Pantheism

Originally posted by rwingett
[b]I frequently refer to 'Pantheism' as 'Gaian Pantheism' in my threads, due to my in James Lovelocks' "Gaia Hypothesis." From Wikipedia:

What's all this about pansies and gays?

Listen, if you want the right to marry have at it already!! 😠😛

Originally posted by rwingett
By viewing the earth with the same reverence that Christians give to their god, any abuse of it would become a grave moral transgression. Mountaintop removal, for example, wouldn't just be a despoliation of nature, but an unacceptable violation of the divine. Living in harmony with nature, instead of callously exploiting it, would become a moral imperative ...[text shortened]... gain). This heightened sense of concern is what will bring us back from the point of no return.

This post is for me the most pivotal here because it invites us to talk about what is for the best. What we should do, under this pantheism? If we turn the earth into a hot wet CO2-laden planet where blue-green algae is again the most advanced life form, will this be a moral transgression? Should we be active, making technological projects to work toward our best available vision of a better world, or be passive, seeking only to leave no footprints? On a more practical level, should I be a vegetarian? Should we encourage, via government programs, a reduction of the human birth rate? Unless this -ism can give us clear guidance on these things, its reverence for the universe and its workings will not be of much effect.

I am not suggesting that any of the other -isms represented on this forum are any better at this.

Originally posted by rwingett
I would be (moderately) interested in hearing your opinion of Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis.

From the first paragraph on the Wikipedia page, I would say it is clearly false. The worlds environment has been modified significantly by life, often to the detriment of many life forms.
I think it probably true that over time, self regulating systems will arise, because, after all, non-self regulating systems die out by definition, and self regulating ones last by definition. But I am not convinced that this is a cause for optimism, nor do I think this self regulation necessarily includes conditions suitable for human habitation.
So although I agree that organisms affect thier environment and are affected by thier environment and thus can be said to co-evolve I am less comfortable with turning it into a religion or treating the earth as a life form or god.

Originally posted by rwingett
The time has come to start a thread on the topic of Pantheism. Here are the Basic beliefs of Naturalistic Pantheism/Scientific Pantheism as quoted from pantheism.net

The World Pantheist Movement's basic orienting beliefs which we call Naturalistic Pantheism or Scientific Pantheism are set out in the WPM belief statement. This is not a creed in the ...[text shortened]... for those who have the same orientation, whatever terms they use to call themselves.

While I do not hold agreement on the -theism part of this, as this has much in common with Hinduism, Taoism and Buddhism, much that I disagree with, I do believe that the subject of environmental ethics should be a part of even the monotheistic religions.

As an American liberal, the environment is important to me, and it's obvious to me that not enough is being done to stop the runaway train we may all be on. But I stop short of making it my God.

Originally posted by Suzianne
While I do not hold agreement on the -theism part of this, as this has much in common with Hinduism, Taoism and Buddhism, much that I disagree with, I do believe that the subject of environmental ethics should be a part of even the monotheistic religions.

As an American liberal, the environment is important to me, and it's obvious to me tha ...[text shortened]... s being done to stop the runaway train we may all be on. But I stop short of making it my God.

if you think we are in the 'end days' what does it matter what we do to the planet?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
if you think we are in the 'end days' what does it matter what we do to the planet?

We, as Christians, should always be ethical in our interface with others and with the planet.

"End days" or not.

Originally posted by JS357
This post is for me the most pivotal here because it invites us to talk about what is for the best. What we should do, under this pantheism? If we turn the earth into a hot wet CO2-laden planet where blue-green algae is again the most advanced life form, will this be a moral transgression? Should we be active, making technological projects to work toward our b ...[text shortened]... am not suggesting that any of the other -isms represented on this forum are any better at this.

Since science itself is morally neutral, it is descriptive as opposed to being prescriptive. It tells us what we can do, not what we should do. As a consequence we have technology (which is applied science) offering us tremendous advancements in certain areas while simultaneously threatening to destroy us in many others. If the latter trend is not reigned in somehow (and quickly), then the former will have been for naught.

Pantheism could provide a moral backbone for science, to guide and channel its pursuit into healthy and beneficial avenues (such as biomimicry) while deterring it away from its many destructive applications. Other religions either set themselves in opposition to science, or do not treat ecological matters with enough concern, or with enough urgency. Pantheism, on the other hand, puts ecological concerns first and foremost and is completely compatible with science. The two could mesh seamlessly, with pantheism giving science a moral direction that it currently lacks.

Originally posted by twhitehead
From the first paragraph on the Wikipedia page, I would say it is clearly false. The worlds environment has been modified significantly by life, often to the detriment of many life forms.
I think it probably true that over time, self regulating systems will arise, because, after all, non-self regulating systems die out by definition, and self regulating ...[text shortened]... am less comfortable with turning it into a religion or treating the earth as a life form or god.

Fair enough. The Gaia Hypothesis itself, though, does not necessarily lead toward a religious treatment of nature, although it certainly provides a gateway for it.

Originally posted by Suzianne
While I do not hold agreement on the -theism part of this, as this has much in common with Hinduism, Taoism and Buddhism, much that I disagree with, I do believe that the subject of environmental ethics should be a part of even the monotheistic religions.

As an American liberal, the environment is important to me, and it's obvious to me tha ...[text shortened]... s being done to stop the runaway train we may all be on. But I stop short of making it my God.

Environmental ethics should be a part of any religion. But, sadly, it seldom is. Or it is overshadowed by various other concerns. Eastern religions tend to give it a higher emphasis than the monotheistic big three, but it is still insufficient.

To say that the environment is important to you isn't enough. It needs to be the most important thing for you (and everyone). If that means equating nature with God, then that is what will need to be done. The old religions are no longer equal to the task at hand.

Originally posted by twhitehead
From the first paragraph on the Wikipedia page, I would say it is clearly false. The worlds environment has been modified significantly by life, often to the detriment of many life forms.
I think it probably true that over time, self regulating systems will arise, because, after all, non-self regulating systems die out by definition, and self regulating ...[text shortened]... am less comfortable with turning it into a religion or treating the earth as a life form or god.

I think googlesludge is following around behind you, giving you a thumbs up on all your posts. Is he on your payroll? Is he really a hunchback who answers to the name of 'Igor'?

Originally posted by rwingett
I think googlesludge is following around behind you, giving you a thumbs up on all your posts. Is he on your payroll? Is he really a hunchback who answers to the name of 'Igor'?

"Other religions either set themselves in opposition to science, or do not treat ecological matters with enough concern, or with enough urgency."

I understand science's neutrality the same way. I quote the part above to emphasize that my questioning of pantheism (perhaps specifically gaian or ecological pantheism) concerns how we establish its moral compass. Is allowing there to be a world in which there is massive global warming and alteration of existing habitats caused by human action and inaction, morally inferior to causing the world to stabilize at its current ecological balance? Or is there an ideal ecological balance that has not yet been arrived at, that we should strive for? Whatever the answer is, how is that answer justified? After all, the universe doesn't "care" about the answers. Traditional theism imagines there to be a being who cares. Should we simply opt to act as though the universe cares, as an essential element of this pantheism?

It seems to me that some version of ecological humanism is the rational answer to these questions; which necessarily places some priority on the well being of humans.

Originally posted by rwingett
The Gaia Hypothesis itself, though, does not necessarily lead toward a religious treatment of nature, although it certainly provides a gateway for it.

I think I agree with JS357 in that the whole problem with making nature a religion or even revering nature, is it is practically impossible to define what nature really is. Your OP suggests that we are part of nature, yet at the same time nature is typically used to refer to those parts of the world not yet significantly affected by man or at least somewhat independent of man. Thus it is not clear whether this Pantheism would value domesticated animals or food crops as part of 'nature', or would rather encourage large national parks with minimal human intervention.
As humans we are significantly changing the environment. We often see this as 'damaging' the environment, but in reality we are just changing it. The 'damage' is either from our own perspective ie in terms of how useful that environment is to us, or in terms of some favored life form, or in some belief that nature should be left to its own devices and any interference is 'damage'.
But if one is to revere life in general, then humans have actually benefited some life forms - at the expense of others. The question then is, is there a right and wrong?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think I agree with JS357 in that the whole problem with making nature a religion or even revering nature, is it is practically impossible to define what nature really is. Your OP suggests that we are part of nature, yet at the same time nature is typically used to refer to those parts of the world not yet significantly affected by man or at least somewh ...[text shortened]... life forms - at the expense of others. The question then is, is there a right and wrong?

This is my concern in a nutshell. This does not necessarily mean I reject the concept of making a philosophical commitment to certain ecological principles, or that I object to group efforts to support those principles. I don't think any appeal to a divine entity of any kind, or to "natural law," or anything like that is needed; in fact, such approaches can lead to orthodoxy, purity tests and worse, as we have seen happen in religion. However if a member of such a group wanted to stand in relation to the universe as he would stand in relation to a divine being, that's OK by me, so long as he is OK with my not doing so.

Originally posted by JS357
I don't think any appeal to a divine entity of any kind, or to "natural law," or anything like that is needed; in fact, such approaches can lead to orthodoxy, purity tests and worse, as we have seen happen in religion.

And as we have seen with people who have appealed to 'survival of the fittest' as a supposedly 'natural law', then elevated it to a moral licence to commit genocide or carry out eugenics.

Originally posted by JS357
"Other religions either set themselves in opposition to science, or do not treat ecological matters with enough concern, or with enough urgency."

I understand science's neutrality the same way. I quote the part above to emphasize that my questioning of pantheism (perhaps specifically gaian or ecological pantheism) concerns how we establish its moral compass ...[text shortened]... er to these questions; which necessarily places some priority on the well being of humans.

I must confess that in my capacity as a pantheistic novice I do not have the answers to all these questions, but I'll give it a shot:

That which works in harmony with the Gaian system to enhance and preserve life (on the level of whole species) would be said to be good, while that which hinders it would be bad. That, coupled with the recognition that humans are but one species among many in an intricately interconnected, interdependent whole, could be said to be the basis for a pantheistic ethics. As such, causing global warming is a decidedly negative moral act. Actions which unnecessarily deprive others species of the ability to flourish would be negative moral acts.

We cannot turn back the clock to bring back the Dodo, or return vast stretches of farmland to forest, but we can minimize the impact of our actions going forward to prevent any further damage.

Humanism would be lacking in that it either implicitly or explicitly elevates human concerns as being of greater priority in relation to the other elements that comprise the working parts of the whole.