Defending Pantheism

[Acrobat]

By demonstrating how a given moral statement reduces to a natural fact, the truth of which is wholly independent of some other fact about the existence of gods.  

Just as the sky is not blue if, and only if, there are also gods...a moral fact is not true if, and only if, there are also gods.  Adding and subtracting gods doesn't alter the truth value of some statement that doesn't refer to their existence.

That depends on what the definition of moral statement were operating on. For you the type of moral statement you consider a natural fact, is merely descriptive, is a mere is, such as x causes harm, where as for most people moral statement are not merely descriptive but prescriptive, contain an ought, that one ought not do harm. The ought in your view isn't reducible to a natural fact, reality doesn't provide us moral guidance or instructions in your view, where it does in mind. In your view the  is just based on some subjective agreement between people, and don't exist beyond them, where as in my view reality possess a transcendent moral law, or something akin to that.

---

"Pantheism" is simply another superfluous gap label.

It isn't, though, because the pantheist doesn't try to explain any phenomenon in nature using their god concept. To the pantheist, if science (or another reliable investigative method) hasn't found the answer, then humankind simply doesn't know the answer to said question. There is no "godidit" in pantheism. The pantheistic God doesn't do anything. It just is.

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.

This assessment of the universe is not at odds with pantheism at all.

We do not need to make up metaphoric language to describe our observations.

You're right there. Calling the universe God is something of a metaphor. But so what? Metaphors can be accurate. Calling a southern abolitionist a "beacon of light shining over dark waters" is a poetic rendering of what the man is. You could more "accurately" say that he was "a man who lived in the south in 1820 whose views concerning slavery differed from those around him."

But you lose something in the second less metaphorical rendering of what the man is. That means that the first rendition, the metaphor, has something that the non-metaphorical description lacks.

That's what interests me about pantheism. It has something that the "ordinary," purely scientific description of the universe lacks. But this doesn't contradict or oppose a naturalistic view of the universe. Again, pantheism makes no claims about the nature of the universe. It simply pronounces the universe holy.

I think Walt Whitman conveys the sentiment best:

"To me, every hour of the day and night is an unspeakably perfect miracle."

What sort of beliefs of yours would you have to lose, or no longer accept, to be more a traditional atheist, than a pantheist? 

Is it mainly your beliefs in things like the numinous, in objective morality, etc.. Would you say it's such aspects as Hitchens describes below, that lead you to refer to reality as possessing something spiritual, holy, to elevate it to the status of God?

"I’m a materialist…yet there is something beyond the material, or not entirely consistent with it, what you could call the Numinous, the Transcendent, or at its best the Ecstatic. […] It’s in certain music, landscape, certain creative work, without this we really would merely be primates. It’s important to appreciate the finesse of that, and religion has done a very good job of enshrining it in music and architecture." -Hitchens

[The Grand Nudger]

By demonstrating how a given moral statement reduces to a natural fact, the truth of which is wholly independent of some other fact about the existence of gods.  

Just as the sky is not blue if, and only if, there are also gods...a moral fact is not true if, and only if, there are also gods.  Adding and subtracting gods doesn't alter the truth value of some statement that doesn't refer to their existence.

That depends on what the definition of moral statement were operating on. For you the type of moral statement you consider a natural fact, is merely descriptive, is a mere is, such as x causes harm, where as for most people moral statement are not merely descriptive but prescriptive, contain an ought, that one ought not do harm. The ought in your view isn't reducible to a natural fact, reality doesn't provide us moral guidance or instructions in your view, where it does in mind. In your view the  is just based on some subjective agreement between people, and don't exist beyond them, where as in my view reality possess a transcendent moral law, or something akin to that.

No, lol..it doesn't...and you clearly don't have the faintest idea of what my view is.  

You asked a question, and you got the answer.  Why not just try it yourself?  Think of any objective moral truth that wouldn't be true in the absence of a god. Can you work out, without help, what's wrong with that thought experiment?

Anyhoo...in a pantheistic objective morality, morality would be among the long list of natural facts the same as any other. Part of what they consider god, but not dependent on some god to be true, since that's not how facts work in the first place.

[Acrobat]

Anyhoo...in a pantheistic objective morality, morality would be among the long list of natural facts the same as any other.  Part of what they consider god, but not dependent on some god to be true, since that's not how facts work in the first place.

You in other post and discussion, have indicated that what you consider a natural fact, in regards to morality, is purely a matter of descriptive elements, like. x is harmful, where the ought is not a natural fact. It's not a natural fact that I ought not do harm, in your view of morality.

In some views, pantheistic, etc... the "ought" is as much a natural fact (a part of the fabric of reality) as the "is", as sort of intrinsic laws of the cosmos, as the buddhist scholar Bodhi put it, even if you don't agree with that view.

I'm giving Vulcan the opportunity to articulate his views, rather than naively assuming they align with yours. These sort of non-Dawkins/Dennett/Coyne type atheists that seems sympathetic to spiritual views of reality, subscribe to ideas like the numinous, are a new found curiosity, and I like to give each individual an opportunity to elaborate on their perspectives.

[vulcanlogician]

What sort of beliefs of yours would you have to lose, or no longer accept, to be more a traditional atheist, than a pantheist? 

Just to clarify: pantheism isn't my belief. I identify as an agnostic atheist. What I'm doing in the thread isn't "selling" pantheism. I want to have a reasoned debate about its merits/shortcomings. Why? It's a good intellectual exercise to challenge one's own beliefs on occasion. It might help myself and others grow as thinkers. But I understand the inclination to think I'm "selling" it since you are so familiar with apologetics.

Is it mainly your beliefs in things like the numinous, in objective morality, etc.. Would you say it's such aspects as Hitchens describes below, that lead you to refer to reality as possessing something spiritual, holy, to elevate it to the status of God?

"I’m a materialist…yet there is something beyond the material, or not entirely consistent with it, what you could call the Numinous, the Transcendent, or at its best the Ecstatic. […] It’s in certain music, landscape, certain creative work, without this we really would merely be primates. It’s important to appreciate the finesse of that, and religion has done a very good job of enshrining it in music and architecture." -Hitchens

So? All you're showing is that pantheism is very similar to regular ol' atheism in many regards. I don't disagree; there is quite a lot of overlap between the two. But isn't there plenty of overlap between agnostic and gnostic atheism? Baptist and Methodist theology? Yet there are minor distinctions too. And sometimes such distinctions warrant discussion.

(BTW, I'll get to your earlier post. I'm going through the questions/objections in order.)

[The Grand Nudger]

Anyhoo...in a pantheistic objective morality, morality would be among the long list of natural facts the same as any other.  Part of what they consider god, but not dependent on some god to be true, since that's not how facts work in the first place.

You in other post and discussion, have indicated that what you consider a natural fact, in regards to morality, is purely a matter of descriptive elements, like. x is harmful, where the ought is not a natural fact. It's not a natural fact that I ought not do harm, in your view of morality.

In some views, pantheistic, etc... the "ought" is as much a natural fact (a part of the fabric of reality) as the "is",  as sort of intrinsic laws of the cosmos, as the buddhist scholar Bodhi put it, even if you don't agree with that view.

I'm giving Vulcan the opportunity to articulate his views, rather than naively assuming they align with yours.  These sort of non-Dawkins/Dennett/Coyne type atheists that seems sympathetic to spiritual views of reality, subscribe to ideas like the numinous, are a new found curiosity, and I like to give each individual an opportunity to elaborate on their perspectives.

If you spent as much time listening to atheists as you do inventing shit to bicker about with atheists, you'd realize that the majority of us experience the sense of the numinous, which is...l-o-l, a natural fact of human experience. In -any- objective moral view, an ought is derived from what is against some evaluative principle. It doesn't matter if we approach it from pantheism, atheism, theism, what have you. That's what objectivity means in the moral context. You have failed to understand my views for the same reason that you've failed to realize what vulcan is doing. Some of us are capable of extolling and advocating for positions which we do not adhere to. In his case, pantheism, in mine, non-natural moral facts.

The only difference between an atheist and a theist is that one of them doesn't believe in gods. We're still human, we live in the same world that you do, and experience the full range of human emotions and stimuli. There's a fair chance that I have those experiences much more often than the average god-botherer, since I actively seek out those circumstances that produce them, and surround myself personally and professionally with the same. As with moral statements, I simply have no need to include some god as an ineffectual addition, nor is it likely that you, if you no longer believed, would cease to have those experiences. The sense of the numinous is a thing that happens to human beings regardless of any additional fact of the existence of a god, natural or otherwise.

In the main, pantheism seeks to redirect that sense to it's proper locus, to more deeply and directly acknowledge the source of that awe, rather than some metaphoric intermediary being.

@vulcanlogician

There is no similarity between pantheism and atheism. Atheism is a single line item rejection of the central and defining plank of the other position. There are similarities between how atheists and pantheists view other forms of theism. One of those enemy of my enemy moments, where a larger agreement seems to be manufactured not by any compatibility of principle, rather, by an agreement between both parties on the paucity thereof when it comes to those Other Fuckers™. I really can't recomend that book enough, as it leaves behind the neccesary cover baggage of a spinozist pantheism, the immanence of divinity, and more sharply sticks to the underlying contention of a pantheist ideology as it can now be expressed without fear of execution.

[Acrobat]

Just to clarify: pantheism isn't my belief. I identify as an agnostic atheist. What I'm doing in the thread isn't "selling" pantheism. I want to have a reasoned debate about its merits/shortcomings. Why? It's a good intellectual exercise to challenge one's own beliefs on occasion. It might help myself and others grow as thinkers. But I understand the inclination to think I'm "selling" it since you are so familiar with apologetics.

I didn't think you were trying to sell anyone on pantheism, but was under the impression that you were defending a position that you actually hold rather than playing a devils advocate? That you think you fall into "pantheist" bucket, as one might say of Spinoza. Or are you just sympathetic to those view, but don't necessarily see yourself as inclined to hold them? If so, why not? What keeps you from being pantheist?

So? All you're showing is that pantheism is very similar to regular ol' atheism in many regards. I don't disagree; there is quite a lot of overlap between the two. But isn't there plenty of overlap between agnostic and gnostic atheism? Baptist and Methodist theology? Yet there are minor distinctions too. And sometimes such distinctions warrant discussion.

(BTW, I'll get to your earlier post. I'm going through the questions/objections in order.)

I'm not too fixated on whether the pantheism you're defending is better aligned with regular ol' atheism, or a variety of traditional theistic views. I liked to better explore your ideas, the substance of them, and not necessarily argue about the labels for the categories you want to place them in.

If i understand you sympathies correctly, I'm curious as to what exactly is it about pantheism that you find appealing? Is it in essence a result of your sentiments regarding things like the numinous, morality, goodness, etc...? These elements that you might not see as purely reducible to the material, but suggestive of something more? A music to the cosmos, that's always been, with no musician or player type being behind it?

---

If you spent as much time listening to atheists as you do inventing shit to bicker about with atheists, you'd realize that the majority of us experience the sense of the numinous, which is...l-o-l, a natural fact of human experience.  

I don't know if the majority of atheists experience the numinous, unless there's some survey out and about that confirms this. I usually find one or two. When it comes to describing or defining what numinous, this seems to be primarily have been done so by religious folks:

"The feeling of it may at times come sweeping like a gentle tide pervading the mind with a tranquil mood of deepest worship. It may pass over into a more set and lasting attitude of the soul, continuing, as it were, thrillingly vibrant and resonant, until at last it dies away and the soul resumes its “profane,” non-religious mood of everyday experience. [...] It has its crude, barbaric antecedents and early manifestations, and again it may be developed into something beautiful and pure and glorious. It may become the hushed, trembling, and speechless humility of the creature in the presence of—whom or what? In the presence of that which is a Mystery inexpressible and above all creatures." -Rudolf Otto

"Suppose you were told there was a tiger in the next room: you would know that you were in danger and would probably feel fear. But if you were told "There is a ghost in the next room," and believed it, you would feel, indeed, what is often called fear, but of a different kind. It would not be based on the knowledge of danger, for no one is primarily afraid of what a ghost may do to him, but of the mere fact that it is a ghost. It is "uncanny" rather than dangerous, and the special kind of fear it excites may be called Dread. With the Uncanny one has reached the fringes of the Numinous. Now suppose that you were told simply "There is a mighty spirit in the room," and believed it. Your feelings would then be even less like the mere fear of danger: but the disturbance would be profound. You would feel wonder and a certain shrinking—a sense of inadequacy to cope with such a visitant and of prostration before it—an emotion which might be expressed in Shakespeare's words "Under it my genius is rebuked." This feeling may be described as awe, and the object which excites it as the Numinous" - CS Lewis

I don't know of any self identifying atheists types who have attempted to define it to the extent that religious folks have, or to the extent it matches the religious descriptions above. So when atheists appeal to the numinous, i'm inclined to be curious to hear what they mean by it, and to the extent that our experiences of it are similar. I wouldn't categorize my experience of the numinous as synonymous with awe, like the awe experienced when watching your home team winning the Super Bowl with one tremendous play in the last few minutes of the game. But rather something more profound than that, as if the wind is being drawn out of you.

In -any- objective moral view, an ought is derived from what is against some evaluative principle.  It doesn't matter if we approach it from pantheism, atheism, theism, what have you.  That's what objectivity means in the moral context.  

No, you're putting the cart before the horse, the evaluative principle is derived from the ought. It's because I hold that I ought not do harm, that x cause harm, has any moral meaning to me. Absent of that is no more of moral statement, that x is blue.

[The Grand Nudger]

One of the main reasons I sympathize with this way of thinking is that the religious have done the same thing with morality. They say things like: "How can you have a sense of right and wrong without there being a cosmic being who declares some things right and other things wrong." Obviously, theists are trying to claim a monopoly on moral objectivity. And I wonder if they might not have done the same thing with concepts like "holy" or "numinous."

He already explained this, in the OP, and you hilariously stumbled right into it...because you don't comprehend the things you read. Listen more, invent less. He isn't sympathetic to the viewpoint because he thinks that morality needs some god or evades a natural account, he's sympathetic because he thinks that people who do make those assertions have bullshitted themselves into a sense of ownership on the issue. People such as yourself.

---

If you spent as much time listening to atheists as you do inventing shit to bicker about with atheists, you'd realize that the majority of us experience the sense of the numinous, which is...l-o-l, a natural fact of human experience.  

I don't know if the majority of atheists experience the numinous, unless there's some survey out and about that confirms this. I usually find one or two. When it comes to describing or defining what numinous, this seems to be primarily have been done so by religious folks:

Search the boards, you'll find a thread entirely devoted to it.  Religious folks primarly defined just about everything, part of their history of privilege, but that doesn;t mean that they, then, own those experiences.  

But rather something more profound than that, as if the wind is being drawn out of you.

Yep.  Or drawn in, in my case.

In -any- objective moral view, an ought is derived from what is against some evaluative principle.  It doesn't matter if we approach it from pantheism, atheism, theism, what have you.  That's what objectivity means in the moral context.  

No, you're putting the cart before the horse, the evaluative principle is derived from the ought. It's because I hold that I ought not do harm, that x cause harm, has any moral meaning to me. Absent of that is no more of moral statement, that x is blue.

In -any- objective morality, the ought is derived from the is set against an evaluative principle.  If that;s not the kind of moral reasoning that you're referring to, you simply aren't referring to an objective morality, despite what you may have been lead to believe by those folks who defined things for their convenience, lol. If some moral statement does not make accurate reference to some thing that -is-....a fact, you see, that's how facts work, it's not objective. Full stop. There's literally no end to the non-objective oughts that can be derived from non-facts...but who cares?

Come up with any true moral statement that wouldn't be true in the absence of a god, yet, worked out why that thought experiment was fucked, yet?

[vulcanlogician]

There is no similarity between pantheism and atheism.  Atheism is a single line item rejection of the central and defining plank of the other position.  There are similarities between how atheists and pantheists view other forms of theism.  One of those enemy of my enemy moments, where a larger agreement seems to be manufactured not by any compatibility of principle, rather, by an agreement between both parties on the paucity thereof when it comes to those Other Fuckers™.

I'm getting to that in my reply to your first post. Short answer: In my discussion with you, we'll say I'm arguing as a Spinozist... not just some run-of-the-mill pantheist. So the issue then becomes: is Spinoza an atheist or pantheist? Philosophers interpret him both ways, and there is something to be said for both interpretations. On the one hand, he rejects all anthropomorphic gods. He claims that God has no free will and moves only according to prior causes-- he argues the same for human beings. This sounds like straight materialism. And for the most part, it is. But he also advises that it is wise to "love God"-- even though "God" will not love you in return. Why? It will help an individual transcend emotional difficulties. That's why. There is a strain of quasi-theistic thinking in this idea. And I think that it's what separates pantheism from regular atheism.

I'll quote a passage from the Ethics discussing Spinoza's idea that it is good to love God. Now, of course, this is love of nature (as Spinoza says outright that God is identical with nature)-- but still: this is more than just straight atheism. If anything, this is atheism plus the idea that one is wise to keep some kind of reverence for the totality of things. It's also reminiscent of Stoicism which also influenced Spinoza's philosophy. But I'll get to that when I quote the passage.

[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.

[Acrobat]

Search the boards, you'll find a thread entirely devoted to it.  Religious folks primarly defined just about everything, part of their history of privilege, but that doesn;t mean that they, then, own those experiences.  

Can you define the numinous for me? I searched the thread, I couldn't find any titles with numinous in it. I've seen it mentioned in a variety of threads, but those that elaborated on it, seem to be theist.

I'd be curious to hear you tell us what you mean by it, particularly if there's any real points of disagreement with the descriptions provided by Otto, and Lewis? 

Can you elaborate on when was the last time you experienced it, and what evoked it? Was it evoked by some observation of some human interactions, features of human relationships, a mother and child so to say, or more evoked by the stars, or cosmos, or some other non-human element of reality?

If you were hypothesize, why do you think biological creatures like our selves experience the numinous? Do you think it was something evolution explicitly selected for that benefits our survival and reproduction?