The Full Wiki

Pandeism: Wikis

Advertisements
  
  

Note: Many of our articles have direct quotes from sources you can cite, within the Wikipedia article! This article doesn't yet, but we're working on it! See more info or our list of citable articles.

Encyclopedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of a series on
God

General conceptions
Atheism · Deism · Henotheism · Monolatrism
Monotheism · Panentheism · Pantheism


Specific conceptions
Creator · Architect · Demiurge · Devil
Sustainer · Lord · Father · Monad
Oneness · Supreme Being · The All
Personal · Unitarianism · Ditheism · Trinity
in Abrahamic religions
(Bahá'í Faith, Christianity, Islam, Judaism)
in Ayyavazhi · in Buddhism · in Hinduism
in Jainism · in Sikhism · in Zoroastrianism


Attributes
Eternalness · Existence · Gender
Names ("God") · Omnibenevolence
Omnipotence · Omnipresence · Omniscience


Experience and practices
Faith · Prayer · Belief · Revelation
Fideism · Gnosis · Metaphysics
Mysticism · Hermeticism · Esotericism


Related topics

Philosophy · Religion · Ontology
God complex · Neurotheology
Euthyphro dilemma · Problem of evil
Portrayal in popular media
List of religious texts


Pandeism or Pan-Deism (derived from Greek πάν, 'pan' = 'all' and Latin deus = God, in the sense of deism), is a term describing religious beliefs incorporating or mixing elements of pantheism (that "God," or its metaphysical equivalent, is identical to the Universe) and deism (that the creator-god who designed the Universe no longer exists in a status where he can be reached, and can instead be confirmed only by reason). It is therefore most particularly the belief that the Creator of the Universe actually became the Universe, and so ceased to exist as a separate and conscious entity.[1][2]

It is through this incorporation pandeism claims to answer primary objections to deism (why would God create and then abandon the Universe?) and to pantheism (how did the Universe originate and what is its purpose?).

Contents

A pantheistic form of deism

Pandeism falls within the traditional hierarchy of philosophies addressing the nature of God. This use of the term is a blend of the Greek root πάν ( 'pan' ), meaning 'all', and the Latin deus meaning God. These differing roots make pandeism a hybrid word, like automobile, hyperactivity, neonatal, sociology, and television. Pan is used in this same way in pantheism and panentheism, while deism is derived from deus. Pandeism shares these roots as a variation of the term "pantheism", and of "deism".

The words deism and theism are both derived from words for god. While the root of the word deism is the Latin word deus, which means "god", the root of the word theism is the Greek word θεóς (theos), which also means "god".

Prior to the 17th century the terms ["deism" and "deist"] were used interchangeably with the terms "theism" and "theist", respectively. ... Theologians and philosophers of the seventeenth century began to give a different signification to the words.... Both [theists and deists] asserted belief in one supreme God, the Creator.... and agreed that God is personal and distinct from the world. But the theist taught that god remained actively interested in and operative in the world which he had made, whereas the deist maintained that God endowed the world at creation with self-sustaining and self-acting powers and then abandoned it to the operation of these powers acting as second causes.[3]

The deist movement adopted that name to refer to a God not knowable by revelation, but who could only be found by rational thought. Perhaps the first use of the term deist is in Pierre Viret's Instruction Chrestienne (1564), reprinted in Bayle's Dictionnaire entry Viret. Viret, a Calvinist, regarded deism as a new form of Italian heresy.[4] Viret wrote:

There are many who confess that while they believe like the Turks and the Jews that there is some sort of God and some sort of deity, yet with regard to Jesus Christ and to all that to which the doctrine of the Evangelists and the Apostles testify, they take all that to be fables and dreams.... I have heard that there are of this band those who call themselves Deists, an entirely new word, which they want to oppose to Atheist. For in that atheist signifies a person who is without God, they want to make it understood that they are not at all without God, since they certainly believe there is some sort of God, whom they even recognize as creator of heaven and earth...

Pantheism, in turn, came from the term "pantheist" purportedly first referenced by Irish writer John Toland in his 1705 work, Socinianism Truly Stated, by a pantheist. The word "pantheism" was first used by Toland's opponent Jacques de la Faye in de la Faye's Defensio Religionis ('Defense of Religion') a 251-page critique of Toland published at Utrecht in 1709.[5] The earliest use of the actual term, Pandeism, may have come as early as 1787, with another use related in 1838, both discussed below, though it is possible that the relative authorities were really discussing Pantheism. The unequivocal 1859 coining of "Pandeism" explicitly in contrast to both Pantheism and Deism by Moritz Lazarus and Heymann Steinthal is discussed below.

Thus no-one used the term Pandeism or Pandeist before the 18th century, because these words did not exist. However, many earlier writers, schools of philosophy, and religious movements expressed essentially pandeistic ideas.

The concepts of pantheism and deism can each be used to cover a wide variety of positions on a wide variety of religious issues. Thus, pandeism may theoretically cover a wide variety of positions, so long as these logically fall at the same time within some form of pantheism and some form of deism. Like many Deists (and some Pantheists), Pandeists may refer to "God" as "the Deus" to avoid confusing Pandeist conceptions of the creator with those of theistic faiths.

Advertisements

Compatibility with scientific and philosophical proofs

Scientific proofs

In 2009, Robert G. Brown, a professor of physics at Duke University with a background in philosophy, published a scientific proof asserted to demonstrate the truth of pandeism under information theory.[6] Titled "The Pandeist Theorem," the theorem states that "If God exists, then God is identical to the Universe. That is, the theorem is a statement of conditional pandeism. If God exists at all, God must be absolutely everything that exists."[6] The basic premise is that a being properly defined as God must have absolute knowledge of the Universe, and that no method except existing as a real-time map of the whole content of the Universe would permit that. Brown's conception does not accept a created Universe, but one that is pandeistic without having been created, although he allows for the possible consciousness of "God" - the Universe itself - at n-dimensional levels.[6]

The pandeistic universe is just as the universe described in naturalistic pantheism, with the distinction that the belief necessarily encompasses a sentient being that existed before the formation of the universe. Panentheism also suggests a universe designed by a sentient deity, and composed of matter derived from that deity. The belief systems part on the point that panentheism asserts that God is greater than the universe, and therefore continues a separate existence alongside it, while pandeism asserts that everything that was the Deus became incorporated into the universe.

Comparison to Eastern philosophy

The ideas described by pandeism in the West have resonance with certain Eastern philosophies, particularly with some expressions of Hinduism. Warren Sharpe wrote:

To the Hindu, for example, God didn't create the universe, but God became the universe. Then he forgot that he became the universe. Why would God do this? Basically, for entertainment. You create a universe, and that in itself is very exciting. But then what? Should you sit back and watch this universe of yours having all the fun? No, you should have all the fun yourself. To accomplish this, God transformed into the whole universe. God is the Universe, and everything in it. But the universe doesn't know that because that would ruin the suspense. The universe is God's great drama, and God is the stage, the actors, and the audience all at once. The title of this epic drama is "The Great Unknown Outcome." Throw in potent elements like passion, love, hate, good, evil, free will; and who knows what will happen? No one knows, and that is what keeps the universe interesting. But everyone will have a good time. And there is never really any danger, because everyone is really God, and God is really just playing around.[7]

Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, as well, had previously observed this:

In the Mandukya Upanishad it is written, "As a spider throws out and retracts its web, as herbs spring up in the ground . . . so is the Univrerse derived from the undecaying one," Brahma, for the "Germ of unknown Darkness," is the material from which all evolves and develops, "as the web from the spider, as foam from the water," etc. This is only graphic and true, if the term Brahma, the "Creator," is derived from the root brih, to increase or expand. Brahma "expands," and becomes the Universe woven out of his own substance.[8]

Development

In mythology

Many ancient mythologies suggested that the world was created from the physical substance of a dead deity or a being of similar power. In Babylonian mythology, the young god Marduk slew Tiamat and created the known world from her body. Similarly, Norse mythology posited that Odin and his brothers, Vili and Vé defeated a frost giant, Ymir and then created the world from his. Later Chinese mythology recounts the creation of elements of the physical world (mountains, rivers, the sun and moon, etc.) from the body of a creator called Pángǔ (盤古). Such stories did not go so far as to identify the designer of the world as being one as having used his or her own body to provide the material.

But, one such example exists in Polynesian myth, for in the islands of the Pacific, the idea of Supreme Deity manifests in a divinity that New Zealanders call Tangaroa, the Hawaiians Kanaroa, the Tongans and Samoans Tangaloa, the Georgian and Society islanders Taaroa. A native poetic definition of the Creator relates: " He was; Taaroa was his name; he abode in the void. No earth, no sky, no men. Taaroa calls, but nought answers; and alone existing, he became the universe. The props are Taaroa; the rocks are Taaroa; the sands are Taaroa; it is thus he himself is named."[9]

Ancient philosophy

Religious studies professor, F. E. Peters traced the idea of pandeism to the philosophy of the Milesians, who had also pioneered knowledge of pantheism, in his 1967 Greek Philosophical Terms: A Historical Lexicon, noting that "[w]hat appeared... at the center of the Pythagorean tradition in philosophy, is another view of psyche that seems to owe little or nothing to the pan-vitalism or pan-deism (see theion) that is the legacy of the Milesians.[10]

Milesian philosopher Anaximander in particular favored the use of rational principles to contend that everything in the world was formed of variations of a single substance (apeiron), which had been temporarily liberated from the primal state of the world. Friedrich Nietzsche, in his Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks, stated that Anaximander viewed "...all coming-to-be as though it were an illegitimate emancipation from eternal being, a wrong for which destruction is the only penance."[11] Anaximander was among the material monists, along with Thales, who believed that everything was composed of water, Anaximenes, who believed it was air, and Heraclitus, who believed it to be fire.

Gottfried Große in his 1787 interpretation of Pliny the Elder’s Natural History, describes Pliny, a First Century figure, as a pandeist also.[12]

Origin of modern pandeism

In the 9th century, Johannes Scotus Eriugena proposed in his great work, De divisione naturae (also called Periphyseon, probably completed around 867 AD), that the nature of the Universe is divisible into four distinct classes:

Johannes Scotus Eriugena was among the first to propose that God became the Universe, and did so to learn something about itself.
  1. that which creates and is not created;
  2. that which is created and creates;
  3. that which is created and does not create;
  4. that which neither is created nor creates.

The first is God as the ground or origin of all things, the last is God as the final end or goal of all things, that into which the world of created things ultimately returns. One particularly controversial point made by Eriugena was that God was "nothing", in that God could not fall into any earthly classification. Eriugena followed the argument of Pseudo-Dionysius and from neo-Platonists such as Gaius Marius Victorinus that because God was above Being, God was not a being: "So supremely perfect is the essence of the Divinity that God is incomprehensible not only to us but also to Himself. For if He knew Himself in any adequate sense He should place Himself in some category of thought, which would be to limit Himself."[13] A more contemporary statement of this idea is that: "Since God is not a being, he is therefore not intelligible... This means not only that we cannot understand him, but also that he cannot understand himself. Creation is a kind of divine effort by God to understand himself, to see himself in a mirror."[14]

Eriugena depicts God as an evolving being, developing through the four stages that he outlines. The second and third classes together compose the created Universe, which is the manifestation of God, God in process, Theophania; the second being the world of Platonic ideas or forms. The third is the physical manifestation of God, having evolved through the realm of ideas and made those ideas seem to be matter, and may be pantheistic or pandeistic, depending on the interference of God in the Universe:

[God] enters... the realm of space and time, where the ideas become subject to multiplicity, change, imperfection, and decay. In this last stage they are no longer pure ideas but only the appearances of reality, that is phenomena. ... In the realm of space and time the ideas take on the burden of matter, which is the source of suffering, sickness, and sin. The material world, therefore, of our experience is composed of ideas clothed in matter — here Eriugena attempts a reconciliation of Platonism with Aristotelean notions. Man, too, is composed of idea and matter, soul and body. He is the culmination of the process of things from God, and with him, as we shall see, begins the process of return of all things to God.[13]

The divine system is thus distinguished by beginning, middle and end; but these are in essence one; the difference is only the consequence of man's temporal limitations. This eternal process is viewed with finite comprehension through the form of time, forcing the application of temporal distinctions to that which is extra- or supra-temporal. Eriugena concludes this work with another controversial argument, and one that had already been scathingly rejected by Augustine of Hippo, that "[n]ot only man, however, but everything else in nature is destined to return to God."[13] Eriugena's work was condemned by a council at Sens by Honorius III (1225), who described it as "swarming with worms of heretical perversity," and by Pope Gregory XIII in 1585. Such theories were thus suppressed for hundreds of years thence.

Pandeism from the 16th Century on

The ideas of Spinoza lay the foundations for pandeism.

Giordano Bruno conceived of a God who was immanent in nature, and for this very purpose was uninterested in human affairs (all such events being equally part of God). However, it was Baruch Spinoza in the 17th Century who appears to have been the earliest to use deistic reason to arrive at the conception of a pantheistic God. Spinoza's God was deistic in the sense that it could only be proved by appeal to reason, but it was also one with the Universe. As one critic states:

The labeling of Spinoza's philosophy as "pantheism" by the Church was meant more as an invective and indictment than a true analysis of his writings. It was really a variant of Deism -- a "pandeism,"... Theism, however, posits something very different. Theism believes that nature was not God, but created BY God. That God is a completely independent sentient and cognitive Being, and that God interacts with his "children" on a personal level (e.g., The Bible).[15]

Unlike Eriugena, Spinoza's pantheistic focus on the Universe as it already existed did not address the possible creation of the Universe from the substance of God, for Spinoza rejected the very possibility of changes in the form of matter required as a premise for such a belief.

Franz Wilhelm Junghuhn was the first to articulate a pantheistic deism.

18th Century British philosopher Thomas Paine also approached this territory in his great philosophical treatise, The Age of Reason, although Paine was concentrated on the deistic aspects of his inquiry.[16] According to the Encyclopedia of American Philosophy "Later Unitarian Christians (such as William Ellery Channing), transcendentalists (such as Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau), writers (such as Walt Whitman) and some pragmatists (such as William James) took a more pantheist or pandeist approach by rejecting views of God as separate from the world."[17] It was Dutch naturalist Franz Wilhelm Junghuhn who first specifically detailed a religious philosophy incorporating deism and pantheism, in his four volume treatise, Java, seine Gestalt, Pflanzendecke, und sein innerer Bau (Images of Light and Shadow from Java's interior) released anonymously between 1850 and 1854. Junghuhn's book was banned for a time in Austria and parts of Germany as an attack on Christianity. In 1884, theologian Sabine Baring-Gould would contend that Christianity itself demanded that the seemingly irreconcilable elements of pantheism and deism must be combined:

This world is either the idea or it is the workmanship of God. If we say that it is the idea,--then we are Pantheists, if we say that it is the work, then we are Deists... But how, it may be asked, can two such opposite theories as Pantheism and Deism be reconciled,--they mutually exclude one another? I may not be able to explain how they are conciliable, but I boldly affirm that each is simultaneously true, and that each must be true, for each is an inexorably logical conclusion, and each is a positive conclusion, and all positive conclusions must be true if Christ be the Ideal and the focus of all truths.[18]

Within a decade after that, Andrew Martin Fairbairn similarly wrote that "both Deism and Pantheism err because they are partial; they are right in what they affirm, wrong in what they deny. It is as antitheses that they are false; but by synthesis they may be combined or dissolved into truth".[19] Ironically, Fairbairn's criticism concluded that it was the presence of an active God that was missing from both concepts, rather than the rational explanation of God's motives and appearance of absence.

Literary critic, Hayden Carruth, said of 18th century figure Alexander Pope that it was "Pope's rationalism and pandeism with which he wrote the greatest mock-epic in English literature"[20] In the 19th century, poet Alfred Tennyson revealed that his "religious beliefs also defied convention, leaning towards agnosticism and pandeism",[21] integrating deism with the pantheism of Spinoza, and Spinoza's predecessor, Giordano Bruno.[22]

Developments from the 20th Century to today

Understanding of pandeism was much advanced in the 1940s by the process theology of Charles Hartshorne. Hartshorne identified pandeism as one of his many models of the possible nature of God, acknowledging that a God capable of change (as Hartshorne insisted God must be) is consistent with pandeism. Hartshorne preferred pandeism to pantheism, explaining that "it is not really the theos that is described".[23] However, he specifically rejected pandeism early on in favor of a God whose characteristics included "absolute perfection in some respects, relative perfection in all others" or "AR", writing that this theory "is able consistently to embrace all that is positive in either deism or pandeism."[24] Hartshorne accepted the label of panentheism for his beliefs, declaring that "panentheistic doctrine contains all of deism and pandeism except their arbitrary negations".[25]

In 2001, Scott Adams published God's Debris: A Thought Experiment, in which he explicitly set down his own variation of pandeism, a radical form of kenosis. Adams surmised that an omnipotent God annihilated himself in the Big Bang, because God would already know everything possible except his own lack of existence, and would have to end that existence in order to complete his knowledge. Adams asks about God, "would his omnipotence include knowing what happens after he loses his omnipotence, or would his knowledge of the future end at that point?"[26] He proceeds from this question to the following analysis:

A God who knew the answer to that question would indeed know everything and have everything. For that reason he would be unmotivated to do anything or create anything. There would be no purpose to act in any way whatsoever. But a God who had one nagging question—what happens if I cease to exist?—might be motivated to find the answer in order to complete his knowledge. ... The fact that we exist is proof that God is motivated to act in some way. And since only the challenge of self-destruction could interest an omnipotent God, it stands to reason that we... are God's debris.[27]

Adams' God exists now as a combination of the smallest units of energy of which the Universe is made (many levels smaller than quarks), which Adams called "God Dust", and the law of probability, or "God's debris", hence the title. An unconventional twist introduced by Adams proposes that God is in the process of being restored not through some process such as the Big Crunch, but because humankind itself is becoming God.

Adams is hardly the first author to incorporate pandeistic doctrines into fiction. Robert A. Heinlein, in his Stranger in a Strange Land, a 1967 novel, so identifies a character who appears to other characters as identifying humanity as God. Heinlein's pandeistic bent in that novel is encapsulated in his use of the phrase "Thou Art God", and in key passages in which the protagonist of the story, Michael Valentine Smith, explains how, "Thou art God, and I am God and all that groks is God," God being that which is in all things (even the "happy blades of grass") and having no choice but to experience all things. Smith sets humankind on the course to releasing itself from its physical limitations, and thus truly becoming God. The idea of humankind becoming God is also fundamental to the 1950s Isaac Asimov short story, "The Last Question", in which human and computer knowledge is merged before the heat death of the Universe. The computer, which continued to exist in hyperspace, had been asked how to stop entropy. It finally figured out the answer and implemented it, saying "Let there be light!" This is not a necessary element of pandeism, but correlates with it well.

Another notable pandeist is documentarian Bruce Parry who spoke of how his experiences among primitive tribes led him to adopt the more skeptical form of pandeism:

When I came back from expeditions, I had some experiences that made me readdress all that. I'd pretty much known all along that Christianity wasn't for me. Ever since then, I've been on my own quest to find another truth. I can't read novels, but I do read books about cosmology, about astrophysics, about genetics. I'm interested in altered states of mind, and creation myths. It's all part of the same thing - I want to know why we think what we think. Now, I'd describe myself as pan-deist, reluctantly verging on atheist.[28][29]

Parry has since been described, with his apparent approval, as a "Christian turned sceptical pan-deist turned reluctant atheist" who "sees himself on a spiritual journey."[30]

History of use of the term

Some inconsistent uses of this nuanced term has been made over time. It has occasionally been used to refer dismissively to pantheism alone, from the presumption that pantheism is deistic. It has been used to mean simultaneous belief in all religions (omnism or omnitheism), or some elements thereof.

1787 use of the term "Pandeisten" to describe a God that is one with the divinely designed world.

The earliest mention of pandeism found to date is in 1787, in a footnote of Gottfried Große’s translation of Pliny the Elder’s Natural History:

Beym Plinius, den man, wo nicht Spinozisten, doch einen Pandeisten nennen konnte, ist Natur oder Gott kein von der Welt getrenntes oder abgesondertes Wesen. Seine Natur ist die ganze Schöpfung im Konkreto, und eben so scheint es mit seiner Gottheit beschaffen zu seyn.[12]

English translation:

In Pliny, whom one could call, if not a Spinozist, but perhaps a Pandeist, Nature is not a being divided off or separated from the world. His nature is the whole of creation, in concrete, and the same appears to be true also of his divinity.

What's described here appears to be a description of Pantheism rather than Pandeism. There is no mention of God existing before creation, but rather of a God synonymous with Nature.

Pandeism was next mentioned in 1838 by Italian phrenologist Luigi Ferrarese in Memorie Risguardanti la Dottrina Frenologica ("Thoughts Regarding the Doctrine of Phrenology"):

Dottrina, che pel suo idealismo poco circospetto, non solo la fede, ma la stessa ragione offende (il sistema di Kant): farebbe mestieri far aperto gli errori pericolosi, così alla Religione, come alla Morale, di quel psicologo franzese, il quale ha sedotte le menti (Cousin), con far osservare come la di lui filosofia intraprendente ed audace sforza le barriere della sacra Teologia, ponendo innanzi ad ogn'altra autorità la propria: profana i misteri, dichiarandoli in parte vacui di senso, ed in parte riducendoli a volgari allusioni, ed a prette metafore; costringe, come faceva osservare un dotto Critico, la rivelazione a cambiare il suo posto con quello del pensiero istintivo e dell' affermazione senza riflessione e colloca la ragione fuori della persona dell'uomo dichiarandolo un frammento di Dio, una spezie di pandeismo spirituale introducendo, assurdo per noi, ed al Supremo Ente ingiurioso, il quale reca onda grave alla libertà del medesimo, ec, ec.[31]

Ferrarese was unequivocally critical, as he attacked the philosophy of Victor Cousin as a doctrine which "locates reason outside the human person, declaring man a fragment of God, introducing a sort of spiritual Pandeism, absurd for us, and injurious to the Supreme Being." Though Ferrarese's target, Cousin, has often been identified as a pantheist, it was said that he repudiated that label on the basis that unlike Spinoza, Cousin asserted that "he does not hold with Spinoza and the Eleatics that God is a pure substance, and not a cause." [32]

A more optimistic note was struck in the 1859 German work, Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft by philosophers and frequent collaborators Moritz Lazarus and Heymann Steinthal, who wrote:

Man stelle es also den Denkern frei, ob sie Theisten, Pan-theisten, Atheisten, Deisten (und warum nicht auch Pandeisten?)...[33]

This is translated as:

Man leaves it to the philosophers, whether they are Theists, Pan-theists, Atheists, Deists (and why not also Pandeists?)...

Earlier in the 19th century, some figures (particularly religionist Godfrey Higgins, later echoed by occult figure John Ballou Newbrough) used an etymologically distinct variation of the term to describe the beliefs that they attributed to a particular cult or sect (see Pandeism (Godfrey Higgins) for this use). Higgins, in particular, used the term "Pandeism" as early as 1833 to describe his theorized cult of Pandu and the Pandavas.[34]

The term appears to be used to describe a synthesis of pantheism and deism by William Harbutt Dawson, in his 1904 biographical work, Matthew Arnold and His Relation to the Thought of Our Time. Dawson used the term "Pan-Deism" as a comparative reference point, writing:

... whatever the deity which satisfied Arnold's personal experience may have been, the religion which he gives us in Literature and Dogma and God and the Bible is neither Deism nor bare Pan-Deism, but a diluted Positivism. As an ethical system it is in theory admirable, but its positive value is in the highest degree questionable. Pascal's judgment upon the God who emerged from the philosophical investigations of René Descartes was that He was a God who was unnecessary.[35]

Early in the 20th century, Pandeism, with its sweeping reinterpretation of the nature of the Deus and the purpose of mankind, was viewed as a threat to Christianity and possibly a force for the positive reorganization of human civilization. Towards the beginning of World War I, an article in the Yale Sheffield Monthly published by the Yale University Sheffield Scientific School commented:

Are we virtuous merely because we are restrained by the fetters of the law? We hear men prophecy that this war means the death of Christianity and an era of Pandeism or perhaps even the destruction of all which we call modern civilization and culture. We hear men predict that the ultimate result of the war will be a blessing to humanity.[36]

A similar concern was raised by Charles A. Bolton in a 1963 article, Beyond the Ecumenical: Pan-deism? [37] An early 19th century German philosopher, Paul Friedrich Köhler, expressed the skeptical view that all of these religious labels were referring to the same thing. Köhler wrote:

Pantheismus und Pandeismus, Monismus und Dualismus: alles dies sind in Wirklichkeit nur verschiedene Formen des Gottschauens, verschiedene Beleuchtungsarten des Grundbegriffes, nämlich des Höchsten, von dem aus die verschiedenen Strahlungen in die Menschenseele sich hineinsenken und hier ein Spiegelbild projizieren, dessen Wahrnehmung die charakteriologische Eigenart des Einzelindividuums, die durch zeitliches, familiäres und soziologisches Milieu bedingte Auffassungsgabe vermittelt.[38]

Roughly translated, this means that Pantheism, Pandeism, Monism and Dualism all refer to the same God illuminated in different ways, and that whatever the label, the human soul emanates from this God.

In 1997, Pastor Bob Burridge[39][40] of the Genevan Institute for Reformed Studies[41] wrote an essay titled God Is Not the Author of Sin, also identifying pandeism-described as a deistic refinement or subset of pantheism-as a threat to Christianity:

All the actions of created intelligences are not merely the actions of God. He has created a universe of beings which are said to act freely and responsibly as the proximate causes of their own moral actions. When individuals do evil things it is not God the Creator and Preserver acting. If God was the proximate cause of every act it would make all events to be "God in motion". That is nothing less than pantheism, or more exactly, pandeism.[42]

Burridge disagrees that such is the case, decrying that "The Creator is distinct from his creation. The reality of secondary causes is what separates Christian theism from pandeism."[42]

Burridge concludes by challenging his reader to determine why "calling God the author of sin demand[s] a pandeistic understanding of the universe effectively removing the reality of sin and moral law."[43]

There is marked contrast in a 1995 news article quoting this use of the term by Jim Garvin, a Vietnam vet who became a Trappist monk in the Holy Cross Abbey of Berryville, Virginia, and went on to lead the economic development of Phoenix, Arizona. Garvin described his spiritual position as "'pandeism' or 'pan-en-deism,' something very close to the Native American concept of the all- pervading Great Spirit..."[44]

Variations on the concept

Some uses to which the term has been put are etymologically disjunctive, as they ascribe a meaning to the term that does not reflect the roots of what is an obvious portmanteau within a well defined family of similar terms.

Conversely, the term may describe a deistic pantheism, in which a God that has always been pantheistic has ceased a previously active interaction with the Universe. The term has been used in some instances as a restatement of pantheism (the concept that God and the Universe are one) or panendeism (the concept that God both is the Universe, and transcends the Universe). Others have specified that it is a concept distinct from pantheism, and have used it instead to describe a Universe which combines elements of pantheism (for example, that God and the Universe are one) and deism (for example, that a creator God created a self-regulating Universe, but subsequently ceased to actively intervene in its operations).

Criticisms

Some theologians have criticised particular points of pandeism. An example is William Walker Atkinson, in his Mastery of Being:[45]

It will be seen that this fact of the Immutability of REALITY, when clearly conceived, must serve to confute and refute the erroneous theories of certain schools of Pantheism which hold that "God becomes the Universe by changing into the Universe." Thus it is sought to identify Nature with God, whereby, as Schopenhauer said, "you show God to the door." If God changes Himself into The Phenomenal Universe, then God is non-existent and we need not concern ourselves any more about Him, for he has committed suicide by Change. In such case there is no God, no Infinite, no Immutable, no Eternal; everything has become finite, temporal, separate, a mere union of diverse finite parts. In that case are we indeed adrift in the Ocean of Diversity. We have lost our Foundation of REALITY, and are but ever-changing "parts" of physical things governed by physical laws. Then, indeed, would be true the idea of some of the old philosophies that "there is No Being; merely a Becoming." Then would there, in truth, be nothing constant, the universe never the same for two consecutive moments, with no permanent ground of REALITY to support it. But the reason of man, the very essence of his mental being, refuses to so think of That-which-IS. In his heart of hearts he recognizes the existence of THAT-WHICH-CHANGES-NOT, THAT-WHICH-IS-ETERNAL, THAT-WHICH-IS-REALITY.
....
Moreover, the idea of the immutability of REALITY must, serve to confute the erroneous idea of certain schools of metaphysics which assert the existence of "an Evolving God"; that is, a God which increases in intelligence, nature, and being by reason of the change of the universe, which is an expression of Himself. This conception is that of a Supreme Being who is growing, developing, and increasing in efficiency, wisdom, power, and character. This is an attempt to combine the anthropomorphic deity and the pantheistic Nature-God. The conception is clearly anthropomorphic, as it seeks to attribute to God the qualities and characteristics of man. It defies every fact of Ultimate Principle of REALITY. It is extremely unphilosophical and will not stand the test of logical examination.[45]

He claims that if God were evolving or improving, being an infinite being, it would have to be traceable back to some point of having "an infinitely undeveloped state and condition."[45] But, this claim was made prior to the rise of scientific knowledge pinpointing the beginning of the Universe in time, and connecting time with space, so that time would not exist as we know it prior to the Universe existing. In Islam, a criticism is raised, wherein it is argued that "from the juristic standpoint, obliterating the distinctions between God and the universe necessarily entails that in effect there can be no Sharia, since the deontic nature of the Law presupposes the existence of someone who commands (amir) and others who are the recipients of the command (ma'mur), namely God and his subjects."[46]

Notes

  1. ^ Sean F. Johnston (2009 ISBN = 1851686819). The History of Science: A Beginner's Guide p. 90. 
  2. ^ Alex Ashman, BBC News, "Metaphysical Isms".
  3. ^ Orr, John (1934). English Deism: Its Roots and Its Fruits. Eerdmans. pp. p. 13. 
  4. ^ See the article on the history of deism in the online Dictionary of the History of Ideas.
  5. ^ Jonathan Irvine Israel, Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity, 1650-1750 (2001) p. 611.
  6. ^ a b c Robert G. Brown, "The Pandeist Theorem" (May 11, 2009)
  7. ^ Warren B. Sharpe, Philosophy for the Serious Heretic: The Limitations of Belief and the Derivation of Natural Moral Principles (2002) p. 396 ISBN 0-595-21596-3.
  8. ^ Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, The secret doctrine: the synthesis of science, religion, and philosophy, Volume 1, 1893, 111.
  9. ^ Edward Burnett Tylor, Primitive culture: researches into the development of mythology, philosophy, religion, art, and custom, 1871, 312-313
  10. ^ Francis E. Peters, Greek Philosophical Terms: A Historical Lexicon, p. 169 (NYU Press 1967).
  11. ^ Friedrich Nietzsche, Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks (1873) § 4.
  12. ^ a b Große, Gottfried (1787). Naturgeschichte: mit erläuternden Anmerkungen. 
  13. ^ a b c William Turner, The Catholic Encyclopedia: John Scotus Eriugena.
  14. ^ Jeremiah Genest, John Scottus Eriugena: Life and Works (1998)
  15. ^ Roncelin de Fos, Christian Origins of U.S., 2004:
  16. ^ Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason.
  17. ^ John Lachs and Robert Talisse, American Philosophy: An Encyclopedia, 2007, p. 310.
  18. ^ Sabine Baring-Gould, The Origin and Development of Religious Belief Part II (1884) Page 157.
  19. ^ Andrew Martin Fairbairn, The Place of Christ in Modern Theology (1893) p. 416.
  20. ^ Carruth, Hayden, Suicides and Jazzers (1993) p. 161.
  21. ^ Cambridge Book and Print Gallery.
  22. ^ Freethought of the Day, August 6, 2006, Alfred Tennyson.
  23. ^ Charles Hartshorne, Man's Vision of God and the Logic of Theism (1941, republished in 1964) p. 347 ISBN 0-208-00498-X.
  24. ^ Man's Vision of God and the Logic of Theism, p. 348.
  25. ^ Man's Vision of God and the Logic of Theism, p. 348.
  26. ^ Scott Adams, God's Debris (2001) p.43 ISBN 0-7407-2190-9.
  27. ^ God's Debris, p. 43-44.
  28. ^ Bruce Parry, quoted in Ed Caesar, "Bruce almighty; He really has been there and done that." Saturday Magazine, August 11, 2007.
  29. ^ "Bruce almighty: What drives Tribe's presenter-explorer Bruce Parry?" by Ed Caesar in The Independent (11 August 2007)
  30. ^ James Donaghy, The best of Bruce Parry, The Guardian, September 12, 2008.
  31. ^ Ferrarese, Luigi (1838). Memorie risguardanti la dottrina frenologica. 
  32. ^ James Strong, Cyclopaedia of Biblical, theological, and ecclesiastical literature, Volume 7, 1894, page 622.
  33. ^ Moritz Lazarus and Heymann Steinthal, Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft (1859), p. 262.
  34. ^ Godfrey Higgins, Anacalypsis: An Attempt to Draw Aside the Veil of the Saitic Isis: Or an Inquiry into the Origin of Languages, Nations and Religions (1833), p. 439, ISBN 1-56459-273-1.
  35. ^ William Harbutt Dawson, Matthew Arnold and His Relation to the Thought of Our Time, (1904, republished 1977), p. 256. The editor of the 1977 edition suggests that the usage is erratum, and that Dawson intended to reference "bare Pan-Theism" rather than "Pan-Deism".
  36. ^ "The Chimerical Application of Machiavelli's Principles", Louis S. Hardin, '17, Yale Sheffield Monthly, pp 461-465, Yale University, May 1915 p. 463.
  37. ^ Charles A. Bolton, Beyond the Ecumenical: Pan-deism? (1963).
  38. ^ Paul Friedrich Köhler, Kulturwege und Erkenntnisse: Eine kritische Umschau in den Problemen des religiösen und geistigen Lebens (1916), p. 193.
  39. ^ Genevan Institute for Reformed Studies.
  40. ^ Homepage of Bob Burridge.
  41. ^ Genevan Institute for Reformed Studies.
  42. ^ a b Genevan Institute for Reformed Studies.
  43. ^ Pastor Bob Burridge, "The Decrees of God" (1997).
  44. ^ Albuquerque Journal, Saturday, November 11, 1995, B-10.
  45. ^ a b c William Walker Atkinson, Mastery of Being, 1911, pages 56 to 59.
  46. ^ Aḥmad ibn ʻAbd al-Ḥalīm Ibn Taymīyah, Wael B. Hallaq, Ibn Taymiyya against the Greek logicians, 1993, xxvi.

External links


Quotes

Up to date as of January 14, 2010

From Wikiquote

God became the world

Pandeism (or Pan-Deism) has been used at various times to represent:

  1. a coherent variation of Pantheism and Deism, combining attributes of these belief systems;
  2. a religion in which the best parts of all religions are combined into a singe faith; or
  3. a specific religion involving worship of a group of gods called "Pans", derived from Pandu and the Pandavas of India, and from Pandion I and Pandion II, Kings of Athens.

Contents

Sourced

First sense

Eagle nebula pillars complete.jpg

  • Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
    The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star,
    Hath had elsewhere its setting,
    And cometh from afar:
    Not in entire forgetfulness,
    And not in utter nakedness,
    But trailing clouds of glory do we come
    From God, who is our home:
    Heaven lies about us in our infancy!
    • William Wordsworth, Ode: Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood (1807), Stanza 5.

  • Dottrina, che pel suo idealismo poco circospetto , non solo la fede, ma la stessa ragione offende (il sistema di KANT) : farebbe mestieri far aperto gli errori pericolosi, cosi alla Religione, come alla Morale, di quel psicologo franzese , il quale ha sedotte le menti (COUSIN), con far osservare come la di lui filosofia intraprendente ed audace sforza le barriere della sacra Teologia, ponendo innanzi ad ogn' altra autorità la propria : profana i misteri , dichiarandoli in parte vacui di senso, ed in parte riducendoli a volgari allusioni, ed a prette metafore ; costringe , come faceva osservare un dotto Critico, la rivelazione a cambiare il suo posto con quello del pensiero istintivo e dell' affermazione senza riflessione e colloca la ragione fuori della persona dell'uomo dichiarandolo un frammento di Dio, una spezie di pandeismo spirituale introducendo, assurdo per noi, ed al Supremo Ente ingiurioso, il quale reca onda grave alla libertà del medesimo, ec, ec.
translated:
  • A doctrine which, because of its little-circumspect idealism, offends not just faith, but reason itself (Kant's system): it would be useful to show the dangerous errors, to Religion as much as to Moral, of that French psychologist, who seduced minds (Cousin), by showing how his bold and audacious philosophy breaks the barrier of the holy Theology, placing his own authority before any other: he profanes the mysteries, declaring them partly devoid of meaning, and partly reducing them to vulgar allusions and pure metaphors; forces, as a learned Critic noted, the revelation to swap places with instinctive thought and assertion without reflection without and places reason outside man, declaring man a fragment of God, introducing a sort of spiritual pandeism, which is absurd to us and insulting to the Supreme Being, which gravely offends freedom itself, etc, etc.
    • Italian phrenologist Luigi Ferrarese describing pandeism in Memorie Risguardanti la Dottrina Frenologica ("Thoughts Regarding the Doctrine of Phrenology", 1838), p. 16.

  • Man stelle es also den Denkern frei, ob sie Theisten, Pan-theisten, Atheisten, Deisten (und warum nicht auch Pandeisten?) sein wollen: dem Volke aber predigt nichts von Gott und ja nichts von Unsterblichkeit.
translated:
  • Man leaves it to the philosophers, whether they are Theists, Pan-theists, Atheists, Deists (and why not also Pandeists?) to want; but the people are preached nothing of a god of everything and nothing with immortality.
    • Moritz Lazarus and Heymann Steinthal, Magazine for People's Psychology and Linguistics (1859), p. 262-63.

Hs-2001-16-p-full jpg.jpg
  • [W]hatever the deity which satisfied Arnold's personal experience may have been, the religion which he gives us in Literature and Dogma and God and the Bible is neither Deism nor bare Pan-Deism, but a diluted Positivism. As an ethical system it is in theory admirable, but its positive value is in the highest degree questionable. Pascal's judgment upon the God who emerged from the philosophical investigations of Rene Descartes was that He was a God who was unnecessary. And one may with even greater truth say that the man who is able to receive and live by the religion which Arnold offers him is no longer in need of its help and stimulus. To be able to appreciate an ethical idealism a man must himself be already an ethical idealist.
    • William Harbutt Dawson, Matthew Arnold and His Relation to the Thought of Our Time (1904, republished 1977), p. 256 (1977 ed.) ISBN 0849206480; (1904 ed.) ASIN: B0006ADKGA.

  • Abschnitt vorbereitender Natur in einem ersten Hauptteil von den psychisch-religiösen Welt-und Lebensanschauungen in ihrer historischen Entwickelung; der zweite Hauptteil bespricht die philosophisch-deistischen und theosophischen Anschauungen vom Pandeismus der alten Ägypter und Inder bis zu Leibnizens prästabilierter Harmonie und Herbarts Realen; der dritte und letzte endlich bringt die metaphysischen und physischen Welt- und Lebensanschauungen, sucht die Anfänge des Idealismus bei den Indern auf und verfolgt ihn bis Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Ev Hartmann und Eucken, reiht an den Spinozismus den jüngsten Neuspinozismus und Neuidealismus an und gelangt schließlich über den Empirismus usw. und den Positivismus zur Aufzählung und Besprechung der eigentlich physischen An-schauungen im engeren Sinne (Materialismus, Atomistik, Energetische Anschauungen usw.).
translated:
  • The first section is a precursory discussion of the nature of the historical development of psychological-religious worldviews of life; the second section discusses the philosophical deistic and theosophist opinions of the pandeism of the ancient Egyptians and Indians up to Leibniz's Pre-established Harmony, and a harsh kind of material reality; the third and final section brings those metaphysical and physical worldviews together, pursuing them from the beginnings of idealism with the Indians up to Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Ev Hartmann and Eucken, to Spinozism the youngest Neo-Spinozism and neo-idealism, and finally arrives at empirism etc. and positivism in enumerating and discussing the actually strictly physical opinions (materialism, atomistic, energetic opinions and so forth).
    • Annals of Physics (1911) p. 58.

  • Are we virtuous merely because we are restrained by the fetters of the law? We hear men prophecy that this war means the death of Christianity and an era of Pandeism or perhaps even the destruction of all which we call modern civilization and culture. We hear men predict that the ultimate result of the war will be a blessing to humanity.

Uvsun trace big.jpg
  • Pantheismus und Pandeismus, Monismus und Dualismus: alles dies sind in Wirklichkeit nur verschiedene Formen des Gottschauens, verschiedene Beleuchtungsarten des Grundbegriffes, nämlich des Höchsten, von dem aus die verschiedenen Strahlungen in die Menschenseele sich hineinsenken und hier ein Spiegelbild projizieren, dessen Wahrnehmung die charakteriologische Eigenart des Einzelindividuums, die durch zeitliches, familiäres und soziologisches Milieu bedingte Auffassungsgabe vermittelt.
    • Paul Friedrich Köhler, Kulturwege und Erkenntnisse: Eine kritische Umschau in den Problemen des religiösen und geistigen Lebens (1916), p. 193.

  • God thus excludes the world; he is only its cause; in no sense is he effect, of himself or anything else. Pantheism (better, "pandeism," for again it is not really the theos that is described) means that God is the integral totality of ordinary cause-effects, and that there, is no super-cause independent of ordinary causes and effects.
    • Professor Charles Hartshorne, Man's Vision of God and the Logic of Theism (1941) p. 347. ISBN 020800498X.

  • God thus includes the world; he is, in fact, the totality of world parts, which are indifferently causes and effects. Now AR [absolute perfection in some respects, relative perfection in all others] is equally far from either of these doctrines; thanks to its two-aspect view of God, it is able consistently to embrace all that is positive in either deism or pandeism. AR means that God is, in one aspect of himself, the integral totality of all ordinary causes and effects, but that in another aspect, his essence (which is A), he is conceivable in abstraction from any one or any group of particular, contingent beings (though not from the requirement and the power always to provide himself with some particulars or other, sufficient to constitute in their integrated totality the R aspect of himself at the given moment).
    • Professor Charles Hartshorne, Man's Vision of God and the Logic of Theism (1941) p. 348. ISBN 020800498X.

  • These distinctions make sense only when AR [absolute perfection in some respects, relative perfection in all others] is assumed (hence Spinoza's failure, who assumed mere A). Just as AR is the whole positive content of perfection, so CW, or the conception of the Creator-and-the-Whole-of-what-he-has-created as constituting one life, the super-whole which in its everlasting essence is uncreated (and does not necessitate just the parts which the whole has) but in its de facto concreteness is created - this panentheistic doctrine contains all of deism and pandeism except their arbitrary negations. Thus ARCW, or absolute-relative panentheism, is the one doctrine that really states the whole of what all theists, if not all atheists as well, are implicitly talking about.
    • Professor Charles Hartshorne, Man's Vision of God and the Logic of Theism (1941) p. 348. ISBN 020800498X.

Cannabis sativa.jpg
  • God did not create the world, He became the world. God became the world to realize himself, in material form, to realize an eternal and infinite aim. It is for the purpose of realizing His eternal and infinite aim that He became the world. Now notice this. God had to conceive the one primordial idea to become the world. Thus the idea preceded the world. This is supposed to be the relation between cause and effect. The cause is assumed to be prior to and independent of the the effect; while the effect is assumed to be posterior to and dependent upon the cause.
    • Rabbi Harry Waton, A True Monistic Philosophy: Comprehending the Absolute, God, Existence, Man, Society and History (1947) p. 232. ASIN: B0006ARGQ0.

  • What appeared here, at the center of the Pythagorean tradition in philosophy, is another view of psyche that seems to owe little or nothing to the pan-vitalism or pan-deism (see theion) that is the legacy of the Milesians.
    • Professor Francis E. Peters, Greek Philosophical Terms: A Historical Lexicon (NYU Press 1967), p. 169. ISBN 0814765521.

  • What is referred to herein as a "divine spirituality" is nothing but the intrinsic and unaided propensity and proclivity of matter to self-organize. This, of course, is capable of "dying" when the limit of expansion is reached, and the old-age Big Crunch starts. This is the way the Gaia Universe dies. Here I must side with Heracleitus, the Stoics, Bruno, Fichte, Schelling, Goethe and Hegel. Mind is eternal, mind never dies, mind is the universe. The Pandeist God is the Salmon-God: when it spawns it dies. [They] side with Nietzsche — God is dead — only that for Nietzsche there never was a 'god.'
    • Professor Ramon G. Mendoza, History of Ideas: Pantheism (1996).

  • All the actions of created intelligences are not merely the actions of God. He has created a universe of beings which are said to act freely and responsibly as the proximate causes of their own moral actions. When individuals do evil things it is not God the Creator and Preserver acting. If God was the proximate cause of every act it would make all events to be "God in motion". That is nothing less than pantheism, or more exactly, pandeism. [However, t]he Creator is distinct from his creation. The reality of secondary causes is what separates Christian theism from pandeism.
    • Pastor Bob Burridge, Theology Proper - Lesson 4: The Decrees of God (1997)[1].

  • Why does calling God the author of sin demand a pandeistic understanding of the universe effectively removing the reality of sin and moral law.
    • Pastor Bob Burridge, Theology Proper - Lesson 4: The Decrees of God (1997)[2].

Victor Hugo 001.jpg
  • In the greatest poet of the older generation in France, Victor Hugo, a weak species of pantheistic deism asserts itself, in spite of his enthusiastic rationalism; we still trace in him the influence of the preceding century; religion is glorified at the expense of religions; love, which unites, at the expense of dogma, which separates and scatters.

  • One high school teacher once told me that Śankara said that God became the world. In the beginning there was God and then he created the world out of himself. So God became the world. And now there is no God. It is exactly like making idli out of rice. The rice is gone; only idli is there. Later, I repeated this as Śankara’s philosophy to someone and he laughed so hard that I knew that there was some mistake in what I had said. But I didn't know what the mistake was and he didn't correct me either.
    • Bhagavadgita Home Study, 2000.

  • The Eastern view of morality springs from a fundamentally different view of reality. We in the West regard the universe as a creation of God; like an invention or a product. After he created the universe, God set himself to oversee it and manage it. We see God as our boss. He created the universe, he is present in it, he manages every part of it, but he is still separate from it. It's like he installed video cameras all over the universe, so he can see everything that happens, and he can cause this or that to happen, but he is not a part of what happens. The Eastern view is very different. To the Hindu, for example, God didn't create the universe, but God became the universe. Then he forgot that he became the universe. Why would God do this? Basically, for entertainment. You create a universe, and that in itself is very exciting. But then what? Should you sit back and watch this universe of yours having all the fun? No, you should have all the fun yourself. To accomplish this, God transformed into the whole universe. God is the Universe, and everything in it. But the universe doesn't know that because that would ruin the suspense. The universe is God's great drama, and God is the stage, the actors, and the audience all at once. The title of this epic drama is "The Great Unknown Outcome." Throw in potent elements like passion, love, hate, good, evil, free will; and who knows what will happen? No one knows, and that is what keeps the universe interesting. But everyone will have a good time. And there is never really any danger, because everyone is really God, and God is really just playing around.
    • Warren B. Sharpe, Philosophy for the Serious Heretic: The Limitations of Belief and the Derivation of Natural Moral Principles (2002) p. 396 ISBN 0595215963.

  • Als Gesamtcharakteristik wählte H. sich die Bezeichnung eines neo-transzendentalen Subsistenz-Relationismus bzw. mehr inhaltlich: eines Hen-Pan-Deismus (nicht: -theismus); geschichtsphilosophisch schließt dies Atheismus, naturphilosophisch einen Quasi-Pantheismus - das Absolute als definitiver Prinzipiationsgrenzwert unter Gültigkeitsrücksichten - ein.

Spinoza.jpg
  • In the eighteenth century and early nineteenth century Spinoza even became the secular saint of a kind of mystical pantheist deism for authors like Goethe, Schelling, and Coleridge.
    • Aaron V. Garrett, Meaning in Spinoza's Method (2003), p. 2.

  • Caeiro unterläuft die Unterscheidung zwischen dem Schein und dem, was etwa "Denkerge-danken" hinter ihm ausmachen wollen. Die Dinge, wie er sie sieht, sind als was sie scheinen. Sein Pan-Deismus basiert auf einer Ding-Metaphysik, die in der modernen Dichtung des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts noch Schule machen sollte.
    • Von Martin Lüdke, "Ein moderner Hüter der Dinge; Die Entdeckung des großen Portugiesen geht weiter: Fernando Pessoa hat in der Poesie Alberto Caeiros seinen Meister gesehen", Frankfurter Rundschau, 18. August 2004.
translated:
  • Caeiro interposes the distinction between the light and what "philosopher thoughts" want to constitute behind him. The things, as he sees them, are as they seem. His pandeism is based on a metaphysical thing, which should still become a school of thought under the modern seal of the twentieth century.
    • Von Martin Lüdke, "A modern guardian of things; The discovery of the great Portuguese continues: Fernando Pessoa saw its master in the poetry of Alberto Caeiros", Frankfurter Rundschau, 18. August 2004.

  • Jubal... is a devout and fierce individualist in a world filled with cults and bureaucracies, and by novel’s end it is he, not Jill nor Mike, that is still a stranger, still tilting against the windmills. He honestly believes in his own free will, which Mike, Jill, and the Fosterites misinterpret as a pandeistic urge, ‘Thou art God!’ Mike, by contrast, readily abandons his Martian beliefs for human ones, even as he claims to merely find a congress between them.

Chenega Glacier.jpg
  • Belief in a single deity, however, is consistent with science and natural cause as long as that belief is in a First Cause that has not and does not, subsequently, alter or change natural order. Reader and Author alike have their own personal preferences, but what is important to the next world-view and way of thinking is accommodating to the still-widespread longing to believe in a "supreme being" while at the same time, not adopting anything which can disturb natural order and natural cause. The next belief system would need to be like an umbrella that reached out to cover atheism, deism, agnosticism, and pantheism (that is, pan-deism). Only in this way, now, can we bring humanity into the real age of scientific discovery, build a new civilization, and ultimately expand the human race far out into the universe beyond this cramped small planet in which we are now so confined.
    • Charles Brough, Untwisting the Social Sciences (2006), p. 142.

  • FREE THINKERS: all people whose beliefs regarding "spirits" are compatible with modern science. Deism, pandeism, agnosticism and atheism are compatible, while theism is not.
    • Charles Brough, Untwisting the Social Sciences (2006), p. 220.

  • Sometimes pantheists will use the term “pandeism” to underscore that they share with the deists the idea that God is not a personal God who desires to be worshipped.
    • John Armstrong, God vs. the Bible: How God's Creation Discredits Christian Scripture (2007), [4].

  • The seriousness or validity of Pandeistic views aside... every side of the heated and long-lasting argument around the “hard problem of consciousness”, and around the feasibility of artificial consciousness, seems to be simultaneously correct. Factual or not, the mere fact that a philosophical system can be conceived wherein those mutually-exclusive views no longer contradict one another is remarkable.
    • Bernardo Kastrup, Ph.D., Intriguing Metaphysical Parallels between the Consciousness Debate and Pandeism (2007), [5].

  • Pandeism is the belief that a god gave up their status as a god to become the universe, and is thus based on the ideals of deism.
    • Alex Ashman, BBC News, Metaphysical Isms (5th September 2007), [6].

Dialogue

Exploding planet.jpg
  • "So what motivates God?" I asked. "Do you have the answer to that question, or are you just yanking my chain?"
  • "I can conceive of only one challenge for an omnipotent being—the challenge of destroying himself."
  • "You think God would want to commit suicide?" I asked.
  • "I’m not saying he wants anything. I’m saying it’s the only challenge."
  • "I think God would prefer to exist than to not exist."
  • "That’s thinking like a human, not like a God. You have a fear of death so you assume God would share your preference. But God would have no fears. Existing would be a choice. And there would be no pain of death, nor feelings of guilt or remorse or loss. Those are human feelings, not God feelings. God could simply choose to discontinue existence."
  • "There’s a logical problem here, according to your way of thinking," I said. "If God knows the future, he already knows if he will choose to end his existence, and he knows if he will succeed at it, so there’s no challenge there, either."
  • "Your thinking is getting clearer," he said. "Yes, he will know the future of his own existence under normal conditions. But would his omnipotence include knowing what happens after he loses his omnipotence, or would his knowledge of the future end at that point?"
  • "That sounds like a thoroughly unanswerable question. I think you’ve hit a dead end," I said.
  • "Maybe. But consider this. A God who knew the answer to that question would indeed know everything and have everything. For that reason he would be unmotivated to do anything or create anything. There would be no purpose to act in any way whatsoever. But a God who had one nagging question—what happens if I cease to exist?—might be motivated to find the answer in order to complete his knowledge. And having no fear and no reason to continue existing, he might try it."
  • "How would we know either way?"
  • "We have the answer. It is our existence. The fact that we exist is proof that God is motivated to act in some way. And since only the challenge of self-destruction could interest an omnipotent God, it stands to reason that we . . ."
  • I interrupted the old man in midsentence and stood straight up from the rocker. It felt as if a pulse of energy ran up my spine, compressing my lungs, electrifying my skin, bringing the hairs on the back of my neck to full alert. I moved closer to the fireplace, unable to absorb its heat.
  • "Are you saying what I think you’re saying?" My brain was taking on too much knowledge. There was overflow and I needed to shake off the excess.
  • The old man looked at nothing and said, "We are God’s debris."
    • Scott Adams, God's Debris (2001) p.42-44. ISBN 0740721909.

Second sense


Buddha lantau.jpg
  • If the Bible is only human lore, and not divine truth, then we have no real answer to those who say, "Let's pick the best out of all religions and blend it all into Pan-Deism - one world religion with one god made out of many".

  • The WHO and MSF and other organizations do great work, but they often lack the long-term committment and grass-roots organization needed to build a sustainable program. Missionaries and hospitals like Holy Family also have made contributions and they recognize the need for providing economics-based aid (i.e. finding employment), but they lack the vigour and drive of the St. Stephens community. The government also does very little, but generally co- operates with St. Stephens in terms of getting OKs, partly because it is older than the Indian government itself and partly because it has a stellar reputation for secularism. Indeed, most of the staff is either Hindu or Moslem, but they are full of these pan-deist ideas, and even Zahir deliberately used the Christian word "God" rather than "Allah" when talking with me.
    • Paul La Porte, Social Work and Other Experiences in India (2003).

Turin plasch.jpg
  • Today we are witnessing movements of all kinds toward union. In the commercial world we are seeing great mergers. In the economic world we are seeing whole nations uniting. In the labor world, the unions are waxing bigger and becoming more powerful. In the financial world there is evident an increasing monopoly. In the religious world there are great movements toward union and not only in the professedly Christian world. The church of Rome uses the term “pandeism”, to describe her current program of bringing under her wing the non-Christian religions of the world. In this, Rome will finally succeed, because the prediction says, “all the world wondered after the beast”. (Revelation 13:3)
    • Conrad Baker, The Three Powers Of Armageddon: An Exposition of Revelation 16:13-16, August 12, 2005 [7] (PDF)

  • Regarding Western Pantheism, some people feel that the word "pantheism" is misused. Since theology is the study of religion and and means "all," pantheism implies following all religions. The principal of following all named deities, then, would be called Pan-De-ism. So, pantheist or pandeist? You decide.
    • Miles Batty, Teaching Witchcraft: A Guide for Teachers and Students of the Old Religion (Paperback - Mar 27, 2009) p. 38.

Third sense


Agrippa ScalaDenarii 1533.png
  • I think Pandeism was system; — and that when I say the country or kingdom of Pandæa, I express myself in a manner similar to what I should do, if I said the Popish kingdom or the kingdoms of Popery; or again, the Greeks have many idle ceremonies in their church, meaning the Greeks of all nations: or, the countries of the Pope are superstitions, &c. At the same time, I beg to be understood as not denying that there was such a kingdom as that of Pandae, the daughter of Cristna, any more than I would deny that there was a kingdom of France ruled by the eldest son of the church, or the eldest son of the Pope.


  • The empu uses a typical pedanda ketu, "crown" which is tall and red, and a ball. Another man leads Pande ceremonies on the island. He represents a curious mix of Buddhism, Hinduism, and, if it can be called this, "Pandeism." Thirty or so years ago some of the Singaraja Pande leaders felt the need for proclaiming themselves to be something other than Hindu, since they considered their fundamental beliefs to be different enough from Hinduism to warrant making a distinction.
    • Fred B. Eiseman, Jr., Bali: Sekala and Niskala: Essays on Religion, Ritual, and Art (1989) p. 89. ISBN 0945971036.

  • The theory presented in the Anacalypsis... is that a secret religious order, which [Higgins] labeled Pandeism, had continued from ancient times to the present day, stretching at least from Greece to India, and possibly having covered the entire world.

External links

Wikipedia
Wikipedia has an article about:
Wiktionary-logo-en.png
Look up pandeism in Wiktionary, the free dictionary

Wiktionary

Up to date as of January 15, 2010

Definition from Wiktionary, a free dictionary

See also pandeism

Contents

English

Etymology 1

Wikipedia-logo.png
Wikipedia has an article on:

Wikipedia Blend of pantheism and deism; from Greek πάν (pán), all) and Latin deus (god). First used in the variation "Pandeisten" (pandeists) by Moritz Lazarus and Heymann Steinthal in Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft (1859), p. 262.

Pronunciation

  • IPA: /pæn'deɪ'ĭz'əm/

Noun

Singular
Pandeism

Plural
uncountable

Pandeism (uncountable)

  1. Alternative spelling of pandeism.

Etymology 2

Wikipedia

Blend of Pande- from Pandu and the Pandavas (figures from the historical mythology of India) and -ism.

Pronunciation

  • IPA: /pæn'di'ĭz'əm

Noun

Singular
Pandeism

Plural
uncountable

Pandeism (uncountable)

  1. (archaic) a secret religious sect hypothesized to exist in a range extending from India to Europe and Northern Africa
    I am induced to think that this Pandeism was a doctrine, which had been received both by Buddhists and Brahmins. Godfrey Higgins, Anacalypsis: An Attempt to Draw Aside the Veil of the Saitic Isis: Or an Inquiry into the Origin of Languages, Nations and Religions (1833), p.439.

Advertisements






Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address
Message