Ask the Pan(en)theist

[Jane_the_Bane]

i'm not super-educated on pantheism....

but what do pantheists (or you I should) think about good/evil?

That it's mostly - if not to say exclusively - an anthropological/sociological (read: human) concern, and in no way relevant to metaphysics. That's what ethics are for.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Could I reasonably pass as a pantheist?

(OK, I realize that it might be tough for you to answer without further info.)

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Then the Delphi Oracle was wrong.

Not at all. You still understand its inscription in a way that differs vastly from my own.

...which is a reasonable argument.

Except for the part where it isn't. It's the kind of answer that doesn't even ATTEMPT to look for an explanation, but merely jumps to a supernatural explanation. It's the kind of approach that made people think that thunder was caused by the blinking of Zeus, rather than looking for the actual reason.

What’s your prejudice against the existence of Snow Elves?

The physical properties of water suffice to explain the structure of its crystals. No elves, or snow queens, or deities, or demons are necessary for that.

Should I say “Three strikes, you’re out”?

What? After your defense of SNOW ELVES as an explanation for the patterns of crystalline water? Get real!

I’ve been accommodating, and asked the same thing in different ways, to meet your sidestepping. This is your thread, and "Do you actually think that God is a bunch of rocks?" was your own suggested question. I assumed you had a ready answer when you suggested the question, but you still haven’t answered.

[/COLOR]

"God" is rocks. "God" is strong and weak nuclear forces. "God" is the speck of dirt on your wallpaper, the wallpaper, the wall, you watching that wall, me watching you watch that wall.
The thing is, when you hear the word "God", you immediately picture a being that is more or less like a man; if not in appearance, then at least in thought, feeling, motivation and deed. That is why I avoid the term. That is why the short and simple answer I gave above will *definitely* not satisfy you.
To me, no concept could ever contain the true, full sense of Divinity - not even my own. Some Christians would argue the same - and then turn around and describe exactly what they think God wants, thinks and hates, as if the Supreme Reality was no more than a petty tyrant in the mold of ancient middle eastern kings.

Jane, you write with knowledge and clarity on many different subjects in various forums. I’ve seen you express yourself well on religion, history, mythology, language, etc. Why is it that when it comes to expressing your own beliefs, you are vague, evasive and slightly incoherent?[/FONT][/COLOR]

Have you read my answer to rasta? Have you read the links I gave him? I think language is the least practical tool when it comes to understanding divinity. Language just doesn't lend itself to describe concepts that literally blow our mental horizon.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Could I reasonably pass as a pantheist?

(OK, I realize that it might be tough for you to answer without further info.)

Well, the enfant terrible of atheism, Richard Dawkins, maintains that (naturalistic) pantheism is "sexed up atheism" - basically, a sense of awe and wonder at the immensity of the cosmos that isn't connected to any religious concept of the "supernatural". So yes, I suppose you could reasonably pass as a pantheist, even without further info.

It's a rather hazy umbrella term to begin with, anyway.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Well, the enfant terrible of atheism, Richard Dawkins, maintains that (naturalistic) pantheism is "sexed up atheism" - basically, a sense of awe and wonder at the immensity of the cosmos that isn't connected to any religious concept of the "supernatural". So yes, I suppose you could reasonably pass as a pantheist, even without further info.

It's a rather hazy umbrella term to begin with, anyway.

What do you think of Richard Dawkins' "charge"? (And it is not as if views like that were anything new. See (or look up) "Pantheismusstreit")

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

What do you think of Richard Dawkins' "charge"? (And it is not as if views like that were anything new. See (or look up) "Pantheismusstreit")

I think the term "atheist" focuses too much on what a person does not believe in; as a general umbrella term, it is kind of useful, but beyond that point, it really doesn't help much.
A communist, an Objectivist, a Buddhist, a naturalistic pan(en)theist and an Eudaimonist might all be grouped under the term "atheist", yet their philosophical/theological position might differ greatly. I prefer to define myself in terms that actually communicate what I do believe, rather than listing all the things I don't believe in.

 

[R3quiem]

How do you believe existence came to be? Do you believe something came out of nothing, or that something always existed?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

How do you believe existence came to be? Do you believe something came out of nothing, or that something always existed?

I don't know, really. I consider that to be more of a question of (astro)physics than spirituality, first and foremost. However, based on what I know about the nature of space-time, I'd say that "before" or "always" are really meaningless terms considering that any temporal description inevitably refers to our current space-time, which didn't exist in that form prior to the Big Bang. If there is something outside of that (and there very well might be), it is totally unrelated to our own space-time-continuity.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I think the term "atheist" focuses too much on what a person does not believe in; as a general umbrella term, it is kind of useful, but beyond that point, it really doesn't help much.
A communist, an Objectivist, a Buddhist, a naturalistic pan(en)theist and an Eudaimonist might all be grouped under the term "atheist", yet their philosophical/theological position might differ greatly. I prefer to define myself in terms that actually communicate what I do believe, rather than listing all the things I don't believe in.

Although, the term "pantheist" doesn't actually communicate all that much either ... . Just one reply back you told me that "pantheism" is a hazy umbrella term. But now it is "atheist" which is the term that has little use beyond "umbrella term."


Be that as it may ... I actually wanted more to know whether you feel that Dawkins' is somewhat right. Or to restate, do you feel like a "sexed-up" atheist?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Although, the term "pantheist" doesn't actually communicate all that much either ... . Just one reply back you told me that "pantheism" is a hazy umbrella term. But now it is "atheist" which is the term that has little use beyond "umbrella term."

Pantheist communicates some positive content - atheism just points to what a certain belief system does not entail.

I only use "pantheist" as a label to give people a general idea about what I believe - it's not a title I generally use to refer to myself.

Be that as it may ... I actually wanted more to know whether you feel that Dawkins' is somewhat right. Or to restate, do you feel like a "sexed-up" atheist?

Not really. I feel that my position has a lot more in common with that of Carl Sagan and Albert Einstein than with that of Dawkins and Hitchens. Still, there's lots of common ground with all of these, of course.

 

[Druweid]

i'm not super-educated on pantheism....

but what do pantheists (or you I should) think about good/evil?

That it's mostly - if not to say exclusively - an anthropological/sociological (read: human) concern, and in no way relevant to metaphysics. That's what ethics are for.

I would certainly echo that sentiment. A purely Pantheistic view would be that "nothing is evil until the mind makes it so," which is less of a personal view, and more of a personal "footnote" to that Pantheist's ethical views. So, if one were to receive such an answer from a Pantheist, the proper response (IMHO) would be "What in *your* mind makes it so?"

Regards,
-- Druweid

 

[Chesterton]

The thing is, when you hear the word "God", you immediately picture a being that is more or less like a man; if not in appearance, then at least in thought, feeling, motivation and deed. That is why I avoid the term.
---
Some Christians would argue the same - and then turn around and describe exactly what they think God wants, thinks and hates, as if the Supreme Reality was no more than a petty tyrant in the mold of ancient middle eastern kings.

The thing you think of as God – does it think, feel, want…? Does it act or purpose anything?

 

[Maranatha27]

Hi 20 questions here

What happens to a Pantheist when they die? Why do you believe this, where is your teaching derived from? As a pantheist, what happens to someone that lives a life contrary to what you consider "good"? Like for example Hitler whose ideology lead him down the path of the destruction of fellow humans. Is power centralized in a form of a "god" or is it only spread out equally? Is there a pecking order, I guess thats what im asking. The tsunami in Indonesia that killed a 1/4 million people, what is your take on that tradgedy from a pantheists veiwpoint? Origin of life, earth and stars?

Maranatha

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The thing you think of as God – does it think, feel, want…? Does it act or purpose anything?

"It" encompasses - and transcends - all thinking, feeling and wanting entities (along with all the rest). "It" is not a person, but "it" is not less than a person, either.
As for "acting" - I guess the first part of my answer covers that already; as long as space-time proceeds, "God" is acting, though on a vastly grander scale than most religions would think. Most religions are solely about Man, even when they claim to be all about God.
And no, I don't believe in the "supernatural" as it is commonly understood. I also think that such divine interventions are irreconcilable with monotheism: after all, an omnipotent, omniscient deity wouldn't be in need of making corrections - S/He would have a perfect plan right from the start, knowing - and planning - every turn of events.
Calvinists have an inkling of that - but then use it to portray that God as a monster.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

What happens to a Pantheist when they die?

The same that happens to everyone else: they die, and their components re-join the cycle, fertilizing the soil.
As for an afterlife: I don't believe that our personality survives death, or that we are "spirit pilots" temporarily controlling a mortal vessel. I'm not averse to the notion that there is some kind of immortality, per se, yet I see no reason whatsoever to assume that this resembles any of the common afterlife fantasies around.

Why do you believe this, where is your teaching derived from?

Most conceptions of the afterlife resemble childish wishful thinking, based on fear of death. I believe that the "I" cannot survive death because it doesn't even survive brain damage. Our memories, feelings, motivations, habits - they're all products of our neurochemistry, not some supernatural, static entity. With the brain gone, they're gone, too.

As a pantheist, what happens to someone that lives a life contrary to what you consider "good"? Like for example Hitler whose ideology lead him down the path of the destruction of fellow humans.

They live a horrible life, crippling their own psyche as their Jungian Shadow grows stronger and more twisted. The surest way to lose your own humanity is to deny it in another.
Do I believe in supernatural punishments? No, I consider them a rather silly notion. Ethics and morality are human concerns, not metaphysical forces.

Is power centralized in a form of a "god" or is it only spread out equally? Is there a pecking order, I guess thats what im asking.

Long story short: no. The only "pecking orders" are the ones we (or other species) create for ourselves.

The tsunami in Indonesia that killed a 1/4 million people, what is your take on that tradgedy from a pantheists veiwpoint?

A natural disaster totally unrelated to spirituality or metaphysics.

Origin of life, earth and stars?

A question of astrophysics, biology and the like as far as the "how" is concerned. I attach some meaning to all of these, of course, and consider them spiritually relevant - but all in all, they're still natural phenomena that I imbue with symbolic significance.

 

[Chesterton]

"It" encompasses - and transcends - all thinking, feeling and wanting entities (along with all the rest). "It" is not a person, but "it" is not less than a person, either.
As for "acting" - I guess the first part of my answer covers that already; as long as space-time proceeds, "God" is acting, though on a vastly grander scale than most religions would think. Most religions are solely about Man, even when they claim to be all about God.

This may sound smart-aleck, but I mean it earnestly - how did you come to know this? Some revelation, or through studying science and/or philosophy, or what? And is it a strongly-held belief of yours, or do you just think things might be this way?

S/He would have a perfect plan right from the start, knowing - and planning - every turn of events.

In that case would there be any reason to create?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

This may sound smart-aleck, but I mean it earnestly - how did you come to know this? Some revelation, or through studying science and/or philosophy, or what? And is it a strongly-held belief of yours, or do you just think things might be this way?

Well, it all started when I was sixteen years old, and thought that I was Ms. Know-it-all, even though I was just a typical angsty brat confusing lack of experience with an absence of the same.
I had one of those mystic experiences that seem to be a heritage of Mankind in general, as they occur within (and without) every culture and religion: people usually try to rationalize these according to the tenets of the religion they are familiar with, yet the similarities abound nevertheless.
With that experience, Christianity started to grow too small for me and - even more importantly - VASTLY too small to contain my experience of "God".
I've found common ground with Christian (and Non-Christian) mystics since then, and have studied the religions of the world with great interest, catching glimpses of what I've experienced in most of them, only to see them obfuscated and twisted by dogma and tradition.
I don't pretend to know it all, even less to understand it all - quite the contrary. I'm deeply suspicious of meta-narratives and abhor all kinds of absolutism. My own subjectivity is well-known to me, and I'm quite comfortable with it. In the end, it all boils down to "what makes sense to me" - new information can change what exactly that's supposed to be, and I consider that an advantage rather than a disadvantage: nothing obfuscates the truth as much as supposedly absolute "Truths" that must never be questioned, never be doubted.

In that case would there be any reason to create?

Sure, why not?

 

[Maranatha27]

The same that happens to everyone else: they die, and their components re-join the cycle, fertilizing the soil.
As for an afterlife: I don't believe that our personality survives death, or that we are "spirit pilots" temporarily controlling a mortal vessel. I'm not averse to the notion that there is some kind of immortality, per se, yet I see no reason whatsoever to assume that this resembles any of the common afterlife fantasies around.

Most conceptions of the afterlife resemble childish wishful thinking, based on fear of death. I believe that the "I" cannot survive death because it doesn't even survive brain damage. Our memories, feelings, motivations, habits - they're all products of our neurochemistry, not some supernatural, static entity. With the brain gone, they're gone, too.

They live a horrible life, crippling their own psyche as their Jungian Shadow grows stronger and more twisted. The surest way to lose your own humanity is to deny it in another.
Do I believe in supernatural punishments? No, I consider them a rather silly notion. Ethics and morality are human concerns, not metaphysical forces.

Long story short: no. The only "pecking orders" are the ones we (or other species) create for ourselves.

A natural disaster totally unrelated to spirituality or metaphysics.

A question of astrophysics, biology and the like as far as the "how" is concerned. I attach some meaning to all of these, of course, and consider them spiritually relevant - but all in all, they're still natural phenomena that I imbue with symbolic significance.

thanks for you answers

 

[Chesterton]

Origin of life, earth and stars?

A question of astrophysics, biology and the like as far as the "how" is concerned. I attach some meaning to all of these, of course, and consider them spiritually relevant -

How do you get meaning out of physical and chemical laws? Atheists say that "the way things are" and "the way things work" are simply that, and there's nothing more to it. Things simply are.

So I understand how and why a Christian perceives meaning, and I understand how an atheist perceives no meaning, but I don't understand how you perceive meaning when your view is more a-theist than theist.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

How do you get meaning out of physical and chemical laws? Atheists say that "the way things are" and "the way things work" are simply that, and there's nothing more to it. Things simply are.

So I understand how and why a Christian perceives meaning, and I understand how an atheist perceives no meaning, but I don't understand how you perceive meaning when your view is more a-theist than theist.

Man is not only a natural pattern detector, but also a pattern generator. We quite literally make sense, and while that certainly is quite subjective and personal, it is nowhere near random.
A sunrise might trigger different associations and emotional responses in the two of us, but chances are that they will at least share some element, based on our cultural heritage and the "universal" symbolism of the first rays of dawn.
I'd argue that the whole of the universe is significance, by virtue of existing - and that we both detect and create this significance by perceiving it and reflecting upon it.
Love is indeed "just a bunch of neurochemicals triggered by specific stimuli", but in the same vein, a painting is "just a bunch of colours slapped on a canvas".
By the way, I have a slight suspicion that you misunderstand the atheists. What they (and I) deny is some sort of "supernatural" meta-narrative that validates our existence by pointing to some personal deity and/or a cosmic conflict between the forces of Light and Darkness.
Nevertheless, atheists undoubtedly find meaning in life, even if they do not reason that it's all just a god-given test preparing them for a dual afterlife.