Adding emotion to atheism

Paul Harrison, environmentalist and founder of the World Pantheist Movement, explains the basics of

By Paul Harrison Published 23 June 2008 10:46

In The God Delusion Richard Dawkins calls Pantheism “sexed-up atheism.” This is a fair description. Pantheism, in essence, is reverence for Nature and the wider Universe—the Pantheist “God” is everything that exists.

In fact the scientific, naturalistic Pantheism promoted by the World Pantheist Movement does not use the term “God” officially. Only a quarter of us are comfortable with using it metaphorically—to express the depth of our feeling towards Nature and the wider Universe. Another quarter are okay with “God” in quotation marks. Half of us feel that the word carries too much baggage and avoid it when talking of our own beliefs.

For centuries Pantheists have been accused of being atheists – and on many basic points we do agree with atheists. We don’t have any scriptures that we must follow. We don’t believe in a creator God. We don’t pray to the Universe for help – we know it can’t hear us. We don’t worry that it’s watching or judging us. Most of us don’t think it has some goal for itself—or for us; we know we have to choose our own goals. Most of us don’t think we will persist as individuals after death. We see the physical Universe naturalistically, as scientists see it: the physical reality of everything that exists, following the laws of Nature.

Where Pantheists differ from “unadorned” atheists is that we add a range of positive feelings about our lives in Nature and the wider Universe, and we embrace those feelings. We view the Universe as a vast dance of creation and destruction and see ourselves as part of that dance. We look at the night sky or Hubble images thickly strewn with galaxies, and we feel awe, wonder, reverence and humility. We look at a forest or an ocean and we feel we belong, with gratitude and concern. We gladly and fully live in our physical bodies and nowhere else, and feel love, exhilaration, celebration.

Pantheism has an ancient pedigree. It reaches back to Heraclitus, for whom the cosmos was an ever-living, ever-changing fire, and passes through the Stoic Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, who wrote: “Everything harmonizes with me, which is harmonious to thee, o Universe.” From 400 to 1700 CE, it was dangerous to be a Pantheist—Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake, and Spinoza was excommunicated by his Jewish community. After the Enlightenment made unbelief less risky, Pantheism enjoyed a 19th century heyday with Wordsworth, Whitman, Hegel, Thoreau and many others. In our century it was espoused fully by D. H. Lawrence, and (erratically) by Einstein. It is hinted at by many modern scientists, from Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan, to Lee Smolin and Stuart Kaufmann.

More from Paul Harrison

View the discussion thread.

9 comments

Tue, 2008-06-24 00:01 — Ron McKeown

Adding emotion to atheism - Posted by Paul Harrison 23 June 2008
This piece starts with, “Paul Harrison, environmentalist and founder of the World Pantheist Movement, explains the basics of a belief system considered by some to be "sexed-up atheism."

So it is in the first couple of dozen words that we see the contradiction.

No “belief system” can be truly atheist because a true atheist has no belief or belief system. There are many people, Dawkins included, who talk of atheism and belief as part of the same concept which tells me that they are not atheist.
Back to the drawing board is my suggestion.

Tue, 2008-06-24 13:44 — philip456

Dear Ron - Your comment sounds good but is actually nonsense. There is no reason why Atheists shouldn't have beliefs.
They just don't have your superstitious belief in a Supreme Being.

Tue, 2008-06-24 15:54 — Steve Platt

I was wondering similarly whether pantheism really could be said to be a 'faith' in the sense of a belief, or set of beliefs, that isn't based on proof. It seems to me that it's more of an approach to life (the universe and everything) - with a spiritual dimension undoubtedly but all the more appealing because it doesn't require you to believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden, pots of gold at the end of the rainbow or great big giants at the top of the beanstalk.

I took a look at the WPM website (http://www.pantheism.net), which Paul modestly refrains from linking to, and I've rarely found myself in so much agreement with anything outside poetry. Does that make me a pantheist?

My gt gt grandad became a unitarian for what seems to have been a similar desire to marry the spiritual with the rational. Can you be a unitarian-pantheist?

Tue, 2008-06-24 20:52 — Ron McKeown

Dear philip456,
I note your comment of 24 June 2008 at 12:44.

My apologies for not qualifying my statement sufficiently which possibly resulted in you observation that my, “comment sounds good but is actually nonsense. There is no reason why Atheists shouldn't have beliefs. They just don't have your superstitious belief in a Supreme Being“.

A belief is an opinion, concept or position that is taken irrespective of any supporting proof or even when there is proof to the contrary. Belief can be in a religion, political system, scientific theory, ability of a football team and so on. Often a belief can be so intense that it becomes an obsession or even manic. An atheist is not affected by the force of a belief because an atheist has no facility to believe irrespective of evidence. An atheist can accept a situation or a theory but will quite willingly change that opinion if suitable evidence is presented. A committed believer will not accept any change.

Hope this clears up what I intended to convey in my original posting.

Wed, 2008-06-25 02:03 — Attila

To Ron: An "atheist" does not believe in the existence of any gods. But he/she can stil believe in innumerabe other things, from UFOs to leprechauns.
Atheist does not necessarily equal strict skeptical non-believer.
And to Steve: yes, I know many Unitarians (they are officially called Unitarian Universalists in the USA) who consider themselves pantheists, at least in the WPM definition of the word.

Wed, 2008-06-25 03:19 — Dave9

To me, the term 'atheist' only describes something someone is not. They are not a theist. They do not believe in a supernatural, compassionate interviening enity. You could describe someone as an 'a-UFOist', or an 'a-librialist' but that says nothing about what that person DOES believe in. A pantheist describes someone who does believe in something. A pantheist believes that all of creation (i.e. the universe, the earth and life on earth) is in fact divine, sacred and to be cherished. That's a lot of believing! It says a pantheist invests a lot of emotion in understanding and revereing nature; a pantheist is a (secular) humanist; a pantheist is moral and lives harmonously within society. . .because they have tested reality and believe it is right to do so. They have used their reasoning abality to comprehend a human being's place in the universe and are happy with it. They marvel at the human ablity to comprehend the laws of nature and attach a self-generated spirituality to all this.

So to say pantheism is only 'sexed-up atheism' is a gross understandment. . .it is the religion everyone would naturally arrive at if they have been spared dogmatic spoon-feeding of beliefs and actually opened their eyes and looked upon 'God' not as "I am", but IT IS.

Wed, 2008-06-25 22:36 — Ron McKeown

To Attila

If a person has the facility to believe then they are not atheist. I find that people that do have beliefs cannot believe that there is such a thing as an total atheist.

Mon, 2008-07-14 21:13 — Ron McKeown

Dear Fred Kohn
Sorry I missed your posting of 27 June 2008 at 22:27
You said “It seems to me that you are a Pantheist.
Proof:
You believe that if a person believes in anything they believe in God“.

I said I do not have beliefs. This is what you are struggling to understand. I will say it again - I do not have beliefs. You may believe that I believe but that is your problem, not mine.