Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[evolution]

“God knows YOU, personally and individually. You are not distant from, unknown to, or forgotten by God; You are remembered & personally known to Him. He holds you very close in His heart.”
-liketreesplanted website

I think this logic can lead to an identity problem due to the monotheistic assertion of a religious omniscience. It wouldn’t be like a usual normal friend that understands you but an all-knowing entity.

When 'you' can answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?', properly and correctly, then there is NO 'identity problem', and NO issue at all here.

So that small aspect of God that consciously knows everything about you would automatically be equivalent to you yourself. If God were to sentiently know everything about your daily experiences and motivation, then I would fail to see the exact difference between the subset of God that knows you and then you yourself.

The word "yourself" is a misnomer, that is until you can answer, properly and correctly, who and what the 'you' in "your" and the 'self' in "your" 'self'.

Pantheism could solve this problem by viewing life as a temporary infinitesimal part within an infinite series.

If 'pantheism' or ANY of the other many 'isms' in the word "could" solve ANY problem, then they 'would' have ALREADY.

Obviously NONE of these one particular (isms) 'view of things' does NOT solve ANY nor ALL of the human created problems.

The experiential component of an external God’s knowledge of you would have to be quite limited inside a monotheistic framework which would seemingly undermine this claimed omniscience.

Absolutely NOT necessarily true.

Unless God’s knowledge of you is somehow just semantic, academic or hearsay, any reference to an omniscient entity is inherently panentheistic despite the religious protestations:

“Belief in a Creator and creation out of nothing is radically different from any pantheistic worldview. Christians do not see God as “immanent” in or identical with the universe. We understand that God is “transcendent” (the antonym), and that He created the universe with order and wisdom.”
- Stacy Transancos

I think Pantheism can be a very pluralistic viewpoint. It doesn’t intrinsically prescribe any other values, traits, political beliefs etc.. So two avowed pantheists could still be very dissimilar to each other.

So what EXACTLY is the 'ism' (world view) that ALL, so called, "pantheists" BELIEVE is irrefutably true?

I think it’s largely compatible with the world’s religions as long as you preclude having a literal interpretation of any divisive unquestioned beliefs. Religious prophecy is a spiritual matter and is not the same as fortune-telling.

“Missionary (or apostolic) prophets are those who maintain that the religious truth revealed to them is unique to themselves alone.

Is this what EACH and EVERY one of them have said and CLAIMED? Or, is this what you ASSUME and/or BELIEVE is true?

Such prophets acquire a following of disciples who accept that their teachings reveal the true religion. The result of that kind of prophetic action may lead to a new religion, as in the cases of Zarathustra, Jesus, and Muhammad. The founders of many modern religious sects also should be included in this type.”
- Brittanica

Fortune-teller definition: “a person who is supposedly able to predict a person's future by palmistry, using a crystal ball, or similar methods.”

So the present-day applicability of the different claims of historical religious prophets must be moderated and viewed squarely within the prism of their past cultural milieu. Any combative texts of certain religions must be viewed solely within the context of the exact historical conflicts that had occurred in that previous era.

ANY combative texts can be and will be found to be just MISINTERPRETATIONS.

“Doubt is a mental state in which the mind remains suspended between two or more contradictory propositions, unable to be to be certain of any of them. Doubt on an emotional level is indecision between belief and disbelief.”
- Wikipedia

Pantheism is a truly self-reliant perspective. We still need to be nice to others even if there weren’t any allusions to a God.

But what has the 'golden rule' or ' being nice to "others" ' have to do with just 'pantheism'? EVERY religion has a central theme that revolves around about ' being nice (peaceful) to EACH and EVERY "other" '

[evolution]

Pantheism is "a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God". I find myself agreeing a lot with pantheism. I think it has many advantages over traditional theism.

For starters I find it hard to conceive of a truly external omnipotent God.

If you want easy, try atheism. No god to believe in at all. No religious controversy to solve, because one has no religion. Nothing could be simpler than that.

Except, some would say, one has the religion of 'there is NO God'.

How could God have free will if he must always be good?

There is a lot to unpack in that. I would ask, what, precisely, you mean by "free will", but I know from experience that asking that question pretty much never gets a clear, coherent answer. But if you are up for it, please do.

Well here is a VERY CLEAR and COHERENT answer to that question.

The ability to choose.

That is VERY CLEAR and VERY COHERENT, to you, correct?

If not, then you can be like most people and not really know what you are talking about.

Also, is having free will a good thing?

Yes.

Why or why not?

Because 'you' are able to CHOOSE the 'life' that you want to live in.

Why would you believe that always choosing good would mean one lacks free will? Are you saying that one is not always free to choose what is good if one has free will? That one must choose evil, at least some times, if one has free will? If that is what you believe, why do you believe it?

It does not seem like one's will is free if one is forced to choose evil occasionally.

How do we know this God isn't temperamental?

How does one know that there is a God at all?

When one can SEE what thee ACTUAL Truth of things IS and how ALL of the definitions of God and all of the ways God is identified fits in PERFECTLY with thee ACTUAL Universe, Itself, and Its Creation, then that is how one KNOWS that there is a God.

And because ALL OF THIS can be backed up and supported with ACTUAL EVIDENCE and PROOF, then that is HOW one KNOWS, FOR SURE, that there is A God.

Then we'd be left with the problem of the "evil demon" or the "deceiving god" who could capriciously put us in hell.

I think there are also problems with the idea of heaven. It's a very hedonistic concept. I don't think eternal life is psychologically possible even if it were physically possible. Surely one would eventually get exhausted and mentally fatigued by the accumulative stress of living thousands of years!

Also, there's a difference between wisdom and knowledge! Wisdom appears to be more visceral. So would an omniscient God have any true wisdom? Indeed, could an omnipotent entity feel any pain at all?

Pantheism, on the other hand, avoids these pitfalls. It's simply the belief that a single energy lives through all conscious entities.

Atheism avoids all of those pitfalls.

What precisely do you mean by 'atheism'?

And it avoids the pitfalls of pantheism, of what, exactly, is going on in this universe-mind-god thingy that is far from clear about what it means. How would one tell the difference between such a universe and a universe in which there is no god of any kind?

How do you, precisely, define the word 'God'?

It's not solipsistic as everyone is separated by the totality and completeness of death. Rather it's a monistic idea that asserts that we're all interconnected and derivative from the same infinite entity. This is really it's sole tenet which means that it doesn't lend itself to any unjustified dogmatic beliefs.

It's perfectly compatible with humility as there are other reasons to be humble besides one's belief in a certain God.

Atheism is perfectly compatible with humility. One cannot be in the image of God if there is no God.

(Also, compatible with humility is not a reason to believe something is true. You seem to be making an aesthetic choice, rather than trying to find out the actual truth by looking at evidence and reason.)

Talk about NOT trying to find out the ACTUAL TRUTH by looking at evidence and reason.

The problem of evil is really a separate debate. (I think there may be a small degree of indirect justice in the fact evil people often attack other evil people).

It is, however, relevant to whether this god-universe thingy is good or evil. Certainly, there is a lot of suffering in the universe.

"Suffering" by who and/or what EXACTLY?

This god-universe thingy does not stop it from happening. So either it is impotent to stop it, or it does not care about it. Either way, it does not seem like much of a god.

This is such a ONE-SIDED VIEW of things, that it EXTREMELY OBVIOUS that you are NOT trying to find out what thee ACTUAL TRUTH of things REALLY IS.

Indeed, it behaves remarkably like no god at all.

Which is quite "convenient" to YOUR BELIEF that 'there is NO God'.

Also, saying that there is " a small degree of indirect justice" is pretty much admitting that there is a huge amount of direct injustice.

The best thing about pantheism is that the golden rule naturally follows from a belief that we're all sort of associated. The golden rule is "the principle of treating others as one's self would wish to be treated".

Any thoughts?

I don't see how the golden rule is necessitated by such a thing. If one follows the example of the universe, one will be coldly indifferent to the suffering that occurs.

[evolution]

It is, however, relevant to whether this god-universe thingy is good or evil. Certainly, there is a lot of suffering in the universe. This god-universe thingy does not stop it from happening. So either it is impotent to stop it, or it does not care about it. Either way, it does not seem like much of a god.

Indeed, it behaves remarkably like no god at all.

Very often, people don't like giving up on talking about a god, even though they may end up with empty words after discarding bits that they found problematic. To illustrate this, consider the following:

Let us begin with a parable. It is a parable developed from a tale told by John Wisdom in his haunting and revolutionary article "Gods."[1] Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, "Some gardener must tend this plot." The other disagrees, "There is no gardener." So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. "But perhaps he is an invisible gardener." So they set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H. G. Well's The Invisible Man could be both smelt and touched though he could not be seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. "But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible, to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves." At last the Sceptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?"

...

https://web.archive.org/web/20160912194 ... ation.html

AND, the non BELIEVER is just as CLOSED as the BELIEVER IS.

The rest of the article is worth reading at the above link.

For the benefit of those who need it, the gardener in the story is like god. When people started off affirming that there was a god, they meant something by it, but that does not mean that there is anything left to "god" by many modern people who affirm a belief in a god. A god who "loves your children" and lets them burn alive in a fire, what kind of love is that?

That is just ANOTHER MISCONCEPTION and MISINTERPRETATION of 'God'.

It seems a lot more like indifference than love. It is more like there is no god than that there is one who cares about them.

When someone affirms that there is a god, what, exactly, are they affirming, and what would be different about the universe if there were such a god versus a universe without such a god?

And when someone affirms that there is NO God, what, exactly, are they affirming? What does the word 'God' mean to that one?

And the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE is just a Universe without one single word.

But a Universe without God could NOT exist. But, then I do KNOW what the word 'God' is ACTUALLY REFERRING TO.

If there is no difference, then it seems to be empty verbiage rather than a meaningful assertion.

If there is NO God, as you BELIEVE there is NOT, then you continually talking about this is just EMPTY.

[evolution]

I have often found that people unfairly try to prove the nonexistence of something in this way. Just that a person does not know what it is that is taking place, does not make it not taking place. Just that the person trying to prove it can't does not make it untrue that something is taking place. There are many actual things that we can't see, hear or smell. And, what a "God" is, is also open for debate.

I do appreciate investigations into the matter (and any matters), but the researcher(s) should also be scientific in NOT finding something. Does that prove nothing is taking place? Or that they just have limitations?

I found that when people are claiming that 'God exists', or that 'God does NOT exist', but NEVER get around to actually defining what 'God' IS, exactly, FIRST, just a complete WASTE and EMPTY.

[evolution]

I have often found that people unfairly try to prove the nonexistence of something in this way. Just that a person does not know what it is that is taking place, does not make it not taking place. Just that the person trying to prove it can't does not make it untrue that something is taking place. There are many actual things that we can't see, hear or smell. And, what a "God" is, is also open for debate.

I do appreciate investigations into the matter (and any matters), but the researcher(s) should also be scientific in NOT finding something. Does that prove nothing is taking place? Or that they just have limitations?

The story is about the meaning of the term. When someone states, "God exists," they are either making an actual claim or they are not. If they are making an actual claim, then the term "god" must mean something. They should tell us what they mean by the term. But very often what people tell us does not fit reality, and so they change their story rather than give up on the claim which has been shown to be false. So they gradually end up claiming nothing in the end.

And when you state, "does not fit reality", are you making an actual claim that 'reality exists'?

If you are making this actual claim, then the term 'reality' must mean something. Should you ALSO tell us what you mean by the term 'reality'?

If yes, then will you?

But if no, then WHY NOT?

Also, what happens when you are told what the term 'God' means, which ACTUALLY fits in PERFECTLY with 'reality', itself?

If you have NOT YET been told what the term 'God' means that fits in PERFECTLY with 'reality', itself, then you still have some more to listen to, hear, and to learn and understand.

Whenever someone makes a claim, they should be able to explain whatever it is they are claiming. If then cannot, then they are just saying words with no meaning. If they mean something, then they can explain what they mean.

I suggest that if ANY one wants to make a CLAIM about ANY thing, then it would be much be better for 'them' and for "others" that they can ACTUALLY back up and support, which ACTUAL EVIDENCE and/or PROOF, that CLAIM, BEFORE they make the CLAIM itself.

When someone says, "God exists," they should be able to tell us something that would be different from what would be the case if God did not exist. If they cannot, then they are just empty words devoid of meaning.

And if someone says that "God does NOT exist", then "should" they also be able to tell us what 'God' IS, precisely?

[evolution]

“I would ask, what, precisely, you mean by "free will", but I know from experience that asking that question pretty much never gets a clear, coherent answer.”
- Jack D Ripper

It wasn’t so much the metaphysics of free will that concerned me. If a criminal does evil they might get caught and get sent to jail. If a country becomes evil there may be international wars and hopefully the good side wins. But if an omnipotent God-like being chose to do evil, there’s just no limit as to how much evil that entity could do. Entire galaxies could be destroyed if this being got into a bad mood! I suppose the problem is that there’s no “separation of powers” for God as there would be for a democratic country.





“Certainly, there is a lot of suffering in the universe. This god-universe thingy does not stop it from happening.”
- Jack D Ripper

It is indeed a terrible aspect of reality. I don’t pretend to have all of the answers. But if the universe is only full of misery, then why do so many scientists even bother themselves to study it? Distant black holes and the Big Bang are discussed by scientists in a very impersonal, impartial and objective way. But the big questions that science asks are so inherently profound that there’s an inevitable slightly mystical aura about it.

So saying that God doesn’t exist or that God won’t solve the problem of evil, doesn’t itself let science off the hook. How then does science, evolution or atheism solve the problem of evil?

Tell me what the, alleged, "problem of evil" is, to you, and then I will SHOW 'you' HOW to solve 'that problem', and ANY other problem, while we are at it.

Pain evolved in humans to a far greater extent than animals or insects.

WHY do some of 'you', human beings, consider "yourselves" above, beyond, or separate from animals?

Humans are rational creatures and are uniquely self-aware that one day they will die and that everyone is mortal.

If human beings are supposedly 'self-aware' creatures, then 'you', human beings, would be able to answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?', properly and correctly, in the days of when this is being written. So, how many of 'you', human beings, in this forum can answer this question, properly and correctly, in say this year when this is being written?

The physical sensation of pain is intrinsically related to the problem of evil. Painkillers notwithstanding, it’s an involuntary response that we can’t completely turn off. If someone punches us, we are biologically compelled to experience the pain response at the site of injury. So in a genetic and neurological sense, all moral evil is technically just a subset of natural evil.

What does the word 'evil' even mean, to you?

But natural evil is caused by natural phenomena and thus falls under the purview of science. So is evil a mere evolutionary glitch? If we could somehow completely 100% permanently turn off the pain or fear emotions in humans, would that paradoxically to a small extent reduce the sacredness of human life?

Human beings would have probably been extinct within a generation or two if they had NO pain. In fact, human beings would NOT have evolved if there was NO such thing as pain.

Non-human species don’t appear to physically feel pain to the same extent humans do. Pets such as dogs can certainly show signs of stress, fear or happiness. But the pain response seems to be extremely limited in a few peculiar insects. There’s actually instances of insects biologically enjoying what would otherwise appear to be very painful:

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/phys.org/ne ... balism.amp

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news ... halloween/

I’m not at all comparing insects to us humans! But if evolutionary arguments (of there being evil in the world) are being made against God, then I don’t think it’s too inappropriate to ponder the evolutionary function of that very pain response.

The evolutionary function of pain is so as to HELP STAY ALIVE and EXISTING.

Also, what has 'pain', itself, got to do with 'evil, its self?

It’s often mentioned how there’s no honour among thieves. An additional advantage is that good people also tend to be far more united against evil.

To you, who exactly are the, so called, "good people"?

This is compared to how much evil people are in alliance with other evil individuals to attack good people. Evil gangs seem to often hate and feud with their rival gangs to a degree more than their contempt of the police or civilians. We all have a sense of empathy.

[evolution]

...
“Certainly, there is a lot of suffering in the universe. This god-universe thingy does not stop it from happening.”
- Jack D Ripper

It is indeed a terrible aspect of reality. I don’t pretend to have all of the answers. But if the universe is only full of misery, then why do so many scientists even bother themselves to study it?

Scientists study it because they are curious about it and interested in it. Whether it is good, bad, or indifferent is irrelevant to this.

Distant black holes and the Big Bang are discussed by scientists in a very impersonal, impartial and objective way. But the big questions that science asks are so inherently profound that there’s an inevitable slightly mystical aura about it.

So saying that God doesn’t exist or that God won’t solve the problem of evil, doesn’t itself let science off the hook. ...

There is no "problem of evil" if there is no omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent thing. The reason why you, for example, don't stop all of the evil in the world is easy to understand. You don't know all of what is going on (not being omniscient), you can't stop even all that you know about (not being omnipotent), and I won't bother with commenting on the third quality, as we already have enough to explain the general matter at hand. The same idea applies to everyone else. The problem comes up when there is supposed to be a being that has those three qualities, because such a being is inconsistent with there being evil in the world.

How do you define the word 'evil'?

And, a Being that has those three qualities is NOT inconsistent with ANY thing in the "world".

So that inconsistency is the "problem" with believing in such a god.

BELIEVING (or NOT BELIEVING) ANY thing is INCONSISTENT in and of itself.

The problem of evil is a proof that there is no omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being, because if there were such a being, there would be no evil, and yet there is evil. Consequently such a being cannot exist.

And, if you want to CLAIM that 'there is evil', then what does the term 'evil' mean, to you?

[evolution]

I understood the narrative, but do you understand what I was saying?

A lot of things that someone is trying to figure out start with naming that thing for themselves. Let's name it "God". Then someone trying to help might ask: "what is this God?". The other might explain a flash of light that came out of nowhere and then waking up 2 hours later. So, in order to clarify, they visit to spit of the fkash of light, but find no evidence. They examine the witnesses body, but find no evidence. Yet, the witness sticks to the story.

Likely, something did happen. But it remained undiscovered.

Do you know what I mean?

Your post is pretty garbled and unclear, so although I could make a guess at your meaning, I think it would be better for you to try again, being as clear as possible. Particularly regarding this (bold emphasis is added):

To me, your post "arjen" is VERY WELL WRITTEN, ad thus is also VERY CLEAR, well to me anyway.

A lot of things that someone is trying to figure out start with naming that thing for themselves. Let's name it "God".

There has to be a thing in order for that to happen. It may be that someone is pointing to something, and that can be enough to get one started on the question of what it is. But once one starts calling it "god", usually a whole lot of extra things are intended in the meaning, much more than there just being a thing pointed to, or, to use your example, a flash of light.

Often, of course, one may never know exactly what something was, but calling it "god" when one does not know is just plain stupid. Or a dishonest way of trying to add in things that one does not know to be a part of the thing observed.

[evolution]

Dictionary: “When people begin an open-ended discussion or activity, they do not have a particular result, decision, or timespan in mind.”

Most adult human beings most of the time, in the days of when this was written, have a particular result sought. So, this is WHY have open-ended discussions with adult human beings was almost IMPOSSIBLE, in those days. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVEN above.

[evolution]

Michael McMahon

Perhaps a more mystical way of interpreting the concept of God would be through a timeless infinitesimal rather than an infinity. In this way, everyone could be equally imbued with spirituality. This wouldn’t discredit the wisdom of traditional teachings because some historical people may have indeed been more attuned and enlightened in existential matters.

It is difficult to fathom how something could be eternal.

Not for EVERY one.

To some of us, eternal is VERY EASY to fathom, and KNOW.

Considering eternity is an ACTUALITY and NOT just a POSSIBILITY it REALLY is VERY EASY to fathom. Well that is for some of us.

Due to the nature of our reality, people think linearly; cause and effect.

And it is because of the nature of REALITY, Itself, and cause and effect, themselves, KNOWING eternity is REALLY VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY, indeed.

In fact it is because of 'cause and effect', itself, that eternity is WELL UNDERSTOOD.

It is problematic for the mind to comprehend in a linear way that something could exist that is uncaused, as the prime mover argument, because that is not the nature of our reality.

LOL If that is NOT the, so called, "nature of "our" reality", then WHAT IS the "nature of "your" reality"?

Therefore naturally, there is no empirical evidence for such a being.

It is, literally, because of 'cause and effect' [causality], that there is naturally, and logically, empirical evidence AND PROOF for eternity.

If such a being exists, it would be outside of our known reality or in other words, what we perceive as reality through what methods of testing that are available to us.

But thee eternal, and infinite, Being, sometimes known as 'God' has ALREADY been PROVEN, and is ALREADY KNOWN, that is; by some of us, when this was written. The rest will just catch up, one day.

Whether that implies that a being that like God (in any doctrine) does not exist I’m not sure. But if in our reality, there is no empirical example of anything that is uncaused, even if that term is fuzzy, then it is understandable that people don’t believe that there is a God. With regards to people enlightened in existential matters, many people make that claim, how can we know who is genuinely enlightened, and who is not, except by accepting the word of the one that has the most similitude with our world view.

I usually rely on LOGIC [sound and valid arguments] and/or PROOF [empirical] to work out who is 'genuinely enlightened' from who is NOT.

If a supposedly enlightened person told us everything we believe is false, even though we had firm reasons to believe what we do, would we consider that person to be enlightened?

If I informed 'you' that what you BELIEVE was NOT true, then would you LISTEN to 'me'?

[Michael McMahon]

“Jesus is the foundation figure of Christianity, who is thought to have lived between 7–2 BCE and 26–36 CE. The New Testament (NT) recalls Jesus as having experienced and shown behavior closely resembling the DSM-IV-TR–defined phenomena of AHs, VHs, delusions, referential thinking (see Figure 3), paranoid-type (PS subtype) thought content, and hyperreligiosity (see Table 1). He also did not appear to have signs or symptoms of disorganization, negative psychiatric symptoms, cognitive impairment, or debilitating mood disorder symptoms. NT accounts about Jesus mention no infirmity... The hallucinatory-like experiences that Jesus had in the desert while he fasted for 40 days (Luke 4:1–13) may have been induced by starvation and metabolic derangements. Arguing against these as explanations for all of his experiences would be that he had mystical or revelation experiences preceding his fasting in the desert and then during the period afterward. During these periods, there is no suggestion of starvation or metabolic derangement. If anything, the stories about Jesus and his followers suggest that they ate relatively well, as compared with the followers of his contemporary, John the Baptist (Luke 7:33–34)... As seen with the previous cases, Jesus’ experiences can be potentially conceptualized within the framework of PS or psychosis NOS. Other reasonable possibilities might include bipolar and schizoaffective disorders...

Suicide-by-proxy is described as “any incident in which a suicidal individual causes his or her death to be carried out by another person.”41,42 There is a potential parallel of Jesus’ beliefs and behavior leading up to his death to that of one who premeditates a form of suicide-by-proxy.”
https://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/doi ... h.11090214

I don’t think unusual thinking styles automatically negate their validity. For example it’s been stated that many scientific or literary figures may have had traits of autism. Is it that despite the downsides in these particular people the condition passively freed up mental energy to pursue complicated topics? Or was it that the condition inherently helped create analytical styles of thought? Needless to say that in other patients of autism the symptoms can just be painful. Likewise the symptoms of schizophrenia are usually unhelpful and their thoughts are mistaken. But it might be possible in the past the same symptoms might have produced valid mystical insights in certain individuals. The evolution of mental illnesses can be mysterious. Perhaps if they were able to control it then it may have helped their creative or metaphorical thinking patterns. So even if someone had tendencies for such traits that doesn’t imply that they were wrong. They say everyone is somewhere on these spectrums though not enough for a diagnosis.


“If I’m honest I think Jesus was a very important political figure.”
Hozier on the meaning of life with Gay Byrne

If Jesus was a political figure than all of his followers would also be political figures. Given the huge global impact of Christianity throughout early history until today that would mean that their leader of Jesus would be one of the most important political figures ever. So these secular criticisms of religion aren’t always as negative as they might first appear.

[Meiyoh]

"[P]antheism is a concept that invalidates itself, since the concept of a God presupposes as its essential correlative a world different from him. If, on the other hand, the world itself is to take over his role, there remains simply an absolute world without God, and so pantheism is only a euphemism for atheism. …But even the assumption of some cause of the world different therefrom is still not theism. For this demands a world-cause that is not only different from the world, but is intelligent, that is to say, knows and wills, and so is personal and consequently also individual; it is only such a cause that is indicated by the word 'God'. An impersonal God is no God at all, but merely a word wrongly used, a misconception, a contradictio in adjecto, a shibboleth for professors of philosophy, who, having had to give up the thing, are anxious to slip through with the word."

[Sy Borg]

"[P]antheism is a concept that invalidates itself, since the concept of a God presupposes as its essential correlative a world different from him. If, on the other hand, the world itself is to take over his role, there remains simply an absolute world without God, and so pantheism is only a euphemism for atheism.

This may have been true in the old days when creationism was the default belief of Christians. Today many, many Christians are deists and/or pantheists, believing that God is one with its creation, not separate. However, this quiet, silent majority tends to be drowned out by more politically-inclined theists.

…But even the assumption of some cause of the world different therefrom is still not theism. For this demands a world-cause that is not only different from the world, but is intelligent, that is to say, knows and wills, and so is personal and consequently also individual; it is only such a cause that is indicated by the word 'God'. An impersonal God is no God at all, but merely a word wrongly used, a misconception, a contradictio in adjecto, a shibboleth for professors of philosophy, who, having had to give up the thing, are anxious to slip through with the word."

That is the Christian fundamentalist view. As we know, Christian fundamentalists famously believe that they are the only true theists. Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and Scientifically-inclined Christians, are all seen by Christian fundamentalists as either false theists or heathens.

[Papus79]

"[P]antheism is a concept that invalidates itself, since the concept of a God presupposes as its essential correlative a world different from him. If, on the other hand, the world itself is to take over his role, there remains simply an absolute world without God, and so pantheism is only a euphemism for atheism. …But even the assumption of some cause of the world different therefrom is still not theism. For this demands a world-cause that is not only different from the world, but is intelligent, that is to say, knows and wills, and so is personal and consequently also individual; it is only such a cause that is indicated by the word 'God'. An impersonal God is no God at all, but merely a word wrongly used, a misconception, a contradictio in adjecto, a shibboleth for professors of philosophy, who, having had to give up the thing, are anxious to slip through with the word."

Where I'd agree with this - pantheism, panentheism, anything that says that the universe is the body of God, or anything like de Chardin or Whitehead that goes into what one might call 'process philosophy' is non-theistic.

I err in favor of panentheism because I'd agree that I don't see any sign that there's any sort of personal deity profoundly interested in our prayers, nor profoundly interested in whether we worship it, worship Satan, worship Iblis, become born-again John Frums, or pray at Peter Griffin's Church of Fonz.

What seems to unpack itself instead when looking at NDE's, spriritually transformative experiences (STE's), psychedelic experiences, and all sorts of odd system effects people can observe which debatably - in the character of their manifestation - suggest a living system but not a 'God'. What seems to get suggested rather than 'God' is 'Source'. 'Source' is clearly not 'God'. 'God' is a fiery, passionate entity whose willing to give us all the moral guidance we need not to go to hell for breaking its edicts. 'Source', being polar opposite is ice cold - it loves you as infinitely as it loves anything that would eat or prey on you. It loves you infinitely while you walk into the woods and get lost, it loves the bear infinitely that mauls you, and it loves infinitely the flies, maggots, and vultures that pick your bones clean. 'Source' both renders no judgment and at the same time seems like it will literally let 'anything' within the laws of physics happen to a person, deserved or undeserved (when I say 'seems' there could very well be parameters but - they're low).

My sense though is that you can't have a pantheistic or panentheistic religion very easily. Without a God whose constantly playing the quality inspector of human conduct then the ability to pin your social contracts on a sky god as a sort of contractual escrow burns your ability to do Gemeinschaft and similarly you lose a lot of your basis to raise children with a historical, traditional code of ethics. While it's true you can raise culturally religious children who are ultimately are atheist but 'these are my people and this is their story', sure but it doesn't hang together very well for very long. Similarly Source's almost infinite permissibility means that you can't pin 'Divine Quality Inspector' on its shirt - it'll love you just as much if you're a saint as if you were a sexually active pedophile and the question then of what you do with your life and how you function in it isn't a reflection of 'What will Source think of me' - it loves you infinitely without qualification and won't stop - so Source can't factor into your moral decisions, rather some combination of who you want to be - into your own future - and what kinds of things your willing or not willing to tangle with as natural consequences come to bear. That last part is the sort of cold 'You're on your own' which some adults can handle, many adults can't, and most children wouldn't have a prayer - thus our cultures are going to be wrapped in theism, really in most cases make-believe Gods, because we need them for social contract enforcement.

[Papus79]

One bit I forgot to say above but which I find really important - if you're an atheist but you equally don't see good evidence for reductive materialism, or really you see more evidence for absolute idealism (like in the Bernardo Kastrup or Tom Campbell sense) or you're a hylozoist of some kind, pantheism or panenentheism seem like good common-place descriptions of where you land even if they're imperfect in giving further details as to what that actually means to you.