Pantheism vs Panentheism

[Veritas Aequitas]

This thread is about Pantheism vs Panentheism. I am including Deism as a side reference.
Deism, pantheism and panentheism all shared the same belief, i.e. God exists but there are differences between them.

Here's ChatGpt views [with reservations];

Sure, let's break down the differences between deism, pantheism, and panentheism in simple terms:

Deism:
Idea in a Creator: Deists believe in a higher power or a Creator who set the universe in motion but doesn't actively interfere in human affairs.
Distant Creator: This Creator is often seen as distant, having created the world and its laws but not involved in day-to-day events.
Nature of God: The focus is on a more impersonal and transcendent God.

Pantheism:
God is Everything: Pantheists believe that everything is God, and God is everything.
No Separation: There's no distinction between the divine and the world; they are considered one and the same.
Immanence: God is seen as immanent, meaning present in every aspect of the world.

Panentheism:
God in Everything and Beyond: Panentheists believe that God is in everything (immanent) but also extends beyond the world (transcendent).
World as Part of God: The world is considered a part of God, but God is not limited to the world.
Dynamic Relationship: There's a dynamic relationship between God and the world, with the world being an expression or aspect of God.

In summary:
Deism: There's a distant Creator who set things in motion but doesn't intervene.
Pantheism: Everything is God; there's no separation between the divine and the world.
Panentheism: God is in everything, but there's also a transcendent aspect beyond the world.

Each of these perspectives offers a different understanding of the relationship between the divine and the world. Deism emphasizes a distant Creator, pantheism identifies everything with God, and panentheism sees God in everything while acknowledging a transcendent aspect.

From the above, the difference between Pantheism [no separation] vs Panentheism [there is a separation] is as follows;

Pantheism: Everything is God; there's no separation between the divine and the world.
Panentheism: God is in everything, but there's also a transcendent aspect beyond the world. i.e. there is a separation between the divine and the world.[/list]

From WIKI;

Unlike pantheism, which holds that the divine and the universe are identical,[2]
panentheism maintains an ontological distinction between the divine and the non-divine and the significance of both.

According to the World of Pantheism site, the basic concepts of Pantheism is as follows;

The basic concepts of Pantheism comprise:

Reverence for Nature and the wider Universe.
1. Active respect and care for the rights of humans and animals.
2. Celebration or our lives in our bodies on this beautiful earth.
3. Freedom of religion, separation of state and religion, tolerance.
4. Strong naturalism, without belief in supernatural realms, beings or forces.
5. Respect for reason, evidence and the scientific method.
6. Realism: there is a real world independent of human thought or perception.
https://pantheism.net/manifest/

There is a contradiction re point 6 on mind-independent realism with
"pantheism, which holds that the divine and the universe are identical".

Humans with their mind are intricately part and parcel of the Universe,
"pantheism, which holds that the divine and the universe are identical"
contradicts,
6. Realism: there is a real world independent of human thought or perception.

So it appears, pantheism is in a logical mess; the above is expected because, the idea of God and divinity in all forms are illusory.
Any explanation to why there is no logical mess?

Discuss?? Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Iwannaplato]

So it appears, pantheism is in a logical mess; the above is expected because, the idea of God and divinity in all forms are illusory.
Any explanation to why there is no logical mess?

Discuss?? Views??

I think you are probably right that there is a contradiction in there. In fact I was surprised to find, perhaps a year ago, that you were correct that pantheism is generally consider a realism. I think some pantheists are probably not realists, but there certainly seem to be many that are.

One addition I'd make is that in pantheism it's not just humans that have minds: the whole thing has minds. So, just because humans have never seen some black hole outside the range of our viewing devices, does not mean it cannot exist. In fact it would also be part of God and conscious of itself.

Everything is God. Humans are one type of the many things in the all the things that are conscious (and God), so their knowledge/perception of something is not required for it to exist even in a non-realist form of pantheism. Some of the

[seeds]

This thread is about Pantheism vs Panentheism.

Yeah, that's what it suggests in the title, but I suspect it's just another thread in which you find a new way to express your obsessive need to disprove the existence of any sort of transcendent intelligence.

Anyway, do go on...

I am including Deism as a side reference.
Deism, pantheism and panentheism all shared the same belief, i.e. God exists but there are differences between them.

Here's ChatGpt views [with reservations];

Pantheism:
God is Everything: Pantheists believe that everything is God, and God is everything.

First of all, let's look at the common definition of the word "God"...

God
noun
1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity...

In which case, it is completely inappropriate (a flagrant misnomer) for pantheists to use the word "God" in their definition of Pantheism, for there is absolutely nothing in the concept of Pantheism that implies the existence of a "creator" or a "supreme being" who is a central source of "moral authority."

Only in the concepts of Panentheism and Deism is there a place for the common definition of the word "God."

According to the World of Pantheism site, the basic concepts of Pantheism is as follows;

The basic concepts of Pantheism comprise:

Reverence for Nature and the wider Universe.
1. Active respect and care for the rights of humans and animals.
2. Celebration or our lives in our bodies on this beautiful earth.
3. Freedom of religion, separation of state and religion, tolerance.
4. Strong naturalism, without belief in supernatural realms, beings or forces.
5. Respect for reason, evidence and the scientific method.
6. Realism: there is a real world independent of human thought or perception.
https://pantheism.net/manifest/

The above list conveniently excludes number 7 in the basic concepts of Pantheism...

7. The unfathomable order of the universe is a product of the blind and mindless processes of chance.

So it appears, pantheism is in a logical mess; the above is expected because, the idea of God and divinity in all forms are illusory.

Well, aside from the latter portion of that quote affirming my initial statement at the top of the post, I totally agree with the "...pantheism is in a logical mess..." part.

And, as noted above, it is in a "logical mess" in the same way that anyone who believes that the universe has no guiding intelligence is in a logical mess.
_______

[seeds]

_______

N̶o̶t̶e̶s̶:̶ ̶K̶I̶V̶

Dinner with ChatGPT (with reservations)

_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

For information;

Deism, pantheism and panentheism all shared the same belief, i.e. God exists with its divinity.

Divinity or the divine are things that are either related to, devoted to, or proceeding from a deity.[1][2] What is or is not divine may be loosely defined, as it is used by different belief systems. Under monotheism and polytheism this is clearly delineated.
However, in pantheism and animism this becomes synonymous with concepts of sacredness and transcendence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity

There are various views on the term 'God';

Views regarding God vary considerably.
.....
Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of God is unknown or unknowable. Some theists view knowledge concerning God as derived from faith. God is often conceived as the greatest entity in existence.[1]
God is often believed to be the cause of all things and so is seen as the creator and sustainer and the ruler of the universe.
God is often thought of as incorporeal and independent of the material creation[1][7][8] while pantheism holds God is the universe itself.
God is sometimes seen as the most benevolent, while deism holds that God is not involved in humanity apart from creation.

[Iwannaplato]

For information;

Deism, pantheism and panentheism all shared the same belief, i.e. God exists with its divinity.

That's a rather redundant belief. Further, so do other theisms. Its a fairly random grouping.

Divinity or the divine are things that are either related to, devoted to, or proceeding from a deity.[1][2] What is or is not divine may be loosely defined, as it is used by different belief systems. Under monotheism and polytheism this is clearly delineated.
However, in pantheism and animism this becomes synonymous with concepts of sacredness and transcendence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity

Yeah, they are theisms. And throwing deism at the other two, which are related, is random.

There are various views on the term 'God';

Yup, and they each get a name with 'ism' at the end.

[seeds]

For information;

Deism, pantheism and panentheism all shared the same belief, i.e. God exists with its divinity.

That's a rather redundant belief. Further, so do other theisms. Its a fairly random grouping.

It's not just a random grouping, it also presents a false premise, for there is no "existing" God (as defined in my prior post) in Pantheism.

Let me repeat what I said earlier...

...it is completely inappropriate (a flagrant misnomer) for pantheists to use the word "God" in their definition of Pantheism, for there is absolutely nothing in the concept of Pantheism that implies the existence of a "creator" or a "supreme being" who is a central source of "moral authority."

For all practical purposes, an OP title such as this...

"Pantheism vs Panentheism"

...is not much different from this...

"Materialism vs Panentheism"

And that's because there is no discernable creative source in Pantheism.

In Pantheism there is not the slightest intimation of the existence of a central locus of self-aware consciousness who,...

...with willful intent and purpose,...

...took hold of the infinitely malleable substance of its own personal mind and shaped it into an unfathomably ordered setting from which we, and innumerable other lifeforms, could then effloresce from the living fabric of the setting itself.

For whatever reason, here we are - once again - dealing with another one of VA's misappropriations of sketchy metaphysical concepts in order to advance his personal agenda,...

...for it is a complete non sequitur to claim (as he does) that Pantheism has something in common with Deism and Panentheism -- more specifically, that all three share the same belief that God "exists," when it is clear that there isn't the remotest hint of an existing God in Pantheism.

In fact, seeing how "theism" is generally defined as follows,...

theism
noun
- belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

...suggests that Pantheism shouldn't even have the word "theism" in its name.

Hey, I just thought of a new word to represent VA's anthropocentric philosophy, let's call it...

..."Mantheism"
_______

[Iwannaplato]

I think there are pantheismS. Some of what you say applies to some not others and it's all very complicated if we are dealing with what gets batched under pantheism.

My main reaction to the thread is that for some unknown reason he batched three religious beliefs and did not include others and it's a silly batch. Instead of saying: yeah, I see what you mean, other theisms could have been included and a discussion of P1 vs. P2 is not aided in any way by bringing in deism - I mean look at the vague abstract way justified this batching. And then in the other thread on deism vs theism, batching those three there is also silly.

If only he was a believer in an -ism or spiritualist or worldview or objective morality that allowed him to admit mistakes.

He brings up interesting things, then he fails them.

[seeds]

I think there are pantheismS. Some of what you say applies to some not others and it's all very complicated if we are dealing with what gets batched under pantheism.

Well, I'm not talking about small "p" pantheismS. No, I'm talking about capital "P" Pantheism - the one that when you Google it, this appears...

Pantheism: All is God
Pantheism is the belief that everything is God and God is everything, from trees and rocks to humans and stars.

Btw, just for the sake of clarity, would you please name a few of those small "p" pantheismS you were referencing above?
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

Deism, pantheism and panentheism all shared the same fundamental belief, i.e. God exists with its divinity.

The three above can be grouped together [as I did] as 'reasoned god' with some degree of reflection by those who initiated the idea, in contrast to god-in-general which is merely thought instinctively with primal, primitive, "pure" and crude reasoning.
Pantheism and panentheism has millions or a billion of blind followers, but the original ideas were reasoned with some degree of reflection.

The idea of 'god' need not be confined to theism, deism or panentheism but can included pantheism.

Conceptions of God in monotheist, pantheist, and panentheist religions – or of the supreme deity in henotheistic religions – can extend to various levels of abstraction:

1. -as a powerful, personal, supernatural being, or as the deification of an esoteric, mystical or philosophical entity or category;
2. -as the "Ultimate", the summum bonum, the "Absolute Infinite", the "Transcendent", or Existence or Being itself;
3. -as the ground of being, the monistic substrate, that which we cannot understand; and so on.
The first recordings that survive of monotheistic conceptions of God, borne out of henotheism and (mostly in Eastern religions) monism, are from the Hellenistic period. Of the many objects and entities that religions and other belief systems across the ages have labeled as divine, the one criterion they share is their acknowledgment as divine by a group or groups of human beings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptions_of_God

The god in pantheism would be that of;
1. ........ or as the deification of an esoteric, mystical or philosophical entity or category;
3. -as the ground of being, the monistic substrate, that which we cannot understand; and so on.

God is claimed to be Divine.

Divinity or the divine are things that are either related to, devoted to, or proceeding from a deity.[1][2]
What is or is not divine may be loosely defined, as it is used by different belief systems. Under monotheism and polytheism this is clearly delineated.
However, in pantheism and animism this becomes synonymous with concepts of sacredness and transcendence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity

What is a deity?

A deity or god is a supernatural being who is considered divine or sacred.[1] The Oxford Dictionary of English defines deity as a god or goddess, or anything revered as divine.[2]
C. Scott Littleton defines a deity as "a being with powers greater than those of ordinary humans, but who interacts with humans, positively or negatively, in ways that carry humans to new levels of consciousness, beyond the grounded preoccupations of ordinary life"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity

From the above, the illusory idea of God [basically theo, deity, divine] is implied in Pantheism.
For many Hindus [? I think the majority], Brahman is pantheistic.

Para Brahman or Param Brahman (Sanskrit: परब्रह्म, romanized: parabrahma) in Hindu philosophy is the "Supreme Brahman" that which is beyond all descriptions and conceptualisations. It is described as the formlessness (in the sense that it is devoid of Maya) that eternally pervades everything, everywhere in the universe and whatever is beyond.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Para_Brahman

As I had argued, the idea of God is an idea reified by the psychological desperates to soothe their inherent unavoidable cognitive dissonance within.
The psychological desperation is evident from some god-believers that they want exclusiveness of something despite that it is illusory.

[Iwannaplato]

Well, I'm not talking about small "p" pantheismS. No, I'm talking about capital "P" Pantheism - the one that when you Google it, this appears...

I used a small letter because there is not one official religion called Pantheism. There are many pantheisms. Even a religion like Christianity, which supposedly comes from one cultural/geographic source, has an unbelievable variety of belief systems, concepts of God, etc. I could likely, in another context, criticize some generalizations of Christianity and refer to the various Christianities. But with Pantheism we are talking about systems of belief coming from a variety of origings and even types of cultures. It gets an academic (both senses) capital P, but is a batch covering a diverse set.

Pantheism: All is God
Pantheism is the belief that everything is God and God is everything, from trees and rocks to humans and stars.

Btw, just for the sake of clarity, would you please name a few of those small "p" pantheismS you were referencing above?

If you read an article giving an overview of pantheism you'll find that this term covers a wide range of beliefs....
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/
I also think the definition of God you quoted is a limited definition:

God : the supreme or ultimate reality

In the West our dictionaries are going to reflect, to varying degrees, what we are used to thinking of God. But, still, even here, especially in philosophy and anthropology, we get a very wide range of qualities, number of deities, personhoodness or lack thereof, role, acts, history for what gets called God or one of the gods/goddesses.

And even within the Abrahamic religions we have theologians whose version of God is quite different.

I think it's fine to call Pantheism a theism, even if it doesn't match expectations that other kinds of theists have for the qualities of that deity. I also think there is a diversity of qualities of the pantheist versions of God, and include even transcendance in some cases and certainly divinity. A panpsychist need not be a theist. But a pantheist is going beyond the panpsychist and God is in there.

[seeds]

Btw, just for the sake of clarity, would you please name a few of those small "p" pantheismS you were referencing above?

If you read an article giving an overview of pantheism you'll find that this term covers a wide range of beliefs....
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/

Yes, many of which contradicted each other, and none of which offered any suggestion as to what aspect of the Pantheistic vision of the universe was capable of grasping the fabric of reality and shaping it into untold trillions of suns and planets.

I did, however, find the following rather interesting,...

7. The divinity of the cosmos
One of the strongest and most commonly raised objections to pantheism is that it is simply inappropriate to call the universe ‘God’. Thus Schopenhauer complains that “Pantheism is only a euphemism for atheism,” for “to call the world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word world” (Schopenhauer 1851, I:114, II:99). It has been described as nothing more than ‘materialism grown sentimental’ (Illingworth 1898, 69), while more recently Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion complains that “Pantheism is sexed-up Atheism” (Dawkins 2007, 40).

...for all of that clearly mirrors my own complaint about Pantheism expressed earlier in the thread.

I also thought that this too was relevant to our conversation...

16. Pantheism and ethics
...Firstly, for pantheism, there is no higher power, no external authority to tell us what to do. Insofar as it rejects any sense of a transcendent external lawgiver...

And the reason I found that interesting is that if according to Pantheism there is no transcendent external lawgiver, then that means that there is no transcendent maker of the laws of physics.

And that brings us right back to the problem of not only how and why those laws exist, but also how those unaccounted-for laws -- without the slightest hint of any sort of teleological impetus -- nevertheless managed to produce the absolute perfect setting from which we (as mentioned earlier) could then effloresce from the very fabric of the setting itself.

Indeed, I'm talking about a setting that "quite conveniently" came fully-equipped with everything we could possibly need to survive and procreate for perhaps billions of years into the future.

Furthermore, not only have we been initially provided with every possible resource necessary for our perpetual survival as a species,...

...but just recently, we have also been handed a fabulous tool called "quantum mechanics," which now allows us to reach down into the informational underpinning of this amazing setting and create completely new manifestations of reality, such as new forms of energy, computer technology, laser technology, satellites, the Internet, space travel technology, etc., etc.,...

...all of which will eventually allow us to venture into the outer regions of the universe to discover even more "conveniently provided" survival resources.

So, come on now, Iwannaplato, wouldn't you agree that all of that is pretty amazing (make that pretty "implausible") for a dimension of reality that - as per Pantheism - has no discernable locus of intelligent guidance?

I also think the definition of God you quoted is a limited definition:

God : the supreme or ultimate reality

First of all, I could not find anywhere in the thread where I stated those particular words as written above.

I don't mean to be nitpicky, but if you are going to paraphrase something that I suggested, then please don't offer it up in the guise of being a precise "quote" from me.

And secondly, of course it's a limited definition. Indeed, absolutely anything we humans have to say about such matters is going to be limited.
_______

[Iwannaplato]

Yes, many of which contradicted each other, and none of which offered any suggestion as to what aspect of the Pantheistic vision of the universe was capable of grasping the fabric of reality and shaping it into untold trillions of suns and planets.

Many religions tell us what did this, and generally these explanations then have unexplained parts.

And the reason I found that interesting is that if according to Pantheism there is no transcendent external lawgiver, then that means that there is no transcendent maker of the laws of physics.

And that brings us right back to the problem of not only how and why those laws exist, but also how those unaccounted-for laws -- without the slightest hint of any sort of teleological impetus -- nevertheless managed to produce the absolute perfect setting from which we (as mentioned earlier) could then effloresce from the very fabric of the setting itself.

Sure. Generally the pantheisms don't explain things that other religions do. On the other hand, as I said above, we tend to get one more step in the explanation process with some other religions. So, we have an external in some way deity. But why? Why is there this perfect deity with the ability to create immanence and the interest in doing so [if the deity has personal attributes like personality, desire, love or whatever. Where did this come from and why this deity and not one that is different? Why loving if loving? Why neutral if neutral?

Whatever is explained still opens up new questions.

Indeed, I'm talking about a setting that "quite conveniently" came fully-equipped with everything we could possibly need to survive and procreate for perhaps billions of years into the future.

I think this objection, if it is one, is better aimed at physicalists who balk at fine tuning or whatever.

Furthermore, not only have we been initially provided with every possible resource necessary for our perpetual survival as a species,...

...but just recently, we have also been handed a fabulous tool called "quantum mechanics," which now allows us to reach down into the informational underpinning of this amazing setting and create completely new manifestations of reality, such as new forms of energy, computer technology, laser technology, satellites, the Internet, space travel technology, etc., etc.,...

You have a model here of us being given. Which is a somewhat common model, but it implies a separation. This all is given to us. Rather than other models where it's all part of the same thing. And if it's all the deity it's no wonder it's making things that cohere.

...all of which will eventually allow us to venture into the outer regions of the universe to discover even more "conveniently provided" survival resources.

So, come on now, Iwannaplato, wouldn't you agree that all of that is pretty amazing (make that pretty "implausible") for a dimension of reality that - as per Pantheism - has no discernable locus of intelligent guidance?

Every single explanation for what is going on strikes me as utterly amazing and implausible. And what is this intuitive litmus test that tell us what is odd? I certainly have one. Is it objective? Intuitively accurate. Regardless, for me every single worldview strikes me as extremely absurd. For whatever that is worth.

I also think the definition of God you quoted is a limited definition:

God : the supreme or ultimate reality

First of all, I could not find anywhere in the thread where I stated those particular words as written above.

I could have been clearer. That is from a different dictionary and could well include pantheism.

And secondly, of course it's a limited definition. Indeed, absolutely anything we humans have to say about such matters is going to be limited.

It's a limited definition with a cultural bias. Generally any layperson discussing God in an English speaking country can get along pretty well with a vaguely Abrahamic type of deity. In this context, a philosophical discussion, I don't feel bound by that kind of dictionary definition. So, we go to that same dictionary and it will have a definition of pantheism as having a certain kind of God.

I can't use the dictionary as a way to reconcile anthropological/comparative religion/theological issues. It's a guide to participation, generally, in other contexts.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Pantheism vs Panentheism

I was into Pantheism i.e. advaita Vedanta for many years.

I believe Pantheism is driven more 'philosophical' thinking [less triggered by psychological desperations] than Panentheism.

From the SEP article referenced above.

Arguments of this general type may also proceed from starting points more philosophical than theological.
For example, Spinoza, the most famous of all modern pantheists starts from the necessary existence of something he calls ‘substance.’
By this he means that which exists wholly in its own right, that whose existence does not depend upon anything else.
The notion of ‘the Absolute’, or wholly unconditioned reality, as it figures in the philosophies of Schelling, Hegel, and the British Idealists may be considered a related development of the same philosophical starting point (see Thomas 2019).
In both cases the reasoning runs that this necessary being must be all-inclusive and, hence, divine.

It is just a matter of degrees, both Pantheism vs Panentheism are triggered subliminally by some sort of psychological desperation driven from cognitive dissonances driven by an existential crisis as an evolutionary default to cling to "something" is primal reason dictate there things cannot come from nothing.

I was there before, so, I am quite aware of the psychological drive within till I suspend judgment on it along the principles of detachments from Buddhism-proper.