God is not intelligent, or, why I am a pantheist

[Hume]

I don't expect you to. That's why the question wasn't aimed to you. I was just answering your point about intelligence and consciousness.

We can have an intelligent universe without attributing it to some god or agency.

 

[Scott]

We can have an intelligent universe without attributing it to some god or agency.

Speaking as a self identified Pantheist, my understanding is that Pantheists believe that the universe/multiverse -is- God. Here's Wikipedia's introduction to the term:
**
Pantheism is the philosophical and religious belief that reality, the universe, and nature are identical to divinity or a supreme entity.[1] The physical universe is thus understood as an immanent deity, still expanding and creating, which has existed since the beginning of time.[2] The term pantheist designates one who holds both that everything constitutes a unity and that this unity is divine, consisting of an all-encompassing, manifested god or goddess.[3][4] All astronomical objects are thence viewed as parts of a sole deity.
**

Source:

Pantheism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Daylight63]

Speaking as a self identified Pantheist, my understanding is that Pantheists believe that the universe/multiverse -is- God.

This is an interesting conjecture. But does it have any meaning? If the question is "Does God exist?" and the answer is simply redefining some arbitrary thing as God and then pointing to it and saying "that exists ergo God exists" seems like sophistry.

The thing I find about these more abstract conceptions of God is that there seems to be some asymptote at which they approach pure meaninglessness. Not meant as an insult to the concepts but rather as a limitation to how meaningful the conversation can be if it becomes so abstract that language fails utterly to explain it.

 

[Daylight63]

We can have an intelligent universe without attributing it to some god or agency.

And I think a lot of atheists would 100% agree with that.

 

[Kafka]

Having expert knowledge of panthers hardly makes one a qualified theologist.

Given the nature of "theology" it certainly wouldn't hurt and probably just as good as anything else.

 

[Scott]

Speaking as a self identified Pantheist, my understanding is that Pantheists believe that the universe/multiverse -is- God. Here's Wikipedia's introduction to the term:
**
Pantheism is the philosophical and religious belief that reality, the universe, and nature are identical to divinity or a supreme entity.[1] The physical universe is thus understood as an immanent deity, still expanding and creating, which has existed since the beginning of time.[2] The term pantheist designates one who holds both that everything constitutes a unity and that this unity is divine, consisting of an all-encompassing, manifested god or goddess.[3][4] All astronomical objects are thence viewed as parts of a sole deity.
**

Source:

Pantheism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is an interesting conjecture. But does it have any meaning? If the question is "Does God exist?" and the answer is simply redefining some arbitrary thing as God and then pointing to it and saying "that exists ergo God exists" seems like sophistry.

The thing I find about these more abstract conceptions of God is that there seems to be some asymptote at which they approach pure meaninglessness. Not meant as an insult to the concepts but rather as a limitation to how meaningful the conversation can be if it becomes so abstract that language fails utterly to explain it.

I think we can agree that everything in existence is not an arbitrary thing. The next question to be asked is, "is the universe/multiverse conscious"? I believe it is to some degree. I think that things like synchronicity reveal this. In case you haven't heard of this concept:
**
Synchronicity (German: Synchronizität) is a concept introduced by analytical psychologist Carl Jung to describe events that coincide in time and appear meaningfully related, yet lack a discoverable causal connection.[1] Jung held this was a healthy function of the mind, that can become harmful within psychosis.[2][3]
**
Source:

Synchronicity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I also think Carl Jung's collective unconscious concept is quite interesting too:

Collective unconscious - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Publius]

Sounds a bit like Aristotle's concept of god.

Spinoza, actually.

 

[Publius]

At some point, people speculating about spiritually are just recycling concepts that have been circulating out there for a long time, because your posts sounds a lot like the Tao in Taoism or Li in Neoconfucianism.

Sure, one could argue that there are no original thoughts. So, then, what, we stop talking? I'm a big fan of the Tao, and Buddhism, Sufism, Christian Gnosticism, Hasidism/Jewish mysticism, and things esoteric.

 

[Publius]

This is an interesting conjecture. But does it have any meaning? If the question is "Does God exist?" and the answer is simply redefining some arbitrary thing as God and then pointing to it and saying "that exists ergo God exists" seems like sophistry.

The thing I find about these more abstract conceptions of God is that there seems to be some asymptote at which they approach pure meaninglessness. Not meant as an insult to the concepts but rather as a limitation to how meaningful the conversation can be if it becomes so abstract that language fails utterly to explain it.

Not really, when you explore the concept further. one could say 'god is welling up everywhere'. Life has ultimately sprung from the earth, giving birth to living things, and that 'life' is sparked with a divine essence (look into the eyes of a child, or your pet dog, do you not see it?). In my view, panentheism has it right, there is a divine essence to life, the universe, but it's not an 'intelligent designer', it's just there, it just is, and permeates throughout, if not beyond it, and that's probably true. It is that which nudges matter to give birth to life. I don't know how it does it, it's a mystery, but that's just it, life is a mystery, not to be conquered, but to be lived, (borrowing from Kierkegaard )

 

[Publius]

God I hope that's not true. I wouldn't want another round of this game.

THere is evidence for it. Not to worry, nature, in her wisdom, in your next life, you won't remember this one, or others.

We keep coming back until we achieve enlightenment, or so the eastern philosophical concept goes.

 

[Publius]

This atheist sees no problem with forces beyond the power of humans. We live with them every day. What I do have a problem with is a theologically inconsistent concept of God.

Unfortunately there is currently no real way to construct a God that doesn't run afoul of some rule of logic or total abrogation of word meaning in theology.

Then consider the God of Spinoza, pantheism/panentheism, which does not conflict with science, or logic, and is quite logical (or I haven't seen a counter argument on the logic aspect). I believe Einstein expressed his support for this concept, even mentioning Spinoza..

"I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." -- Albert Einstein

This is also compatible with agnosticism. But, incompatible with atheism. He was an agnostic/ 'religious nonbeliever'.

Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Kafka]

Then consider the God of Spinoza, pantheism/panentheism, which does not conflict with science, or logic,

It doesn't conflict with science or logic because it is a placeholder without any real meaning. It describes nothing but sounds like "imagination".

Like someone saying "it's ineffible thought embedded in all things suffusing the cosmos with super love energy".

It's drivel that, by merit of its meaninglessness stops any question about it and doesn't require the speaker to even have a clue what it means themselves.

 

[Publius]

Because being an atheist is bad. At least you seem to hold ever atheist in contempt that I've seen on this forum.

Maybe if you understood atheism you wouldn't have such a dim view of all atheists.

For the record, I have no issues with atheism/atheists, and, if I didn't have the perceptive inclinations which lead me to pantheism/panentheism, I would probably still be an atheist.

 

[Publius]

It doesn't conflict with science or logic because it is a placeholder without any real meaning. It describes nothing but sounds like "imagination".

Like someone saying "it's ineffible thought embedded in all things suffusing the cosmos with super love energy".

I get your attempt to lop me into the super woo crowd, but, no. It's not really like that. I don't do crystals, or channel dead people.

It's drivel that, by merit of its meaninglessness stops any question about it and doesn't require the speaker to even have a clue what it means themselves.

One can choose not to see a spark of divinity in a child's eyes, or choose to.

One isn't better than the other, they are just different points of view.

I choose to, that's all,

Just look around you, life is welling up everywhere. Either one can sense that life has a spiritual basis, or one cannot.

If one cannot, that's fine, I have no problem with it.

I'm not saying that 'because I can or rather, choose to', I'm holier than thou, don't put that on me, please.

Thank you.

 

[Publius]

Can I ask you about this in more detail? What does the idea of a "collective intelligence" mean in this case? What do you mean by an "intelligence"? Is this the concept that, for instance, all the trees and rocks are doing something like "thinking"?

Secondly is there anything that actually supports the idea? (Not intended as a hit against the thought, but rather for me to better understand this form of pantheism which I am reasonably certain is not uncommon).

Thanks.

There is no way to prove 'pantheism' or 'panentheism'. It's like this, some folks, such as myself, can sense there is a spiritual basis to life.


It's a sensitivity. Some have it, some don't. Dogs can smell things on a level incomprehensible to humans.

but some humans can sense things that are incomprehensible to other humans..

The only difference is we can prove a dog's olfactory senses are superior, not so with humans and 'spirit-sensitivity'.

Look into a child's eyes, or the eyes of an affectionate puppy. The sentience, it has spiritual essence. Can you see it?

Ether you can sense it, see it, or you can't.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

God is not intelligent.

Or rather, God is not an intelligence. The distinction is significant. God is an abstraction, and a mystery.

What I mean is that, in my brand of pantheism, there is a spiritual basis to life, that there is spirituality permeating all things and this divine source is not an intelligence. It is just source, a spiritual source sans intelligence. So, to say it is intelligent or stupid presumes intelligence, and given that it is not, these descriptors are not applicable.

The simplest definition of Pantheism is that it is the belief that God is not a separate, personal being, but rather that God and the universe are the same. In this view, everything in the natural world is a part of God, and God is present in all things. I have taken this idea and put my own stamp on it, and for lack of a better term, pantheism is much closer to how I see the world, on a spiritual plane, than anything else. Always remember, to a pantheist, his 'God' is not a personal God, or a God in any sense of it's traditional and historical definition, mono or poly. It is more of a non falsifiable force that permeates all things, more or less.

Now, I cannot be so arrogant to presume these things as fact, so preface all that I write on the subject with 'in my opinion...it is my belief that.....'., noting that to assert this preface on everything I express about it would be cumbersome, so just assume it henceforth.

My God is not theistic nor deistic, it is more on the Einsteinian pantheistic model. It does not intervene or answer prayers, and without undermining prayer, because, in my view, true prayer is meditation and meditation is the fastest path to God. This God is our native state, it is our destiny, our natural heritage and all souls, like bubbles in in the ocean, are bubbling upward and will eventually reach the sky, it is inevitable. The only 'hell' is the misery we create for ourselves but it is not permanent. Through this 'hell' we are forged like one forges steel through a furnace. Trouble, difficulty, pain and misery and the like, are the means by which we grow. There are higher states where misery fades and earth's density hasn't reached it, though it has on other planets. Each of us will eventually evolve to higher densities and reincarnate on planets where there are highers densities, (no Martha, Humans are not the brightest bulb on the food chain) where life exists without pain and misery and each of us has this to look forward to. That is the extent of my 'faith'.

This divine source is welling up everywhere. For me, this is the only thing that makes sense and the nice thing about it it does not conflict with science and where it does agree with religion insofar as that it is taken on faith as it is not falsifiable.

This divine source is not a personal god, and there is no such thing as a personal god. This divine source permeates all things, is the source of all things, and resides at the center of the human soul, whereupon all living things are but tentacles on the octopus of god. But, where that metaphor breaks down is that an octopus is has intelligence, and God does not, as God is beyond intelligence and incomprehensible. This divine source does not exist in time and space, it is behind it, the source of it, beyond it, but reachable, nevertheless. Once achieved, once one returns to native state, life, as you have known it, becomes a moot point -- life becomes moot.

The only way to find God is to find oneself. It has been said, 'Know thyself, and the truth shall set you free'. Now, that quote can be attributed to someone or some thing, but I believe it is older than our planet and has been around for billions of years. No, it's just a hunch, sure, I could be wrong, probably am wrong.

Much of my philosophy is borrowed from ancient eastern philosophy and a few modern mystics, sages.

All of them teach reincarnation, and I take reincarnation on faith, as well, not to mention there is some evidence for it. It is also logical to me.

When we die, our essential selves, our souls, noting that "I' and the 'soul' are the same thing, we do not perish. Death is an illusion and we are eternal.

The basic premise of eastern philosophy is that you keep coming back, you grow spiritually a little bit with each life, and this continues for however long it takes for the individual, the soul, to reach the Godhead, AKA 'self-realization', 'samadhi', 'nirvana' or 'heaven' or whatever term endears one the most. It has been said by most of these mystics that one can accelerate the process via meditation, or the modern term now is 'mindfulness' techniques. I also believe that during the first century or first few centuries when Christianity was coagulating and forming into various factions and struggling to achieve something, the Gnostic Christians believed that Christ had a secret, esoteric teaching and that teaching was more in tune with eastern philosophical concepts, accepted reincarnation, and it was Orthodoxy which deviated from Christ, whereupon they cherry picked his teachings to conform to that which would empower the political power of the church.

This is my faith, this is what I believe. I just thought I would share these ideas with anyone who cares to read them, and/or dispute or be amused by them.

As a side, but related, note; In in the context of non-zero probability, assuming infinity, abstract or real, all that is possible, is inevitable. (See if you can falsify that one). Life is possible, this much we know, and infinity, in terms of non-zero probability, if it is possible, it will occur, eventually, though not assured at any point. Thus we have life. So, in a sense, it is infinity that is the mother of all that is possible. Now, some things are impossible. Anyway, compared to infinity, all that is finite is infinitesimal. That is why all arguments that go 'there are too many gazillions of factors to be aligned in space for anything to happen by chance (the argument for 'intelligent design'), are specious logic'.

Thanks for reading.

Thanks for posting, sorry I didn't see this till just now. Your beliefs align with the traditional beliefs of many indigenous people as well as those of many of us modern day pagans. I've taken three semesters (sadly, all that is offered) of Anishinaabemowin (Ojibwe language) at NMU. The very language reflects the concept that life/spirit is in all things. Objects are not "it" as they are in English; they are "he" or "she." I've often wondered if other languages with gender (Spanish, German, French, etc.) are that way for similar reasons. a remnant in the language of our pre-Xtian days.

 

[Daylight63]

There is no way to prove 'pantheism' or 'panentheism'. It's like this, some folks, such as myself, can sense there is a spiritual basis to life.

I'm perfectly OK with people believing what feels good to them. I think everyone does that all the time. I am uncertain how it would be a concept that would be able to garner more believers based on the merits of the claim.

But that's OK. All of this, in the end, really doesn't matter and we don't have to convince anyone else of our beliefs.

It's a sensitivity. Some have it, some don't. Dogs can smell things on a level incomprehensible to humans.

That's an excellent metaphor as you subsequently note. May I explore it a bit?

My dog, B., has a great nose and can smell things I cannot. He is aware of things I am incapable of awareness of. BUT, here's the key differentiator, if I were to buy a gas chromatograph with a really sensitive detector on it, I could FIND those things B. is alerting on. I believe you suggest as much in the following sentence.

In the case of a sensitive person experiencing "god" (for lack of a better word for this intelligence, etc.) a non-believer could be swayed if there was some way for the non-believer to detect what the sensitive pantheist detects.

Such is often the case with any "religious" thought. It requires, in some sense, the active participation of belief before acceptance. Like it says in the "good book": "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". And I couldn't agree more.

It is the essence of things hoped for by the believer.

And that's fine. It's how 100% of humans function on some level about at least SOME things in their lives. But it does not bespeak that such a thing one has faith in has any real existence.

The only difference is we can prove a dog's olfactory senses are superior, not so with humans and 'spirit-sensitivity'.

My point exactly.

Look into a child's eyes, or the eyes of an affectionate puppy. The sentience, it has spiritual essence. Can you see it?

When I look into my dog's eyes what I'm actually "seeing" is a combination of my anthropomorphizing of the dog (I love my dog and I hope he loves me back so I will infer, almost like a paradoeilia, that the softeness in his eyes is "love" for me. Like those people who say their dog "smiles". Dogs don't smile. It has no meaning to them.

NOW, dogs obviously DO have a way to connect with us on this nearly spiritual level because they have, over the course of millennia, evolved and been bred to be able to "read our body language" and respond in such a way as to maximize their benefit (food and shelter).

I'm not saying my dog doesn't love me, far from it. But rather that what we look into the eyes of a dog we are doing a lot of onboard processing of the signal and adding in a lot of stuff we simply make up that makes us feel good.

As for the child example, that's a bit more straightforward. My wife and I don't have kids and I don't much like being around kids anyway so it isn't a matter of my feeling paternal or anything) but we recognize they are human and our "theory of mind" helps us understand that they, like us, have a mind. They will give us back the almost perfect response to our stimuli because we are a common species.

I don't necessarily think it means anything more "spiritual" or deep.

Ether you can sense it, see it, or you can't.

Agreed. But unless the claim can be "falsified" it really doesn't have much power in terms of assessment of its reality or lack thereof.

Again, I know that we all have some corner of our lives in which we invest that kind of "faith", so I'm not here saying pantheism is wrong or anything. Just that it is hard for me to find a way to separate it from simple imagination that makes the imaginer feel good (not that there's ANYTHING wrong with that).

 

[Hume]

Spinoza, actually.

Pantheism. Aristotle does not say God is everywhere.

 

[Hume]

Speaking as a self identified Pantheist, my understanding is that Pantheists believe that the universe/multiverse -is- God. Here's Wikipedia's introduction to the term:
**
Pantheism is the philosophical and religious belief that reality, the universe, and nature are identical to divinity or a supreme entity.[1] The physical universe is thus understood as an immanent deity, still expanding and creating, which has existed since the beginning of time.[2] The term pantheist designates one who holds both that everything constitutes a unity and that this unity is divine, consisting of an all-encompassing, manifested god or goddess.[3][4] All astronomical objects are thence viewed as parts of a sole deity.
**

Source:

Pantheism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I have no interest in pantheism. Just another Christian doctrine.

 

[Cypress]

Sure, one could argue that there are no original thoughts. So, then, what, we stop talking? I'm a big fan of the Tao, and Buddhism, Sufism, Christian Gnosticism, Hasidism/Jewish mysticism, and things esoteric.

It's still fun to dance around the margins of these things and learn about them, even if we aren't really coming up with our own deeply original and unique ideas. It's been said that all of western philosophy is just a series of footnotes to Plato, and all of western ethics are just a series of footnotes to the Sermon on the Mount.

I don't think it's an accident that things like pantheism in western countries possibly seems to have arisen after the West made contact with some of the religious concepts and sacred scriptures of the East. Just my opinion.