Jobar

This is meant as a continuation of garthoverman's thread, with a slightly different focus. I find that there are many ways in which my atheism and my pantheism agree with and reinforce each other.

Pantheism, which is the term I use for many religions and philosophical systems which argue that the universe is at root unitary and monistic in nature, is not dogmatic. Oh, there are volumes of writings considered holy, particularly in Buddhism and Hinduism- but they are considered to be like road signs, pointers towards a path (or, better, many different paths) which leads to a realization of the union of the individual with the universe around them. Words are not considered holy, as they are in Christianity. The books are not considered idols. (In a way, even the idols are not considered idols! They are useful for the less educated and intelligent to focus their religious impulses upon, while the most advanced spiritually see them as no more holy than a building, or a tree, or a human being. It is well known that all people do not have the urge, or the intellectual ability, to pursue deep thoughts to the maximum.)

Pantheism allows for more flexible and honest ethical systems, which are built to suit humans and not gods. People are not born evil, as they are supposed to be in Christian morality. Ignorance, delusion, blindness- these are the sins of a pantheist. No double binds, no need to both fear and love, no requirements to act rightly for some power which will decide your ultimate fate regardless of your actions. You act rightly for your own well being, as well as the well being of others in your society. No threats of hell or promises of heaven. ('Nirvana' translates as 'nothingness'.)

Some pantheistic religions- Buddhism in particular- are atheistic, or perhaps more precisely apatheistic. Buddhist theologists find the existence of an ultimate being simply irrelevant! What matters is how humans are to live in the world around them, and face the suffering therein. (In fact, I have seen plenty of posters here at II who question whether or not Buddhism *is* a religion or not. Must you believe in a supernatural being, to be considered religious?)

The more I study the questions involved, the more I think it likely that the viewpoints from the highest levels of Hindu, Taoist, and Buddhist thought are quite compatible with the viewpoints of atheists. And, since pantheistic thought provides a complete philosophy/worldview and not just the rejection of monotheism, I find it both intellectually and emotionally satisfying.

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Jobar ]</p>

Kantian

Good OP, Jobar.

What are your thoughts of that one excommunicated Jew, Baruch Spinoza and his philosophy of pantheism?

Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived.

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Immanuel Kant ]</p>

Keith Russell

Greetings:

What is the pantheists' basis for believing that the universe not only exists, but is also 'God'?

Keith.

garthoverman

Briefly, this link has a plethora of information regarding pantheism:

<a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/" target="_blank">Stanford's Encylopedia of Philosophy: Pantheism</a>

Its kinda lengthy, I haven't even had a chance to read it all yet. Enjoy!!

Garth

Kantian

Despite not having any preference for pantheism, allow me to outline Baruch Spinoza to the best of my ability:

The following selections are of crucial import to the subsequent arguments-[selected from the book Ethics:]
God is one, that is, only one substance can be granted in the universe. [I.14]
Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived. [I.15]
God is the indwelling and not the transient cause of all things. All things which are, are in God. Besides God there can be no substance, that is, nothing in itself external to God. [I.17]

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia the thrust behind Spinoza's proof of God is as follows:

Proposition XI: "God or substance, consisting of infinite attributes, or which each expresses eternal and infinite essentially, necessarily exists."
Proof:"If this be denied, concieve, if possible that God does not exist: then his essence does not involve existence. But this (Proposition VII) is absurd. Therefore, God necessarily exists."

Spinoza's argument follows Anselm and Descartes' ontological arguments:

Premise 1. The idea of God is that of substance with infinite attributes, each of which is eternally and infinitely essential (from 6th definition)
P 2. suppose that God does not exist.
P 3. Then existence is not part of his essence.
p 4. However, existence belongs to the nature of a substance
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

It is hard to suppose an infinite being that does not include the universe- else this supposition would not be infinite!

(edited to add link)
~radical subjectivist~

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Immanuel Kant ]</p>

Jobar

Immanuel, it has been way too many years since I've read any of Spinoza's works; I recall that I liked his style of writing, and felt I would have enjoyed speaking to him; from his work, I judged him both gentle and wise.

My main problem with his theology was that he attempted to equate a transcendental, Abrahamic God with the immanent, pantheistic version. (The reason he was censured by his fellow rabbis, IIRC.)

Keith, your objections to pantheism (which I have read in other threads and not addressed directly; I must plead time limitations) are quite valid- you are saying that I am misusing the word 'God'. (Or at least that is my reading of your posts on the subject.) I fully agree that the meaning I assign to 'theos' in pantheism is not the one most familiar to English speakers.

I have come to my own, pantheistic, understanding of 'theos' from both long study of the concept of God, and from long study of the universe. Ultimate origins, ultimate explanations- both of these are central topics for both science and religion, don't you agree?

In my experience, all attempts to seek such ultimates rapidly become extremely complex, and at the same time frustratingly vague. Now, this would not necessarily mean that the scientific and the religious search for ultimate meaning are equally valid- except that the complexities and the vaguenesses are so very similar. It looks to me like the scientific-mathematical descriptions of mystery and uncertainty are exactly parallel with the more ancient verbal-religious attempts- in such works as the Diamond Cutter Sutra, the Rig-Veda, or the Tao te Ching. To see these parallels takes much study- consider the amount of education it takes to even *begin* to understand, say, quantum theory! The fact that pantheistic ideas are best expressed in non-Western languages makes the comparison even more difficult. But the concepts of God found in these Eastern philosophies are far more amenable to scientific concepts than anything common in the West.

I highly recommend the works of Alan Watts to anyone interested in pantheism. "Nature, Man and Woman" or "The Book: On The Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are" are good places to start, and any of his many books are well worth the time.

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Jobar ]</p>

Keith Russell

Jobar:

I still see a huge problem with saying that 'everything is God' or 'everything is part of God'.

The problem is that entities have identity (A is A). But, their specific identity cannot be known except in comparison to other, different things.

If there were no other colours but 'yellow', yellow would still exist, but we wouldn't know it as 'yellow'. (We recognize yellow as a separate colour only because we know that there are colours other than yellow.)

If everything is God, there's no way for anyone to know it. The question would be "'God'? Compared to what?"

If 'universe' means everything, then the 'universe' is what it is--whatever you choose to call it.

If you say that 'the universe is everything' and that 'everything is God', you haven't really told us anything new about the universe. The universe is what it is, regardless of what we call it. Even if we are utterly unaware of the concept 'universe', the universe remains what it is--God or otherwise.

So, again, unless you've seen a universe that is not God, and have compared it to our own so that you can clearly see that our universe has an additional component, God, that the other does not, how do you know (and why is it necessary) to add another concept on top of 'universe'?

Keith.

Answerer

Well guys, Just to clarify something, Nirvana is not the state of nothingness, but rather it can be regarded as the state of motionless or awakening. As for hell and heaven, they are also viewed as 'states of suffering' in the Samara.

Jobar

Keith, any time we try to talk about ultimates, or any concept of unification, we run in to that problem. "Everything is x" is semantically equivalent to "Nothing is x".

But, does this mean that the statement "Everything is mass/energy" equates to "Nothing is mass/energy"? Think about it!

I've quoted Lao Tzu over and over- "The way that can be spoken of is not the ultimate Way." The problem you point out is well known, indeed ancient. That's exactly why the subject is so difficult to talk about! Yet, if we are to talk about ultimate answers of *any* sort, scientific or religious, we must find a way to work around this conundrum.

Kantian

I apologize, but i fail to understand what exactly is the problem. Would you care to elucidate a bit, and elaborate on why the equation of a transcendental God from the OT with an immanent and pantheistic type is problematic?
I always read Spinoza as a moralist who thought a demonstration via mathematics (Euclidean geometry) was the ground of the proper moral life, and also concluded in pantheism by unifying scientific principles.

“The world as we know it is just a mode of God’s being, an aspect of the single substance. Although everything is necessary and determined, Man CAN be free. In each individual there is a desire for self-preservation against hostile forces: this I call Conatus. Our passions derive from this Conatus. When we react merely under the sway of our passions we are passive. To be active we must understand our passions in the wider system of causes & effects. We must dispassionately find their true place within the completely intelligible infinite causal system of nature. Then they become clear ideas and fit into my geometrical system. In this way the Free Man masters his emotions. Only the free man, fully exercising his reason is happy. Understanding the world in its totality leads us to the idea of God, or reality and to an active & intellectual love of that reality. Only then do we see the world in its fullness.”