I believe it is just a metaphysical view and not a religious ideology or so. Was there any philosopher who announced himself a pantheist, yet was an active member in a religion? If so, then it seems we can take the Christian God and stick him in everything while sticking everything in him.

God is One as All is One.
The Universe is not a twoneverse; it is united except for those who would divide us.
Science and religion or theories and faiths divide the Universe with uncertainty while the single truth of Oneness, simply, absolutely, or most certainly unites us All. If theories and faiths were true they would be called truth.
United we stand, divided we fall, which One are you?
There is no greater power or strength than One.
Am I a theist or an atheist? I am simply a trueist who loves the truth,
And as for the worshop of nature's Oneness, nature's absolute, nature's truth, or nature ourselves, I prefer to just be,
=

If religion is defined as "an effort to make sense of a mysterious world, and to get into satisfactory relations with the mysterious powers that control it," (Herbert J. Muller) then pantheism may well be included as one in the multiplicity of religions. It seems that pantheism has found its most organized form in Hinduism. As Charles Francis Potter put it, "Underlying all sects of Hinduism is usually some sort of pantheism." Every organized religion has a ritual appeal, emotional appeal and intellectual appeal but is in danger of degenerating into "systems of rigid belief and oppressive moral fantasies." (Jacob Needleman) The ultimate test of a religion is not to provide answers but to inspire people to find meaning and direction within their life.

The "God principle"
Pantheism is too limited for me.
God is our expression of our inability to to understand!
The god principle is the Universe.
It's the only "thing" that fits all the descriptions, both theological and scientific; Infinite in time, space and energy/power!
The Universe is/are multidimensional 'field(s)" of possibilities/probabilities, unable to depict/grasp = ever changing in all it's aspects= Neti, Neti, Neti; do I have to continue?
Creator and destructor of all "life". Heaven and hell at the same time/space (multi dimentional)
In the beginning there was a void, then there was a "sound"= the Big Bang
It's our finite/primitive/obsolete senses / brain that makes us focus on "substances" limited in time, space and energy.
All religions (= the business of spirituality), "materialized" / limited "God" in words, pictures, statues, stars/planets and even living organisms including ourselves and e.t.'s
and thus creating a huge pandemonium of limited God's.

I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.......
J. Lennon

Here is a truth I found that connects everything, ya everything:
Albert Einstein died searching for an equation that unifies energy or everything, a unified field theory UFT. or theory of everything TOE. He reduced or simplified the universe to his most famous equation e = mc2 then unfortunately got lost and went the other way. Had he simply reduced his own equation to its simplist or single truth, to =, he would have found the proof or truth he was looking for.
It was C or the speed of light that stood in his Way.
Equal or =, mathematically or empirically, is the equation for truth, the truth that unites us all..
When all is equal all is truly One.
Equal cannot be challanged, it can only be obscured.
It is the equation's single absolute.
Thanks John Ken and Philip for the great show,
=

PS: its a truth that will set you free.
=

I actually haven't heard a single man says he is pantheist and I am not sure I will soon hear it, because there is nothing wrong with that concept and believe but think again, if you believe God is everything you will say that you believe in Christ, Buddha or Allah isn't that right?

I like this theory about God much more than the conventional view most people have of him. I think it's absurd to think of God as an old man sitting in a throne in the sky, and that he (or it, better said) is more of a universal force within all of us. I think it's interesting to note that life feeds on death to be sustained, so all living beings are intrinsically connected to one another and hence contribute to each other's existence, independently of whether we do it in a direct or indirect way.

Saying "the universe is God" is like saying "the painting is the painter." Nonsense.
We seem to be spending a lot of effort on why we come up with a concept of God. That is looking at it backwards. We did not create God. The question more accurately is why He bothered to create us.
And with all due respect to Bertrand Russell, science is quite often about what we don't know - in fact at the professional level I think it focuses mostly there. Religion on the other hand is quite often focused on what we have experienced and therefore do quite intimately know.

Good luck with that one, Nathan. Good luck---indeed. Bibles, Korans, and Kitabi'aqdas' did not tell us about how to estimate gravity, electromagnetism and strong and weak forces. Oh well, never mind. We shall both be long dead--- and no one will yet know. Biblically, 'the way is so certain, a fool should not err.' Hmmmmph. Said the Camel.

Surely Nathan a painting can be called a da Dinci
And the Universe, united, infinite, immeasurable,devine, wonderful, nature, all powerful, God, is, One.
As for telling a lie for money, truth is the Way.
=

Tintern Abbey? Only on NPR. Thanks for the fun surprise of a few of my favorite lines...

I suggest the name of a pantheistic god: Metaphor ad Infinitum. LIfe is poetry. That gives us the oneness, and maybe the greater-than-the-sum-of-the-parts, without the consciousness or intention that bugs many about theisms, at least me.
Couple that with The Church of Universal Life maxims (yes, that's the church from Modesto, CA, that started off as a tax and draft dodge, but ended up ordaining lots of amateur minsters (including me) who have performed lots of non-church weddings : 1) do the right thing; 2) it's up to you to figure out what the right right thing is. Kind of existentialism.
There you have a good foundation for a religion that only needs to be filled out with some catchy ritual and a lot of fundraising.
One love,
x

I would like EVERYONE to read: "God's Problem" by Bart D. Ehrman. Am sure glad I did, it offered me FREEDOM.

Rather than reading a book, check out nature, its as Onderful as truth gets.
=

During the interview, Dr. Clayton (mis)quoted a medieval mystic -- who I presume to be Julian of Norwich -- as saying "and all shall be one, and all manner of thing shall be one," I believe in support of the idea that pantheism/panentheism as a religious practice has been around for a long time. However, Julian never said any such thing: what she actually wrote in her Revelations of Divine Love was "and all shall be *well*, and all manner of thing shall be *well*" (referring to the relationship between God and humanity in general, but I think also to her own state in particular, deathly ill as she was when she wrote those words).
As surprisingly open-minded as Julian is her Revelations (especially as a medieval Christian in an era when the church was quick to stifle any theological experimentation that wavered even slightly from established dogma), it is simply false to suggest that she was a pantheist/panentheist. She was intensely and affectively devoted to God, and there is nothing in her writings indicating that she viewed God and herself/creation as qualitatively co-substantial (in a Monistic sense), despite the significant "unity" that she did feel with God.

Mike, come on...saying a painting is "a Da Vinci" does not mean it IS da Vinci. That would be ridiculous.
Dave, I've read my Bible a few times, I'm not aware of that quote you used. In the Bible fools err constantly, that is why they're called that. The Bible may not directly discuss the four forces or quantum mechanics - neither does Churchill's "History of the English Speaking Peoples," for example, but that does not make it any less true. There are many kinds of knowledge - true, objective, hard facts knowledge - that are completely outside science.
To get back to Pantheism - I think mirugai is right that humans have a necessity for belief. Pantheism is comfortable in that one can have belief without consequences - there is no Person there that might make demands, set limits, or in any way interfere with one's own desires. Just the nice thought that the universe isn't as indifferent as it seems. Comfortable - also pointless.

I think we created the God not to fill the void but to escape the responsibility. And I think to say I don't know is much better than to make up fairytales.

Adriana: I don't think so. Many religions teach that God (or the gods, in ancient Egyptian religion for example) will judge each person for every action and even every thought. "Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of Him to whom we must give account." Sounds more like guaranteed responsibility than escape from it. It would be better to imagine no God (or gods) if one wanted to escape responsibility - then there are no eternal consequences, and nothing one does ultimately matters at all.

I think the whole concept of god being one "being" is outdated. I'm not religious myself, but I think that in order for someone to believe, he has to consider what could make sense, so, one only "superior being" having energy, intelligence and power to be present in the life of all creatures in the whole universe??

Jpmanzi,The answers to your qoentiuss would probably depend on who you were talking to. I think the phrase scientific pantheism is just alluding to the fact that pantheism does not make any irrational assumptions. If science decrees some fact or idea then pantheists wouldn't wish to deny that fact. So they probably are the same, but why anyone adds the term scientific I am not really sure.The second part, is pantheism just another name for spiritual atheism is a more difficult question. I am sure that there are some who would call themselves spiritual atheists and pantheists at the same time. However, I don't think a spiritual atheist is necessarily a pantheist, nor is a pantheist a spiritual atheist. So no they are not the same.There may be some overlap between the two but there is also plenty of scope for a person to be one and not the other.

WHY TALK OF GOD AT ALL?
Through the show, Clayton very rightly tried to emphasize that our conversations tend to be locked in the language of the monotheisms. A broader historical / anthropological perspective would help us all out. (Ironically, Clayton gave a case in point, referring to "orthodox" Christianity as the primary ideas we refer to, when I think he really means Protestantism, not specifically Orthodox Christianity; everyone always forgets about that other branch....)
With that in mind, I too find it odd that self-described pantheists would continue using the word God. That use is essentially monotheistic. But one of the main points of departure is that pantheism rejects a personal God. Why begin with a unitary, transcendent god, and then spread him out over the universe? It's just as strange as saying, "everything is the ancestors." Well, only if the ancestors are your only metaphor for divinity. Hopefully, neither ancestors nor Yahweh is our only possible metaphor. Shouldn't pantheism have it's own language?
IS IT A RELIGION?
Though it's clear pantheism is not an organized religious institution, it's rather silly to ask whether it's a religion on the grounds that it doesn't have a lot of the things Christianity has. Neither do many other world religions, especially historical ones, have much in common with Christianity. Many do not focus on morality, or afterives, or cosmology; but we still call them religions.
Anyway, maybe the better comparison is between pantheism and monotheism, or some other ism -- and not particular religions. Maybe we haven't seen an instantiated pantheistic religion yet, with rituals or ethics or other specifics about how to live. Maybe it will arrive eventually, or maybe pantheism will always be an offshoot of existing religions.
I know everyone's background in the West is likely to be Christanity-centric, mine probably is too, but let's not forget that pantheism, if it's a religion, would sit beside many other practices in the historic of humanity, and should be judged against all of that. Personally I think it's rather intriguing, but it may just be a big 'ism' for now, awaiting real fleshing out.