Isn’t pantheism the same thing as atheism?

[Ferrocyanide]

I liked Bel's analysis above. I think Ferro and Bel might be talking past each other. Like... WAY past each other.

It is possible that I did not fully understand his points however ....
You need to carefully read his sentences. Here are some samples:

Only the most naive Christians see God as anthropomorphic. God is the Ground of Being, and the First Cause, and has no human-like body.

^^^^^Probably the jewish god is not going to change 1 and 2 but for number 3, that is something changeable since he is a shapeshifter.
Also, don’t claim that a person is naive.
I would change that sentence to:

Some Christians see the jewish god as anthropomorphic. The jewish god is the Ground of Being, and the First Cause, all christians agree on that (except for some mormons).
It is possible that the jewish god has a human-like body right now and it is possible he does not.

Belacqua has said:
I don't know about pantheists, or which ones you're referring to, but in classical Christian theology it's generally said that God does nothing. As impassible and perfect, God has no motion or change.

^^^^^There has never been a singular christian theology. The Bible gives indications of them arguing with each other.
So, who exactly has said that god does nothing? Where and when did he live?

Belacqua has said:
Yes, there are a lot of different versions. You are making up a particular version and then arguing against that. If you'd like to read about what educated Christians believe, you could do that, too.

^^^^^Belacqua is arrogant.
As if the beliefs of an uneducated christian is not relevant.
What does an educated christian know about the shape of the jewish god right now?

[vulcanlogician]

When someone's argument includes several stanzas from some rarified 19th century poet, you gotta ask yourself: where is he coming from?

So here's the deal:

Bel thinks the members of this forum strawman Christianity. I disagree with him here. I've expressed this to him numerous times. To me, there is this socio-cultural force that calls itself Christianity, and commonly dips its feet into the waters of ignorance. Many atheists here, myself included, feel the need to resist this socio-cultural Christianity. In other words, mainstream Christianity is something most of us here are opposed to. When we say "Christianity," we mean mainstream Christianity.

Bel wants to view Christianity a little more charitably. And if anything, it leads to some interesting discussions. But I also like where he's coming from to some degree. Rather than constantly railing on the ignorant spoutings of creationists, why not dig a little deeper and examine some of the more refined ideas Christians have had. After a while, it's boring criticizing mainstream religion. So this second kind of conversation is a welcome reprieve.

The thing I disagree with Bel on, and I think you do as well, Ferro, is Bel thinks there is only one conversation going on. There isn't. There are two. Many (if not most) of the criticisms lobbed at mainstream Christianity here are apt. It's worthwhile to state these criticisms, and that's the project of many atheists on these forums. Bel doesn't quite "get" what our beef is with Christianity.

But he's right about one thing: our usual criticisms of Christianity aren't good criticisms of Bel's more charitable concepts... like an non-anthropomorphic God. It's interesting to take a break from criticizing mainstream religion and discuss things with Bel. But I, personally, separate the two conversations. They are entirely different enterprizes.

I think Belacqua is interesting. He doesn't come off as arrogant to me. I kinda see a separation between educated Christians and noneducated ones. It's not trying to treat uneducated people's opinions as irrelevant. It's seeing that most people aren't interested at critically examining their beliefs. It's a fact of life about the world. People wanna make money, go to cookouts, help their friend move, go out for some beers, etc.. It doesn't make their opinions "not relevant." But it does mean many folks don't see the value in critically examining ideas and beliefs. They have their beliefs that they just kind of "acquired" through life experience, and those are the beliefs they'll defend. Educated people *tend* not to be in that camp. But I'm sure even many educated folks may also be like that (*cough* business majors *cough*). Uneducated people who just happen to be thoughtful (or tend to reflect a lot) are probably more inclined to critically examine beliefs.

Anyway, long story short: Bel shouldn't have used the word "educated." If he was being precise, he'd have said "Christians who critically examine their own beliefs." I can see using the word "educated" for shorthand, but it wasn't the best word to use. I didn't catch any "arrogant" vibes from that personally.

As for the rest of what you said, concerning classical Christianity and there not being "one" theology. I agree with you, and disagree with Belacqua.

[Ferrocyanide]

Sure, you can call it whatever you want - is that...when we consider all of the other everything in everything, when the single cabbage frying will of the single guy is the will of everything?

It is but one small expression of God.

Wait.
What is the difference between an expression of the pantheist god and a will of the pantheist god?


The Grand Nudger initiated that conversation with

If we thought of a bus as all the people and the metal - BusGod....would one person on the bus wanting to fry cabbage on the bus...be the Will of the Bus....?

and there was a conversation about stretching the bus to match it with the size of the universe.
I’m not sure what the point of that is.
You could also shrink the universe and make it the size of the bus and eliminate all other materials and photons.

Overall, it looked like what you were saying is that the laws of physics, the way the universe behaves, the properties of matter/energy, all of that, you are calling it the will of the universe (or the will of the god).

You said Christianity is essentially dualistic. There is the jewish god and then there is nature.

Pantheism is monism, which means the pantheist god is fused with the universe or is the universe.

But then you had this line

God would not create a universe with laws opposed to His Will.

so, at one point in time, there was the pantheist god but no universe and then he created the universe and fused with it?

but then you wrote:

because God acts through natural laws, which are His Will

but if natural laws are all there is, then this seems to suggest that atheism and this version of pantheism are identical.

Atheism sees the universe and its laws as meaningless, pantheism sees them as the Will of God. As for how a brainless thing can have meaning, I see not why we should assume that anything with a brain has meaning out of the blue either. I hold that meaning comes from God, from nature.

I was having this conversation with The Grand Nudger (page 9, 10, 11, possibly more)
https://atheistforums.org/thread-63529.html
and what you just said seems to align with what he was saying.

[The Grand Nudger]

About half and half. Seax believes that atheism proposes or asserts a meaningless world. I know that's not true, not just of the term, but of atheists in general. There's usually some splitting of the baby between atheists, pantheists. Seax believes that meaning comes from a capital g god, I don't believe in gods.

The difference between a pantheists God and nature, is contained within the term theism, which refers to personal and intervening forces. I don't think that nature is personal..though I'll give it intervening.

That, imo, is part of what misinformed us about gods existing at all. In nature you have every force and circumstance that intervenes in your life..and, being that we're built for projection and prediction..we see intervention, and we profile a real or hypothetical intervener. That's why gods are always so locally specific. Gods are believed to do whatever nature is doing that is relevant to us. When you strip the superstition from the stories, there's still the observation of power, interconnectedness, and intervention.

[Ferrocyanide]

It comes down to how one wants to use a word.
In my case, a hammer has a “meaning” because a human (a brain) created the hammer bc he wants to drive nails into wood.
By meaning, I mean purpose/job/function.

If no brain created nature, then it has no meaning. It simply is what it is. Existence is just existence.
If nature (a brainless thing) created humans, humans have no meaning, no purpose.

That’s why during this thread, I was asking about whether the pantheist god is a brain or is he just the universe (no brain).

which refers to personal and intervening forces. I don't think that nature is personal..though I'll give it intervening.

By personal, do you mean it has a brain?
Maybe my english is not so good.
For example, if this cup is mine, I would say it is my personal cup. In other words, the word personal means “it belongs to”.

Yes, I am in agreement with that view. I think long ago, at some point, humans thought that the forces of nature had a brain or maybe there was a “spirit” animating them.
The forces would be: The wind, the mountain/volcano, the water, the weather, storm and lightning, disease.
It’s called animism.
I imagine that they tried to reason with it, they tried to make deals with the forces. (Give the wind some fruits, some goat, some virgin girl or boy.)

[The Grand Nudger]

By personal, do you mean it has a brain?

No.   Thinking would be personal, intentional would be personal, concerned would be personal, appealable would be personal, deciding would be personal.  

Conceivably, an entity or force could do those things with something other than a human brain, or a brain at all.

Maybe my english is not so good.
For example, if this cup is mine, I would say it is my personal cup. In other words, the word personal means “it belongs to”.

Your english is fine.  Personal as in the above, the difference between a theistic god, a deistic god, and nature.  The first is personal and intervening.  The second is personal and non intervening.  

Yes, I am in agreement with that view. I think long ago, at some point, humans thought that the forces of nature had a brain or maybe there was a “spirit” animating them.
The forces would be: The wind, the mountain/volcano, the water, the weather, storm and lightning, disease.
It’s called animism.
I imagine that they tried to reason with it, they tried to make deals with the forces. (Give the wind some fruits, some goat, some virgin girl or boy.)

Trouble is, we know it's hard to reason with things we can't describe as personal.  As like us in the relevant way.  The wind intervenes in your life..probably alot if you're making offerings to it and praying to it.  It just never listens.

It's this last final clutch at a supernatural attribute for nature that separates pantheism from atheism - if the person has gotten rid of every other superstition and they're still left with a theistic god conceived of as nature..but, somehow, personal.

[Alan V]

When I think of a God or gods, which is what any kind of theism implies, I think of a form of being with a mind and willfully directed powers. Without those attributes, you are talking about some mechanical force or forces.

That being the case, I think of pantheism as necessitating that the universe as a whole has a mind and a will. I don't know of any atheists who also believe that about it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Hence the will of the bus.

[Angrboda]

Hence the will of the bus.

The will of the bus goes round and round, round and round, round and round.
The will of the bus goes round and round, round and round, round and round.
Early in the morning.

[Ferrocyanide]

By personal, do you mean it has a brain?

No.   Thinking would be personal, intentional would be personal, concerned would be personal, appealable would be personal, deciding would be personal.  

Conceivably, an entity or force could do those things with something other than a human brain, or a brain at all.  

Maybe my english is not so good.
For example, if this cup is mine, I would say it is my personal cup. In other words, the word personal means “it belongs to”.

Your english is fine.  Personal as in the above, the difference between a theistic god, a deistic god, and nature.  The first is personal and intervening.  The second is personal and non intervening. 

That’s the thing I don’t understand.
An entity can do thinking, have intention, be concerned, be able to decide wouldn’t having a brain?
I don’t see how.

By brain, I don’t necessarily mean a human brain. I just mean a device that has circuits, it would have data processing circuits and memory.
So, I am talking about intelligence.
Of course, there is the problem of describing what is intelligence and what is not.

Something like a human, a cat, an elephant, a computer +its software, these things are clear to have a processor (data processing), memory.