"Physics does not content itself with being a mere mass of observations about positions, velocities, and charges of various objects at various times; it systematizes these observations and shows how they are consequences of underlying laws, where the underlying laws are as simple and as powerful as possible. The same should hold of a theory of consciousness." - David Chalmers

I read this quote a minute ago that basically captures all of my sympathies for pantheism, although I suppose the line between that and deism more accurately describes where I'd tread if I ever felt compelled to make that leap. Chalmers himself takes the position of "naturalistic dualism," arguing in this book (The Conscious Mind) that "the cornerstone of a theory of consciousness will be a set of psychophysical laws governing the relationship between consciousness and physical systems." Furthermore he says (to my relief), "There need be nothing especially supernatural about these laws. They are part of the basic furniture of nature, just as the laws of physics are. There will be something "brute" about them, it is true. At some level, the laws will have to be taken as true and not further explained. But the same holds in physics: the ultimate laws of nature will always at some point seem arbitrary. It is this that makes them laws of nature rather than laws of logic." (bold mine)

Fascinating shit, at least in my opinion (maybe it's cause I just smoked resin). I don't think he makes the case for dualism sufficiently at all, at least not yet, but I appreciate the way he thinks about the problem and his approach to it. I still have to side with the reductive functionalists when it comes to the mind-brain question.

As far as I can tell (and I'm not entirely sure), pantheists just look at the universe and put a big "God" sticker on it.

It seems like a pretty pointless thing to do in my opinion. I think pantheists are basically atheists who still want a bit of God in their lives, but without all the improbability... So they water him down until he's basically just a name stuck onto nature.

I won't condemn it, because pantheism seems pretty harmless and benign... But it does seem a bit unnecessary, and something of a copout.

(March 28, 2014 at 1:28 am)Paranoidsam Wrote: As far as I can tell (and I'm not entirely sure), pantheists just look at the universe and put a big "God" sticker on it.

It seems like a pretty pointless thing to do in my opinion. I think pantheists are basically atheists who still want a bit of God in their lives, but without all the improbability... So they water him down until he's basically just a name stuck onto nature.

I won't condemn it, because pantheism seems pretty harmless and benign... But it does seem a bit unnecessary, and something of a copout.

Yeah, whether one wants to elevate the Universe to God-status or demystify God to mean Nature, I'm generally okay with it because Nature IS fucking marvelous. That's the God of Einstein and the "Apostle of Reason," Benedict Spinoza, if I'm not mistaken.

Hey,

I don't understand how this quote has anything to do with pantheism, or constitutes an argument for it. Am I missing something?

My sister considers herself a pantheist. I think it's kinda cool but I don't really care enough to delve into it.

A pantheist is basically an atheist that labels everything as "god".

The earth is god. The trees are god. The dog shit on my shoe is god.

Seems kinda vague and pointless but the whole "I am one with the universe" thing is interesting.

(March 28, 2014 at 10:36 am)No_God Wrote: My sister considers herself a pantheist. I think it's kinda cool but I don't really care enough to delve into it.

A pantheist is basically an atheist that labels everything as "god".

The earth is god. The trees are god. The dog shit on my shoe is god.

Seems kinda vague and pointless but the whole "I am one with the universe" thing is interesting.

It seems like an exactly empty statement.

Pantheism just fails. That's it.

If pantheism makes you happy and gives you oneness with the universe then by all means, please indulge yourself.

But as for me....

lol

What's kind of cool though about pantheism, is the non-belief in a "personal" god. Like as seen in the Abrahamic faiths. This notion that a god is watching your every move and that daily prayer is "required" in order to have a "relationship" with it.

Frankly, it (pantheism) seems more on the level of philosophy than religion from what I've read about it.

(March 28, 2014 at 10:10 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(March 28, 2014 at 1:28 am)Paranoidsam Wrote: As far as I can tell (and I'm not entirely sure), pantheists just look at the universe and put a big "God" sticker on it.

It seems like a pretty pointless thing to do in my opinion. I think pantheists are basically atheists who still want a bit of God in their lives, but without all the improbability... So they water him down until he's basically just a name stuck onto nature.

I won't condemn it, because pantheism seems pretty harmless and benign... But it does seem a bit unnecessary, and something of a copout.

Yeah, whether one wants to elevate the Universe to God-status or demystify God to mean Nature, I'm generally okay with it because Nature IS fucking marvelous. That's the God of Einstein and the "Apostle of Reason," Benedict Spinoza, if I'm not mistaken.

Yeah, a lot of people refer to it as "Spinoza's God"...

A lot of it is probably just imagination... Putting a human face and human attributes onto nature in a sort of poetic/artistic way.

I can dig that...