I'm not sure why we are bringing up Pan, that's not what the pan in patheism is about. — Coben

Yes, everyone except @ernestm knows that. :up: He thinks Pantheism is like the so-called NeoPagan 'revival', a bunch of hippies worshipping Pan. Having committed himself in print, he is too embarrassed to admit his mistake, and has become entrenched in his own misunderstanding.

I agree. I’ve chosen to ignore the side argument - feel free to continue with the main discussion, if you can find it back there... — Possibility

:up:

If God exists and He is all good and all powerful why does He allow evil? — MysticMonist

God exists, but She is the God of all things, not just human beings. To you puny humans, "evil" means only 'something we humans don't like'. Grow up! We all share the same world, and we all have the right to live there.

There is no 'Problem of evil'.

["Puny humans", etc, is just me being theatrical, not directing insults at anyone. :up: ]

Viewers need to think about these things. They need to actively think, "Why am I being shown an empty office lobby with an opening automatic door and then a streetlamp?" — Terrapin Station

No, they don't. We are more than capable of simply absorbing this sort of thing unconsciously, and we do it all the time. In layman's terms, I might just say we get the (right) idea by feel.

These religious tools that threaten us with the unknown... — Future Roman Empire II

[My underlining.]

From a perspective opposed to religion, this is a common view, and it does hold some truth, especially when we consider human religious organisations, as opposed to religious teachings. But religion also helps us come to terms with the unknown, in a way that helps us to lead our lives. When we had little in the way of philosophy (or similar stuff), simple animism helped us come to terms with a very scary world that we just couldn't understand. Not that much has changed, has it? :wink:

Strawman, strawman, strawman. — Terrapin Station

Yes, I see your point, and acknowledge its validity. But there are some sciencists who really do hold these beliefs, or claim they do in philosophy forums. They are the ones trying to proclaim the death of philosophy, and all forms of structured thought except science. I think the OP opposes this nonsense, doesn't it? :chin:

I'd like to plead for a modular conception of religions... — Matias

Are you sure that's a good idea? :wink: A modular conception? Hmm.

...not as homogeneous "things", but as a bundle of elements that are and were composed differently in different cultures and at different times. — Matias

Ah, that sounds a little more like it! :smile: :up:

I'm going to regret that typo for as long as I'm here in the TPF, aren't I? :blush:

Well then you’re talking about entertainment. That’s different from art. ‘Transformers’ is entertainment. So is Shakespeare, or was. Now it’s an idea, of what art is. Once you begin viewing everything through the prism of entertainment then you have a few basic parameters to judge it by: dollars and asses. — Brett

I think it might be your conception of "entertainment", as a commercial/business/profit/money/American thing, that's making art not resemble entertainment in your eyes. Art is often entertaining, often disturbing too....

Oh dear. Sorry for missing the typo! :blush: :smile:

Look, I just made a comment that she isn't a fascist to Pattern-chaser's comment — ssu

Please let's be clear: I commented that the vast majority of American politicians - even the supposedly left-wing ones - look like fascists to me, here on the edge of Europe, on the other side of the Atlantic. And there are plenty of people here in the UK who don't share my opinions. :wink: (Even) I wouldn't've been rash enough to call an individual politician "fascist" without just a little more thinking about it first. :smile: Sorry for my loose tongue! :wink:

Really? You think Ron Paul is a fascist? How bizarre.

If things go right, we here in the UK may soon see our first-ever socialist leader! — Pattern-chaser

First ever??? What happened to Clement Attlee? — ssu

:blush: First-ever in my lifetime. :blush: Typing fingers got ahead of brain. As for Ron Paul, the only (left-wing) US politicians I know are Warren and Sanders. And some of their ideas are still scary, coming from 'socialists'. But that's just my perspective. At least they have some concern for the American working man and woman.

:rofl: :up:

Why not an appeal to attribute all functions to animals as a whole, as if specific organs/systems have no particular functions? — Terrapin Station

Why stop there? Is there a reason - a good reason - why we should subdivide the universe according to localised concentrations of matter (or according to any other standard)? What reason do we have not to consider the universe as a whole, not a collection of parts?

Attempt to solve the problem? By for instance changing the way physics is taught in schools so that kids don't leave it believing they are nothing more than particles behaving according to laws of physics. — leo

:up:

I believe many people are potentially open to this message but have never heard it. I desperately needed to hear this message during my scientific studies, but I was surrounded by scientists who boasted that their view is the truth and that anything going against it is essentially religious crackpottery. Took me a while to escape this madness and find some sanity in the words of philosophers such as Feyerabend who, unsurprisingly, was designated by many scientists as an enemy of science, or even the worst enemy of science, while all he was an enemy of was the bullshit that scientists spouted. — leo

Sounds familiar. :smile:

And this message definitely hasn't been heard nearly enough, just need to look at some of the reactions in this thread. — leo

Yes. @StreetlightX clearly believes (below) there is a problem here. I wonder what it is? :chin:

The OP and the article it champions is just another in a long line of dialectical tactics to shore up idealism by pushing the most vulgar of science as the most authoritative. Without doing so, it'd die the ignominious death it deserves. — StreetlightX

I can't think of better words to end this post than these:

There is a closemindedness and oversimplification by this culture or significant subculture - and one that is really quite philosophically illiterate despite their intelligence - and this is problematic. — Coben

What you write about science is true. So is what I wrote about scientists, who are only human, like the rest of us. The issue (problem) here, as I understand it, is with scientists (and the way they practice science), not with science (which remains the powerful and useful tool it has been for many centuries).

woo peddlers like the OP need science to be this reductive boogeyman all the better to leave breathing room for their own two-bit idealisms. — StreetlightX

I missed the "woo peddling". I saw only a couple of problems to which science is often applied by the ignorant. These problems are outside the scope of science. Where is the woo, and where are the "two-bit idealisms"?

Yet there is the possibility of the AI being... something resembling a Trump-voter... — ssu

If the AI proved to be an AU (Unintelligent), that would be unfortunate. But even Trump-voters are alive.

Yet knowing all the Worlds telephone books inside and out doesn't make you super-intelligent. — ssu

I think everyone agrees with that. It's not the knowledge that gives rise to intelligence, it's the ability to apply that knowledge for its own purposes that would distinguish an intelligence.

The real tragedy is that lies have become the new "bullshitting". — Wallows

No, the real tragedy is that truth is now created by repetition. Gone are the days when truth was based on verifiable facts. Now you just stick to your beliefs no matter what, and repeat them until they become true. Bush and Blair brought this attitude to the fore, but it had been coming for a long time. Lies have become expected. That's a tragedy too.

[A]rt seems to be man made (unless you believe in a God), and all things man made have a foundation, a set of rules or agreement for it to function or be accepted. Except with art we can’t seem to find those rules. — Brett

[My highlighting.] It's the emboldened bit I have a problem with. Do you think that's true? Have you any justification to offer? Yes, there are examples of man-made things to which your description applies, but I don't think we can extend that to a blanket cover of all man-made things, can we?

Perhaps when you are talking in the future to an AI that is fully conscious, aware and independent, you might have an interesting discussion with it about the subject. Would it consider itself alive or dead? It may perhaps see itself as conscious, but not as a living being and it might consider itself hence dead. The dead interacting with the living might sound awesome to it, who knows? — ssu

Yes, that would be interesting. :smile: But I wouldn't be side-tracked by the thorny question of whether the AI is alive, I'd just enjoy the conversation. :wink: Even if that conversation was about whether the AI was/is/will be alive. :smile: Is its 'life status' really so important?

It is clear that he considered reductive materialism a widespread view among scientists, and that he too saw it as a problem. — leo

Many have commented that this view exists, and offered their opinion that it is a problem. I have said as much myself, many times. Those who are open to this message have already received and accepted it. Those who really need it are those whose emotional attachments to their personal beliefs are so deep that they cannot even hear discussion like this one. A shame, but there it is.

So where to go from here? :chin:

I can't rid myself of the oft-quoted motto "if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a dick, it's probably a duck". If it seems to be alive, because it acts like a living thing, then it's probably alive. This is far from precise, I know, but I submit that a precise recognition of 'life' might be quite difficult. And I think the difficulty is in wrestling with details, to support or oppose the accolade of Living Thing to a particular thing. Is that worth it? Maybe it is. Maybe we need a precise definition of life, so that we can easily and conveniently classify things as alive or not. Or maybe there's another reason? Is there? :chin:

Is [philosophy] a self-guided practice, as I have come to understand, or is it a practice that can be guided by some mentor.

Quite a pernicious question if you think about it wrt. to the history of philosophy. — Wallows

There are many disciplines whose new practitioners would benefit greatly from a mentor. Computer program design is one. Philosophy is probably another. There are many more. Is this pernicious?

Perhaps it is pernicious that mentors could be so helpful in so many different areas, but are rarely if ever present or available? :chin:

Philosophy types (of the sort that hang out around this joint) ought to be able to respond to these people. If they can't be bothered, one has to wonder what the fuck they are good for. — Bitter Crank

:blush: Well said. :blush:

I think that at the very least we should have a counseling sub-forum for newbies seeking to further their interest in the field of philosophy. — Wallows

I wonder how these newbies differ from those here who aren't new? I ask this in the context of the topic: what is it that newbies need or deserve that established or older members don't? Why is a sub-forum a good idea, and why is it that only newbies could benefit from it? Is TPF a forum intended only for seasoned philosophers? Maybe academically-qualified philosophers? :chin:

What's the question here? We have two issues presented, neither of which can be dealt with by science, and the reasonable (?) assertion that science cannot explain "everything". No surprises here. But this isn't a problem with science, merely an observation that science cannot address every issue. This doesn't lessen science, or detract from its (very) many successful applications. A hammer is not denigrated by the observation that it's rubbish as a tool for painting walls, is it? :wink:

So what's the issue here? :chin:

I find it impossible to refute. — Frank Apisa

:up:

It is easy to win The Survival of the Fittest, just buy a gun and shoot loads of people. — Andrew4Handel

The "fittest" will be American, then. They practice this sort of thing, all the time, in case someone tries to take their gun-toys away from them.

she was a writer that more of right-wing libertarian conservative

[...]

But as typical, everything on the right is fascism according to many people... — ssu

There's a geographical element to it too. From my political perspective, here in the UK, even America's left wing appears extreme-right-wing. So someone an American describes as a "right-wing libertarian conservative" is pretty much a fascist, when seen from here. If things go right, we here in the UK may soon see our first-ever socialist leader! I never thought I'd be lucky enough to get the chance to vote for one.

Assuming the facts reported are accurate... — Hanover

FYI: I just saw this tweet in my timeline on Twitter: <<<A whole page of hits for "Noa Pothoven" from major media outlets, every one repeating the false euthanasia claim except a "clarification" from the WaPo... What an utterly shameful feeding-frenzy.>>> He provides this link. This is the 'clarification' he refers to:

Clarification: An earlier version of this story reported that Pothoven’s death came via euthanasia. It is unclear whether doctors assisted her in death, though she earlier requested their help. — Washington Post

She is a socialist... — mnoone

I have only a glancing acquaintance with Ayn Rand, but my understanding thus far is that she tends toward fascism, not socialism. Selfishness, which she proclaims as a virtue, is anathema to socialism, a social, communal, political ideology. :chin:

we need statements from the artist saying what the purpose of the art in question is, because the purpose in mind can be different for every artist who has a purpose, and for every work they create. An additional problem with this aspect is that we need to be able to sort out whether a stated purpose is really the purpose the artist had in mind, or whether it's not instead just positioning for the sake of marketing, or maybe it was something that's not very accurate but the artist said it because their gallery, or agent, or whatever, was pressuring them for an artist's statement, or maybe the artist see's the statement about purpose as an artwork in itself, or any number of other possibilities. — Terrapin Station

Surely art is presented to you (to us) by the artist, and we like it or we don't. I can imagine that, sometimes, the artist might pass along some idea of her intention, but is this really necessary? Do you need art to be explained to you before you will like it, or to persuade you (how? :chin: ) to like it? Are we so unsure of ourselves we need to be told what art is intended to convey before we can ... discover what it conveys to us? :chin: Isn't the 'mystery' part of its appeal?

Is there some way to do such an enterprise in a fully ethical manner? — Unseen

On-topic, but thinking laterally, I wonder if travelling to the stars is ethical from the point of view of the resources it would take to mount such an expedition? It looks almost certain that we will have to give up a lot of luxuries, quite soon, to salvage what we can of our ecosystem. In the context of this topic, perhaps air travel is the best example: it is entirely unnecessary, and it takes resources, causes pollution and global warming, etc, etc. Can we really contemplate interstellar travel under these circumstances?

the trendy 'modern' version of pantheism, to which you ascribe, was a confusion with a similar concept called 'animism' by a couple of aging hippies in the 1970s — ernestm

'Irish freethinker' John Toland (1705) was "a couple of aging hippies in the 1970s"? :rofl:

"The term "pantheism" was coined by the Irish writer John Toland in 1705."

[...]

"The term ‘pantheism’ is a modern one, possibly first appearing in the writing of the Irish freethinker John Toland (1705) and constructed from the Greek roots pan (all) and theos (God). But if not the name, the ideas themselves are very ancient, and any survey of the history of philosophy will uncover numerous pantheist or pantheistically inclined thinkers" — Pattern-chaser

[Those words are not mine, I just quoted them; see my previous post for the proper attribution.]

:up:

There is only one known temple to Pan, as I said, it was called Paneas, and you can find out all the different things people have written on Paneas too, but I will stick to the version taught to Winston Churchill. Thank you. — ernestm

Again and again you return to your schoolboy misunderstanding. Pantheism is a modern word that describes a modern movement. It has nothing to do with the ancient God Pan, or the worship of Pan. The occurrence of the three letters "p - a - n" in "pantheism" and "Pan" is coincidental. Your misunderstanding is understandable, but mistaken nonetheless.

What I said was that they might be more skilled in identifying the objective properties of the music--for example, they can maybe tell you that a guitarist is playing a run off of a locrian scale, that they're playing sextuplets, etc. None of that tells you anything about whether one thing versus another is better. — Terrapin Station

:up:

That's a shame. ... That you have retreated from discussion to personal insults.

You seem to be talking about taste/preference rather than quality. — I like sushi

I rather think that "quality" has strong associations with taste and with preference, although that is far from a definition of the word (quality). :chin:

So, no links to anything anyone else has said or thought? It's all down to your youthful impressions from school?

Pan - In the classical age the Greeks associated his name with the word pan meaning "all". However its true origin lay in an old Arcadian word for rustic.

- Link to original article

Pan - The great god of flocks and shepherds among the Greeks; his name is probably connected with the verb πάω (paō), Latin pasco (graze, forage), so that his name and character are perfectly in accordance with each other. Later speculations, according to which Pan is the same as τὸ πᾶν (to pan), or the universe, and the god the symbol of the universe, cannot be taken into consideration here.

Link to original article

Pan is considered to be one of the oldest of Greek gods. He is associated with nature, wooded areas and pasturelands, from which his name is derived. The worship of Pan began in rustic areas far from the populated city centers, and therefore, he did not have large temples built to worship him. Rather, worship of Pan centered in nature, often in caves or grottos. Pan ruled over shepherds, hunters and rustic music. He was the patron god of Arcadia.

Link to original article

Now none of the above quotes can be guaranteed correct, and I do not post them as objective evidence of who/what Pan is. But your impressions seem based in schoolboy misunderstandings that no-one else has heard of.

Finally:

Pantheism is the view that God is equivalent to Nature or the physical universe - that they are essentially the same thing - or that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent abstract God. Thus, each individual human, being part of the universe or nature, is part of God. The term "pantheism" was coined by the Irish writer John Toland in 1705.

Link to original article

The term ‘pantheism’ is a modern one, possibly first appearing in the writing of the Irish freethinker John Toland (1705) and constructed from the Greek roots pan (all) and theos (God). But if not the name, the ideas themselves are very ancient, and any survey of the history of philosophy will uncover numerous pantheist or pantheistically inclined thinkers; although it should also be noted that in many cases all that history has preserved for us are second-hand reportings of attributed doctrines, any reconstruction of which is too conjectural to provide much by way of philosophical illumination.

At its most general, pantheism may be understood positively as the view that God is identical with the cosmos, the view that there exists nothing which is outside of God, or else negatively as the rejection of any view that considers God as distinct from the universe.

Link to original article

Pantheism, it seems, has no direct links at all to the ancient God Pan. :chin: