Pantheism vs. Atheism (Others are welcome)

[Dan4reason]

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and awe that is more useful in solving our social and environmental problems than simply debunking more traditional outdated gods.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 created from elements of this universe and are a part of it. However, we have just as much reason to say that the universe is intelligent or that it has personality than I do to say that my old teddy bear actually talked to me when I was a kid.

The universe is simply made up or energy, time matter, etc, etc. There is no evidence that the universe itself actually has a mind or is intelligent.

 

[Straw Dog]

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

Yes, I guess I should say I'm using the 'god' metaphor to debug anthropomorphism and instill more naturalistic characteristics. I know many atheists spend a great deal of time debating monotheistic versions (especially the Judeo-Christian variety) so I can see why they would come to think that's the only way to use the term.

 

[linwood]

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.

They are also anthropomorphic qualities.
The persona of a being affects the entire being.
This truth doesn`t follow in your scenario.
It seems to me that you aren`t dispelling this concept only transferring it.
Again...unnecessarily.

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

None.
I don`t believe atheism is capable of such feats.
It is a simple small thing really, it`s a rejection not a philosophy.

 

[linwood]

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

Oh I know.

I`m just suggesting we don`t do it this one time.

 

[Straw Dog]

We created from elements of this universe and are a part of it. However, we have just as much reason to say that the universe is intelligent or that it has personality than I do to say that my old teddy bear actually talked to me when I was a kid.

The universe is simply made up or energy, time matter, etc, etc. There is no evidence that the universe itself actually has a mind or is intelligent.

You seem to understand that we're a part of the Universe intellectually but how does that translate into direct experience?

I didn't say the Universe collectively had a cosmically-sized consciousness. If I came off that way in my initial post, I was being overly metaphorical and I apologize. I only meant that we are the intelligence and personality of the Universe. Any other advanced E.T.s out there in space would also constitute as the intelligence and (hopefully) personality of the Universe. Why does it have to be large to count as a property? You can split an atom and cause a nuclear explosion. Do atoms not count in nuclear bombs?

 

[linwood]

Yes, I guess I should say I'm using the 'god' metaphor to debug anthropomorphism and instill more naturalistic characteristics. I know many atheists spend a great deal of time debating monotheistic versions (especially the Judeo-Christian variety) so I can see why they would come to think that's the only way to use the term.

Not at all, I understand the concept of Taoism quite well.

I just find it inelegant and unnecessary.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

You seem to have a normal view of the universe and all. I don't understand how this is pantheism though, it's more similar to atheism in my opinion.

 

[Straw Dog]

They are also anthropomorphic qualities.
The persona of a being affects the entire being.
This truth doesn`t follow in your scenario.
It seems to me that you aren`t dispelling this concept only transferring it.
Again...unnecessarily.

It's not unnecessary. I'm creating a useful conceptual tool for expanding human-ecological consciousness. "Environmental" models are limited because they still view the Earth as something meant just for us. "God" has meant different things to different people in different eras in different cultures. It means even more things in modern Western individualistic cultures. You're not going to dispel it, so why not empower it with something useful?

None. I don`t believe atheism is capable of such feats.
It is a simple small thing really, it`s a rejection not a philosophy.

The process of disbelief and debunking gods and religious claims takes away vital emotional/experiential energy generated by outdated traditional religions without replacing it with anything useful. Why not use a philosophy that transfers that energy into productive social and ecological aims? We don't have to call it 'pantheism'. That's just one of the best terms to describe it at this point. It's the naturalistic spiritual experience that's important for expanding human consciousness. Calling myself a pantheist is just useful for descriptive and communicative means, and I shouldn't have to limit my usage of the 'god' term just because someone has claimed a monopoly on it.

 

[Straw Dog]

You seem to have a normal view of the universe and all. I don't understand how this is pantheism though, it's more similar to atheism in my opinion.

But atheism is just the absence of belief in traditional deities. It doesn't even have to be naturalistic. It adds no experiential, emotional, or naturalistic spiritual component to life. You can be an atheist and a total nihilist. You can understand our connections to Nature intellectually and choose to not care or be destructive. Pantheism, and similar naturalistic spiritual philosophies, add a very useful conceptual framework for expanding human consciousness in a more ecological and cosmic direction. This could have profound effects for the survival and prosperity of the human species and the greater ecosystem. It would also be useful if we ever expanded into space. Surely you can see how this goes far beyond mere atheism?

 

[Straw Dog]

Not at all, I understand the concept of Taoism quite well.

I just find it inelegant and unnecessary.

What do you spend your emotional energies on then? Anything productive to society, or the human species, or any other species? If your religion or spirituality is "none" then you're abandoning a very useful aspect of the human imagination. If you want to be a nihilist, that's fine. It just seems to be rather useless and depressing to me. I'm not saying you're necessarily depressed so don't feel a need to explain how happy you are. I just choose to utilize all the abilities my human psyche has, not just the purely rational.

 

[Copernicus]

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.

So you were just speaking metaphorically. All you were saying was nothing more profound than that intelligent beings exist in the universe. It was misleading to say that the universe was intelligent" or had a "personality" if you did not mean the larger universe, but just the very tiny intelligence-containing bits.

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.

Sorry if I failed to come up to your standards in the imagination department. Maybe drugs would help to achieve the sense of profoundness that you are trying to convey.

It seems highly probably that there are other intelligent life forms in the galaxy and within other galaxies in the Universe...

Huh? I never claimed that we were the only intelligent lifeforms in the universe. I would be very surprised if that were true.

...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...

The navigation system of moths seems to drive them into flames, but it still has navigation value. I think that you need to pay closer attention to some of the things that Dawkins has said about evolution.

Study the philosophy of artificial intelligence for the debunking on intelligence would still only be used for self-preservation.

I can barely understand that sentence, but I think I get what you are trying to say. Please explain to me what the "philosophy of artificial intelligence" is. Although I have done AI research, I am unfamiliar with it.

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.

Nobody disputes that entropy happens. My question was why you thought an intelligent universe would want to maximize it. Basically, all you are saying is that, if the universe were intelligent, then it would want to maximize it, because, basically, entropy is happening. Not a very forceful argument.

...It's theorized by some that the first life forms came about to prevent a chemical vacuum in earth's system.

Can you provide some link or further explanation as to who "theorizes" this?

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.

You could say that everything in the universe is a characteristic of the universe. Again, this is not an insightful observation. The universe is vast, and it seems likely that the space inhabited by intelligent beings is quite minuscule in comparison.

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

Strong atheism enlightens if it is true that no gods exist. Most people who believe in gods would be enlightened (i.e. better informed) to discover the truth.

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.

I honestly don't think that you are any more enlightened about nature than I or other atheists are. I really enjoy nature, and, the more I learn about nature through science, the more I experience a sense of profoundness. I think that you are very narrow-minded to think that your point of view is somehow special or unique and that others who fail to share it are somehow less imaginative.

...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.

The term "pantheist" is misleading unless it has something to do with deities--powerful supernatural agencies that human beings worship. You have attributed anthropomorphic traits to the universe--intelligence and personality. So I have no trouble calling you a "pantheist", even though you try to impose a nuanced interpretation on your words. Perhaps you find yourself worshiping nature. I see nature as indifferent to our survival--well, maybe even hostile. We struggle to survive, and entropy will get us all in the end. Still, I'm not complaining. I find life to be full of satisfying and fulfilling experiences, and it will be over all too soon. I live in a world full of people who believe in deities, so I think that the label "atheist" is quite appropriate for me. As far as I can tell, all deities are imaginary beings. So what is wrong with calling myself by a label that accurately describes my skepticism? I know I'm in the minority, and I frankly don't mind being in the minority on that question.

 

[Straw Dog]

So you were just speaking metaphorically. All you were saying was nothing more profound than that intelligent beings exist in the universe. It was misleading to say that the universe was intelligent" or had a "personality" if you did not mean the larger universe, but just the very tiny intelligence-containing bits.

I can barely understand that sentence, but I think I get what you are trying to say. Please explain to me what the "philosophy of artificial intelligence" is. Although I have done AI research, I am unfamiliar with it.

Nobody disputes that entropy happens. My question was why you thought an intelligent universe would want to maximize it. Basically, all you are saying is that, if the universe were intelligent, then it would want to maximize it, because, basically, entropy is happening. Not a very forceful argument.

Can you provide some link or further explanation as to who "theorizes" this?

You could say that everything in the universe is a characteristic of the universe. Again, this is not an insightful observation. The universe is vast, and it seems likely that the space inhabited by intelligent beings is quite minuscule in comparison.

Strong atheism enlightens if it is true that no gods exist. Most people who believe in gods would be enlightened (i.e. better informed) to discover the truth.

I honestly don't think that you are any more enlightened about nature than I or other atheists are. I really enjoy nature, and, the more I learn about nature through science, the more I experience a sense of profoundness. I think that you are very narrow-minded to think that your point of view is somehow special or unique and that others who fail to share it are somehow less imaginative.

The term "pantheist" is misleading unless it has something to do with deities--powerful supernatural agencies that human beings worship. You have attributed anthropomorphic traits to the universe--intelligence and personality. So I have no trouble calling you a "pantheist", even though you try to impose a nuanced interpretation on your words. Perhaps you find yourself worshiping nature. I see nature as indifferent to our survival--well, maybe even hostile. We struggle to survive, and entropy will get us all in the end. Still, I'm not complaining. I find life to be full of satisfying and fulfilling experiences, and it will be over all too soon. I live in a world full of people who believe in deities, so I think that the label "atheist" is quite appropriate for me. As far as I can tell, all deities are imaginary beings. So what is wrong with calling myself by a label that accurately describes my skepticism? I know I'm in the minority, and I frankly don't mind being in the minority on that question.

Obviously you don't understand how metaphors can and do help us make better sense of the world and our place within it. Even quantum physicists have to use them to make sense of their equations. Now you're trying to make me seem holier than thou. I assure you, I never claimed to be more "enlightened". I've only claimed to offer a variation of a very useful philosophical framework for expanding cosmic, ecological, and social consciousness. Atheism does nothing to assist in that regard. It's interesting that nobody has counter-argued how the naturalistic spiritual framework isn't useful for that aim. They've just been caught up in semantics and defending a position that doesn't even say anything (atheism).

Naturalistic pantheism isn't confusing for anyone with access to the Internet. It's pretty straightforward and easy to comprehend. Sometimes nature is hostile to us and sometimes it's beneficial. It's aims are not our own and I understand that, so its you that insist on applying anthropomorphic traits to my interpretations. Just because its not some nice daddy figure like the monotheists claim you think its not worthy of awe and reverence? I didn't apply "intelligence" and "personality" to the Universe as a collective whole but the Universe does possess the attributes of both. That is a profound observation and it doesn't require drugs. I'm glad you're not a theoretical physicist or your imagination would get you nowhere. We started with subatomic particles and now we have advanced intelligent life forms. Why doesn't that blow your socks off?

The Universe is "intelligent" and "personal". I don't have to specifically say selective parts of the Universe or the collective whole because it's all connected in one unified system, that's why its called "universe". Without stars, there would be neither attribute. Without galaxies, there would be neither attribute. Without the Earth, there would be neither attribute. So those characteristics don't ultimately belong to us. We can't lay claim to them as our creations. They are the result of everything that came before us. I think we should pay due respect to everything that came before us.

Size doesn't matter. Without the atom, nothing would exist. Without the hydrogen molecule, nothing would exist. You can split an atom and cause a nuclear explosion. Just because intelligent life seems minuscule in regards to the overall size of the Universe doesn't diminish its overall significance. We're actually about medium sized in the overall scheme of things anyway.

I would go on about entropy and life, but I don't want to come across as being more "enlightened" so I'll stop here. It can't be easily summarized anyway. You can study it if you're actually interested. I would suggest the book "Into the Cool: Energy Flow, Thermodynamics, and Life" by Eric D. Schneider and Dorion Sagan.

 

[Straw Dog]

I really enjoy nature, and, the more I learn about nature through science, the more I experience a sense of profoundness. I think that you are very narrow-minded to think that your point of view is somehow special or unique and that others who fail to share it are somehow less imaginative.

You know you're getting angry over semantics and metaphors and I'm getting angry over your lack of understanding what I mean. I apologize if I called you unimaginative, I only meant to challenge your imagination with a new conceptual model. The best I can summarize my position is as follows: "Pantheism" is one of the best attempts, among others, for conceptualizing "naturalistic spirituality" so it can be more easily described and communicated in society at large to help expand social, ecological, and cosmic consciousness.

Science cannot conceptualize spiritual experiences. Only philosophy, theology, and religion can conceptualize them at this time (albeit to varying degrees of success and use). You seem to have the same exact naturalistic feelings that I'm describing, you just don't seem to have a way to adequately express them in a cohesive belief system. I think belief systems are useful for easier description and communication in society and for seeking more profound states of contemplation and insight. You don't have to collect your naturalistic spiritual experiences into a belief system and you can just keep it all to yourself, but then no real social or ecological progress could be made. Pure scientific terminology is indifferent and cannot convey naturalistic spiritual experiences in any profoundly meaningful way. I'm offering one way to do that, but there are other ways.

Atheism doesn't cover it though. It's just an absence of belief in traditional deities. It doesn't even have to be naturalistic. Pantheism assumes metaphysical naturalism to begin with. So dismissing pantheism as just "sex-up atheism" doesn't do it justice. Well, unless sex triggers a profound sense of being, in which case it does do it justice in some sense, but most people use the term "god' in bed so you'd still have to drop the "atheism" bit .

We need to reconcile our rational/scientific mind with our deepest intuitive/experiential feelings of nature, which have been distorted and misinterpreted by Bronze-age religious mythology and Enlightenment-age cultural conditioning. The goal is harmony in all systems, whether that's with humans or not in the end. Maybe you've reached that harmony on a personal level, but just haven't shared it very much with the culture at large. I'm ultimately saying that we need to share those profound naturalistic experiences with each other more often if we ever want to bring about any kind of new ecological or social consciousness for our species.

 

[Copernicus]

Kosherzombie, thanks for your reply. I appreciate your attempts to help me understand your metaphors, but perhaps I lack the imagination as you put it. I was not particularly impressed with Dawkins' tongue-in-cheek description of pantheism as "sexed up atheism", but people do tend to take him a little too seriously at times. To tell you the truth, I find his metaphors generally more inspiring than yours or those of other pantheists, but I think that that is probably because he is just a very good teacher. Metaphors are not useful for logic, but they are useful for teaching.

 

[Willamena]

Metaphors are not useful for logic, but they are useful for teaching.

Tell it to Zen Masters.

 

[Straw Dog]

Kosherzombie, thanks for your reply. I appreciate your attempts to help me understand your metaphors, but perhaps I lack the imagination as you put it. I was not particularly impressed with Dawkins' tongue-in-cheek description of pantheism as "sexed up atheism", but people do tend to take him a little too seriously at times. To tell you the truth, I find his metaphors generally more inspiring than yours or those of other pantheists, but I think that that is probably because he is just a very good teacher. Metaphors are not useful for logic, but they are useful for teaching.

In the end to survive and prosper as a species, I think we'll need more than just pure logic and science. We'll need ecological passion and a sense of connectivity to something greater than ourselves. Science can reveal those connections for intellectual consumption, but we're much more than our intellects and need other methods for incorporating them into direct experience. Dawkins is a good teacher of evolutionary biology and he does use great metaphors for explaining that specific field, but I think he's not very good at educating the general public at large on the scientific method or the general subject of science. Neil Degrasse Tyson (my favorite public science figure) once pointed this out to him that he's actually alienating many people from learning more about science due to his focus on the "god" issue. Dawkins brushed it off with a clever joke, but essentially admitted that he didn't really care about the scientifically illiterate.

 

[Copernicus]

In the end to survive and prosper as a species, I think we'll need more than just pure logic and science. We'll need ecological passion and a sense of connectivity to something greater than ourselves. Science can reveal those connections for intellectual consumption, but we're much more than our intellects and need other methods for incorporating them into direct experience...

This strikes me as reasonable, but your bringing it up here suggests that I take a different position. That is not true, and I have no idea what gave you that impression. Lots of atheists have "ecological passion", although it is far from clear what you mean by a "sense of connectivity to something greater than ourselves". It is simply too vague an expression.

Dawkins is a good teacher of evolutionary biology and he does use great metaphors for explaining that specific field, but I think he's not very good at educating the general public at large on the scientific method or the general subject of science. Neil Degrasse Tyson (my favorite public science figure) once pointed this out to him that he's actually alienating many people from learning more about science due to his focus on the "god" issue. Dawkins brushed it off with a clever joke, but essentially admitted that he didn't really care about the scientifically illiterate.

I like Neil Degrasse Tyson. I think that he is charming and an excellent spokesperson for science, especially in matters of astronomy. Both Tyson and Dawkins are very articulate about science, and I think that just about anyone who reads what Dawkins writes understands him to be very good at explaining science and at times brilliant.

Tyson is right that Dawkins alienates people who are religious, and most people are religious. So it is often very difficult to get people to actually read and pay attention to what Dawkins says. In fact, there is a rather large population of folks out there who seem to devote much of their time to vilifying the man. He is one of the most quote-mined personalities on the internet, and the quote-mining is usually done for the purpose of making him seem like a hateful person--which he is to those doing the quote-mining.

Is Dawkins promoting atheism or science? Having read a fair number of his books, I would say that he is more interested in promoting the latter, and he does a very good job of it. However, he is also a very passionate atheist, and he sees a connection between science and atheism. That is, he believes (as do I) that it is impossible to be fully committed to methodological naturalism without also being a philosophical naturalist. So it is impossible for him to simply suppress that side of himself just to sell science. To do so would be to compromise his intellectual honesty. So Tyson is really giving Dawkins advice that he cannot take without becoming a different person than he is. Hence, about all Dawkins could do in response to Tyson's remark is make some joke to mitigate the awkwardness of Tyson's advice. That's my take on it, anyway.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I think this is a compositional fallacy: there are intelligent things in the universe, therefore the universe is intelligent. It doesn't work, IMO.

There are also vanilla-flavoured things in the universe; is the universe vanilla-flavoured?

 

[Straw Dog]

This strikes me as reasonable, but your bringing it up here suggests that I take a different position. That is not true, and I have no idea what gave you that impression. Lots of atheists have "ecological passion", although it is far from clear what you mean by a "sense of connectivity to something greater than ourselves". It is simply too vague an expression.

I know a lot of atheists have ecological passion. Many of them just don't use any cohesive belief system to communicate and contemplate that passion. I think such belief systems would be more useful in society than simply expressing naturalistic feelings. Those feelings of ecological consciousness are what I mean by the sense of connectivity to something greater than the self. The ecosystem is greater than the self and, of course, so is the Universe. We're never going to all come together in any sort of useful and unified global culture unless we can expand those feelings into a scientifically-based spirituality. It doesn't have to be naturalistic pantheism, but it's a start.

Is Dawkins promoting atheism or science? Having read a fair number of his books, I would say that he is more interested in promoting the latter, and he does a very good job of it. However, he is also a very passionate atheist, and he sees a connection between science and atheism. That is, he believes (as do I) that it is impossible to be fully committed to methodological naturalism without also being a philosophical naturalist. So it is impossible for him to simply suppress that side of himself just to sell science. To do so would be to compromise his intellectual honesty. So Tyson is really giving Dawkins advice that he cannot take without becoming a different person than he is. Hence, about all Dawkins could do in response to Tyson's remark is make some joke to mitigate the awkwardness of Tyson's advice. That's my take on it, anyway.

I understand your points. I think Richard Dawkins is promoting science in his books more so than outright atheism. It just gets lost in translation for many religious people that tie atheism directly to science and then avoid both. So people end up attributing things to atheism that have nothing to do with it. I don't think Dawkins should have to compromise his intellectual honesty, but he doesn't have to. You can be a philosophical naturalist without focusing so much on atheism in regards to the Judeo-Christian version of God. For instance you can focus on a positive belief system, like pantheism or other naturalistic spiritual philosophies. I think society at large would respond better to a more optimistic and spiritual interpretation of naturalism than atheism can even provide by definition. All they're hearing is that their most profound beliefs are completely baseless and there's nothing in naturalism to replace them with. I'm saying let's give them something better to replace those beliefs with. Otherwise they're left in a state of spiritual nihilism, and do you think they prefer that over their outdated religious belief system? They'll just hold onto their old beliefs, even knowing they're baseless, just because its better than accepting that their lives are spiritually meaningless. I think atheists should give people something real to hope for rather than just destroying their dreams.

 

[Straw Dog]

I think this is a compositional fallacy: there are intelligent things in the universe, therefore the universe is intelligent. It doesn't work, IMO.

There are also vanilla-flavoured things in the universe; is the universe vanilla-flavoured?

Perhaps I mixed too much metaphor with my technical descriptions. The meaning I'm trying to convey is all the same, though. The characteristics of 'intelligence' and 'personality' exist as direct extensions of the Universe. And yes, vanilla-flavored things are attributes that do exist as direct extensions of the the Universe also. We need to realize that we're connected to the cosmic system on a profound level of being. It's the absence of either understanding or adequately communicating those natural connections that I find fault with in usual atheist circles. We're still culturally conditioned by Enlightenment-age humanism as man separate from nature rather than man as direct extension of nature.