What is pantheism?

[Crunchy Cat]

By his lack of a response to my post, I say yes, he is just looking for something to make him feel good. He's not interested in opinions that would oppose his own. He's looking for reassurance.

It's a trend with him recently. He asks objective questions but expects subjective answers targeted at making him feel good.

 

[Simon Anders]

Pantheism is the belief not simply that God is in and is everything. However it is not simply another word for, for example, universe. It means that this everything is conscious, alive.

 

[Simon Anders]

Pantheism is when someone projects human qualities (emotions, desires, consciousness, etc.) on the universe. In other words they accept without evidence that the universe itself is a sapient life form.

Scientists used to use this same argument in relation to animals. It was taboo to 'project' things like emotions, intentions, consciousness and so on onto animals. Then slowly they shifted from this assinine position set off by Descartes. Duh.

What was the psychological mechanism they were under the sway of when they could not notice the obvious?

 

[fadingCaptain]

"Pantheism is the belief not simply that God is in and is everything. However it is not simply another word for, for example, universe. It means that this everything is conscious, alive."

I don't really understand this. If everything is alive then how can we die? When you say 'conscious' and 'alive' does that mean something different than everyday uses of the terms? If so, please describe.

 

[Simon Anders]

I don't really understand this. If everything is alive then how can we die?

There are different answers to this. It can be that life is constantly changing. That there is no death, but also that there are no continuous individuals. Some might answer that there is rebirth. There are a variety of positions and beliefs.

When you say 'conscious' and 'alive' does that mean something different than everyday uses of the terms?

Humans have gotten into habits of seeing things as dead that are not like us. This trend shifted again in the '1st world' but for a long time animals were seen - at least by many intellectuals - as machines without consciousness in the sense we have it. Nor emotions, motivations, etc.

Even women, and certain other races were seen as not quite human, less sentient.

As I said there has been a counter trend for a while. I think this will continue. That we will notice that more and more is alive, though not in the same ways we are - for example, they are much slower than us, perhaps.

As far as can tell the whole damn thing is abuzz with life.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Scientists used to use this same argument in relation to animals. It was taboo to 'project' things like emotions, intentions, consciousness and so on onto animals. Then slowly they shifted from this assinine position set off by Descartes. Duh.

What was the psychological mechanism they were under the sway of when they could not notice the obvious?

As I recall, that line of thinking was theistically induced because only humans had 'souls'. Where theism goes, fruitcake will follow most assuredly.

 

[fadingCaptain]

"As far as can tell the whole damn thing is abuzz with life."

The problem with this is you have now effectively stripped the word "life" of all meaning. What properties do you speak of when you say it is abuzz with life? If a rock is alive then what are we? Extra alive with consciousness? The details are where we find out what we are actually talking about. What does a Pantheist attribute to the universe (specifically) that an atheist would not?

 

[Simon Anders]

"As far as can tell the whole damn thing is abuzz with life."

The problem with this is you have now effectively stripped the word "life" of all meaning. What properties do you speak of when you say it is abuzz with life? If a rock is alive then what are we? Extra alive with consciousness? The details are where we find out what we are actually talking about. What does a Pantheist attribute to the universe (specifically) that an atheist would not?

I would say that those who encounter deadness everywhere or presume that things are dead are not really noticing, listening, etc.

Many people are so used to assumptions of deadness and lack of sentience as the default liklihood that they think someone who experiences things differently bears the onus of proof.

For me it is quite the opposite.

 

[Balerion]

I would say that those who encounter deadness everywhere or presume that things are dead are not really noticing, listening, etc.

Dude, pass the acid.

 

[Simon Anders]

As I recall, that line of thinking was theistically induced because only humans had 'souls'. Where theism goes, fruitcake will follow most assuredly.

Then it is interesting that the scientific community at least in many portions of the West clung to this idea longer than many other groups. Sure, Christianity makes a division, for example, but many 'pagan' systems do not have so sharp a boundary. And I am far more likely to told I am anthropomorphizing animals by science fans than religious people - even including a lot of flexibility for how this is worded.

 

[Simon Anders]

Dude, pass the acid.

You would have said the same thing to Einstein. What seems weird to you might simply be something you have been trained to think is normal. I think it is sad that so many have to take drugs to have certain kinds of experiences. I am quite sure some scientist has taken acid and realized, from that moment forward, that this or that animal was a little more complicated than they had realized. On the other hand, there is no need to take this kind of step to notice such things.

 

[Balerion]

You would have said the same thing to Einstein.

Dude, you are no Einstein. You're just spewing philosophical garbage.

 

[Simon Anders]

Dude, you are no Einstein. You're just spewing philosophical garbage.

1) never said I was. I was talking about the fact that ideas that run counter to habit, tradition and culture often seem obviously wrong
2) Oddly enough I am writing in a RELIGION subforum and have presented a possible set of answers to what pantheism is. Saying that it is garbage is a waste of text.

Oh, wait. Let me try it. What you said,JDAwg, was garbage.

You're right: it moves the discussion along. How could I have missed the use of such arguments.

 

[Balerion]

1) never said I was. I was talking about the fact that ideas that run counter to habit, tradition and culture often seem obviously wrong
2) Oddly enough I am writing in a RELIGION subforum and have presented a possible set of answers to what pantheism is. Saying that it is garbage is a waste of text.

No, what you were doing is what most religious people do: Insult the intelligence of others.

You said "I would say that those who encounter deadness everywhere or presume that things are dead are not really noticing, listening, etc." which implies that we're ignorant, or deaf, or blind. That we're so stupid, we can't see what is so obviously there. It is that kind of backhanded insult that really gets under my skin, because it's such bullshit.

 

[Simon Anders]

No, what you were doing is what most religious people do: Insult the intelligence of others.

I am posting in a thread entitled What is pantheism? Seems like I am on topic and have answered the question from my perspective. I am not insulting anyone's perspective and unless you can think of answers to that question that you will not label garbage, I really can't see what you are doing here.

You said "I would say that those who encounter deadness everywhere or presume that things are dead are not really noticing, listening, etc." which implies that we're ignorant, or deaf, or blind. That we're so stupid, we can't see what is so obviously there. It is that kind of backhanded insult that really gets under my skin, because it's such bullshit.

I would say trained not to notice. If I thought you were stupid I would have said that. I think there is a lot of training about what is real and what is not. Some of this is banal even for people who think that the only things we can know are things validated by the scientific method. That there are things we do not notice because of how we are trained.

I can, however, see what you are saying. I worded it in a way that comes from my irritation at how I see 'science' and the technological abilities generated from it interact with the world. I think the hubris involved in what we think is dead or not sentient and we can change on a whim - not simply to survive - is based on a kind of cultural bias. You, I am sure, disagree. But at least I can get across the context I am in where this attitude has UNBELIEVABLE SWAY in the world. It is not as if this worldview of yours is some minority attitude, in fact it is shared, either de facto or directly, by perhaps most religious people also. If you find my sense that more is alive and more is sentient than currently acknowledged by science garbage, at least you can see where I do not see you as in some weak minority position.

The world is seen by most as more or less dead. Animals and plants and ecosystems are seen as replaceable, improvable and of no importance EXCEPT in terms of how they affect us. If you are bothered by me, you certainly have nothing to worry about. I see current genetic reasearch and modification plans and proceeding slowly but surely, as one example amongst many. And certainly industrial treatment of, well, everything, is not being held back by the monotheisms at least.

But I can see how my post in this thread could be taken personally by those here, which is not fair, especially given that the post I was responding to was fairly non-judgemental, even if it was implicit that what I was saying must be false. (Oh, it just must be wrong)

I also think it is quite clear that a bias against noticing that animals have consciousness and are not simply machines has been present in science and that this attitude was considered neutral and rational, especially between professionals in the life sciences. Those who crossed the line were treated like shit and their careers were in jeopardy. Then things changed over the last 4 decades and it has become much more acceptable to talk about motivation, consciousness, emotions and intentions in animals. This transition has not been faced by the scientific community as a whole. If they were wrong, how did that happen? How did they not notice what many lay people did? - or professionals who worked with animals, but not as scientists.

Is it possible that the current limitations on granting consciousness, etc. to other 'things' will shift further and be more inclusive? There is a trend in that direction.

I find little humility in relation to this idea, unless I speak with someone like Rupert Sheldrake, for example, or others in the small minority of scientists who either realize we do not know or actively consider it likely that more is conscious than we realize.

So my apolagies for how I came across, the broader context bled into my post. I certainly do not consider you stupid, blind or deaf.

I do think you are wrong.

 

[Balerion]

You have it backwards. It is religion that considered animals to be these servile beings with no souls and that are totally replaceable, non-sentient. Like just about all scientific discovery, we had to shed the ignorance of religious dogma to learn that animals are, in fact, just as much a part of the fabric of life as we are. It was scientific research that figured out that they have emotions, that they experience fear, and it is scientific research that let us understand that they are almost exactly what we are. It's religion, not science, that leads the way in this.

It's why the religious kind buck the idea of evolution. It's not because it discounts a God--it doesn't do that at all--it is because evolution gives us a very much animal parent species, and makes us more like apes than they would like to hear.

So if you want to put blame on anything, put it on religion, not science.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Then it is interesting that the scientific community at least in many portions of the West clung to this idea longer than many other groups.

It's sort of moot, they got over it when the majority of the scientific community expelled fantasy.

Sure, Christianity makes a division, for example, but many 'pagan' systems do not have so sharp a boundary. And I am far more likely to told I am anthropomorphizing animals by science fans than religious people - even including a lot of flexibility for how this is worded.

Ok.

 

[Simon Anders]

You have it backwards. It is religion that considered animals to be these servile beings with no souls and that are totally replaceable, non-sentient.

This is facile in many ways. My guess. You are thinking mostly of Christianity. Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and absolutely many pagan religions do not fit your generalization AT ALL.

Also science continued to do this long after it considered itself out of the sway of religions.
Like just about all scientific discovery, we had to shed the ignorance of religious dogma to learn that animals are, in fact, just as much a part of the fabric of life as we are. It was scientific research that figured out that they have emotions,

No. Many people knew this long before scientists finally accepted it. And they certainly did not prove it. They simply stopped doubting it. In any case pagans, people who worked with animals, pet owners knew this for a long time despite the attitudes of scientists.

that they experience fear, and it is scientific research that let us understand that they are almost exactly what we are. It's religion, not science, that leads the way in this.

NO. see above. Also their are dueling trends in science. Some scientists now see us also as simply complex machines.

It's why the religious kind buck the idea of evolution. It's not because it discounts a God--it doesn't do that at all--it is because evolution gives us a very much animal parent species, and makes us more like apes than they would like to hear.

Again Christianity is what you are thinking of. And in a thread on the topic of pantheism, this is a clear mistake.

 

[Balerion]

This is facile in many ways. My guess. You are thinking mostly of Christianity. Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and absolutely many pagan religions do not fit your generalization AT ALL.

Judeo-Christian belief systems do, and since Islam is a ripoff of Christianity...

No. Many people knew this long before scientists finally accepted it. And they certainly did not prove it. They simply stopped doubting it. In any case pagans, people who worked with animals, pet owners knew this for a long time despite the attitudes of scientists.

Many people? Bull.

NO. see above. Also their are dueling trends in science. Some scientists now see us also as simply complex machines.

Clear misunderstanding of science. And there is nothing wrong with seeing as complex machines. We're natural complex machines. With emotions and all that stuff.

Again Christianity is what you are thinking of. And in a thread on the topic of pantheism, this is a clear mistake.

Well, considering that Pantheism is nowhere near as large as the Judeo-Christian mythology's fanbase, I'd say I'm right on topic.

 

[Zephyr]

You have it backwards. It is religion that considered animals to be these servile beings with no souls and that are totally replaceable, non-sentient.

Which religion?

Think of parables and fables. How many fables tell us the fox is cunning, the bear is courageous, the snake is evil? Aren't those human attributes?

Didn't the bible have a cunning serpent?