Pandeism

Introduction

 

“Why Pandeism is Better than Theism: an Essay” by K.M. is posted on www.koilas.org. This is the basis of what follows, a series of pieces on the subject of pandeism that not only précis K.M.’s exposition, but also reflect on it.

 

Part 1 – Defining Terms

 

Princeton University’s ‘WordNet’ dictionary is cited for a definition. Pandeism is “…the belief that God created the universe and its phenomena by becoming the universe, thereafter the sole manifestation of God.”

This is supported by the Encyclopedia Britannica. “Pandeism…attempted to unite aspects of Deism with pantheism, (and) held that through the act of creation God became the universe. There is thus no theological need to posit any special relationship between God and creation; rather, God is the universe and not a transcendent entity which created and subsequently governs it.”

Both these definitions, largely in agreement, indicate a polar opposite to the supernatural, anthropomorphic depictions of God propounded by most religions, especially the three Abrahamic ones. God cannot be supernatural, above or beyond nature, because God has become and is nature, all of it.

This also means that every aspect of the universe is a part manifestation of God. Patently, every particle, system and galaxy is an element of the universe as a whole, so if the universe is the total manifestation of God, then any individual feature of the universe must be a feature of God.

To claim pandeism as being better than theism may appear to be positing a moral superiority. However, the use of ‘better’ in this context is to state that pandeism provides a more suitably logical explanation of the relationship between creator and creation, being on and the same, than transcendent model favoured by theism.

Pandeism also counters the tendency towards human self-promotion with theism suggesting humanity has some special place in creation, or has a more significant role or destiny – Man being the image of God.

Ironically, atheism suffers from the same tendency to human self-promotion in its opposition to theism. Essentially, whether stated as such or not, atheism total denial of God implies that as far as is known Man is the most intelligent, the superior form, in the universe.

Theism encourages, wilfully or not, people to embrace what is comforting over what can be shown to be true. This can lead to ideas conflicting with science or bending of supposed divine principles to make them comply with science. Pandeism does neither of these, indeed it embraces science as presently our best way to insights into the workings of the universe, and therefore by God.

Religion and War

 

There is a popular conception that if religion could be abolished a primary cause of conflict and war would go with it. Current belligerence in the name of Islam is often cited, or the historical religious wars of Christianity, still with current echoes, are raised.

This, though, ducks the issue, which is human culpability. It’s along the lines of the childish excuse, “He made me do it”, to blame another, in this case God, and so shirk taking responsibility. Religion can be used to recruit the blindly faithful to the flag, but so can nationalism or a political cause.

Religion can be very effective in this as it purports to transmit the actual will of God, when in reality it is very much a human construct. Religious traditions develop and consolidate over many generations and can appear to be the timeless commands of God.

For instance, during a recent radio interview concerning extreme temperatures in Pakistan, a Moslem woman explained the difficulty this posed during Ramadan. From sunrise to sunset fasting requires abstinence from drinking even water.

While this is an impressive display of personal disciple it nonetheless remains a human originated stricture. Religious scriptures can no doubt be quoted, but they, Koran, Bible or Talmud, are of human authorship.

Deists would point out that the created universe works according to identifiable laws, with inherent mechanisms. On a hot day, thirst is the natural trigger to drink and doing so is not a sin or breaking some divine ordinance. Not imbibing a glass of water is a human choice not a divine one.

Similarly, perpetrating violence comes from motivations that are all too human. Newsreel footage from the First World War exists of priests showering paraded troops with holy water from essentially a bucket with a broad paintbrush. However, there can be little doubt that that conflict arose from political and economic causes, not by celestial direction.

Frederick the Great described himself as a philosopher, which in the 18^th century meant a declaration of atheism. He acquired the epithet “the Great” due to his embarking on military campaigns for the expansion of Prussia. Man requires no help or sanction from God to wage war.

There may be myriad reasons for, and causes of, war which might involve massive armies and prolonged fighting, or individual acts of violence. However, justifiable or otherwise those reasons and causes may be, perpetrators are responsible for them, not religion, not God.

It would be quite possible for deists to become instigators of war; after all, Frederick the Great regarded himself as a citizen of the Enlightenment who applied reason to his belligerent rule. This demonstrates deism or atheism are no guarantors of peace. The difference being neither can use God as an excuse.

Man must accept and bear the responsibility for his or her actions.