Defending Pantheism

[Foxaèr]

As useless as Universalism.

[madog]

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

[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?

[Belacqua]

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.

It might make sense to sort of bracket this question and come back at the end of the thread. If I'm understanding you right, you may be saying that pantheism is "everything that exists is holy," whereas just plain non-religion would be "everything just exists." The latter position differing only in that it doesn't see things as holy. 
So if pantheism could be argued for persuasively, then the holiness would take care of itself. 

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). 

I'm not sure about the word "force" here. Lots of Christians hold that there is a God but that it's not a "force" in that it's something imposing values on us. The Platonic Christians, for example. And my main guy, Blake, who elaborately argued that anything or anyone who imposes values or laws upon us is definitely not God. Quite the opposite. 
So probably we aren't able to oppose only two -isms: God as arbitrarily handing down laws, vs. pantheism. Probably you don't mean to make this dichotomy, but I want to be sure that Christian views of God are often more subtle than a big guy who writes on stone tablets. 

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

Oh, well, there's your definition. That which we call holy is that which gives us our values, if they are transcendent values. 

I don't think that quite matches the Google definition, but it might be usable. 

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. 

That may be so, but I think we're not there yet. There are a number of other steps needed, surely, to get to the above statement. 

Because I don't think anything about pantheism per se says that logical inquiry and science are the only ways to know things. In pantheism, everything that really exists is God, including stuff we have no idea about. What about this rules out non-logical or non-scientific ways of understanding? People are limited, including in our epistemological theories. We may not know everything about epistemology. Though we are a part of everything that exists (and therefore part of the pantheistic God), there is no necessary reason to assume that our current beliefs concerning ways of understanding is all that's possible. 

Unless you're beginning with the definition that nature always and only equals the stuff that human logic and science can examine, and that only this particular kind of nature exists. That may be so. Or it may be that there is all kinds of really existing stuff in the universe which neither human logic nor science can ever get a handle on. Or it may be that in rare cases people have other ways of knowing. Does pantheism per se come down one way or another on this question? I don't want to beg the question and assume that the nature which pantheism calls holy is only that which people know in the two ways you specify. 

And I'm not suggesting we should believe in anything supernatural, since neither the word "supernatural" nor even the word "nature" is easily definable. I'm just saying that we aren't justified yet in assuming that "all the stuff that really exists," whether or not it equals a pantheistic God, can only be known by those two means. That's how it's worked for us, apparently, so far; but that's not proof.

[vulcanlogician]

It might make sense to sort of bracket this question and come back at the end of the thread. If I'm understanding you right, you may be saying that pantheism is "everything that exists is holy," whereas just plain non-religion would be "everything just exists." The latter position differing only in that it doesn't see things as holy. 
So if pantheism could be argued for persuasively, then the holiness would take care of itself. 

To Spinoza, who is my one-and-only model for pantheism, each particular thing or event is in no way God-like or holy. What Spinoza calls "God" is the sum total of everything together (including the laws of nature, the seen and the unseen, the stuff science can't detect, and the stuff that it can). If there are other dimensions beyond our own that science will never perceive, these are part of God too. 

As for holiness taking care of itself, it depends on what you mean by that. Human beings don't "make something holy" via consecration or anything else. It's already holy from the get go. You either recognize it or you don't. (And pantheism in no way says anyone ought to recognize it.) A person who recognizes the numinosity of existence is just as much a part of God as one who doesn't.

Unless you're beginning with the definition that nature always and only equals the stuff that human logic and science can examine, and that only this particular kind of nature exists... That may be so. Or it may be that there is all kinds of really existing stuff in the universe which neither human logic nor science can ever get a handle on. Or it may be that in rare cases people have other ways of knowing. Does pantheism per se come down one way or another on this question? I don't want to beg the question and assume that the nature which pantheism calls holy is only that which people know in the two ways you specify. 

I'm not beginning with that definition. Nature is nature, whether science can understand it or not. It's just that, as far as understanding nature goes, we've yet to find a better/more accurate tool than science. Second to science (in my estimation) is philosophical inquiry. But, yes, even things beyond the grasp of science (so long as they exist) are God in Spinoza's conception. It's that they exist and are therefore necessary (as Spinoza puts it) is what makes them God.

I got into a debate with a troll some time ago, and during the course of the debate, I ended up parsing through some of Spinoza's metaphysics. Reading the quote below might clarify some things, including the notion that pantheists don't view "each particular thing" as God, but rather "the sum total of all things." In that thread we were discussing Spinoza's notion that "determination is negation." ie. when you consider an object, let's say a beer can, as separate from everything else in the universe, you (in doing so) negate what it really is. It is a necessary part of the whole first and foremost. Calling it a separate beer can might help you to easily quantify it in some respects, but in doing so, you can no longer see it as a necessary part of the whole-- which is what the beer can is first and foremost.

---

PROP. VIII. Every substance is necessarily infinite.

Proof.—There can only be one substance with an identical attribute, and existence follows from its nature (Prop. vii.); its nature, therefore, involves existence, either as finite or infinite. It does not exist as finite, for (by Def. ii.) it would then be limited by something else of the same kind, which would also necessarily exist (Prop. vii.); and there would be two substances with an identical attribute, which is absurd (Prop. v.). It therefore exists as infinite. Q.E.D.

---

Definition II. A thing is called finite after its kind, when it can be limited by another thing of the same nature; for instance, a body is called finite because we always conceive another greater body. So, also, a thought is limited by another thought, but a body is not limited by thought, nor a thought by body.

PROP. V. There cannot exist in the universe two or more substances having the same nature or attribute.

PROP. VII. Existence belongs to the nature of substances.

---

In short, the substance in the universe is necessarily infinite. He calls this substance "God" ... though this is the sort of God that even atheists believe in. It is in fact the whole of nature that Spinoza calls "God." And in the above quote, Spinoza thinks he's shown nature to be necessarily infinite. But what does this have to do with Determinatio negatio est? When we refer to a specific thing, say, the desk in front of us, we say: "That is a desk." And in doing so we negate it's being because in fact it is not a desk, but rather "God" or "the infinite substance" that stands before us.

With regard to the statement that figure is a negation and not anything positive, it is obvious that matter in its totality, considered without limitation [indefinitè consideratam], can have no figure, and that figure applies only to finite and determinate bodies. For he who says that he apprehends a figure, thereby means to indicate simply this, that he apprehends a determinate thing and the manner of its determination. This determination therefore does not pertain to the thing in regard to its being; on the contrary, it is its non-being. So since figure is nothing but determination, and determination is negation [Quia ergo figura non aliud, quam determinatio, et determinatio negatio est], figure can be nothing other than negation, as has been said.

Pay attention to the bolded part to get at Spinoza's meaning. Also this:

When we apprehend a finite thing, we see it as having a shape or figure. In so doing, we mark that thing off from other things, giving it a determination. But it only has being as part of the infinite matter from which it is now separated. So, its determination pertains to its non-being, not its being. So, as determination is a negation of being, and figure is a form of determination, figure is a negation.

...

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3800/3800-h/3800-h.htm

http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/97865/2/d...0final.pdf

---

[Brian37]

"Pantheism" is simply another superfluous gap label. The universe is not a "God" of any kind, it is simply a giant weather pattern in which life is simply riding in as a temporary blip. We do not need to make up metaphoric language to describe our observations.

[The Grand Nudger]

You've left out the most important portion of pantheism in framing the discussion, why it's pan-theism- instead of pan-deism-, or just plain and simple atheism.  The immanence of divinity.  

I have a simpler and putatively more accurate term for all things, two of them, in fact.  The cosmos, and the universe.  Neither are an immanent manifestation of divinity.  Perhaps you can explain why I should regard the universe as an immanent manifestation of divinity when there is no evidence whatsoever to that effect?

As a comment on the misplaced reverence and personification of the natural world, pantheism is fine enough..but it ultimately falls to that same old flaw of theism which it purportedly seeks to correct. That it's sold as somehow being without a god in the traditional sense is a testament to new age marketing, but that's no more accurate a description of pantheism than pantheism is of the universe or cosmos.

Spinoza, and I know we've had this convo before..was most likely a very clever atheist troll in a time when any divergence of belief was still a death sentence. More than anything, he used his rhetorical device to criticize the foundational conceit in theological power structures of the time within the context of accepted and sanitized beliefs. I do have alot of sympathy for the viewpoint, though.

---

(if your description of pantheism were strictly and completely accurate you could count me as a hardened pantheist - and just about every atheist.....as well, which it isn't, and I'm not nor are they, lol)

---

I would recommend this book

https://www.amazon.com/Religion-Nature-D...0791454541

An eloquent case for regarding nature itself as the focus of religion―as the metaphysical ultimate deserving religious commitment.

The beauty, sublimity, and wonder of nature have been justly celebrated in all of the religious traditions of the world, but usually these traditions have focused on beings or powers presumed to lie behind nature, providing nature’s ultimate explanation and meaning.

It's a bit more up to date than poor old Baruch could ever be.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Thou art God", or so I grok.

[FatAndFaithless]

I guess I'm a little puzzled as to the value of calling everything "God." It doesn't help us understand anything, it doesn't have any explanatory power or any utility that you can integrate into your life, it doesn't answer any of the big philosophical questions (why are we here, where are we going, etc). Is the only reason because it helps some people feel some sort of connectedness?

If that's the case, then that's fine - but a feeling derived from a proposition isn't anything close to a reason to believe that proposition.

[tackattack]

The utility would be a perceived increase in base value of respect for all things over a naturalist. I don't think it's meant to answer any questions was the point.