Reasons to be a pantheist

[Fraggle Rocker]

A pantheist. Is that when you go out and steal people's pants?

[Rav]

Yes, what does it mean that the universe is a God? Is there a brain anywhere? Taoism avoids this question by suggesting not an active thing, but a passive process that grows out of it's own nature.

It's become clear that darryl is the sort of pantheist that I don't relate to much. He seems to be an idealist or at least a dualist. Such pantheists often see the universe itself as something that possesses some sort of intelligence or intended structure. In this sense, rather than being inside a universe that is contingent upon God, we are simply inside (or part of) God. This contrasts with naturalistic pantheism, which is essentially a sort of spiritual atheism, where spirituality is simply understood to be a feeling of connectedness and reverence for nature (and where reverence is understood in it's non-religious sense). I fit into the latter category, although I typically don't call call myself a pantheist unless I'm trying to stimulate discussion.

[NietzscheHimself]

They can do all those things, but then question why the use of the term "God" that would be utterly superfluous?
If, as darryl states, pantheism is not atheistic, then there must be more to pantheism than merely equating the universe to God.
If it is merely equating, then as Coleridge and others argue: why bother with the term God at all? What does it offer that other words can't?

It offers a historical perspective of communication instead of a direct lead to solipsism which you have provided.

[Sarkus]

Communication between whom? Us and the universe? If so, still why the need for the term God?
If you mean between other parties... who?

And how is what I have "provided" (which is merely a rebuttal and a questioning of the claims rather than any counter claim) a direct lead to solipsism?

[NietzscheHimself]

Communication between whom? Us and the universe? If so, still why the need for the term God?
If you mean between other parties... who?

You and I are using a word that connects directly to the creation of reality with or without the connection to an actual "being".

And how is what I have "provided" (which is merely a rebuttal and a questioning of the claims rather than any counter claim) a direct lead to solipsism?

Because it is a rebuttal questioning the claim as opposed to a counter claim. It's comparative to me asking for a cup, you grabbing one and preceding to call it a chalice. You understand what I'm saying but your questioning our ancestors, which is what I attempted to explain.

All these thought we have today individually and collectively were spread among the thoughts of previous individuals individually. When you begin to consolidate them into a single person you realize the same word can have many meanings beyond any definition especially to the people who began consolidating them.

[Sarkus]

You and I are using a word that connects directly to the creation of reality with or without the connection to an actual "being".

And the question remains... why use the term God? What is insufficient with the term Everything, or Universe?
Unless, of course, one wishes to introduce something that is not entailed within those other words? In which case... what?

Because it is a rebuttal questioning the claim as opposed to a counter claim. It's comparative to me asking for a cup, you grabbing one and preceding to call it a chalice. You understand what I'm saying but your questioning our ancestors, which is what I attempted to explain.

It's not about questioning our ancestors at all.
There is clearly an intention to introduce additional concepts in the term God than in the other terms of "universe", or "everything", whether it is with regard how it is perceived, or what it actually entails.
I am trying to understand what those differences are - as clearly a pantheist has an intention behind using a rather loaded word such as God to describe what others merely see as "universe".

And it still doesn't answer my question of how what I "provided" is a direct lead to solipsism?

All these thought we have today individually and collectively were spread among the thoughts of previous individuals individually. When you begin to consolidate them into a single person you realize the same word can have many meanings beyond any definition especially to the people who began consolidating them.

Of course words can mean different things - but if there is to be any meaningful conversation then one needs to understand the full extent of those differences, to be sure that the terms are utterly synonymous - or to understand the differences, whether gross or in nuances.
And that still doesn't, nor shouldn't, prevent one from asking WHY one uses a pre-loaded term such as God when they are using it in possibly a way unique to their view of the universe, and thus is so clearly open to misunderstanding from society as a whole.

[NietzscheHimself]

And the question remains... why use the term God? What is insufficient with the term Everything, or Universe?

I have no quarrel with that. Our greatest rule is that these words are a combined thought.

Unless, of course, one wishes to introduce something that is not entailed within those other words? In which case... what?

Everything to us should be the most tangible of substances.

It's not about questioning our ancestors at all.
There is clearly an intention to introduce additional concepts in the term God than in the other terms of "universe", or "everything", whether it is with regard how it is perceived, or what it actually entails.

Each word gives you a picture a part of the whole, yet you view them all irreconcilable with the other. Why are these immages not the same?

And it still doesn't answer my question of how what I "provided" is a direct lead to solipsism?

"solipsistic" in relation to what a pantheist already believes. Which means there are inherent thoughts that need to be reconciled in order for you to understand a pantheist's "point of view".

And that still doesn't, nor shouldn't, prevent one from asking WHY one uses a pre-loaded term such as God when they are using it in possibly a way unique to their view of the universe, and thus is so clearly open to misunderstanding from society as a whole.

Oh so you think everyone has their own views of god and your testing mine? You really do catch on to this pantheist thing quickly. But my beliefs are still a road we are unlikely to wander towards.

[Sarkus]

I have no quarrel with that. Our greatest rule is that these words are a combined thought.

And if you end up with two words that are synonymous then why continue to use one that comes complete with centuries of baggage?
And if they are not synonymous - what is the difference?

Everything to us should be the most tangible of substances.

Surely this is just materialism and empiricism?

Each word gives you a picture a part of the whole, yet you view them all irreconcilable with the other. Why are these immages not the same?

It is me asking the pantheist why they are not the same. I can not answer that for them.
I have no issue with them being considered the same (if one does indeed consider them such) - but I do have issue with them using a term that comes pre-loaded with baggage when, by their own admission (again we're talking about those who do consider them synonymous) there is already a word that lacks the baggage and lacks the imminent confusion.

But if the term God gives them something else... what is it?

"solipsistic" in relation to what a pantheist already believes. Which means there are inherent thoughts that need to be reconciled in order for you to understand a pantheist's "point of view".

I'm still lost as to how this has any relationship to solipsism?

Oh so you think everyone has their own views of god and your testing mine? You really do catch on to this pantheist thing quickly. But my beliefs are still a road we are unlikely to wander towards.

I am merely questioning what it is to be a pantheist, and specifically in this exchange their usage of the word "God" - to try and understand what additional concept it brings to the table, or if none why the insistence on a term so weighed down in baggage.
If you consider this testing of your views then it is accidental, as I do not know anything about your views to be so deliberate.

[darryl]

It's become clear that darryl is the sort of pantheist that I don't relate to much. He seems to be an idealist or at least a dualist. Such pantheists often see the universe itself as something that possesses some sort of intelligence or intended structure. In this sense, rather than being inside a universe that is contingent upon God, we are simply inside (or part of) God. This contrasts with naturalistic pantheism, which is essentially a sort of spiritual atheism, where spirituality is simply understood to be a feeling of connectedness and reverence for nature (and where reverence is understood in it's non-religious sense). I fit into the latter category, although I typically don't call call myself a pantheist unless I'm trying to stimulate discussion.

No I am not an idealist or dualist, I strongly oppose those schools of thought, I am a panpsychist. The type of pantheism that I support sees the universe as a living organism, nothing is inanimate, there is intelligence in all matter. If you like the idea of this position you may enjoy the panpsychism and pantheism proposed in the book Radical Nature: The Soul of Matter by the philosopher Christian De Quincey.

In this new edition of the award-winning Radical Nature, Christian de Quincey explores the “hard problem” of philosophy--how mind and matter are related--and proposes a radical and surprising answer: that matter itself tingles with consciousness at the deepest level. It’s there in the cells of every living creature, even in molecules and atoms. Tracing the lineage of this idea through Western philosophy and science, he shows that it has a very noble history--from before Plato to Alfred North Whitehead. He reveals that the way to God is through nature and that understanding how body and soul fit together has surprising consequences for our relationships with our environment, with other people, and even with ourselves.

[spidergoat]

I can see your point of view, but if evolution, for instance, is intelligent, it has an IQ of about 1. It's only slightly smarter than pure randomness.

[kx000]

I can see your point of view, but if evolution, for instance, is intelligent, it has an IQ of about 1. It's only slightly smarter than pure randomness.

Evolution was unguided, nature has taken course.

[spidergoat]

Unguided, yes, but not completely random. It is possible to look at it as a kind of organism. Where does the organism end and the rest of the universe begin? I don't know.

[Fraggle Rocker]

Unguided, yes, but not completely random. It is possible to look at it as a kind of organism. Where does the organism end and the rest of the universe begin? I don't know.

Evolution is an attribute of the collective continuum of living organisms, just like growth, metabolism, reproduction, response to stimuli, etc. It is not one of the living organisms itself.

[spidergoat]

I was thinking more of the entire tree of life.

[Rav]

No I am not an idealist or dualist, I strongly oppose those schools of thought, I am a panpsychist. The type of pantheism that I support sees the universe as a living organism, nothing is inanimate, there is intelligence in all matter. If you like the idea of this position you may enjoy the panpsychism and pantheism proposed in the book Radical Nature: The Soul of Matter by the philosopher Christian De Quincey.

I don't see how you can also believe what you were promoting here without being an idealist, or at least a dualist. It clearly implies that either consciousness is the most fundamental thing, and that matter is something of an illusion created by such, or at least that things like cognition and conscious awareness can exist independently of a material substrate.

[NietzscheHimself]

And if you end up with two words that are synonymous then why continue to use one that comes complete with centuries of baggage?

Because I like to place the contrasting images into your mind and allow you to choose which one you like. Then I want you to question it's use.

Surely this is just materialism and empiricism?

Together? Surely not... How would our senses ever help us discover something obvious about our "environment".

It is me asking the pantheist why they are not the same. I can not answer that for them.
I have no issue with them being considered the same (if one does indeed consider them such) - but I do have issue with them using a term that comes pre-loaded with baggage when, by their own admission (again we're talking about those who do consider them synonymous) there is already a word that lacks the baggage and lacks the imminent confusion.

But if the term God gives them something else... what is it?
I'm still lost as to how this has any relationship to solipsism?
I am merely questioning what it is to be a pantheist, and specifically in this exchange their usage of the word "God" - to try and understand what additional concept it brings to the table, or if none why the insistence on a term so weighed down in baggage.

Good now we are getting somewhere. I quoted the word "environment" as it is also synonymous with god/universe. Though in relation the word specifically refers to the world around us. You quoted god because you were viewing it as connected to all things. Some of the first gods were given names because of the dangers our world posessed. Ra the sun, Ja for love, Poseidon for water, Dionysus for wine, gods for wars and gods for whores.

If you consider this testing of your views then it is accidental, as I do not know anything about your views to be so deliberate.

It is respectful to follow another's views when invited to their house. That is the only main view you need to follow to become a pantheist.

Test or not I always answer with honesty. Confusion is often a great tool for clarification. Does showing you how dirty the word is make you want to clean it? Or does it put the reality of our thoughts and feelings into perspective?