Richard Dawkins's definition of "Faith" ....

Originally posted by no1marauder
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).

It seems the uh natural choice.

Originally posted by Agerg
that there exists no ghosts, fairies, leprechauns, FSM's, IPU's, gods, time machines, hobgoblins, magic pots, and so on...

On what do you base this conviction?

Originally posted by no1marauder
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).

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?

Originally posted by Halitose
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?

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?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
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?

Rather than split hairs, let’s start by defining terms:

What's your real objection to pantheism?

Which version of pantheism? What are its fundamental tenets?

Originally posted by Halitose
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]

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

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
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

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:

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 Halitose
[b]The Problem of Evil.[/b]

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]"

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
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]"

So it's option 1?

Originally posted by Halitose
So it's option 1?

Let's try that one first.

Originally posted by Halitose
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]

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.

Originally posted by no1marauder
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.

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?

Originally posted by Halitose
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?

That 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.

Originally posted by Agerg
that there exists no ghosts, fairies, leprechauns, FSM's, IPU's, gods, time machines, hobgoblins, magic pots, and so on...

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 !

Originally posted by ivanhoe
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 !

Hmm...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?