PANTHEISM AND AGNOSTICISM
Pantheism is a concept most closely associated with Vedanta – the Hindu religion. According to this
philosophy, God is not separate from the universe – as in both deism and the Judeo-Christian idea.
Instead, God IS the universe. The word, "pan" means "all" or "everywhere," so a pantheist believes
that God is everywhere and in all things. Every human being, animal, insect and rock are all equal in
value because they are all part of God's body. The idea that we are separate from each other and
must compete to survive is only an illusion, called "maya." And this "veil of illusion" is the source of
all conflict and unhappiness. Like a deist, a pantheist believes that it is pointless to beg God for
favors. So a pantheist does not "pray," he "meditates." He is not trying to send a message to God.
He's only trying to wake up – to shake off the veil of maya and realize that he IS God. This is
frequently referred to as "Self-Realization." "Self," in this case, is spelled with a capital letter, and
refers to the "God Within." When a pantheist dies, then, his ultimate goal is not to SEE God, but to
BE God. And in pursuit of this goal, the philosophy also involves the concepts of karma and
reincarnation. Human life is regarded as only an intermediate level on the way to godhood. If you
live a wicked life you will be reborn into a lower caste, or even as an animal or insect. But if you live a
virtuous and spiritual life, you'll be reincarnated as an upper-class person or an angel. This is the
law of causation, called "karma." An individual soul may go through hundreds of reincarnations
before he is finally reunited with the ultimate godhead which then extinguishes his feelings of
alienation and unhappiness.
If Vedantists were really consistent in what they say and do, then atheist objections to this philosophy
would be the same as for deism. That is, if God IS the universe, then why not just call it Universe?
What is the point of adding a confusion-factor by calling it "God?" In fact, however, Hindus, Taoists,
Theosophists, Hare Krishnas and other pantheists are not consistent; so by claiming the existence of
one supernatural creature, named "God," why not an infinite number? Consequently, the major
pantheist religions are also polytheistic. And worshipers pray to the minor deities just like the ancient
Greeks and Romans did. The only difference is that these pantheistic gods and demons are
supposed to be different manifestations of the One Universal God. But this, of course is essentially
the same as multiple-monotheism, and subject to the same criticism. Furthermore, pantheists
generally believe in magical incantations, spells, ghosts, and all the other paraphernalia of
supernaturalism.
Another criticism of pantheism is the problem of karma – because this philosophy leads to an attitude
of fatalism and prejudice. Those who believe in karma are the ultimate conservatives. They are
opposed to any attempt at scientific advancement or social improvement, because that would be
contrary to "God's Will." They approve of the caste system and oppose equality because, after all,
those at the bottom of the social structure deserve to be there. They were sinners in a former life
and this is their rightful punishment. By the same token, the upper classes deserve to be wealthy
because they earned their present positions in former lives. Even animals are part of the caste
system, and certain animals, such as cattle, may not be eaten because they contain human souls.
The result of this kind of philosophy is an all-pervasive lethargy. The entire nation of India seems to
be suffering from clinical depression. Devout pantheists who believe in karma spend all their time
meditating and feel that it's futile to do anything else; so the result is starvation, disease, and
universal misery.
This entire concept of fatalism is totally opposed to the philosophy of science. Scientific atheism is
an optimistic, exuberant way of life. We believe that man is completely free to be anything he
chooses. We create our own fate. And the law of cause and effect applies only to this life – not to
some imaginary life of the past and future.
Well, those are the major varieties of theism, and the reasons that atheists object to them.
The next concept to be discussed is "agnosticism." It derives from the Greek word, "gnosis," which
meant knowledge. And in the early days of the Christian Church there was a group who called
themselves "Gnostics." They believed that through certain kinds of spiritual exercises they had direct
knowledge of "God's Will," without going through the intermediary of a priest. Eventually, however,
the Catholic Church declared Gnosticism as heresy, so they were all liquidated and most of their
writings burned.
In the nineteenth century, when Charles Darwin published his "Origin of Species," he was
thunderously denounced from all pulpits as an agent of Satan. But a famous biologist named
Thomas H. Huxley came to his defense and challenged the Bishop of Canterbury to a public debate
about the concept of evolution. In this debate, he said that the Bishop claimed to be a Gnostic – that
is, to have absolute knowledge of God's Will. Therefore Huxley called himself an Agnostic –
someone who did NOT claim to know God's Will. And this is where the word is generally thought to
have originated.
Today, however, the term is normally used in three different ways. First of all, there's the person who
is philosophically committed to the idea that no one can ever prove or disprove the existence of God.
Secondly, there's the serious student who is torn by the conflict between science and religion, but
who realizes that he doesn't yet know enough about either position to make a choice.
And finally, there's the person who simply has no interest in philosophy or politics. He doesn't
understand either science or religion and doesn't care about their political significance. This type
person is usually very self-centered, doesn't keep up with the news, doesn't bother to vote, and
takes the simplistic position that preachers are all crooks who are only after his money; and scientists
are all descendants of Doctor Frankenstein, Doctor Strangelove, and Darth Vader – determined to
either control the world or destroy it in the attempt. So he says a pox on both their houses. One side
is just as bad as the other. He dislikes religion intensely because of their attempts to control his life,
but to make a political commitment to atheism is too much trouble and involves too much risk. So he
sits on the fence and calls himself an agnostic.
Well, the last type person is hopeless, because he is just as anti-intellectual as a theist. It's pointless
to even discuss this subject with him because he isn't interested. The second type person is in
transition, and only needs the kind of information that freethought organizations are designed to
provide. So we shall now direct our attention to the first type. There are two major objections to this
position.
Many agnostics regard themselves as intellectuals. But whether they realize it or not, the assertion
that the existence of God can be neither proved nor disproved is a dogmatic statement, which
indicates an anti-intellectual mind-set. By making such a statement, what the person is saying is that
he has already made up his mind not to take a position on the matter. So he refuses to even listen.
The second objection hinges on a definition of the word, "proof." In common usage, "proof" is any
argument that sounds convincing. Now, in science, when a researcher presents a theory, he must
supply evidence in support of his generalizations. This evidence is published for all the world to
examine; and if the majority of qualified researchers agree with his findings, then his theory is said to
have been "proved." If, however, he provides insufficient evidence; or if the so-called evidence turns
out to be falsified; or if someone else finds an equal amount of evidence to the contrary, then his
argument is said to have been "refuted."
This is the cornerstone of what is called "inductive" logic. And the same logical principles apply to
any debate – including court trials. The prosecutor draws an inference that the defendant committed
a certain crime. And he presents this evidence to the court, while the defense criticizes any evidence
that seems invalid. Jurors must then evaluate the evidence and decide whether or not the
prosecutor has "proved" his case beyond any reasonable doubt. If twelve observers unanimously
agree that the facts support the prosecution's hypothesis, then we say the defendant did, in fact,
commit the crime. If the evidence is inadequate, then they MUST assume the null-hypothesis and
conclude the defendant did NOT commit the crime. This method of argumentation is the only way we
have of determining the truth about anything. It was a great breakthrough in science and
jurisprudence when it was finally realized that only a positive statement can ever be "proved" – by
supporting it with evidence. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to "prove" a universal negative.
Consequently, the burden of proof always lies with the affirmative. Up until about two-hundred years
ago a person could be charged with a crime, and then he had to try to "prove" his innocence. But
how could you possibly "prove" that you did not steal a certain amount of money, for example? What
kind of conclusive evidence could you collect to prove that such a crime never even took place?
Naturally, under these rules of law, to be charged with a crime almost automatically meant conviction;
so millions of innocent people were imprisoned and executed.
The same rules of modern logic have to be applied in the debate about the existence of God. The
burden of proof always lies on the affirmative side – those who claim that there is an objective entity
in the universe which corresponds to their definition of "God." They must present convincing
evidence to support their positive assertion. The burden of the negative position is simply to refute
the evidence presented by the affirmative. If the evidence is shown to be faulty, then the negative
has "proved" its case. It's then up to the audience to decide who has presented the most substantial
case. If the evidence is still convincing, then the affirmative has "proved" its case; if the defense has
shown the evidence to be faulty, then the negative has proved its case. Now, since the dawn of time,
theologians have realized that the burden of proof did, indeed, lie on them; but they have only been
able to come up with about fourteen basic arguments to prove the existence of God, and all of them
have turned out to be based on misinformation and fallacious logic. Of course there is the possibility
that someone in the future will come up with more substantial evidence. But in the meantime we have
to make decisions based on the information at hand. And for the last hundred years, the majority of
philosophers, scientists and scholars have concluded that atheists have indeed proved as
conclusively as anything can be proved that God does not exist.
Debates are not just a matter of entertainment. They are of the utmost importance. In practice the
audience may be a panel of Supreme Court judges, or a congressional investigative committee, or a
group of scientists deciding on the safety of a new product, or an entire nation of voters deciding on
a course of action. In the case of the God debate, the audience is.you. And your decision about
who is right will determine how you spend the rest of your life. So the agnostic position of refusing to
make a decision just doesn't hold up. You have to make hundreds of practical decisions every day.
And do you make these decisions with the assumption that there is a god watching over your
shoulder at all times, or is there not? If so, then which one? And what should you do about it? Shall
you spend your Sundays reading books, or burning them? Should you be studying, or praying?
Should you donate to a freethought organization, or to a church; and if the latter, then which
church? When a television evangelist says that God commands you to vote for a certain political
candidate, do you do it or not? These decisions cannot be avoided, even by the most dedicated
agnostic. Now an agnostic, by definition, is someone who is skeptical of any theistic claims. So in his
daily affairs he must live as though there were no gods. And actions speak louder than words. We
"are" what we "do." Every decision we make is a political commitment, whether we like it or not.
In practical terms then, the hard-line agnostic, like a deist, is basically an atheist, but one who is too
lazy, thoughtless, or fearful, to give up his hypocritical pose of neutrality. He's a freeloader who
wants atheists to fight the battles to protect his freedom to doubt, but refuses to soil his own hands.
He's like a draft-dodger, or an over-aged adolescent who refuses to grow up and accept adult
responsibilities.
philosophy, God is not separate from the universe – as in both deism and the Judeo-Christian idea.
Instead, God IS the universe. The word, "pan" means "all" or "everywhere," so a pantheist believes
that God is everywhere and in all things. Every human being, animal, insect and rock are all equal in
value because they are all part of God's body. The idea that we are separate from each other and
must compete to survive is only an illusion, called "maya." And this "veil of illusion" is the source of
all conflict and unhappiness. Like a deist, a pantheist believes that it is pointless to beg God for
favors. So a pantheist does not "pray," he "meditates." He is not trying to send a message to God.
He's only trying to wake up – to shake off the veil of maya and realize that he IS God. This is
frequently referred to as "Self-Realization." "Self," in this case, is spelled with a capital letter, and
refers to the "God Within." When a pantheist dies, then, his ultimate goal is not to SEE God, but to
BE God. And in pursuit of this goal, the philosophy also involves the concepts of karma and
reincarnation. Human life is regarded as only an intermediate level on the way to godhood. If you
live a wicked life you will be reborn into a lower caste, or even as an animal or insect. But if you live a
virtuous and spiritual life, you'll be reincarnated as an upper-class person or an angel. This is the
law of causation, called "karma." An individual soul may go through hundreds of reincarnations
before he is finally reunited with the ultimate godhead which then extinguishes his feelings of
alienation and unhappiness.
If Vedantists were really consistent in what they say and do, then atheist objections to this philosophy
would be the same as for deism. That is, if God IS the universe, then why not just call it Universe?
What is the point of adding a confusion-factor by calling it "God?" In fact, however, Hindus, Taoists,
Theosophists, Hare Krishnas and other pantheists are not consistent; so by claiming the existence of
one supernatural creature, named "God," why not an infinite number? Consequently, the major
pantheist religions are also polytheistic. And worshipers pray to the minor deities just like the ancient
Greeks and Romans did. The only difference is that these pantheistic gods and demons are
supposed to be different manifestations of the One Universal God. But this, of course is essentially
the same as multiple-monotheism, and subject to the same criticism. Furthermore, pantheists
generally believe in magical incantations, spells, ghosts, and all the other paraphernalia of
supernaturalism.
Another criticism of pantheism is the problem of karma – because this philosophy leads to an attitude
of fatalism and prejudice. Those who believe in karma are the ultimate conservatives. They are
opposed to any attempt at scientific advancement or social improvement, because that would be
contrary to "God's Will." They approve of the caste system and oppose equality because, after all,
those at the bottom of the social structure deserve to be there. They were sinners in a former life
and this is their rightful punishment. By the same token, the upper classes deserve to be wealthy
because they earned their present positions in former lives. Even animals are part of the caste
system, and certain animals, such as cattle, may not be eaten because they contain human souls.
The result of this kind of philosophy is an all-pervasive lethargy. The entire nation of India seems to
be suffering from clinical depression. Devout pantheists who believe in karma spend all their time
meditating and feel that it's futile to do anything else; so the result is starvation, disease, and
universal misery.
This entire concept of fatalism is totally opposed to the philosophy of science. Scientific atheism is
an optimistic, exuberant way of life. We believe that man is completely free to be anything he
chooses. We create our own fate. And the law of cause and effect applies only to this life – not to
some imaginary life of the past and future.
Well, those are the major varieties of theism, and the reasons that atheists object to them.
The next concept to be discussed is "agnosticism." It derives from the Greek word, "gnosis," which
meant knowledge. And in the early days of the Christian Church there was a group who called
themselves "Gnostics." They believed that through certain kinds of spiritual exercises they had direct
knowledge of "God's Will," without going through the intermediary of a priest. Eventually, however,
the Catholic Church declared Gnosticism as heresy, so they were all liquidated and most of their
writings burned.
In the nineteenth century, when Charles Darwin published his "Origin of Species," he was
thunderously denounced from all pulpits as an agent of Satan. But a famous biologist named
Thomas H. Huxley came to his defense and challenged the Bishop of Canterbury to a public debate
about the concept of evolution. In this debate, he said that the Bishop claimed to be a Gnostic – that
is, to have absolute knowledge of God's Will. Therefore Huxley called himself an Agnostic –
someone who did NOT claim to know God's Will. And this is where the word is generally thought to
have originated.
Today, however, the term is normally used in three different ways. First of all, there's the person who
is philosophically committed to the idea that no one can ever prove or disprove the existence of God.
Secondly, there's the serious student who is torn by the conflict between science and religion, but
who realizes that he doesn't yet know enough about either position to make a choice.
And finally, there's the person who simply has no interest in philosophy or politics. He doesn't
understand either science or religion and doesn't care about their political significance. This type
person is usually very self-centered, doesn't keep up with the news, doesn't bother to vote, and
takes the simplistic position that preachers are all crooks who are only after his money; and scientists
are all descendants of Doctor Frankenstein, Doctor Strangelove, and Darth Vader – determined to
either control the world or destroy it in the attempt. So he says a pox on both their houses. One side
is just as bad as the other. He dislikes religion intensely because of their attempts to control his life,
but to make a political commitment to atheism is too much trouble and involves too much risk. So he
sits on the fence and calls himself an agnostic.
Well, the last type person is hopeless, because he is just as anti-intellectual as a theist. It's pointless
to even discuss this subject with him because he isn't interested. The second type person is in
transition, and only needs the kind of information that freethought organizations are designed to
provide. So we shall now direct our attention to the first type. There are two major objections to this
position.
Many agnostics regard themselves as intellectuals. But whether they realize it or not, the assertion
that the existence of God can be neither proved nor disproved is a dogmatic statement, which
indicates an anti-intellectual mind-set. By making such a statement, what the person is saying is that
he has already made up his mind not to take a position on the matter. So he refuses to even listen.
The second objection hinges on a definition of the word, "proof." In common usage, "proof" is any
argument that sounds convincing. Now, in science, when a researcher presents a theory, he must
supply evidence in support of his generalizations. This evidence is published for all the world to
examine; and if the majority of qualified researchers agree with his findings, then his theory is said to
have been "proved." If, however, he provides insufficient evidence; or if the so-called evidence turns
out to be falsified; or if someone else finds an equal amount of evidence to the contrary, then his
argument is said to have been "refuted."
This is the cornerstone of what is called "inductive" logic. And the same logical principles apply to
any debate – including court trials. The prosecutor draws an inference that the defendant committed
a certain crime. And he presents this evidence to the court, while the defense criticizes any evidence
that seems invalid. Jurors must then evaluate the evidence and decide whether or not the
prosecutor has "proved" his case beyond any reasonable doubt. If twelve observers unanimously
agree that the facts support the prosecution's hypothesis, then we say the defendant did, in fact,
commit the crime. If the evidence is inadequate, then they MUST assume the null-hypothesis and
conclude the defendant did NOT commit the crime. This method of argumentation is the only way we
have of determining the truth about anything. It was a great breakthrough in science and
jurisprudence when it was finally realized that only a positive statement can ever be "proved" – by
supporting it with evidence. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to "prove" a universal negative.
Consequently, the burden of proof always lies with the affirmative. Up until about two-hundred years
ago a person could be charged with a crime, and then he had to try to "prove" his innocence. But
how could you possibly "prove" that you did not steal a certain amount of money, for example? What
kind of conclusive evidence could you collect to prove that such a crime never even took place?
Naturally, under these rules of law, to be charged with a crime almost automatically meant conviction;
so millions of innocent people were imprisoned and executed.
The same rules of modern logic have to be applied in the debate about the existence of God. The
burden of proof always lies on the affirmative side – those who claim that there is an objective entity
in the universe which corresponds to their definition of "God." They must present convincing
evidence to support their positive assertion. The burden of the negative position is simply to refute
the evidence presented by the affirmative. If the evidence is shown to be faulty, then the negative
has "proved" its case. It's then up to the audience to decide who has presented the most substantial
case. If the evidence is still convincing, then the affirmative has "proved" its case; if the defense has
shown the evidence to be faulty, then the negative has proved its case. Now, since the dawn of time,
theologians have realized that the burden of proof did, indeed, lie on them; but they have only been
able to come up with about fourteen basic arguments to prove the existence of God, and all of them
have turned out to be based on misinformation and fallacious logic. Of course there is the possibility
that someone in the future will come up with more substantial evidence. But in the meantime we have
to make decisions based on the information at hand. And for the last hundred years, the majority of
philosophers, scientists and scholars have concluded that atheists have indeed proved as
conclusively as anything can be proved that God does not exist.
Debates are not just a matter of entertainment. They are of the utmost importance. In practice the
audience may be a panel of Supreme Court judges, or a congressional investigative committee, or a
group of scientists deciding on the safety of a new product, or an entire nation of voters deciding on
a course of action. In the case of the God debate, the audience is.you. And your decision about
who is right will determine how you spend the rest of your life. So the agnostic position of refusing to
make a decision just doesn't hold up. You have to make hundreds of practical decisions every day.
And do you make these decisions with the assumption that there is a god watching over your
shoulder at all times, or is there not? If so, then which one? And what should you do about it? Shall
you spend your Sundays reading books, or burning them? Should you be studying, or praying?
Should you donate to a freethought organization, or to a church; and if the latter, then which
church? When a television evangelist says that God commands you to vote for a certain political
candidate, do you do it or not? These decisions cannot be avoided, even by the most dedicated
agnostic. Now an agnostic, by definition, is someone who is skeptical of any theistic claims. So in his
daily affairs he must live as though there were no gods. And actions speak louder than words. We
"are" what we "do." Every decision we make is a political commitment, whether we like it or not.
In practical terms then, the hard-line agnostic, like a deist, is basically an atheist, but one who is too
lazy, thoughtless, or fearful, to give up his hypocritical pose of neutrality. He's a freeloader who
wants atheists to fight the battles to protect his freedom to doubt, but refuses to soil his own hands.
He's like a draft-dodger, or an over-aged adolescent who refuses to grow up and accept adult
responsibilities.
| (Next) HUMANISM AND UNITARIANISM |
