The Aletheian Institute - EPISTEME - The Universal Dialectic

A Critique of the Wikipedia Article on Pantheism

At the Keep It Real Forums, I was asked to explain why I felt that the Wikipedia article on Pantheism is of poor quality. The explantion stems from a question by a forum user:

Quote:
what are the inaccuracies?

They begin in the first paragraph, second sentence:

Quote:
More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that natural law, existence and/or the universe (the sum total of all that is was and shall be) is personified in the theological principle of 'God.'

There is a problem here. Pantheism does not "personify" anything. In fact, personification is the trademark of anthropomorphic traditions, to which pantheism stands in stark opposition. Instead of personifying and anthropomorphizing, pantheism views Universe/Nature as "fundamentally equivalent" to the "theological principle" of God. It may seem like petty semantics, but the distinction is actually quite important. If we are 'personifying' something, we are constructing a figurative or even a literal entity. However, if we avoid personification and instead state only that Nature is 'equivalent' to the 'principle' of an entity, we sidestep the trap of anthropomorphism. These wordings were carefully devised by experts on pantheism, but the editors of this article seem entirely unaware of this and proceed to run roughshod with terminology. They don't stop there, either.

The second paragraph is, aside from the last sentence, quite extraneous and strained, although perhaps not inaccurate. It essentially rambles on about a lackluster analogy and then concludes that pantheism can be understood by comparison to Hinduism. However, Hinduism is not a true pantheism, as we are about to discover...

The third paragraph opens with this:

Quote:
Within Hinduism (also called Sanatana Dharma) a variety of lesser gods are seen as aspects of the one God, Brahman (not Brahma). Brahman is the ultimate, both transcendent and immanent the absolute infinite existence, the sum total of all that ever is, was, or ever shall be.

Hinduism is identified as a pantheistic religion, but if Brahman is both "transcendent and immanent," we see that our authors are inadvertantly classifying Hinduism as panentheism rather than pantheism, which is in fact the case. The fact that the editor fails to notice how his own text irrefutably establishes this is discouraging.

The paragraph goes on to mention altogether too much about Hindu panentheism (although presented as pantheism) and the role of its various deities, but fails to mention that many educated Hindus see the gods as metaphorical devices rather than actual entities. This vital omission is troubling, even though it has little to do with pantheism per se, since any material about Hinduism actually belongs in an article about panentheism rather than pantheism.

Quote:
It is also the view of the Liberal Catholic Church, Theosophy, Cosmotheism, some Buddhists, Taoism, Process theology and a Christian movement known as Creation Spirituality, along with many varying denomantions and individuals within denominations.

Ouch. Hardly any of this is accurate.

Very few Catholics, even liberal ones, are true pantheists. Panentheism is marginally accepted in certain liberal Catholic circles, but true pantheism is explicitly atheistic toward the traditional Catholic deity and is therefore seen as heretical by all but the most radical liberals. There is no room whatsoever in pantheism for the god of the Bible. How could any Catholic accept this?

Theosophy does include some pantheistic elements, but since it is largely based on Hindu concepts, it too is far more panentheistic than pantheistic. Modern pantheism finds little favor in Theosophical circles, where a much more deity-centered approach is preferred. No knowledgable modern pantheist feels that Theosophy has much of anything to do with pantheism.

"Cosmotheism" is for the most part a pseudo-religious ideology created for the purpose of disguising and covertly promoting various white-supremacist and eugenicist beliefs. Theologically, it is also panentheist, positing a "cosmic consciousness" which created and now informs Nature. It too is a non-pantheism (or psuedo-pantheism), and a rather offensive one at that.

Taoism is really the only thing mentioned in the entire paragraph which bears any real resemblance to pantheism. As an atheistic, naturalistic worldview, it directly equates Nature with the highest principle, and is therefore legitimately pantheistic.

Process Theology and and Creation Spirituality are both decidedly panentheistic, as their creators themselves indicated. Neither belong in a listing of pantheisms. Their inclusion is bothersome.

The next paragraph:

Quote:
Pantheism is often considered to be tautology by atheists, since it appears to many of them to do little more than re-define the word "God" to mean "world" or "universe." However, there is no significant agreement that making "God" synonymous with "universe" must necessarily make either term any less meaningful. Pantheists maintain that such an arrangement serves to create both a new and a potentially far more insightful conception of both of these terms. One method of explaining this is called the "Absolute Infinite."

Most of this is survivng material from the original article. I wrote every sentence but the last. Can you tell? Everything is going along just fine, and then "whammo," we get hit with something vague and ambiguous about the "Absolute Infinite." Despite the promise that this weird addition to the paragraph explains something, no explanation or elaboration whatsoever is actually offered, and the paragraph ends.

Egads, I forgot just how awful this article really is. Next paragraph:

Quote:
Perhaps the most significant debate within the pantheistic community is as to the nature of God. Classical pantheism believes in a personal, conscious, and omniscient deity, and see this deity as uniting all true religions.

The first sentence is entirely accurate. The second sentence is utter rubbish. "Classical pantheism" (that of Spinoza, Toland, Goethe, and others) never believed in any such thing. Anthropomorphic theism believes in such beings, but pantheism has never done so, does not do so now, and never will. Spinoza, universally considered the 'father of pantheism,' equated god with Nature. God and Nature were two names for one substance, meaning that God was not other than Nature. Toland, who coined the term 'pantheist,' was decided naturalistic and even atheistic, and would have had nothing but scorn for the idea of "personal, conscious, and omniscient" deities.

In reality, the bald assertion that "Classical pantheism" believes in a deity so close in form to that of the traditional monotheists was inserted by a self-described "classical pantheist" on Wikipedia who insisted on promoting this view, no matter how many times it was debunked with facts and evidence.

Nor does pantheism require or even encourage a belief in "uniting all true religions." This common misunderstanding is based on a 19th century error in Webster's dictionary which listed a second definition of pantheism as "belief in all gods." Every pantheist scholar and expert agrees that this false definition is apocryphal, and never had anything to do with pantheism. There have even been petitions to Webster's, by pantheists, asking to have the erroneous definition removed. Modern pantheism recognizes that the concept of "true religions" is problematic at best, and that some religions are counterprogressive and therefore unsuitable for unification with rational worldviews.

Next paragraph:

Quote:
The viewpoints encompassed within the pantheistic community are necessarily diverse, but the central ideas of the universe being an all-encompassing unity, a common purpose, and the sanctity of both nature and its natural laws are found throughout.

Most of that is just fine, but what's this rubbish about a "common purpose?" No form of pantheism of which I am aware ascribes any overarching metaphysical "purpose" to Nature, the Universe, or life. In fact, modern pantheism explicitly denies such a "common purpose" on the grounds that it would require a purpose-giver external to Nature - which amounts to supernaturalism. Existence has no purpose because there is nothing external to existence which could imbue it with such. There is no "common purpose" in pantheism, except perhaps that which a given group of pantheists may assign to themselves as individuals.

The next sentence says:

Quote:
One interesting area is the distinction with Panentheism.

Indeed, a distinction which the editors of this article apparently fail to understand - repeatedly. The next sentence provides more evidence of this.

Quote:
While technically the two are separate, based on a subtlety wherein Pantheism finds God synonymous with nature, and Panentheism finds God to be greater than nature alone, many find this distinction unhelpful, and most of the major faiths described as Pantheistic could also be described as Panentheistic.

Completely false. Naturalistic or 'scientific' pantheism, which is by far the dominant form of pantheism in existence today and is therefore commonly referred to as 'modern' pantheism, could not be described as 'panentheistic' in any way whatsoever. The distinction between pantheism and panentheism is an important and useful one, contrary to this editor's POV (read: biased) assertion, and his understanding of that distinction is clearly quite limited to boot. Discouraging.

In summary, I find serious fault with every paragraph in this article, and several paragraphs contain inaccuracies so frequent as to be measured by the sentence. Overall, it's just a poor article.

Discussion of this Critque on Wikipedia

Note: Since this piece was originally written, the article has been updated several times, with some major revisions made. While there has been a modest overall improvement, a number of problems remain, including some mentioned here. In my view, Wikipedia still lacks an ideal article on pantheism.

aletheian@humanists.net