Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Pagan Topic => Topic started by: Shaker on February 19, 2016, 12:31:48 PM
-
I've been threatening to start a thread on pantheism (a subject that fascinates me intensely and has for a long time) for a while now. One thing that held me back slightly was where to put it - the Christian topic is obviously out; Ethics and Freethought perhaps not quite right ... Since for some there can be a certain amount of overlap between pantheism and paganism (and because posts on the Pagan topic are always welcome, IMHO), the Pagan topic it is, although I'm more than happy for it to be moved if Ver Management think it would be more appropriate elsewhere.
*
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a long entry on pantheism which typically covers a great deal of ground in great depth. As far as a working definition is concerned, it states:
At its most general, pantheism may be understood positively as the view that God is identical with the cosmos, the view that there exists nothing which is outside of God, or else negatively as the rejection of any view that considers God as distinct from the universe.
However, given the complex and contested nature of the concepts involved, there is insufficient consensus among philosophers to permit the construction of any more detailed definition not open to serious objection from some quarter or other. Moreover, the label is a controversial one, where strong desires either to appropriate or to reject it often serve only to obscure the actual issues, and it would be a sad irony if pantheism revealed itself to be most like a traditional religion in its sectarian disputes over just what counts as ‘true pantheism.’ Therefore pantheism should not be thought of as a single codifiable position. Rather it should be understood as a diverse family of distinct doctrines; many of whom would be surprised — and, indeed, disconcerted—to find themselves regarded as members of a single household. Further, since the concept has porous and disputed boundaries there is no clear consensus on just who qualifies, no definitive roll-call of past pantheists. Given this situation the range of things that may be usefully said about all pantheisms is perhaps limited, but nonetheless a variety of concepts may be clarified, the nature of contentious issues explored, and the range of possible options more precisely mapped out.
(1)
A simpler, less ponderous definition comes from www.naturepantheist.org:
The word Pantheism comes from two Greek words "pan" = all + "theos" = god. In Pantheism, "all is god."
Many Pantheists define "god" as Nature and its creative forces. God and Nature are one and the same.
In contrast, many Monotheists (from "mono" = one+ "theos" = god) define "god" as a supernatural individual. God and Nature are separated.
(2)
And then of course there is a very long Wikipedia article on the subject, of which this is the capsule definition:
Pantheism is the belief that the Universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god. Pantheists thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god
(3)
Pantheism shouldn't be confused with panentheism, which is a wholly distinct concept:
Panentheism (meaning "all-in-God", from the Ancient Greek πᾶν pân, "all", ἐν en, "in" and Θεός Theós, "God"), also known as Monistic Monotheism, is a belief system which posits that the divine – whether as a single God, number of gods, or other form of "cosmic animating force" – interpenetrates every part of the universe and extends, timelessly (and, presumably, spacelessly) beyond it. Unlike pantheism, which holds that the divine and the universe are identical, panentheism maintains a distinction between the divine and non-divine and the significance of both.
(4)
And again:
A second important difference between pantheism and traditional theistic religions is that pantheists also reject the idea of God’s personhood. The pantheist God is not a personal God, the kind of entity that could have beliefs, desires, intentions, or agency. Unlike the traditional God of theism, the pantheistic God does not have a will and cannot act in or upon the universe. These are the kind of things that only a person, or a person-like entity, could do. For the pantheist, God is the non-personal divinity that pervades all existence. It is the divine Unity of the world.
(5)
Therefore in pantheism there is no personal, personalistic deity; God is entirely and wholly immanent - God is Nature and vice versa; God simply is the universe and vice versa. God is viewed not as a person, as in monotheism; there is no thing to which anyone can pray any more than one can pray to a table or a mug of coffee. God is the term that pantheists use to refer to the entirety of nature or the cosmos.
Pantheism has been a feature of a number of religions and philosophies (and those uncategorisable worldviews that seem to straddle the two) for thousands of years. Taoism is essentially pantheistic. A great many forms of native American spirituality likewise. It can be found in strands of Hinduism, and as noted at the outset, most certainly in various varieties of paganism. Of the sundry varieties of pantheism, the one that engages my interest the most is that kind most often known as naturalistic or scientific pantheism:
Naturalistic pantheism is a phrase referring to a kind of pantheism, and has been used in various ways ... The term "naturalistic" derives from the word "naturalism", which has several meanings in philosophy and aesthetics. In philosophy the term frequently denotes the view that everything belongs to the world of nature and can be studied with the methods appropriate for studying that world, i.e. the sciences. It generally implies an absence of belief in supernatural beings.
(6)
Naturalistic pantheism is the underpinning of the World Pantheist Movement, arguably the largest pantheist organisation in existence, which lists its stances in a short version:
The WPM Statement of Principles of Naturalistic Pantheism is not like most religious creeds. It is not intended to be recited by rote or read out in meetings nor is subscription to every word of the statement a requirement of joining the World Pantheist Movement or its forums.
We know that people are not zombies. Everyone has a slightly different slant on the world: if they didn't, there'd be nothing to talk about, nor would ideas advance. But people associate into social and spiritual groups because they share certain beliefs, so it is best to have a good idea of what those basic beliefs are before joining a group.
The basic concepts comprise:
Reverence for Nature and the wider Universe.
Active respect and care for the rights of all humans and other living beings.
Celebration of our lives in our bodies on this beautiful earth as a joy and a privilege.
Strong naturalism, without belief in supernatural realms, afterlives, beings or forces.
Respect for reason, evidence and the scientific method as our best ways of understanding nature and the Universe.
Promotion of religious tolerance, freedom of religion and complete separation of state and religion.
(7)
and in a longer mission statement:
1. We revere and celebrate the Universe as the totality of being, past, present and future. It is self-organizing, ever-evolving and inexhaustibly diverse. Its overwhelming power, beauty and fundamental mystery compel the deepest human reverence and wonder.
2. All matter, energy, and life are an interconnected unity of which we are an inseparable part. We rejoice in our existence and seek to participate ever more deeply in this unity through knowledge, celebration, meditation, empathy, love, ethical action and art.
3. We are an integral part of Nature, which we should cherish, revere and preserve in all its magnificent beauty and diversity. We should strive to live in harmony with Nature locally and globally. We acknowledge the inherent value of all life, human and non-human, and strive to treat all living beings with compassion and respect.
4. All humans are equal centers of awareness of the Universe and nature, and all deserve a life of equal dignity and mutual respect. To this end we support and work towards freedom, democracy, justice, and non-discrimination, and a world community based on peace, sustainable ways of life, full respect for human rights and an end to poverty.
5. There is a single kind of substance, energy/matter, which is vibrant and infinitely creative in all its forms. Body and mind are indivisibly united.
We see death as the return to nature of our elements, and the end of our existence as individuals. The forms of "afterlife" available to humans are natural ones, in the natural world. Our actions, our ideas and memories of us live on, according to what we do in our lives. Our genes live on in our families, and our elements are endlessly recycled in nature.
6. We honor reality, and keep our minds open to the evidence of the senses and of science's unending quest for deeper understanding. These are our best means of coming to know the Universe, and on them we base our aesthetic and religious feelings about reality.
7. Every individual has direct access through perception, emotion and meditation to ultimate reality, which is the Universe and Nature. There is no need for mediation by priests, gurus or revealed scriptures.
8. We uphold the separation of religion and state, and the universal human right of freedom of religion. We recognize the freedom of all pantheists to express and celebrate their beliefs, as individuals or in groups, in any non-harmful ritual, symbol or vocabulary that is meaningful to them.
(7)
Paul Harrison, a writer chiefly associated with pantheism, offers this commentary on naturalistic/scientific pantheism:
Why "scientific" pantheists?
Scientific pantheism is called scientific not because it claims to be a science, but because it adopts a scientific approach to reality to complement its religious and aesthetic approach:
1. It accepts the results of science, while being fully aware that science is not static, and that facts and theories change.
2. It respects empirical evidence and is based on evidence rather than faith in improbabilities and impossibilities.
3. It is based on investigation of reality rather than on revelation in ancient books.
4. It has a basically materialist paradigm, which is also the basis of science. (But see below for the definition of matter).
5. It respects Occam's razor by not multiplying unnecessary entities. Where two theories have equal predictive power, it would prefer the simpler theory.
6. It remains in principle revisable in the light of new evidence and theory.
However, scientific pantheism is not blindly uncritical of science:
6. You do not have to be a scientist, or even to know anything about science to be a scientific pantheist. All you need is a reverential attitude to nature and the universe.
7. While we rely on science and the senses for a proper understanding of the world around us, we attach great importance to spiritual aspects of life such as emotions, religious, mystical and aesthetic feelings and experiences.
8. Scientific pantheism does not believe that science will necessarily be able to explain everything in the universe. Above all, the fundamental mystery of the sheer existence of matter/energy is likely to remain impenetrable.
9. Scientific pantheism condemns the pursuit of scientific knowledge by unethical means, including cruelty to animals and experiments on humans without fully informed consent.
10. Scientific pantheism does not unthinkingly endorse the products of modern technology - in particular, it wishes to see all technology that damages the environment replaced by non-damaging technology that is sustainable indefinitely.
"Universe"
"Universe" written with a capital U means the totality of existence past, present and future. It includes the universe known to us, but also includes parts of the universe not accessible to us at present, and any parallel universes that may be shown to exist.
"Matter"
The word "matter" here is used in its philosophical sense. Matter is defined to include all physical objects, forces and fields that have been or may in the future be detected by the senses or extensions of the senses, or that may reasonably be deduced as existing by established scientific methods, procedures, and evidence.
Use of the word is not restricted to forms of matter or energy known only at the present time. And implies all the discoveries about matter of quantum mechanics. In other words, matter is not dead, matter is not mechanistic, matter is not made of hard little Newtonian balls. Matter is unpredictable, restless, vibrant, creative, mysterious.
"Matter/energy"
Matter/energy indicates that these two aspects are completely interchangeable. Matter can be seen as frozen energy, energy as liberated matter.
(7)
Pantheism is monistic in that it views the universe as composed of only one kind of stuff, the same stuff as modern physics, i.e. matter-energy, but chooses to call this 'God' to express a religiously reverent attitude and reaction toward it.
One of the most common objections to pantheism is linguistic; namely, that to use a word such as 'God' when actually referring to the totality of nature/the universe is both misleading to others and superfluous, since words already exist for those concepts. Arthur Schopenhauer said: "To call the world 'God' is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word 'world'."
Paul Harrison counters this by saying that for pantheists the word 'God' — the theos in pantheos — is appropriate to use because while it is entirely different from the theos of monotheism, it fulfils the same function; it is a focal point of awe, mystery, wonderment and reverence. Explaining the world is the proper business of science; pantheism is the emotional and aesthetic reaction to that endeavour. Pantheism is predicated upon an emotional reaction to and engagement with the natural world — a nature-based spirituality:
Love of nature is often associated with pantheism, but that does not seem to be a central tenet of the religion. Self-professed pantheists like Wordsworth, Whitman, and other Romantic poets certainly had a deep love of nature, but that was not necessarily the case for pantheists like Spinoza and Lao Tzu. Nevertheless, for some pantheists the idea that nature is something that inspires awe, wonder, and reverence is important. This attitude toward nature is perhaps what motivates many contemporary pantheists to identify themselves as such. It is no coincidence that there are strong ties between pantheism and the ecology movement.
(5)
This ties in with a thread started by Rhiannon on the sacred and the use of such a term outside of a traditionally theistic paradigm - what we hold to be of inherent, non-instrumental worth and of supreme value. For pantheists this is, as Spinoza (arguably the most famous pantheist ever) so often wrote, Deus, sive Natura - "God, or Nature." Unlike almost any other kind of theism it's not a set of propositional beliefs thrown out as purportedly objective facts about reality to be proven or disproven; an emotional/aesthetic reaction to nature no more admits of 'proof' or 'disproof' than does a preference for Alien Sex Fiend over Mozart. It's a constellation of intellectual, emotional and aesthetic impulses to the stimulus of the universe, personal, personalised, individual and subjective.
The relationship between pantheism, denying as it does any transcendent, personal, personalistic deity, leaving only a natural universe of matter-energy, and atheism is complex. For some like Richard Dawkins pantheism is merely "sexed-up atheism," though this doesn’t strike me as any kind of fatal criticism since Dawkins clearly recognises pantheism as a metaphorical or poetic synonym for nature/the cosmos. Pantheism is clearly non-theistic or atheistic (depending on taste) in much the same way that Buddhism is, so from the viewpoint of traditional (mono)theism it is clearly atheistic, but with certain other features — principally the religion-esque veneration for and reverence of nature — laid on top that atheism alone generally lacks. There is a reason that Wordsworth is so often quoted by pantheists and in any discussion on pantheism and that reason is to be found in a famous passage from Lines Composed a Few Miles above Tintern Abbey, On Revisiting the Banks of the Wye during a Tour. July 13, 1798:
… I have learned
To look on nature, not as in the hour
Of thoughtless youth; but hearing oftentimes
The still sad music of humanity,
Nor harsh nor grating, though of ample power
To chasten and subdue.—And I have felt
A presence that disturbs me with the joy
Of elevated thoughts; a sense sublime
Of something far more deeply interfused,
Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,
And the round ocean and the living air,
And the blue sky, and in the mind of man:
A motion and a spirit, that impels
All thinking things, all objects of all thought,
And rolls through all things. Therefore am I still
A lover of the meadows and the woods
And mountains; and of all that we behold
From this green earth; of all the mighty world
Of eye, and ear,—both what they half create,
And what perceive; well pleased to recognise
In nature and the language of the sense
The anchor of my purest thoughts, the nurse,
The guide, the guardian of my heart, and soul
Of all my moral being.
To me pantheism (particularly and especially of the naturalistic/scientific kind I've outlined here) would seem to offer a place - even a home - or perhaps a vehicle for emotional and aesthetic reactions to nature without requiring any form of 'faith' or the suspension of sceptical, critical faculties, the abandonment of reason and the adoption of quite staggeringly implausible beliefs about the nature of reality. On the downside it offers no form of community other than the one(s) that one seeks out for oneself (online, perhaps); it has no "sacred texts," only certain texts - the writings of Richard Jeffries; the poetry of Robinson Jeffers and so on - interpreted as pantheistic; and it offers nothing in the way of ritual or the commemoration of life events/rites of passage - pantheism is more of a philosophy/worldview than a religion in that sense. On the other hand it fits in with the picture of reality which science has built upon empirical observation, experimentation and methodological naturalism but also offers a place for an emotional and aesthetic vocabulary that atheism alone might lack. In Pale Blue Dot Carl Sagan wrote:
How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?" Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way." A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.
The same old quibbles about whether there is really any justification for the theos in pantheism will continue, but just maybe naturalistic/scientific pantheism is that very thing.
References:
(1): http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism
(2): http://naturepantheist.org/
(3): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
(4): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism
(5): http://philosophytalk.org/community/blog/laura-maguire/2015/04/pantheism
(6): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_pantheism
(7): http://www.pantheism.net/manifest.htm
-
Just to note my thanks to Shaker for the post which I will take some time to digest and think about rather than reply in haste. Given the scale I may concentrate on some specifics. One of those posts that justify the sort of indulgence for me.
-
Thank you :) The post ended up rather longer than I originally envisaged (to say the least) but I'd had it in mind for a fair while and wanted to cover lots of bases. If it provides some food for thought for a couple of folks, mission accomplished.
-
I need to digest a lot of what you have said here, Shakes. I have occasionally said to HT(who is a panentheist) when we have discussed such things at the pub, that if I was to become some sort of believer, then I would be drawn towards panentheism rather many other beliefs. Some of my most satisfying times have been associated with nature, especially since being a birder has brought me into juxtapostion with nature in a huge variety of ways. Anyway, thank you for this detailed essay on pantheism (and panentheism). There's a lot to be thought about here.
-
Just to clarify, we are not talking about worshipping the great god, Tefal? :-\
-
Just to clarify, we are not talking about worshipping the great god, Tefal? :-\
Dearie me ::)
;D
-
This probably sums up for me why I'm a pantheist and not an atheist.
All matter, energy, and life are an interconnected unity of which we are an inseparable part. We rejoice in our existence and seek to participate ever more deeply in this unity through knowledge, celebration, meditation, empathy, love, ethical action and art.
Unlike other forms of religion I've not read much on pantheism. It isn't something that I understand with my head, but with my heart. I'm not particularly scientific to my approach to the world, but I am honest. I wanted to believe in a personal deity and it was hard to let that slip from my grasp and accept that when I look to the sky for help there isn't going to be an answer.
But this is bigger, and better. There's a gentleness to knowing that this is it - no need to fight it or look to more. If I am connected to ocean and sky and stone then what more is there to need for? And if that is what I return to then is there a finer ending? I don't think so.
-
Reading through the idea that pantheism has no rituals interests me. My practices as a pagan are very loose and informal but indisputably they are a part of my pantheism. The most obvious I suppose is the marking of the seasons - the equinoxes and solstices in particular, but also the smaller things, the first snowdrops, the first wheat to be cut. When I light my firepit there's a connection between the flames and myself, how I feel. Offering bird seed on my walks is a ritual of gratitude, as is planting out hazel seedlings that grow from nuts buried by squirrels.
And my sacred texts are those that grab me and make me feel yes, this is it, this person gets it, expresses it. Hamilton, Mabey, McFarlane...
-
This probably sums up for me why I'm a pantheist and not an atheist.
All matter, energy, and life are an interconnected unity of which we are an inseparable part. We rejoice in our existence and seek to participate ever more deeply in this unity through knowledge, celebration, meditation, empathy, love, ethical action and art.
Unlike other forms of religion I've not read much on pantheism. It isn't something that I understand with my head, but with my heart. I'm not particularly scientific to my approach to the world, but I am honest. I wanted to believe in a personal deity and it was hard to let that slip from my grasp and accept that when I look to the sky for help there isn't going to be an answer.
But this is bigger, and better. There's a gentleness to knowing that this is it - no need to fight it or look to more. If I am connected to ocean and sky and stone then what more is there to need for? And if that is what I return to then is there a finer ending? I don't think so.
How is everything connected?
I think that question immediately separates certain materialists and pant heists.
-
How is everything connected?
I think that question immediately separates certain materialists and pant heists.
Think of what you need to survive, Vlad. Then think about what those things need, or what else they support. Then think how many times those relationships are replicated. Then think where our matter originated from, and how long ago, and how vast that is in terms of space and time.
And that's a very simplistic version, just for starters.
-
Think of what you need to survive, Vlad. Then think about what those things need, or what else they support. Then think how many times those relationships are replicated. Then think where our matter originated from, and how long ago, and how vast that is in terms of space and time.
And that's a very simplistic version, just for starters.
Isn't that all adequately explained by science though. What does pantheism bring to the party?
-
Dear Forum or maybe, Dear Mods,
Something is wrong with this forum, a tiny flaw, maybe it is an injustice, see! the thing is, I am a hero member on this forum, quite a number of posters are hero members and justly so but every so often a posters comes along and not only sparks my two remaining brains cells but makes them work so hard that they create a new brain cell, a new brain cell is born.
Dear Shaker,
I salute you, I will campaign on your behalf for title of SuperHero on this forum, not only for the time and effort you put into a very engaging OP but for showing that this forum is capable of more.
I to will have to have a reread but for now, for the remainder of this evening consider me a Pantheistic Christian :o :o
One of the most common objections to pantheism is linguistic; namely, that to use a word such as 'God' when actually referring to the totality of nature/the universe is both misleading to others and superfluous, since words already exist for those concepts. Arthur Schopenhauer said: "To call the world 'God' is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word 'world'."
Paul Harrison counters this by saying that for pantheists the word 'God' — the theos in pantheos — is appropriate to use because while it is entirely different from the theos of monotheism, it fulfils the same function; it is a focal point of awe, mystery, wonderment and reverence. Explaining the world is the proper business of science; pantheism is the emotional and aesthetic reaction to that endeavour. Pantheism is predicated upon an emotional reaction to and engagement with the natural world — a nature-based spirituality:
Nature/Universe and more but the word God will do for now.
Gonnagle.
-
Isn't that all adequately explained by science though. What does pantheism bring to the party?
Read the OP.
-
Well said, Gonnagle!
-
Read the OP.
I saw "Sexed up atheism" mentioned.
I would like to see what Sriram makes of "western Pantheism.
-
I saw "Sexed up atheism" mentioned.
I would like to see what Sriram makes of "western Pantheism.
Ah, so you didn't understand the rest if it. That's ok, it does deal with some complex ideas.
-
Dear Vlad,
Yer just jealous, love can have that effect.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Vlad,
Yer just jealous, love can have that effect.
Gonnagle.
I think Shaker has got bored of this thread already and as for the rest of "the love in "
No doubt Relate will have to be brought in at some time.
As for me I shall leave you all to get on with it but will observe what blossoms from Shakers latest deposit of compost with interest.
-
Dear Vlad,
As for me I shall leave you all to get on with it but will observe what blossoms from Shakers latest deposit of compost with interest.
Course you will dear, nevermind, it's your round, mines a babycham :-* :-*
Gonnagle.
-
I think Shaker has got bored of this thread already
Very far from it. I spent quite a lot of time writing a very long post this morning and making sure I got the quotes and references right - anybody else who wants to add anything is free to do so and I'll pick it up later, since I do have the odd few other, non-forum-related things to do.
-
Wow, a threat with a vengeance. Plenty to read there; what a OP!!!
-
This probably sums up for me why I'm a pantheist and not an atheist.
All matter, energy, and life are an interconnected unity of which we are an inseparable part. We rejoice in our existence and seek to participate ever more deeply in this unity through knowledge, celebration, meditation, empathy, love, ethical action and art.
Unlike other forms of religion I've not read much on pantheism. It isn't something that I understand with my head, but with my heart. I'm not particularly scientific to my approach to the world, but I am honest. I wanted to believe in a personal deity and it was hard to let that slip from my grasp and accept that when I look to the sky for help there isn't going to be an answer.
But this is bigger, and better. There's a gentleness to knowing that this is it - no need to fight it or look to more. If I am connected to ocean and sky and stone then what more is there to need for? And if that is what I return to then is there a finer ending? I don't think so.
But if you are observing this, that is nature, then there has to be a dualism at work for something can't observe itself. In other words a one-thing can't be both object and subject, observer and observed, at the same time. So logically you would be a panentheist, as this implies a dualism.
-
I take it the a pantheist has no difficulty with the concept of a trinity since they must believe in a trillion in one.
-
But if you are observing this, that is nature, then there has to be a dualism at work for something can't observe itself. In other words a one-thing can't be both object and subject, observer and observed, at the same time. So logically you would be a panentheist, as this implies a dualism.
Good post.
-
But if you are observing this, that is nature, then there has to be a dualism at work for something can't observe itself. In other words a one-thing can't be both object and subject, observer and observed, at the same time. So logically you would be a panentheist, as this implies a dualism.
Well, pantheism isn't necessarily dual or non-dual. The unity doesn't mean there cannot also be a distinct self; of course that self and any separation could be illusory. As someone who once did identify as a panentheist the key belief is the separation between God and the created - God is in the created but also exists outside it. I no longer believe that there is anything outside the created, hence I am a pantheist and not a panentheist.
-
Dear Monotheists,
I am struggling with this quote,
In contrast, many Monotheists (from "mono" = one+ "theos" = god) define "god" as a supernatural individual. God and Nature are separated.
Who are the many Monotheists that say God and nature are separate, God just sits up in his Heavenly throne and lets us get on with it, if an artist paints a beautiful picture, his blood sweat and tears are in that picture, we are made in Gods image, we are part of God, if we wonder at the beauty of a flower, if we are in awe of a bird in flight, God.
We see God in nature, how can God be separate from his Creation, stuff and nonsense to say God is apart from nature.
Gonnagle.
-
Gonners, Christianity does make the distinction between the Creator and the created. In fact when I tried to express something similar to your pov as part of my theology studies I was slapped down pretty smartly by my otherwise very liberal tutors as that was 'pagan' belief (oh the irony).
I wonder if what you have is a panentheistic Christianity - God us both within creation and without it. You could liken that to the Quaker experience of seeing 'that of God' or the 'Light' within everything.
-
Dear Monotheists,
I am struggling with this quote,
Who are the many Monotheists that say God and nature are separate, God just sits up in his Heavenly throne and lets us get on with it, if an artist paints a beautiful picture, his blood sweat and tears are in that picture, we are made in Gods image, we are part of God, if we wonder at the beauty of a flower, if we are in awe of a bird in flight, God.
We see God in nature, how can God be separate from his Creation, stuff and nonsense to say God is apart from nature.
Gonnagle.
I suspect that this refers to the belief that God and creation are separable - indeed, according to the personalistic deity of bog-standard theism, God has always existed and has never not existed, but there was a time when there was no universe. On this view, you can in principle have a God without a creation - if the universe was to disappear (assuming for the moment that such talk even makes sense) there would still be God.
-
Gonners, Christianity does make the distinction between the Creator and the created. In fact when I tried to express something similar to your pov as part of my theology studies I was slapped down pretty smartly by my otherwise very liberal tutors as that was 'pagan' belief (oh the irony).
I laughed.
-
Well, pantheism isn't necessarily dual or non-dual. The unity doesn't mean there cannot also be a distinct self; of course that self and any separation could be illusory. As someone who once did identify as a panentheist the key belief is the separation between God and the created - God is in the created but also exists outside it. I no longer believe that there is anything outside the created, hence I am a pantheist and not a panentheist.
I guess I'm at the panentheist stage but whether that is "a still" at I remain to be convinced.
As you know Rhiannon my issue with pantheism is the alienation question.
I feel you concentrate on some being alienated against you and you beliefs. I think the real point is that we are able to be alienated in a universe you say .....is one.
I believe Christianity believes in a single creation but is IMHO more realistic that alienation from essential parts of the whole actually exists rather than being illusiory.
-
I feel you concentrate on some being alienated against you and you beliefs.
Then you feel wrongly. But then feelings aren't a very reliable guide for anything.
-
This probably sums up for me why I'm a pantheist and not an atheist.
All matter, energy, and life are an interconnected unity of which we are an inseparable part. We rejoice in our existence and seek to participate ever more deeply in this unity through knowledge, celebration, meditation, empathy, love, ethical action and art.
For myself, and given the special (in fact unique, as far as I know) interpretation put upon theos in pantheism which means that oddly it's not incompatible with atheism (and to many simply is atheism), I don't see a distinction. There's nothing in the quoted passage to which any atheist could, would or should take exception.
-
For myself, and given the special (in fact unique, as far as I know) interpretation put upon theos in pantheism which means that oddly it's not incompatible with atheism (and to many simply is atheism), I don't see a distinction. There's nothing in the quoted passage to which any atheist could, would or should take exception.
Yes, I agree with that. I'm not sure why I see a distinction expect maybe that I've always been a theist and it's still where I feel comfortable. That may well change - things usually do I've found. :)
-
Dear Monotheists,
I am struggling with this quote,
Who are the many Monotheists that say God and nature are separate, God just sits up in his Heavenly throne and lets us get on with it, if an artist paints a beautiful picture, his blood sweat and tears are in that picture, we are made in Gods image, we are part of God, if we wonder at the beauty of a flower, if we are in awe of a bird in flight, God.
We see God in nature, how can God be separate from his Creation, stuff and nonsense to say God is apart from nature.
Gonnagle.
Since we are all part of the Big Man from the get go (according to pantheism).
So given that.....How come I have no idea what you are doing, where you are doing or how good it feels.
In other words if there is unity why is there ignorance not to mention alienation.
On a more traditional note we seem to be drifting back into the lets just quiz the monotheists.
Since this is the pantheist thread let us interlocute pantheism.
-
Then you feel wrongly. But then feelings aren't a very reliable guide for anything.
Yes again you respond about me and refuse to answer the question.
Are we then in perfect harmony with our beliefs or not?
-
Yes, I agree with that. I'm not sure why I see a distinction expect maybe that I've always been a theist and it's still where I feel comfortable. That may well change - things usually do I've found. :)
How would you answer arguments about the cruelty of nature and poor design in nature arguments by atheism against theism.
In other words if the universe is unconscious, unfeeling, random and poorly designed why as the OP says is it "worthy of reverence " .
As my seeming new ally Richard Dawkins would say" do we revere God because we are like imprinted ducklings".
-
Dear Vlad,
No! no old son, this Pantheist stuff is very interesting, to me we are only at the beginning of the discussion, if we quiz Monotheists, it is only a beginning, I want to get everyone's opinion, making statements about what we believe and don't believe has to be challenged, discussed.
Shaker for instance is saying that atheists are quite comfortable with this Pantheism, well he might be, but I can't help but feel other atheists are squirming, what's all this talk about God, Shaker has lost the plot.
I guess I'm at the panentheist stage but whether that is "a still" at I remain to be convinced.
Sounds just like me, but we have to question before we move on.
Gonnagle.
-
For myself, and given the special (in fact unique, as far as I know) interpretation put upon theos in pantheism which means that oddly it's not incompatible with atheism (and to many simply is atheism), I don't see a distinction. There's nothing in the quoted passage to which any atheist could, would or should take exception.
What about the long standing arguments atheists have against God and for the material universe?
Cruel, unconscious, tyrannical, unfeeling.
-
Yes again you respond about me and refuse to answer the question.
Are we then in perfect harmony with our beliefs or not?
It's not about you, but when you claim to know what I think and feel you are wrong and I have the right to point that out to you.
-
Dear Vlad,
Since we are all part of the Big Man from the get go (according to pantheism).
So given that.....How come I have no idea what you are doing, where you are doing or how good it feels.
In other words if there is unity why is there ignorance not to mention alienation.
I think that is what we need to do, strive for unity, we should not alienate anyone, anyway I am chuntering here, the real world beckons, going to pick up the new car ( well newish ) to much like hard work walking the 100 yards to the shops when I can drive :( :(
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Vlad,
No! no old son, this Pantheist stuff is very interesting, to me we are only at the beginning of the discussion, if we quiz Monotheists, it is only a beginning, I want to get everyone's opinion, making statements about what we believe and don't believe has to be challenged, discussed.
Shaker for instance is saying that atheists are quite comfortable with this Pantheism, well he might be, but I can't help but feel other atheists are squirming, what's all this talk about God, Shaker has lost the plot.
Sounds just like me, but we have to question before we move on.
Gonnagle.
Thanks for your reply Mr G
And I agree absolutely with what you have said here.
I agree that there must be atheists who must be wondering what Shaker does with regards to traditional atheist arguments such as cruelty, unconsciousness of matter, empiricism, evidence, poor design in the universe.
How does antitheist square wit any kind of theism?
Either that or Shaker comes into the pantheist field as a wolf in sheep's clothing.
I expect savagings and threats of mint sauce.
-
How would you answer arguments about the cruelty of nature and poor design in nature arguments by atheism against theism.
In other words if the universe is unconscious, unfeeling, random and poorly designed why as the OP says is it "worthy of reverence " .
As my seeming new ally Richard Dawkins would say" do we revere God because we are like imprinted ducklings".
It's not designed. It's not cruel, because that would imply some kind of morality to fight against. It just is. And it is worthy or reverence because it is awesome (in the old-fashioned sense of the word).
-
How would you answer arguments about the cruelty of nature and poor design in nature arguments by atheism against theism. In other words if the universe is unconscious, unfeeling, random and poorly designed why as the OP says is it "worthy of reverence " .
It's a serious charge and legitimate charge against pantheism that it can tend toward the saccharine, accentuating the positive and conveniently forgetting the negative - after all, if nature creates kittens, rainbows and sunsets (good), it also creates rectal cancer, the West Nile virus and flash floods (bad). If nature is a totality and a unity you can't smile on the first set and try to brush the other set under the mat and forget all about it.
It's a thoughtful criticism, but it's answered (I would dare to say) by the fact that there's a signal difference between awe and worship - the latter implies positive emotions toward a thing which the former doesn't, necessarily. Leni Riefenstahl's films of the Nuremberg rallies are awe-inspiring because they were vast spectacles meant to be awe-inspiring, yet nobody but Nazis would think that a Nazi rally is a good thing. Very much otherwise. Just remember that description isn't prescription.
To bring the analogies closer to the subject of the thread, consider a common feature of the natural world - a tornado. Something like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7X3fyId2U0
I find that awe-inspiring (I can watch that sort of thing all day long), but not something to worship. It provokes feelings of awe because it's colossal in size and immensely powerful, but we wouldn't say that it's a good thing from a human point of view when humans get in the way. There's no intentionality, conscious purpose or planning ability in a tornado; it's just what stuff does in the universe in which we find ourselves. Tornados, tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanoes and all the rest of it - these things make us feel small and remind us that although we're a part of nature too ultimately we are, as Pascal put it, just reeds, the weakest thing in nature (albeit thinking reeds, as he added). Only a day or two ago Rhiannon remarked that being made to feel small or being reminded of how small we are is good for us - it reminds us of and connects us to the natural world but it also puts us in our right place and puts our often disproportionate fears, worries and ambitions/plans into perspective.
As my seeming new ally Richard Dawkins would say" do we revere God because we are like imprinted ducklings".
Very possibly.
-
It's not about you, but when you claim to know what I think and feel you are wrong and I have the right to point that out to you.
Rhiannon
I am sorry if you are getting that impression which is not my intention in anyway....but to use the opportunity. Why the right of privacy in a universe we are supposed to be all connected in?
-
Yes, it's something you have to accept as a pantheist (and as a pagan, very often) is that the whole of it is what you are regarding as God. It does mean that nothing has a special place in it. But as noted that does help to get a grip sometimes.
I don't worship nature or the universe. It's a part of my spirituality to regard it as sacred, with awe, but not to worship it. That immediately suggests an imbalance and hierarchy that doesn't exist.
-
How does antitheist square wit any kind of theism?
It helps if you understand what pantheism actually is before asking a lot of questions which are utterly irrelevant to it. There are several definitions of the concept in the OP; either you get them or you don't, and given your long-standing inability to grasp the definition of something like secularism the latter is looking increasingly unlikely.
-
It's not designed. It's not cruel, because that would imply some kind of morality to fight against. It just is. And it is worthy or reverence because it is awesome (in the old-fashioned sense of the word).
Ok but awesome is a feeling and you said a few posts back that we shouldn't rely on feelings. See reply#30
-
Rhiannon
I am sorry if you are getting that impression which is not my intention in anyway....but to use the opportunity. Why the right of privacy in a universe we are supposed to be all connected in?
Apology accepted.
Unity as far as I am concerned means inter-connectedness on a massive scale. It doesn't mean a complete oneness as in no division between me and a tree or me and you. Whether or not division is illusory we need it to function. But I'm connected to the tree and the atmosphere and the bacteria in my gut. It's how it is.
-
Ok but awesome is a feeling and you said a few posts back that we shouldn't rely on feelings.
She actually said that feelings are never a reliable guide to anything, which is true.
-
Ok but awesome is a feeling and you said a few posts back that we shouldn't rely on feelings. See reply#30
Only in part. Actually if you even begin to scratch the surface of what science teaches us about life it's inescapably incredible. Label it how you will.
-
She actually said that feelings are never a reliable guide to anything, which is true.
So how can we say the universe is awesome?
-
So how can we say the universe is awesome?
No doubt some people don't - I guess there are some people who don't feel that way because they just don't get it.
Those who do however tend to be aware that it's a subjective feeling on their part based on an aesthetic reaction to the universe. The fact that I detest pickled beetroot imparts a fact about the universe - it describes a subjective state about me - but the key word there is subjective. Other people feel otherwise. This is no different to preferring Metallica over Bach or vice versa - individual opinion, personal taste, subjective feeling, not a universal (in the philosophical sense) claim purporting to be objective truth.
-
Only in part. Actually if you even begin to scratch the surface of what science teaches us about life it's inescapably incredible. Label it how you will.
So awe is the only acceptable feeling in pantheism is it?
This sounds more and more like the tyrannical God who demands worship so bemoaned by the atheists.
-
So awe is the only acceptable feeling in pantheism is it?
No. It's the spur of it, though.
This sounds more and more like the tyrannical God who demands worship so bemoaned by the atheists.
Only if you resolutely insist on not even trying to understand how pantheism is defined, which you seem to be.
-
No doubt some people don't - I guess there are some people who don't feel that way because they just don't get it
Or that those who have it are deluded or having an illusion.
-
Or that those who have it are deluded or having an illusion.
No - just an emotional/aesthetic reaction. Lots of people do it all the time - books, paintings, music etc. You may have heard of some of them.
-
So awe is the only acceptable feeling in pantheism is it?
This sounds more and more like the tyrannical God who demands worship so bemoaned by the atheists.
How on earth did you make that leap? Is it because that us what you are used to?
There's no rights and wrongs in pantheism. And as Shaker says not everyone will get it. It's not a religion.
-
How on earth did you make that leap? Is it because that us what you are used to?
Or it could be your use of the term "irresistibly incredible". Look can I give you a tip..........either you mean these things.....or you don't.
-
No - just an emotional/aesthetic reaction. Lots of people do it all the time - books, paintings, music etc. You may have heard of some of them.
Yes. I'm wondering though why only certain emotional/aesthetic reactions count in pantheism and others don't.
-
Yes. I'm wondering though why only certain emotional/aesthetic reactions count in pantheism and others don't.
Which others did you have in mind?
-
There's no rights and wrongs in pantheism. And as Shaker says not everyone will get it. It's not a religion.
I get it intellectually.........but is it true.
And if it is why do some people not get it.
And aren't those who do get it special.
And what happened to irresistible in credibility?
-
I get it intellectually.........but is it true.
For some reason that I can't fathom you're still treating pantheism as a religion like Christianity with a checklist of propositional beliefs that purport to describe facts about reality which can either be true or not true and can be ascertained to be so by some means or other. As Rhiannon has said, it may be that you're so inescapably wedded to a paradigm like that (such as Christianity) that you can't see or step outside of it.
It isn't like that. At all.
And if it is why do some people not get it.
Why do some people love marzipan and others not? Why do some people love Wagner and others not?
And aren't those who do get it special.
No.
-
Which others did you have in mind?
The feeling that we are alienated from our true selves, against God , against each other and against nature. Rhiannon discounted these in post30
-
The feeling that we are alienated from our true selves, against God , against each other and against nature.
*sigh*
Given what pantheism actually means - i.e. that there's no difference between Nature and God; that they're synonyms for the same thing - then strictly speaking it's impossible to be alienated from it. That would be like saying you can climb out of the natural world, which is absurd.
On a subjective level you can certainly feel yourself to be alienated from nature; it often happens in times of deep clinical depression. Coleridge described it well in 'Dejection: An Ode' when he referred to the stars, clouds and moon that normally gave him transports of delight: "I see, not feel, how beautiful they are."
Feeling alienated in these ways are quirks of human psychology. Sometimes they pass on their own without treatment (even the severest of depressions pass over eventually provided you can stand it long enough to wait for it to go), sometimes they require treatment.
-
For some reason that I can't fathom you're still treating pantheism as a religion like Christianity with a checklist of propositional beliefs that purport to describe facts about reality which can either be true or not true and can be ascertained to be so by some means or other.
No I'm treating it as though it is a theism. Not atheism but a theism.
Therefore equating atheism with a theism is either the grandest of category errors or it is the most heinous attempt at linguistic fascism I've seen in anti theism.
In any case this is becoming about me again and I did promise I would leave this thread to turn nasty, either when you turn on the pantheists or the other antitheists find out about your new found disdain of methods or ways of seeking truth.
-
No I'm treating it as though it is a theism. Not atheism but a theism.
That's an unfortunate feature of language which seems to be causing you confusion here which can only be dispelled if you go back to the OP and read it over again.
Therefore equating atheism with a theism is either the grandest of category errors or it is the most heinous attempt at linguistic fascism I've seen in anti theism.
See above.
In any case this is becoming about me again
Is it ever about anything but, once you rock up on a thread?
and I did promise I would leave this thread to turn nasty
No reason why it should do - it has attracted a modicum of interest and until you pitched up some interesting comments and observations and questions.
either when you turn on the pantheists or the other antitheists find out about your new found disdain of methods or ways of seeking truth.
If you weren't leaving I'd ask you to specify this so-called disdain of mine of methods or ways of seeking truth.
But since, as you said, you're leaving ...
-
*sigh*
Given what pantheism actually means - i.e. that there's no difference between Nature and God; that they're synonyms for the same thing - then strictly speaking it's impossible to be alienated from it. That would be like saying you can climb out of the natural world, which is absurd.
Thank you you have just confirmed that pantheism not only considers certain feelings invalid but that they are invalid because pantheism must represent a truth which
Contradicts this statementFor some reason that I can't fathom you're still treating pantheism as a religion like Christianity with a checklist of propositional beliefs that purport to describe facts about reality which can either be true or not true and can be ascertained to be so by some means or other. As Rhiannon has said, it may be that you're so inescapably wedded to a paradigm like that (such as Christianity) that you can't see or step outside of it.
No.
And pantheism isn't a paradigm?
-
Thought you were leaving?
-
Thought you were leaving?
You are making it about me again .....................
How's your hostile takeover bid for pantheism coming on?
-
Excellently.
Bye.
-
I like much about pantheism.
I'm inclined to fall for the fluffy stuff now and again ;)
It brings me down to earth to remember given a moment of stupidity, I am merely part of the food chain ;)
( looks round quickly incase NS is lurking in the shadows )
But joking aside I like the Native American stuff, I find it quite spiritual.
-
I like much about pantheism.
I'm inclined to fall for the fluffy stuff now and again ;)
It brings me down to earth to remember given a moment of stupidity, I am merely part of the food chain ;)
( looks round quickly incase NS is lurking in the shadows )
But joking aside I like the Native American stuff, I find it quite spiritual.
Is knowledge of being part of the nutrient cycle pantheism?
Crikey Shaker ....Your hostile takeover bid is working better than expected.
-
Or it could be your use of the term "irresistibly incredible". Look can I give you a tip..........either you mean these things.....or you don't.
Go back and see which word I really used.
-
The feeling that we are alienated from our true selves, against God , against each other and against nature. Rhiannon discounted these in post30
No, what I discounted was your attempt to tie in feelings of alienation with pantheism.
-
Is knowledge of being part of the nutrient cycle pantheism?
Crikey Shaker ....Your hostile takeover bid is working better than expected.
;)
It could well be, our connectedness as in our ( all life) reliance on each other, the food chain from the minutest to the biggest.
Ecology, is the word.
How everything fits.
Even decay and how that works, bacteria and bugs breaking it down back to nutrients to feed roots and fungi
The cycle of birth death and rebirth.
Planting a tree over a loved one, seeing it bloom with blossom.
Yes, I think it is.
;)
-
Go back and see which word I really used.
Sorry you used the word inescapably.......which is another way of saying irresistible surely
-
No, what I discounted was your attempt to tie in feelings of alienation with pantheism.
So there is no alienation then ...everything is just Rosy and harmonious.
That isn't just wrong it could be mad and even dangerous.
-
Sorry you used the word inescapably.......which is another way of saying irresistible surely
No. I find Green and Blacks 85% irresistible; you may not. But study even the basics of any aspect of life or the universe and you cannot escape from how incredible it is. Some might choose not to engage with it of course.
-
;)
It could well be, our connectedness as in our ( all life) reliance on each other, the food chain from the minutest to the biggest.
Ecology, is the word.
How everything fits.
Even decay and how that works, bacteria and bugs breaking it down back to nutrients to feed roots and fungi
The cycle of birth death and rebirth.
Planting a tree over a loved one, seeing it bloom with blossom.
Yes, I think it is.
;)
Yes but what has this got to do with everything being God.
-
Yes but what has this got to do with everything being God.
You asked: "Is knowledge of being part of the nutrient cycle pantheism?"
Rose answered your question in the affirmative.
So what it has to do with everything being God, alias pantheism, is that you asked a question about pantheism and had it answered.
-
Yes but what has this got to do with everything being God.
Because if everything is God, that would involve ...... Well everything.....including how nature knits everything together.🌹 :)
-
Shaker......I found your get out of jail free card in the OP
The term Naturalistic pantheism is mentioned as underpinning the largest group of pantheists in the world...............
I take it the definition of world to mean America. What about Hinduism?
And Natrulistic Pantheism.........for goodness sake. That is really taking the piss.......out of Rhiannon.
-
Still not leaving as you said you were, I see.
-
Because if everything is God, that would involve ...... Well everything.....including how nature knits everything together.🌹 :)
tis true.
-
Still not leaving as you said you were, I see.
Sorry, am I slowing down your faux conversion to theism?
-
Sorry, am I slowing down your faux conversion to theism?
No, you're just being a boring little troll as usual.
-
So there is no alienation then ...everything is just Rosy and harmonious.
That isn't just wrong it could be mad and even dangerous.
Vlad, this is what you said.
I feel you concentrate on some being alienated against you and you beliefs.
To make out that by denying that this is either personally true or anything to do with pantheism I am therefore discounting feelings of alienation is dishonest and manipulative on your part.
-
Still not leaving as you said you were, I see.
Shaker when the Nationwide merged with the Anglia building society it became the Nationwide Anglia.
It is now the Nationwide.
What will happen to Naturalistic Pantheism?............that's right. Naturalism.
-
Shaker when the Nationwide merged with the Anglia building society it became the Nationwide Anglia.
It is now the Nationwide.
What will happen to Naturalistic Pantheism?............that's right. Naturalism.
Suits me just fine already.
Don't let the door, etc.
-
Vlad, this is what you said.
I feel you concentrate on some being alienated against you and you beliefs.
To make out that by denying that this is either personally true or anything to do with pantheism I am therefore discounting feelings of alienation is dishonest and manipulative on your part.
I'm sorry but what I am getting at is I feel you play the man rather than the ball and you have little interest in fielding challenging questions about pantheism.
-
Suits me just find already.
Don't let the door, etc.
Ok I'm off then
-
I'm sorry but what I am getting at is I feel you play the man rather than the ball and you have little interest in fielding challenging questions about pantheism.
Where was I supposed to go with a post linking pantheism and imaginary beings? That's not challenging, it's nonsensical.
-
Where was I supposed to go with a post linking pantheism and imaginary beings? That's not challenging, it's nonsensical.
So the word God is now frowned on in pantheism.
Rhiannon you are no more a theist than my arse.
-
Shaker when the Nationwide merged with the Anglia building society it became the Nationwide Anglia.
It is now the Nationwide.
What will happen to Naturalistic Pantheism?............that's right. Naturalism.
One could argue that if science discovered and proved something supernatural one day, it would cease to be supernatural.
Our viewpoint of the universe would shift.
If a reason for ghosts could be proved ( say through some quirk of quantum physics) it would no longer be classed as supernatural.
I'm not sure naturalism rules out the possibility that there are things we don't know.
Hence I think there will always be room to wonder ;)
🌹
-
One could argue that if science discovered and proved something supernatural one day, it would cease to be supernatural.
Our viewpoint of the universe would shift.
If a reason for ghosts could be proved ( say through some quirk of quantum physics) it would no longer be classed as supernatural.
I'm not sure naturalism rules out the possibility that there are things we don't know.
🌹
It can't. Science is methodologically naturalistic. It is based on an assumption of natural causes. To evidence something supernatural, you would need a supernatural method. Despite asking on this board from believers many hundreds of times, nothing has appeared.
-
It can't. Science is methodologically naturalistic. It is based on an assumption of natural causes. To evidence something supernatural, you would need a supernatural method. Despite asking on this board from believers many hundreds of times, nothing has appeared.
I think philosophy can help us out though..........and of course complete empiricism has never proved very useful to mankind.
Revelation would help of course.
-
It can't. Science is methodologically naturalistic. It is based on an assumption of natural causes. To evidence something supernatural, you would need a supernatural method. Despite asking on this board from believers many hundreds of times, nothing has appeared.
To me dividing the naturalistic from the supernatural is a mistake, because often by labelling it, it gets dismissed.
Sometimes things that are considered supernatural are only perceived that way because we have lacked the science to look into them further.
Rainbows used to be considered supernatural once as did northan lights. When the science evolved we found they were real and not outside what we thought of as nature.
It may be we don't have the tools in science yet and some things only happen under certain conditions.
There could be many things we are unaware of and unable to measure scientifically ATM.
-
It may be we don't have the tools in science yet and some things only happen under certain conditions.
There could be many things we are unaware of and unable to measure scientifically ATM.
Indeed - but that's an argument for waiting patiently for the conceptual and technological tools to come around, not carte blanche to plug the holes with bedtime stories.
-
Indeed - but that's an argument for waiting patiently for the conceptual and technological tools to come around, not carte blanche to plug the holes with bedtime stories.
Yes it is, but people always wonder.
Especially if they happen to experience or see something.
-
To me dividing the naturalistic from the supernatural is a mistake, because often by labelling it, it gets dismissed.
Sometimes things that are considered supernatural are only perceived that way because we have lacked the science to look into them further.
Rainbows used to be considered supernatural once as did northan lights. When the science evolved we found they were real and not outside what we thought of as nature.
It may be we don't have the tools in science yet and some things only happen under certain conditions.
There could be many things we are unaware of and unable to measure scientifically ATM.
There could be, but that's irrelevant to the point. Everything could be done by magic pixies, science woj't find it because it's just a method of investigation based on an assumption of naturalism. This isn't saying that is no such thing as the 'supernatural". You need a method that would allow that.
-
There could be, but that's irrelevant to the point. Everything could be done by magic pixies, science woj't find it because it's just a method of investigation based on an assumption of naturalism. This isn't saying that is no such thing as the 'supernatural". You need a method that would allow that.
The last sentence is an interesting ontological view. Can you justify it further?
-
There could be, but that's irrelevant to the point. Everything could be done by magic pixies, science woj't find it because it's just a method of investigation based on an assumption of naturalism. This isn't saying that is no such thing as the 'supernatural". You need a method that would allow that.
Supernatural.
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
Just because something is beyond scientific understanding now, doesn't mean it always will be.
The method we have now is just fine, we just need to tune it, and it's knowledge that does that.
Maybe we don't have the awareness or knowledge yet, the science of today will be outdated tomorrow.
As they find out more they are more capable of making discoveries.
It's true you can't find something that isn't there, but you can keep your eyes open and watch out for what is there.
Give it 200 years and we and our science will look quaint to those in the future.
That's because, short of something unfortunate happening to us, science evolves.
some of the theories they have now would have been laughed at, 100 years ago.
-
The last sentence is an interesting ontological view. Can you justify it further?
I think NS only thinks a supernatural method can find something people think of supernatural.
That's not true though, the northern lights were once thought to be supernatural and ordinary science when it had evolved that far, solved it.
I think it would be the same with any other existing unexplained thing.
-
Supernatural.
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
Just because something is beyond scientific understanding now, doesn't mean it always will be.
The method we have now is just fine, we just need to tune it, and it's knowledge that does that.
Maybe we don't have the awareness or knowledge yet, the science of today will be outdated tomorrow.
As they find out more they are more capable of making discoveries.
It's true you can't find something that isn't there, but you can keep your eyes open and watch out for what is there.
Give it 200 years and we and our science will look quaint to those in the future.
That's because, short of something unfortunate happening to us, science evolves.
some of the theories they have now would have been laughed at, 100 years ago.
Yes, I agree with all that, i'm not sure I see the relevance. A claim to the supernatural is that it isn't naturalistic.
People claiming that Jesus rose from the dead are not, unless they are Nick Marks, saying that it was done by advanced medicine.
-
I think NS only thinks a supernatural method can find something people think of supernatural.
That's not true though, the northern lights were once thought to be supernatural and ordinary science when it had evolved that far, solved it.
I think it would be the same with any other existing unexplained thing.
No, that's a misreading of what I have been saying. I don't argue that it can only investigate things thought of as natural but it can only establish that the causes are natural.
If something is supernatural, science could do nothing to establish that.
-
Yes, I agree with all that, i'm not sure I see the relevance. A claim to the supernatural is that it isn't naturalistic.
People claiming that Jesus rose from the dead are not, unless they are Nick Marks, saying that it was done by advanced medicine.
Aren't they. Is it not now possible for a virgin to give birth?
-
Yes, I agree with all that, i'm not sure I see the relevance. A claim to the supernatural is that it isn't naturalistic.
People claiming that Jesus rose from the dead are not, unless they are Nick Marks, saying that it was done by advanced medicine.
Even if it was possible that ultimately we found out that there was indeed an intelligent being we think of as God who lived outside of everything we knew and who created time, matter and space and the whole thing was a big experiment, I'd suggest it would still be naturalistic.
Just not as we understand it now.
It's naturalistic, but not as you know it Jim. ( Star Trek, adapted ;) )
-
No, that's a misreading of what I have been saying. I don't argue that it can only investigate things thought of as natural but it can only establish that the causes are natural.
If something is supernatural, science could do nothing to establish that.
Yes you posted after that, so I could see I hadn't got your post quite right :)
-
No, that's a misreading of what I have been saying. I don't argue that it can only investigate things thought of as natural but it can only establish that the causes are natural.
If something is supernatural, science could do nothing to establish that.
I think what it is, is I don't think Science would have to prove it wasn't naturalistic.
It would just have to evolve scientific ideas on what naturalistic is ;D
Science, by finding out something existed, would not let it rest until people understood it.
Where it fitted in to our naturalistic view.
-
Nope, you are still misreading. I am saying specifically that not only is it not science that would show something to be supernatural but that it couldn't.
For those who want to make supernatural claims they need a method, not science., that would do that.
-
Science is the study of what is, if we find something that won't fit, we adjust our ideas of what is.
There is nothing in the universe science couldn't have a go at understanding, IMO.
But we might have to adjust what we think we know ;)
-
I think NS only thinks a supernatural method can find something people think of supernatural.
That's not true though, the northern lights were once thought to be supernatural and ordinary science when it had evolved that far, solved it.
I think it would be the same with any other existing unexplained thing.
As you say, any other existing unexplained thing could well be explained by science in the future.
The clue is in your word 'existing'. The first important hurdle in any discussion of Alan's 'soul', for instance, is to establish its actual existence. How are you going to do that?
-
Nope, you are still misreading. I am saying specifically that not only is it not science that would show something to be supernatural but that it couldn't.
For those who want to make supernatural claims they need a method, not science., that would do that.
I'm saying the supernatural is only a word for things we don't yet understand.
Beliefs and assertions on the supernatural are only opinions to explain the unexplainable.
If a race of aliens descended on the earth and we found out that they had been trying to guide the human race and created a virgin birth and revived a dead Jesus, then the whole thing would no longer be supernatural.
I don't think that btw. :)
But just trying to explain how the supernatural could turn out to be naturalistic.
-
I'm saying the supernatural is only a word for things we don't yet understand.
Beliefs and assertions on the supernatural are only opinions to explain the unexplainable.
If a race of aliens descended on the earth and we found out that they had been trying to guide the human race and created a virgin birth and revived a dead Jesus, then the whole thing would no longer be supernatural.
I don't think that btw. :)
But just trying to explain how the supernatural could turn out to be naturalistic.
Surely the definition of naturalism is God doesn't exist.
-
I'm saying the supernatural is only a word for things we don't yet understand.
Beliefs and assertions on the supernatural are only opinions to explain the unexplainable.
If a race of aliens descended on the earth and we found out that they had been trying to guide the human race and created a virgin birth and revived a dead Jesus, then the whole thing would no longer be supernatural.
I don't think that btw. :)
But just trying to explain how the supernatural could turn out to be naturalistic.
Which is fine but isn't how those who make supernatural claims are arguing. They are arguing that there is something in miracles that isn't just clever medicine.
-
As you say, any other existing unexplained thing could well be explained by science in the future.
The clue is in your word 'existing'. The first important hurdle in any discussion of Alan's 'soul', for instance, is to establish its actual existence. How are you going to do that?
Probably totally surround a dying body with all the different sensors I could think of and see if any of them registered anything leaving the body.
I'd be interested in doing experiments where people claim to have out of the body experiences and see if they can see things outside their bodies, line of sight, and again with the sensors.
But I have no doubt that someone has thought of that already.
The trouble is scientists are half afraid of being labelled a crank.
But it's not about believing in it, but being curious.
I think we are derailing Shakers thread on Pantheism though. :-[
Perhaps we better get back on track, or split this bit off.
:)🌹
-
Surely the definition of naturalism is God doesn't exist.
"
naturalism
Naturalism is the belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world. Instead of using supernatural or spiritual explanations, naturalism focuses on explanations that come from the laws of nature.
Beyond the belief that everything can be explained using nature, naturalism is also a term for a particular style of art and literature from the 19th century. Naturalism refers to a realistic approach to art that rejects idealized experiences. So when you look at a painting that embodies the spirit of naturalism, you'll notice it capturing the real world rather than trying to make things look better than they are. With naturalism: what you see is what you get.
"
Which leads us back to pantheism.
It depends if you see "God" and "spirituality" in nature.
-
Rose,
Probably totally surround a dying body with all the different sensors I could think of and see if any of them registered anything leaving the body.
It seemed that the weight of a 'soul' was 21 gms ::)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_MacDougall_(doctor)
I'd be interested in doing experiments where people claim to have out of the body experiences and see if they can see things outside their bodies, line of sight, and again with the sensors.
But I have no doubt that someone has thought of that already.
They have.
As far as OBEs are concerned, and especially in the area of NDEs (Near death Experiences) work has been done on prospective tests looking for objective evidence for OBEs under clinical conditions. So far, results have been negative.
And with that, I don't intend to derail this very productive thread any further. :)
-
Well, pantheism isn't necessarily dual or non-dual. The unity doesn't mean there cannot also be a distinct self; of course that self and any separation could be illusory. As someone who once did identify as a panentheist the key belief is the separation between God and the created - God is in the created but also exists outside it. I no longer believe that there is anything outside the created, hence I am a pantheist and not a panentheist.
I can't see how pantheism can include consciousness as it is all the same stuff. And all the same kind of stuff can't have an aspect (or perspective)separate to itself; and hence no awareness of something being out there as oppose to it being common, or intrinsically belonging, to the observer.
Some may replace consciousness, or whatever, with the word spirit, but whatever the word used it has to be separate to matter, or stuff, for it to be an observer of this matter.
-
I can't see how pantheism can include consciousness as it is all the same stuff. And all the same kind of stuff can't have an aspect (or perspective)separate to itself; and hence no awareness of something being out there as oppose to it being common, or intrinsically belonging, to the observer.
Some may replace consciousness, or whatever, with the word spirit, but whatever the word used it has to be separate to matter, or stuff, for it to be an observer of this matter.
And in charge of the assertatron tonight is Mr Jack Knave.
-
I suspect that this refers to the belief that God and creation are separable - indeed, according to the personalistic deity of bog-standard theism, God has always existed and has never not existed, but there was a time when there was no universe. On this view, you can in principle have a God without a creation - if the universe was to disappear (assuming for the moment that such talk even makes sense) there would still be God.
Or that the entities of 'God' and 'matter' have always existed. The opposites seem to be a fundamental aspect of Life - one can not exist without the other.
-
Then you feel wrongly. But then feelings aren't a very reliable guide for anything.
I wouldn't agree, though there are some caveats. But don't you rely on your emotions to a significant degree to make value-judgements?
-
And in charge of the assertatron tonight is Mr Jack Knave.
That would imply that you know better. Go on then Nearly enlighten us all with your wisdom. Or are you just a shallow git who has to come out with these crass comments?
-
For myself, and given the special (in fact unique, as far as I know) interpretation put upon theos in pantheism which means that oddly it's not incompatible with atheism (and to many simply is atheism), I don't see a distinction. There's nothing in the quoted passage to which any atheist could, would or should take exception.
That does seem to be generally the case. I know that things like pantheism don't really grate against my sensibilities.
-
I wouldn't agree, though there are some caveats. But don't you rely on your emotions to a significant degree to make value-judgements?
Sometimes. But I prefer evidence as being the more reliable. Feelings can often be very off kilter, especially when driven by thinking errors.
-
Some may replace consciousness, or whatever, with the word spirit, but whatever the word used it has to be separate to matter, or stuff, for it to be an observer of this matter.
Why?
-
That would imply that you know better. Go on then Nearly enlighten us all with your wisdom. Or are you just a shallow git who has to come out with these crass comments?
No. It doesn't imply anything about my knowledge being better to point out that you simply made an unsubstantiated assertion.
-
Dear Those who have taken part so far,
Rhiannons quote,
Then you feel wrongly. But then feelings aren't a very reliable guide for anything.
and again,
I've always been a theist and it's still where I feel comfortable.
Shaker says,
It provokes feelings of awe because it's colossal in size and immensely powerful
Vlad came back with,
Ok but awesome is a feeling and you said a few posts back that we shouldn't rely on feelings. See reply#30
Shaker replied,
She actually said that feelings are never a reliable guide to anything, which is true.
I could go on but I will stop with a Jack Knave quote,
I wouldn't agree, though there are some caveats. But don't you rely on your emotions to a significant degree to make value-judgements?
So I go winging all the way back to Shakers OP and yes another quote,
7. Every individual has direct access through perception, emotion and meditation to ultimate reality,
We have been honed, shaped, messed about by millions of years of evolution, we should just, well because we think we are quite intelligent, dismiss emotion, dismiss feeling, dismiss gut instinct.
Psychological test have shown that we use emotional, gut feeling far more than any other type of thinking but we dismiss it out of hand.
Feelings, gut emotions are something to be explored, not dismissed.
Gonnagle.
-
I don't dismiss feelings, Gonners. They are what make existence worthwhile.
-
Feelings, gut emotions are something to be explored, not dismissed.
Gonnagle.
Absolutely! Our lives are made up of emotions!
Which does not alter the fact that they can often mislead us, and that an UN-emotional path is primordial in our search for the truth.
-
Absolutely! Our lives are made up of emotions!
Which does not alter the fact that they can often mislead us, and that an UN-emotional path is primordial in our search for the truth.
Nearly Sane has yet to come back to me about what I said about empiricism. Any thoughts on it?
-
Absolutely! Our lives are made up of emotions!
Which does not alter the fact that they can often mislead us, and that an UN-emotional path is primordial in our search for the truth.
I think you are saying that science makes pantheism, reverence for and thinking of nature as divine and worthy of worship, impossible.
I mentioned John Gray who has remarked on mankinds terrible irreverence of the Natural world since the eighteenth century.
-
Nearly Sane has yet to come back to me about what I said about empiricism. Any thoughts on it?
Empiricism (that which is based on observation and experiment) is the only recourse we have, to my mind. Theoretical stuff is all very well, but until there is evidence to back it up, it doesn't help much.
-
I think you are saying that science makes pantheism, reverence for and thinking of nature as divine and worthy of worship, impossible.
I don't doubt that you think that's what he's saying; whether he actually is saying that is a very different matter altogether.
People such as Paul Harrison would say (do say) that science feeds into naturalistic pantheism by showing us how the universe is and how it works, and that knowing (and not merely believing, which any fool can do, and does) is what inspires our feelings about the cosmos - the incomprehensible immensity even of the observable universe, the processes by which life exists and diversifies, how the planet does what it does and so forth. All scientists worth their salt know the feeling and some - Carl Sagan; Richard Feynman - have spoken about it at length. Your idol Richard Dawkins wrote an entire book about it, in fact.
Oh, and there's still no 'worship' involved. I've covered this already.
-
I think you are saying that science makes pantheism, reverence for and thinking of nature as divine and worthy of worship, impossible.
I mentioned John Gray who has remarked on mankinds terrible irreverence of the Natural world since the eighteenth century.
The word 'divine' when used in reference to the natural world means nothing to me, I'm afraid.
-
Empiricism (that which is based on observation and experiment) is the only recourse we have, to my mind. Theoretical stuff is all very well, but until there is evidence to back it up, it doesn't help much.
This is the situation that physics finds itself in at present, unfortunately - this is the era of big science, where it takes ever larger and more powerful machines to probe the structure of the universe. Theories far outstrip our current abilities to put them to the test - the mathematics is beautiful and elegant and the theoreticians like to think that that's indicative of at least something somewhere being right, but we can't truly speak of science proper without evidential backing.
-
The natural world isn't divine to me either; nor do I worship it.
-
The word 'divine' when used in reference to the natural world means nothing to me, I'm afraid.
So that's a big no for pantheism from Leonard.
-
This is the situation that physics finds itself in at present, unfortunately - this is the era of big science, where it takes ever larger and more powerful machines to probe the structure of the universe. Theories far outstrip our current abilities to put them to the test - the mathematics is beautiful and elegant and the theoreticians like to think that that's indicative of at least something somewhere being right, but we can't truly speak of science proper without evidential backing.
I don't see any other way of informing ourselves.
-
I don't doubt that you think that's what he's saying; whether he actually is saying that is a very different matter altogether.
People such as Paul Harrison would say (do say) that science feeds into naturalistic pantheism by showing us how the universe is and how it works, and that knowing (and not merely believing, which any fool can do, and does) is what inspires our feelings about the cosmos - the incomprehensible immensity even of the observable universe, the processes by which life exists and diversifies, how the planet does what it does and so forth. All scientists worth their salt know the feeling and some - Carl Sagan; Richard Feynman - have spoken about it at length. Your idol Richard Dawkins wrote an entire book about it, in fact.
Oh, and there's still no 'worship' involved. I've covered this already.
But scientists are not important for what they feel....as Leonard has said.
Then of course you criticise belief but how does Harrison know he is right....even if he were as I suspect merely a naturalist taking the piss out of pantheism?
-
I don't see any other way of informing ourselves.
Well, exactly - nor do I.
-
But scientists are not important for what they feel....as Leonard has said.
That's right.
Then of course you criticise belief but how does Harrison know he is right....even if he were as I suspect merely a naturalist taking the piss out of pantheism?
He's a naturalist but he's not taking the piss out of pantheism - very far from it. Try reading him - that's always a good way of finding out about stuff, I've learnt.
You are still mired in the idea of pantheism being like monotheism insofar as it's a set of propositions which can either be true or not. It isn't. It's not a question of being 'right'; it's of exactly the same order as liking Stilton cheese and not liking avocados - is that 'right' or 'wrong'? Or is it simply reaction, taste, preference?
Clearly you're utterly unable to break out of this mindset of pantheism being a religion such as Christianity insofar as it's a list of potential facts which can be either right or wrong, so I really wouldn't bother trying to get your head around it any more. You did say you were leaving this thread (twice), though that was evidently a bare-faced lie.
-
God bless you man! You give me laughs regularly. :)
-
Dear Leonard,
Which does not alter the fact that they can often mislead us, and that an UN-emotional path is primordial in our search for the truth.
Often mislead, I would argue the word "often" which is why I say that we should explore our gut feelings, put them under the microscope.
We use these emotions everyday, first impressions count, or, I just knew there was something wrong.
Rhiannon says she feels comfortable in her faith, I am exactly the same.
Am I wrong in suggesting that animals ( that is what we are ) instinctively know when something is wrong, the amount of times I have approached someone with a dog, only to be told, be careful he/she is wary of strangers but I never have any trouble with them, me and the dog always get on brilliantly, I love dogs, and I think the dog instinctively knows this.
I think we say "often mislead" because we notice our failures more often, they stand out.
We are told, never judge a book by its cover but there is more going on than just sight, we are a very complicated animal, that first impression of someone, there is a whole mix of emotions going on in that one instance.
Gonnagle.
-
That's right.
He's a naturalist but he's not taking the piss out of pantheism - very far from it. Try reading him - that's always a good way of finding out about stuff, I've learnt.
You are still mired in the idea of pantheism being like monotheism insofar as it's a set of propositions which can either be true or not. It isn't. It's not a question of being 'right'; it's of exactly the same order as liking Stilton cheese and not liking avmocados - is that 'right' or 'wrong'? Or is it simply reaction, taste, preference?
Clearly you're utterly unable to break out of this mindset of pantheism being a religion such as Christianity insofar as it's a list of potential facts which can be either right or wrong, so I really wouldn't bother trying to get your head around it any more. You did say you were leaving this thread (twice), though that was evidently a bare-faced lie.
I am merely mired in the classical definition of pantheism
Harrison's movement is not the whole of pantheism no matter what he calls it
Calling atheism any kind of theism is either the mother and father of category blunders or a piss take by linguistic pirates.
The pantheism in naturalistic pantheism is an appendage like that on an angler fish. Once lured one finds oneself in the dark belly of mere naturalism.
-
I am merely mired in the classical definition of pantheism
No you're not - if you were, you would understand the concept, and it's painfully and increasingly tediously obvious that you don't.
Harrison's movement is not the whole of pantheism no matter what he calls it
He never said it is and nor have I. Watch what you're doing with all that straw.
Calling atheism any kind of theism is either the mother and father of category blunders or a piss take by linguistic pirates.
Or the evolution of language.
The pantheism in naturalistic pantheism is an appendage like that on an angler fish. Once lured one finds oneself in the dark belly of mere naturalism.
I've no problem with mere naturalism whatever - that's your hang-up - but I have an emotional and aesthetic sense as well.
-
Dear Leonard,
Often mislead, I would argue the word "often" which is why I say that we should explore our gut feelings, put them under the microscope.
We use these emotions everyday, first impressions count, or, I just knew there was something wrong.
Rhiannon says she feels comfortable in her faith, I am exactly the same.
Am I wrong in suggesting that animals ( that is what we are ) instinctively know when something is wrong, the amount of times I have approached someone with a dog, only to be told, be careful he/she is wary of strangers but I never have any trouble with them, me and the dog always get on brilliantly, I love dogs, and I think the dog instinctively knows this.
I think we say "often mislead" because we notice our failures more often, they stand out.
We are told, never judge a book by its cover but there is more going on than just sight, we are a very complicated animal, that first impression of someone, there is a whole mix of emotions going on in that one instance.
Gonnagle.
OK Gonners, omit the word 'often'. The fact that we can be misled sometimes is sufficient to make us wary of relying too much on feelings.
-
No you're not - if you were, you would understand the concept, and it's painfully and increasingly tediously obvious that you don't. He never said it is and nor have I. Watch what you're doing with all that straw.Or the evolution of language. I've no problem with mere naturalism whatever - that's your hang-up - but I have an emotional and aesthetic sense as well.
Ok. I recommend readers to go to the Wikipedia entry on pantheism. Naturalistic pantheism is but a small section of pantheism.
Calling pantheism sexed up atheism is an obvious category blunder.
-
Ok. I recommend readers to go to the Wikipedia entry on pantheism. Naturalistic pantheism is but a small section of pantheism.
Yes - anybody who managed to wade through the OP would know this already. Well done you for catching up eventually.
Calling pantheism sexed up atheism is an obvious category blunder.
Explain, not assert, why you think this is the case.
-
Yes - anybody who managed to wade through the OP would know this already. Well done you for catching up eventually.
Explain, not assert, why you think this is the case.
Pantheism means that all are/is God. That you and I are divine
-
Pantheism means that all are/is God.
Well well well - you seem to be getting somewhere at last.
That you and I are divine
Well, I certainly am - I make no comment on you.
-
No you're not - if you were, you would understand the concept, and it's painfully and increasingly tediously obvious that you don't. He never said it is and nor have I. Watch what you're doing with all that straw.Or the evolution of language. I've no problem with mere naturalism whatever - that's your hang-up - but I have an emotional and aesthetic sense as well.
Evolution of language....bring that up again when black equals white and when yes equals no or indeed when atheism equals pantheism
-
Well well well - you seem to be getting somewhere at last. Well, I certainly am - I make no comment on you.
Then you are not a pantheist........
............back of the net.
-
Then you are not a pantheist........
............back of the net.
Still here then after lying twice about leaving, I see.
-
Still here then after lying twice about leaving, I see.
Great a non pantheist telling me to get off the pantheist thread.
-
Great a non pantheist telling me to get off the pantheist thread.
Well, you clearly (a) don't seem to understand the concept, (b) have no interest in learning about said concept you don't understand, (c) post incomprehensible garbage such as "I take it the a pantheist has no difficulty with the concept of a trinity since they must believe in a trillion in one" and (d) have twice stated that you're leaving the thread and are still here (i.e. lied), so what exactly is it that you think you're doing here?
Others are capable of reading the OP if it takes their interest and of commenting on the subject at hand. You are not.
-
Well, you clearly (a) don't seem to understand the concept, (b) have no interest in learning about said concept you don't understand, (c) post incomprehensible garbage such as "I take it the a pantheist has no difficulty with the concept of a trinity since they must believe in a trillion in one" and (d) have twice stated that you're leaving the thread and are still here (i.e. lied), so what exactly is it that you think you're doing here?
Others are capable of reading the OP if it takes their interest and of commenting on the subject at hand. You are not.
Atheism is not any kind of theism Shaker end off.
-
Atheism is not any kind of theism Shaker end off.
Well it must be atheism, surely, mustn't it?
You still here? Or have you ended off?
-
Well it must be atheism, surely, mustn't it?
Eh?
-
Eh?
Work it out, Trigger.
-
Dear Leonard,
OK Gonners, omit the word 'often'. The fact that we can be misled sometimes is sufficient to make us wary of relying too much on feelings.
Rely on them, well we do but you are right, we should be wary which is why I say we should explore them, scientifically, that first encounter, I think all the senses are in play, sight, smell, hearing, hell maybe even taste.
Our gut feelings are much more than just a feeling, we have talked many times about evolution, why man stands in awe of a beautiful sight in nature, it is much more than just somewhere to find food and shelter, am I wrong in thinking that man has lost the ability to use his senses to the maximum, early mans senses must have been tuned so finely to survive, more like an animal who uses all its senses to survive.
Dear Shaker and Vlad, ( you two love birds )
Yes, to touch the divine, we all seek that, if you read about any of the major religions it is all about touching God, wanting to be like God.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Leonard,
Rely on them, well we do but you are right, we should be wary which is why I say we should explore them, scientifically, that first encounter, I think all the senses are in play, sight, smell, hearing, hell maybe even taste.
Our gut feelings are much more than just a feeling, we have talked many times about evolution, why man stands in awe of a beautiful sight in nature, it is much more than just somewhere to find food and shelter, am I wrong in thinking that man has lost the ability to use his senses to the maximum, early mans senses must have been tuned so finely to survive, more like an animal who uses all its senses to survive.
Dear Shaker and Vlad, ( you two love birds )
Yes, to touch the divine, we all seek that, if you read about any of the major religions it is all about touching God, wanting to be like God.
Gonnagle.
Mr G
Atheists on this board have trouble with one man being like God. What will they make of Shakers suggestion that all are like God?
-
Stop lying, Vlad.
-
I don't mind the lying so much as a lie can be refuted with the truth; it's the dull incomprehension shading into outright trolling which is a nuisance.
-
I don't mind the lying so much as a lie can be refuted with the truth; it's the dull incomprehension shading into outright trolling which is a nuisance.
That's right. Having lost the ball play the man.
Let's see how many questions Harrisonian pantheism answers once CPR is deprived.
Ciao.
-
Third time lucky ...
-
Dear Leonard,
Rely on them, well we do but you are right, we should be wary which is why I say we should explore them, scientifically, that first encounter, I think all the senses are in play, sight, smell, hearing, hell maybe even taste.
Yes, indeed! I think our most dangerous ability is imagination, or rather distinguishing it from reality. For example, attributing a sudden surge of well-being, wonder and completeness to a divinity, instead of recognising it as just our acute aesthetic sense responding to a particular stimulus, such as you describe here....
"Our gut feelings are much more than just a feeling, we have talked many times about evolution, why man stands in awe of a beautiful sight in nature, it is much more than just somewhere to find food and shelter..."
...am I wrong in thinking that man has lost the ability to use his senses to the maximum, early mans senses must have been tuned so finely to survive, more like an animal who uses all its senses to survive.
I think you are right in that we would probably not survive if we were suddenly returned to the primitive world of our forbears, but we have gained so much more in our refined aesthetic sense.
-
But scientists are not important for what they feel....as Leonard has said.
Then of course you criticise belief but how does Harrison know he is right....even if he were as I suspect merely a naturalist taking the piss out of pantheism?
Some of them are ( important for their emotions), and their imagination.
For those of us who are not mathematical geniuses :-[ their expression of wonder and awe, give us some idea of what their research is about.
Just recently I visited and saw the big telescopes on the top of la Palma.
I didn't go inside, but I found out there was nothing to look through and see as that isn't how they do it, and their results are not something most of us understand.
They are not telescopes you can look through, their data is just that, data.
Apparently you need a masters degree in maths and astronomy to understand or make any sense of it.
Stephen Hawking has a telescope up there, to try and find out about black holes.
This is where it's important that the scientists use their imagination and emotion to explain it to the rest of us in terms we understand.
To share it, they need to make it something the rest of us understand. They do that by making visual representations and sharing their sense of awe.
Carl Sagan is one good example of someone who shared his awe, and his programmes were full of emotion.
Well in my opinion.
Without that, most of us wouldnt know anything at all.
Raw data is a bit dry, we need a bit of emotion with it.
:)
-
Dear Leonard,
Yes, indeed! I think our most dangerous ability is imagination, or rather distinguishing it from reality. For example, attributing a sudden surge of well-being, wonder and completeness to a divinity, instead of recognising it as just our acute aesthetic sense responding to a particular stimulus, such as you describe here....
But how do you know you are not touching the divine, this Pantheism stuff tells us
Pantheism is the belief that the Universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god. Pantheists thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god
Totality of everything, all encompassing immanent God, what you call "acute aesthetic sense" could be us knowing that we are part of everything, as the quote says "identical with divinity", I think this is something to reflect on, in this modern world with the "me me me" we should all remember that we are all part of the whole, we are all made from the same stuff and will go back to the same stuff.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Rose,
This is where it's important that the scientists use their imagination and emotion to explain it to the rest of us in terms we understand.
To share it, they need to make it something the rest of us understand. They do that by making visual representations and sharing their sense of awe.
Yes! this is something I keep banging on about, scientists work in the scientific field they don't own it, it belongs to everyone, science, scientific thinking affects everyone, which is why I like Prof Cox and Jim alkalili, they try to make science more accessible to us less educated, also things like Ted Talks, short sharp bursts of scientific thinking, although it is probably a two way street, we should all endeavour to master the basics.
Gonnagle.
-
Absolutely! Our lives are made up of emotions!
Which does not alter the fact that they can often mislead us, and that an UN-emotional path is primordial in our search for the truth.
according to David Eagleman our rational brains can not function without feelings. It is our emotions that give weight to a rational perception of the world, allowing us to make decisions.
-
Dear Samuel,
I tried watching that programme but that man Eagleman puts me right off, must be my emotional side. :P
Gonnagle.
-
Very interesting thread. Well done to Shaker.
I've been trying to follow the various lines of discussion, and there are a few so its a bit tricky. What I think lies at the heart of this is the question of meaning. If pantheism is nothing more than a way of understanding or acknowledging the unity of the universe then I would question its usefulness as a distinct term. Its interesting, but is it meaningful?
These elements of the 7th quote in the OP (why does that feel like I'm quoting scripture?), I think, suggest the potential for pantheism to involve more than simply a particular kind of awareness.
Reverence for Nature and the wider Universe.
Active respect and care for the rights of all humans and other living beings.
Celebration of our lives in our bodies on this beautiful earth as a joy and a privilege.
I'd say these describe activity. It proposes that a pantheist perspective leads to certain actions and that these actions are related to certain human habits that are involved in meaning-making. Reverence - which taken as a verb is close to worship - implies a way of living that expresses those feelings of awe, not simply having those feelings. Rhiannon described this well with the way she interacts with her surroundings, although I know she doesn't consider it worship. Desribing the Earth as beautiful?... well that is subjective but here its given as a positive intention. It almost reads like a prayer.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that panthesim is pointless unless it serves a purpose beyond simply describing a feeling. It has to hold some sort of meaning, provide a framework for living life, which is what all religions do. Like Shaker I have a lot of sympathy for pantheism, particularly for its intrinsically honest perspective on the world. But am I / could I be a pantheist... I doubt it. I don't know why exactly. Maybe its as simple as not feeling the need to seek meaning on those terms.
-
Dear Samuel,
Thank you, first atheist to come out, I do value your input but can I ask, do you think there is confirmation bias working in your post.
The way I see it, this pantheism is a beginning, a way to start thinking of the bigger picture, a way of showing that you are part of this bigger picture, to recognise that we all have a part to play, as in the environment, it is not somebody else's problem, we are all involved.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Leonard,
But how do you know you are not touching the divine, this Pantheism stuff tells us
Totality of everything, all encompassing immanent God, what you call "acute aesthetic sense" could be us knowing that we are part of everything, as the quote says "identical with divinity", I think this is something to reflect on, in this modern world with the "me me me" we should all remember that we are all part of the whole, we are all made from the same stuff and will go back to the same stuff.
Gonnagle.
I like Len's words 'our acute aesthetic sense'. My emotional responses to the natural world can very much at times includes these emotional/aesthetic feelings of wonder, of connectedness, of inspiration, of mind expanding exhilaration, of humility which Shaker deliniates so successfully in his OP. I have no problem describing this as 'spiritual' either. I suppose, in this manner my attitudes may well have pantheistic overtones.
My problem arises when the divine is mentioned. For me, the divine suggests some sort of conscious presence, and, in this context(i.e. the natural world) I certainly don't have feelings, and have never had feelings which suggest this at all. You may well be right, Gonners, there may indeed be some 'all encompassing immanent God'. You certainly seem to suggest that your own feeling lie in that direction, and who am I to even want to diss such feelings?
I would only say that to experience this connectedness to the world around us, and without having to imbue it with some sort of divine essence, this surely does not have to stop us from bemoaning the selfish and material attitudes which surround us and, indeed, are part of ourselves.
-
Dear Samuel,
Thank you, first atheist to come out, I do value your input but can I ask, do you think there is confirmation bias working in your post.
possibly... can you elaborate? and anyway, what do you mean by 'first atheist to come out'? come out of where? was it out of your wildest dreams? if it was I'm not surprised, I should think they were a lot to handle.
The way I see it, this pantheism is a beginning, a way to start thinking of the bigger picture, a way of showing that you are part of this bigger picture, to recognise that we all have a part to play, as in the environment, it is not somebody else's problem, we are all involved.
Gonnagle.
Those things can be established without needing to refer to pantheism though. However, if pantheism was an affective means to galvanise those ideas in people, help them to act on them, it would become meaningful. Do you see what I mean? Not an either /or... but an and.
-
Yes, because pantheism doesn't involve a consciousness on the part of the universe, or divinity as understood by other religion, there is the question of why have it at all. And it's not easy to answer. I suppose the closest I can come to is that although not conscious the universe isn't 'dead' either. And it's my way of looking at the natural world and seeing and saying that it matters. It's the best expression I can find for it.
-
Dear Samuel,
possibly... can you elaborate? and anyway, what do you mean by 'first atheist to come out'? come out of where? was it out of your wildest dreams? if it was I'm not surprised, I should think they were a lot to handle.
Check the posts, first atheist to attempt a more in depths look at pantheism.
But am I / could I be a pantheist... I doubt it. I don't know why exactly. Maybe its as simple as not feeling the need to seek meaning on those terms.
I was referring to the above when I asked about confirmation bias, you don't know exactly but then you go on to mention "seek meaning" which from the many atheist posts I have read, there is no meaning, no purpose.
Off out now, I will return tonight.
Gonnagle.
-
I was referring to the above when I asked about confirmation bias, you don't know exactly but then you go on to mention "seek meaning" which from the many atheist posts I have read, there is no meaning, no purpose.
Gonnagle.
Got ya. I suppose I meant personal meaning and purpose, not a universal one. Like Rhiannon says, it works for her, and that's great. If find meaning and purpose in other things. If you were to ask me what exactly I'd have to think long and hard. All I can say is that concepts like pantheism and other religions don't work for me.
You might remember that I used to call myself a Christian some years ago. I'd wade into discussions to defend those beliefs... eventually I realised it was a hollow effort on my part. I never really believed. I don't feel bad about it, perhaps a little disappointed as in some ways it would make my life a little more interesting if I could. In the end the pretence was too much of a burden, and in the immortal words of Elsa, queen of Arendelle, I just had to let it go. I think it made me a little reticent to tread that road again, so maybe you are right, there is a little confirmation bias in there.
-
And it's my way of looking at the natural world and seeing and saying that it matters. It's the best expression I can find for it.
Interesting. From the way you describe your pagan practices I've always understood them to be deeply personal, and because of that to have profound integrity. In a way I'm surprised that something so conceptual as pantheism is something you find useful. Is it something you contemplate much? or is it simply a useful term to describe your perception of the world?
-
Interesting. From the way you describe your pagan practices I've always understood them to be deeply personal, and because of that to have profound integrity. In a way I'm surprised that something so conceptual as pantheism is something you find useful. Is it something you contemplate much? or is it simply a useful term to describe your perception of the world?
I think this last sentence sums up how most pantheists probably view it - it isn't a religion to subscribe to, and is a philosophy only in the loose, non-specialist, everyday sense of the term: it's just a convenient term for a particular way of viewing the world, in this case in emotional and aesthetic terms. Harrison justifies the use of the term 'God' by saying that for pantheists Nature/the cosmos form the same focal point of reverence, awe and mystery as a personal god does for the traditional theist. Personally I don't know if that can be defended on linguistic grounds - it seems to have what Richard Dawkins called a proven capacity to confuse - but it doesn't strike me as nonsense.
-
No, it isn't nonsense, and your description of it as a term for emotional and aesthetic perceptions is helpful. I still think there is am implicit element of activity involved though, which means it's more than simply a way of thinking about something. Reverence is a verb too, not just a noun.
-
I think once you are at the stage of saying people who do not have a belief in gods can be theist, we may have moved beyond meaningless into not even meaningless. I also just feel the whole reverence/awe but honestly it's not worship, I'd never do the hard amazement, I only do soft stuff like awe, just indulgent.
It's not 'sexed up atheism', it's meretricious inclusivism, and pointless at the same time. The stuff we need to find common ground on isn't awe, it's day to day my stuff.. I'm not interconnected to everything, hard solipsism gets in the way of that, never mind what everything is. To get anything to work, this new age-y 'we are starburst, we are golden' has the benefit of not being immediately exclusive but for those of us with fuck a' awe, it ends just as exclusionary.
On the whole, I'd rather be in Philadelphia
-
Interesting. From the way you describe your pagan practices I've always understood them to be deeply personal, and because of that to have profound integrity. In a way I'm surprised that something so conceptual as pantheism is something you find useful. Is it something you contemplate much? or is it simply a useful term to describe your perception of the world?
Yes, for me it is deeply personal. And we've talked before about labels and how we then get stories around those, which isn't always helpful. But at the same time there does come a point at which you want to explain to others what it is that you do/think/experience/are, and for me a pantheistic pagan fits the bill better than anything else.
I can't remember ever not looking at nature and not seeing God. My ideas of 'God' have changed vastly. But to me pantheism isn't something I think about. It's a useful term to help explain what I experience and who I am.
-
I think once you are at the stage of saying people who do not have a belief in gods can be theist, we may have moved beyond meaningless into not even meaningless. I also just feel the whole reverence/awe but honestly it's not worship, I'd never do the hard amazement, I only do soft stuff like awe, just indulgent.
It's not 'sexed up atheism', it's meretricious inclusivism, and pointless at the same time. The stuff we need to find common ground on isn't awe, it's day to day my stuff.. I'm not interconnected to everything, hard solipsism gets in the way of that, never mind what everything is. To get anything to work, this new age-y 'we are starburst, we are golden' has the benefit of not being immediately exclusive but for those of us with fuck a' awe, it ends just as exclusionary.
On the whole, I'd rather be in Philadelphia
Bless you NS. 'Meritricious inclusivism', yeah man.
Based on what Rhiannon has been saying I'm happy to think of pantheism simply as a useful term to describe a certain point of view. Anything more than that is, I suspect, a trip round the edge of our own navals, pondering which angle it would look best from in a painting by escher.
-
Bless you NS. 'Meritricious inclusivism', yeah man.
Based on what Rhiannon has been saying I'm happy to think of pantheism simply as a useful term to describe a certain point of view. Anything more than that is, I suspect, a trip round the edge of our own navals, pondering which angle it would look best from in a painting by escher.
I'm working on the idea that that if the certain point of view includes I believe in gods, and, I don't believe in gods its not a certain point of view
-
The last sentence is an interesting ontological view. Can you justify it further?
Well, in some sense the phenomenology of the Unconscious as mapped out in part by Jung could be one such method or approach to the non-material of the human condition.
-
Well, in some sense the phenomenology of the Unconscious as mapped out in part by Jung could be one such method or approach to the non-material of the human condition.
Blimey. Shaker's bar is definitely open after that. Anybody fancy a tincture?
-
Why?
When I say observer I mean to see itself as separate from what is being observed in a significant way. A camera takes in data from the outside world but it does not observe it, in this sense, and see this outside world as separate from itself - it is not conscious in anyway. Matter, stuff, has no element of consciousness to it and so consciousness has to be a different agent to material entities.
-
Blimey. Shaker's bar is definitely open after that. Anybody fancy a tincture?
?? ?? ?? ???
-
No. It doesn't imply anything about my knowledge being better to point out that you simply made an unsubstantiated assertion.
So what part of it didn't you understand, old boy?
-
When I say observer I mean to see itself as separate from what is being observed in a significant way. A camera takes in data from the outside world but it does not observe it, in this sense, and see this outside world as separate from itself - it is not conscious in anyway. Matter, stuff, has no element of consciousness to it and so consciousness has to be a different agent to material entities.
What I don't see is why you think that discounts pantheism.
-
So what part of it didn't you understand, old boy?
Nothing, why did you feel the need to lie in that way?
-
Dear enki,
I like Len's words 'our acute aesthetic sense'. My emotional responses to the natural world can very much at times includes these emotional/aesthetic feelings of wonder, of connectedness, of inspiration, of mind expanding exhilaration, of humility which Shaker deliniates so successfully in his OP. I have no problem describing this as 'spiritual' either. I suppose, in this manner my attitudes may well have pantheistic overtones.
My problem arises when the divine is mentioned. For me, the divine suggests some sort of conscious presence, and, in this context(i.e. the natural world) I certainly don't have feelings, and have never had feelings which suggest this at all. You may well be right, Gonners, there may indeed be some 'all encompassing immanent God'. You certainly seem to suggest that your own feeling lie in that direction, and who am I to even want to diss such feelings?
I would only say that to experience this connectedness to the world around us, and without having to imbue it with some sort of divine essence, this surely does not have to stop us from bemoaning the selfish and material attitudes which surround us and, indeed, are part of ourselves.
How could I have missed this post,
I have no problem describing this as 'spiritual' either. I suppose, in this manner my attitudes may well have pantheistic overtones.
I think this is quite brave of you to admit, it steps away from the dogmatic "there is no God" to me it says, I am open to discussion, problem for me is describing my God, the book, the Bible is a start, just like Pantheism, it is a beginning.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear enki,
How could I have missed this post,
I think this is quite brave of you to admit, it steps away from the dogmatic "there is no God" to me it says, I am open to discussion, problem for me is describing my God, the book, the Bible is a start, just like Pantheism, it is a beginning.
Gonnagle.
Actually Gonners I have never said that there is no God, only that I don't have any belief in any God which, to me, are entirely different approaches.
I think that you have probably got the wrong idea here. This isn't the first time I have mentioned the fact that, like many others, at times I have had such experiences. Arguably I don't think that the fact that my experiences are accompanied by a strong feeling of the absence of any divine element stops me from describing them as 'spiritual' in some way.
I hope I am always open to rational, sensible discussion by the way.
-
What I don't see is why you think that discounts pantheism.
Isn't pantheism where matter and the deity or Life force etc. are seen as being one and the same thing. Just two aspects of the same stuff?
Whereas panentheism is where the Life force is seen as a separate entity to matter or the material world, something with a different nature or essence to matter.
-
Nothing, why did you feel the need to lie in that way?
More unqualified assertions, Nearly. On what basis do you make that claim?
-
Just reading through part of the OP, who's number system seems to have gone awry, the term Naturalistic pantheism means just plainly Naturalism, judging by the mission statement that follows it. The pantheistic bit seems to be superfluous. It would need at the minimum to define what it means by God/gods with reference to the -theism part. And the same for Scientific pantheism.
In particular the bit by Paul Harrison could almost be a Green or political party statement. Shakes, are you willing to discuss his definition of matter which though technically plausible looks a little suspect to me, and does start to touch on the divine side of things.
-
Dear Shaker,
I suspect that this refers to the belief that God and creation are separable - indeed, according to the personalistic deity of bog-standard theism, God has always existed and has never not existed, but there was a time when there was no universe. On this view, you can in principle have a God without a creation - if the universe was to disappear (assuming for the moment that such talk even makes sense) there would still be God.
Post 27 to refresh your memory.
And from your OP.
8. Scientific pantheism does not believe that science will necessarily be able to explain everything in the universe. Above all, the fundamental mystery of the sheer existence of matter/energy is likely to remain impenetrable.
God has always existed, so has the Universe, the only reason we say the Universe had a beginning is because of scientific thinking, this is another flaw in science which we have all swallowed, it is the old question, how can something come from nothing, well it can't.
The Universe may have been entirely different from what we observe now but it was still there, the latest scientific thinking is two black holes colliding, colliding in what!
What this Pantheism says to me, science is limited in how it describes the Universe just like we are limited in how we describe God, a human flaw that we think we are intelligent enough to answer, what is God/Universe.
The Universe, Oxford English,
all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago.
All, even the stuff it is supposedly expanding into, What we believe, our very limited knowledge.
To end, how can the Universe disappear, magic, woo, yes your right, it don't make sense ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Yes, I was drawn to pantheism for a time.... it goes hand-in-hand with New Age. Very subtle teaching, attractive and seductive in it's concept.
But each to their own....
-
Seduced by the devil, that's me.
-
Rhiannon, I was there too, once. As I say, it's very, very powerful in it's 'pull' and hold on one.
-
Rhiannon, I was there too, once. As I say, it's very, very powerful in it's 'pull' and hold on one.
:(
-
Rhi, I'm with you...... God is in creation, yes.... it's His creation. But it's the denial of the Creator. Huge red flag.
-
Rhi, I'm with you...... God is in creation, yes.... it's His creation. But it's the denial of the Creator. Huge red flag.
That's not what makes me sad for you, SP.
-
Seduced by the devil, that's me.
Tom Ellis is quite tempting
I could be quite seduced by him ;)
😈
-
Tom Ellis is quite tempting
I could be quite seduced by him ;)
😈
Oh man, me too!
http://www.zimbio.com/Tom+Ellis/pictures/pro
-
Oh man, me too!
http://www.zimbio.com/Tom+Ellis/pictures/pro
Oh dear, where is this thread going... ...?
-
Oh man, me too!
http://www.zimbio.com/Tom+Ellis/pictures/pro
;D
👍🏻 🌹💐