Pandeism and Libertarianism

I will attempt to explain here why Pandeism ought to be considered as the natural theological viewpoint for adherents of the libertarian political viewpoint. I confess, at the outset, that though the pandeists I know run across the political spectrum, there tends to be a concentration toward what is modernly euphemistically denoted the "progressive" end of the political spectrum (seeking to broaden the activities of government into as many areas as it may be conceived to possibly be "helpful" -- which is, ultimately, all of them). But, the startling fact of the matter is that Pandeism supports a fundamentally conservative political position (regarding conservatism in the traditional political sense of seeking to minimize the intrusiveness of government against individual freedom). Two lines of reasoning support this assertion.

The liberalism of the leaps of theism:

The first is that the theistic faiths tend to make leaps of assumption beyond what a reasoned examination of the facts allows. That is, they take from the facts an overly imaginative (and self-servingly optimistic), and in that sense overly liberal set of suppositions as to what conclusions may be drawn from them. The pandeistic model, conversely, allows no nonsense, and admits of no assumptive leaps of belief beyond what is justified by a rational, logical examination of the facts before us.

I level this charge at no theistic group in particular, though I'll comment that I've known very few libertarian practitioners of Islam, and many who claim to mix the oil and water of libertarianism and Christianity, including even those who fancy themselves libertarian and yet would use the rough tool of government coercion to impose religious prohibitions on their fellows. But I tell you now, a rational examination of our physical and spiritual realities requires as dispassionate an eye as an examination of our civil and economic realities.

To look upon the face of our Universe and imagine that it supports the view of a deity which cares for our interests is simply a proposition lacking of effective proof and even further removed than looking at the solid evidence right here on Earth, where so many look upon the face of human endeavor and imagine that a government, in token part representative or otherwise, cares for our interests. A solid portion of mankind remains forever hopeful that God and Government will right themselves and rush to our rescue, but the sorry catalogue of history reveals the rarity with which belief in either has done much more than squander human resources in webs of all-too-human corruption.

It can not be too keenly stressed how the pandeistic model, on the other hand, fully accounts for every thing touted as proof of any and all theistic faiths -- every scripture, every miracle, every vision, prophecy, emotional response -- all of it, fully accounted for, and all without contradicting any shred of scientific evidence. And, it accomplishes this without offending the rule of logic expressed by Occam's Razor by requiring any of the dreaded excess assumptions which gum up the works of other theological models (things such as theodicy, inconsistent revelations, the question of the destiny of the unevagelised, evil spirits, deities so faulty as to need to tinker with their own creation, and all the rest). Pandeism, then, truly, is literally the most conservative religious view, taking no liberal leaps of fancy from the evidence presented to land on vain conclusions contradicting common sense.

Theistic oppression of personal freedom:

The second is how theistic faiths tend overwhelmingly to be opposed to liberty, proscriptive of freedom, and especially encouraging of government interference with that freedom. As tended to be expressed by American theocrats, this proscriptiveness cuts against disfavored sexual behavior, against fornication (even between unmarried adults!!), against masturbation, consumption of pornography (as it is a masturbational aid), against commerce in sexual activity, against divorce, and, naturally, against homosexuality. Though the disposition against almost all of these may be traced to sociobiological factors, theocrats prefer to echo them as pronouncements from a deity. And, though they assure their fellow man that such deity will undertake to punish whoever engages in these disfavored activities, they obviously remain unsure enough of that to seek to use the government as an engine of enforcement of their religious restrictions. The brute impositions of Islamic tyrannies simply echoes what would be the situation in America and other Western countries if Christians were able to fully impose their Biblical ideologies on those nations, with a lowly few of the least civilised still deigning, in the name of Christianity to stone sinners to death.

But denouncement of sexual conduct is hardly the only activity upon which theistic faiths seek to bring down the fist of the state. As loose as theistic scriptures are, there is hardly a cause or an industry which may not find cause to restrict the freedom and tap the wallets of individuals on the basis of some religious commandment. Throughout much of history, state-run and enforced public welfare has come at the behest of the Church, and under the prompting of scripture. Remember that the first American compulsory public school systems were established at the direction of Protestants seeking to use these institutions to inculcate the children of Catholic immigrants into Protestant ideology.

Labor movements and environmental laws have equally benefited from citations to religious authority. The Death Penalty is pressed and opposed with equal vigor based on arguments from revelational texts. Slavery found powerful verses to its advantage in the religious books, just as did the opponents of this practice. Costly war has been brought and justified all down history on the wings of words in religious texts, contending that there is a God which wishes this or that group of nonbelievers (or just "other" believers) crushed and subjugated to "its" will in "our" name. Even such simple things as special tax exemptions for theistic institutions (who naetheless continue to generate the public costs of roads and police and fire department services), zoning to favor the interests of the church, and fights over whether textbooks ought to contain scientific or religious accounts, all of these drain the public coffers and create pressures for the government to find ways to extract from the economy what is required to pour into the economic void of theistic fulfillment. And lest we forget that this spigot turns both ways, many are the periods in human experience where the weight of the thumb of government has pushed the pen of the religious writer, so that the words of the religious texts may be rewritten or reinterpreted in line with the interests of the holders of political power.

Pandeism: cutting through the waste and oppression:

The theological theory of pandeism offers none of these reasons for waste and oppression in the name of religious faith. It has no scripture. Again, it instead accounts for all asserted signs of the divine as simple manifestations of the unconscious power of a Creator which only underlies and sustains our Universe -- the most conservative extrapolation to be made from the available evidence. Now there is some logical justifiability to the progressive pandeist sentiment as well, for if we are to believe that all of our shared experience is the experience had by our Creator, we might feel compelled to use the levers of power to ensure a society which provides positive experiences even to the downtrodden.

But the pandeist who is able to surpass the momentary sentimentality of believing that government will tend to operate as it ideally ought to will admit the general and typical failure of government to work with efficiency (except when achieving malevolent ends), or to achieve the very best of its aims. And, it may hardly be denied that each of us, as individuals, is in the best position to determine what will advance our own fulfillment of experience, and to take responsibility for pursuing that advance. We ought not to rely on some collective governmental entity, inevitably and perpetually falling subject to the influences of powerful interests seeking to benefit themselves and not their fellows. And so, the pandeistic model, seen through open eyes, augments the argument of libertarianism and derails the capacity of the theistic faiths to engage government as a tool of oppression in favor of their man-manufactured divine prohibitions.

Wishful thinking on Pandeism and Barack Obama

Second-tier "social conservative" political blogger Mark Finkelstein recently wrote a blog where he suggested (more or less) that Barack Obama's "true faith" is Pandeism.... I say more or less, since it becomes quickly obvious that Finkelstein really has no idea what correct definition of Pandeism is.... the blog critiques a New York Times column by Gail Collins, which is why it is titled "Happy Pan-Deism Day From Gail Collins".... Collins, so Finkelstein observes, noted the coincidence of Easter and Passover falling in the same week (hardly a surprise since the crucifixion itself was timed from Passover), and quotes the observation from Collins that "Americans with less religious inclinations can look forward to the upcoming Earth Day celebrations, when the president is planning to do something as yet unannounced, but undoubtedly special, and Arbor Day, when rumor has it that he will not just plant a tree, but personally reforest a large swath of the nation of Mali".... following from this Finkelstein relates that "environmentalism has essentially become a religion, and Earth Day effectively a religious holiday. Yesterday's pan-deists, who worshiped trees and brooks, have become members of various environmental groups doing much the same thing.  People like Al Gore others, and perhaps the reforesting Obama, have become their latter day shamans."

So, in short, what Finkelstein is saying is that Obama (and Al Gore, and other environmental group members) are pandeists -- and based on his political pedigree, it's pretty clear he means that as an insult (his next comment is "These are the same people who tend to demand the strict separation of church and state. Yet they would have teachers indoctrinate children in their modern-day Church of Gaia in our public schools").... This is irksome on a number of levels.... first off, Finkelstein gets it wrong on several fronts, reducing the reasoned and logic-derived belief that the Creator became the Universe entire to 'worshipping trees and brooks' -- which is in fact doubly wrong.... for one thing, pandeists do not "worship" anything; if we are all part of the Deus, then is useless to worship because the deus is unconscious and wouldn't respond to worship even if it was conscious; and since we are the Deus too, we'd only be worshipping ourselves, which is silly.... and second of all, what we do express a spiritual sentiment of awe towards is not limited to things in Earth's nature, but to the entire Universe, and the delicate balance of physical laws and forces that underlie the greatness of the whole of it.... and yes, we do appreciate trees and brooks, they are often lovely things, and the world would be worse off for their absence from it!! I imagine Finkelstein picturing pandeists joyously dancing naked around a campfire in ceremonies intended to invoke some ancient pagan gods (perhaps even that Greek god, Pan).... well I can assure you, when we do joyously dance naked around a campfire, it's for the inherent fun of it, not to invoke any sort of mythical being, whether the mythology is Greek or Christian.

Now Obama, naturally, is no pandeist.... I seriously doubt Al Gore is either.... it would be great if either of them was, despite my own political differences with both of them, since that would perhaps influence their thinking more in my direction, and more importantly that would bring some much deserved public attention (and no doubt some support) to a belief system that has long been discussed mostly by philosophy professors (and in Germany at that!!), and even among them, often only at the highest levels of the discipline.... I can't tell you how many times someone has described their belief system to me and made clear that Pandeism was what they in fact have long believed without ever knowing it had a name and a community behind it.... more likely, there has never been a pandeist in any high political office -- sure, many among the founding fathers were Deists, the scientific knowledge that justifies Pandeism had not yet been developed and Deism and Pantheism were thought to be philosophies at odds with one another....

Worst of all, and more so than the obvious misconceptions, is the tone which suggests that Finkelstein intends to insult Obama by call him a Pandeist, as though this is some contemptible faith to hold.... I find this odd coming from someone who begins his blog by speaking of the Seder that he will be attending -- after all, why does Finkelstein choose to reject the "divinity of Christ" which marks the mindset of most who share his political orientation? Does he not find the idea of God sending his own son to be sacrificed to absolve mankind of sin (but only those who accept said divinity story) to be equally silly? Does he agree with Ann Coulter's assessment of Christians as 'perfect' and Jews as 'needing to be perfected'? I see now how annoyed Muslims must get when Internet chatter labels Obama a secret Muslim, as though that faith by itself is a shameful thing to belong to.... unreasonable, perhaps -- but shameful? No more than being a Christian, at any rate.... ;)