Calzaer

I can see how that would be disconcerting. However, I still think that even defining god as nature, there is still room for atheists. While it's pretty difficult to not believe in the existence of nature, the pantheistic version of nature implies that nature is concious, or at the very least a force that acts on its own violition. The atheist in this sense simply denies that; nature is not sentient, its actions are not "chosen" but determined by environmental conditions that could be predicted indefinitely into the future if our doppler systems were a smidge better.

On the other hand, hard determinists say the same thing about humans.... but that evolves into a completely seperate debate.

The problem is only that the trancendent creator definition is the only one that can be agreed upon by every theist in the world. It's the "lowest common denominator" definition. Everything else is arguable, depending on which culture or belief system a person comes from. To proscribe a long chain of attributes to a concept as malleable as this cuts a billion-odd people out of the process and trivializes their worship.

I contend that this is still a false delimma. Could one give political order and not intervene, or intervene without giving political order?

The search for the concrete isn't anything unusual, but trying to define "god" is like trying to explain the plot of "Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are Dead".

But thousands (maybe millions) of people claim that god has, indeed, given them what they want. Do you disbelieve them?

emotional

Ah, then that makes me a certified atheist. I really don't believe nature is sentient and chooses its actions. But the Scientific Pantheists which form the basis of this debate don't believe in the consciousness of nature either. Their reasoning is that "Nature, the Creation, is also the Creator, therefore Nature is God". So one could say all naturalistic atheists are actually scientific pantheists, but this also means that one could just as equally say all scientific pantheists are atheists! Which is why I think "Scientific Pantheism" is just a name-game, an epithet chosen by people to elevate their atheistic philosophy to the level of religion.

(Not that I'm not guilty of that myself... I call myself "secular pagan", an adherent of a religion, although I'm far removed from the occult, polytheistic view of most pagans)

I disbelieve them, because I think this claim involves a preconceived selection bias. First, people count the hits and drop the misses; second, they already believe God is in control of their lives, so they'll readily attribute good fortune to the hand of God. And conversely I already have my mind made up that God doesn't exist (for various reasons, most of all the observance of the nonsystematic flow of fate, and the fact of blind, non-teleonomical biological evolution), so I don't attribute anything to the hand of God.

As for people's claim that they've experienced God, I can't offer comment. I can only say that other people's experience of God is just hearsay to me; if I get to experience God myself, then I'll believe. I'm open to the possibility that the Brilliant Light described by people who undergo an NDE may be God, but having no first-hand experience, I can't comment.

I have my various reasons to disbelieve in the existence of God, and also some reason to be sceptical of atheistic naturalism as well. I have to see more in order to evaluate correctly. I'm going to take yoga classes, so I'll be in a better position to see if the claim of mystical visions are true.

Calzaer

Point granted... but in the end, doesn't this mean the only way you could consider the possibility of an interventionist god is if he intervened for *you*?

Sort of reminds me of the Universal Church of the Apathetic Agnostic.

But wouldn't a creator have to be concious to create? Do we know of anything non-concious that has creative potential?

Psycho Economist

Hi all.

Sorry I haven't been able to prune this hedge while I've been gone (for the weekend before, and at class today), but as the person who started this topic, I can say with certainty that any discussion of anthropomorphic deities are not germane to the discussion. Whoever of you two who want to talk about scientific pantheism vis a vis atheism or, uh, pantheistic pantheism is welcome to stay. Otherwise, start your own thread. It's not that hard.

I'll have something constructive to say when I've sorted out the constructive things that were said.

emotional

I just don't know what I would accept as intervention of God for me. If someone saves your life, you can say it was God who sent the lifesaver, or you can say the lifesaver happened to be at the right place at the right time. My own bias colours my perception on the whole "God-intervention" things. That's why I set much more store in mystical visions. Historical, real-world events are subject to interpretation; mystical visions are not. The mystic can have certainty that his vision was true.

Ah, now you've run into the central metaphysical faith postulate of atheistic naturalism/materialism: that a non-conscious entity (in this case, particles of matter/energy) has the potential to create. The whole premise of naturalistic evolution is that creations are fashioned by the unconscious combination of chance + natural selection. That's what makes atheistic naturalism tick. Now, the notion that a non-conscious entity has creative potential seems contrary to common sense; then again, common sense also dictates that the earth is flat, so it shouldn't be relied upon.

The Other Michael

I think you'd find that many atheists don't "simply den(y)" the pantheistic version of nature. Rather, they'll say that they lack any evidence that the pantheistic version of nature is true, and therefore they don't believe in it at this time. If sufficient evidence should become available, you may see them re-evaluating their stance.

cheers,
Michael

the_cave

This is incoherent, and I don't understand it. What are you saying meditiation is, and what are you saying stargazing is?



You started to say something interesting about "spiritualism" being dualistic, but I don't see how "cleansing the soul" is a natural consequence of spiritual experiences.

But regarding your preferences, ok, let's replace "spirit" talk with "sublime" talk. When I speak of God, I'm speaking of the sublime. I can certainly do that, and be talking about material reality at the same time, and I'm sure you'd agree.

Why do you think I'm being dishonest about the emotional quality of anything?

the_cave

Lots of things are quite useless, and are nevertheless quite real.

But that would make atheism an empty term, as it would refer to theism.

the_cave

This may indeed be the case.

Psycho Economist

Meditation is religious or spiritual contemplation, often of an introspective nature. Stargazing is looking intently at the stars.

It's not a "natural consequence"... just an explanation / description of sublime (yes, I'm writing this backwards) experiences I've heard. With regards to my stymied attempt to explain what I meant about spiritualism being dualistic, I thought the dictionary could put it better than I:

I don't think it's dishonest to talk of sublime experiences, as sublime refers to an emotional quality. But spiritual is constructed in opposition to the material and the natural... that's why I find their use of and references to spirituality confusing and frustrating.