Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Natural Panentheism?


Joshpantera

Recommended Posts

  • Moderator

This is a spin off from a subject touched on by Antlerman and myself in the primacy of consciousness thread and others. I wanted to revisit the idea again and explore it a little further. Usually Panentheism rates as a supernatural belief. Some Pantheists have scaled it as such: 

 

Atheist---Natural Pantheism---Pantheism < natural * supernatural > Panentheism---Polytheisms---Monotheisms

 

This is generally arranged based on the idea that Panentheism is the belief that a supernatural God exists beyond the universe as well as everywhere within the universe. So of course it gets slung to the right of center, to the supernatural category. And on Pantheist forums Panentheists are usually treated as distinct from Natural Pantheists. 

 

But when I came to exC I saw people using Panentheism in completely different context.

 

For one thing I've seen it applied to the multiverse scenario whereby Natural Pantheism is extended to include not only the universe but the eternal multiverse cosmology. This sense of Panentheism was not being used in any supernatural context at all, just an extension of Natural Pantheism.

 

And Antlerman suggested that while no label really fits him, Panentheism could be close as far as labels go. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but Antlerman didn't seem to be using Panentheism is a supernatural context either, although he certainly was using it in a spiritual context. I'm guessing a natural spiritual context because he seemed surprised that I found Panentheism to be a supernaturalist belief.

 

I'm just posting this subject by itself (where it was possibly off topic elsewhere) to explore the idea of Natural Panentheism and see where it goes....

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Note: All Regularly Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.

I think panentheism may fit very well what I have swayed towards over the course of my doubt in Xtianity and conversion.

 

I believe that God is changing, that He evolves through the universe; however, I do not know if there is necessarily a primordial quantum soup that spawns countless, distinct universes. Universe mean’s “one meaning,” so we can assume or not that there are more universes, because their existence should be ambiguous as to their significance to this universe. However, if there are other universes, either “existing simultaneously” or existing successively, then this opens the ability to define a very important characteristic about God: His evolution... Perhaps in the evolution of His knowledge of building other universes, He could design “more evolutionarily advanced” universes. But, there’s a problem – forgetting. If the destruction of older universes through entropy or “big crunches” destroys information, then God would have no reason to take information from one universe and employ its use in another. If information is somehow recycled, through some multiversal “hard drive” or allows for recycling of information into new universes, e.g., information not being destroyed by these processes.

 

So, before continuing further, I must ask: why even have a physical universe where the laws of physics and biomechanics designate a limited life-span of all things, where everything is temporal and subject to decay? What is the purpose of suffering, where tsunamis, earthquakes, fires, wars, bad politics, religion, disease, and corportocracy make no small effort to provide reasons to make life miserable for everyone and kill, well… everyone? Why is it necessary to have a physical universe instead of or in addition to astral realms? To have a mind! If there was no experience based on limited scope, nothing would have definition or delineation – all would be pure, perfect, distilled truth – and nothing would ever truly exist!

 

How can a mind that knows everything about everything create a universe from nothing, when there is nothing to know about anything? Did he run a simulation and then create everything, or are we living in that very simulation now? I look to the big bang, where everything started out formless and without definition. Everything was unified and distilled; there was but one unified fundamental force and no particulate matter – just pure energy. Imperfection (or, perturbation) in the distillation of the early universe enabled it to evolve. Over time, the universe started to become more structured, developing stars, galaxies, planets, and eventually life starting to develop. To me, this looks like an evolving mind figuring itself out by building on causation, with new ideas springing forth leading to intelligent design – but not necessarily perfect, because it has to be a progressive process based on rules to make sense.

 

When I think of existence, I think of the Mind of God. Subsequently, when I think of the mind of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God evolving, I see it in terms of a human mind without limitation. To see the universe as the work of God, I think of the human's ability to imagine, his ability to have thought. We can create people, animals, objects, scenes, colors, past memories, etc. in our mind's eye, and the same sort of experience happens much more profoundly in a dream. In a dream, the people we meet seem just as real as they are in the real world – but with one key difference – they are not, in fact, real, because when we wake up, they are gone (furthermore, renditions of people we know in dreams pass away, but we know they do not die in real life as a consequent). They have no souls, no god, and no afterlife. But we run into the same problem in evidential logic – are we even real? What is the primacy of evidence; I think, therefore I am? Additionally, we see in quantum dynamics that the universe is more accurately understood as a hologram projected on a two-dimensional spherical surface, so the universe at large may not be as "real" as we perceive ourselves. But, I would say that we are “real enough.”

 

Let’s tickle our imagination a bit. Imagine that you are playing a protagonist in a videogame, and an enemy combatant fires a rocket-propelled grenade at you and bam, your player character is dead. In reality, you are still alive, sitting in front of the television with a controller. From your perspective, the video game is not real, but that RPG was extremely real to the player character in the simulation. Now, imagine of this: what if an RPG hit you in real life while you were in the middle of a philosophical argument about the nature of existence? On the one hand, the self and reality could possibly not be real because it is not objectively verifiable, but on the other hand, this event was not any different from what happened in the video game. It turns out, it doesn’t matter what level of reality or abstraction one is, as long as the system in which one belongs is interactive, then one has a place in the system which is real. Does it make a difference whether you really exist or not, does not the world keep turning, the brooks keep murmuring, the sun keep burning the same, and stubbed toes hurting? Well, yes, there is actually a difference if there's an afterlife (e.g., in a separate universe).

In a purely physical sense, it appears that life is a sort of "reverse entropy" whereby it takes in energy and recycles it to produce increasing complexity, but when an organism or species dies, it no longer continues this process and its body and "information content" fades into entropy. This is congruent to what happens to the data on a ram stick a videogame character's data when it dies in a game – not just the “main character,” but everything ceases to exist (game over, no need for a game universe any more), and the information is lost forever – unless it is reloaded from the hard disk, depending on the rules of the game. So, basically, for a universe in which organisms "exist" only on a physical level, there is no "hard drive" or memory of the organism, and an entire universe ceases to exist for each life form that dies, because to that organism it makes no difference as to whether everyone and everything ceased to exist, it can no longer perceive anything.

 

Now, suppose a universe does have a "hard drive," also known as the afterlife, where information can leave the physical universe and be "saved" on the "disk," to be loaded later and reprocessed in the Mind of God. There’s a law called the conservation of mass and energy, which basically states that information can neither be created nor destroyed. This is fine and well when you drop a Rolex watch and break it, only to have it reassembled with existing parts; however, when this happens to a living soul, there is the assumption that the person who dies is not conserved, on the basis that a dead body returns to dust (or something of the sort). But, if we presuppose that there is some additional importance to this “information,” that requires a special type of storage to not be destroyed, then we may very well have an afterlife! And, this also implies that we real not just in a physical system’s model sense, but also objectified in a metaphysical sense by God! Perhaps, then, we are indeed living in God's imagination, in His mind. Personally, I see the universe as the most grounded imagination, where people, animals, objects, animals, etc. are as real as they can possibly get.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I consider myself a Natural Panentheist since a while back (not sure how long now).

 

My label says "panentheistic naturalist". Whichever. Not sure if it really is a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

I've been using Pantheism or Natural Pantheism for years but after considering how Panentheism applies to the multiverse cosmology I see how Natural Panentheism fits the way I feel about it. I went searching for something on Natural Panentheism and didn't find any thing. There's only Natural Pantheism. And saying Panentheistic Naturalist seems to describe the same thing - open to the new eternal based cosmology where God is the whole of it. I think you, Antlerman, and BA caught my attention as using Panentheism in a non-supernatural context. 

 

The problem that I've faced is that Pantheism and it's definitions are limited to this universe, as if it were the only universe in existence. The universe, or nature / cosmos is God. The whole is God. But this idea of the whole is limited and in the end, well, something less than the whole.

 

Once I began to catch wind of progressive cosmological models I struggled with the limitations of only dealing with this universe. Pantheism  began to seem outgrown. Then I decided that because Pantheism means all is God then it must necessarily include what ever the all turns out to be, in this case all of an eternal multiverse. Antlerman thought that I was being limited while claiming Pantheism because, of course, the general definition limits the all to this particular universe. I didn't mean Pantheism in the limited sense, but at the same time how would any one know that I mean it in a much broader sense of the all? 

 

I think of the Carl Sagan type of Scientific Pantheism promoted so heavily on Pantheist sites applied to newer and broader cosmologies where future generations will have evolved into this Natural Panentheism or even Scientific Panentheism if you will. 

 

I'm going to need to raise this new possible terminology @ http://www.pantheism.net/

 

 

 

  How we relate to closely allied beliefs

We use the name pantheism because it has a long and venerable history. Our beliefs (see the Statement of Principles) are entirely naturalistic, and compatible with atheism, humanism, agnosticism, universalism, and those forms of paganism that see magic and the gods as symbols rather than objective realities.

 

We offer a home to all forms of naturalistic spirituality - scientific pantheism, religious humanism, religious naturalism, positiveatheism, deep ecology, philosophical Taoism, modern Stoicism, Gaia religion, Western forms of Buddhism that celebrate Nature and daily life without supernatural beliefs, and to those in Unitarian Universalism who do not believe in supernatural beings.

 

You are completely free to adopt the terms and practices you prefer and draw on other traditions for inspiration. Most of us avoid "god-language" and the remainder use it metaphorically. Some call this a religion (a positive one), while others call it a philosophy, a way of life, or a form of general spirituality.

 

Please explore our pages. Check out the highlights un the left pane, and browse the menu at the top. If you have questions, email us at info@pantheism.net .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

I think panentheism may fit very well what I have swayed towards over the course of my doubt in Xtianity and conversion....

 

 

Hi angstrom, thanks for posting your thoughts and ideas. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What draws me closest to pantheism are reports of "near death" experiences.

 

I have listed as my God the "higher-self matrix," because I think this human oversoul works much like a god because of its functions of welcoming human souls to the afterlife, providing spiritual healing, and reincarnating them.

 

It essentially the ground of being human, as only humans return to this oversoul. Dogs, deer, and other species return to their own type of oversoul / group soul, so they can effectually have their own "god."

 

Third, the oversoul allows for a way to see God in terms of one's own image, rather than the entire universe, as the God of the cosmos would have no more reason to appear as a human than as any other morphic life form. It seems from NDE experiences that the oversoul serves as a conduit of the cosmological God's will, reflecting the perfection of each species.

 

Edit:

 

However, with all these over-souls being god over the life of earth, there's still the matter of inanimate matter. The closest explanation as to who is the god of the weather, god of trees, stars, galaxies, etc. is that in NDE's, people report that everything they see is "light." This implies a ground of all being in one God, with structural constructs such as over-souls developing as a way for species to see God. This reminds me of Mellen Thomas Benedict's NDE account, where he saw a being of light that appeared as all the religious icons, such as Jesus, Muhammed, Buddha, etc., and even as a mandala of human souls. Yet, he also said he saw a second light that was beyond this first light, which may have been the God of the cosmos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

 

What is the difference between pantheism and panentheism?

Panentheists and pantheists share the view that the universe and every natural thing in it is in some sense numinous.   

However, pan-en-theos means "all-in-God" - that is, the universe is contained within God, not God in the universe. Panentheists believe in a God who is present in everything but also extends beyond the universe. In other words, God is greater than the universe. Often they also believe that this God has a mind, created the universe, and cares about each of us personally.

Pantheists believe that the universe itself is the prime focus for reverence. They do not believe in personal or creator gods.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, then I'd be panentheist :)!

 

Hopefully God is outside of the universe, because a God that is "born" with the universe "dies" with it (unless, of course, such God is another holographic projection of a divine multiversal force). I have had the intuition that an afterlife, if such does indeed exist, would necessarily have to evolve with the physical universe in order to reflect the experiences spawned in said universe, and, as such, the end of the universe would be an end to the afterlife.

 

It seems that zero entropy is the same as perfect entropy, so the end of the universe would be, in some ways, similar to the beginning. I wouldn't say that consciousness really dies, but becomes transformed with time and experience.  It would just seem rather anticlimatic to be permanently absorbed into an ether of potentiality and never experience individuality again. But, then again, that may be all the more of a reason to enjoy the ride there, given the possibility of such an existence.

 

This is not to say that the anticlimatic experience is something that anyone would reasonably reject for another alternative, the elixir of forgetfuness enables limitless experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Yes, judging by the posts you've made I would think that you're a traditional Panentheist because Panentheism has involved supernatural belief which you seem to be expressing. You've given an example of how most people think of Panentheism in terms of believing in Gods in a literal sense of deity. And that's what threw me off originally when I saw a few people here on ex-C using Panentheism in a non-supernatural belief context - as naturalists as opposed to supernaturalists. 

 

We don't debate naturalism vs supernaturalism or theist vs atheist in this section so I won't bother to argue about why I prefer naturalism over supernaturalism.

 

But without conflict I'll explain why I'm attracted to this new and potentially radical sense of using Panentheism in a completely naturalistic context. You've outlined one of the many ways of approaching a supernatural based Panentheist concept. And no doubt your ideas are Panentheist in the most tradition sense of the term. But what I've explained in this thread is something entirely different from a traditional sense of Panentheism. It's as different as the contrast between Panentheists and Natural Pantheists stated in my last post.

 

A Natural Panentheist is Identical to a Natural Pantheist but with one exception - that a Natural Panentheist applies Natural Pantheism to the multiverse cosmology which transcends the boundary of this universe. The idea is NOT that a supernatural God or Gods dwell within the mulitiverse and various other universes, but rather that the physical realm of an eternal multiverse itself is ultimate.

 

Pantheism is about the fabric and structure of the physical, natural universe itself and that is what they call God or say is equal to what a God is meant to convey - the source, end, and supporting ground of all life and being. A Natural Panentheism in that respect (by applying the term natural to it)  simply means that the realm of the physical universe is contained within a greater surrounding realm which extends infinitely beyond it's own bounds and is eternally existing with no beginning or end. It's about the realms of existence directly and not a deity or being existing within any given realm. The realm itself is ultimate, above and beyond the concept of a deity or supreme being. And by realm that applies to nature itself. We experience a direct connection to the whole of it all through the medium of the natural world and surrounding cosmos which is within our perception and experience. 

 

It's the next level of an evolving Natural Pantheism adapting to an evolving modern cosmology and I think this is a brilliant idea that a few posters here @ ex-C have been developing independently, on their own, and in their own different ways. I just applied my own spin on it. 

 

But it will come as very controversial to the naturalist based Pantheist organizations, although I believe that most Natural Pantheists could easily catch on to the idea once they finally 'get it.' As a Natural Pantheist myself (with agnostic leanings towards Idealist Pantheism) I was immediately turned off to the usage of the term Panentheism, but as it eventually set in through periodic contemplation I began to see the genius in all of this.

 

The only contention that I can see right away is the fact that a multiverse, though largely accepted as probable, is not technically a scientific fact at this point in time so I can see some Natural Pantheists refusing to alter their label until and unless a multiverse realm is proven scientifically by some means and accepted into the standard model cosmology in some sense. In the meanwhile Natural Panentheism is intuitive and based on naturalistic expectations as to what likely exists beyond the bounds of our range of perception. In this case people like myself expect that a never ending natural realm extends out for ever and ever. What people might consider a spiritual realm, in this sense, would be viewed as nothing more than an extension of the natural cosmos as yet to be discovered.

 

To the question of what lies beyond the natural, our answer would be more of the natural.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, I see, my bad lol tongue.png. I mistook natural panentheism's definition and unloaded everything on my mind thinking it was in harmony with the topic :/.

 

Much learning I have to do to adopt a more scientific viewpoint; I don't feel satisfied with what I believe because most of it is based on assumptions and magical thinking - the thought patterns of which underlie my mental illness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'm right on the border between natural pantheism and natural panentheism.  I get occasional twinges of visualizing the outer "shell" of the universe, as it were, and feeling a mystical connection with it.  I don't know if what I'm sensing stops at the perimeter of this universe, or is contained within a larger entity, or is one of many distinct entities in a multiverse.  Could there be such a thing as a polypantheist, akin to a polytheistic pantheist?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Josh!

 

We have talked about non-supernatural  Panentheism.  I recall that.

 

Fwiw, I easily accept the natural universe for what it appears (to me) to be.

Specifically, some kind of fractal reality.  The Self-Reproducing Chaotic Eternal Inflation theory proposed by Andrei Linde appears to generate such a fractal reality. If Linde is right, then there were an infinite number of absolutely identical BAA's who've already written these words an infinite number of times.  Likewise, the are an infinite number of absolutely identical BAA's currently writing them... now.  And there will be an infinite number of absolutely identical BAA's who will write them in the future.

 

This infinite redundancy seems to be the ultimate destination of the logic of Inflationary theory.

Now, as I see it, this eternal repetition destroys such human notions as identity, free will, meaning and purpose.  We only appear to have these four things on a local scale (within our 'pocket' universe) and once we factor in the totality of Inflationary logic, they disappear in a puff of fractal redundancy.  On the widest scale, we have no more identity, free will, meaning or purpose than a pixel in a fractal.

.

.

.

So, does this explain why I baulk at any supernaturalism?

As I understand it, supernaturalism requires the presence of personal identity and also meaning and purpose.   Where such things don't or can't exist, there's not much point in invoking the supernatural.

.

.

.

Am I being overly simplistic here?

Could you folks help me out with your take on Panentheism, specifically on the linked issues of identity, free will, meaning and purpose?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Ah, I see, my bad lol tongue.png. I mistook natural panentheism's definition and unloaded everything on my mind thinking it was in harmony with the topic :/.

 

Much learning I have to do to adopt a more scientific viewpoint; I don't feel satisfied with what I believe because most of it is based on assumptions and magical thinking - the thought patterns of which underlie my mental illness.

No worries, because there is no definition for Natural Panentheism yet, there's no way you could have looked it up. I tried. Nothing for it. So I thought I'd take a stab at explaining what people seem to mean by it. 

 

Like I was saying, this is cutting edge development here. I really do think these guys have stumbled into something genius that could easily take up a strong minority status or possibly majority status well into the future after a larger cosmological view sets in. 

 

This is the spiritual section so there's no reason for you to apologize about not being more scientific. I apologize if I made you feel that way. We certainly don't want to turn any one off from posting or anything like that and welcome spiritual ideas whatever they are. 

 

If I bring this back to the spiritual part of it, in my searching I've found that all spiritual belief ends up funneling down to the very mystery of everything. You know, the mystery behind the existence of existence itself. In this case the existence of an eternal multiverse with no end or beginning with universes like our own coming and going constantly. The realm itself, the process itself, can't have begun. The process just is what it is and there's no fixed explanation or answer as to how or why such an eternal realm even exists at all. So everything that exists has a complete mystery at the very base of it. 

 

It's my opinion that mythology is addressed to the mystery underlying the existence of existence itself. I feel that human beings have personified the raw mystery of everything over the years and given that raw, abstract mystery ingrained into the whole of existence attributes and mind conceptions as if the mystery were were like a person, only a supernatural person. That leading to all of the God concepts we now have in the world about supernaturalism. 

 

So for me God means nothing more than a place holder term or metaphor for the abstract mystery associated with the existence of everything. The existence of the whole. That's what brought me to Pantheism. All is God. Because God means the mystery of existence in the way that I've been describing, God IS existence as I see it. That's Pantheism from a technical Campbellian based comparative mythology and religion point of view. This is something that naturally unfolded as I began to research about  comparative religions. 

 

God = The whole. 

 

So don't get me wrong, I'm not being hostile to spirituality because deep down I think that spirituality leads to a major truth, the truth of all truths as it turns out. The truth is that everything that exists is shrouded in a mystery so deep that it transcends all words, concepts, language, etc. When they speak of the leave taking of God for God is see that as the leave taking of God the personification in religious works for God the whole extent of the realm or all realms we exist in and are specifically an interconnected part of. We're all God because God is the whole and we are inseparable from the whole. That's the mystical realization and I agree with it, just not in a literalist, supernaturalist sense. I just don't think that supernatural beings are supposed to be taken literally. But's that's my own opinion. 

 

Thou art That. 

 

So for me Natural Panentheism is a perfect description of where I've gone in life with my searching. It's about a broader perspective of the whole in a naturalist sense while maintaining a spiritual element concerning the whole and our interconnection and interdependence with it.

 

All is in God and all is God. 

 

All is in existence and all is existence. 

 

Same thing minus the personification aspect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

 

I think I'm right on the border between natural pantheism and natural panentheism.  I get occasional twinges of visualizing the outer "shell" of the universe, as it were, and feeling a mystical connection with it.  I don't know if what I'm sensing stops at the perimeter of this universe, or is contained within a larger entity, or is one of many distinct entities in a multiverse.  Could there be such a thing as a polypantheist, akin to a polytheistic pantheist?  

I had to think about that for a minute. Polytheistic Pantheist?

 

I think that Natural Panentheism covers it.

 

One supreme realm with many lesser realms below it. All natural. The idea of Natural Panentheism is akin to a Polytheistic Pantheism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Yes Josh!

 

We have talked about non-supernatural  Panentheism.  I recall that.

 

Fwiw, I easily accept the natural universe for what it appears (to me) to be.

Specifically, some kind of fractal reality.  The Self-Reproducing Chaotic Eternal Inflation theory proposed by Andrei Linde appears to generate such a fractal reality. If Linde is right, then there were an infinite number of absolutely identical BAA's who've already written these words an infinite number of times.  Likewise, the are an infinite number of absolutely identical BAA's currently writing them... now.  And there will be an infinite number of absolutely identical BAA's who will write them in the future.

 

This infinite redundancy seems to be the ultimate destination of the logic of Inflationary theory.

Now, as I see it, this eternal repetition destroys such human notions as identity, free will, meaning and purpose.  We only appear to have these four things on a local scale (within our 'pocket' universe) and once we factor in the totality of Inflationary logic, they disappear in a puff of fractal redundancy.  On the widest scale, we have no more identity, free will, meaning or purpose than a pixel in a fractal.

.

.

.

So, does this explain why I baulk at any supernaturalism?

As I understand it, supernaturalism requires the presence of personal identity and also meaning and purpose.   Where such things don't or can't exist, there's not much point in invoking the supernatural.

.

.

.

Am I being overly simplistic here?

Could you folks help me out with your take on Panentheism, specifically on the linked issues of identity, free will, meaning and purpose?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

I don't even understand why we should get off thinking that we have free will in the first place. The way that religionists have written it into religious works merely reflects a human urge to want to think that we have free will. As you stated we may well not. And I'm into truth seeking for the truth of it, whatever the truth may turn out to be. I don't even dispute the possibility that I may have typed this very line an infinite amount of times or simultaneous to my typing right now. If that's the truth, then I don't even find it troubling in any way because my goal is to be in peace, accord, and harmony with reality on the basis of what it actually is. For me Natural Panentheism has no problem with discovering that free will is illusory. There's still a whole, and we're still interconnected to that whole regardless of free will so I don't see that as much of a problem, IMO. 

 

Identity. That doesn't seem to conflict with Natural Panentheism. Identity with the universe or multiple universes would include any numbers of yourself that may be out there. So I don't see single or multiple identities as a problem for Natural Panentheism. I guess to the question of who am I, one could say I am at the base merely existence itself which is everywhere present. That's the eternal part of everyone, the part of us which is simply the fabric and structure of existence itself. That's a pantheistic line from Alan Watt's that seems to apply here.  

 

Meaning and purpose. A naturalist look at an eternal cosmology probably takes meaning out of the equation. There can be no one fixed meaning for what has always existed and will always exist. It's the same as asking what is the meaning of an eternal God to a theist. It's beyond meaning. In order to have a fixed meaning something else has to exist beyond it in order to give it meaning and in this case, or either case, there is no beyond what exists eternally. Whether theistic or atheistic the bottom line seems to remain the same. Meaning and purpose are out the window when asking the question of ultimates.  

 

But that's just me, I don't know how others going as Natural Panentheists would answer.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your response, Josh.

 

May I just say that I've rarely read anything, either in this forum or out of it, that displays such a clear-cut determination to seek out the truth, no matter what the cost.

 

You wrote...

"I'm into truth-seeking for the truth of it, whatever that truth may turn out to be."

   

I'm taken aback by your approach, Josh. 

Taken aback in a good way, I might add.  You seem to be so driven to discover the truth that you're willing to accept any finding, no matter how this affects you, on any level.  Most people consider such things as free will, identity, meaning and purpose as somehow sacred and inviolable.  They are usually unwilling to surrender any ground on these things because (in their view) that would mean annihilation of the self. 

 

They baulk and shrink back from this... this... zero. 

Such an eternity of un-being terrifies them - to the very core of their being.  They greatly fear such an infinity of purposeless un-meaning.  Yet you seem to accept it?  As my Vulcan alter-ego might say, "Fascinating!"  KatieHmm.gif

.

.

.

I must discover more about Natural Panentheism, if it enables one to look reality so squarely in the eye.

I must also check out what Alan Watts has to say.  Perhaps you and I are converging, Josh?  I'm coming from a reductionist scientific direction, trying to understand what Cosmology is telling us and taking the findings to their logical conclusion... as far as I'm able.  That seems to be taking me down a road where free-will, meaning, identity and purpose have fallen by the wayside.  If the truth is that these four things have to be dispensed with, then so be it!

 

I wonder if this is some kind of empirically-driven parallel to the Buddhist path of discarding unnecessary distractions?

.

.

.

One other question please, Josh.

What's your take on my understanding of the link between supernaturalism and the triad of identity/meaning/purpose?  I've posited the idea that without those three, there's no requirement to invoke the supernatural at all.  That the THEISM in Panentheism or Pantheism is irrelevant, because there is no personality involved.  Using 'Theism' therefore brings unwelcome and unnecessary personalizing baggage to a totally impersonal natural paradigm.

 

Do you see any mileage in that?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

^That's something that I've struggled with too. I really didn't understand what Pantheism was until I started reading on sites. It's really an atheist approach but the theism part tends to confuse that. It takes God to mean universe and then suggests that the universe is all. It also suggests that the universe is itself divine while at the same time lacking any belief in God(s). 

 

So to the point of your question about the triad and the meaningless of theism with respect to that, I do agree.

 

But at the same time I understand that the use of theism in Pantheism is not generally directed towards theistic God belief, but rather the opposite. 

 

 

 

 I must also check out what Alan Watts has to say.

 

I pulled that from an audio series called "Out of your Mind."

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6Ks2tEhfkc

 

Watts said something profound while exploring who and what we can say we really are. It's in that long series somewhere.

 

He said, "what you are, basically, deep deep down, far far in, is simply the fabric and structure of existence itself."

 

That's really what we are isn't it?

 

An aspect of what is essentially an eternal fabric from which all things arise and return over and over again.

 

As Watt's was saying we grown out of it rather then getting molded and created by some external force working like a potter to clay. Theistic version of creation is opposite reality. The actual process is more akin to Pantheism where the universe itself is what we have grown out of and are an inseparable aspect of. Natural Panentheism would go one step further to how we grow out of the universe and it's growing out of a greater multiverse. There's no God's in these scenarios aside from the cosmos and nature itself. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the term "theism" a problem in a-theism too? If not, why not? Perhaps the "a-" changes the meaning to the "-theism" part just like "pan-" and "-en-" does. Non-theism, is that a belief in a God? Nah, don't think so... Wendyshrug.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Is the term "theism" a problem in a-theism too? If not, why not? Perhaps the "a-" changes the meaning to the "-theism" part just like "pan-" and "-en-" does. Non-theism, is that a belief in a God? Nah, don't think so... Wendyshrug.gif

Aheism certainly cannot exist without theism, nor can pantheism nor panentheism.  What does that mean to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please hang in there Josh.

 

You have my attention... and I'll get back to in a few days.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Ok BA, in the meanwhile I'm going to post the World Pantheist Movent (WPM) creed which is addressed to Natural or Scientific Pantheists:

 

 

 

 http://www.pantheism.net/manifest.htm The Statement
  1. We revere and celebrate the Universe as the totality of being, past, present and future. It is self-organizing, ever-evolving and inexhaustibly diverse. Its overwhelming power, beauty and fundamental mystery compel the deepest human reverence and wonder.
  2. All matter, energy, and life are an interconnected unity of which we are an inseparable part. We rejoice in our existence and seek to participate ever more deeply in this unity through knowledge, celebration, meditation, empathy, love, ethical action and art.
  3. We are an integral part of Nature, which we should cherish, revere and preserve in all its magnificent beauty and diversity. We should strive to live in harmony with Nature locally and globally. We acknowledge the inherent value of all life, human and non-human, and strive to treat all living beings with compassion and respect.
  4. All humans are equal centers of awareness of the Universe and nature, and all deserve a life of equal dignity and mutual respect. To this end we support and work towards freedom, democracy, justice, and non-discrimination, and a world community based on peace, sustainable ways of life, full respect for human rights and an end to poverty.
  5. There is a single kind of substance, energy/matter, which is vibrant and infinitely creative in all its forms. Body and mind are indivisibly united.
  6. We see death as the return to nature of our elements, and the end of our existence as individuals. The forms of "afterlife" available to humans are natural ones, in the natural world. Our actions, our ideas and memories of us live on, according to what we do in our lives. Our genes live on in our families, and our elements are endlessly recycled in nature.
  7. We honor reality, and keep our minds open to the evidence of the senses and of science's unending quest for deeper understanding. These are our best means of coming to know the Universe, and on them we base our aesthetic and religious feelings about reality.
  8. Every individual has direct access through perception, emotion and meditation to ultimate reality, which is the Universe and Nature. There is no need for mediation by priests, gurus or revealed scriptures.
  9. We uphold the separation of religion and state, and the universal human right of freedom of religion. We recognize the freedom of all pantheists to express and celebrate their beliefs, as individuals or in groups, in any non-harmful ritual, symbol or vocabulary that is meaningful to them.

 

My only concern for the WPM is that it's not arranged to account for a greater ultimate reality, the reality of existing in a multiverse full of universes like our own. All of this Natural Pantheism addressed to the universe would have to change and the best way of describing it would be Natural Panentheism.

 

The multiverse becomes ultimate reality, not simply the universe. Aside from that, the rest of it seems pretty sound.

 

http://www.pantheism.net/ Is your spiritual home right here on Earth?

Are you searching for a path which focuses on Earth and the Cosmos, rather than some imaginary beyond? Are you more concerned with saving the planet than saving your eternal soul? With making the best of your one life here, rather than longing for life in an imaginary paradise?

 

Do you find it hard to believe in supernatural gods, and difficult to conceive of anything worthier of the deepest respect than the beauty, power and mystery of the Universe?

 

Do you feel a deep sense of peace, belonging, and wonder in the midst of Nature? 

Are you looking for a spirituality that respects individual choice and the rights of all living things? One that values reason and science over adherence to ancient scriptures?

 

If so, then you will feel at home in the World Pantheist community.

 

 

Can a spirituality be based in Nature?

In the World Pantheist Movement we revere and care for Nature, we accept this life as our only  life, and this earth as our only paradise, if we look after it. We revel in the beauty of Nature and the night sky, and are full of wonder at their mystery and power.

 

By spirituality and spiritual we don't mean any kind of supernatural or non-physical activity. We mean our deeper emotions and aesthetic responses towards Nature and the wider Universe - our sense of our place in these, and the ethics and values that these feelings imply.

 

We take the real Universe and Nature as our starting and finishing point, not some preconceived idea of God. We feel a profound wonder and awe for these, in some ways similar to the reverence that believers in more conventional gods feel towards their deity, but without anthropomorphic worship or belief that Nature has a mind or personality that we can influence through prayer or ritual. 

Our ethics are humanistic and green, our metaphysics naturalistic and scientific. To these we add the emotional and aesthetic dimensions which humans need to cope with life's challenges and to embrace life's joys, and to motivate their concern for Nature and human welfare.

Our beliefs

Our beliefs and values reconcile spirituality and rationality, emotion and values and environmental concern with science and respect for evidence. They are summarized in our Pantheist Statement of Principles, which embodies the following basic principles:

  • Reverence, awe, wonder and a feeling of belonging to Nature and the wider Universe .
  • Respect and active care for the rights of all humans and other living beings.
  • Celebration or our lives in our bodies on this beautiful earth as a joy and a privilege.
  • Strong naturalism - without belief in supernatural realms, afterlives, beings or forces.
  • Respect for reason, evidence and the scientific method as our best ways of understanding nature and the Cosmos.
  • Promotion of religious tolerance, freedom of religion and complete separation of state and religion.

If you want to see why other people have chosen this spiritual approach, then check out Members' Voices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Is the term "theism" a problem in a-theism too? If not, why not? Perhaps the "a-" changes the meaning to the "-theism" part just like "pan-" and "-en-" does. Non-theism, is that a belief in a God? Nah, don't think so... Wendyshrug.gif

Aheism certainly cannot exist without theism, nor can pantheism nor panentheism.  What does that mean to you?

 

The question was if there's a problem with the word "Theism" in pantheism. That it somehow suggests to be the same as "theism" because the word "theism" is part of the word. It doesn't pose a problem for "a-theism" so it shouldn't pose a problem for "pan-theism" or "pan-en-theism" or "non-theism" or "whatever-else-theism." A modifier in front of a word modifies the meaning of the word. So, no, it's not a problem for either one of them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many thanks for posting this Josh.

 

I'm inserting comments into the body of your post where I think appropriate. 

 

Ok BA, in the meanwhile I'm going to post the World Pantheist Movent (WPM) creed which is addressed to Natural or Scientific Pantheists:

 

 

 

 http://www.pantheism.net/manifest.htm The Statement
  1. We revere and celebrate the Universe as the totality of being, past, present and future. It is self-organizing, ever-evolving and inexhaustibly diverse. Its overwhelming power, beauty and fundamental mystery compel the deepest human reverence and wonder.I can accept the universe as the totality of being, past, present and future.  I can accept that the universe is self-organizing, ever-evolving and inexhaustibly diverse.  I can accept that it has overwhelming power, beauty and fundamental mystery. These things certainly do move me to wonderment, but why should I have reverence for something that is indifferent to me?  Such reverence couldn't be reciprocated, so why should I give it?
  2. All matter, energy, and life are an interconnected unity of which we are an inseparable part..  Accepted.  We rejoice in our existence and seek to participate ever more deeply in this unity through knowledge, celebration, meditation, empathy, love, ethical action and art.  Knowledge, yes.  Without knowledge we cannot know about our relationship with reality.  But why should I be moved to rejoice over what are simply the true facts of reality?  Also, why should I be moved to celebrate, meditiate, empathize, love, act ethically or create works of art?  Because I recognize my true place in reality?  Sorry, but I just don't get the emotional component of the manifesto.... ???
  3. We are an integral part of Nature, which we should cherish, revere ( ??? ) and preserve in all its magnificent beauty and diversity. We should strive to live in harmony with Nature locally and globally. We acknowledge the inherent value of all life, human and non-human, and strive to treat all living beings with compassion and respect.  Yes, indeed!
  4. All humans are equal centers of awareness of the Universe and nature...  I'm puzzled!  Most humans have no awareness, no knowledge and no understanding of their true place in the universe.  In this forum Josh, only you Ouroboros and I are discussing natural panentheism.  I contend that 95% + of the members have little or no awareness, knowledge or understanding of panentheistic reality!  So how can all humans be equal centers of awareness?  Potentially equal centers, perhaps? ..., and all deserve a life of equal dignity and mutual respect. To this end we support and work towards freedom, democracy, justice, and non-discrimination, and a world community based on peace, sustainable ways of life, full respect for human rights and an end to poverty.  No problem... accepted.
  5. There is a single kind of substance, energy/matter, which is vibrant and infinitely creative in all its forms. Body and mind are indivisibly united.  Ditto.
  6. We see death as the return to nature of our elements, and the end of our existence as individuals. The forms of "afterlife" available to humans are natural ones, in the natural world. Our actions, our ideas and memories of us live on, according to what we do in our lives. Our genes live on in our families, and our elements are endlessly recycled in nature.  Ok.
  7. We honor reality, and keep our minds open to the evidence of the senses and of science's unending quest for deeper understanding. These are our best means of coming to know the Universe, and on them we base our aesthetic and religious feelings about reality.  What are these religious feelings?  As an atheist I struggle to understand what's meant by this.
  8. Every individual has direct access through perception, emotion and meditation to ultimate reality, which is the Universe and Nature. There is no need for mediation by priests, gurus or revealed scriptures.  Perception, yes.  Because science is an extension of our senses.  We perceive reality thru our senses and thru the scientific enhancement of them. Emotion and meditation?  I'm in awe of reality and filled with wonder by it, but that's as far as it goes.
  9. We uphold the separation of religion and state, and the universal human right of freedom of religion. We recognize the freedom of all pantheists to express and celebrate their beliefs, as individuals or in groups, in any non-harmful ritual, symbol or vocabulary that is meaningful to them.  If that's what people feel they need, then I have no problem with any of # 9.  But rituals and symbols aren't for me.

 

My only concern for the WPM is that it's not arranged to account for a greater ultimate reality, the reality of existing in a multiverse full of universes like our own. All of this Natural Pantheism addressed to the universe would have to change and the best way of describing it would be Natural Panentheism.

 

The multiverse becomes ultimate reality, not simply the universe. Aside from that, the rest of it seems pretty sound.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

http://www.pantheism.net/ Is your spiritual home right here on Earth?

Are you searching for a path which focuses on Earth and the Cosmos, rather than some imaginary beyond? Are you more concerned with saving the planet than saving your eternal soul? With making the best of your one life here, rather than longing for life in an imaginary paradise?

 

Do you find it hard to believe in supernatural gods, and difficult to conceive of anything worthier of the deepest respect than the beauty, power and mystery of the Universe?

 

Do you feel a deep sense of peace, belonging, and wonder in the midst of Nature? 

Are you looking for a spirituality that respects individual choice and the rights of all living things? One that values reason and science over adherence to ancient scriptures?

 

If so, then you will feel at home in the World Pantheist community.

 

 

Can a spirituality be based in Nature?

In the World Pantheist Movement we revere and care for Nature, we accept this life as our only  life, and this earth as our only paradise, if we look after it. We revel in the beauty of Nature and the night sky, and are full of wonder at their mystery and power.

 

By spirituality and spiritual we don't mean any kind of supernatural or non-physical activity. We mean our deeper emotions and aesthetic responses towards Nature and the wider Universe - our sense of our place in these, and the ethics and values that these feelings imply.

 

We take the real Universe and Nature as our starting and finishing point, not some preconceived idea of God. We feel a profound wonder and awe for these, in some ways similar to the reverence that believers in more conventional gods feel towards their deity, but without anthropomorphic worship or belief that Nature has a mind or personality that we can influence through prayer or ritual. 

Our ethics are humanistic and green, our metaphysics naturalistic and scientific. To these we add the emotional and aesthetic dimensions which humans need to cope with life's challenges and to embrace life's joys, and to motivate their concern for Nature and human welfare.

Our beliefs

Our beliefs and values reconcile spirituality and rationality, emotion and values and environmental concern with science and respect for evidence. They are summarized in our Pantheist Statement of Principles, which embodies the following basic principles:

  • Reverence, awe, wonder and a feeling of belonging to Nature and the wider Universe .
  • Respect and active care for the rights of all humans and other living beings.
  • Celebration or our lives in our bodies on this beautiful earth as a joy and a privilege.
  • Strong naturalism - without belief in supernatural realms, afterlives, beings or forces.
  • Respect for reason, evidence and the scientific method as our best ways of understanding nature and the Cosmos.
  • Promotion of religious tolerance, freedom of religion and complete separation of state and religion.

If you want to see why other people have chosen this spiritual approach, then check out Members' Voices.

 

------------------------------------------------------

 

Josh, please don't take this the wrong way, but part of me is quite uncomfortable with the more emotionally-charged aspects of what you've cut & pasted above.

 

Spirit/Spiritual/Spirituallity

If these words actually just mean deep emotions and aesthetic responses to nature, then why not just call them that? 

 

If reason, evidence and naturalistic science are paramount, why the emphasis on belonging, on feelings and reverence?  Reason, evidence and science tell us that reality is indifferent to us and it matters not one iota if we feel a sense of belonging to it or not. 

 

"To these we add the emotional and aesthetic dimensions which humans need to cope with life's challenges and to embrace life's joys, and to motivate their concern for Nature and human welfare."

 

Do I really need the kind of emotional support advocated in the manifesto to cope with life's challenges?  I'd say, no. 

 

Reverence for the stars in the globular cluster NGC 1846? 

An emotional bond between myself and the a proton whizzing thru the Andromeda galaxy? 

A feeling of belonging to the galactic cluster Abell 2029?

 

I just don't get the emotional component at all Josh.  Sorry bout' that!  sad.png

Should I be emotional?  Should I get emotional?

 

I'd value your thoughts.

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

One simple answer BA, the Pan beliefs are the middle ground between theism and atheism. 

 

People who have transitioned out of religions to atheism often find that they still have some of this emotional baggage of reverence and so on. But they lack belief in the existence of God(s) because of what ever the reason. Probably just that, reason. Their love for a God is converted to a love for nature and the greater cosmos. They want to apply their emotions to what actually exists. And the WPM creed does play to peoples emotions in that way. 

 

I'm like you, I don't really get too wrapped up in the emotional end of it and making it too religious, but I do love nature in that I've spent all my life in the ocean and country and swamp lands of central and south eastern and western Florida. I'd rather sit in the ocean all day than sit in a church.  

 

I'm ok with pretty much all of the WPM creed because I don't see a problem with any of it. The biggest thing that might seem questionable to me is the reverence part, but do I understand that it's meant to appeal to deconverted religionist's who feel the need to revere something. So the universe, or multiverse, in my opinion, ought to receive the reverence rather than some imaginary sky daddy. So when the WPM says as a group that we revere the cosmos I'll go along with that even I personally don't feel the need to apply reverence. I agree for the sake of greater group and the needs of some of the members because if you put a gun to my head and said what do you revere and it has to be something, I'd conclude on the universe, or multiverse in this case. 

 

But as to the feeling of belonging to a universe that is indifferent to me, I'll ask why I should not feel belonging? 

 

Here's why, for me it's a given that we ARE the universe. 

 

I understand that I am that which is harsh and indifferent to my own existence because I am not something other than the universe itself.

 

It seems that the lingering realization here is that the universe is indifferent to it's own properties. There's no it vs. we because we're it. I belong to all of that hostility and indifference and I know it.

 

The mystical realization is roughly identification between yourself and ultimate reality. The God is you and you it per that tradition. 

 

In this case there's no God so ultimate reality is just existence the totality and we're that.

 

 I agree with the premise. Perhaps that makes me a mystical Natural Panentheist? So many loaded words, I know. lol

 

But these statements of belonging to me read as a given because I've already been to a point in life where I can understand the interconnection of everything. And interconnection and interdependence are something that modern Pantheism's have clued in on. I'm looking at this from going atheist and then deciding that pantheism suites me too to some extent.

 

Atheism is about what I don't believe and Pantheism is about what I do.

 

Both are pretty broad labels with the very irreligious naturalists to one end and the semi-religious naturalists to the other. But I'm ok with both labels because there are things that suite me in both camps. And that's pretty much why I would be ok with Natural Panentheist

 

You're right that not everyone are equally aware of intellectual data or even life experience or issues of knowledge. But I don't think that's what the WPM is suggesting in the creed. I think that they're simply saying human beings are a way that the universe becomes aware of itself. We're all equal centers of awareness because there's such a broad amount of experience taking place. Who's to say one experience of awareness is any greater than another? This is to curb the notion of a hierarchical position that we find in religions. It leads into the bit about no revealed scriptures and no need for priests or gurus because everyone has direct access to ultimate reality all of which I agree with. 

 

But all in all my reason for going towards Pantheism isn't described in the creed. 

 

I came to the point where I could see that by God people are trying to get at the mystery of existence itself. They've imagined it as a mind with a personality and feelings. After much evolution at that. I think it started out as a sense of divinity in nature that was eventually built upon. But at the bottom they've decorated it with all of the traits of mere existence itself such as eternal, infinite, omnipresent, and so on. Only existence itself can be all of those things, not a fixed deity or being dwelling within existence. It might have existed eternally along with it's realm but unless it's the realm itself it can not be present everywhere like the realm itself is. The realm or realms must be greater than any being existing within any given realm by this measure. I called that reasoning the containment vs. the contained early on when I started focusing in on this issue. And as I looked into comparative mythology this only became even more so. All of these Gods like Neith-Isis and even YHWH that are made to claim "I am all that ever was, is, or shall ever be," are speaking as if it were existence itself doing the speaking. I assume that the mystics who originally crafted these myths meant it that way.  

 

Existence itself is the all, the whole, "....all that ever was, is, or shall ever be."

 

It's mystery runs deep.  

 

When I started reading on Pantheism what struck me is the very name, meaning All is God Belief. 

 

That's exactly what I figured out about God. What people think of as God is simply a way of trying to conceive of the totality of existence and it's mystery as if it were all a mind or personality. The way I've come at this is probably different than just about every Pantheist out there, because I've never heard of any one else who came to Pantheism through the exact way that I have. And of course when I say Pantheism some people don't see how it applies to me because I'm not as religious about it as most may be. I've come at it from an intellectual direction instead. But it's still Pantheism. 

 

And that's the direction from which I see the term Natural Panentheism as such genius. 

 

Seeing it through my lens of concluding that God is = to the totality of existence then of course "All is within God" makes the most sense of anything.

 

The containment vs the contained again....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.