범신론
참고 자료

이 문서에는 다음커뮤니케이션(현 카카오)에서 GFDL 또는 CC-SA 라이선스로 배포한 글로벌 세계대백과사전의 내용을 기초로 작성된 글이 포함되어 있습니다.
| v t e신앙 체계 |
| --- | --- |
 결정론  교체신교  남녀 이신론  내재신론/만유내재신론  뉴에이지  다신교  단일신교/선택적 일신교  무신론  무우주론  무지론  밀교  반신론  범신론  불가지론  비신론  비이원론  샤머니즘  신비주의  신지학  심령주의  악신론  혐신론  애니미즘/물활론  양신론  영지주의  오컬트/오컬티즘  유신론  이신론  이원론  인본주의  일신교/유일신교  일신숭배  일원론  전신론  초월론  초월신론  테오파니즘  텔레마  토테미즘  헤르메스주의  현교 
| --- | --- |
전거 통제: 국가 :  독일  이스라엘  미국  일본  체코 
↑  《The New Oxford Dictionary of English》. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1998. 1341쪽. ISBN 978-0-19-861263-6. "the term 'pantheist' designates one who holds both that everything constitutes a unity and that this unity is divine."
↑  Charles Taliaferro; Paul Draper; Philip L. Quinn (편집.). 《A Companion to Philosophy of Religion》. 340쪽. They deny that God is "totally other" than the world or ontologically distinct from it.
↑  松村 2020b, 「汎神論」쪽. harv error: 대상 없음: CITEREF松村2020b (help)
1 2  平凡社 2020b, 「汎神論」쪽. harv error: 대상 없음: CITEREF平凡社2020b (help)
1 2  藤澤 2020, 「汎神論」쪽. harv error: 대상 없음: CITEREF藤澤2020 (help)
↑  ブリタニカ・ジャパン 2020b, 「汎神論」쪽. harv error: 대상 없음: CITEREFブリタニカ・ジャパン2020b (help)
↑  平凡社 2020a, 「汎神論」쪽. harv error: 대상 없음: CITEREF平凡社2020a (help)
↑  Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Religion, edited by Chad Meister, Paul Copan, Routledge; 1st edition (September 1, 2007), ISBN 978-0415380386, p. 275 "Like "atheism" the term "pantheism" was used in the eighteenth century as a term of "theological abuse," and it often still is (Tapper 1987). A.H. Armstrong says the term "pantheistic" is a "large, vague term of theological abuse," (Armstrong 1976: 187). With some exceptions, pantheism is non-theistic, but it is not atheistic. It is a form of non-theistic monotheism, or even non-personal theism. It is the belief in one God, a God identical to the all-inclusive unity, but pantheists (generally) do not believe God is a person or anything like a person. The fact that pantheism clearly is not atheistic, and is an explicit denial of atheism, is disputed by its critics. The primary reason for equating pantheism with atheism is the assumption that belief in any kind of "God" must be belief in a personalistic God, because God must be a person."
↑  The New Oxford Dictionary Of English. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1998. p. 1341. ISBN 978-0-19-861263-6.
↑ Levine, Michael, Pantheism: A Non-Theistic Concept of Deity, Psychology Press, 1994, ISBN 9780415070645, pgs 44, 274-275.
"The idea that Unity that is rooted in nature is what types of nature mysticism (e.g. Wordsworth, Robinson Jeffers, Gary Snyder) have in common with more philosophically robust versions of pantheism. It is why nature mysticism and philosophical pantheism are often conflated and confused for one another."
"[Wood's] pantheism is distant from Spinoza's identification of God with nature, and much closer to nature mysticism. In fact it is nature mysticism
"Nature mysticism, however, is as compatible with theism as it is with pantheism."
↑  Pantheism: A Non-Theistic Concept of Deity, By Michael P. Levine, Routledge; 1st edition (May 19, 2014), Chapter 5.2 Worship and Prayer, pp. 314-315 "Worship and prayer are not suitable to pantheism. It has often been claimed by theists and atheists that pantheistic worship (e.g. worshipping the Unity) is idolatrous. It is worshipping a false god. Unlike the theist or atheist, however, the pantheist believes a divine Unity exists — a kind of god. So pantheists, if they do worship the Unity, reject the idea that they are worshipping a false god. What is wrong with pantheistic worship is not that it is idolatrous, but something more basic having to do with both the nature of worship and Unity. Even if the Unity exists, worshipping it would not be proper pantheistic practice.... What makes it unsuitable is that worship, and especially prayer, are basically directed at "persons" — or at a being with personal characteristics separate and superior to oneself. Whether one's reasons for worship are petitionary or devotional is irrelevant; and so is one's motivation — whether a Freudian way of coping with guilt, or a rationally-based sense of duty. Objects of worship are not oneself, and perhaps not even ontologically distinct from oneself as theism claims, but they are generally taken to be conscious, personal and superior."