Saturday, March 08, 2014

Pandeism and the world of Harold Ramis

Today I eulogize a gifted man the only way I know how: by writing about how his world is fully accounted for, and so superseded, by the theological theory of Pandeism.

....A Twinkie 35 feet long weighing 600 pounds....

But first, I note that Patton Oswalt tweeted thusly:

If a Twinkie represents amount of grief I feel when someone dies,
Harold Ramis' death would be a Twinkie 35 feet long weighing 600 pounds.

This, for the uninitiated, paraphrases a line from one of Ramis' most famous collaborations, Ghostbusters -- in the film, Ramis' character, the brilliantly named Egon Spengler, was estimating the amount of psychokinetic energy hovering over New York (as compared to its regular Twinkie-sized Twinkie amount). Historically and recently, a number of meganerds have posted blogs or comments to the effect that a 35 foot long Twinkie would actually weigh way more than 600 pounds.*, *, *, * But their projections are all based on the presumption that the 35-foot length of this Twinkie would correlate with a proportional increase in diameter. In fact, the correct question to be asking is, "If a Twinkie is 35 feet long, and weighs 600 pounds, what would be the diameter of this Twinkie?"

Assuming for simplicity that a regular Twinkie is 10 cm and weight 36 grams, a proportionally expanded Twinkie being about 10.66 meters would be 106 times as long as the norm, and indeed weigh as much as 1.2 million regular twinkies, i.e. 96,000 pounds. But to achieve a Twinkie of that length which in fact weighed 600 pounds, one would simply need to make the Twinkie's length much greater than its proportional increase in diameter. We would need to specifically make it's diameter somewhere between one twelfth and one thirteenth the normal proportion. I'm being a bit rough here, but I believe a Twinkie is about an inch and a half or so in diameter -- and yes, I know that Twinkies are not perfectly cylindrical (nor in a vacuum for that matter). But approximating them to be, we may confidently retort that Egon spoke of a Twinkie 35 feet long, and about eighteen inches in diameter down it's length....

And, yes, that's a big Twinkie -- and a heavy load of grief, appropriately carried for the passing of such a bringer of mirth.

....I Ain't Afraid of No Ghost....

And by the way, I don't mean here to dwell on whether Pandeism is specifically consistent with the spirit-filled world of Ghostbusters, which is after all only a fragment of Ramis' work. But, yes, I do confess that I've been asked more than once: as a Pandeist, do I believe in ghosts, spirits, communion with the deceased, and such? Is there room in such a theological theory -- founded on logical and reasoned examination of the proof available in observing our Universe -- for the historically (if anecdotally) widely-believed phenomenon of ghosts? And I would answer that if there are such things as ghosts, these too are simply manifestations of our Creator in the same way that we are ourselves such manifestations.

But at the same time, I must speak for the moments of the proof from my own perceptions. I have certainly been in the presence of what I would call residual spiritual energies. I have a theory in mind that if a person has habitual behaviours, then there may exist some energy of the person which has a certain memory for pursuing those behaviours. I have never had a two-way conversation with a "ghost," but if I did I'd account for that pandeistically!!

....So I Got That Going For Me, Which Is Nice....

But the real point here is how Pandeism would view the whole of the body of work left behind by Harold Ramis -- Animal House, Meatballs, Caddyshack, Vacation, Back to School, Groundhog Day, Analyze This. There were some flops as well, but I'm only looking at the hits here, and for good reason, a reason that gets right down to the core of Pandeism: because they bring people joy. And isn't that really what it's all about? Or, at least, what it ought to be?

If it just so happens that we are, indeed, all part of our Creator, and our Creator is experiencing existence through us, is it not obvious that we ought to strive to have the most joyful experience of existence? It seems odd in this respect that many religions seem to have no room for the kinds of experiences which bestow unto us fullthroated, rib-shaking laughter. There is precious little that is intentionally funny in scripture. Theologian Alfred North Whitehead wrote that "the total absence of humour from the Bible is one of the most singular things in all of literature," and the Qu'ran is not much funnier. The Old Testament for example offers such advice as:

Sorrow is better than laughter,
for by sadness of face the heart is made glad.
The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning,
but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth.
It is better for a man to hear the rebuke of the wise
than to hear the song of fools.
For as the crackling of thorns under a pot,
so is the laughter of the fools;
this also is vanity.

Ecclesiastes 7:3-6. But one must wonder, what would those folks think of the "was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor" speech in Animal House or that scene in Meatballs where the basketball team loses "with self respect" by pulling down the pants of their opponents and fleeing in the ensuing chaos? The men who penned the instructions, "let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking," Ephesians 5:4, would they scoff in derision at the classic candy-bar-in-the-swimming-pool scene in Caddyshack? Consider the hilarious comeuppance, in that very film, of the priest who golfs in the rain and takes the Lord's name in vain when he misses his last shot, only to be struck by lightning -- and who later turns up drunk and muttering "there is no God." And the bit in Groundhog Day where reporter Phil, stuck reliving the same day over and over again goes through a stretch of increasingly bizarre trysts with a local women. (One clever fellow has calculated that Phil spends in total over thirty-three years reliving that day).

But I propose that if our Creator shares in our experiences, then that includes every last guffaw of our laughter. Man was meant to laugh, and not only to laugh at highbrow things, but to laugh at fart jokes and awkward sex misadventures, at the mockery of stiff-shirted priests, at a series of cartoons making fun of a possible gay Jesus and Mohammad, and certainly of the story of the Buddhist asking the hot dog vendor, "make me one with everything." Harold Ramis had the wit to relay a story of a golfing Dalai Lama not paying Carl Spackler for his caddying in money, but instead with the promise that on his deathbed, Spackler would have total awareness.

And so, far from having words of condemnation for the varying degrees of irreverence with which Harold Ramis brought us to our knees with laughter, Pandeism would laud what Ramis gave so many, to share with one another and with our Creator -- the wonderful experience of laughter, the greatest gift one human can give another (except, naturally, for orgasms).

Thursday, December 12, 2013

The infinite problem of infinite afterlives

The single most damning indictment against a deity establishing or allowing a strict dichotomy of eternal reward or eternal punishment is the inability of such deity to ameliorate such condition once it has been imposed. But some theistic accounts propose just such a dichotomy, specifically outlining categories of finite conduct which lead to infinite punishment -- even for those who would not naturally be aware that such conduct is condemnable.

Theists typically seek to sidestep the issue by proposing that human beings, having free will, are given the ability to choose to be so evil that forgiveness is not deserved. But once the punishment exceeds the wrong, unforgivingness itself becomes purely vile evil. At that point the finite wrong has already been punished, and the once-wrongdoer is being punished for nothing. A being would therefore itself need to be an infinitely evil scourge on the face of existence to permit an infinite punishment for a finite wrong. Naturally, it is a compoundedly greater error to make a binary inquiry of this, addressing only the punishment of the most evil humans. In fact, some faiths suggest a deity so basely evil that it would impose an eternal punishment on somebody who simply never came to believe in the existence of the deity in question despite living an otherwise good, even flawless life (and, perhaps, even if this disbelief is a logical response to incompetent evangelism).

Islam (so far as I am given to understand) avoids this fatal error by providing that the 'sinner' retains the ability to repent and obtain forgiveness even after death, i.e. even while in Islamic hell. Which is a more sensible thing, after all, since the infinite impossibility of such a thing would require a most sadistic elimination of free will. Simply put, if our minds continue to exist after death at all then we retain the capability to change our minds. If we can not change our minds, if we can not repent our wrongs, then the minds being punished are not truly our minds; they are no more than constructs of a static version of our minds, created for the sole purpose of having torment imposed upon them (if we ever actually existed in the first place). Conversely, if our minds (and their defining free will) are able to continue, then we are able to change our minds, and all must be able to go from a hell to a heaven or from a heaven to a hell based upon their change of mind. In other words, it can not be the case that the consequence is both infinite, and unfixable for the duration of that infinite period, for that would eliminate the free will from which the situation is claimed to arise in the first place, eliminating any justification for punishment.

Ultimately, the simple mathematical impossibility of a finite mind being fully aware of an infinite consequence is what makes infinite consequences inherently evil as applied to finite actors. The human inability to truly understand infinites is exemplified by the fact that we are only able to discuss the infinite through the use of finite symbols and representations. But of the entire set of "condemned" souls, there must be one which is, of that set, the least deserving of condemnation -- so the question remains, why does the least deserving condemned person remain condemned? And why would this condemnation persist even when the condemned person least deserving of condemnation had been fully punished or had fully repented after, say, one hundred billion years of torment? Why not, when the least deserving saved person is saved for all time, even if they become no more worthy of it after salvation, or are even able to slip into thoughts meriting condemnation?

Wednesday, December 04, 2013

A Pandeist responds to "Sainttalk" on Pandeism

Oh dear. An anonymous web-denizen styling himself as "Sainttalk" is quite confident that he's done Pandeism in here (HERE) and so reason itself deems it necessary to untangle the errors of fact and logic which propel his lengthy missive, and which lead him so far astray.

On a definitional preliminary note, Sainttalk quotes Wikipedia on Pandeism, stating simply that "it holds that the creator of the universe actually became the universe, and so ceased to exist as a separate and conscious entity...." Fair enough -- though the strictures of Wikipedia seem to limit discussion of Pandeism to what a handful of sufficiently 'notable' people have claimed about it (mostly evaluations of which other 'notable' people were or were not pandeistic in their thinking). But Wikipedia's failure to provide any insight into the logic underscoring Pandeism does not directly address the quality of Sainttalk's analysis, only the quality of the sources which inform it. And so, we launch straight into that analysis.

On Pandeism Fully Accounting:

To begin with, Sainttalk writes that "Pandeism purports to account for all supernatural events in our world." And yes, this is correct, it surely does so purport. But Sainttalk does not counter (or address at all) the logic by which Pandeism fully accounts. Perhaps this is due to the paucity of sources to which he has turned for enlightenment on the matter. Simply put, Pandeism proposes that all such events, as reported by all faiths, are man's own unwitting manipulations of the underlying power inherent in our Universe itself, present due to the nature of pandeistic creation. And, failing to address this, naturally, nowhere does Sainttalk seek to disprove this possibility (other than to point out that the holy book to which he holds makes different assumptions). This is perhaps a lost opportunity to test the logic of Pandeism; but since it is an opportunity not taken, we move on with the intact presumption that Pandeism is indeed at least able to fully account.

Sainttalk next writes about how Pandeism "purports to have a superior answer to of all past evil," which is an interesting formulation. Pandeism offers a "superior answer" only in the sense that "5+3=8" is a mathematically "superior" answer as compared to "5+3=2"; it is simply an answer more cogently based on fundamental logic than explanations which suffer from theodicy. Pandeism, Sainttalk complains, attributes "past wars to various 'faiths' rather than the sinners who did not practice their faiths," knowledge which Sainttalk credits to "You-tube videos" -- probably especially meaning this one here -- HERE -- but misunderstands the import of. Pandeism does not claim that faiths inherently cause violence (this is a question for the psychologists), simply that those models are demonstratedly ineffective at averting it. At the least, if being a source of violence is a reason to reject a belief system, these models have failed to redeem themselves of that charge.

There's no doubt that a great many religions actually preach (as Sainttalk asserts) "love our enemies" and similar platitudes of peacefulness -- but it is equally well observed that a core teaching which is ignored by the vast majority of adherents to a faith can reasonably be taken indicative of a subconscious understanding of the general falsity of the propositions of that faith. It is noteworthy as well that, even as to a point largely irrelevant to the truthfulness of Pandeism, Sainttalk presents a false dichotomy, claiming that Pandeism attributes past wars to faiths, as opposed to but one other alternative (the theistic construct of 'sinners'), as if other sources of violence lie beyond the critic's conception. But there is violence in nature; we do not call it a "sin" when asparrow devours a gnat, so perhaps we would do well to consider how much our conceptions of such things are built on a bit too anthropocentric a view of our Universe.

On Pandeism and the Afterlife:

Sainttalk claims that Pandeism "purports to be a philosophy of peace because any bad you do you will later experience to the same degree and any good you do you will later experience to the same degree" (this fellow seems to especially like the word "purports"). Likely, Sainttalk got this notion from another vid, Pandeism and the Afterlife,  HERE, but this vid itself notes that only somePandeists so claim, that this is not a core tenet of Pandeism, but simply a logical extension of certain lines of pandeistic thought.

Simply put, these conclusions stem from the ideas that, firstly, our Creator becomes our Universe to learn through our experiences; secondly, that it may be quite useful to our Creator for our collective experiences (our 'minds') to thereafter be retained intact within the consciousness of our Creator; and thirdly, that each of our minds, having full access to the breadth of all experience of our Universe, will be aware specifically of what consequences accrued for good or ill from our own actions in life. Now, the reason that this is not a core pandeistic belief is that, though logically derived, it is simply not an absolutely necessity for the operations of a pandeistic Universe -- and Pandeism is built on logic, and so on the questions of what is possible and impossible, and what is necessary and unnecessary.

That aside, Sainttalk treats this idea, which he considers a variant of karma, as if it were inseparable from Pandeism, and then turns to lamenting that the idea of karma "has not prevented wars, poverty, injustice or any other sins against humanity in the past." Well, it is true indeed that no theological model (including Sainttalk's own) has had the effect of bringing about peace, comfort, or justice. Sainttalk continues, "Humans have proven themselves to be sinful and selfish NO MATTER WHAT LIST OF RULES YOU GIVE THEM," and (substituting something like 'hurtful' for the biased framework of 'sinful') this is again true as to all faiths. And so not especially an argument for or against any faith, but an argument that the widely held faiths which claim to champion peace are subconsciously understood to be false faiths.

Additionally, Sainttalk asserts, then, that "the afterife to a pandeist is just a sowing/reaping" which Sainttalk claims as a tenet of own faith, and ends this section with the conclusion that Pandeism lacks the benefit of the particular religious figure whom Sainttalk considers necessary for "salvation." This is quite an odd stance, if "salvation" is not needed for those who have sown goodness. Later on, Sainttalk criticizes the suggestion of Pandeists that the dichotomous afterlife options of his own faith are "too black and white," insisting that his holy book allows for" degrees of punishment for sinners" and "levels of reward" for adherents to his faith. (I note here that theistic faiths ape each other enough on these points that in addressing them, it is no matter which religion is claimed, which holy book is held up as deity-inspired, which religious figure is demanded to be worshiped.)

But whatever claims are made as to degrees of punishment, it is still untenably claimed that the states of reward or punishment themselves are eternal, and that their associated deity is strangely impotent as to them, too weak to reach them even, and powerless to change them. But, again, these foibles of theism are not core elements of Pandeism, and more interesting territory lies ahead, where these are actually taken on.



On a Creator Being Able to Learn From Its Creation:

Sainttalk does then, at last, address a core element of Pandeism, that being the pandeistic proposition that our Creator has a rational reason to create at all:

The pandeist denies that the creator and the creation are two separate entities...the painter becomes his painting. We share in godhood. They have no good answer to the "why?" question. They suggest the creator will learn from the people he created by sharing/experiencing their experiences and reactions. But does one powerful enough to CREATE creatures with options/responses/will, etc... need to "learn" from his creation?
It is interesting that Sainttalk claims in one sentence that there is "no good answer" as to why, and yet in the very next sentence offers what he fails to accept as a very good answer -- and one for which he offers no logically effective refutation. The "answer" is obvious in light of our own experience of existence. Learning is an ability -- one possessed in some degree even by some lower orders of animals. Amongst our fellows, we praise those who are able to learn from their experiences, and pity those who are not able to do so. Sainttalk frames his deity as utterly pitiful, unable to learn, and so having no rational reason to create anything at all. Possibly, a desperate enough theist might insist that their deity is unable to learn because it already know everything, already knew which outcome would come about to every moment of decision before deciding to set forth the Universe in which those moments would occur, but this answer eliminates the claim of free will, and replaces it with the cruelest and most absolute predestination.

Pandeism, instead, offers concrete examples of things which a rational, logically possible Creator could, in fact, learn from its Creation. Can an entity which is alone in existence and which is powerful enough to set forth a Universe know how it feels to face an opponent more powerful than itself? Can it know how it feels to be ignorant? Uninformed? In the dark? Confused? Can it know how it feels to cooperate with others, to achieve through teamwork things which it knows it can not do alone? Can it know how it feels to fear the unknown, and to act courageously in the face of such fear? These experiences, almost everyday to us, are necessarily unknown to any entity which faces no external threat, which has no unknown to fear, and it is only through existence as beings ableto experience such things that any entity could actually experience such things!!

But Sainttalk goes further than failing to see this answer; he claims that his preferred holy book specifically deems the Creation to be separate from its Creator, and "calls creation-worship (we are gods) a SIN." It is a well-worn error of anti-Pandeism to mischaracterise Pandeism as any kind of "self-worship." Pandeism contends that our Creator became our Universe, not that each individual person is therefore in some sense equal to the whole of our Creator. To make such a claim is akin to calling a drop of water "the ocean" or a single cell "a person"; it is a straw man, an attack on a position never taken by Pandeism.

Does Our Creator Exist To Serve Our Needs? Or Do We Exist To Serve Our Creator's Needs?

Failing to effectively demonstrate the ineptness of his own deity as to the ability of "learning," Sainttalk dives further into the errors of his own religious conditioning:

Another unanswered question is this: Why no communication from this creator before he went into hiding....no rules given...no hints? That seems pointless, if not cruel. Why has this one who had the power to prevent evil or control it in the world not given any deterrent to it...
This sort of thinking has always egotistically assumed that our Creator exists to serve man's purposes, and not the other way round. Beyond that, it demonstrates the sort of schizophrenia which theism demands in simultaneously contending that man is in some vaunted "special" place in Creation, while condemning the notion that man is in any such place. Nowhere is this more eloquently highlighted than in Sainttalk's own conclusion to the above thought, that "Pandeists have no understanding of the fallen, selfish, sin-bent hearts of all humans."

From there, Sainttalk steps into a bit of hypocrisy, and a bit of bizarreness. He writes:

The Pandeist view is based on presuppositions that cannot be proven. God just left us to figure this all out for many thousands of years? Why is this such a NEW idea? Pandeists indicated 2010 and 2012 as key years for the "ism". By what power or authority did the Pandeism idea come into being? What verifies its truth?
As to this, firstly, all religion is based on presuppositions which cannot be proved. Indeed, the theistic faiths simply take the essential presuppositions of Pandeism and add to them layers more presupposition. It is the rare theologian who confesses this simple truth, and rarer still the one who confesses that the collective assumptions necessary for any theistic faith are indeed inherently counter to logic, and believed for the sake of belief alone.

As to the notion of our being left "to figure this all out" -- again, what of the countless millions of people who lived and died without ever hearing of Sainttalk's faith? Were they not left "to figure this all out" with no sign of a supposed salvation? How unforgivably cruel, if such a thing existed. But, in fact, we are not left alone to figure things out, we are given discernible governing dynamics, logical and consistent operations of our Universe, and forces as simple as gravity and thermodynamics giving us heat.

As to this being a "new" idea -- well, it is weird that Sainttalk would cite Wikipedia as his first point of authority, and then seemingly ignore the one thing Wikipedia does well as to this topic, which is to point up the age of the ideas Pandeism encompasses, and the age of the specific theory itself. Wikipedia notes as well the assignment of this origin by experts with the Milesians, going back over 2,600 years, and notes the opinions of other experts of Pandeism in Hinduism, which is inestimably older still. Wikipedia identifies the earliest use of the term (in German, naturally) in 1787, followed by an intermittent stream of commentary on the theory from then to the present, with one work presenting an especially substantial focus on Pandeism having been published in 1910. The years mentioned by Sainttalk -- 2010 and 2012 -- are "key" only in that they were fantastic years for Pandeism making inroads into the base of human knowledge, years in which the discovery of things like extrasolar planets strengthened the case for Pandeism to the point where Sainttalk himself feels compelled to address it.

All that as a given, the modern resurgence of interest in Pandeism in light of supporting discoveries in physics makes Pandeism more akin to the Theory of Relativity. When first announced, those who confuse science and theology might well have derided this theory as being "such a new idea." They might well have demanded to know by what power or authority did the Theory of Relativity come into being?

The Importance of Requiring the Fewest Logical Assumptions:

Sainttalk next notes that anybody may claim that "martyrs for their faith will get 72 virgins in heaven," and at another point asks, "What makes THIS idea any better than any other? Some folks like "great pumpkin" theology... anything wrong with that one?" And here we come precisely to the crux of the matter, which is that Pandeism makes the fewest assumptions of any of these models (including Sainttalk's own). Pandeism proposes that ours appears to be a Created Universe -- a point which would be agreed upon by both Sainttalk and the followers of competing faiths which he derides. Pandeism proposes that our Creator had:

1) At least enough power to create the energy of our physical Universe.
2) And, at least enough intelligence to design our Universe's governing dynamics.
3) And, at least enough rationality to have a rational motivation for such Creation.
I would imaging that Sainttalk would be hard pressed to declare that our Creator had insufficient power to create what it created, or that it had insufficient power to have created by becoming our Universe, if it so chose. But that is all that Pandeism requires, and all that it requires to fully account for every scripture, oracle, prophecy, and revelation to come from the hands and mouths of men; and every miracle perceived by the eyes of men.

Pandeism does not require that our Creator be more powerful than is necessary to create all that we can observe to exist, because logic cannot require this; there is no proof of such additional power, for that would require proof of something which we cannot know to exist. And so it is with every other assumption which other faiths would pile upon the simple assumptions of Pandeism. Whether it be 72 virgins in heaven, a divinely authored set of commands, a Great Pumpkin, a resurrected carpenter, a Flying Spaghetti Monster, or a God forever giving birth to itself, every single one of these is a bundled set of assumptions beyond those three set forth above.

The All-Important Question for the Pandeist:

For a Pandeist, the all-important question is, what do logic and reason allow us to deduce about our Universe, from its observable characteristics?

This is key because Pandeism proposes a Creator which is actually universally discernible, and not the sort which can only be known to those to whom it reveals itself. Pandeism makes the obvious logical connection in this regard -- a religion which claims to be universal, but which is (or has ever been) unknown to some portion of the population shows itself to be a lie.

For a pandeist the all-important question to ask is this: Who was [insert religious figure here]? Even non-[insert religious text here] evidence indicates He DID exist. (See footnotes.) Was He a deceived, deceiving man or God in human form, telling us that the creator is not the creation, and that HE is the only way to escape punishment for sin. If He is not who he claimed to be, Pandeism is OK to believe in. But if Christ proved He was God in human form, pandeists are going to be accountable for ignoring God's revelations of Himself through the Bible and through Christ. Christ proved by miracles and by the resurrection from the dead that He was God in human form! (Search for "resurrection evidences" on line) One cannot honestly say "God has said nothing" when the Bible is riddled with "Thus saith the Lord" statements. Further, there are many many fulfilled prophecies in the Bible that verify it is a supernatural book. But there is nothing authoritative to authenticate the ideas of Pandeists....they just came from someone's mind.
Since Sainttalk fails throughout to address the logic from which Pandeism is derived, it is perhaps no wonder that he stands in ignorance of what makes this idea better than other theological notions. Again, Pandeism makes a small number of logically straightforward assumptions, and through these is able to fully account for all other religious claims. If the additional assumptions of another theory are to supplant the logic of Pandeism, then discernible evidence of their necessity must be shown, not in the fallible minds of men, but in the physical nature of our Universe itself!!

Ego-Inflating the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle:

And at last, Sainttalk more or less doubles down on his rejection of reason in his concluding paragraphs. Firstly, he delves deeply into the fallacy of the excluded middle and the error of base egotism.

If [insert religious figure here] is not who He claimed to be, I, as a [insert religious denomination here] will STILL have a good afterlife because as a follower of [insert religious figure here], I have done a LOT of good things for people....and have held firmly to my deepest beliefs (based on all the information I had).
Given the vagaries of historical records, we can not truly be sure of what any religions figure 'claimed' at all. But as to Sainttalk's own cockiness as to his assured good afterlife, well he ought not to be so quick to pat himself on the back. There is no inherent goodness to having held firmly to one's deepest beliefs -- which claim most every crusader or terrorist can make. And this statement contradicts the disclaimer of it being based on all the information the petioner had, for one who is sufficiently informed comes to know that absolute certainty in any faith simply cannot be rationally maintained. As to this individual in particular, his other webpages suggest, variously, that Mormonism and Catholicism and Seventh Day Adventism are false faiths (he labels Pope Francis, for example, as "the most radical or heretical pope of the last century" for daring to imagine a deity able to redeem even atheists). And so it seems (from what little of himself is discernible through these writings) that if Sainttalk is indeed wrong about the particulars of his religious belief, then his primary practice in life has been the sowing of discord against even trivial variations from his own theological model. And he claims:
No legitimate "deity" would suggest that course was wrong without TELLING us so. (This would be a denial of the pandeist version of karma). What other guidance did this pandeistic ghost offer?
This is a very interesting concession in light of the abject failure of any theistic deity to effectively "tell" most of the people who have ever lived if they were on the wrong course. For every reeling, there are literally billions who have lived and died without ever hearing of it, meaning that under Sainttalk's own formula, his is no legitimate deity. And at last, inevitably, he pulls out Pascal's Wager:
If [insert religious figure here] IS who He claimed to be, pandeists will suffer in hell for choosing not to believe in Him. They need to DEAL WITH the claims of [insert religious figure here].
This, now, is simply a threat, a base appeal to roll the dice between wholly illogical fears, and indeed itself the ultimate proof against the deity Sainttalk claims. If I believe that "5+3=8" is true, and I am told that a deity exists which is evil enough to cause me to "suffer in hell" if I choose not to believe that "5+3=2" (while competing theological salesmen are claiming that I will suffer such condemnation if I choose not to believe that "5+3=7" or that "5+3=11" or that "5+3=4"), then I am still better off following such truth and logic as is revealed not by any human, but by the nature of our Universe, the evidence which would be discernible to any person anywhere, even if they had never heard of or imagined any holy book.

Closing Thoughts:

In his own missive against Mormonism, HERE, Sainttalk himself challenges them thusly:

Many who THINK they are being objective, simply cannot be open-minded. Why? To say, "my beliefs may be wrong" is a TOUGH thing to do, perhaps because pride may be involved. And when one's faith is the hub of his or her social and/or economic WORLD, there may be a huge price to pay for such HONEST objectivity! Many just won't consider having to pay the price. Do you still think you are objective?
Ah, but this sound advice, he himself does not even begin to take when approaching a theological model which arises from a more logical approach than his own pridefully, perhaps conditionally held belief set. Perhaps even more unfortunately for Sainttalk, his website (and its many efforts at disposing of theories and theologies which would undermine his own) is unable to accommodate responses -- ironically necessitating a response on this much more visible and visited forum.

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

The Irreducible Complexity of the Standard Model of Particle Physics


Irreducible complexity is a notion introduced by Creationists in an attempt to undercut the theory of evolution by natural selection, essentially by proposing that some features found in nature are so complex even at their most fundamental levels that they could not have been arrived at through evolution.

This is a debunkable notion, especially given recent molecular evidence pointing to a Universal Common Ancestor. But interestingly, because of the Creationist focus on nonevolved life, the idea has not been much applied to nonbiological fields. And yet, there is one field to which this idea truly does belong, and that is particle physics. Within particle physics an equation has been developed, a very long and complex and powerful equation describing the intricate balance of relationships between all of the particles and forces of our Universe which combine to give it its perceivable physical characteristics.

To the right is the Standard Model of Particle Physics (and here, to be especially exact, the Standard Model Lagrangian -- a Lagrangian being an especial sort of comprehensive description of a system). 

Now, here's the thing, the equation is an equation of the whole; it is complete, and inseparably so. No part of the equation may be taken out without the function of the whole collapsing -- and that function is the sustainment of our Universe itself!! Every constant needed to insure our existence is there, and not only to insure that our Universe exists and continues to exist, but that it grows instead of collapsing on itself.

And, even more, that this growth is steadily paced and will happen to yield expressions of fundamental forces such as the strong nuclear force and electromagnetism, which happen to contribute to the progressive diversity of chemical elements. One of the fundamental questions of science and philosophy is, why is there something, instead of nothing at all? Well, now we know that the mechanisms set forth in the Standard Model require there to be something, force 'something' to come seemingly from nothing. But the Standard Model is a something which necessarily precedes every other something which otherwise comes from nothing. And therein lies the rub, for this complex and massive balance of equations is asserted to exist of its own accord, despite the centuries man has had to progress, and the decades mathematicians have had to labor, in bringing to light the glory of its elegant complexity.

And this, the atheist contends, is a raw fact, a Universe from nothing. And for the theist, this is no aid either, as a Universe arising evolutionarily from such a formula would contradict theistic accounts of wholesale Creation of living organisms and living planets and star systems. And so, the simple, raw and brutal fact of the existence of this formula evidences, at last, Pandeism.

Wednesday, October 09, 2013

Pandeism in Asian Philosophy

Some weeks ago I posted the current state of Wikipedia's Pandeism page. Since then, a bunch of newly added material has popped up, focusing on Pandeism in Asian philsophy, especially as to India, China, and Japan. And here is Wiki's continuing story:

As has been noted, Max Bernhard Weinstein asserted the presence of of pandeism in China,[14] including in Lao-Tze's Taoism,[15] and in India.[16] Weinstein likewise found the views of 17th century Japanese Neo-Confucian philosopher Yamazaki Ansai, who espoused a cosmology of universal mutual interconnectedness, to be especially consonant with pandeism as well.[25] Other philosophers have also pointed to pandeism as having a presence in those cultures. In 1833, religionist Godfrey Higgins theorized in his Anacalypsis that "Pandeism was a doctrine, which had been received both by Buddhists and Brahmins."[42] In 1896, historian Gustavo Uzielli described the world's population as influenced "by a superhuman idealism in Christianity, by an anti-human nihilism in Buddhism, and by an incipient but growing pandeism in Indian Brahmanism."[43] But the following year, the Reverend Henry Grattan Guinness wrote critically that in India, "God is everything, and everything is God, and, therefore, everything may be adored. ... Her pan-deism is a pandemonium."[44] Likewise, twenty years earlier, in 1877, Peruvian scholar and historian Carlos Wiesse Portocarrero had written in an essay titled Philosophical Systems of India that in that country, "Metaphysics is pandeistic and degenerates into idealism."[45]
Pandeism (in Chinese泛自然神论)[46] was described by Wen Chi, in a Peking University lecture, as embodying "a major feature of Chinese philosophical thought," in that "there is a harmony between man and the divine, and they are equal."[47] Zhang Dao Kui (张道葵) of the China Three Gorges University proposed that the art of China's Three Gorges area is influenced by "a representation of the romantic essence that is created when integrating rugged simplicity with the natural beauty spoken about by pandeism."[48] Literary critic Wang Junkang (王俊康) has written that, in Chinese folk religion as conveyed in the early novels of noted folk writer Ye Mei (叶梅),[49] "the romantic spirit of Pandeism can be seen everywhere."[50] Wang Junkang additionally writes of Ye Mei's descriptions of "the worship of reproduction under Pandeism, as demonstrated in romantic songs sung by village people to show the strong impulse of vitality and humanity and the beauty of wildness."[51]

Saturday, August 17, 2013

Pandeism and Wikipedia: the state of Wikipedia's 'Pandeism' page.

For any who might be wondering, the Wikipedia page on Pandeism now looks pretty much like this....

Pandeism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Pandeism (or pan-deism) is a theological doctrine which combines aspects of pantheism and deism. It holds that the creator of the universe actually became the universe, and so ceased to exist as a separate and conscious entity.[1][2][3][4] Pandeism is proposed to explain why God would create a universe and then abandon it,[5] and as to pantheism, the origin and purpose of the universe[5][6]
The word pandeism is a hybrid blend of the root words pantheism and deism, combining Ancient Greekπᾶν pan "all" with Latin: deus which means "god". It was perhaps first coined in the present meaning in 1859 by Moritz Lazarus and Heymann Steinthal.[7]

A pantheistic form of deism

Pandeism falls within the traditional hierarchy of philosophies addressing the nature of God. For the history of the root words, pantheism and deism, see the overview of deism section, and history of pantheism section. The earliest use of the actual term, pandeism, appears to have come as early as 1787,[8] with another use related in 1838,[9] a first appearance in a dictionary in 1849 (in German, as 'Pandeismus' and 'Pandeistisch'),[10] and an 1859 usage of "pandeism" possibly in contrast to both pantheism and deism by Moritz Lazarus and Heymann Steinthal.[7]

Progression

The ancient world

Religious studies professor, F. E. Peters noted of the Milesians that "[w]hat appeared... at the center of the Pythagorean tradition in philosophy, is another view of psyche that seems to owe little or nothing to the pan-vitalism or pan-deism that is the legacy of the Milesians.[11] Physicist and philosopher Max Bernhard Weinstein in his Welt- und Lebensanschauungen, Hervorgegangen aus Religion, Philosophie und Naturerkenntnis ("World and Life Views, Emerging From Religion, Philosophy and Nature"), presented the broadest and most far-reaching examination of pandeism written up to that point. He identified the idea of primary matter derived from an original spirit as found by the ancient Egyptians to be a form of pandeism,[12] and found varieties of pandeism in the religious views of the Chinese[13] (especially with respect to Taoism as expressed by Lao-Tze),[14] Indians,[15] and among various Greek and Roman philosophers.
Specifically, Weinstein wrote that 6th century BC philosopher Xenophanes of Colophon spoke as a pandeist in stating that there was one god which "abideth ever in the selfsame place, moving not at all" and yet "sees all over, thinks all over, and hears all over."[16] He wrote that pandeism was especially expressed by the later students of the 'Platonic Pythagoreans' and the 'Pythagorean Platonists.'[17] and among them specifically identified 3rd century BC philosopher Chrysippus, who affirmed that "the universe itself is God and the universal outpouring of its soul,"[18] as a pandeist as well.[19] Gottfried Große in his 1787 interpretation of Pliny the Elder’s Natural History, describes Pliny, a first-century figure, as "if not a Spinozist, then perhaps a Pandeist."[8]

From medieval times to the Enlightenment

Weinstein found as well that thirteenth century Catholic thinker Bonaventure -- who championed the Platonic doctrine that ideas do not exist in rerum natura, but as ideals exemplified by the Divine Being, according to which actual things were formed -- showed strong pandeistic inclinations.[20] Of Nicholas of Cusa, who wrote of the enfolding of creation in God and the unfolding of the divine human mind in creation, Weinstein wrote that he was, to a certain extent, a pandeist.[21] And, as to Franciscus Mercurius van Helmont, who had written A Cabbalistical Dialogue (Latin version first, 1677, in English 1682) placing matter and spirit on a continuum, and describing matter as a "coalition" of monads, Weinstein found this to be a kind of pandeism as well.[22] Weinstein found that pandeism was strongly expressed in the teachings of Giordano Bruno, who envisioned a deity which had no particular relation to one part of the infinite universe more than any other, and was immanent, as present on Earth as in the Heavens, subsuming in itself the multiplicity of existence.[23] A world away, Weinstein likewise found the views of 17th century Japanese Neo-Confucian philosopher Yamazaki Ansai, who espoused a cosmology of universal mutual interconnectedness, to be especially consonant with pandeism as well.[24]
Literary critic, Hayden Carruth, said of 18th century figure Alexander Pope that it was "Pope's rationalism and pandeism with which he wrote the greatest mock-epic in English literature"[25] In 1838, Italian phrenologist Luigi Ferrarese in Memorie Riguardanti la Dottrina Frenologica ("Thoughts Regarding the Doctrine of Phrenology") critically described Victor Cousin's philosophy as a doctrine which "locates reason outside the human person, declaring man a fragment of God, introducing a sort of spiritual pandeism, absurd for us, and injurious to the Supreme Being."[9] The 1859 German work, Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft by philosophers and frequent collaborators Moritz Lazarus and Heymann Steinthal, stated, "Man stelle es also den Denkern frei, ob sie Theisten, Pan-theisten, Atheisten, Deisten (und warum nicht auch Pandeisten?)...[7] ("Man leaves it to the philosophers, whether they are Theists, Pan-theists, Atheists, Deists (and why not also Pandeists?)..."
According to American Philosophy: An Encyclopedia, "later Unitarian Christians (such as William Ellery Channing), transcendentalists (such as Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau), writers (such as Walt Whitman) and some pragmatists (such as William James) took a more pantheist or pandeist approach by rejecting views of God as separate from the world."[26] In the 19th century, poet Alfred Tennyson revealed that his "religious beliefs also defied convention, leaning towards agnosticism and pandeism".[27] Friedrich Engels has also been described by at least one historian as having pandeistic views.[28]

Post-Enlightenment philosophy

In 1896, historian Gustavo Uzielli described the world's population as influenced "by a superhuman idealism in Christianity, by an anti-human nihilism in Buddhism, and by an incipient but growing pandeism in Indian Brahmanism."[29] But the following year, the Reverend Henry Grattan Guinness wrote critically that in India, "God is everything, and everything is God, and, therefore, everything may be adored. ... Her pan-deism is a pandemonium."[30] In The Pilgrimage from Deism to Agnosticism, Moncure Daniel Conway stated that the term, "Pandeism" is "an unscholarly combination."[31] A similar critique of Pandeism as an 'unsightly' combination of Greek and Latin was made in a review of Weinstein's discussion of Pandeism.[32] The reviewer further criticises Weinstein's broad assertions that Scotus Erigena, Anselm of CanterburyNicholas of CusaGiordano BrunoMendelssohn, and Lessing all were Pandeists or leaned towards Pandeism.[32]
Towards the beginning of World War I, an article in the Yale Sheffield Monthly published by the Yale University Sheffield Scientific School commented on speculation that the war "means the death of Christianity and an era of Pandeism or perhaps even the destruction of all which we call modern civilization and culture."[33] The following year, early 19th-century German philosopher Paul Friedrich Köhler wrote that Pantheism, Pandeism, Monism and Dualism all refer to the same God illuminated in different ways, and that whatever the label, the human soul emanates from this God. [34]
In his process theologyCharles Hartshorne preferred pandeism to pantheism, explaining that "it is not really the theos that is described".[35]:347 However, he specifically rejected pandeism early on, finding that a God who had "absolute perfection in some respects, relative perfection in all others" was "able consistently to embrace all that is positive in either deism or pandeism."[35]:348 Hartshorne accepted the label of panentheism for his beliefs, declaring that "panentheistic doctrine contains all of deism and pandeism except their arbitrary negations".[35]:348[36]
Charles Anselm Bolton states in a 1963 article, Beyond the Ecumenical: Pan-deism?[37] that he "first came upon this extension of ecumenism into pan-deism among some Roman Catholic scholars interested primarily in the 'reunion of the churches,' Roman, Orthodox, Anglican," and wondered, "what is the ultimate aim of the Curia in promoting the pan-deist movement."[37]
A 1995 news article quoted this use of the term by Jim Garvin, a Vietnam veteran who became a Trappist monk in the Holy Cross Abbey of Berryville, Virginia. Garvin described his spiritual position as "'pandeism' or 'pan-en-deism,' something very close to the Native American concept of the all- pervading Great Spirit..."[38] Alan Dawe's 2011 book The God Franchise, though mentioning pandeism in passing as one of numerous extant theological theories,[3] declines to adopt any "-ism" as encompassing his view, though Dawe's theory includes the human experience as being a temporarily segregated sliver of the experience of God.

Notes

  1. ^ Sean F. Johnston (2009). The History of Science: A Beginner's Guide. p. 90. ISBN 1-85168-681-9. "In its most abstract form, deism may not attempt to describe the characteristics of such a non-interventionist creator, or even that the universe is identical with God (a variant known as pandeism)."
  2. ^ Paul Bradley (2011). This Strange Eventful History: A Philosophy of Meaning. p. 156. ISBN 0875868762. "Pandeism combines the concepts of Deism and Pantheism with a god who creates the universe and then becomes it."
  3. a b Alan H. Dawe (2011). The God Franchise: A Theory of Everything. p. 48. ISBN 0473201143. "Pandeism: This is the belief that God created the universe, is now one with it, and so, is no longer a separate conscious entity. This is a combination of pantheism (God is identical to the universe) and deism (God created the universe and then withdrew Himself)."
  4. ^ Ronald R. Zollinger (2010). "6". Mere Mormonism: Defense of Mormon TheologyISBN 1-46210-585-8. "Pandeism. This is a kind of pantheism that incorporates a form of deism, holding that the universe is identical to God but also that God was previously a conscious and sentient force or entity that designed and created the universe."
  5. a b Allan R. Fuller (2010). Thought: The Only Reality. p. 79. ISBN 1608445909. "Pandeism is another belief that states that God is identical to the universe, but God no longer exists in a way where He can be contacted; therefore, this theory can only be proven to exist by reason. Pandeism views the entire universe as being from God and now the universe is the entirety of God, but the universe at some point in time will fold back into one single being which is God Himself that created all. Pandeism raises the question as to why would God create a universe and then abandon it? As this relates to pantheism, it raises the question of how did the universe come about what is its aim and purpose?"
  6. ^ Peter C. Rogers (2009). Ultimate Truth, Book 1. p. 121. ISBN 1438979681. "As with Panentheism, Pantheism is derived from the Greek: 'pan'= all and 'theos' = God, it literally means “God is All” and “All is God.” Pantheist purports that everything is part of an all-inclusive, indwelling, intangible God; or that the Universe, or nature, and God are the same. Further review helps to accentuate the idea that natural law, existence, and the Universe which is the sum total of all that is, was, and shall be, is represented in the theological principle of an abstract 'god' rather than an individual, creative Divine Being or Beings of any kind. This is the key element which distinguishes them from Panentheists and Pandeists. As such, although many religions may claim to hold Pantheistic elements, they are more commonly Panentheistic or Pandeistic in nature."
  7. a b c Moritz Lazarus and Heymann Steinthal (1859). Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft [Journal of Social Psychology and Linguistics]. p. 262. "Man stelle es also den Denkern frei, ob sie Theisten, Pan-theisten, Atheisten, Deisten (und warum nicht auch Pandeisten?)..." Translation: "Man leaves it to the philosophers, whether they are Theists, Pan-theists, Atheists, Deists (and why not also Pandeists?)..."
  8. a b Gottfried Große (1787). Naturgeschichte: mit erläuternden Anmerkungen. p. 165. "Beym Plinius, den man, wo nicht Spinozisten, doch einen Pandeisten nennen konnte, ist Natur oder Gott kein von der Welt getrenntes oder abgesondertes Wesen. Seine Natur ist die ganze Schöpfung im Konkreto, und eben so scheint es mit seiner Gottheit beschaffen zu seyn." Translation: "In Pliny, whom one could call, if not a Spinozist, then perhaps a Pandeist, Nature is not a being divided off or separated from the world. His nature is the whole of creation, in concrete, and the same appears to be true also of his divinity."
  9. a b Luigi Ferrarese (1838). Memorie risguardanti la dottrina frenologica. p. 15. "Dottrina, che pel suo idealismo poco circospetto, non solo la fede, ma la stessa ragione offende (il sistema di Kant): farebbe mestieri far aperto gli errori pericolosi, così alla Religione, come alla Morale, di quel psicologo franzese, il quale ha sedotte le menti (Cousin), con far osservare come la di lui filosofia intraprendente ed audace sforza le barriere della sacra Teologia, ponendo innanzi ad ogn'altra autorità la propria: profana i misteri, dichiarandoli in parte vacui di senso, ed in parte riducendoli a volgari allusioni, ed a prette metafore; costringe, come faceva osservare un dotto Critico, la rivelazione a cambiare il suo posto con quello del pensiero istintivo e dell' affermazione senza riflessione e colloca la ragione fuori della persona dell'uomo dichiarandolo un frammento di Dio, una spezie di pandeismo spirituale introducendo, assurdo per noi, ed al Supremo Ente ingiurioso, il quale reca onda grave alla libertà del medesimo, ec, ec."
  10. ^ Christian Ferdinand Fleissbach (1849). Heilmittel gegen einen Krebsschaden der Deutschen Literatur: Erläuternde Bemerkungen. p. 31. "Pantheismus, Pantheistisch, n. Pandeismus, Pandeistisch. Gebildet aus dem Griech. πᾶν und θεός.)"
  11. ^ Francis Edwards Peters (1967). Greek Philosophical Terms: A Historical Lexicon. NYU Press. p. 169. ISBN 0814765521.
  12. ^ Max Bernhard Weinsten, Welt- und Lebensanschauungen, Hervorgegangen aus Religion, Philosophie und Naturerkenntnis("World and Life Views, Emerging From Religion, Philosophy and Nature") (1910), page 155: "So wird es sich wohl um eine Urmaterie in Verbindung mit einem Urgeist handeln, was der pandeisierenden Richtung der ägyptischen Anschauungen entspricht"; page 228: "Aber bei den Ägyptern soll sich der Pandeismus auch vollständiger ausgedrückt finden."
  13. ^ Max Bernhard Weinsten, Welt- und Lebensanschauungen, Hervorgegangen aus Religion, Philosophie und Naturerkenntnis ("World and Life Views, Emerging From Religion, Philosophy and Nature") (1910), page 121: "Es ist also nicht richtig, wenn die Anschauungen der Chinesen denen der Naturvölker gleichgesetzt werden, vielmehr gehören sie eigentlich dem Pandeismus statt dem Pananimismus, an, und zwar einem dualistischen."
  14. ^ Max Bernhard Weinsten, Welt- und Lebensanschauungen, Hervorgegangen aus Religion, Philosophie und Naturerkenntnis ("World and Life Views, Emerging From Religion, Philosophy and Nature") (1910), page 234-235: "Pandeistische Andeutungen finden sich selbstverständlich auch bei vielen anderen Völkern. So könnte man den Taoismus der Chinesen, in der ihm von Lao-tsse gegebenen Form, hierher rechnen, wenn er nicht auch dem Naturalismus zuzuzählen wäre, da bei ihm mehr die Natur als die Gottheit in den Vordergrund gestellt wird. Die Erwähnung an dieser Stelle muß genügen, zumal mit solchen Sätzen wie: "aus Tao ist alles hervorgegangen, in Tao kehrt alles zurück" nicht viel für unsere Frage anzufangen ist."
  15. ^ Max Bernhard Weinsten, Welt- und Lebensanschauungen, Hervorgegangen aus Religion, Philosophie und Naturerkenntnis ("World and Life Views, Emerging From Religion, Philosophy and Nature") (1910), page 213: "Wir werden später sehen, daß die Indier auch den Pandeismus gelehrt haben."; page 229: "Entschiedener tritt Pandeismus bei den Indiern hervor."
  16. ^ Max Bernhard Weinsten, Welt- und Lebensanschauungen, Hervorgegangen aus Religion, Philosophie und Naturerkenntnis ("World and Life Views, Emerging From Religion, Philosophy and Nature") (1910), page 231: "Pandeistisch ist, wenn der Eleate Xenophanes (aus Kolophon um 580-492 v. Chr.) von Gott gesagt haben soll: "Er ist ganz und gar Geist und Gedanke und ewig", "er sieht ganz und gar, er denkt ganz und gar, er hört ganz und gar."
  17. ^ Max Bernhard Weinsten, Welt- und Lebensanschauungen, Hervorgegangen aus Religion, Philosophie und Naturerkenntnis ("World and Life Views, Emerging From Religion, Philosophy and Nature") (1910), page 234: ".Die späteren Schüler der platonisierenden Pythagoreer und der pythagorisierenden Platoniker schlossen sich zum Teil diesem Pandeismus an. "
  18. ^ Cicero, De Natura Deorum, i. 15
  19. ^ Max Bernhard Weinsten, Welt- und Lebensanschauungen, Hervorgegangen aus Religion, Philosophie und Naturerkenntnis ("World and Life Views, Emerging From Religion, Philosophy and Nature") (1910), page 233: "Dieser Pandeismus, der von Chrysippos (aus Soloi 280-208 v. Chr.) herrühren soll, ist schon eine Verbindung mit dem Emanismus; Gott ist die Welt, insofern als diese aus seiner Substanz durch Verdichtung und Abkühlung entstanden ist und entsteht, und er sich strahlengleich mit seiner Substanz durch sie noch verbreitet."
  20. ^ Max Bernhard Weinsten, Welt- und Lebensanschauungen, Hervorgegangen aus Religion, Philosophie und Naturerkenntnis ("World and Life Views, Emerging From Religion, Philosophy and Nature") (1910), page 303: "Andere Ganz- oder Halbmystiker, wie den Alanus (gegen 1200), seinerzeit ein großes Kirchenlicht und für die unseligen Waldenser von verhängnisvoller Bedeutung, den Bonaventura (1221 im Kirchenstaate geboren), der eine Reise des Geistes zu Gott geschrieben hat und stark pandeistische Neigungen zeigt, den Franzosen Johann Gersan (zu Gersan bei Rheims 1363 geboren) usf., übergehen wir, es kommt Neues nicht zum Vorschein."
  21. ^ Max Bernhard Weinsten, Welt- und Lebensanschauungen, Hervorgegangen aus Religion, Philosophie und Naturerkenntnis ("World and Life Views, Emerging From Religion, Philosophy and Nature") (1910), page 306: "Er ist bis zu einem gewissen Grade Pandeist. Gott schafft die Welt nur aus sich (de nullo alio creat, sed ex se); indem er alles umfaßt, entfaltet er alles aus sich, ohne doch sich dabei irgend zu verändern."
  22. ^ Max Bernhard Weinsten, Welt- und Lebensanschauungen, Hervorgegangen aus Religion, Philosophie und Naturerkenntnis ("World and Life Views, Emerging From Religion, Philosophy and Nature") (1910), page 338: "Wie er die Seele stoisch betrachtet, so hat er sich im Grunde auch eine Art Pandeismus zurecht gelegt, indem Gott zwar von allen Dingen verschieden, aber doch nicht von allen Dingen abgetrennt oder geteilt sein soll."
  23. ^ Max Bernhard Weinsten, Welt- und Lebensanschauungen, Hervorgegangen aus Religion, Philosophie und Naturerkenntnis ("World and Life Views, Emerging From Religion, Philosophy and Nature") (1910), page 321: "Also darf man vielleicht glauben, daß das ganze System eine Erhebung des Physischen aus seiner Natur in das Göttliche ist oder eine Durchstrahlung des Physischen durch das Göttliche; beides eine Art Pandeismus. Und so zeigt sich auch der Begriff Gottes von dem des Universums nicht getrennt; Gott ist naturierende Natur, Weltseele, Weltkraft. Da Bruno durchaus ablehnt, gegen die Religion zu lehren, so hat man solche Angaben wohl umgekehrt zu verstehen: Weltkraft, Welt­ seele, naturierende Natur, Universum sind in Gott. Gott ist Kraft der Welt kraft, Seele der Weltseele, Natur der Natur, Eins des Universums. Bruno spricht ja auch von mehreren Teilen der universellen Vernunft, des Urvermögens und der Urwirklichkeit. Und damit hängt zu sammen, daß für ihn die Welt unendlich ist und ohne Anfang und Ende; sie ist in demselben Sinne allumfassend wie Gott. Aber nicht ganz wie Gott. Gott sei in allem und im einzelnen allumfassend, die Welt jedoch wohl in allem, aber nicht im einzelnen, da sie Ja Teile in sich zuläßt."
  24. ^ Max Bernhard Weinsten, Welt- und Lebensanschauungen, Hervorgegangen aus Religion, Philosophie und Naturerkenntnis ("World and Life Views, Emerging From Religion, Philosophy and Nature") (1910), page 235: "Von den Japanern soll einer ihrer bedeutendsten Philosophen, Yamazaki-Ansai, um die mitte des siebzehnten Jahrhunderts, entwickelt haben: “Gott ist das Wesen aller Dinge und durchdringt den Himmel und die Erde.” Das klingt pandeistisch, kann jedoch auch metaphorisch gemeint sein, wie wir ja ähnliche Aussprüche von Gott tun.
  25. ^ Hayden Carruth (1992). Suicides and Jazzers. p. 161. ISBN 047209419X.
  26. ^ John Lachs and Robert Talisse (2007). American Philosophy: An Encyclopedia. p. 310. ISBN 0415939267.
  27. ^ Gene Edward Veith, Douglas Wilson, and G. Tyler Fischer (2009). Omnibus IV: The Ancient World. p. 49. ISBN 1932168869. "Alfred Tennyson left the faith in which he was raised and near the end of his life said that his 'religious beliefs also defied convention, '. leaning towards agnosticism and pandeism.'"
  28. ^ Tristram HuntMarx's General: The Revolutionary Life of Friedrich Engels, Page 43, 2010, ISBN 080509248X.
  29. ^ Gustavo Uzielli (1896). Ricerche Intorno a Leonardo da Vinci. p. xxxv. "Certo è che quel concetto forma una delle basi morali fondamentali di religiosi i cui segnaci sono oltre i due terzi della popolazione del globo, mentre è influenzato dall'indole speciale di ciascuna di esse, cioè da un idealismo sovrumano nel Cristianesimo, da un nichilismo antiumano nel buddismo, e da un pandeismo eclettico nell'incipiente ma progrediente Bramoismo indiano; e a queste credenze che ammettono il principio ideale della fratellanza universale..." Translation: "It is certain that this concept forms a fundamental moral bases of religious whose cable markers are more than two-thirds of the world's population, while special influence on the capacities of each of them, by a superhuman idealism in Christianity, by an anti-human nihilism in Buddhism, and by an incipient but growing pandeism in Indian Brahmanism; and those who admit the principle ideal of universal brotherhood..."
  30. ^ Henry Grattan Guinness, "First Impressions of India," in John Harvey Kellogg, and the International Health and Temperance Association's, The Medical Missionary (1897), pages 125-127.
  31. ^ Moncure Daniel Conway, “The Pilgrimage from Deism to Agnosticism,” published in The Free Review, Vol. I. October 1, 1893, pages 11 to 19. Edited by Robertson, John Mackinnon and Singer, G. Astor.
  32. a b Otto Kirn, reviewer, Welt- und Lebensanschauungen, Hervorgegangen aus Religion, Philosophie und Naturerkenntnis ("World and Life Views, Emerging From Religion, Philosophy and Nature") in Emil SchürerAdolf von Harnack, editors, Theologische Literaturzeitung ("Theological Literature Journal"), Volume 35, column 827 (1910): "Dem Verfasser hat anscheinend die Einteilung: religiöse, rationale und naturwissenschaftlich fundierte Weltanschauungen vorgeschwebt; er hat sie dann aber seinem Material gegenüber schwer durchführbar gefunden und durch die mitgeteilte ersetzt, die das Prinzip der Einteilung nur noch dunkel durchschimmern läßt. Damit hängt wohl auch das vom Verfasser gebildete unschöne griechisch-lateinische Mischwort des ,Pandeismus' zusammen. Nach S. 228 versteht er darunter im Unterschied von dem mehr metaphysisch gearteten Pantheismus einen ,gesteigerten und vereinheitlichten Animismus', also eine populäre Art religiöser Weltdeutung. Prägt man lieh dies ein, so erstaunt man über die weite Ausdehnung, die dem Begriff in der Folge gegeben wird. Nach S. 284 ist Scotus Erigena ein ganzer, nach S. 300 Anselm von Canterbury ein, halber Pandeist'; aber auch bei Nikolaus Cusanus und Giordano Bruno, ja selbst bei Mendelssohn und Lessing wird eine Art von Pandeismus gefunden (S. 306. 321. 346.)." Translation: "The author apparently intended to divide up religious, rational and scientifically based philosophies, but found his material overwhelming, resulting in an effort that can shine through the principle of classification only darkly. This probably is also the source of the unsightly Greek-Latin compound word, 'Pandeism.' At page 228, he understands the difference from the more metaphysical kind of pantheism, an enhanced unified animism that is a popular religious worldview. In remembering this borrowing, we were struck by the vast expanse given the term. According to page 284, Scotus Erigena is one entirely, at p. 300 Anselm of Canterbury is 'half Pandeist'; but also Nicholas of Cusa and Giordano Bruno, and even in Mendelssohn and Lessing a kind of Pandeism is found (p. 306 321 346.)".
  33. ^ Louis S. Hardin, '17, "The Chimerical Application of Machiavelli's Principles", Yale Sheffield Monthly, pp 461–465, Yale University, May 1915, p. 463: "Are we virtuous merely because we are restrained by the fetters of the law? We hear men prophecy that this war means the death of Christianity and an era of Pandeism or perhaps even the destruction of all which we call modern civilization and culture. We hear men predict that the ultimate result of the war will be a blessing to humanity."
  34. ^ Paul Friedrich Köhler (1916). Kulturwege und Erkenntnisse: Eine kritische Umschau in den Problemen des religiösen und geistigen Lebens. p. 193. "Pantheismus und Pandeismus, Monismus und Dualismus: alles dies sind in Wirklichkeit nur verschiedene Formen des Gottschauens, verschiedene Beleuchtungsarten des Grundbegriffes, nämlich des Höchsten, von dem aus die verschiedenen Strahlungen in die Menschenseele sich hineinsenken und hier ein Spiegelbild projizieren, dessen Wahrnehmung die charakteriologische Eigenart des Einzelindividuums, die durch zeitliches, familiäres und soziologisches Milieu bedingte Auffassungsgabe vermittelt."
  35. a b c Charles Hartshorne (1941, republished in 1964). Man's Vision of God and the Logic of TheismISBN 0-208-00498-X.
  36. ^ Donald Luther Jackson, Religious Lies – Religious Truths: It's Time to Tell the Truth!, page 175 (2012), ISBN 1475243987 : "Charles Hartshorne introduced his process theology in the 1940s, in which he examined, and discarded pantheism, deism, and pandeism in favor of panentheism, finding that such a doctrine contains all of deism and pandeism except their arbitrary negative aspects."
  37. a b Charles Anselm Bolton, "Beyond the Ecumenical: Pan-deism?", Christianity Today, 1963, page 21.
  38. ^ Albuquerque Journal, Saturday, November 11, 1995, B-10.

See also

External links