Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Pantheism

Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 1:56:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
When we say that the cosmos is divine, we mean it with just as much conviction and emotion as believers say that their god is God. But we are not making a metaphysical statement that is beyond proof or disproof. We are making an ethical statement that means no more, and no less, than this: We should relate to the universe in the same way as believers in God relate to God. That is, with humility, awe, reverence, celebration and the search for deeper understanding."
("Divine Cosmos, Sacred Earth," from Harrison's Scientific Pantheism website.)

I have only recently glossed over pantheism and would surely like to understand your individual rejections or embraces of such a school of thought.

If we were to briefly discuss pantheism and to describe it, we should note of a supposed all-encompassing unity of the Cosmos, of nature that is supposedly a part of it, and a recognition of such unity that can cater to both theological and atheistic forms (presumably either with the beginning premise of a theological being that characterize this unity or a more worldly matter).

In your view then, and especially in regards to the pantheistic belief, what are your reasons for rejecting or for accepting, either actively or complacently, such a thought or mode of philosophy, especially one that honors or recognizes a supposed divinity of the Universe and Nature remote from any sense of anthropomorphism or in holding whatever divinity outside or transcending the mold of this world.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 2:07:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 1:56:42 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
When we say that the cosmos is divine, we mean it with just as much conviction and emotion as believers say that their god is God. But we are not making a metaphysical statement that is beyond proof or disproof. We are making an ethical statement that means no more, and no less, than this: We should relate to the universe in the same way as believers in God relate to God. That is, with humility, awe, reverence, celebration and the search for deeper understanding."
("Divine Cosmos, Sacred Earth," from Harrison's Scientific Pantheism website.)

I have only recently glossed over pantheism and would surely like to understand your individual rejections or embraces of such a school of thought.

The universe does invoke in me: humility, awe, celebration, and a search for deeper understanding. (I don't revere the universe, however). However, this can apply to a great deal of things, are all those things, then, gods to me? I disagree. Actual theists would probably disagree as well.


If we were to briefly discuss pantheism and to describe it, we should note of a supposed all-encompassing unity of the Cosmos, of nature that is supposedly a part of it, and a recognition of such unity that can cater to both theological and atheistic forms (presumably either with the beginning premise of a theological being that characterize this unity or a more worldly matter).

In your view then, and especially in regards to the pantheistic belief, what are your reasons for rejecting or for accepting, either actively or complacently, such a thought or mode of philosophy, especially one that honors or recognizes a supposed divinity of the Universe and Nature remote from any sense of anthropomorphism or in holding whatever divinity outside or transcending the mold of this world.

My primary issue with pantheism is this:

1. It is merely nothing more than calling the universe "god" adding nothing. If nothing is added then the label is superfluous and I reject it. I believe in apples but someone else calling apples gods doesn't make me a theist.

2. There is a difference between just the universe and universe-as-god pantheism. If so, what? I've yet to receive any comprehensible answer on this.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 8:27:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 2:07:39 PM, drafterman wrote:
My primary issue with pantheism is this:
1. It is merely nothing more than calling the universe "god" adding nothing. If nothing is added then the label is superfluous and I reject it. I believe in apples but someone else calling apples gods doesn't make me a theist.
2. There is a difference between just the universe and universe-as-god pantheism. If so, what? I've yet to receive any comprehensible answer on this.

I believe that, again given my cursory readings on pantheism, in response to your primary issues:
1. The unity proposed by pantheism is not an unity of the world in a sense but that of a state--a condition, not of an unity that is all-inclusive to encompass some form of existence (i.e. everything that exists...exists).
2. I think that by identifying the universe with a deity (i.e. Taoism, Vedic religion, etc), it is to extend or associate some sort of divine quality to the universe; the unity that you appear to propose exists...should I say ontologically???

I am not however too-well versed in the matter to make a definite response/rebuttal...though my intentions in making this thread...was not to defend the basic principles of pantheism or refute them.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 9:27:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 2:07:39 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/17/2012 1:56:42 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
When we say that the cosmos is divine, we mean it with just as much conviction and emotion as believers say that their god is God. But we are not making a metaphysical statement that is beyond proof or disproof. We are making an ethical statement that means no more, and no less, than this: We should relate to the universe in the same way as believers in God relate to God. That is, with humility, awe, reverence, celebration and the search for deeper understanding."
("Divine Cosmos, Sacred Earth," from Harrison's Scientific Pantheism website.)

I have only recently glossed over pantheism and would surely like to understand your individual rejections or embraces of such a school of thought.

The universe does invoke in me: humility, awe, celebration, and a search for deeper understanding. (I don't revere the universe, however). However, this can apply to a great deal of things, are all those things, then, gods to me? I disagree. Actual theists would probably disagree as well.


If we were to briefly discuss pantheism and to describe it, we should note of a supposed all-encompassing unity of the Cosmos, of nature that is supposedly a part of it, and a recognition of such unity that can cater to both theological and atheistic forms (presumably either with the beginning premise of a theological being that characterize this unity or a more worldly matter).

In your view then, and especially in regards to the pantheistic belief, what are your reasons for rejecting or for accepting, either actively or complacently, such a thought or mode of philosophy, especially one that honors or recognizes a supposed divinity of the Universe and Nature remote from any sense of anthropomorphism or in holding whatever divinity outside or transcending the mold of this world.

My primary issue with pantheism is this:

1. It is merely nothing more than calling the universe "god" adding nothing. If nothing is added then the label is superfluous and I reject it. I believe in apples but someone else calling apples gods doesn't make me a theist.

2. There is a difference between just the universe and universe-as-god pantheism. If so, what? I've yet to receive any comprehensible answer on this.

The Fool: That exacly what it is.

Sorry I mean to say: wioyhreh fhwoe fhef oshe rlse hill!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 9:30:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 9:27:20 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/17/2012 2:07:39 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/17/2012 1:56:42 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
When we say that the cosmos is divine, we mean it with just as much conviction and emotion as believers say that their god is God. But we are not making a metaphysical statement that is beyond proof or disproof. We are making an ethical statement that means no more, and no less, than this: We should relate to the universe in the same way as believers in God relate to God. That is, with humility, awe, reverence, celebration and the search for deeper understanding."
("Divine Cosmos, Sacred Earth," from Harrison's Scientific Pantheism website.)

I have only recently glossed over pantheism and would surely like to understand your individual rejections or embraces of such a school of thought.

The universe does invoke in me: humility, awe, celebration, and a search for deeper understanding. (I don't revere the universe, however). However, this can apply to a great deal of things, are all those things, then, gods to me? I disagree. Actual theists would probably disagree as well.


If we were to briefly discuss pantheism and to describe it, we should note of a supposed all-encompassing unity of the Cosmos, of nature that is supposedly a part of it, and a recognition of such unity that can cater to both theological and atheistic forms (presumably either with the beginning premise of a theological being that characterize this unity or a more worldly matter).

In your view then, and especially in regards to the pantheistic belief, what are your reasons for rejecting or for accepting, either actively or complacently, such a thought or mode of philosophy, especially one that honors or recognizes a supposed divinity of the Universe and Nature remote from any sense of anthropomorphism or in holding whatever divinity outside or transcending the mold of this world.

My primary issue with pantheism is this:

1. It is merely nothing more than calling the universe "god" adding nothing. If nothing is added then the label is superfluous and I reject it. I believe in apples but someone else calling apples gods doesn't make me a theist.

2. There is a difference between just the universe and universe-as-god pantheism. If so, what? I've yet to receive any comprehensible answer on this.

The Fool: That exacly what it is.

Sorry I mean to say: wioyhreh fhwoe fhef oshe rlse hill!

The Fool: Its a much better canditate, world would be a lot safer.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 11:12:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The goal of pantheism, at least as I understand it, is not to convert anyone. Its denunciation is not one aimed at any school of thought. It is merely an acceptance of that which one perceives to be real; whatever that may be. Of course, this does not suggest in any way, that, pantheists are not opinionated; yet, pantheism does not hold its dogma above the doctrines of any other belief system. I think Alexander Pope sums up my personal feelings on the matter, when he concludes his poem by saying, "One truth is clear, Whatever is, is right."
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 11:26:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It almost reminds me of Buddhism where you mediate, accept your reality and try to become one with the universe as a greater whole. Or is that Hinduism... Which ever religion you try to become one with the universe at large.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 11:38:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 11:12:55 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The goal of pantheism, at least as I understand it, is not to convert anyone. Its denunciation is not one aimed at any school of thought. It is merely an acceptance of that which one perceives to be real; whatever that may be. Of course, this does not suggest in any way, that, pantheists are not opinionated; yet, pantheism does not hold its dogma above the doctrines of any other belief system. I think Alexander Pope sums up my personal feelings on the matter, when he concludes his poem by saying, "One truth is clear, Whatever is, is right."

The Fool: I only thought people had Goal, I was tought that it was an explation, I always thought it was an attempt to rationalize the term God.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL