(May 3, 2019 at 11:47 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: There is no similarity between pantheism and atheism. Atheism is a single line item rejection of the central and defining plank of the other position. There are similarities between how atheists and pantheists view other forms of theism. One of those enemy of my enemy moments, where a larger agreement seems to be manufactured not by any compatibility of principle, rather, by an agreement between both parties on the paucity thereof when it comes to those Other Fuckers™.
I'm getting to that in my reply to your first post. Short answer: In my discussion with you, we'll say I'm arguing as a Spinozist... not just some run-of-the-mill pantheist. So the issue then becomes: is Spinoza an atheist or pantheist? Philosophers interpret him both ways, and there is something to be said for both interpretations. On the one hand, he rejects all anthropomorphic gods. He claims that God has no free will and moves only according to prior causes-- he argues the same for human beings. This sounds like straight materialism. And for the most part, it is. But he also advises that it is wise to "love God"-- even though "God" will not love you in return. Why? It will help an individual transcend emotional difficulties. That's why. There is a strain of quasi-theistic thinking in this idea. And I think that it's what separates pantheism from regular atheism.
I'll quote a passage from the Ethics discussing Spinoza's idea that it is good to love God. Now, of course, this is love of nature (as Spinoza says outright that God is identical with nature)-- but still: this is more than just straight atheism. If anything, this is atheism plus the idea that one is wise to keep some kind of reverence for the totality of things. It's also reminiscent of Stoicism which also influenced Spinoza's philosophy. But I'll get to that when I quote the passage.
