What do you think?
Rate this book
Pandeism: An Anthology
An Anthology presents the work of sixteen authors, new and old, examining the implications of the revolutionary evolutionary theological theory of Pandeism - the proposition that the Creator of our Universe created by becoming our Universe, and that this proposition can be demonstrated through the exercise of logic and reason. These authors present a wide range of views originating from their varied experiences, from professional theologians and religious educators to lay philosophers with PhDs in the hard sciences. Collectively, these authors have assembled the most extensive examination of Pandeism put to print in over a hundred years.
- GenresPhilosophy
474 pages, Kindle Edition
First published December 15, 2016
22 people are currently reading
91 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
June 7, 2018
A fascinating and most insightful read on a "religion" I have been following without knowing completely that I have. Numerous in depth contributions from some of the finest thinkers and practitioners of this way. It's a study guide as well as provocative source of argument for yet another vein of spirituality. A book I will read many more times, as each underlined sentence takes new meaning at various phases in my life.
March 13, 2017
Though I am technically listed as the "author" of this book, I only wrote two of the seventeen articles presented within (and none of the half-dozen poems). I continue to be astounded, firstly that this book exists at all, and secondly at the fully thought-absorbing masterful quality of the writings submitted by each of the other authors. My part in this is simply a fraction of the perfection harnessed by the real heroes who penned their gifts here. Bernardo Kastrup, Alan Dawe, Anthony Peake, Zoltan Istvan, and more, all exceeded my every expectation with their fluidity of expression. And Amy Perry's poems add icing to the confection. Blessings, all!!
August 31, 2017
The neither..nor perspective between theism and atheism
"Pandeism: An Anthology" is a great collection of articles, which show that between the traditional "either or" poles of theism and atheism there is a broad spectrum of "neither nor" metaphysical stances. We are not only made familiar with the subtle differences that exist between Pandeism, Panendeism, Pantheism and Panentheism, we also encounter modern theories such as the holographic principle, the idea that we might live in a computer simulation and Transhumanism.
The philosophical treaties are alternated with beautiful light poems by the poet Amy Perry. The editor of the book, Knujon Mapson, is author of two chapters of the book: An introduction and well-wrought plead as to why Pandeism, the belief that a God created the world by sacrificing itself and thereby becoming the universe, is a better stance than theism.
The rich variety of authors will make that at one moment you are completely fascinated and at another moment somewhat annoyed. Because the book is honest: Is does not only show you the point of view of the proponents of this theory, but also of its adversaries.
You'll encounter heroes of logic such as Bernardo Kastrup and Richard Francks. You'll encounter a Discordian (Lataster). And you'll encounter a weird deification of the Ego by Zoltan Istvan.
Most of them try to somehow reconcile traditional concepts about a God such as omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence with Pandeism, but in order to do so play games with semantics and adjust the meaning of these concepts to fit their reasoning, which I did not find entirely convincing.
And then there are the theists. Whereas a faithful representation of Hinduism in all its variegated forms is presented, when it comes to the Abrahamic religions, the authors are not exactly what you would call representative of mainstream Islam and Christianity, respectively. The Shia Ismaili Gnosis is refreshingly tolerant and interesting but strongly grounded in obsolete Neoplatonic and Aristotelian ideas. The Unitarian Christian stance claims to speak from authority, to which I am allergic.
The atheist stance by D.Dana is typical for someone who still believes in "objective reality", the dot-connecting process of science and who has never experienced a synchronicity, absurdity or a spiritual event.
This book is certainly a must for any student who starts religious studies and probably a great asset for philosophy students too. For the layman it's also written in an accessible manner and gives an original overview of religious, metaphysical, humanitarian and spiritual perspectives.
It's funny though that most writers in this book either try to bring the metaphysical within the boundaries of physics or logic or claim to deduce from an ontological stance. (I do the same btw). In other words it is a collection of pure speculation, with attempts to make this or that stance more plausible. Perhaps the metaphysical is exactly that which cannot be understood in terms of science, logic and ontologies. Or as Wittgenstein used say "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen".
"Pandeism: An Anthology" is a great collection of articles, which show that between the traditional "either or" poles of theism and atheism there is a broad spectrum of "neither nor" metaphysical stances. We are not only made familiar with the subtle differences that exist between Pandeism, Panendeism, Pantheism and Panentheism, we also encounter modern theories such as the holographic principle, the idea that we might live in a computer simulation and Transhumanism.
The philosophical treaties are alternated with beautiful light poems by the poet Amy Perry. The editor of the book, Knujon Mapson, is author of two chapters of the book: An introduction and well-wrought plead as to why Pandeism, the belief that a God created the world by sacrificing itself and thereby becoming the universe, is a better stance than theism.
The rich variety of authors will make that at one moment you are completely fascinated and at another moment somewhat annoyed. Because the book is honest: Is does not only show you the point of view of the proponents of this theory, but also of its adversaries.
You'll encounter heroes of logic such as Bernardo Kastrup and Richard Francks. You'll encounter a Discordian (Lataster). And you'll encounter a weird deification of the Ego by Zoltan Istvan.
Most of them try to somehow reconcile traditional concepts about a God such as omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence with Pandeism, but in order to do so play games with semantics and adjust the meaning of these concepts to fit their reasoning, which I did not find entirely convincing.
And then there are the theists. Whereas a faithful representation of Hinduism in all its variegated forms is presented, when it comes to the Abrahamic religions, the authors are not exactly what you would call representative of mainstream Islam and Christianity, respectively. The Shia Ismaili Gnosis is refreshingly tolerant and interesting but strongly grounded in obsolete Neoplatonic and Aristotelian ideas. The Unitarian Christian stance claims to speak from authority, to which I am allergic.
The atheist stance by D.Dana is typical for someone who still believes in "objective reality", the dot-connecting process of science and who has never experienced a synchronicity, absurdity or a spiritual event.
This book is certainly a must for any student who starts religious studies and probably a great asset for philosophy students too. For the layman it's also written in an accessible manner and gives an original overview of religious, metaphysical, humanitarian and spiritual perspectives.
It's funny though that most writers in this book either try to bring the metaphysical within the boundaries of physics or logic or claim to deduce from an ontological stance. (I do the same btw). In other words it is a collection of pure speculation, with attempts to make this or that stance more plausible. Perhaps the metaphysical is exactly that which cannot be understood in terms of science, logic and ontologies. Or as Wittgenstein used say "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen".
August 1, 2018
This book breaks new ground in philosophy/theology. The thinking behind pandeism is like this: We can see intelligent design in the Universe and on Earth, but there is no evidence of a "designer". There is no consistent and unmistakable communication from a Divine Being who might have designed the Universe. Pandeism has an answer which to me seems rather obvious. The Designer became the Universe, and hence ceased to be a fully conscious being with the ability to communicate. It is likely that every conscious being currently existing is a fragment of the original designer.
I have more on this topic on my webiste: http://pandeism.info/
I have more on this topic on my webiste: http://pandeism.info/
March 16, 2017
Resonates with my very soul!
I spoke with Knujon, sent a message and I was asked kindly to leave my message as a review.
Thank you so much, I brought your book on kindle last night and find it to be amazing. It resonates with me absolutely. Before the book I would have to consciously ask my self questions and base my beliefs round what I believed through observation.
You have not only brought me new information (to me at least) but solidified that in which I believed which has only enhanced my feeling of connection with the world around me.
I spoke with Knujon, sent a message and I was asked kindly to leave my message as a review.
Thank you so much, I brought your book on kindle last night and find it to be amazing. It resonates with me absolutely. Before the book I would have to consciously ask my self questions and base my beliefs round what I believed through observation.
You have not only brought me new information (to me at least) but solidified that in which I believed which has only enhanced my feeling of connection with the world around me.
December 28, 2020
A very well-rounded collection of pandeistic thought. Some of the articles interested me more than others, but overall, I found the book to be mentally stimulating. I appreciated the alternatives and criticisms to pandeistic theory towards the end of the book. I can easily get sucked in by a well-reasoned argument and fail to notice holes in the logic. The variety of ideas within this text kept my mind on it’s toes!
October 9, 2020
This book is a great treatise on the topic of Pandeism, written by a variety of authors to get many perspectives, some for and some against the idea. It is a subject that was previously not very well known, to the point where my browser keeps flagging "Pandeism" as a spelling error. Overall, it is very thought-provoking. I'll comment on each part separately:
- Knujon Mapson's A Brief History of Pandeism - Very comprehensive introduction to the concept.
- Amy Perry's poems - On Celebrating Life was the best poem.
Part I:
- Bernardo Kastrup's The Idealist Interpretation of Pandeism - A rather extreme and subjective perspective on metaphysics where everything is reduced to an eternal single consciousness, which is indeed well suited to Pandeism.
- Robert G. Brown's A Theorem Concerning God - A refreshing chapter based on information theory, where he proves that only Atheism, Pandeism and Pantheism are tenable positions. A bit heavy on the unnecessary polemics at times.
- Alan H. Dawe's God, the Universe and Pandeism - Reminds me of Eckhart Tolle's The Power of Now but far more coherent. Appeals to the New Age crowd.
- Michael Arnheim's God Without Religion - More practical than metaphysical, it shows how the Pandeism concept can bridge different viewpoints in society.
- Raphael Lataster's Pantheistic God-Concepts - A defense of Pantheistic worldviews as more logical and peaceful than Theistic ones. This is the point where I thought, "Pantheism? I thought the book was about Pandeism." which leads me to the main flaw of the book (at the bottom of my review).
- Knujon Mapson's Why Pandeism is Better Than Theism - Points out that Pandeism is the simplest explanation for all the contradictions in religious revelations and experiences.
Part II:
- Richard Francks' Omniscience, Omnipotence and Pantheism - Suggests that God must be equivalent to the universe in order to fully experience it.
- William C. Lane's Leibniz's Best World Claim Restructured - An interesting perspective using a different premise than the other articles. Instead of ontological wordplay or empirical evidence, he writes about the variegation of experiences given a universe's set of axioms to suggest that we actually do live in a pretty good (and designed) universe.
- Zoltan Istvan's Transhumanism and Theistcideism - Doesn't have much to do with Pandeism until the end. It's mostly just about Transhumanism itself but points out that an omnipotent being would not have much reason to keep existing.
- Poffo Ortiz's Pantheistic Reflections - A very environmentalist and spiritual approach to Metaphysical Naturalism.
- Anthony Peake's Pandeism, the Holographic Universe, and Simulation Theory - Is the "technological singularity" the creator deity/universal force we are looking for in Pandeism?
Part III:
- Sushma Sahajpal's Hindu Dharma - Didn't have much to do with Pandeism at all.
- Ismaili Gnosis' Beyond Creator and Universe - This is where the main objections start coming up. If the Creator must (by necessity) be omnipotent and eternal, how did it annihilate itself? If it ended, it would not be eternal. Thus, a Creator must still exist in the same form.
- Orlando Alcantara Fernandez's Omnientheism - In my opinion, the weakest chapter. It was repetitive and seemed to be talking to himself with a lot of terminology and definitive statements but not much explanation for the reader.
- William Walker Atkinson's Axioms of Reality - Another critique of Pandeism in which he denotes the idea as childishly anthropomorphic (his words, not mine) and contradicting fundamental axioms of infinity and change.
- Dan Dana's An Atheist Critique of Pandeism - The only chapter in which some of the authors actually interact with each other. He dismisses the whole concept because 1) it's speculative with no direct empirical evidence; 2) it seems to be a simple extrapolation of psychological anthropomorphism already negated elsewhere by scientific investigation; 3) the infinite multiverse hypothesis is a far simpler and more scientific hypothesis to explain the conditions of the universe.
I would have to say that the main flaw of the book is that Pandeism is defined a little too loosely. Some of the authors are just talking about a sentient Pantheism and some are just talking about Metaphysical Naturalism. Some of them are using the definition of Pandeism where there is still a divine force that produces supernatural and religious experiences but some are using the definition where there is simply materialistic physics and that's it. This is even pointed out by one of the authors. No doubt the variety of viewpoints add to the value of the book but these interpretations are so wildly different (in the case of Kastrup and Dana, polar opposites!) that it was difficult to compare ideas; the authors were using the same terminology but are not always talking about the same thing (or even a similar thing) at all.
- Knujon Mapson's A Brief History of Pandeism - Very comprehensive introduction to the concept.
- Amy Perry's poems - On Celebrating Life was the best poem.
Part I:
- Bernardo Kastrup's The Idealist Interpretation of Pandeism - A rather extreme and subjective perspective on metaphysics where everything is reduced to an eternal single consciousness, which is indeed well suited to Pandeism.
- Robert G. Brown's A Theorem Concerning God - A refreshing chapter based on information theory, where he proves that only Atheism, Pandeism and Pantheism are tenable positions. A bit heavy on the unnecessary polemics at times.
- Alan H. Dawe's God, the Universe and Pandeism - Reminds me of Eckhart Tolle's The Power of Now but far more coherent. Appeals to the New Age crowd.
- Michael Arnheim's God Without Religion - More practical than metaphysical, it shows how the Pandeism concept can bridge different viewpoints in society.
- Raphael Lataster's Pantheistic God-Concepts - A defense of Pantheistic worldviews as more logical and peaceful than Theistic ones. This is the point where I thought, "Pantheism? I thought the book was about Pandeism." which leads me to the main flaw of the book (at the bottom of my review).
- Knujon Mapson's Why Pandeism is Better Than Theism - Points out that Pandeism is the simplest explanation for all the contradictions in religious revelations and experiences.
Part II:
- Richard Francks' Omniscience, Omnipotence and Pantheism - Suggests that God must be equivalent to the universe in order to fully experience it.
- William C. Lane's Leibniz's Best World Claim Restructured - An interesting perspective using a different premise than the other articles. Instead of ontological wordplay or empirical evidence, he writes about the variegation of experiences given a universe's set of axioms to suggest that we actually do live in a pretty good (and designed) universe.
- Zoltan Istvan's Transhumanism and Theistcideism - Doesn't have much to do with Pandeism until the end. It's mostly just about Transhumanism itself but points out that an omnipotent being would not have much reason to keep existing.
- Poffo Ortiz's Pantheistic Reflections - A very environmentalist and spiritual approach to Metaphysical Naturalism.
- Anthony Peake's Pandeism, the Holographic Universe, and Simulation Theory - Is the "technological singularity" the creator deity/universal force we are looking for in Pandeism?
Part III:
- Sushma Sahajpal's Hindu Dharma - Didn't have much to do with Pandeism at all.
- Ismaili Gnosis' Beyond Creator and Universe - This is where the main objections start coming up. If the Creator must (by necessity) be omnipotent and eternal, how did it annihilate itself? If it ended, it would not be eternal. Thus, a Creator must still exist in the same form.
- Orlando Alcantara Fernandez's Omnientheism - In my opinion, the weakest chapter. It was repetitive and seemed to be talking to himself with a lot of terminology and definitive statements but not much explanation for the reader.
- William Walker Atkinson's Axioms of Reality - Another critique of Pandeism in which he denotes the idea as childishly anthropomorphic (his words, not mine) and contradicting fundamental axioms of infinity and change.
- Dan Dana's An Atheist Critique of Pandeism - The only chapter in which some of the authors actually interact with each other. He dismisses the whole concept because 1) it's speculative with no direct empirical evidence; 2) it seems to be a simple extrapolation of psychological anthropomorphism already negated elsewhere by scientific investigation; 3) the infinite multiverse hypothesis is a far simpler and more scientific hypothesis to explain the conditions of the universe.
I would have to say that the main flaw of the book is that Pandeism is defined a little too loosely. Some of the authors are just talking about a sentient Pantheism and some are just talking about Metaphysical Naturalism. Some of them are using the definition of Pandeism where there is still a divine force that produces supernatural and religious experiences but some are using the definition where there is simply materialistic physics and that's it. This is even pointed out by one of the authors. No doubt the variety of viewpoints add to the value of the book but these interpretations are so wildly different (in the case of Kastrup and Dana, polar opposites!) that it was difficult to compare ideas; the authors were using the same terminology but are not always talking about the same thing (or even a similar thing) at all.
July 4, 2025
Pandeism holds that God was originally a spiritual being who chose to transform into the universe, fragmenting into separate consciousnesses. According to this view, all that exists is the universe and its fragmented mental entities. Unlike traditional religions, pandeism denies any transcendental realm, making it more akin to some variant of philosophical Idealism than religion. As stated in chapter 'The Idealist Interpretation of Pandeism' (Inference 9), "there is only the mental, since there is only That Which Experiences. The physical is simply the contents of perception, a particular type of experience."
While pandeism builds on Descartes' premise that subjective awareness is an ontological primitive ("I think, therefore I am"), modern philosophy has largely rejected this reasoning. Critics argue that no permanent self need exist behind thoughts, and there is no logical necessity for 'thinking' and 'experiencing' to require a "thinker" or "experiencer." Indeed, a subject cannot maintain its existence without thoughts and experiences—these are prerequisites for subjective existence and thus more fundamental. Evidence suggests that subjective awareness, the sense of "me," is derivative rather than primary.
There appears to be a contradiction in claiming that a spiritual being once existed while denying that anything beyond the physical universe exists today. If one accepts that a transcendent being existed in the past, what philosophical basis is there for rejecting the possibility of transcendent beings in the present?
This logical flaw reflects a broader problem in pandeism's attempt to reconcile spiritual and materialist worldviews. By acknowledging transcendence only in the past while denying its present possibility, pandeism inadvertently supports the very materialistic worldview it seeks to transcend through its idealist interpretation of consciousness. This philosophical compromise has implications beyond pure metaphysics. The rejection of transcendence has detrimental effects on society, as it encourages materialistic values and worldly pursuits. Throughout history, religious faith in transcendent deities has played an essential role in maintaining social cohesion and ethical standards.
This book proved disappointing, as I had expected pandeism to offer novel philosophical insights. Instead, it merely presents classical Idealism in contemporary language. The spiritual depth of Romantic Idealists such as Schelling and Novalis makes their philosophical work more intellectually and spiritually engaging than pandeism's compromised metaphysics.
While pandeism builds on Descartes' premise that subjective awareness is an ontological primitive ("I think, therefore I am"), modern philosophy has largely rejected this reasoning. Critics argue that no permanent self need exist behind thoughts, and there is no logical necessity for 'thinking' and 'experiencing' to require a "thinker" or "experiencer." Indeed, a subject cannot maintain its existence without thoughts and experiences—these are prerequisites for subjective existence and thus more fundamental. Evidence suggests that subjective awareness, the sense of "me," is derivative rather than primary.
There appears to be a contradiction in claiming that a spiritual being once existed while denying that anything beyond the physical universe exists today. If one accepts that a transcendent being existed in the past, what philosophical basis is there for rejecting the possibility of transcendent beings in the present?
This logical flaw reflects a broader problem in pandeism's attempt to reconcile spiritual and materialist worldviews. By acknowledging transcendence only in the past while denying its present possibility, pandeism inadvertently supports the very materialistic worldview it seeks to transcend through its idealist interpretation of consciousness. This philosophical compromise has implications beyond pure metaphysics. The rejection of transcendence has detrimental effects on society, as it encourages materialistic values and worldly pursuits. Throughout history, religious faith in transcendent deities has played an essential role in maintaining social cohesion and ethical standards.
This book proved disappointing, as I had expected pandeism to offer novel philosophical insights. Instead, it merely presents classical Idealism in contemporary language. The spiritual depth of Romantic Idealists such as Schelling and Novalis makes their philosophical work more intellectually and spiritually engaging than pandeism's compromised metaphysics.
August 17, 2018
Interesting read. It covers lots of territory, with many different, and sometime, conflicting views. I've never encountered a book the subject before, so it was somewhat of a delight to read. I was kind of put off by the poetry in it, while lovely, I couldn't connect it to the general body of work. I also feared it might be a dry, academic read and was pleased to discover it was actually very straight forward and thought provoking read.
I received a Kindle Arc from Netgalley in exchange for a fair review.
I received a Kindle Arc from Netgalley in exchange for a fair review.
July 29, 2022
Profound thinking. Nobody knows for sure about God/Gods but this is a book for me that inspires rather than divides.
February 27, 2023
Overall, a well-written piece that left me with a better understanding of its topic. I also enjoyed that this book felt like it was open to speculation and constructive back and forth.
The final chapter that dealt with an atheist critique of pandeism was particularly interesting to me.
The final chapter that dealt with an atheist critique of pandeism was particularly interesting to me.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews