Pantheism vs. Atheism, part 2

[premjan]

Originally posted by David Mathews
Hello Everyone,

This question is addressed to Jobar:

Would you say that Pantheism and Strong/Weak Atheism are compatible?

How do you define "Pantheism" and in what ways in that definition different from "Atheism"?

Does Pantheism offer a spiritualism which is lacking in Atheism/Agnosticism?

Best Regards,

David Mathews

Hinduism and Buddhism stand in the same relation to each other as do:

Pantheism/Atheism.

Both can be "spiritualist". However, I believe that pantheism is more personally fulfilling than atheism. From a pantheist point of view, an atheist is trying to "extinguish" his spirit. While a pantheist is trying to "conserve" it or making it grow.

I have split this off from the original 'P vs A (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33228)' thread to simplify our archiving, and so that people will not be addressing questions to posters who no longer frequent II. Jobar.

[Jinto]

Originally posted by VBulletin
October 7, 2002
.
.
August 26, 2003

Holy shit this is an old thread!

[Jobar]

Hello, premjan. I see you read my links. :)

As I see it, atheism is not a complete philosophy. It is *philosophical*, yes- but it is only the rejection of theism. It does not constitute a worldview, as it says nothing about any other philosophical question than the EoG.

Pantheism, on the other hand, is a worldview. The ancient philosophical works of Hinduism and Taoism address all aspects of human beings individually, their interactions with the world, and with other humans.

Certainly, some of those works are mythical, or allegorical. One need not believe in all the gods and demons and supernatural events described in Hindu mythology to see the wisdom and meaning the tales contain; here at II, things like reincarnation are rightfully denigrated. But the Vedantas, the Tao Te Ching, and the tales of Zen Masters are so often completely down to earth, full of wit and beauty and deep wisdom. As I have said in many other places, I find that atheism (actually, skepticism) can mesh quite seamlessly with pantheism.

[spacer1]

Jobar,

I just wanted to thank you very much for posting the Alan Watts piece. I enjoyed reading it immensely.

[premjan]

Pantheism is attractive to gnostics/mystics/philosophers because it offers an intuitive/intellectual understanding of God.

But it is fuzzy, hence a much less satisfactory basis for government, life and so on in the modern day. It is an aesthetic conception of God, whereas nowadays we favor or require a legalist notion. Hence the Judaic notion of God with his contracts and covenants holds sway.

Pantheism has seen its day, in the flowering of Hinduism. It will remain attractive to poets and philosophers but probably not to most others.

[Magic Primate]

Why not establish a relationship with the truth instead of an idealisation/deification of nature? Nature is not a god, but that does not mean that we cannot have an awe-filled, existentially fulfilling (even spiritual) relationship with reality.

[premjan]

is a worthy ongoing quest. God is merely one historical manifestation of truth.

[Keith Russell]

premjan, it seems you are finding things that actually exist, and choosing to name them 'God', then claiming that 'God' exists.

Sure, if 'x' exists, and if you call 'x' 'God', then you are correct in saying that (at least by your usage of the word/concept 'God') 'God' exists.

But, you haven't established that 'x' really is 'God', only that you have chosen to call 'x' 'God'...

K

[Magic Primate]

Originally posted by premjan
is a worthy ongoing quest. God is merely one historical manifestation of truth.

Maybe, but 'historical' is the pertinent word here. At one time (given the available evidence and the state of popular understanding) it was very reasonable to believe in God. Not any more. Also Buddha was way ahead of this Mumbo Jumbo.

[premjan]

whether in reality existent or not. The need to submerge one's ego to some higher power exists in many (not all) people. It may be a remnant of the collectivist phase of evolution (such as bee hives or ant colonies).

[premjan]

was in line with the oldest Vedantist schools of Indian philosophy (which were materialist). He was reacting against excessive ritualism and casteism.

[Keith Russell]

premjan, where is your evidence that 'God' is a human need?

Besides, you're not being nearly precise enough. I think you mean (though your wording does not permit me to be sure) that the belief in 'God' is a human need.

And, I still disagree.

I'm human--

--yet I have no need of any belief in 'God'.

Now, you do you account for that?

K

[Magic Primate]

Originally posted by premjan
was in line with the oldest Vedantist schools of Indian philosophy (which were materialist). He was reacting against excessive ritualism and casteism.

He saw no need to defer to a higher power or philosophise about metaphysical realities. He said that we have to 'save' ourselves and not rely on gods. He also realised that dualistic thinking about mind and matter was ultimately false.

[premjan]

Buddha's lack of reference to God has to do with the conditions obtaining in India at that time. I suppose if he had been born in a different time and place (one afflicted in a negative sense with atheism) he might have supposed a God to exist.

As for my explaining why you do not need God, well, I need God. How do you explain that? I'm not lunatic or unusual.

[Magic Primate]

Originally posted by premjan
Buddha's lack of reference to God has to do with the conditions obtaining in India at that time. I suppose if he had been born in a different time and place (one afflicted in a negative sense with atheism) he might have supposed a God to exist.

That's hypothetical in the extreme. Furthermore, India was full to the brim with gods including a creator god.


Originally posted by premjan

As for my explaining why you do not need God, well, I need God. How do you explain that? I'm not lunatic or unusual.

No you are not unusual, but you are a lunatic. ;) I might explain it in evolutionaty or psychological terms. Your self-honesty is admirable, but I don't see how you can wish to believe or successfully believe in something which you know is false.

Personally, I prefer to aim for a fulfilling relationship with reality.

[premjan]

Well, what did Nietzsche mean by "we have killed God"? Was Nietzsche a lunatic?

What if I succeed in resurrecting him?

[Magic Primate]

Originally posted by premjan
Well, what did Nietzsche mean by "we have killed God"? Was Nietzsche a lunatic?

He was referring to God as a social and philosophical phenomenon of any real consequence. It wasn't a supernatural event.

Originally posted by premjan
What if I succeed in resurrecting him?

The truth is out. Deal with it.

[premjan]

I'm trying to resurrect God as a phenomenon of social and psychological consequence.

I don't remember who it was who said: "If God did not exist, we would have to invent him.".

[Magic Primate]

How can you believe in something you don't believe in? Self-deception? And how can you encourage others to believe something which is false? Lies?

Where are your morals? Your integrity?

Aren't you just avoiding facing up to your fear of death and of real moral responsibility (ie. judging right and wrong for yourself rather than having someone tell you what to do)?

[premjan]

there really isn't anyone else so I'm not really transferring responsibility.

belief is not the fundamental plank of my existence, "being" is. if belief were, that would make me into a judeo-christian. I am a pantheist. I can accept the contradiction between different parts of my life. the person who accepted God was not me. I am a different person now, this instant. This is why Buddhism is really a part of Hindu pantheism.

This probably makes me mala fide on a philosophy forum of course.

[Magic Primate]

Originally posted by premjan
there really isn't anyone else so I'm not really transferring responsibility.

I asked you if you were avoiding it not tranferring it.


Originally posted by premjan
belief is not the fundamental plank of my existence, "being" is. if belief were, that would make me into a judeo-christian. I am a pantheist. I can accept the contradiction between different parts of my life. the person who accepted God was not me. .

Do you or do you not believe that the cosmos is God?


Originally posted by premjan
I am a different person now, this instant. This is why Buddhism is really a part of Hindu pantheism.

I don't buy this claim at all - you'll have to explain it to me. Hindus believe in gods, reincarnation, chakras and all sorts of other incredible claptrap. Buddhist's generally don't - certainly its not what Buddha was teaching. Its certainly not part of Zen which is very down to earth. There is nothing metaphysical or supernatural about Buddhism. And responsibility for 'salvation' is with oneself not with any gods, which may or may not exist.

I would go so far as to say that Zen Buddhism, at least, is closer to philosophical Materialism than to Christianity or any other sort of theism.

[premjan]

is one of the oldest schools of Indian philosophy. Hinduism is polymorphic so few Hindus accept all of its beliefs. Buddhism is not a separate religion by the Hindu view, though it is certainly quite heterodox.

I acknowledge my own need for God by using the word God in argument, but I don't press the point.

I certainly don't wish to avoid my fear of death. You'll have to explain to me how I might be doing so.

Vedantic Hinduism believes in Brahman (which is similar in concept to the Greek Logos). This is one concept more than Buddhism. It is not a compulsory belief although it is generally considered better to believe in something than in nothing (Buddhism is more nihilist). Anyway, all conceptual beliefs are optional in Hinduism. God is experiential in nature.

[premjan]

There was another religious reformer at the time of Buddha by the name of Mahavira. He founded the faith known as Jainism. If you come across Indians with last name "Jain" they will probably be Jains. The difference between the two is that Jainism is more extreme in its embrace of asceticism while Buddhism is "the middle way".

These are both considered heterodox Hindu branches. Zen Buddhism has fashioned the art of contradicting logical categories, if I remember right. This is part of original Buddhist teaching also and is found in Vedantism.

[Magic Primate]

Originally posted by premjan
is one of the oldest schools of Indian philosophy. Hinduism is polymorphic so few Hindus accept all of its beliefs. Buddhism is not a separate religion by the Hindu view, though it is certainly quite heterodox.

Who should get to define what Buddhism is - the Hindus or the Buddhists?

I acknowledge my own need for God by using the word God in argument, but I don't press the point.

Seems pretty redundant to me, not to say confusing.

I certainly don't wish to avoid my fear of death. You'll have to explain to me how I might be doing so.

...if you wish to believe in an afterlife.

Vedantic Hinduism believes in Brahman (which is similar in concept to the Greek Logos). This is one concept more than Buddhism. It is not a compulsory belief although it is generally considered better to believe in something than in nothing

Of course Hindus think this. By the way, I've heard that some very advanced Brahmins are atheistic - that the revelation that God is a construct is a sort of advanced esoteric knowledge - don't ask me for a reference for this.


(Buddhism is more nihilist).


Buddhism is not nihilism. Behind the apparently nihilistic comments of Zen Patriarchs something is being affirmed - the same something that Buddha affirmed when he picked the flower and held it up in the Lotus Sermon.


Anyway, all conceptual beliefs are optional in Hinduism. God is experiential in nature.


Presumably the latter is not an optional belief then?


There was another religious reformer at the time of Buddha by the name of Mahavira. He founded the faith known as Jainism. If you come across Indians with last name "Jain" they will probably be Jains. The difference between the two is that Jainism is more extreme in its embrace of asceticism while Buddhism is "the middle way".


Buddha rejected all that. And the premises of Vedic religion. It has its roots there, but can no longer be meaningfully regarded as Hinduism.

[premjan]

experience or faith in God is very important. Mere belief is generally considered hollow.

Buddhists are free to consider all matters for themselves as is anyone. I am sure they would prefer to retain their individual identity. However, Indian Buddhists (there were many many more of these at one point than at present) have generally ceded to Hinduism.

The afterlife is also a "concept". If you grasp Brahman then space and time lose some of their hold on you and you no longer focus much on death.

The purpose of Zen pseudo-"nihilism" is to provoke no-thought or enlightenment in the listener (of riddles e.g.). This is why Buddhism is great as a personal religion. When made societal, partial understanding can lead to nihilist tendencies. This may be why Japanese built huge statues of Buddha. The common man revered him much as one would a God.

[Jobar]

Premjan, it's always seemed to me that the Eastern relegions (or philosophies) look for God (or ultimate meanings) inside, while all the Western relegions (save for a few small sects and individual mystics) look for God outside. I know that there are various works of Hinduism which examine reality very materialistically, such as the Diamond Cutter Sutra; but, in general, Eastern relegious thought is subjective, and Western is objective. Would you agree?

[Magic Primate]

I don't think you tackled all my points, but I don't disagree with most of what you say here.

If Indian Buddhists accept categorisation as Hindus as you say, what of it? Buddhism is still philosophically quite distinct from all theism and (to a varying extent) from all supernaturalism including Hinduism. All things have their roots in something else.

[premjan]

I think Western religion is more practical, generally, than Eastern religion and this accounts for its greater success.

Jesus was concerned about the inner life (man shall not live by bread alone), while I suppose classical Judaism and Islam are less concerned with inner soul gratification and more with the concretes.

Having looked at the Gospel of Thomas, I conclude that Jesus had very much of a Vedantic style illumination (assuming that gospel is authentic) and the rest of his pronouncements were geared to listeners who were more receptive to scripture than to philosophy.

Actually the scriptural style of Judaism and Christianity seems to blend with the cross-reference style of modern scientific scholarship so this is another good thing, since it probably encouraged literacy and written scholarship at an early point in development.

Hinduism does have a hangup with enlightenment as a sort of product on its own which accounts for the profusion of spiritual masters and holy men. This is nonproductive when taken on its own. Probably for the large majority of Hindus, the Bhagavad Gita suffices.

Actually, my current view puts Islam on the top of the list of religions since it seems to contain all aspects of other religions (including the worst ones) to some degree.

[premjan]

I consider the choice of "no-God" vs. Brahman to be very much a matter of aesthetic preference and I expect different people to choose differently in this matter. It is a shift of viewpoint but probably not "fundamental" otherwise.

[Magic Primate]

Buddha did not say there is no god, and Buddhism avoids answering the question directly, seeking to avoid all such negative and positive metaphysical conceptions.

[premjan]

that's why many Buddhists who are not monks trying to gain enlightenment tend to create Buddha statues.

[Gothic_J]

thats brilliant.

[premjan]

I could be wrong but I trace the strong pro-life stance observed in Protestant Christianity to the sacrifice by Christ of his life on the cross. I mean if you value his sacrifice, then you could take it to mean that all sins (your and other peoples') are expiated and you should work to prevent death. Is this true? Or is there another source for pro-life? Also, the sacrifice on the cross somehow makes the human destiny meaningful as in we are all trying to reach judgement day as nearly perfect as we can (we can't really since we are away from God since the time of Adam)? The judicial angle somehow adds a focus to the entirety of life that is missing in eastern religions, since they are focussing on cycles and not on endpoints. Now you will say nothing new has appeared out of Christian thought in fifteen hundred years, but that's because Judeo-Christian thought is a sort of unchanging substrate (Islam is an alternate substrate but apparently not as fertile). Eastern thought can easily float above this substrate.

I could be wrong (just phrasing things from a Christian point of view since I have come across that more recently), but: the Gospel of Thomas has a little thing that illuminates the Eastern obsession with the inside: it actually has to do with the fact that Easterners have not reached an acceptance of the "last religion" or the "only true religion". In Gospel of Thomas, there is a little bit about "making the inside like the outside and the two one". This is indicating that inside and outside are of equal importance, an insight that somehow, has not reached the majority of easterners, probably because the historical cirucumstances have never been right for that (holiness was valued in itself which was a big mistake).

The main difference between Eastern and Western religion is that Easterners have not taken the concept of scripture seriously. The whole prophetic angle is absent. Due to a Judeo-Christian appreciation (obsession with) of prophecy there is a focus on the written nature of information that is very substantially greater than in the east. it is only now that the analysis of the vedas is catching up. It all has to do, IMO with the premature destruction of the tribal identity by its submergence into caste (India) or state (China). Of course Chinese have used the written word a good bit more, but I wonder if the desire for preserving written words with cross-referential scholarship has been quite as great as in the west.

[premjan]

Another very instructive era in European history is the "enlightenment". I read Ludwig Von Mises on the issue of classic liberalism. It appears that the motivation for "the enlightenment" liberalism was that spiritual goals are not much in human hands. Other than some amount of meditation or pursuit of knowledge or faith, the only reasonable road to happiness was material happiness. In other words, material goods do not guarantee happiness, but their absence probably guarantees unhappiness. Moreover, the pursuit of material possessions makes people productive and engages their energy. This is a very important observation that appears to have escaped the East, where, even in Islam, the materialist drive has never been carried out to its logical conclusion. Probably outright materialism could not flower until after all the spiritual drives of humanity were largely exhausted.

[Jobar]

Premjan, have you read Robert Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? The central philosophical theme of the book is the duality between subject and object in Western thought. It was the 'textbook' for the very first philosophy course I ever took in college, and I still find it fruitful to re-read occasionally.

One of the points Pirsig makes is, that what you are calling the 'success' of Western religions and philosophies, is actually a flawed and destructive way to look at and interact with the world. IMO, Eastern thought, while not as 'successful' as Western dualism, is far more sustainable and far less damaging to both world and humanity. The Abrahamic religions see the world as evil, a place of trials and tribulations; at least Eastern philosophies see that it is good/evil.

In a way, you might say that a cancerous tissue is 'successful'. It outgrows all other tissues around it, and takes more and more of the nutrients and energy of the organism it infests. Until it kills the organism, and itself.

[premjan]

I've read that book at one point when I was still on my "spiritual" kick. the truth is that people have a spiritual and a material side and in the east, the spiritual side has been encouraged to the loss of the materialist side.

Dualism was (and is) a popular belief in some Indian circles. Monist (and zeroist??) thought won out in India under the influence of Shankara (and Buddha) and what you could call "informationism" under Krishna, but they were never the only strain present. Persians practised a strong version of dualism (e.g. Manichaeism) where God and the devil were of nearly equal strength.

The West has thought too much of things in terms of evil and materialism, however, materialism is the real basis of existence and good/evil are just another form of the dualism present in logic. Eastern spiritual thought sits well within Western thought (the inside inside the outside) but the two fit better together than either on their own. In recent times, Easterners are becoming materialist and Westerners spiritual. Christian spirituality (e.g. gnosticism) is not different in any essential way from Buddhism and coming from east to west as I am, I find it a logical endpoint, although there is stuff in Eastern thought that is interesting as well.

Not sure there was a lot of content in what I said but perhaps you got what there was to get.