Note: I also think that the Christian god (and all other imaginary gods) are also fucking made-up, pretend and imaginary. (But that’s not the first-and-foremost reason why I disbelieve.)

If I’m not overextending my presumptuousness too much, you and I are on the same page.
 

...Guinness...

Hey, my favorite beer!
 

This is why I prefer simply to describe what I am saying rather than trying to use a term to say it. When I worked with addicted people, I refused to use the term alcoholism or alcoholic in my presentations, because they mean so many things to so many different people. So, I spent over seven years walking completely around the word alcoholism mainly because I saw the entire concept as folkloric. There certainly is no medical data to back up the claim that it realistically describes the situation.

Somewhat off topic anecdote: my roommate’s mother, a psychotherapist, told me that I was an alcoholic. Her definition of “alcoholic” is “anyone who drinks alcohol”. A serious case of cranial-rectal inversion.

But, I’ve “seen the light”. Fully describing what is meant as opposed to trying to use a loaded term with a lot of baggage is preferable.
 

Well, atheism has meant many things in the past, but usually means one of two things now: dogmatic atheism (“No gods exist”) and “weak” atheism (“I lack a god belief” or “I have encountered no god-claim that holds water with me”). Before, it has meant wickedness (see Mirriam-Webster’s Tenth Collegiate) and it has also meant “You don’t believe in the same god I do, though you may believe in some god.”

I’ve heard all four uses when talking with various folks. :-(

[snip: ...deliberately misunderstood the Christian god-claim...]

Tee-hee-hee. ;-)
 

...it’s only fair that I refrain from calling their [theist] claims “unsubstantiated” at least until I have given them the opportunity to try to substantiate their claims.

To do otherwise wouldn’t be cricket.

Sincerely,

—Eljay
(Minneapolis, Minnesota)

From: “Positive Atheism”
To: “Love-Jensen, John”
Subject: Re: Positive Atheism, Cliff’s Writings — Which 10 Commandments.
Date: Friday, July 21, 2000 9:23 PM

In my $0.02 I’m scribbling up for your subsection in your FAQ on pantheism, I’ll make sure to clarify on the issue of the term “god” in a pantheist context.

I would appreciate simply taking what I have and both correcting it and adding to it in a very basic sense. I am shooting for the basics common to all pantheism, and the few major sub-categories within this bigger category. This is not a philosophy volume, but is intended to try to briefly show where pantheists are coming from on the big issues. I am particularly interested in SciPan (and would welcome a section that compares SciPan to other forms of pantheism because it seems to be catching on (at least many are giving lip service to it as an alternative to traditional theism). Of course, I would need to address the traditional forms of pantheism which I think Hinduism (at least as expressed by the Krsna Society) qualifies is a form. I would also appreciate a brief run-down of the argument over language we have been having, and if you know of some objections I’ve missed, that have been aired within your congregation, I’d appreciate those as well. As always, I will take what you write and rewrite it to fit my style and intentions. I’d be glad to give you credit for your assistance, though, by linking to your site (and to this discussion) from the Pantheism write-up.
 
 

...Robert Anton Wilson...

Hey, I’ve read the Illuminati Trilogy. Amusing book, but one would have to be a rube to take it seriously. I always thought Wilson was taking some pretty impressive mind-altering substances. :-)

You’ve only been looking in the sci-fi section, not the philosophy, occult and metaphysics, sexuality, drugs, or other sections where his nonfiction might be found. Illuminatus! is a satire, spoofing the fact that there are so many vastly different world views coming from a single species. In it, Wilson and Shea took all the different paranoid conspiracy theories that came into the Playboy “Letters To the Editor” forum over the course of the six years Wilson worked there and tried to weave them into a fictionalized unified theory. Of course, in order to do this, the book must be classified as fiction. Hell, it’s gotta go somewhere!

The book you might find interesting is called Quantum Psychology wherein Wilson tries to incorporate the revelations and enigmas of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into a basis for understanding how the human mind works (or should work). It’s real fun, intended to be read by small groups, and has group exercises that you do at the end of each chapter. It’s similar to his earlier book Prometheus Rising except with the latter he admits that it is contrived. Quantum Psychology is serious in that the author actually believes what he is writing.
 

One agnostic even spent several letters needling me as to why I bother using the term atheist at all, since it has a specific meaning to most theists. Why don’t I simply abandon the moniker “atheist” and start calling myself what I am: an agnostic? Sound familiar?

Oh yes. I’ve had my logomachy run-ins. I’ve even had one just a couple days ago, within my own SciPan church.

I was hoping you’d catch the fact that I’ve been needling you to abandon your use of the word god just as this fellow needled me to abandon my use of the word atheist.

The only difference I see is that atheist is our term, whereas your use of god is (as I see it) an intrusion.
 

And to think I so carefully differentiate between natural law (which is not the result of any divine decree of any kind) from what my opponents call “Divine Law” (such as “Don’t put a rubber on your willie” or “Vote for George Dubya for President”).

“Divine law” depends on the theology of the religion in question. My religion’s “divine law” is synonymous with “natural law”. It is not synonymous with the Christian “divine law”.

Both you and I have been inundated with the pervasive and provincial Christianity of our society.

You’re still missing my point: I’m trying to distinguish what is commonly seen as Divine Law from what is commonly seen as natural law. To do this with any other theist is sometimes a tedious job indeed. To do this with a SciPan is, I suspect, impossible, because what you say unravels all this work I’ve done with the regular theist.

And now, you dismiss what I was trying to say by taking cover in what your specific religion of about 800 members teaches. Could you at least have stepped outside your worldview long enough to acknowledge what I was trying to say?

Again: My opponents (all except about 800 of them) have a tough time distinguishing between “natural law” and “divine law.” This is a source of unending pain when discussing these matters with them, requiring that I type tens of thousands of characters of text in order to even get anywhere with them (though you’d think this was not necessarily the case).

Now you come in and dismiss the whole thing with a turn of semantics and by fleeing to your own world view, rather than acknowledging that I am speaking of their world view.

Finally, you turn around and accuse them of absconding with their terminology when, in fact, I think SciPan has absconded with traditional theism’s terminology. I mean, even when Joseph Smith announced that he had the original, uncorrupted Christian Gospel, he at least used the motif of angels and golden plates and a new (that is, recent) revelation in order to give his case at least some credibility among the more gullible. You haven’t even done this, but simply declare that our culture has been “inundated” with the long-standing traditional views dating back over 15 centuries.

Are you even recognizing that yours is just one viewpoint among many? or are you insisting that view is intrinsically true?
 

Like it or not, we’re both predisposed to thinking in Christian terms. I know I don’t like it, and when I cross that line of using religious terms that have been co-opted by Christianity in the context of my own religion’s natural theology, it makes them blatantly apparent. They seem wrong, and awkward. But I hope that it also causes one to pause and think.

So what? They have historical precedence in their use of the terms, and they are the majority in our neck of the woods. You’re not going to get very far by coming in and accusing them of co-opting your terminology when it is y’all who have come in (recently) and co-opted terminology that has had a specific meaning for the majority of people over the course of a thousand of years. This is why I am asking why you even bother? why not simply come up with some new language so that the rest of us who aren’t in this group of 800 can understand what you’re saying.

True, you are welcome to make any word mean anything you want within the context of the 800, but you are now speaking with a member of the general population, who deals with hundreds of different people, and who has noticed that almost all others use this language to mean one specific thing (with very minor variations). Your use of the same terminology is a whole new ball game from what has been done all these centuries.

Of course we will be inundated with their terminology: it’s their terminology. This is why I only use their terminology to speak in terms of their world view. I will not use their terminology to describe my own world view unless my world view at least somewhat coincides with the world view that their language describes. And since my world view is almost diametrically opposed to theirs, the least I can do is leave their terminology alone and find some words and concepts that better describe what I’m talking about.
 

This is my biggest problem with much of pantheism is that it takes language usually reserved for religion and applies it to nature.

There is a distinction, however. First, NOT all pantheisms are like my religion’s pantheism. Some of them are as “whacko” (ie, untenable) as the Christian theology.

Again: I am talking about your version of pantheism, not just any “whacko” version out there somewhere.

I will repeat: my biggest problem with the pantheism you advocate is that it takes language usually reserved for religion and applies it to nature.
 

Regarding my religion’s theology, there is still a separation between the religious and spiritual, and the physical world. This dividing line has been recognized for 2500 years (or more).

Nature and the study of nature is squarely in the realm of natural philosophy (aka “the sciences”).

Ethics, morality, axiology, and aesthetics are religious and spiritual turf, known as moral philosophy. Ontology, cosmology, alethiology, logic, pragmatics, eschatology, mathematics, theology are all encompassed in metaphysical philosophy.

This is the same as what we’ve been discussing: You are taking something natural (human ethics, etc.) and creating an artificial boundary between what you call “nature” and what you call “spiritual” — but it’s all still squarely within the realm nature!

When regular theists say “spiritual,” at least they are talking about something they say is not natural but supernatural.

Why not simply use terms like ethics and aesthetics instead of risking confusion by using terminology which, for the vast majority of Western people and for almost two dozen centuries, has indicated the supernatural?

I say this as a copy editor whose job it is to take unintelligible writings and change them so that a diverse readership can understand what is being said. The problem with your copy is that you insist on doing the equivalent of using the word apples to convey the message “oranges.” In your case, I would go so far as to suggest that you use the term apples when you want to say “not apples.” At least when Lenny Bruce used the term apples it was clear to all listeners that he meant “breasts.”
 

In fact, I think the only difference between pantheism and atheism is that atheists admit we are talking about nature.

For us Natural/Scientific Pantheists, we’re also admitting that we talking about nature. It is nature (the universe, the cosmos, totality, reality, everything-that-exists) that is deified.

The Wright quote captures the sentiments of most pantheists.

We wouldn’t know this to hear to the language you use.

True, Wright appears to have been defending himself against an Evangelist of some sort. I can relate. I was court ordered to practice this religion known as Alcoholics Anonymous, and I had to be there for three years. I started off going, “I don’t even know what spiritual means!” but soon realized that I would be rejected and ostracized for these views. So I changed my tack and pointed to a passage in the literature which listed “spiritual principles”: honesty, open-mindedness and willingness. So, I changed my tune (only so I could survive in this subculture) and started saying, “I don’t know what y’all mean by ‘spiritual’ but the book says that ‘honesty, open-mindedness and willingness’ are ‘spiritual principles’ and this is good enough for me, because these are ethics and values — and I can get behind ethics and values real easy because they are human inventions and do not necessarily come from the realm of the supernatural.” (See my article from that era called “Completely Realistic” for my attempts to describe trying to survive in a world that was entirely foreign to me.)

You can rest assured that the moment my three years were up, I stopped using the term spiritual to denote naturally occurring phenomenon and went back to my normal use of language by simply calling these things ethics and values. Because these things are ethics and values. No terminology relating to the supernatural is required to explain or describe them.

By the way, my crime was illness, physical debilitation, disorientation, poverty, homelessness, and keeping myself alive by shoplifting tins of oysters, clams, and sardines. I had no drug or alcohol related charges or convictions, but was ordered by a court to undergo religious instruction nonetheless. In fact, I initially balked by calling myself an atheist, and the judge ordered me to be held in jail for 30 days for refusing her order to get some religion. Believe me: such an experience would make an activist out of anyone. This was 1988 and I’m still fighting strong.
 

If Carl Sagan had stumbled upon Natural/Scientific Pantheism, I’m confident that he would’ve proclaimed himself a member.

Sagan had enough of a respect for human language that I suspect he might have taken the position I’ve been presenting here.
 

(and I’ll bet neither of us expect the universe to appreciate our sense of reverence).

No, I do not expect the universe (as a whole) to appreciate my (and your) sense of reverence, or even have the faculty of appreciation.

Now there are constituents of the universe, such as you and me, who can share and appreciate each others sense of reverence.

Yes, and the main way we do this is through language. This is why I urge you to begin using language that is less likely to be misunderstood by your fellow humans.
 

I don’t blame them for not getting it: y’all have absconded with their word — not vice versa — and y’all have given it a different definition from that which they are used to pondering.

And their Christian definition of “god” does injustice to other well-established, major traditional religions. Hindus, Shintoists, Vajrayana Buddhists, et al. (Of course, I also find their system of beliefs as untenable and baseless as Christianity. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.)

Is not claiming their terminology as your own, though, a bit extraordinary?
 

Pantheism is not atheism. Pantheism is not theism. Pantheism is a third alternative unto itself.

One either has a god belief (is a theist) or one lacks a god belief (is an atheist).

Since you say that you believe in a “god” we must acknowledge that you have a god belief (however unusual) and are thus a theist.

However, since your “god” is something that the rest of us have perfectly good language to describe (the universe), your philosophy is indistinguishable from atheism. Nevertheless, you choose to use the term “god,” and since we observers have no business telling you what the word “god” does and does not mean to you, you are a theist (though I would say a dishonest theist because you are giving meaning to language that is other than its conventional meaning).

Your pantheism is only a third alternative in the context of the semantic dance you choose to engage in (but that the rest of us choose to avoid). It is not an alternative in any real sense because it is atheism cloaked as theism. I’d like to classify it as atheism because that’s what I think it is, but I must call it “theism” in the atheism-theism duality simply because we observers cannot cross that line and tell you what the word god means. You choose to use the term, and though your philosophy fits squarely within the realm of atheism, your use of the term god makes you a theist in the atheism-theism duality.

There might be other uses for the terms theist and atheist but we are talking about theism versus atheism, and this, to us, is a duality. Agnosticism is not a third alternative but is neatly divided along these lines as theistic agnosticism (“There is a god but I cannot or do not know more than this”) and atheistic agnosticism (“I don’t know if there is a god, so I lack a god belief, and thus qualify as an atheist”). I may be doing a semantic dance with this duality, but there is solid precedence for this duality, as explained by George H. Smith in his works “Defining Atheism” and “The Scope of Atheism.”
 

Methinks that this will require complex language, that it cannot be boiled down to a single term already in use, and that it is complicated enough to prevent it from being reduced even to a bumper sticker.

I’ve been bumping my head on the terminology ceiling for several days now. Ouch ouch ouch. :-)

The best suggestion I can give you is to abandon the use of language that (to most listeners) already means the opposite of what you intend to convey.
 

My father once said that my religion would never become widespread, because it requires the people think.

This is only half the problem. The real problem with your SciPan is its unfamiliar use of familiar language.
 

I don’t know if the volunteers in the World Pantheist Movement (WPM) have figured out a way to pre-package Natural/Scientific Pantheism for consumption by the couch-potato masses.

You might have better luck with these types than with thinkers, because I suspect most thinkers would bump up against the language barrier as I have.
 

I can see using the term “god” poetically, in order to express this point, buy you are taking it much further (not unlike the creationist who takes an obviously poetic passage from Genesis or Psalms and wants it taught as science in the public schools).

I mean “god” in the religious sense: the cosmos is the proper object of my religious and spiritual regard. I worship it (I revere, honor and pay homage to it). I hold that it is divine, and that our Earth is sacred.

I’m not speaking metaphorically, nor poetically. Literally.

You’ve already told me that you use the term divine to mean something other than what its widely accepted meaning states.

And you have already admitted that your “god” does not even detect the “homage” you pay to it, unlike regular theistic homage wherein the god sits up there and coos and purrs over our praises to Him.

Now I suspect that you might have a different meaning for sacred than the rest of us have.

To me the Earth is sacred in the poetic sense, not because it has any intrinsic value that earns it my homage but because it is our home and because it has done a bang-up job at supporting life for lo these many billions of years. Thus I treat it as sacred (as a religious person would view sacred) in that I do what I can to protect it from the destruction that is human progress and population growth. I vote as if the Earth is “sacred” and I consume as if the Earth is “sacred” and I live as if the Earth is “sacred.” However, I admit that my use of the term sacred is poetic metaphor because I acknowledge that the Earth has no intrinsic “holiness” but is just there.
 

I would go along with calling the universe “god” if it were clear that I was speaking poetically in order to convey my sense of awe and reverence (though I have done just that, spoken of the universe poetically and use the term “god” in my presentation to convey my awe, and some people have balked at hearing my lips pronounce the sound “god” without stopping to think about the context of what I was saying — “Oooh! Cliff said ‘God’! Did you hear that? Cliff the atheist said ‘God’!”).

Now now, if I remember the ground rules from our first conversation: I’m not trying to convert you, nor do I expect to convert you. That’s not cricket.

If by “conversion” you mean that I would go along with your use of language (what I see as abuse of language), then you’ll never convert this writer. And I suspect that this is all that a conversion would entail here, because apart from the language, we are indistinguishable.
 

However, y’all go much further than poetry, and are using the word “god” where most listeners hear the word “God” (capital “G”) which has, for most, a specific and entirely different meaning.

That is always a problem. When Christians (and I’m only picking on the Christians because that is the dominant provincial religion where I life) say “God”, I’m savvy enough to figure out they mean “Jehovah”, “Jesus”, or “the Trinity”.

When my Wiccan friends say “God” and “Goddess”, I’m savvy enough to figure out they mean their Wiccan God and their Wiccan Goddess (they have proper names, as well, but I don’t remember what the heck they are).

All these subcategories fall within a larger generic category. They are gods and goddesses within the traditional, widely accepted use of the term. The only real differences lie within the specific loyalties of the various adherents.

Of course, when one of these theists comes up against me in a discussion (usually in the context of their wanting me to believe with them), I must first ask them to describe what they mean when they use the term “god” because I am not a “strong” atheist in respect to the generic meaning of the word god but I am an extremely dogmatic “strong” atheist when it comes to specific god-claims such as those of Bible-based Evangelical Christianity. When it comes to the big category of “gods and goddesses” into which all these other claims fit, I simply lack a god belief and fit the “weak” definition for atheism. But when it comes to the claims of the Evangelical Christians, it is their specific description of their “God” which I assert cannot be true: I fit the “strong” definition for atheism with respect to their specific god-claim.

But your category is different in that as far as I can tell, you are using the word “god” to mean something it has never meant before.
 

Or if I’m being a prick (it happens) I’ll say “my god the cosmos, the one and only true god that really exists and isn’t a pretend, imaginary, make-believe god”. That usually happens after a heated argument with a Christian. Of course, it generates a lot of heat but no light.

And I would suggest that the absence of light is coming as much from your end as from theirs: you are giving terms like god and spiritual and reverence meanings that it has for only about 800 people.

If you want to have a lively and fulfilling discussion with a Christian, then you have a choice: either (1) admit to the Christian that you are speaking Chinese and he or she is speaking Latin, or (2) tell the Christian that “the cosmos is the one and only true reality that we can verify, and is not in any sense pretend, imaginary or make-believe — like your god appears to be” and let the Christian be the one who uses the terms “god” or “God.” Explain your reverence in terms that the Christian will understand, and you will get somewhere with the Christian. If you simply want to do a semantic dance, and you don’t really want to communicate anything, then I would liken your approach to masturbation. If you really want to engage with someone, if you really wish to impart some information, then figure out how to express your idea in language that others can understand.
 

In my SciPan church, approximately half the members avoid and eschew the term “god” altogether. A quarter don’t care. The other quarter (like me) embrace it wholeheartedly.

All the SciPan members embrace the “the universe is divine” and we all revere, honor, respect, and regard the universe. But, to be honest, many of the SciPan members raise the same concerns of miscommunication, misunderstanding, and implication/inference issue you’ve raised.

So you’re even a minority within this small group! I’m tempted to say, “Get a clue!”

(By the way, how do we distinguish other half [who eschew the language] from atheists?)

It wouldn’t matter if you kept this language within your own mind, or within the context of the half of your group that is either apathetic or embracing of this use of language. Since you tell me that you engage with traditional theists (and since you are now engaging with a traditional atheist), it becomes important to justify your use of this language.

I have asked you to justify this use of language, carefully phrasing the questions that are raised in my own mind, but you continue to simply say, “That’s what I do” without offering a persuasive case for this practice.
 

So, then, you seek to further a religion?

Yes, to be candid, I seek to further a religion.

In other words, what role does loyalty to the religion play in your decision to defend your use of the term “god” to denote the universe?

Ahh, as I mentioned above, my use of the term “god” is neither condoned nor condemned by the SciPan doctrine. My use of the term “god” is three parts reverence and acknowledgment of my spiritual feelings and emotions in regards to the universe. And it is one part being a pain in the ass and forcing people to think about propriety and impropriety of the Christian church with words such as “god” and other religious and spiritual terms.

But the most effective way to be a real “pain in the ass” is to have a point. I still fail to see your point unless your point is to be a pest (as opposed to a “pain in the ass”). In order to make your point (and become a bona fide “pain in the ass”), you need to make a solid case that it is the Christians who are improperly using religious terms. You also must show that your use is proper in that it is (1) a valid and proper use of the terminology (which should be an easy case to make, though I think you’ve only done a half-assed job here), and (2) using this language is the best way to express your ideas (that is, the most likely to be understood by others — a big problem for your position, I fear), and (3) no other language even approaches your goal of communicating your ideas (which is my point entirely: methinks we could come up with some excellent ways to express what you have been describing to me).

However, I cannot help you when you admit that you wish to further a religion; I can only tip my Chicago Cubs cap and wish you luck. I would hope that one would seek to discover truth and enter the discussion and change and grow with the rest of the scientifically minded communities, but this sounds like an attempt to further a dogma (in this case, rather, a dogmatic approach to expressing a set of ideas that is not itself a bona fide dogma).
 

No concept of “God” or “god” holds a candle to what I feel about the universe — unless I were to call this feeling itself “god” — as you have done. All other definitions for the term “god” or “God” would cheapen how I feel about the universe if used to describe the universe.

I’m not calling the feeling I hold towards the universe “god”.

I’m sorry. Let me go back and see if I can figure out what I might have been trying to say, there.

I had said,

By this, I meant to say that to use the term “god” or even “God” to describe my awe for the universe is to demean my awe for the universe. The “blasphemy” is against my understanding of the universe, not against the word “god.”

No understanding ever conveyed by the term god (or God) is grand enough to contain the awe I feel toward the universe. Even your SciPan use of the term would degrade my awe, if for no other reason than that it is, in my opinion, a misuse of language; also, you admit that your motive for using of this language rests, in part, on your desire to propagate a specific philosophy — a religion, if you will.

So, I said that the term god, when applied to my sense of awe, is not grand enough and would demean (or “blaspheme” — to wax poetic) my sense of awe. Then you said:

I’d hope that my use and thinking in the terms of “god” in that context isn’t tantamount to blasphemy, in your judgement. But maybe not, I dunno.

I was still hoping you understood that my use of “blasphemy” was poetic, and that I was referring to the concept of god metaphorically “blaspheming” my sense of awe for the universe. Nevertheless, I suspected that you thought I may be referring to “blaspheming” the concept of “god” or “God,” or perhaps even just the word god. So, I tried to clarify myself in the first part of the paragraph:

Okay. I mistakenly called the feeling itself “god” rather than saying what I should have said, that the result of this feeling is that you call the universe “god.” I’m sorry.

I don’t know how I would word this; what I meant to say was:

Unless I could get away with what you are doing (which I would never do because it is deliberately a poor use of language), all other definitions for god or God that I have encountered describe concepts that are much smaller than the grandeur I feel for the universe.

Later, I said that even doing what you do would demean the grandeur I feel simply because I know there must be a better way to express these feelings (I simply haven’t applied myself toward finding or developing this language — I am still reeling over Dawkins’s piece). But I already know, from the other uses for the term god or God, that it would express, to the minds of my listeners, a smaller concept than I would intend were I to try to express the awe I feel for the universe.
 

The universe has aseity (self-creating) as scientifically demonstrable.

The universe is omnipotent — there is nothing known that is more powerful than collectively everything.

The universe is “all-knowing”, in a lame sort of way — all knowledge (past, present and future — of all sapient life forms through-out the universe collective contain all knowledge.

The universe is eternal — space and time itself are integral to the universe; there is no time outside the universe; there is no time “before” before the universe.

The universe is immanent — the universe is intrinsic to everything that exists.

An attribute of the universe is it’s capacity for self-organization.

The universe is consubstantial — all of the universe, substance, essence and nature are consubstantial with everything that exists.

That is why, in my religious view, I deign the universe “god”. Everything that exists is constituent to my god. Show me something (anything at all) that does not exist, and I’ll show you something that is not part of my god. Examples: Jehovah, Amon-Ra, Quetzalcoatl, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Allah, Zeus, Jupiter (the Roman god), Odin, and Mannanan.

This is good.

Unfortunately, it is less than I feel toward the universe.

It also seems contrived in that it bases itself on the models of the traditional concepts of deity. If I get around to putting my feelings into words, I will need to start from scratch — much like Dawkins did in the first section of “Unweaving the Rainbow.”
 

Note that if dubbing the universe “god” doesn’t work for you (as it doesn’t for 75% of my fellow SciPan members), I don’t have a problem with that. We’re probably belaboring the point, but I’m willing to try to express my position enough so that you catch the gist of it (even if you don’t concur with it).

I only challenge it to gain a better understanding of your argument for doing this.
 

You see, at this point in our conversation (and correct me if I’m wrong), I get the impression that you are virtually indistinguishable from me in philosophical outlook in that you are an atheist who simply uses the term “god” to mean something different from what I mean when I use it. If I’m not mistaken, that is the only difference between our philosophical outlooks — at least in the major points (though we may differ on this or that minor element, such as an ethical point or a mode of expression).

Heh, yes, I suspect that we’re quibbling over semantics.

We are quibbling over semantics; that is the gist of this discussion: your use of language and my wondering why you do this.
 

In other words, I would call you an atheist (and correct me if I’m wrong) in that you lack a belief in any of the deities commonly endorsed by humankind, and your concept of “god” is unique in that it is only a “god” because you choose to use this label for what the rest of us would call “the universe in all its awesome splendor and majesty.” You use the term “god” more strongly than we would, though we might be tempted to use this language if we could be assured that the listeners could recognize that we were waxing poetic.

I’m an atheist in exactly the same way that Christians are atheists regarding Allah, Zeus, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, et al. Most Christians are [weak] atheists; but many Christians, especially Christian Apologists, take the strong atheist position regarding other theism’s deities.

I don’t recognize that as a serious definition for atheist; it is more of a humorous twist of semantics than anything else. This does not mean I won’t use this twist (I have), it just means that when I do use it I must use caution and be sure that the listener or reader understands that I am using an unorthodox definition. In this sense, I would enclose the term atheist in quotation marks, which is a literary device to indicate that I mean something different — usually ironic — from its ordinary and accepted meaning.

No Christian is a “weak” atheist in the accepted and traditional sense of the term: no Christian “lacks a god belief”: all Christians have a god belief or they would not be Christians. They all believe in at least one god, and thus are not atheists.

What I was saying is that I would call you an atheist in the traditional “weak” sense in that you lack a god belief. However, as I stated later, your use of the term god makes you a theist — simply because the observer has no business second-guessing your use of this language, and thus you are a theist in that you assert the existence of a “god.” But, almost all other gods that people have endorsed have very similar traits; your “god” is in a category all its own because you admit that you are using the word as a synonym for a word (universe) that no others would designate with this synonym (“god”). So, I would say that philosophically you are indistinguishable from an atheist except that you tell people that you believe in “god.”
 

But, really, pantheism is a third alternative. It’s different from both atheism and from theism. Often, theists call pantheists atheists. And, likewise, often atheists call pantheists theists. The confusion/miscommunication lies in the variegated semantics of the terms.

In the theism-atheism discussion, your pantheism differs from atheism in that you tell others that you believe in “god”; therefore, you disqualify yourself from being called an atheist.

In the theism-atheism discussion, your pantheism differs from other forms of theism only in that most of the other forms of theism endorse gods that have characteristics similar to one another. Your “god” lacks almost all of the main characteristics that the others gods have in common. Your unique concept of “god” does not remove you from the camp of theism, because each “god” or “God” that people claim has at least one unique characteristic (though most of them share a specific group of common characteristics that your “god” lacks).

For example, the fact that the “Jesus” of Evangelical Christianity allegedly said, “Thou art Simon the son of Jona” (and I doubt no other god is alleged to have used these words) does not disqualify Evangelical Christianity from being called theism any more than your unique definition of “god” disqualifies you from being called theism. Just because your definition for “god” is unique (as all definitions for god or God are unique in some way) doesn’t mean that you are not a theist. Your cosmology may be indistinguishable from mine, but it is your use of the term “god” to describe your cosmology that makes you a theist.

This is what a theist is, in the theism-atheism discussion, and no amount of semantic gyrations can rescue you from the theism-atheism duality. You either have a god belief (and what you tell us is all we have to go on) or you lack a god belief (and again, what you tell us is all we have to go on). Since you tell us you believe in “god,” we must see you as a theist.
 

Somewhat off topic anecdote: my roommate’s mother, a psychotherapist, told me that I was an alcoholic. Her definition of “alcoholic” is “anyone who drinks alcohol”. A serious case of cranial-rectal inversion.

The term alcoholic describes a type of beverage. It has nothing to do with the person doing the drinking (except that our culture has adopted this term in order to denigrate certain people).

Cliff Walker
“Positive Atheism” Magazine

From: “Love-Jensen, John”
To: “’Positive Atheism’”
Subject: RE: Positive Atheism, Cliff’s Writings — Which 10 Commandments.
Date: Monday, July 24, 2000 12:25 PM

Hi Cliff,

Let me give a quick summary on the bullet point (especially since I’m conceding on most of them).

[In the FAQ: just give the basics of pantheism in general, not SciPan in particular.]

Gotchya!
 

...Robert Anton Wilson... Quantum Psychology ...

Note: I throughly enjoyed his Illumanti Trilogy. I’ve actually bought TWO copies of the book, just so I can loan it out more often.

I’ll put Quantum Psychology on my books-to-get list. Thanks!
 

I was hoping you’d catch the fact that I’ve been needling you to abandon your use of the word god...

I can abandon the word “god” just to cut down on miscommunication. Especially considering typical Western theisms.

But I’d have to replace it with “the universe as my object of deepest reverence, respect, homage and worship and regarded as divine”.

Perhaps that’s better. I dunno. Sounds a lot like a god to me. :-)
 

You’re still missing my point: I’m trying to distinguish what is commonly seen as Divine Law from what is commonly seen as natural law.

No, I saw your point, I was being intentionally contrary just to give pause to stop and reflect on what “divine law” really means. And what it means in the context of SciPan. Sorry.

Neither I nor anyone in my SciPan church use “divine law” as a synonym for “natural law”. And it’s not something I’m trying to promote here or anywhere.
 

From my own materialistic, monistic, naturalistic, pantheistic vantage point; “divine law” as distintinguished from “natural law” is a misnomer. And any advocated authoritarian dogma “divine law” which differs from “natural law” is in heinous error.
 

Could you at least have stepped outside your worldview long enough to acknowledge what I was trying to say?

My sincere apologies. I went one-step-beyond good taste and tongue-in-cheek philosophizing and abstract deep thought, squarely into the realm of irritation/frustration/annoying and perversely obstinately feigned “missing the point”.
 

Are you even recognizing that yours is just one viewpoint among many? or are you insisting that view is intrinsically true?

My viewpoint is just one among many. It’s true because it expresses itself as a value judgement...ie, in my opinion, I hold that god is nature/reality/truth/the universe.

It differs from the Christian “value judgement” in that the object of the Christian reverence doesn’t actually exist in reality (or, equivalently, is untenable); it’s imaginary, pretend, made-up. Along with a lot of the premises and postulates that the entire religion is founded upon.

I was trying to express how I see the world out of my rose tinted glasses sans the baggage of other viewpoints. An attempt to think outside the box, and re-examine even the very fundamentals of terminology and the false-or-untenable premises that some of that terminology is based upon.

Q.v. previous apology. I went overboard.
 

This is why I am asking why you even bother?

Just to cause people to pause and think.
 

why not simply come up with some new language so that the rest of us who aren’t in this group of 800 can understand what you’re saying.

:-) I’m really in a group of 1. The other 799 would look at me askance as well. My exercise in re-examining and questioning the extant terminology is an unmitigated failure. Q.v. previous apology.

[Interjection as I reread my email before I send it: there’s still some word-quibbling to follow, but my heart isn’t in it anymore. The apology still stands though!]
 

And since my world view is almost diametrically opposed to theirs, the least I can do is leave their terminology alone and find some words and concepts that better describe what I’m talking about.

Point taken. My world view is also almost diametrically opposed to provincial Christianity, and any form of authoritarian dogma / revelation based religion of any form.
 

Again: I am talking about your version of pantheism, not just any “whacko” version out there somewhere.

For your FAQ, I’ll try to create some content that emcompasses all varieties of pantheism.
 

I will repeat: my biggest problem with the pantheism you advocate is that it takes language usually reserved for religion and applies it to nature.

Above apologies aside for a moment. The many different kinds of pantheisms ARE religions. Most pantheisms do focus on nature. Thus much of the terminology is religious terminology, and is applied to nature.

Apologies enabled once again: I’m sorry about my pantheist quip of “divine law = natural law”. That didn’t come across with the insight I was hoping to convey. And I’m sorry about creating the impression that I’m discounting Christianity’s centuries of terminology use...I was trying to illustrate the terminology can be used in different contexts. And that some terms have more than just a Christian-centric meaning.
 

You are taking something natural and creating an artificial boundary between what you call “nature” and what you call “spiritual” — but it’s all still squarely within the realm nature!

When regular theists say “spiritual,” at least they are talking about something they say is not natural but supernatural.

I’m not a regular theist; I’m a pantheist. The word “spiritual” also pertains to sacred, religious and devotional things or matters. (And that’s not just me redefining the term on a whim; that’s a bona fide meaning of the term.) And, as a pantheist, a materialist and a monist, those things that are sacred, religious and devotional are things such as nature, reality, the truth.

I do not concur that “spiritual” strictly implies supernatural. Even from my Roman Catholic upbringing (apostate at the age of 10).

BUT ... I’m willing to comply and say, “okay, ‘spiritual’ entails supernatural” and avoid the word, and come up with something that would be appropriate in my SciPan view. Something like “those things that pertain to the sacred, religious and devotional matters and can cause people to rejoice and be jubilant (perhaps even ecstatic) upon those religious matters.” Awkward, at best.
 

We wouldn’t know this to hear to the language you use.

Then the fault is mine, I failed to convey my meaning.
 

...Alcoholics Anonymous...

That sounds like you had a gruelling & unpleasant experience. My sympathies. :-(

If I had to go to A.A., I suspect they’d kick me out for being intractable and incorrigible in my pantheist views.
 

Yes, and the main way we do this is through language. This is why I urge you to begin using language that is less likely to be misunderstood by your fellow humans.

I’ll try. I never claimed at being articulate. (I guess that shows.) :-)
 

Is not claiming their terminology as your own, though, a bit extraordinary?

I was thinking it was using a more-or-less appropriate term, and making sure the term was adequately defined within the the context of my own religion, and then using it in that context.

It doesn’t help to communicate to those outside of that context; linguistically it would be “SciPan jargon”.
 

Pantheism is not atheism. Pantheism is not theism. Pantheism is a third alternative unto itself.

One either has a god belief (is a theist) or one lacks a god belief (is an atheist).

Since you say that you believe in a “god” we must acknowledge that you have a god belief (however unusual) and are thus a theist.

I don’t concur. Theism is more than just a belief in a god. It also entails a belief in a supernatural entity deity (or deities). And that supernatural entity deity (or deities) also is distinguished and stand separate from the universe.

And that’s true of any of the forms of theisms: monotheism, ditheism, tritheism, polytheism.

But, you tell me, am I in error? Am I reading too much into “theism”?

That’s one of the reasons why I stated that pantheism is not atheism. Panthiesm is not theim. Panthiesm is a third alternative.
 

However, since your “god” is something that the rest of us have perfectly good language to describe (the universe), your philosophy is indistinguishable from atheism. Nevertheless, you choose to use the term “god,” and since we observers have no business telling you what the word “god” does and does not mean to you, you are a theist (though I would say a dishonest theist because you are giving meaning to language that is other than its conventional meaning).

Well, the word “god” which is causing us trouble I can replace with: the universe as my object of deepest reverence, respect, homage and worship and regarded as divine.

If the deification of the universe doesn’t justify in it being called “god” by those who revere it, okay okay okay, I can abide by that.
 

Your pantheism is only a third alternative in the context of the semantic dance you choose to engage in (but that the rest of us choose to avoid). It is not an alternative in any real sense because it is atheism cloaked as theism. I’d like to classify it as atheism because that’s what I think it is, but I must call it “theism” in the atheism-theism duality simply because we observers cannot cross that line and tell you what the word god means. You choose to use the term, and though your philosophy fits squarely within the realm of atheism, your use of the term god makes you a theist in the atheism-theism duality.

That’s why I’m of firm opinion that pantheism is a third alternative. It is neither theism nor atheism. I don’t see a theism-atheism dichotomy, I see a theism-atheism-pantheism trichotomy.

And in part depends on what is meant by “theism”. theism — belief in a god (of whatever nature whatsoever)

...or...

theism — belief in a god (or gods), a creator, a supernatural god entity, one who is distinguished and separate from the universe.

And I’m of a mind that the second definition is what is meant by “theism” in common English. Maybe I’m wrong (hmmm, a bad habit that I want to break).

And by “atheism” both you and I mean “disbelief in ‘theism’” (aka “weak atheism”). So we’re on the same page there, but we’re not of the same mind regarding what “theism” means.

If we go with your definition of theism, then pantheism is indeed a theism. If we go with my definition of theism, then pantheism is indeed an atheism.

However, calling pantheism a theism or calling it an atheism clarifies nothing. Just as calling Christianity an atheism clarifies nothing (on the basis that Christianity is atheistic regarding other religions).

Pantheism is pantheism. Trying to pigeonhole it in the atheism or theism bucket only muddies the water.

I can see the duality of “theism v a-theism” with a similar “pantheism v a-pantheism”, which would be using the terms in a more confined context. But pantheism is orthogonal to theism (as I defined it).

Aside: I had received a load of commentary when I tried to put “pantheism” in the “theism” bucket on the SciPan-list on the basis of “theism — belief in a god (or gods)”. Many people pointed out that theism contains much more semantic baggage than my simplistic definition.

BUT ... I give up. I’ve run around in circles with different people regarding what “theism” means, and “atheism” (hmm, sound familiar).

Instead of trying to put my religion in the context of “theism” or “atheism”, I’ll just describe / define what my religion is, without resorting to loaded terminology. [HEY! Isn’t that what you’ve been trying to pound into my head? :-) ]
 

The best suggestion I can give you is to abandon the use of language that (to most listeners) already means the opposite of what you intend to convey.

It’s worse than that. “Atheism” means many things, different to different people. “Theism” likewise. And “god”. And a whole slew of other terms I haven’t inundated you with, such as “soul”, “spirit”, and “body”. “Sin”.

Yada yada yada.

I’ll try to take your suggestion to heart, and furthermore I’ll just try to use full prose instead of a highly charged and overloaded term.
 

This is only half the problem. The real problem with your SciPan is its unfamiliar use of familiar language.

That’s probably more MY fault, than my religion’s fault. If you had a chance to peruse the SciPan or WPM webpages, they don’t have my problem of appropriating existing terminology.
 

You’ve already told me that you use the term divine to mean something other than what its widely accepted meaning states.

I thought I was using “divine” to mean its widely accepting meaning.

divine — godlike, characteristics befitting a deity, of or pertaining to a god, being a god, sacred.

But I probably have that screwed up too. What is the widely accepted meaning of “divine”?
 

And you have already admitted that your “god” does not even detect the “homage” you pay to it, unlike regular theistic homage wherein the god sits up there and coos and purrs over our praises to Him.

Wait a second, you’re using “theistic” to refer to a cognizant supernatural god entity. But your previous definition of “theism” was “belief in a god” (“god” being unqualified).

Equivocation? Amphiboly? That’s one of the big reasons I say “pantheism” is a third alternative.
 

Now I suspect that you might have a different meaning for sacred than the rest of us have.

The meaning I’ve been running with is:

sacred — consecrated, pertaining to or connected with religion, reverently dedicated to some purpose, person or object, regarded with reverence.

But I probably have that screwed up too. What is the widely accepted meaning of “sacred”?

To me, the Earth is sacred in the literal sense. Because I rever and respect it. My feelings to it make it sacred and sanctify it. Why do I rever and respect it? For the exact same reasons you find the Earth “sacred” (in the poetic sense).

It’s intrinsic “holiness”, for me, is because the Earth is part of the divine universe (in my religion).
 

If by “conversion” you mean that I would go along with your use of language (what I see as abuse of language), then you’ll never convert this writer. And I suspect that this is all that a conversion would entail here, because apart from the language, we are indistinguishable.

Okay, levity time. We’ll disagree to agree, and leave it at that.
 

All these subcategories fall within a larger generic category. They are gods and goddesses within the traditional, widely accepted use of the term. The only real differences lie within the specific loyalties of the various adherents.

How about a religion that worships a volcano and calls it god? It’s a volcano. Yep, a big hunk of smoldering stone and spewing lava. This isn’t just a rhetorical question, it’s a current religion and has been around for over a thousand years (Kahunaism). Okay, they’ve personified the volcano and call it Pele, I admit, but it’s still a friggin’ volcano.

I think you’re unfairly delimiting the term “god” by forcing it to represent only anthropomorphic deities. (Obviously, I have vested interest here.) BUT ... maybe once again I’m out of step with scholarly English.
 

I must first ask them to describe what they mean when they use the term “god”

I do the same thing. “Yes, I believe in god. What do you mean by god?” They answer. “Oh, I see. I believe in god, but I don’t believe in your god.”
 

But your category is different in that as far as I can tell, you are using the word “god” to mean something it has never meant before.

Pantheism (the doctrine, not the term) has been around for 2500 years. Like any religion, it’s evolved over time.
 

And I would suggest that the absence of light is coming as much from your end as from theirs: you are giving terms like god and spiritual and reverence meanings that it has for only about 800 people.

Full disclosure (which I think I’ve mentioned):

Only about 25% of the SciPan use the term “god” at all.

They all use “spiritual” and “reverence”. But I don’t see how the SciPan use of “spiritual” or “reverence” is erroneously from common parlance.
 

(1) admit to the Christian that you are speaking Chinese and he or she is speaking Latin

I admit! I admit! tee-hee-hee Okay, that’s a good one!
 

(2) tell the Christian that “the cosmos is the one and only true reality that we can verify, and is not in any sense pretend, imaginary or make-believe — like your god appears to be” and let the Christian be the one who uses the terms “god”

As I mentioned above, I do ask Christians to define what they mean by “god”. And, from among the 30 Christians so far, not one Christian has asked me back what I mean by “god”. Since they didn’t ask, I didn’t elucidate.
 

Explain your reverence in terms that the Christian will understand, and you will get somewhere with the Christian. If you simply want to do a semantic dance, and you don’t really want to communicate anything, then I would liken your approach to masturbation.

Quick, I need a tissue!
 

If you really want to engage with someone, if you really wish to impart some information, then figure out how to express your idea in language that others can understand.

That’s why I’m here. :-)
 

In my SciPan church, approximately half the members avoid and eschew the term “god” altogether. A quarter don’t care. The other quarter (like me) embrace it wholeheartedly.

All the SciPan members embrace the “the universe is divine” and we all revere, honor, respect, and regard the universe. But, to be honest, many of the SciPan members raise the same concerns of miscommunication, misunderstanding, and implication/inference issue you’ve raised.

So you’re even a minority within this small group! I’m tempted to say, “Get a clue!”

Hey, I’ve been clueless my whole life!
 

By the way, how do we distinguish other half (who eschew the language) from atheists?

Atheism (in the weak sense) is “disbelief in theism”, right? It makes no theological claims. It’s a foundation upon which to build a theology and a religion.

Religions such as Positive Atheism, Secular Humanism, Atheist Christianity, Natural/Scientific Pantheism.
 

It wouldn’t matter if you kept this language within your own mind, or within the context of the half of your group that is either apathetic or embracing of this use of language. Since you tell me that you engage with traditional theists (and since you are now engaging with a traditional atheist), it becomes important to justify your use of this language.

Justify? Hell no! You’ve convinced me that I need to improve my communication skills, and that my abilities are currently deficient.
 

I have asked you to justify this use of language, carefully phrasing the questions that are raised in my own mind, but you continue to simply say, “That’s what I do” without offering a persuasive case for this practice.

And I appreciate it. I need to rethink on a good way to convey the gist of my theology and religious convictions.
 

From our discussion, I bow and acknowledge I have a long way to go.

Retreating to a “in the context of my religion ‘foo’ means ‘quux’” isn’t going to cut the mustard. Even if I’m using ‘foo’ in one-of-thirty semantic definitions of ‘foo’, that ‘foo’ just has too much baggage.
 

But the most effective way to be a real “pain in the ass” is to have a point.

The only point I have is my (failed?) attempt to convey my theology and religious convictions.
 

In order to make your point, you need to make a solid case that it is the Christians who are improperly using religious terms.

Ahh, okay. Part of the problem is, then, that I don’t think Christians are improperly using the term “god”. Especially within their theological context.

It’d only be improper if “god” is ONLY valid with the Christian semantic, and invalid any other religion’s use of “god”.

I think the Christian theology is improper, but not necessarily their use of terms such as “god”.
 

You also must show that your use is proper in that it is (1) a valid and proper use of the terminology (which should be an easy case to make, though I think you’ve only done a half-assed job here), and (2) using this language is the best way to express your ideas (that is, the most likely to be understood by others — a big problem for your position, I fear), and (3) no other language even approaches your goal of communicating your ideas (which is my point entirely: methinks we could come up with some excellent ways to express what you have been describing to me).

All excellent and accurate points.
 

However, I cannot help you when you admit that you wish to further a religion; I can only tip my Chicago Cubs cap and wish you luck.

Nor would I expect you to! One quick clarification: I desire to further my religion, but not in this forum.

As I’ve said many a time to many people: I hold to the position that there are approximately 6,000,000,000 religions on this planet. No two are the same, although many may have some strong (or marginal) similarities.
 

I would hope that one would seek to discover truth and enter the discussion and change and grow with the rest of the scientifically minded communities

SciPan hold’s to the position of skepticism-via-logical-positivism. Thus, it’s scientism stance and it’s disbelief in any unsubstantiated and untenable assertions or premises.
 

but this sounds like an attempt to further a dogma (in this case, rather, a dogmatic approach to expressing a set of ideas that is not itself a bona fide dogma).

Dogma...hmm, that word has pretty strong ties to “authoritarian dogma”, especially by revelation based theology. So as far as not being a “bona fide dogma”, yeah, that’s about right.

If you’re interested, read the the SciPan website. It’ll give a SciPan viewpoint that isn’t colored by my own interpretation.

[snip: “god”, “blasphemy”, expression of awe.]

All I can say that language does do a poor job of expressing my awe of the universe as well. My use of the term ‘god’ is as close as I can get, and I mean it with the same force of emotion and reverence and piety that hook-line-and-sinker Christians mean “god” when they use the word “god”.
 

I was still hoping you understood that my use of “blasphemy” was poetic, and that I was referring to the concept of god metaphorically “blaspheming” my sense of awe for the universe.

I comprehend. I’m not much for poetic or metaphorical use of the language.
 

Okay. I mistakenly called the feeling itself “god” rather than saying what I should have said, that the result of this feeling is that you call the universe “god.” I’m sorry.

No problem. It’s evident to me that you and I have many more similarities in our feelings and in our awe and in our regard for the same object, than we do discrepencies.

My use (abuse?) of the English language have created phantom discord were none exists; and caused us to split-hairs over hairs that didn’t need to be split. Q.v. previous apology at the top of this email.
 

Unless I could get away with what you are doing (which I would never do because it is deliberately a poor use of language), all other definitions for god or God that I have encountered describe concepts that are much smaller than the grandeur I feel for the universe.

Two responses: first, thanks for understanding my use of the term “god”, even if you disagree with usage as an impropriety. Second, the grandeur is pretty cool.

My listing of attributes of “god” (the cosmos) don’t replace or supplant my feelings of awe & grandeur I feel. It’s an observation over-and-above my emotional piety.
 

I only challenge it to gain a better understanding of your argument for doing this.

Point taken.
 

We are quibbling over semantics; that is the gist of this discussion: your use of language and my wondering why you do this. I was trying (and failed) to point out that the term “god” refers to any deified person (real or imaginary) or object.

I deify the universe. Therefore it is appropriate to dub the universe “god”.
 

No Christian is a “weak” atheist in the accepted and traditional sense of the term: no Christian “lacks a god belief”: all Christians have a god belief or they would not be Christians. They all believe in at least one god, and thus are not atheists.

I was using the “Christians are atheists” ironically and humorously, and with an attempt at poignancy. Well, an attempt at humor. *sigh*

But, that’s why “pantheism” just doesn’t fit well into the “theist” pigeonhole, nor in the “atheist” pigeonhole.

Is “pantheism” an atheism? YES, pantheists disbelieve in the existance of a supernatural supreme being deity.

Is “pantheism” an atheism? NO, pantheists believe in a god.

Is “pantheism” a theism? NO, pantheists disbelieve in the existance of a supernatural supreme being deity.

Is “pantheism” a theism? YES, panthiests belive in a god.

And it’s not that I’m equivocating on the meaning of “theism” and “atheism”. The terms can mean both, and sometimes are used to mean both as a form of logical equivocation (often by Christian Apologists).

But, maybe the use of “theism” and “atheism” are just as semantically bollixed as trying to fit “pantheism” in the theism-atheism dichotomy.
 

your “god” is in a category all its own because you admit that you are using the word as a synonym for a word (universe) that no others would designate with this synonym (“god”).

Thus, pantheism is a third alternative.
 

So, I would say that philosophically you are indistinguishable from an atheist except that you tell people that you believe in “god.”

Well, conversely, I could say that philosophically you are indistinguishable from a pantheist, except you neglect to tell people that you regard the universe as god, with the same regard, reverence, and sentiment as which with a Christian regards Jehovah as god.

But it may make a good joke:
Man #1: “What do you call a atheist who believes in god?”
Man #2: “Ummmm, what?”
Man #1: “A pantheist.”
 

In the theism-atheism discussion, your pantheism differs from atheism in that you tell others that you believe in “god”; therefore, you disqualify yourself from being called an atheist.

Yes, I fully concur. My religion does have a god (the cosmos).
 

In the theism-atheism discussion, your pantheism differs from other forms of theism only in that most of the other forms of theism endorse gods that have characteristics similar to one another. Your “god” lacks almost all of the main characteristics that the others gods have in common. Your unique concept of “god” does not remove you from the camp of theism, because each “god” or “God” that people claim has at least one unique characteristic (though most of them share a specific group of common characteristics that your “god” lacks).

Depending on the definition of “theism” one uses.

If we’re sticking to common, convention English, I disagree with the assertion that “theism” means only “belief of the existance of a god or gods (of whatever nature whatsoever)”. It’d be nice, because that’d be a nice atomic single-doctrinal meaning.

But it also conveys “...AND that god is a supernatural supreme being entity, who stands alone and separate from the universe”, which also implies a dualism or pluralism tenet.

When I’ve tried to delimit “theism” to mean “belief in a god (or gods), of whatever nature whatsoever”, the discussion has always pointed out the term also implies the additional baggage. Even your own reply indicates that you use the term “theism” with the additional semantics.

Instead of trying to force the rest of the world to use the term “theism” as I attempted to define, I gave up and just say that “theism” and “atheism” are not strictly bipolar. “atheism” doesn’t semantically mean merely “disbelief in theism” (which, in my opinion, should be ALL that it means).

In my experience, the common usage of these terms is: theism — doctrine of the belief in a god, who is a supernatural supreme being deity, who stands alone and apart from the universe.

(weak) atheism — disbelief in the claims of the existance of a god (or gods).

NOTE: atheism being “disbelief in a god” is subtly-but-importantly different from “disbelief in theism”.

Ergo, pantheism is neither theism nor atheism. If, for the sake of our discussion and the context of our discussion, we define:

theism — doctrine of the belief in a god (or gods).

(weak) atheism — disbelief in the claims of theism.

...then I have no problem putting pantheism under the theism umbrella.

And, we’re heading down the dark alley I found myself when I try to change the semantics of these self-same common English words. Even if I spell out in clear, capital letters ahead of time HOW I’m using the terms in the context of my email, I still get accusations of double-talk, illogic, impropriety, and abuse/misuse of English.

Don’t go down that alley! It’s not a fun place to be.

However, you may want to re-read your previous email, because you’ve vacillated between the definitions of theism and atheism.
 

This is what a theist is, in the theism-atheism discussion, and no amount of semantic gyrations can rescue you from the theism-atheism duality.

Hey, I don’t mind being labeled as an “atheist” or as a “theist”. But both terms do very little to convey what I believe. Using them to describe pantheism just creates confusion and miscommunication. Which is what I’m trying to avoid by saying “pantheism is a third alternative”. It’s neither theism or atheism. It’s both theism and atheism. Describing pantheism in terms of theism or atheism just doesn’t work well.
 

The term alcoholic describes a type of beverage. It has nothing to do with the person doing the drinking (except that our culture has adopted this term in order to denigrate certain people).

I’ll drink to that!

Sincerely,
John “Eljay” Love-Jensen

PS: On a different note, sorry about the length of this email. It’s turning into a novella! Not that I mind, mind you. If you want to bring any of our many threads of discussion to a close, please feel free. Just say, “FINI — ____” or “FINI — One last thing about ____ and then I don’t want to talk about it anymore: flogging a dead horse.” You can have the last word, I never know when to stop.

From: “Positive Atheism”
To: “Love-Jensen, John”
Subject: Re: Positive Atheism, Cliff’s Writings — Which 10 Commandments.
Date: Monday, July 24, 2000 9:10 PM

I have been contacted by another pantheist, Trene Valdrek, who has sent some much-needed analysis of the FAQ on pantheism. I have also discussed your pantheism in the letter from Bill Garrett.

Also, please don’t mind some of my intricate discussion here. I am hammering out some new elements of my philosophy and am, if nothing else, practicing how to think it and, ultimately, how to say it. The first section is essentially one piece, written after the second part. The second part contains several short portions, and some of it is me railing on the semantics bit again, but expanding to include your use of traditionally theistic concepts in addition to traditionally theistic language.

None of this is to be taken personally, it’s just me trying to understand and learning to express my understanding (or lack thereof).

And I am not telling you what to do. Ever. I don’t care what anybody believes, and I truly think that everyone has valid reasons for believing the way they do. I am merely trying to find out what it is you believe and where that fits within the framework of my world-view.

Also note that I missed some of the parts toward the end. If there is anything crucial I missed, please re-ask.
 

Note: I thoroughly enjoyed his Illuminati Trilogy. I’ve actually bought TWO copies of the book, just so I can loan it out more often.

I found the original three-book set in a bookstore for a dollar. (This is the set I had during the early 1980s as I was coming down from Christianity, not the single-bound volume on sale today.) I took it home and put it on the shelf. Years later, I opened it to the second page, and voila! It was autographed by both authors! The bookseller didn’t even notice it or he probably would have placed it under the glass counter for three figures (knowing this bookstore)!

Though I come on here and refute much of what he advocates (the details, anyway), I appreciate his views on agnosticism and have adopted much of his outlook into my personal philosophy. His other “deserted island” work is called Cosmic Trigger (reprinted as Cosmic Trigger I). Masks of the Illuminati is a fine mystery novel, and The Historical Illuminati trilogy (The Earth Will Shake, etc.) has many of his characters practicing various occult crafts and apparently reveals lots of occult secrets that one would have to spend numerous lifetimes in various groups to learn.

The most important thing I learned from Wilson actually came from Aleister Crowley:

Translated into my then-Christianity-diminished fog of a mindset, this meant: If I pray to Jesus and what I prayed for comes to pass, this does not mean that Jesus answered my prayer — or even exists. This was a major revelation for me, and is probably the single most important point that helped me keep from “relapsing” back into the church.

Wilson admits, though, that much of what he writes about the occult is more a reflection of how the human nervous system works than of any “deep” reality or anything that is “really” happening. He cloaks a lot of what he says within occult terminology and imagery. The rest of what he writes is pure agnosticism — or, as he puts it, “aggravated agnosticism.” By this he means that he has diligently sought answers only to become more baffled with each step of the quest.
 

I was hoping you’d catch the fact that I’ve been needling you to abandon your use of the word god...

I can abandon the word “god” just to cut down on miscommunication. Especially considering typical Western theisms.

But I’d have to replace it with “the universe as my object of deepest reverence, respect, homage and worship and regarded as divine”.

Essentially the same thing. You’ve still taken their concept and applied it to something entirely different: homage and worship is an Oriental Despot thing: new wine in old wineskins, you know, and all that jazz.
 

All these subcategories fall within a larger generic category. They are gods and goddesses within the traditional, widely accepted use of the term. The only real differences lie within the specific loyalties of the various adherents.

How about a religion that worships a volcano and calls it god? It’s a volcano. Yep, a big hunk of smoldering stone and spewing lava. This isn’t just a rhetorical question, it’s a current religion and has been around for over a thousand years (Kahunaism). Okay, they’ve personified the volcano and call it Pele, I admit, but it’s still a friggin’ volcano.

I think you’re unfairly delimiting the term “god” by forcing it to represent only anthropomorphic deities. (Obviously, I have vested interest here.)

So, if they see a volcano and call it a god, are they theists? If a Christian or a Rastafarian reads a story about a man long dead and calls him a god, are they theists? If a man sees the universe and calls it “god” and describes it with language that the others use when describing what we all would call a deity (whether or not that deity actually exists), do I rightly call that man a theist?

My current position is that if they say they believe in a god — whatever that god (or “God” or “god) may or may not be — they are theists. This prevents me from having to judge whether their god is real or their concept is valid or their application of terminology is proper use of language. If they take something and describe it with language that some have applied to deities or gods (or “God” or “god”), they are theists. That’s my current position (though I’ve only held this position for a few days, now.)

My only other alternative, really, is to say that their gods don’t really exist, so it’s impossible for them to actually believe in them, so they are actually atheists, like it or not. I’d just as soon the bulk of them not become allies, so I’ll satisfy myself with defining theism in terms of the belief — however wrong-headed that belief may be.
 

Since you say that you believe in a “god” we must acknowledge that you have a god belief (however unusual) and are thus a theist.

I don’t concur. Theism is more than just a belief in a god. It also entails a belief in a supernatural entity deity (or deities). And that supernatural entity deity (or deities) also is distinguished and stand separate from the universe.

But you and I can make strong cases that the objects of their beliefs are not actually supernatural but are figments of the imagination at best. The believers only think they are supernatural, but in actuality, they are not. We still call them theists.

In the context of the theism-atheism discussion of the “weak” definition for atheism, I have decided (for now) that since you say you believe in a “god” I best call you a theist — even though your philosophy and cosmology seem essentially indistinguishable from my materialistic outlook. To do otherwise would require that I second-guess everybody’s god-claim (because I have second-guessed yours), that I judge whether the object of each claim was valid. For example, since I can invalidate the Jesus claim, I can say that the Christian does not actually believe in a god, but only thinks (or rather, says) that he believes. Taken to it’s logical conclusion, this position would require me to call a Christian an atheist.

However, with my current position, yours is the final word on what is going on in your mind, and I must take your word for it if you tell me that you believe in “god”; thus, since you tell me you believe in “god” I am obligated to call you a theist regardless of what I think about your god claim.

Remember, this is in the context of the theism-atheism discussion, as viewed from the perspective of the “weak” definition for atheism. If you are not a theist, then I am not an atheist. Theodore Drange would call me a noncognitivist in regards to your viewpoint, simply because I cannot understand what you’re saying. I simplify this and say that I lack your perspective when it comes to your use of the term “god” and thus, lacking your god belief as well as all others, I am an atheist.

Another pantheist who wrote here recently says that many deliberately fall short of using the god language and applying the god concepts (such as “intrinsic ‘holiness’”). Perhaps they do this specifically to avoid being called theists (or to avoid even seeing themselves as theists). In any event, he says that they see themselves as an atheistic religion, of which there are many.

Speaking of atheistic religions, Raelianism comes to mind: Raelians are atheistic creationists. They do not believe in gods but believe that an extraterrestrial species settled this planet and tinkered with DNA throughout Earth’s history. They do not worship this species and acknowledge no Ultimate Being. the don’t even revere the planet or universe as having any intrinsic qualities, but if they do revere the planet at all, it is in the same sense that I would in that I love my home and stand in awe that life could possibly exist here or anywhere. Their only god-language at all comes when they are defending their position against theism: “God’s an ET,” they say. This is not unlike when Frank Lloyd Wright said: “I believe in God, only I spell it N-A-T-U-R-E.” Methinks both were simply responding to an anthropomorphic god-claim by saying, essentially, there is no god, but I do have an explanation for our existence, and for your ears, I’ll use the word God as part of the equation.
 

But, you tell me, am I in error? Am I reading too much into “theism”?

Your unique definitions for “god” do not absolve you from theism, in my opinion. Every alleged god (or God or “god”) has some unique point, and who am I to determine which ones are within the realm of qualifying as valid god-concepts and which ones lie outside that realm? I’ve gotta draw the line, and I say you’re a theist if you say you believe in a god (or God or “god” or whatever).

Since I lack your beliefs, I am an atheist when it comes to your concept — but this is not a very good use of atheist. Better, I lack beliefs in all god-concepts that I have encountered (including yours, which might better be termed an abstraction, but it is a concept nonetheless) and thus am an atheist. This is a better use of the term atheist.
 

However, calling pantheism a theism or calling it an atheism clarifies nothing. Just as calling Christianity an atheism clarifies nothing (on the basis that Christianity is atheistic regarding other religions).

Pantheism is pantheism. Trying to pigeonhole it in the atheism or theism bucket only muddies the water.

Since you tell me that you believe in “god” and you use typically theistic language and some theistic concepts to describe your outlook; since my definition for atheism means the lack of a god belief; since as an atheist I have no business second-guessing anyone’s god claim, since as a human I treat everyone by the same standards; therefore I must go along with the language of your claim wherein you talk of believing in a “god.” Thus, from my perspective, you are a theist.

I think that in your case, it is only your use of language that nudges you into the category of theist; the other members of your church who don’t use this language, I think, should be called atheists — at least from the perspective of the theist-atheist dichotomy within the “weak” definition for the term atheism.
 

Instead of trying to put my religion in the context of “theism” or “atheism”, I’ll just describe / define what my religion is, without resorting to loaded terminology. [HEY! Isn’t that what you’ve been trying to pound into my head? :-) ]

Yes. I only need to define it in the context of the theism-atheism dichotomy contained in the “weak” definition for atheism. With most people, I can do this within a few sentences of dialogue. Yours is a very unique viewpoint (are there any others?) and besides that, yours has been an extremely difficult one for me to pin down. In addition, we have the added complication of my needing to define your position in terms of a preconceived dichotomy called “theist or atheist” (that I have defined), and you thinking that you do not fit within a dichotomy called “theist or atheist” (even though you probably define this dichotomy differently from the way I do).

Apart from the context of the theism-atheism dichotomy as it relates to the “weak” definition for the term atheism, I am only interested in your descriptions of what you believe — not whether it is theism or atheism. The description is the bottom line for me — except when it comes to this one dichotomy (and only as I have defined it). But, one thing that I do want to understand (this one small thing is very important to me because I am testing part of my world-view with it) is where various people fit within this dichotomy that I have defined through my world view.

And you have already admitted that your “god” does not even detect the “homage” you pay to it, unlike regular theistic homage wherein the god sits up there and coos and purrs over our praises to Him.

Wait a second, you’re using “theistic” to refer to a cognizant supernatural god entity. But your previous definition of “theism” was “belief in a god” (“god” being unqualified).

Equivocation? Amphiboly? That’s one of the big reasons I say “pantheism” is a third alternative.

I am not here disqualifying your concept from being a god-concept. I am only distinguishing it to compare with it what you mean when you talk of “paying homage.”

What is the object of your reverence, here? Certainly it is not the God of Mark Twain’s satire, who sits up in the clouds and coos and purrs over our praises of Him! So, then, what do you mean when you talk of paying homage?
 

To me, the Earth is sacred in the literal sense. Because I revere and respect it.

So, then, is it sacred only in your mind? or is it essentially sacred in “deep” reality?

If the latter, how would one demonstrate this? What would we do to determine that the Earth is essentially sacred?
 

My feelings to it make it sacred and sanctify it.

For yourself, within your mind? or essentially?
 

Why do I revere and respect it? For the exact same reasons you find the Earth “sacred” (in the poetic sense).

So how do we differ? or do we differ?
 

It’s intrinsic “holiness”, for me, is because the Earth is part of the divine universe (in my religion).

It’s “holiness,” for me (in the poetic sense), is because I naturally revere it and because I choose to revere it — I choose to encourage and nurture these already innate feelings of awe that I’ve had since childhood. It’s “holiness” is entirely a product of my imagination, as the result of the values which I have chosen to nurture. Apart from my imagination, the Earth has no intrinsic “holiness” because “holiness” is a value that I have placed upon the Earth in my mind. I see the Earth through “holiness”-colored glasses.

I suspect that only a theist could speak of “holiness” as being intrinsic — that is, as being an essential element apart from human value, the value of the beholder.

I got much of this approach a long time ago when I read Quantum Psychology by Robert Anton Wilson and conducted some of the exercises at the ends of the chapters. I wager that after reading this book and doing some of the exercises, your use of language will change dramatically.

Some more railing on the use of language, and several other matters. This (below) will fill in some of the gaps above, which is essentially one solid piece. This (below) is the first part I wrote (the above part came later, after I’d read your entire letter). You might find some of this fun and/or interesting. You might not.

No, I saw your point, I was being intentionally contrary just to give pause to stop and reflect on what “divine law” really means. And what it means in the context of SciPan. Sorry.

Neither I nor anyone in my SciPan church use “divine law” as a synonym for “natural law”. And it’s not something I’m trying to promote here or anywhere.

It sure seemed as if you were taking “natural law” and calling it “divine law.”
 

From my own materialistic, monistic, naturalistic, pantheistic vantage point; “divine law” as distinguished from “natural law” is a misnomer. And any advocated authoritarian dogma “divine law” which differs from “natural law” is in heinous error.

See what I mean? I can’t tell the difference from what you say!

Is it a “misnomer” to distinguish “divine law” from “natural law” or do you refrain from using the terms as synonyms? What is the difference between indistinguishable and synonymous?
 

why not simply come up with some new language so that the rest of us who aren’t in this group of 800 can understand what you’re saying.

:-) I’m really in a group of 1. The other 799 would look at me askance as well.

No need to apologize unless you’ve lied to me or been rude. I am merely trying to understand your god-concept, and our only method for communicating is language. Here goes:

Is this a form of solipsism? Are you not really talking to yourself? If so, then I have no qualms with your use of language.

However, unlike a true solipsist, you are holding dialogues with others and trying to present your viewpoint to us. This being the case, I still don’t understand why you apply radically different meanings to words that already have firmly established meanings in the minds of most listeners. I mean, I am thinking of “commissioning” you to help me rewrite the FAQ for gaud sakes! And remember, I am a writer and a copy editor, so any use of language that does not accurately communicate the intended message *will* raise flags in a mind like mine.
 

Again: I am talking about your version of pantheism, not just any “whacko” version out there somewhere.

For your FAQ, I’ll try to create some content that encompasses all varieties of pantheism.

Wouldn’t it be a classic example of cosmic irony if the FAQ, because of the limitations of language, ended up portraying your version of pantheism as the “whacko” version!?

The above attempt at humor is not unrealistic, which is why I keep hammering on this same point about language: it is our only method of communicating beyond personal, intimate contact. It is the only crack we have of sending a message to generations to come or of expressing ourselves to those who speak different languages.
 

And I’m sorry about creating the impression that I’m discounting Christianity’s centuries of terminology use...I was trying to illustrate the terminology can be used in different contexts. And that some terms have more than just a Christian-centric meaning.

Even Lenny Bruce can pronounce the word apples in a sentence in such a way that we all know he means to say “breasts” — or, more specifically, in this case, “the budding breasts of an adolescent girl.” This is precisely what Bruce meant when he said “apples” in the homosexuality bit at Carnegie, and anybody listening could see this is what he meant.

See what I’m trying to get at? If you are going to use a term in a different sense than the accepted ones, you must make it clear that you are doing this and you must make it obvious as to what you mean when you use the term. I’m not even asking or expecting you to do it with the flair of artistic genius that Lenny Bruce demonstrated, but I am wondering why I am having such a hard time figuring this one out. In other words, I still don’t quite know what you’re talking about, and the file for this conversation is the second-largest in our Letters section — second only to the Mike Boston fiasco (although the “Intellectually Dishonest Thinkers” bit is broken down to five files that, at over 300kb, total about twice the length of the Mike Boston exchange). But your letter file, after I append this response, could easily become the second longest of over 400 letters — and it has been going on for less than a week — and I’m still not clear as to the nature of your point or why you insist on expressing it the way you do. And I’m a copy editor. Trying to make sense of written material is my specialty and my training.

Now, I’m not telling you what to do or how to think or how to express your thoughts. I don’t care what anybody thinks about anything. I fully respect the situation that everyone, in my opinion, probably has valid reasons for believing the way they do. (Giving the benefit of the doubt, I assume they have valid reasons I sincerely believe they do, in any event.)

However, I am offering my professional opinion by laying down the situation as I see it: I don’t get it. In other words, I am falling short of saying, “Please explain.” Take it our leave it, I don’t care: this is my honest opinion that I offer to you as a gift with no strings.
 

BUT ... I’m willing to comply and say, “okay, ‘spiritual’ entails supernatural” and avoid the word, and come up with something that would be appropriate in my SciPan view. Something like “those things that pertain to the sacred, religious and devotional matters and can cause people to rejoice and be jubilant (perhaps even ecstatic) upon those religious matters.” Awkward, at best.

I think we’re on to something — but I’m still not sure what.
 

court-ordered Alcoholics Anonymous

That sounds like you had a grueling & unpleasant experience. My sympathies. :-(

If I had to go to A.A., I suspect they’d kick me out for being intractable and incorrigible in my pantheist views.

That’s the problem: they can’t kick you out, they’ve gotta take you as you come. It’s in the Traditions and they tend to be fundamentalistic about their Traditions if not toward their Steps. Not only that, they allow the courts to force people into the groups: go to AA or go to jail (or lose your kids or your professional license, etc.). However, if someone such as yourself went to AA seeking help you’d be in a world of trouble because they would probably shun you (although they might elevate you to a position of AA Patron Saint because I noticed a lot of garbled language being used there to express various concepts of spirituality. You might fit in just fine; they might actually understand what you’re saying — even if you don’t understand it yourself! This is a drug program, remember!
 

The term alcoholic describes a type of beverage. It has nothing to do with the person doing the drinking (except that our culture has adopted this term in order to denigrate certain people).

I’ll drink to that!

Just don’t get caught.

Cliff Walker
“Positive Atheism” Magazine

From: “Love-Jensen, John”
To: “Positive Atheism”
Subject: RE: Positive Atheism, Cliff’s Writings — Which 10 Commandments.
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 9:08 AM

Hi Cliff,

We’re up to 29 KiB emails. Uff da, lots-o-bandwidth. I’m going to do some pruning.

Note: “KiB” means “kilo-binary-byte”, or 1024 bytes. It’s the SI approved abbreviation. (Did I mention I’m a computer nerd?)
 

None of this is to be taken personally.

Point taken. And vice versa. We’re both sensitive in regards to upsetting one another. Note: I have a very thick skin. I also take everything literally, and I don’t read between the lines. And I realize that this is a congenial (even enjoyable and fun!) discussion.
 

I have been contacted by another pantheist, Trene Valdrek ... Bill Garrett

I don’t know Trene. “Bill Garrett” hmmm, that rings a bell. If you want, I’m willing to open up the forum from 3 2-way communications to 1 4-way discussion. I assume this discussion is being posted on your website as reference material for everyone. I don’t have any qualms if you edit for content or typos (please fix those embarrassing typos!).
 

I am hammering out some new elements of my philosophy and am, if nothing else, practicing how to think it and, ultimately, how to say it.

You and me both! I hope I never stop learning, because that’d mean I’m dead.
 

homage and worship ... Oriental Despot thing

Ahh, “homage” also has multiple meanings. I meant it in the “respect or reverence paid or rendered” meaning, not the “feudal tenant or vassal to his lord” meaning. I meant “worship” in the “reverent honor, sacred respects, adoring reverence and regard”, not in the “fealty and submission” sense.

I hate English. So imprecise. So many multiple meanings. So laden with potential miscommunication. Esperanto! (just kidding)
 

So, if they see a volcano and call it a god, are they theists?

The problem with “theism” is that it too has many meanings. For our discussion, let’s just go with:

theism-doctrine that there are one or more gods (of whatever nature). Or the belief in such a doctrine.

atheism-the disbelief in theism.

(If you want to lay down a different “theism” or “atheism” definition, I’m amiable.)

Thus, the volcano god faithful, Jesus’ apotheosis, the universe-is-god pantheists are all theists. I can abide by that within this context.

But it should be pointed out, in big capital flashing letters, that not all people use “theism” with the above semantic; without lots of clarification and reiteration, some people fall back onto other interpretations of what “theism” means. And, likewise with the above “atheism”.

(Note: this is not the “theism” as I described in my previous email. I hate vacillating, but the darn term “theism” is really a slipperly little bugger. If I had MY druthers, theism would mean exactly and only what I’ve listed above, in all contexts, everywhere, always. Then I relegate “monotheism” to mean what “theism” meant in my previous email. Even “theism v deism” would need to be retermed “monotheism v unideism” in Eljay’s rose tinted universe. “If I were King....”)
 

But you and I can make strong cases that the objects of their beliefs are not actually supernatural but are figments of the imagination at best.

:-) Yes we can!
 

The believers only think they are supernatural, but in actuality, they are not. We still call them theists.

My benefit-of-a-doubt side says, “They may be right, they may be wrong.” And my skeptical-via-logical-positivism side says, “But blind faith and authoritarian dogma are not enough; they need a solid logical argument, scientific evidence, empirical proof to substantiate their claims. Without such, their claims are mere conjecture, speculation, folklore, and superstition; any of which is untenable, they are unreliable as any other fallacious assertion or premise.”
 

However, with my current position, yours is the final word on what is going on in your mind, and I must take your word for it if you tell me that you believe in “god”; thus, since you tell me you believe in “god” I am obligated to call you a theist regardless of what I think about your god claim.

Going with my above “theism” definition, two thumbs up.
 

Theodore Drange would call me a noncognitivist in regards to your viewpoint, simply because I cannot understand what you’re saying.

We concur on many (so many!) levels. Then when I use the term “god” to describe my relationship with the universe, you look at me like I just ate a bug. The term “god” doesn’t mean, to you, those things that it does means to me.

I describe what god (the cosmos) means to me, and you say “Yea, the universe holds all those same sentiments to me.” Then I call it god, it you say, “What the f...? Where’d THAT come from? Left field?”

I can only shrug. C’est la vie. I sum up my relationship, feelings, emotion, regard, respect for the universe by designating it god. My god. A physical god. A real god. You can touch, taste, hear, smell, see it.

I regard it AS god. You do not.

I don’t regard my god with any additional baggage or implied meaning. Such as a personified diety, a metaphorical deity, an anthropomorphism, an embodiment, a manifestation, an incarnation, an apotheosis, transcendentalism, et al.

My regard for it, AS a god, is my value judgement. We both share many (almost all) the same value judgements regarding the universe ... except we do NOT share the “god” one. That’s fine, it’s a matter of opinion or perspective. Maybe it’s just a matter of “glass half full” vs “glass half empty”.

Does that make ME a theist? YES, by our above-mentioned shared definition of theism.

Does that make you an atheist? YES, by our above-mentioned shared definition of atheism.

Does that make “pantheism” a theism? See 8 paragraphs below!
 

Another pantheist who wrote here recently says that many deliberately fall short of using the god language and applying the god concepts (such as “intrinsic ‘holiness’”). Perhaps they do this specifically to avoid being called theists (or to avoid even seeing themselves as theists). In any event, he says that they see themselves as an atheistic religion, of which there are many.

That’s one of the reasons I was pressing for the “pantheism is a third alternative” stance. Because of the wishy-washy semantics of “theism” (and thus “atheism”). Depending on how one defines “theism”, pantheism can fall in-or-out of the Venn diagram of whether it “is” or “is not” a theism.
 

Your unique definitions for “god” do not absolve you from theism, in my opinion.

By the above-mentioned “theism”, yes, I concur. (Please don’t accuse me vacillation between this and my prior email, I’m acknowledging I’m vacillated on the “theism” term. Not just so were using the same terminology with the same semantic, but because I find the “theism” as defined above to be far more exacting and less ambiguous than “theism” as defined by the Roman Catholic Christian Apologists.)

Kosher? Da? Nyet?
 

Thus, from my perspective, you are a theist.

Okay, ouch, ouch, uncle. I’m recanting, I’m a theist. BUT, just to be a pain in the keester, not all pantheists are theists.

In my Natural/Scientific Pantheist (SciPan) religion, 75%-or-so do not express a “god belief”. They don’t designate the universe as a “god” based on their relationship with the universe. Their awe, reverence, respect does not lead them to dub the cosmos “god”.

So there needs to be a splitting-hair distinction between “theist pantheists” and “atheist pantheists”.

I’m in the “theism + pantheism” camp (along with “materialism, monism, naturalism, skepticism-via-logical-positivism, scientism”).

Yet another reason that “pantheism” as a whole is hard to pigeon-hole as a “theism” or “atheism”. I think it’s orthogonal.

Sort of like saying “do you like cookies? Theists dislike cookies, atheists like them. You like cookies, ergo you are an atheist.” Hmmm, like-dislike cookies and theism-atheism are also orthogonal. I think ... :-)
 

Yours is a very unique viewpoint (are there any others?)

Tee-hee-hee, I just got that. “very unique viewpoint” Heh heh heh. Ahhh, some days I’m slow.

“Remember: you are unique! Just like everyone else.”
~anon
 

yours has been an extremely difficult one for me to pin down.

And add on to that the “theist pantheism” and “atheist pantheism” distinction. For the both sets of pantheists, neither is bothered by the theism-atheism distinction, it’s a trivial difference. Like the trivial difference between a blond Republican and a brunette Republican.
 

In addition, we have the added complication of my needing to define your position in terms of a preconceived dichotomy called “theist or atheist” (that I have defined), and you thinking that you do not fit within a dichotomy called “theist or atheist” (even though you probably define this dichotomy differently from the way I do).

I hope my above explanation helps clarify WHY I think the preconceived dichotomy is hard to fit pantheism into. So far, I feel that it’s the most illustrative example I’ve come up with.
 

I am not here disqualifying your concept from being a god-concept. I am only distinguishing it to compare with it what you mean when you talk of “paying homage.”

See near the top regarding “homage”. Another loaded term which you read with a semantic inference which was different from my semantic implication.

Aside: I spent three years as a linguistic major studying semantics and language communication. That doesn’t mean I’m GOOD at communication (as I’ve so eloquently proven!), but I am good at analyzing communication, miscommunication, and the transference and propagation of semantics and terminology.
 

So, then, is it sacred only in your mind? or is it essentially sacred in “deep” reality?

It’s sacred only in my opinion (ie, in my mind). It’s not sacred in a “deep” reality sense. It’s sacred only by my holding it in sacred esteem. A value judgement. I see it’s “sacredness” intrinsically — in it just being itself.

I have rationale behind it being sacred. You and I both concur on the rationale, so I won’t reiterate. We both hold it in high regard. But I also dub it “sacred”, and you look at me like I just ate another bug. (Ick ick.) *shrug*
 

If the latter, how would one demonstrate this? What would we do to determine that the Earth is essentially sacred?

It tain’t the latter! (I wasn’t trying to escape out of a logical gotchya, I’m laying it out like I see it.)
 

So how do we differ? or do we differ?

We’re darn close. So close that I feel you want to call me a “nearly Positive Atheist”, and I want to call you an “atheist pantheist”.
 

It’s “holiness,” for me (in the poetic sense), is because I naturally revere it and because I choose to revere it

Okay, problem: I’m causing you to poetically or metaphorically express your emotions using my spiritual / theologically charged terms. I don’t mind you doing that. I like it.

BUT it’s not fair to you. It’s a violation of our ground rule: I’m not trying to convert you, nor vice versa. I apologize for “pushing you over the edge”.

I’m just trying to lay out my beliefs, and you your beliefs, for us to analyze and share.
 

I suspect that only a theist could speak of “holiness” as being intrinsic — that is, as being an essential element apart from human value, the value of the beholder.

:-)