I would agree only I rephrase the statement the other way around:
I think it’s an error to consider Nature existing outside of our consciousness. Nature itself a perception.
(always - preview - post)
I think it’s an error to consider Nature existing outside of our consciousness. Nature is itself a perception.
I don’t agree with this. Typical transendental thinking. 
Panthiesm is above all a an emotional response to the divine - the state of worship. Transcendentalists and panthiests alike feel the need to worship; transcendentalists create a man-made idol or object of worship, call it “god” and worship that (while referring to every other transcendentalists’ man-made idol as a “false god” or “idol”). As some dead Greek dude or other put it, “if horses had gods, their god would be in the form of a horse”.
Transendentalism, if taken seriously, leads to all sorts of harmful and damaging errors - from belief in the miraculous through non-belief in the discoveries of science.
Panthiests, on the other hand, worship the world as it is, without illusion. Why the need to find solace in such petty miracles as some statue crying blood, or some cure for a skin disease, when the real miracles are all around - the existence of creation itself? The fact that a fruit-fly can evolve is more worthy of awe than all the gods ever invented …
Oh, but neither do I. It was a request for clarification, satisfied by a previous reply by Aeschines where it states that the difference is in the belief that the universe has a purpose.
You find me in agreement, although I call that ‘having an inquisitive, scientific mind’ and not ‘worshipping the universe’. I’m uncomfortable with that ‘worship’ word.
I would put it differently than he.
I would not say that the universe has a purpose. Rather, it has a potential, realized in conciousness. Maybe this is hair-splitting, but ascribing a purpose to the universe makes it appear that the universe has a conciousness in and of itself seperate from its constituent parts. I do not think this to be the case …
I would say that we, who are a growth or aspect of the universe, are (along with any similar beings, such as, to an extent, animals) the flowering of this potential. We percieve; and in perceiving, the universe sees itself and attempts to understand itself. Ultimately to love itself in all its glory.
Anything that furthers this working out of potential is what we call the good. Anything that retards this is bad.
I’m not.
“Worship” is an emotional response. It is the proper response to a state of awe, wonder, and love - which is the emotional state most conducive to working out our potential. As long as this emotion is not diverted, channeled, and directed to lesser objects.
For example, if I “worship” an idol, a god, or a celebrity on television, I am limiting my potential - as such “worship”, sooner rather than later, translates into a narrow-minded focus on the object of worship to the exclusion of others.
If, on the other hand, the object of worship is the universe itself, such a narrow focus is impossible.
I try to maintain an attitude of worship. It is not easy, and I don’t often succeed. I wish, I really do, that I could feel that way all the time instead of in flashes, but I suspect humans simply are not capable of that.
Is that a contradiction or is there something I don’t understand?
Ok. If that is your definition of worship, then I worship, too. My example of this state of awe, wonder, and love is when I’m sitting at a red traffic light and suddenly, for no reason I know, I hear in my head the notes I should play with my left hand to the right hand melody I had worked out on the piano two weeks before.
I guess that’s why it’s often called divine inspiration. Still, there is something theistic about that word ‘worship’ which keeps me on guard.
It isn’t a contradiction, because the creature doing the perceiving is part of the universe; there is no seperation.
While this may appear at first glance to be contradictory, consider the difference: if one says “the universe has a conciousness and purpose”, one pre-supposes it has such conciousness from the beginning and all along. If one says “the universe has potential for conciousness, which reaches flowering in self-perception”, then one imagines a universe that, for the first few billion years, had nothing but matter devoid of conciousness (but full of the potential for conciousness to develop, due to the laws of physics and chemistry already in existence). Only later, after the self-creation of stars, planets, an atmosphere, animal life … could the universe achieve conciousness through the achievement of that state by some of its component parts.
Through these animate parts of the universe, it now, at long last, can begin to understand itself.
I prefer the term “mystic state” - and mysticism is also a word larded with preconceptions, dangerous to use due to mis-understandings and mis-appropriations.
Conversation may have drifted past this, but it galls me to leave it unfinshed:
It IS a certainty that 2+2 = 4 , and pi = 3.1415… in all possible universes. God CANNOT make 2+2=5 or pi = 5.5; for the following reason:
Terms such as ‘2’, ‘+’, ‘4’, ‘=’, ‘pi’, and ‘3.1415…’ refer to concepts that all have specific meanings, in specific contexts. If you chancge the context, then you are no longer referring to the same concepts. The context of arithmetic is based on a few fundamental principles; if you change those principles than you’re not talking about ‘2’ and ‘4’ any more, even if you call the new things in your new context by the same names. You can do this yourself; just change the base. In base three, 2 + 2 = 11. That doesn’t change that 2+2=4 in base 10, though.
‘pi’ is similarly subject to its context; its meaning changes if you change wether we’re in a 2-d plane or not. When we change geometry this does not change the value of pi; we are already referring to a different thing, that we might call ‘pi’ out of convenience or familiarity, even though it is a different concept and behaves
somewhat differently.
The conclusions drawn by math are true even if math hasn’t been invented. Even in a universe where nothing exists, the theoretical possibility of the mathematical system remains, even in the absence of someone to conceptualise it, and if the conctext of mathematics was developed, it would yeild the same results in that or any universe. And even if empirical observation within a universe wouldn’t lead someone to think up mathematics or Euclidean geometry, the statements of the system remain true. pi equaled 3.1415… long before we knew it did, and pi equaled 3.1415… before any human existed. The truth of a system predates its discovery because the truths refer to what the system would conclude if it was known, and remain true even in the absence of such knowledge, regardless.
Re: OP.
Sophistry!
Okay, I’ll bite. Was this meant to convey a point, or was it just a random exclamation? I’ll grant you that the implication that the unmodifiability of math doesn’t actually disprove monotheism. (I just proves that God isn’t ALL-all powerful, but we already knew that when he failed/didn’t fail to create a rock he couldn’t lift.) A charge of sophistry seems unwarranted.
Nice discussion you are having. Quite by accident I came across this link yesterday: “An Introduction to Pantheism” by Jan Garett.
In this version of pantheism, which has little to do with my own but seems similar to what Malthus is expressing, the universe is “divine” and that’s about it. I suppose it could also be called “Atheism Plus.”
First off, I have no particular beef with this belief system. I do think, however, that there is not much beef in it. Fine, you feel wonder at the universe. That’s great. But as Malthus said, this is an emotional response; it is not a philosophical position.
I don’t know where this watered-down version of pantheism came from. But it’s been around a bit. In 1998, I had a vicious e-mail argument with a dude who had a similar pantheism site up. I had to wonder what good his belief system was doing him, since he got quite angry with me, saying something like, “See if a bolt of lightning shows any care or concern for you when it strikes you!” Nice guy.
Yes, I don’t know why people are unwilling to see this.
Correct!
Yes, the charge of sophistry was quite ignorant. You are correct that the argument is not designed to trounce any possible version of monotheism, but it IS sufficient to shoot down Jewish/Xian/Islamic versions of that system–not so much because it proves that God is not omnipotent (since believers are usually willing to concede that God’s omnipotence is not diminished by his “inability” to do that which is logically impossible), but because it demonstrates that God is not existentially primary: he cannot be the creator of the whole of That Which Is, since the truths of pattern and number could not be otherwise.
The God + unliftable rock argument was more or less this argument in disguise.
Excellent, interesting site.
I don’t know where I got my version of panthiesm from - I like to think that it just makes sense to me, but I’m sure I picked it up from somewhere. 
I think my views have plenty of beef in 'em. Obviously that is a subjective assessment, but that doesn’t scare me. A major bonus is that I feel quite certain that I don’t have to justify, invent, ignore facts, etc.
I don’t see why an “emotional response” and a “philosophical system” have to be two haves of a dichotomy. I call false dichotomy on that one. Same as with those who triumphantly point out that mystic experiences can be phyically induced. That does not thereby rob them of their potency, since I myself never expected otherwise.
Why “watered down”? What is your version of panthiesm?
I’m not sure that a belief system ought to be chosen because it does the chooser “good”. If I thought that way, I’d choose one in which a loving god makes everything better in the afterlife. Or maybe one in which I get to have godlike powers in the afterlife. That would do me a lot of good, by making me feel all important and such
Rather, I think that religious/philosophical questions are important, because they are an attempt to peirce right to the heart of reality - to determine what is “really real”. If a transendental god existed, he, she or it would be the ultimate reality. Since there is no proof of such, I go with Pantheism (as I understand it).
I’m sorry that that other fellow was such a shite. Obviously, believeing in Panthiesm doesn’t of necessity make you a nice person in Internet debates. 
Hi Malthus and Aeschines, I visited the Introduction to Pantheism site and found very interesting. I am not going to critique it as the parts that I disagree with are essentially about my opinions, not about anything inherently faulty with Pantheism as defined there.
Actually, Pantheism looks like the Theistic system which would best suit this Atheist, were he not such a Humanist. Hope you catch my drift there.
Not much disagreement then, so I’m waiting for the flaming that will result from agreeing with someone in GD: We must disagree! It’s no fun otherwise! No, I disagree with that.
How can I disagree? After all, you and I are just aspects of the same thing…
I don’t think the atheism-pantheism system leads us to new insights.
That is as may be - but I still don’t understand what you are referring to when you talk about “pantheism”.
I assume you embrace a “non-atheism-pantheism” system, which does provide new insights. What does it consist of? A short description would be appreciated.
Surely. My system is based on the philophies of Pythagorus, Plato, Plotinus, Spinoza, Indian thinkers, and others.
That Which Is arises from the rules of pattern and number, or pure potentiality. This pure potentiality is equivalent to the singularity of the Big Bang, although its effects are by no means limited to that event. There probably exist a near-infinity of worlds (NOT “alternate universes”; e.g., the afterlife, etc.) that coexist with ours but exist according to different manifestations of pure potentiality.
This pure potentiality is also identifiable as the Sat-Chit Ananda (being-consciousness-bliss) of Indian thought. Being, consciousness, and bliss, are not arbitrary qualia of pure potentiality, but rather are implicit characteristics of the orgin of That Which Is. They are also the implicit vector of That Which Is, what we might call a purpose. The system always seeks to maximize being, consciousness, and bliss (or happiness).
But no system can be complete or perfect, as Godel proved. Evil comes from this incompleteness, but also greater good. Goodness is the furthering of the vector; love is the will to further it. Badness is the thwarting of the vector; and evil or hatred is the will to thwart it.
What we call “God” is a conflation of several things, I think. One, the power of truly higher beings. Two, the essential goodness of the vector, or the vector itself. There are great beings of love that serve the vector–gods, if you will. And there is also the fact that all that exists comes from the same origin. Hence, that which people call “God” truly exists in all things; hence, “pantheism” is the most correct way of approaching that which people call “God.”
This appears to be the crux of this argument for pantheism. If true, it seems that God is not superior to the universe if he is constrained by its necessary truths. Then the “creator” would not be sovereign over his “creation.”
However, all this assumes Thomistic monotheism, in which God cannot do what is logically impossible. However, it is my view (along with Luther and Descartes) that an omnipotent God CAN do what is logically impossible. Why should God be subject to the dictates of man-made logic? It would be presumptuous to claim that our imagination extends as far as God’s power. I say that the Law of Contradiction is a limitation on the human mind,* but does not limit God.
So, the truths of mathematics are subject to the decree and will of God, rather than the other way around.
Can anyone prove that the Law of Contradiction is a necessary truth that not even an all-powerful God can contravene? As Aristotle admitted in Metaphysics IV, the Law of Contradiction is the foundation of all logical proof, and thus cannot be proven itself. Even if it could be proven, how would one show that an omnipotent, sovereign deity is subject thereto? God is the Creator of the laws of logic [contra Aquinas], not their slave.
(In fact, I can easily prove that God can violate the Law of Contradiction–look at all the contradictions in God’s Word!)
*Maybe the current developments in paraconsistent logic will prove otherwise.
That’s exactly why I don’t concede that God’s omnipotence is limited. In fact, for a monotheist like me, your argument backfires into a proof that God CAN do what is logically impossible (or else pantheism is implied).
Yes, God can make a square circle. And he can lift every rock that he cannot lift.