Freethought & Rationalism Archive

garthoverman · 09-13-2002, 05:39 PM

To Kent and Keith:

I equate the word 'universe' with the word 'god' as an attempt at concisely implying my redefinition of the word 'god' which thus hopefully begins to communicate my philosophy. In my experience, though, I've found that this generally leads to a miscommumication.

Kent, that may well be word abuse. However, I find myself caught somewhere in the middle trying to use a word that most people can identify with, while at the same time trying redefine the term into something that goes over most people's head.

Keith, to say that I'm replacing one word with another in a semantic game is only misunderstanding my point, which is not your fault but mine. I was hoping for an quick apprehension of the multitude of implications to follow a redefinition of 'god,' but apparently my my aim overshot my arm with that pitch.

Yours,

Garth

Jayhawker Soule · 09-13-2002, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by garthoverman:
Keith, to say that I'm replacing one word with another in a semantic game is only misunderstanding my point, which is not your fault but mine.

On the off chance that the question is not being purposely ignored: would you please tell me specifically where and how pantheism diverges, if at all, from philosophic naturalism?

ksagnostic · 09-14-2002, 09:19 AM

Hey Garth.

Scientific Pantheism, at least, makes sense to me, or at least resonates with me. It isn't really different from metaphysical naturalism, but instead is more of a reverent version of metaphysical naturalism. I wouldn't call myself a pantheist yet, but I like the way they think.

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]

Jobar · 09-15-2002, 11:33 AM

ReasonableDoubt:
[W]ould you please tell me specifically where and how pantheism diverges, if at all, from philosophic naturalism?

RD, I would say that pantheism converges with naturalism.

Pantheism may be thought of as a subjective approach to explaining reality; that is, it tries to explain why the world looks and feels the way it does to each individual. Theraveda Buddhism, for instance, considers anything other than the struggle to free oneself from suffering to be pointless illusion. (This isn't all there is to pantheism; there are many ancient writings which approach the world from an objective viewpoint, many works of Hinduism do this.)

Naturalism is almost completely objective; it attempts to explain the observed universe with minimal reference to the observer. Science, before the birth of quantum mechanics, attempted to completely exclude the observer, and many of the objections to QM had to do with the fact that seemingly it was impossible to do that.

I have heard the term 'scientific pantheism' several times on these boards; I take this to mean that pantheism need not postulate anything supernatural. I quite agree; the universe we observe with our instruments and scientific theories seems mystical enough to suit me!

Jayhawker Soule · 09-15-2002, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar:
ReasonableDoubt:
[W]ould you please tell me specifically where and how pantheism diverges, if at all, from philosophic naturalism?

RD, I would say that pantheism converges with naturalism.

If it adds nothing, it adds nothing.

Jobar · 09-15-2002, 07:14 PM

RD, and all- I want to point you to the <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000516" target="_blank">Atheism vs. Pantheism</a> thread, started by the infamous David Mathews. I quoted a long speech from Alan Watts in it, concerning Zen. In that same post, I linked to a long thread in Philosophy, 'In defense of mysticism'. For those interested in the topic, I must say I find Watts the best writer on the subject in the English language; RD, I don't know if that will answer your objections, but if Watts can't then I probably can't.

Jayhawker Soule · 09-16-2002, 03:05 AM

Actually, I read Watts some time ago and found him very interesting and very readable, particularly in comparison to such books as "The Tao of Physics" and "The Dancing Wu Li Masters". I cannot, however, escape the conviction that, at best, pantheism is wordplay, and the occassional elegance of the words does not detract from this conviction.

I'm a big fan of Wide Eyed Wonder, but to call the object of this wonder "God" presumes that the term means something, adds something. I suspect that when people call it "God", they are doing no more and no less than those who imagined the Faerie Kingdom in their attempt to encapsulate (or ensnare) their sense of mystery and awe.

But, if it adds nothing, there is nothing to discuss. At least we can share the Wonder.

Jayhawker Soule · 09-16-2002, 06:57 AM

I have a birthday coming up. Because my kids/grandkids have difficulty finding appropriate gifts, I typically seed affordable ideas via my wife. It's a clear win-win; it limits their costs and my collection of sweaters.

Thanks in large part to your discussion of pantheism, I discovered a book titled <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0195126130/reviews/002-1650496-7762444#01951261306900" target="_blank">The Sacred Depths of Nature</a> by Ursula Goodenough. The following is from the Scientrific American review found at the Amazon.com site referenced above:

Quote:

The recognition of nature's power to evoke emotions such as awe and gratitude is, of course, not new, as Goodenough acknowledges in her introduction. Two aspects of her approach, however, are novel. First, Goodenough's "nature" encompasses not just our direct experience of the natural world but also our scientific understanding of it. She argues eloquently that such understanding, far from provoking detachment or despair, can be a wellspring of solace and joy. The second novel aspect is Goodenough's definition of religious experience. For her, experience qualifies as religious if it entails emotions like awe, wonder, gratitude or joy, regardless of whether or not the person associates such emotions with traditional religious creeds, deities or supernatural phenomena. Goodenough, who professes no belief in a god, describes a profoundly religious relationship with the cosmos rooted in her detailed understanding of phenomena such as atoms and stars, the complex workings of a cell, and the astonishing evolutionary emergence of a mind capable of inquiring into its own nature. Such understanding can give rise to what she calls "religious naturalism," a scientifically based reverence for every aspect of the natural world, including ourselves.
< ... >
One prime reason Goodenough's covenant with mystery is so emancipating is that it allows her to revel in, rather than retreat from, the paradoxes she encounters everywhere as both a scientist and a mortal being. Her articulation of one such paradox, in the chapter on "Multicellularity and Death, "offers a striking example: ... it is here that we arrive at one of the central ironies of human existence. Which is that our sentient brains are uniquely capable of experiencing deep regret and sorrow and fear at the prospect of our own death, yet it was the invention of death, the invention of the germ/soma dichotomy, that made possible the existence of our brains.... Does death have any meaning? Well, yes, it does. Sex without death gets you single-celled algae and fungi; sex with a mortal soma gets you the rest of the eukaryotic creatures. Death is the price paid to have trees and clams and birds and grasshoppers, and death is the price paid to have human consciousness, to be aware of all that shimmering awareness and all that love. My somatic life is the wondrous gift wrought by my forthcoming death.

I though that you and others might find the book equally intriguing. Take care ...

garthoverman · 09-16-2002, 07:44 AM

Didn't mean to ignore you RD.

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
On the off chance that the question is not being purposely ignored: would you please tell me specifically where and how pantheism diverges, if at all, from philosophic naturalism?

This question made me stop and think for a minute. In all honesty, I don't feel that I know enough about philosophic naturalism to compare the two being that they are rather similar at first glance. Here is the first thing that came to mind, though:

In my worldview it is the nature of consciousness to create form, manifiesting physical and non-physcial qualities. The pantheistic perspective on 'god' thus implies that 'god' is conscious - the universe is conscious. Therefore anything part of this collective consciousness (anything that exists) is conscious. That includes subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, any and all matter-energy. Trees are conscious, your car keys are conscious, your coffee cup is conscious - each in their own way.

While I don't know if philosophic naturalism concedes consciousness in all forms of matter-energy, I haven't found many naturalistic worldviews that do. However, particle physicists have recently approached a demonstration of the inherent consciousness of their wee subjects. If it was scientifically demonstrated thus, I suppose it would instantly assimilate as part of a naturalistic worldview.

Yours,

Garth

Jayhawker Soule · 09-16-2002, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by garthoverman:
... it is the nature of consciousness to create form, manifiesting physical and non-physcial qualities.

I do not know what that sentence means. It sounds like something straight out of Berkley. Could you please give me a definition of "consciousness" and tell me what it means to say that consciousness creates form? I find the idea of self-aware car keys a bit disconcerting.

09-14-2002, 09:19 AM	#63
ksagnostic Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Wichita, KS, USA Posts: 2,514	Hey Garth. Scientific Pantheism, at least, makes sense to me, or at least resonates with me. It isn't really different from metaphysical naturalism, but instead is more of a reverent version of metaphysical naturalism. I wouldn't call myself a pantheist yet, but I like the way they think. [ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-13-2002, 05:39 PM	#61
garthoverman Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: California Posts: 69	To Kent and Keith: I equate the word 'universe' with the word 'god' as an attempt at concisely implying my redefinition of the word 'god' which thus hopefully begins to communicate my philosophy. In my experience, though, I've found that this generally leads to a miscommumication. Kent, that may well be word abuse. However, I find myself caught somewhere in the middle trying to use a word that most people can identify with, while at the same time trying redefine the term into something that goes over most people's head. Keith, to say that I'm replacing one word with another in a semantic game is only misunderstanding my point, which is not your fault but mine. I was hoping for an quick apprehension of the multitude of implications to follow a redefinition of 'god,' but apparently my my aim overshot my arm with that pitch. Yours, Garth

09-15-2002, 11:33 AM	#64
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	ReasonableDoubt: [W]ould you please tell me specifically where and how pantheism diverges, if at all, from philosophic naturalism? RD, I would say that pantheism converges with naturalism. Pantheism may be thought of as a subjective approach to explaining reality; that is, it tries to explain why the world looks and feels the way it does to each individual. Theraveda Buddhism, for instance, considers anything other than the struggle to free oneself from suffering to be pointless illusion. (This isn't all there is to pantheism; there are many ancient writings which approach the world from an objective viewpoint, many works of Hinduism do this.) Naturalism is almost completely objective; it attempts to explain the observed universe with minimal reference to the observer. Science, before the birth of quantum mechanics, attempted to completely exclude the observer, and many of the objections to QM had to do with the fact that seemingly it was impossible to do that. I have heard the term 'scientific pantheism' several times on these boards; I take this to mean that pantheism need not postulate anything supernatural. I quite agree; the universe we observe with our instruments and scientific theories seems mystical enough to suit me!

09-15-2002, 07:14 PM	#66
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	RD, and all- I want to point you to the <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000516" target="_blank">Atheism vs. Pantheism</a> thread, started by the infamous David Mathews. I quoted a long speech from Alan Watts in it, concerning Zen. In that same post, I linked to a long thread in Philosophy, 'In defense of mysticism'. For those interested in the topic, I must say I find Watts the best writer on the subject in the English language; RD, I don't know if that will answer your objections, but if Watts can't then I probably can't.

09-16-2002, 03:05 AM	#67
Jayhawker Soule Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,777	Actually, I read Watts some time ago and found him very interesting and very readable, particularly in comparison to such books as "The Tao of Physics" and "The Dancing Wu Li Masters". I cannot, however, escape the conviction that, at best, pantheism is wordplay, and the occassional elegance of the words does not detract from this conviction. I'm a big fan of Wide Eyed Wonder, but to call the object of this wonder "God" presumes that the term means something, adds something. I suspect that when people call it "God", they are doing no more and no less than those who imagined the Faerie Kingdom in their attempt to encapsulate (or ensnare) their sense of mystery and awe. But, if it adds nothing, there is nothing to discuss. At least we can share the Wonder.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.