> I think you err by assuminng that my position on
> pantheism was an ontological one - i.e. a position on
> the existence of some non-descript entity called god.
> The questions itself is even more absurd that that
> pertaining the 30 pound snail in Carrol's posting. At
> least you know what to look for when searching for a
> 30 pound snail, whereas with god - this is really a
> humpty dumpty word that means anything that the
> speakers want it to mean, that is, nothing in
> particular.
Carrol's exasperated argument about the futility of trying to disprove the existence of God was apparently motivated by... my allusion to the futility of trying to disprove the existence of God! If Carrol really read what I wrote, then something else must have pushed his button.
Apparently you also believe that I tried to dispute the existence of God. But I didn't.
I wasn't trying to refute frontally *your* arguments either. I just meant to -- perhaps not very clearly -- state why pantheism does not appeal to me intellectually. Now, pantheism is a theistic position. That is, it postulates the existence of God (or god) in every thing in nature.
What I said (or meant to say, at least) is that, underlying any pan-theology is an idealist ontological argument. Of course, theism or deism cannot be reduced to mere ontological idealism. And I was trying to rationalize why ontological idealism (which is not the same as theism) may have appeal to others. But, no, I wasn't attributing any position to you.
> On the other hand, if you take an epistemological
> position on the issue, pantheism simply assumes that
> nature is one, but does not limit its scope to what
> can be currently observed with our scientific
> apparatus (as positivism does). The "spiritual" (i.e.
> beyond the scope of current empirical science) becomes
> merely a metaphor for the "not yet known, but
> possible" which is an epistomeological postion not an
> ontological one. In other words, it says it is
> possible to extend our knowledge to the levels that
> currently are beyond human comprehension (just like
> modern neuroscience is beyond comprehension of the
> 17th century medical knowledge) - without saying
> anything about the ontological status of the subject
> of that knowledge i.e. whether it is "natural" or
> "supernatural."
Frankly, the idea that we need (as an intellectual stimulus or whatever) some sort of theism (which, again, postulates the existence of god) to admit that our knowledge -- scientific knowledge in particular -- is limited sounds to me very lame. I'd think that the possible epistemological stances vis the scope of our knowledge are by no means limited to pantheism and positivism. (And I'm not so sure that modern positivism excludes the possibility of phenomena that are not yet known or observed.)
I don't necessarily disagree with the rest of what you wrote.
Julio