A religion old or new, 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 the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.—Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot (1994)
Last week there was an excellent post on Metafilter (which has been experiencing a renaissance as of late) about Heraclitus the Obscure. "Who the hell is Heraclitus the Obscure?" you're asking yourself, as I did, and so I'm quoting the entire main post below. It's an awesome post. (Comments about the post can be found here.)
Heraclitus of Ephesus, sometimes called Heraclitus the Obscure: We only know him through 100 gnomic quotes and aphorisms--I loves me some gnomic aphorisms!--all direct from or inferred in the comments of various authors of Classical literature, of which no one steps into the same river twice is the best known. Mark Cohen, J. H. Lesher and Cynthia Freeman provide excellent introductions. John Burnett's 1920 translation is another academic standard. Jonathan Barnes. whose Penguin Classic The Early Greek Philosophers has the best contemporary translation, wrote Heraclitus attracts exegetes as an empty jampot wasps; and each new wasp discerns traces of his own favourite flavour. Here are the jampots of Friedrich Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell and Martin Heidegger. And here, in passing, is a taste of the jampot of Jorge Luis Borges. Heraclitus coined the word enantiodromia. John William Corrington's Logos, Lex, And Law is also of interest. Heraclitus figures strongly in the Archetypal Psychology of Carl Jung and James Hillman, the latter especially in his discussion of the Soul.
posted by y2karl at 5:59 AM PST
You didn't read all that did you? And you didn't follow the links. Too bad; it's brilliant stuff. (One of the best Metafilter posts I've seen in a long time; y2karl put a lot of work into it.)
Let me summarize: Heraclitus was an early Greek philosopher who lived in Ephesus a few hundred years before Christ. Little is known of his life, and not much survives of his thought. What does survive was often reported second- or third-hand. Heraclitus was a materialist. Though some of what he taught seems absurd now—he thought the sun was no larger than a foot—he had a profound influence on later Greek philosophers.
Plato said of him: "Heraclitus, you know, says that everything moves on and that nothing is at rest; and, comparing existing things to the flow of a river, he says that you could not step into the same river twice."
That's all quite nice, but what really caught my attention while reading about Heraclitus were a couple of references to a concept known as scientific pantheism. These two words seem at odds to me. I think "scientific monotheism" is a contradiction, how absurd must "scientific pantheism" be? Still, I followed some links.
It turns out that my internal definition of pantheism was all wrong. I'd always thought, for example, that the Greeks were pantheistic because they worshipped a large number of deities. The definition of pantheism is something altogether different. "First used by John Toland on 1705, the term pantheist denotes one who holds both that everything there is constitutes a unity, and that this unity is divine." (The Oxford Companion to Philosophy)
To quote one site:
Do you feel a deep sense of peace and belonging and wonder in the midst of nature, in a forest, by the ocean, or on a mountain top? Are you speechless with awe when you look up at the sky on a clear moonless night and see the Milky Way strewn with stars as thick as sand on a beach? When you see breakers crashing on a rocky shore, or hear wind rustling in a poplar's leaves, are you uplifted by the energy and creativity of existence?It's easy for me to give an enthusiastic yes to all of these questions. Just last month I wrote in this space:Do you find it impossible to believe in supernatural beings, and difficult to conceive of anything more worthy of reverence than the beauty of nature or the power of the universe?
If you answered yes to these questions, then you will feel thoroughly at home in the World Pantheist Movement. Our caring and celebratory approach focuses on nature rather than the supernatural, on what we can see and do and live out rather than on invisible entities that we can only imagine.
When I'm alone in the woods I feel a sort of energy coursing through my being, some sort of verdant force that quickens my mind and lightens my feet. I feel alive. I feel kinship with the rocks and trees and ferns and streams. I want to run wild, barefoot through the forest. When I am alone in the woods, I can almost believe in a God. Not your God maybe, nor your brother's God, but some sort of God nonetheless.It would seem that the pantheists would be natural fit for me. Yet when I read the pantheist manifesto something rings false. Yes, I believe most of the movement's tenets, yet something seems too, too, I don't know, too hokey about all this, as if it's some sort of New Age religion. The idea of pantheism excites me, but its practice looks like Unitarianism, and leaves the same bland taste in my mouth. (Maybe part of my personal creed is an aversion to organize religion of any sort.)
Still, I like how the pantheists have appropriated the term "god". I like their ideals. I admire their aims. I especially admire the manner in which the pantheists attempt to reconcile scientific knowledge with spirituality. From a pantheism FAQ:
Is Pantheism just atheism or humanism in disguise?No. Like atheism and humanism, pantheism does not believe in a personal God separate from the Universe. Like them it is critical of beliefs that depend on faith in impossibilities, or unproven revelations in ancient books.
But atheism is essentially defined by a negative. It states that there is no God, and nothing more. It is not a coherent philosophy. Humanism has tried to develop a positive philosophy, but sometimes this has been too anthropocentric, too confident of human superiority.
Pantheism goes far beyond atheism in offering a positive approach to the world and a a reverent and religious attitude towards nature and the universe. It affirms our unity with these, and rejects the idea of human mastery over nature or human pre-eminence in the cosmos. It takes our relationship to nature and to the universe as the centre of our religion, our ethics and our aesthetics.
Am I a pantheist? I don't know. I need to think. I need to read more about the concept.
Are you a pantheist?
On this day at foldedspace.org
2005 — Monday Night Football Tonight, the Monday Night Football crowd gathered for the first time this year. I spent much of the evening quizzing Steve about Africa.
NO!