Scientific Pantheism: interesting web site

Jan 10 14:43 UTC 1998

Participants in this conference might find this interesting:

             members.aol.com/Heraklit1/index.htm

It's a site devoted to "Scientific Pantheism," which it calls "the
religion for the Third Millenium."  There is a long section about the
relationship between Scientific Pantheism and paganism, which the
author sees as the relationship between theory and practice.  (Or at
least one kind of practice.)

Here's a brief excerpt from the first page:

"What Pantheism believes.

At the heart of pantheism is reverence of the universe as divine
and for the natural earth as sacred.

When we say THE UNIVERSE IS DIVINE we are not talking about a 
supernatural being. We are talking about the way our senses and our 
emotions force us to respond to the overwhelming mystery and power that 
surrounds us.

We are part of the universe. Our earth was created from the universe and 
will one day be reabsorbed into the universe. 

We are made of the same matter and energy as the universe. We are not in 
exile here: we are at home. It is only here that we will ever get the 
chance to see the divine face to face. If we believe our real home is 
not here but in a land that lies beyond death - if we believe that the 
divine is found only in old books, or old buildings, or inside our head 
- then we will see this real, vibrant, luminous world as if through a 
glass darkly.

The universe creates us, preserves us, destroys us. It is deep and old 
beyond our ability to reach with our senses. It is beautiful beyond our 
ability to describe in words. It is complex beyond our ability to fully 
grasp in science. We must relate to the universe with humility, awe, 
reverence, celebration and the search for deeper understanding - in 
other words, in many of the ways that believers relate to their God.

This divinity is everywhere inside you and outside you and you can never 
be separated from it.  Whatever else is taken from you, this can never 
be taken from you.

Wherever you are, it's there with you.
Wherever you go, it goes with you.
Whatever happens to you, it remains with you.

When we say THE EARTH IS SACRED, we mean it with just as much commitment 
and reverence as believers speaking about their church or mosque, or the 
relics of their saints. But again we are not talking about supernatural 
beings. We are saying this: 

We are part of nature. Nature made us and at our death we will be 
reabsorbed into nature. We are at home in nature and in our bodies. This 
is where we belong. This is the only place where we can find and make 
our paradise, not in some imaginary world on the other side of the 
grave. If nature is the only paradise, then separation from nature is 
the only hell. When we destroy nature, we create hell on earth for other 
species and for ourselves.

Nature is our mother, our home, our security, our peace, our past and 
our future. We should treat natural things and habitats as believers 
treat their temples and shrines, as sacred - to be revered and preserved 
in all their intricate and fragile beauty."

response 2 of 33:

Jan 11 06:54 UTC 1998

I really identify with this strongly. I dont' like the nihilist undercurrent,
though (when we die, we cease to be...)

response 4 of 33:

Jan 11 19:00 UTC 1998

true, it occurred to me after i posted that nihilist was a mighty strong
word...

response 6 of 33:

Jan 30 04:34 UTC 1998

I read through a few more of the pages, and it indeed sounds appropraite. 
I also disagree with him on a few small points, and I don't think I could
literally belive a lot of what he says, but it is a very interesting place
to think from, and there are some ideas that really struck a chord with me.
I'll have to think about this more.

response 8 of 33:

Feb 6 23:18 UTC 1998

Lesson #1:  Be very very careful what you learn, and that it has meaning to
you.  Don't just "learn anything."  
Lesson #2:  Feel what you need, don't just "learn" it.
<font dissapears in a mysterious cloud of smoke>

response 10 of 33:

Feb 7 06:06 UTC 1998

   and lesson 4: question *everything* that you learn as vigorously
as you can. should you ever encounter a "teacher" who expects you to
regard him/her as the final, absolute authority, flee. immediately.
don't look back. 

response 12 of 33:

Feb 21 21:38 UTC 1998

        Void's #4 seems to be violently at odds with font's #1 - if you're
searching for a particular thing, the pattern-recognition engine in your
mind will gladly oblige you.  

response 14 of 33:

Feb 23 18:01 UTC 1998

        Hey, I used to think _Stay_ by Shakespear's Sister was a wonderfully
romantic song, until I learned it was supposed to be sung by a Catwoman from
Mars for her astronaut lover, and that "you'd better hope and pray that you
make it safe back to your own world" was quite literal and unpoetic. :)

response 16 of 33:

Feb 25 18:26 UTC 1998

        Well, it destroyed the poetry for me.  I told a friend, and she said,
"Yeah, well, Gabriel's _Kiss that Frog_ was really about oral sex, too."  I
re-listened to the song and almost threw up.  I've since not tried to explain
my dissappointment to my friends.

response 18 of 33:

Feb 25 22:47 UTC 1998

Hey, if a woman performs oral sex on me, I'm quite willing to
treat her lke a princess.  >8)

response 20 of 33:

Feb 26 09:26 UTC 1998

What's wrong with having your own private interpertation of a song?  As an
artist, I am fully aware that not everyone will take pictures, songs, etc
in the same way as I intended.  In fact, my own art is one of the few places
where I will keep my mouth shut about it's meaning and listen to other people
talk about it, and usually they come up with equally valid and  beautiful
meanings to the art as what drove me to do it.  
Oh, and I don't have any problems with oral sex... I just thought that this
point should be pointed out.

response 22 of 33:

Feb 27 22:56 UTC 1998

Well, whether or not you have any problems with oral sex, I imagine it would
be something of a dissappointment to discover that your associations with a
song aren't 'valid'.

response 24 of 33:

Feb 28 20:10 UTC 1998

        Because the song's not about Bleu Cheese, either, and anyone who
has listened to it and believes it's about Bleu Cheese isn't paying attention
to the song at all.

        Accepting that people will make their own interpretations of anything
which is less than clear-cut (and many things that are), and that people often
carry an enormous amount of emotional and perceptual baggage into their
interpretations, doesn't mean that all interpretations are equally valid.