Why yes, yes he is....and yet for some strange reason you had made a choice to begin quote-mining from his book The End Of Faith in an effort to ....?  

(  or, perhaps your goal was to simply show that you could quote Harris without actually having to suggest whether or not his position actually supported or denied your point of view.  Yes, No ?   Is confusion an important element in supporting panentheistic arguments ? )

I have already conceded that Harris is free to choose his own path....So ?

I think we've covered this: Paisley's a pantheist for three posts, and then a trinitarian for the next three, then ... no, I think that's it. But it's all compatible, since the trinity is one, and everything is ... I don't know any more.

So the update here is that Christian pantheism is more confusing than any other religion, and therefore it is the best. God exists. QED.

Yes, and we know how well all the world's religions agree on the nature of God.

Spirituality as a common state isn't that common. First, the experience is different, and described differently, by each person. This indicates that the spiritual experience is of subjective self, not of objective God. Some describe it in terms devoid of God.

Buddhism, for instance, seeks the state of conscious non-being, just as you describe. Some have even claimed to have achieved it. However, most Buddhists rightfully recognize this as a subjective mental state, not a contact with God.

In another thread, somebody mentioned they had experienced God in exactly the same way you describe. The God he met, however, lacks compassion to the point of being evil. This God not only has no love for us, but devours our thoughts and experiences, rather than holding them lovingly for the rest of eternity.

If you two have completely different views of God obtained in the same way, which one of you is right? How can you be sure you are correct, and he is wrong? How is it logical to assume either one of you is correct, considering neither of you experienced the same God?

Again, what is the coherent epistemology that supports your metaphysics?

(We'll cover the lifespan of a pantheistic God in the face of the entropic death of the universe in a different post, once we've established your epistemology.)

Any theological system or philosophical system is just a working model which is ultimately subject to change. But the same applies to scientific theories too.

In the context that I am using the terms, "reason" is associated with logical analysis (or the analytical mind) while "faith" is associated with intuition (or the intuitive mind). I see the intuitive and the analyticial as being primarily complementary aspects, not necessarily contradictory ones.

Theology is "faith seeking understanding." And while particular theologies may come and go, faith itself doesn't. My intellectual understanding of the divine mystery may change, but my belief and trust in God will not.

Ah. Thank you. Something we can discuss.

In the case of science, the ontology changes only when evidence (that is, observation of reality) stacks up against a current theory. In most of those cases, it turns out that the old ontology is merely too limited, to restricted. Often it is merely a subset of the newer, larger ontology.

I don't mean to specifically exclude God. If you like, I can substitute "natural reality" for "reality," or any other term that we find mutually agreeable to refer to the observable universe.

Anyway. The key is that science is bounded by our perception and understanding of reality. Some people believe that our current ontology is merely one of many possible coherent ontologies that model our data. I, for one, believe that. It's happened before, as I mentioned earlier, when we shifted from Newtonian dynamics to quantum mechanics in the first part of the twentieth century. I also believe it will happen again when we discover what lies beneath the quantum. ("Turtles all the way down." ) I suspect we will all be surprised, just as we were eighty years ago.

Science does that based on the accumulation of data. The new data doesn't destroy the old; it merely reframes it in the new ontology.

Is there an analogous process in theology? Is each replaced theological ontology added to and increased by the new? Or does the new ontology completely replace the old? What is the driving process?

And upon what is the working model based?

I definitely agree that the analytic and intuitive minds (as you've defined them) are complementary. Very much so. I believe their roles are different, but perhaps that is merely the use to which I've put them. It may be that our philosophic differences are merely based upon our different use of the analytic vs. intuitive.

For instance, I distrust intuition. It's an excellent input into the analytic process, but I firmly believe intuition is irrational. (That doesn't make it useless, it just makes it untrustworthy and unreliable as a source of knowledge.)

Is faith the purest base of your working model? This is the foundation upon which all theological systems rest?

Please demonstrate how.

Save that 'time' is no different than 'length' in that it is one of the dimensional axes of motion, and nothing more. The 'ever-present now', as you put it, is merely a suspension or lack of awareness of motion through time. In this respect, that which has no awareness of time remains subject to the effects of time, it simply has no perception of those effects because it remains ignorant of its own past states and future poptential states. Regardless of which usage you espouse, you still have failed to escape the laws of thermodynamics.

Because the experience of free will qualifies as evidence.

What experience of free will? Can you be sure of this experience, or are you simply not aware of any methods by which your decisions could have been consistently pre-determined? Can you demonstrate that human decision-making is not, in fact, simply incredibly complex aggregate stimulus-response systems coming into play, and that if we knew all of the factors in someone's past, we would still not be able to predict their reactions as consistently and empirically as we can the reaction of magnesium compounds to being dropped into water?

Indeed not.

Fair enough we're on the same page somewhat, here, I have just one niggle....

I too agree with the notion of a balance. I'm not sure I agree with what I am reading as your notion of balance though. It would seem to me that you advocate balance in favour of the analytical mind, as opposed to any one more approaching of equilibrium over both. I don't see that view as justified i the light of what we know about the abilities of intiuition. I don't see that the consequence of the intuitive mind being more radical and spontaneous outweighs in importance its extraordinary computational prowess. To wit, why not if you've got it, flaunt it?  I would think that in the knowledge that the human unconscious cognitive faculty outperforms the conscious ones in complex work we'd be inclined to want to use it to it's best advantage. Why should its extravangance intimidate us into intellectually oppressing ourselves?

I agree that you're right to an extent, but the filter is just a filter, unless it's God to you, why would you place so much more confidence in this one part of yourself than in another proven equally amazing part?

I thoroughly disagree. Analytic minds engage in no end of silliness. I would modify your statement to say that the analytical mind is more consistently structured, making for it's ability to connect processes in repeatable order more efficient. Repeatability may seem less silly in some respects, but I submit that compulsive repetitiousness is ... well... silly.  Unconscious mind avoids it while analytical mind thrives on it.

I think it is ironic that one of the most prominent voices of "atheism" is actually a practicing Buddhist.

I disagree. The "New Atheists" are exhibiting elements of a fundamentalist religious group.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html

I would categorized my theology as trinitarian panentheism. In Christian theology, this is known as the "perichoresis" (the mutual indwelling of the Father and the Son and all believers).

"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us." John 17:21

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perichoresis

   ..... truth requires un-truth  .....  free will requires .... un free, ....ummm ? All IS ONE.

The buddhists say focus on the "MIDDLE" ......     ummmm        Know the options in all directions , is knowing options .....  so the middle .....

Correct. As I said above, expectation is merely a predisposition to accept that my perceptions will continue to be internally consistent. This means only that should they fail to continue to be internally consistent, it will disrupt the pattern of interactions with my perceptions that I commonly fall into. It does not mean that I place any trust in them to do so. In fact, I have several contingencies planned, depending on the degree to which internal consistency is disrupted.

Example: Should my car keys suddenly fail to start my car, I plan to see if my house keys will. The disruption is minor, so the contingency is not extreme. Should, on the other hand, one of the fundamental laws of physics suddenly seem to no longer apply, I intend to go out on my second-story deck and see if I can fly.

When I take a plane flight, I don't trust that the plane exists. How then can I trust that it will arrive safely? I accept that my senses are telling me it exists, and I interact with what I perceive, but no, I place no trust in its reality, or that of the pilots, just as I place no trust in the reality of my keyboard, monitor, or you. I interact with my perception of these things, but cannot put any trust in those perceptions to be true.

Nihilism? Not hardly. Nihilism holds that existence is pointless. My existence is all I can be sure of, and so it is the only thing to which I can rationally ascribe value.

...ps, if your obsession with Harris' budding spirituality is still an important issue I recommend that you visit samharris.org and log onto the forum.  Perhaps your search for ultimate truth regarding his actual beliefs can be answered there.

Interesting points. I'll have to sleep on that one. 

I'm not sure repeatability is tied to compulsive repitition, but I think I understand the broader meaning. I'd hope the analytic mind could recognize its own silliness, though. But with your insights here, perhaps it isn't as clear-cut as I made it out to be.

Indeterminacy != no physical explanation. It's a probabilistic explanation. That doesn't exclude physicality. Every probabilistic event we know of so far has a physical cause. Ergo, materialism and QM are not mutually exclusive.

Would you please stop trying to change what you are asking? Please?

The question was:

Which I did, at least for one case. There are other alternatives that explain quantum theory in terms of pure geometry. Still others describe it as standing waves of energy. Yet another describes it in terms of P-branes. However, my favorite is the "information theory" explanation, as it fits with my field of expertise (meager as that might be): computers and information processing. I don't think it's necessarily the best of them, but it's my favorite. From a most-likely standpoint, I'd go with the standing waves of energy, though the P-brane/M-theory approach may prove worthy as well, once it's worked out.

And please explain how information theory supports pantheism IN THE LEAST. Information theory isn't about conscious decision making. It's about how simple, deterministic rules combine into a system that is chaotic and probabilistic (at least the relavent portion of information theory; there's a lot more to information theory than that). Any "intelligence" in the process is strictly illusory. If it wasn't, don't you think we'd have artifiicial intelligence by now?

Yes. That means belief and faith are not the same thing. It implies there are beliefs with sufficient evidence. The terms are not equivalent.

Because it isn't belief that the assumption is true. It is a role-playing game in which you pretend that it's true, and then you test it against reality to see if it is true. However, if you wish to see that as having temporary, contingent, fake faith, I'd buy that. In an ideal situation (which is ideal, and not real, I know), the researcher wouldn't even hope that it's true. But we're not dispassionate, and we do have hopes, and for some, it's not even fake faith.

All my beliefs are not based on facts. There's nobody on earth who can say that. However, those that aren't based on facts are irrational. That doesn't make them wrong, necessarily (because I am always right, except when I disagree with my wife). They are suspect, and I try not to use them in an argument about the rationality of those beliefs, or the irrationality of the opposing beliefs. If your point is that we all hold irrational beliefs, then I'd agree.

However, a good portion of my beliefs are based on facts. So, let us restrict the discussion to that subset. That is the subset that is based on science.

The ontology that science gives us is coherent, and congruent with reality. It's coherent in that all the pieces fit. Though we are missing many pieces, the ones we have all fit. We know it's congruent with reality because it has made predictions about reality, predictions about things unknown. The application of science gives us knowledge that is testable against the observations of reality.

Some philosphers and scientists believe there is more than one coherent ontology which is congruent with reality. That is probably so. However, when this has proven so in the past, the new ontology does not destroy the old; rather, it subsumes it. Also, the new ontology never destroys facts (observed data). It is built upon the old facts just as solidly as the old ontology. Usually, it is new facts that require the new ontology.

There's a reason I believe this is an accurate view of reality. All new observed data fits will within the old data. In the few cases where we've experienced what Kuhn called a "paradigm shift" (God, I hate that phrase), the new ontology accounts for not only the new data, but the old. Each new fact that is not inconsistent with the ontology gives support to the ontology. Since we've not found any facts in opposition to our ontology, it seems to be well-proven. Supported by facts.

The great thing is, it's possible to completely disrupt the ontology simply by repeatible observation of a fact that is in contradiction with the ontology. Since the ontology uses rigid math to make predictions, it's not some vague wishy-washy prediction like is made in the Bible or on the front page of the checkstand tabloids. These are precise predictions, predictions that are open to anyone to test for themselves. They don't depend on subjective interpretation or revelation. They aren't handed down from on high. The didn't come from some drug-addled subconscious nightmare. They are testable. (I believe I covered this in a post concerning the collision of QM and Newtonian dynamics.)

As a side note about relative ontologies, there's interesting research going on in string theory. There are five distinct string theories, each with its own coherent ontology. None of these have been tested yet, and so this isn't part of the "my beliefs supported by facts" discussion. It's just an interesting, and related, side-note.

Each of the string theory variants exhibits duality with the other variants. This indicates that each is merely a facet of a more fundamental process. And so M-theory was born. What's interesting about this is that it doesn't destroy the various string theories; it unites them, in ways we didn't expect. So, here we had variant coherent ontologies that have potentially been consumed by a larger, single, coherent ontology. This is exciting from a scientific standpoint, and interesting from a philosophic one.

Now, as string theory hasn't been proven (though perhaps the large hadron collider can help), M-theory is also questionable. Do I have faith in it? No. It may be true. It may not. But, we will find out. It is within our means to test it, to objectively verify the likelihood of its truth. What I like about M-theory is that it brings everything full-circle to the physical. That is, the materialistic. What I dislike is that it's not complete. It holds great promise -- much more than any of the independent string theories, which all fail in various ways to work within, or extend in a coherent fashion, our current ontology. M-theory, incomplete as it is, does exactly that: it extends our current ontology in a coherent way, and explains the various string theories in much cleaner terms. At least, it seems as if it will, when complete.

If God is objectively real, then anyone should be able to go through the same introspection, and come to the same conclusion. How do you explain this is not so?

I have faith that the universe is going to wind down some day, and there will be nothing left but a blank plane of spent energy. How in the world does that entail hope?

(Yes, that's one of my irrational beliefs. Although we have evidence of an entropic heat death for the unvierse, we don't really have a clear picture of what that might be.)

However, when I was younger, I hoped for someone with whom to build a relationship. I didn't have faith. I hoped I would find a job in physics. I didn't have faith I would. In fact, now I work with computers. I hope to have Thai food for dinner tonight. I don't have much faith in that at all.

Faith and hope are distinct ideas, and are not synonyms. That's all I'm saying.

As for the quote:

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for." So faith is nothing more than a desire for something to come about, for something to be, to the point you believe it to be true. I'll definitely agree that is one aspect. It's the "Evidence of things not seen" that is pure, grade-A, FDA-approved bullshit. It's not evidence by any stretch of the imagination. It's a desire, a belief, and a belief is not evidence, no matter how fervently held.

If you are familiar with Buddhism, then you know that there are forms that do not have deities. There is both theistic Buddhism and atheistic Buddhism. There are tall tales and legends about Buddha in most variants, but not all have Buddha as a God, nor any other God at all.

Buddhism at its simplist is a method of living without causing yourself pain. You don't even have to be Buddhist to follow it. Remove Buddha entirely, and the core remains. There is no other religion that can say the same.

It'd work, too, if only they'd stop coming out with cool new video games, and gadgets, and whatnot.

Wow, let's count the instances of bad reasoning:

1) "This is irrelevant" is a pointless objection.  Harris could be pope and it wouldn't invalidate his reasoning.  The arguer doesn't matter; the argument does.

2) "What is at issue here is whether he's truly an atheist." No True Scotsman fallacy.  I'm willing to bet anyone that sounds like they agree with you can't "truly" be an atheist.

3) "...Harris did not identify himself as an atheist." Prior to writing End of Faith, Harris was not on the national stage.  Prior to writing, there are all sorts of things Harris did not (and still has not) identified himself as not believing in. Can I chalk you up as an alchemist?  After all, you have not yet identified yourself as disbelieving in the powers of alchemy or your lack of belief in the existence of the Philosopher's Stone.

Looking back on this, I must congratulate you: every sentence in that paragraph contained either a mistake or a fallacy.  I think you get a set of steak knives for that.

Suspect away.  You really need to come to grips with the fact that your opinion (denoted above by "I would suspect that...&quot has no bearing on reality, or the thoughts of others.  Once you mature past that point, debating ideas can actually get easier.

This is some kind of weird straw man argument: you claim that since Harris didn't use your preferred definition of a word, that HE was somehow creating a false position and then attacking it.  I'm going to have to call in one of the fallacy gurus on that one.  I smell some projection there, but that's more a psychological problem than a logical one.

This is not kickball during recess.  He is attacking the entire establishment, process and belief in religion.  He chose a target, and then dismantled it.  I'm sorry that making a solid, convincing argument strikes you as "unfair".

I take it back, I'm not sorry; it's your problem that criticism strikes you as "mean".

No, it is a "paranormal" concept; don't confuse the two.  It can also be shorthand for a suite of concepts and ideas regarding the biological basis of consciousness.

Considering that my "worldview", which I share with him, is lack of belief in any god, you can stop right there: you're sunk.

...all of which are off topic.  You're here to try to convince us you're right and that we're wrong, not that Sam Harris supports you.  I will note that you are so far 1) impervious to accurate criticism and 2) failing miserably.

This reminds me.

How is your pantheistic God going to survive the entropic death of the universe?

Nigel, how dare you contradict Paisley.  Didn't you read his post ? Paisley clearly stated that he is familiar with Buddhism and therefore his opinion on the matter must certainly trump yours.  Then, to make matters even worse, you supplied facts that contradicted his conveniently over-simplified view regarding Buddhism and deities. Atheists are so rude !!!

I think you're conflating the terms pantheism with solipsism. They're not exactly the same. Incidentally, my theological beliefs are probably more in line with panentheism than pantheism.

No, I don't accept that we are observing reality. We are observing phenomena (appearances). What constitutes ultimate reality is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one.

You're making logical assumptions. This begs the question: How did you determine the validity of logic?

All scientific theories must be falisfiable to be considered scientific. Therefore, you can never say that a scientific theory represents the truth. All you can say that it has not been falsified yet. 

Okay. So, you admit that you have faith in science. This proves my point....doesn't it?

What's science's explanation for uncaused physical events?

 Just wondering is there anything I can do to disrupt, change, alter, or cause the ultimate purpose of existence to fail (according to your belief)?

I read the entire thread and I have not seen this addressed yet.

Well kiddies I am growing weary of watching my fellow atheists effectively chew the flesh off of Paisley's bones only to have him deny that he is being eaten alive.  His unproven assertions have proven to be nothing more than unproven assertions and so I'm going to get off of this panentheistic merry-go round.

Bon Apetit !