Lazonby

Scientific Pantheism: A Manifesto.

Scientific pantheism is not atheism, for it acknowledges the existence of a supreme power responsible for creation. However, the choice to label that power ?god? rests entirely with the individual, and bears no substantive implications to the character of that power other than to acknowledging its transcendence. For the purpose of this document, I will use the word ?god? as shorthand for that supreme power; the ?god? that is the sum total of all the natural laws in the universe.

Scientific pantheism is also not agnosticism, although it acknowledges that a conclusion of ?god? is at least as much a leap of faith as it is a logical inference. But in contrast to the ?intellectual punt? of agnosticism, scientific pantheism holds that ?god? is essentially knowable, even if our knowledge at this time is incomplete. It further presumes that the quest for more perfect knowledge is by definition good, and that no avenues of inquiry are proscribed, forbidden, illegitimate or wrong.

Scientific pantheism is more than anything else a philosophy of mankind?s place in the universe, our relationship with the rest of creation and the natural law that constrains, conforms, guides and makes possible our existence. It is humanism with humility, concerned fundamentally with humanity and the human condition, but without assuming human centrality in any cosmic scheme.

And it is deeply personal, dependent upon each person?s ability and interest in observing and understanding and reaching his or her own conclusions.

On the Knowledge of ?God.?

The scientific pantheist does not believe that the universe ?is? god, as if there were small pieces of god dwelling within the trees, rocks, water and other components of creation.

Scientific pantheism understands god to be the sum total of all natural laws in the universe. ?Creation? is not god, it is OF god, in the sense that all ?created? things are the current results of unvarying natural law. This natural law is only incompletely understood by man, and may ultimately consist of the very simple and comprehensive ?Theory of Everything? that is the ultimate grail of cosmologists. But whatever its most profound and sublime form, such law preexisted the occurrence of the ?big bang? and will exist long after ?heat death.?

As such, it is not coexistent or coterminous with the universe in which we dwell. There may be other universes, earlier universes, or universes of the future not yet in existence. All of these conceptual possibilities are subsumed within and guided by the same ultimate natural law that is god.

Our knowledge of god comes only from observing the results and affects of that law. As this same law constrains and conforms the senses with which we observe the creation and the brains with which we interpret that sensory input, such observation can be trusted to yield information that is at some level a reflection of objective reality. There are no other intermediaries between the law that is god, and our ability to perceive directly the results of that law.

There are no prophets sent from god with messages, or rules, or salvation schemes, or other esoteric ?gnostic? knowledge. There are no revealed texts, no divinely prescribed rituals or prayers, no appointed priests or priestesses, and no structures of authority or coercion. There is only natural law, its results, our senses with which to perceive them, and our mind?s ability to analyze and understand them.

On the Nature of ?God?

Unlike ?revealed? religions, scientific pantheists must depend entirely on inference from creation for our understanding of the nature of god. The closest that mankind can come to a face?to-face encounter with god is the exploration and definition of the natural law that constrains and conforms the universe. The characteristics of that law are the characteristics of god.

Natural law does not vary with time.

The more we learn about our universe, the clearer it becomes that the fundamental laws of existence are constant with time. The ability to view across space historic events that took place millions or billions of years ago verify that even as the universe evolved, is has unrolled within the guiding context of the same natural law that guides it today.

From this we can infer that god is eternal. God is not arbitrary, does not tinker with creation, does not change or break ?the rules? at whim, and does not perform ?miracles? which would be violations of his very godhead.

Natural law does not vary with place.

As the extremes of the universe have come more clearly into our sphere of observation with the creation of larger telescopes of all kinds, we see that all other galaxies in existence appear to follow the same laws as this one. There is only one set of laws and those same laws function everywhere in the universe without variation.

From this we can infer that god is unitary, omnipresent, and universal.

Natural law does not vary with species.

In spite of mankind?s awesome technological achievement, we remain subject to the same requirements for existence and survival as all other living organisms. We must metabolize, we must consume, we must be born, live our lives, and eventually die. Our biology is a shared one, and our connection with the rest of the natural world is as intimate and complete as that of any other living thing. We have no special dispensation from natural law over other living things, even as we learn to take advantage of our unique understanding of that law.

From this we can infer that mankind holds no special place in ?god?s plan,? that we are neither the purpose nor the paragon of creation. To the extent that we have quantitative abilities that seem superior to those of other species, there are others in which we are markedly inferior. And there is no clear evidence of qualitative abilities unique to humanity.

In converse, we can also infer that there is no part of creation that takes precedence over mankind because of particular divine preference. All of creation is an inevitable result of the action of natural law, and no part of creation is special in comparison with any other.

Natural law does not vary with person.

While equality of opportunity remains an elusive goal for mankind, each of us remains subject to the same natural constraints and capabilities as dictated by natural law. We are organisms with varying biological and environmental potential, true. But no disparity of wealth, power, intelligence or natural ability renders any individual more or less subject to natural law than any other.

From this we can infer that god does not play favorites with individuals or particular human groups, and that he provides all of creation with the same potential for ?success? or ?failure? (as those created beings conceive the terms). And certainly, we all achieve the same eventual conclusion to our respective existences. There is no ?qualification test? for salvation, no punishment or reward in an afterlife, no distinction between believer and infidel. There is no ?true? religious faith capable of excluding members of any other faith from either the perils or benefits of existence.

There are no ?chosen? peoples, no national divine providences, no divine participations in the rise and fall of peoples or nations. God is not on the side of ?justice,? or ?righteousness? or the ?bigger battalions.? Human conflict is entirely an internal human issue with no cosmic significance whatsoever.

Natural law does not vary with respect to moral outcome.

Natural law operates. The results of that operation can redound to either good or ill for humans and humanity, with no obvious preference one way or the other. All outcomes are mixed. Every truth forces a compromise with human interests. There is no natural moral difference between the spring rain that nourishes crops and the drought that kills them. There is no natural moral difference between the bird that lavishes care on its nestlings, and the parasite that eats its living host from the inside out.

There is neither unalloyed virtue, nor unalloyed vice. There is neither obvious good, nor obvious evil. There is only the unvarying operation of natural law, and the constrained consequences of the choices we make within those boundaries.

It is only through the agent of human choice that a consideration of morals or ethics becomes relevant. There is no moral or ethical component to the outcome of natural law. There is only a moral or ethical component to the outcome of human choice. To the extent that such outcomes are personal and private, the choices are equally personal and private. To the extent that such outcomes are communal, the individual making them is responsible to that community for them. Responsibility and accountability for the eventual ?goodness? or ?badness? of those outcomes rests squarely with the individual who made the choices.

From this we can infer that god is not a moral agent. God neither prescribes nor proscribes, neither approves nor forbids. There are no ?sins,? no transgressions of divine law, no arbitrary rules of ritual or conformance.

The social contracts we adhere to are of human convention, and we are responsible as humans for their rationality, their utility, and their enforcement. God does not care about them.

Summary thoughts on the ?nature? of God:

In final measure we can infer that god is not personal. God is not in our image, nor are we in his. God does not have a body or a mind. God does not have emotions, feelings, longings, desires or intentions. God is neither angry, nor jealous. God does not demand worship or homage, sacrifice or prayer. God does not help his creation, nor does he hinder it beyond the operation of his law. God does not hear our supplications or respond to our requests.