![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trixtahI've always called myself an agnostic, since I don't believe in a personal god, but I'm not so arrogant to say that there's NOTHING out there. Simply, how can one be sure, either way? So I could never have considered myself an atheist.
I don't know how I came across the word recently, but in the last couple of months, I've had the realisation that I could properly call myself a pantheist. This is the belief that everything in the universe is "divine" - there is no separate personification of a god or gods. Here's a good overview. I had a look at the Wikipedia article, but it's not worth linking to. Like most belief systems, there are all sorts of different strands, but I seem to find myself at home in the branch called "naturalistic pantheism". I strongly identify with that feeling of awe (one might as well call it religious) when encountering the beauties of nature. There is nothing like being in a gorgeous spot, with trees or water or stars or what-have-you, to make you feel that there has to be something divine about the universe. Or universes. My most religious moments have been in those kinds of settings; or, frankly, while having sex, which really is the best way to appreciate divinity in others.
Another strand which is prominent is called "scientific pantheism", which is closely related to the naturalistic kind, but seems to demand that you make the assertion that there is nothing like a soul. All there is in existance is matter and energy. Which makes me ask, necessarily, whether a soul may not just be another form of energy, but who knows. I'm agnostic on the idea of soul, which makes me a little wary of dogmatism when people say there isn't such a thing. Also, being a homeopath, I know that there is such a thing as qi, which isn't accepted in the Western scientific tradition. But, other than being overly restrictive in that sense, their explanations of pantheism are good.
The only problem I have with some of these pantheistic sites is their co-option of "celebrities" (such as Einstein), who they claim to be pantheists. I have no problem with them saying that these people have expressed thoughts in keeping with pantheism, but unless they've stood up and used the word themselves, no-one else has the right to ascribe such a belief to them. It reminds me of all the early coming-out things which used to make lists of all the famous "gays" in history. It's just a wee bit juvenile.
Anyway, religious belief - is really a matter of trying to find meaning in existence. It is necessary (not for me), but like most other humans, I can't help feeling it'd be nice if there were some point to it all (I just happen not to think there is any agency behind what we do, whether or not existence is completely pointless and random).
I don't know how I came across the word recently, but in the last couple of months, I've had the realisation that I could properly call myself a pantheist. This is the belief that everything in the universe is "divine" - there is no separate personification of a god or gods. Here's a good overview. I had a look at the Wikipedia article, but it's not worth linking to. Like most belief systems, there are all sorts of different strands, but I seem to find myself at home in the branch called "naturalistic pantheism". I strongly identify with that feeling of awe (one might as well call it religious) when encountering the beauties of nature. There is nothing like being in a gorgeous spot, with trees or water or stars or what-have-you, to make you feel that there has to be something divine about the universe. Or universes. My most religious moments have been in those kinds of settings; or, frankly, while having sex, which really is the best way to appreciate divinity in others.
Another strand which is prominent is called "scientific pantheism", which is closely related to the naturalistic kind, but seems to demand that you make the assertion that there is nothing like a soul. All there is in existance is matter and energy. Which makes me ask, necessarily, whether a soul may not just be another form of energy, but who knows. I'm agnostic on the idea of soul, which makes me a little wary of dogmatism when people say there isn't such a thing. Also, being a homeopath, I know that there is such a thing as qi, which isn't accepted in the Western scientific tradition. But, other than being overly restrictive in that sense, their explanations of pantheism are good.
The only problem I have with some of these pantheistic sites is their co-option of "celebrities" (such as Einstein), who they claim to be pantheists. I have no problem with them saying that these people have expressed thoughts in keeping with pantheism, but unless they've stood up and used the word themselves, no-one else has the right to ascribe such a belief to them. It reminds me of all the early coming-out things which used to make lists of all the famous "gays" in history. It's just a wee bit juvenile.
Anyway, religious belief - is really a matter of trying to find meaning in existence. It is necessary (not for me), but like most other humans, I can't help feeling it'd be nice if there were some point to it all (I just happen not to think there is any agency behind what we do, whether or not existence is completely pointless and random).
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-30 02:17 am (UTC)I am all for Pantheism except for that one thing that I cant reconcile with logic.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-30 02:26 am (UTC)If you want to ask about people worshiping something that is deliberately violent and destructive, try talking to some conventionally religious people.