Easter Story

 

Hardly has Christmas passed, it seems, when Lent is upon us with the prospect of an early Easter. In around three months or so, the Christian story unfolds from its beginning through to its end. And then, of course, beyond.

The Easter narrative is generally familiar, at least in outline, even to those who are not church attendees. Those with a fundamental conviction believe the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus to be literally true.

The 18^th Century deist, Thomas Paine, in his book, “The Age of Reason”, gives an account as to how he came to reject the Easter story from an early age. He heard a sermon, possibly delivered by his aunt Miss Cooke, on the subject, ‘Redemption by the death of the Son of God”

Aged about seven or eight, Paine was not impressed. “I revolted at the recollection of what I had heard…that it was making God Almighty act like a passionate man, that killed his son, when he could not revenge himself any other way…”

He went on to reflect, “How different this is to the pure and simple profession of Deism! The true deist has but one Deity…endeavouring to imitate him in everything moral, scientifical (sic), and mechanical.”

Paine goes on from that point to celebrate the scientific advances in understanding the world and the cosmos made up to that point over the three previous centuries. They were the wellsprings of his religious thinking, not recycled ancient mythologies as literal truth.

 

Quotations from, “The Age of Reason” by Thomas Paine, Dover Publications Inc., 2004. Pages 64-65.

Attending To God

 

A recent Church of England report revealed that regular church attendance presently stands at 1.8% of the population. It went on to project that this would fall over the next decade to about 1%. The decline, it appears is inexorable.

No doubt secularists greeted this news as confirmation that religion has all but been vanquished, that we all now live in the Kingdom of Godlessness. Of course, it means nothing of the sort. What it does reflect is a diversity of views and an unwillingness to be martialled into any particular camp.

There can be no presumption that the corollary of the report’s findings is that 98.2% of the population are atheists or agnostics. Apart from members of other denominations and faiths, perhaps the majority of people rarely even give the matter much thought.

When they do it seems many profess a vague, inchoate sense that “there is something” or the order they see in the world around them can’t be the result of mere chance. Nothing more definite than that. A recognition they are part of something far greater than themselves, only there’s no need to go into some designated building every Sunday to sing about it.

Atheism has a fundamental problem most atheists seem to solve by denying it. That is, in a random, purposeless universe the only rational position is that of the nihilist. An assertion that Godless humans can find their own purpose, through existentialism or whatever, is to accept, at the very least, purposefulness does exist in creation.

After all, people are a part of that creation and are expressions of purpose. It is a similar realisation that the universe is self-aware: it must be, because we humans are aware of the universe, at the very least we are the universe’s self-consciousness.

Although atheism presents itself as a modern way of thinking, it is actually as ancient as religious belief. The per-Socratic philosophers were intellectually wrestling with the implications of materialism even as the chosen people of Israel were developing the early foundations of what have become the three Abrahamic faiths.

Deism is a dialectical product all the contending factors around belief and disbelief, informed by science. Like all religions it is man-made and, as such, has its own imperfections and contradictions. It does not claim to offer prefect answers, because they don’t exist.

Indeed, it may not even be a religion but a philosophy. It has no dogma or creed demanding obedience, rather the opposite, imposing on the individual the burden of drawing his or her own conclusions.

Deists cannot even say what God, or Deus, is. Not only is there no settled agreement amongst deists, there is a shared recognition that God must be, and remain, beyond human comprehension. Otherwise, God is little more than an idealised, but limited, human being at best, such as the God of the Abrahamic faiths.

Maybe the word God will eventually fall into disuse and some other arise to denote a less anthropomorphic designation. If so, it seems unlikely it will require the filling of pews on a Sunday.

Certainty

 

Are there intelligent beings, perhaps far more advanced than us, on other worlds scattered through the vastness of the universe? It is possible to construct reasoned arguments to support both positive and negative answers to this question. The one thing that cannot be stated categorically one way or the other is absolute certainty.

Certainty can be a dangerous concept, too often founded on an absolutist partial view. To be certain is to accept no contradiction, all contrary views must be summarily dismissed as erroneous.

Is there God? In Britain it has become the prevailing trend amongst those who would consider themselves to be most progressive and rational in their thinking to become unholier than thou. God of the gaps has become no gap for God.

Non-belief in God is perfectly rational, a reasoned conclusion drawn from some combination of scientific understanding with all too many execrable examples of religious dogmatism or malpractice.

Atheism, though, does not confer secular sainthood on its adherents. Atheists are as capable of all the foibles that too often are considered the failings of the religious. The uncomfortable truth is that such failings, from the trivial to the horrendous, are human, not God’s.

God is often cited to justify truly terrible acts committed by those claiming to be His most pious adherents. Whether they sincerely believe this or not their justification is a human falsehood, the crimes are theirs.

This is also the case for religious practices and books. They are human productions, not divinely ordained. Therefore they cannot be cited to justify persecution of those considered non-believers or claim a monopoly on truth.

Atheists who readily cite such religious malfeasance are conniving at the pious fallacy. False belief remains just that whether dressed in religious garb or sporting a secular appearance. Both are guilty of closed thinking if they profess absolute certainty in their ideology.

Deism begins with the view that all ideologies, religious or secular, are manmade, including its own. Therefore, an ideology at any given moment is provisional and will change over time, and may be supplanted at some future date when it has been falsified by new understandings.

The argument for God or Deus that deists profess is based on the application of human reason. Science provides an expanding knowledge of the universe, which is only possible because it operates according to discernible laws.

If creation was the product of just random chance then there would only be chaos, certainly none of the predictability science requires to function. Deists argue that universal laws rather than chaos are at the very least suggestive of something that can be referred to as God or Deus or First Cause or perhaps even X.

This is not certain, but it is a recognition that the age old belief in deity, expressed in such varied ways over millennia, is perhaps an a priori feature of human cognition. That it gets bound up in sectarian religious practices is a reflection of a desire for certainty about something which is ultimately beyond human comprehension.

It is far, far more likely that the existence or otherwise of extra-terrestrial advanced beings will at some point be possible than some absolute proof of God. However, inquiry should not be dismissed or even curtailed by a present insistence on an absolute certainty.

Pandeism Continued

 

The following is based on, “Why Pandeism is Better than Theism: an Essay” by K.M. is posted on www.koilas.org.

Part 4 – Trinity

The trinity explored in this section is not that of Christianity. Rather, it is the three characteristics of a Creator discernible by human comprehension. It should be understood that such a Creator must remain largely ineffable, otherwise humanity would be on a par with that Creator rather than an element of creation.

Firstly, the Creator must possess sufficient power to control the immense power of the universe.

Secondly, the Creator requires an intelligence, way beyond that of human beings, to develop the intricate program governing the dynamics of the unfolding universe producing complex material forms.

Thirdly, the Creator must possess a rationality expressing itself through the rational nature of the universe, the physical laws by which it operates.

It can be inferred from these three factors that the Creator was/is rationally motivated to create.

If this model is sufficient to account for the universe and Man’s observations of it, then no additional factors are required. No further divine attributes can logically be added, which is not to say others do not exist, but if they do they are beyond human comprehension.

Pandeism, therefore, is posited on recognising a Creator with the power to create, with an intelligence that allowed for the universe to be brought about and operate according to its programming and a rational motivation to do all this.

Theism, in its various forms, makes often contradictory claims about their scriptures being the actual Word of God, faith affirming visions and miracles, and the presence of evil as a force to be countered. Each version of theism claims to be, or implies, it is the only true path to God.

Conversely, pandeism states that human beings are part of an incomprehensibly intelligent and powerful Creator, and all the factors theists claim are expressions of the ineffable Creator filtered through our limited, if often spiritually inclined, minds.

Pandeism is sufficient to account for all the features claimed by theism without the need for anthropomorphic God(s) or the Devil to explain them. Indeed, it cannot be assumed the Creator is a conscious and active deity.

The Creator may not intervene in the universe, nor create spiritual forces that do so. All the laws of nature by which the universe operates are a fundamental part of the creation. If the Creator is conscious and does intervene it must be through the processes of creation, not arbitrary miraculous events.

Such are the implications of the rational trinity of Pandeism. Theistic religions are not dismissed, but understood as various spiritual expressions relating to creation. Nor are they, individually or collectively, expressions of ultimate truth. And neither does Pandeism make such an arrogant claim. It is itself a limited, if rational, response to creation and its Creator.

 

Pandeism

The following is based on, “Why Pandeism is Better than Theism: an Essay” by K.M. is posted on www.koilas.org.

Part 3 – Religion

So, why religion at all? Human beings, it seems, have intuitively used religious ideas to express what is essentially inexpressible. Through pre-history, a far longer period than that of recorded history, it appears mankind speculated on metaphysical matters.

Recorded history is a worldwide litany of spiritual visions, encounters with god(s) and divine communications. These became culturally modulated into a variety of faiths and formal expressions, usually spawning a priesthood as guardians and interpreters of religion.

The sceptical reductionist would dismiss all such notions as being the product of pre-scientific understanding; that revelations only occur in the minds of recipients, apparently answered prayers being grossly outnumbered by those unanswered and miracles are either delusion, coincidence or fraudulent.

Evolutionary biology may concede that past religious belief may have conferred some competitive advantage, while insisting they are expressions, ultimately, of fear. Such reductionism, though, demands that every religious event or notion in the entire history of humanity is an error or a fraud.

It has to be accepted that the wide variety of metaphysical or religious claims often conflict, supposedly eternal truths become modified to incorporate new factors and that a significant number of people have not and do not have religious experiences or sensibilities.

Religions and religious affiliations are undoubtedly culturally determined. Any one particular faith is largely made up of those born into it. Nuanced varieties do develop within a given faith and people do convert, while those who fall out if faith become apostates and atheists who continue to hold at least the moral and cultural precepts of their former faith.

An alternative explanation for the multitudinous and often conflicting mutually exclusive faiths is that they are the imperfect partial reflection of a greater, perhaps ineffable, truth. Humanity has an intuitive, subconscious awareness of what is an undefined and undefinable divine creator and creation.

A religious manifestation that is cross-cultural is mysticism. Through meditation and even mind-expanding/altering drugs there seems to be a common replicable observation of oneness with the universe that has a spiritual nature bound up within its very fabric.

It maybe the concept of religion has become so tainted by its inflexible and exclusive expressions that now it is more alienating than attractive to many, perhaps most, people. Deism may be able to buck this trend or maybe needs to transcend religion(s) and present itself as the rational philosophy it actually is.

Pandeism in particular can appeal to both the materialist and idealist as neither is refuted by the notion that the universe is the creation and only expression of the divine. Whether as a religion or a philosophy Pandeism can accommodate people from all religious backgrounds and none, while transcending previous religious expressions.

Pandeism

Part 2 – First Principles

A fundamental epistemological question is, how is it we know anything at all? We can begin with our own existence; that we can contemplate our own existence is as sure an indication as possible that we do actually exist.

We also experience thoughts that are not our own which is indicative of the existence of others. This could be illusory, but that implies the existence of at least one other entity to create the illusion or we are utterly solipsistic, in which case use of the word “we” is mistaken.

There are two possibilities, either the universe is real or an illusion. If it is the latter it continues to be presented as reality and we can only interact with it on that basis. And actually there are no grounds for presuming the universe is anything other than real.

Our senses provide useful information in the day to day world, but there are problems of scale when contemplating the universe. At the macro level, the universe is too vast for our senses, and at the micro, too small.

Nonetheless, we are able to draw conclusions even if full comprehension is beyond us. Every tangible thing in the universe, including us, is made from molecules. These are constructed from atoms created by stellar fusion and obey strict rules. They consist of sub-atomic particles extending beyond sub-quarks.

At every level materials are self-organizing according to the dynamics of the universe: gravity, speed of light, attractive and repulsive forces acting on electrons and protons. For all this to take place there is a requirement for the universe to be finely tuned. If it was even slightly otherwise than it is, none of what there is could be.

The universe has the necessary complexity for all the processes required for the eventual emergence of sentient and intelligent life from sub-atomic particles largely made up of space. It is also orderly enough for intelligent life to come to an understanding or those processes and learn to manipulate them to create technology from the wheel to particle colliders.

This is the salient point, the universe is susceptible to intelligent manipulation, admittedly relatively small scale as far as human achievement so far. Nonetheless, design appears to be a fundamental feature of the universe, whether intelligent in the human sense or immanent in a universal sense.

For pandeism, that which is commonly called God is manifested as the universe, the divine cause of all subsequent effects. There isn’t a supernatural deity to be appealed to as deity is expressed in and through creation, which is why it operates according to discernible laws and is comprehensible to us.

Essentially we, and any other intelligent sentient life in the universe, are proof the universe is aware of its own existence. The designs we concoct reflect the nature of design operating universally, demonstrating that design is a first principle of the universe.

Pandeism

Introduction

 

“Why Pandeism is Better than Theism: an Essay” by K.M. is posted on www.koilas.org. This is the basis of what follows, a series of pieces on the subject of pandeism that not only précis K.M.’s exposition, but also reflect on it.

 

Part 1 – Defining Terms

 

Princeton University’s ‘WordNet’ dictionary is cited for a definition. Pandeism is “…the belief that God created the universe and its phenomena by becoming the universe, thereafter the sole manifestation of God.”

This is supported by the Encyclopedia Britannica. “Pandeism…attempted to unite aspects of Deism with pantheism, (and) held that through the act of creation God became the universe. There is thus no theological need to posit any special relationship between God and creation; rather, God is the universe and not a transcendent entity which created and subsequently governs it.”

Both these definitions, largely in agreement, indicate a polar opposite to the supernatural, anthropomorphic depictions of God propounded by most religions, especially the three Abrahamic ones. God cannot be supernatural, above or beyond nature, because God has become and is nature, all of it.

This also means that every aspect of the universe is a part manifestation of God. Patently, every particle, system and galaxy is an element of the universe as a whole, so if the universe is the total manifestation of God, then any individual feature of the universe must be a feature of God.

To claim pandeism as being better than theism may appear to be positing a moral superiority. However, the use of ‘better’ in this context is to state that pandeism provides a more suitably logical explanation of the relationship between creator and creation, being on and the same, than transcendent model favoured by theism.

Pandeism also counters the tendency towards human self-promotion with theism suggesting humanity has some special place in creation, or has a more significant role or destiny – Man being the image of God.

Ironically, atheism suffers from the same tendency to human self-promotion in its opposition to theism. Essentially, whether stated as such or not, atheism total denial of God implies that as far as is known Man is the most intelligent, the superior form, in the universe.

Theism encourages, wilfully or not, people to embrace what is comforting over what can be shown to be true. This can lead to ideas conflicting with science or bending of supposed divine principles to make them comply with science. Pandeism does neither of these, indeed it embraces science as presently our best way to insights into the workings of the universe, and therefore by God.

Religion and War

 

There is a popular conception that if religion could be abolished a primary cause of conflict and war would go with it. Current belligerence in the name of Islam is often cited, or the historical religious wars of Christianity, still with current echoes, are raised.

This, though, ducks the issue, which is human culpability. It’s along the lines of the childish excuse, “He made me do it”, to blame another, in this case God, and so shirk taking responsibility. Religion can be used to recruit the blindly faithful to the flag, but so can nationalism or a political cause.

Religion can be very effective in this as it purports to transmit the actual will of God, when in reality it is very much a human construct. Religious traditions develop and consolidate over many generations and can appear to be the timeless commands of God.

For instance, during a recent radio interview concerning extreme temperatures in Pakistan, a Moslem woman explained the difficulty this posed during Ramadan. From sunrise to sunset fasting requires abstinence from drinking even water.

While this is an impressive display of personal disciple it nonetheless remains a human originated stricture. Religious scriptures can no doubt be quoted, but they, Koran, Bible or Talmud, are of human authorship.

Deists would point out that the created universe works according to identifiable laws, with inherent mechanisms. On a hot day, thirst is the natural trigger to drink and doing so is not a sin or breaking some divine ordinance. Not imbibing a glass of water is a human choice not a divine one.

Similarly, perpetrating violence comes from motivations that are all too human. Newsreel footage from the First World War exists of priests showering paraded troops with holy water from essentially a bucket with a broad paintbrush. However, there can be little doubt that that conflict arose from political and economic causes, not by celestial direction.

Frederick the Great described himself as a philosopher, which in the 18^th century meant a declaration of atheism. He acquired the epithet “the Great” due to his embarking on military campaigns for the expansion of Prussia. Man requires no help or sanction from God to wage war.

There may be myriad reasons for, and causes of, war which might involve massive armies and prolonged fighting, or individual acts of violence. However, justifiable or otherwise those reasons and causes may be, perpetrators are responsible for them, not religion, not God.

It would be quite possible for deists to become instigators of war; after all, Frederick the Great regarded himself as a citizen of the Enlightenment who applied reason to his belligerent rule. This demonstrates deism or atheism are no guarantors of peace. The difference being neither can use God as an excuse.

Man must accept and bear the responsibility for his or her actions.

 

Revelation

 

In his seminal book, “The Age of Reason”, Thomas Paine observed the following, “Every national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals.”

This form of divine communication has been claimed as direct, as when God delivered His commandments to Moses or via His son Jesus. Alternatively, angelic messengers have been employed; Gabriel’s annunciation to Mary or delivering Allah’s words directly to Mohammed.

Accepting these at face value for the moment, they undoubtedly constitute revelation. The difficulty, however, is that such is only revelatory for Moses, Mary and Mohammed. Even if greater numbers can be claimed for those who heard the divine word of God’s son, it was still only revelation for them.

What was subsequently written in the Talmud, Bible or Koran can at best only be received second hand by those who read it or hear it read. In reality, considering these three books were compiled well after the supposed event, as well as translation, interpretation and redaction, what is presented is anything but revelation,

As Paine wrote, “But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person…it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.”

This does not mean that what is written in religious tracts cannot be considered and reflected on, but it should always be kept in mind that they are the words and works of men, not divine communications, no matter how inspired they may appear.

Deism makes no claims to possess sacred books dictated by God, indeed it refutes their very existence. Nature and the cosmos, being for deists, the only known divine works, are the gospels looked to through the lens of reason.

As such, this is the true source of revelation. It is for each individual to draw deist conclusions from what can be observed and experienced in nature, the only source for recognising intimations of a non-anthropomorphic deity whose being is beyond human comprehension.

Deists do not preach because this way of seeing is open to everyone and does not require mediation through others. Deists offer deism as a possibility, but it is up to each person to open themselves to seeking and experiencing revelation for themselves.

Does God Exist?

 

This question is considered by many philosophers to be one of the irresolvable conundrums. Essentially, it cannot be known absolutely whether God exists or not. Indeed, philosophically, the proper position to take may be agnosticism.

However, religion has played a significant role in human life to date, being manifested in a variety of ways. Today, atheism is widely considered to be the smart position to hold, with many claiming it to be superior to belief.

Faith is mocked as staunch belief in an entity for which there isn’t a shred of evidence: worse, it is akin to advocating the existence of fairies or Santa Claus. Here though there is a category error: fairies and Santa Claus demonstrably belong in the realm of childhood and most people, adults and children, know what they are and look like.

This is not true of God. Islam rejects any possibility of representing Allah and Judaism used Yahweh to signify God, originally not a name, rather an unpronounceable collection of letters. Christianity has given God a human face in Christ, but even then that is only an aspect of God who is ineffably greater.

The point is that while atheists could be correct, there is no objective way of establishing the case one way or the other, it is as much a belief system as theism, both being faiths profoundly held. It often seems the God atheists vehemently do not believe in is not a God theists do.

Agnostics draw a perfectly reasonable conclusion by recognising that neither contrary position can be verified. However, this does not prevent people from drawing another reasonable conclusion from their own observations and experiences.

The universe, possibly a multiverse, is a dynamic system operating by comprehensible laws. While chance does play its part, the cosmos is not just an agglomeration of random events. Is there purpose in creation? Human beings know there is at least purpose in their own lives, therefore purpose can be shown to be a factor.

This leads some to posit a Prime Mover or Grand Designer, which is not to suggest some human-like being on a grander scale. Both phrases can be picked apart if they’re taken literally, but accepting the limitations of language to describe what may always lie beyond human comprehension, they can be used indicatively.

Deism adopts this provisional position, provisional because it cannot be absolute and desist make no such claim to infallibility. They may also prefer the Latin Deus to the Greek Theas, to differentiate themselves from previous considerations and speculations about the divine.

So, does God exist? For deists, Deus does.