Is It Just Wordplay?

[Ouroboros]

Actually in this discussion let's call materialists; singualarists:

Singularists: Physical Alone exists
Dualists: God and the Physical exist
Non-Dualist: God and the Physical exist and are not-two.

By the way, I consider myself a non-dualist.

It means Brahman/God is the only reality. The physical is the props of His play/drama in which Brahman appears to separate Himself into finite forms and then returns Himself to One. At the end of the play, the props go away; all consciousness that appeared finite merged into the infinite. Time to write a new play.

The first time I heard Joseph Campbell tell the story about Brahman in the TV-show he did, I thought it was head on and so beautiful.

 

[Baladas]

I agree with everything, but the unselfishness. We need to help ourselves before we can help others.

I was thinking of selfishness as greed and egocentricity, not just taking care of yourself.
I definitely agree with the importance of caring for oneself.

 

[Ouroboros]

I was thinking of selfishness as greed and egocentricity, not just taking care of yourself.
I definitely agree with the importance of caring for oneself.

Also nature, animals, the world we live in. Not saying that we have to be vegans, but some general respect and care for our environment. Today, in America, we see politicians (who happens to be Christian) reject global climate change. That's not being caretakers as the Bible suggests. We should be concerned and do what we can to limit pollution, regardless if it's affecting the planet or not.

 

[George-ananda]

I agree with everything, but the unselfishness. We need to help ourselves before we can help others.

That would not be what is meant by selfishness. We must give proper attention to our own physical, emotional and spiritual needs before we can help others. I think selfishness means a lack of concern for others needs; not being unconcerned about our own legitimate needs.

 

[George-ananda]

sure those terms work and make sense to me.
where would a classic monist fall into that?

It depends if he thinks the singular is mind or matter

how do you see pantheism and panentheism

Panentheism would be more like the metaphysical type of pantheism of the two types of pantheism I talked about.

 

[Jumi]

I guess the cultural definition of selfishness is different here and has more assumption of self-sacrifice. But I think we are agreed here.

 

[Baladas]

Also nature, animals, the world we live in. Not saying that we have to be vegans, but some general respect and care for our environment. Today, in America, we see politicians (who happens to be Christian) reject global climate change. That's not being caretakers as the Bible suggests. We should be concerned and do what we can to limit pollution, regardless if it's affecting the planet or not.

Agreed. Humanity and Nature are also one, and it's about time more of us realized that.

 

[Ouroboros]

Agreed. Humanity and Nature are also one, and it's about time more of us realized that.

That's why my personal and very subjective view and belief is that pantheism (of any shape or form) is the superior religion. It inherently involves a level of respect and love for life and nature. In my opinion, but I could of course be wrong.

 

[Baladas]

That's why my personal and very subjective view and belief is that pantheism (of any shape or form) is the superior religion. It inherently involves a level of respect and love for life and nature. In my opinion, but I could of course be wrong.

I am certainly a pantheist of some sort or another. I tend to view it as more of a theological position than a religion. Although I know some have grouped together to form a society.

 

[Ouroboros]

I am certainly a pantheist of some sort or another. I tend to view it as more of a theological position than a religion. Although I know some have grouped together to form a society.

Sure. Perhaps the word "religion" is misused, but you get my point.

 

[Baladas]

Sure. Perhaps the word "religion" is misused, but you get my point.

Yeah, totally. Imagine a world where everyone (or at least the majority) recognized that we are part of Nature.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yeah, totally. Imagine a world where everyone (or at least the majority) recognized that we are part of Nature.

Exactly. How different politics, industry, education, and medicine would be.

 

[Baladas]

Exactly. How different politics, industry, education, and medicine would be.

We can dream, at least. That, and do what we can to make others aware.

 

[George-ananda]

By the way, I consider myself a non-dualist.

That implies there is a God. Now, is this God real (as something beyond matter) or a concept created by minds operating through neurons? In other words is this God compatible with materialism defined by Wikipedia as:

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are the result of material interactions.

 

[Ouroboros]

That implies there is a God.

No. Since in my case it would be just "wordplay". Or so I've been told.

I believe when the religious talk about God and ultimate reality and such, it's the same as what scientists are trying to figure out beyond our universe, like multiverse etc. For some pantheists, a multiverse would be the same as the universe, hence, pantheist is still universe, which is still multiverse, and such.

Now, is this God real (as something beyond matter) or a concept created by minds operating through neurons? In other words is this God compatible with materialism defined by Wikipedia as:

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are the result of material interactions.

Both.

I believe there's an eternal synergy of energy and consciousness and all things. But they're all ultimate within the same one thing of existence.

 

[Ouroboros]

Maybe I could say I believe in the co-operation between two (or more) opposing forces of reality that we can't understand, or maybe three, but they all are part of the same anyway. Just two sides of a spinning coin. One can't be without the other. Being two, yet one. Just like the yin-yang symbol, they both become one in motion.

Chaos can't create order. Order can't produce motion or change. Logos (logic, laws of nature, nature of God) is what brings order out of chaos. It's all brought together, like a trinity. Entropy changes in the direction of arrow of time, following laws of the universe that brings it all from one state to another.

--edit

I also believe that this constant division into either consciousness or material is a dichotomy we're creating in our language. It doesn't really exist. We're by the means of scientific view and our structured language dissecting and reducing the things of reality into components, when in reality, in my view, it's a holistic matter. It's not the one or the two or this one or that one, but all ones.

 

[Ella S.]

I am an atheist in the sense that I hold the positive belief that classical theism, monotheism, and polytheism are false.

Pantheism to me is not about the word "God." Personally, I don't even use the word "God" that frequently. I will sometimes use "Zeus," "Deus," or "Jupiter" because they were used by the ancient Stoics in the context of classical pantheism and I consider myself to be a Stoic. I might use "God" when trying to find common rapport with people from other religions, but I usually consider the word to be misleading.

Pantheism describes two important positions that "strong/gnostic atheism" does not cover. Firstly, pantheism implies monism, and I am a monist because I am a metaphysical naturalist. Secondly, it describes my reverence for nature, but with a connotation that is different from "nature worship."

Not all atheists are metaphysical naturalists and not all revere nature. Atheism tells you what I don't believe in, which has only a very narrow use. Pantheism tells you what I do believe and what is important to me, namely that I am a monist and revere the universe.

In particular, I revere knowledge about the universe and its logical order. Through this veneration, I try to cultivate Amor Fati by loving logic as a means for approximating truth, whatever that truth might be.

Pantheism pre-dates the modern atheist movement, being associated with Spinoza who was inspired by Stoicism. The Stoics were materialists, too, yet their religious devotion to Deus is extremely important for understanding the whole of their philosophy. I'm not going to let go of the label just because some people don't understand its history or meaning.

In fact, I would say that I'm an atheist because I'm a pantheist.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Pantheism to me is not about the word "God."

I agree. But I understand the question "Why call it God?"

It's not coming out of nowhere. Theism is baked right into the word "Pantheism."

Pantheism pre-dates the modern atheist movement, being associated with Spinoza

I think it helps to understand that Spinoza not only denies that humans have free will, he also excludes God from the list of beings who might have free will. God does what he does only because of prior states and events. Spinoza thinks that the only reason God is assumed to have free will is because humans (erroneously) have the same misconception about themselves. To Spinoza, the problem isn't that God needs to have free will in order to be God. The problem is that humans constantly project their own traits (real or imagined) onto God.


warning: long passage from The Ethics.

Spoiler

Herefrom it follows, first, that men think themselves free inasmuch as they are conscious of their volitions and desires, and never even dream, in their ignorance, of the causes which have disposed them so to wish and desire. Secondly, that men do all things for an end, namely, for that which is useful to them, and which they seek. Thus it comes to pass that they only look for a knowledge of the final causes of events, and when these are learned, they are content, as having no cause for further doubt. If they cannot learn such causes from external sources, they are compelled to turn to considering themselves, and reflecting what end would have induced them personally to bring about the given event, and thus they necessarily judge other natures by their own. Further, as they find in themselves and outside themselves many means which assist them not a little in the search for what is useful, for instance, eyes for seeing, teeth for chewing, herbs and animals for yielding food, the sun for giving light, the sea for breeding fish, &c., they come to look on the whole of nature as a means for obtaining such conveniences. Now as they are aware, that they found these conveniences and did not make them, they think they have cause for believing, that some other being has made them for their use. As they look upon things as means, they cannot believe them to be self—created; but, judging from the means which they are accustomed to prepare for themselves, they are bound to believe in some ruler or rulers of the universe endowed with human freedom, who have arranged and adapted everything for human use. They are bound to estimate the nature of such rulers (having no information on the subject) in accordance with their own nature, and therefore they assert that the gods ordained everything for the use of man, in order to bind man to themselves and obtain from him the highest honor. Hence also it follows, that everyone thought out for himself, according to his abilities, a different way of worshipping God, so that God might love him more than his fellows, and direct the whole course of nature for the satisfaction of his blind cupidity and insatiable avarice. Thus the prejudice developed into superstition, and took deep root in the human mind; and for this reason everyone strove most zealously to understand and explain the final causes of things; but in their endeavor to show that nature does nothing in vain, i.e. nothing which is useless to man, they only seem to have demonstrated that nature, the gods, and men are all mad together

 

[Ella S.]

I agree. But I understand the question "Why call it God?"

It's not coming out of nowhere. Theism is baked right into the word "Pantheism."



I think it helps to understand that Spinoza not only denies that humans have free will, he also excludes God from the list of beings who might have free will. God does what he does only because of prior states and events. Spinoza thinks that the only reason God is assumed to have free will is because humans (erroneously) have the same misconception about themselves. To Spinoza, the problem isn't that God needs to have free will in order to be God. The problem is that humans constantly project their own traits (real or imagined) onto God.


warning: long passage from The Ethics.

Spoiler

Herefrom it follows, first, that men think themselves free inasmuch as they are conscious of their volitions and desires, and never even dream, in their ignorance, of the causes which have disposed them so to wish and desire. Secondly, that men do all things for an end, namely, for that which is useful to them, and which they seek. Thus it comes to pass that they only look for a knowledge of the final causes of events, and when these are learned, they are content, as having no cause for further doubt. If they cannot learn such causes from external sources, they are compelled to turn to considering themselves, and reflecting what end would have induced them personally to bring about the given event, and thus they necessarily judge other natures by their own. Further, as they find in themselves and outside themselves many means which assist them not a little in the search for what is useful, for instance, eyes for seeing, teeth for chewing, herbs and animals for yielding food, the sun for giving light, the sea for breeding fish, &c., they come to look on the whole of nature as a means for obtaining such conveniences. Now as they are aware, that they found these conveniences and did not make them, they think they have cause for believing, that some other being has made them for their use. As they look upon things as means, they cannot believe them to be self—created; but, judging from the means which they are accustomed to prepare for themselves, they are bound to believe in some ruler or rulers of the universe endowed with human freedom, who have arranged and adapted everything for human use. They are bound to estimate the nature of such rulers (having no information on the subject) in accordance with their own nature, and therefore they assert that the gods ordained everything for the use of man, in order to bind man to themselves and obtain from him the highest honor. Hence also it follows, that everyone thought out for himself, according to his abilities, a different way of worshipping God, so that God might love him more than his fellows, and direct the whole course of nature for the satisfaction of his blind cupidity and insatiable avarice. Thus the prejudice developed into superstition, and took deep root in the human mind; and for this reason everyone strove most zealously to understand and explain the final causes of things; but in their endeavor to show that nature does nothing in vain, i.e. nothing which is useless to man, they only seem to have demonstrated that nature, the gods, and men are all mad together

I always cynically assumed that pantheism was couched in theistic language mostly because it grew out of theistic backgrounds. The Stoics were in a culture saturated with the Hellenic gods, like Jupiter and Zeus, while Spinoza was in a culture saturated with the Abrahamic celestials, like Jehovah.

Likewise, Hindu naturalists often continue to refer to Shiva, Vishnu, Shakti, Brahman, etc.

In all of these cases, the gods are either identified with or considered immanent within a variety of natural forces. Even if you're a strict materialist, you're still going to believe in, say, death. Yeah, death was personified as a god under names like Thanatos, Mors, and Mot, so there wasn't really a strict division between the "supernatural" and the "natural" back then like there is now.

Personally, I'd argue that this is a clear sign that many of these older religions were developing out of animism. Animism slowly began to attribute souls/minds to more abstract forces. We see some evidence for this with how the hypothesized Proto-Indo-European religion likely had an earth goddess who would later become associated with death due to the fact that we were burying the dead in the ground. That's a great example of how more concrete animism turns to abstract polytheism.

Monotheism grew out of polytheism as the gods were consolidated and partially due to the social climate of Mesopotamia, where it was common to rewrite the myths of conquered nations by placing your own god in them. Gods like Yahweh and Elohim who acted as tutelary deities for Judah and Israel respectively came to the forefront of importance within their cultures because of that, until they absorbed the duties of every other deity and became identified with the universe itself in a sort of cascading, generational game of telephone building off of a series of tall tales in the attempt to compete with other local gods.

It's not so weird to use the word "God" to refer to the activity of the universe, then, because that's already how the apparent "agency" of the universe's activity was described, even if said God has no free will, is impersonal, and is unaware. This just isn't what the word has come to refer to, given the heavy influence Neoplatonism has had on Abrahamic theology, making "God" suddenly have the connotations of classical theism or at the very least Deism to the majority of people.

I think "God" was the appropriate term in those cultural contexts. I'm just not convinced it's appropriate today, although in a world where there's a bit more freedom for religious diversity I don't think it's inappropriate, either. I just think it carries a different connotation now.

ETA: Although this is probably just my experience, living in areas of America saturated with Biblical fundamentalists, and is quite particular to the culture I exist in

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I agree. But I understand the question "Why call it God?"

It's not coming out of nowhere. Theism is baked right into the word "Pantheism."

I call it "God" because of the cultural significance of the word and how it connects to mythology that I can draw inspiration from. It's about the poetry in the ritual rather than the metaphysics in the philosophy.