Pantheism vs. Atheism (Others are welcome)

[Straw Dog]

Granted we have more in common then we differ I think there's more to naturalistic pantheism than just "sexed-up atheism". Perhaps atheism is just "prudish pantheism" .

My particular take on it is as follows: I believe that the Universe is God and it is personal and intelligent, albeit not yet on a cosmic scale or in a metaphysical sense. Earth's life, including human beings, have evolved out of the natural processes of the Universe. Some life forms, especially human beings, possess the attributes of intelligence and personality, ergo by extension the Universe possesses the attributes of intelligence and personality. We are essentially the Universe becoming self-aware. Hopefully within time we can foster this process of cosmic consciousness, perhaps with the help of advanced artificial intelligence or biotechnology etc, to live in perfect harmony with cosmic systems. It is this deep sense of naturalistic spirituality, reverence, and awe that is more useful in solving our social and environmental problems than simply debunking more traditional outdated gods.

I realize this is a very nontraditional conception of God, but I feel I have to right to use it since "god" has always meant different things to different people at different times in different cultures. It has even taken on more diverse meanings in our individualistic Western culture so the argument against pantheism from semantics is rather weak I think.

So anyone care to argue that the Universe doesn't exist or that we are NOT extensions of it? Or anything else not from an atheistic viewpoint?

 

[Straw Dog]

I would have put this in the pantheism threads but nobody really looks there so... here it is.

 

[waitasec]

would natures indifference be an attribute you would include in your idea of a personal and intelligent god...?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

If we all are God, everything is, doesn't that mean none of us are God?

 

[Straw Dog]

If we all are God, everything is, doesn't that mean none of us are God?

I didn't say that we are all God. We only constitute a small fraction of the Universe's personality and intelligence. Other intelligent extraterrestrials would constitute another fraction, although potentially greater than our own.

 

[Straw Dog]

would natures indifference be an attribute you would include in your idea of a personal and intelligent god...?

Yes. Much of nature is indifferent towards life. Advanced biological nature tends to care about things though. Why should the Universe be limited to one or the other? It is both and neither. Shouldn't a proper God be transcendent?

 

[waitasec]

Yes. Much of nature is indifferent towards life. Advanced biological nature tends to care about things though. Why should the Universe be limited to one or the other? It is both and neither. Shouldn't a proper God be transcendent?

but i don't see how a transcendent god can be personal
can you elaborate what you mean by a personal god?

 

[Copernicus]

Can you explain why you think the universe needs to be intelligent or have a personality? I can certainly think of reasons why people need to think and relate to each other, but why would the universe be that way? Towards what end would it use its intelligence?

 

[Straw Dog]

but i don't see how a transcendent god can be personal
can you elaborate what you mean by a personal god?

Try to keep in mind that when I say God I mean the same exact thing as the Universe and vice versa. So the personality attribute of the Universe did not come into being until life forms with personalities evolved into existence. Until then it was neither indifferent nor loving, etc. because there were no life forms to pass that judgment upon it to begin with. It simply was. Since intelligence life forms have come along they've started expressing love, hate, anger, compassion, happiness etc. towards each other, other life, and even onto inanimate forms hence giving the Universe the characteristic of intelligence and personality. These traits don't just belong to us, they principally belong to the cosmic system that brought us into being and sustain our existence. "Detachment from nature" is the illusion.

 

[Straw Dog]

Can you explain why you think the universe needs to be intelligent or have a personality? I can certainly think of reasons why people need to think and relate to each other, but why would the universe be that way? Towards what end would it use its intelligence?

It doesn't need intelligence and personality, it simply possesses those characteristics by extension. Like I said, the Universe does not possess full consciousness yet and it may never reach that state, but it's possible that human beings or other life forms could evolve to reach such a state of cosmic consciousness. By that I mean having full knowledge and power over the laws of physics and the unity of all sciences.

Having said all that, it can be hypothesized that "intelligence" is useful for the Universe in bringing about a greater degree of entropy over the long term. What purpose entropy ultimately serves? We don't yet know.

 

[Copernicus]

Consciousness is something that evolved in moving lifeforms because they needed to protect their bodies in order to survive. Self-awareness plays a key role in self-preservation. Intelligence evolved because it allowed bodies with brains to more successfully avoid danger, find food, procreate, etc. There is no reason to believe that intelligence or consciousness would extend beyond the lifeforms that have it. What insight does it give us to make the claim that the entire universe is intelligent? Is it supposed to do anything with that intelligence?

Entropy is a tendency toward disorder or randomness. Why would do you think an intelligent universe would want a greater degree of that?

 

[waitasec]

Try to keep in mind that when I say God I mean the same exact thing as the Universe and vice versa. So the personality attribute of the Universe did not come into being until life forms with personalities evolved into existence. Until then it was neither indifferent nor loving, etc. because there were no life forms to pass that judgment upon it to begin with. It simply was. Since intelligence life forms have come along they've started expressing love, hate, anger, compassion, happiness etc. towards each other, other life, and even onto inanimate forms hence giving the Universe the characteristic of intelligence and personality.

i do not see intent, and from what i think you are saying is you don't either, the universe has these attributes because sentient beings evolved...

These traits don't just belong to us, they principally belong to the cosmic system that brought us into being and sustain our existence. "Detachment from nature" is the illusion.

but you lost me here...
i do not think we are detached from nature, but these traits

love, hate, anger, compassion, happiness etc. towards each other, other life, and even onto inanimate forms

are to sustain our existence can also cause our demise

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Granted we have more in common then we differ I think there's more to naturalistic pantheism than just "sexed-up atheism". Perhaps atheism is just "prudish pantheism" .

My particular take on it is as follows: I believe that the Universe is God and it is personal and intelligent, albeit not yet on a cosmic scale or in a metaphysical sense. Earth's life, including human beings, have evolved out of the natural processes of the Universe. Some life forms, especially human beings, possess the attributes of intelligence and personality, ergo by extension the Universe possesses the attributes of intelligence and personality. We are essentially the Universe becoming self-aware. Hopefully within time we can foster this process of cosmic consciousness, perhaps with the help of advanced artificial intelligence or biotechnology etc, to live in perfect harmony with cosmic systems. It is this deep sense of naturalistic spirituality, reverence, and awe that is more useful in solving our social and environmental problems than simply debunking more traditional outdated gods.

I realize this is a very nontraditional conception of God, but I feel I have to right to use it since "god" has always meant different things to different people at different times in different cultures. It has even taken on more diverse meanings in our individualistic Western culture so the argument against pantheism from semantics is rather weak I think.

So anyone care to argue that the Universe doesn't exist or that we are NOT extensions of it? Or anything else not from an atheistic viewpoint?

We are NOT extensions of the universe. Why do you need the universe to be god? what about universe makes it worth worship to you, and not just merely wonder at its beauty?

 

[Straw Dog]

Consciousness is something that evolved in moving lifeforms because they needed to protect their bodies in order to survive. Self-awareness plays a key role in self-preservation. Intelligence evolved because it allowed bodies with brains to more successfully avoid danger, find food, procreate, etc. There is no reason to believe that intelligence or consciousness would extend beyond the lifeforms that have it. What insight does it give us to make the claim that the entire universe is intelligent? Is it supposed to do anything with that intelligence?

Entropy is a tendency toward disorder or randomness. Why would do you think an intelligent universe would want a greater degree of that?

Again, you're not paying attention. I didn't say the entire Universe was intelligent. We are intelligent and we are a part of the Universe, extensions of it, we would not exist without the rest of the cosmic system. Advanced life forms are the ones bringing the attributes of intelligence and personality to the Universe. Our intelligence does extend beyond us in all our actions. We would not have advanced technology without it. We may even create Strong AI someday that would push the limitations of intelligence beyond anything it was originally meant to do in survival situations.

Entropy is the tendency for energy to become increasingly dispersed over time losing its ability to do useful work with an end state in perfect inert equilibrium. Saying that entropy is the tendency towards disorder is misleading and has confused a lot of physics students over the years. Entropy may just be a by-product of a greater process, such as creating black holes which could be spawning new universes in a sort of cosmic reproductive cycle. Life itself could just be a by-product of this greater process. There are many different theories on this out there. Life isn't random and meaningless. It always satisfies certain niches in the natural flow of things.

 

[Penumbra]

Granted we have more in common then we differ I think there's more to naturalistic pantheism than just "sexed-up atheism". Perhaps atheism is just "prudish pantheism" .

My particular take on it is as follows: I believe that the Universe is God and it is personal and intelligent, albeit not yet on a cosmic scale or in a metaphysical sense. Earth's life, including human beings, have evolved out of the natural processes of the Universe. Some life forms, especially human beings, possess the attributes of intelligence and personality, ergo by extension the Universe possesses the attributes of intelligence and personality. We are essentially the Universe becoming self-aware. Hopefully within time we can foster this process of cosmic consciousness, perhaps with the help of advanced artificial intelligence or biotechnology etc, to live in perfect harmony with cosmic systems. It is this deep sense of naturalistic spirituality, reverence, and awe that is more useful in solving our social and environmental problems than simply debunking more traditional outdated gods.

I realize this is a very nontraditional conception of God, but I feel I have to right to use it since "god" has always meant different things to different people at different times in different cultures. It has even taken on more diverse meanings in our individualistic Western culture so the argument against pantheism from semantics is rather weak I think.

So anyone care to argue that the Universe doesn't exist or that we are NOT extensions of it? Or anything else not from an atheistic viewpoint?

None of this seems scientifically inaccurate, so as long as it's an interpretation rather than a metaphysical claim, it doesn't really have to be true or false.

Everyone is entitled to poetry if they are so inclined.

 

[Straw Dog]

i do not see intent, and from what i think you are saying is you don't either, the universe has these attributes because sentient beings evolved...

but you lost me here...
i do not think we are detached from nature, but these traits

are to sustain our existence can also cause our demise

Human traits and values are just as real as any other physical phenomenon. They have a qualitative impact on the world. The folly of science has been to ignore them. Fortunately, fields like positive psychology are starting to pick up the pace. You agree that we're not detached from nature (at least physically) so you must see that the ultimate source of those traits must be everything that came before us. We may be the first life forms to possess them but we're not responsible for producing them. They may lead to our demise, but we're certainly not the only life forms in existence.

 

[Straw Dog]

We are NOT extensions of the universe. Why do you need the universe to be god? what about universe makes it worth worship to you, and not just merely wonder at its beauty?

If you're not an extension of what came before you then what are you made of? We don't need the Universe to be God, it's just incredibly useful for us to approach it in this fashion. It's for our benefit. I don't worship it. I have a sense of deep reverence and awe that motivate me to take action for the sake of the humanity and the greater ecosystem. It goes beyond simple anthropocentric environmentalism.

 

[Straw Dog]

None of this seems scientifically inaccurate, so as long as it's an interpretation rather than a metaphysical claim, it doesn't really have to be true or false.

Everyone is entitled to poetry if they are so inclined.

It's an interpretation based on scientific facts and theory. I've added hypotheses about the future, but there's not necessary just plausible. Can you pin-point what exactly is inaccurate? We are physical extensions of the Universe and we possess the attributes of intelligence and personality. These characteristics originated with us, and other life forms, by we are not responsible for their production. The cosmic system that came before us is principally the cause of it and so is due reverence and respect.

Everyone uses metaphors in their daily lives to function and communicate so you're also inclined to "poetry"...unless you only use specific scientific terms (beyond hypothesis and theory) that have been proven by evidence to describe every single one of your experiences, which seems highly unlikely.

 

[Straw Dog]

None of this seems scientifically inaccurate, so as long as it's an interpretation rather than a metaphysical claim, it doesn't really have to be true or false.

Everyone is entitled to poetry if they are so inclined.

Sorry I misunderstand you. You didn't say it was scientifically inaccurate. My bad. I was just trying to keep up with everyone. I think it's an incredible useful interpretation, like all interpretations of the world try to be. Like nature itself, it serve to fulfill certain practical functions in the operation of life.

And like I already said, everyone uses metaphors to express their experiences, function, and communicate in daily life. If you didn't you would be a remarkable case.

 

[Copernicus]

Again, you're not paying attention. I didn't say the entire Universe was intelligent...

In the OP, you said: "...I believe that the Universe is God and it is personal and intelligent..."

...We are intelligent and we are a part of the Universe, extensions of it, we would not exist without the rest of the cosmic system...

All you are saying is that there are intelligent beings in the universe. There is nothing interesting or profound about such a claim.

...Advanced life forms are the ones bringing the attributes of intelligence and personality to the Universe. Our intelligence does extend beyond us in all our actions. We would not have advanced technology without it. We may even create Strong AI someday that would push the limitations of intelligence beyond anything it was originally meant to do in survival situations.

Our intelligence does not extend very far beyond us. So far, it hasn't extended beyond our minuscule solar system. As for AI, the function of intelligence would be the same for it--self-preservation.

Entropy is the tendency for energy to become increasingly dispersed over time losing its ability to do useful work with an end state in perfect inert equilibrium. Saying that entropy is the tendency towards disorder is misleading and has confused a lot of physics students over the years. Entropy may just be a by-product of a greater process, such as creating black holes which could be spawning new universes in a sort of cosmic reproductive cycle. Life itself could just be a by-product of this greater process. There are many different theories on this out there...

Regardless of how you wish to characterize entropy, you have provided no justification for your claim that an intelligent universe would desire to increase it. There is no role for intelligence--memory, calculation, motivation--to play with respect to entropy. There are indeed many theories out there, but what special insight does it give us to impute intelligence to the universe?

...Life isn't random and meaningless. It always satisfies certain niches in the natural flow of things.

Yes, life is a type of self-replicating process, but the process that brought it about does not itself need to be intelligent. All you have said so far is that intelligent beings exist in the universe. This claim does not enlighten.