"the Old Man"

[metis]

Much to the chagrin of probably someone here, I'm going to start off this thread with a reference to Einstein. 

Einstein was a pantheist (although deists like to claim him as their own as well) who believed that "the Old Man", as he called God, was creation itself, and that a belief in free will is merely imaginary.  He often spoke of believing in "Spinoza's God", and Spinoza was another pantheist as well.

However, I've run across at least one Einstein biographer who thinks that Einstein may not have been a pantheist after all, but that his reference to "the Old Man" may have been a veiled reference to the "laws of physics" (iow, no real deity).  What's his rationale for this view of Einstein?  There seems to be inconsistencies in what Einstein says in some related areas.  For example, he says that he wants to find and understand God, but some pantheists might see an inconsistency here-- all the cosmos IS God.  Also, Einstein typically seems to indicate that he does believe in free will at times.

Why might he cover up his supposed atheistic belief?  Maybe because at the time he lived and with the jobs he had, he may have been afraid to state he was an atheist, especially since he relied on public funds for his teachings and research.  However, personally, I still tend to feel he probably was a pantheist, but then what do I know.

But this leads me to my main questions here: Which was is your drift on the issue of pantheism?  Is it possible, iyo, to be a pantheist and still believe in free will?  What about a deistic approach?     

[VLinvictus]

Why is pantheism incompatible with free will?

[river]

I have no idea.  Pantheists have free will.  Why wouldn't they?

[metis]

Because some have argued how could "God" have created all and not also create our actions as well.  IOW, they would probably be inclined to say how could there be free will if God created everything?  Or didn't "God" create everything?  I mentioned this, which I had stated was the position, right or wrong, of both Spinoza and Einstein, so I thought maybe there'd be an interest in looking at this issue more closely. 

And just to be clear of my motives, I have no irons in this fire, nor do I have some sort of point to supposedly prove.

[Akiva]

A pantheist who believes in freewill would have to conclude that freewill exists within some sort of cosmic bubble-- in other words, one may have the freedom of choice, but only from the choices already present. 

[VLinvictus]

Because some have argued how could "God" have created all and not also create our actions as well.  IOW, they would probably be inclined to say how could there be free will if God created everything?  Or didn't "God" create everything?

This presumes the existence of a creator who is distinct from creation and who is a person to whom such concepts of intention and will and creation can be applied. But if the creator and the creation are one, if "creation" is instead the evolution of God's own essence and we are, for lack of a better analogy at the moment, "cells" of God's "body," then this is not an issue.

Our free will, of course, is severely limited not only by our own choices in the past but also by the choices of everyone else so the actual sphere of possibility is rather small, but I just don't see why in a "pantheistic" (for lack of a better word) worldview this would make any difference.

IMO, it's a personal omniscient theistic god that negates free will.

[Acumen]

IMO, it's a personal omniscient theistic god that negates free will.

First, is this a Jewish perspective, or yours'?

Second, how is the existence of a personal omniscient God contrary to free will?

[river]

Pantheism has nothing to do with free will.   If a gun is held to your head, you may will the person not shoot you, but that doesn't mean he won't.  If in order to get the job you want you may have to take some credits you detest, but that doesn't mean you won't have to take them.

I don't see the connection.  Why does everything have to be so complicated? 

Pantheism simply means you don't believe in a creator God who, like some sort of a puppeteer, stands outside of creation and creates everything.   We think the universe evolved.  That the universe means God, and vice versa.   Very simple.   Religion is an extension of culture, with some added mythology and history, some of which may or may not be accurate. 

[Acumen]

Is there a supernatural element to pantheism?

[SquirleyWurley]

Is there a supernatural element to pantheism?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

I find it interesting that in the begining of Richard Dawkin's book "The God Delusion", he tries very hard to make it clear that he isn't against all notions of god, he does sympathize with the pantheistic sort of awe of nature, and isn't criticizing that -- Dawkin's target is the personal god of theistic religious people.

[Acumen]

I would presume that Dawkins does not believe in the supernatural.

[metis]

I would presume that Dawkins does not believe in the supernatural.

He doesn't deny the hypothetical possibility but feels that there is really no reason to believe in such.

[SquirleyWurley]

Perhaps off topic...

My take on Dawkins (and I may be wrong, I really don't follow him all that much, though i have read The Blind Watchmaker, which is excellent, and The God Delusion, which is mostly mediocre)...

Is that when he's being asked questions by creationist zealottes, or by atheistic folkes, sometimes he gets exasperated and is caught saying something a bit blunt with an attitude, and this gives a certain impression, sets up an expectation.  I'm not sure how often he does this, but in his books on science it isn't a concern.  Frankly, even in the God Delusion, there is the introduction which is really mostly quite civil and open-minded towards non-anthropomorphic awe of the mysteries of nature expressed in terms of the divine, etc., and there are sections where the argument is interesting and based in scientific and philosophical issues which are explained fairly well, it's just that a couple chapters in the beginning especially, he enjoys his snarkiness a bit too much, it's embarassing, he really isn't the rhetorical wit he thinks he is, he goes to far to entertain the choir, he does much better in the earliest part and somewhere in the middle it picks back up.

It seems to me his biggest beef, the thing that brings out his irate and sarcastic side, is the ANTI-reason and ANTI-science attitudes of certain people (particularly the people who lead the creationist movement and claim to 'know science' but misrepresent it) -- now, this IS something to be irate about, it's a shame his irritation often distracts people from the points he's making.  He is much more forgiving of simple ignorance and of people who aren't so ANTI-reason, so ANTI-science, so unwilling to look at evidence, arguments, facts, good methodology, solid peer reviewed research and criticism, etc.  But that isn't always evident, particularly when he's fed up with people who are gloating in a way that is self-serving, irrational, closed to reason, manipulative, deceptive, inaccurate and unwilling to be corrected.

[Acumen]

How is Dawkins any better than the irrational Creationists when he says things equally irrational?

[river]

A religion that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by traditional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.

-- Carl Sagan, ( a pantheist) quoted from the United Universists front page

Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science? ... No other human institution comes close.
-- Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World, p. 30 

Ann Druyan: He Wanted to Know

Interviewer: "Didn't [Sagan] want to believe?"
Druyan: "He didn't want to believe. He wanted to know."
-- Ann Druyan

"Contrary to the fantasies of the fundamentalists, there was no deathbed conversion, no last minute refuge taken in a comforting vision of a heaven or an afterlife. For Carl, what mattered most was what was true, not merely what would make us feel better. Even at this moment when anyone would be forgiven for turning away from the reality of our situation, Carl was unflinching. As we looked deeply into each other's eyes, it was with a shared conviction that our wondrous life together was ending forever."

-- Ann Druyan, Epilogue to Billions and Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium

PAMBLOQ Rules! Yesss!!

[metis]

How is Dawkins any better than the irrational Creationists when he says things equally irrational?

I think Dawkins makes some strong points, but his sarcasm and stereotyping undercuts his message, I think.  So, it's not so much what he says but how he says it. 

[river]

My husband read the Dawkins book and thought it quite good.  He agrees with him.  I haven't read it, but I remember he was interviewed on TV once or twice.  I didn't think he was sarcastic.  I thought he was honest  when asked silly questions. (which he was)

[SquirleyWurley]

How is Dawkins any better than the irrational Creationists when he says things equally irrational?

He isn't.  Everyone has times when they are irrational, whether they are a scientist or not.  Unfortunately, because he is a scientist, his off the cuff sarcasm and outbursts are taken as 'science'.  But he is clear when he is speaking from evidence and sound scientific argument, and he is willing to clarify what he is talking about in a scientific manner, and when he does so he is not being irrational.  I can't say that about 'creation scientists' because they aren't as clear/consistent about their methodology, their methodology is sloppy, they don't take into account as much peer-reviewed material, their 'science talk' sounds more like rhetoric/sarcasm.  With Dawkins, when he's doing his 'science talk', it IS science talk.  When he does his 'philosophy talk' or his 'critique of religion talk' he is only rarely doing science talk.  Luckily, even when he is doing his thing on philosophy or religion, when he does get into something scientific, he does return to 'science talk' for a bit, and if asked for elaboration he will clarify, he has certainly written many fine science books.  Again, I can't say the same for those who lead the 'creation science' movement.