Jump to content
Talbot Michaels

Welcome Guest!

Welcome to UK Pagan; The Valley

Like most online communities we require you to register for an account before we give you access to read and post.

Only a small number of our forum areas can be read without registering for an account.

The Magick Shop
Please consider visiting our kind sponsor: The Magick Shop
Help to keep UK Pagan online...
Become a Patron!
Sign in to follow this  
Earthdragon

A Question For Pantheists

Recommended Posts

Earthdragon
On 1/23/2016 at 6:51 PM, Moonsmith said:

Once you start talking about the universe there ISN'T anything else. There isn't a "part" and nothing is either divine or not divine. The universe is just what is. I am the universe observing itself and as such, because I am equipped with an intellect want to explain those observations. A logical tool called "Science" and "The scientific method" are thus far achieving this. The descriptive term "God" is highly appropriate given the way that term is used generally. See my first response.

 

Just resurrecting this thread on Pantheism, Moonsmith. I realise you might need to re-visit the thread more fully than the segment that I have quoted above to answer this but in the paragraph above you  state that you see the Universe as apt to be given the title "God" and at the same time you are saying that nothing is either divine or not divine. This is confusing to me.

As divine means "god-like" or "connected with a god" then you seem to be using the concept for God/god at the same time as dispensing with it.

All of that occurred to me at the time but I think I was occupied by other replies to my OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ad from Google

Earthdragon
On 1/21/2016 at 7:55 PM, Moonsmith said:

My take on Pantheism is very simple. I do not think of the Universe in numinous terms.

 

In what way are you using the term "numinous"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moonsmith
42 minutes ago, Earthdragon said:

As divine means "god-like" or "connected with a god" then you seem to be using the concept for God/god at the same time as dispensing with it

Oh no!  Not again!

I seem to remember an interminable exchange with Moonhinter over this!

Check back at the bit where I listed my etimology with references.

Then check out my reasoning for applying the term "God" to an entity with which nothing else exists.  

The universe demonstrates all the attributes normally associated with Deity.

If I didn't believe in the deity of the universe I would call myself a "Panist!"  Indeed I do not understand why the Naturalistic Pantheists, who say they are atheists, do not use this term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earthdragon

Ok so can I partly retell what you've said in those posts as "I see the Universe as God but don't use the term 'divine' when describing it". That's accurate, according to what you're saying, yes?

Edited by Earthdragon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moonsmith

No point in describing the universe as divine (Godlike) or God when there isn't anything else to compare it to.  "God" and "Existence " are the same thing to a Pantheist.

but

No less powerful, creative or nurturing for that.  

                .........................

Just a sidetrack but whenever I hear an archaeologist referring  to a find as "having ritual or religious significance" I tend to roll my eyes and think:

1. You have no idea what it's for.

or

2. I don't think that it's creator segregated the mundane from the divine as you are doing.  I think that the local God of fertility for instance was very real and immediately present.

 

Edited by Moonsmith
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earthdragon
3 hours ago, Moonsmith said:

If I didn't believe in the deity of the universe I would call myself a "Panist!"  Indeed I do not understand why the Naturalistic Pantheists, who say they are atheists, do not use this term.

Maybe it would sound too much like they are followers of Pan 😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earthdragon
1 hour ago, Moonsmith said:

No point in describing the universe as divine (Godlike) or God when there isn't anything else to compare it to.  "God" and "Existence " are the same thing to a Pantheist.

So is that a "no" to my question? 

According to what you have said then you don't see yourself as a pantheist according to the standard dictionary definition, correct? And the statement that the universe is not numinous is a linguistic necessity in your eyes and is in keeping with your divergence from the dictionary definition...

Sorry to labour the point but just getting my thinking straight about where you're at.

The realisation that what you call massive intellectual process was at work when you contemplated the size and nature of the universe and the excitement that your belief that your and other's intellect represents the universe making an effort to understand itself - has this been a constant presence for you and does it relate to the love thread at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moonsmith
3 hours ago, Earthdragon said:

Maybe it would sound too much like they are followers of Pan 😄

And what would be wrong with that?  Pan has always referred to everything, the whole of nature and the terrifying impression of nature.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moonsmith
2 hours ago, Earthdragon said:

According to what you have said then you don't see yourself as a pantheist according to the standard dictionary definition, correct?

Are you enjoying this perversity ED?

Check outthe post where I explain my terminology.  I am precisely a Pantheist.

Most people who call themselves Pantheists are by their own statements dualist in some form or other.  I place you in that category.

Somewhere waaaaay above in this thread I postulated a belief system called Gaiism.  I made it up and once again apologise if Gaiism actually exists.

My construct was carefully put together from a host of statements made by people who called themselves Pantheists.  Every item in my Gaiist construct is in fact duallist - it implies the universe AND SOMETHING ELSE.

You may call my belief system anything you wish, I shall confidently refer to it as Pantheism.

You may paraphrase my posts how you will if you really want the last word!

Edited by Moonsmith
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earthdragon
43 minutes ago, Moonsmith said:

And what would be wrong with that?  Pan has always referred to everything, the whole of nature and the terrifying impression of nature.  

Atheists wouldn't believe in Pan because they are atheists!😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earthdragon
36 minutes ago, Moonsmith said:

Are you enjoying this perversity ED?

Check outthe post where I explain my terminology.  I am precisely a Pantheist.

Most people who call themselves Pantheists are by their own statements dualist in some form or other.  I place you in that category.

Somewhere waaaaay above in this thread I postulated a belief system called Gaiism.  I made it up and once again apologise if Gaiism actually exists.

My construct was carefully put together from a host of statements made by people who called themselves Pantheists.  Every item in my Gaiist construct is in fact duallist - it implies the universe AND SOMETHING ELSE.

You may call my belief system anything you wish, I shall confidently refer to it as Pantheism.

You may paraphrase my posts how you will if you really want the last word!

Perversity? I don't know what you mean. I am trying understand what you're saying that's all. Anyhow you are sounding a bit pee'd off so I'll leave it there. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earthdragon

Can I ask what it is in my post that you find funny, Maeve?

Nice to see you back by the way 🙂

Edited by Earthdragon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stonehugger
On 4/19/2020 at 4:49 PM, Moonsmith said:

I don't think that it's creator segregated the mundane from the divine

I said something like that to a Christian once, who promptly accused me of being a pantheist, using it almost as a term of abuse. I wonder if there is such a thing as a pan-athesit - we (everything made of atoms) - are all in this together. To me, things that have been here a very long time (stones, ancient trees, (very strangely I know...) rivers etc) are as they are because of all that they have experienced themselves individually and collectively, not (for me) because they're an aspect of divinity. Having said that, I do make presents for standing stones, but I don't claim to be consistent about anything really.

Edited by Stonehugger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moonsmith
5 hours ago, Stonehugger said:

I wonder if there is such a thing as a pan-athesit - 

Naturalistic Pantheists are a Pantheistic group who are atheist. They have a very good website. Take a look.  Not my bag but very well argued.

I'm not atheist but I do inderstand where they are coming from.  It's hard to accept a deity that is of the mundane atoms, energies and consciousness of the potentially observable universe.  So many people associate deity with anthropomorphic imagery or some sort of invisible guardian/parental being.  As a pantheist I am (to use Brain Cox's words) the cosmos made conscious.  I inevitably believe that I am part of deity, part of those atoms that you refer to SH.  My own belief is that DNA is the sense organ of the universe.  There may be others.  Perhaps you are right, perhaps the rocks are aware.

Yes m, I've heard the word "Pantheist" used as a derogatory term by those of establishment religions.  I've heard "animist" used the same way indicating primitive or superstitious thinking. Never, I may say to me!

There is a narrow gap between animism and pantheism and it looks as if you are in it Stonehugger😀

 

Edited by Moonsmith
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ellinas

It's possible to multiply categories of belief to the point we end up playing with definitions to the point we risk disappearing up our own fundements.

If I understand him correctly, Moonsmith is a pantheist because the universe is everything, everything is god and god is everything.  From the stone to the star, everything has its part in the universal identity.  He is as much the universe as the bricks in the wall of his house or the Pegasus galaxy.  It's about as inclusive as you can get, and requires no belief in anything supernatural (assuming that is a concept that makes sense anyway)

There's an element of the idea within my post of 31/01/2016 ante, though my version of it is rather different to MS's.

Quite agree about archaeologists.  There seems a fashion for assuming everything was "ritual", as if that is somehow a special category in the benighted minds of our primitive ancestors.  Nonsense.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moonsmith

Looks like our posts crossed Ellinnas.  I think you've got me!

Doing without the supernatural does not limit the natural in any way whatsoever.  The universe has all the characteristics of the deities that I read of here and elsewhere plus many more.

If it creates like a deity, nurtures like a deity and smites like a deity then it's probably a deity.

Edited by Moonsmith
To add smartarse conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earthdragon
19 hours ago, Ellinas said:

If I understand him correctly, Moonsmith is a pantheist because the universe is everything, everything is god and god is everything.

Which he approves of but then if I quote him as saying

On 4/19/2020 at 4:49 PM, Moonsmith said:

No point in describing the universe as divine (Godlike) or God when there isn't anything else to compare it to

and try to probe him in order to understand his position a bit more and he thinks it is a perversity and that I am possibly enjoying that. Hmm I've taken a deep breath and now I'll move on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maeve
On 4/20/2020 at 4:50 PM, Earthdragon said:

Can I ask what it is in my post that you find funny, Maeve?

Nice to see you back by the way 🙂

The challenge to Moonsmith who is, indeed, an old friend of mine (I hope he still is 😄 )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moonsmith

For reference only.

IMG_5904.JPG

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maeve
5 hours ago, Moonsmith said:

For reference only.

IMG_5904.JPG

Can't get more than the avoce - can ou precis the contents and the pointy of discussion?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moonsmith

Warning.  Boring old fart taking centre stage.  No fun involved. Feel free to ignore.

It's just that somewhere above in this interminable thread, I quoted Tegmark (2018) on mattter and consciousness and suggested that a conscious universe was a logical extension of his conjecture.

The cover article above moves forward with some mathematical conjectures and conjectural models for consciousness from several mathematicians.

It might back my view of Pantheism - it could explain a thought that I had about 30 years ago that human/DNA consciousness might eclipse the universal consciousness.  However,  I have always said that ideas are ten a penny.  It's only when either the maths backs them up or they become predictive that they are of any use.  

This article might demonstrate Pantheism but at least one of the models might more usefully demonstrate animism.  Throughout the article work which contradicts or rejects the above is quoted, referenced and included.

Its just conjecture but a step that helps my ever changing thinking regarding my belief set.

please someone - say something funny!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earthdragon

Surrly all this has something to do with quantum?

(My idea of doing your funny but am actually being serious too 🤔🤓)

Edited by Earthdragon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...