A Pantheist's Manifesto
by James Choate
We are part of Nature as a whole whose order we follow.
-Spinoza, 1673
What is Pantheism?
Pantheism is the belief that everything is divine, that God is not seperate
but totaly indentified with the Cosmos. It is a doctrine that holds God
exists not as a person or personality; but is manifested in the material
cosmos, including man and every other natural object. It further refutes the
potential of transcendence and super-natural possibilities. It views such
beliefs as a result of the psychology of the observer and not any sort of
absolute representation of nature and its interactions. It is the
understanding that the Cosmos has two components, Physics and Psychology.
In one sentence Pantheism can be summed up:
Pantheism is the abandonment of Transcendence
Some related Pantheism URL's:
It should be noted that inclusion in this list does not imply agreement by the
author, as in most human activity there are disagreements.
Stanford Philosophy Server
What is Pantheism?
Another definition one might use is [Dictionary of Theories
(ISBN 1-57859-045-0)]:
Literally 'all-god-ism'. The view that God and the universe are
identical; or that there is no transcendent God outside the universe who
created it, but the universe itself is divine. Among philosophers,
Baruch de Spinoza (1632-77) is as prominent exponent of such a view, and
it appears also in Stoicism. The term itself was coined in 1705 by Irish
writer John Toland (1670-1722).
Pantheism and traditional religions and philosophies
Pantheism is a very mechanistic view of reality. It doesn't hold with
ghosts in the machine or other similar forces. Pantheism is at odds
with all other religions. This does not mean that there are not shared
concepts, but when one looks at the total picture Pantheism is clearly
distinct from all other world views. This creates problems for many as they
want to see it as a different shade rather than a different color.
Besides the concept of transcendence there is the concept of peace.
All religions promise peace and tranquility if the practitioner only
tries hard enough, and in the right way.
There is no peace to be had, the cosmos is a fundamentaly violent place.
Struggle is inherent in existance be it a rock, a rabbit, or a person. It is
only the nature of the struggle that is different. A Pantheist understands
that it is their anthropocentricism and the limits of their
psychology that colors their interpretation of the Cosmos. To borrow an
observation from Quantum Physics,
The Cosmos is observer dependent.
Fundamentaly pantheism recognizes that all beliefs are faith. That concepts
such as absolute truth don\'t exist outside of observer
independant events (e.g. meteor strikes planet, kills all life).
Pantheism holds that even science is itself only a religion since it is
based upon a small set of beliefs which are unprovable. Science as we
know it, however perfectly practiced, is colored by our psychology. It
is important to recognize that this observation does not in any way
decrease the utility of science in understanding the cosmos.
It is also worth mentioning specifically that science is fundamentaly
different than other philosophies (other than Pantheism) because it accepts
, at least in principle, it's basic axioms are open to change or
nullification.
Unlike other religions, pantheism does not address the actual understability
of the cosmos by any observer. It is a matter of individual psychology and
faith. The actual degree of comprehension of the Cosmos by an individual or
a group is open to interpretation.
The meaning of Life, or why are we here?
Pantheism does not recognize a seperation of the human experience from
the remainder of the cosmos. That the universe ponders itself is
fundamentaly irrelevant. Is the universe alive? Yes, so far as we
define the biochemistry on this little ball of mud alive. It is a self
referential, and useless, point. Is the universe intelligent, only so
far as we and other lifeforms are intelligent by our definition. It
is also recognized that intelligence is after all a human concept and may
in fact have no validity outside of human psychology.
We decide what the meaning of life is by living it. To borrow a poem
from the Chinese text The Mtsao,
You are
What you do
When it counts
To add one further observation, as individuals or as a race, we seldom
have any input in to when it will count. Most individuals and groups
take far more credit than they are due, they underestimate and disrespect
the power of chance.
The Cosmos is autocatalytic
The Cosmos exists because if it didn't there wouldn't be one to ponder.
Even if the Cosmos as we see it today came from nothing, that nothing
is still something. This problem is more likely a reflection of the
emotional state and needs of the observer than a valid commentary on the
character of the cosmos.
Tools such as Gaian ecology or Complexity Theory are generaly well
received by pantheist since, contrary to the typical western
deconstructionalism, they also consider the whole system to reach
understanding. One must look at both the nature of the components as
well as the system in which those components exist. Emergent behavior is
often not concerned with the actual mechanism of existance but rather
the potential number of different states that system can take on, and
how it might change from one state to another.
Pantheism and Society
Pantheist tend to be very literal and practical. Conformity is not their
strong suite because they recognize that much of accepted canon is actually
just opinion, and in may cases there are better ways. They also tend to be
active in their beliefs. If they don't do it, who will? There is no higher
power to plead their case to.
The point to life, if it can be said to have one, is to live. Hopefully
so you can ask questions like this to pass the time between birth and
death. If not then it's to stay alive long enough to procreate. This is
clearly an aspect of the psychology of the observer and their mental state.
The Two Ways of The One
There are two ways to Pantheism. Another striking difference between
Pantheism and almost all other human viewpoints. It leaves the choice up
to the individual. It further conflicts with the ideas of good and evil
as held by the majority. It recognizes that such concepts are relative
and not absolute.
The group way is to recognize the fundamental equality of all
things and conserve resources and tend toward cooperative behaviour.
The individual way is to recognize the fundamental equality of all
things and to use them to foster individual existence.
Either are equaly valid approaches, neither has a superiority over the
other. In mosts situations, the individuals choices will be somewhere
between these two poles. Most people find this aspect of Pantheism to be
very hard to accept. People want an answer, not a choice. The choice
is where one stands between the extremes of the group or the individual. It
is in direct odds with human nature. Pantheist believe in the fundamental
equality of all things, which stems from the belief that all things are
fundamentaly one, the Cosmos. Distinctions are put there by human psychology
and our incomplete understanding of what is there and how it fits together.
The impact of Pantheist thought on modern political and social culture is in
its infancy. The abandonment of transcendence coupled with a sense of absolute
equality does not bode well for the status quo.
There are no women rights or gay rights, only human
rights within the context of a shared belief system. If one person
may do it, then any person may do it. For any healthy workable society
we must recognize the fundamental nature of the human animal. The
Choice must reside with the individual in all cases. Communities,
governments, and authority are emergent behaviours of individuals
following a varied set of goals, attempting to work in groups. Eventually we
will see that the primary lesson of the 20th century is that governments and
groups can't be allowed bo break eggs. It will certainly come at a
price even larger than the 100+ Million who have died over the last century
for no other reason than one group can't tolerate the thoughts and beliefs of
another.
Another observation that will eventually become apparent to the masses
is that government and economics are nothing more than another
sort of technology. They are not inherent in the human condition, simply a
solution to a problem that was developed by our ancestors and their
limited experiences. They are simply a solution to the problem of survival
in a Cosmos ruled by supply and demand. This will lead to the realization
that they can be abandoned for other solutions. An interesting acceptance
of this is the concept of Fifth Generation Warfare.
The Good and The Bad, both are Ugly
Pantheism does not recognize any concept of good or bad, outside the
context of the human psychology. It is this little bit of the Cosmos
reflecting upon itself that provides the context. A Pantheist would not
see a fundamental wrong in killing a rabbit, a human, or the entire
planet. Only within the context of a society does value become to have
meaning. It further observes that the question of whether it is worse to
kill one or one million is fundamentaly a smoke screen. It is asked in
the context of a human society and the precepts and limits that sociiety
assumes and accepts.
A Pantheism may come to realize that there is another solution to the
problem of which side one stands on within the context of a social
problem. Sometimes the only way to win is not to play the game.
Pantheism and Ecology
Pantheism does not foster any sort of respect or motive to preserve
the ecology or environment. If one examines the cosmos we find the
destruction of life on grand scales to have occurred many times. There
can be no fundamental support of ecological or environmental activism
outside the human psychology. It is our own hubric anthropocentricism
which colors our every act. If anything the remains of one act of
destruction leave resources for a new act of creation.
However, it is clear that we do have a responsibility to protect our own
self interests. This leads one to use resources according to one strategy or
another. An individualist Pantheist would likely look at it very short term.
Whereas a Pantheist more concerned with group survival would take the long,
or deep time perspective. It is suspected that the deep time
perspective has the least negative side effects due to the simple concept of
conservationism.
Divinity and Sacred
For many people raised in traditional religious societies the concept of
divine or sacred seem to be problematic. In truth they're
pretty simple to understand from a Pantheists view. Divine means to be part
of God. Since Pantheism's primary tenet that all is God there is no
possible conflict. Unlike the traditional religious view no distinction
between the thing being divine and God can occur since they are unity.
Sacred on the other hand means to set aside for or use in religious
purposes. It implies a seperation between the transcendental and the
mundane. Pantheism abandons transcendence and seperatism in this
context, all is unity. A Pantheist does't recognize the concept of
sacred as anything but confused.
One way to describe the Pantheist creedo is,
If you find a sacred cow, have a bar-b-que!
Pantheism and Toleration
Pantheist tend to be tolerant of other belief systems and their practice
so long as no coercion is encountered. Since all is one, other beliefs
are accepted as possible, but not necessarily practical or even
workable. We also recognize that people will try to make things work
instead of admitting they wont work and finding other solutions.
In cases of violence Pantheist tend toward pragmatism. Avoidance is the
best strategy. The alternate is to do whatever will reduce the future
occurance of this event as well as maximizing the participants, all of
them if given a choice, chance of escaping from the confrontation. This
of course is the group side. The individual side responce may
be to nuke them until they glow, and then shoot them in the dark.
No Pantheist can be a pacifist (violence is inherent in the Cosmos), some are
non-violent. The distinction being whether force is used as a means to an
ends, or simply in self-defense.
The group Pantheist does not accept the belief that the ends justify
the means (The Law of Unintended Consequences). Each action must justify
itself. To try to say that some small evil justifies the greater good
only tarnishes the concept of geater good. It reduces the concept from a
principle to an expedient.
The strict individualist Pantheist on the other hand would, in
principle at least, cut your throat as soon as look at you if there were a
profit to be made.
Some thoughts on Intelligence
It is important to realize that the intelligence refered to is not two
people but two distinct races or brain morphologies. A regular table
represents the totality of rules and interactions that compose the Cosmos.
Each intelligence be it man, microbe, or alien from Alpha Centauri is
represented by potato chip lids (a physical representation of a Venn Diagram).:
Assume that the table top is the set of all possible laws and
interactions that can describe the Cosmos. The lids represent the sets
of laws that allow intelligence in some form or other.
The questions that we'll pose are:
Is the set of fundamental relations and interactions limited or infinite? Is
the area of the table fixed or infinite? The author thinks they are limited.
This leads to the realization that at some point know all there is to know.
The question then becomes whether this is enough for us to build our own
cosmos'?
Is there a necessity for any two intelligences to have at least some overlap?
If so, is this overlap a result of the laws of physics allowing only certain
classes of intelligence? Are there fundamental physical rules for
intelligence all must share?
Or, is it a result of the potential that if the two intellegences don't
overlap it may not be possible for them to even recognize each other as
intelligent.
Or, is it pure chance that an overlap occurs at all, and that intellegence can
in fact be recognizable (ie symmetry breaking) irrespective of the set
membership? Are there commen characteristics (ie emergent behaviors) that all
intelligences share irrespective of their base set?
Also, for a given intelligence set is it a requirement for that set to include
self-understanding? In other words, can it be such that the set of rules that
allow intelligence prohibit self-understanding at some fundamental level?
Or, is it a pot-luck dinner in that one life form may be able to succesfully
understand itself at the fundamental level (ie could at least in theory build
itself) while another is forever going to miss the mark because it simply
can't comprehend the relations?
Now these same sorts of questions can be extended to the study of what
'life' is. As a result we are faced with the potential of different 'sets' of life and parallel consequences.
What is the relationship between these /intelligence sets/ and the totality
of member rules? Is it possible for a limited set to comprehend the entire
set at least in theory?
If not, then what are the limitations of any given sets boundary?
How would one set explain to another set some aspect that the second set
could not understand as a result of its set membership? This is another way
to express Clarke's Law
In regard to AI, if the set of necessary rules for intelligence are in fact
fixed is it possible to embody those rules in a mechanism of a non-biological
nature?
These last two lead to some very hairy questions regarding the way we as
humans treat animals and potentialy AI's as well as cloning.
If the set is not fixed or can be embodied in non-biological systems then do
we have a 'being' that is due the same respect as ourselves?
Is it the intelligence or the set of rules that matter as far as moral and
ethical issues are concerned?
An example of faith in science
The author was posed the following question,
If identical oxygen atoms (at the same temperature, velocity, etc.) are
fundamentally the SAME, (meaning that they could change places and we
could know no difference), then information is necessarily destroyed.
How can that be unless the atoms themselves are different? If they are
the same they should have the same information and ability to store the
same potential levels. Otherwise they are dis-similar and we are in
contradiction to your assumptions. In fact, once swapped how would you
determine the swap had even taken place unless they were different? Once
the swap had taken place the only thing *proving* the swap ever took
place would the experimenters faith in the swap. It would be untestable.
Copyright 1983 - 2008 All rights reserved by James Choate. Article published at http://ssz.com/SSZ/projects/pantheism/index.html, retrieved on 6/24/2008 and republished with author's permission.
Permission to use components of this article for non-commercial use is
granted.
Photo courtesy of radiant guy at flickr.com
| 
