Originally posted by no1marauderIt seems the uh natural choice.
Go for Pantheism; you're part of the ultimate Unity and will some day return to it. It lacks the egotism of Christianity (where YOU get to exist forever more or less in this form) but it does provide an ultimate meaning (as much as Christianity, at any rate).
Originally posted by no1marauderDon't you lead an (relatively) egoistic life? You're certainly not trying to be one with the bus hurtling towards you when you cross the street? Why the shift once you're dead?
Go for Pantheism; you're part of the ultimate Unity and will some day return to it. It lacks the egotism of Christianity (where YOU get to exist forever more or less in this form) but it does provide an ultimate meaning (as much as Christianity, at any rate).
Originally posted by HalitoseThis is a really dumb example. You don't throw dogs in front of buses either, why not? You could have an exemplarily selfless view of self-preservation, too, in which you preserve your own life because its destruction by a hurtling bus could endanger others, not to mention your body is not yours to dispose of (if you take that viewpoint).
Don't you lead an (relatively) egoistic life? You're certainly not trying to be one with the bus hurtling towards you when you cross the street? Why the shift once you're dead?
What's your real objection to pantheism?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageRather than split hairs, let’s start by defining terms:
This is a really dumb example. You don't throw dogs in front of buses either, why not? You could have an exemplarily selfless view of self-preservation, too, in which you preserve your own life because its destruction by a hurtling bus could endanger others, not to mention your body is not yours to dispose of (if you take that viewpoint).
What's your real objection to pantheism?
What's your real objection to pantheism?
Which version of pantheism? What are its fundamental tenets?
Originally posted by HalitoseLet's talk about Spinoza's pantheism.
Rather than split hairs, let’s start by defining terms:
[b]What's your real objection to pantheism?
Which version of pantheism? What are its fundamental tenets?[/b]
"God is one, that is, only one substance can be granted in the universe. Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived." Taken from http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/spinoza.htm
Spinoza's Ethics: http://www.mtsu.edu/~rbombard/RB/Spinoza/ethica-front.html
Originally posted by Bosse de NageFor a start, I think the emphasis for me is much rather on why I am a theist, than why I am not a pantheist, but anyhow:
Let's talk about Spinoza's pantheism.
"God is one, that is, only one substance can be granted in the universe. Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived." Taken from http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/spinoza.htm
Spinoza's Ethics: http://www.mtsu.edu/~rbombard/RB/Spinoza/ethica-front.html
My first objection, which is one I've thrown out on numerous occasions:
The Problem of Evil.
There are several ways of addressing it in pantheism, all of which raise uncomfortable questions, the most common being:
1. Evil is illusionary (a concept which is not only frustrating and hollow for those who experience it, but is for me philosophically inadequate). Hence, intrinsically there is no difference between cruelty and non-cruelty.
2. Evil is real, but God is all, therefore God is evil. Uh... what about the good -- nothing exists apart from God; therefore:
3. God is both all-good and all-evil -- two mutually exclusive claims.
Originally posted by HalitoseEvil stems from an anthropocentric world-view.
[b]The Problem of Evil.[/b]
"The perfection of things is to be reckoned only from their own nature and power; things are not more or less perfect, according as they delight or offend human senses, or according as they are serviceable or repugnant to mankind. [i. Appendix]"
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSo it's option 1?
Evil stems from an anthropocentric world-view.
"The perfection of things is to be reckoned only from their own nature and power; things are not more or less perfect, according as they delight or offend human senses, or according as they are serviceable or repugnant to mankind. [i. Appendix]"
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseApproaching Pantheism with Theist preconceptions will, of course, lead to absurdities. While the existence of a Creator God with the 4 O's who has some sort of an interest in what occurs in the Universe is logically incompatible with the existence of Evil, a Pantheist Unity has no such problems.
For a start, I think the emphasis for me is much rather on why I am a theist, than why I am not a pantheist, but anyhow:
My first objection, which is one I've thrown out on numerous occasions:
[b]The Problem of Evil.
There are several ways of addressing it in pantheism, all of which raise uncomfortable questions, the most common being:
1. E ...[text shortened]... rom God; therefore:
3. God is both all-good and all-evil -- two mutually exclusive claims.[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauderMy approach (as far as I am honestly aware of) is purely existential: I experience evil; occasionally I am inclined towards evil; mostly I am repulsed by it; I try to make sense of it -- understand it.
Approaching Pantheism with Theist preconceptions will, of course, lead to absurdities. While the existence of a Creator God with the 4 O's who has some sort of an interest in what occurs in the Universe is logically incompatible with the existence of Evil, a Pantheist Unity has no such problems.
How then should I approach it?
Originally posted by HalitoseThat approach is fine for the human experience but it really only applies to other humans. Was Hurricane Katrina "evil"? If there is an entity who takes a particular interest in the human condition, knew it would happen, could have prevented it but did not, then perhaps he is "evil". If it's occurrence is merely part of an impersonal Unity that has no foreknowledge or power to change what will be, than of course it isn't.
My approach (as far as I am honestly aware of) is purely existential: I experience evil; occasionally I am inclined towards evil; mostly I am repulsed by it; I try to make sense of it -- understand it.
How then should I approach it?
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergTime machines do exist ... they are called airplanes. Remember the experiment with the two airplanes and the two atomic clocks inside ?
that there exists no ghosts, fairies, leprechauns, FSM's, IPU's, gods, time machines, hobgoblins, magic pots, and so on...
You should be careful with stating what exists and what not !
Originally posted by ivanhoeHmm...you think by no time machines that I refer to the notion that an object's perception of time cannot be different relative to another...and NOT that there exists no device such that one can go back and forth through time as one pleases?
Time machines do exist ... they are called airplanes. Remember the experiment with the two airplanes and the two atomic clocks inside ?
You should be careful with stating what exists and what not !