Dr. Kaku mean by god of order?

[anand]

What does Dr.Kaku mean by god of order?what does He do?What is meant by cosmic consciousness?

 

[Dave's Haarp]

Originally posted by anand
What does Dr.Kaku mean by god of order?what does He do?What is meant by cosmic consciousness?

No one really knows what Dr. Kaku's beliefs are. He just stays quiet about it, seems to me.
But he does insert the "God" word in a lot of his presentations- perhaps just to simplify the concept in terms everyone will understand.

Some guy named Buddabout claimed that the doctor is a pantheist (that the universe is the "mind of God") and claimed that Einstein believed that, too (that there really is no spiritual entity but that God is everything).
Don't know. Whatever the case, most people who are into science fit into one of five groups:

1. disbelieve in God (most times with emotional reasons to go along with that) and sometimes even vehemently oppose and belittle anyone else's belief in a God or gods

2. unsure of God's existence/inexistence and do not really care one way or the other (do not passionately oppose or agree)

3. see hints of a designer and after learning much about the cosmos, decide that there probably is a creator(s) and that we might/might not someday come to know who or what it is.

4. believe in God because they are or have been a member (usually raised in) of a religion or a cult and are taught to believe in a God(s)

5. believe in spirituality because of a personal spiritual experience but are not necessarily a member of anyone's religion or in agreement with other people or groups who believe in God.

I don't think that leaves anyone out.

But Dr. Kaku? Maybe he doesn't want anyone to know what he believes for sure, because it is such a touchy subject with many people.
Or it could be that he has not made up his mind (doesn't consider that there is enough empirical evidence).

I'm still contemplating what Ten Years After said about "fired sand". Wouldn't that be glass?
Or maybe that's how silicon chips are made?

 

[FZ+]

Whenever I read "God of Order", first image I get is that of Spinoza.

Read up on Spinoza. Methinks that is what Kaku is referring to, as Einstein did.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I don't know about Dr. kaku, but you're right about Einstein. He greatly admired Spinoza's thought.

 

i thinks mk is an atheist, i just got that impression from reading his books

 

[Rybo]

First and formost it is important to have a common agreement on our definiton of GOD in order to have a meaningfful disscusion of God.

If the phsycial Universe is eternal then there is no creator of the physical Universe.
Energy cannot be created nor destroyed appears to be an absolute truth i.e. an eternal cosmic law/principle ergo the physical Universe is eternal and not created regardless of what physical form it may take from time to time.

Universe/Cosmos/God/God{des}/Great Spirit/Great Momma/Allah/ALL/Krishna may all reprsent or be defined the same way depending on who you talk too, but, under each label/terminology if we ask a 100 people for their defintion we may get 100 difefrrent definitons.

God like love, spirit and soul and many other words gets thrown around a lot with only a glimpse of commonality at times.

The universality of spirituality implies that (W)holism is holy.

Holy {W}holism
By Rybo6 alias Os-jbug

{W}holism is holy,
Spirituality is universal,

The one contains the many,
The sum of the many spirits,
May aggregate as one soul.

The pattern of soul,
Via polyspirits interrelationships,
Is the divine consciousness,
Of God{des} awareness.

One soul, one mind,
Many spirits,
Many states of consciousness,
Awareness of the many,
Is semi-divine access,
To the complexity of God{des}.

Universe is,
Many finite spirits,
Many finite souls,
One finite God{des},
One finite whole.

Spirituality is,
The infinite accessing of,
And search for,
The divine awareness,
Of the complexity of intterrelationships,
Of the finite whole.

Thereby supporting the integrity
Of the pattern,
Of biologic life,
And its support systems.

 

[bardolomae]

I think that, both Einstien and Kaku both realize that there is no way that this universe could have came about by a big bang...there is no logical way that from high entropy came this and the inner workings of all of our world, and universe

But, they are to high on their horses, to admit that there may be a creator to all of this

 

[oscar]

Rybo: with all do respect, Einstein as a Jew knew better than Christians the concept of God of dynamic energy as interpreting Isaiah 40:26. It seems Spinoza, Einstein and probably Kaku shared the idea of energetic intelligence as pantheistic idea. If God is the source of energy He doesn't need a "father" or a "God" to create Himself before but indeed He transforms part of His own source into matter. Yet, Osho or mystic Rajneesh will give a better explantion with the illustration of a dance functioning in armony with the dancer, both co-existing, neither creature nor creation. But unfortunately not too many people would understand the Jewish mind as Einstein did and I will have to explain why the letter for Bere**** is closed in Hebrew and thus, the "beginning" is unknown but we can only know after the Big Bang events. In his personal letters he used the Hebrew name of God. So, it's not really total pantheism. If the universe is an hologram or ilusion, we don't exist really, are just proyections of God's mind, a mere thought within the Universe. Unless you think you really are conscious being and real SELF with free will and no destiny, or we can prove mankind history is not just an already recorded program in the universe, something not even Kaku would know!

 

[Garth]

I find there are four questions that science raises that point beyond science, from physics to metaphysics.
The questions are:
1. Why does the universe bother to exist? As Stephen Hawking has said, “Although science may solve the problem of how the universe began, it cannot answer the question: Why does the universe bother to exist?” He went on to ask, when contemplating the Theory of Everything, “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”
2. Why is the universe so fruitful, that is propitious for life? The Anthropic question, “The world is as it is because we are” (S.H.) but why?
3. Why can we solve the mysteries of the universe by scribbling on the backs of old envelopes in an armchair?” (As Einstein is said to have done.) “The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.” (A.E.)
4. How is that atoms, after bouncing around together for billions of years in a Newtonian way, should produce life and a consciousness capable of asking such awkward questions?

These questions may be given a deistic, theistic or atheist answer; each requires a stance of faith, either in the existence of God or the non-existence of God. The existential choice is yours…

Garth

 

Just thought it worth to mention here about the "Omega point" theory, a sort of variation within the pantheist / holistic views (not that I'm a defender of it, but just for discusion):

The tendency (or "purpose"?) of the universe is to become fully aware of itself.

The stage we are currently into, in which we as individual beings experience an individual consciousness (fragmented and isolated agregations of information acquired and processed), will develop into a social or common shared consciousness (sort of a colony of insects but much higher level) in which the isolated information fragments become more and more agregated.

This common consciousness would be a single information-processing entity encompassing more and more of the energy in the universe, thus accumulating more and more knowledge about the universe and the rules governing its behaviour.

Eventually, when all the information in the universe is absorbed or comprehended by such an entity, the universe has become fully self-aware of itself (the Omega point). Universal consciousness effectively becomes god itself (maybe ready to understand that the only meaningful step to take is to let itself start a new cycle?)

Needless to say this is pure speculation and poses lots of questions (just for one, it seems this would only work if the universe re-collapses again in a big crunch)

 

[lordinfamous]

Biggest thing to remember is that size does not matter!
God (creator) is the universe, universe is God. Thus understanding the universe is to as Hawking described, "to know the mind of God". How much of this is true is beyond my knowledge, however I do know that size does not matter when you look at the big picture.

 

[lordinfamous]

i thinks mk is an atheist, i just got that impression from reading his books

I disagree, I felt from reading his book "VISIONS" that he does on a personal note, believe in an OBSERVER,CREATOR,GOD however being of science, he stays indirect about his beliefs due to lack of there proof.

 

[LURCH]

I have heard Dr Kaku state directly that "phyisists and cosmologists are among the few scientists who can speak of god without snickering. But when we talk about god, we do not mean a person or being, necessarily, but rather the god of order; the physical laws that govern our universe...". This quote is not exact, but as close as my memory will get. Nonetheless, the meaning is clear; Dr Kaku is an atheist, and claims science or the laws of physics as his "god".

 

[Gil Fuller]

The concept of God is best left to religion because it is an idea with no empirical evidence and only obfuscates effort to do real science. The concept of god is a pseudoscientific concept representing the human desire for science to explain that which it cannot explain. Real science does not do "purpose of life," "reason for living," or "why does the universe exist?". It is ok to do pseudoscience as long as we remember it is just that.

 

[juju]

God is what you believe or want it to be.

juju

 

[Brad Barron]

God does exist in various different senses, but I don't agree he exists in the way that religious folk believe. I've been studying and questioning the existence of God since I was very young, and I've come to the conclusion that he exists on various different plains depending on your own beliefs and thoughts on society, nature, and above. For some, God is the ominous truth of all existence. For others, God is everyone and everything as a whole. Where the Christian God contradicts with some of this, the Christian's God actually has a link of universal truth with all beliefs in God.

-Brad Barron

 

[quantumdude]

Let's keep on topic, folks. This thread is about Dr. Kaku's concepton of god.

 

[Brad Barron]

Sorry about that. I just thought I'd converse on the broad topic of God.

-Brad Barron

 

[quantumdude]

Sorry about that. I just thought I'd converse on the broad topic of God.

I wasn't talking about your posts, I was talking about the ones that I just deleted.

I actually think that your comments could be helpful to someone who has not read Kaku's book. They help prepare the mind for non-religious discussions of the subject.

But I do want to see the thread get its focus back, and not turn into a free-for-all.

What does Dr.Kaku mean by god of order?what does He do?What is meant by cosmic consciousness?

As you were...

 

[RingoKid]

I think he means

cosmic consciousness is an awareness the underlying dimension of consciousness implied by the duality of the self and the soul...

...the repository of knowledge and truth we tap into but aren't fully aware of, the God factor in all of us that makes us aware of our surroundings and orders them into coherence but strictly on a personal level

what "he/God" does is sit back and laugh while waiting for us to evolve to the point where we can comprehend him...

How's that Tom ?

 

[quantumdude]

How's that Tom ?

Not much better.

Henceforth, all off-topic posts will be deleted.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I like the concept of "God" that leaves the door open for openly discussing a question nobody understands. This universe exists here and now, and seems to have a past which led to how it is presently. Since the universe did have a beginning, logically we assume some potentiality existed prior the appearance of the universe. The various dimensions of that potentiality define metaphysics and, in my opinion, is what people have come to label "God."

Such a definition of God is so unassuming almost everyone could agree to it. So the question isn't if there is a potentiality out of which the universe arose, but rather what is the nature of that potentiality?

Among the many people seriously contemplating this today, I think it boils down to two major choices: 1) the pre-existing creative environment is a mindless, mechanical milieu, or 2) it is somehow conscious.

I think Dr. Kaku leans toward the former possibility, as most people working in science seem to. Since they never observe consciousness involved in physical processes, what reason is there to suspect "something more"? If consciousness is there, it must be so buried beneath physical processes that we may never be able to confirm it empirically.

My own view is that creation can be explained mechanistically if we keep the focus small enough. But once we step back and look at everything going on, there in our face is life and consciousness possessing an organizational quality which is significantly uncharacteristic of any non-living situation.

As they have been doing for the last couple of centuries, the two sides of creation theory, physicalist and conscious-assisted, are lined up and doing battle. The evidence appears to support the physicalist side most (especially around here), but then the focus is reductionist, so that's to be expected. I suspect reduction will eventually exhaust the most viable avenues for explaining the organizational quality of life and consciousness, and then a higher percentage of empirical thinkers will start to wonder if there really is "something more" behind it all. I also suspect the "something more" will not be supernatural but will be perfectly natural even if seeming as outrageously different as relativity appeared at the time to those firmly committed to Newtonian physics.

 

[juju]

Hi,

I think the basic question is does being/awareness/consciousness exist apart from the universe, or is it inherent in the basic structure/evolution/self-organizing capability of the universe.

If the latter, then conscious beings are truly the crown of creation, but mortal.

If the former, then we come from somewhere else, and are maybe eternal.

The origin question is intimately connected to the death question. Do we survive death, and if so, what comes after.

juju

 

[Garth]

Hi,

I think the basic question is does being/awareness/consciousness exist apart from the universe, or is it inherent in the basic structure/evolution/self-organizing capability of the universe.

If the latter, then conscious beings are truly the crown of creation, but mortal.

If the former, then we come from somewhere else, and are maybe eternal.

The origin question is intimately connected to the death question. Do we survive death, and if so, what comes after.

juju

That's a neat dichotomy, thank you juju. Of course it might be the case that our consciousness is inherent in our physical nature but God's consciousness is eternal. Then might the answer to my question 4. posted earlier above

How is that atoms, after bouncing around together for billions of years in a Newtonian way, should produce life and a consciousness capable of asking such awkward questions?

be that our existence and consciousness is held, or is a creation of, the mind of God?
Garth

 

[treat2]

No one really knows what Dr. Kaku's beliefs are. He just stays quiet about it, seems to me.
But he does insert the "God" word in a lot of his presentations- perhaps just to simplify the concept in terms everyone will understand.

Some guy named Buddabout claimed that the doctor is a pantheist (that the universe is the "mind of God") and claimed that Einstein believed that, too (that there really is no spiritual entity but that God is everything).
Don't know.
...

OK. Here's something I can contribute to! LoL
It's not just a "claim" that Einstein was Pantheist, it is a fact.

At the conclusiojn of this post is Einstein's publically stated definition of "God".

Below that, is a snippit from Spinoza's writings to give you very general idea of what "Spinoza's God" is.

However, I suggest that you do not yet make any conclusions. Not only because Spinoza's writing is cryptic, but because there's a few things to understand, first.

Spinoza is known as the "Father of Pantheism".

Pantheism comes in 2 forms. For lack of any better word word for it. There is "Pantheism" and "Scientific Pantheism". The differences between the 2 are so slight that I've can't recall the specifics.

There is a very good reason that no one understands Pantheists, or the Doctor person referred to.

Pantheists redefine otherwise well-defined words, and apply their own definitions to those words. Yeah. It's a bit of a dirty trick, and it really takes a while before you can walk and talk like a Panthiest.

There are glossaries at some Panthiest sites on the Web, and a number of Pantheist sites from which you can understand what Einstein and the Dr. are talking about.
I often post several threads on this subject.

I make the assertion that Pantheism is no different than what any educated Atheist believes about the Universe and creation, and what the Pantheist calls "God".

There is ONLY ONE thing to be understood. That is, the language of the Pantheist. That does take some effort and
a few hours to begin to get an understanding of, and correctly interpret what a Pantheist is saying. Einstein
was no dummy (duh), he had good reason for NOT simply saying that he believes in the "Laws of Nature". He was a celebrity. His own theories and beliefs were a great importance to the Vatican, and prior to releasing a major document that worried the highest levels of the clergy at Vatican, Einstein was asked to visit the Vatican to explain what impact his paper would have upon the current beliefs
held by Christians. (Soz for no source on that. You're free
to not believe me, or to do some reading about Einstein, the person, any decent book will refer to the episode.)
The point of all of this being, what happened to Spinoza, would have happened to Einstein, if he had said anything less than not believing in a "Personal God". You can read more about what is really meant by a non-Personal "God"
at any decent Pantheist site on the Web. Or just do a search on it.

Just one note

While the Pantheist chooses to use the word "God",
the educated Atheist chooses to use the words:
"Laws of Nature".

Aside from the fact that Atheists have no need to redefine the English language, it is entirely fair to say that all educated Atheists maintain the exact same beliefs as the Panthiests do.

Based on that assertion, Einstein was an Atheist.

(Einstein just preferred to use the word "God" in place of what you all know as Physics, Chemistry, Natural Sciences, etc. and all such Scientific things, by which the "Laws of Nature" are better understood.)

Now...I know your going to start complaining about Spinoza being run out of his homeland and persecuted for being an Atheist.

I'm an Atheist, and have no need to persecute anyone.

If anything, it is my preference to provide you with some food for thought and debate.

There's much more that I typically post on the entire subject, but I will spare you that, as they each of the 3 or 4 posts, requires a different thread for discussion.

In any case, here is what Einstein said:

(From: http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/einstein.htm [Broken])

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." [Telegram of 1929, in Hoffman and Dukas]
------
Note: Folks, "himself" in the sentence above, is not any
kind of mystical entity or or some kind of magical intelligence floating around in the "spirit world".

"Himself", is a Pantheist's way of referring to the "Laws of Nature", AS IF IT IS some form of "God", for consumption by the General Public, that would have destroyed his career. if he referred to the Laws of Nature in any other way.

(You can read just a single sentence written by a Pantheist and have absolutely no clue what the heck the Panthest is REALLY saying. In fact, it is virtually certain that you will think that the Pantheist is talking about something you naturally apply the well-defined words of the Enlish language to. Sorry, but that's not going to help in any way, to understand what a Pantheist is actually talking about. Understanding that, requires a bit of time to understand the Pantheist version of the English language, and a bit of practice, by reading some paragraphs of Pantheist English, and having them interpreted into "vanilla" English.

Personally, I find the whole thing a bit humorous, as nobody has a clue what the Pantheist is talking about, and the words being used, would lead a person to conclude that there is something "other worldly" about what the Pantheist is describing.)

Since Einstein said he believes in "Spinoza's God", what follows is just a snippet from "The Spinoza Reference" at:
http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/Spinoza.html [Broken]

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

The quotation above may be Einstein's most familiar statement of his beliefs. These words are frequently quoted, but a citation is seldom given.

The quotation can be found in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp, The Open Court Publishing Co., La Salle, Illinois, Third Edition, 1970, pp 659 - 660. There the source is given as the New York Times, 25 April 1929, p. 60, col. 4.Ronald W. Clark, however, in Albert Einstein The Life and Times (The World Publishing Company, New York and Cleveland, 1971, pp 413-414) gives a detailed account of the origin of Einstein's statement:

While the argument over his birthday present had been going on, the theory of relativity had been used to pull him into a religious controversy from which there emerged one of his much-quoted statements of faith. It began when Cardinal O'Connell of Boston, who had attacked Einstein's General Theory on previous occasions, told a group of Catholics that it "cloaked the ghastly apparition of atheism" and "befogged speculation, producing universal doubt about God and His Creation." Einstein, who had often reiterated his remark of 1921 to Archbishop Davidson-"It makes no difference. It is purely abstract science"-was at first uninterested.

Then, on April 24, Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, faced Einstein with the simple five-word cablegram:

"Do you believe in God?"

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists,"

he replied,

"not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

Years later he expanded this in a letter to Solovine, the survivor of the Olympia Academy. "I can understand your aversion to the use of the term 'religion' to describe an emotional and psychological attitude which shows itself most clearly in Spinoza," he wrote. "[But] I have not found a better expression than 'religious' for the trust in the rational nature of reality that is, at least to a certain extent, accessible to human reason."

BTW. A few famous people are/were Pantheists. Frank LLoyd Wright, is just one of them that comes to mind.

 

[Garth]

A Pantheist believes that everything around us, i.e. the universe, is God. Therefore if it can be conceived that the universe might not, in certain conditions, exist e.g. 'before' the Big Bang, then God would not exist. So "what breathed fire into the equations?" If Einstein could say, "What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world.” then surely he could not have been a Pantheist?

Garth

 

[selfAdjoint]

A Pantheist believes that everything around us, i.e. the universe, is God. Therefore if it can be conceived that the universe might not, in certain conditions, exist e.g. 'before' the Big Bang, then God would not exist. So "what breathed free into the equations?" If Einstein could say, "What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world.” then surely he could not have been a Pantheist?

Garth

Well, do we know for sure what Einstein believed about "before the initial singularity" (I don't know if he ever heard the term Big Bang, which was coined around the time he died)? Did he even believe in an initial singularity?

Spinoza distinguished two senses of nature; one is passive nature that we see around us, the other lies behind that appearance and is nature creating itself. As you might say from Einstein's point of view, the process of instantiating the laws of physics.

 

[Taoist]

Great variations in opinion! Seems many actually read Dr Katu's book, his written point of view and yet a spectrum is reflected on what he meant.

Same with Einstein ... (definitions) his definitions of words were different ... Wow! Relatively speaking ... i needed that one

Maybe you mean the various definitions are flat out fibbing like our friend Galileo during his inquisition

Valid points and each a point of view.

So let's get to the meat an potatoes ... Spinoza's wrote ...


"Men would never be superstitious, if they could govern all their circumstances by set rules, or if they were always favored by fortune: but being frequently driven into straits where rules are useless, and being often kept fluctuating pitably between hope and fear by the uncertainty of fortune's greedily coveted favours, they are consequently, for the most part, very prone to credulity. The human mind is readily swayed this way or that in times of doubt, especially when hope and fear are struggling for the mastery, though usually it is boastful, over-confident, and vain.
"This is a general fact I suppose everyone knows, though few, I believe, know their own nature; no one can have lived in the world without observing that most people, when in prosperity, are so over-brimming with wisdom (however inexperienced they may be), that they take every offer of advice as a personal insult, whereas in adversity they know not where to turn, but beg and pray for counsel from every passer-by. No plan is then too futile, too absurd, or too fatuous for their adoption; the most frivolous causes will raise them to hope, or plunge them into despair; if anything happens during their fright which reminds them of some past good or ill, they think it portends a happy or unhappy issue, and therefore (though it may have proved abortive a hundred times before) style it a lucky or unlucky omen. Anything which excites their astonishment they believe to be a portent signifying the anger of the gods or of the Supreme Being, and, mistaking superstition for religion, account it impious not to avert the evil with prayer and sacrifice. Signs and wonders of this sort they conjure up perpetually, till one might think Nature as mad as themselves, they interpret her so fantastically."

—Benedict Spinoza
from "Preface" to Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, 1673

SO as the Laws of Nature show us facts to explain. Religion's interpretations vary in history whereas no facts of the events can be varified but I would like to add an earthquake is a natural occurance just like an eclipse so the results can be explained.

let's point out that although we learn each day an answer to many specific questions the same questions that have purplexed the best minds are still with us today.

I think the monks hidden in the temples high above have the best answers for religion but be sure to keep your eyes clear because the altitude is thin on oxygen and effects each a little differently. Everybody has that link to __________ but what to call it? I don't think Kaku had the answer either as each opinion is still reflecting questions within the posts

 

[Garth]

treat2 - Your assertion that Einstein was a closet atheist who only used the word 'God' instead of 'laws of nature' to save his career is absurd. Many atheists have had successful (especially scientific) careers even (especially)at the beginning of the Twentieth century. The fact that the Vatican was interested in how his theory might affect their teachings does in no way imply that they had some kind of 'hold' or authority over him.
Spinoza was a monist. His assertion was that there were not two kinds of fundamental essence, matter and spirit, but one. His position and Einstein's, I believe, is best described by the word 'Panentheism', that the world is created out of the very being of God and is part of God but God is 'over, under, above and beyond' the totality of the physical world.
- Garth

 

[Vast]

If Pantheism is the belief that the universe or physical world is God, when asked, “do you believe in God?” the question then becomes “do you believe in physical existence?” Any sensible person would answer yes without a doubt. (Well if you were a Pantheist) Therefore can one really say the physical world is God? Or use the physical world as proof of the existence of God? I don’t think so. What purpose would it serve if I were to go around asking people if they believed in the physical world around them? This is why I’ve never understood Pantheism.

 

[Garth]

If Pantheism is the belief that the universe or physical world is God, when asked, “do you believe in God?” the question then becomes “do you believe in physical existence?” Any sensible person would answer yes without a doubt. (Well if you were a Pantheist) Therefore can one really say the physical world is God? Or use the physical world as proof of the existence of God? I don’t think so. What purpose would it serve if I were to go around asking people if they believed in the physical world around them? This is why I’ve never understood Pantheism.

Pantheism arises out of an Eastern (i.e. Hindu/Buddhist) spirituality rather than Middle Eastern (i.e. Jewish/Christian/Islamic) spirituality. It might be argued that the Eastern view is more ancient and itself arises from an Animist spirituality in which all objects, especially living ones, are endowed with a 'soul'. Hence they worship trees/animals/mountains/Sun Moon and stars etc. In the Hindu worldview these multiple spirits were codified into a series of gods and unified in the Vedic principle that 'Reality is one, but different religious teachers speak of it differently'. Buddhism then develops this idea into Nirvana as the final liberation from the pain of repeated embodiment (reincarnation) and does not require a god as such at all.

A pantheist not only believes in the existence of the physical reality but that it has some kind of 'soul' or 'personality' that can be worshipped. An atheist may not understand this need to worship something but it seems to be quite a common human trait!


- Garth

 

[selfAdjoint]

Pantheism arises out of an Eastern (i.e. Hindu/Buddhist) spirituality rather than Middle Eastern (i.e. Jewish/Christian/Islamic) spirituality. It might be argued that the Eastern view is more ancient and itself arises from an Animist spirituality in which all objects, especially living ones, are endowed with a 'soul'. Hence they worship trees/animals/mountains/Sun Moon and stars etc. In the Hindu worldview these multiple spirits were codified into a series of gods and unified in the Vedic principle that 'Reality is one, but different religious teachers speak of it differently'. Buddhism then develops this idea into Nirvana as the final liberation from the pain of repeated embodiment (reincarnation) and does not require a god as such at all.

A pantheist not only believes in the existence of the physical reality but that it has some kind of 'soul' or 'personality' that can be worshipped. An atheist may not understand this need to worship something but it seems to be quite a common human trait!


- Garth

The more you refine the definition of pantheism, the more we see why it is incorrect to call Einstein, or Spinoza for that matter, a pantheist. It isn't the intellectual opinion, but the spiritual response that makes the pantheist.

 

[Garth]

The more you refine the definition of pantheism, the more we see why it is incorrect to call Einstein, or Spinoza for that matter, a pantheist. It isn't the intellectual opinion, but the spiritual response that makes the pantheist.

As I have posted above, given his use of 'God language' perhaps pan-en-theist describes Einstein better.
Panentheism = "The belief that the being of God includes and penetrates the whole universe, so that every part of it exists in God but (as against pantheism) that God's being is more than, and is not exhausted by, the universe."
- Garth

 

[juju]

Hi all,

I think a quote from the Buddha is in order here. And I quote:

"Believe nothing because a wise man said it...
Believe nothing because it is generally held as true...
Believe nothing because it is written...
Believe nothing because it is said to be divine...
Believe nothing because someone else believes it...
Believe only what you yourself judge to be true."

juju

 

[treat2]

A Pantheist believes that everything around us, i.e. the universe, is God. Therefore if it can be conceived that the universe might not, in certain conditions, exist e.g. 'before' the Big Bang, then God would not exist. So "what breathed fire into the equations?" If Einstein could say, "What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world.” then surely he could not have been a Pantheist?

Garth

A Pantheist believes that everything around us, i.e. the universe, is God. Therefore if it can be conceived that the universe might not, in certain conditions, exist e.g. 'before' the Big Bang, then God would not exist. So "what breathed fire into the equations?" If Einstein could say, "What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world.” then surely he could not have been a Pantheist?

Garth

Garth, PantheistSpeak is a bit difficult to understand, but what is not, is Pantheism itself!

Let's look again at what Einstein said (according to your post):

"What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world.”

OK. The #1 thing to understand about Pantheism is that
"God" = "The Laws of Nature".

What Einstein actually meant is that the Laws of Nature hold true at all times. We certainly do not know all of the Laws of Nature, but even before the Big Bang, the Laws of Nature stilll hold. We may say that Laws of Nature are
true here on Earth, and even under circumstances before the Big Bang, as well.

The thing to understand regarding Pantheism and Physics too, is that whether or not we understand all The Laws of Nature, under all circumstances, the The Laws of Nature still apply. It is UNimportand what the circumstances are.
Whatever the circumstances are, The Laws of Nature still exist. Things behave as The Laws of Nature permit them to behave. That also means that whatever appears to be "Chaotic" or "Random" is STILL abiding by the Laws of Nature. An electron flying around an Atom is influenced by the things that influence it. The path APPEARS random, and we can not predict it, because it is too complex for us to accurately predict. However, the electron is not just flying around the Universe. It is flying around an Atom.
Even when time itself has stopped, time is obeying the Laws of Nature.

The Laws of Nature may be different for some particular obbject under difference circumstances. However, that object is STILL obeying the laws of nature, in EVERY circumstance.

This is the point... The Laws of Nature determine how things behave. It does not matter if that thing is nothing.
0 = 0. OK So, whatever the case. The Laws of Nature EXIST. If time is can be stopped. Then it is doing so in accordance with the Laws of Nature that apply to time.

Getting the hang of it? OK. Now, let's look again at the Einstein thing...

"What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world.” - A. Einstein.

What A.E. is saying is that The Laws of Nature have determined the way the Universe has formed. OK.

What Einstein is saying is that because the Laws of Nature have determined that the Universe is the way it is, there is no reason to believe that if the Big Bang were to happen again, as some (or many) believe it may, from what we have seen, and understand about the way that the Universe formed, there is no reason to believe that if it happened again and again, that there would not be planets, stars, galaxies, life, etc..

The Laws of Nature have show their behavior. It shows that "the world" or planets occur. Einstein is saying planets are formed because of the Laws of the Universe having created them. In other words, there is no reason to think that if the Bag Bang happened again, that no where in the Universe could there be a planet like our world.

It's a simple thing, conceptually. There's no reason to think that completely different Laws of Nature would exist if there was another Big Bang. In that respect, A.E. is saying "Hey. The Laws of Nature created the Earth. There's no reason to think that if creation of the Universe happened all over again, that another world like our our would not be created, when your dealing with the same kinds of elements, forces, etc. that have a generally predictalbe way of behaving. (For example we can see the creation of Stars within another Galaxy. Well, there's no reason to think that we should net find the same thing again, particularly because we know that there are many Stars, and have a basic understanding of why and how they are forming.)

More specifically, when A.E. said "whether God had any choice", in the quote above, he's saying that The Laws of Nature are not totally random, nor do they seem illogical, when they are understood. Because the Laws of Nature are not random, they are a set of Laws that occur when the Universe is in the form that it is. That being the case,
there's no reason to say (when speaking of the Universe as we know it and see it and understand it), that another world like our own would not be created, if the Universe is recreated by another Big Bang.

In other words, there's "no choice" (i.e. no randomness)
for the Universe to behave as it does, because everything is determined by the Laws of Nature, regardless of how random something seems to be.