Talk:List of pantheists

message: I have not seen anything that would indicate that Sitting Bull was a Pantheist. Is there is any evidence to that effect?
I know the quote "Every seed has awakened and so has all animal life. It is through this mysterious power that we too have our being and we therefore yield to our neighbours, even our animal neighbours, the same right as ourselves, to inhabit this land." But I would like to see some more context. Is this "power" all of his beliefs, or are there beliefs in spirits or gods besides this?
For that matter, why not add Chief Seattle? Although the source of his famous speech is in doubt, it could be argued that he inspired those thoughts, even though they were not his exact words. You could claim that he is, at least, as someone with Pantheist beliefs.
It may be more accurate to claim Native Americans as People with Pantheist Beliefs, the same way the ancient Greeks are. --vandermude 22:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can anyone show that Sitting Bull was a Pantheist? 

message: Can someone show where Nietzsche put himself like a Pantheist? Or simply show someone who have characterized him like it? --DrLutz 15:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will I take out him from the list without oposition? DrLutz 19:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd agree with taking him out - along with a lot of other names on this list. Mongoletsi (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Nietzsche a Pantheist? 

message: Well! It seems to me that Einstein was a pantheist. Einstein said, "I am not an atheist and I do not know if I can define myself as a pantheist." He himself was not clear whether he was a pantheist or not. However, some comments made by Einstein suggest that he was a pantheist. For example, Einstein's famous epithet on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle was 'God does not play dice.' In this statement, Einstein used 'God' as a metaphor for nature. Einstein can be categorized as a Naturalistic pantheist.
I am re-adding the name of Einstein in the List of Pantheists. The reason for the confusion was, Einstein was himself not sure whether he was a pantheist or not.
RS
:Shouldn't people be allowed to self-identify? If he wasn't sure of his own religious stance, then isn't it a bit presumptuous to say that we know better than he? AnnieHall 05:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed.  What a ridiculously circular argument.  Einstein certainly did not venerate or worship "nature".  Furthermore, Einstein was unsure, so you can't assert either way.  Suggest a "Possible Pantheists" section.  In fact, I'm going to make it now.  If you disagree, consider this statement; "I am unsure if I am gay".  This by no means equates to "I know I am gay".Mongoletsi (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be completely fair to the person making the original argument, Einstein made pantheistic notions. Your example is completely uncertain because we don't know anything about your sexuality. If you had written letters and papers stating that you had a sexual interest in people of the same sex, and then later proclaimed "I am unsure if I am gay", then you may find that people would be more prone to make the judgment for you. As it is now, your argument is not comparing similar situations. That aside, Einstein appears to have declared himself agnostic. The List of agnostics page has a pretty clear citation on the matter. It is then, of course, debatable if agnosticism and pantheism are mutually exclusive. However, I write more to encourage that we take each other's arguments at fair value and give them as much weight as possible. 71.59.213.105 (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am re-adding the name of Einstein  

message: For such a controversial topic, I'm pretty surprised to see that this article contains not a single cite. (Compare the emphasis on cites at List of atheists.)
Mention of living persons here without cites may even be a violation of WP:BLP. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 07:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please do, this list is fraught with difficulties.  Sitting Bull for example was certainly not a Pantheist as we understand the term.  Bill Hicks?  I'm sickened to see his name here.  Cite, or this will all be pruned. Mongoletsi (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed every unsourced entry, except Spinoza to which I have added a citation needed tag. I will soon add some good cites for Spinoza. Please only reinsert with a reliable source that editors can verify makes the claim. -84user (talk) 07:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cites! For the love of ... whatever! 

message: I tagged :Category:Pantheists with  as requiring inclusion criteria. Please see Category talk:Pantheists#Criteria for inclusion for suggestions. -84user (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Pantheists 

message: After removing Richard Dawkins from the list, I decide to search for sources that refer to anyone as a pantheist.
* http://www.pantheism.net/atheism.htm has "Pantheism - the approach of Einstein, Hawking and many other scientists"
* In fact pantheism.net lists "Pantheist Atheists" down the right hand column - should we include these too? Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Lucretius, D'Holbach, David Hume, Einstein, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking. The problem is that none of these are connected with Pantheism in http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/, and indeed, the Stanford encyclopedia list is wholly disjoint from pantheism.net's list - are there in fact two different concepts here?
* In http://richarddawkins.net/articles/123 Dawkins writes: "willingness to label as 'religion' the pantheistic sense of wonder which many of us share." Dawkins also discusses whether Einstein can be called a pantheist: "The quotations I gave all suggest that Einstein was a pantheist" and later "In this sense, I too am religious."
* Michael P. Levine's earlier work, the 1994 Pantheism: A Non-theistic Concept of Deity, starts with the assertion that there has been no detailed analysis of the pantheistic concept since Spinoza, includes Eriugena but puts question marks after Hegel and Plotinus. Levine does helpfully exclude himself: "as far as I can tell I am not a pantheist."
Given this difficulty I am unsure how the inclusion criteria of this list article can be formulated. Should we restrict the list to philosophers that clearly explain their position and that are reliably cited by scholars of philosophy?
-84user (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I, too, am surprised Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan, amongst others, are not present on this list - when Pantheism.net lists them asuch with quotations attached, clearly of a pantheist nature. I second the notion that they should be included.ThePhantasos (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

text: If they clearly explain their position, "I'm a Pantheist", there's no need for secondary sourcing, ("scholars of philosophy"), a primary source is totally fine for that.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible sources

message: I have searched and found no evidence that one cannot be both a pantheist and agnostic.  Thomas Huxley who coined the word "agnosticism" said "Agnosticism is not a creed, but a method..."  Pantheism is in no way a method and does not conflict with agnosticism unless it is a specific form of agnosticism (agnostic about a natural law version of God) and a specific form of pantheism (denying/limiting the possibilities of God).  Pantheists can be agnostic to claims about transcendence.  In my search for comments about these two different ideas I only found evidence that they are not mutually exclusive:
*An Agnostic's Progress By Mary Emily Dowson (pseudonym was William Scott Parker) writes that agnosticism logically implies/becomes pantheism.
*Freedom & Growth: And Other Essays by Edmond Holmes - Page 190 - said "Some persons might say that I was a pantheist; others, an agnostic."
*General Sketch of the History of Pantheism By Constance E. Plumptre - "{Agnostic] believers frequently, perhaps almost unconsciously, imply a belief in Pantheism."
*Unitarian Universalism By Alan W. Gomes, E Calvin Beisner, Robert M Bowman Jr - includes pantheism and agnosticism in a list stating, "These beliefs are not mutually exclusive-it's possible to hold more than one."
*The term "agnostic pantheist(m)" has significant results in book searches including a few authors calling themselves and others agnostic pantheists.
Carl Sagan has been frequently described to be a pantheist by scholars.  The Wikipedia page on Carl Sagan also has two pantheistic quotes by Sagan and includes that "his views on religion have been interpreted as a form of pantheism."  The fact that he self described himself as agnostic does not at all mean he is not also a pantheist.  This applies to anyone who has stated that they are agnostic (unless they are agnostic to a very specific view). Allisgod (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The list is specifically for those "Categorized as pantheists..." as described at the top of the page. He's not; he also wasn't "highly influential" to pantheism. You seem to want to change the criteria to "sometimes described as pantheists" and that will make an unwieldy list with less significance. KillerChihuahua 12:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, it does not matter if one is categorized as an agnostic in order to be categorized as a pantheist.  You have not a single source to say it does. Allisgod (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

text: You are incorrect.  Modern pantheists list Sagan as their top influence. Allisgod (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is mildly interesting that some modern pantheists cite Sagan as an influence. However the criteria for this list is "categorized as... and" and he is not categorized as a pantheist. :Category:Pantheists does not include Sagan, because we cannot confirm that he ever was a pantheist. KillerChihuahua 18:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So now your reasoning is because someone failed to add "Category:Pantheism" to Sagan's page, therefore he is not a pantheist? Allisgod (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No. That is not my reasoning. Sagan is not in the category:pantheists because he was not a pantheist. KillerChihuahua 19:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Your reasoning seems circular. He does not belong on this list because, even though we have sources, he is not on another list. And he is not on that list because the category is somehow automatically correlated with reality... I question whoever wrote "categorized" actually meant Wikipedia categories. We do not decide the contents of one page based on how another is written (here, categorized). We should rely on outside sources (please respond to these) and guidelines, possible user votes if there is disagreement on interpretation.--Martin Berka (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not my reasoning. Your understanding of my reasoning is erroneous. Further, I am concerned that you think this is a "vote"; your understanding of Wikipedia's methodology is flawed. We do not use votes here. Wikipedia content is determined by policy and consensus, not voting. See WP:VOTE. KillerChihuahua 02:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self identified Agnostics Can Also Be Pantheists 

message: Please join the conversation here about whether Nicola Tesla should be on this list. KillerChihuahua 13:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have closed the Rfc, as consensus is clear. Link KillerChihuahua 21:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tesla 

message: I think this would be more meaningful if sorted historically by birth dates. Tom Ruen (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I tested a birth year order, seems more logical to me given so many centuries. Tom Ruen (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sort by name or date? 

message: Wikipedia lists don't usually have "notable" in the title, for example lists of Christians, list of Zoroastrians, list of French people. Siuenti (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with Siuenti, title of those page have to be changed, I will do right way, no need any discussion really, as there's no hope that anyone should oppose them. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm against these changes. Why are you trying to delete this article and why have you changed the name? NaturaNaturans (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't add all 1.5 billion(or more) Pantheists so keeping it "notable", as per agreement here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_pantheists. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And why the attempt to delete? NaturaNaturans (talk) 05:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are articles that have been deleted solely due to the breach of WP:GEVAL, you can't add the list of something which is notably higher. For example, you can't add "List of human abuses", etc, there are many lists that are contested by others for deletion right now, such as this one. I found this article to have been similar, but didn't worked, but found better way to keep this article non-controversial. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've reverted this page move (along with the other ones) because it violates the naming conventions for stand-alone lists. Graham87 15:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "notable" in title 

message: ...except that on this list, very few have "identified themselves as pantheist". Pantheism was a word invented in 1697 and has been assigned to notable figures by academics. Very few people self identify as "pantheist". The word was used as a pejorative until only recently. NaturaNaturans (talk) 08:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with the whole description about the things written down. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: (uninvolved comment) Apart from any other issues, the inclusion of any living person in this list who has not explicitly self-identified as a pantheist is a clear violation of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, thus we got only those who have admitted. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed Seeger and Sudarshan, per WP:BLP policy - neither is explicitly self-identifying as pantheist in the source cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You read E._C._George_Sudarshan#Early_life? &  Bladesmulti (talk) 09:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now. It cites the same source. Sudarshan does not describe himself as a pantheist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "Many notable people throughout history identified themselves as pantheist"

message: Blades just added the Sikh founder to list with a source that says he believed in a 'pantheistic God'. Perhaps this is why we are having some conflict on this page and the pantheism page. Belief in a pantheistic God (according to a source) does not automatically imply "pantheism". A 'pantheistic God' can still lead to panENtheism. Note these sources, for example:
"There is no place for pantheism in Sikh thought. The term panentheism is much more appropriate..." The Sikhs: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices - Page 75 William Owen Cole, ‎Piara Singh Sambhi
"the Sikh concept of God is certainly not Pantheism" God in Sikhism - Page 113 Rajinder Kaur
"Guru Nanak's vision...clearly it is not a pantheistic view." Sikhism: An Introduction By Nikky-Guninder Kaur Singh p 63
I would bet there are sources that say he is a pantheist, but the source provided do not. It is easy to conflate pantheism and panentheism. NaturaNaturans (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this doesn't seem right. This is supposed to be a list for individuals of note, not a way to explain a whole religion. I could support Lao Tzu because that represents a single text that can be examined and there are sources that mostly see it as the work of an individual thinker, regardless of what came after. Is the argument that Nanak as an individual was pantheistic? Because that doesn't seem to be in the sources. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  The source being used to support the inclusion....("Sikhism: A Guide for the Perplexed", p. 87, by Arvind-Pal Singh Mandair, year = 2013) states that Guru Nanak was mistranslated by Ernest Trumpp. It's interesting reading. It says that Trumpp translated a section as if it was pantheistic when the source material was not, incorrectly conflating a theist belief with "orthodox Hindu philosophy", and that this decision "cast a shadow on all modern translations and representations of Sikh scripture" and so on. Our own page links to interesting assessments of the quality of Trumpp's translations as well. This is not supporting inclusion. I think I'll take it out until we come to a consensus here. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Thus we see that the mysticism of Guru Nanak is mainly the mysticism of love. Another type of mysticism, which we find in most of the religions in one form or the other is pantheistic mysticism. Pantheism is explained as "God is all". Philosophy of Guru Nanak - Page 76, by Surindar Singh Kohli. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, that quote can be read as saying that; 1. Guru Nanak's mysticism is "love"; 2. But there is also another type of mysticism that is "pantheistic".; I wonder what that quote looks like in context? Right now it looks like it's saying he either ``totally`` wasn't pantheistic or ``mostly`` wasn't pantheistic, neither of which would seem to support inclusion (which is still beside the fact that many sources say he specifically wasn't).__ E L A Q U E A T E 11:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guru Nanak 

message: I believe this quote from family is strong enough to put Carl Sagan back on the list of pantheists, of which he was removed 2 years ago:
:"My father believed in the God of Spinoza and Einstein, God not behind nature but as nature, equivalent to it."
:-Dorion Sagan, Carl Sagan's son - from "Dazzle Gradually: Reflections on the Nature of Nature edited by Lynn Margulis (Sagan's ex-wife), Dorion Sagan (2007) NaturaNaturans (talk)
I believe Sagan, like Neil Degrasse Tyson does now, identified as an agnostic. As a pantheist myself, I like to claim Sagan as one, but I don't believe he ever described himself as one. 74.96.161.216 (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: most people categorized as pantheists describe themselves as agnostic. Einstein described himself as agnostic and his views as pantheistic. One of the greatest promoters of agnosticism, Robert Ingersoll, also called himself a pantheist. The categories are highly compatible and not mutually exclusive. NaturaNaturans (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carl Sagan (again)

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of pantheists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051218111010/http://www.pantheist-index.net/Philosophers_Writers_Scientists/ to http://www.pantheist-index.net/Philosophers_Writers_Scientists/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified