I like the idea of Pantheism

[Tom Sawyer]

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

Why? "I don't know" isn't a synonym for "I should make something up"

 

[No Robots]

Why? "I don't know" isn't a synonym for "I should make something up"

You claim that you are rational, but you cannot explain the nature of rationality. That is absurd.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Why? "I don't know" isn't a synonym for "I should make something up"

You claim that you are rational, but you cannot explain the nature of rationality. That is absurd.

Why? You seem to be saying that having an answer, even if it's wrong, is better than not having an answer.

If we don't know, why would anything be better than saying we don't know?

 

[No Robots]

Why? You seem to be saying that having an answer, even if it's wrong, is better than not having an answer.

If we don't know, why would anything be better than saying we don't know?

If I said I am a communist, but I couldn't explain what communism is, wouldn't you think me absurd?

 

[untermensche]

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

Does having a theory make you a rationalist?

A rationalist is really an empiricist.

They believe in the presence of evidence and suspend belief in the absence of evidence.

 

[No Robots]

Does having a theory make you a rationalist?

Without a theory of rationality you cannot possibly be considered a rationalist.

A rationalist is really an empiricist.

They are actually different things. An empiricist cannot call himself a rationalist unless he has some explanation of the nature of rationality. And, of course, an empiricism that is not grounded in some theory of rationality is hardly to be trusted.

They believe in the presence of evidence and suspend belief in the absence of evidence.

The question of what constitutes evidence entails the question of what is empirical and what is rational. Too many intertube science warriors play fast and loose with all this. That's all fine in the physical science fora, but a higher standard of reflexion is required in discussing matters relating to spirit and mind.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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.

So, the universe is an agreed upon reality, but divine and sacred are attributes the pantheist projects out of his own head.
Got it.
Wow, that's so different from most theism.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why? You seem to be saying that having an answer, even if it's wrong, is better than not having an answer.

If we don't know, why would anything be better than saying we don't know?

If I said I am a communist, but I couldn't explain what communism is, wouldn't you think me absurd?

Oddly, it's possible for people to be communists but not know the definition or even the label of communism.
They just live in a manner that we, having the word in our vocabulary, would define their life as a communist one.

 

[untermensche]

Without a theory of rationality you cannot possibly be considered a rationalist.

You need language and reason. Reason is a tool not a theory.

A rationalist is really an empiricist.

They are actually different things. An empiricist cannot call himself a rationalist unless he has some explanation of the nature of rationality. And, of course, an empiricism that is not grounded in some theory of rationality is hardly to be trusted

You haven't shown they are different.

An empiricist starts with the idea that he will trust what can be observed and be repeated again and again. That is not a theory, it is an a priori constraint.

He doesn't have to go a step beyond trust.

If he wants a formal theory then he must construct one. But he doesn't need one to be an empiricist.

And a rationalist is just somebody guided by the things they trust from empiricism.

The question of what constitutes evidence entails the question of what is empirical and what is rational.

No. Evidence is that which can be examined in some way.

What to make of the evidence may require an elaborate theory, but to know something is evidence doesn't.

 

[Angry Floof]

I like the idea of pantheism, too, but I agree that the "theism" part contradicts the atheist stance, and calling the sum total of everything "God" only adds an unnecessary conceptual layer seeing how we already have the word "everything," and particularly since the word "god" contains the ground-in dirt of humanity's worst religions. Everything is everything, no need to try to make it a person, but that's what we so consistently do with god concepts.

Rolling Thunder's description of Native American beliefs fits me perfectly.

Our religion can't be put into a book, or even an entire library, because it includes everything that has life. We don't threaten people with hells or devils. We don't say 'sin' but rather 'wrongdoing.' We don't like to think of gruesome things like people burning in hell forever and ever. That's the kind of mentality and anti-spirituality that was conjured up and brought over here because certain groups of people needed a way to control others. Rolling Thunder Speaks

I would say that whatever I would look for if I were seeking God already exists where I can see it, touch it, experience it first hand, as well as experience it indirectly through learning science, and through the vast network of humans who influence me in ways big and small.

No need for a name, or special entity, or ideology. These things are useful to various human endeavors but when used as a literal framework of metaphysics, they only distort your first hand experience of this blessed sip of life, no matter what that entails.

This, to me, is divinity.

 

[Horatio Parker]

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.

Because making assumptions is part of life. We have no how accurate our mental picture of reality is, but we require one to survive.

What ideas like pantheism do is provide a structure which is a match for how we experience reality ie as a whole. That its a deliberate mental construction doesn't detract from its value.

I like the Platonic explanation which is similar to pantheism in that every unique thing is also connected.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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

Because making assumptions is part of life. We have no how accurate our mental picture of reality is, but we require one to survive.

What ideas like pantheism do is provide a structure which is a match for how we experience reality ie as a whole. That its a deliberate mental construction doesn't detract from its value.

I like the Platonic explanation which is similar to pantheism in that every unique thing is also connected.

But structure isn't valuable unless we can have a degree of confidence in its accuracy. The mental picture that we have of reality in order to survive is one that we have a high degree of confidence in. When we see solid ground, we can be confident that our mental picture is accurately representing where solid ground is so we don't walk off a cliff. When our mental constructs tell us that the object we're holding is an apple, we can be reasonably confident that we're not about to bite into a rock. It's because of the high degree of accuracy of our assumptions about the mental constructions that we have of reality that those constructions allow us to survive in reality as opposed to quickly ending up dead. We are continuously testing the accuracy of those assumptions with every action that we take that requires us to navigate through reality using the mental constructions we build of it in our heads.

Assumptions about pantheism and the like are entirely unrelated to that. For starters, they are completely and utterly unrelated to what's required for us to survive in every way, shape and form. It's true that it provides a structure for how we experience reality, but the question is how related to reality that structure is. Thinking that your problems are caused by alien ghosts who are pissed off about getting nuked in a volcano or thinking that spinning three times before walking through a door protects your city from earthquakes also provide a structure for how we experience reality. If those structures do not provide actual information about reality, however, then they are not valuable structures. Pantheism is the same as those. If it makes you feel good to thnk that the universe is all one interconnected whole or whatever, then that's fine and it has value as an emotional crutch, but it has no value in providing information about reality.

 

[No Robots]

Oddly, it's possible for people to be communists but not know the definition or even the label of communism.
They just live in a manner that we, having the word in our vocabulary, would define their life as a communist one.

Yeah, I agree with this. One can be rational without being a rationalist. I guess my hope was for a discussion about the nature of rationality. It seems grossly weird that somewhat would enter a discussion about spirituality and mind without being willing to discuss the philosophical foundations of his own belief system. But that is part of the noise one gets in open fora. Like I said, my only hope was to offer the op some sources for continued investigation.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yeah, I agree with this. One can be rational without being a rationalist. I guess my hope was for a discussion about the nature of rationality.

exactly what are you looking for about the 'nature of rationality?' It's a process. It seems to work. That's how we get moon landings and cancer cures. I'm not sure if it's really the basis of a philosophy, as much as a dependable tool.

I suspect you mean something else entirely, but you would need to flesh that out.

 

[No Robots]

Exactly what are you looking for about the 'nature of rationality?' It's a process. It seems to work. That's how we get moon landings and cancer cures. I'm not sure if it's really the basis of a philosophy, as much as a dependable tool.

I suspect you mean something else entirely, but you would need to flesh that out.

Never mind, Keith&Co. I'm not sure this is a discussion that you and I can engage in with any degree of mutual satisfaction.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Because making assumptions is part of life. We have no how accurate our mental picture of reality is, but we require one to survive.

What ideas like pantheism do is provide a structure which is a match for how we experience reality ie as a whole. That its a deliberate mental construction doesn't detract from its value.

I like the Platonic explanation which is similar to pantheism in that every unique thing is also connected.

But structure isn't valuable unless we can have a degree of confidence in its accuracy. The mental picture that we have of reality in order to survive is one that we have a high degree of confidence in. When we see solid ground, we can be confident that our mental picture is accurately representing where solid ground is so we don't walk off a cliff. When our mental constructs tell us that the object we're holding is an apple, we can be reasonably confident that we're not about to bite into a rock. It's because of the high degree of accuracy of our assumptions about the mental constructions that we have of reality that those constructions allow us to survive in reality as opposed to quickly ending up dead. We are continuously testing the accuracy of those assumptions with every action that we take that requires us to navigate through reality using the mental constructions we build of it in our heads.

Assumptions about pantheism and the like are entirely unrelated to that. For starters, they are completely and utterly unrelated to what's required for us to survive in every way, shape and form. It's true that it provides a structure for how we experience reality, but the question is how related to reality that structure is. Thinking that your problems are caused by alien ghosts who are pissed off about getting nuked in a volcano or thinking that spinning three times before walking through a door protects your city from earthquakes also provide a structure for how we experience reality. If those structures do not provide actual information about reality, however, then they are not valuable structures. Pantheism is the same as those. If it makes you feel good to thnk that the universe is all one interconnected whole or whatever, then that's fine and it has value as an emotional crutch, but it has no value in providing information about reality.

You're doing the typical atheist thing: anything "sacred" must be magical and therefore false. That is not what No Robots or I are talking about. These structures are for the unnamed, unproven part of existence. While some degree of mysticism is involved , nothing has been said about commandments coming out of a burning bush or reanimated corpses. That's a straw man.

However clear eyed you may imagine your grasp of reality to be, it does not on its own provide one iota of meaning. Meaning comes from within. Often these discussions lose sight of the vital fact that it is the relationship of the mind with reality that is pertinent, not reality somehow separate and isolated which none of us knows. You may be satisfied experiencing ecstasy or the profound as isolated events eg Art is Beautiful, great orgasm etc. Others attempt to relate these things to a whole. As long as one admits it's a construct, there's nothing magical about it.

Superman, the Matrix, Gandalf, Harry Potter - none of these are "accurate" in any empirical sense except the psychological. Nevertheless, they influence people. At least in a rational pantheism, the practitioner knows and recognizes that process. Constructs like pantheism are not as arbitrary as they appear at first. They have a tradition and are subject to a dialectic of their own. I would argue that any group discussion of rational pantheism is far more grounded in reality than a discussion about say favorite reality TV stars.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Exactly what are you looking for about the 'nature of rationality?' It's a process. It seems to work. That's how we get moon landings and cancer cures. I'm not sure if it's really the basis of a philosophy, as much as a dependable tool.

I suspect you mean something else entirely, but you would need to flesh that out.

Never mind, Keith&Co. I'm not sure this is a discussion that you and I can engage in with any degree of mutual satisfaction.

I'm not looking for satisfaction. But you're already crowing about a victory and i'm not sure where anyone said 'ready,set,go.'

What did you mean by a 'theory of rationality?'

 

[Keith&Co.]

But structure isn't valuable unless we can have a degree of confidence in its accuracy.

You're doing the typical atheist thing: anything "sacred" must be magical and therefore false. That is not what No Robots or I are talking about.

I think he's more doing a typical 'skeptic' thing, saying anything that's apparently made-up should be treated as 'made-up.' Therefore, it's best compared to other fictions...or superstitions. it doesn't make the universe more understandable, even if you feel really good about it.

 

[No Robots]

What did you mean by a 'theory of rationality?'

You may be unaware that the question of consciousness is of growing interest in scientific circles. You might want to start looking into this with Roger Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind. The question of rationality is a subset of the question of consciousness.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But structure isn't valuable unless we can have a degree of confidence in its accuracy. The mental picture that we have of reality in order to survive is one that we have a high degree of confidence in. When we see solid ground, we can be confident that our mental picture is accurately representing where solid ground is so we don't walk off a cliff. When our mental constructs tell us that the object we're holding is an apple, we can be reasonably confident that we're not about to bite into a rock. It's because of the high degree of accuracy of our assumptions about the mental constructions that we have of reality that those constructions allow us to survive in reality as opposed to quickly ending up dead. We are continuously testing the accuracy of those assumptions with every action that we take that requires us to navigate through reality using the mental constructions we build of it in our heads.

Assumptions about pantheism and the like are entirely unrelated to that. For starters, they are completely and utterly unrelated to what's required for us to survive in every way, shape and form. It's true that it provides a structure for how we experience reality, but the question is how related to reality that structure is. Thinking that your problems are caused by alien ghosts who are pissed off about getting nuked in a volcano or thinking that spinning three times before walking through a door protects your city from earthquakes also provide a structure for how we experience reality. If those structures do not provide actual information about reality, however, then they are not valuable structures. Pantheism is the same as those. If it makes you feel good to thnk that the universe is all one interconnected whole or whatever, then that's fine and it has value as an emotional crutch, but it has no value in providing information about reality.

You're doing the typical atheist thing: anything "sacred" must be magical and therefore false. That is not what No Robots or I are talking about. These structures are for the unnamed, unproven part of existence. While some degree of mysticism is involved , nothing has been said about commandments coming out of a burning bush or reanimated corpses. That's a straw man.

However clear eyed you may imagine your grasp of reality to be, it does not on its own provide one iota of meaning. Meaning comes from within. Often these discussions lose sight of the vital fact that it is the relationship of the mind with reality that is pertinent, not reality somehow separate and isolated which none of us knows. You may be satisfied experiencing ecstasy or the profound as isolated events eg Art is Beautiful, great orgasm etc. Others attempt to relate these things to a whole. As long as one admits it's a construct, there's nothing magical about it.

Superman, the Matrix, Gandalf, Harry Potter - none of these are "accurate" in any empirical sense except the psychological. Nevertheless, they influence people. At least in a rational pantheism, the practitioner knows and recognizes that process. Constructs like pantheism are not as arbitrary as they appear at first. They have a tradition and are subject to a dialectic of their own. I would argue that any group discussion of rational pantheism is far more grounded in reality than a discussion about say favorite reality TV stars.

Right, that's exactly what I'm saying. Discussions about pantheism aren't inherently different than discussions about Harry Potter or Superman. They're perfectly fine as abstract concepts to provide meaning and structure, but talking about the interconnectedness of the universe gives no more information about reality than discussing different methodologies for griffin training does. The discussions about what gives meaning to our lives and the discussions about the nature of reality are wholely different discussions.

If you want to say that you are a better person and your life has more meaning because of the value you take out of the ideas you learned from a pantheistic philosophy, that's fine. If you want to say that learning the ideas from a pantheistic philosophy have you more knowledgable about how the universe works than you were before you learned those ideas, then that's an unsupported assertion that you can't back up.