Deism vs. Pantheism
richar...@my-dejanews.com
wondering why those of you who embrace the concept of Deism, do not find the
arguments for "Pantheism" equally compelling. Thanks for your comments.
Richard
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
rwa...@flash.net
from my ISP, Flash Net. I tried to post this message yesterday via Deja
News, but I do not know if it was posted correctly, so I'll try again.
My question concerns Deism versus Pantheism. The fundamental premise of
Deism is intelligent design by a Creator being or entity. I see so much
compelling evidence of intelligent design all around us that it is easy for
me to believe in the basic principles of Deism. OTOH, the basic premise of
Pantheism, as I understand it, is that this Creator, or God, is not
necessarily a single "entity" or being, but that God is in everything and
that the various forces and workings of nature are modes or manifestations of
His existence. How does the overwhelming evidence of intelligent design
necessarily imply a single or individual entity rather than an equally
intelligent creative force that permeates nature and all of the universe. I
think one answer might be that the Creator must be separate and apart from
nature since nature is His creation. For God to be part of nature, it would
imply, I think, that if He created nature, then it follows that He created
himself, which seems to be a logical impossibility. What do you think?
Koan
atheism (no god)
polytheism (many gods)
pantheism (God is all)
panentheism (God is in all)
finite godism (a finite god made the world)
deism (a God who does not do miracles made the world)
theism, or monotheism (a God who does miracles created the world) which is
the biblical view (and is held by orthodox Jews and Muslims, as well as
Christians).
I lean toward pantheism myself, but I'm wondering if the deists agree with
these interpretations. I'm also wondering if this post will actually make
it to the NG cause I'm not sure if the Deism NG is still working.
Koan
richar...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<6ri7b2$asq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
rwa...@flash.net
Hi Koan,
Your message posted just fine, but I still do not get this newsgroup
yet on my ISP, Flash Net. I think we'll get more discussion when
other ISP's offer alt.religion.deism with their newsreader services.
I like your summary of the various forms of God-ism. I personally
tend to lean toward Deism rather than Pantheism because I think that
the Creator of the universe needs to "transcend" that universe rather
than being "in" or a part of that universe. If God is all, or everything
there is, then it seems to me that He, or It, would be limited by the
constraints of time and space that make up this universe. It would take
a Deistic God, IMHO, who is "outside" this universe to be sufficiently
powerful to create this universe, which includes the laws of physics that
control how this universe operates. I'd be interested, Koan, in learning
why you are leaning toward "Pantheism".
Richard
-------
Koan
everything in the physical plane. This includes the planet, the stars, and
physical universe as it stretches out in space, beyond our perceptions. By
its nature the God energy is immortal and neverending and because it is the
inner light within all things, it is universal. The God energy is all
knowing because, being in all things, it knows from its own experience.
Just as this God energy within each of us allows us to create our reality,
the God energy created nature and all things. And all things being a part of
God are universal and infinite. Just my opinion.
As I said in another post I lean towards the Pantheist view as I use this
God energy in my daily life for creation. I think this is the basic
difference between Pantheism and Deism. That miracles still occur if you
know how to use the God Energy. I think this is where Jesus failed in his
teachings. He was trying to explain how to use the God Force and it is
unteachable. Just by the fact that you try to explain it means its not it.
They in turn made him into a God rather than part of the God energy which we
all have within us.
Koan
>My question concerns Deism versus Pantheism. The fundamental premise of
>Deism is intelligent design by a Creator being or entity. I see so much
>compelling evidence of intelligent design all around us that it is easy for
>me to believe in the basic principles of Deism. OTOH, the basic premise of
>Pantheism, as I understand it, is that this Creator, or God, is not
>necessarily a single "entity" or being, but that God is in everything and
>that the various forces and workings of nature are modes or manifestations
of
>His existence. How does the overwhelming evidence of intelligent design
>necessarily imply a single or individual entity rather than an equally
>intelligent creative force that permeates nature and all of the universe.
I
>think one answer might be that the Creator must be separate and apart from
>nature since nature is His creation. For God to be part of nature, it would
>imply, I think, that if He created nature, then it follows that He created
>himself, which seems to be a logical impossibility. What do you think?
>
>Richard
>
>
Robert L. Johnson
>
> I am posting this message from Deja News pending access of this newsgroup
> from my ISP, Flash Net. I tried to post this message yesterday via Deja
> News, but I do not know if it was posted correctly, so I'll try again.
>
> Deism is intelligent design by a Creator being or entity. I see so much
> compelling evidence of intelligent design all around us that it is easy for
> me to believe in the basic principles of Deism. OTOH, the basic premise of
> Pantheism, as I understand it, is that this Creator, or God, is not
> necessarily a single "entity" or being, but that God is in everything and
> that the various forces and workings of nature are modes or manifestations of
> His existence. How does the overwhelming evidence of intelligent design
> necessarily imply a single or individual entity rather than an equally
> intelligent creative force that permeates nature and all of the universe. I
> think one answer might be that the Creator must be separate and apart from
> nature since nature is His creation. For God to be part of nature, it would
> imply, I think, that if He created nature, then it follows that He created
> himself, which seems to be a logical impossibility. What do you think?
>
> Richard
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
I believe Deism teaches that the Creator and the creation are 2
different things. It's hard to see God in inanimate objects.
To try to answer your excellent question, "How does the overwhelming
evidence of intelligent design necessarily imply a single or individual
entity rather than an equally intelligent creative force that permeates
nature and all of the universe." It doesn't appear that an intelligent
creative force equally permeates the universe. People's intelligence
differ from person to person, and certainly rocks and sand have no
intelligence at all.
Pantheism sounds a lot like Hinduism in this regard, that is God is
found in everything.
Deism looks at God as an eternal entity whose power is equal to his/her
will. Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts spaces in the
universe that have no time, or are eternal. We need to learn more about
this in order to understand the Creator better.
Albert Einstein's following quote goes a long way in explaining the way
a Deist looks at God: "My religion consists of a humble admiration of
the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight
details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That
deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning
power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea
of God."
Bob
Koan
God energy in my daily life for creation. I think this is the basic
difference between Pantheism and Deism. That miracles still occur if you
miracles is not true from my perspective. I have learned how to use the God
energy through certain etheric techniques. There are also certain
manifestation laws of the universe which I consider a part of God, such as
gratitude, detachment, and love. It is when we fully realize that WE ARE
GOD that we can harness this energy and use it to create miracles in our
lives. It is how God created the universe and it is how we can create our
own reality. We really are created in the likeness and image of God.
As for the time space factor I have learned that when we raise our
vibrational level physically, emotionally and spiritually, manifestations
happen at a faster rate. It is a way to see how far you have come. When we
keep our metaphysical energy at a higher rate there is also less chance for
misfortune and accidents to arise. So there really is no such thing as sin,
karma, or bad luck, it is only high and low energy at work.
I don't know much about physics, but I have a belief that there is no such
thing as "time" except we have created it as our reality. Everything that
is happening and is going to happen has already happened, our ability to
observe it depends upon our point of view. You might want to look at Rupert
Sheldrakes site and his 7 experiments that could change the world. He is a
cell biologist experimenting with etheric energy. His site is at
http://www.transaction.net/science/seven/
Koan
>> >Richard
>> >
>
>Hi Koan,
>
>Your message posted just fine, but I still do not get this newsgroup
>yet on my ISP, Flash Net. I think we'll get more discussion when
>other ISP's offer alt.religion.deism with their newsreader services.
>
>I like your summary of the various forms of God-ism. I personally
>tend to lean toward Deism rather than Pantheism because I think that
>the Creator of the universe needs to "transcend" that universe rather
>than being "in" or a part of that universe. If God is all, or everything
>there is, then it seems to me that He, or It, would be limited by the
>constraints of time and space that make up this universe. It would take
>a Deistic God, IMHO, who is "outside" this universe to be sufficiently
>powerful to create this universe, which includes the laws of physics that
>control how this universe operates. I'd be interested, Koan, in learning
>why you are leaning toward "Pantheism".
>
>Richard
>-------
>
Thomas Thierry
: Definitions:
Good point starting with these...
But your definitions look to me a bit frustrating...
: atheism (no god)
I guess I would define atheism as an absence of God-answer to the
"eternal questions". An atheist should be someone who don't believe answers
reside in divinities, which means in things that get over physical laws.
This could look a bit unnecessary regarding your "no god" definition,
but this is waiting for you to read the following definitions...
: polytheism (many gods)
Greek or roman, as well as hindouist polytheisms are not "real" polytheisms,
which could mean that many "God-like" supreme being would be at the origin
of the universe, man and so on.
These "polytheisms" are based on a "One first cause" solution, developed
in pluri-facial myths and mythologies. Divinities are not considered dif-
ferently by Greeks and Romans than angels of nations and demons by Christians
who are considered to be monotheists. Actually, Greeks and Romans (which
I know better than Hindouists) are factual "monotheist" if we consider that
monotheism is based on a "One first cause" system. Development if wished.
: pantheism (God is all)
I would prefer Every-thing is God, cause that would let a door opened
to the unknown possibility that God is "more than every-thing", if you
consider that the things are all what is in humanly perceptible world,
including everything which is described by non-physical books and
relations, not accepted by science, but by a part of humanity.
But, maybe you (Koan) prefer to consider simply that God is all, and
nothing more? Am I clear?
: panentheism (God is in all)
This is new for me. Would this mean really "God is in all", more than
"Every-thing (all) is in God, which is nearer to the translation of the
word?
: finite godism (a finite god made the world)
This would let the door open to an unfinished question: what is outside
God?
: deism (a God who does not do miracles made the world)
: theism, or monotheism (a God who does miracles created the world) which is
: the biblical view (and is held by orthodox Jews and Muslims, as well as
: Christians).
This would make the gap between a non-particpating God and a participating
God, wouldn't it?
By being non-participating (deism, here), this would create an aporia:
did God create the world, then decided not to participate in it anymore or
did he not create the world, this leading to another creator?
By being participating, this would lead to another aporia, well-known:
is God allmighty or is he allgoodness? (leading to the christian solution
which is, to my opinion, the more simple, but also unconvenient to me...)
: I lean toward pantheism myself, but I'm wondering if the deists agree with
: these interpretations. I'm also wondering if this post will actually make
: it to the NG cause I'm not sure if the Deism NG is still working.
As an agnostic attracted by platonician views, I admit I don't agree
with your definitions, but, though my english may be not rich enough
to answer to every of your (hoped) answers, I'll do my best.
BTW, what does NG mean?
Viva la revolucion
titov
rwa...@flash.net
I have been reading your posts about "Pantheism" and have a few questions
which I hope will help me understand your position better ...
In article <35e1e...@news.westel.com>,
"Koan" <d...@insidenet.com> wrote:
> I lean towards the Pantheist view as I use this
> God energy in my daily life for creation.
Could you elaborate a little on what you mean by "God energy" please?
I have read most of the material at the web site you suggested:
http://www.transaction.net/science/seven/, and the main focus seems
to be on the author's theory regarding "morphic fields", which he
indicates might explain such phenomena as "pets who sense their
caretakers are returning", "how do pigeons home", "the organization
of termites", "the sense of being stared at", "phantom touch",
"the variability of the fundamental constants", and "the effects
of researcher's expectations". Koan, do you equate this "God energy"
you refer to with "morphic fields"?
I think this is the basic
> difference between Pantheism and Deism. That miracles still occur if you
> know how to use the God Energy.
I assume you mean by "miracles" any acts or activities that appear to
be "supernatural" in their cause -- that is, not explained by the
known laws of physics. Is that correct?
The deist view of a God who does not do
> miracles is not true from my perspective.
I assume that your view of Deism is belief that a creative force or
God brought the known universe into existence, including time, space,
and all the laws that control this universe, but remains "outside"
this universe allowing this universe to operate and evolve without
His supernatural intervention in any way"? And you further state
that you don't believe this to be true.
I have learned how to use the God
> energy through certain etheric techniques.
As a further point of clarification, could you also explain what you
mean by "etheric techniques" please?
There are also certain
> manifestation laws of the universe which I consider a part of God, such as
> gratitude, detachment, and love. It is when we fully realize that WE ARE
> GOD that we can harness this energy and use it to create miracles in our
> lives. It is how God created the universe and it is how we can create our
> own reality. We really are created in the likeness and image of God.
I assume by "manifestation laws" you mean metaphysical laws which influence
and control spiritual matters as opposed to the laws of physics which
influence and control physical matter and energy.
>
> As for the time space factor I have learned that when we raise our
> vibrational level physically, emotionally and spiritually, manifestations
> happen at a faster rate.
Koan, can you further elaborate on what you mean by "physical vibration
level"? And what is the link between "vibration levels" and "manifestation
laws"?
It is a way to see how far you have come. When we
> keep our metaphysical energy at a higher rate there is also less chance for
> misfortune and accidents to arise. So there really is no such thing as sin,
> karma, or bad luck, it is only high and low energy at work.
How does one control the rate of "vibration" or increase one's
"vibration levels"?
>
> I don't know much about physics, but I have a belief that there is no such
> thing as "time" except we have created it as our reality. Everything that
> is happening and is going to happen has already happened, our ability to
> observe it depends upon our point of view.
This view seems a little like "predestination" to me -- is that correct?
If not, how is your view different from the doctrine of predestination?
You might want to look at Rupert
> Sheldrakes site and his 7 experiments that could change the world. He is a
> cell biologist experimenting with etheric energy. His site is at
>
> http://www.transaction.net/science/seven/
>
> Koan
Koan, as I mentioned above, I have been reading Sheldrake's site, and am
interested in his theories. I assume you are equating "etheric energy"
with "morphic fields" and "God energy", is this correct?
>
> >> >Richard
> >> >
> >
> >Hi Koan,
(snip)
Koan
>you refer to with "morphic fields"?
You're right Richard about this being confusing. My belief is it is all one
and the same energy. I think that the God Energy is the God Force is the
Life Energy or Life Force is the etheric energy and the one and only energy
there is. It is who we are permeating all things.
Sheldrakes experiments are one example of how the energy can show itself.
He is using these experiments to show the morphic or etheric fields exist.
>I assume you mean by "miracles" any acts or activities that appear to
>be "supernatural" in their cause -- that is, not explained by the
>known laws of physics. Is that correct?
It could be called miracles or every day occurances since we create it all
through our thoughts and beliefs.
>I assume that your view of Deism is belief that a creative force or
>God brought the known universe into existence, including time, space,
>and all the laws that control this universe, but remains "outside"
>this universe allowing this universe to operate and evolve without
>His supernatural intervention in any way"? And you further state
>that you don't believe this to be true.
My belief is that the individual as well as the mass group conciousness
controls the universe. It isn't seperate. We are all responsible for the
world situation. It is merely thoughts and beliefs put into action.
>As a further point of clarification, could you also explain what you
>mean by "etheric techniques" please?
Etheric techniques are the ability to utilize the etheric energy in
whatever way you choose, through manifesting, out of body travel, meditation
techniques involving trance states and moving energy through the chakras.
Techniques taught by Stuart Wilde, Castenedas books, American and East
Indian mystics, and warriors sages and dozens of others. Stuart Wildes
"The Quickening" is the best beginners source I've seen for learning some
of these techniques.
>I assume by "manifestation laws" you mean metaphysical laws which influence
>and control spiritual matters as opposed to the laws of physics which
>influence and control physical matter and energy.
I believe its the same energy, the same universal law.
>Koan, can you further elaborate on what you mean by "physical vibration
>level"? And what is the link between "vibration levels" and "manifestation
>laws"?
The life force permeates everything, but not equally in all forms. We can
raise the vibrational level of the energy we work with through physical,
nutritional, emotional and spiritual disciplines. It's much to technical to
describe each discipline here, but one way to feel it is to go on a juice
fast for a few days and notice the results and the extra energy you
accumulate.
Your thoughts will become more positive and this will in turn create a more
positive reality for you.
>This view seems a little like "predestination" to me -- is that correct?
>If not, how is your view different from the doctrine of predestination?
See post Deism, Pantheism, and Time post in response to Space Cabbage for my
views. I don't know whether its predestination or not? I've never heard
the term.
It's hard to write about my beliefs as they seem rather airy fairy when
written rather than experienced. It's not something that you can understand
logically or should even explain. It's the silent power that is not spoken
of and should not be defended.
Koan
Koan
Thomas Thierry wrote in message <6s1chg$g2e$1...@mach.vub.ac.be>...
>: Definitions:
>
>Good point starting with these...
>But your definitions look to me a bit frustrating...
>
simplifying things too much.
As for panentheism I was hoping you could explain it to me. I've seen it in
the dictionary of religions lumped together with pantheism. The distinction
between them was that In pantheistic views, God and the world are
essentially identical; the divine is totally immanent. In panentheistic
views, the world exists in God (all reality is a part of the being of God,
but God is not exhausted by the world; the divine is both transcendent and
immanent.
They sound a bit alike to me. They are both closely related to mysticism.
>BTW, what does NG mean?
NG = newsgroup
Koan
Thomas Thierry
: As for panentheism I was hoping you could explain it to me.
I guess you include everyone of us-all in "you".
I've seen it in
: the dictionary of religions lumped together with pantheism. The distinction
: between them was that In pantheistic views, God and the world are
: essentially identical; the divine is totally immanent. In panentheistic
: views, the world exists in God (all reality is a part of the being of God,
: but God is not exhausted by the world; the divine is both transcendent and
: immanent.
I agree with this possible point of view, "a priori"; etymologically,
this sounds correct.
: They sound a bit alike to me. They are both closely related to mysticism.
Yep, you're right. Based on them, i guess I feel nearer to panentheism
than to pantheism...
:>BTW, what does NG mean?
: NG = newsgroup
Thanks (and sounds so logical that I feel a bit, hm, upset against myself).
viva la revolucion
thierry 'titov' thomas
Thomas Thierry
: My understanding of Pantheism is that the God energy is a part of each and
: everything in the physical plane. This includes the planet, the stars, and
: physical universe as it stretches out in space, beyond our perceptions. By
: its nature the God energy is immortal and neverending and because it is the
: inner light within all things, it is universal. The God energy is all
: knowing because, being in all things, it knows from its own experience.
: Just as this God energy within each of us allows us to create our reality,
: the God energy created nature and all things. And all things being a part of
: God are universal and infinite. Just my opinion.
As far as I would agree with you (precautions meaning that I'm still
confused by my agnostic-side), what would you consider to be God's motivation
for creation? What would be His purpose, actually? What is "just your opinion"
in this :)?
: As I said in another post I lean towards the Pantheist view as I use this
: God energy in my daily life for creation. I think this is the basic
: difference between Pantheism and Deism. That miracles still occur if you
: know how to use the God Energy. I think this is where Jesus failed in his
: teachings. He was trying to explain how to use the God Force and it is
: unteachable. Just by the fact that you try to explain it means its not it.
: They in turn made him into a God rather than part of the God energy which we
: all have within us.
As far as we are a part of this world, created by God, is God really
so far from our understanding possibilities? Why would it be so?
Because of matter? But isn't matter created by God too?
These are innocent questions...
: Koan
[clip]
:>think one answer might be that the Creator must be separate and apart from
:>nature since nature is His creation. For God to be part of nature, it would
:>imply, I think, that if He created nature, then it follows that He created
:>himself, which seems to be a logical impossibility. What do you think?
God could not be a part of nature... More logical would be the contrary.
Though, I prefer we consider that nature emanetes from God, so is
"coming" from God, though still with Him...
What do you think about this, Richard?
(notice I still let a capital letter to every word in relation
with God because of understanding facilities, not of absolute necessity)
viva, etc.
titov
Koan
Thomas Thierry wrote in message <6s44iu$5r$6...@mach.vub.ac.be>...
>As far as I would agree with you (precautions meaning that I'm still
>confused by my agnostic-side), what would you consider to be God's
motivation
>for creation? What would be His purpose, actually? What is "just your
opinion"
>in this :)?
In the beginning, that which IS is all there was, and there was nothing
else. Yet aAll That Is could not know itself- because All That Is is all
there was, and there was nothing else. And so, All That Is ...was not. So
it could, and would, never know Itself from a reference point outside of
itself. This energy- this pure, unseen, unheard,unobserved, and therefore
unknown-by-anyone else energy- chose to experience itself as the utter
magnificence It was. In order to do this, It realized It would have to use
a reference point within. So It divided itself - becoming, in one glorious
moment, that which is this, and that which is that. For the first time,
this and that existed, quite apart from each other. Thus God made it
possible for God to know Itself. In the moment of this great explosion from
within, God created relativity- the greatest gift God ever gave
tself. ----From Conversations with God Book 1 by Neale Walsh
Sounds like a pretty good motivation to me.
>As far as we are a part of this world, created by God, is God really
>so far from our understanding possibilities? Why would it be so?
>Because of matter? But isn't matter created by God too?
>These are innocent questions...
As the Tao Te Ching says:
The tao that can be told
Is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
Is not the eternal Name
The Tao (God)is immortal and has no definition, You cannot put a name to it.
you can't understand it intellectually because it's beyond the mind. The
only way to comprehend it is through heightened awareness or feeling and by
explaining the power we belittle it, because it then becomes part of the ego
and not the inner journey.
I like reading the Tao Te Ching cause there are no rules. In fact it's
emphasis is on freedom.
"Ask of those who have attained God; all speak the same word,...All the
enlightened have left one message; ...it is only those i the midst of their
journey who hold diverse opinions."
--Dadu (16th Century)
Have a good day
Koan
rwa...@flash.net
Thomas Thierry <tth...@vub.ac.be> wrote:
> Koan <d...@insidenet.com> wrote:
> : My understanding of Pantheism is that the God energy is a part of each and
>
> As far as I would agree with you (precautions meaning that I'm still
> confused by my agnostic-side), what would you consider to be God's motivation
> for creation? What would be His purpose, actually? What is "just your opinion"
> in this :)?
Those of us who lean towards Deism all have our own personal beliefs
regarding the "motivation" or "purposes" behind God's creation, but I
prefer to examine the "evidence" or clues God gives us to help figure
out what His motives might have been. For example, if you observe nature
and the apparent expansion of the universe, growth of new stars, and the
changes and evolution of life on earth, you might be led to the conclusion
that God is performing an experiment to see what interesting new systems
and life forms emerge as a result of the laws of physics He created.
His motives might not be any more complex or mysterious that this.
>
> : As I said in another post I lean towards the Pantheist view as I use this
> : God energy in my daily life for creation...(snip further discussion of
> : the importance of experiencing God energy in order to better understand it)
>
> As far as we are a part of this world, created by God, is God really
> so far from our understanding possibilities? Why would it be so?
> Because of matter? But isn't matter created by God too?
> These are innocent questions...
"Innocent questions", yes, but quite difficult to answer. As a Deist, I
believe that if it is the Deity's purpose to reveal Himself to us, then
I believe that He has provided the evidence and the clues to aid us in
understanding His purposes and what our relationship with Him should be.
If He does not want us to know these things, or does not care if we know,
then I believe that such physically discernable evidence will forever
remain beyond our grasp.
>
> : Koan
>
> [clip]
> :>think one answer might be that the Creator must be separate and apart from
> :>nature since nature is His creation. For God to be part of nature, it would
> :>imply, I think, that if He created nature, then it follows that He created
> :>himself, which seems to be a logical impossibility. What do you think?
>
> God could not be a part of nature... More logical would be the contrary.
> Though, I prefer we consider that nature emanetes from God, so is
> "coming" from God, though still with Him...
> What do you think about this, Richard?
I don't want to create the impression that I am dismissing out-of-hand
all forms of metaphysical or spiritual evidence as God's chosen mechanism of
revealing Himself to us. Deists generally believe that God is "outside" this
universe and does not actively intervene in its operations, its evolution, or
has any Personal contact with individuals. Instead, we believe that He
created the "watch", wound it up, and is now observing it "unwind", from
a point-of-view or perspective "outside" the universe. His reasons, purposes,
and motivations continue to remain obscure, but it does not stop us from
speculating about God's nature and His relationsip with man.
>
> (notice I still let a capital letter to every word in relation
> with God because of understanding facilities, not of absolute necessity)
>
> viva, etc.
>
> titov
I have great awe and respect for the God of Deism, the Creator of the
universe, so I always try to Capitalize all references to Him every
chance I get.
Jay Boswell
I'm open to your belief in human mortality because I come to Deism from a traditional
religion, but my own reasoning tells me to doubt this principle. I also respect and
capitalize my Deistic Creator God, but I choose not to put a gender on it.
Both Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein rejected the idea of an infinite universe. Newton
thought that the sum of all the infinite number of stars' lights would produce a solid
glow, and Einstein thought that an infinite, expanding, eternal universe would have
drifted apart to the point that each body thought it was in a sea of infinity.
While I believe in a God-created beginning, I'm not sure about a measureable winding
down ending. Like Newton and Einstein, I believe God could have designed a
gravitational force field mechanism to power a finite, eternally lasting system.
Jay Boswell
Richard W. Albin
Jay Boswell wrote:
>
> Richard,
>
> I'm open to your belief in human mortality because I come to Deism from a traditional
> religion, but my own reasoning tells me to doubt this principle. I also respect and
> capitalize my Deistic Creator God, but I choose not to put a gender on it.
I grew up an a fundamentalist Christian church and I was very active in
that church for about 35 years. I am not very active in it now, even
though my wife still teaches Sunday School there. She considers me
somewhat of a reprobate because I no longer regularly attend the church,
even though I still believe very deeply in the existence of a Creator
God -- I just have a lot of doubts about many of the teachings
associated with Christianity, (a topic for another thread, perhaps).
Having been indoctrinated from an early age with the Christian teachings
of immortality, it's very difficult for me to imagine life on earth
without the promise of an afterlife.
>
> Both Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein rejected the idea of an infinite universe. Newton
> thought that the sum of all the infinite number of stars' lights would produce a solid
> glow, and Einstein thought that an infinite, expanding, eternal universe would have
> drifted apart to the point that each body thought it was in a sea of infinity.
As an engineer, I have had a lot of formal science training, and I also
study cosmology theory as a hobby. You may be right about your
statements concerning Newton and Einstein, but we must be careful not to
draw too many generalized conclusions about these two great men from
just a few quotations, especially when taken somewhat out of context.
For example, many Christians and Deists alike have quoted Einstein's
famous remark "God does not play dice with the universe" as an
indication that Einstein believed in God. This quote really said more
about Einstein's disbelief in quantum mechanics theory than it did about
his belief in God. Einstein loved the Newtonian beauty and order of the
universe -- he could not accept the idea of randomness and chaos in our
universe. Furthermore, Einstein was certainly no atheist, as we can
infer from this quote: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself
in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself
with fates and actions of human beings." This sounds to me like
Einstein might have considered himself somewhat of a Deist. Einstein's
views about infinity and immortality still remain a little obscure,
however.
>
> While I believe in a God-created beginning, I'm not sure about a measureable winding
> down ending. Like Newton and Einstein, I believe God could have designed a
> gravitational force field mechanism to power a finite, eternally lasting system.
>
> Jay Boswell
As believers in the basic principles of Deism, many of us feel that God
and his purposes are revealed in nature and there is where we should
look to find answers to these kinds of questions. The observable
evidence of an expanding universe indicates that there could have been a
finite time in the past when the universe came into existence (Big
Bang). Some have attempted to calculate if there is sufficient matter
in the universe to cause a gravitational reversal of the expansion
followed by a future collapse of the universe back into a singularity
(Big Crunch). If this happens then the cycle could begin over again,
and may repeat itself throughout eternity. (Again, another topic for
further discussion, perhaps).
Richard
-------
Peter Kirby
>
> Hi Jay,
>
> Jay Boswell wrote:
> >
> >
> > Both Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein rejected the idea of an infinite universe. Newton
> > thought that the sum of all the infinite number of stars' lights would produce a solid
> > glow, and Einstein thought that an infinite, expanding, eternal universe would have
> > drifted apart to the point that each body thought it was in a sea of infinity.
>
> As an engineer, I have had a lot of formal science training, and I also
> study cosmology theory as a hobby. You may be right about your
> statements concerning Newton and Einstein, but we must be careful not to
> draw too many generalized conclusions about these two great men from
> just a few quotations, especially when taken somewhat out of context.
> For example, many Christians and Deists alike have quoted Einstein's
> famous remark "God does not play dice with the universe" as an
> indication that Einstein believed in God. This quote really said more
> about Einstein's disbelief in quantum mechanics theory than it did about
> his belief in God. Einstein loved the Newtonian beauty and order of the
> universe -- he could not accept the idea of randomness and chaos in our
> universe. Furthermore, Einstein was certainly no atheist, as we can
> infer from this quote: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself
> in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself
> with fates and actions of human beings." This sounds to me like
> Einstein might have considered himself somewhat of a Deist. Einstein's
> views about infinity and immortality still remain a little obscure,
> however.
Here's another quote:
"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been
an atheist. [...] We have to admire in humility the beautiful harmony of the
structure of this world - as far as we can grasp it. And that is all."
When Einstein was asked, "Some people might interpret [your letter] to mean
that to a Jesuit priest, anyone not a Roman Catholic is an atheist, and that
you are in fact an Orthodox Jew, or a Deist, or something else. Did you mean
to leave room for such an interpretation, or are you from the viewpoint of
the dictionary an atheist; i.e. 'one who disbelieves in the existence of a
God, or a Supreme Being?', Einstein replied:
"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a
childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the spirit of
the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of
liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth.
I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of
our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."
(Skeptic magazine (Vol 5, No 2). Quotes taken from some of Einstein's
correspondences with a Guy H Raner, Jr. There are also quotes from Einstein
in which he denies immortality.[1])
Spinoza's God is virtually synonymous with Nature. Knowledge of Nature
should be the ultimate goal, according to Spinoza. That seemed to be
Einstein's quest as well. The best title for Spinoza's beliefs (and
Einstein's) would probably be "Materialistic Pantheism," which does not posit
the existence of an intelligent Creator.
Is Materialistic Pantheism compatible with 'atheism'? I don't see why not.
I know at least two people - Victor Danilchenko and Natalie Ramsey - who
would both say that they don't believe in any god and that they have
pantheistic tendencies.
Let's back up a little here.
There is something of a concensus on talk.atheism and related groups that,
while atheism per se is not a religion, a particular atheist may have a
religion. Commonly advanced examples are Eastern religions such as Jainism,
Buddhism, Confucianism, Zen, and Taoism - some traditional forms of which say
next to nothing about deities.
Natalie Ramsey is famed for being a religious non-theist. Natalie says that
she lapses into Spinozan pantheism. She comments in a discussion with Andrew
Lias (6/4/98):
"Perhaps that's really the fundamental split here; despite the fact that I'm
not sure what a deity is, I consider deity to be a useful metaphor for many
purposes. I understand that this is confusing, which is why I don't go around
proclaiming 'the universe is Deity.' You guys broke me of that habit almost
four years ago now. :-) But that statement still has meaning to me
personally; it means that the universe is fantastically amazing, worthy of
reverence, the fundamental source of my existence, yadda yadda yadda."
Natalie in the same exchange: "I daresay that calling the universe 'deity' is
quite different from calling the universe 'nature,' in the same way that
calling a given flower 'lily of the valley' is different from calling
it 'Maianthemum canadense.'"
In other words, Natalie's religious beliefs don't add anything to the
ontological order of things above and beyond a materialist model, and they
don't make any claim to objective or universal validity. Deity-talk
expresses, in some metaphorical way, Natalie's personal experience of and
response to the universe as being "fantastically amazing, worthy of
reverence, the fundamental source of my existence, yadda yadda yadda."
So, it seems to me, a Materialistic Pantheist is an atheist who (1)
personally believes that the universe is "fantastically amazing, worthy of
reverence, the fundamental source of my existence, yadda yadda yadda" and
that (2) this sentiment is well-expressed using the language of deity. Both
of these are fairly subjective judgments, so I do not argue much with
Materialistic Pantheists, whose worldview is pretty similar to my own.
Myself, I can understand (1) but consider the use of religious language to
express this sentiment to be too confusing to be worth it.
--
Peter Kirby <ki...@earthlink.net>
XTIANITY list owner, alt.atheism atheist #16
Home page: http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/ (updated 8/27/98)
[1] Here they are:
"I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider
ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind
it."
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation,
whose purposes are modeled after our own a God, in short, who is but a
reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual
survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts
through fear or ridiculous egotism."
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education,
and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed
be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of
reward after death."
"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a
personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both natural and
spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the
experience of all things, natural and spiritual and a meaningful unity.
Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that would cope
with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism."
Koan
Peter Kirby wrote in message <35EB7B...@earthlink.net>...
>Is Materialistic Pantheism compatible with 'atheism'? I don't see why not.
>I know at least two people - Victor Danilchenko and Natalie Ramsey - who
>would both say that they don't believe in any god and that they have
>pantheistic tendencies.
Peter:
Could you explain the difference between Materialistic Pantheism and
Scientific Pantheism? It sounds like they might be the same or similar. I
haven't heard the term materialistic pantheism before. The Scientific
Pantheists seem to agree that they are atheists with a religion according
to.
http://members.aol.com/pantheism0/atheists.htm.
Their is a large website for Scientific Pantheism at
http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/index.htm.
and also a site on Einstein and Pantheism at:
http://members.aol.com/heraklit1/einstein.htm.
Peter Kirby
> >I know at least two people - Victor Danilchenko and Natalie Ramsey - who
> >would both say that they don't believe in any god and that they have
> >pantheistic tendencies.
>
> Could you explain the difference between Materialistic Pantheism and
> Scientific Pantheism? It sounds like they might be the same or similar. I
> haven't heard the term materialistic pantheism before. The Scientific
> Pantheists seem to agree that they are atheists with a religion according
> to.
>
> http://members.aol.com/pantheism0/atheists.htm
>
> http://members.aol.com/heraklit1/einstein.htm
Yes, I've seen those sites, and the terms are probably interchangeable.
Although its adherents undoubtedly integrate science in their worldview, I
don't see what's 'Scientific' about pantheistic deity-talk (that's not
necessarily a Bad Thing, for poetry need not be amenable to experiement).
The term "Materialistic Pantheism" seems more apt, expressing that the person
does not signify any transcendent, supernatural, spiritual superman when
describing the universe as divine.