What is Divine Presence?
by Harold Wood
Pantheists, by definition, reject the idea of a supernatural deity that is set separate and apart from nature. For some pantheists, the word “God” or “Spirit” lacks any meaning, because they feel that such terms promote a dualistic view of the universe, supposing that it is composed of both “matter and energy” and “spirit.”
But not all pantheists take that approach. In fact, in traditional pantheism, “Nature is God” so there is no difficulty with using the terminology. When pantheists use the word “God” or “Spirit” they simply mean the “Universe” and that’s that. By defining God this way, the Universe is given a sacred dimension, but it does not imply that there is any kind of supernatural deity involved.
Most scholars would say that both of these two categories are rightfully called “pantheists” but there are always those who may say that only their view is the correct one. For me, I would like to be tolerant, so in my mind there is no question that both of these two categories are real pantheists, and the name fits in both cases.
But can we go further? Can pantheists believe in some kind of non-anthropomorphic divinity or spirit – something other than just commonly accepted natural scientific processes?
In the history of the world’s religions, and in the minds of many ordinary people today, there is frequently a belief that there may be some kind of “disembodied spirit” or spirits that suffuses and unites all things, animal, and vegetable. Both eastern religions like Hinduism and western traditions like Celtic spirituality and neopaganism share this viewpoint. And many people, when standing at the rim of the Grand Canyon, or at the first overlook in arriving at Yosemite Valley, say they cannot help but feel the presence of some kind of gigantic Power that has created such wonders. They sometimes decide this feeling they have must be a sense of “God” in the traditional sense, but some do not necessarily put a name to it, but still feel very strongly a divine presence.
And who are we to argue with someone else’s feelings? They have their feelings, I have mine, and we cannot deny any other person from having feelings. We can dispute ideas, concepts, facts, and figures, but feelings, like matters of “taste” preference, cannot be argued using critical thinking. Feelings are feelings, and that’s that.
So what are we to say to those who think pantheists can only be in category one and two of these three categories, but not in the third? Why can’t some of be both?
In the real world, things are seldom defined in any single category. In reality, most things are found in some kind of “gradient.”
For example, are there really only four distinct seasons of the year? Some places have five seasons, with a distinct monsoon season. Other places seem to have only two obvious seasons. Even with the commonly perceived four seasons, all recognize that the divide between winter and spring is not a hard line, it is a gradient, and so it is between every season. Even biological species, so often thought of as being truly distinct, have been shown by genetic research to actually be in various continuums or gradations. In geology, rocks are all an assemblage of a certain percentage of minerals that grade into the next assemblage. For example: lava grades from basalt to andesite to rhyolite. The same reasoning must apply to philosophies. There may be Rationalists, Empiricists, Idealists, Utilitarianists, Pragmatists, Existentialists, Transcendentalists and various other schools, but all these are “schools,” and it may be difficult to place any one philosopher in any single specific school. In the world of religion, too, nowadays there is often a great deal of overlap- e.g. Buddhist Christians, Christian Confucians, Pagan Universalists, Taoist Christians, etc. The same must necessarily be true of pantheists. As UPS board member emeritus Gary Suttle says, “An extensive entry in The New Encyclopedia Britannica lists seven forms of Pantheism, but actually, there are as many forms of Pantheism as there are pantheists to express them!” In truth, most pantheists choose the name only after they have a religious experience - frequently self-discovered from feeling a sense of divinity in nature.
Should we say that anyone who feels or believes or senses that there may be a divine presence in nature, either as an infusing spirit within matter, or even a transcendental Divinity that not only suffuses nature but may in some sense be said to transcend what we know of as nature, cannot be a pantheist? I think not.
While some more scientifically-minded pantheist may want to deny the label “pantheist” to anyone who has such a sense of “divine presence,” we need bear in mind that the divide between materialists and those who sense divine presence have become increasingly blurred since the 19th century.
While many scientists and naturalists historically reject any consideration of divinity in nature, there are both scientists and naturalists today who find in the physical and evolutionary laws of nature a beauty of complexity that can only be descried as an “intelligence.” This is not limited to the creationists so-called “Intelligent Design” movement, but is an idea that has often been adopted by those with a strictly evolutionary world view. According to this approach, “intelligence” is not just something in the higher nervous system of advanced biological organisms, but can be found at the cellular and sub-cellular level, even the atomic scale, and at the other end of the spectrum, even in the pure radiance of stars and galaxies, even in the paradoxical nature of “light” (the electromagnetic spectrum) itself.
Gary Suttle made the following chart which shows three main gradations of pantheists. As he explains, this “diagram generalizes contemporary pantheistically inclined viewpoints. Adherents spread across the spectrum, some in the center of a category, others at some point in between. From modern reference book-defined Pantheism, to the strict materialism of Scientific Pantheism, and the broad transcendence of Panentheism, all outlooks consider the Universe divine, and all contain a religious sensibility rich in poetry, mystery, and imagination, kindled by the enthralling wonder of nature.”
Pantheists, by definition, reject the idea of a supernatural deity that is set separate and apart from nature. For some pantheists, the word “God” or “Spirit” lacks any meaning, because they feel that such terms promote a dualistic view of the universe, supposing that it is composed of both “matter and energy” and “spirit.”
But not all pantheists take that approach. In fact, in traditional pantheism, “Nature is God” so there is no difficulty with using the terminology. When pantheists use the word “God” or “Spirit” they simply mean the “Universe” and that’s that. By defining God this way, the Universe is given a sacred dimension, but it does not imply that there is any kind of supernatural deity involved.
Most scholars would say that both of these two categories are rightfully called “pantheists” but there are always those who may say that only their view is the correct one. For me, I would like to be tolerant, so in my mind there is no question that both of these two categories are real pantheists, and the name fits in both cases.
But can we go further? Can pantheists believe in some kind of non-anthropomorphic divinity or spirit – something other than just commonly accepted natural scientific processes?
In the history of the world’s religions, and in the minds of many ordinary people today, there is frequently a belief that there may be some kind of “disembodied spirit” or spirits that suffuses and unites all things, animal, and vegetable. Both eastern religions like Hinduism and western traditions like Celtic spirituality and neopaganism share this viewpoint. And many people, when standing at the rim of the Grand Canyon, or at the first overlook in arriving at Yosemite Valley, say they cannot help but feel the presence of some kind of gigantic Power that has created such wonders. They sometimes decide this feeling they have must be a sense of “God” in the traditional sense, but some do not necessarily put a name to it, but still feel very strongly a divine presence.
And who are we to argue with someone else’s feelings? They have their feelings, I have mine, and we cannot deny any other person from having feelings. We can dispute ideas, concepts, facts, and figures, but feelings, like matters of “taste” preference, cannot be argued using critical thinking. Feelings are feelings, and that’s that.
So what are we to say to those who think pantheists can only be in category one and two of these three categories, but not in the third? Why can’t some of be both?
In the real world, things are seldom defined in any single category. In reality, most things are found in some kind of “gradient.”
For example, are there really only four distinct seasons of the year? Some places have five seasons, with a distinct monsoon season. Other places seem to have only two obvious seasons. Even with the commonly perceived four seasons, all recognize that the divide between winter and spring is not a hard line, it is a gradient, and so it is between every season. Even biological species, so often thought of as being truly distinct, have been shown by genetic research to actually be in various continuums or gradations. In geology, rocks are all an assemblage of a certain percentage of minerals that grade into the next assemblage. For example: lava grades from basalt to andesite to rhyolite. The same reasoning must apply to philosophies. There may be Rationalists, Empiricists, Idealists, Utilitarianists, Pragmatists, Existentialists, Transcendentalists and various other schools, but all these are “schools,” and it may be difficult to place any one philosopher in any single specific school. In the world of religion, too, nowadays there is often a great deal of overlap- e.g. Buddhist Christians, Christian Confucians, Pagan Universalists, Taoist Christians, etc. The same must necessarily be true of pantheists. As UPS board member emeritus Gary Suttle says, “An extensive entry in The New Encyclopedia Britannica lists seven forms of Pantheism, but actually, there are as many forms of Pantheism as there are pantheists to express them!” In truth, most pantheists choose the name only after they have a religious experience - frequently self-discovered from feeling a sense of divinity in nature.
Should we say that anyone who feels or believes or senses that there may be a divine presence in nature, either as an infusing spirit within matter, or even a transcendental Divinity that not only suffuses nature but may in some sense be said to transcend what we know of as nature, cannot be a pantheist? I think not.
While some more scientifically-minded pantheist may want to deny the label “pantheist” to anyone who has such a sense of “divine presence,” we need bear in mind that the divide between materialists and those who sense divine presence have become increasingly blurred since the 19th century.
While many scientists and naturalists historically reject any consideration of divinity in nature, there are both scientists and naturalists today who find in the physical and evolutionary laws of nature a beauty of complexity that can only be descried as an “intelligence.” This is not limited to the creationists so-called “Intelligent Design” movement, but is an idea that has often been adopted by those with a strictly evolutionary world view. According to this approach, “intelligence” is not just something in the higher nervous system of advanced biological organisms, but can be found at the cellular and sub-cellular level, even the atomic scale, and at the other end of the spectrum, even in the pure radiance of stars and galaxies, even in the paradoxical nature of “light” (the electromagnetic spectrum) itself.
Gary Suttle made the following chart which shows three main gradations of pantheists. As he explains, this “diagram generalizes contemporary pantheistically inclined viewpoints. Adherents spread across the spectrum, some in the center of a category, others at some point in between. From modern reference book-defined Pantheism, to the strict materialism of Scientific Pantheism, and the broad transcendence of Panentheism, all outlooks consider the Universe divine, and all contain a religious sensibility rich in poetry, mystery, and imagination, kindled by the enthralling wonder of nature.”
The Universal Pantheist Society has always welcomed and honored all kinds of “stripes” of pantheists, including all three of these major categories. However, to the degree you fall off the edge of either the left or the right side of this diagram, the less likely are you to be a traditional “pantheist.” Pantheism rejects both atheism and theism, straddling the two concepts at either end. There is still, however, a gradient among pantheists, just as there is in everything else.As this diagram illustrates, a traditional pantheist can readily accept and sense a ‘divine presence.” What is crucial is simply that pantheists of all stripes accept a purely natural world, rejecting “scientism” at one extreme, and “supernaturalism” at the other.
Ultimately, the goal of all the religions of the world is to get close to whatever they consider the “Ultimate Reality,” whether they call it the Great Spirit, God, Spirit of Life, the Tao or Nature, or prefer not to give it a name at all! If that is the goal, then, for pantheists, like John Muir, we most simply want to “get as near the heart of the world” as we can:
“As long as I live, I'll hear waterfalls and birds and winds sing. I'll interpret the rocks, learn the language of flood, storm, and the avalanche. I'll acquaint myself with the glaciers and wild gardens, and get as near the heart of the world as I can.”
Ultimately, the goal of all the religions of the world is to get close to whatever they consider the “Ultimate Reality,” whether they call it the Great Spirit, God, Spirit of Life, the Tao or Nature, or prefer not to give it a name at all! If that is the goal, then, for pantheists, like John Muir, we most simply want to “get as near the heart of the world” as we can:
“As long as I live, I'll hear waterfalls and birds and winds sing. I'll interpret the rocks, learn the language of flood, storm, and the avalanche. I'll acquaint myself with the glaciers and wild gardens, and get as near the heart of the world as I can.”
Harold Wood is the editor of Pantheist Vision and a co-founder of the Universal Pantheist Society.
Source: "What is Divine Presence?" by Harold Wood
Pantheist Vision (Vol. 30, No. 4, Winter, 2013)
Source: "What is Divine Presence?" by Harold Wood
Pantheist Vision (Vol. 30, No. 4, Winter, 2013)