From Quotes
For in the end, we will conserve only what we love. We will love only what we understand. We will understand only what we are taught.
Baba Dioum
Jump to: navigation, search

Pandeism (or Pan-Deism) has been used at various times to represent:

  1. a coherent variation of Pantheism and Deism, combining attributes of these belief systems;
  2. a religion in which the best parts of all religions are combined into a singe faith; or
  3. a specific religion involving worship of a group of gods called "Pans", derived from Pandu and the Pandavas of India, and from Pandion I and Pandion II, Kings of Athens.


First sense

  • Man stelle es also den Denkern frei, ob sie Theisten, Pan-theisten, Atheisten, Deisten (und warum nicht auch Pandeisten?) sein wollen: dem Volke aber predigt nichts von Gott und ja nichts von Unsterblichkeit.
  • Man leaves it to the philosophers, whether they are Theists, Pan-theists, Atheists, Deists (and why not also Pandeists?) to want; but the people are preached nothing of a god of everything and nothing with immortality.
    • Moritz Lazarus and Heymann Steinthal, Magazine for People's Psychology and Linguistics (1859), p. 262-63.

  • [W]hatever 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. And one may with even greater truth say that the man who is able to receive and live by the religion which Arnold offers him is no longer in need of its help and stimulus. To be able to appreciate an ethical idealism a man must himself be already an ethical idealist.

  • Abschnitt vorbereitender Natur in einem ersten Hauptteil von den psychisch-religiösen Welt-und Lebensanschauungen in ihrer historischen Entwickelung; der zweite Hauptteil bespricht die philosophisch-deistischen und theosophischen Anschauungen vom Pandeismus der alten Ägypter und Inder bis zu Leibnizens prästabilierter Harmonie und Herbarts Realen; der dritte und letzte endlich bringt die metaphysischen und physischen Welt- und Lebensanschauungen, sucht die Anfänge des Idealismus bei den Indern auf und verfolgt ihn bis Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Ev Hartmann und Eucken, reiht an den Spinozismus den jüngsten Neuspinozismus und Neuidealismus an und gelangt schließlich über den Empirismus usw. und den Positivismus zur Aufzählung und Besprechung der eigentlich physischen An-schauungen im engeren Sinne (Materialismus, Atomistik, Energetische Anschauungen usw.).
  • The first section is a precursory discussion of the nature of the historical development of psychological-religious worldviews of life; the second section discusses the philosophical deistic and theosophist opinions of the pandeism of the ancient Egyptians and Indians up to Leibniz's Pre-established Harmony, and a harsh kind of material reality; the third and final section brings those metaphysical and physical worldviews together, pursuing them from the beginnings of idealism with the Indians up to Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Ev Hartmann and Eucken, to Spinozism the youngest Neo-Spinozism and neo-idealism, and finally arrives at empirism etc. and positivism in enumerating and discussing the actually strictly physical opinions (materialism, atomistic, energetic opinions and so forth).
    • Annals of Physics (1911) p. 58.

  • Pantheismus und Pandeismus, Monismus und Dualismus: alles dies sind in Wirklichkeit nur verschiedene Formen des Gottschauens, verschiedene Beleuchtungsarten des Grundbegriffes, nämlich des Höchsten, von dem aus die verschiedenen Strahlungen in die Menschenseele sich hineinsenken und hier ein Spiegelbild projizieren, dessen Wahrnehmung die charakteriologische Eigenart des Einzelindividuums, die durch zeitliches, familiäres und soziologisches Milieu bedingte Auffassungsgabe vermittelt.
    • Paul Friedrich Köhler, Kulturwege und Erkenntnisse: Eine kritische Umschau in den Problemen des religiösen und geistigen Lebens (1916), p. 193.

  • God did not create the world, He became the world. God became the world to realize himself, in material form, to realize an eternal and infinite aim. It is for the purpose of realizing His eternal and infinite aim that He became the world. Now notice this. God had to conceive the one primordial idea to become the world. Thus the idea preceded the world. This is supposed to be the relation between cause and effect. The cause is assumed to be prior to and independent of the the effect; while the effect is assumed to be posterior to and dependent upon the cause.
    • Rabbi Harry Waton, A True Monistic Philosophy: Comprehending the Absolute, God, Existence, Man, Society and History (1947) p. 232. ASIN: B0006ARGQ0.

  • God thus excludes the world; he is only its cause; in no sense is he effect, of himself or anything else. Pantheism (better, "pandeism," for again it is not really the theos that is described) means that God is the integral totality of ordinary cause-effects, and that there, is no super-cause independent of ordinary causes and effects.

  • God thus includes the world; he is, in fact, the totality of world parts, which are indifferently causes and effects. Now AR [absolute perfection in some respects, relative perfection in all others] is equally far from either of these doctrines; thanks to its two-aspect view of God, it is able consistently to embrace all that is positive in either deism or pandeism. AR means that God is, in one aspect of himself, the integral totality of all ordinary causes and effects, but that in another aspect, his essence (which is A), he is conceivable in abstraction from any one or any group of particular, contingent beings (though not from the requirement and the power always to provide himself with some particulars or other, sufficient to constitute in their integrated totality the R aspect of himself at the given moment).

  • These distinctions make sense only when AR [absolute perfection in some respects, relative perfection in all others] is assumed (hence Spinoza's failure, who assumed mere A). Just as AR is the whole positive content of perfection, so CW, or the conception of the Creator-and-the-Whole-of-what-he-has-created as constituting one life, the super-whole which in its everlasting essence is uncreated (and does not necessitate just the parts which the whole has) but in its de facto concreteness is created - this panentheistic doctrine contains all of deism and pandeism except their arbitrary negations. Thus ARCW, or absolute-relative panentheism, is the one doctrine that really states the whole of what all theists, if not all atheists as well, are implicitly talking about.

  • What appeared here, at the center of 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.

  • What is referred to herein as a "divine spirituality" is nothing but the intrinsic and unaided propensity and proclivity of matter to self-organize. This, of course, is capable of "dying" when the limit of expansion is reached, and the old-age Big Crunch starts. This is the way the Gaia Universe dies. Here I must side with Heracleitus, the Stoics, Bruno, Fichte, Schelling, Goethe and Hegel. Mind is eternal, mind never dies, mind is the universe. The Pandeist God is the Salmon-God: when it spawns it dies. [They] side with Nietzsche — God is dead — only that for Nietzsche there never was a 'god.'
    • Professor Ramon G. Mendoza, History of Ideas: Pantheism (1996).

  • 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. [However, t]he Creator is distinct from his creation. The reality of secondary causes is what separates Christian theism from pandeism.
    • Pastor Bob Burridge, Theology Proper - Lesson 4: The Decrees of God (1997)[1].

  • Why does calling God the author of sin demand a pandeistic understanding of the universe effectively removing the reality of sin and moral law.
    • Pastor Bob Burridge, Theology Proper - Lesson 4: The Decrees of God (1997)[2].

  • In the greatest poet of the older generation in France, Victor Hugo, a weak species of pantheistic deism asserts itself, in spite of his enthusiastic rationalism; we still trace in him the influence of the preceding century; religion is glorified at the expense of religions; love, which unites, at the expense of dogma, which separates and scatters.

  • One high school teacher once told me that Śankara said that God became the world. In the beginning there was God and then he created the world out of himself. So God became the world. And now there is no God. It is exactly like making idli out of rice. The rice is gone; only idli is there. Later, I repeated this as Śankara’s philosophy to someone and he laughed so hard that I knew that there was some mistake in what I had said. But I didn't know what the mistake was and he didn't correct me either.
    • Bhagavadgita Home Study, 2000.

  • The Eastern view of morality springs from a fundamentally different view of reality. We in the West regard the universe as a creation of God; like an invention or a product. After he created the universe, God set himself to oversee it and manage it. We see God as our boss. He created the universe, he is present in it, he manages every part of it, but he is still separate from it. It's like he installed video cameras all over the universe, so he can see everything that happens, and he can cause this or that to happen, but he is not a part of what happens. The Eastern view is very different. To the Hindu, for example, God didn't create the universe, but God became the universe. Then he forgot that he became the universe. Why would God do this? Basically, for entertainment. You create a universe, and that in itself is very exciting. But then what? Should you sit back and watch this universe of yours having all the fun? No, you should have all the fun yourself. To accomplish this, God transformed into the whole universe. God is the Universe, and everything in it. But the universe doesn't know that because that would ruin the suspense. The universe is God's great drama, and God is the stage, the actors, and the audience all at once. The title of this epic drama is "The Great Unknown Outcome." Throw in potent elements like passion, love, hate, good, evil, free will; and who knows what will happen? No one knows, and that is what keeps the universe interesting. But everyone will have a good time. And there is never really any danger, because everyone is really God, and God is really just playing around.
    • Warren B. Sharpe, Philosophy for the Serious Heretic: The Limitations of Belief and the Derivation of Natural Moral Principles (2002) p. 396 ISBN 0595215963.

  • Als Gesamtcharakteristik wählte H. sich die Bezeichnung eines neo-transzendentalen Subsistenz-Relationismus bzw. mehr inhaltlich: eines Hen-Pan-Deismus (nicht: -theismus); geschichtsphilosophisch schließt dies Atheismus, naturphilosophisch einen Quasi-Pantheismus - das Absolute als definitiver Prinzipiationsgrenzwert unter Gültigkeitsrücksichten - ein.

  • In the eighteenth century and early nineteenth century Spinoza even became the secular saint of a kind of mystical pantheist deism for authors like Goethe, Schelling, and Coleridge.
    • Aaron V. Garrett, Meaning in Spinoza's Method (2003), p. 2.

  • Caeiro unterläuft die Unterscheidung zwischen dem Schein und dem, was etwa "Denkerge-danken" hinter ihm ausmachen wollen. Die Dinge, wie er sie sieht, sind als was sie scheinen. Sein Pan-Deismus basiert auf einer Ding-Metaphysik, die in der modernen Dichtung des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts noch Schule machen sollte.
  • Caeiro interposes the distinction between the light and what "philosopher thoughts" want to constitute behind him. The things, as he sees them, are as they seem. His pandeism is based on a metaphysical thing, which should still become a school of thought under the modern seal of the twentieth century.
    • Von Martin Lüdke, "A modern guardian of things; The discovery of the great Portuguese continues: Fernando Pessoa saw its master in the poetry of Alberto Caeiros", Frankfurter Rundschau, 18. August 2004.

  • 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.

  • Belief in a single deity, however, is consistent with science and natural cause as long as that belief is in a First Cause that has not and does not, subsequently, alter or change natural order. Reader and Author alike have their own personal preferences, but what is important to the next world-view and way of thinking is accommodating to the still-widespread longing to believe in a "supreme being" while at the same time, not adopting anything which can disturb natural order and natural cause. The next belief system would need to be like an umbrella that reached out to cover atheism, deism, agnosticism, and pantheism (that is, pan-deism). Only in this way, now, can we bring humanity into the real age of scientific discovery, build a new civilization, and ultimately expand the human race far out into the universe beyond this cramped small planet in which we are now so confined.
    • Charles Brough, Untwisting the Social Sciences (2006), p. 142.

  • FREE THINKERS: all people whose beliefs regarding "spirits" are compatible with modern science. Deism, pandeism, agnosticism and atheism are compatible, while theism is not.
    • Charles Brough, Untwisting the Social Sciences (2006), p. 220.

  • Sometimes pantheists will use the term “pandeism” to underscore that they share with the deists the idea that God is not a personal God who desires to be worshipped.
    • John Armstrong, God vs. the Bible: How God's Creation Discredits Christian Scripture (2007), [4].

  • The seriousness or validity of Pandeistic views aside... every side of the heated and long-lasting argument around the “hard problem of consciousness”, and around the feasibility of artificial consciousness, seems to be simultaneously correct. Factual or not, the mere fact that a philosophical system can be conceived wherein those mutually-exclusive views no longer contradict one another is remarkable.
    • Bernardo Kastrup, Ph.D., Intriguing Metaphysical Parallels between the Consciousness Debate and Pandeism (2007), [5].

  • Pandeism is the belief that a god gave up their status as a god to become the universe, and is thus based on the ideals of deism.
    • Alex Ashman, BBC News, Metaphysical Isms (5th September 2007), [6].


  • "So what motivates God?" I asked. "Do you have the answer to that question, or are you just yanking my chain?"
  • "I can conceive of only one challenge for an omnipotent being—the challenge of destroying himself."
  • "You think God would want to commit suicide?" I asked.
  • "I’m not saying he wants anything. I’m saying it’s the only challenge."
  • "I think God would prefer to exist than to not exist."
  • "That’s thinking like a human, not like a God. You have a fear of death so you assume God would share your preference. But God would have no fears. Existing would be a choice. And there would be no pain of death, nor feelings of guilt or remorse or loss. Those are human feelings, not God feelings. God could simply choose to discontinue existence."
  • "There’s a logical problem here, according to your way of thinking," I said. "If God knows the future, he already knows if he will choose to end his existence, and he knows if he will succeed at it, so there’s no challenge there, either."
  • "Your thinking is getting clearer," he said. "Yes, he will know the future of his own existence under normal conditions. But would his omnipotence include knowing what happens after he loses his omnipotence, or would his knowledge of the future end at that point?"
  • "That sounds like a thoroughly unanswerable question. I think you’ve hit a dead end," I said.
  • "Maybe. But consider this. A God who knew the answer to that question would indeed know everything and have everything. For that reason he would be unmotivated to do anything or create anything. There would be no purpose to act in any way whatsoever. But a God who had one nagging question—what happens if I cease to exist?—might be motivated to find the answer in order to complete his knowledge. And having no fear and no reason to continue existing, he might try it."
  • "How would we know either way?"
  • "We have the answer. It is our existence. The fact that we exist is proof that God is motivated to act in some way. And since only the challenge of self-destruction could interest an omnipotent God, it stands to reason that we . . ."
  • I interrupted the old man in midsentence and stood straight up from the rocker. It felt as if a pulse of energy ran up my spine, compressing my lungs, electrifying my skin, bringing the hairs on the back of my neck to full alert. I moved closer to the fireplace, unable to absorb its heat.
  • "Are you saying what I think you’re saying?" My brain was taking on too much knowledge. There was overflow and I needed to shake off the excess.
  • The old man looked at nothing and said, "We are God’s debris."

Second sense

  • Are we virtuous merely because we are restrained by the fetters of the law? We hear men prophecy that this war means the death of Christianity and an era of Pandeism or perhaps even the destruction of all which we call modern civilization and culture. We hear men predict that the ultimate result of the war will be a blessing to humanity.

  • 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".

  • The WHO and MSF and other organizations do great work, but they often lack the long-term committment and grass-roots organization needed to build a sustainable program. Missionaries and hospitals like Holy Family also have made contributions and they recognize the need for providing economics-based aid (i.e. finding employment), but they lack the vigour and drive of the St. Stephens community. The government also does very little, but generally co- operates with St. Stephens in terms of getting OKs, partly because it is older than the Indian government itself and partly because it has a stellar reputation for secularism. Indeed, most of the staff is either Hindu or Moslem, but they are full of these pan-deist ideas, and even Zahir deliberately used the Christian word "God" rather than "Allah" when talking with me.
    • Paul La Porte, Social Work and Other Experiences in India (2003).

  • Today we are witnessing movements of all kinds toward union. In the commercial world we are seeing great mergers. In the economic world we are seeing whole nations uniting. In the labor world, the unions are waxing bigger and becoming more powerful. In the financial world there is evident an increasing monopoly. In the religious world there are great movements toward union and not only in the professedly Christian world. The church of Rome uses the term “pandeism”, to describe her current program of bringing under her wing the non-Christian religions of the world. In this, Rome will finally succeed, because the prediction says, “all the world wondered after the beast”. (Revelation 13:3)
    • Conrad Baker, The Three Powers Of Armageddon: An Exposition of Revelation 16:13-16, August 12, 2005 [8] (PDF)

Third sense

  • The empu uses a typical pedanda ketu, "crown" which is tall and red, and a ball. Another man leads Pande ceremonies on the island. He represents a curious mix of Buddhism, Hinduism, and, if it can be called this, "Pandeism." Thirty or so years ago some of the Singaraja Pande leaders felt the need for proclaiming themselves to be something other than Hindu, since they considered their fundamental beliefs to be different enough from Hinduism to warrant making a distinction.
    • Fred B. Eiseman, Jr., Bali: Sekala and Niskala: Essays on Religion, Ritual, and Art (1989) p. 89. ISBN 0945971036.

  • The theory presented in the Anacalypsis... is that a secret religious order, which [Higgins] labeled Pandeism, had continued from ancient times to the present day, stretching at least from Greece to India, and possibly having covered the entire world.

External links

Wikipedia has an article about:
Look up pandeism in Wiktionary, the free dictionary