I've got one in mind - SPINOZA!!Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 11:48 am I think that's what non personal means in the context of theism. Maybe I'm incorrect about that, but I can think of examples of people described as pantheists whose "god's" do not think...
Was Spinoza Actually An Atheist?
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10001
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: Was Spinoza Actually An Atheist?
-
- Posts: 2598
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm
Re: Was Spinoza Actually An Atheist?
I've got a second- Einstein.
I'm not the only person interpreting "non personal" this way either.
https://www.philosophytalk.org/blog/pan ... %20atheism.
I'm not the only person interpreting "non personal" this way either.
https://www.philosophytalk.org/blog/pan ... %20atheism.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/#PersAfter all, pantheism denies the existence of a transcendent, personal God, which is the God of traditional theism. So, in that sense, pantheism seems to be a form of atheism. It’s not clear what exactly pantheists are talking about when they talk of “God.” If pantheists just consider God to be the totality of all existence, then why talk of “God” at all? Moreover, if that’s what “God” means to the pantheist, then the slogan “God is everything and everything is God” now seems circular and redundant.
Your interpretation of the word, while it makes sense, isn't the only and obvious way to interpret it.It is important to distinguish between the specific question of whether God is literally a ‘person’ and the more general question whether God is ‘person-like’; the issue of whether notions such as intellect, thought, consciousness, intent, etc. have any application to the divine, even if analogical or metaphorical.
... These points made, while it is true that traditional theism has regularly opposed pantheism on the grounds that it tends to be impersonal, and true also that many pantheists would deny that God is personal, it is nonetheless the case that many other pantheists have thought mind-like attribution of some form or other to the cosmos absolutely central to their position.
Re: Was Spinoza Actually An Atheist?
So back to the question then...Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 11:58 am Your interpretation of the word, while it makes sense, isn't the only and obvious way to interpret it.
Whose definition/interpretation should Einstein or Spinoza's use of the term "god" be measured up against?
Your definition or their definition?
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10001
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: Was Spinoza Actually An Atheist?
I know pantheism has been ascribed to Einstein but from an interview I am aware only of him stating when quizzed about whether he believes in God, that he would agree with Spinoza's "God" - that is, he is akin to atheist.
Absolutely, (note the WIKI quote below) then it also follows that IF this pantheist God having CREATED at least our existence is not able to also be a personable God, then why define it had the ability to create anything!!?Flannel Jesus wrote:I'm not the only person interpreting "non personal" this way either.
https://www.philosophytalk.org/blog/pan ... %20atheism.
After all, pantheism denies the existence of a transcendent, personal God, which is the God of traditional theism. So, in that sense, pantheism seems to be a form of atheism. It’s not clear what exactly pantheists are talking about when they talk of “God.” If pantheists just consider God to be the totality of all existence, then why talk of “God” at all? Moreover, if that’s what “God” means to the pantheist, then the slogan “God is everything and everything is God” now seems circular and redundant.
WIKI wrote:Pantheism is the philosophical religious belief that reality,[1] the universe and the cosmos are identical to divinity and a supreme being or entity. The physical universe is thus understood as an immanent creator deity, still expanding and creating, which has existed since the beginning of time.
Mr Jesus. There is a huge leap between considering the entity that pervades ALL of existence, GOD, to that of a human, a man.Flannel Jesus wrote:Your interpretation of the word, while it makes sense, isn't the only and obvious way to interpret it.https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pant ... s[quote]It is important to distinguish between the specific question of whether God is literally a ‘person’ and the more general question whether God is ‘person-like’; the issue of whether notions such as intellect, thought, consciousness, intent, etc. have any application to the divine, even if analogical or metaphorical.
... These points made, while it is true that traditional theism has regularly opposed pantheism on the grounds that it tends to be impersonal, and true also that many pantheists would deny that God is personal, it is nonetheless the case that many other pantheists have thought mind-like attribution of some form or other to the cosmos absolutely central to their position.
Stating that God is not a person is easy...stating that God is not personable such that it can interact with what it created - a man - is quite a different conception.
Of course God is not a man, in pantheism it would be akin to stating that the universe is a man. HOWEVER, I do not concede to this ridiculous notion of pantheism that God is not personable to man - that is to say that it is not capable of being personable to a man.
-
- Posts: 2598
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm
Re: Was Spinoza Actually An Atheist?
I don't know what "personable" means. All I know is, you said I was misrepresenting pantheism and had a short sighted view of what the term "non personal" meant, but what I'm finding is that it (a) accurately represents the views of at least some self described pantheists, though certainly not all, and (b) my short sighted interpretation of the word is shared by many, including some pantheists themselves.
I do not believe I am misrepresenting anything, and I believe my more open ended interpretation of the term is categorically less short sighted than a closed interpretation.
I do not believe I am misrepresenting anything, and I believe my more open ended interpretation of the term is categorically less short sighted than a closed interpretation.
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10001
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: Was Spinoza Actually An Atheist?
Comprehend the term pantheism from the top down then. *apply some logicFlannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 12:26 pm I don't know what "personable" means. All I know is, you said I was misrepresenting pantheism and had a short sighted view of what the term "non personal" meant, but what I'm finding is that it (a) accurately represents the views of at least some self described pantheists, though certainly not all, and (b) my short sighted interpretation of the word is shared by many, including some pantheists themselves.
I do not believe I am misrepresenting anything, and I believe my more open ended interpretation of the term is categorically less short sighted than a closed interpretation.
It talks about a creator God - continuously creating. TAKE IT FROM THERE. - would such an entity not be capable of being personable to an individual?
-
- Posts: 2598
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm
Re: Was Spinoza Actually An Atheist?
I don't know what that means. Can you rephrase the last sentence without using the word "personable"?
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10001
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10001
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: Was Spinoza Actually An Atheist?
Such that God can make itself aware in a way, talk to etc to a human in a personable way. (does that help?)Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 12:26 pmI don't know what that means. Can you rephrase the last sentence without using the word "personable"?attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 12:31 pmComprehend the term pantheism from the top down then. *apply some logicFlannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 12:26 pm I don't know what "personable" means. All I know is, you said I was misrepresenting pantheism and had a short sighted view of what the term "non personal" meant, but what I'm finding is that it (a) accurately represents the views of at least some self described pantheists, though certainly not all, and (b) my short sighted interpretation of the word is shared by many, including some pantheists themselves.
I do not believe I am misrepresenting anything, and I believe my more open ended interpretation of the term is categorically less short sighted than a closed interpretation.
It talks about a creator God - continuously creating. TAKE IT FROM THERE. - would such an entity not be capable of being personable to an individual?
-
- Posts: 2598
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm
Re: Was Spinoza Actually An Atheist?
I don't know what you're trying to achieve here anymore. I've demonstrated I believe sufficiently that many pantheists believe in a sort of non thinking god, and that that's apparently a widely held and valid interpretation of what the text "non personal" means - it means not like a person, not a mind, not thinking, not feeling.
What do you want to happen? What goal are you working towards? I assume there's some particular definition you want me to agree with or conclusion you want me to draw, what is it? That pantheists who don't believe in a thinking god shouldn't be called pantheists at all? Or something else?
What do you want to happen? What goal are you working towards? I assume there's some particular definition you want me to agree with or conclusion you want me to draw, what is it? That pantheists who don't believe in a thinking god shouldn't be called pantheists at all? Or something else?
-
- Posts: 2598
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm
Re: Was Spinoza Actually An Atheist?
Based on the definitions we've both seen of pantheism, I do not believe that a pantheist necessarily thinks of god in such a way. Some pantheists might, but clearly not all.attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 12:35 pm
Such that God can make itself aware in a way, talk to etc to a human in a personable way. (does that help?)
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10001
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: Was Spinoza Actually An Atheist?
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 12:38 pm I don't know what you're trying to achieve here anymore. I've demonstrated I believe sufficiently that many pantheists believe in a sort of non thinking god, and that that's apparently a widely held and valid interpretation of what the text "non personal" means - it means not like a person, not a mind, not thinking, not feeling.
What do you want to happen? What goal are you working towards? I assume there's some particular definition you want me to agree with or conclusion you want me to draw, what is it? That pantheists who don't believe in a thinking god shouldn't be called pantheists at all? Or something else?
Just not sure how 'not thinking' in creating things of intelligence plays out.WIKI wrote:Pantheism is the philosophical religious belief that reality,[1] the universe and the cosmos are identical to divinity and a supreme being or entity. The physical universe is thus understood as an immanent creator deity, still expanding and creating, which has existed since the beginning of time.
AI doesn't 'think'.
SINAI
-
- Posts: 2598
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm
Re: Was Spinoza Actually An Atheist?
If you're not sure of how that plays out, and you would like to find out, I'm not the right person to ask. I'm not a pantheist, so I can't tell you how that plays out for pantheists. If you find a pantheist who is of the Einstein/Spinoza variety, you could ask them.attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 12:48 pm
Just not sure how 'not thinking' in creating things of intelligence plays out.
-
- Posts: 2598
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm
Re: Was Spinoza Actually An Atheist?
My intuition was that they might disagree with some of all of the "an immanent creator deity, still expanding and creating" part of the wiki definition. That does seem to be the case for Spinoza:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -god-world
I would hazard a guess that, to those types of pantheists, the "creator / creating" part of the definition is not to be understood as a deliberate act of a thinking thing.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -god-world
How other pantheists discuss that is surely very varied.Spinoza's most famous and provocative idea is that God is not the creator of the world, but that the world is part of God.
I would hazard a guess that, to those types of pantheists, the "creator / creating" part of the definition is not to be understood as a deliberate act of a thinking thing.
Re: Was Spinoza Actually An Atheist?
Pantheists tend to posit a conscious intentional deity, and that is where Spinoza departs from the idea. Spinoza does not dismiss consciousness as part of god, because it is present in humans.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 12:57 pm My intuition was that they might disagree with some of all of the "an immanent creator deity, still expanding and creating" part of the wiki definition. That does seem to be the case for Spinoza:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -god-worldHow other pantheists discuss that is surely very varied.Spinoza's most famous and provocative idea is that God is not the creator of the world, but that the world is part of God.