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.
合则存，分则亡，你是哪一位?
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,
=

如果宗教被定义为“一种理解神秘世界的努力，并与控制它的神秘力量建立令人满意的关系”(赫伯特J.穆勒)，那么泛神论很可能被纳入多种宗教之中。泛神论似乎在印度教中找到了最具组织性的形式。正如查尔斯·弗朗西斯·波特所说:“印度教所有教派的基础通常都是某种泛神论。”每一个有组织的宗教都有一种仪式上的吸引力、情感上的吸引力和智力上的吸引力，但却有堕落为“僵化的信仰和压迫性的道德幻想系统”的危险。(尼德曼)宗教的终极考验不是提供答案，而是激励人们寻找生活的意义和方向。

The "God principle"
泛神论对我来说太有限了。
神是我们无法理解的表现!
上帝原则就是宇宙。
它是唯一符合所有描述的“东西”，无论是神学的还是科学的;无限的时间、空间和能量!
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.

我是他，就像你是他，就像你是我，我们都在一起.......
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.
是光速挡住了他的去路。
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.
这是方程的唯一绝对。
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.

祝你好运，内森。祝你好运,的确。《圣经》、《古兰经》和基塔比'aqdas'并没有告诉我们如何估计重力、电磁力和强、弱力。哦，好吧，没关系。我们俩都死了很久了——还没有人会知道。《圣经》上说:“道路是如此确定，傻瓜不应该犯错。”Hmmmmph。骆驼说。

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.
再加上“普世生命教会”的格言(是的，那是来自加州莫德斯托的教会，一开始是为了避税和逃避兵役，但最终任命了许多业余牧师(包括我)，他们举办了许多非教堂婚礼:1)做正确的事情;2)由你来决定什么是正确的事情。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.

与其读书，不如看看自然，它有多美妙就有多美妙。
=

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).
朱利安的启示令人惊讶地开放(尤其是作为一个中世纪的基督徒，在那个时代，教会很快就会扼杀任何与既成教条稍有动摇的神学实验)，说她是泛神论/泛神论者是完全错误的。她强烈而深情地奉献给上帝，在她的作品中没有任何东西表明她认为上帝和她自己/她的创造物在质量上是共同的(在一元论的意义上)，尽管她确实感觉与上帝有显著的“统一”。

Mike, come on...saying a painting is "a Da Vinci" does not mean it IS da Vinci. That would be ridiculous.
戴夫，我读过几遍圣经，我不知道你引用了什么。在《圣经》中，愚人经常犯错，这就是为什么他们被称为愚人。《圣经》可能没有直接讨论四种力或量子力学——比如丘吉尔的《说英语的民族的历史》也没有，但这丝毫不影响它的真实性。有许多种类的知识——真实的、客观的、确凿的事实知识——完全不属于科学。
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.

阿德里安娜:我不这么认为。许多宗教都教导说，上帝(或者是古埃及宗教中的众神)会对每个人的每一个行为甚至每一个思想进行评判。凡事在那我们必须交账的主眼前、都是赤露敞开的。听起来更像是肯定的责任，而不是逃避责任。如果一个人想逃避责任，最好是想象没有上帝(或众神)——这样就没有永恒的后果，而且一个人所做的一切最终都不重要。

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....)
考虑到这一点，我也觉得很奇怪，自诩为泛神论的人会继续使用“上帝”这个词。这种用法本质上是一神论的。但其主要出发点之一是泛神论拒绝人格化的上帝。为什么要以一个统一的，超然的神开始，然后把他散布在整个宇宙?这就像说“一切都是祖先”一样奇怪。除非祖先是你对神性的唯一隐喻。希望祖先和耶和华都不是我们唯一可能的比喻。泛神论不是应该有自己的语言吗?
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.