Difference of atheism vs naturalistic pantheism?

[wautd]

From what I've heared from pantheism, it seems to have a lot in common.

Is pantheism a form of weak atheism? Can you be both an atheist and a pantheist? Or are the differences larger than I think it is?

[Terralthra]

From what I've heared from pantheism, it seems to have a lot in common.

Is pantheism a form of weak atheism? Can you be both an atheist and a pantheist? Or are the differences larger than I think it is?

From what I understand, naturalistic pantheism holds that "the universe, although unconscious and non-sentient as a whole, is a meaningful focus for mystical fulfillment."

I'd be hard-pressed to defend this as atheism. If it's a valid focus for spirituality, then it is supernatural in some attribute. Atheism does not support supernatural entities.

This idea of naturalistic pantheism seems like it's taking this quote:

What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of "humility." This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.

And trying to make a religion out of it, with a moral code and such.

[Starglider]

This idea of naturalistic pantheism seems like it's taking this quote:

What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of "humility." This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.

And trying to make a religion out of it, with a moral code and such.

Religious feelings are not in any way necessary or justified, rather they are what you get when you expose humans to 17 Hz ultrasound.

This should be considered a serious security exploit in the human.aural wetware, compounding by the fact that the experience is addictive. It is scheduled to be patched in Homo Sapiens release 2.1.7.

Disclaimer: this post is only 63% serious.

[Wyrm]

Religious feelings are not in any way necessary or justified, rather they are what you get when you expose humans to 17 Hz ultrasound.

Nitpick: 17 Hz is not ultrasound. It's infasound.

[Mobiboros]

. Atheism does not support supernatural entities.
.

It doesnt' deny them either. In fact it says nothing of supernatural entities in general, it's just a lack of belief in a diety. You can make the statement that a lot of atheists also don't believe in the supernatural. You can also make the statement that there are atheists that believe in the supernatural (Although I personally don't like the word supernatural. It's nonsensical in definition). However atheism doesn't have anything to do with belief in another of types of beings besides dieties.

[ray245]

. Atheism does not support supernatural entities.
.

It doesnt' deny them either. In fact it says nothing of supernatural entities in general, it's just a lack of belief in a diety. You can make the statement that a lot of atheists also don't believe in the supernatural. You can also make the statement that there are atheists that believe in the supernatural (Although I personally don't like the word supernatural. It's nonsensical in definition). However atheism doesn't have anything to do with belief in another of types of beings besides dieties.

I thought it lies with the very defination and view of the supernatural? Atheism can simply state the supernatural is natural, just that we don't have sufficient understanding and evidence to explain those things?

[Mobiboros]

I thought it lies with the very defination and view of the supernatural? Atheism can simply state the supernatural is natural, just that we don't have sufficient understanding and evidence to explain those things?

My problem with supernatural is it's very definition. It makes no sense. Nothing that exists can be "Unnatural" as "Natural" is generally defined as everything that really. So if it exists, then it's natural. Not Supernatural. It's a meaningless word only used for it's connotation as a catchall for wacky stuff that there's no empirical evidence for but poeple believe in anyway.

Atheism wouldn't have anything to say on it because atheism isn't a system to view the world around you. It's only a stance one 1 topic. The existence of God(s). And taht stance is "I don't believe in them." That's it.

[Rye]

Replacing god with nature itself is atheistic, yes. Valuing nature and natural amazement of things like the night sky is not revering any supernatural entities at all. You can have a "spiritual" experience without relating it to fucking ghosts or other bullshit.

Also, it's not "making a religion out of something Einstein said," Einstein's views happen to be in line with those of a naturalistic pantheist is all. Recognising a natural origin for mystic experience is not out of line with atheism at all, in fact, it's pretty much integral to it.

[Surlethe]

Recognising a natural origin for mystic experience is not out of line with atheism at all, in fact, it's pretty much integral to it.

To expand on this, atheism doesn't deny the existence of mystic experiences. Instead, it denies the commonly accepted explanations. Atheism recognizes that a deity is not an explanation for such mystic experiences, and so stronger, consistent forms of atheism will recognize that there is a natural explanation.

[Axiomatic]

Naturalistic Pantheism may or may not be atheism, depending on the answer to this question:

Do you consider the universe to be a deity, or believe there are deities contained within or without it?

If Yes, it's not atheism.

If you consider the universe to be anything EXCEPT a deity, and believe there are no deities contained within or without it, it's atheism.

Angels, souls, demons, ghosts, spirits, faeries and all the rest don't matter when it comes to atheism, since atheism applies specifically to deities and only deities.

[Vultur]

One of the problems is that "atheism" (literally, lack of belief in a deity) tends to be confused with "materialism" (nothing but matter exists)/"physicalism" (everything can be explained by the laws of physics).

Some religions, such as Taoism, are technically atheist - but the normal Western use of the term would exclude them. Most Westerners really mean "materialism".

The problem with physicalism is that it doesn't really make a meaningful statement. All it says is that anything not explained by current laws of physics will be someday; but since we don't KNOW the explanation, that simply expands "physics" to mean "whatever will explain this".

(To note my personal biases: I see no need for any conflict between science and mainstream [non-creationist, non-fundamentalist] Christianity; I do not know enough about most other religions to have an opinion.)

[Rye]

That's not really a "problem" with physicalism; it's just denying other categories as spurious. I mean, nobody has a problem with accepting photons are physical, right? And yet they have all sorts of non-intuitive properties. People forcing dilemmas where they don't belong (non-physical phenomena? supernatural entities? what?) are just trying to cheat the usual checks and balances on gaining knowledge.

[Surlethe]

One of the problems is that "atheism" (literally, lack of belief in a deity) tends to be confused with "materialism" (nothing but matter exists)/"physicalism" (everything can be explained by the laws of physics).

Some religions, such as Taoism, are technically atheist - but the normal Western use of the term would exclude them. Most Westerners really mean "materialism".

Materialism is certainly sufficient for atheism, and, to my understanding, most Western atheists are also materialists.

The problem with physicalism is that it doesn't really make a meaningful statement. All it says is that anything not explained by current laws of physics will be someday; but since we don't KNOW the explanation, that simply expands "physics" to mean "whatever will explain this".

I'm not sure that you're correctly representing the materialist position here, simply because the idea that someday we'll know the truth of any given proposition is absurd. The rational response is simply to say, "we don't know" to a gap in our knowledge.

Note also that saying "we don't know" has precisely the same amount of explanatory power as "God did it". The only difference is that we know the first one is true, while we can't know anything about the second.

(To note my personal biases: I see no need for any conflict between science and mainstream [non-creationist, non-fundamentalist] Christianity; I do not know enough about most other religions to have an opinion.)

Interesting. What do you say to Occam's Razor?

[Vultur]

Materialism implies atheism; atheism does not imply materialism (as I said, many Eastern philosophies/religions are atheist but not materialist).



Occam's Razor applies specifically to empirical statements, as I understand it, and is therefore irrelevant. (I do accept the concept of Non-overlapping magisteria, which is probably controversial on this board).

In any case, all I said was that the general claims of mainstream Christianity (there is a God and some sort of purpose to the universe; the historical Jesus was an aspect of God) do not contradict known science.

Miracles do not contradict science; they simply fall outside the realm of the scientific since they are not repeatable "on demand" (and science must be, by definition).

I accept the existence of some supreme being/force/essence/entity for philosophical reasons (which I don't feel like explaining here); I have my specific religion for other reasons.[i[/i]

[Rye]

Occam's Razor applies specifically to empirical statements, as I understand it, and is therefore irrelevant.

So you believe in infinite gods, I take it?

(I do accept the concept of Non-overlapping magisteria, which is probably controversial on this board).

If that's what I think it is, it's just golden mean bollocks for the sake of appeasing the feelings of irrationalists and fidelists. A way to allow inconsistent approaches and avoid cognitive dissonance. Then again, I've not heard that term in a long time, so correct me if I'm wrong.

In any case, all I said was that the general claims of mainstream Christianity (there is a God and some sort of purpose to the universe; the historical Jesus was an aspect of God) do not contradict known science.

Actually, I think it can be argued that it is. For one, it begs the question of things not logically concluded from the evidence and included just because you desire them in the conclusion (i.e. pseudo-scientific or purposefully ignoring the due process in acquiring new knowledge and testing its veracity). Furthermore, it begs the question of "purpose", a value attributable via the existence of causality, when time (and thus causality) is a property of the universe, so to support it, your idea invents a new universe for this one to sit in and be subject to causality within, which is hardly parsimonious.

Additional to that is the idea that intelligence not only can exist without prior material cause (i.e. lots of biological or technological evolution that selects intelligence for a purpose), but can exist independent of material medium entirely, which is something totally fucking absurd and unfounded (again, because it is desired in the conclusion, not because it is logically concluded). There's nothing that even hints intelligence (sapient plus intelligence at that) can exist separate to a physical medium, nor does it explain how such an intelligence could gain any knowledge about the universe, and certainly not without leaving evidence for its existence (especially if, as theists often claim, it is omniscient).

It's just making stuff up in order to substantiate something else that's made up that you want to exist, and I think that really really does run contrary to known science.

Miracles do not contradict science; they simply fall outside the realm of the scientific since they are not repeatable "on demand" (and science must be, by definition).

Miracles are a case of selection bias and fraud, really.

[Surlethe]

Occam's Razor applies specifically to empirical statements, as I understand it, and is therefore irrelevant. (I do accept the concept of Non-overlapping magisteria, which is probably controversial on this board).

Not so. Occam's Razor is used in determining between models; it may or may not apply to individual statements.

In any case, all I said was that the general claims of mainstream Christianity (there is a God and some sort of purpose to the universe; the historical Jesus was an aspect of God) do not contradict known science.

Miracles do not contradict science; they simply fall outside the realm of the scientific since they are not repeatable "on demand" (and science must be, by definition).

If they are not testable, then how do you know they exist? Being repeatable on demand is not strictly necessary for science; if it were, observational sciences, such as astronomy, would not be scientific.

[Vultur]

I didn’t say I believed in all possible gods, just that the reasons I have not to do so are not based on Occam’s Razor – which is not a law of nature, but only a convenient tool in those cases when it does apply.

Non-overlapping magisteria just means that the methods of science (repeatable, testable observations or experiments accumulating empirical data, from which general principles are inductively derived) are only applicable to certain sorts of things (generally the physical world). Carl Sagan came up with the concept; I believe he mentioned three magisteria (science, religion, and art).

Since when does purpose require time? I accept that time is a property of the universe, but causality in the broadest sense ("contingent existence" i.e. it could conceivably have gone otherwise) does not require time.

As for the intelligence thing, infiniteness by definition would exclude a "sentience" in the sense we have it. God's mind would not be "thinking" in the sense that a human being is, since that requires time.

[Rye]

I didn’t say I believed in all possible gods, just that the reasons I have not to do so are not based on Occam’s Razor – which is not a law of nature, but only a convenient tool in those cases when it does apply.

So it is just as reasonable to believe in infinite gods as one.

Non-overlapping magisteria just means that the methods of science (repeatable, testable observations or experiments accumulating empirical data, from which general principles are inductively derived) are only applicable to certain sorts of things (generally the physical world). Carl Sagan came up with the concept; I believe he mentioned three magisteria (science, religion, and art).

Yes, that was it. As I said previously; "it's just golden mean bollocks for the sake of appeasing the feelings of irrationalists and fidelists." There's no reason religion can't be objectively analysed, since it makes claims about reality. Art, whose purpose is much less about pronouncements on reality as it is about visual (or musical, whatever) representation of something in the artist's imagination hasn't really got any pronouncements to make that don't fit into emotional and scientific analyses.

Since when does purpose require time?

Since purpose is a value assigned to something. Purpose doesn't exist aside from where we apply it (from our understanding of causality). E.g. a spade has no purpose independent of human civilisation. A spade is designed by us with the express purpose of causing a certain type of effect.

I accept that time is a property of the universe, but causality in the broadest sense ("contingent existence" i.e. it could conceivably have gone otherwise) does not require time.

It requires a before, event and after, doesn't it?

As for the intelligence thing, infiniteness by definition would exclude a "sentience" in the sense we have it. God's mind would not be "thinking" in the sense that a human being is, since that requires time.

How would such a thing perceive values like purpose, then? What does it mean to be "infinitely intelligent"? Are you just throwing together words that sound profound but have nothing to do with reality?

[Surlethe]

I didn’t say I believed in all possible gods, just that the reasons I have not to do so are not based on Occam’s Razor – which is not a law of nature, but only a convenient tool in those cases when it does apply.

It is not a law of nature; it is a logical tool for deciding which models are best representative of reality.

Non-overlapping magisteria just means that the methods of science (repeatable, testable observations or experiments accumulating empirical data, from which general principles are inductively derived) are only applicable to certain sorts of things (generally the physical world). Carl Sagan came up with the concept; I believe he mentioned three magisteria (science, religion, and art).

Religion is an attempt to create a model just as much as science is; therefore, religion is subject to the scientific method. It's just that religion often has ethical codes mixed up in there, too; but the parts of religion that make claims about the way the universe is are certainly subject to testing whether they're commensurate with empirical reality.

Since when does purpose require time? I accept that time is a property of the universe, but causality in the broadest sense ("contingent existence" i.e. it could conceivably have gone otherwise) does not require time.

If I understand contingent existence correctly, there's no reason to think it is the same as causality.

[Vultur]

Sorry, I was a bit unclear. Contingent existence isn't just the same thing as causality, but it can substitute for causality in a discussion of purpose.

In most philosophies and many forms of logic, if you accept that the universe in its current form is contingent (it could have not existed, or have been radically different) then there must be a greater underlying reality/essence/truth/Supreme Being/Tao/God or whatever. Getting back to the original topic, some forms of pantheism (=equating the universe with God) would say that the universe is NOT contingent. If the universe is accepted to be contingent, pantheism approaches panentheism (=the universe is pervaded by and fundamentally linked to God, but God existed before the universe). Panentheism is compatible with most religions, pantheism not so much.

Also, I'm not saying that the cosmological claims of religions (as opposed to their moral claims) can't be analyzed logically, just that they can't be analyzed scientifically - with the definition of "science" most people use today. Philosophy and theology (in the older sense, anyway) involve logic and reason; science adds additional requirements (observational data, hypothesis and test, some form of repeatability) that make science necessary and very effective for analyzing some phenomena, but not others.

Science just isn't good at answering "why" questions. They're fundamentally unscientific, but unscientific doesn't mean irrational.[/i]

[Vultur]

[quote="Zuul"

So it is just as reasonable to believe in infinite gods as one.[/quote]

Not really; if you accept that God (as a concept) is infinite (Absolute Infinite as opposed to simple infinities, which can coexist - I'm sure I'm mangling this concept) and ultimate, having more than one is logically impossible

It requires a before, event and after, doesn't it?

How would such a thing perceive values like purpose, then? What does it mean to be "infinitely intelligent"? Are you just throwing together words that sound profound but have nothing to do with reality?

I didn't say "infinitely intelligent", I said "infinite". I'm saying that words like "intelligent" and "sentient" are pretty close to meaningless here.

[Darth Wong]

So it is just as reasonable to believe in infinite gods as one.

Not really; if you accept that God (as a concept) is infinite (Absolute Infinite as opposed to simple infinities, which can coexist - I'm sure I'm mangling this concept) and ultimate, having more than one is logically impossible

Why? You're already defining something which exists outside any of the rational rules we normally bound our ideas by; why can't more than one of them exist?

You can't dismiss Occam's Razor so easily; it is basically a logicians' way of differentiating baseless ideas from grounded ones. If an idea violates Occam's Razor, you are correct in saying that it is not necessarily wrong. But it is necessarily baseless. Baseless ideas are cheap, plentiful, easily generated, and worthless.

[Surlethe]

Also, I'm not saying that the cosmological claims of religions (as opposed to their moral claims) can't be analyzed logically, just that they can't be analyzed scientifically - with the definition of "science" most people use today. Philosophy and theology (in the older sense, anyway) involve logic and reason; science adds additional requirements (observational data, hypothesis and test, some form of repeatability) that make science necessary and very effective for analyzing some phenomena, but not others.

They do involve logic, just as mathematics involves logic and reason. However, mathematics does not pretend to be a description of reality; it is useful in describing reality, but it is not in and of itself guaranteed to be real. Theology falls in the same camp; it is a system of logical deductions (ideally; in reality, it often tends to be handwaving) which outlines a model of reality. This model is therefore subject to both testing and Occam's Razor.

Science just isn't good at answering "why" questions. They're fundamentally unscientific, but unscientific doesn't mean irrational.[/i]

Not necessarily -- but "why" questions are often complex question fallacies, much like "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

[Starglider]

In most philosophies and many forms of logic, if you accept that the universe in its current form is contingent (it could have not existed, or have been radically different) then there must be a greater underlying reality/essence/truth/Supreme Being/Tao/God or whatever.

That does not follow. The big bang could have been non-contingent, but everything after that could be probabilistic.

Getting back to the original topic, some forms of pantheism (=equating the universe with God) would say that the universe is NOT contingent.

A fully non-contingent observable universe doesn't require any supernatural silliness either, the existence of most types of physical infinity do the job quite nicely. It may be that not only does every logically consistent universe exist, an infinite number of copies of all of them exist, but not necessarily in identical ratios.

If the universe is accepted to be contingent, pantheism approaches panentheism (=the universe is pervaded by and fundamentally linked to God, but God existed before the universe).

The notion that the answer to the question 'why does anything exist at all' should involve anything like a human-comprehensible sentient being is simply ridiculous. That is caveman-level desperate groping for comprehension that has been displaced for essentially every single other question about reality that humanity has ever asked. The fact that supposedly intelligent people can be aware of this inexorable process of de-anthropomorphisation and still grope for 'mysterious being did it' as an 'explanation' for as-yet-unaswered questions is frankly pathetic.

Also, I'm not saying that the cosmological claims of religions (as opposed to their moral claims) can't be analyzed logically, just that they can't be analyzed scientifically - with the definition of "science" most people use today.

They can be analysed scientifically whenever they say something about anything that can be experienced - not just 'observed', anything in human experience, because with the right tools any subjective experience can be transformed into an objective one. If the supposed answers are not in any way related to anything a human can measure, experience or relate to reality in some sense, then they are utterly irrelevant mental mastubation.

Science just isn't good at answering "why" questions. They're fundamentally unscientific, but unscientific doesn't mean irrational.[/i]

Science is supremely effective at answering 'why' questions. There are some purely empirical scientific theories but those are usually interim, the vast majority of well-established scientific theories provide an underlying mechanism for numerous observable effects. Question after question has fallen to science and the process continues inexorable out into the fathest galaxies and into the deepest mysteries of the mind. Despite the fevered hopes of a 'safe refuge' for their irrationality on the part of religious nuts, there is no obvious limit to the progess of science in sight, and in fact in the key field of cognitive science progress is accelerating rapidly.

[Vultur]

All this is quite possible.

As for the continuing progress of science to answer 'why' questions, you could be right. I'm rather skeptical of modern neuroscience/cognitive science though - it could easily turn into a 21st century version of phrenology.