What do pantheists believe

Christians possess hope because the Lord fulfilled his plans through Jesus, and we inherited the right to be called sons and daughters if we have indeed called on Jesus for salvation. Although pantheistic thought assumes the presence of God, many proponents are functional materialists and essentially atheists until it suits them to be otherwise. Materialists say the mind is a random chemical construct yet will argue that self-love and seeking personal happiness make sense.

Such a perspective, if it considers the Lord at all, tends to be angry or indignant with a God who permits suffering. Yet how can one be angry at a God who does not exist? Pantheistic materialists face a confusion of incompatible beliefs. We all know there is such a thing as right and wrong.

Most of us search for justice and crave purpose. The universe is not a person to provide any of these. Neither can a detached deity supply the love and security we need in order to risk facing our personal sin. An impersonal, detached force cannot be detached yet also our judge; cannot love us and be distant; cannot be morally indifferent yet create and enforce rules. Christ never spoke this way. Events in our lives are not set there primarily to teach lessons but to draw us closer to God.

The universe is not about us; it was made for the Lord by his hand. The good news is that the universe, everything, and everyone in it is ruled by a personal and powerful King who gave us his identity and adopted the faithful as heirs to his Kingdom. The universe showcases his glory and majesty while he redeems the sin which broke it. Is God in All Things? It is the equation's single absolute. I actually haven't heard a single man says he is pantheist and I am not sure I will soon hear it, because there is nothing wrong with that concept and believe but think again, if you believe God is everything you will say that you believe in Christ, Buddha or Allah isn't that right?

Sunday, February 26, -- PM. I like this theory about God much more than the conventional view most people have of him. I think it's absurd to think of God as an old man sitting in a throne in the sky, and that he or it, better said is more of a universal force within all of us. I think it's interesting to note that life feeds on death to be sustained, so all living beings are intrinsically connected to one another and hence contribute to each other's existence, independently of whether we do it in a direct or indirect way.

Saying "the universe is God" is like saying "the painting is the painter. We seem to be spending a lot of effort on why we come up with a concept of God. That is looking at it backwards. We did not create God. The question more accurately is why He bothered to create us. And with all due respect to Bertrand Russell, science is quite often about what we don't know - in fact at the professional level I think it focuses mostly there.

Religion on the other hand is quite often focused on what we have experienced and therefore do quite intimately know. Monday, February 27, -- PM. Good luck with that one, Nathan. Good luckindeed. Bibles, Korans, and Kitabi'aqdas' did not tell us about how to estimate gravity, electromagnetism and strong and weak forces.

Oh well, never mind. We shall both be long dead and no one will yet know. Biblically, 'the way is so certain, a fool should not err. Said the Camel. Gregory Bateson has an interesting take on all this.

How and whether pantheism relates to the sacred came up a couple times during the show. Pantheism is thought to be more science-compatible since it has the more metaphysical stuff stripped out of it. Bateson, a scientist, ties them together like this.

He sees the sacred as being something off-limits, secret, myterious. He says that revealing information can, in some cases, upset some sort of balance or convention. To take an example from biology, when a beetle grows a freak extra leg, what it has is both a right leg and a left leg in place of one leg. The information that tells it which one to grow has somehow been canceled out, and in its place the extra info for growing the other leg applies.

He suggests that this type of argument can help explain all the mystery in Christianity. This ties in, by the way, with what came up in the Conundrum segment at the end of the show. John Perry said that if a felon finds it impossible to get a job because he's a felon, then maybe it's OK for him to lie about it.

Keeping the felony secret is better for the felon, and by implication maybe even for the employer. Of course, all the information available on the Internet now would tend to work against this.

Just one of those unintended consequences of technology. Tuesday, February 28, -- PM. Surely Nathan a painting can be called a da Dinci And the Universe, united, infinite, immeasurable,devine, wonderful, nature, all powerful, God, is, One.

As for telling a lie for money, truth is the Way. The existence of matter can always be proven by science? Consciousness does not exist in this way, and it cannot be proven to exist using any scientific method. God is not matter: everyone knows this. So God is a consciousness thingy.

And God cannot be proven to exist by scientific means. But statistically God is a human necessity: the number of atheists is so small as to be statistically unimportant. What is important is that statistically every human being believes in God or god-like stuff; ergo, God is a human necessity for reasons I gave in my previous comment.

This is what pantheism means: God is a necessity of human consciousness. Everywhere that consciousness goes, so God goes. The big problem that agnostics and atheists have is that they define God as something so enormous that its existence is impossible.

But all they really have to do is to acknowledge the human necessity for belief, and, really, that is god enough. Wednesday, February 29, -- PM.

I suggest the name of a pantheistic god: Metaphor ad Infinitum. LIfe is poetry. That gives us the oneness, and maybe the greater-than-the-sum-of-the-parts, without the consciousness or intention that bugs many about theisms, at least me. Couple that with The Church of Universal Life maxims yes, that's the church from Modesto, CA, that started off as a tax and draft dodge, but ended up ordaining lots of amateur minsters including me who have performed lots of non-church weddings : 1 do the right thing; 2 it's up to you to figure out what the right right thing is.

Kind of existentialism. There you have a good foundation for a religion that only needs to be filled out with some catchy ritual and a lot of fundraising. One love, x. Saturday, March 3, -- PM. During the interview, Dr.

Tuesday, March 6, -- PM. Mike, come on That would be ridiculous. Dave, I've read my Bible a few times, I'm not aware of that quote you used. In the Bible fools err constantly, that is why they're called that. The Bible may not directly discuss the four forces or quantum mechanics - neither does Churchill's "History of the English Speaking Peoples," for example, but that does not make it any less true.

There are many kinds of knowledge - true, objective, hard facts knowledge - that are completely outside science. To get back to Pantheism - I think mirugai is right that humans have a necessity for belief.

Pantheism is comfortable in that one can have belief without consequences - there is no Person there that might make demands, set limits, or in any way interfere with one's own desires. Just the nice thought that the universe isn't as indifferent as it seems. Comfortable - also pointless. Tuesday, March 20, -- PM.

I think we created the God not to fill the void but to escape the responsibility. And I think to say I don't know is much better than to make up fairytales. Friday, March 30, -- PM. Adriana: I don't think so. Many religions teach that God or the gods, in ancient Egyptian religion for example will judge each person for every action and even every thought.

It would be better to imagine no God or gods if one wanted to escape responsibility - then there are no eternal consequences, and nothing one does ultimately matters at all. Wednesday, April 4, -- PM. I think the whole concept of god being one "being" is outdated.

I'm not religious myself, but I think that in order for someone to believe, he has to consider what could make sense, so, one only "superior being" having energy, intelligence and power to be present in the life of all creatures in the whole universe??

Wednesday, June 13, -- PM. Jpmanzi,The answers to your qoentiuss would probably depend on who you were talking to. I think the phrase scientific pantheism is just alluding to the fact that pantheism does not make any irrational assumptions. If science decrees some fact or idea then pantheists wouldn't wish to deny that fact. So they probably are the same, but why anyone adds the term scientific I am not really sure.

The second part, is pantheism just another name for spiritual atheism is a more difficult question. I am sure that there are some who would call themselves spiritual atheists and pantheists at the same time. However, I don't think a spiritual atheist is necessarily a pantheist, nor is a pantheist a spiritual atheist. So no they are not the same. There may be some overlap between the two but there is also plenty of scope for a person to be one and not the other.

Saturday, August 11, -- PM. Through the show, Clayton very rightly tried to emphasize that our conversations tend to be locked in the language of the monotheisms. Ironically, Clayton gave a case in point, referring to "orthodox" Christianity as the primary ideas we refer to, when I think he really means Protestantism, not specifically Orthodox Christianity; everyone always forgets about that other branch With that in mind, I too find it odd that self-described pantheists would continue using the word God.

That use is essentially monotheistic. But one of the main points of departure is that pantheism rejects a personal God. Why begin with a unitary, transcendent god, and then spread him out over the universe?

It's just as strange as saying, "everything is the ancestors. Hopefully, neither ancestors nor Yahweh is our only possible metaphor. Shouldn't pantheism have it's own language? Though it's clear pantheism is not an organized religious institution, it's rather silly to ask whether it's a religion on the grounds that it doesn't have a lot of the things Christianity has. Neither do many other world religions, especially historical ones, have much in common with Christianity. Many do not focus on morality, or afterives, or cosmology; but we still call them religions.

Anyway, maybe the better comparison is between pantheism and monotheism, or some other ism -- and not particular religions. Maybe we haven't seen an instantiated pantheistic religion yet, with rituals or ethics or other specifics about how to live. Maybe it will arrive eventually, or maybe pantheism will always be an offshoot of existing religions. I know everyone's background in the West is likely to be Christanity-centric, mine probably is too, but let's not forget that pantheism, if it's a religion, would sit beside many other practices in the historic of humanity, and should be judged against all of that.

Personally I think it's rather intriguing, but it may just be a big 'ism' for now, awaiting real fleshing out. Monday, July 7, -- PM. Relative to the program discussing pantheism, this was, in my thinking, an ignorant and biased exclusion; especially given that pathetic inclusion of the SF "New Ager" who was spouting absolute nonsense and make believe.

Deloria was named by Time magazine during the 's as one of the most influential religious thinkers in the twentieth century; and yet even in the Stanford philosophy website database, the single inclusion for Deloria relates to his role as a lawyer. Apparently, these qualifications are insufficient to be included in the Stanford philosophy department, and John and Ken's readings, knowledge and discussions.

These writings should be included in the readings of all open minded thinkers, and especially those who are environmentalists and who are concerned about biodiversity and planetary health and therein recognizing the sanctity and spirituality of other species and the synergistic totality of Gaia -- i.

Skip to main content. Search form Search. Laura Maguire. However, pantheism differs from traditional theistic religions in two important ways. Related Shows Pantheism Feb 26, Epicurus and the Good Life Mar 04, Though his name is often misleadingly associated with indulgence in sensual pleasures, the Greek philosopher Epicurus developed a far-r The Nature of Wilderness Aug 26, Nowadays we think of wilderness as a fully natural environment that contrasts sharply with the designed and constructed environments in which we normally move.

Spinoza Nov 08, Baruch Spinoza was a 17th century Dutch philosopher who laid the foundations for the Enlightenment. Even in ancient Greek society, philosopher-scientists engaged in heated debate about the origin, composition, and structure of our universe. Blog Archive October Persons, Community, and the Akan. Why Is Math So Useful? On Awesomeness. Is Facebook Morally Responsible? Microaggressions and Intention.

The Slow Miracles of Thought. Literary Minds. Summer Dylan Reading. Unnecessary Necessities. The Philosophy of the Vienna Circle. Cracking Down on Disinformation. What Montaigne Knew. Is Meritocracy Possible? A Solution. What Makes A Man? Replacing Freud. What Tech Says. The Mathematics of Democracy. When Do False Beliefs Exculpate? Gaining Knowledge without Learning.

December The Year in Poetry. Finding Minds in a Material World. Should the Arts Be for All? Whose Fault Is It Anyway? Why We Argue About Fiction. Why Games Matter. Reasons to Hate. Abortion and Humanity. Skepticism and Trust in Science. Philosophy for the Apocalypse. Who Gets to be a Citizen? Does Meritocracy Have Merit? Discriminating Streets. Abortion and Dehumanization.

On Jerks and Ethicists. A Cat's Life. The Value of Metaphor in a Pandemic. Benjamin and Modern Enchantment. The Ethics of Pet Keeping. Celebrating Our th Episode. Covid and the Veil of Ignorance. Your Racist Mental Habits. Demonizing Black Men.

Listener Covidundrums. Puzzle 3: Kant on Lying to Robots. Can Philosophy Help in a Crisis? Narrative Burnout. A Pandemic of Dreams. More Money Matters. FrancisOnFilm: Crip Camp. Money Matters. Proust and Social Distance. Puzzle 2: What is an Identity? Philosophy and the Superhero. Trying to Let Go of the Past. Thinking and Mental Action. Puzzle 1: Are Beliefs Voluntary?

Viral Xenophobia. Sorry, Critics: Parasite is a Good Movie. Anti-Sacred Spaces. Is the Self Real? FrancisOnFilm: Dionysus for Docs. Rough Humor.

Comedy on the Edges. What the Future Holds. How Much Thought Is Inactive? A Tribute to Ken Taylor. Nonhuman Persons, Nonhuman Rights.

Francis-on-Film: Parasite. Sanctuary Cities. Part II. Hobbes and the Absolute State. Real Horror. Machine Consciousness. FrancisOnFilm: Downton Abbey. Should We Trust Polls? The Appeal of Authoritarianism. Music as a Way of Knowing. Explanation at Its Best. What's In a Picture? Changing Minds on Climate Change. Against Introspection.

Self Knowledge on Trial. The Doomsday Doctrine. A Simple Test for Fake News. Postmodernism: The Decline of Truth. How to Think Two Thoughts at Once. JS Mill and the Good Life. Letting Go of Human Nature. Tolerance and Radical Disagreement. A Licentious Lannister? Working for Faith.

What Is Reading? Anti-Semitism is Racism. FrancisOnFilm: Shazam! Philanthropy vs. Authority and Resistance. Wanting to Want for Its Own Sake. Hacking Our Sense Perceptions. Sexy Beasts. Ken's Big Announcement. FrancisOnFilm: Green Book. Your Question: Integrate or Assimilate? Controversy About Climate Denial. Immigration and Multiculturalism. Mind the Gaps!

FrancisOnFilm: Minding the Gap. Five Types of Climate Change Deniers. Finding Yourself in a Virtual Fiction. FrancisOnFilm: Aquaman. The Puzzle of the Unconscious. Is Envy Always a Vice? FrancisOnFilm: Brexit.

Getting Clear on the Replication Crisis. How Not to Fall Asleep. Freud's Philosophical Challenges. December The Examined Year: — Uncut. On Morally Condemning the Past. Philosophical Freud. Foucault on Power. The Creative Life. Since God and the universe are one, understanding the universe is how one comes to better understand God. Because all things are God, all things are connected and ultimately are of one substance.

While various facets of God have defining characteristics everything from different species to individual people , they are part of a greater whole.

As a comparison, one might consider the parts of the human body. Hands are different from feet which are different from lungs, but all are part of the greater whole that is the human form. Because all things are ultimately God, all approaches to God can conceivably lead to an understanding of God. Each person should be allowed to pursue such knowledge as they wish. This does not mean, however, that pantheists believe every approach is correct. They generally do not believe in an afterlife, for example, nor do they find merit in strict dogma and ritual.

Pantheism should not be confused with panentheism. Panentheism views God as both immanent and transcendent. This means that while the entire universe is a part of God, God also exists beyond the universe. As such, this God can be a personal God, a conscious being that manifested the universe with whom one can have a personal relationship. Pantheism is also not deism. Deist beliefs are sometimes described as not having a personal God, but in that case, it is not meant to say the God has no consciousness.

The deist God actively created the universe. God is impersonal in the sense that God retreated from the universe after its creation, uninterested in listening to or interacting with believers. Pantheism is not animism. Not only is pantheism not antithetical to religion, but certain religions are better understood as pantheistic rather than theistic when their doctrines are examined.

Philosophical Taoism is the most pantheistic, but Advaita Vedanta, certain forms of Buddhism and some mystical strands in monotheistic traditions are also pantheistic. But even apart from any religious tradition many people profess pantheistic beliefs — though somewhat obscurely.

Pantheism remains a much neglected topic of inquiry. Given their prevalence, non-theistic notions of deity have not received the kind of careful philosophical attention they deserve.

Certainly the central claims of pantheism are prima facie no more "fantastic" than the central claims of theism — and probably a great deal less so. Like "atheism" the term "pantheism" was used in the eighteenth century as a term of "theological abuse," and it often still is Tapper Armstrong says the term "pantheistic" is a "large, vague term of theological abuse," Armstrong With some exceptions, pantheism is non-theistic, but it is not atheistic.

It is a form of non-theistic monotheism, or even non-personal theism. It is the belief in one God, a God identical to the all-inclusive unity, but pantheists generally do not believe God is a person or anything like a person.

The fact that pantheism clearly is not atheistic, and is an explicit denial of atheism, is disputed by its critics. The primary reason for equating pantheism with atheism is the assumption that belief in any kind of "God" must be belief in a personalistic God, because God must be a person.

In his non-pantheistic phase, Coleridge claimed that "every thing God, and no God, are identical positions" McFarland It is therefore bereft of any distinctive meaning; so that pantheism is equivalent to atheism.

At most, what Schopenhauer, Coleridge, Owen etc. They want to show that believing in a pantheistic God is a convoluted and confused way of believing in something that can adequately be described apart from any notion of deity — and in this they are mistaken. Different versions of pantheism offer different accounts of the meaning of "unity," and "divinity. Often, the meaning of unity present is vague and indeterminate.

Because of this, the central problem of pantheism, unlike theism, is to determine just what pantheism means. For example, philosophical Taoism is one of the best articulated and thoroughly pantheistic positions there is. The Tao is the central unifying feature. What kind of unity is or should be claimed by pantheists and which, if any, is plausible? After dealing with these fundamental questions, the philosophical and religious consequences of analyzing unity in some particular way can be examined.

There may be acceptable alternative criteria of Unity. But even if there are alternatively acceptable criteria, some may be more acceptable to the pantheist than others — given criteria of adequacy in addition to those necessary. Among those that are acceptable, they need not be equally acceptable. However, just as there are alternative theisms, one would expect that there are alternative pantheisms. Pantheism need not be, any more than theism needs to be, a univocal view. Schopenhauer criticized pantheism's identification of "the world" with "God," on the basis of what he took to be the meanings of both for the pantheist.

He said calling the world "God," or God "the world," is "superfluous," and redundant. He also ridiculed the idea that the world could be called God given our general notions of what God and the world are like.

Schopenhauer's criticism fails because he equivocates on the terms central to his argument. The meanings of both Unity and divinity involved in the pantheistic claim that there exists an all-inclusive divine Unity are different than the senses Schopenhauer attributes to the world and God in his criticism. The pantheist does not mean what Schopenhauer means by God, and the "all-inclusive unity" in pantheism is not another word for the "world" as he uses it i.

The interpretation of "world" Schopenhauer attributes to pantheists is not what they mean when they describe it as a Unity. For the pantheist, however Unity is interpreted, the world is not simply an all-inclusive Unity in the sense that the world, understood to be everything, is the "unity" composed of everything. This would be to interpret it as asserting that everything that exists simply is everything that exists; or to put it another way, everything is of course all-inclusively everything.

This is true but vacuous, and it trivialises pantheism at the outset. Attributing Unity simply on the basis of all-inclusiveness is irrelevant to pantheism. Formal unity can always be attributed to the world on this basis alone.

To understand the world as "everything" is to attribute a sense of unity to the world, but there is no reason to suppose this sense of all-inclusiveness is the pantheistically relevant Unity. Similarly, unity as mere numerical, class or categorical unity is irrelevant, since just about anything and everything can be "one" or a "unity" in these senses. Suppose "formal unity" to be "the sense in which things are one in virtue of the fact that they are members of one and the same class … the same universal" Demos Then clearly formal unity is not pantheistic Unity.

Furthermore, formal unity neither entails or is entailed by types of unity e. Unity is explained in various ways that are often interrelated. These connections range from mutual entailment, to different types of causal and contingent relations. Roughly, Unity is interpreted 1 ontologically; 2 naturalistically — in terms of ordering principle s , force s or plans; 3 substantively — where this is distinguished from "ontologically"; and 4 genealogically — in terms of origin.

Christopher Rowe 57 calls 4 a "genealogical model of explanation" of unity. Unity may have to be explained partly in terms of divinity. The all-inclusive whole may be a Unity because it is divine — either in itself Spinoza's substance , or because of a divine power informing the whole — as with the Presocratics.

The Presocratics give an account of why they think the unifying principle is divine. It is immortal and indestructible.

But this does not satisfactorily explain the relation between Unity and divinity, or why divinity might be seen as a basis of Unity. Similarly, though less naturally, the question arises as to whether the all-inclusive whole is divine because it is a Unity. Can Unity be a basis for attributing divinity to the whole? If divinity is the basis for Unity, as it may be for the Presocratics; or alternatively if Unity is the basis for divinity; then there is something of a redundancy in the definition of pantheism as the belief that everything that exists constitutes a divine Unity.

A simpler non-redundant definition would be that pantheism holds that "everything is divine". The idea of "divinity" in pantheism is similar in some respects to its theistic meaning. Why do pantheists ascribe divinity to the Unity? The reason is similar to why theists describe God as holy. They experience it as such. In Otto's experiential account, what is divine is what evokes the numinous experience.

This can be a theistic god, but it can also be a pantheistic Unity. And, when looked at from socio-scientific perspectives in terms of how the concept of divinity functions intellectually and affectively e. There is no reason to suppose the idea of "divinity" relevant to pantheism should be modelled after a specific tradition's concept of divinity-like Christianity.

It is too specific for any general analysis of pantheism, and it refers to the theistic variants of pantheism which are most inconsequential for pantheistic practice. From a pantheistic perspective, panentheism is just a variety of theism. It involves both the belief that God is a person has a mind, is conscious etc and the belief that God is partially, or in some respect, transcendent.

Like deism and pantheism, it too is best seen, from a Western perspective, as a response to theism — a way of overcoming allegedly unacceptable aspects. Whatever criteria are decided upon as necessary for attributing divinity to something, one cannot decide a priori that the possession of divinity requires personhood without ruling out the possibility of the most typical types of pantheism i.

After all, theism is what pantheism is most of all trying to distance itself from. I am not sure the reverse is true-but theism does ordinarily strongly oppose itself to pantheism. In any case, Spinoza's God and Lao Tzu's Tao , for example, are distinctly non-personal, as are the governing principles of the Presocratics. It seems unwarranted, therefore, to suppose that a necessary condition of something's being divine is that it be personal on the grounds that "Of all the modes of creaturely existence, personality is the highest and so the fittest to serve as an analogy of divine being" Macquarrie At least to do so begs the question against Spinoza, some of the Presocratics, Lao Tzu, probably Plotinus, as well as against experiential and socio-scientific accounts of divinity.

Following a long and still current tradition H. Like most people they are pluralists. They believe, quite plausibly, that there are many things and kinds of things and many different kinds of value. Even in Spinoza's case, explaining his pantheism in terms of his substance monism glosses the far more significant, pantheistically speaking, evaluative implications he sees as entailed by that monism for his pantheistic metaphysic and his concept of Unity.

The Ethics is not about monism, but about what it entails. Why Spinoza sees things as a Unity cannot be explained wholly or even primarily in terms of his monism.

Whether or not substance monism is ontologically necessary for Unity, an explanation of its relevance requires something extra-ontological to be cited. The same is true of any factual ground for Unity. Delineating metaphysical or modal properties of a substance, or anything else, does not make their relevance to Unity obvious. So what if everything is made from one self-subsistent immutable substance? So what if everything is really a single organism when considered macrocosmically? Why would this be pantheistically, rather than merely metaphysically significant?

What is the evaluative or religious significance of natural features of the totality that pantheism claims is central to Unity? Because value must be partly constitutive of Unity, it must be explained in partly evaluative terms. This is a necessary condition for an adequate criterion of Unity. Without it one is left only with this or that fact as a basis for positing Unity, but no adequate account of the relevance of the basis, and so no account of Unity itself.

There may be ways of conceiving of the monistic "One" such that it is taken both as a unity and as "divine" — yet still not as a pantheistic Unity. The monistic unity the "One" may not be regarded as a "Unity" i. Not just any monistic unity e. Thus, although Hegel conceived of Reality as unified and rational in terms of the Absolute Geist , and in a manner that I take it would qualify Geist as divine, he denies he was a pantheist.

Similarly, Sankara's Brahman is ontologically all-inclusive and is part of a metaphysical account of the nature of Reality that is religiously significant i. However, it may be denied that advaita Vedanta, although monistic, is pantheistic. Monists, like pantheists, believe that Reality, or an aspect of it, is "One" or unified. Of course they also deny it is "One" or a "unity" in most other senses. Whatever similarities there are in this regard, there is insufficient reason for attributing pantheism to monists, because the oneness of Reality is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition of pantheism.

It is at most a necessary condition if monistic "oneness" is construed in a unitive sense that is constitutive of some particular pantheistic account of the divine Unity. An alleged entailment between pantheism and monism is even less likely since pantheists, like everyone else, are generally pluralistic. Any appearance to the contrary has been fostered by simply conflating Unity with monism, or by considering the few pantheists who were also monists and taking them as the norm.

The connection between Spinoza's monism and his pantheism, does not rest on an identification of the two positions, but is instead the result of the wider metaphysical position constructed in his Ethics. Substance monism need not have any implications concerning God or an Absolute in either a theistic or pantheistic sense.

Differences among substance monists may be greater than differences between monists who deny and theists who affirm that God and creation are substantially distinct.

For example, a substance monist e. Sankara — interpreted atheistically need not identify substance with God, or recognize any God, at all. In this case it is plausible to hold that the difference between such an atheistic monist and a theistic or pantheistic monist is far greater than that between the theistic monist who perhaps holds that creatures and creator are co-substantial though the theistic monist need not hold this view , and the theistic non-monist who believes that all creatures are substantially distinct from the creator.

The latter two have their theism in common, while the former two have their monism in common. The latter two are "closer" in kind than the former, if and so far as one assumes that theism is a more significant common denominator than monism. Like the notions of "Unity" and "Divinity," understanding transcendence and immanence is essential to any account of pantheism.

A defining feature of pantheism is allegedly that God is wholly immanent. However, what is actually or mostly involved in this claim is that pantheism denies the theistic view that God transcends the world. Pantheism clearly does not claim that God in the theistic sense is immanent in the world since it denies such a God — transcendent or immanent — exists.

According to pantheism it is of course the pantheistic "God" i. Theists and pantheists do not differ as to whether the theistic God is immanent or transcendent, but whether the theistic God exists. So to differentiate between them on the basis of one's affirming and the other denying immanence is utterly confused.

Many of the difficulties associated with theistic transcendence are not dissipated for the pantheist when relevantly adjusted. For example, theistic transcendence presents prima facie difficulties concerning knowledge of and relations with God. The pantheist is part of the Unity, but both the nature of Unity, and its practical implications must be determined. In the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius this appears as much a problem for pantheists, if Aurelius is one, as knowing and relating to God is for theists.

In a sense, the Unity in pantheism is wholly immanent, but this is bare ontological immanence that follows from the Unity's all-inclusiveness i. Yet even this overstates the pantheistic commitment to immanence. Aspects of the Unity or the unifying principle often have a transcendent aspect to them. Unity is "all-inclusive" but with the possible exception of Spinoza, pantheists generally deny complete immanence. Thus, the metaphysical Tao informs everything and is part of the all-inclusive Unity, but it does have a transcendent aspect to it.

It does transcend the phenomenal world of "myriad things. So the claim that pantheists deny "God's" transcendence is altogether misleading on several counts unless taken to mean what it usually does mean when asserted by theists — which is that pantheists deny the transcendence of a theistic God.

If pantheism is seen as the quintessential expression of divine immanence, then it is not difficult to see why it might be combined with panpsychism or animism. Like pantheism, both of these express a kind of pervasive immanence — "mind" in the former case and "living soul," "spirit," or "animal life" in the latter. But however consonant or combined with pantheism these may be, they should be distinguished from both from each other and from pantheism.

None of these three views entail one another, and the suggestion that pantheism and panpsychism naturally go together is vague apart from specific accounts of the two positions. What immediately sets panpsychism apart from pantheism is its belief that mental activity, usually of a kind we can only at times be mildly aware of, is all-pervasive. Although such a supposition is not necessarily inconsistent with pantheism, it is not part of pantheism. It does not reject these distinctions, but implies that Unity ranges over such divisions.

There are other major differences between the two positions as well. Pantheism is a much broader theory. It has implications beyond the scope of panpsychism where the latter is seen as an account of the origin of mind and the relation between mind and matter. These positions may be intrinsic to particular versions of pantheism, but pantheism as such is broader than these and distinct from them. But does pantheism require an alternative doctrine of creation? What might such a doctrine be?

For pantheism, creation remains problematic and even mysterious. However, difficulties associated with the theistic doctrine of creation ex nihilo i. God creating the world out of nothing vanish. If pantheism requires a creation doctrine, some type of emanationism seems most plausible.

This is the type usually associated with, and probably most congenial to pantheism e. Taoism, the Stoics, Plotinus — although pantheists can also eschew such doctrines. Assuming pantheism does require a doctrine or view about creation, what can be said positively about it? Pantheism has a range of options unavailable to theism since the theistic doctrine is extrapolated from scripture.

A pantheist might be a kind of existentialist with regard to questions like "Why is there anything at all? This might be seen as a refusal to deal with the issue of creation — as rejecting the idea that pantheism requires a theory of creation suited to the notion of a divine Unity. But this is not necessarily so. For all its seeming negativity, this is a positive position and not one that simply denies other views.

It is a theory of origin or creation that could be acceptable to some pantheists. One reason any account of origin, including the view of existence as a brute fact, might be rejected as being especially relevant to pantheism, is that the account is not thought to be intrinsically connected to the notion of Unity.