Is Pantheism irrational?

[Windsmith]

Spotted this question on another forum a few days ago and thought it might be interesting to use it for discussion here.

Is there anything irrational about the beliefs or practices of Pantheism? Do you feel like you hold any irrational beliefs or follow any irrational practices? Or do you think we're all doing A-OK?

[sari0009]

Spotted this question on another forum a few days ago and thought it might be interesting to use it for discussion here.

Is there anything irrational about the beliefs or practices of Pantheism? Do you feel like you hold any irrational beliefs or follow any irrational practices? Or do you think we're all doing A-OK?

If division is the illusion, wouldn't pantheism make more sense? _whistle_

We're all...? Wow. Too broad a question.

[Eleisawolf]

Warning: Ramble ahead

A member of "The Brights" or other such extreme atheist groups might say, yes, Pantheism is as irrational as any other type of religion or spiritual practice. They might say that once one has determined that there's no personal, anthropomorphic God as defined by many of the world's previous religions, and given that there's no evidence for the "soul" or "spirit," there's no reason to delude oneself into a need for the spiritual. So to such a person it might seem irrational to continue the motions of a spiritual practice in the face of what is obviously such a purely material world.

For my part, I don't think it's rational to decide that the universe has been absolutely defined as "Godless" (whether anthropomorphic or in whatever we may perceive the divine to be) simply because we haven't found anything that proves otherwise... especially when there's still so much we simply don't know. "God" or suchlike may be something that exists that we have no capability of perceiving through our modern techniques. I also don't think it's rational to dismiss the experience of billions of humans throughout history simply because it looks more and more like there isn't a personal God, even though I agree with the logic that is currently leading to that conclusion.

Put more simply, I don't think it's rational to define humanity and life through rationality alone, and especially the arrogant "my evidence trumps your experience" kind of rationality. And I think Pantheism is the religion that most allows me to live in what we do know and can understand, without denying that there's still plenty we don't know and may never understand, and celebrating it all. In that respect, I think Pantheism is doing fine.

The only case in which I think Pantheism isn't doing so well is where Pantheists take the hardline arrogant stance and don't allow for that gap between what we can perceive as being, and what may actually be outside our perception. But that's what they believe, and that's what is, so I guess I'm even alright with that.

As long as no one tells me what I have experienced is in-valid, without providing evidence to back it up, I'm fine with how things are.

:spinnysmi
Peace

[Windsmith]

If division is the illusion, wouldn't pantheism make more sense? _whistle_ Hah! We're not just rational; we're the rationalest! Sweet.


We're all...? Wow. Too broad a question.Good point. I can't remember the last time I was completely A-OK myself, let alone everybody.


Warning: Ramble ahead_handclapp That's an excellent ramble, Eleisawolf.

Actually, the more I think about the question, the stranger it seems. Religional and rationality have always had a tenuous relationship at best - even religions like Pantheism, which encourage and sometimes even demand high levels of intellectual engagement. If being rational were all that matters, I don't suppose we'd have much need for religion. As it is, we have emotions and psyches and physicality, and that all plays into how we see the world and what - if anything - we seek or create in our spiritual practice.

Which I guess is my way of saying - "My Pantheism's just fine, buddy - your question is what's irrational. So there. :razz: "

[Myzterio]

I don't see any religion, nor the denial thereof to be rational. Quite frankly, you can't know, so there's nothing rational to it.
Religion is always about belief. That doesn't make it lesser in any way, it's just not the same.
Frankly, religion doesn't have to be rational, you could say it's above rationality, as it doesn't deal with the physical, but with the metaphysical; in the end, all you can do is assume and believe. That's why no religion is ever above any other except to the personal vision of the believer.

[cheddarsox]

It's rational for me, because it fits with my experience, so it makes sense that I would believe pantheism, and not a religion that runs counter to my experience.

That being said, others say that they have had experiences that support their religion, so I guess that adds some rationality to theirs as well.

Or, to be rational, does something need to be able to be proven by an outside observer?

I hold all sorts of irrational beliefs in my life, religious and otherwise. I am not a purist, I do what works for me. I want a life, not a sterile enviornment that meets some statistical idea of "perfection".

[airmist]

Great topic for discussion; I have really enjoyed everyone's contributions, which seem clearer than mine here.

Spirituality has always existed to explain, give meaning to and honor the inexplicable and the awesome. Man is part irrational. We recognized the need for expressing that up until a few hundred years ago.

I guess I'll admit to avoiding the question or maybe just missing it entirely. But spirituality is for a non-rational part of existance. So, far from being a criticism, irrationality is spirituality's reason for being. I'm having difficulty getting my head around the question much less writing an intelligible comment.

When I look at the stars in the universe (or the ocean or a leaf) I feel awe. Why? Because I am capable of awe. I honor that by my pantheistic spirituality; I do not need to explain or justify it.

[Eleisawolf]

Airmist, I don't think your comment is inappropriate or vague... I think you hit the nail on the head, in a different way than the rest of us.

What is most irrational--and absolutely most rational--about any form of spirituality is that we are each different and see our world in different ways. That's how spirituality arises. It's the most intensely personal, if also one of the most universal, traits that humans have the capacity to express.

Thanks for your comment. I like what you say about awe. It is a spiritual emotion!

Peace

[sari0009]

Hah! We're not just rational; we're the rationalest! Sweet. "

Well, how do you feel about an either rational or irrational dichotomy? Isn't that a false dilemma (a logic error)? :smileroll Have to poke fun a bit.

Humor, art, a small child's hand in yours, sunsets (http://www.missouriskies.org/rainbow/rainbow_elam_3.jpg), sex, the stars...we'd miss a lot if we looked through the logic lens.

What's the point of devaluing so much as "irrational" that it's just another way of constantly weeding out of alternate views/realities/experiences that aren't in one's comfort zone? People the world over are calling other religions and spiritualities irrational or worse, thinking they're so much better, but the behavior resembles the primate behavior of throwing sh** at each other.

It's more effective, kind, and truly courteous to educate and invite people to think and then let go, let diversity happen, and leave well enough alone.

On the other hand, Carlin makes me laugh. So does Bill Maher. Oh well. Some constructive criticism is okay I guess. Or just funny. I don't have to become their converts. Just enjoy and sometimes reflect or poke around.

[Garm]

irrational?

huh...

An underlying unity is the most economical way of accounting for a whole range of things, a logical explanation to an illogical situation

[Infinite Grey]

Warning: Ramble ahead

A member of "The Brights" or other such extreme atheist groups might say, yes, Pantheism is as irrational as any other type of religion or spiritual practice. They might say that once one has determined that there's no personal, anthropomorphic God as defined by many of the world's previous religions, and given that there's no evidence for the "soul" or "spirit," there's no reason to delude oneself into a need for the spiritual. So to such a person it might seem irrational to continue the motions of a spiritual practice in the face of what is obviously such a purely material world.

I'm not a "Bright" or any other form "extreme atheist group" (unless you define that term as someone that see no rational reason to believe in any supernatural force), and it's my opinion that yes Pantheism is irrational as any other type of religion or spiritual practice. But then again, since humans view the world in patterns it's only natural to find an answer and after all an imaginative answer is better than no answer.


For my part, I don't think it's rational to decide that the universe has been absolutely defined as "Godless" (whether anthropomorphic or in whatever we may perceive the divine to be) simply because we haven't found anything that proves otherwise... especially when there's still so much we simply don't know. "God" or suchlike may be something that exists that we have no capability of perceiving through our modern techniques.

It IS perfectly rational to speculate about the existence of an entity of such consciousness that we would be liken to bacteria, but this purely a conversational point - much like the Drake Equation - it is not really rational to believe in such a being at this point. That belief would be faith ( Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. (http://www.answers.com/faith)) and has no place in rationality.



I also don't think it's rational to dismiss the experience of billions of humans throughout history simply because it looks more and more like there isn't a personal God, even though I agree with the logic that is currently leading to that conclusion.

An argumentum ad populum if ever I saw one, you do realize that a great majority of the world believed that the world was flat, the sun orbited the Earth and was occasionally swallowed by the moon, that crushed rubies could cure blood ailments and you could banish evil spirits by drilling holes in people's heads. Again I point to humanities nature, any answer is better than none. We a witness to something beyond our experience or understanding, we need to slap a label on it and any will do. These answers are usually influenced by our actual comprehension of the world around us, hence why the gods of old (and new) have very human qualities (anger, lust, love, vanity, honour) which includes the elemental based deities as well btw. Billions and Billions of people have experienced "supernatural" events simply because of two factors (the first being more predominant due to population centers) 1> Lack of education and comprehension. 2> The unfortunate fascination with the sacred and tradition.



Put more simply, I don't think it's rational to define humanity and life through rationality alone, and especially the arrogant "my evidence trumps your experience" kind of rationality. And I think Pantheism is the religion that most allows me to live in what we do know and can understand, without denying that there's still plenty we don't know and may never understand, and celebrating it all. In that respect, I think Pantheism is doing fine.

You are right, rationality should not govern a person's life completely; there are plenty of things we can and should do for purely irrational reasons. For example, leave a well paying job and potentially stable career to fly across the world to live in a country in which you do not speak the native language to be with the one you love to an irrational degree. Believing an imaginary sky/earth daddy/mummy just isn't one of those irrational actions I find at all useful - though I'm sure some people find comfort in believing their is something bigger and better than them out there (even if it is apathetic to their plight)



As long as no one tells me what I have experienced is in-valid, without providing evidence to back it up, I'm fine with how things are.

That is virtually an impossible standard to meet as it is quite possible your own convictions and belief in your on answers could (and mostly likely WILL) cause you to adjust your memory of the experience to defeat any evidence that contradicts your experience. This is part of Hindsight bias, I recommend you look it up before relying on your own personal experience (without supporting evidence) as rational argument.

Cheers!

[Diotima]

Yet another ramble!

I consider myself a Pantheist pretty much because, as far as I am able to judge, it is NOT irrational.

My understanding of Pantheism does not contradict anything I know about metaphysics, logic, theory of knowledge, or any particular piece of knowledge I possess. However, as a Pantheist, I do make some metaphysical decisions in light of my faith. For example, I am more inclined to believe that reality is more like Bohm's holomovement theory than what Copenhagen interpretation of the Quantum theory suggests. I believe in the existence of souls (something like bare particles) and not that we are mere bundles of properties, again, because of my faith and heart tells me so.
In both of these example cases, I could choose otherwise (as many very bright and enlightened people have done), because there is no conclusive evidence to one direction or another. Irrationality, as I define it, would mean that I would hold onto my beliefs even though there is weighty evidence and my logic suggests otherwise; that I would let my beliefs trample over facts. As a Pantheist, I do not find myself doing this, but only making this kind of decisions to accept one view rather than another in cases where the evidence is vague and suggestive. I guess you could say that I am inclined to interpret a bunch of facts in a way that is compatible with my Pantheist faith, but only when the matter at hand is a matter of interpretation, not cold hard facts.

In my opinion, Pantheism, unlike many other religions, does not tell people to behave irrationally or adopt strange beliefs because that's what a believer should do.
Quite on the contrary- even in this forum I find myself repeating over and over that to me, Pantheism appears as a faith that encourages me to ask all the questions I have in mind (and there are some tough ones!), it encourages me to explore the Universe with open mind. If these explorations on one day would lead me to suppose that, for example, my Bohmian ideas were wrong and that action at a distance is better explained for example in terms of faster-than-light interaction between particles, it would not refute my faith. If anything, it would help me to refine and improve my beliefs and understanding about the Universe.

At the moment, my current understanding is, that logic is not the faith-destroying monster that many people believe it to be. While it can be used to refute many (epistemically) false beliefs or fanciful ideas of how I'd like things to be, to me it is the very thing telling that in the Universe, there is room for faith and wonder. Logic tells me that the paragon of rationality is not the cynical atheist who often loves to pose as such, and it tells me that the Universe may not be restricted to human experience -much less the description of early 21st century's science.

[Eleisawolf]

I appreciate your input, Peacock... you make some very good points. Logical and straightforward. And believe me, as a Pantheist I WOULD take evidence into account. The true nature of the universe is very important to me, and I am an avid studier and supporter of science, even though I gave it up as a career field years ago. However, I'm also about human experience and what it means to be a member of the human family.

In naming and defining faith (a definition I never denied, BTW) as compared to rationality, you hit the true nail on the head.

It's not all about logic.

My argument about discounting billions of people's experiences is not based on logic, though. It's based on reality. Whether or not those experiences were delusions, unexplainable, anomaly, or based in aspects of universal physics that we cannot, at this point in our history, remotely understand is beside the point. Those beliefs actually shaped those people, and through them, our vibrant, strong, existing physical--not just cultural--present. And what we come to believe and understand will shape our physical future, too. What we believe affects our anatomy, particularly our brain structure and our physical reactions to the world at large, and it's a field we have only touched the tip of the iceberg in understanding--what an odd thing that the brain works in that way, and how funny to think that it should be dismissed because it isn't based in what we currently understand of the physics of the vast universe, much of which we have learned about through our sciences, and much more of which (I don't completely hesitate to use the iceberg metaphor again) is still completely incomprehensible to us. It is based ONLY in human experience, as flawed as that may be. I'm not saying I'm right about your or anyone else's spirituality and the need I feel to express mine outside the realm of my scientific learning, but I think it's too soon to say that any of us are right about what we don't understand, really. What's more important to me is what is really happening, now, on this planet, among people and other living beings; and the full expression of what humanity is is precious to me, as an armchair scientist, an artist, and, well, a fellow human. That's what IS. And What IS is my spiritual basis, not what should ideally be.

Abrupt change of subject: anyone here read the latest hypotheses about dark energy last week? It was an article in Newsweek (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20920380/site/newsweek/). And this article (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070906140741.htm), along with many others at Science Daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/space_time/dark_matter/), really pinpoints my hesitancy to define anything fully and helps me understand that celebrating where I am right now and the experiences that I have as a human, whether or not I learn tomorrow that I'm as deluded by my brain as any other human on the planet, is the most compassionate, fully human way for me, myself to live. (What it means to anyone else, well, that's up to them.) I know, that whether my experiences and beliefs are based in insanity or self-deception or a reality that I cannot possibly, at this moment, understand, they have made me the physical, chemical, living, breathing human that I am at this moment--something I share with every human that has come before me and will come after me.

Peace

[Windsmith]

I'm not a "Bright" or any other form "extreme atheist group" (unless you define that term as someone that see no rational reason to believe in any supernatural force), and it's my opinion that yes Pantheism is irrational as any other type of religion or spiritual practice. But then again, since humans view the world in patterns it's only natural to find an answer and after all an imaginative answer is better than no answer.Thanks for your response, Peacock; I'm really impressed by how this discussion is progressing.

Could you please elaborate on why you consider Pantheism irrational? To use myself as the only example I can, Pantheism to me is the view that the observable Cosmos is the ultimate reality, and therefore the object most worth of celebration. I have to admit - unless you view celebration as irrational, I'm having trouble seeing what's irrational about that. Can you help me clear it up?

[Eleisawolf]

Thanks for your response, Peacock; I'm really impressed by how this discussion is progressing.

Could you please elaborate on why you consider Pantheism irrational? To use myself as the only example I can, Pantheism to me is the view that the observable Cosmos is the ultimate reality, and therefore the object most worth of celebration. I have to admit - unless you view celebration as irrational, I'm having trouble seeing what's irrational about that. Can you help me clear it up?

Yes, I would be interested in this answer as well. After all, Pantheism has nothing to do with "sky/earth daddy/mommy" and everything to do with celebrating the universe as the amazing entity that it is, as it is. I just personally don't discount that there may be things in the universe as it is that we have no clue about yet and that might surprise us. Perhaps that's what confused Peacock about my post... ;)

Peace

[Eleisawolf]

... I could choose otherwise (as many very bright and enlightened people have done), because there is no conclusive evidence to one direction or another. Irrationality, as I define it, would mean that I would hold onto my beliefs even though there is weighty evidence and my logic suggests otherwise; that I would let my beliefs trample over facts....

...In my opinion, Pantheism, unlike many other religions, does not tell people to behave irrationally or adopt strange beliefs because that's what a believer should do. Quite on the contrary- even in this forum I find myself repeating over and over that to me, Pantheism appears as a faith that encourages me to ask all the questions I have in mind (and there are some tough ones!), it encourages me to explore the Universe with open mind....

...Logic tells me that ... the Universe may not be restricted to human experience -much less the description of early 21st century's science.

Very well put, Diotima. Thank you for this. This is a good description of what Pantheism does for me, too.

Peace

[Myzterio]

I'm not a "Bright" or any other form "extreme atheist group" (unless you define that term as someone that see no rational reason to believe in any supernatural force), and it's my opinion that yes Pantheism is irrational as any other type of religion or spiritual practice. But then again, since humans view the world in patterns it's only natural to find an answer and after all an imaginative answer is better than no answer.

The term for the in-bracket bit is an agnost, not an atheist. Whereas atheism denies the existence of a supernatural force, the agnost would state that there is no reason to believe in any supernatural force. Welcome to the club :)
The other part is correct, if you were to ask me. Or if I were to state it boldly regardless of being asked or not, like I'm doing now.



It IS perfectly rational to speculate about the existence of an entity of such consciousness that we would be liken to bacteria, but this purely a conversational point - much like the Drake Equation - it is not really rational to believe in such a being at this point. That belief would be faith ( Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. (http://www.answers.com/faith)) and has no place in rationality.

It can actually be discussed rationally, using the rules of logic - this is, I repeat, metaphysics. It certainly does have a place in rationality, it is simply not unshakeably provable and/or true.

[
An argumentum ad populum if ever I saw one, you do realize that a great majority of the world believed that the world was flat, the sun orbited the Earth and was occasionally swallowed by the moon, that crushed rubies could cure blood ailments and you could banish evil spirits by drilling holes in people's heads. Again I point to humanities nature, any answer is better than none. We a witness to something beyond our experience or understanding, we need to slap a label on it and any will do. These answers are usually influenced by our actual comprehension of the world around us, hence why the gods of old (and new) have very human qualities (anger, lust, love, vanity, honour) which includes the elemental based deities as well btw. Billions and Billions of people have experienced "supernatural" events simply because of two factors (the first being more predominant due to population centers) 1> Lack of education and comprehension. 2> The unfortunate fascination with the sacred and tradition.

In fact, I believe the Christian God (mind you, not the Jewish one, if the Old Testament is any source for judgment) is actually different here, as he seems to be unlike humans in his morality - being entirely and perfectly Good - in that he is/should be unable to perform evil. Then again, this could be contradicted by claiming that he created humankind and allowed them to be corrupted by eating fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, but I'll not go into that here.
Additionally, He is still interpreted from a human point of view.

Pantheistic Gods do, I think, have to be anthropomorphic to show a difference between one deity and the other, as having each of them non-anthropomorphic in character makes it impossible for humans to define them as different entities, because humans cannot grasp character traits that do not belong to earthly beings, or more specifically, humans.

All in all, I would say I have to agree with your point about doing the irrational, as it defines part of our being.
I just wish I could find it in myself to believe, to truly believe in the supernatural. Right now, I find myself to have a half-hearted expectation of there being such a thing as 'Fate', which is not only vague but also doesn't really offer any moral guidance - unless you wish to say that 'anything I do was meant to be done' (which is possibly the easiest way to immorality), as well as an even more half-hearted concept of something supernatural, to which I find myself attuned but which I have blocked for some reason, and which doesn't appeal to me to believe. Unfortunately.

[Eleisawolf]

Pantheistic Gods do, I think, have to be anthropomorphic to show a difference between one deity and the other, as having each of them non-anthropomorphic in character makes it impossible for humans to define them as different entities, because humans cannot grasp character traits that do not belong to earthly beings, or more specifically, humans.

Point of distinction: I think you're thinking of "polytheistic" gods here, not Pantheistic gods. Pantheism is a belief that either the universe itself is the equivalent of the divine (thus only one divine, and that not even really a being) or that the universe and life as it is are worthy of spiritual celebration on their own, without the need for deity. The Pantheistic concept of divinity is most commonly (though I will admit not universally) not a god, let alone an anthropomorphic one.

My concept of "God," in other words, is simply the divinity inherent within the universe. Any seemingly anthropomorphic gods I refer to (I often use the terms Mother Earth and Father Sky and speak to these concepts as beings) are actually symbolic to me, creating a poetic and somewhat mystical way for me to relate with the universe I love and celebrate.

So, in point of fact, the Pantheistic concept of divinity not only do not have to be anthropomorphic, it most often isn't.

Peace

[Myzterio]

Could you please elaborate on why you consider Pantheism irrational? To use myself as the only example I can, Pantheism to me is the view that the observable Cosmos is the ultimate reality, and therefore the object most worth of celebration. I have to admit - unless you view celebration as irrational, I'm having trouble seeing what's irrational about that. Can you help me clear it up?

I'll just give an answer instead, or, at least, before Peacock does.
You seem to supply your own answer there. Indeed, the Cosmos itself would be the ultimate reality, as the Cosmos is all there is, supposedly (I interpret 'Cosmos' as 'All that is', therefore that makes a lot of sense ;) ). It is also supposedly what Christians say when they say that 'God is everywhere' (alternatively, read 'Everywhere is God').

However, I see no reason why the cosmos would beg or require praise, reveration or celebration. I could accept that you find life, or perhaps rather the experience of life (both your own and that around you), a reason for celebration, but not for praise or reveration. By this I mean that life should be enjoyed and experienced as fully as you can, but that it isn't an entity or such that begs, wants or requires anything as such. Life is life. It doesn't do anything as such, although you could see individual living beings in motion, the living as a whole don't strive towards a single goal, or at least not to what we can perceive. And therefore I must find that 'celebration of the Cosmos', as you put it, isn't rational if it is anything other than simply living in its own right (which could be, from a liberal point of view, be called celebration).

That is how I would look upon it in what I presume is rationality.

But if you choose to add a more spiritual level to this form of 'celebration', then that is perfectly alright. After all, it's your life and therefore your way of celebrating/living it.

[Infinite Grey]

Thanks for your response, Peacock; I'm really impressed by how this discussion is progressing.

Could you please elaborate on why you consider Pantheism irrational? To use myself as the only example I can, Pantheism to me is the view that the observable Cosmos is the ultimate reality, and therefore the object most worth of celebration. I have to admit - unless you view celebration as irrational, I'm having trouble seeing what's irrational about that. Can you help me clear it up?

LoL actually celebration is irrational, the universe really doesn't care and the celebrating only serves to create an irrational positive emotion (so I guess on some scale [i.e. emotional] it is rational in an irrational context). But as I stated in my last post I do not view all irrational action as inherently negative, take for example marrying for love; the old traditions of arranged marriages for the purpose of forming family alliances and wealth were far more rational that love based marriages. But marriages in love are far more appealing to me.

Of cause the topic of the thread is "Is Pantheism irrational?" not " "Is Pantheism a negative irrationality?". But I felt the need to make clear that irrationality doesn't always indicate a negative.


The term for the in-bracket bit is an agnost, not an atheist. Whereas atheism denies the existence of a supernatural force, the agnost would state that there is no reason to believe in any supernatural force. Welcome to the club :)
The other part is correct, if you were to ask me. Or if I were to state it boldly regardless of being asked or not, like I'm doing now.



Actually the only thing that defines an atheist is a "lack of a belief in a deity", just as the only requirement to be a theist is a "belief in a deity/s". Everything else is stacked on top, every rational atheist is essentially agnostic in their motives for being an atheist. "There is no evidence to even indicate the need let alone the existence of a supernatural deity". Quite of few atheists that I know really do not see the point in making an already wonderful universe even more fantastical.


Argh, I'm really tired right now... I'll probably expand later.

[Diotima]

LoL actually celebration is irrational, the universe really doesn't care and the celebrating only serves to create an irrational positive emotion (so I guess on some scale [i.e. emotional] it is rational in an irrational context).

It appears to me that this statement is incorrect. How is it possible for a human to know, what the Universe cares and doesn't care of? I certainly cannot make such a claim of myself (admittedly though, I'm not as bright as people come...). While I can see how one could be easily be persuaded to think that the Universe can't possibly care, persuasive does not equal with conclusive. Consider, on the other hand, that Windsmith is a human being, therefore it can be intelligibly said that she is part of the Universe...and as All That Is is divine (including Windsmith), we would seem to have evidence that suggests -though certainly not conclusively- that at least in part of All That Is does care about celebrating and, that inside that particular framework, All That Is, is indeed capable of connecting meaning and rationality to celebration. QED.

As for the agnostic/atheist debate... I find it difficult to grasp. A Deity would seem to imply a personal Deity, or something supernatural. But to me it seems that this is just an assumption. Pantheist concept of Divine could be understood as a Deity, not just a personal one. Certainly, Pantheism seems to me to contain the idea that Universe is not supernatural (implying that it is essentially and inherently mystical, something that sentient beings can never understand), but rather extranatural , something that exceeds of our current understanding but still something we can learn about...

I must confess that I associate atheism with cynicism, and that makes it unattractive to me. Atheists often appear as people who say that "there is no evidence to support the claim that God exists, therefore I assume that It doesn't." They rarely seem to concern themselves with the fact, that "there is no evidence to support the claim that God does not exist, therefore it is not irrational to assume that such a thing exists". Now, while I am well aware of that one who makes existence-claim has the burden of proof, to me it appears that it is one form of closed-mindedness to claim so strongly that Deity does not exists, based on the proof that any Atheist has available.
I am not saying that an Atheist is wrong and Theist is right. I guess I'm trying to say, that Atheist has insufficient reasons to claim that he knows what he claims to know, and considering that in general, Atheism so often claims to be the Rational Approach, the Approach based on evaluating evidence and not wild imagination or wishful thinking, in doing so, Atheism contradicts its own claims of rationality...

[Myzterio]

Point of distinction: I think you're thinking of "polytheistic" gods here, not Pantheistic gods. Pantheism is a belief that either the universe itself is the equivalent of the divine (thus only one divine, and that not even really a being) or that the universe and life as it is are worthy of spiritual celebration on their own, without the need for deity. The Pantheistic concept of divinity is most commonly (though I will admit not universally) not a god, let alone an anthropomorphic one.


Okay, now I feel silly... In my defence, it was pretty late, and I'd gotten up early that day. :P
Thanks for pointing that out >_<

[Infinite Grey]

It appears to me that this statement is incorrect. How is it possible for a human to know, what the Universe cares and doesn't care of? I certainly cannot make such a claim of myself (admittedly though, I'm not as bright as people come...). While I can see how one could be easily be persuaded to think that the Universe can't possibly care, persuasive does not equal with conclusive. Consider, on the other hand, that Windsmith is a human being, therefore it can be intelligibly said that she is part of the Universe...and as All That Is is divine (including Windsmith), we would seem to have evidence that suggests -though certainly not conclusively- that at least in part of All That Is does care about celebrating and, that inside that particular framework, All That Is, is indeed capable of connecting meaning and rationality to celebration. QED.

As for the agnostic/atheist debate... I find it difficult to grasp. A Deity would seem to imply a personal Deity, or something supernatural. But to me it seems that this is just an assumption. Pantheist concept of Divine could be understood as a Deity, not just a personal one. Certainly, Pantheism seems to me to contain the idea that Universe is not supernatural (implying that it is essentially and inherently mystical, something that sentient beings can never understand), but rather extranatural , something that exceeds of our current understanding but still something we can learn about...

I must confess that I associate atheism with cynicism, and that makes it unattractive to me. Atheists often appear as people who say that "there is no evidence to support the claim that God exists, therefore I assume that It doesn't." They rarely seem to concern themselves with the fact, that "there is no evidence to support the claim that God does not exist, therefore it is not irrational to assume that such a thing exists". Now, while I am well aware of that one who makes existence-claim has the burden of proof, to me it appears that it is one form of closed-mindedness to claim so strongly that Deity does not exists, based on the proof that any Atheist has available.
I am not saying that an Atheist is wrong and Theist is right. I guess I'm trying to say, that Atheist has insufficient reasons to claim that he knows what he claims to know, and considering that in general, Atheism so often claims to be the Rational Approach, the Approach based on evaluating evidence and not wild imagination or wishful thinking, in doing so, Atheism contradicts its own claims of rationality...


I'm not going to examine each of your point individually in this post, but I'll answer the general theme... for a theory to be rational (also scientific) it has to be falsifiable, until it is falsifiable it mere speculation if not philosophy (which I equate to intellectual masturbation) . I'll give you another example, blackholes were initially a mathematical speculation (a digression, I think blackholes are as close to a control for a deity or a universal consciousness as we're going to find.) but it's very hard to prove their existence for a number of reasons. The two main reasons is A> the universe is a big place and B> you can't see a blackhole. So here we have a falsifiable theory based on mathematical equations to indicate that they are possible. There is a reason for them to exist, a method in which they can form, and possible evidence in form of their affect on its environment. Naturally blackholes a virtually fact these days as their affects have been observed (gravity lenses, orbital disruptions of nearby stars) so their is strong evidence to believe in their existence.

A deity or universal consciousness or what ever is not falsifiable, as you said "we can't prove it doesn't exist". Therefore there is no evidence to support either way, so there is no real reason to believe in it either way, hence Atheists.

ok, this is no where near as good as I thought it would be, but I'm running on half a tank and my chain of thought was broken... screw it. :smileroll

[Diotima]

for a theory to be rational (also scientific) it has to be falsifiable

If you are Popperian, anyway. The problem, of course, is that "scientific" does not equal "rational". The nature of science is such that it excludes many rational claims from the sphere of scientific knowledge. For example, the demand that an experiment must be repeatable, in effect states that truly unique phenomena (or even phenomena with very few, brief occurrences in the history of Universe) can not be described by science. Yet, it is quite obviously rational to assume that such Unique phenomena exist in the Universe.

Atheism does not equal agnosticism either. An atheist (unlike agnosticist) chooses to believe that there is no Divine, because of the lack of proof for the contrary. That is a decision of faith, not a neutral stand. Because of the element of faith, Atheism can not be promoted as "the most rational choice". As I see it, there is nothing wrong with Atheism as a religious faith, just in calling it more than that.

I'm sure you could also find a more polite way to tell that you disapprove my profession (and hence my person, since the nature of philosophy necessitates that these two are quite inseparable), if you tried. Please find out what the word "philosophy" really means before starting to bash it. And please refrain from calling what I do for living "intellectual masturbating" unless you are willing to hear my detailed opinions about the level of wit and wisdom revealed by such comments.

[Infinite Grey]

If you are Popperian, anyway. The problem, of course, is that "scientific" does not equal "rational". The nature of science is such that it excludes many rational claims from the sphere of scientific knowledge. For example, the demand that an experiment must be repeatable, in effect states that truly unique phenomena (or even phenomena with very few, brief occurrences in the history of Universe) can not be described by science. Yet, it is quite obviously rational to assume that such Unique phenomena exist in the Universe.

Rationality (http://www.answers.com/rational?cat=health) refers to a logical chain of thought, the ability to reason. Science employs rationality as part of its process, the assumption of unique phenomena is a matter of logical probability. It is rational to assume that unique unrepeatable phenomena is rational, but the claiming a specific unique phenomena happened with all certainty is not. You can not prove they happened, but what can do is demonstrate the probability by using elements of the phenomena that are repeatable; an example of this would be the Big Bang theory and the super collider being constructed in Europe. Or the various experiments involved with self replicating molecules for the abiogenesis theories.



Atheism does not equal agnosticism either. An atheist (unlike agnosticist) chooses to believe that there is no Divine, because of the lack of proof for the contrary. That is a decision of faith, not a neutral stand. Because of the element of faith, Atheism can not be promoted as "the most rational choice". As I see it, there is nothing wrong with Atheism as a religious faith, just in calling it more than that.

You're way off base with this one, and I used to feel the same way. It's actually an argument based on a fallacy (perpetuated usually by an emotional attachment), you see, it's based on the assumption that lack of proof can also prove the existence of a deity or universal consciousness. This is the equivalent of saying that because there is no proof that there isn't an invisible pink unicorn living on the rings of Saturn then it is possible that there is indeed an invisible pink unicorn living on the rings of Saturn. Or that because a parent can't find any evidence of a monster not lurking in their child's closet means it is possible that there is indeed a monster lurking in their child's closet. Or because you can't prove that the universe doesn't care for us means it is possible that the universe does indeed care for us. Do you see the fallacy yet?



I'm sure you could also find a more polite way to tell that you disapprove my profession (and hence my person, since the nature of philosophy necessitates that these two are quite inseparable), if you tried. Please find out what the word "philosophy" really means before starting to bash it. And please refrain from calling what I do for living "intellectual masturbating" unless you are willing to hear my detailed opinions about the level of wit and wisdom revealed by such comments.

Actually comparing philosophy to mental masturbation is quite unequivocal and precise in my opinion, by all means erupt your intellectual seed at me and I'll be sure to give you a rationally time of your life, it might even produce a useful offspring. :smileroll

Of cause being that your profession is supposedly in the field of philosophy you'll understand the importance of humour http://www.twcenter.net/forums/images/smilies/emoticons/evil4.gif

[sari0009]

...The problem, of course, is that "scientific" does not equal "rational".... Atheism can not be promoted as "the most rational choice".

Bingo and bingo again.

I wouldn't say scientific and rational are interchangeable words either (that would wander into scientism).

Also, atheism is fine as a choice, but not as part of a false dilemma of "either religion or atheism" can be rational.

Rather than atheism being the exact opposite of religion, atheists can and often do exhibit the same logic and other errors their religious counterparts do, and often do so with the same frequency. This is not to say all atheists are guilty of the same errors at the same rates as their religious counterparts are but Atheists who claim that atheism is the only rational choice are usually the worst offenders -- they base their beliefs on the incorrectness of the God and religion predominant in their area. Nearly every sentence or paragraph gives them away. American atheists tend to overwhelmingly base their beliefs on the absence of the biblical God and biblical religions, for example.

It's what I like to call the trap of the anti -- it's problematic to mentally split things ____ (religious/belief, political, social...) into 'opposing' camps and schools of thought that increasingly mirror each other in many ways.

I can see why Bohm (http://www.drury.edu/ess/philsci/bell.html) has been popular.

[Infinite Grey]

Bingo and bingo again.

I wouldn't say scientific and rational are interchangeable words either (that would wander into scientism).

Also, atheism is fine as a choice, but not as part of a false dilemma of "either religion or atheism" can be rational.

Rather than atheism being the exact opposite of religion, atheists can and often do exhibit the same logic and other errors their religious counterparts do, and often do so with the same frequency. This is not to say all atheists are guilty of the same errors at the same rates as their religious counterparts are but Atheists who claim that atheism is the only rational choice are usually the worst offenders -- they base their beliefs on the incorrectness of the God and religion predominant in their area. Nearly every sentence or paragraph gives them away. American atheists tend to overwhelmingly base their beliefs on the absence of the biblical God and biblical religions, for example.

It's what I like to call the trap of the anti -- it's problematic to mentally split things ____ (religious/belief, political, social...) into 'opposing' camps and schools of thought that increasingly mirror each other in many ways.

I can see why Bohm (http://www.drury.edu/ess/philsci/bell.html) has been popular.


I refer you to my last post. (http://mysticwicks.com/showpost.php?p=3274715&postcount=25) While it is possible for an atheist to act irrationally, actually it is more than likely that in some aspect they will be irrational, it's a human trait. It's funny, but while atheists tend to spend a great deal of their time (time that they bother to devote to the subject) destroying Christianity and Islam, it is only because these religions have a direct impact on their lives. Pagan are often guilty of the same offense I might add. Most of the atheists I know do not give a flying voodoo attack monkey fhttp://www.twcenter.net/forums/images/smilies/emoticons/censored.gifk about religion until it is thrown into their faces... hence their focus on the mainstream religions.

And before you (or someone else) start crying "hypocrite" I'll point you to the topic of the thread.

[sari0009]

for a theory to be rational (also scientific) it has to be falsifiable


If you are Popperian, anyway. The problem, of course, is that "scientific" does not equal "rational". The nature of science is such that it excludes many rational claims from the sphere of scientific knowledge. For example, the demand that an experiment must be repeatable, in effect states that truly unique phenomena (or even phenomena with very few, brief occurrences in the history of Universe) can not be described by science. Yet, it is quite obviously rational to assume that such Unique phenomena exist in the Universe.

Atheism does not equal agnosticism either. An atheist (unlike agnosticist) chooses to believe that there is no Divine, because of the lack of proof for the contrary. That is a decision of faith, not a neutral stand. Because of the element of faith, Atheism can not be promoted as "the most rational choice". As I see it, there is nothing wrong with Atheism as a religious faith, just in calling it more than that.

I'm sure you could also find a more polite way to tell that you disapprove my profession (and hence my person, since the nature of philosophy necessitates that these two are quite inseparable), if you tried. Please find out what the word "philosophy" really means before starting to bash it. And please refrain from calling what I do for living "intellectual masturbating" unless you are willing to hear my detailed opinions about the level of wit and wisdom revealed by such comments.


Bingo and bingo again.

I wouldn't say scientific and rational are interchangeable words either (that would wander into scientism).

Also, atheism is fine as a choice, but not as part of a false dilemma of "either religion or atheism" can be rational.

Rather than atheism being the exact opposite of religion, atheists can and often do exhibit the same logic and other errors their religious counterparts do, and often do so with the same frequency. This is not to say all atheists are guilty of the same errors at the same rates as their religious counterparts are but Atheists who claim that atheism is the only rational choice are usually the worst offenders -- they base their beliefs on the incorrectness of the God and religion predominant in their area. Nearly every sentence or paragraph gives them away. American atheists tend to overwhelmingly base their beliefs on the absence of the biblical God and biblical religions, for example.

It's what I like to call the trap of the anti -- it's problematic to mentally split things ____ (religious/belief, political, social...) into 'opposing' camps and schools of thought that increasingly mirror each other in many ways.

I can see why Bohm (http://www.drury.edu/ess/philsci/bell.html) has been popular.

I refer you to my last post. (http://mysticwicks.com/showpost.php?p=3274715&postcount=25) While it is possible for an atheist to act irrationally, actually it is more than likely that in some aspect they will be irrational, it's a human trait...Pagan are often guilty of the same offense.

True. Pagans are quite capable of being other than rational and even irrational. That's not all bad and not all good. If you remove all religion and anti-religion, humanity can make the same mistakes but just dress them up differently. That's why it's more valuable to teach people how to think than to tell them that their beliefs are crazy/wrong.

[cheddarsox]

On the subject of pantheists praising, worshipping, praying to the Universe, that they do not perceive as "personal" or a being.

this is my take on it,

I'm human. So I respond to things in a human way. Praise, worship, prayer are human ways to respond. Sometimes I curse my vacuum cleaner, it doesn't hear me, or heed me, but it makes me feel better to do so anyway.
My praise, worship, prayer is the same thing.

I don't do it for the universe's sake, I do it, because I'm human, and that is how I express myself when certain feelings and emotions are aroused in me.

It's not a thought out thing, it's just instinct.

So, in that sense, it is both rational...the expected thing for a human with those genetic tendencies to do (I think the propensity to behave that way varies greatly in any population), and irrational...in that if I think about it, it doesn't make much sense, in that I won't get a personal response.

Maybe it only jumps the shark into total irrationality if I expect the universe to talk back..in human speak.

If I pick up a sledge hammer and bash a rock, I expect the rock to break. If I sledge hammer a bucket of water, I expect a splash, If I sledge hammer someone's foot, I expect them to yell and fight back.

When I praise and worship, I don't expect the universe to do anything about it, because that is not how it operates.

On the other hand, religions that assign human traits and personalities to gods...I understand why they do that. Because we are social, and it is how we communicate, it helps people if the same sort of context is applied to the outside forces. Rational? Well, it's people following their instinct.

I think I am getting rational and logical mixed up.

and personally, I think that referring to philosophy as intellectual masturbation is NOT an insult at all. And until someone took offense, I never even considered that it might be. LOL.

Is masturbation rational? logical? it certainly seems to be instinctual!

to sum up, pantheism is about dealing with What Is. and part of What Is, is that humans behave these ways. So...at least it's consistent.

[Windsmith]

However, I see no reason why the cosmos would beg or require praise, reveration or celebration. I could accept that you find life, or perhaps rather the experience of life (both your own and that around you), a reason for celebration, but not for praise or reveration. By this I mean that life should be enjoyed and experienced as fully as you can, but that it isn't an entity or such that begs, wants or requires anything as such. Life is life. It doesn't do anything as such, although you could see individual living beings in motion, the living as a whole don't strive towards a single goal, or at least not to what we can perceive. And therefore I must find that 'celebration of the Cosmos', as you put it, isn't rational if it is anything other than simply living in its own right (which could be, from a liberal point of view, be called celebration).

That is how I would look upon it in what I presume is rationality.


LoL actually celebration is irrational, the universe really doesn't care and the celebrating only serves to create an irrational positive emotion (so I guess on some scale [i.e. emotional] it is rational in an irrational context). But as I stated in my last post I do not view all irrational action as inherently negative, take for example marrying for love; the old traditions of arranged marriages for the purpose of forming family alliances and wealth were far more rational that love based marriages. But marriages in love are far more appealing to me.

Of cause the topic of the thread is "Is Pantheism irrational?" not " "Is Pantheism a negative irrationality?". But I felt the need to make clear that irrationality doesn't always indicate a negative.Thank you for these replies, y'all. I don't necessarily agree (although I do like Peacock's distinction between irrationality and negative irrationality), but at least I understand. I'm no logician, and some of the posts in this thread have gone a little beyond me - which I think is so freakin' cool!

[Twinkle]

IMO we need to define what Pantheism is before we can move further. From reading the posts on this thread...it appears that there are many different interpretations of the term.

We can't discuss if we don't have a clear definition.

Blame the Recon in me.

[Eleisawolf]

IMO we need to define what Pantheism is before we can move further. From reading the posts on this thread...it appears that there are many different interpretations of the term.

We can't discuss if we don't have a clear definition.

Blame the Recon in me.

Pantheism is fairly well defined in the FAQ of this forum... If you don't have a clear understanding of what it is (or you think you do but haven't actually learned anything specific, either from Pantheists themselves or from others who know the belief system well) I'd recommend that everyone take a little time to read about it.

That's really the best way to go. I encourage you all to do so before continuing.

Peace

[Twinkle]

I'm aware of what Pantheism is. Apparently others in this thread don't quite get it. Just saying.

[Mesektet]

Spotted this question on another forum a few days ago and thought it might be interesting to use it for discussion here.

Is there anything irrational about the beliefs or practices of Pantheism? Do you feel like you hold any irrational beliefs or follow any irrational practices? Or do you think we're all doing A-OK?

I think we are doing a-ok.

As to the question of the irrational. Not from this angle.

[Eleisawolf]

Just for the expression of it, Twinkle, I wasn't assuming you didn't know. I was recommending that everyone read the definition as stated in our FAQ and other sticky threads to help.

Didn't mean to imply otherwise or to be unclear about it.

Peace
:T

[Windsmith]

IMO we need to define what Pantheism is before we can move further. From reading the posts on this thread...it appears that there are many different interpretations of the term.

We can't discuss if we don't have a clear definition.That's a good point, Twinkle, and something that might lead someone to look at Pantheism as irrational, if that someone were inclined to do so. ;) "Pantheism" means so many different things to so many different people. Some Pantheists deify the Universe. Some see it simply as an object worthy of celebration and honor. Some hold Pantheism solely as a philosophy; some practice it as a religion. And then of course you have dualistic vs. materialistic vs. spiritualistic Pantheists...oy! If anything about Pantheism is irrational, it may be the very fact that it has so many different definitions - many with precious little commonalities to the others.

[teishabee]

I think its subjective to what each person thinks is irrational.

[ravenscape]

It's rational enough for me.

[Silverfangs]

It's sense of irrational is the most rational I've seen...

[Windsmith]

It's sense of irrational is the most rational I've seen...That's probably the best way of phrasing it that I've seen so far. Thanks, Silverfangs.