7 ms·

>For one thing, it manages to create a profound metaphysical intimacy with God without denying His transcendence. this kind of thinking which I often see when

>For one thing, it manages to create a profound metaphysical intimacy with God without denying His transcendence. this kind of thinking which I often see when people express pantheistic views is exactly what turns me away from it. It's just as much of an anthropomorphization as the article accuses traditional conceptions of God of. I guess you can think that the universe is in some vague sense conscious, although I don't think the arguments for that are great either, but to jump from this to thinking one can experience 'intimacy' with it (and explicitly not "him") is I think already making mistakes. One can experience intimacy while being in nature but not 'with nature', Intimacy is a human emotion, 'nature' does not empathize back. To me pantheism just seems like a misapplied psychological need. People have a (understandable) revulsion against seeing the universe as mechanic, or random, or 'cold' or what have you, and pantheism not unlike Gaia type theories are comforting.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
brutusborn 5y ago
Out of interest, what do you beleive in? I agree that pantheism is a misapplied psychological need, but no more so than any relgion or beleif system. I've decided that to fill this need, it is useful to choose a fundamental belief system of some sort. I have choosen Taoism and parts of other Philosophical systems, like Stoicism, where I feel there are gaps.
- Barrin92 5y ago
  > Out of interest, what do you beleive in? not very much, that is to say I'm skeptical of metaphysics altogether. I'm partial to Wittgenstein's attitude, that is to say I think projects like pantheism deflate if you scrutinize them and inquire to what degree they say anything meaningful or well-defined about the world, or if they're really expressions of psychology or linguistics or desire. I do agree with you that all kinds of belief systems may fulfill legitimate needs, but I think they're just that, personal, subjective and private expressions of the individual's attitude towards the world, not meaningful claims about the world as such.
  - tootie 5y ago
    I think concepts like Spinoza's or Deism or people who declare themselves "not religious but spiritual" are just having trouble parting with the comfort of religion even though they know there's nothing there.
    - seigando 5y ago
      Nothing where?
    - richard_todd 5y ago
      Spinoza was writing at a time when it was easy to become exiled or dead for publishing material that doesn’t align with the mainstream religious position. So some degree of the religious comfort aspect of his work can arguably be more of a practical necessity to get his ideas published in the first place.
    - slothtrop 5y ago
      I don't think I would conflate things like Deism with spiritualism. You can apathetically believe there is a God of sorts and not be in the least spiritual.
      - tootie 5y ago
        I don't mean that they're equivalent, I mean that they're ways to avoid labelling yourself as an atheist when you're irreligious. They're like diet atheism. Something you can say to not feel completely alienated from religious culture.
        slothtrop 5y ago
        I've often said that being "agnostic" isn't a position on whether or not one believes in God. You can be agnostic theist, or agnostic atheist. But I no longer think that's accurate. One reason people opt for it, which I find understandable, is owing to the popular connotations that atheism carries, not unlike theism. You can avoid having to explain "I'm not saying I know that God doesn't exist". But the qualifier is explicit. One needn't necessarily be certain whether they believe in a God or not and I don't think that's well represented by the term "atheist". By the same token I don't think Deism is anywhere near atheism-lite. It is explicit belief in a God with the caveat that it's irreligious. I like the term "apatheism" because it also captures the way I feel about the question of whether God exists.
darkerside 5y ago
There's a tiny part of your brain called the Ego that thinks it is human and special. The rest of your brain knows you are just part of the universe. Inextricably so, from before birth to after death. One and the same, like a drop of water returning to the ocean. What could be more intimate than that?
- toolz 5y ago
  To follow this line of thinking, are you suggesting I can have an intimate relationship with a rock? If you're not speaking to the point about intimacy, what point are you speaking to, because your post isn't very clear what point, if any, you were trying to make.
  - darkerside 5y ago
    Yes. Only one small part of your brain finds that idea ridiculous.
    - toolz 5y ago
      Do you have intimate relationships with rocks? and if so can you describe what that relationship is like? Does your conscious self acknowledge this relationship or are you just speaking in some metaphysical sense that is completely intangible?
      - NikolaeVarius 5y ago
        Like I said, people have intimate relations with dolls, 3d waifus, and goddamn robot dogs. Its extremely closed minded to think intimate relations are limited to human -> human interactions https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intimate https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intimate Nothing in the definition requires two humans
        Galaxeblaffer 5y ago
        And rocks I'm sure
murat124 5y ago
Pantheism is a compromise between the existence of an Abrahamic monotheistic god and lack thereof. It's a belief system without submission nor worship which are the cornerstones of judeo-christian religions including islam by extension. You might argue that the psychological need for a superhuman all-powerful deity is in our genes and it may well be the case, but canalizing the need it onto nature/universe while cutting down submission sometimes is not enough because submission (intimacy, feeling vulnerable in the company of a powerful being) is as much a powerful need as believing in something.
lhorie 5y ago
I don't think "comforting" is an apt description of pantheism; in fact, it postulating a cold mechanical universe (as opposed to the idea that a God must necessarily be omnibenevolent) is often cited as a criticism of pantheist frameworks. I find that panentheist flavors tend to dabble more with metaphysical supernatural stuff, but that pantheism is characterized by its rejection of blind belief. Talks about intimacy and experience feel strongly panentheistic to me, whereas a pantheist might instead summarize their position with something along the lines of "the laws of physics are omnipresent and omnipotent, and that's the hard scientific evidence of the conceptual thing you call God"
jonnybgood 5y ago
> To me pantheism just seems like a misapplied psychological need. People have a (understandable) revulsion against seeing the universe as mechanic, or random, or 'cold' or what have you, and pantheism not unlike Gaia type theories are comforting. Pantheism is nothing more than seeing the universe, or nature, as god. What you’re reading is one particular flavor of pantheism. A pantheist can also view god, or universe, or nature, as cold and mechanical as well.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  "Nature" in this sense, does not exist. Neither does "The Nation", "Society", "The Universe", and other such pseudo-agencies which people use to guarantee meaning in their lives.
- layer8 5y ago
  If god is the same as the (scientific) universe, calling it "god" doesn’t add anything. To make calling it "god" meaningful, something has to be added. The GP (I believe) opposes whatever is being added.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
DennisP 5y ago
I agree that "I believe X because it makes me feel Y" isn't a good argument. But it's also not a good argument to say "you believe X because it makes you feel Y." We could apply that, fallaciously, in any direction. For example, I could say "you believe in pantheism because you find it comforting," or "you believe in materialism because it makes you feel like a strong, tough-minded person who does need that fuzzy comforting stuff."
seigando 5y ago
>'nature' does not empathize back except when it seems like it does
- anthk 5y ago
  Nature in South America's jungles, the Arctic, or Australia doesn't give a shit if you live or not. You have better chances of dyeing fast than being alive. You know, still nature. Harsh, but nature. Stack plagues, bacteria-ridden water, parasites, funghi, predators and so on, and I'd say "nature" doesn't like you at all.
  - seigando 5y ago
    Yes, those are not examples of what I'm talking about.
    - anthk 5y ago
      Then you are under a confirmation bias.
      - seigando 5y ago
        First of all, lets not level accusations without some level of explanation. That's just rude. Second, on what basis do you claim that I'm the one with a confirmation bias and not yourself?
        robbiep 5y ago
        What examples of nature are you talking about then? The time a dog was nice to you? Nature is literally indifferent to our existence
        seigando 5y ago
        Maybe that dog wasn't indifferent to yours.
bobthechef 5y ago
> It's just as much of an anthropomorphization as the article accuses traditional conceptions of God of. For the record (just to clarify the overall context), the traditional conception of God, in the Catholic view, is not anthropomorphic. From metaphysical analysis, God is the Ipsum Esse Subsistens, the Subsistent Act of Existing Itself[0]. You see this declared in the Torah in Exodus 3:14[0]. Faith only enters into the picture with the identification of the God of Scripture with the God of philosophy, but it is not much of a leap given the agreement between the two. That God is personal does not imply anthropomorphism. That the Logos became incarnate does not imply anthropomorphism. Also, w.r.t. "God without denying His transcendence", the traditional Christian view of God is one who is both transcendent and immanent. [0] https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1003.htm#article4 https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1003.htm#article4 [1] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+3:14&version=DRA https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+3:14&ver...
- gmfawcett 5y ago
  > That the Logos became incarnate does not imply anthropomorphism. The belief that one's deity chose to assume the physical form of a man: isn't that about as anthropomorphic as you can get?
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    > The belief that one's deity chose to assume the physical form of a man: isn't that about as anthropomorphic as you can get? In my opinion, no. Anthropomorphism (as commonly understood) means to ascribe human characteristics to things not human; we don't talk about anthropomorphizing your grandma, but we do talk about anthropomorphizing a constellation. Now if you believe, like the Rawlsians suggest, that there are pre-incarnate spirits floating around and these then decide to inhabit specific bodies according to a lottery, then this is also not an anthropomorphism, but is rather a creation account of how humans come to exist. You may not believe it's accurate, but it's still a creation account. It is no more an anthropomorphism than saying that man was molded into being from a piece of clay into which God blew his breath. That is not an attempt to anthropomorphize clay. Finally if you believe that God literally became a man, then this is yet another origin account of a specific man. It's only if you don't believe that he became a literal man that you can speak of anthropomorphizing. Suppose he was an angel that only looked like a man, but wasn't really a man. Then anthropomorphism would be correct. But if he really was a man, and not just like a man, then it's not anthropomorphizing. So the miracle of incarnation describes a creation account of one specific man, much like the creation of Adam from dust is a creation account of another man. If you are extending the label of "anthropomorphizing" to one, then you should also extend it to the other, at which point you've left the commonly understood meaning.
TrispusAttucks 5y ago
You misunderstand Spinoza. Spinoza is a [1] Panpsychists. Spinoza's logical arguments in Ethics won me over to this perspective. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

brutusborn 5y ago

Out of interest, what do you beleive in? I agree that pantheism is a misapplied psychological need, but no more so than any relgion or beleif system. I've decided that to fill this need, it is useful to choose a fundamental belief system of some sort. I have choosen Taoism and parts of other Philosophical systems, like Stoicism, where I feel there are gaps.

Barrin92 5y ago
> Out of interest, what do you beleive in? not very much, that is to say I'm skeptical of metaphysics altogether. I'm partial to Wittgenstein's attitude, that is to say I think projects like pantheism deflate if you scrutinize them and inquire to what degree they say anything meaningful or well-defined about the world, or if they're really expressions of psychology or linguistics or desire. I do agree with you that all kinds of belief systems may fulfill legitimate needs, but I think they're just that, personal, subjective and private expressions of the individual's attitude towards the world, not meaningful claims about the world as such.
- tootie 5y ago
  I think concepts like Spinoza's or Deism or people who declare themselves "not religious but spiritual" are just having trouble parting with the comfort of religion even though they know there's nothing there.
  - seigando 5y ago
    Nothing where?
  - richard_todd 5y ago
    Spinoza was writing at a time when it was easy to become exiled or dead for publishing material that doesn’t align with the mainstream religious position. So some degree of the religious comfort aspect of his work can arguably be more of a practical necessity to get his ideas published in the first place.
  - slothtrop 5y ago
    I don't think I would conflate things like Deism with spiritualism. You can apathetically believe there is a God of sorts and not be in the least spiritual.
    - tootie 5y ago
      I don't mean that they're equivalent, I mean that they're ways to avoid labelling yourself as an atheist when you're irreligious. They're like diet atheism. Something you can say to not feel completely alienated from religious culture.
      - slothtrop 5y ago
        I've often said that being "agnostic" isn't a position on whether or not one believes in God. You can be agnostic theist, or agnostic atheist. But I no longer think that's accurate. One reason people opt for it, which I find understandable, is owing to the popular connotations that atheism carries, not unlike theism. You can avoid having to explain "I'm not saying I know that God doesn't exist". But the qualifier is explicit. One needn't necessarily be certain whether they believe in a God or not and I don't think that's well represented by the term "atheist". By the same token I don't think Deism is anywhere near atheism-lite. It is explicit belief in a God with the caveat that it's irreligious. I like the term "apatheism" because it also captures the way I feel about the question of whether God exists.

darkerside 5y ago

There's a tiny part of your brain called the Ego that thinks it is human and special. The rest of your brain knows you are just part of the universe. Inextricably so, from before birth to after death. One and the same, like a drop of water returning to the ocean. What could be more intimate than that?

toolz 5y ago
To follow this line of thinking, are you suggesting I can have an intimate relationship with a rock? If you're not speaking to the point about intimacy, what point are you speaking to, because your post isn't very clear what point, if any, you were trying to make.
- darkerside 5y ago
  Yes. Only one small part of your brain finds that idea ridiculous.
  - toolz 5y ago
    Do you have intimate relationships with rocks? and if so can you describe what that relationship is like? Does your conscious self acknowledge this relationship or are you just speaking in some metaphysical sense that is completely intangible?
    - NikolaeVarius 5y ago
      Like I said, people have intimate relations with dolls, 3d waifus, and goddamn robot dogs. Its extremely closed minded to think intimate relations are limited to human -> human interactions https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intimate https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intimate Nothing in the definition requires two humans
      - Galaxeblaffer 5y ago
        And rocks I'm sure

murat124 5y ago

Pantheism is a compromise between the existence of an Abrahamic monotheistic god and lack thereof. It's a belief system without submission nor worship which are the cornerstones of judeo-christian religions including islam by extension. You might argue that the psychological need for a superhuman all-powerful deity is in our genes and it may well be the case, but canalizing the need it onto nature/universe while cutting down submission sometimes is not enough because submission (intimacy, feeling vulnerable in the company of a powerful being) is as much a powerful need as believing in something.

lhorie 5y ago

I don't think "comforting" is an apt description of pantheism; in fact, it postulating a cold mechanical universe (as opposed to the idea that a God must necessarily be omnibenevolent) is often cited as a criticism of pantheist frameworks. I find that panentheist flavors tend to dabble more with metaphysical supernatural stuff, but that pantheism is characterized by its rejection of blind belief. Talks about intimacy and experience feel strongly panentheistic to me, whereas a pantheist might instead summarize their position with something along the lines of "the laws of physics are omnipresent and omnipotent, and that's the hard scientific evidence of the conceptual thing you call God"

jonnybgood 5y ago

> To me pantheism just seems like a misapplied psychological need. People have a (understandable) revulsion against seeing the universe as mechanic, or random, or 'cold' or what have you, and pantheism not unlike Gaia type theories are comforting. Pantheism is nothing more than seeing the universe, or nature, as god. What you’re reading is one particular flavor of pantheism. A pantheist can also view god, or universe, or nature, as cold and mechanical as well.

mjburgess 5y ago
"Nature" in this sense, does not exist. Neither does "The Nation", "Society", "The Universe", and other such pseudo-agencies which people use to guarantee meaning in their lives.
layer8 5y ago
If god is the same as the (scientific) universe, calling it "god" doesn’t add anything. To make calling it "god" meaningful, something has to be added. The GP (I believe) opposes whatever is being added.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

DennisP 5y ago

I agree that "I believe X because it makes me feel Y" isn't a good argument. But it's also not a good argument to say "you believe X because it makes you feel Y." We could apply that, fallaciously, in any direction. For example, I could say "you believe in pantheism because you find it comforting," or "you believe in materialism because it makes you feel like a strong, tough-minded person who does need that fuzzy comforting stuff."

seigando 5y ago

>'nature' does not empathize back except when it seems like it does

anthk 5y ago
Nature in South America's jungles, the Arctic, or Australia doesn't give a shit if you live or not. You have better chances of dyeing fast than being alive. You know, still nature. Harsh, but nature. Stack plagues, bacteria-ridden water, parasites, funghi, predators and so on, and I'd say "nature" doesn't like you at all.
- seigando 5y ago
  Yes, those are not examples of what I'm talking about.
  - anthk 5y ago
    Then you are under a confirmation bias.
    - seigando 5y ago
      First of all, lets not level accusations without some level of explanation. That's just rude. Second, on what basis do you claim that I'm the one with a confirmation bias and not yourself?
      - robbiep 5y ago
        What examples of nature are you talking about then? The time a dog was nice to you? Nature is literally indifferent to our existence
        seigando 5y ago
        Maybe that dog wasn't indifferent to yours.

bobthechef 5y ago

> It's just as much of an anthropomorphization as the article accuses traditional conceptions of God of. For the record (just to clarify the overall context), the traditional conception of God, in the Catholic view, is not anthropomorphic. From metaphysical analysis, God is the Ipsum Esse Subsistens, the Subsistent Act of Existing Itself[0]. You see this declared in the Torah in Exodus 3:14[0]. Faith only enters into the picture with the identification of the God of Scripture with the God of philosophy, but it is not much of a leap given the agreement between the two. That God is personal does not imply anthropomorphism. That the Logos became incarnate does not imply anthropomorphism. Also, w.r.t. "God without denying His transcendence", the traditional Christian view of God is one who is both transcendent and immanent. [0] https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1003.htm#article4 https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1003.htm#article4 [1] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+3:14&version=DRA https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+3:14&ver...

gmfawcett 5y ago
> That the Logos became incarnate does not imply anthropomorphism. The belief that one's deity chose to assume the physical form of a man: isn't that about as anthropomorphic as you can get?
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  > The belief that one's deity chose to assume the physical form of a man: isn't that about as anthropomorphic as you can get? In my opinion, no. Anthropomorphism (as commonly understood) means to ascribe human characteristics to things not human; we don't talk about anthropomorphizing your grandma, but we do talk about anthropomorphizing a constellation. Now if you believe, like the Rawlsians suggest, that there are pre-incarnate spirits floating around and these then decide to inhabit specific bodies according to a lottery, then this is also not an anthropomorphism, but is rather a creation account of how humans come to exist. You may not believe it's accurate, but it's still a creation account. It is no more an anthropomorphism than saying that man was molded into being from a piece of clay into which God blew his breath. That is not an attempt to anthropomorphize clay. Finally if you believe that God literally became a man, then this is yet another origin account of a specific man. It's only if you don't believe that he became a literal man that you can speak of anthropomorphizing. Suppose he was an angel that only looked like a man, but wasn't really a man. Then anthropomorphism would be correct. But if he really was a man, and not just like a man, then it's not anthropomorphizing. So the miracle of incarnation describes a creation account of one specific man, much like the creation of Adam from dust is a creation account of another man. If you are extending the label of "anthropomorphizing" to one, then you should also extend it to the other, at which point you've left the commonly understood meaning.

TrispusAttucks 5y ago

You misunderstand Spinoza. Spinoza is a [1] Panpsychists. Spinoza's logical arguments in Ethics won me over to this perspective. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism