Pantheism vs. Atheism (Others are welcome)

[Straw Dog]

To better clarify my position, it's important to understand that my pantheism goes beyond a simple love of nature and hiking or whatever LOL. It's a very practical interpretation of our deep connection to the flow of natural systems (as demonstrated by science) that is much more beneficial in solving social and ecological issues than simply sticking with classical scientific philosophy that sees man as separate from nature with the goal of dominating it. I'm saying that we should see ourselves as part of nature and foster a sense of "spirituality" to "re-naturalize" ourselves as it were in order to take more practical measures in the formation of society and religion. If we don't we probably will die out. So you see, Pantheism is ultimately grounded in pragmatism, not just lovey-dovey feelings of belonging to something greater than ourselves.

It is because of all this that I tend to think that self-proclaimed "Atheists" are prudes when it comes to the imagination. What good goes does it do to demolish all possible interpretations of spirituality and god?

 

[Penumbra]

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.

People naturally must interpret things for them to make sense. For instance, we don't interpret the world on the particle-level. Our senses and mind filter everything, and typically we only see and feel what is useful to us.

Poetry is inescapable, and is not necessarily a good or bad thing.

 

[Copernicus]

To better clarify my position, it's important to understand that my pantheism goes beyond a simple love of nature and hiking or whatever LOL. It's a very practical interpretation of our deep connection to the flow of natural systems (as demonstrated by science) that is much more beneficial in solving social and ecological issues than simply sticking with classical scientific philosophy that sees man as separate from nature with the goal of dominating it. I'm saying that we should see ourselves as part of nature and foster a sense of "spirituality" to "re-naturalize" ourselves as it were in order to take more practical measures in the formation of society and religion...

How do you imagine this would make us behave differently than we already do? Most atheists I know believe that we are part of nature. You think that there is some benefit to be gained from belief in your claims about the nature of the universe, but it is far from clear how your belief would make anyone behave differently than they already do.

...If we don't we probably will die out. So you see, Pantheism is ultimately grounded in pragmatism, not just lovey-dovey feelings of belonging to something greater than ourselves.

We will not "probably" die out. We will certainly die out. The only question is how soon. Of more immediate interest is how each of us chooses to spend our existence when the human race is still a viable entity.

It is because of all this that I tend to think that self-proclaimed "Atheists" are prudes when it comes to the imagination. What good goes does it do to demolish all possible interpretations of spirituality and god?

So far, you have failed to explain the advantage of keeping your interpretation of spirituality and God around. You have only said that intelligent beings live in the universe and are a part of nature. I'm not sure how any of this justifies bashing atheists.

 

[Straw Dog]

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

I didn't say the entire Universe is collectively intelligent and personal, but I'm sorry if I mislead you. I only meant that the Universe does possess the attributes of intelligence and personality.

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

Then you lack imagination in interpreting what science has already shown us. Yes, we are intelligent beings within the Universe. BUT the Universe is also within us, it surrounds us, it constitutes everything within our entire being. We are a part of it, extensions of it, co-creators in the natural flow of things, and would be nothing without it. If that doesn't give you any sense of profoundness then you're a lost cause in the 'feelings' department.

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.

It seems highly probably that there are other intelligent life forms in the galaxy and within other galaxies in the Universe. You're being narrowly anthropocentric. As far as our technology is concerned: what's the survival value in playing the Xbox? Or watching TV? Or using the microwave? Much of it is detrimental, yet it's all an extension of our intelligence. Study the philosophy of artificial intelligence for the debunking on intelligence would still only be used for self-preservation.

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?

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.

The universe performs many functions to serve its ends of creating black holes without the need for intelligence, you're right about that. I'm simply stating that intelligence in practice does tend to maximize net entropy over the long term. Life forms maintain internal "order" by increasing external "disorder". The long term result in more entropy. Intelligence makes this process even more efficient and can maximize it. Why does this happen? Why does entropy happen at all? We don't know yet, but it does happen. It's theorized by some that the first life forms came about to prevent a chemical vacuum in earth's system.

In short, I didn't "input" intelligence. It is a characteristic of the Universe. Unless you're saying that human life is not a property of the Universe. It only requires basic observations.

The claim of Strong Atheism doesn't enlighten either. You're being prudish with your scientific imagination and interpretations of nature's potential.

 

[Straw Dog]

How do you imagine this would make us behave differently than we already do? Most atheists I know believe that we are part of nature. You think that there is some benefit to be gained from belief in your claims about the nature of the universe, but it is far from clear how your belief would make anyone behave differently than they already do.

Most people are still operating under an Enlightenment mentality of man vs. nature. This has been culturally conditioned. It doesn't just disappear by realizing that we are actually a part of nature. It requires a process of naturalistic spirituality, like meditation or deep contemplation over time to "re-naturalize" consciousness. You understand we're a part of nature but you cannot experience it very well due to hundreds of years of conditioning. We would act differently if our imaginations were more naturalized to think in a more ecological as opposed to strictly environmental way.

We will not "probably" die out. We will certainly die out. The only question is how soon. Of more immediate interest is how each of us chooses to spend our existence when the human race is still a viable entity.

So far, you have failed to explain the advantage of keeping your interpretation of spirituality and God around. You have only said that intelligent beings live in the universe and are a part of nature. I'm not sure how any of this justifies bashing atheists.

I'm only "bashing" atheists if you consider Dawkins' statement about pantheism being "sexed-up atheism" as bashing pantheists LOL. The advantages of my interpretation has to do directly with human experience of nature rather than just intellectual understanding. It's one thing to understand our connect to nature, its another thing to directly experience it. Such experiences have a profound effect on consciousness and would have enormous evolutionary value if implemented on a cultural level. If you don't see the benefits of experiencing that connection directly than nothing I say can convince you otherwise. You don't have to call yourself a "pantheist", but the term is useful for communication and descriptive purposes. It's the experience of naturalistic spirituality that's important. Besides why are you so hellbent on defending the "atheist" label? It doesn't mean anything outside the context of God-believers. You're defining yourself on their terms. Everyone is atheistic in regards to some deities anyway. We both agree the monotheistic and polytheistic models are flawed.

 

[Straw Dog]

People naturally must interpret things for them to make sense. For instance, we don't interpret the world on the particle-level. Our senses and mind filter everything, and typically we only see and feel what is useful to us.

Poetry is inescapable, and is not necessarily a good or bad thing.

In this case I think it is profoundly useful. We might understand intellectually that we're a part of nature, but centuries of cultural/religious conditioning has left us still feeling detached from Nature. We don't have to call ourselves "pantheists", although its useful for communication and description. It the direct experience of our connection to Nature that's important, either through meditation or contemplation or even just observing the tree in your backyard. "God" is just a very useful term for denoting the deepest sense of awe and reverence we get when we directly experience the Universe around us and within us. We need to alter our consciousness in a more ecological direction rather than just a narrow-minded humanist/environmental way. It is just my opinion, but its more practical than any alternatives I've heard.

 

[Willamena]

I realize this is a very nontraditional conception of God...

No, it's not terribly different from other images of pantheism. One distinction might be whether the image of God is approached through the image of the Universe, or vice-versa. In other words, whether god (whether thing, function, aspect, etc.) supplies an understanding of the Universe, or the universe supplies an understanding of "God".

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?

No.

 

[Straw Dog]

I think pantheism, and related naturalistic spirituality, is much more useful than just a strict focus on atheism when it comes to actual real-life social and ecological issues. What's the point in debunking all forms of God and religion if you don't offer anything useful to replace it? I mean science and reason is a start, but don't you also need something emotional and experiential to replace what you're demolishing in traditional religions? And wouldn't it be beneficial if that experiential replacement was actually in humanity's best interests? Unless your end state is nihilism, I would suggest trying to expand your consciousness in a more ecological way.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I'm only "bashing" atheists if you consider Dawkins' statement about pantheism being "sexed-up atheism" as bashing pantheists LOL.

It wasn't meant to bash pantheists. He simply meant that pantheism is just a fancy way of being an atheist while still having the practice of deity worship/belief. In this case the higher power is just the entire world as a whole.

I don't know how it's supposed to be sexy, but I can understand how an atheist could seduce pagans by pretending to be a devout worshiper of the forests and the trees.

 

[Straw Dog]

It wasn't meant to bash pantheists. He simply meant that pantheism is just a fancy way of being an atheist while still having the practice of deity worship/belief. In this case the higher power is just the entire world as a whole.

I don't know how it's supposed to be sexy, but I can understand how an atheist could seduce pagans by pretending to be a devout worshiper of the forests and the trees.

I know he wasn't bashing. That's my point. Hence the "LOL". I really do think that Atheism (the self-proclaimed type) is just "prudish pantheism" because there's no emotional element. Self-proclaimed Atheists seeks to debunk all traditional gods and religions without offering an adequate and useful experiential replacement. Science and reason is a start, but it's indifferent and leads to nihilism without some sort of emotional connection to something greater than the self. I simply offer the Universe (since we know it exists and that we're connected to it) as that replacement. It's an experiential exercise meant to expand human consciousness in a more ecological direction. We're still grounded in Enlightenment and Iron age religious cultural conditioning as man separate from nature and dominate over nature. You might understand it intellectually but it's much different and more useful to experience it directly through naturalistic meditation, contemplation, etc. We need a cultural renovation as it were. Atheism, by itself, offers nothing so why focus so strongly on it?

Nothing against pagans, I do find their women sexy in a earthy type way, but my beliefs are grounded solidly in scientific facts, theories, or at least plausible hypotheses. Although most neo-pagan beliefs have a form of pantheism as their "deep theology". My scientific pantheism is not the same as paganism.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I know he wasn't bashing. That's my point. Hence the "LOL".

Lol.

I really do think that Atheism (the self-proclaimed type) is just "prudish pantheism" because it seeks to debunk all traditional gods and religions without offering an adequate and useful experiential replacement.

Rather just not accept them until they are proven.

Science and reason is a start, but it's indifferent and leads to nihilism without some sort of emotional connection to something greater than the self.

I agree that it leads to nihilism, also pessimism to further it, but sometimes the truth is painful, and we gotta accept that.

Also, there may be, someday something in science that will be proven that gives life an optimistic view, a good reason to live.

I simply offer the Universe (since we know it exists and that we're connected to it) as that replacement.

Though, does the universe really consciously care? Evidence if it does? If not, does it really do anything to help us?

Also, what do you offer to the universe? Has it ever physically accepted anything?

It's an experiential exercise meant to expand human consciousness in a more ecological direction. We're still grounded in Enlightenment and Iron age religious cultural conditioning as man separate from nature and dominate over nature. You might understand it intellectual but it's much different and more useful to experience it directly through naturalistic meditation, contemplation, etc. We need a cultural renovation as it were. Atheism, by itself, offers nothing so why focus so strongly on it?

Atheism is not skepticism, it is simply the lack of belief in God. Some atheists are buddhists and offers something.

Naturalists, which I think you are talking about, offers a lot. Health, knowledge, clothes, food, etc.

Nothing against pagans, I do find their women sexy in a earthy type way, but my beliefs are grounded solidly in scientific facts, theories, or at least plausible hypotheses. Although most neo-pagan beliefs have a form of pantheism as their "deep theology".

Yes, I agree. Though I'm more of a non-sexual person, so I don't agree with that first part.

 

[Straw Dog]

Lol.
Rather just not accept them until they are proven.
I agree that it leads to nihilism, also pessimism to further it, but sometimes the truth is painful, and we gotta accept that.
Also, there may be, someday something in science that will be proven that gives life an optimistic view, a good reason to live.
Though, does the universe really consciously care? Evidence if it does? If not, does it really do anything to help us?
Also, what do you offer to the universe? Has it ever physically accepted anything?
Atheism is not skepticism, it is simply the lack of belief in God. Some atheists are buddhists and offers something.
Naturalists, which I think you are talking about, offers a lot. Health, knowledge, clothes, food, etc.
Yes, I agree. Though I'm more of a non-sexual person, so I don't agree with that first part.

Sexual metaphors aside. I only meant it to mean "an emotional element". Do people think that the emotional and experiential plays no part in the human existence? If it does matter, then let's use it to our advantage.

The scientific truth is that we are deeply connected to the cosmic flow of everything. We are inside the Universe, the Universe is inside of us, it surrounds us, it constitutes our very being, it sustains our existence, it will someday destroy us to make room for something new, and we're co-creators with the natural flow of things (whether we prove ourselves worthy is yet to be seen).

We are the intelligence and personality of the Universe so, in this very real sense, it cares as much as we care about one another, other life, and the rest of the cosmos. You can't talk about the Universe without incorporating us into the equation. We are the evidence that the Universe cares or doesn't care. The choice is ours. You see what I mean about cultural conditioning, we still talk about ourselves as if we're something separate from the cosmos. It's helped us by bringing the sun into existence and allowing the Earth system to form in a way suitable for life. It may not have consciously done this, but trees don't consciously produce fruit. It's up to us to create something new and harmonious with the rest of the system using our "cosmic-given" intelligence and personality.

What do we give in return? Well, for one thing intelligent beings are really good at maximizing net entropy over the long term and the Universe follows the Second Law of Thermodynamics strictly so I guess we do offer it that. Some postulate that the central focus of cosmic activity is to create black holes, which could then spawn new universes in some sort of cosmic reproductive cycle. We simply don't know yet. We don't have to know what is it though, because we're fulfilling our "natural niche" by virtue of our existence.

 

[Oneatatime]

Interesting idea and given that intellegence seems to be an emergent property of the universe its not implausable idea either. As for the use of the word God I don't see any problem with that given that the main religious at the moment don't have a monopoly on how the word is defined. Some philosophies has used the word God in a way that does not denote a supreme being as promote by current religions.

 

[Penumbra]

I think pantheism, and related naturalistic spirituality, is much more useful than just a strict focus on atheism when it comes to actual real-life social and ecological issues. What's the point in debunking all forms of God and religion if you don't offer anything useful to replace it? I mean science and reason is a start, but don't you also need something emotional and experiential to replace what you're demolishing in traditional religions? And wouldn't it be beneficial if that experiential replacement was actually in humanity's best interests? Unless your end state is nihilism, I would suggest trying to expand your consciousness in a more ecological way.

I agree that focusing strictly on atheism doesn't make sense. Atheism is extremely broad- it's simply non-belief in deities.

Atheism describes what a person isn't, not what a person is. I don't think many atheist here would disagree with you on that.

 

[Straw Dog]

"The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired." -Stephen Hawking

 

[The Sum of Awe]

The scientific truth is that we are deeply connected to the cosmic flow of everything. We are inside the Universe, the Universe is inside of us, it surrounds us, it constitutes our very being, it sustains our existence, it will someday destroy us to make room for something new, and we're co-creators with the natural flow of things (whether we prove ourselves worthy is yet to be seen).

How is the universe inside of us? Can you prove this?

We are the intelligence and personality of the Universe

I disagree. Looking at the whole universe, we are just very small organisms that don't even matter. There are probably creatures with a lot more intelligence than us. Us, humans, are idiots, from my view. All we do is pollute nature, make up spiritual stuff that doesn't even have proof, and don't recognize our place in the universe, just a small fraction of a smaller fraction of a smaller fraction.

so, in this very real sense, it cares as much as we care about one another, other life, and the rest of the cosmos.

How does the universe 'care' if it is not conscious? Unless you can prove it is conscious I may change my opinion.

You can't talk about the Universe without incorporating us into the equation. We are the evidence that the Universe cares or doesn't care.

We do not make the universe care, we're so small in the universe, we can't make that big of changes...

The choice is ours. You see what I mean about cultural conditioning, we still talk about ourselves as if we're something separate from the cosmos. It's helped us by and allowing the Earth system to form in a way suitable for life. It may not have consciously done this, but trees don't consciously produce fruit. It's up to us to create something new and harmonious with the rest of the system using our "cosmic-given" intelligence and personality.

We are in the universe, thus I suppose we are part of it, though I don't see why we should worship it.

Just because it gave us life doesn't mean anything, if it helps us live day by day that's another, that would be the only thing I'd worship, if it helps us day by day.

What do we give in return? Well, for one thing intelligent beings are really good at maximizing net entropy over the long term and the Universe follows the Second Law of Thermodynamics strictly so I guess we do offer it that. Some postulate that the central focus of cosmic activity is to create black holes, which could then spawn new universes in some sort of cosmic reproductive cycle. We simply don't know yet. We don't have to know what is it though, because we're fulfilling our "natural niche" by virtue of our existence.

The Universe doesn't expect anything from us, if it did, I'm sure it could give us signs.

 

[Straw Dog]

How is the universe inside of us? Can you prove this?

Easy. Are you made of atoms, molecules, and chemicals? Where did they all come from? The interactions of subatomic particles and quantum fluctuations in the beginning (or before the beginning) of the Universe, nuclear fusion in the center of stars, and chemical evolution in Earth's system within the Universe. I didn't mean the entire Universe is inside you, but there's literally nothing that constitutes your being that hasn't been produced through the Cosmic system.

I disagree. Looking at the whole universe, we are just very small organisms that don't even matter. There are probably creatures with a lot more intelligence than us. Us, humans, are idiots, from my view. All we do is pollute nature, make up spiritual stuff that doesn't even have proof, and don't recognize our place in the universe, just a small fraction of a smaller fraction of a smaller fraction.

I didn't judge whether we're a major cosmic species yet, but you can't deny that we qualify as intelligent and personal life forms. Sure, there's probably other intelligent life more advanced than we are, but we're still a part of the overall intelligence and personality of the Universe. You can split an atom and cause a nuclear explosion, so I don't think size really matter. Perhaps we just haven't "detonated" ourselves into space yet. Perhaps your belief that we're "idiots" is just a result of your pessimism.

How does the universe 'care' if it is not conscious? Unless you can prove it is conscious I may change my opinion.

We do not make the universe care, we're so small in the universe, we can't make that big of changes...

We are in the universe, thus I suppose we are part of it, though I don't see why we should worship it.

Just because it gave us life doesn't mean anything, if it helps us live day by day that's another, that would be the only thing I'd worship, if it helps us day by day.

The Universe doesn't expect anything from us, if it did, I'm sure it could give us signs.

You need to get out of your anthropocentric cultural conditioning a little bit. We are a part of the Universe and if we care then, by extension, that means the attributes of empathy, compassion, love exist as attributes of the Universe as well. The attributes of apathy, fear, and hate also exist. It's up to us which ones we choose to cultivate. I didn't say there was a cosmically-sized center of care somewhere. I didn't say the Universe as a whole functioned like a monotheistic deity. Everything we experience is an extension, and property, of the Universe.

As far as insignificance and impact is concerned, size is irrelevant. Would you have believed that simple single celled organisms could have evolved into the vast and beautiful diversity of life we have today? Or that intelligent human beings would eventually be produced? Or that we would put a man on the moon and create the Internet? Of course, we have our flaws and failures but that's the process of evolution at work. You can't really predict how far we'll go at this point, only that there will be ups and downs along the way.

And I never said we should worship the Universe. Why does everyone keep saying that? That would be too anthropocentric. I said we should cultivate a deep sense of awe and reverence for it as well as awareness of our deep connections to Nature.

Besides that, the Universe doesn't have to give us signs. Like I said, we're satisfying a natural niche (or "purpose" if you prefer and promise not to interpret it in a narrowly anthropocentric way) in the flow of things by virtue of our existence. We don't have to be aware of what that niche is because we're already satisfying it. I suspect it has something to do with entropy, black holes, and producing new universes but the science isn't all in yet so I'm only going off scientific theory.

"The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired." -Stephen Hawking

 

[linwood]

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.

Indeed you have the right to any concept of god that you wish.

However from the average atheists perspective you are adding unnecessary gaudy complexity to that which is perfectly simple and elegant.

Why muck up the beauty of this natural universe by instilling it with anthropomorphic properties?

 

[Straw Dog]

Indeed you have the right to any concept of god that you wish.

However from the average atheists perspective you are adding unnecessary gaudy complexity to that which is perfectly simple and elegant.

Why muck up the beauty of this natural universe by instilling it with anthropomorphic properties?

I'm not instilling it with anthropocentric properties, I'm trying to debug the monotheistic anthropomorphism that has claimed a monopoly on the "God" term. They don't have this issue in the East (at least historically and parts of it). Perhaps I should just call it the "Tao" but I feel like there's too much cultural appropriation involved to call myself a Taoist though, so I'm going with Scientific Pantheist because it has a history in Western science and philosophy. I don't tend to use the "god" term in practice although it perfectly represents the degree of awe and reverence we should have towards the Universe.

If you're referring to the properties of intelligence and personality. They are properties of the Universe. I'm not saying the entire Universe collectively generates them on a cosmic scale, but they are properties of it. Unless you're saying that human beings are not properties of the Universe?

Besides all that what value does atheism, by itself, add to our experience of naturalistic spirituality?

 

[Noaidi]

Why muck up the beauty of this natural universe by instilling it with anthropomorphic properties?

Not being flippant, here, but that's what humans do.