What do you think?
Rate this book
Pantheism
Many people who do not believe in God believe that 'everything is God' - that everything is part of an all-inclusive divine unity. In Pantheism, this concept is presented as a legitimate position and its philosophical basis is examined. Michael Levine compares it to theism, and discusses the scope for resolving the problems inherent in theism through pantheism. He also considers the implications of pantheism in terms of practice. This book will appeal to those who study philosophy or theology. It will also be of interest to anyone who does not believe in a personal God, but does have faith in a higher unifying force, and is interested in the justification of this as a legitimate system of thought.
400 pages, Hardcover
First published July 7, 1994
6 people are currently reading
301 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
June 6, 2020
This was the first book of this kind that I have read in my life. Religion/philosophy. It touched most (if not all) of the philosophical subjects that I had contemplated in my mind over some period of time (such as the meaning of life, purpose, creation, good/evil etc) and the discussion was very academic which at first was problematic for me to get a hold on (to follow the thought) but in the second half of the book either the thoughts discussed were easier to understand or I got more used to the flight of thoughts of the author.
All in all - I feel like I have found my religion (if I had to choose one). Pantheism is the most common alternative to theism - and I bet that a lot of people I know do not realize that this might actually be the religion that is theirs as well. Reasons why we don't see many people around calling themselves "pantheists" are well discussed in this book.
It is the religion that makes the most sense.
All in all - I feel like I have found my religion (if I had to choose one). Pantheism is the most common alternative to theism - and I bet that a lot of people I know do not realize that this might actually be the religion that is theirs as well. Reasons why we don't see many people around calling themselves "pantheists" are well discussed in this book.
It is the religion that makes the most sense.
January 13, 2014
One of Beautifully-written book, to knowing about pantheism; Pantheism is a non-theistic and non-atheistic, but it's have close views with atheism only in do not believe in the existence of a theistic deity. In fact pantheists denies theistic-God as a “personal god”, “anthropomorphic god” or “transcendent”. Pantheism cannot even be taken as a theory of deity on such a view...
But instead, Pantheists believe that the universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity or god, as synonymy for non-supernatural. It's not in theistic 'God' sense, and it's all completely naturalistic.
But instead, Pantheists believe that the universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity or god, as synonymy for non-supernatural. It's not in theistic 'God' sense, and it's all completely naturalistic.
May 2, 2022
Levine proposes a normative account of pantheism; that is, an account of what pantheists should believe and practice, including not only philosophical beliefs but also religious beliefs and practices. Frequent mentions of paradigmatic cases of pantheism include Laozi, presocratics such as Thales, Anaximander and Empedocles, Plotinus, Spinoza and poets such as Coleridge and Whitman.
Briefly put, according to Levine, pantheism is crucially the thesis according to which (i) there is an all-encompassing Unity (which can be understood as a universal metaphysical principle); (ii) this Unity is divine (i.e., it possesses divine attributes). This definition is broad enough to cover just about the most paradigmatic cases in philosophy and religion (being mostly agnostic with regards to ontology), to clarify it so as to avoid naïve critiques of it such as Schopenhauer's or Bailey's, and also to distinguish it from other forms of theism such as classical monotheism and panentheism.
Most of the text is devoted to clarify what is and what isn't implied by pantheism in relation to metaphysical, epistemological, ethical and religious doctrines. For example, Levine tackles questions such as: is pantheism connected to monism (be it substance monism, or genealogical monism)? Does any metaphysical doctrine in particular imply pantheism, or vice-versa (e.g., panpsychism, cosmopsychism, physicalism)? Does pantheism conflict with transcendence? How was the world created, according to pantheism? Should pantheist come up with an explanation for this? Can Evil occur and be explained according to the pantheist? Does pantheism provide a basis for our environmental ethics, and for the intrinsic value of non-human and non-living entities? Is pantheism a religion, and, if so, what are its main tenets and practices? Does it make sense to worship Unity, as opposed to a god? Can pantheism provide meaning to our lives?
Levine's discussions and comments are quite illuminating and clever, but this should not make the reader automatically believe that he is giving a definitive conception of pantheism. For example, he claims that this pantheistic Unity should also be understood as something that is entirely non-personal: it does not have any mental characteristics such as intentionality, desires, emotions and beliefs. Because of this, Levine also stresses that pantheism should be non-anthropocentric. That is a very controversial point, and it's far from being the only one in the book. Another controversial point Levine advances is that, due to Unity's non-personal nature, devotional practices are conceptually inappropriate to the pantheist, and so he shouldn't worship it, nor pray to it.
What actually surprised me, though, is the lack of any discussion of arguments in favor of pantheism. Levine discusses at great detail how classical theism and pantheism deal with theological problems such as the problem of evil, the problem of transcendence and the problem of creation; he also discusses how pantheism might or not form a basis for an environmental ethics. But he does not present nor discuss any arguments in favor of accepting pantheism in the first place. This is perplexing: why wouldn't a book that's trying to clarify pantheism also try to present the main motivations behind adherence to it? The only moment Levine discusses anything close to the topic is when he's discussing Rudolf Otto's notion of holiness/divinity: Pantheists perceive Unity as divine because they experience it as such (for Otto, holiness refers mostly to a sui generis, non-positively conceptualizible experience). But this is not a justification for accepting pantheism: I may experience Unity as divine (supposing I also accept the existence of a Unity, which is a controversial topic), but is this evidence of objective divinity? Is Unity's divinity the best explanation for this kind of experience? Do such experiences really exist? These are tough questions, but Levine doesn't address any of them (though he does raise the objecion of experience possibly not corresponding to anything objective in a footnote). This is unfortunate, because what I most wanted was a presentation of the reasons for accepting philosophical pantheism; instead, what I mostly got was a book-length treatment of pantheism as a religious or spiritual system of beliefs. I don't think this is bad per se, and Levine tackles some very interesting topics in philosophy of religion, but it gave me the feeling that something crucial was lacking. Perhaps we'll get a book-length treatment of pantheism as a philosophical position in the near future. I hope.
Overall, a very good book; don't expect too many arguments in favor of pantheism (though do expect a lot of discussion on theological, epistemological and ethical arguments only partially related to pantheism) and you'll be alright. I recommend this mostly to people who want to approach it as a religion or spiritual practice.
Briefly put, according to Levine, pantheism is crucially the thesis according to which (i) there is an all-encompassing Unity (which can be understood as a universal metaphysical principle); (ii) this Unity is divine (i.e., it possesses divine attributes). This definition is broad enough to cover just about the most paradigmatic cases in philosophy and religion (being mostly agnostic with regards to ontology), to clarify it so as to avoid naïve critiques of it such as Schopenhauer's or Bailey's, and also to distinguish it from other forms of theism such as classical monotheism and panentheism.
Most of the text is devoted to clarify what is and what isn't implied by pantheism in relation to metaphysical, epistemological, ethical and religious doctrines. For example, Levine tackles questions such as: is pantheism connected to monism (be it substance monism, or genealogical monism)? Does any metaphysical doctrine in particular imply pantheism, or vice-versa (e.g., panpsychism, cosmopsychism, physicalism)? Does pantheism conflict with transcendence? How was the world created, according to pantheism? Should pantheist come up with an explanation for this? Can Evil occur and be explained according to the pantheist? Does pantheism provide a basis for our environmental ethics, and for the intrinsic value of non-human and non-living entities? Is pantheism a religion, and, if so, what are its main tenets and practices? Does it make sense to worship Unity, as opposed to a god? Can pantheism provide meaning to our lives?
Levine's discussions and comments are quite illuminating and clever, but this should not make the reader automatically believe that he is giving a definitive conception of pantheism. For example, he claims that this pantheistic Unity should also be understood as something that is entirely non-personal: it does not have any mental characteristics such as intentionality, desires, emotions and beliefs. Because of this, Levine also stresses that pantheism should be non-anthropocentric. That is a very controversial point, and it's far from being the only one in the book. Another controversial point Levine advances is that, due to Unity's non-personal nature, devotional practices are conceptually inappropriate to the pantheist, and so he shouldn't worship it, nor pray to it.
What actually surprised me, though, is the lack of any discussion of arguments in favor of pantheism. Levine discusses at great detail how classical theism and pantheism deal with theological problems such as the problem of evil, the problem of transcendence and the problem of creation; he also discusses how pantheism might or not form a basis for an environmental ethics. But he does not present nor discuss any arguments in favor of accepting pantheism in the first place. This is perplexing: why wouldn't a book that's trying to clarify pantheism also try to present the main motivations behind adherence to it? The only moment Levine discusses anything close to the topic is when he's discussing Rudolf Otto's notion of holiness/divinity: Pantheists perceive Unity as divine because they experience it as such (for Otto, holiness refers mostly to a sui generis, non-positively conceptualizible experience). But this is not a justification for accepting pantheism: I may experience Unity as divine (supposing I also accept the existence of a Unity, which is a controversial topic), but is this evidence of objective divinity? Is Unity's divinity the best explanation for this kind of experience? Do such experiences really exist? These are tough questions, but Levine doesn't address any of them (though he does raise the objecion of experience possibly not corresponding to anything objective in a footnote). This is unfortunate, because what I most wanted was a presentation of the reasons for accepting philosophical pantheism; instead, what I mostly got was a book-length treatment of pantheism as a religious or spiritual system of beliefs. I don't think this is bad per se, and Levine tackles some very interesting topics in philosophy of religion, but it gave me the feeling that something crucial was lacking. Perhaps we'll get a book-length treatment of pantheism as a philosophical position in the near future. I hope.
Overall, a very good book; don't expect too many arguments in favor of pantheism (though do expect a lot of discussion on theological, epistemological and ethical arguments only partially related to pantheism) and you'll be alright. I recommend this mostly to people who want to approach it as a religion or spiritual practice.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews