Q&A: Pantheism
Pantheism
Question
Hello Rabbi,
The Rabbi used an analogy for pantheism—that although the human body is made up of many atoms, the whole is greater than the individual parts,
and therefore it has an independent existence.
But that whole understanding is only true in a certain respect. After all, if we were to go atom by atom through the human body and destroy each one,
in the end no “whole” would remain.
So couldn’t the same thing be said about pantheism? That if we went through every atom or every bit of energy in the world, and asked whether it comes from necessary existence or not,
and discovered that everything is created (based on inference from experience), then wouldn’t the world also fall apart?
Answer
Have a good week.
I used that analogy in order to suggest a better definition of pantheism, but in the end I rejected it.
What you are describing is indeed another angle on the claim that rejects pantheism and shows that it is empty: either there really is something beyond the totality of the material whole, or else you have said nothing beyond materialist atheism. Even with the material totality of the human body, some see the soul as an additional entity, while others suggest seeing it as the material whole itself. There, one can perhaps think that if the body perishes then the soul perishes as well (because it is not necessary existence), but with regard to the Holy One, blessed be He, that is of course less plausible.
Discussion on Answer
As I wrote, pantheism is nothing but atheism in disguise, and therefore all the proofs against atheism or in favor of the existence of God are proofs against it.
The claim that a body does not create itself is the physico-theological proof that there is a Creator of the world (see the third notebook here on the site). And since pantheism is nothing but atheism, this is indeed a proof against it.
Hello Rabbi.
I mean what the Rabbi said regarding the argument for
essential pantheism,
and not material atheistic pantheism.
I didn’t understand. If you are saying there is something besides matter in the universe, then that is God. And if there is nothing else, then once all matter is eliminated everything will be eliminated as well (as you wrote). So what else is there here that I’m missing?
I mean that the god of pantheism is not the Creator God.
It is a fairly limited god, subject to the laws of nature, etc.
Not a God who created nature.
I’m asking what proofs there are against it. Only in the style of “a body does not create itself,” plus the understanding that the universe was created and is not eternal?
We keep going around in circles. Who is the god of pantheism? Is there such a thing beyond nature? Please define it for me, and then we can think about arguments for and against its existence.
Thanks for the quick reply!
Does the Rabbi know of any other proofs against pantheism?
Also, is it correct to say that pantheism is, to some extent, based on a view of the eternity of the universe?
After all, it seems like a simple intuition to say that a body does not create itself, but at most upgrades itself.
That is, one could say that the Big Bang completely destroyed that theory.