Heathen Dawn

Pantheism is word-play, nothing more. Pantheism in its <a href="http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/" target="_blank">naturalistic strain</a> is no different from atheism except for the terminology and emotional layers cranked on top.

[ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: Heathen Dawn ]</p>

Perchance

Hi, Garth.

That's all right. I know that some people do have lives .

And not just to avoid "atheist?"

I ask simply because I have yet to see a definition of pantheism that actually matched anyone else's definition of pantheism, and many times the same thing goes on for "agnostic." I use "agnostic" for a quick identification because I am agnostic to the concept of deity, and atheist towards specific deities. Lately, however, I've wondered if I'm using it because the word "atheist" still has "negative" connotations in my mind, even though I know that's ridiculous.

The pantheistic deity is another one I'm atheistic towards, unless you do want to take the road of reconciling opposites and say that all atheists are pantheists, because 'all is divine' and 'nothing is divine' are equal statements. However, if they are completely equal, why call yourself a pantheist? Is there something about the term you like in particular?

I've heard people claim that ghosts and ESP are natural, too, though- that, for example, ESP is what we would get if we used the supposedly unused parts of our brains. Are you talking about things like these when you say "non-physical entity and event?" If you are, then I agree that perhaps they do have a scientific explanation that we haven't discovered yet. On the other hand, if we could find a scientific explanation for them, it would destroy a large part of their definition as it now stands. If ghosts had a natural cause, they wouldn't be "spiritual."

All right. And what about concepts, like truth, justice, and conscience? Do you think they are among the "non-physical entities and events" you listed above? Do they have no independent existence? What about the concepts of gods? In a way, do you worship them since they are part of the human mind, which exists?

Are you suggesting that the material that forms a computer is dependent on a human mind for existence when a human is touching the keyboard or tapping the screen, but not at other times?

OW.

I'm not sure I can even get my head around why you believe that. I believe objects simply are there, and don't depend on us. Before we existed, there were still trees and animals on the earth. If we aren't looking at them, computers are still sitting there. That's my idea, at least.

(Personal opinion). I think people are too focused on 'love' as the highest good, and for some reason prefer to ignore things like joy, courage, integrity, and so on compared to it. I don't know why. I esteem the others as just as valuable.

I also think the English language is a limited thing when it comes to describing concepts like this. Maybe if we had different words for different kinds of love, they wouldn't get mixed up under one term.

Suffice it to say that I think love is overrated, and that I think people often turn to that word when they mean something else.

So it's along a spectrum of probabilities, then? If a rock starts falling towards the ground, there's a pretty good chance that it will hit the ground, a lesser chance that something might stop the fall before it does, and a miniscule chance that gravity will suddenly reverse and snap the rock back into place?

But how is that different from no destiny at all?

This may be my fault; I may have confused "moral value" and "the prizing of a thing." Were you saying that pantheism can imply a set of moral values?

But I don't trust human nature, because I don't think that a specific 'human nature' exists. Does that make me a fanatic?

If I trust someone to watch over my purse and not steal it, it's because I know that person. Not because I think that all humans are basically good.

If someone tried to kill me, I would fight back. I wouldn't pause to think, 'Oh, well, perhaps he is only threatening me,' or "Well, perhaps she is justified in wanting to do it.'

If that's trusting human nature, then count me out. I do trust myself more, as an individual, than my species. Hell, there are animals I trust more than any human.

-Perchance.

[ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: Perchance ]</p>

Jobar

Hi Perchance, and all- sorry to not reply when I said I would, for me too the exigencies of real life sometimes intrude. I'm going to reply to Perchance's earlier post myself, and also try to hit some of the other problems with pantheism others have noted. His quotes in bold-

I suppose my main explanation still returns to (what I see as) the triviality of it. If opposites are reconciled in pantheism, then possibly one could say that "all is divine" and "nothing is divine," and that would be a way of reconciling atheism and pantheism. But again, just as the word "god" starts losing its meaning if you start twisting it around, what prevents "divine" from losing its meaning the same way? Why agree that everything is holy, when you could just as easily agree that nothing is? Or is it a personal choice, a way of perceiving the world?

Does the word 'God' have any meaning at all, other than fictional? We all see that there are apparently vast numbers of gross or subtle variations on what people mean when they say it. What are the common elements? Are there any properties of this 'god' that all believers subscribe to? Do any of the definitions seem non-self-contradictory, or perhaps even in accord with observations made in other areas of human inquiry?

Since men began to talk, I think, some variation of the word has often been used to try to answer the Big Questions. (And we are *still* doing it, huh? ) I personally see close parallels between such attempts, honestly carried out to their extreme implications, and the pursuit of scientific knowledge- I also see considerable convergence between the answers achieved by the two methods. You speak of "losing its meaning if you start twisting it around"- I invite you to try to define, say, matter. Look how productive Albert Einstein found it, to 'twist around' the meaning of that!

My second objection rests on terms that I don't understand again (surprise, surprise ). What do "worship" and "reverence" mean in this context? Do pantheists, or some of them, actually perform rituals in honor of the universe the way that some Pagans perform rituals in honor of their gods? Do they say prayers at all? Do they caution people to avoid "sins?" I've talked to Pagans online who, for example, seem to cling to the idea of anger and pride as sins. Does pantheism do the same thing? Is not revering the universe, for example, a sin? Since worship so often seems to involve cowering before a higher power, I have a very hard time conceiving of kneeling before something I can see but which can't communicate with me in any way, just as I can't imagine cowering before something I don't believe is there. What does worship mean here, and does it still insist on binding human pride the way the other concepts of it seem to?

I- this very personality, this very body- am an aspect of God, in the pantheistic view. By simply existing, I am holy. I need not kneel. I need not pray.

I stand in awe of the universe outside my head; I stand in awe of the universe inside my head.

Don't you ever feel the overwhelming agony/ecstasy that may come from seeing a magnificent sunset, or hearing a perfectly performed piece of music, or comprehending an overarching scientific principle for the first time? To me, feelings like these- feelings of awe, and of the vastness around us- cry out for a reason and a name. I note that throughout history men have called this 'god'.

I am the product of a billion-odd years of biological evolution, and of at least a dozen billion years of physical change before that. Is this not awesome? I have sprung forth from the Big Bang, whence comes the mass-energy that is my body. I can look back in my mind's eye, and trace at least roughly a fantastic series of forms and forces which have become me. Each and every one of us can do this; whether we name this culmination of subject and object we experience, or leave it nameless, Doesn't it seem ultimately fascinating?

My third objection concerns what parts of the universe pantheism honors. A lot of people seem to speak of it as synononymous with nature-worship. However, if pantheism includes all that is, wouldn't that mean that computers, skyscrapers, CD's, windows, and even litter are part of the all? How do worshippers choose what to honor? And if they only honor, for example, the humans who produced the things I just mentioned, why? Someone who speaks of honoring the universe, but then only worshps nature, strikes me as a little dishonest. He seems to be saying that he'll only actually honor those things he finds beautiful.

As an individual, we each perceive different things as beautiful or ugly, loveable or despicable, good or bad. Oh, certainly, most all humans look with horror and disgust on some things- a rotting roadkill, say, or nuclear war. But from the viewpoint of a fly, or a roach- maybe they are grand opportunities, and quite wonderful. Do you think that the K/T asteroid strike that wiped out the dinosaurs was a good thing? If it hadn't happened we wouldn't exist, you know. Do you think some hypothetical intelligent dino would agree?

I may opine that cities are blights upon the face of the earth, and horridly ugly. But I know that the architect who designs skyscrapers, the financier who sees the city as a dynamo of wealth, the urbanite who sees the art and leisure allowed by such concentrations of culture, find cities beautiful. Aren't both points of view correct, each in their own way? Yet they are opposites!

My fourth objection is lesser than the others, and concerns my main personal reason for being unable to accept pantheism. I don't and can't honor all the world. For example, I love the look of sunlight on leaves, and I get almost manic on days that are sunny. Yet I can look at bushes that others say are beautiful and not be moved at all. For me, how beautiful I think a natural object is matters fundamentally to how I think of it, and beauty in natural things for me seems to be linked to shades of color. (I don't like rain, and I get depressed when the sky is gray). I don't think I could reconcile myself to saying, "All is beautiful, even if I don't understand it and don't agree. Oh, well."

My apologies if this is somewhat incoherent. I'm trying to fix the thoughts that come to me, before they dash off somewhere else .

Hopefully it explains some of my objections to pantheism and reasons I don't understand it, though.

-Perchance.

Perchance, I know very well that the subject of pantheism is extremely difficult to talk about. Our thoughts seem to slide off it and leave it no better understood.

Maybe I should make one final point. I call myself an atheist/pantheist- but if I want to be more precise, I would say I'm an atheist/pantheistic agnostic. I am a hardcore skeptic- if I ever see some type of evidence which I think disproves pantheism, or if I heard of some vast philosophical system which seemed to better explain the universe to me, I would go with that, and say so. I have no capital-F-Faith in pantheism (despite being unable to imagine how it can be disproved, or superceded.)

Jayhawker Soule

And I - this very personality, this very body - am a part of the cosmos.

What is implied in your sentence that is not explicit in mine? Certainly more than "awe". As for being "holy", (1) I honestly haven't a clue what that means, and (2) I would think that an all-inclusive category is not particularly useful.

As for 'God'. is this God purposeful (intentional) and, if so, what distinguishes Pantheism from Intelligent Design?

Perchance

Hi Jobar; thank you for the response.

Well... my first inclination is to say 'No." Until people start defining God, then my position is almost that of a non-cognitivist (did I spell that right? Probably not ) And the explanations I've heard, like the Christian God, are either self-contradictory or have absolutely nothing to support them or make a difference in my life one way or the other, like the Deist God.

Are you saying that the pantheist notion of 'God' is like the Deist notion of 'God?' If so, why be a pantheist?

Granted, things can happen when you start playing with words. However, so far Garth's focus at least (and sorry if I'm interpreting your focus the same way, when it is not) has been on the "inexpressible" attributes of pantheism, which I have to admit I don't find particularly useful. If you feel that something divine exists in the universe, but you admit that you cannot prove it, and you don't really know what it is, and that probably even the word "god" doesn't really apply, then how do you begin talking about it to see if something useful comes of it?

Even inventing a new vocabularly and concepts to talk about this kind of thing would have to have some kind of connection to existing words and concepts, or we wouldn't be able to make the leap to talking about it.

While I know the emotion you're speaking of (I think) I call it "awe" and "wonder." Do you think a particular purpose is served by calling it reverence?

I have felt that kind of wonder- at sunsets, at music, at poetry, at leaves in sunlight. I think where we take different roads is in what we call the 'source' of that. I think there are many different sources. For example, if I get teary-eyed at the sound of a song, I think that the notes of the song, the mind of the composer who created it, and my own perception of what is beautiful are combining to create my sense of wonder. If I look at a sunset, I'm going to think it's the colors, the brilliance of the colors, and, again, my own perception of beauty.

Perhaps at the bottom of encounters like these lies the same aesthetic sense. If so, however, it's peculiar to me alone as far as I can tell. I keep going into raptures over certain pieces of music or shades of color, and wanting to share them with other people; but mostly the reaction I get is indifference. On the other hand, I find absolutely no beauty or wonder in, for example, modern art .

If my reactions to these things come from a personal sense of what is beautiful, then how can I call that "God?" It isn't common even to other human beings; to me, it would seem to be arrogance to say that it is dispersed throughout the universe.

Again, I think we're sharing the same emotions; we just give them different sources.

I feel awe when I think about it, but on the other hand, I don't feel there is really anything to worship or thank for it. The universe didn't plan to create me; and the materials that form my body could just as easily have gone in an entirely different direction and made another person, or a person like me with a very few differences, or any of a hundred hundred thousand variations along the spectrum (and probably infinite ones).

Because I'm so involved in the life of the mind, I consider my "self" to be a product as well of the education I have received, the books I have read, the ideas I have assimilated or originated- and while the universe, for example, may have originated my brain, did it originate the thoughts in it? It's a fascinating question to think about, but while I feel awe because of it, I do not worship it.

This, actually, is exactly what I am talking about- that perspectives change depending on the person. I think it is entirely possible that some people could, perhaps, conceive of the whole universe and paying tribute to it. However, I am not one of them (at the moment). I may have the empathy to try and imagine the thoughts of a dinosaur or a fly, even a pantheist, but I can't know if I'm getting it exactly right, or only enrapturing myself with my own imagination.

So, in the end, I suppose the pair of "opposites" I have the most difficult time reconciling are those of unity and individuality. My primary experience has been one of individuality, and while I keep talking with others and reading about others and imagining others and writing about others to try and jump out of my own head, I can't know if I've ever succeeded. I've never felt a sense of oneness with the universe.

Isn't that essential to pantheism?

Can the opposites be reconciled, though? Your earlier posts and Garth's both seemed to argue that not only can they, they have to be. Why?

I would say that both points of view are correct, for the people who hold them. However, I don't know why they need to be bent back in and forced together.

Yes, and probably part of my frustration is that my thoughts keep doing that, leaving no trace of themselves behind.

Ah. I think I see (part of the place) where you're coming from now. I find the notion that pantheism can probably not be disproved or superceded baffling. I'm willing to admit that many things exist in the world that I don't understand, but I cherish the hope that I (or someone) will be able to understand them someday.

A "mystery" that ever baffles the human intelligence- that lies beyond the reach of any language, not because we don't have the words for it at the moment but because we will never have the words- seems to me to lie at the heart of theistic religion, and for that reason I am wary of it, and all the ideas that the god-concept is ineffable and incomprehensible, and we have to just trust that. I think it helps to lead humans to fear, and shut down the thinking brain.

While pantheism, especially if it remains as undefined, probably won't ever get that far, an individual human mind could. So I suppose I am reluctant to admit the idea of mysteries that humankind can't ever prove or disprove to my mind, because it might function to bind me in fear of the unknown and help to destroy my hope.

If that makes sense.

Thank you for the response, Jobar. I know it is hard to talk about these things, but I think I got at least a sense of your ideas.

-Perchance.

garthoverman

Kent--

Sorry for seeming to ignore you for so long.
Good and Evil are mere reflections of human ideals. Sure entities exist that I think are evil, but that doesn't make evil an intrinsic characteristic of their being. I can't really say that pantheism has an 'evil' entity or a necessary antithesis to All That Is.
You will physically die, but I believe identity and consciousness are eternal. You cannot cheat that. The 'afterlife' doesn't necessarily have to differ much from this one in the qualitative aspects, however.

You are correct, but I think you are objectifying good as property of being instead of a subjective value judgement. Granted there may be entities or events that almost every individual could agree are 'evil,' that doesn't necessitate that evil is therefore intrinsic.


Yeah, the lack of conflict I run into doesn't make for very interesting debate all the time. HA HA!

Yours,

Garth

Kent Stevens

Pantheism gets into word abuse. At least that is how I interpret your last statement. Identity and consciousness as usually defined, cease when an individual dies.

Pantheism is similar to various religions with how they abuse words. Your standard religion says that God is all Good and that God is Love. But if this is the case why did 3056 people die in the Twin Towers Disaster. The way out of this is to remain silent or terribly twist words like good and love to mean anything you want them to mean.

I think that Pantheism also gets into word abuse when it twists words from how things really are. Instead of calling themselves Green Humanists they call themselves Pantheists. Instead of calling themselves atheists or agnostics they call themselves theists. Instead of calling what they believe to be a philosophy they call it a religion.

Another examples of word abuse includes instead of saying there is no afterlife, they say that there is an afterlife. To avoid people being intrinsically good or evil they get into complicated semantic arguments to avoid this possibility.

I think that Pantheists, Deists, and Agnostics tend to be people that have a hard time giving up on the idea that there is no Santa Claus aka God. I suppose it is not hard to imagine as they have been indoctrinated by society that Santa Claus is real. We get into elaborate arguments to show that Santa Claus was only a physical representation of what is good or awe inspiring, in Pantheism. Therefore we can use Pansanta as a legitimate philosophy. Or if we are Deists Santa Claus no longer gives out Christmas presents but he did do at one stage. Or if we are Agnostics then maybe Santa Claus does exist as nothing is knowable for sure.

The most correct and honest way is to give up all attachments to Santa Claus aka God. Do not get into complicated intellectual arguments to suggest that you believe in Santa when you do not. We need no reference to Santa aka God in the philosophies that we do construct.

HumanisTim

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kent Stevens:
[QB]Pantheism appears to be oxymoronic or a contradiction in terms as it believes in pantheism and atheism simultaneously. Pantheism uses a different definition of theism which must create a lot of confusion in explaining exactly what they mean.

Pantheism is not realistic but optimistic. It tends only to look at the good parts of the Universe and ignore the bad parts. This often happens with monotheistic religion.

How do you prevent the problem of evil eating through pantheism like strong acid? The problem of evil being if there is a god, why is there pain and suffering. If the Cosmos is divine why are there people like Hitler? If the Cosmos is divine why is it predicted that the human species will eventually end?


Since pantheism really doesn't describe a consious deity. Able to make decisions in what actions it takes. I don't think evil is as much as a problem as with a monotheistic religion.

Besides that is that really a clear definiton of true evil. I've noticed evil is often someones distorted version of good. The terrorists last September, saw themselves as doing good. Most would agree their act was evil. But for them it was something good. And things like tornados can't be considered evil, since a tornado doesn't choose to make itself happen and kill innocent people.

Infinity Lover

Okay did a little search... so Pantheists in general don't believe in an afterlife, but refer to what I call legacy an 'imperfect afterlife'.

...for a moment there, I thought that might be the catch.

Trying to see the positive in the negative, I'm down with that.

But why call everything in existence God when it's already called existence?

I fail to see the point.

It just sounds like compesating for an otherwise lack of positivism.

Why else the need for ascribing the attribute of divinity?

See what I mean? Not an unfair question I think.

Marcel.

garthoverman

Hello again, Kent.

Perhaps redefining words is word abuse. It is my opinion that the usual definitions of identity and consiousness are incomplete and/or ignorant. The trouble is the symbolism inherent in any verbal description of terms. No verbal symbol is entirely adequate for describing the actual meaning of identity and consiousness.

I don't get your meaning about 'twisting words.' I wouldn't call pantheism a 'standard religion.' Thus, I don't see your connection of pantheism to 'various religions with how they abuse words.' Not to say that what you are trying to say isn't valid.
Interesting. Is that in your personal experience with pantheists? I am confident that none of your examples apply to me.
Again I fail to see the connection. I believe that existance is eternal, but saying that there is 'life after death' can be misleading, depending on how you want understand the term 'life.' I can see how that seems like a semantic game, but that is only because we are considering words that can have a multitude of connotations and conceptual underpinnings.
The impression I get is that you are associating Jehovah with All That Is, which is incorrect. Jehovah is nothing but an abstract human conceptualization. All That Is, is exactly that. Existance in its totality. In order to understand whatever implications that might have, one must first divest himself of all of the previous notions of what Jehovah is supposed to be and what a 'god' is typically regarded as.
As I have.
I use the term 'God' in describing pantheism basically for lack of a better one. I also like the term 'All That Is' as it is a bit more descriptive of the nature of the subject I am trying to name, yet most people do not have such an immediate recognition of it.

Yours,

Garth