Talk:List of pantheists

Can anyone show that Sitting Bull was a Pantheist?

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)

Is Nietzsche a Pantheist?

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)

Will I take out him from the list without oposition? DrLutz 19:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

I think it would be wrong to call Einstein a pantheist.

In a biography of Einstein, this is what Einstein said in an interview with a journalist. The question was "Do you believe in the God of Spinoza?"

• "I can't answer with a simple yes or no," he replied. " I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist."

I think it would be wrong to call Einstein a pantheist. I am removing his name from the List of Pantheists.

RS

I am re-adding the name of Einstein

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)

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)

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)

Regardless of what notions other people ascribe to Einstein, he said he didn't think he could call himself a pantheist. The analogy here isn't someone saying "I am unsure if I am gay", it would be "I don't think I can call myself gay". That's not a matter of taking a neutral position, it is a statement saying they don't think they fit the definition. Pretty unambiguous.Ninahexan (talk) 04:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Cites! For the love of ... whatever!

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)

I'll try and add come citations each day. Sventington the Second (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Category:Pantheists

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

Possible sources

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)

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)

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)

Consider re-adding Spinoza and Einstein

Spinoza and Einstein should be on the list. It's true that Einstein once neglected to describe himself as a pantheist, however he also mentioned that he believed in Spinoza's God, which is very pantheistic. Source about this: http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/spinoza.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.167.254.3 (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

He didn't neglect to describe himself as a pantheist, he specifically stated that he didn't think he could call himself a pantheist. Had he neglected to take a position on the label you may have an argument, but since he specifically did make a point about what he felt his position was and was not then I don't see your point as being defensible.Ninahexan (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The start of the above quote "I do not think I can call myself a pantheist" is not accurate - it is cited in this form very widely on the Internet, but Alice Calaprice, for many years the copyeditor of the Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, cites it as follows: "I am not an atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a pantheist." [Ultimate Quotable Einstein p 326.]

That's very different from saying he did not think he was a pantheist. He was not sure, that's all he is saying.

Note also that he does not say "I am not an atheist or a pantheist" - he treats the two differently.

Besides that he repeatedly makes statements saying that his idea of God was closest to Spinoza's. He said his comprehension of God could be described as "Pantheistic (Spinoza)" (Calaprice p 324). He said "I believe in Spinoza's God." (ibid p 325).

And in addition many of his statements are totally consistent with Pantheism, and he expressly rejects the idea of a personal judging creator God.

However, it has to be said that his statements about God are not consistent, and that his viewpoint may have shifted during the course of his life.

In the light of all of the above I think the best assessment of where he stood is that he was a Pantheist.--Naturalistic (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Good point, the different wording does indeed change the meaning. Thanks for pointing that out.Ninahexan (talk) 00:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Self identified Agnostics Can Also Be Pantheists

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)

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)

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)

That is not what I am saying. I am saying that Sagan does not meet the criteria for inclusion on this list. KillerChihuahua 18:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Modern pantheists list Sagan as their top influence. Allisgod (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Some added Sources:

• Theologian John MacArthur - "Sagan's religion was actually a kind of naturalistic pantheism"
• MT Hübler, TM Lessl - "Indeed, in the very first lines of the Cosmos series Sagan is already sewing the seeds of pantheism in the listener's mind"
• BD Zaleha - "At its website, the WPM [world pantheist movement] notes Rachael 1 Carson, Albert Einstein, novelist Margaret Atwood, Mikhail Gorbachev, Chief Sitting Bull, Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, and Thoreau as exemplars of naturalistic pantheism."
• Tim Dean PhD philosophy - "...God is simply to be identified with the universe in its entirety - impersonal, but in and of all things - a pantheistic reading adopted by Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan, amongst others." Allisgod (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Tesla

Please join the conversation here about whether Nicola Tesla should be on this list. KillerChihuahua 13:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have closed the Rfc, as consensus is clear. Link KillerChihuahua 21:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Carl Sagan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should Sagan be included in the List of pantheists? An editor has recently added him to the list, stating his "views on religion have also been interpreted as a form of pantheism" (accurate) and the question is whether he meets the given criteria for this list, of persons "who have been categorized as pantheists and have had a significant influence on Pantheism." Sagan is a noted self-identified agnostic; he is in Category:Agnostics and not in Category:Pantheists. KillerChihuahua 18:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• No Sagan is an agnostic whose poetic language may have been found to be inspiring to some pantheists, but that does not make him an influential pantheist or even a pantheist at all. KillerChihuahua 21:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

  Search on the web and you will see Sagan is prominently mentioned in major pantheist websites. I have added some sources in the category above that include his influence on modern pantheism. Also, your suggested claim that agnosticism and pantheism are mutually exclusive is backed by no sources. Allisgod (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

  Whose claim would that be? I have never made such a claim. And I see no one else making such a claim. You're tilting at windmills, Allisgod. KillerChihuahua 18:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

  Really? You listed these as your summary reasons for removing the edits: "Rm. While others have postulated that Sagan's beliefs were pantheistic, he self-identified as agnostic" and "He is so prominent in the List of agnostyics that his picture is featured there. His article is in Category:agnostics, not Cat:pantheists. He was not a pantheist." Allisgod (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

  That Carl Sagan was not a pantheist is not the same as stating that pantheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive. Please stop falsely saying I said they were; I have not done so. KillerChihuahua 19:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

  All I did was quote your own words. Allisgod (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

  Clearly you did not, as there is no post wherein I said that "agnosticism and pantheism are mutually exclusive" which you accuse me of above. I am now completely done with this particular line of discussion. KillerChihuahua 20:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

  And misrepresenting the statements of others is a rather clear violation of basic conduct guidelines, and I very strongly urge all those involved to refrain from continuing in that manner. John Carter (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• (No, copied from Talk:Carl Sagan)[1]: I agree with KillerChihuahua, I see no evidence, both personal and written, that Carl would considered a follower of Pantheism. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• I don't have the Tracy 1990 source (but I could get it tomorrow or the next day). I do have Frankenberry, N., "Pantheism" in van Huyssteen, J. W. V. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Science and Religion (Thomson-Gale, 2003), pp. 641-647. Frankenberry 2003 does cite the Tracy 1990, but not for anything about Sagan. Frankenberry cites Sagan himself (Pale Blue Dot) with reference to pantheism. Frankenberry does not say that Sagan was a pantheist though, nor even that "his views on religion have also been interpreted as a form of pantheism". Frankenberry says only that Sagan "spoke for those who prefer a straightforward pantheistic orientation over what they regard as the equivocations of panentheism". That only establishes that some people have interpreted Sagan as giving weight to pantheism. It would be interesting to see what the Tracy 1990 says exactly. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• NO Sagan specifically self-identified as agnostic and gave plenty of explanation that he meant that in the conventional sense. He may have used pantheistic language at other points but one may assume that he meant it figuratively and artistically. Mangoe (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The conventional sense of agnosticism (and atheism) has to do with a personal God not the version offered by pantheism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allisgod (talk • contribs) 21:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• YES First of all, one can be categorized as both a pantheist and agnostic. Thomas Huxley who coined the word "agnosticism" said "Agnosticism is not a creed, but a method..." Pantheism is not a method and does not conflict with agnosticism unless it is a specific form of agnosticism - agnostic about a natural law version of God, which Sagan emphatically agreed with. Sources regarding agnosticism and pantheism:

• An Agnostic's Progress By Mary Emily Dowson (pseudonym was William Scott Parker) writes that agnosticism logically implies/becomes pantheism.

Is it a reliable source, though> John Carter (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Freedom & Growth: And Other Essays by Edmond Holmes - Page 190 - said "Some persons might say that I was a pantheist; others, an agnostic."

Presumably, a quote from Sagan himself, although it isn't identified as such? If it is, it might be reliable as an indicator that Sagan was aware that some people (emphasis on some) held that opinion, but the statement certainly falls short of saying that Sagan, if that is Sagan, would think that those "some persons" were right.John Carter (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• General Sketch of the History of Pantheism By Constance E. Plumptre - "{Agnostic] believers frequently, perhaps almost unconsciously, imply a belief in Pantheism."

And exactly how does this relate in a clear and obvious way, not in violation of WP:SYNTH, to Sagan? John Carter (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• 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."

Honestly, completely irrelevant to the subject at hand. John Carter (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• The term "agnostic pantheist(m)" has significant results in book searches including a few authors calling themselves and others agnostic pantheists.

So? Again, how does that relate to Sagan? John Carter (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

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."

• Theologian John MacArthur - "Sagan's religion was actually a kind of naturalistic pantheism"

The source specifically says "a kind of naturalistic pantheism." It is an open question whether such a clearly qualified statement is sufficient to qualify the subject as a pantheist. By the same token, just about every Christian in history could be said to be "a kind" of Jew of the Biblical era, but I don't think anyone would say that Christians are Jews. John Carter (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Every pantheist is a certain 'kind of pantheist'.. pantheism is a broad word encompassing many beliefs. Allisgod (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• MT Hübler, TM Lessl - "Indeed, in the very first lines of the Cosmos series Sagan is already sewing the seeds of pantheism in the listener's mind"

"Sowing the seeds in the listener's mind" does not necessarily mean that the seeds these authors see were intentionally placed, or, honestly, even if Sagan himself agreed to the apparently independent conclusions those authors reached. John Carter (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• BD Zaleha - "At its website, the WPM [world pantheist movement] notes Rachael 1 Carson, Albert Einstein, novelist Margaret Atwood, Mikhail Gorbachev, Chief Sitting Bull, Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, and Thoreau as exemplars of naturalistic pantheism."

Is the world pantheist movement, which seems to be rather clearly not at all independent of pantheism, reliable, or might it be, like many others, claiming anyone and everyone they can? In my own experience regarding religious websites, the latter happens far more often than the former. John Carter (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Tim Dean PhD philosophy - "...God is simply to be identified with the universe in its entirety - impersonal, but in and of all things - a pantheistic reading adopted by Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan, amongst others."

Not everyone with a PhD is, of course, reliable. Is this source reliable, and even then, it simply reflects the opinion of one academic. John Carter (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• A simple Google search of Carl Sagan and pantheism yields a ton of evidence of his influence on modern pantheists. Allisgod (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

And Google searches regularly show any number of really ridiculous books and materials which support any number of really ridiculous ideas. Next... John Carter (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Apologetics By Doug Powell - "Adherents to pantheism of one form or another include: ...Carl Sagan"

"In one form or another" is the same sort of qualifier that Christians could use for being Jews "of one form or another,." per my comment to that effect above. John Carter (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• David F. Forte, Natural Law and Contemporary Public Policy - "simply imagine a pantheist modern astronomer, like the late Carl Sagan..."

On what basis does this author make this assertion, is it a reliable source? John Carter (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Encyclopedia of science and religion - Wentzel Van Huyssteen - "Carl Sagan spoke for those who prefer a straightforward pantheistic orientation..."

"Speaking for" people is not quite the same as actually being one of them, I'm afraid, and it would violate WP:SYNTH to say otherwise.

• John W. Cooper Panentheism--The Other God of the Philosophers - "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."

Is "naturalistic pantheism" any more pantheism than Christians are Jews? Also, does this source meet [{WP:RS]]? John Carter (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Naturalistic pantheism is a kind of pantheism similar to Spinoza's philosophy. And yes, an expert in both philosophy and theology who is not pushing pantheism should meet WP:RS Allisgod (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

(4 sources added Allisgod (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC))

That modern pantheists have found Sagan inspiring is interesting, but does not indicate he himself should be on this list. Richard Dawkins has said he finds Christian hymns inspiring, but that does not make him a Christian, nor does it make the authors of those hymns atheists. KillerChihuahua 21:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

YES: This should perhaps be qualified with "possible" or "described as," followed by sources where various academics have specifically identified him as a Pantheist (four so far). These sources represent a reasonable analysis of Sagan's views as matching (fairly naturalistic) pantheism. Agnosticism precludes his ability to be a "hard" monotheist/polytheist/atheist - it does not prevent his beliefs from being pantheistic, just like there are Christian and atheist agnostics. Being more dispersed and not an organized religion, Pantheism refers to the details of his beliefs, not specific identification with a group.--Martin Berka (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you suggesting we change the parameters for who is included in the list? KillerChihuahua 02:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not see where these parameters are defined other than in your interpretation of the word "categorized". I will cede if you can highlight a parameter-defining group vote or a Wiki standard for this page or "lists of people" pages.--Martin Berka (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

No again. As requested by Allisgod on my own Talk Page, I have reviewed the above comments and it does not change my previously held opinion. When Carl was with us, I never heard him advocate Pantheism. I totally agree with KillerChihuahua contribution of 24 January 2013. David J Johnson (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

See below comment. By the way, pantheism is not capitalized. Allisgod (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• No "Maybe" and "possible" != a valid reason to categorise anyone as anything. Can you imagine "List of murderers" including "possible murderers"? Sorry - absent a solid reason to cateorise a person (generally self-identification) people should never be placed in any ifffy category. Collect (talk) 12:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

So Albert Camus is not an absurdist, Nietzsche is not an existentialist, Spinoza is not a pantheist, etc.? Pantheism is not a widely known word and was created and popularized by opponents of the belief. People are categorized into it, they do not categorize themselves into it. It's not a religion, this is not Hinduism. The Solid reasoning is a bunch of experts who have categorized him as such, and it is not an iffy category - he is clearly a pantheist based on his writings. How many PhDs in theology and philosophy do you need to tell you that? Allisgod (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

If contributors care to check on my Talk Page, you will find that I have answered Allisgods queries. Regards to all David J Johnson (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not find those answers particularly responsive to the details, and we really need something citable. Multiple contradictory sources do not simply negate each other - they demonstrate a notable controversy, though if there are superior citable sources to the negative, then said controversy will belong elsewhere.--Martin Berka (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

When you say "sources to the negative" do you mean "sources which state he was not a pantheist"? KillerChihuahua 22:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Right now we have outside academics' sources on pantheism, and strong personal sources on agnosticism. I really doubt there are specific denials for something so obscure, and anyway, what would really quash this would be a personal source indicating his beliefs as incompatible with pantheism: a hard version of any other theism, a movement explicitly opposed to it, a lack of intense, positive feelings towards the universe.--Martin Berka (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

No; we don't list people as "in a category until proven otherwise". They are, rather, not in a category until proven so. I guarantee you there are thousands of people in Category:Biography for whom no proof or sourcing of any kind about their personal beliefs in available, but they do not belong in Category:Pantheism or in this list. Only those who are verified as being pantheists, which generally means a statement by the person (as the one most likely to know their own beliefs). See Collect's observation above, with the example of people who might be murderers. The onus is on the editor wishing to include to persuade and obtain consensus, the burden does not fall on those who feel the case for inclusion is insufficient. KillerChihuahua 22:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You are making misinformed points. One is that a notable person should "verify" that he/she is or isn't part of a philosophical category. Thousands of notable individuals are placed in philosophical categories which they themselves have not "verified". In fact, most intellectuals do not box themselves into categories. Secondly, a "List of Murderers" is nothing like a "List of [insert philosophical position]". Philosophers/scholars categorize these people, not a court of law based on undeniable facts. Allisgod (talk) 09:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Since that's not my point, I reject your opinion that my view is "misinformed". KillerChihuahua 18:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• RfC Comment - I am leaning toward not including Sagan in the list. First, although I do think the Encyclopedia of Science and Religion is a good source, it does fall short of actually stating Sagan was a pantheist, only saying that his statements were acceptable to pantheists and are or were seen by them as supporting their cause to some degree. There is a difference. If we used these somewhat arbitrary criteria, we could just as easily have Jesus categorized as a practicioner of Islam, which I think would be just as problematic. Honestly, I think right now we probably have some of the same sorts of problems with the newly created categories on Deists, considering the articles included also often categorize the subjects as some form of Christian, and the two philosophical positions involved are more or less directly contradictory. A god who has left the world alone since its creation cannot be said to have been involved with the life or work of Jesus, as that would be a form of involvement. If the criteria for inclusion in the list were changed to include something to the effect of "individuals who have made statements which have been seen by pantheists as consistent with their beliefs," maybe include him. But that is a different discussion than this one. John Carter (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: 'seen by pantheists as consistent with their beliefs' - note that none of the sources I have listed are pantheists. They are doctors of philosophy and theology. Many of them are actually opposed to pantheism. And there are other experts I did not list because I wasn't sure if it was necessary and worth the trouble (now I wonder, do expert sources even matter here??). John W. Cooper is a panentheist and authority on both pantheism and panentheism. He is one of very few actual authorities on this subject. I've read his book. He goes into great depths distinguishing the intricacies of pantheism and panentheism, among other categories. He would be more than qualified to write an encyclopaedia entry about pantheism and he says Sagan's view is pantheism. Killerch's idea that noted individuals need to 'verify' by calling themselves pantheists is absurd. Intellectuals like Sagan never enjoy getting boxed into categories - but that naturally happens when scholars say he belongs to a category. I've demonstrated this is the case. "Some categorize him as a pantheist" is a pretty fair statement when it's a group of rare experts on the subject matter. Allisgod (talk) 09:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Having reviewed all the comments you itemized above as sources, I note that many are at best even peripherally relevant to whether Sagan was a pantheist, but rather about the views of pantheism in a broader sense byb those authors, and that there usage here is probably ruled out as per SYNTH. The fact that some might see one school of thought as implying or presupposing others does not mean it necessarily does, and it pretty clearly violates WP:SYNTH to say otherwise. The recent Encyclopedia of Religion edited by Lindsay Jones is generally counted possibly/probably one of the two or three most reliable sources on religion out there, and it's article on "Pantheism and Panentheism" is available through Highbeam Research, and also in every print copy of the source itself, which is included in so far as I can tell just about every public and academic library out there. I think it would be extremely useful for others to consult that reference source for the articles on those beliefs and also the articles in the most recent reference works on philosophy, which I think might not yet have happened, before deciding this. The one academic reference source you provided, the Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, is probably the best source for determining the nature of "pantheism" from the academic perspective, as opposed to the individual perspective of individual authors whose motivations might be something other than fairness and accuracy. Reference sources are our best sources for possibly disputed materials, and nothing I see in the only one yet produced indicates that it supports this contention. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I think not much more than 10% of the people listed as pantheists (or other similar categories on Wikipedia) are mentioned in Encyclopedia entries - which may be the only type of academic source available for the obscure subject of pantheism. It seems like an unrealistic qualification for this particular subject. I'll look for a better source and the source you mentioned, in any case. Allisgod (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me for saying this, but I have absolutely no idea where that comment came from, unless I phrased things badly, which I often do. I mentioned reference sources because they are the best sources. I mentioned the question of the definition of "pantheism", because, well, we need to know how the term is defined. Although I thank you for a lot of the sources you produced, honestly, we would have to go over each and every one of them point by point to establish that they are both reliable as per WP:RS and that they present an opinion which has received sufficient support in the academic world and elsewhere to qualify under WP:WEIGHT. So far, I regret to say, I ain't seen that. There is a fairly clear definition of "pantheism" accepted by academia, as per the reference sources. We would need to know if those sources identifying Sagan as some form of "pantheist" use the same or different definitons, for instance. Also, I expressed my reservations about the material you proposed above individually after each comment. Honestly, I don't see anything yet which clearly and explicitly says Sagan would qualify as a pantheistic, although I think a reliable biography of him independent of pantheism and pantheists which made that statement would certainly qualify, if such exists. But, right now, I don't necessarily see the required verifiability that he was a pantheist, just that many people after the fact say he was. John Carter (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your responses to my first four sources above, those were added to help counter the irrelevant fact - which has proven prevalent here - that 'Sagan was an agnostic', and somehow therefore not a pantheist. Secondly, regarding your comment that "naturalistic pantheism" may not be a kind of pantheism - there is no academic who would agree with that. Naturalistic pantheism is a naturalistic form of pantheism (i.e. Bruno, Spinoza, Einstein, etc). If you wish, I can provide you with thorough research regarding the meaning of naturalistic pantheism. Allisgod (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• RfC Comment - I would say Yes so long as it was qualified that he himself did not classify himself that way. However there seems to be an abundance of WP:RS who classify him as such. ReformedArsenal (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

  Would you be so kind as to confirm my understanding of this? Are you saying that Sagan did not consider himself a pantheist, but we should include him here anyway, or do you think that Sagan did consider himself a pantheist? Thanks - KillerChihuahua 22:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• no He was an agnostic, not a pantheist, his statement might have sounded pantheist because he used much figuritive euphemisms when referring to the beauty of the universe. Pass a Method talk 22:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Agnosticism and pantheism are not mutually exclusive. See comments/sources above. Allisgod (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

And yet again, no one has said they are. You are taking a two part statement, "Sagan was an agnostic" and "Sagan was not a pantheist" and acting like people are saying "Sagan was an agnostic, therefore he cannot be a pantheist". Please cease this baseless line of endless sniping at editors who have come here to offer their opinions on Sagan's beliefs. They are merely being thorough, they are not making a statement about whether the two beliefs are exclusive or incompatible. You are arguing against a statement no one has yet made. When and if they do, feel free to correct them, but until they do, please stop your repeated arguing against things no one has said. You are not helping your case by failing to read correctly what people are saying. KillerChihuahua 21:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, then I'll rephrase it as a question: He states that, "He was an agnostic, not a pantheist". What, if anything, does his agnosticism have to do with this discussion here? Are you - Pass a method - suggesting these two ideas are mutually exclusive or can one be both agnostic and be categorized as a pantheist? Allisgod (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• No Sagan's influence on pantheists does not make him a pantheist, and I don't believe he ever self-identified as such (in contrast with his known agnosticism). I think the relevant criterion (having a significant influence on pantheism) is too broad and subjective. Miniapolis 16:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Is self identification of a philosophical category necessary for a person to be included in a category? In that case, Hegel went as far as to say he was, "not a pantheist." Yet, a ton of scholars say he was indeed a pantheist. Sagan never said he was or was not, but is that necessary for a philosophical category? Allisgod (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

No, but I can't express my view more clearly than KillerChihuahua has above; the consensus in the RFC also seems to be "no". Miniapolis 03:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but just to be clear since this thread has gotten very long, you're unmoved by the fact that an authority on pantheism as well as several doctors of philosophy and theology (who are not themselves pantheists) have called him a pantheist? Allisgod (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm unmoved. As with other "So-and-so was such-and-such" lists, I believe that self-identification should be the deciding factor; anything else is OR and SYN. Miniapolis 14:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, so in that case, almost nobody on this list, and almost nobody on some other lists such as List_of_existentialists, have self-identified. They are placed in categories by academic consensus, and according to your opinion, they should all be removed if that is the case because scholarly interpretation is NPOV. Do I have that right? Allisgod (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Allisgod, you are skirting very close to battleground behavior here. Miniapolis has answered you several times, and your extrapolation from that of positions which they have not stated is baiting and/or misrepresenting what others have stated, which as John Carter warned you above in this section is a violation of basic civility. You appear to be trying a little too hard to get the last word in. We know you added Carl Sagan. You have explained your view thoroughly already. There is no need to belabor the point repeatedly. I suggest you apologize to Miniapolis, who has been more than patient and answered several questions already. We understand you have a different view; but you're beginning to act as though you can't accept that others may disagree, for very valid reasons. KillerChihuahua 23:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I asked a valid question in order to understand the basis of his position. If several people state that the people on these lists ought to have self-verified, then that ought to be discussed and made clear. You are overreacting and I believe you ought to assume good faith. Allisgod (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe you understand how AGF works. It does not grant you license to badger other editors ad infinitum; nor does it exempt you from any criticism. Regarding whether the list should include only those who have self identified is outside the scope of this Rfc which is only about whether Sagan should be included. Please feel free to start another discussion section or Rfc on this talk page if you wish. KillerChihuahua 00:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I have read WP:AGF several times and I have told you in the past that I do not believe you respect that Wikipedia principle. In fact, I think the way you throw out policy borders on WP:GAME in trying to silence a line of discussion you disagree with. Stating that I am 'badgering' and need to 'apologize' is clearly assuming bad faith, in my opinion. If you have any further 'criticisms', make them on my talk page. This is an inappropriate discussion for this page. Allisgod (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Mineapolis has already said three times what their position is, confirming that they've read the material and confirming their view. Noting that you're exhibiting IDHT and borderline badgering is not a failure to AGF; it is an observation. You are of course entitled to your own views; you are not entitled to badger other editors and put out straw men of positions they have not stated in order to force them into either denying your assertions and/or defending themselves, or leaving your presumptions unchallenged. You did not ask a neutral question; you told them what they supposedly think, and then asked them to confirm or deny. That is inappropriate. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done with this thread. KillerChihuahua 16:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• RfC Comment: No - no reliable sources provided so far which classify him as such. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• RfC Comment: No - if the list is to have credible value, Sagan must not be on it. This is the opinion I've reached, and I have no intention of following up on it. Cheers,—_{My76Strat • talk • email} 18:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• No - I am persuaded by the analysis by John Carter.Fagles (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reverted Removal of Srinivasa Ramanujan

KillerCh, Ramanujan was a believer advaita Vedanta, a well known pantheistic version of Hinduism. His influence on Hinduism and advaita Vedanta is also notable as he is a famous man in India and revered for keeping his Hindu faith despite being a mathematician. A little bit of research brought up plenty of information regarding this. ~ Science And the Indian Tradition: When Einstein Met Tagore By David L. Gosling p 101 NaturaNaturans (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is true. The quoted passage cites S. N. Bose as a follower of this particular Hindu tradition, not Ramanujan. All other attemtps to connect the two seem to refer to a much later Ramanujan, not the mathematician. THen we have to get past the issue of whether Advaita Vedanta is pantheistic; our article does not assert this, and other material I've seen seems to indicate that it is panentheistic. Mangoe (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

"Ramanujan was a brilliant mathematician who never ventured into other areas of research, but whose collaborative efforts with G.H. Hardy eventually bore extensive fruit in the physical sciences. His work was partially motivated by his belief in advaita Vedanta."

As for the second issue, I noticed also the article on advaita Vedanta doesn't mention pantheism. But that would be similar to a the Mormonism article not mentioning theism. Pantheism is a broad word. As for panentheism, there's some debate on this, but advaita vedanta is known to be monistic, which rules out panentheism. NaturaNaturans (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Theism is indeed in Mormonism#Relation to mainstream Christianity, second paragraph. KillerChihuahua 23:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

And for the third time, I am asking you to not refer to me as KillerCh. Use KillerChihuahua or Puppy or KC, please. KillerChihuahua 23:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see the word theism in there, KC NaturaNaturans (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Sort by name or date?

I think this would be more meaningful if sorted historically by birth dates. Tom Ruen (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

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)

"notable" in title

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)

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)

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)

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)

And why the attempt to delete? NaturaNaturans (talk) 05:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

"Many notable people throughout history identified themselves as pantheist"

...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)

What's wrong with the whole description about the things written down. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(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)

Indeed, thus we got only those who have admitted. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

You read E._C._George_Sudarshan#Early_life? & [2] Bladesmulti (talk) 09:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I have now. It cites the same source. Sudarshan does not describe himself as a pantheist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Either way, not too controversial neither any hurries, but thanks for your suggestion for now. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Lao Tzu

Lao Tzu should not be removed on this list because his historical existence is disputed. He is treated as a historical figure in his main Wikipedia article. Go there first and get consensus that he is not a historical figure. NaturaNaturans (talk) 04:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#List_of_Pantheists_.2F_Pantheism_Articles properly? Bladesmulti (talk) 04:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

We do not cite Wikipedia as a source. And current academic consensus seems to be that his historicity is questionable at least. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Is his questionable historicity enough to remove him from a list of pantheists despite the fact that academic scholars of pantheism treat him as a real historical figure and a pantheist? Also, I was not sourcing wikipedia, I was just pointing out that the wikipedia article on lao tzu treat him mostly as a historical figure, backed up by academic sources in that article. NaturaNaturans (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not really involved in this regard, but Andythegrump, and Itsmejudith had raised this point. Can you provide a source in which historians are refuting the suggestion that Lao Tzu may have never existed? Bladesmulti (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not an authority on Lao Tzu's existence, but the source of the entry here was an academic authority of pantheism who treats lao tzu as a historical figure. Countless academics with an expertise of pantheism treat him as a historical figure, none that I have found question his historicity at all. That issue may even be a fringe issue. I don't believe his entry should be removed when a major case against his existence has not even been established on his main wiki page. NaturaNaturans (talk) 14:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

There are heavier researches about Jesus, Muhammad that they never existed, but still the main page doesn't seem to be pointing them, that well, it will cause never ending debates if you tried. Purely time waste. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

There are theories that Shakespeare did not write his plays, but he is still listed as the writer of those plays. It seems somewhat presumptuous to remove a person from a list because of a possibility that an unaccepted theory might be true. NaturaNaturans (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Any wikipage or legendary remarks if he didn't wrote the theories? Writings are disputed a lot, with Beatles many of their songs were written by Lennon alone, but Mccartney is also credited due to the tie-up of the band. Writings are not the issue at all, we are talking about the existence. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I added a revised version. As I said on Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#List_of_Pantheists_.2F_Pantheism_Articles, the debated existence of a subject doesn't keep Homer off of List of poets or Moses off of List of Jews. This is a list of people who influenced or are practitioners of Pantheism. The writer or writers of the Tao Te Ching should be on there if reliable sources say they are important; it is also risking original research to say all sources that say this person existed are confirmed incorrect. (And I don't think we should take Zeno of Elea of of List of Greeks either.) Elaqueate

So you proved that he existed? I mean Lao Tzu. AndyTheGrump, Itsmejudith should review. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I added that the author of the Tao Te Ching is traditionally referred to by the name Lao Tzu. This is sourced. The "scholarly doubt" is whether we can know details of the writer of the text's life, and whether it refers to more than one writer. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has many good citations, and makes it clear that there is debate, but that the debate is on the same terms as Homer#Identity_and_authorship, another ancient writer that we have no personal data confirmed other than we know somebody wrote something down that was interesting to billions of people. We (and by we I mean scholarly reliable sources) also assign a name to that writer without being able to confirm anything deeply specific about them other than rough geography and rough time period. It also explains that the details of the authors origin are what are being debated, not the fact that an author existed. It's textbook The Homeric Question__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

And on Wikipedia, you don't "prove someone existed". You show that reliable academic sources refer to something, and cite them, using the qualifiers they use, if necessary. __ E L A Q U E A T E 03:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Then why there's a doubt if that he existed or not? You must read the noticeboard, other guy explained it well. But I have pinged both of them already. Hope to see them soon here. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Lao Tzu must have existed, as there is a writing of considerable wisdom existing. Whether or not what is said about him today, is any truer than gay rumourgossip of known people today should be considered ofcourse. And Islam has a false Mohammed in severe conflict with the Quran, Buddhism has a false Buddha under a tree implying hallucinogenic use. And many Daoists think Lao Tzu was a pantheist. Looking at the original scripture, there is neither pantheism, jihad or hallucinogenic use. They infact all use standard dualistic logic, creator/created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.164.8 (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Guru Nanak

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

Carl Sagan (again)

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)

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)