Non-sentient pantheism?

[George-ananda]

I consider the universe to be divine and worthy of reverence, but do not think it is sentient by any means.

So could this be considered pantheism?

Per Wikipedia: Pantheism is the belief that the Universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity,[1] or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god

So yes, I consider your belief pantheism.

I think there seems to be two distinct types of pantheism though. One that considers consciousness to be a product of the physical (which I believe is your position). Richard Dawkins has called this sexed-up atheism and I think that is a good way to put it.

The second type of pantheism (which I ascribe to) holds that consciousness (sentience) is primary and that the material universe is a production of consciousness.

 

[Windwalker]

I think there seems to be two distinct types of pantheism though. One that considers consciousness to be a product of the physical (which I believe is your position). Richard Dawkins has called this sexed-up atheism and I think that is a good way to put it.

I actually wonder if that is a legitimate view of Pantheism, or just some modern thing born out of modern philosophical materialism, that everything can be reduced to atoms and quarks and whatnot. Is this imaginary "Sexed up Atheism" idea of Richard Dawkins actually accurate, or what he fumbles and bumbles about trying to understand in the world of religion which is tantamount to a discussion of religion by the "religion expert" in a high school parking lot? Why even call it divine at all then? Why is it a "theism" of any sort? Why not just call it "panmaterialism", which is more accurate?

 

[George-ananda]

I actually wonder if that is a legitimate view of Pantheism, or just some modern thing born out of modern philosophical materialism, that everything can be reduced to atoms and quarks and whatnot. Is this imaginary "Sexed up Atheism" idea of Richard Dawkins actually accurate, or what he fumbles and bumbles about trying to understand in the world of religion which is beyond his areas of knowledge? Why even call it divine at all then? Why is it a "theism" of any sort? Why not just call it "panmaterialism", which is more accurate?

Actually, Dawkins dislikes atheists calling themselves 'pantheist'. He is saying they should just use the term 'atheist'.

I am on-board with your criticism of the term 'pantheism' by modern materialists. They are taking the words 'theism' and 'divine' to try to sound similar to other schools of thought that they are obviously opposed to. To me, the materialist-pantheists all fall under the umbrella term 'materialist' (which just implies atheism).

 

[Windwalker]

Actually, Dawkins dislikes atheists calling themselves 'pantheist'. He is saying they should just use the term 'atheist'.

I am on-board with your criticism of the term 'pantheism' by modern materialists. They are taking the words 'theism' and 'divine' to try to sound similar to other schools of thought that they are obviously opposed to. To me, the materialist-pantheists all fall under the umbrella term 'materialist' (which just implies atheism).

I think there may be so confusion going on of what to call oneself these days, in that with great respect those who identify as atheist and yet are confronted by this sense of the ineffable in nature itself, struggle with what to call themselves. I made a comment in another thread about the "spiritual atheist", which was met with confusion, "How is that possible? Isn't that a contradiction?" To me that leaves those who do not accept the mainline traditional views of a theistic God, which is blatantly anthropomorphic, with no real home for these feelings of transcendence which can be comfortably held in an otherwise rationalistic worldview, without feelings of hypocrisy, holding double-standards. So "sexed up atheism" is safe where you're committed at all costs to not say "God". The "non-sentient pantheism", seems to me to be an attempt to say the same thing.

It seems an almost "politically correct", apologetic version of pantheism in order to not alienate oneself from the neo-atheist point of view of philosophical reductionism, positivism, and atomism. If modern atheism can conformably find a home for the spiritual, and find some sort of language that actually expresses the sense of the ineffable, then more power to them. Personally, I think it's going to take another approach than trying to create a "dumbed down" pantheism.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If modern atheism can conformably find a home for the spiritual, and find some sort of language that actually expresses the sense of the ineffable, then more power to them. Personally, I think it's going to take another approach than trying to create a "dumbed down" pantheism.

I tend to agree, and I still find "naturalistic pantheism" a little contradictory.

"Transcendent naturalism" perhaps?

 

[George-ananda]

I think there may be so confusion going on of what to call oneself these days, in that with great respect those who identify as atheist and yet are confronted by this sense of the ineffable in nature itself, struggle with what to call themselves. I made a comment in another thread about the "spiritual atheist", which was met with confusion, "How is that possible? Isn't that a contradiction?" To me that leaves those who do not accept the mainline traditional views of a theistic God, which is blatantly anthropomorphic, with no real home for these feelings of transcendence which can be comfortably held in an otherwise rationalistic worldview, without feelings of hypocrisy, holding double-standards. So "sexed up atheism" is safe where you're committed at all costs to not say "God". The "non-sentient pantheism", seems to me to be an attempt to say the same thing.

It seems an almost "politically correct", apologetic version of pantheism in order to not alienate oneself from the neo-atheist point of view of philosophical reductionism, positivism, and atomism. If modern atheism can conformably find a home for the spiritual, and find some sort of language that actually expresses the sense of the ineffable, then more power to them. Personally, I think it's going to take another approach than trying to create a "dumbed down" pantheism.

Yes, I think a lot of this comes down to which of the two schools of thought one ascribes to: materialism (consciousness is a product of matter) or 'more than materialism' (i.e. consciousness is not the product of matter). In my way of viewing these discussion of terms all these terms are just subgroups under one of these two schools.

 

[George-ananda]

I tend to agree, and I still find "naturalistic pantheism" a little contradictory.

"Transcendent naturalism" perhaps?

I feel all these terms are subgroups under the umbrella school 'atheistic materialism'. I think these terms are what Dawkins calls 'sexed-up atheism'.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yes, I think a lot of this comes down to which of the two schools of thought one ascribes to: materialism (consciousness is a product of matter) or 'more than materialism' (i.e. consciousness is not the product of matter). In my way of viewing these discussion of terms all these terms are just subgroups under one of these two schools.

I think actually there are 3 possibilities here:
1. Consciousness is a product of matter;
2. Consciousness and matter exist independently;
3. Matter is a product of consciousness.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I feel all these terms are subgroups under the umbrella school 'atheistic materialism'. I think these terms are what Dawkins calls 'sexed-up atheism'.

I'm uncomfortable with the assumed conflation of atheist and materialist. Remember that atheist just means disbelief in God, so not all atheists are materialists.

 

[Ouroboros]

I think actually there are 3 possibilities here:
1. Consciousness is a product of matter;
2. Consciousness and matter exist independently;
3. Matter is a product of consciousness.

4. Conscious and matter co-exist co-dependently.

 

[George-ananda]

I think actually there are 3 possibilities here:
1. Consciousness is a product of matter;
2. Consciousness and matter exist independently;
3. Matter is a product of consciousness.

I would tend to keep '2,' and '3' together in that consciousness does not come from matter.

 

[George-ananda]

I'm uncomfortable with the assumed conflation of atheist and materialist. Remember that atheist just means disbelief in God, so not all atheists are materialists.

But I would say all those terms you were proposing would be classified as both atheist and materialist.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

4. Conscious and matter co-exist co-dependently.

Yes, I forgot that one!

 

[Ouroboros]

I think there may be so confusion going on of what to call oneself these days, in that with great respect those who identify as atheist and yet are confronted by this sense of the ineffable in nature itself, struggle with what to call themselves.

Agree. I still don't know what label I can use to describe myself. I'm not a pure atheist. If naturalistic pantheism is a misnomer and a false identifier, then I can't be that either. So I'm out of options. I can't say I'm a Spinoza-ist since I'm not quite 100% sure I know what exactly he believed, even though he's probably the closest. I'm also a favorite of Heraclitus pantheism, but from a metaphorical standpoint. Hence, I rather call myself a fool of reality now. Whichever way I turn, there's always some roadblock not making it possible to make my own views fit.

I made a comment in another thread about the "spiritual atheist", which was met with confusion, "How is that possible? Isn't that a contradiction?" To me that leaves those who do not accept the mainline traditional views of a theistic God, which is blatantly anthropomorphic, with no real home for these feelings of transcendence which can be comfortably held in an otherwise rationalistic worldview, without feelings of hypocrisy, holding double-standards. So "sexed up atheism" is safe where you're committed at all costs to not say "God". The "non-sentient pantheism", seems to me to be an attempt to say the same thing.

And? Do you think it's wrong to find a label or create a label that perhaps fits better than the old ones? Are we forced to only accept the labels as they were 100 years ago and not create new ones to help us find something that perhaps describe what we are? Atheism doesn't fit me anymore. Pantheism is the closest I have. But I don't believe the universe is a person, being that talks and thinks and answer my prayers, so ... I'm out of options if naturalistic pantheism has to be scratched.

It seems an almost "politically correct", apologetic version of pantheism in order to not alienate oneself from the neo-atheist point of view of philosophical reductionism, positivism, and atomism. If modern atheism can conformably find a home for the spiritual, and find some sort of language that actually expresses the sense of the ineffable, then more power to them. Personally, I think it's going to take another approach than trying to create a "dumbed down" pantheism.

Sorry, but that hurts. I don't consider naturalistic pantheism to be a "dumbed down" version at all.

I guess I can't call myself a pantheist at all then.

 

[Ouroboros]

I tend to agree, and I still find "naturalistic pantheism" a little contradictory.

"Transcendent naturalism" perhaps?

It is just as contradictory as naturalistic pantheism. How can nature transcend nature? The term that has to be used for those who has this belief will be contradictory in nature. It can't be avoided.

 

[Ouroboros]

I actually wonder if that is a legitimate view of Pantheism, or just some modern thing born out of modern philosophical materialism, that everything can be reduced to atoms and quarks and whatnot.

How would you label the Stoics, Toland, Spinoza, or Haeckel? Pantheists only? But they didn't consider their pantheism to be metaphysical as the "pure" pantheism would, or does it not?

Perhaps non-metaphysical pantheism would be better? Doesn't feel right either.

Maybe you're just proposing that pantheism as a term can stand on its own and that the "naturalistic" prefix is unnecessary? All pantheists are de-facto naturalistic and non-metaphysical?

Is this imaginary "Sexed up Atheism" idea of Richard Dawkins actually accurate, or what he fumbles and bumbles about trying to understand in the world of religion which is tantamount to a discussion of religion by the "religion expert" in a high school parking lot? Why even call it divine at all then? Why is it a "theism" of any sort? Why not just call it "panmaterialism", which is more accurate?

I was told it's just a word game when I tried to defend the naturalistic pantheistic view in the past. I guess that's what it just is. A game of words.

Truth be told, "naturalistic" prefix doesn't fit my views either. It seems like I just can't find a label that fits. At times, I'm not even sure exactly what it is that I believe. The complexity of how the world works is beyond even comprehension or the possibility of fitting it in into any descriptive term. Perhaps "complexitism" is the word for the future. Removing all relationships with "theism" of any sort.

---edit

Dang. No, complexitism apparently is a term. It has something to do with economics, I think.

 

[Windwalker]

Agree. I still don't know what label I can use to describe myself. I'm not a pure atheist. If naturalistic pantheism is a misnomer and a false identifier, then I can't be that either. So I'm out of options. I can't say I'm a Spinoza-ist since I'm not quite 100% sure I know what exactly he believed, even though he's probably the closest. I'm also a favorite of Heraclitus pantheism, but from a metaphorical standpoint. Hence, I rather call myself a fool of reality now. Whichever way I turn, there's always some roadblock not making it possible to make my own views fit.

I think this is the problem we run into in trying to fit the new wine of evolving views into the old wineskins of the past. There was a point I was trying to make in pointing out this dilemma I'll touch on here. I consider it a very good sign that we can't fit them into neat categories.

And? Do you think it's wrong to find a label or create a label that perhaps fits better than the old ones? Are we forced to only accept the labels as they were 100 years ago and not create new ones to help us find something that perhaps describe what we are? Atheism doesn't fit me anymore. Pantheism is the closest I have. But I don't believe the universe is a person, being that talks and thinks and answer my prayers, so ... I'm out of options if naturalistic pantheism has to be scratched.

Whatever labels I apply to myself tend to be really fluid. It all depends on which of many multiple-perspectives I am approaching the question with at the moment. I'm an atheist, a pantheist, a panentheist, a theist, a mystic, a rationalist, etc. The problem is in assuming we have to hold one point of view on what really demands many. I see truths in all of them.

As you know many years ago I was on this Holy Grail quest to find a way to reconcile faith and reason. I did in fact find that "grail", but it wasn't in reconciling them, but in transcending them into something else. I sometimes like to refer to myself as a transtheist, transatheist, transrationalist, etc. It's taking a certain metaview of the both of those as part of the whole. Those questions are not a matter of "either-or", but "both-and".

Sorry, but that hurts. I don't consider naturalistic pantheism to be a "dumbed down" version at all.

I don't think I said naturalism is dumbed down pantheism. I was objecting to the removal of the mystical, the mystery that "theism" in pantheism points to by saying in essence the God in pantheism is nothing more that the machine of a mechanical universe. I say that's "dumbing down" because it reduces Mystery in a "quantifiable thing", a collection of objects that removes the subject. I don't thnk you think that way yourself.

I guess I can't call myself a pantheist at all then.

I don't think pantheism speaks of God as a "person", a "being that talks and thinks and answer my prayers". I don't think any traditional pantheist believes that!

Personally, I think the struggle is how to redefine God from traditional theism, the "guy in the sky" image of the Divine. Myself, I certainly accept the Divine is the Ground of all that is, including the atom, the molecule, the cell, the body, the person, all manifest creation. But that does not translate into a non-divine sum-total of all matter. Not at all. The immanent nature of the divine, is connected to in the subject of our own being, and the reason we do connect is because that divine is the nature of our own selves!

The materialist version of pantheism seems to remove the subject and turn it into a scientific statement about the nature of reality, namely it's all one "substance". It turns it into an objective "it", and excludes the "I". To me, pantheism is about a subjective connection with the divine in the world, through the divine in ourselves. It connects what is within with what is without, and what is without with what is within. This is very different than "sexed-up atheism". It's not atheism at all, actually. It's a type of theism, specifically related in how one relates to to the Divine Ground as experience immanently within the world, versus "up there" or outside of themselves.

I hope the last part clarifies my thoughts about it better. At least it does to me. For me personally, as I said above about holding multiple-perspectives, I see value and legitimacy, not only in pantheism as I described it, but in theism as well. So I find panentheism a paradoxical "both-and" way to speak of both in the same breath, both the presence of the divine in all manifest creation, and transcending creation itself. It is both the Ground and the Goal of all creation. In this way it encompases an evolutionary dynamism for me. It's really a matter of which way I want to turn in the manner in which I relate my subjective self to the divine, both as transcendent, and as immanent. These are interesting topics.

 

[George-ananda]

4. Conscious and matter co-exist co-dependently.

But it's not clear what this is saying. How is this different than the emergent consciousness view. Was there any consciousness then before the first brain formed?

 

[Ouroboros]

I think this is the problem we run into in trying to fit the new wine of evolving views into the old wineskins of the past. There was a point I was trying to make in pointing out this dilemma I'll touch on here. I consider it a very good sign that we can't fit them into neat categories.

Sure.

Whatever labels I apply to myself tend to be really fluid. It all depends on which of many multiple-perspectives I am approaching the question with at the moment. I'm an atheist, a pantheist, a panentheist, a theist, a mystic, a rationalist, etc. The problem is in assuming we have to hold one point of view on what really demands many. I see truths in all of them.

Same here.

As you know many years ago I was on this Holy Grail quest to find a way to reconcile faith and reason. I did in fact find that "grail", but it wasn't in reconciling them, but in transcending them into something else. I sometimes like to refer to myself as a transtheist, transatheist, transrationalist, etc. It's taking a certain metaview of the both of those as part of the whole. Those questions are not a matter of "either-or", but "both-and".

Agree.

I don't think I said naturalism is dumbed down pantheism.

What you said, or what it sounded like was that "naturalistic pantheism" is a dumbed down pantheism. Well, Spinoza, Stoics, etc are labelled as "naturalistic pantheists" by many scholars and philosophers, so I don't think that's an accurate way of describing it. Perhaps the label is bad, but what other label would they fall under?

I was objecting to the removal of the mystical, the mystery that "theism" in pantheism points to by saying in essence the God in pantheism is nothing more that the machine of a mechanical universe. I say that's "dumbing down" because it reduces Mystery in a "quantifiable thing", a collection of objects that removes the subject. I don't thnk you think that way yourself.

Well, I agree on the issue of removing the mystical. That's why I think naturalistic pantheism as a term kind'a works because it does have the pantheistic part in it. There's no single-term theism/non-theism label yet that really fits. Being a naturalist, with spiritual inclinations, it will have a term that joins two opposite ideas of the world. The non-physical with the physical. So it's a non-physicalistic physicalism. Or physicalistic non-physicalism. It is by its own nature contradictory simply because our minds are prisoners in the categorical thinking where we try to fit things into neat boxes. The world isn't that way, and we can't make sense out of it, and the labels we give it, will be constraining and contradictory.

I don't think pantheism speaks of God as a "person", a "being that talks and thinks and answer my prayers". I don't think any traditional pantheist believes that!

I'm not sure about that. There are many different forms of pantheism, from what I understand when I studied it a while ago.

Personally, I think the struggle is how to redefine God from traditional theism, the "guy in the sky" image of the Divine. Myself, I certainly accept the Divine is the Ground of all that is, including the atom, the molecule, the cell, the body, the person, all manifest creation. But that does not translate into a non-divine sum-total of all matter. Not at all. The immanent nature of the divine, is connected to in the subject of our own being, and the reason we do connect is because that divine is the nature of our own selves!

Personally, I have a "holistic" view of it where God emerges as the synergetic effect of all things physical or natural. And, just as any complex system like economics, ecology, or mind, the emerging properties affects the actual system in a feed-back, so the divine emerge from the physical, the physical is affected by the divine. It's an everlasting dance of in and out, past and future, here and there, all the opposites in a fight for balance (yin/yang).

The materialist version of pantheism seems to remove the subject and turn it into a scientific statement about the nature of reality, namely it's all one "substance". It turns it into an objective "it", and excludes the "I". To me, pantheism is about a subjective connection with the divine in the world, through the divine in ourselves. It connects what is within with what is without, and what is without with what is within. This is very different than "sexed-up atheism". It's not atheism at all, actually. It's a type of theism, specifically related in how one relates to to the Divine Ground as experience immanently within the world, versus "up there" or outside of themselves.

It think it's called physicalism or materialism rather than naturalistic. Naturalistic doesn't mean materialistic. To me, naturalistic means an inclusion of things that are not just physical. Like energy, thoughts, etc are all part of the natural, but yet not physical.

I hope the last part clarifies my thoughts about it better. At least it does to me. For me personally, as I said above about holding multiple-perspectives, I see value and legitimacy, not only in pantheism as I described it, but in theism as well. So I find panentheism a paradoxical "both-and" way to speak of both in the same breath, both the presence of the divine in all manifest creation, and transcending creation itself. It is both the Ground and the Goal of all creation. In this way it encompases an evolutionary dynamism for me. It's really a matter of which way I want to turn in the manner in which I relate my subjective self to the divine, both as transcendent, and as immanent. These are interesting topics.

I think it comes from that we have different views of what the "naturalistic" part means. To me, it's more than physicalism. Nature to me is all things natural, and if there by chance is a God out there somewhere in the 12th dimension, then that God would also be natural in the whole Nature of things. Mind, consciousness, light, dark matter, time, are all natural to me, even spirituality is natural. I don't separate the physical from the non-physical (or conceptual, emergence, etc) when I say natural. So naturalistic pantheism to me doesn't downplay what pantheism is, it only makes it a little bit more clear to the view, as opposed to dualistic or metaphysical pantheism.

Maybe I just have misunderstood the idea of naturalistic pantheism over the years. Perhaps naturalistic pantheism is nothing by physicalism, and I just didn't know. If that's the case, then I understand your view. But I still wonder what label would be given to Spinoza, Stoics, et al, and why philosophers and scholars have used those terms for years?

 

[Ouroboros]

But it's not clear what this is saying. How is this different than the emergent consciousness view. Was there any consciousness then before the first brain formed?

Which side of the coin existed first?