Defending Pantheism

[vulcanlogician]

Interesting. Since it's still page 1, maybe I can do the boring thing of asking for definitions. 

IMHO, getting clear definitions is an excellent page 1 activity. It's even good to do on page 2 and beyond if the page 1 didn't make all definitions clear.

Now, I can understand holiness if it's a kind of valuation given by people. That is, we say that X and Y are holy because we value them beyond mere utility, or something like that. 

What does it mean for holiness to be not a valuation given by people, but a characteristic of the thing? 

And if it is an essential, rather than a projected, characteristic, how do we know this? 

I am very sympathetic to the view that some things are valuable or spiritual above and beyond common, local, contingent values. But (as you know) a lot of people here will deny that a non-scientifically detectable quality can ever be said to be a real attribute of anything, much less of everything.

So to help me answer your question, I googled the definition of holy: according to google, it means "dedicated or consecrated to God or a religious purpose; sacred." This definition won't really work for pantheism. So (full disclosure) I will be redefining "holy" so that I can use it in a way that makes sense in this discussion. But it doesn't matter so much... especially in regards to your question.

The sense of the numinous (or holy) is more directly related to the inner emotional attitude of the pantheist and has little to do with what the universe actually is. But the pantheist's pronouncement of the numinosity of the real world is more than mere fiat.

If you hold the view that "some things are valuable or spiritual above and beyond common, local, contingent values" you must ask "What kind of force is responsible for the existence of such transcendent values?" If one is a theist, the answer is easy: God (the immaterial, spiritual kind who likes to write on stone tablets). 

Then there is the attitude that there are no values beyond common, local, or contingent values. If this is true, then pantheism is false-- but whatevs-- Spinoza got a good book out of playing with the idea.

But if it is true that there are transcendent values and false that there is an immaterial creator deity, then one must ask, "Whence come the transcendent values?" The pantheists answer is: they come from nature. And if nature is the source of these transcendent values, nature itself is a holy/numinous thing, perhaps more deserving of the title "God" than some of these Gods spoken about in ancient texts. And, unlike some other deities I could mention, nature actually exists. So that's an added bonus.

As for your question "What does it mean for holiness to be not a valuation given by people, but a characteristic of the thing?" That's a tough one, and I don't have an answer at the ready. I mean, it seems like there is a really difficult philosophical problem in there. But as I said before, pantheism's consideration of numinosity has more to do with the pantheist's emotional relation to the universe (as a being that he/she is part of, rather than a mass of matter swirling about them chaotically) --it is not a set of claims about what the universe provably is or is not. And that's where its greatest value is. 

Also, pantheism isn't a religion and seeks no converts. Like atheists, pantheists believe that the best way to understand the universe is through logical inquiry and scientific investigation. THOSE are the ways to figure out what the universe (or God) really is. Pantheism just wants to put things in perspective, not create a belief system and make claims about what things are holy and what things are not.

I'm sure I left some of what you said unanswered. Those were great questions but they were difficult. Let me know if I could further clarify anything.

---

Is this God/universe only in the natural world?

Yep. God is the natural world. Nothing more. Nothing less. There is no "spirit world" in which God resides, and God possesses no particular intelligence belonging just to God.

There is another view called panentheism, that is like pantheism with deism tacked on. Panentheists posit that God is both material and immaterial. But they also, like deists, assume that God has some independent intelligence.

That's not at all what pantheism suggests.

Sorry, another question  ... is this God/universe aware of its own existance?

The answer to this is tricky. The straight answer is "no." We don't have any reason to believe, when we look out at the universe that the universe is like "Hey, I'm a bunch of galaxies, man!" So, the pantheistic God is not self-aware in the same way that Yahweh knows that he is the God, creator of the universe.

But, in the sense that YOU are a part of the universe and you're aware that the universe exists-- the claim could be made that the universe is self aware. And (in the same fashion) the pantheistic God could be said to be self aware.

---

To the pantheist, God literally is everything. This includes all matter, all laws of nature, anything that can be known, and the stuff that can't be known. God is not anything more than this. God isn't "the intelligence behind all of this." God just IS it.

I guess that might lead naturally to another question: why call a bunch of matter/energy/laws of nature (that are devoid of intentionality) "God"? But I'll hold off on answering that until somebody asks it, since you just wanted a simple clarification.

This was going to be my next question! 😁

This is what I consider a weak spot concerning pantheism and ultimately why I identify as an atheist. Still, the idea isn't completely indefensible, and since my thread is titled "Defending Pantheism" I think I'm obliged to give it a go.

First, let's assume that any being that wields all the power in the universe and has as much autonomy as a human being may rightly be called a god. I'm sure if you or I were to come face to face with such a being, we'd say "Wow. Gods do exist."

Now there is an incredible amount of power just in the sun. More than, say, an ancient Israelite could comprehend. If an ancient Israelite were to meet a being with all the power contained just in the sun, he'd probably say "I just met God."

The pantheistic god IS the universe, and so has all the power of a hundred trillion stars. This is way more power than any ancient thought "God" ever had. So power-wise, there is no reason to consider nature or the universe less than god-like.

Now for autonomy! Why call the universe or nature "God" when it has no autonomy or free will whatsoever?

First, it's self-caused. Whether it intended to cause itself or not doesn't matter. Being the cause of one's own existence is pretty impressive. And if there is some other thing that, say, caused the big bang to happen, but is otherwise not part of the universe... pantheists have that covered too. They say "whatever that thing is that caused the universe AND the universe itself are both parts of God." And somewhere down the causal chain, one must discover a self-caused thing.

But what about free will?

To me, pantheism only makes sense when understood in the context of a deterministic universe. That means, as Spinoza thought, free will is a myth. Every action in the universe is determined by a prior cause. Since it is metaphysics, it is unlikely if we will ever resolve the issue of whether or not we have free will, but I think it's quite plausible that we don't.

Taking this into account, that means that the entire universe has as much free will/autonomy as any of us. (NONE.) And considering all the power the universe contains, meh, why not call it God?

---

As useless as Universalism.

Ok then, so what's "more useful" than pantheism? And why?