Defending Pantheism

[vulcanlogician]

This starts with a very trivial understanding of the religious.

Since we're going by the google definition for numinous, and that definition contains the word religious, perhaps we ought to agree on a definition of "religious." I propose we go with William James's definition which he offers in The Varieties of Religious Experience.

THE FEELINGS, ACTS, AND EXPERIENCES OF INDIVIDUAL MEN IN THEIR SOLITUDE, SO FAR AS THEY APPREHEND THEMSELVES TO STAND IN RELATION TO WHATEVER THEY MAY CONSIDER THE DIVINE.

Now we are left with one more problem word: divine. I'll let James settle this one too.

We escape much controversial matter by this arbitrary definition of our
field. But, still, a chance of controversy comes up over the word “divine,”
if we take the definition in too narrow a sense. There are systems of
thought which the world usually calls religious, and yet which do not
positively assume a God. Buddhism is in this case. Popularly, of course,
the Buddha himself stands in place of a God; but in strictness the
Buddhistic system is atheistic. Modern transcendental idealism,
Emersonianism, for instance, also seems to let God evaporate into
abstract Ideality. Not a deity in concreto, not a superhuman person, but
the immanent divinity in things, the essentially spiritual structure of the
universe, is the object of the transcendentalist cult.

If this definition doesn't work for you, let me know. But this is the kind of "deep" definition of divinity/numinosity I've been working with so far. So if you accept it, half our work is done, and we can get into the meat of the argument.

The terms supernatural and natural have no clear meaning, even less so hundred of years ago, and most theists have little need to make such distinctions, so they remain relatively agnostic on the terms. No corresponding terms for supernatural nor natural, exists in the bible.

Correct. You and I say "problem," but the apologist says "solution." The ambiguity of natural/supernatural has allowed them to bob and weave around direct arguments for centuries.

Since it's an issue, why don't we stick with material/immaterial? I may use the words natural/naturalistic etc. out of habit, but what I mean when I say this is "in accordance with materialism and subject to the laws of nature." Does that work? It worked for Plato and Aristotle. And I think it can work for us.

Secondly if you paid attention even to the most basic apologetics, such as WLCs, it’s never that what’s good is declarations of a divine being, but rather good is part of it’s very nature. To be good is to partake in the life of God, rather than the hallow following of some set of rules.

I've watched plenty of WLC (and not just him getting owned by Hitchens), I've even read a one of his essays on the Kalam argument.

Question: If goodness is synonymous with the nature of God, rather than something we discern with the power of our reasoning, how come the Bible doesn't say:

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was [of his own nature], and he separated the light from the darkness.

The underly question to atheists is not how can they have any sense of right and wrong while not believing in God, but how can they account for existence of objective morality, absent of teleological assumptions? Without implying some sort of created, or purposeful order.

I'd LOVE to answer this question, but not in this thread. Short answer: We figure it out with logic and reasoning! You see, we have minds that can solve problems. Unless we make a mistake somewhere along the way, we can work out the correct answer to a math problem, we can figure out how to build a bridge that withstands a heavy burden, we can formulate laws that govern thermodynamics. We can do the same in ethics without the help of a deity or referring to a purposeful order.

If you wanna discuss it more create a thread... or I will (let me know). It's actually been a while since I've discussed moral realism... though (man!) I've logged some hours here!

If we take out the terms supernatural and natural, and just speak of reality itself, some the semantic problems can be reduced here. Perhaps using the term reality instead of the world. For theist God and reality aren’t separate things, God is very much a part of this reality, as an author is to its novel. And we as it’s readers only understand God by the nature of the novel itself, and nothing more.

But IS God reality itself? Certain Hindus think so-- maybe pantheists, too. But Christians (and most other theists) refer to God as a figure -with personhood- who exists WITHIN reality, just like we do. As in, we are just as real as God. The author/book analogy makes it sound like God is real and we -and the world- are fictitious.

---

Can you define worship for me? A classic argument is that we all worship something, or multiple things. . If not God, then money. If not money, then nature. If not nature, then ... etc etc

Worship is usually considered the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration.

To worship anything, it seems to me, you have to believe it has no faults, that it is perfect.  I don't know of anyone, anything, or any idea with is beyond criticism in whatever ways.  That goes for this universe too.

This is not to say some people don't consider money, for instance, as an end in itself, but I think they are obviously mistaken.  People do indeed worship all sorts of things because of their unexamined assumptions.

The classic argument that we all worship something is an unexamined assumption, which comes about as the result of worshiping something

I didn't write that.

---

As for me, I haven't seen anything yet which is worthy of worship, although some people sure try to make such things.  To worship anything undermines the whole skeptical project in my mind.  The reality seems to be that there are pluses and minuses to everything.  Nothing is worthy of worship, so it's a mistake to worship anything.  This perspective is consistent with atheism in my opinion.

I disagree. Pantheism not necessarily entail worship. Though it conceivably could... But I imagine its prayers would not be mutterings done as one prostrates oneself before an alter. They would more resemble folk songs shouted into the night sky from around a campfire. And its baptisms wouldn't be solemn affairs that take place in a church. They would more resemble Thoreau's (many) submersions into Walden.

And I disagree that worship itself undermines skepticism. So long as one has an appropriate standard for obtaining beliefs (ie sufficient evidence or sufficient reason) skepticism is doing just fine. You could worship your neighbor's cat day and night for all I care, but if you don't accept something as true without sufficient evidence, you qualify as a skeptic in my book.