The Burden of Proof as applied to Pandeism

Pandeism fully accounts for all phenomena, physical and spiritual, with the least amount of presumptions required. And so, any system proposing a Creator with additional capacities, such as the ability to create new energy from nothing, or to be infinite in any dimension, bears the burden of first affirmatively disproving pandeism.

Pandeism vs Creationism: Evolution IS Intelligent Design

This video explains that pandeism accepts evolution as true because evolution itself is the ultimate "intelligent design":

Pandeism and the Free Will Paradox

This video explains why the concept of "free will" is inconsistent with the idea of an absolutely omnipotent and absolutely omniscient Creator, but is instead consistent with the pandeistic model of a Creator. In fact the pandeistic Creator would not be at all served by absolute omniscience, for then there would be nothing to learn from the Creation of our Universe, and no reason to create -- and so, we would not be here!!

Pan-Deism....?

(Copied from Everything2 with permission)

Wait a minute, you are surely saying, we already have a fantastic and brilliant node about pandeism -- at pandeism!!@!; what beckons a whole separate node on the same thing but just with a hyphen? Ah, but what a difference a hyphen makes!! In searching upwards from the most ancient sources on the subject to modern day, one finds that at sundry historical points, writers have inclined to use "pan-deism" (or perhaps Pan-Deism, depending on how they feel about capitalisation) to mean something strikingly different from the modern meaning of "pandeism."



Here are the examples (and annotations!!)....



••••

"India worships three hundred millions of divinities. To her, God is everything, and everything is God, and, therefore, everything may be adored. Snakes and monsters are her special divinities. Her pan-deism is a pandemonium."

-- Source: Reverend Henry Grattan Guinness, in Missionary Review, in John Harvey Kellogg's International Health and Temperance Association, The Medical Missionary, 1897, page 126.
(The earliest example, here, could carry either sense!! Hinduism, long one of the prime religions of India, has been observed to have sects espousing pandeistic conceptions.)

••••

"In certain passages of the OT the concept of Babylon emerges into an archetypal figure for the proud, God-defying forces of this world (Isa 13-14; 21.1-10; 47: Jer 50-51). In the NT it is even more clearly a type of pan-deism formed from a synthesis of Christianity and paganism; this is indicated symbolically in the description of the woman riding on the Beast (Rev 17:1 ff.)."

-- Source: Charles F. Pfeiffer, Howard Frederic Vos, and John Rea, in The Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, 1975, page 190.

(It's been frequently pointed out to me that Christianity has long
since become this synthesis, what with all the pagan celebrations,
practices, even whole doctrines being brought up into it right from its
early centuries, and into modern times.)

••••

"If the Bible is only human lore, and not divine truth, then we have no real answer to those who say, 'Let's pick the best out of all religions and blend it all into Pan-deism - one world religion with one god made out of many.'"

-- Source: J. Sidlow Baxter, Our Bible: The Most Critical Issue, 1991.

(Oh, let's!! There is a sense in which pandeism is said to combine the
most defensible and rational truths that can be reduced out of all
faiths....)

••••

"Should the demigod Pan come to bear, the result will be Pan-deism, the opening of Pandora's Box."

-- Source: John Gee, in The Metaphysicians' Desk Reference 2003, page 164.

(Um.... ok. Not exactly sure what this guy is going for -- something cleverly hidden in the wordplay? Or just alliteration for its own benefit?)

••••

"Perhaps as a response to the years of repression under the old regime, they embraced the pan-deism
of the ancient world, with its numerous gods and lesser deities. They
were proponents of sexual freedom as well, even going so far as to hold
public orgies until halted by the local government."

-- Source: R. J. Leahy, in Tigra‎, 2006, page 54.

(Orgies?
Hey, sure!! Numerous gods? No, not really. But consider Hinduism again,
which presents numerous gods as a mask for one true underlying force.)

••••

"Just as the Pharisee thought he could come before God and present to Him his good works, the knowledge of good and evil literally became the doorway of pan-deism (that is, many ways to God)."

-- Source: Dewayne A. Pattie, in No King But Caesar & The Return of The Melek Tsedek: A Biblical Study on Faith, Religion, and the Antichrist From the Covenant Perspective, September 29, 2009, p. 45.

(And oughtn't there be "many ways" to such an entity as that of which they speak!?)

••••

And so, as a rule, hyphenated pan-deism begs something else, not the
true blue view of "pandeism." But, a rule being laid out we are now
tasked with highlighting the exceptions!!



One occurs where Professor Francis E. Peters, in Greek Philosophical Terms: A Historical Lexicon 1967, page 169, inscribes, "What appeared here, at the center of the Pythagorean tradition in philosophy, is another view of psyche that seems to owe little or nothing to the pan-vitalism or pan-deism
(see theion) that is the legacy of the Milesians." And there we know he
speaks of the more familiar pandeism (and how do we know this? Because
it rightly captures the spirit of that ancient Milesian worldview).
Where poet and critic Liam Rector, in The Day I Was Older: on the poetry of Donald Hall‎, 1989, page 69, propounds that it was "Pope's rationalism and pan-deism with which he wrote the greatest mock-epic in English literature" for it reflects Alexander Pope's philosophy, summed up in An Essay on Man: "All are but parts of one stupendous whole / Whose body nature is, and God the soul" (forecasting, mayhap, a later artist's affirmation that "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.")



And again, William Harbutt Dawson, writes in his biographic epistle, Matthew Arnold and His Relation to the Thought of Our Time,
1904, republished 1977, page 256, that "whatever the deity which
satisfied Arnold's personal experience may have been, the religion
which he gives us in Literature and Dogma and God and the Bible is neither Deism nor bare Pan-Deism, but a diluted Positivism."
Now, one might assume, as the editor of the 1977 edition suggests, that
that Dawson may have intended to write "bare Pan-Theism" rather than
"Pan-Deism". If one does not, then we are presented with a direct
comparison with Deism, for Dawson then observes: "As an ethical system
it is in theory admirable, but its positive value is in the highest
degree questionable. Pascal's judgment upon the God who emerged from the philosophical investigations of René Descartes was that He was a God who was unnecessary."


But returning again to the uses that make and not break this rule, now
there are two ways you could think about this; one being that some
folks are none too educated in their collocation of words. Look at the
roots: pan, everything, deism, yes it does descend from the Latin for
"God" -- but it has preceded these quotations by centuries in a long
and greatly expounded distinct meaning all its own, of a particular
kind of faith standing apart from the theism that these folks try to
mash up. The right word would be omnithism.
Might even be that they mean to mislead -- pandeism is indeed as much
subject to misuse abuse as other words relating "off-the-beaten-path"
faiths. Like Moralistic therapeutic deism
(which is in point of fact no kind of "deism"), false usage, possibly
intentionally, demeans and diminishes the dimensions of its domain.



But a greater point is about the true meaning of pandeism, which accounts for and provides a tasty, logic-satisfying underlying explanation for all perceived religious phenomena accorded to all
faiths (visions, revelations, miracles, deep-seated feelings, etc); and
so, if pandeism is true, then this use of "pan-deism" it is true in the
sense that all of the phenomena of all faiths are traceable to the underlying pandeistic nature of our Universe.

The problem of the unevangelised

This video explains why the problem of the unevangelised disproves any theism proposing a loving or omnipotent God, but presents no barrier to pandeism.

The God of the Philosophers

Many people, when asked to identify the attributes of God, will identify characteristics such as God being omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, infinite, eternal, and perfect along moral or emotional lines, such as having perfect mercy or perfect lovingness. But what is the basis for such contentions? These characteristics were conjured up by philosophers in the early middle ages, and the entity that is described by them is therefore called (drumroll please) the God of the Philosophers. There are only three possible sources of information from which such a determination might be made, none of which is without flaws.

First there is the nature of the Universe itself. It is vast, full of energy, and its laws of physics bear some indicia of having been designed for the specific purpose of bringing about intelligent life. Second, there are claims of information imparted to men by a god. Third, there is pure logic, and logical extrapolation from mathematical truths.

Regarding the first possible basis, let us examine the Universe. It is large, but it now appears quite certain that it is not infinitely large, nor is it infinitely complex. It is not eternal, having begun at a specified time in the past. While any entity responsible for creating the Universe would have to be very powerful and very intelligent, there is simply no requirement that such an entity have more power or intellect than the immense, but decidedly finite, bare minimum required for such a creation. Scientists on several fronts now theorize that humans may even develop the technology to create a new baby Universe that expands and unfolds according to laws of physics calculated by its human creators. To know that the creation of a new Universe may fall within the hands of a small group of humans on this planet, which occupies a pinprick in the whole of the Universe, puts in perspective the lack of omnipotence and infinitude necessary for the creator.

As for the second possible basis, there is no reason for any assertions of revelation to be believed on their face. All revelations come through the voice or hand of man, and men may be mistaken, misled, delusional, or merely dishonest. Even if some higher power exists, and a person were to correctly believe that they had received a communication from such a higher power, that person would have no way to gauge the characteristics of the source of the message beyond merely blindly trusting claims that it made. Although many holy books recount miracles said to have been performed by such higher powers, no witness is borne to any such miracle that would require the performer to be infinite in any sense, or more powerful even than many comic book heroes. Indeed, the accounts set forth in most holy texts are vague, sometimes self-contradictory, and in any event allegorical to an indeterminate degree. So it is not absolutely set forth in such texts that the creator described therein is the same entity described by the philosophers.

A higher power need not even be conscious. The power of the mind responsible for the creation of the Universe may be such that any person coming in contact with it would feel that they were experiencing conscious revelation, even though they were only touching an unconscious mind.

Finally, we come to the proof afforded by mathematics and logic. The most common logical arguments in favor of the existence of God, such as the cosmological argument for a prime mover or a necessary being, do not require that entity to be infinite, eternal, or omniscient. Some have attempted to craft arguments having a superficial veneer of logic and proposing that, for example the ontological argument, essentially that a perfect God can be imagined into existence. However, no such argument has withstood close logical scrutiny, if for no other reason than the ability of different minds to simultaneously conceive of imaginary beings with infinite power but contradictory characteristics such as perfect disinterest and perfect interest. No logical or mathematical formulation has yet been put forth which requires any degree of infinitude be held by a creator, nor can mathematics or logical extrapolation assign any emotional or moral characteristics to such a creator.

The only determination that logic can provide is that, because it created something at all, the creator was not so inherently perfect as to be able to continue its existence without engaging in an act of creation.

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.... ;)