Are pantheists opposed to scientific and technological progress?

If that is whatatheism is, then once again pantheists are not atheists.

Metaphysics of Pantheism - Famous Pantheist Quotes

A distinction may be drawn between distributive pantheism, theview that each thing in the cosmos is divine, and collectivepantheism, the view that the cosmos as a whole is divine. (Oppy,1994) And if polytheism in general is coherent there is no reason inprinciple why we should exclude the possibility of a distributivepantheism. But as in pursuit of explanatory unity and coherence beliefin many Gods tends historically to give way to belief in single deity,while it would be technically possible to identify the universe with acollection of deities, in practice monism tends to win out, and it hasbeen characteristic of pantheists to stress heavily the unity ofnature. Thus pantheism typically asserts a two-fold identity:as well as the unity of God and nature, it urges the unity of allthings with each other.

Still, respect for nature independent of human interference is essential to pantheism.

Pantheism in religion, literature, and philosophy

However, some pantheists hold that the pantheist viewpoint is the most ethical viewpoint, pointing out that any harm done to another is doing harm to oneself because what harms one harms all. What is good and evil isn't the mandate of something outside of us, but as a result of the way we are all interconnected. Instead of good choices being based on fear of divine punishment, it comes from a mutual respect from all things.

Pantheism can be equated with atheism,of course, if atheism is defined as disbelief in the existence of a God who is a person.

is a kind of Pantheism which incorporates a form of , holding that the universe is identical to God, but also that God was previously a conscious and sentient force or entity that designed and created the universe. God only became an unconscious and nonsentient God by becoming the universe. Other than this distinction (and the possibility that the Universe will one day return to the state of being God), Pandeistic beliefs are identical to Pantheism.

In anycase, pantheism as a religious perspective strongly endorses our learning how to live more lightlyupon the earth.


Scientific Pantheism by Paul Harrison | The Eye of Guyus

A good way to understand any view is to appreciate the kind ofdrives that may push someone towards it. What arguments may be givenfor pantheism? Although there are a great many different individuallines of reasoning that might be offered, generally they may be placedunder two heads; arguments ‘from below’, which start froma posteriori religious experience, and arguments ‘fromabove’, which start from a priori philosophicalabstraction.

Is Scientific Pantheism actually Atheism? | Yahoo Answers

But it does not fit modern pantheism as expressed, for example, in mostof the publications of the Universal Pantheist Society or the text of Paul Harrison's "ScientificPantheism" website.

What Is A Scientific Pantheism? - YouTube

Biblical Judaism asserts the origin of the universe was brought forth by the Torah [law] of nature. Thus the original Torah is found not within the writing of Moshe, but within nature itself. "Reading" the Torah of nature is seen as equivalent to "reading" the Torah of revelation and theoretically will agree with one another in the end [as illustrated for example in the discovery of the Big Bang in 1965]. Rabbinical Orthodoxy viewing this as a discrepancy, in order to maintain the written Torah above that given first in nature, has argued that written Torah preceded creation, and it was from the written Torah that God "spoke" creation. A view rejected by Biblical pantheists.

Scientific Pantheism - About | Facebook

However, given the complex and contested nature of the conceptsinvolved, there is insufficient consensus among philosophers to permitthe construction of any more detailed definition not open to seriousobjection from some quarter or other. Moreover, the label is acontroversial one, where strong desires either to appropriate or toreject it often serve only to obscure the actual issues, and it wouldbe a sad irony if pantheism revealed itself to be most like atraditional religion in its sectarian disputes over just what counts as‘true pantheism.’ Therefore pantheism should not be thoughtof as a single codifiable position. Rather it should be understood as adiverse family of distinct doctrines; many of whom would besurprised—and, indeed, disconcerted—to find themselves regardedas members of a single household. Further, since the concept has porousand disputed boundaries there is no clear consensus on just whoqualifies, no definitive roll-call of past pantheists. Given thissituation the range of things that may be usefully said aboutall pantheisms is perhaps limited, but nonetheless a varietyof concepts may be clarified, the nature of contentious issuesexplored, and the range of possible options more precisely mappedout.