Affirmation

For some, an affirmation is a statement which one makes to oneself, often on a daily or other regular basis, or in advance of entering into each of the regular challenges life imposes. These may be self-boosting reminders of one's own abilities or determinedness to meet specific goals. Mine is directed more towards the Universe:

Why this? I maintain that all the gods of all the faiths have done nothing of unequivocal concreteness by which to earn the respect (much less worship) of humankind. Certainly not slavish, servile, sheepdom.

Have you ever seen an episode of a police procedural wherein some innocent person seeks for some reason to take credit for the crime committed by the guilty one? Perhaps they wish to protect the guilty one; perhaps they simply seek some snippet of notoriety, or feel some sort or responsibility for the wrong having happened. But however it happens, the detectives question the falsely claiming innocent one, having the advantage of knowledge of the forensic evidence, and so are able to trip the false claimant up on the details: "Why did you shoot him in the leg?" "Um, because he tried to run." "Actually, he wasn't shot in the leg at all." Such is reasonably seeable as the case with any false god claiming authorship of our Universe, but offering any account in contradiction with the vast forensic evidence of scientific discovery. To no such being, will I bow.

And if there is indeed a Creator at the fount of our Universe, then it is none of the claimants, and so not one which has made itself known at all, much less sought the bowing and scraping needed to feed lesser egos. And, in not so many words, this I affirm with my every day of simply living on.

The problem of the least deserving person in Hell and the least deserving person in Heaven

Theists have a wide array of topics on which to disagree. Which god to worship, how to worship it, or -- even within a specific sect of a specific religion -- which acts are "sin" and what steps need to be taken to avoid a bad afterlife outcome. Ah, but that is one broadly shared idea -- that there is indeed such a thing as a "bad afterlife" outcome and a "good afterlife" outcome, a strict dichotomy with a dividing line (somewhere) between those who arrive here and those who arrive there.

The bad afterlife.

As with all other things, the details of this are murky and disputed. Some believe that there is an eternal Heaven or other such situation to which the good folks go, and an eternal Hell or other punishing thing for the rest. Some believe that those who go to Heaven will be literally given better versions of their physical bodies from life on Earth, and will live in a physical Earth-like city with houses and roads (paved in the proverbial gold), and perhaps some other kinds of buildings and amenities, holy tennis courts and sacred golf courses. And it will be an existence of eternal contentment, with no experience of fear or adversity or challenge of any kind (so in those eternal tennis matches, every player wins the match).

And some believe that Hell is equally a place where souls are given physical bodies, only these are for the purpose of receiving endless physical pain inflicted on them, burning fire constantly scorching skin and melting flesh, sharp rocks leaving no spot to lay one's body down, barbed whips wielded by rapacious demonic beings, and other torments imagined by figures ranging from Dante Alighieri to heavy metal music videographers. This condemnation to torture is depicted as endless in time, with punishment continuing long after any wrongdoing on Earth has been equaled.

Others cast Hell as a bodiless place, more a state of being, really, of eternal separation from the god of their religion; and still others contend that there's a Heaven but not actually a Hell, but that bad souls are simply obliterated for all time (immediately, or after some period of punishment), all the information in them lost forever. A few theologies dare to imagine a Purgatory, an in-between place where some souls suffer while awaiting admission to that eternal Heaven, or perhaps while awaiting a determination of where they'll forever go.

The inevitable cutting-off point.

But whatever the design imagined for the afterlife, there is one necessary constant in dichotomous (or even trichotomous) scenarios. Of the billions of people who have lived and died in all of existence, there must be one pair who represent the cutting-off point. There is one person who "gets in" to Heaven despite being the least deserving person of all who do so -- that is, despite being the least deserving person relative to all other people who get into Heaven. And likewise, there must be one person who is condemned to Hell -- whether this means eternal torment, separateness, obliteration, or something yet unimagined -- who is, of all the people slated for that fate the least deserving of it. The person whom, if just one single additional person of all the billions who've ever lived were to be admitted to Heaven, why, he would be the one.

And, given the continuum of behaviours and lives and lifestyles across the estimated 101 billion humans to have been born at some point in recorded history, the last person to "get in" to the good afterlife will be barely, perhaps imperceptibly distinguishable in the balance of good and bad deeds (or thoughts) from the last person locked out of it. Imagining a slightly more (or less) merciful god doesn't do away with this problem. If the next one or ten or thousand people are allowed in, that simply shifts the point of dichotomy down to a different pair of virtually indistinguishable people.

Where this cutting-off point lies is another a mystery. The faithful certainly can't agree on it. Some will assert that all who believe (and only those who believe) in the right faith, and perhaps even in the right sect within the faith, get the good ending -- and that even those who were simply unknowing as to this faith because they were too young or too remote ever to have learned of it, are deprived of the positive afterlife. For these believers, the destiny of the unevangelized, and the incompetently evangelized looms large, because those people are doomed no matter what they did in life. Other believers will insist that faith alone will not suffice, but that even the most faithful must carry out good deeds and avoid bad behavior to qualify. Contrapositively to the first proposition, some even believe that only those who are good people will receive the reward, even if they are of the "wrong" faith. Some sects, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, believe in an absolute numerical cutoff, with only 144,000 getting into Heaven (interestingly, a number representing only a fraction of the number of members of that group now living, meaning even the vast majority of believers will get edged out based on population limits.

Alternatives -- absolute outcomes or infinite options....

There are a few ideas which avoid the jarring absolute of a cutoff point. There are, for example, absolute ideas. Some believe that the good afterlife is a reward which literally nobody merits, making it plausible that literally everybody gets whatever the bad afterlife is. Conversely, some claim that their god's limitless mercy assures that "Hell is empty," and so literally everybody gets the good outcome. Some theologians have even concluded that the only people who actually exist are those who get the good outcome, and all the rest are simply illusions of people.

A number of theological models posit reincarnation, which would allow individuals to simply live life over and over again, until they merit the good afterlife (which is itself an escape from the cycle of reincarnation). At least one commentator has theorized that there is only one soul being reincarnated and we are all incarnations of it, so that we will each of us experience every life which has ever been lived until we ultimately lead the last life leading into the eternal reward. And, naturally, there are other propositions presented in Pantheism and Pandeism, wherein everything was part of our Creator all along anyway, and simply goes back to it (possibly to experience the consequences of their own Earthly actions through the memories of those who experienced those consequences).

And, naturally, whether one sees the dichotomous nature of typical afterlife beliefs as problematic may itself be a matter of perspective. There is a certain amount of black-and-white thinking which permits for a stark split, with trust that the god in question knows just where to make the cutoff, and all above are in fact worthy of eternal Heaven (even if some are just barely worthy) while all below are deserving of whatever Hell befalls them. But, though most every religious person believes that both they and those they care for will end up all together in an eternal Heaven, there must be some doleful tossing and turning in the dark of the night over where, exactly, the cutoff lies, and whether it is imaginable that they'll fall below it -- since perhaps even less than firmly belonging in Hell, nobody wants to be amongst those very last people who failed to make the cut.

Pandeism: An Anthology, around the world!!

Map of Pandeism: An Anthology shipping destinations.

To this date, copies of Pandeism: An Anthology have now shipped to, and been received by, dozens of our contributors and supporters around the world -- to more than forty cities, in eight countries, on three continents!! We have heard confirmation from recipients in widespread and diverse places, and so we expect that every contributor slated to receive one, and who provided their information, has by now received their designated book(s), inscribed with a message from editor Knujon Mapson.

A gathering for supporters and authors is tentatively planned for early December (probably the 9th/10th) in Los Angeles, California. Our literary agent will be traveling there in that period, and so will organize the event. Details about this and other such things will come -- and who knows, you may even choose to plan your own such event!!

Blessings!!

Pandeism: An Anthology -- forthcoming in January 2017!!

Pandeism: An Anthology is a collection of articles by more than a dozen authors, from all over the world, presenting diverse viewpoints on the theological theory of Pandeism. This theory seeks to reconcile aspects of Pantheism and Deism, proposing as a logical possibility that we are all part of a Creator which became our Universe to experience existence through our lives. This theory is proposed to be a more elegant and parsimonious model than theistic faiths, with implications argued to be more conducive to claiming the title of a "religion of peace."

This anthology is the first of its kind -- though Pandeism has been identified in philosophies going back thousands of years, was first identified as a formal theological category over 150 years ago, and has been touched on by dozens of writers, it has not itself been the subject of a book dedicated to examining it for over a hundred years. It is important to note that though all of these articles are in some way or another about Pandeism, they are not all advocating of the theory -- indeed, we as compilers as well as writers have taken the unusual step of intently soliciting and receiving commitments from Atheist and Theist authors offering their critical views on Pandeism.

Our Authors

Authors who have committed articles to this book include an outstanding group of contributors to a variety of areas of philosophical thought:

• Michael Arnheim (barrister and Deist, United Kingdom)

• Robert G. Brown (physicist and philosopher, United States)

• Dan Dana (Atheist writer, United States)

• Alan Dawe (author of the award-winning "The God Franchise," New Zealand)

• Orlando Alcántara Fernández (Christian poet, Dominican Republic)

• Ismaili Gnosis (Muslim Neoplatonist philosopher)

• Zoltan Istvan (Transhumanist author, United States)

• Bernardo Kastrup (computer scientist and philosopher of consciousness, Netherlands)

• William C. Lane (lawyer and philosopher, United States)

• Raphael Lataster (religious studies scholar, Australia)

• Knujon Mapson (Pandeist theologian, United States)

• Poffo Ortiz (Biopantheist author and artist, United States)

• Anthony Peake (author and lecturer on consciousness, United Kingdom)

• Amy Perry (transcendental poet, United States)

• Sushma Sahajpal (Hindu interfaith educator, United Kingdom)

This Anthology will be published in January 2017 -- we look forward to it, and hope you will as well!!

2015 Council on Pandeism meeting text

We had a great Pandeism meeting on Dec. 12 at noon Pacific Time. Much of it was spoken, but some was typed. A lot of the typed stuff makes little sense out of the context of the spoken conversation, but here it is anyway, as a record for the interested.

Blessings!!

[12:12:51 PM] K Mapson: hello, is anybody out there?
[12:13:34 PM] K Mapson: who's that?
[12:13:39 PM] K Mapson: Juice?
[12:14:17 PM] juice The Jedi Dominguez: my computer inst compatible and I'm signing thru my phone
[12:14:19 PM] K Mapson: [I'm actually not sure who else is in the call, you're the only vid I see, but I hear another voice]
[12:14:32 PM] K Mapson: That is the Buddhabrot!!
[12:15:06 PM] K Mapson: It is indeed.
[12:15:31 PM] K Mapson: Juice, are you typing?
[12:15:39 PM] juice The Jedi Dominguez: can you hear me? not sure how to join
[12:15:42 PM] K Mapson: The Buddhabrot is a mathemetical formula.
[12:15:55 PM] Amy P-----: we can't hear you right now, juice.
[12:16:02 PM] K Mapson: are you speaking? I'm sure I heard you (or somebody) earlier.
[12:16:15 PM] Amy P-----: yeah somebody said hello.
[12:16:53 PM] Amy P-----: we hear you
[12:16:56 PM] K Mapson: hello, we hear you!!
[12:17:09 PM] Amy P-----: yes
[12:17:10 PM] K Mapson: Yes, can you hear Amy?
[12:17:40 PM] Ivan Sanders: Wish I could join you guys
[12:17:57 PM] K Mapson: Ivan Sanders is the creater of Koilas
[12:18:11 PM] K Mapson: longtime friend -- good man for the cause
[12:18:18 PM] K Mapson: yes he is
[12:18:20 PM] Ivan Sanders: Koilas.org is for you guys. If you want to add or change anything to it let me know.
[12:18:39 PM] Amy P-----: thanks, Koilas
[12:18:41 PM] K Mapson: http://www.koilas.org/
[12:19:25 PM] K Mapson: Koilas is a quite interesting effort to build a pandeistic religion.
[12:19:26 PM] Ivan Sanders: It's totally for you guys. And for the world. I can do anything with it, so let me know and we can use it for any purpose.
[12:19:46 PM] K Mapson: Ivan, I signed the book contract today.
[12:19:52 PM] K Mapson: with the what where on Twitter?
[12:20:00 PM] Amy P-----: alien face
[12:20:06 PM] K Mapson: Crispy Sea?
[12:20:14 PM] Ivan Sanders: Congratulations! I have to go, traveling today. You guys have a good and productive meeting.
[12:20:23 PM] Amy P-----: thanks for coming
[12:20:39 PM] Ivan Sanders: Take care. Miss you KM
[12:20:50 PM] Ivan Sanders: (penguin)
[12:20:54 PM] K Mapson: Bless you, Ivan -- we'll be in touch!!
[12:21:05 PM] K Mapson: YES!! Phillip -- one of my writers!!
[12:21:15 PM] K Mapson: I'm typing in.
[12:21:22 PM] Phillip Jones: Hi
[12:21:39 PM] K Mapson: We have Amy, Juice, and Phillip
[12:22:45 PM] K Mapson: So now would be the time for the statement, for inspiration!!
[12:27:11 PM] K Mapson: I feel you, brother -- same for me!!
[12:27:17 PM] K Mapson: (no, mine blew up completely)
[12:28:56 PM] K Mapson: Being told not to look for an answer is no better than being told that the answer comes from a Bronze-Age book.
[12:29:22 PM] K Mapson: Very into that, yes.
[12:29:48 PM] K Mapson: If our Universe was designed for us to evolve to this point, why would it be meant to stop here?
[12:29:58 PM] Amy P-----: good point
[12:31:06 PM] K Mapson: But that's good!! That's a way through the usual filter!!
[12:32:09 PM] K Mapson: Yes, the Internet.
[12:32:32 PM] K Mapson: reaches people who, generations past, would only ever have been told things by their parents and peers
[12:32:46 PM] K Mapson: The book will be in print too!! ;)
[12:34:13 PM] K Mapson: It is an inevitable synergy. An idea like Pandeism comes to make sense at the same time as the technology comes to exist to disperse the knowledge.
[12:34:47 PM] K Mapson: (almost as if it was planned like that) ;)
[12:35:41 PM] K Mapson: I define a deity by what it does -- it's an entity able to create a rational Universe, with whatever power and intellect is required for that.
[12:36:26 PM] K Mapson: I think there's a universal underlying connectedness, which people sometimes feel, and mistake for the bearded guy in the sky.
[12:36:48 PM] K Mapson: But an awesome cell!!
[12:36:58 PM] K Mapson: We are all awesome cells!!
[12:38:29 PM] K Mapson: Some of our writers who focus on the consciousness aspect -- Bernardo Kastrup and Anthony Peake.
[12:39:36 PM] K Mapson: (if you look them up on Amazon, you can get a sense of their writings)
[12:40:16 PM] K Mapson: Very confusingly -- since I use PanDeist on some sites.
[12:40:45 PM] K Mapson: He is.
[12:41:24 PM] K Mapson: Typing -- no microphone.
[12:42:45 PM] K Mapson: I would consider "science" as a whole being the means by which we discover how the Creator did everything.
[12:43:57 PM] K Mapson: I'd recommend to everybody to read William C. Lane's article on Leibniz's Best World, which addresses this issue very well (it will be republished in the book as well). It's dense writing, but packed full of thought.
[12:44:42 PM] Amy P-----: which subject?
[12:45:36 PM] K Mapson: Lane's article? Its ostensibly about morality, but it points out that a pandeistic Creator could not create a Universe with no suffering in it, unless it makes physics insanely more complex.
[12:45:55 PM] K Mapson: So far as we can tell, our laws of physics are the simplest set of rules which can bring about our life-generating Universe.
[12:47:59 PM] K Mapson: Dawkins is great at explaining that part, actually -- too bad he sees it through such a reductionist framework.
[12:49:56 PM] K Mapson: We are evolving ourselves. What we evolve ourselves towards is inevitably something more godlike, in intellect at least.
[12:51:32 PM] K Mapson: A friend of mine once described the theistic image of god as "a cartoon clown suit" thrown on the Creator to make it comfortable to envision.
[12:51:45 PM] Amy P-----: haha I like that
[12:52:37 PM] K Mapson: That's why theism is so terrible tho -- we take all these human traits, bigotries, fears, and assign them to a god.
[12:53:59 PM] K Mapson: That is what Ivan Sanders is doing with Koilas -- writing a religion that will be updated as new knowledge is added.
[12:54:08 PM] K Mapson: Sure!!
[12:55:46 PM] K Mapson: I want to go over the state of the book, and the plan for it, and for the Kickstarter to support it.
[12:56:08 PM] K Mapson: These are, in my view, all ways to distribute the knowledge.
[12:56:33 PM] K Mapson: For example, Kickstarter is a fundraising platform, but people who look at this there will learn about it.
[12:57:14 PM] K Mapson: There are countless forums out there, beyond Twitter and Facebook and the like.
[12:58:37 PM] K Mapson: An the unending battles between "Christianity" and "Islam" or between "Theism" and "Atheism" suck all the oxygen out of the room. Like "Coke" and "Pepsi" -- with no option for "water"!!
[12:59:36 PM] K Mapson: That's why it is so important that we have even these small discussions.
[12:59:56 PM] K Mapson: Phillip, has this helped you think about what you will write?
[1:00:20 PM] K Mapson: (that is a great, great direction)
[1:00:48 PM] Amy P-----: glad you agree
[1:01:27 PM] Ivan Sanders: Wish I could participate. Last time there were 3 of us and it lasted 3 hours. Again, I want everyone to know that Koilas.org is for everyone and I would love to add more content in the website. Take care everyone and keep me in the loop at [email address]
[1:01:45 PM] K Mapson: Ivan, we'll definitely keep you in!!
[1:02:20 PM] Amy P-----: thanks, we brought Koilas up again while you were absent, Ivan
[1:03:24 PM] K Mapson: We must always begin by confessing we could be wrong in everything we believe.... unfortunately, the most wrong people never take that step.
[1:04:31 PM] K Mapson: I tend not to call it a religion -- it's a philosophy, a framework for seeing our Universe in a way which makes sense.
[1:05:14 PM] Amy P-----: I agree with that view as well
[1:05:25 PM] K Mapson: I  love that. Must find it.
[1:05:32 PM] Amy P-----: must find what?
[1:05:37 PM] K Mapson: that quote
[1:06:29 PM] K Mapson: Juice, find out where that quote about the Nobel Prize comes from!! :D
[1:07:08 PM] Amy P-----: hyperspace by michio kaku
[1:07:41 PM] K Mapson: So I wanted everybody to know we have ten authors so far for the Pandeism Anthology, and are aiming to get all pieces in by March.
[1:08:44 PM] K Mapson: The Kickstarter will be started most likely in January, to fund a college writing competition with a modest cash prize, with the winning article to be published in the book as well.
[1:09:28 PM] K Mapson: Authors thus far:
[1:09:30 PM] K Mapson: Robert G. Brown
William C. Lane
Raphael Lataster
Orlando Alcantara Fernandez
Bernardo Kastrup
Phillip Alexander Jones
Alan Dawe
Anthony Peake
Julian West
Michael Arnheim
[1:09:48 PM] K Mapson: Brown is physicist at Duke Univ.
[1:10:54 PM] K Mapson: Lataster is an Australian theologian
[1:11:04 PM] K Mapson: by Bernard Haisch
[1:11:27 PM] K Mapson: (I asked Haisch to write a piece for the anthology, but he's not writing in that area anymore)
[1:12:51 PM] K Mapson: I'd kind of like to get some 'opposing viewpoints' pieces from atheists/theists, but have gotten no bites from those I've asked.
[1:13:29 PM] K Mapson: But 10-12 pieces is a healthy selection for an anthology.
[1:14:35 PM] K Mapson: The fact that other possibilities are possible doesn't itself make any possibility impossible. ;)
[1:15:19 PM] Amy P-----: what other types of voices do we have in the anthology?
[1:15:22 PM] K Mapson: If there's no beginning, everything would already have happened infinitely long ago!!
[1:15:50 PM] K Mapson: Alan Dawe (from New Zealand) is more of a spiritualist -- he wrote "The God Franchise," great book.
[1:16:04 PM] K Mapson: Julian West is a historian of mythology
[1:16:43 PM] K Mapson: Michael Arnheim is a UK barrister, who wrote "The God Book" (just came out) which is an argument for Deism.
[1:17:04 PM] Amy P-----: any other info to cover after this, k?
[1:17:44 PM] K Mapson: I think we're good -- I think we've got a sense of direction. Naturally, we could go on talking about the topic for hours.... but at some point we must live our lives as well!!
[1:17:56 PM] Amy P-----: haha, ok
[1:18:26 PM] K Mapson: I'm going to put up a website to track progress, and will send it to everybody.
[1:18:54 PM] K Mapson: You're both writers -- write!!
[1:19:16 PM] K Mapson: Amy, from you I want a poem. I'll sneak that into the book as well.
[1:20:21 PM] Amy P-----: @amybeff
[1:20:30 PM] K Mapson: Well, for Juice, and all of us -- keep getting into arguments with people about it -- hearing their objections always sharpens our ability to address the possibilities.
[1:21:57 PM] K Mapson: There are like ten Facebook Pandeism groups.... need to bring them all together.
[1:22:16 PM] Amy P-----: alright, let's keep that in mind
[1:22:27 PM] K Mapson: (Amy, do I know you know you on Facebook)
[1:22:44 PM] Amy P-----: Not currently
[1:22:50 PM] K Mapson: (find me there, I'm the only Knujon Mapson)
[1:22:57 PM] Amy P-----: got it
[1:22:59 PM] K Mapson: Mind = blown
[1:23:12 PM] K Mapson: Nope -- that is it for today -- blessings, all!!
[1:23:27 PM] K Mapson: And thank you all so much!!
[1:24:15 PM] K Mapson: :)
[1:24:22 PM] *** Call ended, duration 1:15:23 ***
[1:24:23 PM] Phillip Jones: :-)
[1:24:51 PM] juice The Jedi Dominguez: 👍🏾 :)
[1:24:59 PM] Phillip Jones: (champagne)

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

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?