Pantheism

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Bubbles]

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Maybe we don't have the awareness or knowledge yet,  the science of today will be outdated tomorrow.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.

[Bubbles]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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Maybe we don't have the awareness or knowledge yet,  the science of today will be outdated tomorrow.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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Bubbles]

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    )

[Bubbles]

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 

[Bubbles]

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 

Science, by finding out something existed, would not let it rest until people understood it.

Where it fitted in to our naturalistic view.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Bubbles]

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 

[Enki]

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?

[Bubbles]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Bubbles]

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.

 🌹

[Bubbles]

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.

[Enki]

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.

[Jack Knave]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[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.

[Jack Knave]

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?

[Jack Knave]

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?

[Jack Knave]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.