Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naturalistic pantheism


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator  DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Naturalistic pantheism

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

"Naturalistic pantheism" is a phrase used by Paul Harrison and his World Pantheist Movement to distinguish their preferred version of pantheism (nature lover's pantheism) with other types of pantheism (including Spinoza's pantheism). However, this phrase was used by philosophers/theologians in the past to describe Spinoza's pantheism, which is a completely different definition of pantheism. Naturalism refers to natural laws in philosophy, not nature loving, and my study of previous uses of the phrase shows all sources using the phrase in the opposite way Harrison uses the phrase. This organization previously called their version of pantheism "Scientific Pantheism" but more recently changed the name to "Naturalistic Pantheism". Although its fine they call their preferred version of pantheism whatever they wish, it is not fine to use Wikipedia as a place to promote a phrase that they want to redefine in their own way without any other backing but a single person's preference and his organization. I believe this page should be deleted and the material in the page should be on the World Pantheist Movement page instead. Allisgod (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Additional info: my research of the term "naturalistic pantheism":


 * Ethical and Religious Thought in Analytic Philosophy of Language By Professor Quentin Smith (American philosopher), 1997; Yale University Press, p 22


 * Naturalistic Pantheism definition: Everything is holy; everything "has all naturally instantiated values"; the conjunction of all things - implies that everything at its base level is "good intrinsically in that it exemplifies a kind of nature. Naturalistic pantheism implies that all is holy, good and bad.


 * A History of Ideas About the Prolongation of Life By Gerald Gruman, MD, PhD (History) Section II Apologism, American Philosophical Society, 1966


 * Naturalistic Pantheism as in Taoism, supports pro longevity because it "breaks down the division between man and gods"


 * Sufi Wisdom By Mariėtta Tigranovna Stepani︠a︡nt︠s︡ (Philosophy prof), p 32


 * Naturalistic Pantheism: "God is the sum of existence" (as opposed to consider everything as derived from God)


 * Is Our Vision of God Obsolete? By G. R. Pafumi (MBA), 2010 p 153


 * Spinoza = naturalistic pantheism - universe as a "single, interconnected, and solely natural substance."


 * Paul Tillich: Theologian of the Boundaries By Paul Tillich (theologian/philosopher), Mark K. Taylor, Mark Lewis Taylor, Collins, 1987 p 165


 * Naturalistic pantheism "denies finite freedom" as in Spinoza


 * The Immanent Divine: God, Creation, and the Human Predicament By John J. Thatamanil (Theologian), p 142 2006 Fortress Press


 * Naturalistic pantheism is negation of freedom; references Tillich and uses his definition


 * St. Thomas and Tillich on the Names of God, JA Martin (Philosophy of Religion prof) - The Journal of Religion, 1957 - JSTOR


 * Naturalistic pantheism as defined by Tillich


 * Panentheism--The Other God of the Philosophers: From Plato to the Present By John W. Cooper (Professor of Philosophical Theology), p 17 2006 Baker Academic


 * "Einstein's quip "God does not roll dice" and Carl Sagan's quasi-religious view of the life giving cosmos are popular examples of naturalistic pantheism."


 * The Middle Works of John Dewey, Volume 2, 1899 - 1925: 1902-1903, Essays on ... By John Dewey


 * naturalistic pantheism "identified God with the forces of nature"


 * American journal of theology & philosophy, Volumes 12-13, 1991, p 147


 * naturalistic pantheism = non dualism


 * Matthew Arnold: Between Two Worlds, AJ Lubell - Modern Language Quarterly, 1961 - Duke Univ Press... Page 5


 * "the naturalistic pantheism he then or somewhat later learned from Spinoza" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allisgod (talk • contribs) 07:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: that seems to be a lot of WP:RS material; plenty for inclusion. It's also unclear under which policy you're suggesting deletion?  The article doesn't seem to be 'promoting' anything and by your logic of not including anything 'without any other backing but a single person's preference and his organization', I supposed we'd have to remove all articles about Calvinism too, as that's just 'one persons preferences'.  If the phrase in question here has other, older uses, then they should be sourced and included in the article.  DP 76764  (Talk) 18:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. Keep in mind that those sources would entirely change the article's meaning.  Environmentalist Harrison is the only person that has defined the term in the way described in the article - he has defined it to represent the views of the World Pantheist Movement.  But the phrase, based on all the sources I have found, is just a synonym of Classical Pantheism and Spinozism.  How do you suggest the page should look like if not deleted?  Right now, I believe the phrase is being used on wikipedia for purposes of promoting an organization and an individuals personal view(s). (Allisgod (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC))
 * Articles should reflect what the majority of sources say; if it's true that this article is weighted in the wrong direction, then it should be reworked to reduce (or eliminate) that bias. And if that re-balancing would make this article redundant with the articles you mention, then we could probably Merge (and redirect) this article.  Let's also be aware that words and phrases have their meanings coopted and redefined from time to time; if there were an 'industry expert/authority figure' that weighed in on this, that would be a useful citation.  DP 76764  (Talk) 19:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Borrowing your analogy, Calvinism is acknowledged by theologians, philosophers etc. and can be well sourced to mean something specific. I have found no experts that have acknowledged Naturalistic pantheism in the way the article is currently written (written to represent the unique views of Harrison and his org).  That's what makes it promotional original point of view.  As it stands now it is not notable because again, not a single reputable source has acknowledged this definition of Naturalistic pantheism.  As for prior uses of the phrase, if the phrase is notable for meaning the complete opposite of what this page was created for, then all Harrison and org ideas should be removed, since their ideas have nothing to do with all the expert source definitions.  If some person and org stated that Calvinism means supporting free will (the complete opposite of what it means) and no expert sources acknowledge it, that would obviously not warrant inclusion in the article on Calvinism.  But this phrase is indeed redundant.  The meaning from all these sources is Spinozism and the philosophy of Spinoza.  I think the phrase should be merged with those pages, and the current content should be in the World Pantheist Movement page. Does this mean I should first edit the page with the correct info just to have it be deleted/merged?(Allisgod (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC))
 * I believe the correct course of action is to wait for a verdict on the AfD before doing any of the work. But I'm certainly not an expert on the process.  DP 76764  (Talk) 19:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination well demonstrates the notability of the topic. The balance of the article is not a reason to delete as this may be addressed by ordinary editing per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This nomination is part of non-neutral user Allisgod's explicit and dedicated campaign to remove all references to Naturalistic Pantheism in favor of his own stated preferences for Classical Pantheism (ie deterministic); Spinoza; and Charles Hartshorne. He has been the primary editor of the current version of the page Classical Pantheism. A search in Google Books and Google Scholar reveals that Naturalistic Pantheism has FOUR TIMES more references that Classical Pantheism. The different uses of a term that Allisgod describes above can equally - if not more so - be demonstrated for Classical Pantheism, which is very commonly used to mean Pantheism in classical (Greek and Roman times) and whatever version of pantheism the user of the term considered to be archetypal.These are the search results: Google Books: 351% more (1720 for Naturalistic Pantheism against 381 for Classical Pantheism); Google Scholar: 145% more references (118 against 48); Books & Scholar combined: 328% more (1838 against 429).--Naturalistic (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking through the examples of usage listed above, the majority of them are entirely compatible with the definition given in the article (Tigranova, Pafumi, Cooper, Dewey, American Journal of Theology, Gruman, Smith). As for most of the others, most of which relate to Tillich, they are not quotes but tendentious summaries by Allisgod.--Naturalistic (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Classical pantheism and Naturalistic pantheism are pretty much the same based on half of the sources. ALL of the sources are compatible with Classical pantheism and actually, I am a naturalistic pantheist based on ALL of the sources I located.  If some of those definitions are 'compatible' with your version of pantheism, that's fine.  However, the page as it stands now includes irrelevant unsourced (apart from you and your org) extraneous material that ought to be removed. (Allisgod (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC))
 * I definitely agree that the sources should be increased and broadened and I will start to do that. You can't possibly have checked all the sources - there are 1838 results in Google Books and Scholar.--Naturalistic (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * True, though I went through dozens of sources that use the term. And the more I look, the more I see Spinoza and determinism come up again and again.  By all means, locate sources that agree with your position because I have found no experts that even come close to stating that naturalistic pantheism is about "revering nature"; "embracing the scientific method"; "rational interpretations of sensory information."; "natural rights"; "welfare of humans and all living beings"; "care for the environment"; "promotion of the ideas of genetic inheritance"; and on and on and on. (Allisgod (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC))
 * You look with different eyes than I do so we might look at the same source and see a different meaning. However, a lot of what you list in the last comment is stuff that I certainly never added. I will check the history to see where it came from.--Naturalistic (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Improvements to article including adding definition section, making history section about history, improving references.
 * I have removed most of the references to environment, which I agree is not part of any proper definition of Naturalistic Pantheism. FYI I did not insert that section and I don't know who did.
 * I have reduced the references to matters strictly related to naturalism.
 * I have also removed the "Characteristics" section which repeated material about the WPM - here too, I did not insert this material, nor was I at all happy with the focus on the World Pantheist Movement here. I don't know who inserted that focus.--Naturalistic (talk) 01:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I will continue to work on improving this article including a look at some of the other uses, gleaned from the 1780 book results and 119 Google Scholar results.


 * Keep: These different parties' definitions seem highly compatible, the extent of determinism being the main difference. Seeing the actual wording of those sources, I think this has been blown out of proportion. Terms change over time, and I think the article can be greatly improved thanks to AllIsGod's research.--Martin Berka (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: I'm going to go with consensus here. The reason I wanted to delete the page was that I anticipate editing it will be a major headache given the interest of user:naturalistic and that I'd have to go through dispute resolution all over again.  Even now with 11 sources cited above he claims that's not enough (despite him watching over a page with 1 source for years).  I believe references to World Pantheist Movement need to be removed and Tillich's definition is the most prominent and main one repeated - which would make his definition the one that ought to be highlighted.  I will begin editing the page shortly and would appreciate some neutral observers or better yet anybody with with some expertise.(Allisgod (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC))
 * I really don't see the neutrality or accuracy of removing the information that the World Pantheist Movement - the world's largest pantheist organization - espouses this form of Pantheism. However, I agree there's too much there about the WPM and it should be slimmed down considerably. I have already started on that.--Naturalistic (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As for your comment that "Tillich's definition is the most prominent and main one repeated" this is nonsense based on an unrepresentative sample. A Google books search for "Naturalistic Pantheism" gives 1780 results. A Google Books search for "Naturalistic Pantheism" -Tillich returns 1710 mentions of Naturalistic Pantheism that do NOT include the word Tillich. Ie, 96% of usages do not include Tillich at all.--Naturalistic (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Since this issue appears to be resolved, with the deletion proposer accepting to Keep - please could a senior editor close this discussion and remove the AfD tag? --Naturalistic (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.