Talk:Naturalistic pantheism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] POV?

I am nominating this article as NPOV. I just found this article randomly as I was surfing wikipedia and I found that it has: 1) Very little factual description of what Naturalistic pantheism actually is 2) No references to any source material 3) A voice (especially the critique section) that looks a lot like a critique written by someone and not a summary of critiques of others. I was also supprised that the critique section was longer than the actual description of the religion.

I would say that this article is biased in both directions, both for and against Natural Pantheism, this is not the same as being NPOV.

I can not fix this as I am not an expert on Naturalistic pantheism and am also not a very good writer but I hope someone can fix this article.

bobprime 16:02 26 July 2006 (EST)

(cur) (last) . . 16:47, 5 Apr 2004 . . David Gerard (you should try to make it less POV, not more)

What are you disputing as being more POV verses NPOV?-PV

As far as I can see the article isn't particularly NPOV. The only thing I found that I think needs addressing was this sentence:

The WPM (founded by former UPS vice-president Paul Harrison), on the other hand, has expanded more considerably due to its promotion of "scientific pantheism", which many critics claim is essentially no more than "atheism for nature lovers"

Who are these 'many critics' who say this? It sounds like a very specific quotation, but no indication as to who it's come from. I've added a cite tag for anyone who's able to provide this info.

Other than that, I've made some very minor tweaks by capitalising the word 'God' where it's used as a proper noun in reference to a single being (even if that being is the Universe itself) because it's a name or title. Where it's used to describe a type of being ("a god") I've left it lower-case. If I've missed any - sorry.

Personally, bearing in mind the existing article on Pantheism as a whole, I'm quite happy this article as an explanation of a kind of Pantheism is as NPOV as an article on religion is going to get without deleting all the content (I'm joking), so I'll stick my neck out and remove the tag. - Dreilyn 12:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article

Disagreements of previous contributors aside, this is a pretty good article. While it does spend a lot of time on criticism, Wikipedia has lots of articles with detailed criticisms of traditional theism, and other belief systems, as well. These just have been spun-off into their own articles. RK

Strange to see us agreeing. I created the page out of the old pantheism article. The author of much of this content doesn't like either of those, nor classical pantheism, and is currently engaged in an extremely protracted (since last Nov., when I first came to the wiki) debate w myself. Just thought I'd give you a bit of background for the heck of it. Feel free to flame me, or reccomend I review back issues of "the humanist" ;) Sam [Spade] 05:14, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
How is it a good article? It doesn't even have complete sentences and all the content bangs on about UPS or WPM instead of just explaining concisely what Naturalistic pantheism is. I suggest this page should just be fused with the main Pantheism page with a redirect. Ultima 22:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
"Despite a history of controversy ignited by the WPM's appearance as a sect within the UPS and its eventual secession from that organization, the WPM approach has met with some acceptance, even while critics claim it may not actually constitute any strict or authentic or classical pantheism." This sentence makes no sense... how does a theism have authenticity other than how a group of people use a term to describe their belief system? What critics? And I assume the last part should just have the or taken out? Naturalistic pantheism doesn't claim to be classical pantheism, hence the naturalistic prefix? Ultima 22:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spinoza

There seems to be some misunderstanding of Spinoza in this article (possibly among the subjects of the article). I've just posted this to Talk:Pantheism (in response to an editing disagreementthere), and my attention was drqawn to this article:

Spinoza's god certainly wasn't unconscious, and calling it non-sentient needs argument; he talks in different ways in different places, but the most central notion is of god as being substance conceived under the attribute of thought (substance as conceived under the attribute of extension being the world; hence "deus sive natura" (Ethics IV, Pref.). Sometimes, however, he talks of god as having the attributes both of thought and of extension). From the Ethics, for example:
  • I, p.16, cor.2: "God alone is a free cause"
  • II, p.1: "God is a thinking thing"
  • II, p.3, d.: "For God (by p.1) can think infinitely many things in infinitely many modes"
  • II, p.3, sch.: "God acts with the same necessity by which he understands himself"

Now, this was fairly hurried and allusive, but much more evidence could be brought against the claim that "the universe, although unconscious and non-sentient as a whole", though I'd agree that Spinoza believed that it "is a meaningful focus for human spirituality. Accordingly, Nature is seen as being "God" only in a non-traditional, impersonal sense." Any thoughts? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Here is a link to some previous debate: Talk:Pantheism/Critique. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 18:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Interesting, though it doesn't touch on what I was discussing above. Incidentally, I'm surprised that you find the difference between "god is the world" and "god includes but is more than the world" to be too subtle to be significant; most pantheists and panentheists take the difference to be crucial. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Actually its the very heart of what you spoke of before, because this article was created as a compromise with a prominent member of a number of "pantheist" organisations, User:Naturyl. The link I provided gives a snapshot of the debate we have had. In essense, he feels that God = Nature inherantly presumes that God is unconscious, since he feels that nature is inherantly unconscious. Thats my assessment anyhow. I, being an animist of sorts, among other things, feel all things are conscious/sentient/possessed of a soul, at macro and micro levels.
As far as what your getting at, pantheism vrs. panentheism vrs. transcendance, thats actually a crucial matter for metaphysical theists such as myself. Negative theology and tatt vam asi are articles worth reading on the subject. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 21:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Is the key question for this article to describe what Spinoza believed, or what Naturalistic Pantheists believe (with reference to Spinoza as an influence or inspiration)? If Spinoza's beliefs and those of Naturalistic Pantheists in general differ, which should we be describing in detail in an article on Naturalistic Pantheism? - Dreilyn 12:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spirituality or Mysticism

I changed the first sentence to describe Naturalistic Pantheism as the belief that the universe is a meaningful focus for mystical fulfillment rather than spirituality. I realize both terms are not quite appropriate since they were invented in relation to religions that believe in (anthropomorphic) deities, but at least mysticism doesn't necessitate belief in spirits or other dualistic nonsense.