Pantheism

[Rhiannon]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Gonnagle]

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.

[Rhiannon]

I don't dismiss feelings, Gonners. They are what make existence worthwhile.

[Leonard James]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Leonard James]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Leonard James]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Rhiannon]

The natural world isn't divine to me either; nor do I worship it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Leonard James]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Shaker]

I don't see any other way of informing ourselves.

Well, exactly - nor do I.

[Shaker]

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.

[Leonard James]

God bless you man! You give me laughs regularly. 

[Gonnagle]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Leonard James]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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