Pandeism
Pandeism is occasionally used as a synonym for pantheism; this article discusses other uses of the term.Pandeism (from
Greek πάν (
'pan' ), meaning 'all', and
Latin deus meaning God) is a term that has been used at various times to describe religious beliefs. It has particularly been addressed to
syncretist concepts incorporating or mixing elements of
pantheism (that God is identical to the universe) and
deism (that the creator god who designed the universe is no longer in a status where He can be reached, and can instead be confirmed only by reason). It is therefore most particularly "the belief that God precedes the universe and is the universe's creator, [and] that the universe is currently the entirety of God", with some adding the contention that "the universe will one day coalesce back into a single being, God."
[[1]]This use has been inconsistent over time - modern usage has described (or contrasted) the nature of
God as described by broader philosophical systems, but the term has also occasionally been misused to refer dismissively to this, and also to simultaneous belief in all religions, or some elements thereof. Some 19th century figures (particularly religionist
Godfrey Higgins, later echoed by occult figure
John Ballou Newbrough) used the term to describe the beliefs that they attributed to a particular
cult or
sect, the worshipers of a group of gods called
Pans.
Pandeism is a splicing together of the
Greek root
πάν (
'pan' , meaning 'all'), as it is used in
pantheism fused to the word
deism, itself originally derived from the
Latin root
deus, meaning God, but which was later adopted by the Deist movement. Deism came to have the meaning ascribed by its members, that God had created the universe but abandoned it, or was otherwise beyond the reach of human communications. Therefore, pandeism (or PanDeism) may best be used to describe a pantheistic deism — a system in which a
Creator God designed the universe and initiated its creation, but is now one with the universe, and therefore nonresponsive, and reachable only by appeal to reason.
The ideas that underscore pandeism have many authors, but a few are of note. In the 17th Century,
Baruch Spinoza was perhaps the earliest to use reason to arrive at the conception of a Deistic God. Spinoza's God could only be proved by appeal to reason, but was also one with the Universe. As one critic states:
The labeling of Spinoza's philosophy as "pantheism" by the Church was meant more as an invective and indictment than a true analysis of his writings. It was really a variant of Deism -- a "pandeism," if I may. Theism, however, posits something very different. Theism believes that nature was not God, but created BY God. That God is a completely independent sentient and cognitive Being, and that God interacts with his "children" on a personal level (e.g., The Bible).[Roncelin de Fos, Christian Origins of U.S., 2004:]Spinoza's pantheistic focus on the Universe as it already existed did not address the possible creation of the Universe from the substance of God, for Spinoza rejected the very possibility of changes in the form of matter required as a premise for such a belief. In the 19th Century, poet
Alfred Tennyson was revealed to have tended towards Pandeism, integrating Deism with the Pantheism of Spinoza, and his predecessor,
Giordano Bruno.
[Freethought of the Day, August 6, 2006, Alfred Tennyson]18th Century British philosopher
Thomas Paine also approached this territory in his great philosophical
treatise,
The Age of Reason, although Paine was concentrated on the deistic aspects of his inquiry.
[Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason] Dutch naturalist
Franz Wilhelm Junghuhn specifically detailed a religious philosophy incorporating deism and pantheism in his four volume treatise,
Java, seine Gestalt, Pflanzendecke, und sein innerer Bau (
Images of Light and Shadow from Java's interior) released anonymously between 1850 and 1854.
The earliest usage known to have been recorded of the use of the term "Pan-Deism" to identify a pantheistic variation of Deism was by,
William Harbutt Dawson, in his 1904 biographical work,
Matthew Arnold and His Relation to the Thought of Our Time. He used the term as a comparative reference point, writing:
... whatever the deity which satisfied Arnold's personal experience may have been, the religion which he gives us in Literature and Dogma and God and the Bible is neither Deism nor bare
Pan-Deism, but a diluted Positivism. As an ethical system it is in theory admirable, but its positive value is in the highest degree questionable. Pascal's judgment upon the God who emerged from the philosophical investigations of Rene Descartes was that He was a God who was unnecessary.[William Harbutt Dawson, Matthew Arnold and His Relation to the Thought of Our Time, (1904, republished 1977), p. 256.]Later, religious studies professor
F. E. Peters used the term in his
1967 Greek Philosophical Terms: A Historical Lexicon, also suggesting its meaning by contrasting it with another concept:
What appeared here, at the center ot the Pythagorean tradition in philosophy, is another view of psyche that seems to owe little or nothing to the pan-vitalism or pan-deism (see theion) that is the legacy of the Milesians. [Francis E. Peters, Greek Philosophical Terms: A Historical Lexicon, p. 169 (NYU Press 1967).]The Milesians pioneered knowledge of pantheism, and so this demonstrates that the proper definition for pandeism is one that mixes aspects of pantheism (as Peters did) with Deism (as Dawson did).
In
1997,
Pastor Bob Burridge
[Genevan Institute for Reformed Studies][Homepage of Bob Burridge] of the
Genevan Institute for Reformed Studies[Genevan Institute for Reformed Studies] wrote an essay titled
God Is Not the Author of Sin, identifying pandeism as a deistic refinement or subset of pantheism::''All the actions of created intelligences are not merely the actions of God. He has created a universe of beings which are said to act freely and responsibly as the proximate causes of their own moral actions. When individuals do evil things it is not God the Creator and Preserver acting. If God was the proximate cause of every act it would make all events to be "God in motion". That is nothing less than pantheism, or more exactly,
pandeism.[Genevan Institute for Reformed Studies] Burridge disagrees that such is the case, decrying that "The Creator is distinct from his creation. The reality of secondary causes is what separates Christian theism from
pandeism."
[Genevan Institute for Reformed Studies]Burridge concludes by challenging his reader to determine why "calling God the author of sin demand[s] a pandeistic understanding of the universe effectively removing the reality of sin and moral law."
Similarly, a
1995 news article quotes this use of the term by
Jim Garvin a
Vietnam vet who became a
Trappist monk in the
Holy Cross Abbey[
2] of
Berryville, Virginia, and went on to lead the economic development of
Phoenix, Arizona. Garvin described his spiritual position as "'pandeism' or '
pan-en-deism,' something very close to the
Native American concept of the all- pervading
Great Spirit..."
[Albuquerque Journal, Saturday, November 11, 1995, B-10.]Usage as a restatement of another concept
Some uses to which the term has been put are
etymologically disjunctive, as they ascribe a meaning to the term that does not reflect the roots of what is an obvious
portmanteau within a well defined family of similar terms. Conversely, the term may describe a deistic pantheism, in which a God that has always been pantheistic has ceased a previously active interection with the universe. The term has been used in some instances as a restatement of pantheism (the concept that
God and the
universe are one) or
panendeism (the concept that God both is the universe, and transcends the universe). Others have specified that it is a concept distinct from pantheism, and have used it instead to describe a universe which combines elements of
pantheism (for example, that
God and the
universe are one) and
deism (for example, that a
creator God created a self-regulating universe, but subsequently ceased to actively intervene in its operations).
Examples
Reverend Natalia Kita,[
3] classifies her beliefs as "transcendental pandeism," a phrase to which she assigns the following meaning:
God not only is, always was, and always will be the universe, but that the Universe is contained within God, and God transcends that which we know as the Universe. I also believe that all living beings contain the knowledge/wisdom of God/the Universe within them, if only they open their minds to it. I view God not so much as a being, but as a force of pure spirit and energy, containing all the knowledge/wisdom there is, and sharing it with all.This use of the term appears to be consonant with
panentheism, but with some minor variations with respect to the relationship between God and the individual.
Dan Schneider, in his
Review of Stranger In A Strange Land (The Uncut Version), by Robert A. Heinlein[
4] uses the term to describe a character who appears to other characters as identifying humanity as God:
Jubal... is a devout and fierce individualist in a world filled with cults and bureaucracies, and by novel's end it is he, not Jill nor Mike, that is still a stranger, still tilting against the windmills. He honestly believes in his own free will, which Mike, Jill, and the Fosterites misinterpret as a pandeistic urge, 'Thou art God!' Mike, by contrast, readily abandons his Martian beliefs for human ones, even as he claims to merely find a congress between them.As a distinct concept
This assertion is echoed by "Cristorly" (the
pseudonym of Orlando Alcántara, a
Dominican poet and
theologian), who characterizes the pan
theistic God as transcendent, while the pan
deistic God is merely continuous with Creation:
God is inmanent, trascendent and holistic. That is Pantheism, not Pandeism. Pantheism is right, because we are speaking about a personal, individual, trascendent God. Pandeism (like Spinoza's) is not right, due to the fact that is not a trascendent God, a God beyond Creation. [
5]Cristorly has developed a "
Theognosis" of
Omnientheism, which integrates six concepts -
Theism, Deism,
Panentheism, Panendeism, Pandeism, and Pantheism - into a coherent corpus or canon. Cristorly describes his definitions as "discretional," meaning that each can only be understood in the context of all the rest. Cristorly asserts:
The terms Theism, Pantheism, and Panentheism have their root in Greek, which is a Biblical language, and therefore it is correct. In a discretionary way we assume that these terms present the idea of a personal, individual God. However, the terms Deism, Pandeism, and Panendeism have their root in Latin, which is not a Biblical language, and therefore it is not correct. These terms present the idea of God like synonymous of Energy or Cosmic Force, because God is not personal here, He is not individual.Within this grouping, the meanings of the terms hinge on their categorization of the "transcendence, immanence, and holism of God". With respect to Pandeism, he notes, "we see that Energy or Cosmic Force in Pandeism is immanent and holistic, but it is not transcendent."[
6]
The following excerpt from a discussion of a painting by Spanish artist Orlando Cordero offers the same conceptual distinction between pantheism and pandeism. The author used the words "pandeÃsta" and "pandeÃsmo" in the
Spanish version, which were translated by the author into "pandeist" and "pandeism", respectively. The comparison suggests that pan
deism is a system with a cold, impersonal God, while pan
theism presents a warm and experiential God:
His vision is pandeist, and it had to be pantheist. In order to get a pantheist painting, it is necessary to have Christ as pennant, footpath, and lighthouse. Pandeism is impersonal like in the present canvas, in which man, nature and word integrate themselves; whereas pantheism is a personal Christ-like experience of every day. Here there is signal-like materiality for the making of other paintings. [7]A final form can be found in the usage ascribed by
J. Sidlow Baxter, who wrote in his 1991 master work,
The Most Critical Issue:
If the Bible is only human lore, and not divine truth, then we have no real answer to those who say, "Let's pick the best out of all religions and blend it all into Pan-Deism - one world religion with one god made out of many".
[J. Sidlow Baxter, The Most Critical Issue]Pandeism (or a
Pandæan religion) was earlier used by
Godfrey Higgins, a
historian of
religions, [
8] to describe a religious society that he purported had existed from ancient times, and at one time had been known throughout the entire world. Higgins believed this practice continued in secret until the time of his writing, in the
1830s in an area stretching from
Greece to
India. The term was used in this context in the posthumous release of Higgens'
1833 treatise titled
Anacalypsis: An Attempt to Draw Aside the Veil of the Saitic Isis: Or an Inquiry into the Origin of Languages, Nations and Religions. [
9]:
I think Pandeism was system; — and that when I say the country or kingdom of Pandæa, I express myself in a manner similar to what I should do, if I said the Popish kingdom or the kingdoms of Popery; or again, the Greeks have many idle ceremonies in their church, meaning the Greeks of all nations: or, the countries of the Pope are superstitions, &c. At the same time, I beg to be understood as not denying that there was such a kingdom as that of Pandae, the daughter of Cristna, any more than I would deny that there was a kingdom of France ruled by the eldest son of the church, or the eldest son of the Pope.[Anacalypsis, pg. 439.]Higgins' choice of the term
 |
The Anacalypsis of Godfrey Higgins |
Higgins' usage is related to
pantheism, yet distinctly different. While pantheism normally refers to one universal god, pandeism, as described by Higgins, refers to the worship of a family, a union, or a
pantheon of gods which are collectively universal.
Higgins was a follower of
Irish writer
John Toland who had coined the word "pantheist" in his
1705 work,
Socinianism Truly Stated, by a pantheist; although Toland lived in an era when "deism" and "theism" were interchangeable, Higgins wrote during the
1820s and
1830s, a period several generations later when
Deism was popular and became distinct from
theism. When coining "pandeism", Higgins was aware of the similarity between pandeism and pantheism, and of the similarity between pandeism and deism - indeed, he directly contrasts his pandeism with Toland's pantheism:
Many persons have thought that this Pan related to what has been called Pantheism, or the adoration of universal nature, and that Pantheism was the first system of man. For this opinion I cannot see a shadow of foundation. As I have formerly said, it seems to me contrary to common sense to believe that the ignorant half savage would first worship the ground he treads upon,--that he would raise his mind to so abstruse and so improbable a doctrine as, that the earth he treads upon created him and created itself: for Pantheism instantly comes to this.Higgins also demonstrated familiarity with deism, as he mentions deism or deists at several points later in the same work, noting for example that "the
Rev. R. Taylor, A.M., the Deist, now in gaol, infamously persecuted by the
Whigs for his religious opinions, in his learned defense of Deism called the
Diegesis, has clearly proved all the hierarchical institutions of the Christians to be a close copy of those of the
Essenians of
Egypt."
[Anacalypsis, pg. 787.]While pandeism evokes both pantheism and deism and suggests their combination, Higgins' usage is removed from both. Whereas Toland's construction of pantheism was based on the
Greek root words
pan, meaning
all and
Theos, meaning
God, Higgins cleverly flips the construction around, stating:
''When I consider all the circumstances detailed above respecting the
Pans, I cannot help believing that, under the mythos, a doctrine or history of a sect is concealed.
Cunti, the wife of
Pandu (du or God, Pan), wife of the generative power, mother of the
Pandavas or devas, daughter of Sura or Syra the Sunâ€"Pandæa only daughter of Cristna or the Sunâ€"Pandion,
[The person Higgins refers to as "Pandion" here is more commonly known as Aegeas - the husband of Medea and father of Medus; Aegeas was himself the son of Pandion II, and Higgins reference clearly equated Aegeas with the lineage of his father.] who had by
Medea a son called
Medus, the king of the Medes, who had a cousin, the famous
Perseus — surely all this is very
mythological — an historical parable!
Anacalypsis'', pg. 439.:...
We have seen that though Cristna was said to have left many sons, he left his immense empire, which extended from the sources of the Indus to Cape Comorin, (for we find a Regio Pandionis near this point,) to his daughter Pandæa; but, from finding the icon of Buddha so constantly shaded with the nine Cobras, &c., I am induced to think that this Pandeism was a doctrine, which had been received both by Buddhists and Brahmins.Anacalypsis
, pg. 439.
In contrast to Toland, Higgins uses the word "Pans" to collect variations of named gods or godlike heroes - such as Pandu, Pandæa, the Pandavas, and Pandion - into a single system of worship called Pandeism as a sort of family name for a goup of godlike individuals. Thus where Toland's term referred to pan- (all) and -theism (god), Higgins refers to Pande- (a root indicating this family of gods) and -ism, a wholly English construction indicating allegiance to an ideology. The term related by Higgins refers to a secret sect of worshipers of these "Pans", which was left in the wake of the collapse of an ancient empire that stretched from Greece (the home of Medea and Perseus) to India (where the Buddhists and the Brahmins coexist). Higgins concludes that his observations:
...confirm the very close connexion which there must have been in some former time, between
Siam,
Afghanistan, Western
Syria, and
Ireland. Indeed I cannot doubt that there has been really one grand empire, or one Universal, one Pandæan, or one Catholic religion, with one language, which has extended over the whole of the world; uniting or governing at the same time...
Anacalypsis'', pg. 443.
Higgins leaves clues, however, that there may be additional layers of meaning in his word choice, stating in the preface to Vol. I of 'Anacalypsis':
I think it right to warn my reader, that there are more passages than one in the book, which are of that nature, which will be perfectly understood by my Masonic friends, but which my engagements prevent me explaining to the world at large.[Anacalypsis, xx.]Decades later,
John Ballou Newbrough cited extensively to Higgins' use of Pandeism in the notes to Newbrough's
1882 Oahspe Bible.
[John Ballou Newbrough, Oahspe Bible, pg. 874.]Notes
*
Deism*
Pantheism*
Panentheism*
Panendeism*
Polytheism*
Polydeism*
Theopanism*
The precepts of Pandeism
