Is It Just Wordplay?

[Ouroboros]

So the question's been raised several times in the general discussion that if a pantheist call the universe God, then it's just a wordplay or word game. Personally, I don't think it is. It's more to it. It's not just throwing a word around because it's fun. There's a reason for it. I have a few on my own, but I wonder what other pantheists here think, and what do you think about this claim?

 

[George-ananda]

I see two main types of pantheists. Those that believe Consciousness is fundamental and those that believe consciousness is the emergent process of physical interactions. The second type (physicalists) are really the wordplayers in my thinking. I don't see any significant difference between their beliefs and atheistic materialism. The first type (Consciousness is fundamental) are saying something fundamentally and profoundly different about the universe.

 

[Jumi]

There is a history of pantheists using the word God so I think it's OK to use it. I don't use it, I think there are better ones like Nature or Universe.

 

[Quintessence]

I'll observe that I've rarely seen this "argument" thrown out by anyone other than individuals wanting to affirm their own (a)theistic stance. They dismiss understandings of god outside of their accepted notions as "wordplay" or "irrelevant" because to do otherwise poses a serious challenge to their identity as (a)theists.

 

[Baladas]

I call it God sometimes, but mainly when in dialogue with theists. Especially my wife who is a Christian.
I see nothing wrong with calling It "God", but I personally prefer "Nature" or "the Divine".

 

[Ouroboros]

I see two main types of pantheists. Those that believe Consciousness is fundamental and those that believe consciousness is the emergent process of physical interactions. The second type (physicalists) are really the wordplayers in my thinking. I don't see any significant difference between their beliefs and atheistic materialism. The first type (Consciousness is fundamental) are saying something fundamentally and profoundly different about the universe.

To me, using the term God has more to do with showing what my attitude towards it is. It's not about that it's fundamentally different, but it's different in my attitude towards it.

I wouldn't say that calling my wife "my love" is a wordplay, but a signifier of what I think of my wife. See my point? If someone told me that I was just doing wordplay calling my wife my love and the real name "wife" should always be used, I'd think they would be offensive to what I think of my wife. Love to your loved ones wouldn't be just wordplay.

 

[Ouroboros]

There is a history of pantheists using the word God so I think it's OK to use it. I don't use it, I think there are better ones like Nature or Universe.

I agree to some degree. In general discussions, it's obviously impossible to make people to see what a pantheist is saying, and honestly though, even if nature and universe are correct words, they don't carry all the same emotional connotations. To say nature is my God is to say that it's not just nature, but it means something more to me than just "that old nature out there." It's to say, I care.

 

[George-ananda]

I call it God sometimes, but mainly when in dialogue with theists. Especially my wife who is a Christian.
I see nothing wrong with calling It "God", but I personally prefer "Nature" or "the Divine".

Do you see consciousness as a fundamental property or as an emergent property of physical interactions?

 

[Ouroboros]

I'll observe that I've rarely seen this "argument" thrown out by anyone other than individuals wanting to affirm their own (a)theistic stance. They dismiss understandings of god outside of their accepted notions as "wordplay" or "irrelevant" because to do otherwise poses a serious challenge to their identity as (a)theists.

+1!

That's exactly my impression too. Basically, you have two types of atheists:

1. The one who rejects specific definitions and ideas of God/gods (like external personal etc), but is open minded enough to know that the word itself is vague, fluent, changes with culture, time, philosophy, etc, and won't just reject the word as such, but only rejects certain notions and definitions of what God/gods is.

2. The one who not only rejects any God concept, but rejects the use of the word "God" in any useful context. If someone says "Jonny Depp is my God" these atheist will blow a fuse and say that it's an attempt to obfuscate the standardized and objectively true atheist definition of the word "God". The word God should always be defined as the God that doesn't exist, or the definition is wrong.

I'm the atheist of the first kind, but I'm really bugged by the attitude of the second one.

 

[Ouroboros]

I call it God sometimes, but mainly when in dialogue with theists. Especially my wife who is a Christian.
I see nothing wrong with calling It "God", but I personally prefer "Nature" or "the Divine".

That's my view too.

But you would think that on a forum for religious discussions there would be some kind of acceptance to these alternative uses of the word (in the general forum)? Or is that too much to ask?

 

[Ouroboros]

Do you see consciousness as a fundamental property or as an emergent property of physical interactions?

Sorry for jumping in on that one, but I have to answer it myself too. To some degree for my own sanity.

The truth is... to me, personally, I can't say either way. It's somehow both. Consciousness is somehow a fundamental potential in the universe, if not realized, it at least have to exist as a possibility, just as the potential for stars existed in the singularity before big bang (this I've heard from scientists, not my idea at all). But at the same time, consciousness do arise from the interaction of particles, cells in the brain. And the really curious thing is that somehow, consciousness arises from the information processing rather than the particles, cells, chemicals, etc themselves. It's not a "mind cell" that gives us a mind. It's not a "consciousness atom" that gives us consciousness. It's something that is realized in the holistic interaction, not the single sub-processes. It's a swarm emergent property, which is actually a bit mysterious. A bunch of cells sending signals to each other, and... we're aware.

 

[George-ananda]

I am going to make the assumption from your reply that you are of the 'physicalist' type of pantheism of the two types I discussed in my original post. Correct me if I'm wrong.

To me, using the term God has more to do with showing what my attitude towards it is. It's not about that it's fundamentally different, but it's different in my attitude towards it.

I wouldn't say that calling my wife "my love" is a wordplay, but a signifier of what I think of my wife. See my point? If someone told me that I was just doing wordplay calling my wife my love and the real name "wife" should always be used, I'd think they would be offensive to what I think of my wife. Love to your loved ones wouldn't be just wordplay.

I think of someone like Carl Sagan who marvels and is thrilled by the wonders of nature as basically the same type of experiencer as you. He might call himself an atheist and you might call yourself a theist but I don't see the difference in what you and Sagan are saying. I still say it is wordplay (atheist, theist, pantheist, whatever) with the same feelings. It is much like the phyicalists use of the word 'spiritual'; it is wordplay and means something different than someone who believes in the objective reality of things beyond the physical.

 

[Jumi]

I agree to some degree. In general discussions, it's obviously impossible to make people to see what a pantheist is saying, and honestly though, even if nature and universe are correct words, they don't carry all the same emotional connotations. To say nature is my God is to say that it's not just nature, but it means something more to me than just "that old nature out there." It's to say, I care.

I can accept that. I would guess it depends on your background a bit? Coming from a lifetime non-believer I don't really know if saying God would be respectful.

For inspiration I've been going to Tao Teh Ching recently. Even in the first chapter the problem of language is addressed:

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things

From the thread I started about defining God it seems this chapter is spot on. Especially "named is the mother of myriad things" seems to be what most people take for God today.

 

[Quintessence]

+1!

That's exactly my impression too. Basically, you have two types of atheists:

1. The one who rejects specific definitions and ideas of God/gods (like external personal etc), but is open minded enough to know that the word itself is vague, fluent, changes with culture, time, philosophy, etc, and won't just reject the word as such, but only rejects certain notions and definitions of what God/gods is.

2. The one who not only rejects any God concept, but rejects the use of the word "God" in any useful context. If someone says "Jonny Depp is my God" these atheist will blow a fuse and say that it's an attempt to obfuscate the standardized and objectively true atheist definition of the word "God". The word God should always be defined as the God that doesn't exist, or the definition is wrong.

I'm the atheist of the first kind, but I'm really bugged by the attitude of the second one.

I'd like to clarify that my use if (a)theists was deliberate, because I see this from certain theists sometimes as well. Most notably, those who reject the idea of immanent deity. Both theists and atheists can get into the "but god can't be that" mentality, as if they have ownership over the word for all people and cultures. It's a display of ethnocentrism, often times. It's a "since god doesn't mean this to most people in my culture, you're using it wrong."

In all cases, it is good practice to ask why someone regards something as a god, and what the real substance is behind that word. Calling their decision to use that term "wordplay" is (albeit perhaps unintentionally) disrespectful, insulting, and shallow. I aim to be sympathetic when I run across this tendency, not just because insult is not typically intended, but because people in my culture as a whole are pathetically ignorant on the subjects of theology and religion in general. And, in spite of living in a multicultural society, many people aren't all that multicultural or pluralistic, and instead pretty entrenched in ethnocentric assumptions. We've all got areas of our lives where we're like that... so entrenched in our own cultural box we have trouble dealing with or understanding things that are outside of it. A common reflex reaction is to just shut away the new and strange thing, to dismiss it, disarm it, pretend it is not real.

To those who think my decision to call my gods "gods" is mere wordplay, I'll sometimes ask them some questions.

Do you have a deep reverence for the apparent world, or the physical world of which you are a part? Does this drive you to treat it with deep respect? Does this drive you to celebrate it and give thanks to it, with rituals honoring the cycles of the seasons and the coming of rain and storm? No? Then quit calling my decision to call my gods what they are "wordplay." It's not.

 

[Baladas]

Do you see consciousness as a fundamental property or as an emergent property of physical interactions?

I see conscious as fundamental, something that has always been present.
I have been practicing self-enquirey, and have come to believe this at a deeper level than before.

I have long believed that there is another dimension to the Universe, from which everything arises. This is why I have called myself a panenetheist rather than a pantheist.

It's a far-cry from my Christian beginnings, but I may find myself among the theists yet, at least in some way.
Many would argue that I already am. One way or another, I am an explorer of consciousness.

 

[George-ananda]

I see conscious as fundamental, something that has always been present.
I have been practicing self-enquirey, and have come to believe this at a deeper level than before.

It's a far-cry from my Christian beginnings, but I may find myself among the theists yet, at least in some way.
Many would argue that I already am. One way or another, I am an explorer of consciousness.

Ahh, so do you see eternal consciousness as descending (incarnating) into our bodies (as opposed to arising from physical events in our brain)?

 

[Orbit]

I think when people say "God", they are using a shorthand for "what do you think is the basis of the universe?". Atheists tend to see "God" as specifically Abrahamic, or pointing to a conventional deity. They can't seem to wrap their heads around the pan(en)theist usage of the word.

 

[Ouroboros]

I am going to make the assumption from your reply that you are of the 'physicalist' type of pantheism of the two types I discussed in my original post. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes and no.

There is no real physical world. It's all energy and forces, and interchange of information. And perhaps, that is ultimately consciousness and or spirit, but I don't know.

I think of someone like Carl Sagan who marvels and is thrilled by the wonders of nature as basically the same type of experiencer as you. He might call himself an atheist and you might call yourself a theist but I don't see the difference in what you and Sagan are saying. I still say it is wordplay (atheist, theist, pantheist, whatever) with the same feelings. It is much like the phyicalists use of the word 'spiritual'; it is wordplay and means something different than someone who believes in the objective reality of things beyond the physical.

It's also a wordplay when atheists force the definitions of the words to fit the purpose of debunking claims. It's also a wordplay to argue another person's opinions and views as just wordplay. We all are playing the game of words. It's called language.

 

[leibowde84]

So the question's been raised several times in the general discussion that if a pantheist call the universe God, then it's just a wordplay or word game. Personally, I don't think it is. It's more to it. It's not just throwing a word around because it's fun. There's a reason for it. I have a few on my own, but I wonder what other pantheists here think, and what do you think about this claim?

If "God is the universe" and "the universe is God", then it is just wordplay. You are just using God as a synonym for "the universe", right? In other words, there is no belief in any "god". The word is unnecessary.

 

[Jumi]

I don't know if consciousness is fundamental or an emergent quality, but what I know is that it exists and consider it most important for myself.