Pantheism and Panentheism

[Avi]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

This is all very well as an historical analysis of the philosophers cited but surely with recent developments in understanding the means of our evolutionary path to our current level of self-awareness it is but a point for historians alone and has no bearing on a debate about what are the real drivers of sentience.

This is about more than history and philosophy. It also involves psychology and religion. They all come together as we try to understand G-d.

As far as evolution goes, I think it is fair to say that science is the best way to understand the universe and man's origins. Religion cannot help much there. Religion has tried to explain these things but not been very successful.

But as for sentience, the four disciplines I mentioned above do pretty well.

To believe that an intelligence gifted us with intelligence is fanciful to say the least and there is a rock solid body of evidence to the contrary that clearly shows how intelligence evolved with no intervention.

I do not think you are right here, nor do I believe it is the atheist position. I think it might be the "anti-theist" position, which I think is different.

I think an atheist would say we have no evidence either way whether "intelligence gifted us with intelligence". How could we possible prove this ? We may ultimately never know what gifted us with intelligence, and we certainly do not know now.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Avi

I think an atheist would say we have no evidence either way whether "intelligence gifted us with intelligence". How could we possible prove this ? We may ultimately never know what gifted us with intelligence, and we certainly do not know now.

Strange reasoning. Atheists believe there is no god of any sorts, why would they hedge their bets like that? Any atheist with an eye on evolutionary biology will tell you it is plainly obvious that human intelligence evolved because it it is a useful tool to a social omnivore. We were not gifted with it. It evolved. Just as it has in many species to greater or lesser degree. It is not complicated to understand, and very easy to observe in nature, no mystery at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...n_intelligence

[the breeze]

Any atheist with an eye on evolutionary biology will tell you it is plainly obvious that human intelligence evolved because it it is a useful tool to a social omnivore. We were not gifted with it.

I think you'd have to say that (within the theory of evolution) human intelligence survived because it's a useful tool. However there was no reason at all why human intelligence evolved. It just happens to be what has emerged from the many detours and blind alleys of the process. If you wound the film backwards and started again there's no guarantee at all that humans or any sentient life form would emerge.

Of course this leads to the atheist paradox whereby they believe some things to be important (such as atheism itself a la Richard Dawkins) whilst at the same time arguing that life itself is accidental and meaningless.

[dauer]

Originally Posted by avi

I think an atheist would say we have no evidence either way whether "intelligence gifted us with intelligence". How could we possible prove this ? We may ultimately never know what gifted us with intelligence, and we certainly do not know now.

That would be an agnostic position."I don't know" is always agnostic. However, "I admit I could be wrong in my belief that ~G" is a potential atheist belief just as "I admit I could be wrong in my belief that G" is a potential theist belief.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by the breeze

I think you'd have to say that (within the theory of evolution) human intelligence survived because it's a useful tool. However there was no reason at all why human intelligence evolved. It just happens to be what has emerged from the many detours and blind alleys of the process. If you wound the film backwards and started again there's no guarantee at all that humans or any sentient life form would emerge.

Of course this leads to the atheist paradox whereby they believe some things to be important (such as atheism itself a la Richard Dawkins) whilst at the same time arguing that life itself is accidental and meaningless.

Hello and welcome

Survived and selected for as the wiki article makes clear.
What is important is the pertinence of a subject to those discussing it. Atheism is not important to Dawkins when he is frying eggs.

[shawn]

The thing is, if human intelligence is just a random accident as is proposed, then one must ask the question......why did life arise at all?
The theory of accidental evolution creates the idea that there is ultimately no point to LIFE whatsoever as it is just here and then gone with no lasting consequence for any of the participants.
This is a very empty philosophy which I will never embrace as it is devoid of meaning and purpose and is depressing as hell.
I can understand people wanting to argue against organized religion and all their myths which they have used for millenia to control people through fear....that makes sense and is a noble pursuit.
But to go the full course on that path and say that there is really no purpose to any of this is not inspiring whatsoever.
So I view that position as pointless and generally try to ignore it.
This should not disturb its adherents as nothing really matters anyways according to their stated position.

[the breeze]

Survived and selected for as the wiki article makes clear.
What is important is the pertinence of a subject to those discussing it. Atheism is not important to Dawkins when he is frying eggs.

Thank you for you welcome. Glad to be here.

Wiki is hardly the first and last word on anything. Modern evolutionary theory posits that evolution occurs via an interaction of natural (and for many theorists social) selection and genetic mutation. Genetic mutation occurs when a gene fails to reproduce itself properly. Since errors in genetic reproduction are accidental it's impossible to predict a definite course for the process. Within the confines of the theory there's absolutely nothing inevitable or even probable about us being here.

Dawkins is interesting because he is not even a mainstream evolutionist. His idea the 'selfish gene' as the driving force of development is entirely mechanical and precludes any possibilty of life having purpose and yet he's such a driven individual - no doubt even when he's frying eggs.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by shawn

So I view that position as pointless and generally try to ignore it.
This should not disturb its adherents as nothing really matters anyways according to their stated position.

I'm more or less of your opinion, shawn. What gets me is many atheists are as fervent and passionate about spreading "their way/word" as religions are... and I fail to see why.

One told me "truth," once, but really- if life is pointless and the capacity to understand truth is wholly arbitrarily and meaninglessly evolved, and has no lasting implications- who cares?

An atheist hedonist makes sense to me, but other variations... there is some internal illogic going on, as I always think "why bother"?

[Avi]

Originally Posted by dauer

That would be an agnostic position."I don't know" is always agnostic. However, "I admit I could be wrong in my belief that ~G" is a potential atheist belief just as "I admit I could be wrong in my belief that G" is a potential theist belief.

You are right, but my larger point was that we do not know about hierarchical intelligence (irrespective of G-d).

Quote Avi:
I think an atheist would say we have no evidence either way whether "intelligence gifted us with intelligence". How could we possible prove this ? We may ultimately never know what gifted us with intelligence, and we certainly do not know now.

For example, if we live in a multi-universe, I can imagine that there could be different levels of intelligence and we do not know which level of hierarcy that we are on.


This has nothing to do with G-d, and I believe it is consistent with an atheist position.

My understanding of agnosticism is: "I do not know whether or not G-d exists", and this was not what I was talking about.

[dauer]

Originally Posted by Avi

For example, if we live in a multi-universe, I can imagine that there could be different levels of intelligence and we do not know which level of hierarcy that we are on.

I don't see what that line of inquiry accomplishes in a discussion related to atheist rejection/acceptance. The issues are the same, just pushed back further. You end up with either infinite regress or a beginning point that's further back. It only adds more steps to the process. It seems like the issue is primarily semantic in that when Tao said intelligence he meant God and you've taken intelligence to mean anything more intelligent than us. But I also haven't traced your discussion with Tao back before page 33 and am probably missing the reason that you brought it up.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by dauer

I don't see what that line of inquiry accomplishes in a discussion related to atheist rejection/acceptance. The issues are the same, just pushed back further. You end up with either infinite regress or a beginning point that's further back. It only adds more steps to the process. It seems like the issue is primarily semantic in that when Tao said intelligence he meant God and you've taken intelligence to mean anything more intelligent than us. But I also haven't traced your discussion with Tao back before page 33 and am probably missing the reason that you brought it up.

The difficulty comes in that in terms of mythology, one can hardly distinguish between people contemplating some being with much greater intelligence and power than they and what a "god" is.

I've seen the word "God" used in dozens of different ways to denote a wide variety of conceptualizations of the Divine, ranging from some sort of flow of the universe, the glue that holds everything together in unity, a force, and so on to one or more personalities that interferes with human lives in a variety of ways, has desires and needs, and even has a type of body.

Pull out tin foil hat...

In terms of the potential reality of living in a multiverse and knowing very little about the possibilities of what is out there, and an incapability at this point to know anything about any universe other than our own... there could be countless beings that are more intelligent and powerful than humans, whom humans have contacted through altered consciousness (as information seems to be the only (I think?) thing that might not be subject to the laws of space-time and delayed transmission). These beings, or other types of beings such as spirits of various sorts, could be worshipped as gods. In fact, for many peoples throughout history, "god/dess" was not an infinite or absolute being, but rather had limitations, desires, problems, and so on just like human people.

So when we look at the scope of human experience, the question of "god" is a very complex one. A much higher-order intelligence may not equate to an infinite, omniscient, and all-powerful God, but it could seem that way and in many religious texts, it is very unclear how the "god/dess" equates to this all-powerful God we often think of today.

We could just be creating it all out of our heads...

There isn't much of a difference, really, because our entire reality and life is subjective and limited to our capacity to sense, understand, and imagine in the ways that we do.

I accept what I experience as a mystic because it makes more meaning and sense in my own life than to deny it. And I claim panentheism because it affords the openness required to be honest about my own spiritual experience.

[nativeastral]

had to post this article mapping out the history etc [excellent site]

'Emergence Theism' as a Pantheistic Thread Within the Traditional Theism: Seeking for a God-World Unity :: Thomas Klibengajtis :: Global Spiral

[dauer]

Originally Posted by PoO

The difficulty comes in that in terms of mythology, one can hardly distinguish between people contemplating some being with much greater intelligence and power than they and what a "god" is.

I don't disagree, but Avi said that "this has nothing to do with God." It seems logical to me, for that reason, that he was intending something else. Following the idea that there are multiple definitions of God, it would be possible that the atheist is really atheistic toward some and agnostic toward others. I don't think that it would be fair to say, in relation to naturalistic definitions of God, that the atheist really believes in God because the argument could be made that those definitions are largely semantic and lose much of their meaning. I could potentially lead an atheist into admitting that the natural world exists. If I then said, "See, you do believe in God!" it would, to me at least, be a very weak argument.

Personally I tend to think about agnosticism and atheism in much stronger terms by which my ideal atheist is skeptical of all notions related to a God/s and all similar metaphysical notions. My ideal agnostic is similarly undecided about all of those possibilities. However I realize that in reality, actual people are often a bit more nuanced than that.

[path_of_one]

Interesting and true, Dauer. I think it is always easiest to have categories with defined folks in them; the world constantly challenges these prototypes that we hold. I've heard atheists, agnostics, Pagans, Taoists, Hindus, Native American/animist, New Age, New Thought, and a handful of Abrahamic folks all tell me they believe in some sort of universal unity or connection. Some call it God or Goddess, others the Tao, others a natural energy, etc. Some believe there are more personable avatars of it and others don't. On the other hand, I've heard Pagans, Hindus, many Abrahamic folks, Bahais, and sundry others talk about one or more personal deities. From an outside perspective, there are many similarities between all these forces and beings that are at the root of so many religions. From a closer view, there is an incredible diversity in how people think about and approach them.

It's all very complex when one really looks at it- conceptualizations of the Divine and whether one actually considers it natural or supernatural, god or universe, or whether one has any sense of distinction between the two.

[the breeze]

So when we look at the scope of human experience, the question of "god" is a very complex one. A much higher-order intelligence may not equate to an infinite, omniscient, and all-powerful God, but it could seem that way and in many religious texts, it is very unclear how the "god/dess" equates to this all-powerful God we often think of today.

This is a very interesting point because there's an assumption amongst 'spiritual' folk that any being that communicates from the 'other side' necessarily knows more than we do. Whilst I think there are differing forms of consciousness and sometimes there is info passed between these forms I'm far from convinced of the quality or usefulness of much that is related. We are perhaps too modest and certainly too gullible.