Pantheism: C or D?

More bold personalities, more characters, better niche entities to pray to.

I like the idea of guardian spirits for particular places or ideas or emotions. I'm not so interested in the comic book-y superhero characters. Shinto is kind of polytheistic I think? That interests me. Hindu pantheon always seems interesting but that might be because it's less familiar to me.

Too fuzzy for me. I much prefer the worship of Pan to pantheism. But I also prefer worship of the Parmenidean monad to monotheism, so go figure. Of course, if you equate pantheism with something like Hinduism, then I might reconsider.

Too much bureaucracy. Jurisdictional arguments.

I prefer Pandiscordianism

instead of hialing Eris, you hail a panda

Pandemonium, anyone?

Too much bureaucracy. Jurisdictional arguments.

But the constant gridlock and Mexican stand-offs leave human beings free to get on with their shit, rather than being messed about by one big omnipotent oaf with too much time on his hands.

If you truly believe in it, you can't worship the Parmenidean monad. Unless the worship just IS.

Pantheism? Ye gods!

...and little fishes?

Ogmor... Bingo!

Wtf? Pantheism != pantheon of deities. Pantheism = Spinozian Monotheism.

The Candyman makes a good point.

lol I just knew what Abbott meant and my brain didn't register it as the wrong word.

Wow, Noodle. You're really pushing my "I Love Candy" comment hard, huh?

Good luck with that.

Glad it's not bothering you.

Pantheism? It's just a matter of swapping a few atoms around that differentiates us in the cosmic jello:

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a82/bobbysixer/rojc.jpg

I seriously heard a UFC reverend call people "pantheist pussies."

So now I realize the word I am looking for is polytheism.

atheists representin'

haha

Mordy introduced this idea to me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism and I think it describes my religious views better than anything else I've seen :)

Ppl upthread getting it confused with polytheism

Narcissism of differences in types of astrology

unfair, that

u can imagine i'll be judged for it later if it helps

lol i think when you move away from monotheism it's easier to think as the theist bit as not being angry boss God and being something closer to a philosophical relationship to the cosmos is what i meant

so poly/pantheism can be thought of as a twist on pluralism vs monism with no real supernatural element at all

imo

polytheism = the pantheist universe playing with its action figures

i can dig the universe being one big connected juicy energy hyperdriven orgasm that we're all experiencing mannnnn, that's just the universe

no need to f/w 'awareness' or any such kinda concepts. pantetheism still seems to be inserting a level of remove from nothing but pure consciousness that i can live without.

yeah i don't see the need to multiply entities either tbh

wait is this back to my logic course again cos thats not til tomorrow night

While pantheism asserts that 'All is God', panentheism goes further to claim that God is greater than the universe.

I can get on this.

yeah i don't see the need to multiply entities either tbh

No need to have the big bang fwiw

think any good pantheism / panentheism has to be a polytheism too (defining all terms quite loosely). without that the pan(en)theist universe becomes, under closer scrutiny, a bit of an undifferentiated mush. hence nietzsche the simultaneous dionysian and polytheist.

imho not so

under the closest scrutiny, everything is an undifferentiated mush!

Not all unknowns are postulated with equal validity, the answer will not turn out to have horns or care about children.

No need to have the big bang fwiw

the Big Bang isn't an unnecessary addition to a thesis of the universe but a part of a thesis

what does panentheism add to pantheism but an extra (unwarrantable) layer of metaphysics?

and an en

transcendence xp

yeah was gonna say

it permits faith in an indelible, ineffable thing-ness to existence

u don't need permission iirc? but why can't everything be that ineffable thingosity?

used to think that, but now there's a higgs boson y'see

basically if we treat the universe pantheistically and no more, we are prisoners of science - ideas of ecosystem, multiplicity and universality are subordinate to our observations. panentheism allows us to be wrong, or at least less presumptive

that's what i meant with my pantheism / polytheism / undifferentiated mush comment tho. and it relates to the scientific viewpoint, insofar as that kind of 'prisoner of science' thing would be true of old (basically newtonian) approaches to science, where the entire universe is a homogeneous plane that we can theoretically understand in its entirety. but post-riemann etc we have different conceptions of space and infinity and such that mean we can't have absolute metrics, leading to us having to forget a lot of our presuppositions about man in relation to universe and about unity and about everything really. it's not that the universe isn't 'one' but it's also... not-one.

'prisoners of'

In danger of fixating on particularly unimportant boundaries there imo.

xxp this is why i think the scientific positivism of dawkins etc is not just dunderheaded but completely baffling - it's based on an understanding of 'science' that's been out of date for well over a century and yknow they should really know better.

Possibly because what he opposes opposes itself that version of science in large part?

I can never be down w/ pantheism. Nature is Satan's church.

story has it that the poor sap who discovered the square root of two was thrown off a ship to his death by pythagoras, for being such an affront to the gods.

yet again, brutal intolerance of the Transcendental

utterly panthetic

Dud. But what is the difference between it and deism?

These all seem like slight flavor variations all in which to hold on to spirituality while keeping the goal posts at a safe distance.

what goal posts? these are theological constructs, not arguments for the existence of god.

To believe them is an argument for some version of spirituality I had thought.

for example, monotheism is just a type of belief, contrasted w/ polytheism. it isn't a proof that there is one god, no god, or many gods. similarly, pantheism + panentheism can be thought of as versions of monotheism that might be appealing for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do w/ making an argument about truth/reality.

Well by believing in something you have some kind of justification for its truth. I'd imagined they were appealing due to abrahamic or other monotheistic versions of spiritual belief harder to justify.

But justify in what way? The transcendent element of panentheism defies justification. It can only really be approached through apophatic theology - the pantheism being that which can be apprehended and then - acc to gnostic kabbalah at least - the divinity prior to contraction (tzimtzum) is incomprehensible. But you don't necessarily need panentheism to create an untouchable divine. Classic version of god as the watchmaker who does not interfere directly with reality also gives you the same thing - it's just less emotionally/theologically/spiritually appealing to me so I don't subscribe to it. You can have various versions of this too - Maimonides asked: when a leaf falls off a try, does god determine how many times it flips in the air before it touches the earth, or are there mechanisms in place that determine that? Believing in one version over the other doesn't make a belief in god more or less realistic or justified - but it might work better for you in some aesthetic or personal sense.

i think there have been pan(en)theisms that have arisen as heretical thoughts precisely because existing monotheistic beliefs were too easy to justify

falls off a tree* xp

It defies justification because it is unfalsifiable, and technically more probable than the specific qualities that come with competing theologies. So therefore the possibility of its truth is easier to accept and that makes it more appealing to the relatively skeptical spiritual believer.

So you justify your belief in it because it is safer from your own criticism when you are judging what you find probable.

who is judging what is probable? a) i don't think panentheism is more probable than traditional monotheism. b) i'm not trying to justify anything. i think you're a little caught up on whether it's true or not, but you could have an equally uninteresting conversation about truth + god w/out ever touching on panentheism.

http://www.ilxor.com/ILX/ThreadSelectedControllerServlet?showall=true&bookmarkedmessageid=4560410&boardid=77&threadid=65802

Viewing religion through the lens of factual probablility is certain to filter out everything of value in it.

So therefore the possibility of its truth is easier to accept

Not quite sure what you are talking about here. Spirituality is a personal experience beyond logic, evidence, justification. Are you hung up on some medieval strawman version of God or something?

No I just have trouble with the concept of believing in something about how reality is governed without being concerned with whether it is true or not. I figured that is all that was important in judging a belief.

If it being probable to be true merely because it more unfalsifiable I figure is the only appeal, but I'm having trouble seeing value in it in a different way. I'm asking with innocent curiosity here.

concerned with whether it is true or likely to be true*

Is spirituality something entirely different than the idea that spirits exist or not?

Spirits sure as heck exist in the bars I go to.

"out you pixies go!"

If you're asking why someone might be attracted to one religious belief over another, I think you'll get lots of different answers from different ppl. I am myself curious what imago likes about panenthiesm; I assume it has nothing to do w/ believability. On a non-Zing platform I could probably write tl;dr treatises on the question.

If though you're asking why someone would believe in anything religious if it is not logically supported by empirical data--- idk what to tell you. Bc my brain is human and stupid. Idk.

I think so. You can have spirituality and not believe in spirits. Personally I think the modern concept of spirits is sort of silly and bordering on embarrassing pseudo-science. If there was an energy thingy consciousness whatever underlying every person on earth, and it was abstract enough to be eternally lasting, why would it retain any qualities related to your material person in any recognizable capacity?

I think the best comparison could be art or music. Why are people into Picasso? He clearly can't draw people right. What's with Monet? Why does everything always come out fuzzy? Now that we have photography, what use is any art?

I totally agree except I just don't entirely understand "You can have spirituality and not believe in spirits" still.

trouble with the concept of believing in something about how reality is governed without being concerned with whether it is true

I greatly doubt I can much influence your thinking on this via chatting on the internet, but your concept of truth seems to be very concrete atm. That is great for limited purposes, such as figuring out how to pour milk into a cereal bowl and not on the countertop, or calculating returns on a ten year Treasury bill at %2.375 interest, and such like.

Once you get into more general concepts, like the nature of reality, you'll eventually need to examine the role played by your own mind in the construction of your reality. This introduces complications that are not easily dealt with by simple calculations of external probablility. I would contend that your current model doesn't scale well for resolving such questions. I probably can't convince you of this, but if you pursue your model far enough you'll find that wherever it breaks down, you will uncover the element of faith in all your thinking and begin to appreciate its nature better.

I'm not so into the words spirit or spirituality. There might be relevant analogues in Chassidic theology but I think they're more Christian terms?

how about a soul

Soul food exists, therefore the soul must exist a posteriori.

trouble with the concept of believing in something about how reality is governed without being concerned with whether it is true

I greatly doubt I can much influence your thinking on this via chatting on the internet, but your concept of truth seems to be very concrete atm. That is great for limited purposes, such as figuring out how to pour milk into a cereal bowl and not on the countertop, or calculating returns on a ten year Treasury bill at %2.375 interest, and such like.

Once you get into more general concepts, like the nature of reality, you'll eventually need to examine the role played by your own mind in the construction of your reality. This introduces complications that are not easily dealt with by simple calculations of external probablility. I would contend that your current model doesn't scale well for resolving such questions. I probably can't convince you of this, but if you pursue your model far enough you'll find that wherever it breaks down, you will uncover the element of faith in all your thinking and begin to appreciate its nature better.

― Aimless, Thursday, October 3, 2013 4:28 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Are you saying that at a certain point naturalism is a leap of faith? Because I'm dedicated to the idea that simply probability says that the existence we commonly observe is most likely reality until we have evidence to suggest otherwise. Sorry if I'm coming across all atheist-talking-points here.

Rather than define "gnostic" into meaninglessness, we should be basing our beliefs on the rules of reality we observe, so as to understand what is true until some clue consistently observed by us all suggests something otherwise, allowing us to revaluate.

But you have to admit that our powers of observation are limited, as well as heavily biased by human-centric point of view. If you want to be honest and completely materialistic about things then you have to admit this bias and these limits.

I do certainly, but when we can all agree on common truths (science...) doesn't that make those "rules" the most probable to currently explain reality?
Everything else is a thought experiment until there is adequate data for it to compete. I'm more worried about the human-centric bias that try to make claims without as much rigorous methods or reinforcements as a naturalistic reality than I am the human-centric bias that would prove all of those methods and constant reinforcements to be illusion in some way.

Are you saying that at a certain point naturalism is a leap of faith?

Yes. A point that you have already crossed, because it must be crossed.

the existence we commonly observe

^^ here is the crux.

There most certainly is a universe much greater than ourselves, so I am not arguing for solipsism, but rather that, in the same way that our being embedded in time and space makes it impossible for us to observe anything not equally embedded, our observations are embedded in our minds and this makes it impossible to organize our observations on any other basis.

Our inability to escape this filter upon our observations means we are not normally aware of it. But when you encounter it and begin to trace its effects, you begin to understand the degree to which faith is involved in your every act.

This awareness doesn't change how the universe operates, but it can easily change your conception of what an observation consists of. As any Zen monk will tell you, it is still just ordinary existance, but everything has shifted to a new ordinary.

^ otm otm otm

who would worship a pan, even if was one of those really cool ceramic ones, just stupid

Nothing in what you posted (all as nicely put as ever btw) argues for spirituality aimless.

I do not know what you mean by spirituality, d.

For me it means knowingly embracing faith as a necessary component of a sane, balanced life. It does not mean that I believe in the existance of immaterial beings with no measurable physical qualities, such as ghosts, gods, or angels, which can also interact with physical objects and employ measurable forces. Spirituality doesn't require a repeal of the laws of physics, imo.

Ok we're cleaning up the edges nicely.

Faith is a little loose there for me to get a handle on it. Faith that your keys are where you left them, faith that the world keeps turning and the sun comes up, faith that all will be well and good things happen good ppl, faith in a higher power, purpose, state of being, faith that we are here for a reason, what brand of an internet discussion am i having here?

http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/380651/jewish/Levels-of-Soul-Consciousness.htm

http://recombi.net/kabbalah/www.kabbalah.info/pictures/l4_2_en.gif

Man ive just finished evening 3 of looking at slides full of tables and words that mean about as much to me as that, why more?

when i was in 9th grade i learnt a homiletic that after your death the angels come and whip you. but if you can tell them over chassidus that you learnt in your lifetime they will stop beating you and listen bc angels don't otherwise have an opportunity to learn about the mystical foundations of creation. << pragmatic reason

Just added judaism to that list that up til now only had 'the godfather' on it

Are you saying that at a certain point naturalism is a leap of faith?

Yes. A point that you have already crossed, because it must be crossed.

the existence we commonly observe

^^ here is the crux.

There most certainly is a universe much greater than ourselves, so I am not arguing for solipsism, but rather that, in the same way that our being embedded in time and space makes it impossible for us to observe anything not equally embedded, our observations are embedded in our minds and this makes it impossible to organize our observations on any other basis.

Our inability to escape this filter upon our observations means we are not normally aware of it. But when you encounter it and begin to trace its effects, you begin to understand the degree to which faith is involved in your every act.

This awareness doesn't change how the universe operates, but it can easily change your conception of what an observation consists of. As any Zen monk will tell you, it is still just ordinary existance, but everything has shifted to a new ordinary.

― Aimless, Thursday, October 3, 2013 5:07 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Awareness of this though doesn't make help make any conceived alternative to naturalism more likely, partly due to the fact that the same human filter is the medium that imagined the alternate views on reality anyway. Naturalism is the only belief structure with an outward basis, one that we observe... everything else was conceived inwardly by the imagination of the human mind.

Since alternate belief structures carry all of their sources from what was imagined by humans, wouldn't your position be damning first to those belief structures besides naturalism, with naturalism to follow next? All we can assert by doubting the science informed reality is "who knows?"

sorry for typos...

I don't think doubting science has anything to do with spirituality. Unless you are a Bible literalist or think holy texts are all strictly exoteric.

wouldn't your position be damning first to those belief structures besides naturalism

Oh, absolutely! Belief structures are usually beautiful and always flawed, as are their creators. Science is among the most beautiful yet and also extremely handy for not going far astray when you wish to coax material stuff to do what you want. I'm a big fan!