Subject: Atheism/Pantheism
Date: Jan 21, 2004
From: Flash Light
To: Dr. Chic Schissel

Dr. Schissel:

Describing Stalin, Pol Pot, et al. you say, "The argument can be made that these leaders were not secular, but believers in faith-based social systems whose dogma was as rigid as (other) religions." If bad secular government can be called a religion, the words "secular" and "religion" lose meaning. Can we agree the examples show secular government is as prey to dogma as is theist government, and agree to put blame on "rigid dogma" rather than secularism or theism?

Just as your "'subroutines' like morality, etc., seem to have some material embodiment in the sense that there is evidence that they help a society function." So too there is evidence that theistic moral systems can " help a society function." I do not deny there is a peril when any moral system falls prey to dogma which denies the rights of the individual, however again it is such dogma that poses the danger, not secularism or theism.

As to what I mean by "Logical Pantheism," I have the current tenets listed on my website. I'll repeat two, "A belief system to a believer is like an operating system to a computer," and, "The gods exist as neural software in the minds of believers." I do not think a belief in the supernatural is required to consider the logic of these propositions. The word "pantheism," as you suggest, "eliminates" the question of the supernatural, or at least finesses it.

You ask, "Surely rules are desirable: does God make the rules; does Nature make the rules; does God-Nature make the rules? Or does a priesthood make the rules? And does it make a real difference?" Some rules are dictated by nature and humans struggle to understand them, e.g. Force = Mass x Acceleration. "Moral rules" are written by humans: long dead scribes, members of a current priesthood, secular dictators, democratically elected representatives, etc.. It is a logical fallacy to argue "from the source," i.e. even a fool may speak the truth occasionally; one can't conclude an idea is not valid merely because it is spoken by a fool, a theist or an atheist. Can we agree therefore that it really doesn't matter who makes the moral rules; what matters is whether they "help a society function," and whether they "respect the rights of individuals?"

Thus I say the meaningful issue is not whether a "moral system" (whether secular or theistic) is "true." All "moral systems" are, of necessity, based on some premise which can't be proven "true," because you "can't derive an ought from an is." I suggest any moral system is based on "faith" in particular ideals.

The meaningful question appears to be whether a "moral system" is useful to society, and surely an important criterion of the usefulness of any "moral system," is whether it respects the rights of all individuals. That proposition itself is a matter of faith, but I believe it shows the possibility of finding the terms for a shared faith among secularists and theists. I believe finding such a "shared faith" offers our best hope for a peaceful future, and this is the intent of Logical Pantheism.

I ask neither atheists nor theists to "convert" to Logical Pantheism, although they are welcome to if they wish. Rather, I'm suggesting that as an atheist you try a Logical Pantheist approach to dialog with theists: Instead of beginning with the premise, "your god doesn't exist," try, "I agree the gods exist (if only as neural software), however I, as an atheist, do not choose to worship any of them. Now, let's move on and see what articles of faith we can agree upon, such as justice, morality, human rights, etc." Whether this approach will result in "moral progress" remains to be seen.

My hope is that, on one hand the theists will no longer feel the need to "demonize" atheists for their supposed lack of faith, and will instead find themselves trying to discuss issues of faith using logic rather than dogma. On the other hand, my hope is the Dahmers of the world will not imagine their faith in morality need end if their faith in a god does.

Respectfully,

Flash