PantheismPage4

Does Pantheism believe in an afterlife for the individual soul?
Some idealistic versions of pantheism - such as neo-Platonism or Hinduism have held such beliefs.
No-one could completely exclude this possibility. But there is no scientific evidence for such beliefs.
Most modern Pantheists believe that the mind is an aspect of the body, and at death dissolves with the body to merge into the elements from which it was formed. If there is any validity at all to near-death experiences, then this is what they are expressing.
For environmental as well as religious reasons, Pantheism strongly prefers natural burials in special woodlands, at sea, or in other natural areas, where the individual can be reabsorbed into the nature of which they were, are and always will be a part.

Without the hope of heaven, what incentive is there to morality?
The idea that the hope of heaven is the only guarantee of moral behavior is absurd. Highly ethical behavior is found among peoples who do not believe in heaven - for example, many Chinese, or Japanese. Conversely, crime and corruption are rife in Christian societies. Nowhere was the hope of heaven stronger than in medieval Europe - yet few places on earth have seen injustice, oppression, and violence on such a scale, much of it in the name of Christianity.
The strongest stimuli to moral behavior in all human societies are parental and social discipline, either externally imposed, or internalized. Plus the direct rewards for good behavior - love and social recognition. These factors ensure that we are often punished and rewarded for our deeds before we die - though chance and social injustice can often distort the outcome.
Of course, religion can provide support for ethics, and Pantheism provides better support than religions which believe in heaven.
Pantheism believes that we live on in nature where we are re-absorbed, but also in people's memories and in the achievements we leave behind. Therefore we have a powerful incentive to be good and kind to people, and to achieve lasting good in our lives. The kinder we are, the more good we do, the longer will be our "afterlife" in people's memories. If we do harm, then our memory will be execrated.
Contrast this with the God of Christianity who forgives mortal sins even on the deathbed and can reward mass murderers with heaven if they are truly penitent. What kind of incentive for lifelong morality is that?

If there is no personal creator God, wouldn't the universe and human life have no meaning or purpose?
There are two meanings for the word purpose. One is purpose in relation to something external. By definition the Universe comprises all that exists: there is no outside in relation to which it could have purpose. If God exists, we can include him in this All, and the totality "God plus universe" would have and could have no conceivable purpose. Theists claim that God is self sufficient and can exist without purpose. So why can't the universe?
But we can have purpose in the second sense: purpose and goals for our lives which we freely choose for ourselves, in the light of the needs of others humans, animals and ecosystems. The fact that our lives have no external purpose designed by some dictator in the sky liberates us to create our own purposes! For the pantheist, the purpose of life is to connect more deeply and harmoniously with the universe, nature and other humans, and to help others to do so.
Finally consider the so-called "purpose" the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam has planned for us: to struggle through a miserable brief spell on a stage designed as a testing ground for eternity, and prove we are good enough to get into the real show which only starts when we're dead. What on earth would be the "purpose" of setting up such a show, creating little puppets and seeing whether they're good enough and burning the ones that aren't for all eternity? The truth is that theists cannot provide any convincing purpose for life or for the universe either.

Nature and the universe are changeable and sometimes hostile. Isn't that incompatible with the idea of divinity?
Change and flux are facts of life throughout the divine cosmos. So are the risks on earth of disease, accident, collision with meteorites and so on.
It is true that these attributes of the universe and nature are not compatible with pre-conceived ideas about God as an unchanging, loving being. But pantheism does not believe in such a God, and accepts the universe as it is - wonderful, mysterious, creative, exuberant, joyful, and yet also at times chaotic and destructive. Evil and pain exist for theists too, and they are extremely difficult to reconcile with the idea of an omnipotent, yet loving God. Christian apologetics have still not come up with any satisfactory explanation of why God should have created them.

How can we feel gratitude or love or worship towards impersonal matter?
Matter is not impersonal: it is our very substance. If we cannot love matter, then we cannot love ourselves as we are. Almost everyone loves nature, even though it is impersonal, and often seems indifferent or cruel. We can feel gratitude, too, to nature and the universe, for giving us the privilege of conscious life. People love mountains, oceans, stars - even though they know these things are material and impersonal and cannot love them in return.
Consider the reverse of the coin: how can Christians feel love and gratitude towards an all-powerful God who has created disease and pain; a God who has given humans the free-will to do evil, and then if they use it punishes them for all eternity; a God who is planning to wrap up creation, destroy the earth violently, and create a new heaven and a new earth?