RE: Defending Pantheism
May 3, 2019 at 12:39 pm
(This post was last modified: May 3, 2019 at 12:56 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
You can call me a crosbyist, lol. Pantheist on panatheist violence! 
Atheism is not the position that it is unwise to reserve reverence for the totality of things, or even a position on "the supernatural". Atheism is a position on the existence of gods. Pantheism posits the existence of a god. Spinoza argued that there were benefits to acting as though some untrue thing were true (and, fwiw, that's commonly true). This is an admission of the positions weakness for what it is, and does not lend any credibility to it's god claim, however. While spinoza is rightly pointed to as one of (if not the) most influential figures in pantheistic ideology, he also single handedly gutted it.
It might also be helpful to account for the fact that spinoza, in any of his comments that circle what we would recognize as atheism, was very much leaning into what theists of the time -said- about atheists and atheism. The trend of reverence for nature and totality in atheism is as old and older than any of the theistic faiths left on the earth. This was one of the things that the proto orthodox intentionally tried to stamp out, and then bitched about centuries later as though there was some inherent lack of reverence in atheism.
A modern analog would be "my fellow poors really ought to act as if they can boostrap themselves up and out, even though we know that this isn't a factual account of success". The seemingly contradictory nature of the statement is an artifact of comprehension. Believing for benefit in spite of untruth addresses two distinct things. The same is so with the spinozist god. The crosbyist nature, otoh, makes no such proclamations, rather, asserts that you can believe what is true and accrue those same benefits on account of it.
You want reverence? Just look around you. Emotional resilience? Plant a garden.
Atheism is not the position that it is unwise to reserve reverence for the totality of things, or even a position on "the supernatural". Atheism is a position on the existence of gods. Pantheism posits the existence of a god. Spinoza argued that there were benefits to acting as though some untrue thing were true (and, fwiw, that's commonly true). This is an admission of the positions weakness for what it is, and does not lend any credibility to it's god claim, however. While spinoza is rightly pointed to as one of (if not the) most influential figures in pantheistic ideology, he also single handedly gutted it.
It might also be helpful to account for the fact that spinoza, in any of his comments that circle what we would recognize as atheism, was very much leaning into what theists of the time -said- about atheists and atheism. The trend of reverence for nature and totality in atheism is as old and older than any of the theistic faiths left on the earth. This was one of the things that the proto orthodox intentionally tried to stamp out, and then bitched about centuries later as though there was some inherent lack of reverence in atheism.
A modern analog would be "my fellow poors really ought to act as if they can boostrap themselves up and out, even though we know that this isn't a factual account of success". The seemingly contradictory nature of the statement is an artifact of comprehension. Believing for benefit in spite of untruth addresses two distinct things. The same is so with the spinozist god. The crosbyist nature, otoh, makes no such proclamations, rather, asserts that you can believe what is true and accrue those same benefits on account of it.
You want reverence? Just look around you. Emotional resilience? Plant a garden.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
