Animism, Pantheism, Atheism, and Druidry

[DaRC]

So, what if we lay the Holy Wikipedia aside and try to come to ideas as experienced, thought and lived by our own practises?

In my experience I've found that it's always best to have a straw man handy and the Wiki is a handy place for shooting at or burning

[DaRC]

So, what if we lay the Holy Wikipedia aside and try to come to ideas as experienced, thought and lived by our own practises?

In my experience I've found that it's always best to have a straw man handy and the Wiki is a handy place for shooting at or burning

edit - yes Julysea I get what you mean. I tend to call it nature - but a very wide version of nature that includes life, the universe and everything...

[Corwen]

OK< experiences, rather than wiki definitions: This is something I've been pondering a while - how do you define the 'theism' aspect of pantheism, panentheism (which was a new one on me) and so on? For many years, I've struggled wih the question of what is god/spirit/sacred? I'm not explaining this very well, let me elaborate. If you believe, as I do, that everything is all part of one great consciousness, the whole universe is one and we are all part of it, everything is part of it - is that pantheism, or animism or even atheism? I don't believe that this all-encompassing consciousness is a god in the usual sense of that word, but I do believe it is sacred, as in special. So that means everything is sacred, which also kind of means nothing is. So, I don't believe in a god, which I guess means that my thoughts can't be labelled as anything which ends in a 'theism' unless we radically redefine what is meant by that. And yet atheism does not seem to fit either. It has always felt to me to be one of those paradox/polarity things which seem to pop up whenever you get to the heart of the matter.

Anyone any idea at all what I'm wittering on about?

The idea that consciousness is effectively a unity, the same thing expressed by all beings but in different ways, is quite common in world religions, especially Eastern ones such as Hinduism and Jainism, and in many esoteric Western schools of thought, such as Qabalah/Kabbalah.

If you believe that the universe is all there is, and that were you to take the universe away nothing would be left, then you are a Pantheist. If you believe that something (perhaps in reality 'everything', or pure consciousness, or 'God') would be left, then you are a Panentheist. If you believe that everything is in some way 'mind', or consciousness, then this is called Panpsychism. If you believe that all the universe is alive (though not necessarily conscious) then this is called Hylozoism.

[Julysea]

The idea that consciousness is effectively a unity, the same thing expressed by all beings but in different ways, is quite common in world religions, especially Eastern ones such as Hinduism and Jainism, and in many esoteric Western schools of thought, such as Qabalah/Kabbalah.

If you believe that the universe is all there is, and that were you to take the universe away nothing would be left, then you are a Pantheist. If you believe that something (perhaps in reality 'everything', or pure consciousness, or 'God') would be left, then you are a Panentheist. If you believe that everything is in some way 'mind', or consciousness, then this is called Panpsychism. If you believe that all the universe is alive (though not necessarily conscious) then this is called Hylozoism.

Oh lord, there's more labels than you can shake a stick at. I've had a hard day, I don't think my brain can take it. Maybe I'll stick with pantheist, though panpsychism - now that sounds interesting *off back to wikipedia*...

[Blaiddwen]

So, what if we lay the Holy Wikipedia aside and try to come to ideas as experienced, thought and lived by our own practises?

In my experience I've found that it's always best to have a straw man handy and the Wiki is a handy place for shooting at or burning

edit - yes Julysea I get what you mean. I tend to call it nature - but a very wide version of nature that includes life, the universe and everything...

Dave, would you elaborate a little more on your world view please?

[cursuswalker]

Whilst I can accept the logic of athiesm, that of NO god figure at all, as opposed to the nontheist (which sounds like a fence-sitter to me ), part of me finds that quite sad that there is no scope to allow for the magic that exists in the world to create the life-spark, or no appreciation of beauty in nature - just recognising the function from the form. But that is my personal view on that.

Allow me to politely challenge this.

Atheism is simply not seeiing any evidence for the existence of god(s).

It can be further divided in Strong Atheism, which therefore positively asserts that they do not exist with 100% certainty, and Weak Atheism, which simply concludes that there is no evidence for them and thereofre their existence is so unlikely as to not be worthy of further consideration until some actual evidence comes along.

I also like to distinguish, within the pagan community, between Pure Atheism, which only concerns itself with gods, and Skeptical Atheism, which extends this disbelief to all other alleged supernatual phenomena.

For information, I am a Weak Skeptical Atheist.

There is nothing abut Atheism that exludes the enjoyment of an aesthetic in relation to Nature. Indeed as an Atheist Druid I positively celebrate the pagan aesthetic and its glorying of Nature and its cycles.

As for the "life-spark" I'm not sure what that actually is.

[Frog]

Allow me to politely challenge this.
Atheism is simply not seeiing any evidence for the existence of god(s).

It can be further divided in Strong Atheism, which therefore positively asserts that they do not exist with 100% certainty, and Weak Atheism, which simply concludes that there is no evidence for them and thereofre their existence is so unlikely as to not be worthy of further consideration until some actual evidence comes along.

Hello Cursuswalker!

I will freely admit (as I did earlier) that I may have misunderstood terms that have been used in this thread and assumed a definition that may have been incorrect.

But my understanding of athiesm is not accepting the "proof" submitted through the religious texts (for example, talking bushes).
I had always thought that the "weak athiesm" that you referred to was agnostic; not really sure one way or another until proof was presented that was more credible to lead to a decision.

But all this confirms that I have much to learn!
Frog

[DaRC]

If you believe, as I do, that everything is all part of one great consciousness, the whole universe is one and we are all part of it, everything is part of it - is that pantheism, or animism or even atheism? I don't believe that this all-encompassing consciousness is a god in the usual sense of that word, but I do believe it is sacred, as in special. So that means everything is sacred, which also kind of means nothing is. So, I don't believe in a god, which I guess means that my thoughts can't be labelled as anything which ends in a 'theism' unless we radically redefine what is meant by that.

In my experience I've found that it's always best to have a straw man handy and the Wiki is a handy place for shooting at or burning

edit - yes Julysea I get what you mean. I tend to call it nature - but a very wide version of nature that includes life, the universe and everything...

Dave, would you elaborate a little more on your world view please?

So my concept of Nature at a highly abstract level means that it includes every part of the universe; effectively everything that is known and unknown to us. So it ranges from the "Pillars of Creation" in the Eagle Nebula down to the smallest bacteria in my gut, not only that but actions and events that are related as well - the laws of physics and maths. Do I need to go on? Hopefully all can see the concept.
Science is a stream of knowledge within the school (pool?) of Natural Philosophy just as Druidry is a stream from the same pool.

Fundamentally this comes back to the question - is Nature conscious? i.e. "knowing, aware" of itself?
I would answer - that we are part of Nature, we are knowing and aware of Nature's existence and thus Nature is conscious.

Is Nature sacred? i.e. "entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or divine things; holy." or "regarded with reverence".
Being a member of OBOD I believe that Nature should be regarded with reverence or veneration.
But lets explore divinity "the quality of being divine; divine nature."
To be divine is to come from God - being the ruler of the universe. If nature is the universe then the rules of nature rule the universe. Thus Nature is the ruler of the universe; Nature is God.

Is Nature God?
This is the tricky one - any word that includes theism means God/Deity. The trouble is that God is such a (human) culturally sensitive word; in the western world this is dominated by the Abrahamic religion's view of a single, mascular deity. Nature is not, IMHO, the Abrahamic view of God. The use of the word God is confusing and open to (mis) interpretation. So whilst I've argued that Nature is God I do not believe that Nature is God due to cultural attachments of the word God. We need another word.

What is God/Deity/ Theism?
Belief in Deity is, once again IMHO, a human construct. I would follow a Jungian pattern here in that it enables a human society to construct Archetypes that helps it's members participate in that society. They are a human filter that enables people to (hopefully) achieve their potential; something of a BS / corporate speak statement I know but I'm struggling to articulate it further. I think people need a belief system which has Theism in the title. I've met many atheists who effectively have merely converted to Science as a religion, in the same way that the Natural History Museum was built as a temple to Science.
I myself am a Theist due to my veneration of the spirits of this land via the Germanic deity constructs (whether deities exist is a whole other can of worms).

Hopefully my argument is clear but I'm here by the fire ready for a toasting

[DJ Droood]

I had always thought that the "weak athiesm" that you referred to was agnostic; not really sure one way or another until proof was presented that was more credible to lead to a decision.

Even the word "agnostic" is a very 1984-esque word, set up by Big Brother to control the flow of our thinking....you either "have the knowledge" or you "don't have the knowledge", suggesting that there is actually something to know, and you just don' t know it.

(not ragging on you...those are the words they allow us to have...just making an observation about how any discussion like this is instantly hamstrung by Medieval thinking and terminology.)

Wouldn't the theist actually be the "agnostic", as they don't hold or believe scientific proofs?

[Julysea]

So whilst I've argued that Nature is God I do not believe that Nature is God due to cultural attachments of the word God. We need another word.

Yes, exactly. This is also my thoughts - nature is all and all is nature and nature is sacred/divine, but not God or even a god (if you define god as the Christian God of the old or new testaments, or the Roman gods, or any of the views of gods I have come across). We do indeed need another word. I find this all a bit of a mind-bender to think about, rather along the lines of a koan - can something be sacred without a connotation of a god? And also - if everything is made of the same things and if that stuff is sacred, then does that also, in a funny kind of way mean nothing is sacred? These are questions I've been playing around with for years now.

[treegod]

If you ask me what I believe, then I'd say I don't believe in God/gods as actual entities. So Atheism does describe me quite well.

But I have an artistic appreciation for other beliefs as well. The moments when I feel awe at everything I'm a Pantheist, the moments when I feel connected with all life I become Animist. If I feel many forces at work in life then I become a polytheist. For me they are suitable ways to describe my emotional state when I percieve the Universe, but I don't actually believe that is what the Universe is. It is the lens I use to view things.

But come to think about it, if I wasn't an Atheist I'd be a Panentheist. But then, maybe I am... really.

[treegod]

If theism was music...

Pantheism- stand back and take everything in as Music.
Polytheism- many diverse musical expressions, some in harmony, some not.
Monotheism- there is one Music, transcending the Universe, coherent and harmonious within itself.
Panentheism- the many songs of the Universe become reconciled and harmonised with each other, being guided by the one transcendant Music.
Atheism- no, I can't say there is no music, because the silence, the absense of music, is itself music. And you wonder how music can come from the silence. And you realise music is miracle. (at this point I may not believe in deity but I might believe in miracles )

[Blaiddwen]

If you believe, as I do, that everything is all part of one great consciousness, the whole universe is one and we are all part of it, everything is part of it - is that pantheism, or animism or even atheism? I don't believe that this all-encompassing consciousness is a god in the usual sense of that word, but I do believe it is sacred, as in special. So that means everything is sacred, which also kind of means nothing is. So, I don't believe in a god, which I guess means that my thoughts can't be labelled as anything which ends in a 'theism' unless we radically redefine what is meant by that.

In my experience I've found that it's always best to have a straw man handy and the Wiki is a handy place for shooting at or burning

edit - yes Julysea I get what you mean. I tend to call it nature - but a very wide version of nature that includes life, the universe and everything...

Dave, would you elaborate a little more on your world view please?

So my concept of Nature at a highly abstract level means that it includes every part of the universe; effectively everything that is known and unknown to us. So it ranges from the "Pillars of Creation" in the Eagle Nebula down to the smallest bacteria in my gut, not only that but actions and events that are related as well - the laws of physics and maths. Do I need to go on? Hopefully all can see the concept.
Science is a stream of knowledge within the school (pool?) of Natural Philosophy just as Druidry is a stream from the same pool.

Fundamentally this comes back to the question - is Nature conscious? i.e. "knowing, aware" of itself?
I would answer - that we are part of Nature, we are knowing and aware of Nature's existence and thus Nature is conscious.

Is Nature sacred? i.e. "entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or divine things; holy." or "regarded with reverence".
Being a member of OBOD I believe that Nature should be regarded with reverence or veneration.
But lets explore divinity "the quality of being divine; divine nature."
To be divine is to come from God - being the ruler of the universe. If nature is the universe then the rules of nature rule the universe. Thus Nature is the ruler of the universe; Nature is God.

Is Nature God?
This is the tricky one - any word that includes theism means God/Deity. The trouble is that God is such a (human) culturally sensitive word; in the western world this is dominated by the Abrahamic religion's view of a single, mascular deity. Nature is not, IMHO, the Abrahamic view of God. The use of the word God is confusing and open to (mis) interpretation. So whilst I've argued that Nature is God I do not believe that Nature is God due to cultural attachments of the word God. We need another word.

What is God/Deity/ Theism?
Belief in Deity is, once again IMHO, a human construct. I would follow a Jungian pattern here in that it enables a human society to construct Archetypes that helps it's members participate in that society. They are a human filter that enables people to (hopefully) achieve their potential; something of a BS / corporate speak statement I know but I'm struggling to articulate it further. I think people need a belief system which has Theism in the title. I've met many atheists who effectively have merely converted to Science as a religion, in the same way that the Natural History Museum was built as a temple to Science.
I myself am a Theist due to my veneration of the spirits of this land via the Germanic deity constructs (whether deities exist is a whole other can of worms).

Hopefully my argument is clear but I'm here by the fire ready for a toasting

Thank you Dave that one should be archived.

[Blaiddwen]

There are many words and many many more definitions of these words (mental constructs), and each of us has a slightly different inner understanding of these terms, ie; the word God. My understandings of some of the words in this thread are as follows: Atheist- a person who holds a nontheistic philosophy or understanding. Agnostic- is the opposite of Gnostic, a person with Gnosis, spiritual awareness. But this term could be applied to alot of people even if they "believe" in something, by definition, Gnosis is an awareness. My question here is, does Gnosis necessarily depend upon some form of Theism?

[DJ Droood]

My question here is, does Gnosis necessarily depend upon some form of Theism?

I would think that gnosis, or spiritual enlightenment, is impeded by Theism....Theism is like a set of rusty chains that prevents a person from achieving gnosis.

[treegod]

"In the reality intuitively known by the mystics we can no longer speak of Father, Son or Holy Spirit, but an Unity that is the super-essense of all."

Something like that

[Hennie]

Unity suggest the joining of separate things/beings. I prefer Oneness...

[treegod]

Unity suggest the joining of separate things/beings. I prefer Oneness...

You're so dualistic! For really Unity and Oneness are... I think you get the picture

[DJ Droood]

Unity suggest the joining of separate things/beings. I prefer Oneness...

You're so dualistic! For really Unity and Oneness are... I think you get the picture

If one does not accept the truth of the Holy 7 & 3/16ths, what do they really know?...that is the benchmark of wisdom by which yee shall be measured.

[Blaiddwen]

Gentlemen,
What ,then is the point? IMO, Theism is a subjective term, just like the words God, Soul, Spirit, ect. ect ect. Is Theism is a heavy chain, then Animism is the answer , but is this true for all? So far, in this thread, I have found very little that divides our ideas, only words and definitions. I think that Treegod was on to something with his comments. What are you, really? Is it possible that we are all of these things, yet none of them? After all, we are discussing mental constructs. If I, Mark, were to choose a Wiki description of my understanding, it (for today) would be an Animist Panentheist.
Please note the "theist" in my statement, but I've yet to find it a burden. How do others find "theism" a burden?