The rationality of pantheism

[LetThereBe]

Good evening ladies and gentlemen.

Perhaps none of you here would call yourselves pantheists, but I wish to look at if such a view can be logical.

Pantheism generally attributes God status to the universe itself: to the fundamental laws that govern our observable world. The God of the Pantheist can therefore be quite natural, and is never a personality.

Since pantheism avoids the realm of the supernatural, can it be considered rational in some or all circumstances?

Also, what of world views that are similar, but not necessarily pantheistic? Perhaps it could best be put as attaching intrinsic value, virtue, or beauty to something and or everything. Can assigning inherent worth to something beyond its utility be rational, be it the universe, a physical law, a human life, or ethical behavior?

Could belief in Karma be considered rational?
Could belief in absolute virtue be considered rational?

I eagerly await a response.

[RickSp]

Does pantheism need to be logical? If you consider God to be the transcendent reality and nature and human beings are just manifestations of the divine, then why shoehorn rationality into it? It seems to me that whether you consider this to be the literal truth or a lovely metaphor hardly matters. Depending how you apply the idea, the outcome can either rational or irrational.

I think the real issue arises when one starts to assign a belief structure around this basic idea. If you infer that all life is sacred and that you cannot eat any living thing and therefore consign yourself to blissful starvation, that is decidely not rational. Many or most "religious" beliefs I have come across are only incrementally destructive but are destructive nevertheless.

If on the other hand you start with the premise that common sense, which is to say rationality, will shape your ethics (and even possibly your nutrition), the outcome may be far better.

I come at the issue from the opposite direction. As an atheist I start without a god. I nevertheless consider myself to be part of nature and of the universe as a whole. I am free to discover the wonder, the mystery, the magic and the possibililties of all that is before me. Life, nature, and the world around me are all sacred, in a real, if non-religious, sense.

It is not terribly different from the pantheist viewpoint except that where the pantheist strips personality from the concept of god, the atheist also dispenses with the label. Almost everything else remains the same.

Karma at least as a metaphor is completely rational. Depending on what you mean by the terms, "absolute virtue" could be as well.

[LetThereBe]

I suppose what I am asking could best be summed up as any non-utilitarian world view.

If you attach significance beyond utility to anything, can it be rational?

The best example would probably be human life. Most people (that I know) find inherent value in a human being, whether or not that person serves a practical purpose.

As for absolute morals, it would probably better be put as "absolute morality". Just as a pantheist sees significance and/or beauty in natural laws, can one also attach worth to what they perceive as being moral laws?

[RickSp]

What precisely do you mean by utilitarian?

Personally I find great utility in beauty even if such considerations are not considered utilitarian. From a strictly design point of view, beauty, as opposed to ornamentation, often implies functionality and efficiency, both of which have utility, by definition.

Morale law can be as absolute as natural law, as long as we keep in mind that our understanding of each is always imperfect.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: RickSp What precisely do you mean by utilitarian? Personally I find great utility in beauty even if such considerations are not considered utilitarian. From a strictly design point of view, beauty, as opposed to ornamentation, often implies functionality and efficiency, both of which have utility, by definition.

Any beauty beyond aesthetics would suffice.
If the beauty is useful for the postive emotion it elicits, it is still utilitarian. If you think it is somehow something deeper, mystical, or even spiritual, it has gone beyond utilitarianism.

Again, I think the value placed on human life is the best example.

Can it be rational to assign any type of intrinsic value to something?

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: RickSp Morale law can be as absolute as natural law, as long as we keep in mind that our understanding of each is always imperfect.

Agreed.

[Osborn F Enready]

I feel compelled to put this in, for my own point of view.

LetThereBe said: Pantheism generally attributes God status to the universe itself: to the fundamental laws that govern our observable world. The God of the Pantheist can therefore be quite natural, and is never a personality. Since pantheism avoids the realm of the supernatural, can it be considered rational in some or all circumstances?

Do panthiests call themselves such, and do they "practice" their religion as other religions do?

Could panthiesm simply be what they are labeled, by other relgions, due to their perception of putting an iconic god at the center of religion, for it to be religion?

I don't know much about pantheism, but religion is an individual choice, so I don't think any person is qualified to criticize anothers religion of choice, since we all have a choice, until it enters the public realm, and gets pushed by dogma, money and politics.

LetThereBe said: Also, what of world views that are similar, but not necessarily pantheistic?

I would think any worldview not revolving around the supernatural would be comparable, but not necessarily the same.

Some may see me as a "panthiest", based on what I say, and my views on religion, but I am not a practicer of any faith or religion. I place my faith in my equals, and since they are equal, I know they are as faulted as I, which means I must protect myself from those who are capable of deeds, good and bad, that we all are.

I am agnostic, but as I have said before.....

in my opinion, if there is a "god", the chances most likely will reveal it is nature. Do "I" think nature is a god? No. Do I think nature fits the properties often attributed to a god? Yes.

LetThereBe said: Can assigning inherent worth to something beyond its utility be rational, be it the universe, a physical law, a human life, or ethical behavior?

Inherent worth can't be assigned, it can only be recognized.

Value is variable to relevance, and subjective ideals, labor ability, etc.

Worth is value.

LetThereBe said: Could belief in Karma be considered rational?

Rational is a very subjective term, and one I don't use unless I feel I have no choice.

I would say it is rational, if kept individual, and kept in check by the natural worlds laws.

LetThereBe said: Could belief in absolute virtue be considered rational?

Absolute virtue? Wow, never seen those words next to one another.

I hesitate to answer that one.

Perhaps the meaning of rational, needs to be expressed before I could give that answer.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I feel compelled to put this in, for my own point of view. Do panthiests call themselves such, and do they "practice" their religion as other religions do? Could panthiesm simply be what they are labeled, by other relgions, due to their perception of putting an iconic god at the center of religion, for it to be religion? I don't know much about pantheism, but religion is an individual choice, so I don't think any person is qualified to criticize anothers religion of choice, since we all have a choice, until it enters the public realm, and gets pushed by dogma, money and politics.

I am not so much asking the practical applications of pantheistic belief, but just if it is rational.

Inherent worth can't be assigned, it can only be recognized.

Correct, but how can one know the worth of something beyond its utility? If it is unknowable how can one logically attach such significance?

Value is variable to relevance, and subjective ideals, labor ability, etc. Worth is value.

Again, not always. Some people claim human life is valuable simply because it is human life. They claim its worth is an intrinsic part of it... it is by nature valuable, not because of any practicality associated with it.
I find this to be a common view.

Rational is a very subjective term, and one I don't use unless I feel I have no choice. Absolute virtue? Wow, never seen those words next to one another. I hesitate to answer that one. Perhaps the meaning of rational, needs to be expressed before I could give that answer.

I define rational as that which is consistent with and based on logic and reason. If a view or belief is not based on sound logic or reason, I consider it irrational.
Do you agree with this standard?
If so, can one rationally believe significance can exist beyond utility?

[Osborn F Enready]

LetThereBe said: I am not so much asking the practical applications of pantheistic belief, but just if it is rational.

I would say it seems rational to me, knowing what I know of it, which isn't much.....unless they practice their religion in some really weird way that in some way harms people against their will.

LetThereBe said: Correct, but how can one know the worth of something beyond its utility?

There is a lot more to value than utility. Personal values and situations can place higher value on things than utility alone, sometimes greater than utility.

For example, collector items. Some things are completely worthless to one person, yet worth millions of dollars, jewels, gold or lives to another.

Hypotheticly:
The Ark of the Covenant could be stumbled on by somebody who knows nothing of the story, or the value to others, and simply cast it aside as a "nifty chest", but not being worth the labor to extricate from its position.

My issue was with the word "inherant" in the sentence as you used it.

I say rights are "inherant" because all humans by overwhelming majority, have the same abilities without the use of force, therefore, all humans have inherant rights and abilities. Since they are inherant abilities, it only makes sense logicly, that if they are able, they may resist these things not being recognized by forms of authority or society.

I don't think you can have an inherant "value" though, since there is nothing valued equally by all, including life.

LetThereBe said: Again, not always. Some people claim human life is valuable simply because it is human life. They claim its worth is an intrinsic part of it... it is by nature valuable, not because of any practicality associated with it. I find this to be a common view.

While I don't necessarily doubt that view, I would love to see it explained logicly. If it is claimed as a value, there has to be some derivative of that belief, logicly, if expected to be rational.

LetThereBe said: I define rational as that which is consistent with and based on logic and reason. If a view or belief is not based on sound logic or reason, I consider it irrational. Do you agree with this standard?

Yes, I agree with that.

LetThereBe said: If so, can one rationally believe significance can exist beyond utility?

Yes, I think so. Is art "utilitarian"?

There could be arguments made either way as to whether it is or not, but most people value art of some form, from music, prose, paints or any other forms it takes.

Cars are a great example.

All cars are made to do one thing, at the focus. Move people and or things from point A to point B. There are many shapes that takes though, with different values, assigned by market demand, or individual taste and means.

Some people, like me, look at cars as art, engineering marvels, and exhibitions of mans abiltiy. Other people look at cars as "a" means of transportation.

I have a lot of trouble applying an idea of an "inherant value" to anything however, except as a species collective out of empathy, or sympathy, but even then its not really inherant.




Good questions, that leave me unsatisfied with my answers. I will have to think more on this, but that is what I have to offer at this time.

[LetThereBe]

Art can be utilitarian, as long as it does not go beyond the realm of aesthetics.

I think your example of collectors is fitting. The objects themselves are of little value... is it logically sound to obsess over them?

[Kamehameha34]

If you're going to define "pantheism" as "the laws that bound the universe", that sort of defeats of purpose of even having the label, doesn't it? Of course it's rational, but we already have a name for science.

[pikatore]

Karma isn't a rational belief to me, its more like superstition.

Of course, do a good deed, and the party you benefited is usually likely to return the favor, but it doesn't increase the chances of something good happening to you to restore the 'balance'.

Mobsters kill people and live a long and rich life, and die with 'honor'. So no, karma isn't rational.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 If you're going to define "pantheism" as "the laws that bound the universe", that sort of defeats of purpose of even having the label, doesn't it? Of course it's rational, but we already have a name for science.

No, pantheism can coexist with science quite easily without stepping in the way.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 If you're going to define "pantheism" as "the laws that bound the universe", that sort of defeats of purpose of even having the label, doesn't it? Of course it's rational, but we already have a name for science.

Pantheism is when one attaches significance, beauty, or mysticism to those laws. Acknowledging they exist is insufficient to be considered pantheist.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: LetThereBe Pantheism is when one attaches significance, beauty, or mysticism to those laws. Acknowledging they exist is insufficient to be considered pantheist.

Then I think that pantheism isn't really theism, because the whole basis of it is subjective. While in most religions, you have to accept an objective claim that "X is god", pantheism only requires that you revere natural laws. Respect, and interpretation of respect is subjective.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Then I think that pantheism isn't really theism, because the whole basis of it is subjective.

... the basis of ANY theistic belief is subjective, which is why there are different 'theisms' to begin with.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 While in most religions, you have to accept an objective claim that "X is god", pantheism only requires that you revere natural laws. Respect, and interpretation of respect is subjective.

I revere natural laws, but that doesn't make me pantheist. You need to do some reading up on what pantheism is really all about, I'm getting the idea you don't know enough about it.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Then I think that pantheism isn't really theism, because the whole basis of it is subjective. While in most religions, you have to accept an objective claim that "X is god", pantheism only requires that you revere natural laws. Respect, and interpretation of respect is subjective.

My question remains unanswered. Is pantheism, in the sense of worship or mystical awe of what is natural rational?

And further: can ANY non-utilitarian world view be rational?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: LetThereBe My question remains unanswered. Is pantheism, in the sense of worship or mystical awe of what is natural rational? And further: can ANY non-utilitarian world view be rational?

How can one describe a subjective view as rational or irrational? If someone reveres natural laws, then pantheism is rational. If someone else doesn't, then pantheism isn't rational for them.

[pikatore]

Pantheism is not a rational belief, because even though it claims that God is all and all is God, there is no conclusive evidence to support that a God as such exists, because the universe and it's laws can still exist peacefully without having to be components of a god, be it sentient or not. In whatever form it may be believe to exist as, even if that form is existence itself, it is still irrational. Also, the word God itself could simply have been redefined by pantheists to fit a much wider scope, and to me, loses it's meaning.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 How can one describe a subjective view as rational or irrational?

Quite easily.