A Response To "Scientific Pantheism"
by Gary Suttle
Paul Harrison writes with cogency and grace on many aspects of pantheism. I find much
of his work illuminating and valuable, yet I dislike his coinage "scientific
pantheism" and I question the meaning of the term and its value in spreading
pantheism to a wider audience.
The label "scientific pantheism" highlights the religion's "scientific
approach to reality" (Pantheist Vision, Vol. 17, No. 4). But to me the term brings to
mind people who try to validate their less-than-scientific activities by employing
"science" in their name , e.g. "scientology, "creation science"
and "scientific creationism." Pantheism needs no adjective tacked on to bolster
its credibility. Pantheism perforce embraces the scientific method and the religion's
increasing prominence stems in part from its perfect compatibility with the latest
findings of science.
The tag "scientific pantheism" also implies a superiority over other types of
(unscientific?) pantheism. But I think the many forms of pantheism and related
spiritualities that instill a reverence for Nature have their place (the Earth and
non-human inhabitants need all the help they can get). Condescension, intended or not, is
counterproductive.
On another level, putting "scientific" in front of pantheism does a
disservice to pantheism. Why? Because science and its handmaiden modern technology wreak
havoc on the planet. Nuclear bombs and radiation poisoning, to name but one of thousands
of banes, lead thoughtful persons to argue that modern science has done more harm than
good. Certainly science plays an important role in our lives. But I think pantheism
preceded science and exceeds science. Aligning the religion too closely with the good, the
bad, and the ugly of science tarnishes the brilliance of pantheism.
An old proverb states "the beginning of wisdom is calling things by their right
name." The American Heritage Dictionary defines the following: pantheism (from
pan=all+theos=god) the doctrine identifying the deity with the various forces and workings
of nature; deity (from deus=god) a god or goddess, the essential nature of being a god,
divinity; divinity (from divus=god) the state or quality of being divine, having the
nature of or being a deity. All of these words have "god" at their root.
Pantheistically defined as "nature and its various forces and workings," god is
everywhere. But god is nowhere in "scientific pantheism."
"Scientific pantheism never uses the word God," says Harrison, '...as I see
it the only difference between straight atheism and scientific pantheism is in one's
emotional and aesthetic attitude to the material universe and nature - and even then I
suspect that many atheists have the same attitudes as me." Many atheists indeed have
profound feelings for nature as well as a respect for science no different than
Harrison's, and in this sense "scientific pantheism" becomes "atheistic
pantheism," a stunning oxymoron (no god all god). The godlessness of scientific
pantheism is masked somewhat by Harrison's use of god-rooted words like "divine"
as well as traditional spiritual terms like "sacred,' 'worship" and
"reverence."
I realize some pantheists argue against using the term "god," mainly because
of its association with traditional beliefs. But I think it is disingenuous to call
oneself a pantheist and then reject the "theos" of pantheism. The generic term
"god" evokes ultimate reality far more powerfully than any other term;
monotheism or polytheism have no monopoly on its use. Also, the word "god,"
pantheistically defined, acts as a bridge to potential converts from mainstream religion
accustomed to using the term.
Conversely, godless "scientific pantheism" may turn away people who see it as
simply "green atheism." Atheism of any color has no chance for widespread appeal
in a faith filled world.
Harrison disdains "faith" as the belief in things for which there is no
evidence. I agree with him in that sense of the word. But another definition of
"faith" from American Heritage Dictionary reads "a confident belief in the
truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing." For me, this kind of
faith lies at the heart of pantheism. Author and pantheist Joseph Wood Krutch expressed it
well: "Faith in wildness or in nature as a creative force ... puts our ultimate trust
not In human intelligence but in whatever it is that created human intelligence and is, in
the long run, more likely than we to solve our problems." To anthropologist Joseph
Campbell, pantheist faith embraces "an undefinable, inconceivable mystery, thought of
as a power, that is the source and end and supporting ground of all life and being."
I think faith and mystery give an immaterial spiritual radiance to these expressions of
pantheism that far outshine a strictly materialistic "scientific pantheism."
A faith in wildness, a sense of oneness with nature, a mystical union with the stream
of life; these intuitive feelings transcend the scientific realm and make pantheism the
most vibrant faith of all.
A Response To "Scientific Pantheism"
by Gary Suttle, Pantheist Vision Vol. 18, No. 2, Summer Solstice, 1997
