Hi Tat, thanks. I really like the Pantheist statement of belief, but have a few points where I would like to clarify my response to it, as follows.tat tvam asi wrote:I think that a belief statement would make things more understandable Robert. As an example I'll post the WPM belief statement and I'd like to see where your astrotheological Christian reformation ideas differ, if they differ at all: http://www.pantheism.net/manifest.htm
The belief statement of the WPM
I completely endorse this statement. It raises some key themes for a mythicist view. “The universe” in my view is the finite material totality observed by science. Any ideas of an infinity beyond the universe is outside this scope, as completely speculative and unknowable, as is the traditional concept of divine entities. The point that the universe is ‘self-organising’ raises basic questions about free will and determinism, in that it sees the human exercise of freedom of intention as a local expression of a universal principle of natural causation. For our decisions and ideas to reflect a universal law is how I see the real meaning of the Biblical concept of humanity as made in the image of God.
1. We revere and celebrate the Universe as the totality of being, past, present and future. It is self-organizing, ever-evolving and inexhaustibly diverse. Its overwhelming power, beauty and fundamental mystery compel the deepest human reverence and wonder.
Astrotheology expands on this insight to say that ancient myth has long understood it, and has presented stories as allegories for unity to understand how we are at one with nature, the source of the Christian doctrine of atonement. Where I would expand on this statement is to say that our interconnected unity should seek expression through institutions. Pantheists tend to regard existing institutions as irredeemably alienated and lost, whereas I have hope for their salvation through transformation into a sense of their place within a unitary cosmos. It is about developing a view on how our world can evolve by building on precedent rather than operating entirely outside existing structures.2. All matter, energy, and life are an interconnected unity of which we are an inseparable part. We rejoice in our existence and seek to participate ever more deeply in this unity through knowledge, celebration, meditation, empathy, love, ethical action and art.
Reverence for nature is something that fundamentalists cannot understand. Christians commit an epic fail regarding worship when they jump past the order of creation to claim reverence for a Creator. It is idolatrous to claim that theories about God can be advanced that are incompatible with observation of nature by science.3. We are an integral part of Nature, which we should cherish, revere and preserve in all its magnificent beauty and diversity. We should strive to live in harmony with Nature locally and globally. We acknowledge the inherent value of all life, human and non-human, and strive to treat all living beings with compassion and respect.
This is a nice piece of idealism but it is not true. Some people are more enlightened than others. The relativism inherent in the claim that everyone is an ‘equal center of awareness’ is fine in terms of inherent potential, but not in terms of reality, where in fact many people are aware and many people are deluded. A person who believes things that are not true is not ‘an equal center of awareness of the Universe and nature’.4. All humans are equal centers of awareness of the Universe and nature, and all deserve a life of equal dignity and mutual respect. To this end we support and work towards freedom, democracy, justice, and non-discrimination, and a world community based on peace, sustainable ways of life, full respect for human rights and an end to poverty.
The first sentence here is very metaphysical. The terms ‘substance’, ‘vibrant’ and ‘infinitely creative’ have a poetic ring which is evocative but far from exact. David Hume attacked the concept of substance as metaphysical, making the point that Aristotle used substance (ousia) in a way that did not accord with empirical evidence. Again, my scepticism about any use of the term ‘infinite’ applies here – real creation is finite, not infinite. Creativity opens us to an unknown, but that does not make it infinite.5. There is a single kind of substance, energy/matter, which is vibrant and infinitely creative in all its forms. Body and mind are indivisibly united.
The second sentence ‘Body and mind are indivisibly united’ is similarly woolly. Mind is a representation of matter through language. Words are not things. So a distinction between mind and body does have some meaning, even while we view mind as a product of matter.
My only quibble here is what it means to ‘exist as an individual’. Point 1 has already implied that the past is real. Yet here we find the suggestion that only people alive in the present moment ‘exist as individuals’. I prefer to say that dead people continue to exist through their influence on the world, both known and unknown. So I would put influence as more central than actions, ideas and memories in terms of what lives on. This goes back to the mind-matter distinction, because influence is primarily on culture and the life of the mind, establishing connections between the present and the past in ways that have quite a distant connection to the material body that enables them. For example, our discussion of ancient Egypt establishes a connection between us and them, but one that is very different from the solely material causality of us having this discussion. And the ancients, both real and mythical, continue to exist and live in us, through our discussion of their ideas.6. We see death as the return to nature of our elements, and the end of our existence as individuals. The forms of "afterlife" available to humans are natural ones, in the natural world. Our actions, our ideas and memories of us live on, according to what we do in our lives. Our genes live on in our families, and our elements are endlessly recycled in nature.
I’m sorry if my comments confuse people on this point, but it opens the paradox that while Jesus Christ never existed as an individual historically, he nonetheless does exist as an individual in people’s perceptions, which is still a real form of existence. To some extent believing makes it so, if our belief influences our actions.
Fully agree here.7. We honor reality, and keep our minds open to the evidence of the senses and of science's unending quest for deeper understanding. These are our best means of coming to know the Universe, and on them we base our aesthetic and religious feelings about reality.
Again, this shows the anarchic, relativist and non-conformist roots of Pantheism. Sadly, most individuals do not have direct access to reality, because they are ignorant or deluded. There is in fact a need for mediation, although the problem is that historically this function has been performed extremely badly, so people are right to view it with a hermeneutic of suspicion, as Nietzsche put it. Most people are followers. What is needed is leaders with good perception who can simplify complex vision into an accessible form in order to build new institutions that will heal the damage done by millennia of deluded institutions.
8. Every individual has direct access through perception, emotion and meditation to ultimate reality, which is the Universe and Nature. There is no need for mediation by priests, gurus or revealed scriptures.
Again, this is a complicated one. It derives from the problem of false religion abusing the power of the state to suppress diversity. I fully support the human right to diversity and freedom of thought and religion, but I also hold the hope of an eventual reconciliation of church and state, once religion gains enough legitimacy and integrity to be trusted. In ancient Egypt the king was a channel of divine blessing. This sense of social unity is attractive, but very distant, in view of the extreme corruption of contemporary religion. This issue also touches on eschatology, the idea of a final conflict between good and evil. I view pantheism as on the side of the angels, lining up with Saint Michael for the war in heaven against the dragon, (if you can permit an allegorical turn of phrase that I am sure many will recognize). The context of global warming driven by alienated religion means these questions of a political expression of pantheism is important and urgent. The need for institutions that are pantheist is actually important for the salvation of the planet, given that institutions of state are the source of power, and anything outside them gets ignored in terms of practical effect.
9. We uphold the separation of religion and state, and the universal human right of freedom of religion. We recognize the freedom of all pantheists to express and celebrate their beliefs, as individuals or in groups, in any non-harmful ritual, symbol or vocabulary that is meaningful to them.