I like the idea of Pantheism

[GenesisNemesis]

To have a mind is to be distinct and separated from the universe.

It is the opposite of being one with the universe.

Not if the whole universe is beminded.

How do you determine that?

 

[untermensche]

To have a mind is to be distinct and separated from the universe.

It is the opposite of being one with the universe.

Not if the whole universe is beminded.

The whole universe is not my mind. There is my mind and there is the universe. Two things, not one.

 

[No Robots]

Not if the whole universe is beminded.

How do you determine that?

Some people have this apperception, some don't. It is more or less of an intuition. A person can develop it and test it, or deny it and suppress it.

Not if the whole universe is beminded.

The whole universe is not my mind. There is my mind and there is the universe. Two things, not one.

Just as your body is part of the continuum of the universe understood as matter, your mind is part of the continuum of the universe understood as mind.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, a spiritual atheist may be called or call himself a pantheist. This shows that indeed pantheism is not necessarily incompatible with atheism.

And we're back to which definition you're using.
If you're saying pantheism means 'all is god' or 'all is part of the divine' then it's incompatible with atheism.
if you're saying pantheism means merely that there's one big unifying mind, not a god, that ties all together, then why in the fuck is 'theism' part of the label?
Doesn't pan-theism literally mean 'all is god?'

 

[No Robots]

So, a spiritual atheist may be called or call himself a pantheist. This shows that indeed pantheism is not necessarily incompatible with atheism.

And we're back to which definition you're using.
If you're saying pantheism means 'all is god' or 'all is part of the divine' then it's incompatible with atheism.
if you're saying pantheism means merely that there's one big unifying mind, not a god, that ties all together, then why in the fuck is 'theism' part of the label?
Doesn't pan-theism literally mean 'all is god?'

Yeah, I'm just saying that an atheist should probably look into other terms like panpsychism or spiritual atheism. Just trying to be helpful to someone seeking answers.

 

[untermensche]

Just as your body is part of the continuum of the universe understood as matter, your mind is part of the continuum of the universe understood as mind.

Matter is something I see all over the universe.

Mind is something I only see one of.

 

[No Robots]

Just as your body is part of the continuum of the universe understood as matter, your mind is part of the continuum of the universe understood as mind.

Matter is something I see all over the universe.

Mind is something I only see one of.

I won't try to convince you otherwise. Those who are so inclined can ask me for helpful reading via pmail.

 

[untermensche]

Matter is something I see all over the universe.

Mind is something I only see one of.

I won't try to convince you otherwise. Those who are so inclined can ask me for helpful reading via pmail.

I won't try to convince you either.

I have no special books to look at. Any science book will do.

 

[No Robots]

I have no special books to look at. Any science book will do.

Perhaps you are unaware of the discussions within science about the nature of mind. It is something you could investigate.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yeah, I'm just saying that an atheist should probably look into other terms like panpsychism or spiritual atheism.

What?
You said:

This shows that indeed pantheism is not necessarily incompatible with atheism.

Now you're saying the term doesn't apply, try another?

 

[abaddon]

Technically, you are correct. So a spiritual atheist should call himself just that. I'm just saying that someone who calls himself a pantheist may in fact be a spiritual atheist.

I'll agree with that I suppose.

I'll agree too.

I’ve always disagreed with the scientific pantheists than pantheism isn’t a theism. They do that because they feel “theism” must be a being that is a person.

The scientific pantheists depersonalize the cosmos as atheists do. Because they’re atheists. But then they turn around and call the depersonalized (and thus devalued?) cosmos “awesome and worshipful”. I think maybe pantheism was a poor choice of label for themselves. So, as you suggest, they should consider just saying “spiritual atheist” or “religious naturalist” instead. And instead of insisting pantheism isn’t a theism, they should insist that religion is not theism nor supernaturalism. Because, then they’d be right…

Sometimes religion contains theism and sometimes supernaturalism too. But sometimes not.

 

[No Robots]

I've always liked you, abaddon. You have a great name, too. Have you ever read The Master and Margarita? If not, do so forthwith.

 

[No Robots]

What?
You said:

This shows that indeed pantheism is not necessarily incompatible with atheism.

Now you're saying the term doesn't apply, try another?

Terms are tricky things. I'm saying, like abaddon explains, that pantheism is a poor fit as term for an atheist, but that there are plenty of other similar terms that don't have the same problems.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'll agree with that I suppose.

I'll agree too.

I’ve always disagreed with the scientific pantheists than pantheism isn’t a theism. They do that because they feel “theism” must be a being that is a person.

The scientific pantheists depersonalize the cosmos as atheists do. Because they’re atheists. But then they turn around and call the depersonalized (and thus devalued?) cosmos “awesome and worshipful”. I think maybe pantheism was a poor choice of label for themselves. So, as you suggest, they should consider just saying “spiritual atheist” or “religious naturalist” instead. And instead of insisting pantheism isn’t a theism, they should insist that religion is not theism nor supernaturalism. Because, then they’d be right…

Sometimes religion contains theism and sometimes supernaturalism too. But sometimes not.

So what? They don't think the universe is conscious or aware or anything like that but just worship it out of a sense of "Yeah! Go Universe! You rock!" or something like that?

 

[No Robots]

So what? They don't think the universe is conscious or aware or anything like that but just worship it out of a sense of "Yeah! Go Universe! You rock!" or something like that?

Schrodinger broached the matter of panpsychism, albeit somewhat guardedly:

According to Spinoza every particular thing or being is a modification of the infinite substance, i.e of God. It expresses itself by each of his attributes, in particular that of extension and that of thought. The first is its bodily existence in space and time, the second is – in the case of a living man or animal – his mind. But to Spinoza any inanimate bodily thing is at the same time also ‘a thought of God’, that is, it exists in the second attribute as well. We encounter here the bold thought of universal animation, though not for the first time, not even in Western philosophy. Two thousand years earlier the Ionian philosophers acquired from it the surname hylozoists. After Spinoza the genius Gustav Theodor Fechner did not shy at attributing a soul to a plant, to the earth as a celestial body, to the planetary system, etc. I do not fall in with these fantasies, yet I should not like to have to pass judgment as to who has come nearer to the deepest truth, Fechner or the bankrupts of rationalism.— What Is Life? / Erwin Schrodinger, p. 94-5.​

Of course, there is plenty of philosophy writing on this subject. And more scientists are willing to engage the question.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But to Spinoza any inanimate bodily thing is at the same time also ‘a thought of God’, that is, it exists in the second attribute as well.

This seems to be the heart of it. Why would someone make that kind of assumption? It seems quite random.

 

[No Robots]

This seems to be the heart of it. Why would someone make that kind of assumption? It seems quite random.

It would require some study of philosophy to get a good grasp of the issues involved. Spinoza doesn't explain so much as he presents. It is up to the reader to fill in the rationale. For this, you have to look at other philosophers who either precede or follow Spinoza. It is all fairly involved and somewhat technical. But surely it is not beyond the reach of the genuinely curious science aficionado?

 

[abaddon]

So what? They don't think the universe is conscious or aware or anything like that but just worship it out of a sense of "Yeah! Go Universe! You rock!" or something like that?

I’ll let a scientific pantheist phrase it his way:

Pantheism has two central tenets:

The cosmos is divine.

The earth is sacred.

When we say the cosmos is divine, we mean it with just as much conviction, emotion and commitment as believers when they say that their god is God.
But we are not making a vague statement about an invisible being who is beyond proof or disproof. We are talking about our own emotional responses to the real universe and the natural earth.

~From here: http://www.pantheism.net/paul/basic-principles.htm

 

[untermensche]

The cosmos is divine.


The earth is sacred.

To a rationalist:

The cosmos is somewhat explained but much about it remains a mystery.

The earth is what we evolved to live on and we can't live without it.

 

[No Robots]

A self-labelled rationalism that has no theory of the nature of reason/mind is hardly worthy of being called rational.