We seek renewed reverence for the biosphere as the ultimate context for human existence....

Modern Pantheism as an Approach to Environmental Ethics

by Harold W. Wood, Jr.*

ABSTRACT:
While philosophers debate the precise articulation of philosophical theory to achieve a desirable change in environmental attitudes, they may be neglecting the fountainhead of social change. Insofar as ordinary people am concerned, it is religion which is the greatest factor in determining morality. In order to achieve an enlightened environmental ethics, we need what can only be termed a "religious experience. " While not denying the efficacy of other religious persuasions, I explore the contribution of an informed modern Pantheism to environmental ethics. The conceptual division of the holy and the world is rectified by pantheism. As a form of "nature mysticism." pantheism promotes a theological basis for achieving oneness with God through knowledge, devotion. and works, all of which establish an enlightened theory for environmental ethics. A modern pantheism bears investigation by those advocating new ethical approaches toward the environment.

INTRODUCTION

Pantheism is defined as "the doctrine identifying the Deity with the various forces and workings of nature." [2] If humankind is to develop better relations with the environment, a renewed sense of reverence for nature will certainly aid that relationship. To accomplish this religion needs a new recognition of the sacredness of the natural world. That sense of sacredness can come best through experiential religion. Pantheism provides a means to experience the divine in nature, and as such deserves consideration as a method promoting environmentally sound ethics.

Although pantheism identifies deity with nature, the precise theological definition of deity is a secondary question to that of religious experience . Pragmatically, religion, not philosophy, is the social mechanism which ordinarily inculcates "morality." The articulation of philosophical theory conducive to an environmental ethics is the task of philosophy, but that task contains inherent dangers. It is philosophical theory, when couched in religious terms as doctrine and creed, that divides people - in contrast, it is celebration and shared experience that unites them.

To encourage a reconciliation between man and nature, what we may need more than a carefully constructed creed or dogma is what can only be termed "religious experience." In this paper I examine the question of whether a modern pantheism can provide the needed religious experience to support a transformation to environmental ethics, however such ethics are defined. Thus, this paper is primarily concerned with worship, not theory.

It is true enough that concepts which identify deity with nature (pantheism) are not all identical. Varying degrees of identifying deity with "natural forces" exist. In its purest form, pantheism unequivocally holds that the universe and the divine are absolutely identical. One exponent of this view was the nineteenth-century biologist, Ernst Haeckel, who coined the term ecology. He insisted that pantheism must support a monist view of God and the world:

Other persons, who might also be called "pantheist" to at least some degree, believe that the divine, while different from the universe in some sense, is nevertheless immanent in the universe - Father Thomas Berry points out that "there are many modes of Pantheist orientation. At a minimum a person must believe in Divine omnipresence - the all-pervasive intimacy of the Divine." [4]

It is even possible that some theists may identify God as a being with sufficient proximity to nature that a religious pursuit involving reverence for nature is possible. [5] In fact, Richard Francks argues that the traditional theistic doctrines of God's omniscience and omnipotence logically must result in pantheism. [6] It Seems likely that many "believers" refuse to totally divorce God from nature, notwithstanding conventional theological wisdom.

I leave the exploration of varying interpretations of pantheism for others. Notwithstanding that the philosophical or theological bases - whether theistic, panentheistic, or purely pantheistic - are variable, a modern pantheism as a religious pursuit provides for a humanly valid environmental ethics. As Vern Crawford points out, "Pantheism and closely related worldviews and practices have a long way to go in their 'theological' development, but the experiential - mystical if you will - basis for them is potentially available to all." [7]

Thus, the crucial question is not the precise definition of deity, but how to inculcate a sense of sacredness within the natural world. Religious pantheism can provide the needed religious experience to support a transformation to environmental ethics, even while it awaits full theological development.

THE NEED FOR RELIGIOUS PANTHEISM

The diagnosis of the ecological crisis from a religious perspective is nearly universal: as Wendell Berry puts it, it is a conceptual division between the holy and the world, between deity and creation, which makes it possible to "love God," but to "hate his creations." [8] Some writers in response suggest a revision of Christian thinking; others recommend the adoption of Eastern or (so-called) primitive religions. In both cases, what is frequently proposed represents some version of pantheism, although this is not often recognized by that name by the authors. [9]

What appears crucial is that the demands of "ecological revelation" require a new formulation and application of religious principles. As Lynn White, Jr. has stated, "Since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious, the remedy must also be essentially religious, whether we call it that or not," [10]

While sometimes stated somewhat prosaically, advocates of such a revision of religious principles typically stress the need for a change in religious practice, more so than religious thinking:

In conventional American religion, things like recycling, energy conservation, not wearing furs, even political action to preserve wilderness or wildlife, ordinarily have no relevance to religion. However, such behavioral modifications from a pantheist perspective can be justified as a religious undertaking.

Likewise, while the enjoyment of a sunset from a Christian or Jewish perspective might have some religious overtones as an aspect of God's creation, in pantheism the reverence for the sunset is heightened to the point that to pollute the sunset is to defile God. As Bob Hunter states in his "Ecology as Religion":

It remains debatable as to whether the source of prevailing attitudes antithetical to environmental protection are derived from "Judeo-Christian anthropocentrism." [13] Nonetheless, the evident problem with most conventional religion, in the Western world at least, is that it typically reserves the recognition of sacredness to things and beings far from our planetary realm. Pantheism, by contrast, provides the opportunity for a spirituality born of our evolutionary heritage which re-links us to a reality deeper than man, "even deeper than life, a spirituality that is as deep as the earth process itself, a spirituality that is born out of the solar system and even out of the heavens beyond the solar system." [14]

Thus, while the traditional symbols of contemporary American religions focus on past events and the lives of religious personalities, a modern pantheism focuses on the events of today's world - not merely the fleeting events of human life, but the eternal (measured by man's lifetime at least) verities of the natural world: the passage of the seasons; the global climate; the motion of stars and planets; the lives of small creatures everywhere.

In modern pantheism, "the ecosystem can be viewed as a scientific revelation of God. . . ." [15] The traditional textbook definition of pantheism is given a new meaning consistent with scientific understanding. God as the universe taken as a whole is no longer abstract, but becomes a reality with which we have daily contact. This view has been recognized by naturalists such as John Burroughs, who observed that when we call God "Nature," it becomes a deity

In a religion of pantheism, man's unity with the universe is a fundamental religious understanding. Examining it as a system of reverent behavior, rather than a dogmatically defined creed or belief, pantheism presents the opportunity for a distinctly religious undertaking of seeking union with deity, giving rise to both spiritual and ethical implications. Thus, rather than the goal of the religious seeker being admission to a heaven or an eternal life, pantheism as a form of nature mysticism follows the exhortation of many religious leaders to seek oneness with God.

Of course, arguably conventional mysticism, in contrast with the "heaven or hell" approach of radio and TV fundamentalists, is in greater accord with environmental understanding. But even so, mysticism in a monotheistic world view is typically achieved by a withdrawal from the world, not an immersion in it. To the pantheist, however, mystical effort is plainly meaningful in both a scientific and an ethical sense. The statement of Mahatma Gandhi becomes understandable not only in a personal sense, but also in an environmental context: "Man's aim in life is not to add from day to day to his material prospects and to his material possessions, but his predominant calling is from day to day to come nearer his own Maker." [17]

If our "Maker" is the revealed God of the Bible, such closeness seems most likely to be achieved through either biblical study, or personal prayer, or perhaps through the pursuit of social justice. But how is this closeness achieved where our maker is understood as the universe? Traditionally, three approaches to "knowing" God exist: the "way of knowledge," the "way of devotion," and the "way of works." These three experiential methodologies of "knowing God" may be applied in a pantheist religion with much stronger ties to the biosphere than the same three approaches in traditional religious practices of the Judeo-Christian heritage.

THE WAY OF KNOWLEDGE

The pursuit of knowledge as a religious undertaking in conventional Western religion deals with history and sacred texts. This is not so with pantheism, where the way of knowledge can be seen simply as the study of nature. This could include rigorous scientific research as well as the more casual personal observation of the natural world. Whether bird watching, studying wildflowers, or plumbing the great mysteries of life, the pantheist gains a closer relationship with deity as he understands it. The "study of god" -- theology -- in pantheism is ecology in its broadest sense -- the science which attempts to comprehend the complex interrelationships of living organisms and their environments. In distinction from religions based upon revelation, the quest for knowledge understood from a pantheist perspective is a never-ending quest. Knowing that we will never find the ultimate explanation for the universe should enhance our sense of awe and mystery for it. What we do learn about life and the world should enhance our appreciation for the wondrous complexity of things, serving as a warning to us that if we tamper with our environment we must do so with as much knowledge and foresight as it is possible to muster.

For pantheists, then, the "way of knowledge" is not something to be left to "the theologians." Rather. it is an activity in which all may participate. The astonishment with which we gaze upon the starry heavens, or the microscopic life in a drop of water; the awe in which we trace the workings of energy throughout the world; and the reverence with which we search for truths which we know we may never fully grasp, is the essence of a religious feeling. [18]

A further point here is the truism that "nobody has a monopoly on the truth." In contrast to some religious disciplines, the pantheist should be willing to admit that he or she does not have all the answers, and that our understanding of things will change as our explorations of truth continue.

Such an acceptance of the scientific method is crucial to environmental ethics. If we know that we do not have a monopoly on the truth, we should be much more willing to thoroughly explore alternatives in our actions which modify the environment. For example, knowing that a seemingly insignificant plant or animal habitat obstructs a development project is not grounds for dismay, but for curiosity, with a view to making sure that any development project does not eliminate a species or an ecologically important community. The pantheists' devotion to truth, not as an insistent denial of other people's truths, but as a world view which allows some degree of respect for things we don't understand, ensures an approach toward both technology and the environment which encourages environmental health and sanity. Instead of a "conquer the Earth" mentality, pantheism teaches that respect and reverence for the Earth demands continuing attempts to understand ecosystems. Therefore, among religious viewpoints, pantheism is uniquely qualified to support a foundation for environmental ethics.

THE WAY OF DEVOTION

Second, the "way of devotion" in most religions is reflected in ritual, art, and music. Pantheists have their own forms of devotion which are significant approaches to religious experience. Even though we may no longer "worship" the supernatural, there is still a value in celebrations, in meditations, in the use of the arts to extend and deepen our feelings, our sense of significance and unity with Nature. Kenneth Patton averred that "the relationship of art and worship is that they are one and the same thing; their identity is total. " [19]

Music, oratory, poetry, sculpture, painting, and ritual all are art forms found in religions worldwide. In pantheist religion, worship becomes a devotion to the universe, a celebration of life. It is the expression of devotion which transforms a philosophy into a religion, and it is the inspiration of devotion which leads us to virtue. If we seek a world where humankind lives in harmony with the rest of life, we need inspiration, the confirmation of new values, and time for reflection and reaffirmation of ecological principles, all of which pantheistic devotion can provide.

Indeed, arguably art and ritual are physiologically necessary to accomplish a full measure of understanding and involvement of humankind with the rest of nature. Dolores LaChappelle states that:

While we continue to respect empirical approaches to knowledge, as human beings we must celebrate human emotions and natural values, things quite outside the grasp of science; we need beauty and creativity, which are found through art and ritual, a way of sensing our oneness with nature.

In this respect, pantheist rituals attempt to perform the historical purpose of ritual everywhere:

Pantheist devotion provides the bridge between two ends of a spectrum -- the way of knowledge, including ecological science, which provides a naturalistic basis for a pantheist theology -- and the way of works -- the practice of preservation and conservation of nature, including the finest potentialities of human beings and human culture. The practice of devotion serves as a conduit by which our knowledge may be transformed into virtue.

Pantheist worship may involve artistic expression, nature observation, or various forms of outdoor activities. Wonder, reverence, and awe are promoted by the simple practice of sensory awareness. A sense of the miraculous is hardly difficult to achieve when contemplating the wonders of the universe. As such, a devotion centering on the primeval life stream, both externally and internally, is an authentic form of prayer or meditation.

Who can doubt that communion with nature is an authentic religious experience? Pantheist communion with nature does not require an overly intellectual approach. Vern Crawford outlines a simple method of pantheist communion with nature:

Through such exercises, we can come closer to nature as manifested by our own bodies. Beyond this, our celebration of life may expand from personal awareness to a universal awareness. Pantheists may celebrate interpersonal and cultural aliveness. Pantheists can celebrate, too, the lives of people -- both persons we know firsthand and those we may know only as the heroes of mankind. One might say that the "prophets" of pantheism are the men and women who have preached ecological wisdom -- the poets, writers, and activists who have helped us come closer to nature.

Further, pantheists celebrate the fellowship of all living things. Such celebration rests not merely upon similarity of structure and evolution, as we may feel most closely with mammals and other vertebrates: we can celebrate the diversity, the uniqueness, and the fundamental unity of all living things. Once we experience a oneness with the rest of the world in the same way as we feet one with ourselves, we can treat the world with the same respect and value which we should have for our own selves. As Buryl Payne puts it:

Whether we acknowledge the wonders of undersea coelenterates, sporifera, or mollusks, or the magnificence of the entomological universe or the astounding array of life within the plant kingdom, we celebrate life as a whole, because we are a part of life, and we rejoice in it.

Just as traditional religions celebrate the various points of the human life cycle-birth, puberty, marriage, death-pantheists can celebrate in addition to these the larger cycles in the environment around us. We know that all energy comes ultimately from the Sun, so pantheists can validly celebrate the solar equinoxes and solstices as symbols for the Earth's relationship and dependence upon the Sun. Such annual events could represent pantheist "holidays" throughout the calendar year.

But we also need to find ways to celebrate other features of the natural world which sustain life. For example, a pantheist devotion might celebrate the hydrological cycle. In contradistinction from societies where a rain god or goddess is worshipped in order for the rain to fall when most convenient (or societies which destroy whole ecosystems building dams to send water where it is most convenient), a pantheist devotion to the hydrological cycle would celebrate the miraculous transfer of water through the earth and sky as a process which we depend upon and which we should learn to respect and honor. Similarly, pantheists might find ways to celebrate other biogeochemical cycles, such as the carbon cycle or the nitrogen cycle. The point is that by learning to celebrate and revere such natural events, not only would more individuals obtain a clearer understanding of the ecological reality of the world, but through reverence and respect for such features, people would be less likely to permit unfettered pollution to take place. For example, acid rain would not be seen as merely an inconvenience, but as a travesty against a holy manifestation.

The possibilities for other forms of pantheist devotion are almost limitless. We already have poetry, art, and rituals from various artists and traditions which may aid in this endeavor. In a modern pantheism, responsibility for environmental protection is placed in every human being, and through the way of devotion, each person can be motivated to virtuous action on behalf of the environment which sustains us.

THE WAY OF WORKS

Finally, the "way of works" can be one of the most important modes of religious experience for a modern pantheist. Expanding the subject of ethical interest from humanity to the natural environment is a readily understood evolutionary sequence in thought, and the pantheist view provides a rationale for doing so which makes environmental conservation tantamount to love of God. In working to preserve the biosphere, a pantheist is not merely seeking social survival. An affirmation of wildness and natural diversity from a pantheist viewpoint preserves a covenant with the Earth. An ethical pantheist does not practice conservation out of simple self-interest, but rather as a religious motivation, inspired by reverence for the world. The identification of sacredness in the earth demands reverent behavior. In turn, such behavior necessitates a personal commitment toward living in greater harmony with the biosphere. In following the "way of works" each pantheist strives to minimize detrimental environmental impact, while at the same time promoting a creative welfare for humans and other life forms.

It is important to note in this context that pantheism does not advocate an ethics derived from natural phenomena. For example, there is no question of conflict between the pantheists' gentleness toward the Earth and the supposed existence of "violence" in nature, manifested perhaps by destructive volcanoes or the existence of predation. The source of pantheist environmental ethics is not the natural behavior of other animals as role models. Pantheism confirms the uniqueness of humanity, and its ethics derives from a simple expression of human abilities for empathy, compassion, and a mystical oneness with the rest of the natural world. Pantheist ethics has as its goal a closeness with nature that enables humankind to better participate with, rather than dominate nature, a relationship with nature equivalent to traditional religion's relationship with God. It is a closeness based not upon imitation, but upon reverential communion.

Thus understood, typical Christian responses to pantheism as being devoid of ethics are incorrect. For example, C. S. Lewis criticized pantheism with the argument that "confronted with a cancer or a slum the Pantheist can say, 'If you could only see it from the divine point of view, you would realize that this also is God.' The Christian replies, 'Don't talk damned nonsense.'"[24] This argument reflects a major misunderstanding of the nature of pantheism. Pantheism is simply a religious teaching which does not separate humans from nature, nor the divine from natural processes, thus affirming both the human and nonhuman will-to-live.

Ironically, similar anti-pantheist viewpoints simply illustrate the fallacy of anthropocentric thinking engendered by most non-pantheist religious philosophy. For example, Reinhold Niebuhr thought that "Pantheism inevitably strengthens those forces in religion which tend to sanctify the real rather than to inspire the ideal." [25] Precisely! In the context of humanity as a part of the total global ecosystem, it is the real -- i.e., ecological reality -- which pantheism recognizes as sacred, rather than an abstract "Ideal" usually depicted as a timeless heaven which for most pantheists would be a true hell.

The modern pantheist views the opportunity to interact with God-as-nature as an ethical religious pursuit compatible with a sound understanding and respect for the natural world as opposed to supernatural fiction. An acceptance of the universe as-it-is does not prevent us from acting in such a way as to keep the biosphere functioning in a healthy manner, for a healthy biosphere is a part of "the real" which Niebuhr is so repelled at being sanctified.

What pantheism promotes through the ways of knowledge, devotion, and works is an understanding of the unity of man and nature; thus, the common reasons for criticism of pantheism are precisely the ideas which pantheism deems false. For example, one critic of pantheism announced that "most human beings feel that the pantheistic world view cannot explain the human experience of the world as they have experienced it. . . . The majority of human beings have never had the experience of 'cosmic consciousness,' and it seems intuitively clear to them that they are not one with the universe." [26] Indeed, overcoming such incorrect intuitions about the nature of the universe is a pantheist objective! [27]

The key to the ethical system of modern pantheism lies in its religious context. While historically pantheism may be seen to have had a minor ethical component, in modern pantheism an environmental ethic is fundamental. The identification of deity with the universe (which, of course, may be done in varying degrees) is a way of understanding one's place in the world. Rather than an ethical system built around a mythology of supernatural events/beings/places, or conversely, one built upon a sterile rationality alone, pantheism promotes a sacred relationship with our ultimate context, nature. Thus, the promotion of harmony among people and context is the pantheists' ultimate religious pursuit.

As a religion compatible both with science and man's need for devotional experiences, pantheism offers a means to make religion socially acceptable in modern times. [28] The true task of religion in a modern world cannot be to explain "how" things got the way they are. Creationists notwithstanding, the earlier need for religion to "explain the world" has been supplanted by the scientific method. But two fundamental tasks of religion remain; to help individuals and communities gain a sense of meaning in life, and to help fashion an ethical system conducive to human and environmental well-being. Pantheism provides a spiritual solution to both these purposes in showing us a source of beauty and meaning for our personal lives in nature, and providing a world view promoting a harmonious relationship between humankind and the natural world. Therefore, in its essence, modern pantheism is a distinctly ethical religion, which if widely adopted could help resolve our environmental ills.

Of course, there remain many obstacles to any implementation of such pantheist ideals. Most recognizable pantheist expressions of faith seem to be couched in either poetic or scientific terms. Can philosophers help further develop a pantheist theology? How crucial is it to delimit the differences between a naturalistic theism and pure pantheism? Where does pantheism as a metaphysical world view begin and how does the theology of pantheism differ from empirical science?

Practical problems exist as well. Is there any way that a pantheist religion can be developed? Given the fact that some members of the environmental movement have independently adopted a pantheist outlook, is it possible that pantheism might arise as a "folk religion" without the need for a charismatic personality to "found" the religion as has been so frequent in most other world religions? Is it necessary to inculcate pantheism through a religious institution, or is it possible, as Dolores LaChappelle suggests, for a pattern of "ritual" and communion with nature to arise spontaneously? [29] Such questions are beyond the scope of this paper, but provide a beginning for further examination.

Arguably, pantheism need not be globally adopted, nor its theology fully delineated, in order to contribute to environmental improvement. Because pantheism provides a rationale and incentive for individuals to work on behalf of environmental protection, members of a pantheist faith could form a cadre of environmental activists, whose very presence and activity, albeit as a minority, will aid in environmental protection, Thus, as a contribution to environmental ethics, modern pantheism offers a valid and helpful environmental ethic as a benefit to modern society.

CONCLUSION

The modern form of pantheism provides for a religious faith which is concerned with human understanding, appreciation, and preservation of the natural world. This tripartite celebration of knowledge, devotion, and works is embraced in the following statement of faith for the adherents of modern pantheism:

In conclusion, modern pantheism bears investigation by those advocating new ethical approaches toward the environment. Pantheism provides a socially relevant solution for environmental ethics, because it can be understood and applied in daily living by nonspecialists. As with any religion, theological nuances may provide a fertile field for further debate among philosophers, but as a simple, yet humanly profound system, it can establish a long-lasting commitment to environmental sanity. Finally, as a religion, rather than merely a philosophical system, pantheism holds forth the hope of an environmental ethic which appeals to man's innate need for wonder, reverence, and celebration, as well as to the need for enlightened reason and empirical understanding. Environmentally concerned persons would do well to consider further the contribution a modern pantheist religion may hold for the future.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Henry Thomas and Dana Lee Thomas, Living Biographies of Great Philosophers (Garden City, N.Y.: Garden City Publishing Co., 1941), P. 125.

[2] William Morris, ed., American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1982). p. 948.

[3] Ernst Haeckel, The Riddle of the Universe (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1900), p. 20.

[4] The quotation continues. "Augustine says the Divine is closer to us than we are to ourselves. Also St. Thomas says God acts in every being that acts." Thomas Berry, personal communication, 14 March 1982.

[5] See generally, John Hunt, Pantheism and Christianity (1884. reprint ed., Port Washington: Kennikat Press, 1970).

[6] Richard Francks, "Omniscience, Omnipotence and Pantheism," Philosophy 54 (1979): 395-99.

[7] Vern Crawford, personal communication, 27 January 1984.

[8] Wendell Berry, A Continuous Harmony (New York: Harcourt Brace and Jovanovich, 1970), P, 6. quoting John Stewart Collis, The Triumph of the Tree (New York: Sloane, 1954).

[9] For a revisionist formulation of Christian theology implying that the Pauline concept of "God is Love' could justifiably conclude that the deity of Judeo-Christian teachings could be defined as "Nature," see Donald E. Fadner, 'If I should Die," Religion in Life 48 (1979): 172-74. Cf. the argument for adopting one of the Eastern religions in the writings of Alan Watts. and others such as Huston Smith, "Tao Now: An Ecological Testament," in Ian G. Barbour, ed., Earth Might Be Fair (Englewood Cliffs; Prentice-Hall, 1972). pp. 62-81. The current effort to classify environmental values according to the concepts of "shallow" vs. 'deep" ecology by Arne Naess, George Sessions, and Bill Devall may also be understood as competing religious paradigms. Just as Fadner and Watts both appear to arrive at a pantheist perspective from quite different religious roots, it appears that modern pantheism aligns itself most closely with the deep ecology movement. Yet, there are some differences, as evident in this discussion. For a summary of "Deep Ecology," see Bill Devall, "The Deep Ecology Movement," Natural Resources Journal 20 (1980): 299-322.

[10] Lynn White, Jr, "The Historical Roots of the Environmental Crisis," Science 155 (1967): 1203.

[11] Kim Thornley, 'Workshop in Nonviolence," Berkeley, ca. 1969.

[12] Bob Hunter, "Ecology as Religion.' Greenpeace Chronicles 18 (1979): 3.

[13] Cf. Lynn White, Jr., "Historical Roots," with G. Tyler Miller, Jr., Living in the Environment (Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1975), pp. 374-75. "It appears that all of the great religions, regardless of origin, have had some ethic of responsibility toward nature built into their rich and diverse teachings. Each offers ethical guidelines for those who follow its basic tenets, but too many men and women in all parts of the world choose not to obey the imperative that we care for the earth and our fellow humans." See also Wendell Berry,. "The Gift of Good Land," Sierra 64 (1979): 20-24 (asserting that biblical teaching is in accord with sound environmental practices).

[14] Thomas Berry, "The Spirituality of the Earth," Riverdale Papers V (Riverdale: Riverdale Center for Religious Research, n.d.), p. 9.

[15] Dennis G. Kuby, "When I Stand at an Open Grave," Ecology and Religion Newsletter, no. 37 (January 1977).

[16] John Burroughs, Accepting the Universe (New York: Houghton Mifflin. 1920). pp. 107, 270, 190.

[17] Gandhi could be interpreted as a pantheist due to his rejection of any anthropomorphic deity. Gandhi said, 'God is not a person.... God is an eternal principle. That is why I say that Truth is God. . . . Even atheists do not doubt the necessity of truth." Louis Fischer, The Life of Mahatma Gandhi (New York and Brothers, 1950). p. 294.

[18] Ernst Haeckel, The Riddle of the Universe (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1900). p. 344.

[19] L. Patton. A Religion for One World: Art and Symbols for a Universal Religion (Boston: Beacon Press, 1964), p. 138.

[20] Dolores LaChapelle, Ritual: The Pattern that Connects (Silverton: Finn Hill Arts, 1981), p. 16.

[21] Jose and Miriam Arguelles, Mandala (Berkeley: Shambala Press, 1972), p. 83.

[22] Vern Crawford, "Communion with Nature: How is it Done?" Days Afield Perspective 1 (1983): 13.

[23] Buryl Payne, Getting There without Drugs. Techniques and Theories for the Expansion of Consciousness (New York: Viking Press, 1973), pp. 171-72.

[24] C. S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1943), pp. 33-34.

[25] Reinhold Niebuhr, Christian Century, 22 April 1926, quoted in Ralph C. Woods, ed., World Treasury of Religious Quotations (New York: Garland Books, 1966), p. 714.

[26] David K. Clark, The Pantheism of Alan Watts (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1978), pp.105, 78.

[27] See LaChappelle, Ritual, and Payne, Getting There without Drugs, supra.

[28] Compare the proposal for "The New Universalism," really pantheism by another name, since the author identifies "Ultimate Reality," i.e., the "Universe," as God, in Deane Starr, "The Crying Need for a Believable Theology," Humanist 44, no. 4 (1984): 13-16, 50.

[29] See Dolores LaChappelle and Janet Bourque, Earth Festivals: Seasonal Celebrations for Everyone Young And Old (Silverton: Finn Hill Arts, 1973).

[30] Universal Pantheist Society, Pantheism and Earthkeeping (Big Pine Calif., Universal Pantheist Society, 1975), p. 3.

[ Home ] [ Up ] [ Devotion to Truth ] [ Universal Pantheist Society - The Scheme of the Universe ] [ Environmental Ethics ] [ Christianity ] [ Eco-Religion ]

For more information about Pantheism, or questions about this website please contact Harold Wood at ups@pantheist.net

Pantheism \Pan"the*ism\, n. [Pan- + theism.]

Any doctrine, philosophy, or religious practice that holds universe [cosmos], taken or conceived of as the totality of forces and/or matter, is synonymous with the theological principle of God.

Copyright is held by the indicated organization and/ or author.  All rights are reserved.
All other material, Copyright © 1998, 1999, 2000 Universal Pantheist Society.  All rights are reserved.

Best viewed at 800*600 High Color