Thursday, May 08, 2014

Council on Pandeism meeting text

Here is some of the text of the Council on Pandeism meeting which happened on May the 4th.... this was a Skype meeting, so most of the action was audio, but there were many comments typed out as well -- note that many of these comments were in response to spoken words so their context might be unapparent, but I still feel it worthwhile to post them as is -- and these are they:

[11:52:15 AM] Ivan Sanders: Can you see me
[11:53:22 AM] K Mapson: I can see and hear.
[11:55:42 AM] K Mapson: I am going to live-tweet the discussion, if that's okay with everybody.
[11:56:35 AM] K Mapson: or it's 9AM on a Sunday ;)
[11:59:35 AM] K Mapson: there are two really big camps out there -- indoctrinated theists, and reactionary atheists, and each wants to shoehorn everything which doesn't fit into their camp into the other, which hurts other theological models
[12:00:09 PM] K Mapson: can't tell you how many theists have come at me with purely anti-atheist arguments, and atheists with anti-bible arguments
[12:02:11 PM] K Mapson: Deists tend to be sympathetic, since Pandeism is a logic-derived viewpoint
[12:03:07 PM] K Mapson: well I mean that it is itself logical
[12:04:29 PM] K Mapson: Deism has always been targetted by the criticism that it can't explain why a Creator would create and then step away, not intervene. That is what Pandeism resolves within the deistic frame.
[12:08:12 PM] K Mapson: I think that's an absolutely good sense of motivation.
[12:08:35 PM] K Mapson: Over the 90s.
[12:09:31 PM] K Mapson: I remember first hearing about it from a lunchtime lecture from a philosophy prof.
[12:10:38 PM] K Mapson: He was a Hartshorne follower, and Hartshorne had written a snippet on it which intrigued the prof, I remember he got quite animated about the subject. So, it got me animated about it.
[12:10:53 PM] K Mapson: But really it took the Internet to find out anything about it.
[12:11:30 PM] K Mapson: Nope, he wrote a few paragraphs about it, in the 40s.
[12:11:47 PM] K Mapson: (pronounced Harts-Horne)
[12:12:23 PM] K Mapson: I know a lot more about Harshorne now than I did then (he went for Panentheism)
[12:13:06 PM] K Mapson: That's actually very controversial for theists, as process theology proposes a Creator which is constanly becoming (and so not "perfect" from the outset)
[12:13:34 PM] K Mapson: the theists want their Creator to be "perfect" -- and so incapable of learning/improving
[12:14:38 PM] K Mapson: the "-en" part is an appendix, an unnecessary addition for those who wish to have some part of deity watching over them (but apparently doing nothing whle people starve and suffer)
[12:15:31 PM] K Mapson: the Problem of Evil is, I think, the strongest argument for a Creator which has made itself wholly *unable* to intervene -- otherwise, if it had any sense of compassion, it would do so
[12:16:49 PM] K Mapson: Christians go berserk when you suggest God is the "author" of evil (but any Creator is necessarily the author of all things)
[12:19:43 PM] K Mapson: Taoism and Pandeism are *very* complementary
[12:21:03 PM] K Mapson: I'm getting every other word.... type it out?
[12:22:23 PM] Jaidyn Saunders: OK.  Ever since reading all I could about Pandeism, I have been hooked.
[12:23:19 PM] K Mapson: My experience has sort of been that All Roads Lead Back To Rome
[12:25:29 PM] K Mapson: Buddhism is awesome, but it has some problems as a theological model -- it provides excellent moral guidance, but it is in no way explanatory of *why* our Universe exists at all or what purpose it serves, or we serve within it....
[12:26:33 PM] K Mapson: ....and (in Tibetan Buddhism at least) there is a notion of wholesale reincarnation of the mind, which is simply not supported by science as yet. I don't need that presumption.
[12:28:18 PM] K Mapson: I think that's exactly right.
[12:29:12 PM] K Mapson: barely understanding anything now
[12:30:02 PM] K Mapson: better not to have it coming through all the time tho
[12:30:28 PM] Ivan Sanders: The question is:  What is our most effective route of educating people of the existence of Pandeism?
[12:30:44 PM] K Mapson: hey, you guys been watching Cosmos? great stuff, I think (sorry for the tangent, just came to mind)
[12:32:25 PM] Ivan Sanders: I would agree that people aren't educaed about it
[12:32:38 PM] Ivan Sanders: educated*
[12:33:34 PM] K Mapson: (but they did that bit on Giordano Bruno, which led some bloggers to talk about how Bruno was a Pandeist)
[12:33:43 PM] K Mapson: I'd like to add something which I think calls back a point raised much earlier....
[12:34:25 PM] K Mapson: ....which is that Pandeism is a good thing for the world -- it is a thing which, if people understood it and behaved accordingly, would be good for the world.
[12:34:57 PM] K Mapson: Which is something which I think has proved to be untrue under the theistic faiths, and which is not something atheism effects one way or the other.
[12:35:59 PM] K Mapson: if Pandeism is correct, then we are all part of a greater one, and ought to treat each other so
[12:37:05 PM] K Mapson: And science itself reveals that interconnectedness. We are biologically related to every living thing on our planet. And atomically related to every thing in our Universe.
[12:38:22 PM] K Mapson: It is somewhat amazing to me that people who understand that we all come from stardust can at the same time be opposed to drawing a spiritual or metaphysical understanding from that very knowledge.
[12:39:28 PM] Ivan Sanders: I think spreading Pandeism and Pandeist thought through scholarly writings will help because it will educate those who already think (the scholars). The more people who think and write about Pandeism the better.
[12:39:42 PM] K Mapson: I think for one thing we need to get out there in the world with a published book which focuses on this model, instead of glancing upon it.
[12:41:32 PM] K Mapson: Raphael Lataster is working on a book which will cover Pandeism at some length (or so he tells me).
[12:42:17 PM] K Mapson: Haisch would be "The God Theory" ("Mind of God" is Paul Davies)
[12:42:27 PM] K Mapson: sorry, not to be a smartass....
[12:42:42 PM] K Mapson: there's a lot of books out there to keep straight!!
[12:42:55 PM] Ivan Sanders: There sure are
[12:43:46 PM] K Mapson: I see these authors, Haisch, Davies, Dawe, even Scott Adams, writing about the same essential idea, but every time inventing a new name for it.
[12:43:56 PM] Ivan Sanders: The religious scholarly world is full already, it seems. Is there room for Pandeism?
[12:44:11 PM] Ivan Sanders: Are scholars interested in reading works on Pandeism?
[12:44:35 PM] Ivan Sanders: I read reddit pretty much every day... :(
[12:45:50 PM] Ivan Sanders: We could even write about religious market saturation.
[12:46:31 PM] K Mapson: this'll take a few minutes....
[12:48:43 PM] K Mapson: I think Adams is simply being flippant (or guarding against theological critics)
[12:49:22 PM] K Mapson: it doesn't matter that Adams disclaims unnamed portions of it, the book captures one formulation of the idea
[12:49:50 PM] K Mapson: though I don't subscribe to the 'God blew himself up and is dead as a doornail' version, either
[12:50:54 PM] K Mapson: Id o get pushback from theists who assume that Pandeism means 'God is Dead'
[12:51:44 PM] K Mapson: Definitely!!
[12:52:05 PM] Ivan Sanders: The big crunch has not been discounted by science, which I like.
[12:52:15 PM] K Mapson: One might put it that we are a dream our Creator is having in order to understand itself.
[12:52:35 PM] K Mapson: My larger response was that some time ago I got Project Gutenberg to take up Max Bernhard Weinstein's 1910 book which goes on at good length about Pandeism throughout, but it's on the back burner for them now, and is in a years-long queue. A translation of that book into English would provide information in the context of the true age and historic scope of the theory.
[12:53:00 PM] Ivan Sanders: Thank you Mapson, good addition.
[12:53:54 PM] Ivan Sanders: This is a nice literary interpretation of Pandeism, Jaidyn.
[12:54:43 PM] K Mapson: I agree with that, but I believe the Universe is not simply a thing set forth for entertainment, but to fulfill an actual need to learn -- a need so strong that our Creator ought to feel like a person dying of thirst needs water.
[12:55:00 PM] Ivan Sanders: Interesting.
[12:55:57 PM] K Mapson: It is indeed excellently framed. Wonder if Warren Sharp is somebody we could communicate with....
[12:56:12 PM] Ivan Sanders: Maybe, lets follow up on that if we can!
[12:57:12 PM] K Mapson: I've heard of this multiverse thing, but I hain't never seen one. ;)
[12:57:22 PM] Ivan Sanders: Ohhh Mapson
[12:58:04 PM] K Mapson: a logical interpretation -- not 'scientific' so much as consistent with science
[12:58:42 PM] K Mapson: we can't claim to be able to prove such a thing through scientific-type means, but we can show that science does not contradict it
[12:59:13 PM] K Mapson: "I am every kind of scientist."
[1:00:09 PM] K Mapson: it would be the source of all of them, I think
[1:01:00 PM] K Mapson: no matter how many there are (if there are many) the question remains at the very bottom of inquiry, why do conditions exist which allow Universes to arise at all, one or many
[1:03:49 PM] K Mapson: the notion of a multiverse is not a point of agreement amongst scientists tho -- it is a theory with interesting potential, but a dearth of practical evidence
[1:06:52 PM] K Mapson: yes -- and learns thereby what it is like to exist as we do
[1:07:41 PM] Ivan Sanders: What becomes of our consciousnesses after we perish?
[1:07:57 PM] K Mapson: but I think, as well, that we are still on a path not yet complete
[1:08:29 PM] K Mapson: I think we have much evolution before us before we reach the potential programmed into our Universe.
[1:08:59 PM] K Mapson: imagine what our descendants 100,000 years from now might be capable of thinking and experiencing
[1:12:13 PM] K Mapson: I think there is some means by which everything which happens in our Universe -- including thoughts and experiences of consciousness -- is recorded indelibly.
[1:13:13 PM] K Mapson: what some would call an Akashic record, but of all things, not simply of 'spiritual things'
[1:14:35 PM] K Mapson: I believe that any Creator which would go to the trouble of setting forth our Universe would do so in a way wherein all knowledge generated by such Universe would be retained within itself.
[1:15:09 PM] Ivan Sanders: I agree, Mapson, and I think this is important.
[1:16:00 PM] K Mapson: (Christians will tell you that this entire record exists in their god's mind before the Universe is even created, which begs the question, why bother creating it)
[1:17:02 PM] K Mapson: that the laws of physics provide for the retention of this information
[1:20:49 PM] K Mapson: The community of scholars has its own channels through which it must be reached.
[1:21:16 PM] K Mapson: (by 'scholars' here I mean the people who write articles that get published in the journals)
[1:22:23 PM] K Mapson: But it would be good to reach that community, because if publication-hungry scholars begin to investigate Pandeism, they will quickly generate insights into it)
[1:22:40 PM] Ivan Sanders: Exactly!
[1:23:47 PM] K Mapson: I am not especially astounded by that -- academic publishing is greatly driven by what is accepted within a certain orthodoxy.
[1:25:09 PM] K Mapson: that's one reason I want to get the Weinstein book translated and out there -- it shows that this theory was discussed a length a hundred years ago
[1:26:18 PM] K Mapson: yeah, no door to door
[1:29:54 PM] K Mapson: Christians and Muslims have a strong doctrinal compulsion to evangelize (to the extent that they believe they'll face eternal hellfire if they don't); atheists, I think, feel that they have a strong motivation to counter the damage that theistic faiths cause.
[1:30:04 PM] K Mapson: Yes, God's Debris, read it.
[1:32:04 PM] K Mapson: I agree with that.
[1:33:03 PM] K Mapson: I do wish we had a Pandeist equivalent of Neil de Grasse Tyson -- somebody who was really good at just talking and explaining this in conversation.... that's the top of my wish list.
[1:33:13 PM] Ivan Sanders: Mine too!
[1:34:17 PM] K Mapson: I very much appreciate what you've done with the website -- looks much better than anything I've come up with....
[1:34:42 PM] K Mapson: sound pretty clear to me
[1:35:15 PM] K Mapson: yes, exactly
[1:38:10 PM] K Mapson: I'm all here.
[1:38:42 PM] K Mapson: I'm glad to provide any of my writings for Koilas.
[1:41:32 PM] K Mapson: people have this idea (driven by theistic faiths) that 'science' is like another religion itself, when it is simply a methodology of determining and verifying physical realities
[1:42:09 PM] K Mapson: that's why you always hear creationists referring to 'evolution' as a "belief" when it is simply an understanding
[1:43:58 PM] K Mapson: yes, 100%
[1:46:01 PM] K Mapson: prayer to me is nonsensical, as it is an appeal to what one conceives of as an outside intervening force to bend the laws of nature to provide the praying person with some nonnatural benefit -- I prefer to focus on meditation, an inward-pointed seeking of truth
[1:50:14 PM] K Mapson: to what degree has the power of meditation been scientifically tested?
[1:50:52 PM] K Mapson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_on_meditation
[1:52:05 PM] K Mapson: So it seems a scattering of studies have been done, and have tended to show that meditation has tangible effects, though the reason these effects occur has not been delved more deeply into.
[1:53:57 PM] K Mapson: I  put it with the whole body of theological phenomena (revelations, prophecies, miracles, etc) -- a claim of such a thing is subject to scientific examination, but if it does exist, it is a side-effect of a pandeistic Universe, of our being part of an underlying unconscious mind far exceeding our comprehension
[1:54:43 PM] K Mapson: you know, the large-scale structure of our Universe (in terms of distribution of galaxies) is like a brain with 500 billion times as many neurons as a human brain
[1:59:38 PM] K Mapson: I'm relaxing.
[1:59:49 PM] Ivan Sanders: I think we all agree that meditation (and inward prayer) can be beneficial. By no means is it required by Pandeism or Koilas and should not be considered such. With that, we should be careful in how we word ideas about praryer and meditation, especially in anything we put onto the internet or print. Would you agree?
[2:00:03 PM] Ivan Sanders: prayer*
[2:00:31 PM] K Mapson: Prayer*   *results not guaranteed
[2:00:41 PM] Ivan Sanders: Yes!
[2:01:50 PM] K Mapson: good meeting so far
[2:03:58 PM] K Mapson: I like that we save trees by having it online instead of in print.
[2:04:57 PM] K Mapson: But all changes must be changes in accordance with logic.... I've seen some internet communities where 'facts' can change solely based on the number of members of one community of interest being brought into the discussion.
[2:06:07 PM] K Mapson: Case in point, Wikipedia, where for example their is a page on the 'Genesis creation narrative' where every other such theology is called a 'myth' because of the numbers arising against calling *their* myth a myth....
[2:07:48 PM] Ivan Sanders: Collaboration is only as good as the rules set forth. I believe we should create a canon of literature about Koilas. This creation (Bhago) should be changeable and should be a collaboration. The facts should not be based on members thoughts, but in reality, logic, reason.
[2:08:20 PM] Ivan Sanders: I think, with that, we should update it periodically to reflect changes in science.
[2:11:30 PM] K Mapson: We all know how to contact each other.
[2:13:21 PM] K Mapson: Well you know I've tried my hand at writing one -- and I have hundreds and hundreds of pages of rephrasing of the same notion to show for it. There are people who write books and people who do other things, and I'm still discovering which of those I am.
[2:13:44 PM] Ivan Sanders: Sounds like you're on board with the concept of the Bhago?
[2:14:49 PM] Ivan Sanders: A collaboration of our ideas for Koilas that we can update and change somewhat regularly to reflect the scientific understanding of the universe.
[2:15:37 PM] K Mapson: I'm on board. There are others we know are interested, I think.
[2:15:43 PM] Ivan Sanders: Great!
[2:17:58 PM] K Mapson: voted on by whom though? the three of us? anybody who wishes to vote? must be some intermediate
[2:18:12 PM] Ivan Sanders: That is a good question we should ask ourselves.
[2:19:44 PM] K Mapson: I think that is a reasonable approach
[2:21:47 PM] Ivan Sanders: A good way of conducting the creation of the Bhago is creating an outline of what we would like to see in it. From that we can distribute the writing tasks accordingly. You may already have something that fits a portion of our outline, and we can use that! All writings that contribute to the Bhago should use Koilas terminology (Deiwos, It, Bhago, Koilas). Eventually, it should come together as a nice piece of work.
[2:23:08 PM] Ivan Sanders: If nobody is opposed to this approach, I will begin creating an outline using google docs, one that everone can contribute to.
[2:23:45 PM] K Mapson: I look forward to it.
[2:27:24 PM] K Mapson: I would like to add to this my encouragement that we all keep putting the word out on the various venues through which thought is distributed on the Internet. It doesn't really take an extensive amount of writing to post things (even links to things) on Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Reddit, and other blogs and forums and such.
[2:28:41 PM] Ivan Sanders: Any way we can spread Pandeism is good, in my opinion (outside of knocking on people's doors).
[2:30:01 PM] K Mapson: I'm good, brother. Going to save the text from this conversation -- any objection to posting the whole thing somewhere?
[2:32:04 PM] K Mapson: I kind of think we cross the bridge of having large numbers when we have large numbers.
[2:32:47 PM] K Mapson: We have no "keepers of the flame" and ought to be as open as possible
[2:34:55 PM] K Mapson: Jaidyn, are you on Twitter?
[2:35:14 PM] Ivan Sanders: I'm not opposed to meeting frequently and discussing ideas. I think that could benefit our project as we can come together and talk about what we have written and changes/additions/deletions.
[2:35:39 PM] K Mapson: I see Ivan and other pandeists there frequently, so I don't feel alone in the pursuit.
[2:36:01 PM] K Mapson: I don't suppose you're on Wikipedia?
[2:36:32 PM] K Mapson: I very much enjoyed this, and I am sure that we can get more people in future meetings
[2:38:07 PM] Ivan Sanders: Being the most active Pandeists, what impact can we have?
[2:39:05 PM] Ivan Sanders: I think we ARE Pandeism right now
[2:39:19 PM] K Mapson: It is more than us, though.
[2:39:28 PM] Ivan Sanders: I hope so!
[2:39:44 PM] Ivan Sanders: I would love to get them engaged in our conversations.
[2:40:26 PM] K Mapson: I'd like to get the people out there like Bernard Haisch and Paul Davies and Bernardo Kastrup to at least be more aware that what they're writing of exists under another name
[2:40:46 PM] Ivan Sanders: That would be an excellent impact to have.
[2:41:02 PM] Ivan Sanders: I wish they would engage us in the conversation too. And hopefully they will.
[2:42:41 PM] K Mapson: (shorter meeting next time tho)
[2:42:58 PM] Ivan Sanders: Hopefully!
[2:44:09 PM] K Mapson: This was great, glad we're on this track, brothers.
[2:44:37 PM] K Mapson: no, that's good
[2:45:21 PM] K Mapson: take care


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]