There is a god.

[deano]

there is a god,its called the universe.

it created reality
it created mankind
it governs us with its rules
it is sentient,we are part of that sentience.

[phlebas]

I was only partly confused, but then your last sentence lost me.

You may have your first sentence backwards, too.

[Howard]

I came up with the same concept… on a recent trip to Jamaica.

But to play along…just how does the universe create itself?

[Spenser]

I was begining to believe I was God, well, at least that was what my girl kept calling me last night...

[TollHouse]

Originally posted by deano
there is a god,its called the universe.

it created reality
it created mankind
it governs us with its rules
it is sentient,we are part of that sentience.

I bound to feel that way when I'm drunk. It all seems to make sense then. ;)

Really though, I can't say I personally find anything terribly troubling with those points. It redefines "god" in a way that makes most discussions with theists moot anyhow.

As far as my atheism goes, I'm only really concerned with debating the existence of the ridiculous God(s) put forth by Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc...

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by deano
there is a god,its called the universe.
...
it is sentient,we are part of that sentience.

Only living organisms in the universe are sentient. All the rest isn't.

And I wouldn't call the universe God. IMHO the word "God" is reserved for the concept of "a human-like intelligence existing before humans did". The universe is not intelligent. In the beginning were the particles, and they became intelligent stuff only after a long time of evolution.

[JEST2ASK]

Originally posted by deano
there is a god,its called the universe.

it created reality
it created mankind
it governs us with its rules
it is sentient,we are part of that sentience.

:cool:
I like it ... excuse the riff -raff ..... some many wanna- be comics ...

except Howard of course ....

However if I might offer a sligtly different take on your observations

1 - There is reality
2 - There are laws that govern how the universe behaves.
3 - Sentience allows for the universe to be observed.
4 - We are sentient beings.

Oh and welcome:)

[Taffer]

Originally posted by deano
there is a god,its called the universe.

it created reality
it created mankind
it governs us with its rules
it is sentient,we are part of that sentience.
I was with you up to the sentient bit.

xplain/elaborate plz k thx bai

[Demigawd]

Originally posted by deano
there is a god,its called the universe.

it created reality
it created mankind
it governs us with its rules
it is sentient,we are part of that sentience.

Sounds a bit like pantheism. Perhaps Jobar can elaborate.

[Infidelettante]

Hi deano. Pagan?

Hylozoism; to hold that all matter is living. The material world is living. As it lives I have no problem with the idea that it is intelligent though I don’t necessarily think it is. I think perhaps the best evidence for living matter is that life exists. Takes care of biogenesis. Life gives rise to life.

I can express the concept in symbolic terms as the eternal womb of Mother God giving birth to all things at every moment. This exercise shows me that as none of hers are still born all things live.

It also shows me another way to look at existence. As all matter is living we need another understanding of what we now think of as living. Living and nonliving are more completely understood as organized and disorganized matter. Matter is self organizing. Once again life gives rise to life and we are all connected within this universal sea of life.

JT

[B. H. Manners]

I guess you could call the universe "god" if you want to. But can you prove it is sentient?

[deano]

regarding the sentience.sorry,bad english on my part,i was trying to say that humanity aswell as any other life out there is the sentient part of the universe,thus the "mind" of god.

me a pagan?,nope,panthiest? maybe!.

from my point of view all the criteria that religious people talk about when describing a god exist,like ive said,its the universe.so in a basic sense they are right.but a christian or muslim god?? never!!!,a humanised god could never exist unless we made it,so we do,in our minds!.

[JEST2ASK]

Originally posted by deano
regarding the sentience.sorry,bad english on my part,i was trying to say that humanity aswell as any other life out there is the sentient part of the universe,thus the "mind" of god.

me a pagan?,nope,panthiest? maybe!.



AH then you you agree with me .....

3 - Sentience allows for the universe to be observed.
4 - We are sentient beings.


There is still that tricky part about the universe creating it's self

:)

[premjan]

Pantheism is even less defensible than theism.

A religious person would never agree with this. God is an active agent. The universe is passive at best.

The only active thinking agents in the universe are people (there may be other species out there too) and a single self-existent which we term God. To the self-existent, we ascribe all possible qualities since it is not directly observable. The self-existent stems from the need for logical economy, among other things.

[deano]

religious people need an active god because they want rules to govern their pointless lives.

clerics want to proclaim new laws in the name of the almighty!.
bishops want you to follow their every decree under punishment of eternal damnation!

egotistical self indulgist create religious morality just so people follow their personal beliefs.

a human god is passive at best,i have never seen an evidence of his hand at play.

the universe is passive???,try put your hand through a wall,the universes laws will stop you.

the universe is constantly active,we are active.

ahh JEST2ASK ,if the universe is god,it can create itself


:D :D :D

[premjan]

I don't think God was invented by idle, self-indulgent people, no matter how the situation may look at the present time. The ones who invented God were productive intelligent people from amongst their societies.

You are obviously jesting, to conclude that not being able to put your hand through a wall indicates activity. We do not judge any unmoving nonreproducing nonsentient entities such as walls as active.

If the universe is God and creates itself, this is a consistent version of pantheism. But it is still not as strong (directed,planful) as Judeo-Christian theism wherein a silent creative entity pulls all the strings from behind the scene and causes all phenomena to occur, some in a patterned fashion governed by natural "laws" some at random as per its will. Most entities are puppets, while humans are semi-partners (they have the choice of Good and Evil -- play with the creator or against him). Going against the creator is folly and is termed evil.

Judeo-Christian theism is no worse (inconsistent) than any other system of philosophy, and religion overall is more useful to human societies than philosophy, which is largely pointless.

[premjan]

cosmic humanism is probably the word for the belief that the universe is a sentient creature (human). It was a popular ancient belief.

[Calzaer]

Heathen Dawn:
Only living organisms in the universe are sentient. All the rest isn't.

Prove it. Hell, for that matter, prove that sentience even exists in any living organism. There's a Nobel Prize waiting for you.

Actually, let's start smaller. Define sentience.

The universe is not intelligent. In the beginning were the particles, and they became intelligent stuff only after a long time of evolution.

Define "intelligence". And then explain what makes your intelligent mass of particles different from any other mass of particles.

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by Calzaer
Prove it. Hell, for that matter, prove that sentience even exists in any living organism. There's a Nobel Prize waiting for you.

Actually, let's start smaller. Define sentience.


Sentience is the faculty of sensing, whatever the senses may be. Rocks don't have that. Not all living organisms do either. But living organisms with a central nervous system do.


Define "intelligence". And then explain what makes your intelligent mass of particles different from any other mass of particles.

Intelligence is the ability to plan decisions (as opposed to unplanned reactions). Only humans have this in full. Other animals have varying degrees of intelligence, but are mostly governed by reactions, much like chemical molecules are.

[fishbulb]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
Intelligence is the ability to plan decisions (as opposed to unplanned reactions). Only humans have this in full. Other animals have varying degrees of intelligence, but are mostly governed by reactions, much like chemical molecules are.

That definition is a little chauvanistic. By many if not most notions of intelligence, humans are, collectively, the most intelligent species we know of, but that hardly means that we represent the pinnacle of intelligence or that there do not exist more intelligent beings.

Moreover, by no stretch of the imagination are all of our decisions based on planning. Everyone does things which they are later at a loss to explain why they did them. We do things based on instinct and gut reaction all the time, especially when we are under stress and, even at the best of times, people cannot explain their actions in full; there is always some component of instinctive or emotional reaction involved.

Concepts like intelligence and sentience prove to be extremely elusive when you try to pin down exactly what they are and what sorts of things have some. I have to agree with Richard Dawkins that the point at which we divide non-intelligent or non-sentient entities from minimally-intelligent or minimally-sentient beings is arbitrary. In broad terms, we can say that rocks, salt crystals, chromosomes, and bacteria are not intelligent and that humans and chimpanzees are, but there really does not seem to be a clear line of demarcation that makes a qualitative distinction between us (who possess at least some intelligence) and them (who posses none at all). It does not seem completely implausible that even non-living things could possess some extremely rudimentary form of whatever is or causes the emergent property of intelligence. That does not mean, though, that we ought not recognize that, even if this is so, most things possess so little of it that they are, for all practical purposes, not intelligent.

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by fishbulb
It does not seem completely implausible that even non-living things could possess some extremely rudimentary form of whatever is or causes the emergent property of intelligence. That does not mean, though, that we ought not recognize that, even if this is so, most things possess so little of it that they are, for all practical purposes, not intelligent.

Non-living things don't have intelligence. Full stop. That's what makes evolution the opposite of any type of creationism or intelligent design.

I agree intelligence is a gradient, as it would be by the result of gradualistic evolution; but what makes God a God is that He has intelligence modelled upon the human model, with extensions. The universe, or its creative processes, are nothing of the sort. So calling the universe God is simply unwarranted.

I'm quite adamant about this point. If the sum total of the laws of nature is calld God, then it would mean no-one could be called an atheist at all. Everyone would be either a distinct-theist (God is distinct from the universe, as in Christianity) or a pantheist (God is the universe). Which I deem to be nonsense. I'm not a pantheist, and I don't believe in a god of any sort. The laws of nature are just that: laws of nature. I resent having the archaic, mythical term "god" hoisted upon my worldview. I'm an atheist, I don't believe the concept of "god" has anything to do with reality. So let people stop these word-games, already!

The universe exists. The universe is the universe. "God" is nothing but mythology and superstition. There I stand. Thereby I call myself an atheist.

[Keith Russell]

I have seen no evidence that the universe ('reality') created itself, let alone evidence that it is sentient.

K

[Calzaer]

Sentience is the faculty of sensing, whatever the senses may be. Rocks don't have that. Not all living organisms do either. But living organisms with a central nervous system do.

Fair enough.

But what if... what if.... *little Wayne's World noises*

What if humans are the Universe-God's sensory organs?

...sorry, I'll be good now.

Intelligence is the ability to plan decisions (as opposed to unplanned reactions). Only humans have this in full. Other animals have varying degrees of intelligence, but are mostly governed by reactions, much like chemical molecules are.

You'd have a hard time selling that to a hard determinist, I'm afraid. Chemicals in the brain react; there's no such thing as "planned actions" or "free will". Just stimulus/response and chemical interaction, with the overlaying metacognition (another layer of chemical reactions) that makes us THINK we're planning and chosing.

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by Calzaer
What if humans are the Universe-God's sensory organs?


Then they do not function as sensory organs in a normal living organism. They contradict each other, they fight between themselves, they are fully autonomous. If I feel sad and you feel happy, how does God feel?


You'd have a hard time selling that to a hard determinist, I'm afraid. Chemicals in the brain react; there's no such thing as "planned actions" or "free will". Just stimulus/response and chemical interaction, with the overlaying metacognition (another layer of chemical reactions) that makes us THINK we're planning and chosing.

You'll get the justice system to collapse that way... :p

But seriously, my take: yes, it's chemical reactions; and yes, it's also "planned actions" and "free will". Our particular chemical configurations enable us to be intelligent, decisional, free-willed agents. Each of us has decisional free will.

[Infidelettante]

Originally posted by premjan
Pantheism is even less defensible than theism.

I do not often offer defense of my religious position. However I will often take on those who offer indefensible positions regarding my position. One such would be that Pantheism is less defensible than Theism.

A religious person would never agree with this. God is an active agent. The universe is passive at best.

Having been a religious person for some forty years I would first recommend that you not make statements as to what religious people would or would not do. You are, are you not a religious person? Can you give us some idea why your active agent deity fails to act in a manner that would be considered commendable if recognized in a person?

You see, when you defend a personal deity you must defend that deity’s actions. This can lead to uncomfortable results for the Theist. Do you condemn murder by people but defend murder by God? You are justified in calling people who lie to task for their lies but can you call your God a liar? Read the Garden of Eden story carefully.

We would wonder at the mental state of a person who’s plans always go wrong so how would you account for the Garden of Eden, Cain and Able, The Sons of God and the daughters of men, the Flood, and the Tower of Babel? It seems your God got very few things right in the beginning. But perhaps we should be less harsh. He is only a person after all.

The only active thinking agents in the universe are people (there may be other species out there too) and a single self-existent which we term God. To the self-existent, we ascribe all possible qualities since it is not directly observable. The self-existent stems from the need for logical economy, among other things.

A single self-existent. How wordy. But you see words do not equate to active thinking. I have given you evidence that your God is immoral, untrustworthy, and incompetent. You may take time to think about this actively.

As for Pantheism, I find no problem with it. You made the claim that it is less defensible that theism. After you attempt the defense of your God you may feel differently about Pantheism. Give it some active thought and tell me what you find indefensible about it.

JT

[fishbulb]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
Non-living things don't have intelligence. Full stop. That's what makes evolution the opposite of any type of creationism or intelligent design.

I agree intelligence is a gradient, as it would be by the result of gradualistic evolution

This position raises two interesting questions. First, does this mean that all living creatures possess some degree of intelligence? Does intelligence (possibly among other properties) separate living from non-living creatures? Or can living creatures also be non-intelligent? I.e. have an intelligence of 0.0, identical to that of a non-living entity? If the latter, what is the difference between a non-intelligent and a minimally intelligent creature?

Second, what is life? Once again, we have a concept which is clear on a general level but, when you try to pin down precisely what is living and what is not, it gets a little tricky. Are bacteria living? Viruses? What about individual cells? Chromosomes? How about inorganic entities which grow or replicate, such as crystals? Is there a distinct dividing line between living and non-living, or is the boundary arbitrary? So many of the fundamental distinctions we make between classes of things are meant to apply on a broad level but, when you get down to the details, things that seemed to differ fundamentally when you looked at them from afar end up looking as though they differ only by degree when they are examined up close. We assign things to different classes as a matter of convenience: because they are different enough for those differences to matter to us, not because they differ at some inherent, fundamental level. The border between any two groups of real entities is almost always fuzzy; no matter where we draw the line, there always seem to be transitional examples that don't fit cleanly into one group or the other.

One of the classic examples is the problem of the acorn and the oak tree. We regard the acorn and the oak tree as two different kinds of things, but we also know that an acorn can turn into an oak tree. Is it the case that there is a specific point at which the acorn ceases to be an acorn and becomes something different, or is it the case that there is a stage where we arbitrarily decide to stop calling it an acorn and start calling it a sprout or sapling?

By the same token, modern cosmological and evolutionary theory suggest that all of the things which are alive today evolved from simpler life forms which, ultimately, are descended from something that originally was not alive. We are faced with the same question: is there some fundamental process or event which qualitatively changes non-living matter into living matter, or do we simply decide to start calling something alive at some arbitrary point? If there is a fundamental change of state from non-living to living, I wonder what sort of non-supernatural process could account for such a fundamental change.

Also, I wonder what in evolutionary theory precludes assigning intelligence to non-living things. I imagine that at least some of the people working in the field of artificial intelligence must disagree, and I have seen computers which appear to make decisions more intelligently than many living creatures. Does that mean those computers are alive? I am by no means an expert in evolutionary biology, but I have never come across any aspect of evolutionary theory which restricts intelligence to living things.

but what makes God a God is that He has intelligence modelled upon the human model, with extensions. The universe, or its creative processes, are nothing of the sort. So calling the universe God is simply unwarranted.

I agree entirely with you on this point. When someone calls the Universe God, it makes me very suspicous that he is trying to sneak the concept of god that you describe into a naturalistic framework. At a minimum, it is redundant and confusing: if one doesn't mean that the Universe is a god in the traditional sense of the word, then one should stick to calling the Universe "the Universe" and leave the God monicker alone.

But the two are really different issues. One is about using loaded terminology, quite possibly with the intent of implying one thing about the nature of the Universe while at the same time being able to fall back and claim that one never actually said that, just like intelligent design arguments imply (or at least strongly hint at) the Biblical God without actually coming out and saying it.

Concepts like intelligence, sentience, and life, on the other hand, are concepts which work very well at the everyday level, but they are far from precisely defined; I am not at all certain that anyone has proposed a definition which successfully divides every thing in the Universe into intelligent and non-intelligent; sentient and non-sentient; living and non-living, much less proposed a defnition that is widely accepted. Though, not having much knowledge of the life sciences, I may well be wrong.

[Jobar]

I notice that premjan's profile lists him as a pantheist! Premjan, some of your statements contradict this, as you have written them. Perhaps you might wish to re-state some things; if you consider yourself a pantheist, why say Pantheism is even less defensible than theism? (Are you a Zen Buddhist, perhaps? ;))

Ever notice how people, rather unpredictable when considered one by one, become much more so when studied en masse? I've often thought that quantum mechanics might be evidence for some sort of awareness in even the most elementary particles; impossible to predict their behaviour singularly or in small groups, but far more consistent in large numbers, even as are we.

Deano, I think 'pantheist' fits you well. I've written a lot about it; seems I have posted this list of threads a lot, lately, but here it is again.


Here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33316)
here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33304)
here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33228)
here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33356)
and here. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33359)
Oh, and this one (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32719&perpage=25&pagenumber=2) is particularly good, I think.

Just yesterday, I burst out laughing in a bookstore, when I saw the book The Complete Idiot's Guide to Taoism. I just *had* to buy it! :D When I read it, I may offer a review here. J.

[Calzaer]

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Taoism

I may be wrong, but wouldn't this hypothetical "complete idiot" already be Taoist?

[JEST2ASK]

Originally posted by premjan
I don't think God was invented by idle, self-indulgent people, no matter how the situation may look at the present time. The ones who invented God were productive intelligent people from amongst their societies. ....

(IMO) When primitive humans moved to organized, enforced "religion" it was directed by a small minority seeking to enforce their world view and gain power & control ... while they might not have been motivated by only self-interest (IMO) it was definitely a contributing factor. I do not dobut their intelligence but I question the "Productive" aspect ... there is a thought rattling around in my brian about advertising being the art of selling you something you were unaware you needed or wanted...




If the universe is God and creates itself, this is a consistent version of pantheism. But it is still not as strong (directed,planful) as Judeo-Christian theism wherein a silent creative entity pulls all the strings from behind the scene and causes all phenomena to occur, some in a patterned fashion governed by natural "laws" some at random as per its will. Most entities are puppets, while humans are semi-partners (they have the choice of Good and Evil -- play with the creator or against him). **Going against the creator is folly and is termed evil.

Judeo-Christian theism is no worse (inconsistent) than any other system of philosophy, and religion overall is more useful to human societies than philosophy, which is largely pointless.

I find an element of all religions with a focus on external enities as lesening human worth not enhancing it. Our value becomes relative to how we worship, obey, serve . Quite different from trying to be in harmony and respecting other parts of creation as something other than resources for human endeavours.

MY $.02:)

[premjan]

Originally posted by Jobar
I notice that premjan's profile lists him as a pantheist! Premjan, some of your statements contradict this, as you have written them. Perhaps you might wish to re-state some things; if you consider yourself a pantheist, why say Pantheism is even less defensible than theism? (Are you a Zen Buddhist, perhaps? ;))

Ever notice how people, rather unpredictable when considered one by one, become much more so when studied en masse? I've often thought that quantum mechanics might be evidence for some sort of awareness in even the most elementary particles; impossible to predict their behaviour singularly or in small groups, but far more consistent in large numbers, even as are we.

Deano, I think 'pantheist' fits you well. I've written a lot about it; seems I have posted this list of threads a lot, lately, but here it is again.


Here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33316)
here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33304)
here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33228)
here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33356)
and here. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33359)
Oh, and this one (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32719&perpage=25&pagenumber=2) is particularly good, I think.

Just yesterday, I burst out laughing in a bookstore, when I saw the book The Complete Idiot's Guide to Taoism. I just *had* to buy it! :D When I read it, I may offer a review here. J.

I think you have to be a practising pantheist before you observe its flaws. As a person growing up within Hinduism, which is definitely a pantheist belief quite akin in reality to the apatheistic/atheistic belief system of Buddhism, I would have to defend Judeo-Christianity from its critics. I believe Judaism in particular, grew up in the shadow of earlier pantheist beliefs such as Vedantism (beliefs that it then termed "pagan", and the pejorative was correctly applied in my opinion). The purpose of religion and philosophy are not principally enlightenment but tribal survival (now as always). Enlightenment is a nice byproduct but dispensable in the case of the majority of the population, which is neither interested in it, nor particularly capable of it. The enormous advantage conferred by a Judaic view of religion over a pantheist one, appears when seen in relation to the society, not the enlightened individual. God reveals himself in words and contracts, not in formless hints of the absolute. For philosophy to be socially responsible, it must translate into religion, or into improvements in existing religion. This is the weakness of philosophy down the ages and it is the weakness of pantheism, which is closer to philosophy than to religion -- it is elitist. God reveals himself incompletely and in contradictory fashion. The Word of the Bible is also sometimes contradictory in an explicit fashion, nevertheless I would consider it to be a more practical system of religion than practical pantheism (which Hinduism undoubtedly is). Hindu pantheism suffers from a weakness for "holy men". Wherever ultimate truth is continuously adjustable and appears from the mouths of innumerable holy men, the chance for fraud is enormous. Hinduism in this respect has a related but different weakness than Catholicism. Hinduism is riddled with fraud. Catholicism tends to worship the church as an institution rather than God.

For Pantheism (and philosophy) to be socially relevant, they must address the structure of existing beliefs, such as Judeo-Christianity, not by rejecting them, but by augmenting and reforming them from within.

More in the next post. Thanks for listening.

[Magic Primate]

I just posted this on another pantheistic thread and it seemed equally apt here;

Here's what Richard Dawkin's thinks of this sort cosmos-as-God thinking:

"...what word is left for conventional religion, religion as the ordinary person in the pew or on the prayer mat understands it today--indeed, as any intellectual would have understood it in previous centuries, when intellectuals were religious like everybody else?

If God is a synonym for the deepest principles of physics, what word is left for a hypothetical being who answers prayers, intervenes to save cancer patients or helps evolution over difficult jumps, forgives sins or dies for them? "

From Snake Oil and Holy Water (http://www.forbes.com/asap/1999/1004/235.html) (this is a pretty sharp and sometimes hilarious article by the way).

Having pointed that out, I don't see anything irrational about having a deep, even existential or spiritual awe for the beauty, and oneness of 'the ultimate'. I just think we shouldn't get confused about what we are dealing with and I think labels like 'god' just cloud real understanding in favour of feeling good and justifying religious conviction.

[veniceboy]

"But to play along…just how does the universe create itself?"
Just how does God create itself? If God doesn't need a creator, why does the universe?

[JEST2ASK]

Originally posted by veniceboy
"But to play along…just how does the universe create itself?"
Just how does God create itself? If God doesn't need a creator, why does the universe?

:confused: :confused: :confused:
Perhaps I am dense but there appears to be a rather large difference between saying something is uncreated / uncaused or simply always was and thus is the source of all (everything else). Then to say something created / caused itself to be.

However if no one else understands my point (basis of confusion), I have no problem admitting it's simply over my head like the tale of a time travler being his own grandfather which I could never quite grasp.

[Infidelettante]

Quote: premjan

I think you have to be a practising pantheist before you observe its flaws. As a person growing up within Hinduism, which is definitely a pantheist belief quite akin in reality to the apatheistic/atheistic belief system of Buddhism, I would have to defend Judeo-Christianity from its critics. I believe Judaism in particular, grew up in the shadow of earlier pantheist beliefs such as Vedantism (beliefs that it then termed "pagan", and the pejorative was correctly applied in my opinion).

Other than you saying the use of pejoratives is justified when referring to Pagans I find this paragraph to be without content. I have in my Pagan travels worshiped Asherah, Astarte, Shekinah, Sophia, and Lilith. If you need to brush up on your goddesses read the Old Testament.

The purpose of religion and philosophy are not principally enlightenment but tribal survival (now as always). Enlightenment is a nice byproduct but dispensable in the case of the majority of the population, which is neither interested in it, nor particularly capable of it. The enormous advantage conferred by a Judaic view of religion over a pantheist one, appears when seen in relation to the society, not the enlightened individual.

It is the strength of Pantheism that it frees one from the strictures of tribal religions such as Judaism. The purpose of religion is tribal survival? To reduce the vast history of human religious thought to tribal survival is absurd. The study of mysticism alone proves the power of individual experience to add to our understanding of the Divine.

Christianity has offered no new thought in almost fifteen hundred years. It is a dead and stagnant religion incapable of dealing effectively with the modern world. The huge Fundamentalist megachurches are a return to the tribal religions you praise. The individual is submerged in the church/village which then becomes the conscious motivator. We are no longer a tribal society and this artificial tribalism is a societal pathology.

God reveals himself in words and contracts, not in formless hints of the absolute. For philosophy to be socially responsible, it must translate into religion, or into improvements in existing religion. This is the weakness of philosophy down the ages and it is the weakness of pantheism, which is closer to philosophy than to religion -- it is elitist.

Elitism is one of the boogaboos the Fundamentalists have used to control the sheep for decades. I remember the teachers at Bible college ranting about the elitist liberals intent on destroying the Word of God. Who is more elitist, the Christian who claims to know the mind of God or the Pagan who claims to know only the suchness of things?

And you would have us condemn pantheism because it is too much like philosophy? Am I allowed to be a pantheist if I avoid the philosophy of it? And just how does one do that? In your defense of Christianity do not you rely on some philosophical understanding of it?

God reveals himself incompletely and in contradictory fashion. The Word of the Bible is also sometimes contradictory in an explicit fashion, nevertheless I would consider it to be a more practical system of religion than practical pantheism (which Hinduism undoubtedly is).

It is a wise man who throws the shortcomings of his argument in the face of his opponent. So you would rather have the incomplete and contradictory revelation of the Bible over your own ability to investigate, discern, and choose? You would rather be a Godly Elitist?

And this for free. Religion must never be reduced to practicality.

Hindu pantheism suffers from a weakness for "holy men". Wherever ultimate truth is continuously adjustable and appears from the mouths of innumerable holy men, the chance for fraud is enormous. Hinduism in this respect has a related but different weakness than Catholicism. Hinduism is riddled with fraud. Catholicism tends to worship the church as an institution rather than God.

I give you Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jim Baker, and Jimmy Swaggert. Which of these men gives you your truth? And you would have us reject pantheism because it has a weakness for Holy men? I suppose I must admit to not knowing the names of enough Christian fakirs for them to innumerable but I assure you they make up for it in shear mendacity.

For Pantheism (and philosophy) to be socially relevant, they must address the structure of existing beliefs, such as Judeo-Christianity, not by rejecting them, but by augmenting and reforming them from within.

So you recommend I become a Christian Pantheist? Augment? Reform? The structure of existing beliefs? Pantheism can only be relevant if it addresses Judaism and Christianity? I have seen many Christians who think of everything in terms of their religion but this is a new one. A Christian who says no religion is valid which does not seek to reform Christianity! Just when I think you Christians have reached the pinnacle of nonsense you reveal a talent for silliness that defies ones ability to keep up with you.

More in the next post. Thanks for listening.

I can hardly wait. Thanks for writing. JT

[premjan]

generally Christianity is called "panentheist": God includes the visible universe as well as a nonmaterial extension, so it includes pantheism within itself. Islam is similar.

Religion is basically a sort of ecological sensibility. It serves to show people how to think about their ecology in order to live harmoniously. Tougher ecologies produce more hard-nosed religions. Darwinism ensures that hard-nosed people and ideas tend to preferentially survive.

The Christianity of modern times may appear to have become static, but the semitic religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam basically encapsulate the nomadic lifestyle of a particular period of history. The tribal organization of that time had to be strong for the sake of survival. Ideas like pantheism arise in gentler habitats: it is hard to meditate upon desert sand and evoke the deity (other than a bloodthirsty legalistic one).

A pantheist by definition must try to understand and include other religions within his sensibility. So a pantheist can only end up becoming a panentheist and not a pure pantheist.

Religion just describes a social and belief system that encodes ecological and existential insights. The best religion is one that includes or at least explains all religious insights of all times.

[Diadectes]

generally Christianity is called "panentheist": God includes the visible universe as well as a nonmaterial extension, so it includes pantheism within itself. Islam is similar.

Really? I think the Catholic Church would disagree with you on this one. God created the universe from nothing and must be seen to remain separate from his creation. Only by adhering to this belief can the Church's followers save themselves from falling for the great heresy of pantheism, the idea that the creation is itself divine and requires no creator. In pantheism there is no need for 'nonmaterial extension'. Of course, like all religions, there are variations in belief in pantheism, but there is no necessary reason why a pantheist should adopt a panentheistic approach to his beliefs.

[premjan]

A pantheist desires to experience all things as manifestations of God, thus including the (invisible,unseen) God of the monotheists.

A stubborn monotheist could force a pantheist through his stubbornness to accept his view of religion (also). His very stubborn monotheism is proof of his God. It would be hard for a pantheist to force a monotheist to accept pantheism. An inclusivist has to work harder than an exclusivist.

[Diadectes]

A pantheist desires to experience all things as manifestations of God, thus including the (invisible,unseen) God of the monotheists

Provided, of course, you believe in the invisible, unseen God of the monotheists. Pantheism does not require you to do so.


A stubborn monotheist could force a pantheist through his stubbornness to accept his view of religion (also).

On what do you base this statement? Have you had personal experience of this? As one who abandoned Christianity many years ago in favour of a more pantheistic belief system, I find the idea of re-converting the moment a determined Christian starts witnessing to me somewhat patronising, to say the least.

It would hard for a pantheist to force a monotheist to accept pantheism.

So? What does that prove? It would be hard to convince such a person of anything that did not fit into their religious world view. Wouldn't necessarily makwe that world view the right one. And in any case, what makes you think a pantheist would want to 'force' anybody to believe anything they didn't want to?

[premjan]

reasoning along the lines of "what's the point of being right" if you can't convince the people who hold the opposite viewpoint. Then you are reduced to attacking the personality and character or intelligence of the opponent. This is at least undemocratic. In a democratic system, people who stubbornly hold onto their beliefs survive (no matter if those beliefs are "mistaken") since they become a special interest group.

If the purpose of religion is personal edification only and you are willing to hold onto that position, then what you say is consistent. However in the real world, politics exists. I can see fundamentalists forming a coherent political group, but perhaps not pantheists. Their beliefs are more scattered, as it were, and so are they.

[Diadectes]

I can see fundamentalists forming a coherent political group, but perhaps not pantheists

I take your point, but were the fundamentalists to attempt the kind of political takeover you describe I would most certainly defend my right to hold an opposing point of view, though from a humanistic viewpoint, as my own religious beliefs do not involve a personal God (to clarify, the 'God' I believe in, for want of a better term, is to a great extent the god described by Spinoza, who was not strictly speaking a pantheist). I would therefore align myself with the atheists.

[premjan]

Spinoza can be described as a monist.
His own behavior edifies this trend. He gave away most of his property to his sister, and probably died without much money or renown. His notion of God is popular only among rarefied circles.

This is the problem: the god of the Christian fundamentalist (or I suppose Islamic fundamentalist) confers upon them the right to be selfish while it appears that the monist or pantheist God is an unselfish God and as often as not, causes self-extinction in the believer.

Darwin would say that monism could get you killed, so it could not possible be the right idea.

Perhaps being right is not of evolutionary advantage to the person who is right, only to the idea that he holds.

It may be that the best religious views are the ones that permit greatest selfishness in the holders of the belief.

[Keith Russell]

premjan said:
In a democratic system, people who stubbornly hold onto their beliefs survive (no matter if those beliefs are "mistaken") since they become a special interest group.

David Korresh' Branch Dividians do not (excuse me--did not) fit your model.

K

[ELECTROGOD]

There has only ever been an idea(s) of "god".

http://members.aol.com/electrogod/sgod.gif

[Infidelettante]

quote: premjan

I hope you don’t mind that I’ve combined all your most recent posts together in order to reply. There is so very much to cover I don’t want to miss even the smallest bit.
generally Christianity is called "panentheist": God includes the visible universe as well as a nonmaterial extension, so it includes pantheism within itself. Islam is similar.
No, Christianity is called Theism. Panentheism is a failed compromise that allows the here, there, everywhere deity of pantheism yet keeps the personal, creator God of Christianity. The only way it differs from Christianity is that it is univeralist in the sense that the god of panentheism doesn’t send people to hell because there are no lost souls to fry. Everyone is saved already.
Religion is basically a sort of ecological sensibility. It serves to show people how to think about their ecology in order to live harmoniously. Tougher ecologies produce more hard-nosed religions. Darwinism ensures that hard-nosed people and ideas tend to preferentially survive.
I take it you mean a social ecology when you speak of the ecological sensibility of religion. Certainly you don’t think that the Semitic religions have fostered an ecological stance regarding the salvation of our planet. The South Pacific islands produce gentler religions than Sub Saharan Africa. Is that it? If that is it you are talking in circles. The hard-nosed religions survive. How do you know they are hard-nosed? They survived. Oh.

So few now a days use Darwinism to support theories of social evolution that I am surprised to see it here. I believe it has even fallen from favor among the Robber Barons. Please rethink your stand.
The Christianity of modern times may appear to have become static, but the Semitic religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam basically encapsulate the nomadic lifestyle of a particular period of history. The tribal organization of that time had to be strong for the sake of survival. Ideas like pantheism arise in gentler habitats: it is hard to meditate upon desert sand and evoke the deity (other than a bloodthirsty legalistic one).
Am I to understand that the halcyon society of India gave birth to pantheism? Is it your contention that the peoples of India had it so much better than those of the Levant that their religion just had to be the sweet, easy going pantheistic religions while the Semites could only invent the blood thirsty deities of Judaism and Islam because sand gets into everything? So the Semites have given history so much pain and death because of beach rash?

A pantheist by definition must try to understand and include other religions within his sensibility. So a pantheist can only end up becoming a panentheist and not a pure pantheist.
Though my sensibilities do require me to try understand other religions it is my own desire to know my culture and not some aspect of pantheism that drives me. Indeed I am quite surprised to learn that the spirituality I embraced after half a life of searching is not the one I thought I had but instead the one I reject as a failed compromise.
Religion just describes a social and belief system that encodes ecological and existential insights. The best religion is one that includes or at least explains all religious insights of all times.
My, and I thought all I needed in a religion was that it grease the skids of life. Must I really now take on a task which even Hume would shrink from. All religious insights of all time? Well yes I can see that one which explained all religious thought would be the best comparative religions class but I fail to see how that makes it the best religion.
A pantheist desires to experience all things as manifestations of God, thus including the (invisible,unseen) God of the monotheists.
Actually we Pantheists don’t think the (invisible,unseen) God of the monotheists exists. How are we to experience what is not there? I have the need to express my self religiously. After ten years devoted to the intense study of the (invisible,unseen) God of the monotheists I concluded that not only is he (invisible,unseen) but he does not exist. I have no need to experience anew the fear, doubt, and self loathing, your religion manifests in so many of it’s adherents.

A stubborn monotheist could force a pantheist through his stubbornness to accept his view of religion (also). His very stubborn monotheism is proof of his God. It would be hard for a pantheist to force a monotheist to accept pantheism. An inclusivist has to work harder than an exclusivist.
Let me make sure I understand you. A forceful witness could make me accept monotheism as well as pantheism. That is what the (also) means is it not? Having once been a stubborn monotheist (a forceful witness is the preferred terminology) I can say you are truly full of crap here.

First I can’t imagine any pantheist trying to force pantheism on anyone. That is why we become pantheists. We reject the masculine, militaristic terminology of monotheism in favor of the feminine, inclusive terminology of pantheism. Words matter.

Second it may be that your stubborn monotheist confronts a stubborn pantheist. You don’t think we pantheists can be stubborn do you. How could we be? We are pantheists ripe for the picking should some apologist come to shake our existential tree.

Do you not think we may have put some thought into our religious choices? Of course you don’t. Anyone who puts any thought into religion becomes a Christian! How very thoughtless of me not to play along.
I guess I was reasoning along the lines of "what's the point of being right" if you can't convince the people who hold the opposite viewpoint. Then you are reduced to attacking the personality and character or intelligence of the opponent. This is at least undemocratic. In a democratic system, people who stubbornly hold onto their beliefs survive (no matter if those beliefs are "mistaken") since they become a special interest group.
You are correct. It is the right who takes the point of being right to those of the opposite viewpoint and stubbornly harangue them until they become Christians. If they don’t convert just call them pantheists and be more stubborn. Right is on your side. As we used to say ‘Don’t give up till they give in’.
If the purpose of religion is personal edification only and you are willing to hold onto that position, then what you say is consistent. However in the real world, politics exists. I can see fundamentalists forming a coherent political group, but perhaps not pantheists. Their beliefs are more scattered, as it were, and so are they.
Spinoza can be described as a monist.
His own behavior edifies this trend. He gave away most of his property to his sister, and probably died without much money or renown. His notion of God is popular only among rarefied circles.

This is the problem: the god of the Christian fundamentalist (or I suppose Islamic fundamentalist) confers upon them the right to be selfish while it appears that the monist or pantheist God is an unselfish God and as often as not, causes self-extinction in the believer.
WTF are you talking about? The god of pantheism causes self-extinction in the believer? What a load of manure. According to your Darwinistic religious evolution theory there should be no pantheists because,
(1) We are too scatter brained to survive.
(2) There are too few of us to form coherent groups.
(3) There are just too many stubborn monotheists out there.
(4) We are too inclusive or too exclusive which ever one fits.
(5) We don’t understand our own spirituality even after you have explained it to us so well.
(6) We weren’t raised in the Goby.
(7) We are too busy trying to understand and include other religions within our sensibility.
(8) There is no such thing as a pure pantheist.
(10)Pantheism exists in the non-material extension of the God of theism so we don’t even get to define whatever it is we believe.

Darwin would say that monism could get you killed, so it could not possible be the right idea.
Perhaps being right is not of evolutionary advantage to the person who is right, only to the idea that he holds.

It may be that the best religious views are the ones that permit greatest selfishness in the holders of the belief.
Darwinism says nothing about the development of religion in society or the individual. Where did you dig this up? Check the publication date. Is it before the turn of the century? Pryor to 1900?
JT

[premjan]

JT,

OK, I guess pantheist, panentheist, theist form a sort of spectrum moving towards pure monotheism. Christianity may sometimes be called panentheist, or if one is more orthodox, pure theist. Of course, to a Judaist, Christianity appears less purely theist.

I was using the word ecology in a general sense. I guess sand is not a good explanation in itself for pain and death in semitic faiths. The ancient Mayas also practised human sacrifice which was pretty bloodthirsty. The Hutu / Tutsi religion may also be very warlike. I suppose this may have been true for whatever God inspired Alexander the Great or the Persians to create their empire too.

There is however a definite theme of oppression by others, in Judaism. Get thrown out of this kingdom, get enslaved there, persecution persecution and more persecution. This is there for Christians among the Romans too. So it appears that there has been a lot of that stuff to create a stiffer backbone. If that's the way it works, which was my supposition. A religion that causes single-minded tribal vengeance is a good one for making sure one sticks around in a difficult neighborhood. A jealous and angry deity who threatens to smite one will cause this kind of thinking.

Hinduism also has its bloodthirsty sects. The Thugs who used to kill people and garland themselves with body parts. Worshippers of Kali and Shiva would perform human and animal sacrifice (once in a while still do). Certainly later, there are the stories of Asoka who called a truce on empire-building and war. There is the Mahabharata which founded the Indian nation after a fratricidal war (meant to be the war that ended all Indian wars). There is the whole culture of non-violence. Blood sacrifice vanished quite a ways back in Hinduism. Jesus was probably trying to do the same by offering himself as a blood sacrifice. The influence of Buddhism was probably quite strong in causing nonviolence in India. Jainism even more, with the whole business of not even hurting insects.

Anyway, The Judeo-Christian-Islamic heritage indicates that they are better at sustained war, conquest and resistance and so on. I don't see a lot of monotheists going into pantheism, except perhaps philosophically inclined types. Then again, religion may gradually lose its grip on humanity anyways.

It all depends on how strong the existential drives remain. The easier way to channel the urgency of life seems to be through the sword (war). If life is somewhat less urgent, then thoughts of nonviolence and so on, begin to arise.

Not saying that Hinduism is a halcyon religion. Nonviolence may also lead to abuses of authority. Probably even Hare Krishnaism may carry the danger of sexual exploitation of devotees. However, I do note that all the way back to the prophet Elijah, the worship of creation vs. creator is strongly proscribed. This is impressive in that there is no similar proscription that I am aware of in Hinduism against worship of a creator. In fact I don't think it is possible to counter such an argument as Elijah made. In India, note, the worship of the creator has fallen into disuse. In a social sense, you identify with the deity you worship and your actions may take on the properties of the deity. If the deity is planful rather than vapid, then you too will be planful rather than foolishly absorbed in soul contemplation. This is my primary thrust in support of a planful semitic deity.

What do you have to say in response to Elijah? Isn't Hinduism, and maybe other pantheist beliefs, moving in the direction of Baal-worship?

I was not making a scholarly argument, so I don't have any scholarly references to make. If this is not convincing, I may try to dig up some.

Prem

PS: I think if you are to believe in God as important and urgent to human existence, then I guess in principle you want to integrate the widest spectrum of existing human behaviors, including the most bloodthirsty ones, (always in a just manner). If God is merely a concept to reflect upon, then any deity will do.

[premjan]

there is an important reason to believe in Christ: the sacrifice on the cross. Do you consider it to be significant? Or have you completely moved past the concept of Jesus's sacrifice? I suppose this is the part that keeps me interested in Christianity. It is an undeniable innovation of some sort that I am not yet able to precisely put my finger on. Perhaps you can explain to me what is your position with respect to the sacrifice of Jesus?

Please understand, I am not saying that God objectively exists, yet subjectively he does exist to many people and the belief in God does permit the creation of social belief systems. It has led to energetic activity by mankind on the behalf of God throughout history. I am not saying that the Christian scriptures are objectively true. I am not arguing in favor of organized Chrisitian religion, or even poring over the bible for hours. However, most religions have a point, and there is a point in Christianity which so far I have found missing in Hindu pantheism. Hindus have long been obsessed with erasing the fear of death, however it appears that Christianity is a genuine innovation that should cause people to respect life, which Hinduism manifestly does not. The pro-life anti-abortion stance of modern Christians is based as far as I can tell on Judeo-Christian ideas, and may even have to do with the sacrifice of Jesus "to liberate others from their sins". So if you have already got this point, then you are a post-Christian pantheist, while I am still trying to get it (getting close I think) so I am moving in the opposite direction. The reason why Hindus have been slow to get this point is undoubtedly their own revelation, that of Krishna, which, as far as I can discern, has something to do with the structure of human memory (note how Hindus have been obsessed with reincarnation for such a long time). These beliefs are not "true", but they are "realizable" in the sense that they become true in a limited sense once people actively believe in them. In this sense, I consider religion to be idea engineering, belonging in the same family as applied philosophy.

[Keith Russell]

premjan, religion is a primitive form of philosophy.

Christianity is 2,000 years old; I fail to see how you can (with a straight face) refer to it as 'innovative'.

K

[premjan]

Well, I suppose it may be considered innovative relative to whether a certain person has "gotten it" or not. I think there is evidence, that Hindus have "not gotten it" because their belief system is orthogonal in some sense. They will benefit from "getting it", since the problem that motivated the solution known as Christianity has not yet been resolved in the Hindu context (while certain other problems have been better addressed).

In the Hindu context, the improvement will be as follows: Hinduism in its orthodox form is, by and large "familyism". We have not resolved the proper relation of God and family to one another. The concept of judgement after death allows a person to have a personal destiny independent of other people, and a personal rather than collective relationship to God.

Modern individualism is another solution to the same problem, but Christianity is nevertheless a worthwhile addition to the family of ideas for some kinds of people, because it causes a humble attitude.

Philosophy itself has some problems vis-a-vis religion (apathy towards society is one of them). Philosophy and religion have long coexisted with each other.

[Keith Russell]

premjan, if you want to compare various superstitious beliefs, to try to show that one is 'better' than another, well, it's your time.

I view all religious and/or mystical beliefs as inherently, severely flawed.

If I had to pick one religion as 'the best', I would choose Judaism. It is the most compatible with secularism, and the most respectful of both knowledge and commerce.

But, it's the best of an overall poor crop, given the necessarily irrational nature of religion qua religion.

K

[premjan]

that's fine. except that people have long thought that, yet religion has not vanished.

Judaism is fine. But I suspect that it is not complete without some Christian ideas.

Anyway, you are right. It may be an irrelevant discussion for many.

[Keith Russell]

premjan said:
"that's fine. except that people have long thought that, yet religion has not vanished."

Murder hasn't vanished, either. The longevity of a thing certainly doesn't necessarily mean that a thing is 'good'.

The fact that only a relatively few people have dispensed with religion throughout human history in no way means that the majority is right--

--the 'average' person is an idiot...

K

[premjan]

well, that has long been the motivation of philosophers: the idiocy of average people. This is why Plato decried democracy.

[Keith Russell]

But premjan, do you believe that something is 'good', simply because it's been around for a long time?

K

[premjan]

is a value judgement. it exists. to remove all that is not "good"; well that is unscientific.

[Keith Russell]

But premjan, do you believe that something is 'good', simply because it's been around for a long time?

K

[premjan]

be Buddhist about it and refuse to make a metaphysical assertion like that?

[premjan]

we should decide why we are claiming it to be unequivocally bad, if we do so.

[premjan]

that something is bad before discarding it right out.

[premjan]

are you a Spinozist pantheist? In other words, what model of pantheism do you follow?

[Westmiller]

Originally posted by JTVrocher
As for Pantheism, I find no problem with it. You made the claim that it is less defensible that theism. After you attempt the defense of your God you may feel differently about Pantheism.
The core of Pantheism is that God=Universe, so it is a denial of any particular, independent, or supernatural being. I use the term to brush-off borish theist testimonials when I'm not in the mood to argue the point. :banghead:
I suppose Pantheism could be construed as imbuing all the qualities attributed to a Theist God in the universe ... but that would be incoherent, since there is no evidence in nature for the intentionality ascribed to such a being.
One interesting aspect of a Pantheist premise might be that certain features of reality are a natural consequence of universal laws - whether we appreciate them or not. That would make the existence of all things - such as human beings - necessary, rather than accidental. That might imply a vast multitude of sentients elsewhere in the universe. No evidence of that, but a premise that would certainly encourage exploration.

[premjan]

This is actually an ancient religious belief. It is not purely atheist, the way you describe it. At least it is tied up with specific yogas and practices (that try to equate the individual with the universe in some way). In fact it's the basis of philosophical Hinduism. It is noncomittal on the existence of supernatural agency. Another word for it is cosmic humanism.

[Westmiller]

This is actually an ancient religious belief. It is not purely atheist, the way you describe it.
Granted. I only use it in the literal sense that everything is God ("pan" = everything " theos= "God") and only as an evasion - not a belief system.

Naturalistic or Modern Pantheism isn't inconsistent with atheism, since it is purely materialistic. Some of the ancient, Hindu, and even Jewish variations of Pantheism stress "knowing the universe" as a "spiritual endeavor", with attendant rituals and "revelations".

However, Pantheism is not to be confused with godless spiritual premises like Platonism and Idealism ... which hold that reality is an illusion or "intersubjective concensus" created by a spirit consciousness.

[premjan]

I think God may be an emergent property of some biological systems though it does not appear to be compulsory since everyone does not believe in it. I think it has to do with how we ascribe reasons for phenomena. If we primarily choose to think of all external phenomena as being caused by complex agents such as people, we might be susceptible to the notion of God. If we prefer to parse reality differently and see only small material causes for things, then we would be unlikely to easily digest as large a preexistent as God. So the notion of God may well have a genetic root, in the structure of our neurons.

Pantheism is a diffused God concept versus theism which is a collected one. They have different social purposes. Pantheism could be manipulated to create an environmental consciousness, while theism could be the cause of tribal or national solidarity. These things do speak to an extent about the biological heritage of humanity. Interesting that perhaps we would even want Robots to be built like this: (Asimov's three laws of Robotics).

If you observe how dogs come to accept human masters (apparently dogs naturally have a "pack leader" concept which translates into human owner or feeder) it may have to do with heirarchical authority even in the animal kingdom, so animals may not find a God concept hard to accept.

Buddhism is anti-heirarchical or gurucratic (be your own lamps) so it would draw you towards a Guru and, once enlightened, towards the "emptiness". Hinduism is "information-centric" so it draws you towards whatever appears to be the best information. Christianity and Islam are God-centric so are more centralized. In reality the structure of every human occupation/tribe/nation are different, so a different God concept could hold for everyone. This may be a future direction for psychology/psychiatry to take.

[Jobar]

One of our longtime regulars, Heathen Dawn, has more than once said that in his opinion the English word 'God' is inappropriate to use when discussing pantheism. He may well have a point; although when we start talking about ultimates and absolutes, the ground of being, and the nature of consciousness- all inextricably related to pantheism- it should be no surprise that 'God' comes up in these sorts of discussions, too.

I have thought that it might be useful, in this forum, to start using Way or Tao instead of God, when addressing the Supreme Ultimate from a pantheist viewpoint; and only use God (with the capital) to address the monotheistic, Abrahamic version. There is some confusion caused by references to a 'pantheistic God'- as an atheist/pantheist, it's a problem I find myself having to explain repeatedly.

I am delighted to see others of similar belief in this forum- does anyone have any suggestions as to how else we might alleviate (or at least simplify) this problem?

[Keith Russell]

premjan, I am not any kind of pantheist.

Pantheism remains, IMO, wishful thinking, same as any other religious belief.

The universe is what it is, and nothing we believe about it changes the universe in any way.

What our beliefs do, is change us. If I believe the universe is 'God', the universe doesn't change, but my thinking about the universe is altered significantly, and in ways the evidence does not support.

Again, IMO.

K

[premjan]

I think God is studiable as an aspect of human behavior, but not as something to otherwise give credence to. The "subjective" view (i.e. introspection) cannot give very clear verifiable results most of the time, so there's not too much point in doing it. Pantheism/Atheism may be the best bet for avoiding explicit reference to deity without getting into a knot about it.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

If I may interject, the pantheism you guys seem to be talking about has nothing to do with a deity (the anthropomorphised--?--concept of the ideal man).

All you seem to be doing is figuring out ways of calling the totality of natural "forces" by one name; like naming the wind "Mariah." :D

Forgive my question, but what would be the point of doing that?

If, however, you are positing a variation of the anthropomorphic god concept, why not just use the term "Designer?" That would (it seems to me) address most concerns and avoid unwarranted associations and negative connotations inherent in the controversial, divurgent name, "God."

Just my .02.