Modern Deism, Nature's God

[Antlerman]

Well, I didn't know about all these different --ism classifications. So far from my readings, I am more a Panentheist at the moment. I don't think God is completely separate from nature (Deism), like he made it then disappeared. But I am having a hard time with Pantheism, where God and Nature are the same thing. I am still leaning toward there being an entity who created nature and infuses nature, but is not necessarily nature itself (Panentheism).

 

 

If I were ever to move away from being a non-theist then I think Panentheism is what I'd most likely go to, in fact I might be there already.

 

I've kind of learned that I fit many categories so I don't really try to say I'm this one thing or that. When it comes to a theistic view, I would say Panetheism fits best for me. In a nutshell it means God in transcendence, and God in immanence. It's essentially theism and pantheism together, without being either. That I like a lot when envisioning God. That said however, ultimately I don't believe their is a distinction, and I would hold a nondualist view (which is a contradiction just to say).

 

One major caveat though, I don't believe in a theistic deity (meaning one that intervenes with mankind), the deity I might accept would set the laws of nature into place but could not and would not alter them, to alter them would be to show that he made mistakes while setting them in place, I'd take a spinozian view (assuming that I understand at all what his view is)....

 

but the more I think about it, I'm probably a spiritual non-theist.

It's tricky when I even use the term Panentheist, as it doesn't exactly apply either. Where I 'believe in God' is really as I said before, putting a Face on the Infinite. It is a symbolic way in a dualistic perspective to objectify and relate to that in an effort to connect that sense of self separate from the Divine, to move beyond into non-duality. Where that is Panenthiestic is that it is both transcendent and utterly immanent. Through that perspective, that subject/object relationship, I am able to move into That, and eventually identify with that.

 

I know this sounds very foreign to rational thinking, but I could go a lot deep in explaining it. Bottom line, in my meditations I often find this that I describe as "Heaven disappears." It dissolves into you. You 'wake up', so to speak, but not as you began. What was "God" is now indistinct from you. It's really not no-God in the sense of atheism, but rather All that is is Divine, and I am That, That is I. It it all of us, we are that. There is no other.

 

Anyway, I'll share this here which I have elsewhere as it puts it in better langauge. When I first read this, I said, "That's it!"...

"But this is not God as an ontological other, set apart from the cosmos, from humans, and from creation at large. Rather, it is God as an archetypal summit of one's own Consciousness. ... By visualizing that identification 'we actually do become the deity. The subject is identified with the object of faith. The worship, the worshiper, and the worshiped, those three are not separate'. At its peak, the soul becomes one, literally one, with the deity-form, with the dhyani-buddha, with (choose whatever term one prefers) God. One dissolves into Deity, as Deity - that Deity which, from the beginning, has been one's own Self or highest Archetype."

 

~Ken Wilber, Eye to Eye, pg. 85

[Antlerman]

Sjessen, for some strange reason in looking for something else just now I found this old post of mine from last October talking about my practice of meditation I had just begun only a month before. I thought it my be interesting for you to read this, plus the thoughts I had following in discussion about my hesitancy with other organized forms of religion. This seem apropos to what direction this discussion of yours has gone: http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/48325-religious-mysticism-hinduism/page__st__60#entry695346

[sjessen]

Sjessen, for some strange reason in looking for something else just now I found this old post of mine from last October talking about my practice of meditation I had just begun only a month before. I thought it my be interesting for you to read this, plus the thoughts I had following in discussion about my hesitancy with other organized forms of religion. This seem apropos to what direction this discussion of yours has gone: http://www.ex-christ..._60#entry695346

 

Thanks! I'll check that out.

[sjessen]

But are unjustified beliefs worth believing in. I don't see how science or history could ever prove a miracle, or there being a valid fine tuning or cosmological arguement, but does that mean I should believe in the supernatural as a default position. No. There at least should be a good reason for belief. Even if you can't put in a test tube or test it by the scientific method.

 

Okay, Valk, I've been thinking about this question a lot and finally came up with a response: flight.

 

 

Imagine some kid sitting on a big rock by the fire next to a cave chewing on mammoth meat, and he looks up at the moon and says, "I think one day people are going to walk on the moon."

 

Everyone laughs. His mother tells him to get those silly notions out of his head.

 

He keeps believing it and people eventually start to think he's a little off in the head.

 

"How are you gonna get there, kid? Jump? Hahahahaha"

 

"No," he says, "I'll fly like a bird."

 

Jump ahead to Kitty Hawk where two guys believe they can build a machine that flies in the air like a bird. Everyone thinks they are a little off in the head. "If God wanted a man to fly, he'd have given him wings" the critics say.

 

But these two brothers keep believing and keep dreaming and they build a machine. The first machines fall apart in a heap and people laugh at them. "Don't give up your day job" they yell. But finally, after many trials and a lot of hard work and refiguring, they get it right and the first airplane is aloft.

 

Jump ahead to Cape Canaveral and the first manned mission to the moon. Some kid sits at the kitchen table watching the rocket launch on TV and says, "I think one day we'll walk on Mars."

 

"Don't be silly," his mother says.

 

 

Yeah, I think it is worth believing in things that haven't been proven yet. Otherwise, we would still be sitting around that fire by the cave staring at the moon.

[par4dcourse]

The human mind hates random. Attributing acts to the divine, bad or good, suggests an agent with a purpose.

We are also from necessity prone to seeing causality even when it's not there: A is related to and precedes B, so A caused B. "God caused it" is easier for us to swallow than "shit happens." and "god made it" sounds more fulfilling than millions of years of natural selection and evolving.

 

Isn't the brain "looking inward" in meditation sort of like congress investigating itself?

[Guest Valk0010]

 

 

 

Yeah, I think it is worth believing in things that haven't been proven yet. Otherwise, we would still be sitting around that fire by the cave staring at the moon.

I am not sure how one could consider, believing in god on the same plane(pardon the pun) as that. So I am wonder why you think it is?

[Antlerman]

Isn't the brain "looking inward" in meditation sort of like congress investigating itself?

No. Not at all a comparison. Meditation is not analyzing.

[Antlerman]

 

 

 

Yeah, I think it is worth believing in things that haven't been proven yet. Otherwise, we would still be sitting around that fire by the cave staring at the moon.

I am not sure how one could consider, believing in god on the same plane(pardon the pun) as that. So I am wonder why you think it is?

If I may offer my thoughts to this? Believing in God is really believing in yourself.

[Guest Valk0010]

Yeah, I think it is worth believing in things that haven't been proven yet. Otherwise, we would still be sitting around that fire by the cave staring at the moon.

I am not sure how one could consider, believing in god on the same plane(pardon the pun) as that. So I am wonder why you think it is?

If I may offer my thoughts to this? Believing in God is really believing in yourself.

Sure why not. But why can't you just say you believe in yourself. What is the need for metaphor?

[Antlerman]

Yeah, I think it is worth believing in things that haven't been proven yet. Otherwise, we would still be sitting around that fire by the cave staring at the moon.

I am not sure how one could consider, believing in god on the same plane(pardon the pun) as that. So I am wonder why you think it is?

If I may offer my thoughts to this? Believing in God is really believing in yourself.

Sure why not. But why can't you just say you believe in yourself. What is the need for metaphor?

God represents symbolically our unrealized hopes, dreams, aspirations, on a level that reaches beyond just normal hopes and desires. God is a like an archetype of Self.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archetype

[Guest Valk0010]

 

God represents symbolically our unrealized hopes, dreams, aspirations, on a level that reaches beyond just normal hopes and desires. God is a archetype of Self.

I am still having a hard time being sold on that being necessary. Why?

[par4dcourse]

Isn't the brain "looking inward" in meditation sort of like congress investigating itself?

No. Not at all a comparison. Meditation is not analyzing.

 

No matter how one "views" one's thoughts, it's still the brain analyzing the brain, n'est pas? It's similar to Freud's observation that we can't possibly imagine death because it requires a living consciousness to experience it.

[sjessen]

Yeah, I think it is worth believing in things that haven't been proven yet. Otherwise, we would still be sitting around that fire by the cave staring at the moon.

I am not sure how one could consider, believing in god on the same plane(pardon the pun) as that. So I am wonder why you think it is?

 

Love the pun! <giggle giggle>

 

Regarding the story above, I was trying to use a metaphor to show why believing in something that hasn't been proven yet is of value. You were saying how you couldn't see how one day science would be able to prove God exists and I was showing an example of how people in the past have believed something without proof and then what they believed in was eventually proven to be true. My stance is that now science can't prove God's existence, but maybe someday it will be able to. I was attempting to show that believing in some things that may or may not be true is of value. Mainly, the value is that believing compels us to seek and eventually find what we dream of.

 

As for me, I find value in believing there is a god because it makes sense to me. My view of the world is without confusion because to me the evidence says there is an intelligent designer behind the workings of the universe. But if there isn't, that's fine too. Somehow the story of life and the origins of the universe must make sense, it is just a matter of grasping what is true.

 

Also I find value in believing there is a "supernatural" realm (although I don't see it as supernatural, I think it is all natural) because I like the idea that all that I have learned in this life will survive my death. That what I experience, suffer through and strive for in this life will not be lost, that the non-corporeal part of me will live on and continue to learn and mature. This gives me peace of mind. Otherwise, it seems a terrible waste of energy on my part. But that's just my way of looking at things.

 

PS: I am sooo glad we are talking about this. I just now realized that what I am seeking is to know and understand the truth of my/our existence. i'm not in a search for God per se', but for truth. Hmm, very interesting! So this is all about me! Yikes

[VacuumFlux]

Isn't the brain "looking inward" in meditation sort of like congress investigating itself?

No. Not at all a comparison. Meditation is not analyzing.

 

No matter how one "views" one's thoughts, it's still the brain analyzing the brain, n'est pas? It's similar to Freud's observation that we can't possibly imagine death because it requires a living consciousness to experience it.

 

I'd say that when I meditate, I'm still analyzing, but I've quit tinkering. Usually, my conscious and subconscious mind are in a feedback loop. Meditation is stopping the feedback and letting the subconscious just do its thing while I watch (er... sorta. Lovingkindness meditation definitely involves pushing the subconscious in certain directions, and mindfullness meditation involves using the will to maintain focus). I think of it more like mental rest time for healing, same way I'd do for muscles after heavy use. When I'm resting muscles I'm still aware of them and paying attention to how much they hurt, but I'm not using them to apply force to anything.

[Guest Valk0010]

Yeah, I think it is worth believing in things that haven't been proven yet. Otherwise, we would still be sitting around that fire by the cave staring at the moon.

I am not sure how one could consider, believing in god on the same plane(pardon the pun) as that. So I am wonder why you think it is?

 

Love the pun! <giggle giggle>

 

Regarding the story above, I was trying to use a metaphor to show why believing in something that hasn't been proven yet is of value. You were saying how you couldn't see how one day science would be able to prove God exists and I was showing an example of how people in the past have believed something without proof and then what they believed in was eventually proven to be true. My stance is that now science can't prove God's existence, but maybe someday it will be able to. I was attempting to show that believing in some things that may or may not be true is of value. Mainly, the value is that believing compels us to seek and eventually find what we dream of.

 

As for me, I find value in believing there is a god because it makes sense to me. My view of the world is without confusion because to me the evidence says there is an intelligent designer behind the workings of the universe. But if there isn't, that's fine too. Somehow the story of life and the origins of the universe must make sense, it is just a matter of grasping what is true.

 

Also I find value in believing there is a "supernatural" realm (although I don't see it as supernatural, I think it is all natural) because I like the idea that all that I have learned in this life will survive my death. That what I experience, suffer through and strive for in this life will not be lost, that the non-coporeal part of me will live on and continue to learn and mature. This gives me peace of mind. Otherwise, it seems a terrible waste of energy on my part. But that's just my way of looking at things.

I find myself forced to not believe, just cause I like something. Either something is true or it isn't. I wonder how you would avoid confirmation bias? There is a difference between, holding judgement back and scorning. I would say I am withholding judgement on saying. Yes there is a god, till there is good evidence that there should be one. I don't know what you consider evidence?

[sjessen]

]I find myself forced to not believe, just cause I like something. Either something is true or it isn't. I wonder how you would avoid confirmation bias? There is a difference between, holding judgement back and scorning. I would say I am withholding judgement on saying. Yes there is a god, till there is good evidence that there should be one. I don't know what you consider evidence?

 

I think I understand your position. You want to wait until there is scientific proof of the existence of God. Well, we'll both wait together. I was just trying to explain why I think there is value in believing. In an earlier post you rejected what I consider "evidence". I think perhaps we are at an impasse and can agree to disagree on this?

[Guest Valk0010]

]I find myself forced to not believe, just cause I like something. Either something is true or it isn't. I wonder how you would avoid confirmation bias? There is a difference between, holding judgement back and scorning. I would say I am withholding judgement on saying. Yes there is a god, till there is good evidence that there should be one. I don't know what you consider evidence?

 

I think I understand your position. You want to wait until there is scientific proof of the existence of God. Well, we'll both wait together. I was just trying to explain why I think there is value in believing. In an earlier post you rejected what I consider "evidence". I think perhaps we are at an impasse and can agree to disagree on this?

Fair enough.

[sjessen]

]I find myself forced to not believe, just cause I like something. Either something is true or it isn't. I wonder how you would avoid confirmation bias? There is a difference between, holding judgement back and scorning. I would say I am withholding judgement on saying. Yes there is a god, till there is good evidence that there should be one. I don't know what you consider evidence?

 

I think I understand your position. You want to wait until there is scientific proof of the existence of God. Well, we'll both wait together. I was just trying to explain why I think there is value in believing. In an earlier post you rejected what I consider "evidence". I think perhaps we are at an impasse and can agree to disagree on this?

Fair.

 

Agreed! I am so glad we talked about this. You have given me a lot to think about! Thanks.

 

PS: That was post #11 where I stated what I consider evidence.

PSS: Your avatar is extremely intimidating!

[Guest Valk0010]

]I find myself forced to not believe, just cause I like something. Either something is true or it isn't. I wonder how you would avoid confirmation bias? There is a difference between, holding judgement back and scorning. I would say I am withholding judgement on saying. Yes there is a god, till there is good evidence that there should be one. I don't know what you consider evidence?

 

I think I understand your position. You want to wait until there is scientific proof of the existence of God. Well, we'll both wait together. I was just trying to explain why I think there is value in believing. In an earlier post you rejected what I consider "evidence". I think perhaps we are at an impasse and can agree to disagree on this?

Fair.

 

Agreed! I am so glad we talked about this. You have given me a lot to think about! Thanks.

 

PS: That was post #11 where I stated what I consider evidence.

PSS: Your avatar is extremely intimidating!

Well I think mostly I have a very high standard for belief in a supreme being. Its not like say I am investigating a political philisophy or something, then it could become just down to preference on occasion. But usually in regards to the god question I try my best to keep my emotions out of it. Hence why, I don't really quite ever get compelled by the, "I believe this because it gives meaning to my life deal." Its just not my thing. It seems what you consider evidence, I consider to fall under that sort of thing. Its chocolate and vanilla, and I can't blame you for liking chocolate.

 

Ohh the avatar

 

Its this guy

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NSZfswXEAE another good one is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9WwO1feZIc (Yes I am a extreme pro wrestling fan).

[FeelHappy]

Sjessen, for some strange reason in looking for something else just now I found this old post of mine from last October talking about my practice of meditation I had just begun only a month before. I thought it my be interesting for you to read this, plus the thoughts I had following in discussion about my hesitancy with other organized forms of religion. This seem apropos to what direction this discussion of yours has gone: http://www.ex-christ..._60#entry695346

 

Do you have tips for some first time meditation (I've tried before and failed)? Maybe point me to a good book or website?

[sjessen]

Isn't the brain "looking inward" in meditation sort of like congress investigating itself?

No. Not at all a comparison. Meditation is not analyzing.

 

Thanks for answering Antlerman.

 

I am afraid I can not speak with regard to the meditation as I have not done it successfully yet.

[Antlerman]

Sjessen, for some strange reason in looking for something else just now I found this old post of mine from last October talking about my practice of meditation I had just begun only a month before. I thought it my be interesting for you to read this, plus the thoughts I had following in discussion about my hesitancy with other organized forms of religion. This seem apropos to what direction this discussion of yours has gone: http://www.ex-christ..._60#entry695346

 

Do you have tips for some first time meditation (I've tried before and failed)? Maybe point me to a good book or website?

Rev R here on the site had put together a basic steps for meditation. He posted it in his blog here: http://www.ex-christian.net/blog/180/entry-645-the-meditation-guide/

 

I used that initially to get me going and it developed from there. There's another basic explanation of the two basic types of meditation and the stages of meditation I like to refer people to here: http://integrallife.com/integral-post/stages-meditation

 

There are a lot of various practices within these basic types you can explore. For me, it was more organic, what presented itself to me. Call it self-guided. I'm happy to share my own things I do with you, but really its about learning what works best for you. There is no 'right way' to do this. The wrong way is what hinders you. If you feel frustrated, you will never get through holding that in you. I always say be gentle with yourself, calmly and gently bringing yourself back. Stop all self-criticism. Focus on letting yourself go, not where you are going. Learning how to do that will be part of that self-discovery, the very beginning of it!

[Antlerman]

Isn't the brain "looking inward" in meditation sort of like congress investigating itself?

No. Not at all a comparison. Meditation is not analyzing.

 

Thanks for answering Antlerman.

 

I am afraid I can not speak with regard to the meditation as I have not done it successfully yet.

I sometime wish I could just touch someone's head and say "here you go", and let them see for themselves, but that would defeat the purpose. It's the process that is a huge part of the discovery. It's learning yourself in ways that are hidden from view. It's an opening up of yourself to yourself in that path of self-discovery.

[Antlerman]

God represents symbolically our unrealized hopes, dreams, aspirations, on a level that reaches beyond just normal hopes and desires. God is a archetype of Self.

I am still having a hard time being sold on that being necessary. Why?

Why what? Why is it necessary, or why is it effective? I don't think visualizing God is entirely necessary, but it is effective for many. Again, though God is to me that Face we put upon the Infinite. To relate that that in some manner, works with how we perceive the world symbolically. It is a mental image that is a bridge between ones self-sense and their confrontation with Infinity, both without and within. There are many faces we can call upon that does this for us.

 

I don't believe however that simply looking in the mirror and speaking from our ordinary self-sense to our selves saying, "My, I'm a good boy", equates with this. It's really going beyond that. Vastly beyond that. It's taking that image we have of our 'self' and emptying it into that Void. It is through the use of such symbolic means, literally setting aside the ego sense of self, to a greater identity with something beyond what the mind can grasp or fathom. Whatever that is beyond us, is what people often, but not necessarily, call God. It is moving beyond the concrete world, into the subtle and beyond.

 

I heard someone put it this way not long ago, that when you move into these spaces the question of the existence of God or no-God becomes irrelevant. Of course there is "That". The only issues are how to talk about it, how does one approach it, how does one view it, and how does one integrate it practically; not whether it exists or not.