Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Stutz on December 19, 2012 at 11:57pm

These are the sorts of linguistic sparring matches you end up with as you keep removing any characteristics that would be unique to the word "God". In other words, God keeps getting "defined down" as science advances and the gaps he has to hide in continue to close. Vengeful, meddling OT God becomes God-man (Jesus) becomes God-by-proxy (the Pope, the Church) becomes God-in-the-Word (Bible) becomes watchmaker God becomes God-as-nature and so on down through history. Eventually he doesn't really have any discernible characteristics at all; he's just equivalent to nature or the universe or some pseudo-philosophical concept so vague as to be meaningless (like "the Ground of all Being").

At least among educated people, that is. Lucky us, millions of people continue to insist he answers prayer and works miracles and such.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on December 20, 2012 at 8:59pm

Some of this will be a repetition of what has been said, but I did toy with the term once years back (perhaps in my teens or early twenties). My mindset at the time was that some perspectives from various theologies had value and I didn't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater just because the supernatural elements were bs. It seemed reasonable that if anything in the natural universe could be considered a supreme entity, it would be the universe itself.

I thought of it like this: as a human being I consider myself an individual entity. That's one way to look at me, but I can also view myself as a collection of smaller parts such as organelles, cells, tissues, organs etc. as well as other microorganisms which I need to survive. Conversely, I can be viewed as a single part of a larger collective. I am part of a community, of a species, of an ecosystem, of a planet. So 'naturalistic pantheism' was like a form of acknowledging my relationship with the greater universe from the quantum level to the universal level. Buuut... 

... after giving it consideration, I never adopted the term for a few reasons:

1. I don't really care that much for labels for the sake of labels, and using this one in particular didn't seem to convey much meaning to others.
2. Not only did the term not seem meaningful, but is actually seemed to obfuscate meaning. When paired, the terms 'naturalistic' and 'pantheism' didn't enhance each other in any way. They actually seem to detract from one another. Common understanding of 'theism' involves supernatural elements, or some distinctive agent. Even pantheistic religions like Hinduism (possibly Taoism) extend their theistic concepts beyond the natural universe as science would describe it. As others have stated, why unnecessarily overlap terms that don't want to overlap? If you mean 'nature', just say 'nature'.
3. I disagree that naturalistic pantheism offers proof of anything. Even the tautology provided is questionable. Humans lack a complete definition of the universe and cannot currently say if the universe as we understand it represents the total limit of existence. One of the things that bothers me about many religions such as Christianity is that they label an incomprehensible entity as a god, where I would simply call in incomprehensible. While I don't think the universe is inherently incomprehensible, there is a lot I don't know about it, so why jump to calling it 'god'? Seems silly.

I don't have counter arguments for that individual if that's how they want to use terminology, but I think they need to accept that their usage represents an exception in semantics which most people will probably not acknowledge as useful. The term 'theism' should never be taken to mean 'naturalistic pantheism' unless that meaning is specified in advance.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Siqueiros on December 21, 2012 at 9:57pm

It seems to me that nature as God is how most of human history has understood God. People get struck by lightning or wiped out by storms or destroyed by earthquakes or starved by famines; that was all God's doing. It's only in more recent times that we've figured out the mysteries behind those natural events, and understood that trying to anthropomorphizing such events made no sense.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on December 21, 2012 at 10:11pm

It seems to me that nature as God is how most of human history has understood God. People get struck by lightning or wiped out by storms or destroyed by earthquakes or starved by famines; that was all God's doing.

No, that is theism. Pantheism is that god IS everything that is. It is not a conscious god who makes things for a reason, judges other beings, and so on.

The last thing pantheism is is anthropomorphic. That is theism's bag.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Siqueiros on December 21, 2012 at 10:26pm

Sure, now it is. I was talking about historical understandings.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gregg R Thomas on December 21, 2012 at 10:12pm

"...on the assertion that Pantheists have proof of their god because their god is nature."

Well from the hilltop I'm on, Nature exists ergo their doG exists...now I need a snack.

is.gdCrunchbase: is.gd is a company (Consumer Web), acquired by Memset. →

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Erin Branham on December 22, 2012 at 10:41am

Hi Adam, actually saying God is nature is wildly different from saying God is a pencil. The universe is somewhat larger and more active than a pencil.  The universe did in fact create humanity, as well as the stars, galaxies, planets, trees, etc. and this is provable. The universe encompasses all there is, including humanity - a pencil does not. In short, it makes a tad more sense to ascribe sacredness or divinity to nature than to a pencil.

david garcia has a better question, which is how do you know that nature is God, that is, that nature is sacred or divine? These are entirely human concepts and they are fairly slippery - but creatio ex nihilio, which as far as we know is how the universe came to be in and of itself, via the Big Bang, is certainly something that humanity has, throughout time, equated with gods and considered worthy of being defined as divine, sacred and deserving of worship. The univese is infinitely (as far as we know, that "infinitely" is literal) larger, more powerful, and more complex than humanity - also characteristics generally ascribed to any definition of god or something sacred,, divine and worthy of worship.  How do we know that the universe is these things? Through painstaking collection and analysis of scientific evidence.

My point in all of this is that everyone here is focused on rebutting your debate partner's flawed defense of pantheism.  But there are plenty of better defenses of pantheism.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on December 22, 2012 at 12:26pm

Hi Adam, actually saying God is nature is wildly different from saying God is a pencil. The universe is somewhat larger and more active than a pencil.  The universe did in fact create humanity, as well as the stars, galaxies, planets, trees, etc. and this is provable. The universe encompasses all there is, including humanity - a pencil does not. In short, it makes a tad more sense to ascribe sacredness or divinity to nature than to a pencil.

Creation is an active verb. Sure, life came to be in the universe, but it's going beyond the evidence to imply that the universe is a creator of anything. We can't even say it's a creation. It just is as is anything that happens in it. A fact isn't necessarily an intention.

david garcia has a better question, which is how do you know that nature is God, that is, that nature is sacred or divine? These are entirely human concepts and they are fairly slippery - but creatio ex nihilio, which as far as we know is how the universe came to be in and of itself, via the Big Bang, is certainly something that humanity has, throughout time, equated with gods and considered worthy of being defined as divine, sacred and deserving of worship. The univese is infinitely (as far as we know, that "infinitely" is literal) larger, more powerful, and more complex than humanity - also characteristics generally ascribed to any definition of god or something sacred,, divine and worthy of worship.  How do we know that the universe is these things? Through painstaking collection and analysis of scientific evidence.

The current thinking isn't that the universe came out of nothing. Read up on branes, the multiverse, string theory and such and you'll see that there are theories of how the universe came to be, and while they all are awaiting proof, they all are better than magic, which is what the idea of the universe popping out of nothing basically is. Data will never prove that the universe is worthy of worship or is divine, because those will always be opinions, not facts.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Erin Branham on December 22, 2012 at 9:01pm

No, a fact isn't intention - but I never said anything about intention. How is intention required for a definition of god?

I'm very familiar with membrans and the multiverse theory - cosmology is a hobby of mine.  However, there is no evidence at present for this theory, though it seems a mathematically sound theory which has numerous proponents.  And just as many detractors.  The Big Bang, on the other hand, has solid evidence.  Until we get some experimentail support for the multiverse, it remains a pretty idea, not a part of our knowledge of nature. At the moment, as uncomfortable as it makes everyone, it does indeed seem that the universe came into being on its own, inexplicably.  Even the multiverse theory does nothing to explain the fundamental question of why there is something rather than nothing. I do not ascribe intention to the universe to bring itself into being, nor to create humanity - but, as I said above, I am not clear on why intention is a pivotal idea here.

The idea of the universe being worthy of worship, or being considered sacred are indeed opinions.  I said that first off and reiterated it when I said these are human concepts.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on December 22, 2012 at 11:36pm

Erin - check out Lawrence Kraus, "Something From Nothing."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on December 23, 2012 at 12:17am

No, a fact isn't intention - but I never said anything about intention. How is intention required for a definition of god?

A god with no plan is worthy of worship or even just regard?

I'm very familiar with membrans and the multiverse theory - cosmology is a hobby of mine.  However, there is no evidence at present for this theory, though it seems a mathematically sound theory which has numerous proponents.  And just as many detractors.  The Big Bang, on the other hand, has solid evidence.  Until we get some experimentail support for the multiverse, it remains a pretty idea, not a part of our knowledge of nature. At the moment, as uncomfortable as it makes everyone, it does indeed seem that the universe came into being on its own, inexplicably.  Even the multiverse theory does nothing to explain the fundamental question of why there is something rather than nothing. I do not ascribe intention to the universe to bring itself into being, nor to create humanity - but, as I said above, I am not clear on why intention is a pivotal idea here.

Intention isn't "pivotal" if one isn't talking about a god, but gods are beings who do godly things. Things they intend to do before they do them. Things they, through their intentions, bring about which are worthy of awe.

The idea of the universe being worthy of worship, or being considered sacred are indeed opinions.  I said that first off and reiterated it when I said these are human concepts.

You say "human concepts" in a way that seems a bit dismissive. However, we are human. Who else can you name who has "concepts" other than humans and possibly a very few highly evolved animals on this planet?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Erin Branham on December 23, 2012 at 2:04pm

Intention isn't "pivotal" if one isn't talking about a god, but gods are beings who do godly things. Things they intend to do before they do them. Things they, through their intentions, bring about which are worthy of awe.

Now you're getting into definitions of god or divinity - and those tend to be extremely subjective.  Pantheism would argue with the idea that something that is divine need be 1) a being and 2) intentional. I find that nature inspires plenty of awe in me without being either.

You say "human concepts" in a way that seems a bit dismissive. However, we are human. Who else can you name who has "concepts" other than humans and possibly a very few highly evolved animals on this planet?

I do not mean in the least to be dismissive - I've just trying to distinguish between concepts that are subject to rational, objective evaluation, and those that are subjective.  Human concepts such as sacredness and divinity are things we made up that have meaning within a human context and nowhere else.  Meaning, nature cares not whether we consider it sacred, but considering nature sacred has huge implications for humanity both in the personal and societal realms.

A god with no plan is worthy of worship or even just regard?

The worth of plans is again a human concept - WE like plans, despite their often limited usefulness. What I love about pantheism is that it requires of me that I move outside of the frame in which we believe that the human way of thinking about things is something real and objective. It challenges me to question fundamental assumptions and look at how things really are (at least as far as our limited understanding allows us to grasp).  For instance, intention and plans have little to do with the natural way of things.  Evolution, for example - we tend to want to make it be a linear progression, but it's not. There is a landscape of all the possible forms of life, and evolution wanders around in that landscape in a way that is, near as we can tell, determined by laws that have to do with chaos, quantum indeterminability and interaction with the environment - in other words, incredibly complex laws that are not subject to predictability. Predictability is a cherished human notion - that if we can just gather enough data all things will be predictable, but the universe tells us that this is not so. Learning to accept this truth of nature is valuable to me.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next ›
• Page