Pantheism: "Sexed Up Atheism"

[Dogs On Acid]

Are you Atheist? If so I would recommend reading about Pantheism and Naturalistic Pantheism.

Considering Nature as a "God", feeling a belonging to the Universe and Cosmos, and at the same time utilizing the Scientific Method to prove and disprove arguments and further Science.

Pantheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism)

Naturalistic Pantheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_Pantheism)

[Caj]

You might appreciate this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2nfXfTg92E

[Revolution starts with U]

I can almost appreciate the idea of a pantheism, more specifically tho pandeism (theism implies a hand-on approach, if I am not mistaken). But it has its problems too.
My friend is a hard-core pantheist who, in a discussion on Stephen Hawking's new book, said to me "I kind of don't want to read any more books on the subject because, you know, the Universe (God) kind of told me what it did (while I was on LSD).

[ComradeMan]

Pandeism is not really the same as pantheism or panentheism. They do get mixed up sometimes I admit.

[GPDP]

I dunno, it just sounds to me like a way of being "spiritual" while supposedly being non-religious. In the end, there's just no material basis to this kind of belief system, however.

I actually have a friend who now considers himself a pantheist. He used to be an atheist, but eventually the idea of there being nothing beyond the physical world apparently scared him shitless, so he settled on a vague spiritualism instead.

Of course, I'm not going to paint a broad brush stroke and judge all pantheists as being too spineless to be atheists or anything like that, but I just don't get the point of such a faith beyond emotional reverence for the universe and all the wonderful things within it.

[ComradeMan]

I dunno, it just sounds to me like a way of being "spiritual" while supposedly being non-religious. In the end, there's just no material basis to this kind of belief system, however.

I actually have a friend who now considers himself a pantheist. He used to be an atheist, but eventually the idea of there being nothing beyond the physical world apparently scared him shitless, so he settled on a vague spiritualism instead.

Of course, I'm not going to paint a broad brush stroke and judge all pantheists as being too spineless to be atheists or anything like that, but I just don't get the point of such a faith beyond emotional reverence for the universe and all the wonderful things within it.

Can there ever be a material basis to being spiritual?

[GPDP]

Can there ever be a material basis to being spiritual?

Precisely. Spirituality and all such faith-based beliefs are fundamentally irrational and opposed to materialism.

That said, I'm not a raging anti-theist and I'm not in the business of telling people what to believe, so I could give less than two shits whether people believe in an invisible man in the sky or that we're all like, one with the universe, man. So long as they still maintain their convictions in furthering the cause of progress and socialism, they're alright by me.

[ComradeMan]

Precisely. Spirituality and all such faith-based beliefs are fundamentally irrational and opposed to materialism.

That said, I'm not a raging anti-theist and I'm not in the business of telling people what to believe, so I could give less than two shits whether people believe in an invisible man in the sky or that we're all like, one with the universe, man. So long as they still maintain their convictions in furthering the cause of progress and socialism, they're alright by me.


As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.

See: Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944) (from Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797)

[Revolution starts with U]

Max Planck was smart. But being smart doesn't mean he's right. And being right about atom theory, doesn't mean he is right about consciousness.
That is called an appeal to authority.

[ComradeMan]

Max Planck was smart. But being smart doesn't mean he's right. And being right about atom theory, doesn't mean he is right about consciousness. That is called an appeal to authority.

And pointing out logical fallacies in order to invalidate arguments is also a logical fallacy- argumentum ad logicam- the fallacist's fallacy.

However an appeal to authority -argumentum ad verecundiam- is not unwarranted nor fallacious, perhaps, if the authority is indeed an authority on the subject being discussed- especially in this case the idea of materialism- that maintains that the only thing that exists is indeed matter.

[Dogs On Acid]

I dunno, it just sounds to me like a way of being "spiritual" while supposedly being non-religious. In the end, there's just no material basis to this kind of belief system, however.

I actually have a friend who now considers himself a pantheist. He used to be an atheist, but eventually the idea of there being nothing beyond the physical world apparently scared him shitless, so he settled on a vague spiritualism instead.

Of course, I'm not going to paint a broad brush stroke and judge all pantheists as being too spineless to be atheists or anything like that, but I just don't get the point of such a faith beyond emotional reverence for the universe and all the wonderful things within it.

There is nothing Spiritual about Naturalistic Pantheism. Duelist Pantheism is the Pantheist school that takes into account Nature and Spirituality.

[Revolution starts with U]

And pointing out logical fallacies in order to invalidate arguments is also a logical fallacy- argumentum ad logicam- the fallacist's fallacy.

However an appeal to authority -argumentum ad verecundiam- is not unwarranted nor fallacious, perhaps, if the authority is indeed an authority on the subject being discussed- especially in this case the idea of materialism- that maintains that the only thing that exists is indeed matter.

It may not be unwarranted, but it is always fallacious.
You also have the problem that Planck, at this point, is pretty dated.

[ComradeMan]

It may not be unwarranted, but it is always fallacious.

No it isn't.

Think about this example, a professor emeritus of particle physics and a pop-science writer with a first degree in art history are discussing particle physics. To whose "authority" would you lend credence? The fallacy is when you say because, and only because, of x then x is right and y is wrong. But this does not mean you cannot point to an authority on the subject.

[Revolution starts with U]

No it isn't.

Think about this example, a professor emeritus of particle physics and a pop-science writer with a first degree in art history are discussing particle physics. To whose "authority" would you lend credence? The fallacy is when you say because, and only because, of x then x is right and y is wrong. But this does not mean you cannot point to an authority on the subject.

I am in agreement with you. But we both know we can bring as many atheistic particle physicists as theistic (which would be strange, seeing as how the general population has such a low rate of atheists... but you know, education and all that :blushing: :lol: ).
It is fine to say "Planck believed in God therefore QM doesn't rule it out." But you cannot say "Planck believed in God so that is evidence in favor of the God hypothesis."

[ComradeMan]

...seeing as how the general population has such a low rate of atheists... but you know, education and all that :blushing: :lol: ).

There are statistical proplems with those so-called studies and too many anomalies really... but that is the subject of another thread.


It is fine to say "Planck believed in God therefore QM doesn't rule it out." But you cannot say "Planck believed in God so that is evidence in favor of the God hypothesis."

But... but.... the Planck quote was more in relation to the matter of materialism....