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)

Religion addiction

The human race has demonstrated a great predilection for addiction. Drug addiction. Alcoholism. Internet addiction. But there's one which nobody seems to recognize even when it is right before their face -- religion addiction. The religious in society laud religiosity -- to the point where they are simply unable to see when one particular adherent has become fixated upon their religious practice to a wholly unhealthy degree. Even atheists seem to ignore this peculiar problem, as they seem to be equally dismissive of all ranks of the faithful without distinguishing those whose faith turns into behavior which would be identified as addictive in any other area.

Imagine, if you will, an exceedingly devoted baseball fan, or Beatles fan, or Harry Potter fan -- and indeed, such people do exist in abundance. But imagine what a person might be like if they crossed the threshold from 'fan' to addict. If they found themselves emotionally unable to go, even hour to hour, without engaging in activities relating to the subject of their fandom. Imagine if they sought to inject the topic of their fandom into their every conversation, no matter how orthogonal to the topic. Imagine the baseball fan who tries to lecture his fellows on the superiority of baseball while they are trying to watch the Super Bowl. Envision the Harry Potter fan who seeks to press the importance of that media empire in the middle of a screening of the Hobbit. Picture a Beatles lover seeking converts to his point of view outside an Iron Maiden concert. And beyond that, imagine the conduct and mindset of such a fan who'd been strictly taught that their fandom was so correct that they would be rewarded for advancing it, and punished for not doing so. To put in a purely addictive frame, imagine a heroin user who'd been indoctrinated with the conviction that using heroin was a sacred act, and refusing to use it was a terrible wrong, one meriting horrific consequences.

Now this enquiry is not intended to engulf those who are simply deeply religious, or passionate in their defense of their faith. But compulsive behavior directed to religious devotion can undoubtedly be harmful to the exhibiting person. In one account, a person raised into a compulsive level of religiosity describes how she "spent literally years injuring myself, cutting and burning my arms, taking overdoses and starving myself, to punish myself so that God doesn't have to punish me." And even for those not inclined to self-injure, addictive behavior can drain away all time for other pursuits. Amongst the most constant in their religious devotion are monks (found in various religions, or with equivalents in them) who lock themselves away in secluded lives of prayer. This is not to suggest that all such people are addicts, but it must be quite the temptation -- a person with a religion addiction becoming a monk or other full-time religious professional is like a compulsive eater working as a chef, a cripplingly obsessed pornography addict becoming the proprietor of a porn store, or an alcoholic pursuing an occupation as a bartender. It seems to be no recipe for a healthfully balanced life.

The deepest problem with religion addiction is the impetus for religious organizations to stonewall any effort to uncover the existence of such a condition, much less to treat it. To "treat" somebody for addiction to a thing is to suggest that the thing itself at least requires moderation. And how would one approach an actual sufferer of a religion addiction? It is the one addiction for which a Twelve Step Program would only make the problem worse!! One treats alcoholism or gambling addictions by giving up alcohol or gambling altogether, but the religious armaments of society would never stand for the suggestion that an individual, no matter how badly harmed by their religious devotion, ought to give up that religion altogether. The situation might be compared to a food addiction, since even the food addict doing everything to overcome their problem must eat to survive. But one can survive without having religion -- and the biological need to eat is one reason why eating disorders can be so hard to overcome. Plenty of people with eating disorders die from them, even knowing they have them and knowing that their compulsions are irrational and against their health. So one must wonder, how many more people die, or suffer a lifetime of destroyed capacity, while living in a society where it is effectively forbidden to identify their especial unusually rigorous compulsion to religion as being a problem at all.

Pandeism on how you know that a building had a builder.

This is in response to a question seen at "Yahoo Answers," posed as:

A question for atheists: How do you know that a building had a builder?

Though I am a Pandeist and not an Atheist, I proffered an answer, and I expand on this further here:

A building has builders because it is essentially defined as a thing built by builders. If you came across a cave in the wilderness, would you call it a "building"? Even if it was roomy enough for people to live in, or even to set up a commercial office in? Surely not, for it would not be a thing which was built.

Now, have you ever heard anyone refer to our Universe, or our Milky Way Galaxy, or our Solar System, or our planet Earth, as "a building"? Surely not, and so we know know that these things were not "built," or they'd be called "buildings."

But here's another thing, when you do see a building of any substantial size or scale, do you think to yourself that that building must have had a single "builder" acting autonomously? Or is it not the case in your own experience that *every* building beyond a rudimentary hut or the like must have *multiple* builders, working cooperatively? And perhaps many more people than you think, for it takes many men to manufacture materials used for even the simplest constructions -- loggers, smelters, machiners, mechanics, material scientists, glaziers, all manner of factory workers -- and it takes many construction workers wielding all many of tools (and separate still many makers of tools), and not only an architect but most likely a separate landscaper for the exterior and a separate interior designer for the interior, and everything else from food truck people to lawyers and accountants to make sure all the permits get filed and the taxes get paid. And the bigger and more complex the structure, the larger the number of people involved in the creation of it.

So if we are to assume from the building/builder(s) model that our Universe was god-built on some wholesale scale (ie built as a whole instead of being set forth pandeistically), it follows then that there must have been hundreds of trillions of gods involved in the process, boss gods and worker gods, some of these gods capable of directing the action but not designing or building the end product, some gods incapable of managing or constructing the project but ably tasked with designing some aspect of it or other, some gods not able to manage or design but able to carry out construction orders. Plus all their toolmakers and materials suppliers and lawyer gods and accountant gods to make sure all the divine permits get filed and the sacred taxes get paid.

Pandeism on homosexuality and gay marriage

Today is an appropriate day to revisit this commentary:

DeismTV#14 - One Deist's Concept of God

I find this vid to be brilliant and wholly agreeable, except for the point that Pandeism does not require that God blew itself up -- there is one school of thought in Pandeism which proposes such, but Pandeism encompasses all theological models wherein God becomes our Universe, in such a way that it is not able to miraculously intervene in the goings-on of our Universe.

Somebody Else's Odd Video: "What does Pandeism mean?"

This may well be the most informative thing I have ever seen -- well, except for literally everything else I have ever seen....






Blessings!!

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