Uncategorized Archives - Rational Pantheism

Simplest Proof for Panpsychism

Argues that materialism is unscientific nonsense relying on magical thinking and that panpsychism is the only available rational explanation for the emergence of complex experience.

Panpsychism is the idea that the building blocks of matter a capable of experience (consciousness). Below is what appears to be the simplest proof ever devised, advocating for the reality of panpsychism.

The prevailing view amongst scientists is that of materialism. Materialism claims that matter is fundamental, and that all things, including experience, result from material interactions with material things. But materialists cannot explain how experience emerges from non-experiencing matter. In other words, materialists believe that experience strongly emerges from matter.

Strong emergence is the belief that new phenomena can arise in a system that cannot be explained in terms of the systems components. Weak emergence on the other hand, is the belief that new phenomena that arise in a system are explainable in terms of the system’s components. By definition, strong emergence can never ever be justified with physical evidence since any uncovered evidence would now make the emergent phenomena weakly emergent. So strong emergence appears to be wholly unscientific and in effect a myth, indistinguishable from magic.

In direct contrast to materialists, panpsychists assume that complex experience in a system is explainable in terms of the simpler experience possessed by the components of the system. In other words, panpsychists seem complex experience as weakly emerging from simple experience. Panpsychists don’t invent a magical explanation, they merely assume complex experience weakly emerges in the same way that all other complex physical phenomena weakly emerge from simpler physical phenomena.

Proof Summary

1. Materialism assumes strong emergence of experience.
2. Strong emergence is a wholly unjustifiable myth, so materialism too is a myth.
3. Weak emergence occurs everywhere you look.
4. Only panpsychism assumes complex experience weakly emerges from simple experience.
C. Therefore only panpsychism is a justifiable rational (scientific) explanation for the evolution of experience.

Pantheism The Mother Spirituality

Most theists (believers in God) will not want to hear this but all theisms (beliefs in God) are forms of pantheism. Panpsychism too necessarily leads to pantheism. Consider this argument:

The Universe is all there is.
There is no way that a supreme being could be less than all there is or more than all there is.
God can only be the Universe.

The first statement is a simple fact. The second statement though requires some clarification. Logically, barring supernatural beliefs, God cannot be more than All there is. God is a thing and therefore cannot be outside the set of all things. But can God be less than all there is? Now consider this other argument:

All mind is shaped by matter interaction.
All matter is mind.
All matter interacts with all other matter through gravity for one.
The totality of mind is Mind or God the Universe.

For the first two statements refer to our article on Proving the Existence of God. For the third statement refer to Newton’s law of universal gravitation. If all matter interacts with itself, all matter will form the ultimate mind, God. So God cannot be less that all there is. God clearly is all there is.

All claimed supernatural properties of God are unjustified and even unjustifiable and so can be flatly ignored. What is left clearly and logically shows that all forms of theism including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Deism and any others as well as panpsychism, are forms of pantheism. Truly it seems that pantheism is the mother of all theistic spiritualities.

A Rational Morality

Rational pantheism should involve a rational system of ethics or morality. The rational spiritualist should have some objective universal guidelines to help navigate the moral problems that they face. That system is a simple equation: M = B – H.

M = B – H

M = B – H or Moral action = Benefits to all – Harms to all. So if a given action you perform results in more good than harm, it is the correct or moral action to take. Note that this does not limit itself to just people. All beings should be represented as well. A being’s moral worth is determined by a combination of their complexity and the benefits they provide others.

Subjective or Objective?

Many naysayers persist in the belief that morality is subjective. But that’s like saying science is subjective. Science involves following an objective method. The fact that some are too ignorant to understand that method or too self-centered (“evil”) to conform to it, is irrelevant to the method’s objectiveness. Similarly, morality is objective when conscientiously and competently following an objective moral method like M = B – H.

Some will say that determining what constitutes Benefits and Harms are subjective. Again though, benefits and harms are only useful when they are viewed objectively. If a perceived benefit is based on an unfounded belief, that is a subjective belief not an objective one. When harms and benefits are supported with appropriate justification they are evaluated objectively. Saying that morality cannot be objective is like saying science can’t be objective.

Is the Universe Divine?

One way in which pantheism has been improperly characterized is by claiming that it is the idea that “reality is is identical with divinity”. This is from the current Wikipedia entry on pantheism. Now on the one hand, this seems fine since one definition of divine simply refers to being a deity. The God of classical pantheism definitely is a deity. The other definition though refers to being supremely good. Here is the problem. By associating pantheism with divinity, we are associating with the irrational idea that God is only good.

Clearly though, God is not only good. God’s existence involves horrific things like disaster, wars and plagues. A good God would not partake in evil things like this. You might say “well God is just deterministic”. Even if God were largely or even completely deterministic, God is still doing bad things and so clearly is not divine.

We are not wholly good or bad. The most stable people are in a balance of good and bad. Rationally then, we should allow God the same interpretation. God is not good or bad but a balance of the two. God is not divine. God is simply the Universe, good and bad, yin and yang.

The Atheist Delusion

Is atheism irrational? It definitely is. No matter which flavor of atheism you look at, you’ll find it’s based on fundamentally flawed beliefs. For the sake of simplicity we’ll look at atheism as split into two camps: soft and hard (AKA negative and positive). Also we’ll be dealing with lay definitions. In philosophy, atheism generally refers to hard atheism.

Hard (positive) atheism is the purely faith-based belief that there is no God. Believing something doesn’t exist without having proven its nonexistence is completely irrational. A rational person is convinced in the truth (or falsity) of something commensurately based on the evidence available to support its truth (or falsity). A rational person knows something is false only if it has been logically proven false. This includes falsification by the scientific method.

Soft (negative) atheism is the lack of belief in God because of a belief that there is no evidence (knowledge) to support any God’s existence. In other words, soft atheism is simply agnosticism. Why would soft atheism exist when we already have the concept of agnosticism? Further, rational people also do not align themselves with very irrational people when they don’t have to unless some other motive is afoot.

Now why would soft atheists align themselves with atheism despite being associated with the glaringly obvious irrationality of hard atheism? If they truly were rational, why wouldn’t they distance themselves from the hard atheists? Why don’t they criticize the irrationality of hard atheists instead of welcoming them with open arms? Why also would they not simply call themselves agnostics since that is supposedly what they really are? Maybe it’s because they’re not really agnostics at all. The only plausible explanation is that soft atheists are simply hard atheists masquerading as soft atheists because they are unable to explain away the irrationality of their faith based position of hard atheism. By fraudulently posing as agnostics they can still publicly call themselves atheists without having to answer hard questions about their irrational faith.

Imagine someone who strongly believes in science. She’s looking for a group to join that shares these views. She finds two groups “Friends of Science” and “Science Friends”. “Friends of Science” is picky and very strictly allows only highly science oriented people to join. “Science Friends” however is astonishingly open and counts among its members flat earthers, astrologers and channellers. None of these three areas are valid areas of science at all. Someone who values science would always choose “Friends of Science” and never want to join such a group such as “Science Friends”. Someone who values science would criticize the “Science Friends” for allowing such irrational members. Anyone who claimed to value science but rejected “Friends of Science” and joined “Science Friends” willingly and without criticism could only be a fraud.

Some “weak” atheists try to sidestep the issue by claiming that the existence of God is of low probability. But probabilities can only be computed when there is data and no data is ever produced. Claiming to have computed probabilities when such a thing is impossible is incredibly irrational.

Argument Summary

Positive Atheism

P. Irrational people believe in unprovable claims.
P. X believes that there is no God but cannot prove it.
C. X is irrational.

Agnosticism

P. Rational people withhold belief in something when there is no evidence for that thing.
P. Z is unconvinced of the existence or nonexistence of any god due to lack of evidence.
C. Z is rational.

Negative Atheism

P. Rational people do not belong to groups of irrational people if they have an rational alternative.
P. Y claims to hold the same position as Z but instead choses to belong to a group with X as a member.
C. Y is irrational.

P. Rational people understand that probabilities cannot be computed when there is no data.
P. Y claims that any god is improbable but cannot produce any data.
C. Y is irrational.

Atheist Criticisms

This argument has elicited several weak atheist “criticisms”.

“Atheism is about belief while agnosticism is about knowledge. “
Knowledge is justified true belief, so both agnosticism and atheism are about belief.
“You don’t get to choose what the definition of atheism is!”
We’re not in any way changing definitions. We’re showing, using sound logic, what atheists believe despite their lies to the contrary.
“Your argument is childish, is full of fallacies and proves nothing at all!”
When believers cannot refute criticism that threatens their blind ideological faith, they lash out with emotional pronouncements. This happens with cult members, religious fundamentalists and atheists.

Conclusion

As we can see, whichever way you look at atheism, it is a belief system that is fundamentally irrational. Couple this with the undeniable reality that the God of pantheism is a logically established fact. Rational people accept established facts, they don’t ignore them or belittle them. If a purported fact is not actually established, rational people will explain why rather than simply issue empty pronouncements of faith.

What is Rational Pantheism?

Pantheism is an ancient spirituality with the basic tenet that all is God. Pan means all and theos means God. There are many forms of pantheism. Rational pantheism (RP) is an attempt to reinvigorate classical pantheism while being strictly aligned with science and reason.

Is Rational Pantheism Deterministic?

Determinism is the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Classical pantheism is generally regarded as deterministic. Since everything is God, God alone determines everything. Is this a rational outlook though? From science we know that a great many things are determined by forces outside our control. But simply because many things are deterministic this does not mean that everything is.

Our bodies are composed of tiny living creatures, cells. We don’t control every aspect of their existence so why would God control ours?

By claiming that everything is determined because everything we have looked at this far is determined, is a sweeping generalization fallacy. Pronouncing that the pantheistic God controls every aspect of our existence is a faith-based belief with no evidence to support it. Thus determinism is an irrational outlook that must be rejected by RP. Until the concept of free will can be proven false, it is a possibility that rational minds must remain open to.

Is Rational Pantheism Compatible with Atheism?

Atheism is a belief system that, at the very least, rejects a belief in any concept of God. Since the existence of God or the Universe is a fact under RP, atheism is entirely incompatible with it. Atheism and RP do have a common ground in that both reject the notion of a personally involved God, i.e. a supreme being having a personal relationship with people.

Is Rational Pantheism Compatible with “Scientific Pantheism”?

The misnomer “scientific pantheism” (AKA “naturalistic pantheism) is atheism’s dismal attempt at assimilating pantheism into its irrational fold. “Scientific pantheism” claims to have a reverence for the Universe while denying the reality of the pantheistic God. So “scientific pantheism” is neither scientific nor pantheism, it’s merely a pathetic disguise of atheism.

Is Rational Pantheism Compatible with Religion?

Most if not all religions entertain the notion of a personally involved God, a God that is concerned with the activities of humans. Since there is no evidence that such a God exists and no rational basis for such a belief, rational people must reject this notion until evidence is forthcoming. Thus, all known religions are incompatible with RP. All religions do have a common ground with RP in that RP recognizes the existence of a supreme being, which in our case is the Universe.