My sympathies for pantheism

[jesus_wept]

Joseph Raphson (the man who coined the term Pantheism) wrote:

"(Pantheists believe in) a certain universal substance, material as well as intelligent, that fashions all things that exist out of its own essence.”

If that doesn't mean smart atoms, I don't know what does.

Ha! I knew I'd read something like that somewhere. Thank you, wikipedia!

Also: "the pantheistic opinion of those who believe in no other eternal being but the universe"

-Liebniz

I.e. No separate spirit world.

Joseph Raphson said this in 1697 and he wasn't talking about naturalistic pantheists.

Raphson begins by making a distinction between atheistic panhylists (from the Greek pan 'all' and hyle 'wood, matter'), who believe everything derives from matter, and pantheists who believe in “a certain universal substance, material as well as intelligent, that fashions all things that exist out of its own essence”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Raphson

edit. I made a mistake and confused panhylists with pantheists but I think the point I tried to make about him saying this years ago, so naturalistic pantheists dont necessarily believe it today, still stands.

[sven]

No, he was not talking about naturalistic pantheists. But neither were we before you dropped in. Not to be rude, but I would refer you to the title of the thread and the OP.

[Mudhammam]

It sounds like it's much about this consciousness thing, it must permeate everything as micro-consciousness in order to explain how agglomerations of matter can have it.

Yeah, that's one of Chalmers' contentions, that information has both a physical aspect and a phenomenal aspect. He leaves the door open for panpsychism but also argues that there might be an "extra ingredient" that gives brains a quality of experience that other physical objects, such as rocks or thermostats, lack. Candidates for this extra ingredient that he mentions, by way of others (he doesn't committ himself to any in particular), include "chaos and linear dynamics" and quantum mechanics (Penrose).

[jesus_wept]

No, he was not talking about naturalistic pantheists. But neither were we before you dropped in. Not to be rude, but I would refer you to the title of the thread and the OP.

Pardon me for speaking. I'll try not to add anything to the conversation in any threads in future.

[sven]

*deep sigh*

All right I changed it.

[Mudhammam]

I'm thinking about the novel 'Solaris' by Stanislaw Lem.
The classic quote goes something like this:
'We don't want other worlds. We want mirrors.'

I never heard of Stanislaw Lem until a few weeks ago when I read a few selections of his in "The Mind's I" by Dan Dennett and Douglas Hofstadter. I posted it here (it's called Non-Servium): http://atheistforums.org/thread-24842.html

It's probably one of the most beautiful passages I've read with respects to philosophy and science.

[sven]

No, he was not talking about naturalistic pantheists. But neither were we before you dropped in. Not to be rude, but I would refer you to the title of the thread and the OP.

Pardon me for speaking. I'll try not to add anything to the conversation in any threads in future.

Hey! Don't be like that... I was just defending myself.

[archangle]

I don't think it sounds like atoms behave in a smart way. They act as the system describes. In a conditional manor. Just like the atoms in you act in a certain way to be you. It doesn't mean they smart. But they certainly just don't do anything. They are not random.

I think they mean s:
it looks like we have awareness, whatever that is, so the pieces of the universe may act to be aware. Just like the pieces in your brain make you aware. In the monist tread he talks about illusions. That just means the way it looks to us may be different than it is. That is what it looks like pantheist means in your posts.

But I am sure they have different sects just like everything else.

---

No, he was not talking about naturalistic pantheists. But neither were we before you dropped in. Not to be rude, but I would refer you to the title of the thread and the OP.

Pardon me for speaking. I'll try not to add anything to the conversation in any threads in future.

Yeah, The OP is .... "feel bad for "them" because they don't think like me"

of course it seems we have no idea what they think. I mean the part about "feeling empty" is silly. And I don't really know that much about them.

If we need a religion not to feel empty then we need to understand ourselves a little better. An a religion can help you trudge along until you can trudge by yourself.

Of course then the literal part of the religions fade. Some fear that part the most.

[sven]

I'm thinking about the novel 'Solaris' by Stanislaw Lem.
The classic quote goes something like this:
'We don't want other worlds. We want mirrors.'

I never heard of Stanislaw Lem until a few weeks ago when I read a few selections of his in "The Mind's I" by Dan Dennett and Douglas Hofstadter. I posted it here (it's called Non-Servium): http://atheistforums.org/thread-24842.html

It's probably one of the most beautiful passages I've read with respects to philosophy and science.

Yes. Lem is a great writer. Solaris is one of my favourite books.
It's been an interesting thread but I think I'm done for now. Peace!

[archangle]

you didnt answer the question.

You feel sorry for people yet you clearly don't know enough to claim that.

do you think the universe may be alive? and what is your evidence for that claim?