Pantheism vs. Atheism (Others are welcome)

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

But the universe is more non-vanilla-flavoured than vanilla-flavoured. If we were trying to sum up the characteristics of the universe based on the things in it, it would be more correct to say that it's not vanilla flavoured than to say that it is.

By the same token, the amount of intelligent life in the universe doesn't even register within the significant figures of any measurement we can make of the total material in the universe. It's more correct to say that the universe is unintelligent than to say that it's intelligent.

We need to realize that we're connected to the cosmic system on a profound level of being.

What does this mean, exactly?

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.

No, that's not it. At least it isn't for me. It's not that I think that the universe is some separate "other"; it's that I think we're very much part of the universe, but we're a very inconsequential part of it.

We only matter in terms of the importance we create for ourselves. Except for our effects on other people and the planet (which are very important to us, but completely unimportant on a cosmic scale), we're an utterly negligible part of the universe.

IMO, all this stuff about anthropomorphizing the universe smacks of self-importance.

 

[Willamena]

But the universe is more non-vanilla-flavoured than vanilla-flavoured.

In all fairness, the same can't be said of the universe's chicken flavour.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In all fairness, the same can't be said of the universe's chicken flavour.

Yes... I remember that from the Matrix: everything tastes like chicken.

 

[Straw Dog]

But the universe is more non-vanilla-flavoured than vanilla-flavoured. If we were trying to sum up the characteristics of the universe based on the things in it, it would be more correct to say that it's not vanilla flavoured than to say that it is.

By the same token, the amount of intelligent life in the universe doesn't even register within the significant figures of any measurement we can make of the total material in the universe. It's more correct to say that the universe is unintelligent than to say that it's intelligent.

Your argument is fair enough. I guess I did present my own variation of pantheism as a means of testing it against the most logical type of people I know. I should reiterate that my brand of scientific pantheism doesn't represent it across the board as most pantheists just follow the general beliefs of it.

I suppose I could counter-argue that the collective Universe is both intelligent and unintelligent. It transcends both concepts. But which is more significant? Size still doesn't matter for gauging the significance of intelligent phenomenon given the fact that computers are becoming smaller and more powerful at the same time. Intelligence could also become smaller and more powerful in the future.

I also don't think we fully realize the limitations on intelligence yet. Given current trends in science and technology, it's becoming more probable that intelligence can go so much farther than what our particular species has brought it. Speaking of the Matrix, within time we'll possibly create advanced artificial intelligences capable of improving their own intelligence exponentially. The result would eventually be an AI smarter than the entire human race collectively combined. Hopefully, such an entity wouldn't just consider us to be annoying insects and could care enough to help us evolve out into space. Either way such AIs would expand intelligence in the Universe exponentially, or at least this is what leading experts and visionaries in such fields hypothesize.

No, that's not it. At least it isn't for me. It's not that I think that the universe is some separate "other"; it's that I think we're very much part of the universe, but we're a very inconsequential part of it.

We only matter in terms of the importance we create for ourselves. Except for our effects on other people and the planet (which are very important to us, but completely unimportant on a cosmic scale), we're an utterly negligible part of the universe.

IMO, all this stuff about anthropomorphizing the universe smacks of self-importance.

I never said human beings didn't make up a small portion of the total intelligence in the universe. Again, I don't think we can properly gauge our overall historical significance at this point in time. Small things tend to become big things in the cosmos. Subatomic particles became atoms. Atoms combined into molecules. Chemicals combined into stars and galaxies. Cells combined into organisms. Simple single celled organisms have evolved into the vast diversity of life we have today. Simple tools like arrowheads and fire have evolved exponentially into the much more advanced technology we have today. How can we say human intelligence and technology is insignificant whenever we don't even know how far it'll take us yet or what impact it has on the underlying cosmic processes?

I'm not anthropomorphizing the universe really. I realize what the strict definition of pantheism means, but that's not what its come to mean within culture. It seems very probable that there are other intelligent life forms out in space, and many are probably more advanced then we are at this point so we certainly don't own the phenomenon of intelligence.

I think we should start by expanding social and ecological consciousness on our own planet since that is of more importance at this point, and then hopefully expand cosmic consciousness in the future. Fortunately, scientific pantheism is useful for both aims. It's an experiential philosophy and lifestyle meant to benefit human beings. Of course, the Universe will still tend toward its cosmic "purposes" like entropy and creating black holes just fine without us. But we don't know yet what significant role intelligent life in general may or may not have in the unknown (yet theoretical) cosmic processes that tie things together. I just think it's a mistake to discredit our significance just yet given the fact that we know small things tend to create big things in the cosmos.

 

[Shahzad]

Do you think that intelligence arose in the universe purely by chance out of a universe which itself arose by chance? Or do you think there might some deeper significance there which we don't yet know about?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I suppose I could counter-argue that the collective Universe is both intelligent and unintelligent. It transcends both concepts.

But this gets back to my point from before: while the universe has both intelligent and unintelligent things in it, this doesn't tell us about the characteristics of the universe as a whole.

"The jar is full of jelly beans" does not imply "the jar is a jelly bean".

"The jar has more red jelly beans than green ones" does not imply "the jar is more red than green".

Edit: and even in the case where there is no jar - i.e. where the whole is made up of nothing more than the smaller parts - you can't blindly say that the attributes of the parts apply to the whole:

"The jelly bean is bean-shaped" does not imply "the pile of jelly beans is bean-shaped".

But which is more significant? Size still doesn't matter for gauging the significance of intelligent phenomenon given the fact that computers are becoming smaller and more powerful at the same time. Intelligence could also become smaller and more powerful in the future.

Okay... so size doesn't matter; what does? You need some way to gauge significance if you're going to claim that intelligence is significant to the universe as a whole.

I also don't think we fully realize the limitations on intelligence yet. Given current trends in science and technology, it's becoming more probable that intelligence can go so much farther than what our particular species has brought it.

I never said human beings didn't make up a small portion of the total intelligence in the universe. Again, I don't think we can properly gauge our overall historical significance at this point in time.

Great - so one day, we might be significant. This doesn't mean that we're significant now.

I'm not anthropomorphizing the universe really.

You aren't? Why call it "God", then?

 

[Straw Dog]

Do you think that intelligence arose in the universe purely by chance out of a universe which itself arose by chance? Or do you think there might some deeper significance there which we don't yet know about?

I agree with Stephen Hawking on this one.

“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


I understand that from a human perspective things seem to be random and chaotic, but that just doesn't seem to actually be the case on a cosmic scale. There's some kind of natural process going on. I favor the scientific theories that say it has to do with creating black holes and new universes, but I just don't know yet.

 

[Straw Dog]

But this gets back to my point from before: while the universe has both intelligent and unintelligent things in it, this doesn't tell us about the characteristics of the universe as a whole.

"The jar is full of jelly beans" does not imply "the jar is a jelly bean".

"The jar has more red jelly beans than green ones" does not imply "the jar is more red than green".

Edit: and even in the case where there is no jar - i.e. where the whole is made up of nothing more than the smaller parts - you can't blindly say that the attributes of the parts apply to the whole:

"The jelly bean is bean-shaped" does not imply "the pile of jelly beans is bean-shaped".

I don't know. Perhaps you are right and I should just stick with normal scientific pantheism at this point until I can work my interpretation out better. Thanks.

Okay... so size doesn't matter; what does? You need some way to gauge significance if you're going to claim that intelligence is significant to the universe as a whole.

Great - so one day, we might be significant. This doesn't mean that we're significant now.

You aren't? Why call it "God", then?

I prefer to measure the significance of life in its potential to maximize net entropy over the long term since it seems like the central focus of the cosmos is to increase entropy and create black holes. You see life forms maintain internal "unity" by increasing external "diversity". Normal chemical reactions aren't as good at it. Intelligent life forms have the most potential for maximizing this net entropy over a long time. Human beings maintain the internal unity of civilization by increasing external diversity in the energy transformations of the earth's system, hence increasing entropy. We don't even have to know or believe that this is the case since we simply do it by virtue of our existence. I don't know if this is the case I just tend to believe it based on my interpretation of scientific theories and hypotheses.

What I'm promoting requires people to get outside themselves. We need to decrease our anthropocentric beliefs and increase our eco-centric ones if we even want to survive into the future on this planet. So we'd be doing it for ourselves and for future generations of life. We may seem insignificant now but we can't say that we are unless we knew how our actions will affect the future state of things. Our significance ultimately resides in our ability to expand the self to include not just our own personal selfish desires and the affections of those closest to us, but to all life forms and all the beauty of nature in its entirety. We don't have to use the 'god' term but we're not going to eliminate it so I figured that we might as well empower it with something useful for expanding ecological consciousness. You don't have to use it to practice and promote naturalistic spirituality though.

 

[Willamena]

But this gets back to my point from before: while the universe has both intelligent and unintelligent things in it, this doesn't tell us about the characteristics of the universe as a whole.

This came up in a prior thread, where it was rightly pointed out that the universe can neither be said to be intelligent nor lack intelligence. In other words, the universe properly can have no characteristics or properties. At all.

Edit: Note that this also means that the universe is no less intelligent than unintelligent.

 

[Shahzad]

Is it not fair to say that life is a latent property of matter that emerges under the correct conditions? If so then can't life be said to be a latent property of the universe? It doesn't have to mean that the universe itself is literally alive for it to have life as one of it's latent properties. Same thing for intelligence. You can try this for any property.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is it not fair to say that life is a latent property of matter that emerges under the correct conditions? If so then can't life be said to be a latent property of the universe? It doesn't have to mean that the universe itself is literally alive for it to have life as one of it's latent properties. Same thing for intelligence. You can try this for any property.

What do you mean by "latent property"? How is it different from an emergent property?

 

[Shahzad]

What do you mean by "latent property"? How is it different from an emergent property?

Same thing as emergent really. A "potential" property.

 

[Willamena]

What do you mean by "latent property"? How is it different from an emergent property?

I read that as that a latent property is apparent, existing only in the appearance of other properties (breathing, warmth, activity = "life", etc).

An emergent property is actual, like the design that emerges from the crystalization of water into snowflake.

 

[Copernicus]

Metaphors have a very important function. They are useful in teaching new concepts, because they ground new concepts in what is familiar to the learner. The problem with metaphors is that their usefulness depends on the similarity between the things being associated. So, if you call the universe "God", you bring in quite a few associations that convey what you wish to convey--e.g. the feeling of reverence and awe, a sense of belonging to something greater than oneself. But metaphors always break down, and you end up having to explain where they break down. Metaphors, besides bringing in helpful associations, can drag in associations that give false impressions and create confusion. So calling the universe "God" drags in the idea of a thinking, calculating, feeling super-being that interacts with humans in the form of miracles. Scientists like Hawking and Einstein, who have tossed around the word "God" for metaphorical effect, have therefore come to regret the impressions they have created in a public that has some very different ideas about "godlike" properties. Metaphors do not come with a set of instructions on where the comparison fails.

My problem with kosherzombie's approach here is that his "pantheism" seems to be one of those open-ended metaphors that can mean pretty much what anyone wants it to mean, which makes it less and less insightful than it first appeared. Saying that the universe is "intelligent" doesn't really get us anywhere, because the universe isn't really a rational being in our sense of the word. One cannot really communicate with it. It does not care whether we survive or perish. It does not have goals, preferences, emotions, moods, etc. It has no real personality. But the metaphor is suggestive of all those traits to the extent that someone chooses to construe them. The reason that pantheism is so often associated with atheism is that, after you strip away all of the useless associations carried along by the "God" metaphor, you end up with much the same position--a universe that just does what we see it doing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Same thing as emergent really. A "potential" property.

I'm not sure it's the same thing.

An emergent property, well, emerges: it wasn't there before, but now it is. This doesn't mean that it's really meaningful to say that it was present in some "latent" form beforehand.

As an example, if I stood out in the rain, we could say that my wetness was an emergent property: I used to be dry, but now I'm wet. However, it would be a bit clumsy and IMO misleading to say that beforehand, when I was dry, I had "latent" or "potential" wetness that was waiting for rain in order to be actualized.

 

[Shahzad]

I'm not sure it's the same thing.

An emergent property, well, emerges: it wasn't there before, but now it is. This doesn't mean that it's really meaningful to say that it was present in some "latent" form beforehand.

As an example, if I stood out in the rain, we could say that my wetness was an emergent property: I used to be dry, but now I'm wet. However, it would be a bit clumsy and IMO misleading to say that beforehand, when I was dry, I had "latent" or "potential" wetness that was waiting for rain in order to be actualized.

As I said what I really meant and should have said was potential property. In your example one could say that you had the potential to become wet, you couldn't have gotten wet if you didn't have that potential.

 

[Willamena]

Metaphors have a very important function. They are useful in teaching new concepts, because they ground new concepts in what is familiar to the learner. The problem with metaphors is that their usefulness depends on the similarity between the things being associated. So, if you call the universe "God", you bring in quite a few associations that convey what you wish to convey--e.g. the feeling of reverence and awe, a sense of belonging to something greater than oneself. But metaphors always break down, and you end up having to explain where they break down. Metaphors, besides bringing in helpful associations, can drag in associations that give false impressions and create confusion. So calling the universe "God" drags in the idea of a thinking, calculating, feeling super-being that interacts with humans in the form of miracles. Scientists like Hawking and Einstein, who have tossed around the word "God" for metaphorical effect, have therefore come to regret the impressions they have created in a public that has some very different ideas about "godlike" properties. Metaphors do not come with a set of instructions on where the comparison fails.

My problem with kosherzombie's approach here is that his "pantheism" seems to be one of those open-ended metaphors that can mean pretty much what anyone wants it to mean, which makes it less and less insightful than it first appeared. Saying that the universe is "intelligent" doesn't really get us anywhere, because the universe isn't really a rational being in our sense of the word. One cannot really communicate with it. It does not care whether we survive or perish. It does not have goals, preferences, emotions, moods, etc. It has no real personality. But the metaphor is suggestive of all those traits to the extent that someone chooses to construe them. The reason that pantheism is so often associated with atheism is that, after you strip away all of the useless associations carried along by the "God" metaphor, you end up with much the same position--a universe that just does what we see it doing.

What do you mean by "metaphors always break down"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As I said what I really meant and should have said was potential property. In your example one could say that you had the potential to become wet, you couldn't have gotten wet if you didn't have that potential.

But I have the potential to become any one of a presumably infinite variety of things.

I guess I just don't see how this is a useful way of looking at the world.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What do you mean by "metaphors always break down"?

It's like a car: even if you do your best to maintain it carefully, if you drive it, then at some point, you'll reach the fatigue limit of the different parts.

And if you have a gas-powered metaphor and you fill it with diesel, you have to go to the metaphor mechanic and get your metaphor's fuel system drained.

 

[Willamena]

It's like a car: even if you do your best to maintain it carefully, if you drive it, then at some point, you'll reach the fatigue limit of the different parts.

And if you have a gas-powered metaphor and you fill it with diesel, you have to go to the metaphor mechanic and get your metaphor's fuel system drained.

No, that's an analogy.