Formal debate on pantheism

[Jobar]

I'd like to take part in a discussion on pantheism, and its relation to atheism.

As most know, I've been identifying myself as an atheist/pantheist for many years. In the past, I've had believers and skeptics both who found this contradictory- usually atheists.

Ideally, I should like to do this with both a believer and a skeptic simultaneously, but I don't really see that happening.

If anyone is willing to defend the proposition that pantheism is essentially different from atheism, that the two are completely incompatible, then please PM me.

[aria]

I'd like to take part in a discussion on pantheism, and its relation to atheism.

As most know, I've been identifying myself as an atheist/pantheist for many years. In the past, I've had believers and skeptics both who found this contradictory- usually atheists.

Ideally, I should like to do this with both a believer and a skeptic simultaneously, but I don't really see that happening.

If anyone is willing to defend the proposition that pantheism is essentially different from atheism, that the two are completely incompatible, then please PM me.

This is a good link: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/

I think pantheism closly resembles the agnostic more than atheism.

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/agnostic-2.htm

I have been wondering about these things myself.

I hope this helps and would be interested to know more myself.

[Jobar]

Hello aria, and welcome to the Cafe. :)

This subject is one I have written on a great deal. If you're a member of FRDB (http://freeratio.org/), most of my posts are there;
Similarities of atheism and pantheism (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33316)
The divine You (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=200282#post200282)
Pantheism opposed to atheism? (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33304)
Pantheism vs. atheism (lecture on Zen) (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33228)
Pantheism, and doing quantum mechanics in Chinese (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33356)
Pantheism vs. naturalism- and discussing it in English (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33359)
From Relevance of evidence for God (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=575204#post575204)
The monist problem of evil (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62673)
The spirituality of atheists (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1399112#post1399112)
Robert Ingersoll, pantheist (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1920473#post1920473)
Unum's axiomatic god (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2140555#post2140555)
Why dost thou prate of God? (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=93045)
Jobar's Pantheism (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=128574&page=1&pp=25)

That last one, in particular, covers a lot of territory.

[Valheru]

I figure pantheism is like being a goldfish able to grok its bowl, but cannot have any perspective of what lies outside, because it groks that there isn't anything outside. The goldfish groks that the bowl, and everything in it, including itself, is part of a whole, and that the whole is indescernable.

Its a form of atheism, in my view. I just don't like the word itself, it suggests a form of theism, which it definitely isn't.

[Jobar]

No argument- I've said before I don't use the word 'God' to describe this, though in other cultures and languages it might be appropriate.

The article on pantheism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11447b.htm) in the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia states

Taken in the strictest sense, i.e. as identifying God and the world, Pantheism is simply Atheism.

I would put it that pantheism is not *simply* atheism, but is atheistic. Pantheism can be looked upon as a complete philosophical paradigm, but atheism cannot.

[Politesse]

I'd like to take part in a discussion on pantheism, and its relation to atheism.

As most know, I've been identifying myself as an atheist/pantheist for many years. In the past, I've had believers and skeptics both who found this contradictory- usually atheists.

Ideally, I should like to do this with both a believer and a skeptic simultaneously, but I don't really see that happening.

If anyone is willing to defend the proposition that pantheism is essentially different from atheism, that the two are completely incompatible, then please PM me.

Out of curiosity, what would you be expecting the "believer" to argue? Simply that pantheism=/=atheism?

[Jobar]

I've seen theists argue for panentheism, which is the view that the universe is contained within God and is of the same being as God- but that God is still greater than the universe. I've spoken to believers who see no difference between pantheism and panentheism, so it's possible that might be a way to defend a theistic interpretation of pantheism.

[Politesse]

Ah yes, Krause's term. My own beliefs curve more to the historical mystic than his, I fear. And though as a pantheistic Christian I'm no atheist, the term "theist" has always given me almost equal pause; I'd rather simply occupy my own position, with Spinoza and many other friends. Still, I think describing pantheism as essentially panentheistic would be perhaps more reasonable than your own position, so I'd be willing to debate the point you describe, particularly if you also find a skeptic to argue the point, as you describe in your proposal- there's a certain classical elegance about a three-partied dialogue.

[Redshirt]

Hi Jobar/Politesse,

Here are some parameters to think about in your formal discussion (perhaps more so a formal debate, since there will be arguments asserting or refuting a particular postion, rather than a sharing of perspectives).

(1) Topic
(2) Participants, positions and sequence
(3) Scope
(4) Length in rounds
(5) Maximum statement length
(6) Maximum duration between statements
(7) Start date
(8) Additional criteria (optional)

Perhaps the debate resolution could be something like "Resolved: atheism is incompatible with pantheism."

[Jobar]

There was an atheist at II, years back, who argued that pantheism was not atheism; see here. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33359) Although I thought that ReasonableDoubt (AKA ConsequentAtheist) was rather an ass, and his position weak, I haven't found anyone else who I felt argued that position as well as he did. IIRC there were one or two others who contributed to that thread- maybe one of them is still active on the net, and might be interested. I'll look into it.

[RexT]

Well, Pantheism is not Atheism. Atheism is the antithesis of Theism. Without theism, atheism would be a meaningless term.

My own pantheism permits a god, a natural one instead of a god that works via magic.

[BWE]

I'd like to take part in a discussion on pantheism, and its relation to atheism.

As most know, I've been identifying myself as an atheist/pantheist for many years. In the past, I've had believers and skeptics both who found this contradictory- usually atheists.

Ideally, I should like to do this with both a believer and a skeptic simultaneously, but I don't really see that happening.

If anyone is willing to defend the proposition that pantheism is essentially different from atheism, that the two are completely incompatible, then please PM me.
I will. do I still have to PM you?

Will you define each of them first? As vague or general as you like.

I would also be willing to make a case for pantheism over atheism. If you are curious about my basic position, there's a thread at TR I could post a link to here.

[BWE]

I should learn to read before I post.

Anyway, if this doesn't work out, I'd be willing to be a substitute

I'm looking forward to reading politesses take. do you have peanut galleries for your formal debates?

[Redshirt]

do you have peanut galleries for your formal debates?

Yes, we do have them here. I'll start one in the appropriate forum when a formal debate/discussion gets underway here.

To Rie, I moved your post (http://secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=5622) to the Religions forum. D/DP is meant for setting up exclusive engagements (i.e. formal or informal debates or discussions between usually 2 people).

[BWE]

any sort of a timeline yet?

[Redshirt]

any sort of a timeline yet?

You may want to send Jobar a PM, just to give him a nudge.

[BWE]

done cap'n

[Jobar]

OK, nudged. :)

So are we going to be able to do this as a 3-way discussion, with an atheist who doesn't think that pantheism is atheistic, a theist who thinks pantheism and panentheism are basically the same, and me defending the view that pantheism is essentially atheistic?

I would say that we might start with a fairly short statement from each of us, delineating our individual positions and definitions; from there, we can see if we have enough actual disagreement to justify a debate.

I want to do this fairly slowly, giving us all lots of time for consideration and careful explanation. So, I will try to put together a concise declaration of my own philosophy/belief within the next ten days; from that we can decide our next steps. Satisfactory?

[Redshirt]

We may want to give Politesse a nudge as well, if (s)he is still interested.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but here are the persectives and positions so far:

Jobar: an atheist who claims that atheism and pantheism are not incompatible.
BWE: a pantheist who claims that atheism and pantheism are incompatible.
Politesse: a panentheistic Christian who claims that atheism and pantheism are incompatible.

Jobar, I'm not sure if this is quite the situation you're looking for. BWE and Politesse may have very similar positions here. Perhaps it might be better to have a two-way debate between you and BWE?

[BWE]

No. I claim they are not compatible and jobar claims they are.

I think.

[Jobar]

BWE is correct; I say that pantheism is a worldview/belief which can be held atheistically; the two are compatible. More, I say that those who try to claim any sort of supernatural god cannot be pantheists; and I am willing to argue that pantheism (which allows no supernatural ultimate being) is distinct from panentheism (which allows for a supernatural ultimate being which includes the natural world within itself.)

[Redshirt]

Read a little more closely. I guess my use of a double negative made things a bit confusing... :o

"...are not incompatible." I'll rephrase that later...

[Redshirt]

Here are the positions, reworded a bit:

Jobar: an atheist who claims that atheism and pantheism are compatible.
BWE: a pantheist who claims that atheism and pantheism are not compatible.
Politesse: a panentheistic Christian who claims that atheism and pantheism are not compatible.

Is this correct?

[Jobar]

I'm also claiming that the theism of Western monotheists is incompatible with pantheism; that is, pantheism precludes any sort of omnimax being which is apart from what it creates (the observable, natural universe).

I foresee considerable discussion refining the common understanding of 'natural'.

[BWE]

I'm also claiming that the theism of Western monotheists is incompatible with pantheism; that is, pantheism precludes any sort of omnimax being which is apart from what it creates (the observable, natural universe).

I foresee considerable discussion refining the common understanding of 'natural'.
I see a single unknown, :

[BWE]

OK, nudged. :)

So are we going to be able to do this as a 3-way discussion, with an atheist who doesn't think that pantheism is atheistic, a theist who thinks pantheism and panentheism are basically the same, and me defending the view that pantheism is essentially atheistic?

I would say that we might start with a fairly short statement from each of us, delineating our individual positions and definitions; from there, we can see if we have enough actual disagreement to justify a debate.

I want to do this fairly slowly, giving us all lots of time for consideration and careful explanation. So, I will try to put together a concise declaration of my own philosophy/belief within the next ten days; from that we can decide our next steps. Satisfactory?
I c&ped this from a post I made at TR. It has some wird reference issues because I took it out of context, but it is pretty close to how I;'d approach this:

My point is that religious claims are wrong because they are demonstrably wrong. If I need to defend that statement or expand on it, I will but I assume that in this case, I don't.

Theism is a religious claim which is demonstrably wrong*,and it is demonstrably wrong precisely because it attempts to shrink what's 'out there' into a manageable ball with manageable rules and the rules are simply wishful thinking and wrong.

Any argument so far?

A-theism is a word which is not simply 'without' god. It suggests an approach also to managing the scope of what's out there by positively claiming that the universe works a certain way and that that way does not need the demonstrably wrong ideas of theism.

The reason I say it is not simply 'without' god is that it is not particularly meaningful to say 'without' a specific bit of wrong information. I am not a-phlogiston, or a-aether.

An atheist makes a counter claim and that counter claim too is an attempt to make it manageable sized.

We can certainly learn things about 'out there' but we do not and cannot say we know the nature of the source of sense data.

Atheism, if it makes no counter claim is a word which means something closer to, 'without the retarded idea of theism and quite happy not to replace that idea with anything whatsoever.'

Which is why using the word atheist to replace the word theist when someone realizes that the idea of theism is provincial, petty and ignorant makes no sense. It's like replacing the word 'left' after going round the block with 'right' to reflect better information. It doesn't make a person an a-leftist.

*(except pantheism which actually is not a religious claim at all because it's just a name for the whole system that we can observe.)
I wasn't talking about pantheist in that thread so I gave it short treatment but I'll work up something a little more for that one. Otherwise this is pretty close to what I'd argue.

[Jobar]

Another profitable way to approach this is to look at the differing meanings of 'theos' in pantheism and in monotheism.

In monotheism, particularly in Western/Abrahamic versions, theos- God- is normally considered a being apart from creation (the observed universe), while in pantheism God and universe are one, unitary- like head and tails on a coin, different aspects of an identical reality.

Pantheism is unitary or monistic; monotheism is dualistic. (Which may not make things less confusing...)

[Politesse]

Oh, hello, I'd forgotten about this. I'm still on, though. When do we start?

[Redshirt]

Hi Politesse,

The start date is yet to be determined. Again, here are the formal debate parameters to hammer out:

(1) Topic
(2) Participants, positions and sequence
(3) Scope
(4) Length in rounds
(5) Maximum statement length
(6) Maximum duration between statements
(7) Start date
(8) Additional criteria (optional)


BWE and Jobar are clarifying their positions so that they can flesh out the scope of the debate. Can you clarify your position? Do you agree with how I characterized your stance? --

Jobar: an atheist who claims that atheism and pantheism are compatible.
BWE: a pantheist who claims that atheism and pantheism are not compatible.
Politesse: a panentheistic Christian who claims that atheism and pantheism are not compatible.

[Politesse]

Hmm, perhaps not that atheism and pantheism are incompatible as that pantheism naturally implies a theistic viewpoint, more so than atheistic- theist is the most reasonable label for the pantheist to wear.

[BWE]

Another profitable way to approach this is to look at the differing meanings of 'theos' in pantheism and in monotheism.

In monotheism, particularly in Western/Abrahamic versions, theos- God- is normally considered a being apart from creation (the observed universe), while in pantheism God and universe are one, unitary- like head and tails on a coin, different aspects of an identical reality.

Pantheism is unitary or monistic; monotheism is dualistic. (Which may not make things less confusing...)
That is a good point. This will basically come down to a semantic issue (one which I see as important), but I'd say atheism and theism are both dualistic. That's why I can't call myself an atheist. It is an attempt, the same as theism, to try to lay claim to a definition of reality.

[BWE]

Hmm, perhaps not that atheism and pantheism are incompatible as that pantheism naturally implies a theistic viewpoint, more so than atheistic- theist is the most reasonable label for the pantheist to wear.
And I'll argue that this is an error. Maybe an entire category error but at least an error of attribution.

[Redshirt]

How about we frame it like this?

Jobar (atheist): Pantheism and atheism are compatible.
BWE (pantheist): Theism and atheism are not compatible with pantheism.
Politesse (panentheistic Christian): Pantheism implies more so a theistic viewpoint that an atheistic worldview.

Feel free to modify anything.

What about the rest of the parameters? Here's what we've got so far:

(1) Topic:

Three positions on pantheism will be discussed and how it relates to theism and atheism.

(2) Participants, positions and sequence:
Jobar (atheist): Pantheism and atheism are compatible.
BWE (pantheist): Theism and atheism are not compatible with pantheism.
Politesse (panentheistic Christian): Pantheism implies more so a theistic viewpoint that an atheistic worldview.

(in turns, or perhaps a concurrent set up?)

(3) Scope:
Largely a philosophical discussion on pantheism, atheism and theism.

(4) Length in rounds:
???

(5) Maximum statement length:
???

(6) Maximum duration between statements:
???

(7) Start date:
???

(8) Additional criteria (optional):
This is a multi-participant formal discussion involving three different perspectives.

[BWE]

excellent redshirt. I think Jobar should offer the opening post outlining his point of view since that is the foundation of the discussion. Then politesse and I should offer our opening posts explaining the basic problems we have with Jobar's position and offering a summary of our own positions, explaining why they are alternatives to Jobar's rather than compatible.

2nd round is a rebuttal to the other two opinions and identification of the incompatible elements.

3rd round we each adress the incompatiblee issues raised by the other two.

4th round conclusions.

What do you think?

I like a word count of 3000 or less including quotes and time limits of 1 week between rounds.

[Politesse]

Sounds good to me.

[Jobar]

I'm good with that. Although for years, at II and other boards, I specifically listed my philosophical stance as atheist/pantheist, so labeling me 'atheist' isn't quite accurate. But I'll be specifying that in my posts, so it'll be made clear.

One thing I want to add to the position I'm asserting: "Pantheism and atheism are compatible, and pantheism and Western/Abrahamic monotheism are *not* compatible." That will, I think, accentuate the difference between Politesse's stance and my own.

[Jobar]

So, is everyone satisfied with that refinement?

I'll start gathering the material which will constitute my opening statement; I feel sure that I'll be able to produce that fairly quickly, perhaps even tonight, as I have written so much on the subject already.

In fact, for those who are interested, this 2005 post from the FR/II archives (http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives/showthread.php?p=2976978) has links to more than a dozen threads where I've discussed my understanding of pantheism and atheism; I believe all the links are still good, and membership at FR is not required to access them. (Redshirt, I presume there will be a Peanut Gallery in Religion; kindly copy this link to that thread.)

[Redshirt]

Any start date you all have in mind? Who would like to go second? (assuming the discussion is in turns)

[Jobar]

No preference as far as posting order goes; for a start date, I promise to have my OP within the week, possibly even this evening if nothing interrupts me.

[BWE]

Any start date you all have in mind? Who would like to go second? (assuming the discussion is in turns)
I figured Jobar could go first mostly to give him a chance to frame the discussion the way he wants to since it was his idea that he wanted to discuss. Then it would be a week for politesse and myself to make our opening posts with all three due the following week and etc.

There might be some overlap in mine and Jobar's position but I will take the position that atheism as a worldview suffers from the same shortcomings that theism does. That should make the distinction a little bit clearer.

Any start date is good with me.

[Redshirt]

Just to clarify, you'd prefer to work according to a set calendar? Usually time limits are set according to a duration (e.g. assuming a duration of 1 week, if XXX’s opening statement was posted on Mar. 1, then his/her opponent’s statement is due any time before Mar. 8. If XXX's opponent posts on Mar. 3, then XXX must post by Mar. 10). It's a little more flexible using durations, in my opinion. If someone is late, that could really mess up a calendar approach as well.

As for the sequence, are you saying that it doesn’t matter who goes second? Will that hold true for every round?

Since 3 people are involved, we should make this as clear as possible to avoid confusion.

[BWE]

Just to clarify, you'd prefer to work according to a set calendar? Usually time limits are set according to a duration (e.g. assuming a duration of 1 week, if XXX’s opening statement was posted on Mar. 1, then his/her opponent’s statement is due any time before Mar. 8. If XXX's opponent posts on Mar. 3, then XXX must post by Mar. 10). It's a little more flexible using durations, in my opinion. If someone is late, that could really mess up a calendar approach as well.

As for the sequence, are you saying that it doesn’t matter who goes second? Will that hold true for every round?

Since 3 people are involved, we should make this as clear as possible to avoid confusion.
Right. Ok, my idea for a timeline:

1, Jobar makes first post
2. Within 1 week politesse and I make our first posts. Since these will basically be outlining our position wrt jobars, it doesn't matter who posts first between us.
3. Within one week of the last post between politesse and me all 3 of us will offer our rebuttal to the other two opinions and identify of the incompatible elements.
4. Within one week of the rebuttal we each address the incompatiblee issues raised by the other two and defend our position.
5. Within one week of the last post of the previous round we offer our conclusions.

What do you all think?

[Jobar]

Very cool. :)

Save for the fact I wanted an atheist who would argue that pantheism and atheism are incompatible, this sounds like exactly the sort of discussion I was seeking. Much thanks to both BWE and Politesse!

And I've already begun work on my OP; but I don't expect to have it ready tonight, as I've had to deal with a number of interruptions. Still, I should have it before the weekend, and certainly by the last of the month.

[BWE]

Very cool. :)

Save for the fact I wanted an atheist who would argue that pantheism and atheism are incompatible, this sounds like exactly the sort of discussion I was seeking. Much thanks to both BWE and Politesse!

And I've already begun work on my OP; but I don't expect to have it ready tonight, as I've had to deal with a number of interruptions. Still, I should have it before the weekend, and certainly by the last of the month.
I think that my approach will still satisfy that requirement. :) It would be nice to have a full on material reductionist on board though. I have a good idea where our discussion will go and suspect that it will become a semantic issue. I think it's an important semantic issue though. I'm not sure at all where politesse's view will fit in.

Whenever you have you OP is fine with me. We can consider it the start date.

[Politesse]

I think it's an important semantic issue though. I'm not sure at all where politesse's view will fit in. I'll try to be relevant. :p

[Redshirt]

Alright then, here are the formal debate parameters below (I think this is looking more like a debate than a discussion). We just need the three of you to confirm your agreement with everything below and then we'll be ready to go:

(1) Topic:
Three positions on pantheism will be debated with respect to how it relates to theism and atheism.

(2) Participants, positions and sequence:
Jobar (pantheist/atheist): Pantheism and atheism are compatible while pantheism and theism are not.
BWE (pantheist): Theism and atheism are not compatible with pantheism.
Politesse (panentheistic Christian): Pantheism implies more so a theistic viewpoint that an atheistic worldview.

Sequence is variable (see #8)

(3) Scope:
Largely a philosophical debate on pantheism, atheism and theism.

(4) Length in rounds:
Four rounds.

(5) Maximum statement length:
3000 words.

(6) Maximum duration between statements:
1 week (between rounds)

(7) Start date:
Opening statement is due within one week of the formal debate thread being launched.

(8) Additional criteria (optional):
Special format:
(a) This will be a multi-participant formal debate involving three different perspectives.
(b) Sequence is as follows:
Round 1:
- Jobar opens, outlining his point of view since it is the foundation of the discussion.
- BWE and Politesse reply within one week (the order does not matter), explaining the basic problems they have with Jobar's position and offering a summary of their positions.

Round 2:
- Within one week, all three participants offer their rebuttals to each other (the sequence does not matter)

Round 3:
- Within one week, all three participants offer their rebuttals to the each others' Round 2 statements (the sequence does not matter)

Round 4:
- Within one week, all three participants posts their concluding statements (the sequence does not matter)

[Redshirt]

One more thing. If you'd all prefer, I could make Rounds 2-4 (and part of Round 1, for Politesse's and BWE's posts) a concurrent sort of set up. Since the formal debate forum is fully moderated, your posts will be invisible until validated by the moderator. You won't see each other's posts until all three participants complete their posts for a round, where I will validate them.

[BWE]

I'd prefer just posting them when they arrive after doing a word count. But either way is fine.

[Jobar]

No real preference; either way is fine with me.

[Redshirt]

Okay, we just need Politesse's agreement with the above parameters and then we'll be ready to go. We'll stick to validating statements as they come in instead of the concurrent manner.

[Politesse]

Sounds fine to me.

[Redshirt]

Looks like we're ready to go. :) I'll set up the formal debate and peanut gallery threads now. Good luck! This thread will now be closed.