What do you think of Deism & Pantheism? (recall, beliefs, believe)

[tilli]

If there is a Supreme Architect, and I believe there is, then it already knew what was going to happen from the beginning of exsistence.

If a supreme being already knew everything that would happen in creation, why bother creating it at all?

I am not sure why anyone would need to explain the unexplainable with such an uninvolved god. The only way a Deist-style creator makes sense to me is if it is not omniscient and wanted to observe what interesting things might happen as a consequence of setting the variables up in a certain way. (The old "we're all trapped in an alien petri dish" argument.) I don't see any evidence of a creator or any reason why one must exist, but I do respect this belief since it doesn't postulate a magical personal god that listens to your trials and tribulations and arbitrarily decides who to help and who to damn.

Pantheism I also find fairly reasonable - I too look up at the stars and watch the birds fly and feel a wonder and awe to be witness to all this. I don't personally equate that feeling with god, but I can understand how pantheism arises from it. That sort of god-belief is really quite different that most other beliefs in dieties, it is basically atheism wearing a mystic's veil.

Really both of these positions seem to be the last steps a theist takes before completely relinquishing a belief in god, by identifying with a sort of god that is so far removed from human experience that from our perspective, it might as well not exist.

[creepsinc]

Originally Posted by tilli

Pantheism I also find fairly reasonable - I too look up at the stars and watch the birds fly and feel a wonder and awe to be witness to all this. I don't personally equate that feeling with god, but I can understand how pantheism arises from it. That sort of god-belief is really quite different that most other beliefs in dieties, it is basically atheism wearing a mystic's veil.

Perfect description! I've seen too much (in various states ) to be a "we're nothing but dust on rocks floating randomly" atheist, but I also don't believe in "god" per se. There are alternatives to both extremes and you summed them up with your description of pantheism. Everything's connected, basically. It explains everything from psychic abilities to synchronicities and too many people discount it because science hasn't caught up yet, outside of quantum physics.

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by creepsinc

Perfect description! I've seen too much (in various states ) to be a "we're nothing but dust on rocks floating randomly" atheist, but I also don't believe in "god" per se. There are alternatives to both extremes and you summed them up with your description of pantheism. Everything's connected, basically. It explains everything from psychic abilities to synchronicities and too many people discount it because science hasn't caught up yet, outside of quantum physics.

I suppose I am a 'dust on rocks' atheist. That doesn't stop me going all spiritual at the night sky, an amazing stalactite cave or Luxor temple, Ely Cathedral or Ananda Paya, VW's 5th or a park full of autumn leaves or a skeleton of Megatherium or a really well-made curry or let's stop before the analogy breaks down.

It's like this: I know that we are insignificant. I do not believe that we are of any importance to anyone other than ourselves. It is always possible to suppose that someone from Von Dainiken's gods from outer space to the 'god' of Einstein is interested in us, but I don't see good evidence for it and some evidence against it.

That said, all the things that matter to us matter. Does a Theist really believe (apart from Maradonna) that God cares who wins a football match? Does anyone, Theist or not, really believe that music, art or poetry matters a jot to anything or anybody other than ourselves? But that doesn't bother us in the slightest when we enjoy that to the full. It matters to us and that's quite good enough.

Why on earth should we worry then if all we are is a virus (in sneakers) on a ball of mud? What matters to us, matters and it doesn't bother me in the least that the wider universe doesn't know or care.

Now as to your other point, yes, there is undoubtedly far more than we can imagine and we will probably never know it all. It is also true that getting ideas and speculating and brainstorming theories which we can then find ways of testing is all useful.

However, what we shouldn't do it get carried away by those theories and start believing in them before they have been given some pretty good peer- reviewed evidential support, like DNA, C14 dating and evolution. Until then it has to remain 'just a theory'.

It has been argued that we are foolish to 'reject' something simply because we don't believe it to be possible. Mrs. Jones of 'Ex Atheist' put forward the example of the Wright brothers' first powered flight. Apparently some people refused to believe that it could be possible,but it was.

Therefore (she argued) many other things we don't accept as possible (miracles, resurrection, transubstantiation and the rantings of John of Patmos having any sort of credibility) could also be true.

They could, but until they are demonstrated to be so, they have no cause to be believed. The Wright brothers' flight, until it was repeated, verified and the principles explained and understood itself had no business to be believed just on the basis of a claim or even a film. That's the way it works. If it expect to be called credible science.

So the 'everything is connected' theory must still remain just a theory. synchronicities is just a theory and certainly it would be worth getting some experiments done to validate it. But what we can't rationally do is to say it must be true and we believe it because - effectively, the work to discount it hasn't been done yet.

[tilli]

So the 'everything is connected' theory must still remain just a theory.

I would say that "everything is connected" is already an established part of science but it is usually not thought about in this way. If everything arose from a singularity as the current theory goes, if all matter formed as a consequence of the Big Bang, if we are all stardust as Carl Sagan liked to say, then the idea that everything is connected is more than hypothetical. The discovery of quantum entanglement reinforces this idea. The holistic way that ecologies respond to stressors is a great real-world example of this. I personally don't think it is particularly outlandish to consider that everything might also be connected in other ways that we are not yet aware of, but it remains to be seen.

[creepsinc]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I suppose I am a 'dust on rocks' atheist. That doesn't stop me going all spiritual at the night sky, an amazing stalactite cave or Luxor temple, Ely Cathedral or Ananda Paya, VW's 5th or a park full of autumn leaves or a skeleton of Megatherium or a really well-made curry or let's stop before the analogy breaks down.

It's like this: I know that we are insignificant. I do not believe that we are of any importance to anyone other than ourselves. It is always possible to suppose that someone from Von Dainiken's gods from outer space to the 'god' of Einstein is interested in us, but I don't see good evidence for it and some evidence against it.

That said, all the things that matter to us matter. Does a Theist really believe (apart from Maradonna) that God cares who wins a football match? Does anyone, Theist or not, really believe that music, art or poetry matters a jot to anything or anybody other than ourselves? But that doesn't bother us in the slightest when we enjoy that to the full. It matters to us and that's quite good enough.

Why on earth should we worry then if all we are is a virus (in sneakers) on a ball of mud? What matters to us, matters and it doesn't bother me in the least that the wider universe doesn't know or care.

Now as to your other point, yes, there is undoubtedly far more than we can imagine and we will probably never know it all. It is also true that getting ideas and speculating and brainstorming theories which we can then find ways of testing is all useful.

However, what we shouldn't do it get carried away by those theories and start believing in them before they have been given some pretty good peer- reviewed evidential support, like DNA, C14 dating and evolution. Until then it has to remain 'just a theory'.

It has been argued that we are foolish to 'reject' something simply because we don't believe it to be possible. Mrs. Jones of 'Ex Atheist' put forward the example of the Wright brothers' first powered flight. Apparently some people refused to believe that it could be possible,but it was.

Therefore (she argued) many other things we don't accept as possible (miracles, resurrection, transubstantiation and the rantings of John of Patmos having any sort of credibility) could also be true.

They could, but until they are demonstrated to be so, they have no cause to be believed. The Wright brothers' flight, until it was repeated, verified and the principles explained and understood itself had no business to be believed just on the basis of a claim or even a film. That's the way it works. If it expect to be called credible science.

So the 'everything is connected' theory must still remain just a theory. synchronicities is just a theory and certainly it would be worth getting some experiments done to validate it. But what we can't rationally do is to say it must be true and we believe it because - effectively, the work to discount it hasn't been done yet.

I certainly don't think we're significant in any way, and are basically bacteria. However, I've arrived at the worldview that the universe (capitalization optional) is a vast, single living organism with LOTS of parts. Really no different than the theory put forth by quantum physics, when you think about it. If that's considered pantheism, so be it. Nature is all-encompassing, and does include us, even if we don't act like it most of the time. It also includes all matter and energy in existence. Most so-called atheists don't really look at things that way, which is why I choose not to label myself as one.

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by tilli

I would say that "everything is connected" is already an established part of science but it is usually not thought about in this way. If everything arose from a singularity as the current theory goes, if all matter formed as a consequence of the Big Bang, if we are all stardust as Carl Sagan liked to say, then the idea that everything is connected is more than hypothetical. The discovery of quantum entanglement reinforces this idea. The holistic way that ecologies respond to stressors is a great real-world example of this. I personally don't think it is particularly outlandish to consider that everything might also be connected in other ways that we are not yet aware of, but it remains to be seen.

Yes. That we are all stardust is a logical conclusion from the idea that we evolved on a mud-ball that was once part of a star and all the atoms that make us up have been through eight pairs of kidneys (eighty - eight if you count dinosaur - kidneys. Now there's a thought! ) but I'm not so sure about "everything might also be connected in other ways that we are not yet aware of" and it seems best not to be sure about it. It's an interesting idea but no more than that just yet and quantum mechanics with its odd idea of quantums here immediately affecting quantums there could eventually turn out to have various explanations. It's certainly too early to pick one of them as a favoured theory. Though its tempting to do it.

[creepsinc]

Then of course, there is the idea of an "afterlife", which on the surface seems ludicrous. But, upon further examination, who's to say there isn't another level of consciousness we move on to after this one? Consciousness itself (the best explanation for the "soul" in most religions) is pretty mysterious and not very understood even at this advanced date. All it takes is one out of body experience to turn preconcieved notions on their head. Where does consciousness end? How do you explain "phantom limbs"? I recommend the book "The Holographic Universe", especially for skeptics, of which I remain one. That all being said, I feel pretty confident that there isn't a bouncer at the door, only letting in the "right" people.

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by creepsinc

I certainly don't think we're significant in any way, and are basically bacteria. However, I've arrived at the worldview that the universe (capitalization optional) is a vast, single living organism with LOTS of parts. Really no different than the theory put forth by quantum physics, when you think about it. If that's considered pantheism, so be it. Nature is all-encompassing, and does include us, even if we don't act like it most of the time. It also includes all matter and energy in existence. Most so-called atheists don't really look at things that way, which is why I choose not to label myself as one.

But you are one, nevetheless, unless you label that "worldview that the universe (capitalization optional) is a vast, single living organism with LOTS of parts" (or anything else) 'God' and consider it to be advance - planning intelligent.

Anything else may be science or fringe - science, but it isn't theism. And the default of nnot being theist is being atheist.

Not trying to put words into your mouth, but to set out a situation and see what you think of it. You can call yourself what you like but I get the feeling with you that you want your reasons for doing or thinking anything to have its head on the right way round.

The idea of the Universe as a single oganism. Well, 'organism' isn't quite the term I'd use but it's all there, to state the obvious.

I suppose I'm over suspicious and pantheism of the 'we are somehow one with the universe and are somehow mentally (read 'spiritually') connected with it' (or that sorta thing) feels like the last shreds of a tenuous theist indoctrination. The indicating of quantum physics is (to me) too reminiscent of theist veiling of an unfeasible deity with the fuzzy fabric of a generally uncomprehended but reputable science and trying to pass it off as scientific proof of god. That the 'god' is a pantheistic universe is not going to ruffle the atheistic hackles as much as a deity that wants women kept out of the pulpit and fakes fossils to test our faith, but, though pantheism is a really quite acceptable cousin of atheism, it does seem to have some of the residual symptoms of theism.

As I said in the post above. This is not trying to grind your ideas down, as I'm fine so long as your pantheist universe doesn't require a fossilized ark in Turkey. It's more asking what you think about it.

[creepsinc]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

But you are one, nevetheless, unless you label that "worldview that the universe (capitalization optional) is a vast, single living organism with LOTS of parts" (or anything else) 'God' and consider it to be advance - planning intelligent.

Anything else may be science or fringe - science, but it isn't theism. And the default of nnot being theist is being atheist.

Not trying to put words into your mouth, but to set out a situation and seewhat you think of it. You can call yourself what you like but I get the feeling with you that you want your reasons for doing or thinking anything to have its head on the right way round.

The idea od the Universe as a single oganism. Well, 'organism' isn't quite the term I'd use but it's all there, to state the obvious.

I suppose I'm over suspicious and pantheism of the 'we are somehow one with the universe and are somehow mentally (read 'spiritually') connected with it' (or that sorta thing) feels like the last shreds of a tenuous theist indoctrination. The indicating of quantum physics is (to me) too reminiscent of theist veiling of an unfeasible deity with the fuzzy fabric of a generally uncomprehended but reputable science and trying to pass it off as scientific proof of god. That the 'god' is a pantheistic universe is not going to ruffle the atheistic hackles as much as one that wants women kept out of the pulpit and fakes fossils to test our faith, but, though pantheism is a really quite acceptable cousin of atheism, it does seem to have some of the residual symptoms of theism.

As I said in the post above. This is not trying to grind your ideas down, as I'm fine so long as your pantheist universe doesn't require a fossilized ark in Turkey. It's more asking what you think about it.

Well, I think of Nature as being inherently intelligent (as do many scientists), and possibly created itself (ie. the Big Bang), not with conscious forethought..but...(this is where I always trail off), but basically, no, outside of considering myself and everything else to be a seamless part of Nature Itself, I don't believe in a god, so I guess by default that makes me an atheist. The problem is, most avowed atheists are close-minded about anything that hasn't been peer-reviewed and proven by science, which I find woefully inadequate. Plenty of things might never be fully explained by science, but I don't automatically discount them. I'm also no hippie, since I find nature (or Nature) to be brutally unforgiving in most cases, and I respect that. What's your take on String Theory? I have a feeling the answers might be there, to a large extent.

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by creepsinc

Then of course, there is the idea of an "afterlife", which on the surface seems ludicrous. But, upon further examination, who's to say there isn't another level of consciousness we move on to after this one? Consciousness itself (the best explanation for the "soul" in most religions) is pretty mysterious and not very understood even at this advanced date. All it takes is one out of body experience to turn preconcieved notions on their head. Where does consciousness end? How do you explain "phantom limbs"? I recommend the book "The Holographic Universe", especially for skeptics, of which I remain one. That all being said, I feel pretty confident that there isn't a bouncer at the door, only letting in the "right" people.

An afterlife of the kind that is set out in glowing, if vague, terms in the various religious brochures (pay in advance) certainly seems ludicrous for anything that is still 'us'. And again, who is to say that there isn't a level of consciousness or even an 'afterlife' of some kind?

Well, the evidence for it doesn't seem too good and the evidence against rather better so I, for one, would put my money on 'not'. But, as you say, we can't be sure. We can't be sure either way so it has to remain speculative. If you can work out some good angle of getting scientifically reliable evidence for it, I say, go for it. but 'It can't be disproved' has always been poor (though popular) support for the 'unprovables'.

The most I can say is that, if there is a hgher level of consciousness, I am all for pursuing it in any way that is scientifically better than sitting and letting all sorts of ideas about floating into the blue enter the mind and then expecting it to be accepted as empirically valid.

And if there is any kind of afterlife, it's for all of us, as you say. It's as natural as birth and death and so we may as well take the other side of Pascal's wager.

"Since you haven't gained anything by devoting yourself to pointless attempts to wangle a ticket to heaven and, if this is the only life there is, you've wasted it on religion, the smart money is on living this life and not wasting it on trying to suck up to an imaginary god".