Isn’t pantheism the same thing as atheism?

[The Grand Nudger]

Perhaps you should research the subject in detail.

[vulcanlogician]

Yes. Research Spinoza in detail.

Jaspers' interpretation of Spinoza is by no means final. The thing about attributes being infinite is related to Cartesian thinking. Descartes imagined that there were two attributes (thought and extension) which comprised different substances. Spinoza, on the other hand, postulated one substance with two different attributes. But not only two... an infinite number of them.

Spinoza took an infinite number of attributes thing to be axiomatically true, and it's puzzling as to why. At least for me, anyway. It is almost impossible for a human being to conceive of a thing that doesn't have thought OR extension. Maybe Spinoza was just covering his bases here: whatever exists is part of this one substance, even if it does not fall under the headers of thought or extension. Or maybe he saw thought and extension as merely two of an infinite number of ways to categorize that "one substance."

I happen to disagree with Jaspers' reading that Nature does not equate with God in Spinoza's philosophy. I find it hard to interpret most of what Spinoza says unless God and Nature mean the same thing.

We should also take into account what The Grand Nudger said about freedom of expression those days. The only "pantheistic" work of Spinoza, the Ethics... where he identifies the whole of nature as God was published posthumously. Any guesses as to why? It is his Magnum Opus, the greatest of all his works. You'd think he'd want to be alive when the academic world read and responded to it. (If only to clarify things.) But nope. He waited until he died to have it published.

And seeing how the Catholic Church and other Christian entities (including Protestants) had his previous works banned throughout much of Europe, it is no surprise that he clothed his ideas about the natural world in divine raiment. (Even while he ridiculed the idea of an anthropomorphic god between the lines).

But it isn't that simple either. There is Spinoza's notion that we ought to love God (in order to attain what he called "inner freedom"). This is a seeming departure from pure materialism. But it makes sense in his broader philosophy. Whatever the case, it is a departure from a pure scientific assessment of the world. And maybe (in this one particular nugget) we find a true "pantheistic" notion in Spinoza's work.

But even this is overestimated by many of Spinoza's readers. First and foremost, he saw the world in causal terms. Causes lead to effects. There is no "humanlike intention" going on anywhere in it. After you understand THAT, then (in order to attain inner freedom) you need to love THAT. And so, in the end, there is no mysticism or classical theism present in Spinoza's ideas at all. But there is a concern for human wellbeing, which, strictly speaking, is unscientific... but par for the course when we're talking about philosophers, atheist or otherwise.

[Ferrocyanide]

These are all excellent questions.

I'm going to format the text my own way since this stuff becomes part of my files.

“The really absurd claims are the Garden of Eden, which early Christian apologists like Origen defended as allegorical, rather than literal, truths. The story was ridiculous to most even in a time when things like ceremonial magic went unquestioned.”

==Yes, the number of absurd claims is high.
A jew, christian, muslim or mormon who tells me those stories are allegorical, I tell them that the tanakh is a chain of sentences. It is written in a story (as in history) format. There is a chain of people who are begetting other people and there are stories as to what they do and there is mention of tribes, cities, some of which have disappeared while others still exist.
So exactly, at which line does the tanakh switch from allegory mode to reality mode?

Also, before science came along, no one (or should I give some leeway here?) claimed that those were allegories. If I am wrong, they are free to show me a church claimed that those were allegories. I want to see an original print, coming from a top guy at a church.

This shows us how superior science is to religion.

“They believe that God is separate from nature & regard much that is natural, and in my view healthy, as ungodly.”

==I think it isn’t healthy. My religion teacher told me that the body does not last forever and thus, it isn’t important. I went to a christian school.
Well, a VIC-20 might not last forever but to someone who grew up with it and loves it, learns about the hardware and finds replacement components to fix it.
If you view this life as temporary, then what is the point of going to school, what is the point of scientific discoveries?
What’s the point of getting up in the morning? Just put a gun to your head, which is what some people did about 1000 y ago.
It was a religious movement started in France. They were advocating celibacy in order to not bring any new humans into this “rotten” world.
Eventually, the catholic church decided to kill them all.

“Moderation and selfcontrol; enjoying food without overeating, sex without becoming a letcher, wine without overdrinking, feeling anger without becoming a slave to rage; this was the Pagan ideal.”

==The problem with that is, how do you measure overeating, lascivity and so on?
It is subjective.

Antony Flew was born in 11 February 1923, London, England, United Kingdom.
Died 8 April 2010 (aged 87).
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

It’s interested that he agreed with ID claims.

“Pantheism is a monist conception of God. It is logical and coherent. God would not create a universe with laws opposed to His Will.”

==The above line suggests that the object being called a god has a brain.

“because God acts through natural laws, which are His Will.”

==So, if I do something in this universe, I am interfering with god’ will?

“Christians that reject nature & believe sex is evil & never reproduce are punished with genetic extinction, as are the secular anti-natalists & other anti-natural nutcases.“

==Let’s say that instead of sex, I want a special 3D printer. This 3D printer positions atoms/molecules. Over time, it can build a human.
Is such a machine possible?
Why hasn’t this god created this machine?

Also, do souls exist according to these  Pantheism monists?

“The difference is that atheist monism rules out God, while pantheist monism rules out everything else. The atheists looks at the trees, the stars, outer space & says 'I don't see any God.' The pantheist sees nothing but God.”

==All atheists I have encountered don’t rule out god and they, including me, think that when someone is talking about a god, they are talking about a guy.
In my case, I tell theists, it is possible that this universe is artificial and if they want to call the guys responsible for their existence a “god”, they can. I would not do that.

The pantheist riles out everything else? Can you clarify?

“pantheism sees them as the Will of God.”

==So, if I make a painting, is that painting my will or 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.”

==That was the thing that I did not understand and looks like a few others as well. I was under the impression that you were calling this universe a god,
It looks like you think you are calling it a god and also that there is a brain.
You mentioned will of god 4 times in your post.

--Ferrocyanide

---

How else is this god (or gods) going to think?

Because there are only 3 choices:
1. Some thing is designed and assembled by a thinking being, capable of logic and mathematics and perhaps has "good taste".
2. Some thing simply exists.
3. Some thing gets assembled via the intrinsic properties of nature: For example, 2 protons join. This duo has an excess amount of energy. Eventually one proton converts to a neutron and a neutrino and position gets emitted at high speed.

--Ferrocyanide

Why would God 'think' in the same manner as a human?

Are you saying that this god thinks without having a brain?

--Ferrocyanide

[Belacqua]

Also, before science came along, no one (or should I give some leeway here?) claimed that those were allegories. If I am wrong, they are free to show me a church claimed that those were allegories. I want to see an original print, coming from a top guy at a church.

When did science "come along"? When Aristotle went to do research at the Kolpos Kalloni on Lesbos? That would be before the Christian church was founded. 

Jesus spoke in parables, which he explained in private as allegory. He was kind of an important guy in the church. Paul interpreted Old Testament stories as allegory. He is also considered a "top guy."

Augustine wrote a whole book on not taking the book of Genesis literally. This was about 400 AD.

[The Grand Nudger]

Just goes to show that even the earliest christian authorities knew they were bullshitting the plebes.

[Belacqua]

The Pagan Greeks saw lust, hunger, pride, ect. as natural healthy impulses which could get out of hand, and believed that good lay in healthy exercise of them; between the extremes of wantonness and total denial. Moderation and selfcontrol; enjoying food without overeating, sex without becoming a letcher, wine without overdrinking, feeling anger without becoming a slave to rage; this was the Pagan ideal. 

It might be a tad too simple to attribute this to all the pagan Greeks. Greek culture lasted a long time, after all, and wasn't monolithic. But what you say is certainly true of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, which was extremely influential. Plato advocates something similar -- called sophrosyne -- but never quite defines it. It's when your rational soul keeps the appetitive and sensible souls in balance.

The Christian view is that these impulses are inherently sinful and wicked, and that while moderating them is fine and well, avoiding them completely is even better. The Christian God is thus opposed to nature, and Christianity sees nature as base, if not outright evil. 

No doubt there are Christians that agree with this description. But there are a lot of important ones who don't. 

Dante, for example (following Thomas Aquinas), explicitly models his moral thought on Aristotle. He would agree with everything you attribute here about the pagan Greeks. Dante might cite some special exceptions -- some kind of ascetic saint, for example -- but for the vast majority the natural appetites are made by God and therefore good. He even sees lust as the least bad of all the sins, because it is the most intense love. And sexual desire only becomes sinful lust when you overdo it -- when it causes you to lie or cheat or damage your health.

---

==The problem with that is, how do you measure overeating, lascivity and so on?
It is subjective.

Just because something isn't quantifiable doesn't mean it's too subjective to think about. 

Aristotle says right at the beginning of the Ethics that complete precision isn't possible in every case. In ethics, we just have to do our best.

Basically you know you've gone too far when you've harmed yourself. If you're obese or anorexic, you have a problem with appetite. If you get angry at little things that's bad, but if you don't get angry at things you should get angry at, that's also bad. We have no absolute way of knowing what's best in each case. You just have to work on it.

[Seax]

These are all excellent questions.

I'm going to format the text my own way since this stuff becomes part of my files.

“The really absurd claims are the Garden of Eden, which early Christian apologists like Origen defended as allegorical, rather than literal, truths. The story was ridiculous to most even in a time when things like ceremonial magic went unquestioned.”

==Yes, the number of absurd claims is high.
A jew, christian, muslim or mormon who tells me those stories are allegorical, I tell them that the tanakh is a chain of sentences. It is written in a story (as in history) format. There is a chain of people who are begetting other people and there are stories as to what they do and there is mention of tribes, cities, some of which have disappeared while others still exist.
So exactly, at which line does the tanakh switch from allegory mode to reality mode?

Also, before science came along, no one (or should I give some leeway here?) claimed that those were allegories. If I am wrong, they are free to show me a church claimed that those were allegories. I want to see an original print, coming from a top guy at a church.

This shows us how superior science is to religion.

“They believe that God is separate from nature & regard much that is natural, and in my view healthy, as ungodly.”

==I think it isn’t healthy. My religion teacher told me that the body does not last forever and thus, it isn’t important. I went to a christian school.
Well, a VIC-20 might not last forever but to someone who grew up with it and loves it, learns about the hardware and finds replacement components to fix it.
If you view this life as temporary, then what is the point of going to school, what is the point of scientific discoveries?
What’s the point of getting up in the morning? Just put a gun to your head, which is what some people did about 1000 y ago.
It was a religious movement started in France. They were advocating celibacy in order to not bring any new humans into this “rotten” world.
Eventually, the catholic church decided to kill them all.

“Moderation and selfcontrol; enjoying food without overeating, sex without becoming a letcher, wine without overdrinking, feeling anger without becoming a slave to rage; this was the Pagan ideal.”

==The problem with that is, how do you measure overeating, lascivity and so on?
It is subjective.

Antony Flew was born in 11 February 1923, London, England, United Kingdom.
Died 8 April 2010 (aged 87).
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

It’s interested that he agreed with ID claims.

“Pantheism is a monist conception of God. It is logical and coherent. God would not create a universe with laws opposed to His Will.”

==The above line suggests that the object being called a god has a brain.

“because God acts through natural laws, which are His Will.”

==So, if I do something in this universe, I am interfering with god’ will?

“Christians that reject nature & believe sex is evil & never reproduce are punished with genetic extinction, as are the secular anti-natalists & other anti-natural nutcases.“

==Let’s say that instead of sex, I want a special 3D printer. This 3D printer positions atoms/molecules. Over time, it can build a human.
Is such a machine possible?
Why hasn’t this god created this machine?

Also, do souls exist according to these  Pantheism monists?

“The difference is that atheist monism rules out God, while pantheist monism rules out everything else. The atheists looks at the trees, the stars, outer space & says 'I don't see any God.' The pantheist sees nothing but God.”

==All atheists I have encountered don’t rule out god and they, including me, think that when someone is talking about a god, they are talking about a guy.
In my case, I tell theists, it is possible that this universe is artificial and if they want to call the guys responsible for their existence a “god”, they can. I would not do that.

The pantheist riles out everything else? Can you clarify?

“pantheism sees them as the Will of God.”

==So, if I make a painting, is that painting my will or 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.”

==That was the thing that I did not understand and looks like a few others as well. I was under the impression that you were calling this universe a god,
It looks like you think you are calling it a god and also that there is a brain.
You mentioned will of god 4 times in your post.

--Ferrocyanide

---

Why would God 'think' in the same manner as a human?

Are you saying that this god thinks without having a brain?

--Ferrocyanide

Origen claimed that much of the Old Testament was allegory, & he was among the first Christian apologists, & I believe the first to mention the Trinity. (On a side note, his conception of the trinity was Arian rather than Homoousian (Homoousianism is the Catholic, Protestant & Orthodox view) though the Church claims that Homoousianism was the original view & Arianism was the novel, heretical view.) Saint Augustine, generally the most important Church Father in both Catholicism & Protestantism (but controversial in Orthodoxy), held similar views but had slightly more literalist takes on certain parts of the Old Testament.

Generally the Christians tried to preserve the literal interpretation where possible. Biblical Literalism, Answers in Genesis style, is a relatively recent phenomenon that is generally held to be a product of the scientific revolution. With the dominance of scientific discourse, many believers want their religion to be not only metaphysically or spiritually true, but scientifically true.

As for when exactly the Old Testament switches from literal allegorical, you'd have to ask a believer. I'm personally of the view that it's all myth, & not even great myth (I find the polytheistic myths of Rome a thousand times more beautiful, I'd much rather go digging for allegorical truth there), and that the allegorical interpretation is a cope for how utterly ridiculous the whole thing is.

==The problem with that is, how do you measure overeating, lascivity and so on?

It is subjective.

Yes.

“Pantheism is a monist conception of God. It is logical and coherent. God would not create a universe with laws opposed to His Will.”

==The above line suggests that the object being called a god has a brain.

“because God acts through natural laws, which are His Will.”

==So, if I do something in this universe, I am interfering with god’ will?

I mean not 'Will' in the exact same sense that humans have a will. I mean that the universe has a purpose, which we can have only an extremely limited understanding of. It don't mean to imply that God has a mind, personality or even thinks like humans, if He thinks at all.

No, because you are ultimately part of God, along with everything else that exists. Anything that interferes with God's purpose is eliminated through natural laws.

The pantheist riles out everything else? Can you clarify?

“pantheism sees them as the Will of God.”

==So, if I make a painting, is that painting my will or the will of god?

By this I mean the pantheist rules out the possibility of anything that is not an expression of God existing at all.

We both agree that that there is no God separate from the world. That there is no supernatural Creator apart from nature sending down Prophets or miracles for anyone that begs hard enough. This is 'monism' ('mon' meaning one, so there is only one kind of thing). But you, as an atheist or materialist, believe that that thing is not God. I believe it is.

As for your painting, is an expression of your will, unless you made it against your consent, in which case it is an expression of someone else's will. But you, & everything else that exists, is untilatemly an expression of God.

Are you saying that this god thinks without having a brain?

When I speak of the 'Will' or thought of God I am talking in personal, human terms of something that is neither a person nor human, but there exist no better terms. Try to think of it as a metaphor if you must, but the nature of God is unknowable to us, though it is nonsensical to suppose that God has a brain.

[The Grand Nudger]

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....?

[Seax]

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....?

A bus is merely one small part of nature, your analogy, while amusing, is ridiculous. You can't compare a bus with reality itself.

---

Also, before science came along, no one (or should I give some leeway here?) claimed that those were allegories. If I am wrong, they are free to show me a church claimed that those were allegories. I want to see an original print, coming from a top guy at a church.

When did science "come along"? When Aristotle went to do research at the Kolpos Kalloni on Lesbos? That would be before the Christian church was founded. 

Jesus spoke in parables, which he explained in private as allegory. He was kind of an important guy in the church. Paul interpreted Old Testament stories as allegory. He is also considered a "top guy."

Augustine wrote a whole book on not taking the book of Genesis literally. This was about 400 AD.

I think generally most people count the Scientific Revolution as the start of science. I think that is Ferro's meaning.

[The Grand Nudger]

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....?

A bus is merely one small part of nature, your analogy, while amusing, is ridiculous. You can't compare a bus with reality itself.

Reality is an even bigger bus, gotcha.   So, same question..but now with a bigger bus. More metal, more people. All the metal, all the people.  BigBusGod. Is the will of one guy on the bus to fry cabbage on the bus..the Will of the Big Bus?

You mentioned to another poster that supposing god has a brain would be foolish..more or less so than supposing that it has a will?