Lord Asriel

I hope you won't mind if a relatively inexperienced poster joins in. I heartily agree with most of Jobar's points in the OP. Pantheism as he describes it becomes a kind of "spiritual atheism", by which one can feel a connection with the universe in a way that transcends ordinary human experience (e.g. through meditation) without believing in an intelligent, self-aware and prescriptive deity. The notion of God that he describes (at least as I am reading it) is one that I can happily live with, and I do not consider incompatible with an atheist position. It is, however, not compatible with Yahweh, who is self-willed and has a "plan".

I had a fairly serious flirtation with Buddhism a few years ago, but ultimately I rejected it because I could not accept the notion of rebirth. Looking back at it, I would say that the if it were possible to extract the essence of Buddhism from the Hindu worldview it came from, you would have something that pretty much matched my own personal philosophy.

phlebas

I am obviously missing something with pantheism. I still don't see the point. I don't see how adopting pantheistic ideas would change my behavior or provide any new insight into the universe.

It's clear I have more reading to do. I wish I had time to do it these days.

To you pantheists out there, my questions/objections probably seem juvenile and ignorant, like a theist who comes here and reads the Bible to us to cure our atheism.

But at least I realize this

You pantheist folks -- can you sort of sum up what you've gained from adopting this philosophy? How do you see things differently now from how you saw them before pantheism grabbed you? (Just curious, not demanding evidence or anything.)

Lord Asriel

Phlebas -

At many times in my life I have been a driver or a passenger in a car. But this does not mean I am always a driver or a passenger e.g. I am neither if I am sat at home watching telly. In the same sense, I am not always a Pantheist. I am only a pantheist when I am doing pantheism. This might not be what Jobar meant by the term, but I have a hunch it's not far away.

When I put on pantheist glasses, I feel a tremendous sense of connection to everything else - I feel "plugged in". It removes the blinkers placed on you by the belief in personal identity. I feel no sorrow at the thought of that identity coming to an end, and no astonishment at it having a beginning. Most importantly, it brings the realization that everyone else is the same. It is very difficult to hate anyone after seeing that (although you can still condemn their actions, of course).

That's a quick summation of what I've gained from it. Does that answer your question?

phlebas

Lord Asriel,

I really don't know if it answers it or not I guess I'm struggling for some sort of context.

Here's my best shot at the moment: when listening to Carl Sagan or a similar person point out that, except for some hydrogen here and there, every molecule in our bodies (and in pretty much everything else we can see) was synthesized in the cores of long dead stars countless billions of miles away, I touch on that "awe" I get from the vastness-yet-interconnectivity of it all.

I wouldn't call that "pantheism" because it never occurs to me to put it in any "theist" terminology. Although it does make me realize that the god of the Bible is too limited and puny to be very impressive.

Is that similar to what you're saying?

Lord Asriel

No argument here.


It's certainly similar, but it sounds like you're approaching it intellectually rather than emotionally. For me (and I hasten to add that I may be guilty of hijacking the term for my own purposes) pantheism is the emotional flipside of atheism. Rather than being intellectually aware of (and awestruck by) "the vastness yet interconnectness" of it all, you directly experience that interconnectivity, and your part in it. "Pantheism" is simply a convienient label for such an experience - it isn't (in my sense) a theistic philosophy or dogma, rather an altering of perception.

[edited to look prettier]

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: Lord Asriel ]</p>

Keith Russell

Greetings:

Immanuel Kant said:
"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."

I think this admits our disagreement. I try to observe reality as it is, and for me this necessitates calling it 'reality'--not 'God'.

If there is something 'special' about 'reality'--'Divine', or 'supernatural', or 'transcendent'--how would one know? Again, there'd be no other reality with which to compare and contrast this one...

Keith.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

So, am I understanding this right?

'Pantheism' is an 'aesthetic' experience?

Keith.

Lord Asriel

Excellent point. But I do not think pantheism is claiming that reality has such a quality as you are suggesting. It is more about the
perception of reality. Most of the time we are looking at reality through the tunnel vision imposed by personal identity. Not to suggest that one way of seeing is correct, the other not. They are just different ways of seeing the same thing.

I would say no. It is more personal than that.

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: Lord Asriel ]

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: Lord Asriel ]</p>

Kantian

FYI, i culled that quote off Spinoza.

It would appear that you are still laboring with theistic eyeglasses, because Spinoza's God is not the God of the Bible. And just exactly who is "our" are you referring to?

But that is not the argument Spinoza offers- please re-read my first post on this thread for elaboration. He, like Descartes, spent a lot of time on the method of geometry and thought that by following it he would be able to produce an exact knowledge of the world, and he called this method "Geometry of Philosophy." "A system of definitions and axioms leading to propositions that demonstrate how reality works." From what i understand, Spinoza's entire pantheism rests upon the theory of substance, that there is only one- Deus sive Natura God or Nature, or God and the Cosmos are one and the same.

~Radical subjectivity~
((edited for lovely UBB gremlins))

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: Immanuel Kant ]</p>

Rich Brown

Please forgive me if this is a naive question, but how is this definition of god any different than a circular definition of anything. By the same reasoning, I could claim that the word cucumber describes everything that is. I could then further claim, that cucumbers and the cosmos are one and the same.

I fail to see how this pantheistic approach addresses the existence of god in any meaningful sense. I can simply invent my own word, apply the argument, and come up with the god of my own choosing.

Rich Brown