On what grounds?  

That is a patently absurd notion.  Life is a very specific, well defined term, and it involves very specific processes, none of which are exhibited by the overwhelming majority of matter we've observed in the universe.  To say that everything is alive renders the word "life" practically meaningless.

Meh.  Poetic nonsense.  That which is not alive doesn't want anything, and life had to evolve for billions of years before anything as complex as a conscious desire came to exist.  The whole paragraph I just quoted  is just a very convoluted and confusing way of saying that matter will behave as matter will behave.  It's really just the anthropic principle.  When life can occur, life can occur.  Once it occurs, it keeps occurring until it stops occurring.

 

 

That's your contention?  After voiding a term of all meaning and utility by labelling everything with it and anthropomorphising everything to boot?  At least pantheists only view the universe and god as being synonymous and without attributing to it any of the special characteristics found in other god-concepts.

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

 

 

 

 

It adds things that are not neccessary, so I don't think it's "sexed up atheism" I think it's like any other Theism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jesus H Christ!  Seriously?  

 

I'm honestly at a loss to say anything other than... um... you're completely wrong.  

 

But just to give you the benefit of a doubt, maybe you're mistaking a complete definition from a definition.  A definition in science is not like a dictionary definition.  Life is defined (quite specifically!) as a process.  While there are fuzzy edges in places like Virusland, IF a thing conforms to these characteristics, then it is most definitely alive, by DEFINITION:

This part of the definition is so well established that 30 seconds at Wikipedia will clear up any misconceptions you might have had.  Now, to address the typical equivocation over the fuzzy parts of "life."  Rather than type out something I've addressed in great detail previously, I'd like you to read this blog post in its entirety:

A Fertilized Egg is Not a Human Being

Pay special attention to this part:

The reason that life is impossible to completely define is that life is not a discreet on/off switch.  It's not a dichotomy.  There are things which exhibit some but not all qualities of the process we readily acknowledge as "definitely alive."  It's very similar to the debate over whether or not Pluto is a planet, a planetoid, or a Kuiper Belt object.  The debate isn't about what Pluto's made of, or whether it orbits the earth.  We know what Pluto is, descriptively.  We have trouble with the categorization of it because our system of categorization is binary.  A thing either is or is not a planet.  But the universe didn't really care about our tendency towards dichotomy, so there are just a lot of things that are continuums or spectrums, rather than discreet particular entities.

So.... long story short:  Life is very specifically defined.  Because life exists on a continuum of processes involving replicators, there is some debate about where the definitional line ought to be drawn.  But saying that life is indefinable is like saying "Red" is indefinable because there are fuzzy areas around the outside that might just as easily be called orange.

 

 

 

Natural non-anthro Gods are still irrational. It adds the element of a God.

 

 

I think it's still a God belief, but not a religion

 

 

Oh and nb4Eloise

 

 

 

 

 

I don't get it.

To me it is like this: Your are EITHER a pantheist OR an atheist.

Being both brings my mind towards other absurdities, such as virgins giving birth.

 

 

I've always thought this was the difference between pantheism and panentheism.  But then, after Eloise's explanation of panentheism a while back, I have no idea what's going on.

Seriously, though, I've never heard a coherent explanation of how pantheism -- pure, unadulterated pantheism -- is anything more than a find/replace all function, where "Universe" is replaced by "God."  There doesn't seem to be anything this "God" does, except exist in exactly the same way that we say the Universe exists.

So... if that's the case, then all I can accuse pantheists of is sentimental poetic streaks.

I agree.  At least... if what I think is pantheism is really pantheism.  It's just that the God is so useless that it's a genuinely harmless god belief.  Probably the only one.  Unless, of course, you believe that the pantheists are creating the misconception among other non-harmless theists that their god belief is also justifiable.  I happen to believe that, so I would say pantheism is only harmless on paper.  

 

 

 

LOL

You're confused.  The definition of life is not a belief system.  It's a definition.  A working, scientifically rigorous definition.  You can't disagree with it because it's what scientists use to identify life.  You can propose your own belief system in which working definitions do not exist (and good luck with that) but... um... you're pretty much stuck here.  The Yankees play in New York, and "life" is defined.

So... you're saying that you'd like everyone to start using your broad and useless definition, and come up with a new word for the science of organic replicating processes?  Ok.  I grant you your request.  Henceforth, "LIFE" will mean "Nothing especially useful," and we will refer to the description of specific processes formerly known as "Life" as "Dendertwiddle"!

 

 

 

I don't think it is. After all pretty much every Theist has a different view of God that they justify for different reasons.

 

 

That said I think that we should argue against things like Pantheism and Theism in general because it's wrong which is easy to show, as opposed to it causes harm which requires more thourough research.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okie dokie... this went bottoms up into the turnip field pretty fast.

Let's do this all over again: My initial premise in the OP was that I disagree with the statement , "pantheism is sexed up atheism", as was stated by Richard Dawkins in his otherwise masterly written book "The God Delusion". Pantheism isn't even agnostic.  It is a religious delusion, pure and simple, snuck in through the open back door where the God concept - or meme, as it were - is given credence as something all-encompassing; and thus allowed to "incubate" in the mental process. And when one God is good to go, the rest of this freak show entourage will soon follow.

My next premise was that I'd rather call animism "sexed-up atheism" because it implies that "life" isn't limited to biological and organic processes alone. It may be found on a galactic as well as a subatomic scale, in the form of energy. (I do not believe in the standard particle model, but I am fascinated by string theory, and in particular it's derivative M-theory.) I am of course aware of the fact that in order for the study of biology to have any meaning at all, you have to decide what exactly you are studying, so for this purpose you need a "lowest common denomitator" type of definition for organic processes that doesn't include "inanimate matter".

My use of the word "belief system" wasn't directed towards the biological definition of "life" but to the vocis vulgata idea that there are things that are alive and there are things that are dead. Naive realism, if you like. Personally, I am not terribly interested in biology so I use a definition of "life" that works in physics; where indeed things seem to be sizzling with life on all levels. The advantage to saying "everything is animated" - animism - or "alive" as it were, is that you don't have to include any cumbersome "moment of magic" (when matter becomes "alive" ) in a workable world hypothesis. Organic life such as we experience it is simply an organised pattern of subatomic events that in sum total makes up an organic creature of this or that sort.

And if THAT isn't sexed-up atheism, I don't know what is...

 

 

 

I believe that Erwin Schroedinger once defined life as "a system which shows negative entropy"...

But apart from that; no, I can't see that science can answer the question "what is life?" in any satisfactory way.

Which leads me to believe that "life" is a mystical and supernatural concept (however familiar it may seem).

About which you've been shown to be dead wrong, since there is a useful definition and use for the word life as applies to science.  Which makes it especially odd that prior to this you wrote:

So, I don't get it.  Here you admit that you're not directing this toward to the biological (and necessarily scientific definition of life that certainly isn't mystical nor supernatural) definition and yet you go on to write that you 'can't see that science can answer the question what is life'.  Well, Marquis, biology has a rigorous, scientific definition of life that works very well at answering that exact question.  You can't have it both ways, so stop high-jacking a concept that works perfectly well in science and come up with a different term or admit that you're just plain wrong and that there is both a meaningful and scientific definition of life that answers quite well the question of what life is.  What you're talking about, as you've already admitted, isn't that kind of life and doesn't fall within that definition, so I cant understand how you can go on to say that science can't answer the question you've posed, since it already has.

Awwww.  You're special too Pineapple.

 

 

That's enlightening.

 

I don't think that some things made of atoms have a magical property called life any more than you do, it just happens that there are distinctions to be made in order for there to be meaning anywhere and I think you're being especially pedantic and that this is largely a problem with semantics.  If you're talking about specific things like 'a system which shows negative entropy' (however tongue-in-cheek it may be), then you're not talking about life as it's meaningfully defined.  You agree with that at least, so you can see my hang-up on your continued use of the word to describe things that aren't what the word is meaningfully used to describe. 

This probably isn't an important contention, but I do find it odd that you describe pantheism as religious superstition and not animism, especially when you don't have this supposed 'scientific definition of life - in a general theory sense -' in order to justify that everything is life (or alive), which, I presume not everything would be if there were a scientific definition of life, in a general theory sense.  In other words, if you have to believe in something made up, even if you call the universe and everything god or say that the universe and everything are alive, then I don't see how it can be atheism to you given your perspective on pantheism.

 

Well, in a sense, yes... but don't you see how the concept of "life" (seen as a unique state of physical conditions) serves itself up for religious nutters? I am stating an all-and-nothing-paradox here. Much like how you can say that being everybody's friend amounts to the same as being nobody's friend, stating that everything is alive amounts to the same as stating that nothing is. "Life" is not a sacred state of being which is separated from other (inanimate) states of existence. Life, as we define it, - biological, genetical, whatever - is merely a particular level of organised physical conditions; and these physical conditions are not separated from all the other things that exists by an exclusive and magical principle which cannot be defined as a property within the (hopefully soon to come) unified field theory of physics.

In other words: There is no ghost in the machine. The machine is running in accordance with the laws of physics.

Ad hominem?  I did no such thing!

(Before you insist that I did... please review what constitutes an ad hominem.)

Let me explain again.  Categorization is something we humans do.  It's how we organize data in our heads and books.  By nature, we categorize things as... well... things..  We say, "X is a Y."  

We've discovered that our perceptions do not constitute the totality of existence, however.  A tiger is an "animal," and a "process," and "mostly empty space."  (Since we're getting biology and physics confused, it's also a vector.)  It is all of these things, and each of these descriptions is useful within a certain framework.  

Our puny human brains sometimes have trouble with this kind of conceptualization.  We love dichotomies.  A thing is alive or dead.  It is moving or stationary.  Off or on.  To this end, we often try to make broad categorical statements which give us a kind of binary way of seeing the universe.  "Everything is alive."  "God is the universe."

When I said that mostly neophytes stress over the categorization of life, I wasn't directing an insult at any participants here.  I was stating a general truth.  I have friends who are microbiologists and virologists, and I've had this discussion with them.  There are specific groups within academia who DO stress over categorization, but they are not trying to solve life's philosophical problems or come up with any "deep truths" about the universe.  They're just trying to figure out how to make categorization work most efficiently.   And most of them know this.

For the rest of the scientists, they could give two shits about whether the plasmids are "alive."  Vectors express genes, and it doesn't matter what the ivory towers say about their status as "living" or "nonliving."  (Wasn't it clever of me to subtly give another example of how these conversations get confusing?!  Vector... vector?)

So... once again.  Biological life is just another chemical process in the universe, and no, it's not imbued with any magic.  However, the specific chemical process IS extremely well defined by biologists, and anyone who's bringing physics or cosmology into the discussion is simply making a category error and muddying otherwise clear waters.  Anyone who says that the "Universe" is alive either needs to make it very clear that they are NOT talking about biological life, or.... well... not say it in the first place.

This whole thread is an example of -- forgive me -- armchair philosophers crossing disciplines and attempting to answer questions that few serious scientists would bother to ask.  It's just one gigantic equivocation, extrapolated to absurdity.

Marquis, I think I get what you're trying to accomplish here, but the way you're going about it is not working.  I'm on your side in trying to demystify the process of life, and illustrate that it's just part of a continuum of natural physical processes.  But the answer isn't going to be found in giving a pass to another all-or-nothing error.  The only way you can justify "everything" being alive is to equivocate terms and imply that you're talking about biological life.  In fact, saying "everything is alive" requires a completely different meaning for the word life, and I think it's disingenuous at best and straight up deceptive at worst to even try to use the world "life" in this context.

 

 

"Ad hominem?  I did no such thing!
(Before you insist that I did... please review what constitutes an ad hominem.)"

I'll admit to using a generalized use of the term Ad Hominem instead of the strict textbook definiton.  So, it was a minor equivocation but certainly not intended to mislead and through the context you surely must have realised that I was stating 'personal attack'.   Whatever, I accept your wrist slap.

"When I said that mostly neophytes stress over the categorization of life, I wasn't directing an insult at any participants here. "

Ok. Case closed.

"It's just one gigantic equivocation, extrapolated to absurdity."
On that I agree and have agreed with throughout the thread.  

 

Well, at least I see your point of criticism.

When it comes to agreement, however, I am stubborn as a mule. Never under any circumstance do I agree with anyone but myself (and even that only in very rare instances). But that is all good. Friction creates fire, whereas lubricants should only be applied between people who already "agree". Is this not what "life" is all about?

 

I'm not really backtracking or agreeing with you on everything just yet.
So far my agreement is limited to the following:
I've merely conceded that your rhetorical device
(I am a day old to the site so the following shouldn't be surprising that I might be sensitive.)
1.  Succeeded in irrritating me
2.  Was not adhominem
3.  I did know you were doing something provoking a reaction and mislabled it in an attempt to call you on it. 

If I understand your meaning then the overall discussion from a meta perspective is naive or somewhat less than useful because the original premise wasn't even worth arguing against because it was a gross equivocation.    If that's the case then yeah, I'll buy into that.    

However,  I don't think I said anything grossly illogical or incorrect.
Thanks for taking the time to talk about it though.   It certainly has provoked thought.

 

Thank you. That is pretty much consistent with my own point of view when it comes to this here thread.

Thanks for the help...

I really want to improve my debating skills.   I do care about content first because I don't want to bother arguing illogical or flat out wrong things.
However, I agree that if you can't communicate your ideas then it's going to be tough to convince anyone of anything and let's face it the other side doesn't rest when it comes to debating tactics and arguments no matter how disingenuous they might be...

I'm involved currently in some 'neutral forums' so I would rather learn my lumps this way I suppose than out there on the inter-webs, where like Detroit (where I live) the weak are killed and eaten