Talk:Pantheism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Pantheism and Pantheon

Could somebody add a disambiguation (or something similar) line at the beginning of the article, that "Pantheism is referred to a believe in (what the article says), for the believe in many gods see Pantheon or Polytheism".

I would add it, if I knew how, since I think, that "Theos -> Theism" and "Pantheon -> Pantheism" is an understandable misconception. --134.93.79.26 (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Einstein- he directly suggested he wasn't a pantheist

I don't understand why Einstein is suggested here to have been a pantheist. He specifically said that he didn't think he fit the definition of a pantheist. Apart from that direct statement, he mentioned his interest in the pantheistic attitudes of Spinoza (which is not by any reading a statement suggesting he holds that position), but goes on to suggest that he is more interested in his philosophical contribution to the soul/body issue. I don't see how you can go from him saying he doesn't think of himself as a pantheist to then suggesting he was because he suggested he was "fascinated" by someone else's pantheism. The latter requires an interpretation and inferences to be made. The former is about as unambiguous as you can get.

"I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things" Ninahexan (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The start of the above quote is not accurate - it is cited in this form very widely on the Internet, but Alice Calaprice, for many years the copyeditor of the Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, cites it as follows: "I am not an atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a pantheist." [Ultimate Quotable Einstein p 326.]

That's very different from saying he did not think he was a pantheist. He was not sure, that's all he is saying.

Note also that he does not say "I am not an atheist or a pantheist" - he treats the two differently.

Besides that he repeatedly makes statements saying that his idea of God was closest to Spinoza's. He said his comprehension of God could be described as "Pantheistic (Spinoza)" (Calaprice p 324). He said "I believe in Spinoza's God." (ibid p 325).

And in addition many of his statements are totally consistent with Pantheism, and he expressly rejects the idea of a personal judging creator God.

However, it has to be said that his statements about God are not consistent, and that his viewpoint may have shifted during the course of his life.

In the light of all of the above I think the best assessment of where he stood is that he was a Naturalistic Pantheist.--Naturalistic (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Determinism

Allisgod, I had problems with your prior version of this.

1. I don't think it deserves top priority in the categorization, so I placed it third. The reason is: determinism v indeterminism is a dispute that is found right across the whole spectrum, in theism, in pantheism and in atheism. It's a philosophical dispute that is almost independent of one's broad position on the theism <-> atheism spectrum.

2. The sentence "This form of pantheism posits that the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously." is not sourced - moreover, I don't believe that determinism implies that the future already exists nor that the past still exists. It may be determined, it may even be predictable, but that does not exclude the possibility that it has not yet actually come to pass nor does it require that the past is still around somewhere.

3. I am still not convinced that Hartshorne himself intended this as a categorization of types of pantheism. Do you have any source/quote of his that shows that he recognized any other (ie non-deterministic) type of pantheism? As far as I can see, he thought that all pantheism was deterministic, and he regarded this as its major fault in comparison with his own panentheism. I know we have had this discussion before, but I don't recall your providing any sources for believing that he used this term to "make distinct" the deterministic forms. If "make distinct" has meaning in the context of this Wikipedia article, it has to mean that he wanted to make it distinct from other forms of pantheism and as far as I believe and you have previously stated, he only recognized one form, the deterministic form. Source please?--Naturalistic (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

1) You wrote determinism is "a philosophical dispute". Sure, and pantheism is a philosophy (not a political agenda). Pantheism is a monistic philosophy according to most sources and determinism and monism are correlated. 'Indeterministic pantheism' as expressed by Schelling to specifically distinguish his view from that of Spinoza, sets itself apart and creates the categories. I think your opinion that it does not "deserve top priority" is probably your view because you treat pantheism as a means toward environmental politics and not as a philosophy in itself. That seems to be your way of using the phrase and that is fine as long as you are not imposing your viewpoint onto a wikipedia page about pantheism.

2) You seem to be confused about the definition of determinism. The words you are using, "yet", "come to pass", "past" etc. don't apply when all time is one event. The "unsourced" sentence used is just defining determinism for the reader. If you have a better definition, go ahead and replace it.

3) Are you suggesting that a world renowned philosopher (and self described panentheist nonetheless) is an imbecile who thought all pantheism is deterministic and tacked on the word "Classical" just because he felt it sounded better? I have already referenced his interview where he explained why he uses the phrase "Classical Pantheism", which he defined as deterministic pantheism of Spinoza and the Stoics. http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2803

Please stop pushing your political agenda onto this page. This is not the place to promote your organization and its agenda. (Allisgod (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC))

1. There is zero element of politics in my placing determinism third. It is simply a fact that determinism is found prominently in theism and atheism as well and is not at all distinctive to pantheism.

2. The idea that time is one event and that past present and future all coexist is simply your own unsourced "original research" here. There is NO WAY that determinism logically implies eternalism or that we are living in "block time" or that the past still exists or that the future already exists. If you wish to source this view with Spinoza, then you should do so quoting a secondary source, but as a bald statement like that, it's OR and non-compliant with Wikipedia guidelines.

3. You are using the argument from authority, which is a very weak one. Hartshorne was a panentheist with a blatant agenda: to prove the superiority of his version of panentheism to pantheism. One of the key bases of his argument is that pantheism is deterministic. He simply does not mention any non-deterministic forms, and the term Classical Pantheism helps him to present deterministic pantheism as the only pantheism that really matters.

4. If anyone is pushing an agenda here, it's you. Your own church in Silver Spring Maryland is a Unity church which is part of the New Thought movement which is panentheistic or monist idealist. Your agenda is Hartshorne, glorification of Spinoza, eternalism, determinism, use of term Classical Pantheism. My agenda in this article is accuracy, neutrality, observance of Wikipedia guidelines on Point of View, Original Research and the like. As I said, I had attempted to cooperate and compromise and we had reached a version that I imagined was mutually acceptable. I am not at all happy with the inclusion of Classical Pantheism for several reasons already stated but I left it in there.--Naturalistic (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, my "agenda" is promoting Baruch Spinoza, world famous philosopher from which the word pantheism was used to describe his philosophy; Charles Hartshorne, the only world renowned philosopher that discussed pantheism in depth; Determinism, the monist viewpoint associated to pantheism by many texts and major philosophers. And your agenda is the "World Pantheist Movement", an internet donation based environmentalist group started in 1999. Hmmm.. the "agenda" of Spinoza, Hartshorne, Determinism, Classical Pantheism versus the agenda of a president of a donation based website. (Allisgod (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC))

The World Pantheist Movement collects donations for one purpose only: promotion of Naturalistic Pantheism. The officers of the World Pantheist Movement have no salaries and get paid zero. The WPM does not donate to environmental causes.

Don't you, Rev Allen White of Unity Church in Silver Spring Maryland, have collections during your services? Don't you solicit pledges from your congregation? Does the Unity Church not solicit donations and pledges? Do you have a salary and who pays it? It's blatantly clear that you have an agenda in line with the New Thought Hartshorne-inspired agenda of your own religious organization.

Promotion of Spinoza is not an acceptable agenda - he's one outstanding pantheist of many going back at least to Lao Tzu and reaching forward to today. Many scholars even dispute whether he is a pantheist (Universe=God) at all. Hartshorne is not a pantheist at all but a critic of pantheism. Determinism is just one viewpoint.

Bottom line: everyone has some kind of agenda. But it is crucial that Wikipedia editors attempt to be as impartial and accurate as possible. I have been trying to do that. I do not want confrontation and edit wars. If you are willing to step back to the greater level of mutual respect and cooperation that we enjoyed a month or so ago, then that's something I would personally welcome. It would certainly serve the readers of Wikipedia better.--Naturalistic (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I am not the person you have somehow assumed I am. Furthermore, I am not promoting any organization on here. Being accused of "promoting Spinoza" on a Pantheism page is like being accused of promoting Einstein on a "Theory of Relativity" page on Wikipedia. And the idea that some scholars "dispute whether he is a pantheist" is like saying some scholars dispute Jesus to be a Christian. So what? This is an information page, not a place to impose an outlier viewpoint. Many scholars would dispute "The World Pantheist Movement" being pantheistic at all. But wait, no renowned philosophers or scholars have actually commented on this, so what is it doing being linked all over this page on pantheism?

I am glad you say you do not want confrontation and edit wars. However these recent edits of previously resolved issues where you again try to downplay the traditional meaning of pantheism suggest you have every intention of continuing to impose your agenda of promoting so-called "naturalistic pantheism" and your donation based internet group onto this wikipedia page. Readers of Wikipedia are better served with non biased accurate historical information. (Allisgod (talk) 06:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC))

I have reordered the section in a way that makes more sense, beginning with Hartshorne - again, the ONLY philosopher to have ever bothered to distinguish a form of pantheism. That discussion brings up monism which naturally flows into the monism/dualism discussion, and then finally the atheist/theist discussion. There are frequent references in this section to the "World Pantheist Movement", "Paul Harrison", and highlighted "naturalistic pantheism". If you prefer, I can insist on removing most of these since it's questionable whether they belong in this section at all. (Allisgod (talk) 07:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC))

If you are accusing me of conflict of interest, then who are you if not Rev Allen White? Why don't you state your qualifications? You clearly have a very considerable bias in favor of theistic and deterministic pantheism, and against Naturalistic Pantheism. You have openly admitted to having a biassed agenda here.

The World Pantheist Movement is consistently the second entry in any Google search on Pantheism. There's no trace of doubt that it is the largest pantheist organization in the world. Hinduism is a religion in its own right - by no stretch can it be called a "Pantheist organization" ditto for Taoism and Wicca.--Naturalistic (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Removing "World Pantheist Movement" Advertising on Pantheism page

Wikipedia should not be a method of advertising for an environmentalist political group that identifies with "pantheism". There is no "symbol" of pantheism and "The World Pantheist Movement" picture should not be the first thing readers see when looking up pantheism. Furthermore, there have been excessive references to "The World Pantheist Movement" and so-called "naturalistic pantheism" political views imposed onto this page. Wikipedia readers deserve an impartial view of what pantheism is all about, not just an environmentalist political person's agenda that has little to do with what has been called pantheism for over 100 years. (Allisgod (talk) 05:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC))

Hmmm, Allisgod aka Rev Allen White of Unity Church in Silver Spring, I thought we had progressed beyond paranoid attacks from you. I have tried to develop a cooperative approach between us dedicated to neutrality and accuracy. You have assiduously promoted your own agenda of determinism and "Classical Pantheism" in your contributions.

The spiral is the pantheism symbol in widest use on planet today and the World Pantheist Movement is by a long stretch the largest pantheist organization on the planet so there's nothing unusual in mentioning it. Moreover, Naturalistic Pantheism does not get special treatment since all the forms of pantheism are mentioned and described without bias in favor of one or the other.

By attacking the WPM in the way you do, you blatantly reveal your own biassed agenda.--Naturalistic (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Certain groups of Hinduism, Taoism, Wicca, and Kabbalah, among others, are the largest pantheist groups on the planet, not an internet website soliciting donations for environmental causes. Determinism and Classical Pantheism are not my agenda. I happen to be an environmentalist as well and donate to environmental causes. That doesn't mean I try to twist around a deep word born out of Spinoza's philosophy on wikipedia to promote environmental politics. That would be what you're doing and that is unacceptable. Wikipedia is not for self promotion. In fact, members of the Church of Scientology were recently banned from Wikipedia for trying to control the page on Scientology. You're taking it a step further beyond the "World Pantheist Movement" wikipedia page and are trying to control the "Pantheism" page to suit your purposes. Your "spiral" is a symbol of a donation based organization used to promote itself. That symbol does not belong on the wikipedia page on pantheism. (Allisgod (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest (Allisgod (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC))

Okay, I agree to removing the symbols and hope that you agree to removing your panegyric of Spinoza. I would suggest a lineup of famous pantheist faces instead: Marcus Aurelius, Girodano Bruno, Spinoza, Wordsworth, Whitman, Emerson, DH Lawrence, Frank Lloyd Wright, Einstein, Margaret Atwood.

See Determinism entry for agendas.--Naturalistic (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I take issue with you referring to the highlighting of Spinoza on a page on pantheism as "panegyric". Pantheism is inextricably bound to no one more influential figure than Spinoza. That is a plain fact and you cannot use a wikipedia page to attempt to mitigate the fact that the man is referenced first by just about everyone who uses the word pantheism. If you choose to use the word in a different way and for another purpose, that's your prerogative. But you are doing a disservice to people looking for information on wikipedia when you try and force your divergent viewpoint upon a popular information page. (Allisgod (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC))

"Panegyric" refers to the effusive language and references to prince and prophet etc. These are pure evoluations without information content. Spinoza represents one specific type of Pantheism and focussing so powerfully on him actually reduces the page's neutrality. Placing such emphasis on Hartshorne, a panentheist critic of pantheism, also distorts the page's neutrality.

Re agendas, I have repeatedly explained what my agenda here is: neutrality, accuracy, and avoidance of personal point of view (POV) and original research (OR). I will continue to vigorously defend these Wikipedia principles which you frequently ignore and I can do so indefinitely. You have explicitly explained that your agenda is pushing Spinoza, Hartshorne and determinism. Inclusion of the largest pantheist organization in the world is natural in an article on Pantheism.

I have repeatedly asked for cooperation, mutual respect and so on and you have continued to choose confrontation and edit wars. Until we begin to proceed on the basis of cooperation, this situation will persist. I was content to leave the page as it was about a month ago and it stayed that way for several weeks and included quite a number of changes in your direction, which I was not entirely happy with but left alone for the sake of peace and continuity.--Naturalistic (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, your internet group is not the largest pantheist organization in the world, and your interest here to promote it along with your one sided ideas are not even close to neutral views on pantheism. Lets go the dispute resolution route and see if others can help. (Allisgod (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC))

Dispute Resolution

The Pantheism article has been referred to the Dispute Resolution noticeboard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Pantheism It's important to bear in mind what the dispute resolution procedure can and cannot resolve. Basically it is a place to go when resolution in the talk page has failed.

"It is the first step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction."

The end product of the Dispute Resolution still aims to be a resolution of the dispute, not by imposing a solution but by getting the parties to agree on a resolution.

"It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy."

I have attempted to seek a resolution here, and we will eventually have to arrive at an agreed solution, so I would hope that Allisgod is willing to do so.--Naturalistic (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Confict of Interest Policy

Allisgod, you seem not to understand the Wikipedia Confict of Interest Policy. In no way does it prevent experts (who all have their own theories) or participants in the subject (who all have their own viewpoints) from editing an article related to their interest. Any reversions and deletions you do based on this misunderstanding are invalid and constitute disruptive edting.

See the following pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflicts_of_interest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide

The policy is designed to prevent biassed editing - ie when the person with an interest does not edit neutrally in the spirit of Wikipedia policies and goals but edits based on their personal agenda. I have clearly stated that my editing goals are neutrality, accuracy, and compliance with Wikipedia goals. You have clearly stated your own personal agenda and your edits are clearly determined by your agenda. That in itself is a conflict of interest.

I have stated my conflict of interest openly so that my edits can be judged for their neutrality, accuracy and so on. You have not stated who you are, so we do not know what conflict of interest you may have. Once again I am requesting that you reveal this. If you are not Rev Allen White of Unity Church Silver Spring - who are you?--Naturalistic (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no conflict of interest, and that's all I wish to share on a public forum. You, on the other hand, go as far as to undo a perfectly good edit by a self described naturalistic pantheist who came up with a reasonable solution. Then you put back your persistent advertising of your organization on this page prominently under the History section. Let me remind you that a step above dispute resolution is Arbitration, and beyond that is Administrators who can ban you. This is not just the Wild West where you are free to do whatever you want, attempt to dominate and bully on a Wikipedia page, and ignore everybody else. (Allisgod (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC))

1. Are you suggesting that the founding of the first two explicitly pantheist organizations in history is not a significant part of that history? There was only ever one previous attempt, under the name Monism, by Haeckel. My entry was well sourced for notability and it's not driven by publicity and it gave priority to a rival organization that was founded first. It's pretty hard to argue that I was driven by my conflicting interest rather than accuracy and actual objectively-assessed importance. Your repeated deletion of all mentions, on the other hand, do suggest a pattern of hostility.

2. Are you suggesting that the entry is acceptable to you in a "Pantheist Organizations" section?

3. Simply stating that you have no conflict of interest does nothing to show that you have no conflict on interest. Your comments in this Talk page suggests that you may well have a conflict of interest based on your strong preferences for certain types of pantheism and string dislike of other types.

4. All Wikipedia disciplinary procedures aim primarily at mediation and reaching agreement - something I have attempted to do many times with you on this talk page, without any positive response from you, just personal attacks and now threats. I repeat that request again here - do you want endless edit wars? Or are you interested in reaching agreement? --Naturalistic (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

1) The organizations are mentioned in the article as it stands now. Haeckel's group, which was far more notable historically than these groups, is not even mentioned in the article. So do the groups deserve more prominent mention in an article on Pantheism? Probably not.

2) Yes, it is probably more acceptable there. However, if it turns into advertising and making statements with questionable sources, then they ought to be removed.

3) My interest is a fair and accurate representations of pantheism.

4) The last time I reached agreement with you, you simply waited a few weeks and then went back to making changes on what we agreed on. That confirmed to me you have little interest in honoring agreements and are motivated by a major COI. (Allisgod (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC))

The answer to 1. is not to remove material on the only two modern pantheist organizations, but to insert material on Haeckel's group, which ceased to exist when the Nazis came to power. Comparisons of relative importance are irrelevant - the WPM and UPS are now, the Monistenbund was then, and it also added a focus on heartless eugenic policies which certainly contributed to Nazi "eugenics" - its relaunched version has no Pantheist content and is simply freethinking humanism. The World Pantheist Movement has made a huge impact on the visibility of Pantheism as can be seen from Google search trends. Searches for pantheism soared after the World Pantheist Movement started to use google adwords in 2006. http://www.google.com/trends/?q=pantheism

Please explain why the creation of these organizations should not be in the history section. You have considered every mention of the World Pantheist Movement to be advertizing, regardless of factuality.

You explained your agenda several times above, it is far from neutral.

I made no edits between June 22 and 29 July inclusive, during which time I was pleased that we seemed to have reached some kind of peace and an agreed version. I then visited the article and found that you had inserted an OR sentence expanded the section on Determinism (This form of pantheism posits that the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously) and I removed that. This was all I did. It seemed to me that you had busted what I imagined was an agreed version. Maybe I should have instead simply asked you to add sources, I apologize that I did not. You then went ballistic and started making tons of changes, to which I responded.

My desire is to return to a cooperative mode and I keep saying so and I will keep saying so. We managed it before, why can we not manage it again? Surely you can see that these reversions and undos twice per day are completely futile and won't get us anywhere?--Naturalistic (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe Haeckel's group is significant here, since it was a monist group, not necessarily a pantheist group. Furthermore, Google adwords and so on are not notable references to making bold statements about the significance of these organizations, or even mentioning them as a part of pantheist history.

As for cooperation, the "Determinism" section here on the Talk page highlights your intentions after that quiet period. It was back to business as usual and pretending that "naturalistic pantheism" is what pantheism is all about. The fact remains that you have a COI and many Wikipedia volunteers in dispute resolution have now advised you on what kind of sources are appropriate. I hope *you* will cooperate and help make this page a valuable information source for readers. (Allisgod (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC))

More/better RSs needed

There are some statements in the article that may be valid, but need reliable sources. Some have no sources; some are sourced to Elements of Pantheism which is of borderline reliability. The WP:V and WP:RS standards are pretty clear, and we can spend some time finding more sources.

1. "In the late 20th century, pantheism began to see a resurgence." - Removed pending source.
2. "the term 'Pantheism' did not exist before the 17th century, " Sources found & added to article.
3. "various pre-Christian religions and philosophies can be regarded as pantheistic. They include some of the Presocratics, such as Heraclitus and Anaximander." Sources found & added to article.
4. "The Stoics were Pantheists ...." Sources found & added to article.
5. "However, many earlier writers, schools of philosophy, and religious movements expressed pantheistic ideas. ..." (before 1700) - Removed ... following text speaks for itself.
6. "In the West, pantheism went into retreat during the Christian years between the 4th and 15th centuries, when it was regarded as heresy." - Reworded with a source.
7. "The first open revival was by Giordano Bruno (burned at the stake in 1600) ..." [after 4th century] Sources found & added to article.
8. "Examples of deterministic-inclined pantheisms include those of Einstein, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel." Sources found & added to article.
9. "Examples of indeterministic-inclined pantheisms include those of Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling and William James." Sources found & added to article.
10. "Varieties of Pantheism can also be categorized into physicalist and idealist varieties, which emphasize different types of basic substance that makes up the Universe/God (physical, or mental/spiritual)."
11. "Dualistic varieties of pantheism emphasize both these types of substances." No sources found in Google Books
12. "Dualist Pantheism holds that there are two major types of substance ..." No sources found in Google Books
13. "Wiccans venerate both a god and a goddess who are variously understood through the frameworks of pantheism, as being dual aspects of a single godhead.." [entire paragraph] No sources found in Google Books Deleted paragraph. Perhaps could re-write to say "Some variants of Wicca have elements of pantheism" ... but I cannot find any good sources that say even that.
14. "There are many elements of pantheism in some forms of Buddhism, Sufism, Sikhism, Judaism, Gnosticism, Neopaganism, and Theosophy as well as in several tendencies in the major theistic religions. See also the Neopagan section of Gaia and the Church of All Worlds."
15. "Many Unitarian Universalists consider themselves pantheists. Removed. No sources found in Google Books
16. "The Islamic religious tradition, in particular Sufism and Alevism has a strong belief in the unitary nature of the universe and the concept that everything in it is an aspect of God itself, although this perspective leans closer to panentheism and may also be termed Theopanism.
17. "Many traditional and folk religions including African traditional religions and Native American religions can be seen as pantheistic, or a mixture of pantheism and other doctrines such as polytheism and animism."
18. "Some other theological models have attempted to combine the perceived benefits of pantheism and classical monotheism." No longer in article.
19. "Most Pantheists have not established a formal calendar of specific celebrations, but observe anniversaries of important contributors to Pantheism, science, and the environment, as well as astronomical events such as solstices and eclipses." No longer in article.
20. " It persisted in eminent pantheists such as the novelist D. H. Lawrence, scientist Albert Einstein, poet Robinson Jeffers, author Knut Hamsun, architect Frank Lloyd Wright and historian Arnold Toynbee" Removed pending specific sources for each individual.
21. "Finally, the greatest scientist of the twentieth century, Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was a pantheist. " Removed. No sources found in Google Books

Please see WP:BURDEN and WP:Verifiability. For material that is based on the Elements book, the question is: What source did the author of the Elements book use as their original source? I'll spend some time trying to find sources for these statements (independent of the Elements book). I'd say lets work on sourcing for a couple of weeks, then remove the material that cannot be adequately sourced.--Noleander (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Dated, but good, source

Here is a source that looks useful: [1] .. Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Volume 1 James Strong & John McClintock, Publisher Harper & Brothers, 1896; article "Pantheism" by J. H. Worman. A bit dated, but a scholarly, neutral account as of 1896. --Noleander (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

An 1881 source: History of Christian Doctrine, Volume 3, Karl R. Hagenbach, E. H. Plumptre, Kessinger Publishing, 2006 (reprint), ISBN 1428625917, 9781428625914; pp 213 ff. --Noleander (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is a more recent source - Evangelical Dictionary of Theology edited by Walter A. Elwell, pg 887 a section by theologian PD Feinberg defining and categorizing pantheism [2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allisgod (talk • contribs) 22:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

@Allisgod: could you summarize the definitions of pantheism provided in that book (I cannot access the book online)? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

... also, could you summarize any "History" material from that book? --Noleander (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Pantheism. The word, coming from the Greek pan and theos, means "everything is God." It was coined by John Toland in 1705 to refer to philosophical systems that tend to identify God with the world. Such doctrines have been viewed as a mediating position between atheism and classical theism by some, while others have concluded that pantheism is really a polite form of atheism because God is identified with everything.

Pantheism may be contrasted with biblical theism from a number of perspectives. Pantheism either mutes or rejects the biblical teaching of the transcendence of God in favor of his radical immanence. It is typically monistic about reality, whereas biblical theism distinguishes between God and the world. Because of pantheism's tendency to identify God with nature, there is a minimizing of time, often making it illusory. The biblical understanding of God and the world is that God is eternal and the world finite, although God acts in time and knows what takes place in it. In forms of pantheism where God literally encompasses the world, man is an utterly fated part of the universe which is necessarily as it is. In such a world, freedom is an illusion. Biblical theism, on the other hand, holds to the freedom of man, insisting that this freedom is compatible with God's omniscience.

Evangelical Dictionary of Theology edited by Walter A. Elwell, pg 887

He goes on to categorize 7 different "important" forms of pantheism, just like Worman. But I think the categories of both these sources (Worman and Feinberg) are too technical for the purposes of this Wikipedia article. There's no history material, just an overview and comparison to biblical theism. (Allisgod (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC))

Regarding "too technical" re Worman: give me some time to work on that. It may take me a few weeks, I'm pretty busy in real life. --Noleander (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Unjustified removal of all references to Elements of Pantheism and replacement with unreliable sources from 107-118 years ago

I notice that every single reference of my book Elements of Pantheism has been removed. There was no consensus in the dispute resolution that this book should not be used as a source - out of the nonparties to the dispute DGG and Jorgath were not of that opinion. (Allisgod is party to the actual dispute, as am I.) In any case the Dispute Procedure is not designed to issue judgments but to resolve disputes between article editors.

Just to repeat my qualifications: M.A. European languages and literatures Cambridge. M. Sc Political Sociology (LSE). Ph D Geography and Earth Sciences (Cambridge). Author of five highly regarded books besides Elements of Pantheism, winner of two international awards.

Creator of the largest Pantheist web reference site in the world http://www.pantheism.net/paul/history.htm (top Google search result for many searches of an individual thinker + pantheism - eg Einstein, Hegel, Bruno, Toland, Marcus Aurelius - I am even third for Spinoza) You simply do not get such high placements across so many subjects for "unreliable sources." That website is better referenced and full citations are given, than Elements of Pantheism which was intended by the publisher for a wider public.

DGG in dispute resolution asked for proof that my work was being referenced in other works - I provided several:

DGG, re your question of others using my book as source, here's some from a very cursory search

the Stanford Encyclopedia or Philosophy entry on Pantheism by philosophy Ph D Michael Levine has it as a reference - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/

Here's a citation from Zygon, an academic journal of science and religion: Religious naturalism and naturalizing morality U Goodenough - Zygon®, 2003 - Wiley Online Library ... 2001. “Mindful Virtue, Mindful Reverence.” Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 36 (December): 585–95. Harrison, Paul. 1999. Elements of Pantheism: Understanding the Divinity in Nature and the Universe. London: Element.

Here's another from the Encyclopedia of Christianity: The Encyclopedia Of Christianity: Volume 4 Erwin Fahlbusch, Geoffrey William Bromiley - 2005 - 952 pages P. HARRISON, The Elements of Pantheism: Understanding the Divinity in Nature and the Universe (Boston, 1999)--Naturalistic (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Here another recently found:

Stone, Jeremy, (Philosophy prof) Religious Naturalism, SUNY press 2008 p237

There is no interpretation of the Wikipedia conflict of interest policy that justifies these removals. I have zero desire to "promote" my book on Wikipedia but I do have a serious concern to see Pantheism accurately and neutrally presented in Wikipedia a way that contains up-to-date information and conforms to the definitions of Pantheism found in almost all reputable dictionaries and encyclopedias.

Noleander, I would like to ask you why you accept the judgments of Allisgod and why you have totally bought his tale of my biassed editing? Wikipedia CoI policy does not disallow people with an interest in a field from editing articles in that field, it merely requires them to do so in a neutral and Wikipedia compliant manner and I have always done so.

To me Allisgod is plainly pursuing an agenda here, explicitly and demonstrably pro one type of Pantheism and against Naturalistic Pantheism and against the World Pantheist Movement and against me. His pattern of edits is extremely clear. He has admitted to his agenda:

Yes, my "agenda" is promoting Baruch Spinoza, world famous philosopher from which the word pantheism was used to describe his philosophy; Charles Hartshorne, the only world renowned philosopher that discussed pantheism in depth; Determinism, the monist viewpoint associated to pantheism by many texts and major philosophers. And your agenda is the "World Pantheist Movement", an internet donation based environmentalist group started in 1999. Hmmm.. the "agenda" of Spinoza, Hartshorne, Determinism, Classical Pantheism versus the agenda of a president of a donation based website. (Allisgod (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC))

We do not know what Allisgod's interest is in Pantheism because he has explicitly refused to say who he is.

If you are not Rev Allen White of Unity Church Silver Spring - who are you?--Naturalistic (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no conflict of interest, and that's all I wish to share on a public forum.--(Allisgod (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC))

What sources are offered instead? James Henry Worman was a theological librarian but also a language teacher at Drew Theological Seminary (Methodist Yearbook 1872) the only books he himself wrote that are recorded online were many language grammar and learning textbooks for German, French and Spanish. http://archive.org/search.php?query=%22James%20Henry%20Worman%22%20AND%20collection%3Aamericana%20AND%20mediatype%3Atexts Worman's article begins with a long diatribe against all forms of Pantheism when compared with the true God of Christian revelation, and this bias continues in his treatment of all the historical figures and in his conclusion.

James Allanson Picton had a degree in classics - not theology or philosophy - and was an independent priest and politician - see the Wikipedia article. His book on Pantheism is only 96 pages long and even he makes it plain that he consider the Universe and God to be identical http://books.google.com/books?id=Yaw_AAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22James+Allanson+Picton%22&source=bl&ots=VF67DIgI7g&sig=A__c1d0oXr4LwRpDNc1a6onVsTU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JAUkUKHJGqbwiwKb1YGIBg&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAg#v=twopage&q&f=false.

How can these be considered more reliable than Elements of Pantheism? --Naturalistic (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not about you or other editors. This is about geting more and better sources. What specific material in the article do you think should be sourced to the Elements book? For each of the facts that you list (in response to that question): What was the source(s) you utilized as a basis for the corresponding material in the Elments book? --Noleander (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Einstein pantheist?

Im trying to get better wording for Einstein. The advocacy source Elements of pantheism writes "Finally, the greatest scientist of the twentieth century, Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was a pantheist. "; the the article Religious views of Albert Einstein contains a quote from Einstein: " I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds.". I'm sure many sources assert that Einstein is a pantheist, but I think this article needs to qualify it to some degree. This article has the sentence " It persisted in eminent pantheists such as the novelist D. H. Lawrence, scientist Albert Einstein, poet Robinson Jeffers, author Knut Hamsun, architect Frank Lloyd Wright and historian Arnold Toynbee" which is cited to the Elements source. Based on the Einstein example, each of those persons needs a more reliable source. --Noleander (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Here are some:

"Einstein had developed an emotionally-tinged religious pantheism long before he read Spinoza."

-Einstein from 'B' to 'Z', John Stachel, 2002 p 73

"Albert Einstein was a pantheist of sorts. He believed in a God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a person who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

-Christianity by Donald Ekstrand

""By God," he wrote, "I understand a being absolutely infinite, that is, a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." Understood in this way, God is identical with the universe; hence, God is the "substance" which exists "of itself" and is "self-explanatory." Einstein was quite open about his sympathy with pantheistic views of this kind."

-Ultimate Explanations of the Universe, Michael Heller, Springer 2009, p 20

I think it is factual to say he 'believed in Spinoza's God', 'held pantheistic views' and 'was sympathetic to pantheism', or that 'many have called Einstein a pantheist.' (Allisgod (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC))

The latter phrasing is probably most encyclopedic. I'm not quite sure where that sort of material belongs in the article though: a new "List of notable persons regarded as pantheists" section? Or just put it in the existing Einstein verbiage? --Noleander (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources needed for deterministic list

The article contains: ""Examples of deterministic-inclined pantheisms include those of Einstein, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Examples of indeterministic-inclined pantheisms include those of Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling and William James." I'm having trouble finding sources for this ... can someone provide sources? See WP:CHALLENGE. --Noleander (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

PS: I'm not talking simply about sources that suggest that those individuals may be pantheists: I'm referring to the "deterministic" vs "indeterministic" specifics. --Noleander (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Einstein direct quotes:

Goldsmith, Donald and Marcia Bartusiak (2006). E = Einstein: His Life, His Thought, and His Influence on Our Culture. New York: Stirling Publishing, [3] p. 187.

Einstein: His Life and Universe By Walter Isaacson [4] p. 391 "I am a determinist"

Emerson interpretations:

Dependence and Freedom: The Moral Thought of Horace Bushnell By David Wayne Haddorff [5] Emerson's belief was "monistic determinism".

Creatures of Prometheus: Gender and the Politics of Technology By Timothy Vance Kaufman-Osborn, Prometheus ((Writer)) [6] "Things are in a saddle, and ride mankind."

Emerson's position is "soft determinism" (a variant of determinism) [7]

"The 'fate' Emerson identifies is an underlying determinism." (Fate is one of Emerson's essays) [8]

Hegel:

"Hegel was a determinist" (also called a combatibilist a.k.a. soft determinist) [9]

"Hegel and Marx are usually cited as the greatest proponents of historical determinism" [10]

Schelling:

Theories of the will in the history of philosophy By Archibald Alexander p 307 Schelling holds "that the will is not determined but self-determined." [11]

James:

The Dynamic Individualism of William James By James O. Pawelski p 17 "[His] fight against determinism" "My first act of free will shall be to believe in free will." [12]

(Allisgod (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC))

a== Defining "Naturalistic Pantheism" ==

I have done some research on the term "naturalistic pantheism" in order to define it accurately on this page and am surprised that few if any sources use the term in the way Harrison and his World Pantheist Movement organization use that term. This expression as defined by Harrison's book and organization doesn't seem to have any precedence before this decade defined in the same way. So is this term just a created term by Harrison and does it warrant mentioning in this article? At this time I take no position on this matter until I've done further research, but I'd like to see some sources suggesting this expression is something worthy of highlighting on this page on pantheism. I personally don't mind the term much, but if it is just an environmental writer's coined term or even a group's preferred expression of itself, then it should probably be treated as such. Have any philosophers or theologians used this term as it has been defined on this page in the past? I would note that the Naturalistic Pantheism wikipedia page is of no use and should be merged with the World Pantheist Movement page in its current state. (Allisgod (talk) 07:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC))

Allisgod, for your information the original term used by the World Pantheist Movement, coined by myself, was Scientific Pantheism. We switched to Naturalistic Pantheism having discovered that it had the same meaning and was in wider use and so was not a neologism. It's meaning is prima facie apparent from the meaning of its two components.

I would advise you to let go of your campaign against the term Naturalistic Pantheism, which has four times more scholarly and book references than your favorite, Classical Pantheism.

Search results:

• Google Books: 351% more (1720 for Naturalistic Pantheism against 381 for Classical Pantheism)
• Google Scholar: 145% more references (118 against 48)
• Books & Scholar combined: 328% more (1838 against 429)

Thus, Naturalistic Pantheism has far stronger scholarly credentials than does Classical Pantheism. No doubt some of the references are new coinages, or application of one well-known term "Naturalistic" to another "Pantheism." As for Classical Pantheism, I would suggest that a far greater proportion are repeat new coinages, and with a wider range of meanings: Pantheism in classical times, or various individuals' (not just Hartshorne's) ideas of archetypal pantheism.

I would also request you Allisgod that you desist from calling me an "environmental writer" as a way of trying to discredit me. I have been writing about and researching Pantheism for 16 years now. My website on the history of pantheism http://www.pantheism.net/paul/history/ is the biggest such source on the Internet and is extremely highly placed for many historical figures in Google searches.

Just try a search for "Bruno pantheist" or "Einstein pantheist" or "Spinoza pantheist" or many others. In cases where I have a page, mine is frequently the top result in Google, or the first after Wikipedia. You do not get top position by not being reliable, and those pages have more inline source citations than the book which was aimed at a general audience.

Who are you Allisgod? We don't even know because you will not say, so we don't know whether you have a conflict of interest. You say you don't, but that's no proof whatsoever, and your pattern of edits indiciate a very strong bias against Naturalistic Pantheism and in favor of your own preferred term Classical Pantheism. We don't know whether you have any wide and proven knowledge about Pantheism.

--Naturalistic (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not about you and I am not trying to discredit you. When I stumbled across this page and started examining it months ago, it became clear to me that the page was not about pantheism (which I identify with) and instead was describing so-called "Naturalistic Pantheism" and was advertising your org. In researching you and your group, I've noticed environmental politics is a major driving force in what you're doing. This is not disparaging you or your org, it is just an obvious observation. Environmentalism is a noble pursuit as far as I'm concerned. Mixing it with pantheism is creative, but politics and philosophy (and theology) are different areas.

The fact is the wikipedia Pantheism page is now evolving into an A quality article. Your contributions are still a part of the article. However, your biases and disputed POVs were balanced out. You are not perfect and you have pretty obvious biases. Your view of pantheism includes some pretty questionable material including: Spinoza may not be a pantheist; there is no such thing as Classical Pantheism; determinism is not a defining factor in pantheism; pantheism has little to do with theism and the word God; etc.

As for the original issue of this topic, the Naturalistic Pantheism page on wikipedia is extremely weak as it stands now and makes it difficult to include in the article on pantheism without improvement. I have nothing against the phrase I just want to see credible citations and a neutral description of what the phrase means. Otherwise, it should either be merged with the World Pantheist Movement page or described as a phrase used by yourself and that org. Its meaning is not at all 'prima facie apparent' since it has clearly been used in different ways by different people including some who have used it to describe Spinoza's philosophy. "Naturalistic pantheism" does not automatically imply "feelings of reverence and belonging towards nature" and other content from the wikipedia Naturalistic pantheism page. (Allisgod (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC))

You are not trying to discredit me? Your record proves very clearly that you have been.

The following behaviors have built up a very clear portrait of non-neutral and conflictual editing:

• Your pattern of editing favoring Spinoza and Classical (Deterministic) Pantheism and demoting or removing Naturalistic Pantheism and the historical role of the World Pantheist Movement.
• your clear statement of your aims,
• your persistent accusations of biassed editing against me,
• your removal of every single reference to Elements of Pantheism
• your use of the Dispute Resolution procedure not to resolve the dispute but to try to get a judement against me
• your nomination of Naturalistic Pantheism for deletion

So kindly desist from calling me an "environmental writer" and the World Pantheist Movement a donation-oriented environmental organization.

Kindly desist from suggesting that every time I refer to my book Elements of Pantheism I am simply trying to promote the book.

The facts are that I am the author of the highest selling book in print on Pantheism, Elements of Pantheism; and of the highest ranked website of information about Pantheism, which is the top-ranking search result for many historical pantheists. I have been researching pantheism for 16 years and I am at least as well qualified to write about Pantheism as several of the sources left standing or inserted.--Naturalistic (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Experts can be biased too -- each of us in choosing to focus on an area must embark on a direction, and with so much material in every direction it is easy to become fixated on the correctness of a chosen path. The give and take in these conversations, I think, fruitfully serves the balance and honesty of these pieces. DeistCosmos (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

He is not an expert. That was agreed on by everyone in dispute resolution regarding this page. I've read his book and website material and for me, he demonstrates a weak grasp of philosophical and theological concepts, with all due respect. Despite that, he behaves like a megalomaniac in these discussions and turns everything into a debate about personalities and all that he knows and has accomplished. He seems to believe his promotion of the term pantheism for an atheistic environmental organization (I don't know what else to call it) that highlights the phrase pantheism (and redefines it to suit a purpose) means that everybody should look at him as an authority on the subject of pantheism. The guy suggests Spinoza is not a pantheist, misuses and redefines words and concepts, creates categories of pantheism that have no historical basis, etc. I don't try to discuss anybody's personality or expertise unless they insist on it or insist on being treated as an expert when they are not, and I would prefer that the user stop creating debates about himself because - as myself and others keep having to remind him - this is not about him. Nobody is out to get him, we just want a high quality article with minimum bias about what most scholars believe is pantheism. (Allisgod (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC))

No way did the dispute resolution decide that I was not an expert on pantheism. There were some who thought that - since I run a Pantheist organization - my book Elements of Pantheism might be influenced by that and therefore it may not be a reliable source. However, no such criteria have been applied in Allisgod's editing to other sources - Hartshorne, for example, was a panentheist and a persistent critic of Pantheism. Picton was a politician and Christian preacher. J. H. Worman is described as a theologian - in fact he was a librarian in a Christian college and apart from the article cited (which spends a great deal of time condemning pantheism) published only books on foreign language learning.

MEDIATION

This article is now the subject of mediation along with Naturalistic Pantheism. I will be resuming an active role in shaping this article following my usual goals of accuracy and neutrality with stress on sources, avoiding OR and POV. I shall not be citing my own book on Pantheism.
The article before my visit of today - especially the Intro and the Pantheist Organization sections - was highly biassed towards Allisgod's stated agenda of determinism (which he places first in the Categories), and excessive emphasis on Spinoza and Classical Pantheism. It was also highly biassed against his pet hates of Naturalistic Pantheism and the World Pantheist Movement. He entirely removed all mention of Naturalistic Pantheism, even though the concept was recognized as notable by all other editors in the Articles for Deletion discussion. He renamed the neutrally and accurately titled Pantheist organizations section to "Green religions" and added critical OR material commenting negatively and in an unsourced way on both of the existing pantheist organizations. When I tried to correct this to remove his POV material and egregious deletion of the Naturalistic Pantheism concept, he reverted it.--Naturalistic (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

ALLISGOD'S MOVES RE PANTHEIST ORGANIZATIONS AND NATURALISTIC PANTHEISM

The section on Pantheist organizations was originally created because Allisgod kept removing mentions of the two pantheist organizations from the Recent History section. He accepted the solution of an organization section at the time. In the past week or so, he has changed his mind and made every attempt to remove or downplay this section by merging it with other sections and constantly retitling it anything but Pantheist Organizations. In the Pantheism article Allisgod recently:

• changed the title of "Pantheist organizations" to "Green religions," a title that contains within itself both OR and POV.
  
• seeing that "Green religions" could not be defended, today completely removed the heading "Pantheist organizations" so that these organizations came under the heading "Other religions" which clearly they are not.
  
• seeing the non-viability of that move, deleted the heading "Pantheist organizations" and created a joint heading "Other religions and organizations."
  
• inserted unsourced negative comments and evaluations both of the World Pantheist Movement and the Universal Pantheist Society (removed by me)
  
• repeatedly removed every reference to Naturalistic Pantheism from the Pantheism page, even though

• this term has been in use at least 120 years, has been used mainly in a fairly consistent way as described on the Naturalistic Pantheism page,
• it has FOUR TIMES more Google Books results than Classical Pantheism.
• it was accepted as a notable concept by the AfD board which rejected your attempt to have the Naturalistic Pantheism article deleted.
  

• repeatedly inserted alternative names for what the WPM promotes - anything other than what it says plainly on the WPM's own web pages "Naturalistic Pantheism" used in a way that's fully consistent with majority use.

All the above maneuvers are blatant and flagrant examples of his stated biases against Naturalistic Pantheism and the World Pantheist Movement. None of my changes can be construed as promoting the World Pantheist Movement - simply at accuracy and avoidance of POV material. --Naturalistic (talk) 22:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen any secondary source that demonstrates that the organization is "naturalistic pantheism" aside from the first party claim. Your sources do not even demonstrate that these organizations are "pantheist organizations". That is just a first party claim. What exactly are the 'negative comments' you are referring to? (Allisgod (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC))

Allisgod, Jerome Stone mentions a lot about the World Pantheist Movement's pantheism in the page following p10. By saying we are "religious naturalist" he ipso facto says that we are naturalistic. Sharman Apt Russell says we promote pantheism (Standing in the Light p12). The Encyclopedia of American religions says we and UPS are pantheist. These citations can all be included.
Just relax and try to accept compromise, as I have done on many things. You have said you mostly agree with Naturalistic Pantheism, so what exactly is driving you to delete it every time you see it? It's been in use for at least 120 years, used in a fairly consistent way, accepted as notable by the AfD board.
Mediation is trying to achieve mediation, go along with it as I am. Your biases are showing most dreadfully clearly, don't you realize that? Any senior editor looking at what you have done with this section cannot fail to notice them.--Naturalistic (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Advice

I suggest that both editors involved in the mediation refrain from doing any edits on this article or the NP article. Just work through the mediation with the mediator. List sources, provide quotes, supply google-hits stats. Let the mediator do his job. After it is all finished: then resume editing. --Noleander (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I wholeheartily second that notion that for so long as this mediation/dispute situation is going on, the invovled editors ought not to edit this page. DeistCosmos (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Auction in recent events

How is the 2008 auctioning of a 1954 letter an event at all? The writing of the letter, not recent, is a point of significance. But no reason is presented to believe that the auction signified anything more than the value of an Einstein letter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.72.28 (talk) 11:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The auction briefly made the contents of the letter prominent, and thus raised awareness of Einstein's position. The price the letter fetched is unimportant next to the fact that articles were written about, and people paid attention to, the letter.--Martin Berka (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Entirely

What are some entirely pantheistic religios? I can think of Jainism and Eckankar, but the ones with subsections on this article (Taoism/Hinduism) are only partly pantheistic; with some of their denominations being so. Pass a Method talk 09:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Besides the explicit pantheists, it's always debatable. One theologian sees an independent entity, and another, an aspect of a universal presence. Many of the non-monotheistic religions too decentralized to have a yes/no answer at the top level. Any information you can add about Jainism and Eckankar would be appreciated.--Martin Berka (talk) 10:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Jainism is not a pantheistic religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Jainism. I am removing the name from the article. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Eckankar is not a pantheist religion. One source claims they believe in a God with a "pantheistic spirit" and other non scholars suggest pantheistic elements but I can't find evidence that this is a "pantheist religion". I have added a mention of it but removed the section. Allisgod (talk) 10:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Should Sagan be included in the List of Pantheists article?

Requesting input at Talk:List of Pantheists. An editor has recently removed him to the list, and I believe that he meets the given criteria. Allisgod (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note Sagan is a very recent addition to the list, added by Allisgod here. I objected, Allisgod edit warred, I started an Rfc on the subject which is located here. The criteria for inclusion on the list is "people who have been categorized as pantheists and have had a significant influence on Pantheism." Carl Sagan has not been categorized as a pantheist. Thank you in advance for your input. KillerChihuahua 20:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a current Rfc, discuss this there. Do not forum shop or try to split ongoing Rfcs. KillerChihuahua 16:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That's a bit broad. The WPM categorizes him, many individuals do so in passing - he has been "categorized," just not by the right kind of source. To make claims about a third person's religious/philosophical views, we need either unequivocal evidence from the invidual (said so, belonged to an organization, etc) or research/analysis from an outside (at least vaguely neutral) authority saying "Sagan is a Pantheist". We cannot use a chain of reasoning (Sagan is agnostic, agnostics are likely to be Pantheists) because that is either synthesis or original research. --Martin Berka (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Please check out the sources I added, which include experts, at Talk:List of Pantheists Allisgod (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Yes, I know they are, but as I am busy at this time of the year, I would appreciate if you could point me to the ones specifically saying that Sagan is a Pantheist.--Martin Berka (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC) I have limited time at the moment as well so if these sources are not enough, I'm confident with time I could find well over a dozen expert sources calling Sagan a pantheist. Let me know if that's necessary for you. Here is some of what I found in my original 15 minute search: John W. Cooper - PhD Philosoophy and authority on panentheism - "Panentheism--The Other God of the Philosophers" writes, "Einstein's quip “God does not roll dice” and Carl Sagan's quasi-religious view of the life-giving cosmos are popular examples of naturalistic pantheism." John MacArthur - PhD Theology Professor - "Sagan's religion was actually a kind of naturalistic pantheism" Tim Dean PhD philosophy - "...God is simply to be identified with the universe in its entirety - impersonal, but in and of all things - a pantheistic reading adopted by Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan, amongst others." Encyclopedia of science and religion - Wentzel Van Huyssteen PhD Philosophy - "Carl Sagan spoke for those who prefer a straightforward pantheistic orientation..." Allisgod (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC) No, that will not be necessary - that is more than enough sourcing to say that Sagan's views have been described as pantheistic, or fit the definition of pantheism. Exact phrasing may be a source of controversy, but this appears to deserve mention, both here and on the list. KillerChihuahua, care to respond?--Martin Berka (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Please keep the discussion in one place at the Rfc at Talk:List_of_pantheists#Carl_Sagan. Adding comments here will only confuse the issue. When there is a current Rfc - about which both of you are obviously aware - trying to start a different discussion on another page could be considered forum shopping and may be deemed to be disruptive editing. Please follow the links for more information. -- KillerChihuahua 16:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding distinguish tag

Apologies for undoing without restoring the other good faith edits, the description threw me off. But regarding the distinguish tag, panentheism is a word derived from pantheism (not the other way around). The word pantheism is found almost 10X more often than panentheism in Google Scholar, books, etc. It is a hybrid of pantheism and theism. Panentheism might be confused with pantheism, but I've never heard of such a thing the other way around. Moreover, panentheism is addressed in the article, at the bottom. Note that pantheism is talked about at the top of the panentheism article. You cannot talk about panentheism without talking about pantheism. But the reverse of that is not the case. NaturaNaturans (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. I rescued all of Geekdiva's edits because I wasn't sure which one you were objecting to. I don't really see the problem with the distinguish tag. In my mind it does not imply pantheism is derived from (or in some way subordinate to) panentheism, merely warns the reader there are two words which look very similar. Aarghdvaark (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but nobody confuses pantheism with panentheism. Panentheism is an invented derivative of pantheism, not the other way around. These articles have different weights. It would be like putting a distinguish tag on top of the agnosticism page for the newly invented word, ignosticism. It's not appropriate in these cases. NaturaNaturans (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Pandeism#Criticisms dispute

There is some debate ongoing as to the William Walker Atkinson criticism aimed at "certain schools of Pantheism which hold that God becomes the Universe by changing into the Universe," and so essentially ceases to exist, as God has changed into the Universe. Is this, in fact, a definition of Pantheism, such that perhaps it ought to be merged into this article (and perhaps all of Pandeism merged in as well)? Or does Mr. Atkinson address a theory which is in truth distinct from Pantheism -- and if so, what name would that theory be called? DeistCosmos (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

In pantheism there is no concept of God "changing". The belief is that the universe (or nature) is, and always has been, God. On the pandeism page it states: "Pandeism intends to answer primary objections to ... pantheism (how did the universe originate and what is its purpose?)." These are non-issues; pantheism does not say the universe has a purpose beyond anything you can identify in nature, and the concept of the prime mover is included in pantheism as part of the universe. Pandeism is not pantheism. Some people have a confused idea of pantheism, and merging pandeism here would only confuse them more. Aarghdvaark (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Pandeism certainly deserves its own page as it is its own notable concept. I think it's irrelevant and debatable that pandeism is a 'school of pantheism'. NaturaNaturans (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, but those are Atkinson's words, not mine. I happen to agree that what Atkinson describes is clearly Pandeism, and no form of Pantheism.... Simply seeking confirmation of that. DeistCosmos (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed “Degree of theism” section

This section was arbitrary in its wording after reviewing the sources. Pantheism is not defined as being “atheistic” or “theistic”. It is rather a wholly different conception of the monotheistic God. The sources make no such claim that there is an “atheistic” or “theistic” kind of pantheism. One listed source, Plumptre, even emphasizes that pantheism has NOTHING to do with atheism (NOR is it a kind of theism). Others have said the same. Hastings, the second source in the section, dismisses atheism that pretends to be pantheism as naturalism. Also, the quote from the Columbia Encyclopedia states clearly that the distinction they are talking about is about religion versus philosophy, not theism versus atheism. They give the specific example of Hinduism versus Stoicism. I changed the wording to reflect these facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elliot-Rossy (talk • contribs) 01:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The word you are looking for is "nontheism". A nontheist will be an atheist from the perspective of a theist who expects all definitions of god to be personal. Hastings' statement may be inconclusive given that we have others talking about "naturalistic pantheism".--Martin Berka (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)