Ask a Pantheist

[ralphinal]

I don’t know yet, but I’m working on it. I need first to master the Ethics he’s written, as well as the commentaries and his letters. Once that is done, I plan to try to expand upon, and challenge, some of the declarations he’s made about morals, specifically about the nature of good and its relationship to usefulness.

It is an elegant system, and all systems should be respected and understood as they are before they are criticized. I am simply not at the point yet in my understanding to begin a fair criticism.

Fair enough.

 

[Donald45]

Hi, Pantheist ~

You sound as though you’re fairly well-read. Have you studied this excellent work?

John W. Cooper, Panentheism ~ The Other God of the Philosophers: From Plato to the Present (Baker Academic, 2006); ISBN 0-8010-2724-1

It specifically addresses panentheism from a Christian theological perspective, but has much to say about pantheism as well. Take care, and happy reading.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

 

[Pantheist]

Hi, Pantheist ~

You sound as though you’re fairly well-read. Have you studied this excellent work?

John W. Cooper, Panentheism ~ The Other God of the Philosophers: From Plato to the Present (Baker Academic, 2006); ISBN 0-8010-2724-1

It specifically addresses panentheism from a Christian theological perspective, but has much to say about pantheism as well. Take care, and happy reading.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

I have not read this work, or even heard of it. I will make sure to look it up.

Thank you for your kind words.

 

[Fran65]

Not necessarily. After all, what is to defend a person accepting one particular view instead of another if it does not deal with desire, and if the desire is not completely driven by passions, then that desire somehow must relate to our purpose.

Oh, okay, so according to this, our purpose is tied up to our desire. Is this on the slope or even frankly hedonistic? I’m going to believe this, do this, think this because I want to.

Rational does not mean simply logical, but also an intuitive sense of things.

That depends upon your understanding. Here’s the meaning I was working with:

consistent with or based on or using reason;

My understanding of intuition on the other hand is

instinctive knowing; without the use of rational processes.

They therefore appear incompatible to me.

My intuition leads me to find that a God that literally answers prayer, or a God that has a child, or other forms thereof is undesirable, not in the sense of a simply emotional response, but in the sense of being or at least seeming intellectually unappealing, or at least less appealing than certain other possible frameworks.

Why? and what do you set in its place instead?

I do not base what I accept completely on empirical support, though this is an important means by which we determine what is, at least in the physical world, existing now. I hold that I can (both logically and psychologically) still believe in the things listed above, and indeed the whole of the Catholic system.

Unfortunately, no, you can’t. If you believed the whole Catholic system you could not be a pantheist as they are incompatible systems. I’m sure that you are aware of this. You can call yourself a Catholic pantheist if you want - I don’t think you do, by the way - but that does not make it a rational position.

I simply do not want to, and this because its basis seems to be able to support any notion, or if it is made to support only Catholicism, becomes weak and uncertain.

So you’re choosing what you want to beleive on the basis of your own desire and not on any reasoning. I conclude this as you state here that in your opinion, the basis of any faith can support any beleif system. This position is further supported by the statement:

An example: If I ask you why you are a Catholic and you say “faith”, then that answer seems as though it can be used to support Islam, or Buddhism, or Hinduism, or any other belief-system.

Are you asking me why I am Catholic?

If I ask you why you are a Catholic and you say “history”, then you have placed your entire system on uncertainty, because no one can be completely certain that what has been claimed to happen historically happened historically. This uncertainty seems insufficient for the weight of the system, though I suppose it would be in principle acceptable, if you would acknowledge the real possibility of finding new evidence that would lead you to cease being a Catholic.

Right back atcha…evidence supporting pantheism is no better than that for Catholicism, and one may say, a great deal weaker.

It is possible that I am wrong, but that is true in a great many things, and I think it most responsible that I follow my reason. Reason seems to point to a deity we are all part of, and this by argument from what seem to me to be reasonable and obvious bases.

I don’t think you are following your reason. I think you are following your desire. Big difference. Before you point back to me, I haven’t said that the only reason I’m Catholic is rationality. Although I have to say that reason, desire, faith and social and cultural factors all play a part in my Catholicism. (Before anyone jumps - I’m not, not a cultural relativist).

What evidence is there for Catholicism that cannot be applied to other faith-systems, and that does not, if it becomes the basis for Catholicism make it a necessarily uncertain proposition subject to your change of mind when something comes along that seems more certain?/

This is requires an enormous answer. Highlights may be: historical evidence of the real person of Jesus, Gospel accounts of the disciples, the spread and influence of the initially tiny Christian sect, the evidence and arguments in support of God, the hsitorical basis for the Catholic Church as the True Faith, the works of the Early Church Fathers, evidence from phenomenology of spiritual experience and the difference that the Catholic Faith makes to the world, society and individuals. You are right that there are elements here that can be used to support other faiths e.g. the existence of God and phenomenological experience.

I think finally what you are saying here is that my mind should be open to evidence that proves Catholicism wrong. I can’t imagine any - perhaps I have a particularly limited imagination - or perhaps my faith is strong enough to cope with those sorts of challenges.
Clearly if at death I arrive ‘somewhere’ and am told, “My love, you got it wrong actually…” than I would think differently. If I’m right, I’m right. If I’m wrong, how is it going to matter? The attributes of God are compassion and omniscience, He will know what’s in my heart.

I can understand that you are saying in one sense, what can be more certain than God? But I’m not persuaded by argument for pantheism.
God Bless

 

[Pantheist]

Thank you very much, Fran, for your answer, and the time you took in replying.

Oh, okay, so according to this, our purpose is tied up to our desire. Is this on the slope or even frankly hedonistic? I’m going to believe this, do this, think this because I want to.

I would consider this a necessary truth, not simply a moral one.

After all, we can only do what we want to do. Now, some people may claim that we can do what we don’t want, but what they really mean is that they can do what lacks pleasure or material reward or other things, which they want, because what they do they desire more.

We can only will what we want.

By intuition I mean any sort of reason that is presuppositional, or relies on a non-finite number of axioms, reason that does not follow from the strict rules of logic.

From this, I would restate my position in a clearer fashion (given now a couple more days to read and think and discuss it.

I accept two things on faith (two presuppositions): that reason works, and that I am experiencing a reality external to my own mind.

Necessarily, Christians would accept at least one more thing by faith.

But the two things I accept by faith are necessary for purposefully communicating with other people. The third thing is not.

If the third item can truly only be supported by faith (if it is presuppositional), then I would simply refuse to accept it based on insufficient reason or experience, and a lack of desire to accept another presupposition, as well as not knowing how to choose between future presuppositions, based on my current ones.

Why? and what do you set in its place instead?

For why, because of reason and nature (the argument is in the “Spinoza’s Proof for God” thread; it would disclude, likely, the Christian God), especially that reason and nature have not been able to establish such a being.

And I don’t see a place that needs to be filled. Can you explain what you mean by that question?

Unfortunately, no, you can’t…

It is logically possible for me to accept Catholicism (though I would have to, agreed, abandon portions of what I currently accept). That doesn’t mean that I will do it.

And I suppose I am a catholic pantheist in the sense that all pantheists are: I think pantheism is quite literally universal.

Are you asking me why I am Catholic?

Yes, specifically the reasons that would justify accepting the necessary bases for the Catholic faith as presuppositions.

Right back atcha…evidence supporting pantheism is no better than that for Catholicism, and one may say, a great deal weaker.

I think the reason for pantheism is quite strong, actually, but again that’s in another thread.

This is requires an enormous answer. Highlights may be: historical evidence of the real person of Jesus, Gospel accounts of the disciples, the spread and influence of the initially tiny Christian sect, the evidence and arguments in support of God, the hsitorical basis for the Catholic Church as the True Faith, the works of the Early Church Fathers, evidence from phenomenology of spiritual experience and the difference that the Catholic Faith makes to the world, society and individuals. You are right that there are elements here that can be used to support other faiths e.g. the existence of God and phenomenological experience.

All these certainly can be discussed, but there is much here. What would you want to start with first, or do you want me to choose?

I think finally what you are saying here is that my mind should be open to evidence that proves Catholicism wrong. I can’t imagine any - perhaps I have a particularly limited imagination - or perhaps my faith is strong enough to cope with those sorts of challenges.

I couldn’t imagine any for you, either. Nor can I imagine evidence that would satisfy my returning to Catholicism, and because of faith: you have it, and I don’t.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Hello,

I am a pantheist. By this I mean that God, or substance, consisting of infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality, necessarily exists. (Spinoza, Book 1, Prop. 11)

And, if God defined in such a way, we are part of God, part of this substance. It follows logically from premises that seem reasonable (and these I accept by faith), and does not evoke things I find non-intuitive, things I don’t wish to have faith in, such as heaven and hell, or prayers.

Certainly, what I wish or do not wish does not determine what is. But this seems to be the most reasonable and natural conclusion from what I have experienced, as well as from inborn reason.

I am looking forward to discussing pantheism here with all of you. Do you have any questions about it?

Is the “sterility”, cleanness, of pantheism of comfort to you?

It was very comforting to me, for a while. Then it became very uncomfortable.

 

[Pantheist]

Is the “sterility”, cleanness, of pantheism of comfort to you?

Very.

It was very comforting to me, for a while. Then it became very uncomfortable.

I don’t know if the same will happen to me. Why do you think it became uncomfortable for you?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
Is the “sterility”, cleanness, of pantheism of comfort to you?

Very.

Quote:
It was very comforting to me, for a while. Then it became very uncomfortable.

I don’t know if the same will happen to me. Why do you think it became uncomfortable for you?

It became uncomfortable because it became uninteresting, unuseful, and barren in it’s capability to describe anything but itself.

It became a perfect insulator. It was SO comprehensive in isolating “person-ness” from “matter-ness” that my person-ness was left free-floating in the same “vaccuum” that I thought that my pantheism had solved.

I rather rapidly moved from pantheism to deism (the non-interfering God of the Watchmaker) then (even more rapidly) to Catholicism.

I was never religious (in the typical sense) at all before my progression from:
*) infant Mom/Dad worship
*) child Beauty worship
*) juvenile Beauty/Intelligence worship
*) young adult Scientific/Nature worship (“natural science”)
*) adult pantheistic worship
*) adult deistic worship
*) older adult Catholic worship

 

[Fran65]

Hi Pantheist,

I don’t *have to *provide reasons for my Faith, although I also have them. I have Faith and I find it desirable- and as you have said, desire plays a role in our decisions and beliefs.

My Faith is intuitive in that it is based on a feeling that God exists and that Jesus is the Son of God and that the dogmas of the Catholic Church are right. I have played with and considered other theistic systems and non theistic (buddhism), but found all of them unsatisfying. I have accepted the gift of faith.

A non-personal God does not make (intuitive) sense to me. The Creator is a creator in relation to His creation(s) and that means that He is personal (for me and others who also believe in Catholicism). The fruits that come from Catholicism would not be there if God is only an impersonal force and his creativity is meaningless activity.

In addition, if God is the universe and everything in it, then He could not have the attributes that he has as God. He would change, he would be part of time, he would not therefore be eternal. Also, as this force you call ‘god’ is not personal, then he does not have a will and is therefore helplessly changing and without direction. No personhood, no will, no direction.

This means, logically, that what you call god is not in fact God because pantheism describes god as finite (he has to be finite as if he changes he is part of time, which means that he has a beginning and an end) and changeable.

There is also an implicit belief that God is not good either. If, as pantheism argues, God acts out of necessity, then there is no choice between good and evil. This is not compatible with the Catholic definition of God as good.

I decided to look in more detail at pantheism as I have the impression from your other thread that you are interested in leading people down a path of ‘if this, then that’ that will lead to pantheism.

Pantheism is completely rejected by the Catholic Church and having read and thought about it I can see why. What you are actually arguing for is atheism - as demonstrated above.

I’ve found this discussion interesting, so thank you.

God Bless

 

[Pantheist]

It became uncomfortable because it became uninteresting, unuseful, and barren in it’s capability to describe anything but itself.

It became a perfect insulator. It was SO comprehensive in isolating “person-ness” from “matter-ness” that my person-ness was left free-floating in the same “vaccuum” that I thought that my pantheism had solved.

I rather rapidly moved from pantheism to deism (the non-interfering God of the Watchmaker) then (even more rapidly) to Catholicism.

I was never religious (in the typical sense) at all before my progression from:
*) infant Mom/Dad worship
*) child Beauty worship
*) juvenile Beauty/Intelligence worship
*) young adult Scientific/Nature worship (“natural science”)
*) adult pantheistic worship
*) adult deistic worship
*) older adult Catholic worship

Very many interesting things you say. I will have to think about emotional consequences. Certainly, if I cease to desire to be a pantheist (probably for a combination of emotional and rational causes) I will cease to be one. My progression has been:

*) infant mom/dad worship
*) child God-as-Santa worship
*) Young adult self-worship (atheism)
*) Young adult deistic worship
*) Adult Catholic worship
*) (still fairly young) Adult pantheistic worship

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Very many interesting things you say. I will have to think about emotional consequences. Certainly, if I cease to desire to be a pantheist (probably for a combination of emotional and rational causes) I will cease to be one. My progression has been:

*) infant mom/dad worship
*) child God-as-Santa worship
*) Young adult self-worship (atheism)
*) Young adult deistic worship
*) Adult Catholic worship
*) (still fairly young) Adult pantheistic worship

Fascinating!

I always had this very strong linkage between “good” and “beautifully orderly”, and “bad/evil” and “chaotic/hyper-fractally-elaborate”.

Therefore, since I never “liked” evil, which some people actaully SEEM to go through a phase of “liking”, I could never be an atheist per se, because God was so EASILY described as simply “beautiful order” and believed in as such.

So, it was just a question of how to fit my “person-ness” into this “beautiful orderliness” thing (God).

I finally came to the discovery, and it really was a DISCOVERY and not a being-convinced or constructed-system, that God was best described as a person, as I found I needed to have a person-to-person relationship with this “beautifully orderly” thing.

I actually progressed from the “Nature worship” section to the Church this way:

*) nature worship
*) principles/aspects-of-nature worship
*) actual polytheistic worship
*) ludicrously proliferating gods-coming-out-the-ears polytheism
*) …“please make my headache go away!” worship
*) pantheism
*) deism
*) Catholicism

 

[Pantheist]

I have recognized something.

I am not going to change my mind on what I believe.

I don’t see any reason to convince you to believe as I do.

So there are better ways than this forum to spend my time.

It’s something I should have recognized before I signed up.

Good night all, and God bless.

 

[churchcamefirst]

I have recognized something.

I am not going to change my mind on what I believe.

I don’t see any reason to convince you to believe as I do.

So there are better ways than this forum to spend my time.

It’s something I should have recognized before I signed up.

Good night all, and God bless.

Well, hello…it is a Catholic forum believing in Jesus Christ.

 

[Fran65]

Pantheist,

I thought you were here to discuss things, not to persuade or be persuaded?

God Bless

 

[CatsAndDogs]

I have recognized something.

I am not going to change my mind on what I believe.

I don’t see any reason to convince you to believe as I do.

So there are better ways than this forum to spend my time.

It’s something I should have recognized before I signed up.

Good night all, and God bless.

You’re absolutely right, and EXTREMELY wise in having recognized that! So many people don’t, ever!

But, there are other reasons to be here other than trying to “convert” others. I’ve NEVER been in here to try to convert anyone.

I’m here to comment on comments from my own point of view. You can still do that, can’t you?

 

[ralphinal]

I have recognized something.

I am not going to change my mind on what I believe.

I don’t see any reason to convince you to believe as I do.

So there are better ways than this forum to spend my time.

It’s something I should have recognized before I signed up.

Good night all, and God bless.

And I have no desire ot try to make you change. Please stay a while.