The R&S Pantheism Thread (grace, hell, Holy Spirit, gospel)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On that we certainly agree. I have never seen anyone, anywhere, claim there is anything "sacred or holy" about science or the scientific method. I'm not even sure what that would mean.
What can be said is that science (via the scientific method) provides the best means we have identified for advancing knowledge, testing and validating new ideas, separating conjecture from fact, understanding the world around us and how it works... in short, describing reality. Now, if the argument is that religion and spirituality do not aspire to those same goals, then by all means... put a wall around these sacred paths and discuss science elsewhere. By extension, this would mean that, when people discuss concepts like Divine Creators, or reincarnation, or resurrections, or the Exodus, or global floods, or past lives, or after lives, or Satan, or Adam & Eve, or purgatory, or angels, or crystals, or energy fields, or miracles, etc, etc, etc... there would be no expectation that any of these things really existed or happened or worked that way. Deal?
If not, then we're back to having a role for science, in helping us understand "how things work." Because that's all science does, when it's not being worshipped.
My compliments to you for this comment and that's about it for me and this forum/thread...
Going from the belief that God created the universe to a belief that the universe is God is nothing more than another fine shade of grey with which to waste more time going back and forth about the same sort of thing. What science can help us understand vs whatever else anyone might want to dream up in whatever way they like for whatever reasons they may think worthy.
Makes me wonder how many different ways we can stare at our navel and ponder it any differently than we have countless times already...
My compliments to you for this comment and that's about it for me and this forum/thread...
Going from the belief that God created the universe to a belief that the universe is God is nothing more than another fine shade of grey with which to waste more time going back and forth about the same sort of thing. What science can help us understand vs whatever else anyone might want to dream up in whatever way they like for whatever reasons they may think worthy.
Makes me wonder how many different ways we can stare at our navel and ponder it any differently than we have countless times already...
You do know we don't have to go back and forth.
mystic and I ended with "You call it god and I call it the universe.". It was about semantics and ended right there.
My compliments to you for this comment and that's about it for me and this forum/thread...
Going from the belief that God created the universe to a belief that the universe is God is nothing more than another fine shade of grey with which to waste more time going back and forth about the same sort of thing. What science can help us understand vs whatever else anyone might want to dream up in whatever way they like for whatever reasons they may think worthy.
Makes me wonder how many different ways we can stare at our navel and ponder it any differently than we have countless times already...
For once I won't blame you for 'But 'tis enough..I have done' (with apologies to Shakespeare ) as Pantheism is something we atheists don't really need to bother about, unless we get scammers like ol' Gldnrain who used Pantheism as a trick (1) trying to use pantheism (tree -hugging) as a handy way of debunking atheism by identifying a religion with something we can't deny (the biosphere). The trick there is to slip from 'religion' to theism, whereas not all religions are theistic. the 'cosmic mind' is the difference between theism and non -theism (2). Pantheism perhaps is a good example of believers - or at least claimants ) coming clean with what 'Pantheism' means to them, not moving the goalposts on the meaning as they play the slippery eel.
Pantheism is the sense of more than one god (a tribe, family or race) is still a theism and whether one postulates one creator makes no difference to the Theism, especially if the Interceding god may differ, or the worshipper may pray to more than one for intercession. It's a pan (many -gods) theism and not the same as Tree -hugging earth -worship Pantheism.
Here endeth the lesson. If you liked this video, smash the Like button. If you didn't, smash the keyboard.
(1) derived from Mystic's attempt to prove 'God' by saying that 'everything' (earth and universe) was 'God' and we can't deny the earth and universe so we can't deny God, can we? Gldnrule tried this on but ran into the Mystical problem - God has to be intelligent or it's just 'nature'. After trying to evade this, he settled for Pantheism...ahhh, yes... as a Religion that apparently has a nature -god -belief without having to prove an intelligence.
The perceptive here will see that Arach also used this idea as a way of (hopefully) flooring atheism by proving that everything was 'God' and thus atheism was wrong (I need hardly labour that both Goldie and Arach are/were atheists with a politically - motivated dislike for 'New' atheism) and those with good memories will recall how he had to drop the universe and even Solar System as 'alive' (avoiding the finger -burning need to prove an Intelligence) and is arguing the earth /biosphere as 'alive' and trying to fiddle the difference between alive and not (his blinkered dismissal of my designating DNA replication as when non -life became Life as the line showing a mind as closed as any theist's).
This being both a pre -refutation of either anti -atheist to take advantage of the thread and also a useful background to these 'nature-theist' spin -offs from Mystic's hypothesis.
(2) which is why I talk of 'quasi -gods' with these non -theistic religions, like Jain, I seem to recall, Scientology, Raelians and Theravada Buddhists (Mahayana has tons of gods and demi -gods and they intercede, which is where it becomes a theism, whereas the gods in Theravada don't). The Jains may have a god - involvement, Scientology and Raelians have aliens that function as gods and I argue that Karma in Buddhism has to be intelligent to make the sorting of deeds into good or bad a coherent theory as you surely can't leave it down to what the doer thinks it is and if Karma has intelligence, it is a god, and an interceding one and thus Theravada Buddhism is a Theism.
I could be wrong, but We ( ) almost never are.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-12-2020 at 07:45 AM..
This thread has been created to express thoughts on the concept known as pantheism. pantheism, defined by Oxford Languages as :
1. a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God.
2. worship that admits or tolerates all gods.
For purposes of City-Data, the concept will encompass similar expressions of the concept whether one's perspective includes a deity or not. Please read Post No. 15 of the Rules above for further information.
I have stated on numerous occasions that, since humans are made from exactly the same material (protons, neutrons and electrons) that the physical universe is made of, humans are in every real way an example of the universe contemplating itself. I have never reached the point of considering myself (and all other humans by inference) to be divine however.
I have stated on numerous occasions that, since humans are made from exactly the same material (protons, neutrons and electrons) that the physical universe is made of, humans are in every real way an example of the universe contemplating itself. I have never reached the point of considering myself (and all other humans by inference) to be divine however.
That last step is one of the Big Questions for me. First, let's accept we don't know. But let's say there is a creator, or creative force, or giant watchmaker, or something more, or collective consciousness, or WHATEVER it is...... what about that makes it "divine" or "sacred or holy" or something that requires worship? That need to worship, I would argue, is a particularly human construct. And the source of many problems.
That last step is one of the Big Questions for me. First, let's accept we don't know. But let's say there is a creator, or creative force, or giant watchmaker, or something more, or collective consciousness, or WHATEVER it is...... what about that makes it "divine" or "sacred or holy" or something that requires worship? That need to worship, I would argue, is a particularly human construct. And the source of many problems.
Yes. I gotta repeat (sorry) that Intelligence/will/intent/forward planning is what makes God and anything else - even an almost AI ordering if the universe (the 'God' of Einstein) well, it would be a god that atheist could credit. It is the man -made gods that are a different thing, though religious apologists constantly try to pretend they are the same thing.
We've heard it before in the latest revision of Creationism. Essentially that science (I/D) validates a creator but they don't claim to know which one it is, though they frankly admit that they believe it's Biblegod.
That last step is one of the Big Questions for me. First, let's accept we don't know. But let's say there is a creator, or creative force, or giant watchmaker, or something more, or collective consciousness, or WHATEVER it is...... what about that makes it "divine" or "sacred or holy" or something that requires worship? That need to worship, I would argue, is a particularly human construct. And the source of many problems.
exactly.
I keep "worshiping it" separated from what is actually going on.
I keep politics (bad religion) separated from what is actually going on.
I keep "the source of many problems" separated from what is actually going on.
We need more rational people taking that can keep "how things work" from being mixed in with "How do we stop religion" and "How can I spread the word of my deity" agendas. Hidden behind "activism" and "advocating" against or for something. We even need the more Innocent people that say they don't want to talk about it because crazy theist jump all over the conversation by saying "that's god" to step up.
If more rational people "just get out of the way" we are left choose between between anti-religious and deity. And that choice is almost random really. well to me.
Makes me wonder how many different ways we can stare at our navel and ponder it any differently than we have countless times already...
It is the human condition to always question and wonder. No one really knows anything for sure as far as God, no God, what kind of God, where we go when we die, etc. It's just natural to try and find beliefs that resonate with us. Nothing in that realm is definitive.
It is the human condition to always question and wonder. No one really knows anything for sure as far as God, no God, what kind of God, where we go when we die, etc. It's just natural to try and find beliefs that resonate with us. Nothing in that realm is definitive.
I disagree..., but rather than just repeat myself, you can read what I've explained about this before. Here...
No doubt you might call it the human condition to question and wonder. Of course, but there is the realm of reality and what we can definitively conclude about it. In the realm of nothing definitive, let our imagination reign! Again yes of course and have fun! If we're looking for "what resonates with us" same thing. All depends on what matters to us most, but again I'll not repeat myself further about this here...
That last step is one of the Big Questions for me. First, let's accept we don't know. But let's say there is a creator, or creative force, or giant watchmaker, or something more, or collective consciousness, or WHATEVER it is...... what about that makes it "divine" or "sacred or holy" or something that requires worship? That need to worship, I would argue, is a particularly human construct. And the source of many problems.
A few years ago I made friends with a feral kitty. She was a tiny little thing probably only a month old or so when she came crying to me for help. So I fed her and comforted her, but because I didn't want the responsibility of yet another pet I left her to survive on her own. Naturally enough she continued to seek me out and me being a softee I continued to feed her. She was very shy and skittish but learned to trust me.
When she was about nine months old or so she brought me her newly born baby. Unfortunately, the baby had been badly chewed up, probably by raccoons, and was dead. But my little friend the momma kitty brought her baby to me to fix. It seemed to me that she considered me to be divine. But of course I am not divine, and there are things that I can not fix. There are some things I CAN fix however, and that was the little momma kitty. It was time to make a decision about taking responsibility for the momma kitty, having her spayed, and taking her in.
I managed a compromise. I paid a couple of hundred dollars to have her spayed and receive all her shots. And then I gave her to a friend. She is with my friend to this day.
The whole concept of divinity, it seems to me, is wrapped up in ignorance. To the momma kitty I was divine, because I could do things which to her were wondrous and she was ignorant of my limitations. To ancient people, events such as lightening, thunder, earthquakes and the like were wondrous, because they were ignorant of the natural causes of such natural events. The world around them was a wondrous place. Since they were ignorant of how such a world could have come into being naturally, without an intelligent source, they conceived of the necessary existence of an intelligent designer. Or of various designers that were responsible for the operation of various phenomena.
We humans are currently on a path to fully understanding the natural causes that make the universe operate as it does. When we humans reach that point, we will understand how to achieve all things that are possible to achieve within the boundaries established by natural law. But I am not convinced that even being in possession of that sort of understanding, that level of knowledge, will ever make humans divine. We will always remain flawed. Divinity is a concept of perfection that does not exist, and so will always remain unattainable.
But we can always consider perfection a goal to shoot for, even if is ultimately unattainable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have never seen anyone, anywhere, claim there is anything "sacred or holy" about science or the scientific method. I'm not even sure what that would mean.
) as Pantheism is something we atheists don't really need to bother about, unless we get scammers like ol' Gldnrain who used Pantheism as a trick (1) trying to use pantheism (tree -hugging) as a handy way of debunking atheism by identifying a religion with something we can't deny (the biosphere). The trick there is to slip from 'religion' to theism, whereas not all religions are theistic. the 'cosmic mind' is the difference between theism and non -theism (2). Pantheism perhaps is a good example of believers - or at least claimants 
) coming clean with what 'Pantheism' means to them, not moving the goalposts on the meaning as they play the slippery eel.
and if Karma has intelligence, it is a god, and an interceding one and thus Theravada Buddhism is a Theism.
