Panpsychism; an essay on pantheism (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, September 04, 2017, 15:09 (2636 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: A discussion from a professor of religion:
http://nautil.us/blog/the-case-for-cosmic-pantheism?utm_source=Nautilus&utm_campaig...

QUOTE: Spinoza’s God is nature itself: all pervasive, impersonal, and unmiraculous.
Pantheism denies an anthropomorphic creator, and so it’s also often accused of rejecting divinity altogether.

QUOTE: Thinking about a pantheist multiverse prompts us to ask a host of psychological, ethical, philosophical, and even theological questions. They may be controversial, and they will certainly be unanswerable in any final sense. But for those who are interested in the history and future of science and religion, such questions should give rise to a far more productive conversation than the tiresome debate over the existence of a supernatural patriarch.

DAVID’s comment: It seems panpsychism and pantheism are the same concept. Unlike this author I don't think one can explain the existence of the universe by stating it is naturally mental. That is why I embrace the panentheist view: the universe is sourced by the consciousness of God.

I can’t find any mention of panpsychism, but I agree that they have a lot in common. However, pantheism as far as I know does NOT entail Nature being conscious. (Reblak’s pantheism does, although for some reason he hasn’t equated his “Mother Nature” with pantheism or with panpsychism.) As far as the article is concerned, I find it somewhat unenlightening, since most of us know that there are lots of unanswerable questions, and in fact “the tiresome debate over the existence of a supernatural patriarch" has probably sparked off most of them! Here’s one: if there is a universal consciousness that is not interested in us, why should we be interested in it?