in sentiment and behavior. But I don't much like to self-apply the label. The label confuses people because they have a hard time separating the "theist" bit from the anthropomorphic variety of divinity. People ask "why don't you just call the universe 'universe'?", which probably most pantheists do... That question itself rather highlights the reason for a distinction between the secular atheist from the pantheist atheist. Religious language and behaviors work for some of us and don't necessarily have the stink of supernaturalism or dogmatism on them but are seen as part of our human heritage. "Why be a pantheist instead of atheist?" gets asked sometimes, as if a betrayal of a political cause has happened. "To make a positive statement on what I value into the label for my life-philosophy" is one possible answer.

What's logically defensible in pantheism will depend on which pantheists you're talking to. I've seen atheists dismiss pantheism because they conflate it with panpsychism, polytheism (because of the similarity of "pantheism" to "pantheon"), paganism, an anthropomorphic projection onto nature, etc. But it's not a unified tradition or movement, there's no way to generalize about "pantheism" and not get many pantheists wrong.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I just spell it N A T U R E." Frank Lloyd Wright.

So does Wright get kicked out of the atheist club? Or is pantheism logically defensible?

SLD

Pantheism is a vaguely defined non-philosophy which allows one to sound deep and insightful without the need to ever actually say anything at all about anything.

As lame as real religions are, at least they have the balls to take a position, even if it's a really stupid one.

Yes, let's all support the status quo, even if it is asinine, because people are stupid and we need the support of all the stupid people.

 

[Kharakov]

I just spell it N A T U R E." Frank Lloyd Wright.

So does Wright get kicked out of the atheist club? Or is pantheism logically defensible?

SLD

Pantheism is a vaguely defined non-philosophy which allows one to sound deep and insightful without the need to ever actually say anything at all about anything.

As lame as real religions are, at least they have the balls to take a position, even if it's a really stupid one.

Yes, let's all support the status quo, even if it is asinine, because people are stupid and we need the support of all the stupid people.

Got my vote.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Haven't we all had friends that claim to be "spiritual" without a church orthodoxy? This claim may or may not be accompanied by crystals, meditation, sensing spirits, yada-yada. It is usually not accompanied by hard-ass hell teachings or portraying God as a hater of various sorts of people. I'll take hippy-dippy religious clear broth over Judge Roy any day. They're both dumb, but you can go out for coffee with the first group.

 

[OLDMAN]

I think we all have to try to connect to the bigger picture, be it nature or mankind as a species. I mean we have such a short time on this planet and we know it. I have no problem with my upcoming death, but I would like to think mankind will make it, and the planet will continue to hold life for another 4 billion years. Without connecting to a bigger picture, life is too short to be meaningful beyond "gimmie".

 

[ruby sparks]

I just spell it N A T U R E." Frank Lloyd Wright.

So does Wright get kicked out of the atheist club? Or is pantheism logically defensible?

SLD

As others have said, it depends on what this or that individual means by the word pantheism.

Frank Lloyd Wright was also fond of the word 'spiritual', which is another candidate for individual clarification.

 

[remez]

. "Why be a pantheist instead of atheist?" gets asked sometimes, as if a betrayal of a political cause has happened. "To make a positive statement on what I value into the label for my life-philosophy" is one possible answer.

Nice context…………Your life’s philosophy……… Weltanschauung ……. Your worldview…..Everybody has one.

Everyone’s worldview should be logically consistent, empirically adequate and existentially relevant. All worldviews address these 4 main concerns in life. Origin, meaning, morality and destiny.

So with regards to the pantheism or atheism of FLW, this theist reasons the issue this way.

Pantheistic worldviews believe that God and the nature are one in the same, but they differ as to how God and nature are to be identified.
And
Since the atheistic worldview believes there is no God, hence nature is all that exists. Some lesser atheists might find that “lacking” but it is irrelevant in this context.

Therefore both worldviews address the questions of origins, meaning, morality and destiny from a nature only basis. Deified or not it there is nothing transcendent to nature. Their shared dependence on nature only creates the confusion here. To me, since FLW overtly deifies nature, he is not an atheist but is clearly a pantheist.

 

[abaddon]

Therefore both worldviews address the questions of origins, meaning, morality and destiny from a nature only basis. Deified or not it there is nothing transcendent to nature. Their shared dependence on nature only creates the confusion here. To me, since FLW overtly deifies nature, he is not an atheist but is clearly a pantheist.

He can be both. Don't get stuck on etymology as if it's the definition, and the label's a sloppy one anyway. And, I wonder, did FLW make a metaphysical statement in that quote in the OP?

Knowing what I know about the naturalistic pantheists (who've claimed FLW as one, I don't know FLW's view more directly), he's not making a metaphysical argument but is just comparing how he feels about Nature to how theists feel about God. So there are no "truth claims" about the universe here. It's a "this is what I value" claim.

For naturalistic pantheists, science gets the last word in objectively describing the universe as the only able candidate for doing that. It's material, it's physical. That the pantheist values it as worthy of reverence similar to how theists feel for their god does nothing at all to change that.

The reason to be a pantheist instead of or additionally to atheist is it indicates some noteworthy differences in values. Give a secular atheist and a pantheist a quiz like this one, they'd have different answers to the values questions but likely the same answers to physics questions. For example, the quiz asks "Are you in awe of the beauty and power of nature?" The anticipated secular-atheist response is: "Yes, but those feelings aren't that significant to me". From my observations of secular atheists, this is the rightly anticipated response. Feelings don't seem to matter the way "facts" do. Call nature so "awesome" it's worthy of adoration, and they're quick to point at things in nature that humans don't like.

The quiz-maker's idea of how a pantheist would respond is this: "Yes, and those feelings are an important part of my life."

This is the difference that matters. Human concerns are not the central concern in a pantheistic ethos. The reason to care about nature isn't "because we humans need it" but because the sense of identity overlaps it. They have a more ecocentric and/or cosmic view.

About a purported "atheistic worldview"... If you knew "Joe" was an atheist but that's all, you wouldn't know if he were a "consciousness is all" idealist or "everything's matter and energy" physicalist or something else. So what worldview does Joe the atheist have, knowing nothing but that he doesn't believe in God?

"Deify" means "worship, regard, or treat (someone or something) as a god" which doesn't necessitate seeing nature as God. Again, all I see in the FLW quote is a values statement.

"Transcendent to nature"? What's that, needing something "outside" of nature to give people their meaning and some directions on ethics?

What's wrong with the meaning and ethics that naturally emerge from relationships with tangible entities?

There's a practicable earthbound transcendence available to humans. It's psychological, and an important reason for pantheistic "religious" sentiments. It's a matter of expanding one's identity beyond one's egoic self, with a consequent expansion of the circle of ethical regard beyond "me" and "those things that are the most like 'me'". Also one may shake off the illusion of feeling like a soul stuck inside a skull, looking out on a woeful landscape of "mere matter", wanting a connection to something "more perfect and meaningful" that is "out there somewhere" (but has no apparent existence).

 

[remez]

He can be both. Don't get stuck on etymology as if it's the definition, and the label's a sloppy one anyway. And, I wonder, did FLW make a metaphysical statement in that quote in the OP?

Knowing what I know about the naturalistic pantheists (who've claimed FLW as one, I don't know FLW's view more directly), he's not making a metaphysical argument but is just comparing how he feels about Nature to how theists feel about God. So there are no "truth claims" about the universe here. It's a "this is what I value" claim.

Ok. I think you are asserting that FLW made a statement of value not a statement of deity. If that was the case then I assert that he is an atheist. Your statement that the two of you are both atheists and pantheists presents a major contradiction in need of explanation. As I see it you are asserting that if you are in awe of nature then you are a pantheist. I’m in awe of nature as well, does that render me a pantheist?

For naturalistic pantheists, science gets the last word in objectively describing the universe as the only able candidate for doing that. It's material, it's physical. That the pantheist values it as worthy of reverence similar to how theists feel for their god does nothing at all to change that.

The reason to be a pantheist instead of or additionally to atheist is it indicates some noteworthy differences in values. Give a secular atheist and a pantheist a quiz like this one, they'd have different answers to the values questions but likely the same answers to physics questions. For example, the quiz asks "Are you in awe of the beauty and power of nature?" The anticipated secular-atheist response is: "Yes, but those feelings aren't that significant to me". From my observations of secular atheists, this is the rightly anticipated response. Feelings don't seem to matter the way "facts" do. Call nature so "awesome" it's worthy of adoration, and they're quick to point at things in nature that humans don't like.

Science plays a major role in my old earth theism and I’m in awe of nature as well. That does not render me a pantheist or atheist.

About a purported "atheistic worldview"... If you knew "Joe" was an atheist but that's all, you wouldn't know if he were a "consciousness is all" idealist or "everything's matter and energy" physicalist or something else. So what worldview does Joe the atheist have, knowing nothing but that he doesn't believe in God?

I’m interested in researching the notion of “atheistic dualism.” Could you point me to what you judge to be a good source?

"Deify" means "worship, regard, or treat (someone or something) as a god" which doesn't necessitate seeing nature as God.

I agree. If you do not deify nature then you are not a pantheist. But nature is a thing, so if you deify it then you are a pantheist.

"Transcendent to nature"? What's that, needing something "outside" of nature to give people their meaning and some directions on ethics?

Transcendent to nature means there exists some entity that is beyond nature that is the explanation for nature’s existence. Again an important issue of origins that all worldviews must account for. Your simplistic and debasing reduction of theistic concerns there was unreasonable. It lacked any understanding of the theistic worldview regarding origins, meaning or morality.

What's wrong with the meaning and ethics that naturally emerge from relationships with tangible entities?

Your meaning and ethics would be subjective and unjustifiable. Your “tangible entities” once again ignores the reasoning provided for Gods existence.

There's a practicable earthbound transcendence available to humans. It's psychological, and an important reason for pantheistic "religious" sentiments. It's a matter of expanding one's identity beyond one's egoic self, with a consequent expansion of the circle of ethical regard beyond "me" and "those things that are the most like 'me'". Also one may shake off the illusion of feeling like a soul stuck inside a skull, looking out on a woeful landscape of "mere matter", wanting a connection to something "more perfect and meaningful" that is "out there somewhere" (but has no apparent existence).

Again your asserted view of morality and ethics is subjective and your debasing representation of my view does not appropriately address the proper theistic reasoning. You only assert wild intentions on my part and that is not reasoning it is a strawman fallacy.

Further.... to “shake off” your strawman represents a choice you made without providing any reasons to do so. Which brings us full circle back to the justification of worldviews. You simply assert yours and dismiss mine without reasoning.

In conclusion FLW is one or the other, he logically can’t be both. Because pantheism is not defined as simply one who is in awe of nature.

 

[abaddon]

What I said is that other people who are not pantheists feel awe of nature, the difference that makes a difference irt pantheism is what they do with it.

 

[remez]

What I said is that other people who are not pantheists feel awe of nature, the difference that makes a difference irt pantheism is what they do with it.

Obviously.

And just what does a pantheist "do with it?" ............ They deify nature.

Thereby removing themselves from the worldview of atheism.

FLW can not be both.

 

[abaddon]

Ok. Looking for clarification from the individual, I find some further info and it looks like FL Wright defied nature:

The United States' greatest architect, Frank Lloyd Wright (1867-1959), was a strong pantheist. He claimed that Nature was the source of his inspiration, and in his building he followed the principles of nature. "I believe in God," he wrote, "only I spell it Nature":

"God is the great mysterious motivator of what we call nature, and it has been said often by philosophers, that nature is the will of God. And, I prefer to say that nature is the only body of God that we shall ever see."
​

~ from Paul Harrison's Elements of Pantheism: A Spirituality of Nature and the Universe.

So he isn't both atheist and pantheist. But could be if he had wanted to be, haha.

Some atheists are drawn to pantheism because "atheism" is not a positive statement that conveys how they see nature and feel about it. The word "pantheism" does not necessarily adequately sum up their "worldview" either but for these pantheists it's closer than "atheism" is. The association of reverence with religiosity and theism is traditional. We find it in historical pantheists because that was the culture. The superlative was described with religious language and we're still stuck with that.

I have some familiarity with "scientific" or naturalistic pantheism, so it's what I can present for some information on this topic. Here's a statement of principles by them: https://www.pantheism.net/manifest/

Maybe those sentiments amount to a deification of nature. It's not clear to me that it does, but maybe so. But it's just semantics. A problem arises with that only if anyone thinks it necessarily adds something metaphysical to nature beyond how science describes nature. It's clear in their self-description these pantheists don't intend that. So they're not removed from "the worldview of atheism" (not if you mean either naturalism or physicalism with "the worldview of atheism").

So, among some pantheists the "god language" isn't an attempt at an objective description of nature, it's a description of their subjective response to nature. Somehow some persons seem to think "subjective" works as an adequate criticism of anything. But because how a human's experience of life goes either well or badly, depending on their subjective response to nature and the things of nature, it's of tremendous importance.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What I said is that other people who are not pantheists feel awe of nature, the difference that makes a difference irt pantheism is what they do with it.

Obviously.

And just what does a pantheist "do with it?" ............ They deify nature.

Thereby removing themselves from the worldview of atheism.

FLW can not be both.

Just because something gives you goose bumps it's what? A god? Something that isn't even real to that very person?

Give me a break. That's so weak as to invite laughter.

I can still remember my young deconversion days. I'd reflect on the grandness and beauty of nature, how awesome something was. National Parks can do that to a person. And at the same time I would recall how puny and insignificant churches were by comparison, how strained the arguments were for gods, all the contradictions and apologetics. Never one time did I equate what I was experiencing with anything remotely concerning those silly teachings about magic creatures.

If a person has to be a pantheist to appreciate the universe that sounds like a claim right out of a fundy handbook for children.

Again, give me a break.

 

[remez]

If a person has to be a pantheist to appreciate the universe that sounds like a claim right out of a fundy handbook for children.

Again, give me a break.

Seriously, how could you possibly think I asserted that?

This is so typical of you. You jump right in and start throwing insults around, with no knowledge of the context. I wasn't asserting that. I was criticizing that.

So please have someone read post 14 to you and while they're at it, have them teach you how to structure a proper if-then statement. Or just stay ignorant. It's your call joebabe.

 

[Juma]

Ok. I think you are asserting that FLW made a statement of value not a statement of deity. If that was the case then I assert that he is an atheist. Your statement that the two of you are both atheists and pantheists presents a major contradiction in need of explanation. As I see it you are asserting that if you are in awe of nature then you are a pantheist. I’m in awe of nature as well, does that render me a pantheist?

Science plays a major role in my old earth theism and I’m in awe of nature as well. That does not render me a pantheist or atheist.

About a purported "atheistic worldview"... If you knew "Joe" was an atheist but that's all, you wouldn't know if he were a "consciousness is all" idealist or "everything's matter and energy" physicalist or something else. So what worldview does Joe the atheist have, knowing nothing but that he doesn't believe in God?

I’m interested in researching the notion of “atheistic dualism.” Could you point me to what you judge to be a good source?

"Deify" means "worship, regard, or treat (someone or something) as a god" which doesn't necessitate seeing nature as God.

I agree. If you do not deify nature then you are not a pantheist. But nature is a thing, so if you deify it then you are a pantheist.

"Transcendent to nature"? What's that, needing something "outside" of nature to give people their meaning and some directions on ethics?

Transcendent to nature means there exists some entity that is beyond nature that is the explanation for nature’s existence. Again an important issue of origins that all worldviews must account for. Your simplistic and debasing reduction of theistic concerns there was unreasonable. It lacked any understanding of the theistic worldview regarding origins, meaning or morality.

What's wrong with the meaning and ethics that naturally emerge from relationships with tangible entities?

Your meaning and ethics would be subjective and unjustifiable. Your “tangible entities” once again ignores the reasoning provided for Gods existence.

There's a practicable earthbound transcendence available to humans. It's psychological, and an important reason for pantheistic "religious" sentiments. It's a matter of expanding one's identity beyond one's egoic self, with a consequent expansion of the circle of ethical regard beyond "me" and "those things that are the most like 'me'". Also one may shake off the illusion of feeling like a soul stuck inside a skull, looking out on a woeful landscape of "mere matter", wanting a connection to something "more perfect and meaningful" that is "out there somewhere" (but has no apparent existence).

Again your asserted view of morality and ethics is subjective and your debasing representation of my view does not appropriately address the proper theistic reasoning. You only assert wild intentions on my part and that is not reasoning it is a strawman fallacy.

Further.... to “shake off” your strawman represents a choice you made without providing any reasons to do so. Which brings us full circle back to the justification of worldviews. You simply assert yours and dismiss mine without reasoning.

In conclusion FLW is one or the other, he logically can’t be both. Because pantheism is not defined as simply one who is in awe of nature.

your view of morality is built on sand: the supposition that morality must be objective is baseless.