Pantheism

[bloom]

I've noticed some people here identify with Pantheism.

"It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent God; or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent."

It also seems to be compatible with several religious traditions such as (seen in wikipedia):

Judaism
The radically immanent sense of the divine in Jewish mystical Kabbalah is said to have inspired Spinoza's formulation of pantheism. However Spinoza's views have not been accepted in Judaism. Additionally, the Baal Shem Tov, the founder of Hasidism, had a mystical sense of the divine that could be described as panentheism.

Christian
From the tiny groups such as Process theology and Creation Spirituality, up to the Liberal Catholic Church, and as far back into history as the Brethren of the Free Spirit and many gnostics, the idea has had currency within some segments of Christianity for some time.

Islam
Islamic Sufism is regarded by some as being influenced by eastern philosophies (Indian and Persian) and has Pantheistic doctrines within its many varieties.

Other religions
There are many elements of pantheism in Philosophical Taoism, some forms of Buddhism, and Theosophy along with many varying denominations and individuals within and without denominations.

Many Unitarian Universalists consider themselves pantheists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

It's interesting to me to see all of these things assembled together. They seem to be what many in the R/T forum identify with. Also - It seems that many Quakers think of the universe in that way.


Also there are a list of Pantheists - (though I wonder if they all self-identified as that?):

Diane Ackerman (b. 1948)
Ansel Adams (1902–1984)
Margaret Atwood (b. 1939)
Marcus Aurelius (121–180)
Ludwig van Beethoven (1770–1827)
Albert Einstein (1879–1955)
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749–1832)
Mikhail Gorbachev (b. 1931)
David of Dinant (12th century)
Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919)
Paul Harrison
Stephen Hawking (b. 1942)
Heraclitus (c. 500 BCE)
Karl Christian Friedrich Krause (1781–1832)
D. H. Lawrence (1885–1930)
Guo Moruo (1892–1978)
John Muir (1838–1914)
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900)
Joseph Raphson (1648–1715)
Rainer Maria Rilke (1875–1926)
Rumi (1207–1273 CE)
Carl Sagan (1934–1996)
Sitting Bull (c. 1831–1890)
Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677)
Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)
John Toland (1670–1722)
Walt Whitman (1819–1891)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pantheists


Thoughts?

Do atheists here see it as important to reject the idea that nature as we all know it to exist "is God" - even if that "God" is not divine (and certainly not personal) in the sense that many people think of God ?

"In 1785 a major controversy began between Friedrich Jacobi and Moses Mendelssohn, which eventually involved many important people of the time. Jacobi claimed that Lessing's pantheism was materialistic in that it thought of all Nature and God as one extended substance. For Jacobi, this was the result of the Enlightenment's devotion to reason and it would lead to atheism. Mendelssohn disagreed by asserting that pantheism was the same as theism."

And I wonder if Christians basically think that Pantheism - as it defines "God" as nature - is basically atheism?

[SteppingRazor]

1. I don't want to speak for all the atheists, but...

I think if you want to worship nature, that's fine. I just don't see the reasoning behind it. The worship of a God presupposes a relationship with God. WIthout the possibility of a relationship with the divine, why worship it? What do the worshippers get out of the bargain? Nature as God means no afterlife, and really no comfort in this life either. Why not throw out the idea of a God entirely?

[Lerkfish]

3. well spoken.

I agree. If you do not wish to worship a creator, worshipping nature makes even less sense.

I think one can appreciate nature and its beauty, but the point of worshipping it is also lost on me.

[bloom]

4. It's my idea...

That Pantheism recognizes and celebrates the connections between people and between us and nature and celebrates nature in general.

"the central idea of the universe being an all-encompassing unity and the sanctity of both nature and its natural laws are found throughout. Some pantheists also posit a common purpose for nature and man, while others reject the idea of purpose and view existence as existing "for its own sake." - from wikipedia.


I can see where this would be an appealing concept because it focuses on the positives of life. The afterlife is not necessary for that.

Of course people could focus on the negatives of life, too (nature isn't all happy) - but it seems that that is not usually the case with these things. It may also encourage acceptance. That's what I'm thinking.

[SteppingRazor]

5. Indeed. Nature certainly isn't all happy. Far from it...

In fact, you could make a case that nature is downright bleak. The Naturalist school of writing is filled with examples of the struggle of man against nature, almost always making nature out to be a harsh, uncaring and soul-crushing force -- and quite convincingly so. (see Moby Dick, the work of Stephen Crane, Emile Zola, etc.). It seems backward to worship such a force, no? Forgive me if this is a pessimistic take on nature, but let's face it -- nature doesn't give a damn about you or me.

[bloom]

6. Here is an Einstein quote

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us "universe", a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

— Albert Einstein


-----

I think the attempt to see the universe in a positive light - even if we are just a speck in it - is the purpose.

[xchrom]

9. st thomas quotes christ as saying

the kingdom of god is here and now and it is you who will not see.

[bloom]

20. There are things like that

That make sense - that make some of what Christianity is about seem relevant.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

54. Yes, yes, that's it!

The Sufis talk of removing the veils from the heart, or removing the rust from the mirror of the heart so that the Light which is always there can shine through. This is the point of spiritual practices and ceremonies done by the various mystical schools.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

53. I don't think pantheists worship God,

at least in the way that, say, conventional Christians worship God. In mysticism, it is more becoming one with something, feeling its essence in a way that is as close to totality as possible. It is more showing an appreciation for things, being glad you have an opportunity to live, to love. But mostly the goal of the seeker is to be in Unity. That is way way way beyond worship.

[manic expression]

92. True enough

It's frusturating that everyone, even the self-proclaimed "free thinkers", are stuck with one concept of divinity in their heads. Something other than the Judeo-Christian mindset just doesn't compute.

[manic expression]

91. Pantheism isn't just nature

Mostly, it recognizes (the idea) that all things are ultimately divine, bar none. This "divinity" is equal and eternal and you get the point.

It's not JUST nature worship, although it can be a big component of it, or even the main component.

Furthermore, if you worship nature, that has all the reasoning behind it you could ask for. The worship of something ("a God" isn't the best term to use) presupposes that there is something. Nature is something. Moreover, there is an undeniable relationship with nature (where does everything we have come from?).

"What do the worshippers get out of the bargain?"

I wasn't aware that it was quid pro quo (sp?). A worshipper doesn't have to look into the sky thinking "so what do I get? Huh?". I don't know why you would, dare I say presuppose such a thing that is neither necessary nor reasonable.

"Why not throw out the idea of a God entirely?"

I think the people you are talking about have already thrown out YOUR idea of a God entirely. It is a whole different idea in itself.

Sorry but that was off topic.

[xchrom]

2. pantheism is making it's way into traditional christian denominations

as well.

it's becoming more a part as concern for the environment grows -- by necessity -- our medieval definitions must change.

i now hear more christians taking the position everything is of god.

a little different than from god.

but it also admits that evil is also of god.

creating a much more whole view.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. As an atheist I share a lot with pantheists

I just choose not to embody the universal spirit in godhood.

[Evoman]

8. Pantheism is really useless

"It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent God; or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent."

If god and nature is equivalent, or if god is "everything" in the universe, then the term god becomes completely useless. Worshipping becomes useless. Praying becomes useless. Why bother? If god is not divine, and the syphiltic sore is as much a part of god as is a rainbow, why not just stop talking about god. Just say universe. Or rainbows. I don't get pantheism.


"Do atheists here see it as important to reject the idea that nature as we all know it to exist "is God" - even if that "God" is not divine (and certainly not personal) in the sense that many people think of God ?"

I don't think its necessary to reject the idea...I just think its stupid. It all boils down to semantics at that point. People who worship a pantheistic god are in fact worshipping "evil" things like syphillitic sores, earwax, murder and lyme disease as well as "good" things like trees, rainbows and stars. Its all rather absurd and pointless. Why bother?


"And I wonder if Christians basically think that Pantheism - as it defines "God" as nature - is basically atheism?"

If you use god interchangeably with nature, and you don't worship nature, then maybe it basically atheism. But I don't think your typical atheist would use the word god when "nature" or "the universe" works just as well.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. People who worship a pantheistic god are in fact worshipping "evil" things

Well actually any of your garden variety monotheists worshipping 'the almighty' have a similar issue. The 'almighty' is putting all sorts of evil in the world, is responsible for all that is and all that happens, even that tricky free will clause is HIS doing. Anyhow the pantheist doesn't worship syphillus sores so much as he considers the universal life force to be, well, universal, and that it is manifested even in those wee little spirochettes.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

35. Pantheists usually do not worship anything.

FYI.

They see no need to--they appreciate nature for nature's sake, and that is all.

[manic expression]

94. Well,

a few people who are pantheist, to the tune of about 900 million or so, worship a myriad of deities.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

55. I think it depends upon your experience

as a practicing mystic of many many years, I find that prayer is extremely useful. It helps me get into a state that is closer to the Universal Mind that Einstein and Schroediger talked about. (And, for practical purposes, meditation has been shown to lower blood pressure-meditation is a form of prayer, and is an integral part of my prayer ritual)

But if you don't see it that way, that is also perfectly all right! The power of mind is such that it can define our worlds for us; your way is not this way, but a totally different path, one that rather fascinates me but one that is not my own, and could never be, because of my experiences, which is all spirituality really is.

[manic expression]

93. You are quite mistaken, and then some

The term god is not useless, you just can't comprehend another concept of divinity. "God" is everything, bar none. "God" is with and within all things. You simply have no idea of how to use "god" in another way, but that has no bearing on anything.

"If god is not divine, and the syphiltic sore is as much a part of god as is a rainbow, why not just stop talking about god."

What are you talking about? Sores are conditions of the body and rainbows are optical illusions. That is part of the world, as I'm sure you would not deny, and therefore they do have connections to divinity, but they are not entities of themselves. A rainbow is an expression, by extension, of the thing that causes it, the thing that causes it could be argued as divine, not the illusion it creates. Wow, why not just stop talking?

"People who worship a pantheistic god are in fact worshipping "evil" things like syphillitic sores, earwax, murder and lyme disease as well as "good" things like trees, rainbows and stars."

Let me give you a hint: GO LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT THE TOPIC, THEN TRY TO SAY IT'S "STUPID". You are really showing your ignorance in a big way. Things like sores, earwax and murder are not entities, sores arise from physical conditions, earwax is an integral part of a body and murder is an ACTION. With disease, death is a part of existence, for without death there can be no birth. Disease is something that is part of a balanced world. Furthermore, it is (at least in Hinduism) believed that the ultimate soul, the divine being of a person, is not subject to physical pain, therefore, death and pain are transitory and therefore not "divine". My question to you is: why bother exposing your insipid views on a subject you clearly do not grasp?

Pantheism doesn't define "god" as nature. Get that straight. Next, it isn't atheism AT ALL.

I'm not sure I covered all of your mistakes, but I tried anyway. Seriously, go read up on pantheism because you are direly misled.

[Crunchy Frog]

10. I'm pretty sure that I'm a pantheist.

Or at least that's about the closest description I know of for my spiritual beliefs.

I think that's why I like learning about science so much. There's something about it for me that feels connected to the divine.

[ozone_man]

12. Einstein was essentially a pantheist.

He did not believe in a personal God or a knowable God. In his own words:

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestation of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this sense alone, I am a deeply religious man."

There are many forms of pantheism. Some may believe that God is part of nature, immanent so to speak. Others may use the term simply to represent the feelings of awe that we experience in nature, being outdoors in a starry night, etc. I think Einstein was of the latter type, along with Stephen Hawkins.

I would say that I have many pantheist tendencies, no different than what Einstein describes, as I think most people do. However, choose not to assign any concept of God to those feelings, mainly since I don't think there is a God, that the cosmos and nature have evolved without any divine intervention. So, nature is all for me and is a major source of spiritual renewal in my life. Nature is real, and it is profound, but it is not god.

Pantheism

Pantheists believe that nature itself deserves to be called "God" since nature itself deserves our feelings of reverence and awe. For the pantheist, nothing is more worthy of reverence, or even worship, than the awesome power and beauty of the cosmos itself.

Pantheism caters to the emotional need that many people feel for so-called "spiritual (as opposed to materialistic) values", a need to value something beyond themselves or even the human race.

Pantheism has a long and distinguished history. It has included several philosophers such as the seventeenth century philosopher Baruch Spinoza. Certain versions of Taoism are pantheistic. So is Therevada Buddhism. As Einstein pointed out:

Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity.

Einstein himself, it turns out, was a pantheist. In his own words:

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestation of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this sense alone, I am a deeply religious man.

Moreover, Einstein strongly resented having his religious convictions misrepresented:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Clearly, Einstein's "God" is not at all like the God that most people think of when they hear the word. Neither is the "God" of the famous cosmologist and mathematician, Stephen Hawking, whose talk of "the mind of God" has given comfort to many religious believers. Hawking also is a pantheist. When asked by CNN's Larry King whether he believed in God, Hawking answered:

Yes, if by God is meant the embodiment of the laws of the universe.

We began by asking "Did Einstein believe in God?" The answer, as Hawking pointed out, depends on what you mean by "God". In one sense (the Pantheist sense), Einstein did believe in God. But in another sense he didn't. Indeed, except for his deciding to use the term "God" in a way that is unfamiliar to most people, his views are indistinguishable from those of someone who is an unabashed atheist.

http://www.eequalsmcsquared.auckland.ac.nz/sites/emc2/tl/philosophy/einstein_god.cfm

[bloom]

16. To some extent - I think it is semantics

whether one wants to call nature/the universe "God" or not.

Though I do think there is some difference in perspective in regards to whether people wish to ascribe a sense of religiosity about it all or not. I think that I do tend to anyway - and I like what Einstein has to say about it. It seems like it is the type of spirituality that most makes sense with what we currently know about the universe. And being based on what we know about he universe - it would never be out of sync. (Like multiple 1000 year old myths are - which are fine if you realize they are myths...not everyone does though).


I liked some of the quotes from the "Creation Spirituality" page - another form of pantheism - linked from the Pantheism page:

"Everyone is an artist in some way, and art as meditation is a primary form of prayer."

"We are all sons and daughters of God; therefore, we have divine blood in our veins, the divine breath in our lungs; and the basic work of God is: Compassion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Spirituality

---

It's interesting that some atheists would wish to call Einstein one of them - when he was clearly interested in "Cosmis Religious Feeling" and wrote quite a bit about it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=1387

[Random_Australian]

17. Which atheists, exactly? Documented weak Jewish, with a feeling

of spirituality when considering the cosmos.

"God does not play dice" is his most famous quote, so why would atheists try to claim that he did not believe in God? In fact, if you cannot give me some examples, I will be forced to conclude that no-one has ascribed atheism to Einstein. (Outliers excepted, as always)

[Name removed]

18. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ozone_man]

33. I would call him a scientific pantheist.

Natural or Scientific pantheism are ontologically indistinguishable from atheism, so one could say that Einstein was both an atheist and a scientific pantheist. There are many types of pantheists, some are religious, some not, such as scientific pantheism. What Einstein says here makes it clear that he is not of the religious pantheist variety, but rather the scientific pantheist.

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestation of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this sense alone, I am a deeply religious man." - Albert Einstein

I think that he confused the issue when he occasionally mentioned God to describe that transcendent feeling. In an interview with Salon Magazine, Richard Dawkins expresses his view on Einstein and the transcendent feelings that we get in nature.

Is there an emotional side to the intellectual enterprise of exploring the story of life on Earth?

Yes, I strongly feel that. When you meet a scientist who calls himself or herself religious, you'll often find that that's what they mean. You often find that by "religious" they do not mean anything supernatural. They mean precisely the kind of emotional response to the natural world that you've described. Einstein had it very strongly. Unfortunately, he used the word "God" to describe it, which has led to a great deal of misunderstanding. But Einstein had that feeling, I have that feeling, you'll find it in the writings of many scientists. It's a kind of quasi-religious feeling. And there are those who wish to call it religious and who therefore are annoyed when a scientist calls himself an atheist. They think, "No, you believe in this transcendental feeling, you can't be an atheist." That's a confusion of language.

http://www.cdnresearch.net/gpage.html

Einstein says that his God is that of Spinoza, a natural pantheist. In the modern era, it would probably be more accurate to describe him as a scientific pantheist.

Scientific or Natural Pantheism - Pan for short - has a naturalistic approach which simply accepts and reveres the universe and nature just as they are, and promotes an ethic of respect for human and animal rights and for lifestyles that sustain rather than destroy the environment.

When scientific pantheists say WE REVERE THE UNIVERSE we are not talking about a supernatural being. We are talking about the way our senses and our emotions force us to respond to the overwhelming mystery and power that surrounds us.

We are part of the universe. Our earth was created from the universe and will one day be reabsorbed into the universe.
We are made of the same matter and energy as the universe. We are not in exile here: we are at home. It is only here that we will ever get the chance to see paradise face to face. If we believe our real home is not here but in a land that lies beyond death - if we believe that the numinous is found only in old books, or old buildings, or inside our head, or outside this reality - then we will see this real, vibrant, luminous world as if through a glass darkly.

The universe creates us, preserves us, destroys us. It is deep and old beyond our ability to reach with our senses. It is beautiful beyond our ability to describe in words. It is complex beyond our ability to fully grasp in science. We must relate to the universe with humility, awe, reverence, celebration and the search for deeper understanding - in many of the ways that believers relate to their God, minus the grovelling worship or the expectation that there is some being out there who can answer our prayers.

http://www.pantheism.net/paul/index.htm

I would say that I'm both an atheist and a scientific pantheist. I'm also an agnostic about my beliefs in God. No incompatibilities there. One describes my beliefs in deities, one describes my knowledge of deities, and one describes the transcendent feelings that I get when out in nature, or even when I contemplate nature and the cosmos while sitting at my keyboard. :)

[bloom]

36. This covers a lot of the questions

that I have had about this :

"You often find that by "religious" they do not mean anything supernatural. They mean precisely the kind of emotional response to the natural world that you've described. Einstein had it very strongly. Unfortunately, he used the word "God" to describe it, which has led to a great deal of misunderstanding. But Einstein had that feeling, I have that feeling, you'll find it in the writings of many scientists. It's a kind of quasi-religious feeling. And there are those who wish to call it religious and who therefore are annoyed when a scientist calls himself an atheist. They think, "No, you believe in this transcendental feeling, you can't be an atheist." That's a confusion of language."


I think the writer presumes that everyone has positive feelings about nature. That does not seem to be the case.


Also - I think that if someone thinks of "God" in terms that "God" is the universe - that agnosticism makes no sense. There is nothing to doubt - no supernatural aspect (heaven?) to wonder about if it really exists or not. The universe is what the universe is and we either take joy in it and accept whatever suffering we are going to have deal with or we don't.

I also think it makes the atheist question less of a big deal. For atheists - it mostly becomes a semantic question of whether you wish to call the universe "God" or not. If you did not see the universe as a positive thing - you may be less likely to want to do so - also if you saw the idea of having a concept of "God" as a negative thing - then defining "God" as the universe would seem like a negative thing. That's what I'm thinking, anyway.

[ozone_man]

37. Some would rather conquer nature.

But those are the Republicans. :) Others would rather coexist with nature. I agree that not everyone has the same transcendent, positive feelings about nature. But the quasi-religious feeling that Dawkins is describing is what many people have, including Einstein, Sagan, Thoreau, and Gorbachev. They would be described as natural or scientific pantheists.

Native Americans were of the religious form of pantheism as are most premodern pantheist cultures. How we percieve nature is dependent on what our experiences have been, whether we are dependent on nature in a very direct way like the Native Americans were traditionally. Life in the elements promotes religious feelings or worship of nature, since survival was so directly influenced.

By contrast, considering Thoreau who was able to live in the woods for a few years, nature is something that is not part of survival, but a place to meditate on the surroundings. I would fall into that category, where I live a modern lifestyle, but try to get out in the woods as often as I can, or to the sea shore, or sometimes just to work in the garden is all I need to experience nature. Sometimes just spending some quality time with my cats outdoors. Nature is all around us, we have evolved in nature, so are especially adapted to sense natural asthetics.

If someone chooses to believe that nature is God or that the universe is God, that's fine too. I think it's just another way of thinking about the universe. That is not God in a traditional or theistic sense, yet that person can still be agnostic about that God. It doesn't have to be a personal God, but may be the unkowable God of the Deist or the Pantheist. Agnostic simply means that we don't have knowledge about God. What we believe is something else.

Regarding the assigning of God to the universe, I don't know if it has to do with whether we see God or the universe as good thing. I think God was created as a father figure, or as a mother figure in matriarchal societies, to take care of us, to protect us from the unknowns and fears in life. Atheists have moved beyond this type of belief system to accepting the unknowns in the universe and confronting their fears directly. Life would be so boring without mysteries, but I don't choose to explain them as God. Rather, it is the contemplation of the mysteries in nature and the universe that I find so appealing.

"Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvelous structure of reality. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being." - Albert Einstein

[bloom]

38. RE:

"I don't know if it has to do with whether we see God or the universe as good thing. I think God was created as a father figure, or as a mother figure in matriarchal societies, to take care of us, to protect us from the unknowns and fears in life. Atheists have moved beyond this type of belief system to accepting the unknowns in the universe and confronting their fears directly."


I think that most liberally religious people - whether they call themselves Christians or some other thing have moved beyond seeing God as a father figure. Between people like Darwin, Einstein, or considering eastern religions, native American religion or whatever. It wouldn't surprise me if the whole WWII experience didn't put quite a few holes in that coffin as well - and perhaps globalization, itself (the part of globalization that connects us with others - not the opportunities some take to exploit).

I suppose it is that part of globalization - the connections - that threatens the fundamentalists. They also seem quite afraid of multiculturalism for the same reason. They hate having their authoritarianism diminished.


It is a big priority to me to stay connected with nature. It's hard for me to understand people who don't want to be. It's one thing to have moved beyond myths, beyond authoritarianism - "moving beyond" nature is not an option.

It's funny to me how many people seem to be one way or the other - either caught up in some authoritarian thing or embracing the universe. I suppose there are those who are neither. But I don't know what they are doing.

[ozone_man]

58. Moving toward a global community.

I think you're right that fundamentalism is being threatened by the formation of a global community.

"moving beyond" nature is not an option.

That's right, we have to learn to integrate nature into our lifestyle in a compatible, sustainable way, not just for the spiritual benefits, but our survival as a world depends on it. I'm not sure what "embracing the universe" means exactly. I like to keep things in perspective. The Earth is much more important than anything outside it, as in universe, simply because it is our planet, our source of sustenance. Still, it's nice to contemplate the vastness of the universe, to be outside on a clear starry night away from the city lights, maybe catch a few shooting stars as they streak by. The first time I saw the northern lights, in the wilderness hundreds of miles away from any city lights, there were shimmering curtains of white light with intense burts of green and pink light in a crown aurora. An awe inspiring phenomenon, almost a religious experience, but a natural one. Most of the time nature is much more subtle, but occasionally there are spectacles like this that take my breath away.

Those are some pleasant memories of nature. There can be unpleasant experiences such as being the victim of a hurricane and having your home destroyed or being a fisherman and working in life threatening weather conditions. Nature can be brutal at times, but it is not intentional, there is no sentience or maliciousness behind it's actions. It just is. I enjoy it when it is gentle and brace myself for the times when it is brutal.

[bloom]

60. Nature - it's always something

What would life be if it wasn't, though?

Probably the way we live would already seem like heaven to some people who never had it so easy.

I think some people put a huge amount of energy fighting nature - staying separate from it. As if people can "win".

I think it's such a different attitude to think of working with nature - becoming more familiar with it - and not fighting with it unnecessarily with pesticides and concrete and that sort of thing.

When I fly over places I wonder why more people don't plant trees - in neighborhoods where it looks like there are few.


I'm looking forward to getting up north to where I can see a good northern lights show - one of these days.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

56. To quote the Dalai Lama

on the difference between Buddhism and Sufism (he was addressing a group of visiting Sufis; there are close connections between Sufis and His Holiness; my Pir took instruction from His Holiness when he was a youth):

In Buddhism, nothing is. In Sufism, everything is. Same thing, no difference.

[Meshuga]

13. Mordechai Kaplan (Reconstructionist synagogues)

Kaplan did not understand God as a supernatural force in the universe, but rather as the power which makes possible personal salvation, which Kaplan understood as the "worthwhileness of life." "God is the sum of all the animating organizing forces and relationships which are forever making a cosmos out of chaos". God cannot abridge the laws of nature for God according to him is synonymous with natural law.

According to his idea, prayer is necessary because it helps us become conscious of our conscience, the force within which mediates our relationships and our ability to realize salvation. Prayer with the community focuses our attention on the community and its needs. To him, worship offered a release of emotion that can orient people in a positive psychological direction.

[bloom]

19. It's interesting

all of these different things coming together.

I looked up Kaplan on wikipedia - among other things - it said, "However a second strand of Kaplonian theology exists which makes clear that at times Kaplan believed that God has ontological reality, a real and absolute existence independent of human beliefs."

I think that with the definition of Naturalistic Pantheism - that God - while essentially encompassing nature - would not be a concept without people. Nature would go on just the same. There wouldn't be people to be conscious of it though. There wouldn't be anyone praying, for instance.


I was thinking recently how I like the idea of people praying for each other - even if I don't believe in the traditional, personal, God. I just think it's nice.

[Meshuga]

32. I think it is nice too

For example, Rabbi Telushkin says we should pray when we hear ambulance or firetruck siren hoping they get there in time to save the endangered people and home. People are usually annoyed when the siren noise wakes them up or interrupts their conversation. Instead we should pray and empathize with the people who are in danger.

He says that "By accustoming ourselves to uttering a prayer at the very moment we feel unjustly annoyed, we become better, more loving people. The very act of praying motivates us to empathize with those who are suffering and in need of our prayers".

We usually carry out "loving one's neighbor" through tangible acts, by giving money or food to those in need, by stepping in and offering assistance to a neighbor who is ill, or by bringing guests into our home. But sometimes loving is expressed through a prayer that connects us to our neighbor, even when we have no way of knowing just who our neighbor is.

[okasha]

14. A distinction, if I may.

Tatanka Watanka (Sitting Bull), was not, strictly speaking, a pantheist. Lakota religion, like most Native American religion, is not pantheist but panentheist--the divine is present in and immanent in all that exists, but it is not coterminus with physical existence. Rather, the divine contains but is greater than all that exists. Inyan is Creator and therefore greater than the universe; but all things in the universe contain some part of Inyan.

[TreasonousBastard]

47. This is very similar to Quaker, and...

some other significant Christian thought.

Definitions always plague these discussions, but it seems that pantheism sees God as the sum of the universe while most theism sees the universe as containing parts of God.

Chicken and egg, once again.

[Random_Australian]

15. "Do atheists here see it as important to reject the idea " athiesm is not

about rejection.

Also; the reason I do not believe nature is God is because nature is finite, seems pretty straight forward to me.

[bloom]

21. I would have to disagree

I think that atheism is about rejection - for some people, esp.

It's about rejecting myths and what people consider to be nonsense and supernatural things.

Go ahead and say - that if people didn't come up with those things that atheists wouldn't have to reject them. But people DID come up with those things and people DO reject them. To say otherwise - is disingenuous - I think.

(That doesn't mean that I think it's bad to reject them - I just don't think people are being honest when they say they don't.)

And I can understand why people would NOT want to define all things in nature as "GOD" - because people are bound to think that you are talking about GOD the same way other people are talking about GOD. So it gets confusing.


I don't know if I necessarily believe the the universe is finite. I like the idea that people will at least never know everything - esp. the edges of all of the dimensions.

[Random_Australian]

22. You are way off mark here:

"Go ahead and say - that if people didn't come up with those things that atheists wouldn't have to reject them. But people DID come up with those things and people DO reject them. To say otherwise - is disingenuous - I think. "

I think this little communication error can be fixed:
Reject A: Attempt to remove, disprove, et cetera; (then no)
Reject B: Just not believe. (ok, sure)

And finally the nub:
the word "important" - it is not that important to atheism to reject things - making your own path is more what it is about, others are well entitled to their beliefs, after all. Believe what you will.

In other words, rejection is not the important part of atheism. A part, yes, inasmuch as the Christian rejects the religion of others, (as a personal choice for what they believe in, as opposed to say, disliking that religion), but no more.

------------------------------------------------------
I believe the universe is finite, as for the edges, what edges? (The current model is the finite but unbounded, but more info about the curvature of space is necessary, it could be infinite after all)

[beam me up scottie]

25. "I think that atheism is about rejection"

And the point of this thread suddenly becomes crystal clear.

You know bloom, if you did the same thing to christians in this forum, you'd be called a bigot.

[bloom]

61. You must read too many fundamentalists.

I hear they make arguments by taking things out of context - just like you like to do.


I don't see how you could see this as an insult - that you reject myths and nonsense and supernatural things.

"I think that atheism is about rejection - for some people, esp. - It's about rejecting myths and what people consider to be nonsense and supernatural things."


But if someone wants to argue with someone enough - they can make an argument out of anything. You are the poster child for that.

[beam me up scottie]

62. That's how I know their tactics-like claiming atheism is about rejection

Atheism is a lack of beliefs, not the rejection of them.

Fundies use that fallacy all the time, it's called begging the question.

Speaking of poster children, why are you using reich wing tactics to smear atheists?

Have you ever wondered why so many of us call you out?

Is it because we're a "posse" and are out to get you, as you claim?

Or could it be because we're sick of the nasty, back-handed insults?

[bloom]

63. As a religious atheist -

I think that people reject those ideas that don't resonate with them. If someone comes up with a new way of describing man's relationship with the universe and a person reads that - that person accepts it or reject it - no matter what label they ascribe to themselves. I think you're making a mountain out of nothing.

If you keep it up - I guess I'll just start assuming that you are a Satanist - maybe that would explain what you are about.

(see: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=75259&mesg_id=75275 )

You seem to have no problem assuming that I'm something that I am not.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

72. Whatever makes you happy bloom.

After all, who am I to presume I have the right to define my atheism?

Let me know what you decide I am.

Thanks.:hi:

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SPKrazy]

23. I Don't See It As Atheism (As I Understand It)

but I'll defer to atheists to answer that for me.

I suppose that I am a pantheist as I think of an all encompassing God. I don't think of an old man in the sky God.

I think of God as being in everything and every one.

I think of the big bang, all the energy and matter in the universe was there before the bang, and now it is spreading outward.

I think of the "what" is "outward", as in where is "outward"?

But I think we are all products of the same thing since our matter was there in the beginning, and therefore I am part of the universe. I see the force of life in the Universe, as God.

I see Jesus (and other bible and other religions characters) as expressions of the Universe, and therefore God, just as I see all creature, and things as part of the universe, and therefore God.

I don't know that this view is atheistic at all. But an atheist could tell you better than I could, I can only tell you what I believe.

[beam me up scottie]

24. Thanks, friend.

The only thing atheists have in common is that we don't believe in god(s).

The op seems to think we have a belief system.

[SPKrazy]

26. Well I've Been Down That Road (with you as a matter of fact)

and I can see that belief system as is used in connection with belief in a doctrine, is non-existent with atheism.

Keep setting them straight!

:hug:

[beam me up scottie]

27. You too!

This is why I keep coming back to this forum.

Once we make it through the obstacle course of myths and misconceptions, we find out we have much more in common than we thought.

:hug:

[SPKrazy]

28. Absolutely!

We're here on this Democratic Forum fighting against the "evildoers" (The GOP) as they try to take away our rights, spend our money, loot the treasury, punish those who don't follow their path, and turn our country into some kind of grotesque theocracy.

We've got too much to do.

My "Democratic" Senator is supporting the abolishment of the "death tax"

My other Democratic Senator is not.

I'm bombarded with ads telling me to call the Senator who is not supporting this and "tell him to support the abolishment of the "death tax"

We're spending a billion a week in Iraq. How much healthcare could we buy for what we spend in a few months in Iraq? We're making sure they get "free healthcare" Why is it good enough for them and not us?

and on and on!



:banghead:


:hide:

[beam me up scottie]

29. You'll like this, then:

[SPKrazy]

30. Yeah, I Saw That On The Toon Thread in GD

It's pretty accurate too!

This "death tax" isn't a death tax at all. It is a tax on millionaires who leave money to people.

Like, if Bill Gates dies, should his kids inherit it tax free?

He's got so much money that it wouldn't hurt his kids financially to have to pay some taxes on that money they inherited.

[charlie]

31. Nobody's as sharp and deft as Tom Toles

I'm constantly amazed that he can do it day in and out. I've never seen him pen a clunker. Political cartoonists can't take advantage of an inspired streak and pile up work in advance, so it's all the more remarkable that he can bring the funny so consistently. One of my heroes.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

34. I consider myself to be fairly pantheist,

in that I agree that everything is of equal divinity/spirituality, and we're all part of a net, if you will think of it that way, of spiritual/life energy--every person, animal, plant, whatever is a knot in this net. However, I disagree with Spinoza's determinism--I believe in free will, and the power of humanity.

I guess I believe in the "divinity" of everyday things, and that any "divinity" in this world is going to be part of it, not transcendent from it. I also believe that this "divinity" does not require worship--living life to the fullest is worship enough. I believe in the beauty of nature for nature's sake, not because some "god" created it.

:shrug:

[SPKrazy]

39. That's A Very Cool Way To Look At Things

thanks for posting it

"living life to the fullest is worship enough. I believe in the beauty of nature for nature's sakd, not because some "god" created it.

I like that, especially the living life to the fullest. To me that is mindfulness. I think that even Jesus spoke of this when he said "sufficient unto today, is the evil thereof" or one day at a time.

I think that if we can live life fully in the now, we are living the way we are supposed to and the way that will provide the greatest satisfaction for us. It also brings us into the present with others. How many times do I walk around in a mindless stupor thinking of other things, and ignoring my surroundings.

when I pay attention, cool things happen. When I'm into myself I miss the world going by.

I also think that nature should be looked at for nature's sake, not (I'm adding one word) just because some "god" created it.

I remember looking at a peacock once and thinking, God had a great since of imagination.

But I could have just as easily just stood in awe of the peacocks fully fanned plume of feathers.

Again, thanks

[Orrex]

40. Carl Sagan was not a pantheist except by some trick of equivocation

He was a hardcore atheist up to and including the moment of his death. For someone to claim on Sagan's behalf that he identified any "deity" in the universe is an insult to Sagan.

I can see no benefit in this drafting of anyone into the rhetorical service of pantheism, outside of the hope of some misguided theists who see it as a chance to add celebrity weight to their arguments. It's a mistake for any faith to lay claim to beliefs of anyone who has not explicitly committed her or himself to that faith.

Also, the idea that reverence for nature equates to some kind of deification of nature is a gross misrepresentation.

on edit: I'm taking issue with the Wiki article and not with your own post

[bloom]

41. I think the Naturalist Pantheists/Scientific Pantheists

consider themselves religious atheists - who call the universe "God".

This page quotes Sagan:

A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed
by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe
hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.

Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot (1994)

http://www.pantheism.net/paul/index.htm

I am thinking that the Pantheists are saying that Pantheism is that "religion".


Wikipedia quotes Sagan as saying:

"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God,' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan

[beam me up scottie]

43. A set of physical laws is NOT a religion.

No matter how many woo woos claim that it is.


Carl Sagan also said:

Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others - for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein - considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws.

I found this disclaimer on reference.com's page on pantheism:

It is necessary to note that While Sagan never described himself as a pantheist; many maintain that pantheism fit his views better than any other term. This claim, while widely accepted among pantheists of all varieties, remains somewhat controversial outside the pantheist community. A similar debate surrounds the attribution of pantheism to other notable figures, including Einstein.

Pantheists should go find another spokesman.

Posthumously quoting Sagan out of context in order to "plug" one's religion is pathetic and ethically questionable.

[Orrex]

44. I see your point, but

Neither of those quotes suggests that Sagan himself subscribed to a pantheistic faith--merely that he could see how some might be inclined to identify aspects of the universe with a metaphorical god-figure. It's my view that the Wiki article should make this distinction clear, rather than throwing Carl onto the pantheist heap.

I am thinking that the Pantheists are saying that Pantheism is that "religion".

That's possible, but then it's essential to retain the quotes when refering to respect for the universe as a "religion". Sagan's statement strikes me as one of those "more things in heaven and Earth than are dreamed of by your philosophy" sorts of things. He's saying, IMO, that the universe is plenty amazing without imposing an extraneous mythological system upon it. Sagan's view is nearly the opposite of religion, in quotes or not.

[bloom]

45. That's one of the things

I was wondering about - I rather expected that there would be reactions like yours.

I can see where the Pantheist people could interpret Sagan's POV the way that they did - as they might say that they are just creating the religion that he was talking about.

It's almost like they are taking many "prophets" and incorporating their ideas into a religion. It's not always the "prophets" idea to have a religion based on what they think.

I rather expect that part of the deal with them redefining many other people that think of as sharing their ideas as pantheist is because of their desire to be connected across many traditions - in a universalist way.


Apparently one reason the World Pantheist Movement group calls themselves a religion instead of a philosophy is that they want to be able to conduct their own kind of funerals, weddings and such.

[Orrex]

65. Well, that's certainly reasonable

I can see where the Pantheist people could interpret Sagan's POV the way that they did - as they might say that they are just creating the religion that he was talking about.

I'll buy that. Even if he was simply referring to that vision of the universe, rather than embracing it himself, it could still resonate with people who find it compatible with their own beliefs.

It's almost like they are taking many "prophets" and incorporating their ideas into a religion. It's not always the "prophets" idea to have a religion based on what they think.

That's reasonable, too. If Sagan started the ball rolling for some people, then naturally they'd name him as a heavy-hitters of their faith. Personally, though, I'd prefer that they list him among the philosophical contributors, rather than as part of the congregation, so to speak.

Apparently one reason the World Pantheist Movement group calls themselves a religion instead of a philosophy is that they want to be able to conduct their own kind of funerals, weddings and such.

To me, pantheism is no less likely than any other faith, and everything I've heard about its beliefs is more hopeful and positive than a lot of others, so more power to them. If adherents of that faith want to follow their own beliefs re: funerals, weddings, and the rest, that's entirely cool.

[bloom]

42. The World Pantheist Movement Statement of Beliefs:

http://www.harrison.dircon.co.uk/manifest.htm

[ozone_man]

69. These are atheist beliefs.

Aren't they? :) Nothing about deities or the supernatural there. Based on this belief system, I am clearly a pantheist, but I am also an atheist.

So, they seem to be making the most general definition of pantheism to include the common elements of religious and nonreligious (scientific) pantheism.

People like Carl Sagan would be best described as a scientific pantheist and agnostic, and possibly an atheist as well. There is no contradiction between the three. Fundamentally, he believed in the scientific method, so he harbored no beliefs that were unsupported by evidence. At least no extraordinary beliefs, which includes afterlife and the supernatural.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
-- Carl Sagan

It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-- Carl Sagan

There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That's perfectly all right; they're the aperture to finding out what's right. Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny.
-- Carl Sagan

Here he seems to be suggesting a pantheist way of thinking or believing. Some forms of pantheism could be consider a religion that include a supernatural element, while others are really a philosophy, which would describe scientific pantheism. He was of the latter type of pantheist. He is leaving the door open for both the faith oriented and the reason oriented with the use of "religion", as pantheism accepts both types.

A religion that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by traditional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.
-- Carl Sagan

[bloom]

70. atheist beliefs

exactly.

To say that people see Pantheist ideas in Carl Sagan's writings - is not to say that Carl Sagan was NOT an atheist.

Esp. as the World Pantheist Movement describes it.

I am more comfortable with the idea of discussing "cosmic religious feeling" (-Einstein) and/or "nature's spiritualism" (or something) than to use the term "God" or "Goddess" as those terms have so much baggage.

But I guess it could be worthwhile for some people to see that "God/dess" can be redefined by whatever our current knowledge of scientific principles are at the time - and that some people may feel more in harmony with more traditional religious people if the term "God/dess" is used. As in the way that Wikipedia put the idea out:

"It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent God/dess; or that the universe, or nature, and God/dess are equivalent."

(modified by me)

[ozone_man]

71. Yes, it includes the faith oriented.

Those who relate to having a God/dess involved. The vast majority of pantheists are of that type, but that is mainly because it is ths traditional or ancient for of pantheism. Modern pantheism has many who are scientific pantheists, who don't have any supernatural beliefs (like Einstein or Sagan), just an awe and reverence for nature. Even so, there may be "spiritual" or transcendent feelings associated with that reverance. It depends whether mother nature is being gentle with us or not. ;)

[TreasonousBastard]

46. As a Quaker, I can say that we do see things that way...

sort of. We actually see things more like Okasha described panentheism, though.

Now, since we have no doctrines or creeds it's difficult to pin down Quaker beliefs, but the concept of the Light is one of the bases of Quaker theology, and has shown up in various forms in much primitive Christianity, including some early Gnosticism.

God is essentially unknowable to our feeble minds, as are many of the "secrets" of the universe, but the Light is that part of God that we can understand, and is within all of us. We don't claim to have any idea of just how God operates in his own universe, but we do have an idea how he works in ours, and that's through the Light.

Whether or not the Light is in rocks, trees, and mosquitos is questionable, but we prefer not to ask questions that have no answers. It may well be, since it is the primal force that guides us, and may well be everywhere, not just inside humans. At any rate, everything on the planet is, one way or the other, God's creation, and we aren't to mess with it lightly. (No, we are most definitely NOT creationists, but do accept that there is a divine plan somewhere, although we're not sure just what it is.)

It's called the Light because, well, why not? Light has quite few cryptic scriptural references, and just as it's never fully defined in scripture it's never fully defined in Quaker theology. It remains as a mystery to be felt more than defined.

[everythingsxen]

48. Why you should believe (with some science and stuff)

First, let me say that in my opinion, believing in mono, poly or pantheism (or all three :)) is easy. All you have to do is believe. It's arrogant to presume that Gods do not exist. Not believing carries the possible penalty of angry deities. Believing carries the possibility that you may experience a divine intervention. So, for the atheists, I have to ask, what is the point of not believing? It gets you nothing, but believing at least offers you hope.

As for what I believe, I see myself as a "multi-theist". I believe simultaneously in all religions. I do not actively do anything, usually, except believe. Let me explain, my belief a bit further....

It is a difficult thing to put properly into words. Essentially, I believe that everything in the entire universe, including us, is God. From my vantage point, it seems to be same God of the Big Three religions and a whole lot of other churches. So that God is at the top of a pyramid, on the next row below God, are all the Gods and Goddesses. They are specific aspects of God, they are also us, and they are more advanced than us. Next comes your spirits (demons, angels, etc.), they are presumably the next step above us.

Which brings me to us. I believe that on a quantum (here I am using quantum as a loose term for that crap thats so small to see that we dint know about yet) level we are all interconnected. I think when we die, the energy of our soul joins with the energy of all other souls and sometimes you reincarnate and some times your bit of energy "evolves" upward to the next step, when you become a "spirit", in this case what would be referred to as "demon", "angel", "elemental" etc. by believers. They would exist on a level above our own and would perceive us as we might perceive germs. From there the cycle essentially repeats and eventually the spirit becomes a part of a deity, and then those deities carry all the accumulated knowledge, throughout however long this takes, back to God and merge into God.

So I believe in pretty much everything.

[okasha]

49. That's all very nice, but belief can't be turned on and off like a faucet.

People who don't believe have usually come to their agnosticism or atheism after a good deal of wrestling with what they've been taught by the majority culture over against what their own personal perceptions and convictions tell them. There are genuine philosophical/existential problems that many religions cannot resolve--eg., the Abrahamic faiths that are overwhelmingly in the majority in American culture can solve either the problem of pain or the problem of evil, but not both at once. Some people can accept that with faith; others can't. Their decisions don't deserve to be trivialized.

[charlie]

50. It's swell that your belief does you much good

But it's arrogant for you to presume that lack of belief comes from arrogance.

[Crunchy Frog]

51. I think it's always wrong

to try to tell people what they should and shouldn't believe.

I could not force myself to believe in the tenets of Christianity even if I wanted to. The point of acknowledging my disbelief is simple intellectual honesty and personal integrity.

Are you suggesting that the only reason to believe is to avoid being punished by angry dieties? It seems like no matter what you believe, you're still taking a risk of getting it wrong and pissing off a diety. According to your own system, you will still be going to hell, since the Judeo-Christian God doesn't tolerate any acknowledgement of any other deities.

I actually have no problem with your beliefs. They obviously work for you. I just think you ought to respect the fact that others have arrived at their own sets of convictions that work equally well for them.

It's also arrogant to think that most people can simply believe anything at will. Maybe some can, but I would warrant that most people can't. I would not wish to, even if I could.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

52. I think mystics see God as different in essence

than the traditional concept of God. I am a Sufi initiate, and I have Christian friends in the Church of Religious Science and Unity, two Christian churches with strong mystical elements. I don't claim in any way to be a scinetist, but I have friends who are, and who have told me of experiments that appear to indicate some sort of communication between researchers and subatomic particles. Then there's the theory of entanglement, which, if I understood it correctly, has subatomic particles that were once close and then seperated still acting in a way that they would if they were together-if the spin of one is changed, the other changes as well-and faster than the speed of light. Finally, a quote from physicist Erwin Schroediger-"I have come to the conclusion that the total number of minds in the universe is ONE."

I have yet to meet a mystic who claims to totally understand this "mind" that Schroediger talks of, but to them, the idea that there is some sort of energy, some sort of consciousness even in the tiniest of particles, shows what we call "God" is at work. God is not seperate, never was; and realities within realities within realities exist, just as there is the visible world, the microscopic world, and the subatomic world.

[bloom]

57. I like the way you think.

:hi:


I also think it's interesting the different worlds within a world - the microscopic world, subatomic, as well the larger world of space - and the idea that there could be larger worlds than that - but how would we know?

The new scientific discoveries and methods of seeing what people have never been able to see before seem like enough to make anyone who is paying attention just be amazed.

I'll have to look up Schroediger.

[greyl]

84. Schrodinger didn't say that, exactly

and it's no surprise that the mystics you've talked to don't understand what he meant, yet they may refer to him in their ignorance as a means to try to lend scientific authority to other things they say.

At this point that I must return to Schrödinger, whose idealism tackles this particular aspect of the problem head-on.The following quotes come from an essay called “The Oneness of Mind.”3

“The reason why our sentient, percipient, and thinking ego is met nowhere within our scientific world picture can easily be indicated in seven words: because it is itself that world picture.”

This first quote shows why Schrödinger is not a panpsychist. Panpsychism posits that consciousness is somehow present everywhere, physically distributed around the Universe, waiting to emerge into some sort of unified whole.Schrödinger isn’t suggesting anything of the sort. For him, it is wrong-headed to try to place consciousness anywhere at all within our physical/scientific world picture because consciousness is always the totality of that picture. But as Schrödinger goes on to explain, this leads to another sort of combination problem, since we each have such a total world picture, each one differs and yet somehow we must assume there is only one physical world. There are, Schrödinger tells us, only two possible ways to solve this problem.The first of these is “the multiplication of the world in Leibniz’s fearful doctrine of monads”, but Schrödinger sees this as an option that is neither appealing nor truly able to “mitigate the numerical antimony.” He continues:

“There is obviously only one alternative, namely the unification of minds or consciousness. Their multiplicity is only apparent.”

“Mind is, by its very nature, a singulare tantum. I should say: the overall number of minds is just one.”

Schrödinger’s idealism may offer a solution to both combination problems, but is not likely to be considered a serious way forward from the point of view of cognitive science. Idealism has some rather obvious problems of its own, especially from the point of view of a scientist, but most relevant here is that it makes the same mistake as materialism. In preserving one half of Descartes dualism, it unwittingly implies the other half via negativa. However, the elegant manner in which idealism overcomes both types of combination problem may yet provide part of an integrated answer to the questions we are dealing with, as may materialism. Perhaps a theory is possible which can be seen as either materialistic or idealistic, requiring a sort of theoretical gestalt shift to switch between the two. It may be necessary to clearly distinguish between naturalism and materialism at this point. Naturalism is here defined as: “the view that all causation is empirical”, thus eliminating belief in things like libertarian free will, the will of God or any sort of paranormal form of causation. The door must be left open for a non-material naturalism.
http://esophy.com/consciousnessplacenature.html

[bloom]

59. "When God Was a Woman"

I do see it as problematic - the persistence of putting the idea of "God"/Nature in male terms - which even though some people may say that "God" is genderless - enough people have given "God" the male gender - that that is the default.

If Pantheism is going to have any cred - it's going to have to give that up.


from Apuleius in the 2nd century AD - the Goddess says:

"I am Nature, the universal Mother, mistress of all elements, primordial child of time, sovereign of all things spiritual, queen of the dead, queen also of the immortals, the single manifestation of all gods and goddesses that are. My nod governs the shining heights of Heaven, the wholesome sea breezes, the lamentable silences of the world below. Though I am worshiped in many aspects, known by countless names, and propitiated with all manner of different rites, yet the whole round earth venerates me." ...


as seen in "When God Was a Woman", by Merlin Stone

[bloom]

66. The problem with Pantheism

If there were a fixed definition - like what the World Pantheist Movement has - and you could agree with it or not - that would be one thing.

The trouble with anything that is a thing - is that other people are going to call themselves the same thing and then go define it differently. (We all know what a mess Christianity is that way). So here is this that I came across:

"Science has now established beyond a reasonable doubt that there is an important teleos, purpose or design in the existence of the universe. In fact this argument has become so powerful these days that even an astronomer like Mr. Tipler from Britain (who is a Pantheist) has come to the conclusion that man is at the centre of the universe. This is called the "Anthropic Principle".

http://www.southasianconnection.com/articles/18/1/Does-God-Exist%3F/print/18

Well - I don't agree with that at all. Man being the center of the universe as if this is 1406.


I suspect (someone will probably tell me I'm wrong and I'll probably have them on ignore) that people who call themselves atheists (for ONE thing) don't like other people defining them and don't like having to worry about someone saying something is one thing and someone else saying it is something else.

(Though - as we have seen - there are plenty of kinds of atheists - including naturalistic pantheist atheists, satanist atheists, and who knows what how many other "sects" - there is no end to it... )

[beam me up scottie]

67. I agree with you.

Nobody likes to be defined by others.

I resent it when others do it to me, and I try not to do it to anyone else.

It's a matter of respect.

[Strong Atheist]

68. "there are plenty of kinds of atheists". You forgot the athEIsts. nt.

[beam me up scottie]

73. Baptism for the dead by proxy is beyond contempt.

IMO, by making Carl Sagan a pantheist, they are as guilty of it as the mormons.

[SPKrazy]

74. I Would Agree With That

I don't know what Carl's beliefs were, although I'd always been under the impression that he was an atheist.

I don't like the baptism of the dead by proxy, I think it is hard on the survivors to think that their loved one might be being baptized by proxy by a religion they despised. (thinking of a family member of my own that would be angry as hell to think that IMO)

[beam me up scottie]

75. It doesn't get any lower than that.

The same group of people have been peddling that bullshit for years.
If Carl Sagan had been a pantheist, he would have said so.
The man was not exactly timid.

[salvorhardin]

76. I'm failing to understand

Why some pantheists would feel the need to distort the life's message of Carl Sagan, which was and always will be in defense of the rational against the supernatural?

"I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudoscience and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive. Where have we heard it before? Whenever our ethnic or national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during challenges to national self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us-then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls. The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir."

"Science and Hope," The Demon-Haunted World, pp. 26-27.

I maintain there is much more wonder in science than in pseudoscience. And in addition, to whatever measure this term has any meaning, science has the additional virtue, and it is not an inconsiderable one, of being true. <Carl Sagan, The Burden Of Skepticism>

I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides. <Carl Sagan, 1996 in his article In the Valley of the Shadow Parade Magazine Also, Billions and Billions p. 215>

Many statements about God are confidently made by theologians on grounds that today at least sound specious. Thomas Aquinas claimed to prove that God cannot make another God, or commit suicide, or make a man without a soul, or even make a triangle whose interior angles do not equal 180 degrees. But Bolyai and Lobachevsky were able to accomplish this last feat (on a curved surface) in the nineteenth century, and they were not even approximately gods. <Carl Sagan, Broca's Brain>

If some good evidence for life after death were announced, I'd be eager to examine it; but it would have to be real scientific data, not mere anecdote. As with the face on Mars and alien abductions, better the hard truth, I say, than the comforting fantasy. <Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World>

If you want to save your child from polio, you can pray or you can inoculate....Try science. <Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World>

At the extremes it is difficult to distinguish pseudoscience from rigid, doctrinaire religion. <Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World>

There's many more here: http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_CSagan.htm

Now, for a man that never once described himself as pantheistic, what is the one piece of evidence that pantheists cling to in evidence of Sagan's beliefs (despite his entire body of work, despite his many public speeches, despite what his wife Ann Druyan has said repeatedly)? This one:

A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.
Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot (1994)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

If you're a pantheist, you're of course free to believe whatever you want, but why distort the memory of a man who was decidedly areligious and atheistic?

[beam me up scottie]

77. Beautiful.

Why indeed.

Maybe some kind of competition to see who can baptize the most dead scientists ?

[salvorhardin]

78. I think it's some kind of weird deity envy or something

You know, an attempt to prove that the pantheist deity is as big as all the other deities on the block. Or something. They might as well say Sagan believed in Shintoism. I suppose you could twist the meaning of Sagan's words and have them mean anything you want that way. There are certainly enough people who apparently seek self-affirmation through such games.

[beam me up scottie]

80. Seeking self-affirmation.

Bingo.


Despicable.

[bloom]

86. Who exactly are you saying is "Despicable"?

The people who posted the Wikipedia article? The people who are discussing it here?

[Strong Atheist]

88. Guess!

:rofl:

[beam me up scottie]

81. I agree with Evoman's take: Pantheism is really useless.

Why bother?

Are people that terrified of calling themselves atheists?

If you're going to make up your own religion, at least have the decency to let people join voluntarily, instead of hijacking the dead.

[salvorhardin]

82. Not only that

But pantheism is the ceding of all ethics and morality. After all, if everything is equally divine, then who are you to kill the encephalitic infection eating away at your kid's brain?

[beam me up scottie]

83. ROFLMAO !!!

:rofl:

And they talk about OUR lack of morals?

Priceless.

[bloom]

85. Who are "they" to which you refer?

Do you mean Pantheist atheists are saying that YOU lack morals because you are a different (unspecified) atheist?

[Strong Atheist]

87. Guess!

:rofl:

[manic expression]

95. To be honest,

I think the definition of pantheist, like EVERYTHING ELSE in religion, is disputed and different. Hindus, who IMO are very pantheist, are most assuredly NOT atheist (quite the opposite). However, I'm not sure about the World Pantheist Organization or whatever, so maybe they are what you say they are.

I kind of let off about Evoman's take, but perhaps s/he is right about some "pantheists", although I KNOW that s/he is very wrong about Hindus (all 900 million) and my perception of pantheism.

By the way, in addition to Hinduism, I do think, although speculatively, that Sufis could be argued to be pantheist, although I can't say I'm sure.

[bloom]

97. I think that before television

people had a lot of time on their hands - so they must have sat around thinking up stuff like this.


I found this on the Monist page - about Hindus - also how Pantheism fits into that....

Monism, Pantheism, and Panentheism

Following a long and still current tradition H.P. Owen (1971: 65) claimed that
"Pantheists are ‘monists’...they believe that there is only one Being, and that all other forms of reality are either modes (or appearances) of it or identical with it."

Although, like Spinoza, some pantheists may also be monists, and monism may even be essential to some versions of pantheism (like Spinoza's), not all pantheists are monists. Some are polytheists and some are pluralists; they believe, that there are many things and kinds of things and many different kinds of value. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Not all Monists are Pantheists. Exclusive Monists believe that the universe, the God of the Pantheist, simply does not exist. In addition, monists can be Deists, Theists or panentheists; believing in a monotheistic God that is omnipotent and all-pervading, and both transcendent and immanent. There are monist deists and panentheists in Hinduism (particularly in Advaita and Vishistadvaita respectively), Judaism (especially in Kabbalah), and in Christianity (especially among Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglicans).


Monism in religion

Hinduism
Hinduism is monistic, as far back as the Rig Veda, in which hymnists speak of one being-non-being that 'breathed without breath,' and which singular force self-projected into the cosmic existence. Nevertheless, the first system in Hinduism that clearly, unequivocably explicated absolute monism was that of Advaita (or nondualist) Vedanta (see Advaita Vedanta) as expounded by Adi Shankaracharya. It is part of the six Hindu systems of philosophy, based on the Upanishads, and posits that the ultimate monad is a formless, ineffable Divine Ground called Brahman. Such monistic thought also extends to other Hindu systems like Yoga and non-dualist Tantra.
Another type of monism, qualified monism, from the school of Ramanuja or Vishishtadvaita, admits that the universe is part of God, or Narayana, a type of either pantheism or panentheism, but sees a plurality of souls and substances within this supreme Being. This type of monism, monistic theism, which includes the concept of a personal God as a universal, omnipotent Supreme Being who is both Immanent and Transcendent, is prevalent in Hinduism. (Monistic theism is not to be confused with absolute monotheism where God is viewed as transcendent only. In absolute monotheism, the notion of Immanence divinity (essence of God) present in all things is absent.)

other religions mentioned:

Christianity

(Valentinianism)

Judaism

Others

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism#Hinduism

[ozone_man]

89. I think it's fair to say

that Carl Sagan had pantheist tendencies, but he was an atheist. I suspect his comment there was to suggest that if there is religion, let it be founded on something real, on science not superstition. If all religion is is the feeling of awe and appreciation or reverance for the world and for the cosmos, is that still a religion? Or is it a philosophy? Or is it science? I think it can be all three for some people, but I think for him it is just philosophy and science. He had no beliefs in the supernatural.

[salvorhardin]

90. I think you're correct

Sagan was an extremely complex man who gave deep thought to almost everything in his life. I don't know if he would be distressed by attempts to paint him as a pantheist (or as credulous in regard to certain esoteric non-empirical beliefs as I've seen some attempt) but that is beside the point. These attempts to claim deceased people as members of one faith or another do disservice to the legacy of these people and distort the historical record.

[bloom]

96. More

on Pantheism:

I don't necessarily agree with all of it - but the writer does try to bring up various POVs

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/


This explains it better - esp. the difference bwtween "transcendent"& “atheistic or immanent" pantheism...

The doctrine of Pantheism, however, is much more ancient than the name which is used to identify it. Because of Pantheism’s long history, one must therefore distinguish among the diverse meanings it assumed throughout the ages.The first meaning of pantheism refers to “transcendent pantheism”, a quite general idea according to which the world is considered to be a mere manifestation of God. This form of pantheism sees the divine only in the innermost parts of things, and in particular in the soul. As a result, the creature can “become” God only insofar as it liberates itself from the material shell of sensitiveness. This vision dates way back in time to the Vedanta doctrines of India and found its highest expression in Western Neo-Platonism.

The second meaning of pantheism is an “atheistic or immanent pantheism” (or monism) and considers the divine as a “vital energy” which animates the world from within, thereby leading to naturalistic and materialistic consequences. Finally, pantheism also assumes the meaning of a “transcendent-immanent pantheism”, according to which God not only reveals himself, but also realizes himself in all things. Such is the pantheism for example of Spinoza, and that which, in diverse forms, will be of interest to various idealistic currents of Modern Age.

http://www.disf.org/en/Voci/92.asp