‘Humanity’s biggest solvable problem, is failure to believe in Pantheism’
Please state the most important sentence you can think of in ten words or less, and then within ten minutes, explain exactly what you mean by that sentence.
Thank you all for attending my talk today. As you are aware, this is a competition. You know the rules, and you can see my ten words above my head. The clock is ticking, so I’ll dive straight in, by talking about the last word I have capitalized above, that is really my whole subject matter today.
This word, pantheism, is in the broad category of theism. The general definition of this word is the hypothesis of a god conception, whatever that may be, and there are literally thousands of ideas for what this hypothesis conception means.
When we use the word god generally, think about this word in the lower case. What I want you to ponder in this moment, is what a capitalized version of this word would specifically mean, for each and every one of us. You may think this is a highly subjective activity, but I’ll try and change your mind in that regard.
I would contend, a capitalized version of the word god, equates to the most important sense of the word, and this in turn, is what we want, in the context we find ourselves in. I believe this, because think about it yourself, do you honestly not want this, and would prefer something else instead?
An extension of this, is that a capitalized version of the word theism, must also represent a hypothesis that includes a metaphysical means to what we want, in the context we find ourselves in.
Now I’m aware, this word metaphysical has the power to induce nosebleeds in unsuspecting subjects! Fear not, I shall elaborate on this term in due course, but I want to firstly finish this word defining section.
Our word in question is the capitalized version of pantheism. The definition of pantheism is a hypothesis of a god conception that is free of any deities, and I want you to think about this as what it really means, as the scenario of a consciousness such as our, not existing outside of human egos, or the egos of any other species of evolved animals, that have ego experience akin to our own.
To summarize then, if pantheism is deserving of being capitalized as a hypothesis, then it must represent what it means in the most important sense of the word, and that is the metaphysical means to what we want, in the context we find ourselves in, inclusive of the physical scenario I have stated.
This word metaphysical does not need to be scary in any way. We know metaphysics exists, in the same way we know physicality exists. A good way to think about the relationship between the two, is to consider them as two aspects of the same thing. You could call this the certain double aspect actuality of existence. As there is an actuality we cannot wholly know, there must also be a means to that same actuality.
An extension of this is to think about a computer game and program. The computer game could be an immersive experience for the players. This game could also be imagined as being self-generating, to simply create a experience that represents what is best for those playing it.
So what would be the best possible game? Imagine the amount of potential egos akin to ours, that will ever exist in the universe, is one hundred million billion. Now also imagine that the highest single population of egos such as this, at any one time in the universe, was or is going to be one hundred billion.
I would contend, that if we all got to choose before we all were immersed in this game, between all having one of these lives and then dying, each of us reincarnating this divisible of one million lives and then dying, or finally, having one million lives and time recurring, so all one million lives were experienced exactly the same and endlessly, then we would all clearly choose this latter option. Why? Because only this option represents eternal life in the context we find ourselves in, while also ensuring there is equality of experience between all of the players.
Some of you may be thinking, well I have a great life and would only like this single life to recur. This is fine to say in hindsight, but would you really take this risk before the fact? The truth is you wouldn’t, and another way to look at this, is considering the case of others less fortunate than yourself, in the lives they are presently leading.
The actuality of abundant lives and the recurrence of time, represents what Pantheism ultimately is. But why should it be believed in? To understand this, think of the situation where you are seeing a painting of what is clearly a chair for the first time. You are then told you are shortly to receive the actual object that has been painted, if this exists.
Should you believe you are going to receive a working chair? The truth is, you cannot know what you are going to receive, and this example mimics the reality, that we cannot know the universal actuality either.
There are only two reasonable arguments for what you may receive. The first is the abductive argument that you are going to receive a fully broken chair. This reasoning is because you cannot see the mechanism of sturdy joints between the vertical and horizontal parts of the chair, so why should you believe in them existing at all?
This reasoning mimics the belief in what is classical physicalism. That we all only have a single life that does not recur. This belief is derived from the abductive argument that as we cannot see any metaphysical mechanism to enable afterlife potential, it is reasonable to believe there simply is none.
At its extreme, there is a false deduction in classical physicalism, in the mistaken belief we know there is no mechanism such as this. But just like in the chair example, it certainly cannot be claimed that a fully broken chair is to be received.
In the example, it is most reasonable to believe you are to receive a working chair, because the horizontal and vertical parts of the chair are indirect evidence there is the mechanism that enables the chair to be a working version. This is the inductive argument, that specific facts, can lead to a general conclusion in this regard.
So what is the indirect evidence for Pantheism? Well just like in the chair example, where there are six key horizontal or physical sections of the chair, that are keys facts of indirect evidence the chair is working, consider the following six key facts of our existence.
If there was to be a recurrence of time, then this would require a moment in time in the future existing, that resembled the moment of emptiness before the start of cosmic evolution. There is not scientific consensus, on whether this could happen as the result of for instance a big rip, crunch, bounce, or freeze, but what unites these hypothesis’, are they are all ideas involving a tending toward this moment of universal emptiness being reached again at some point in time in the future.
If there is to be a guaranteed minimum of millions of human like reincarnations, then this requires the cosmic evolution of star production to ensure three events occur. The first, is that there is a great abundance of stars similar to our own over a sufficiently long period of time, and this is indeed the actuality of the universe we find ourselves in.
Abundance over a long period, is in itself not enough to guarantee sufficient reincarnations however. It needs to also be ensured that the population of stars that could harbor life sustaining planets such as our own, was greatest near the beginning of the universe, because think about it, if there were more life sustaining planets later on in the universe, then human like reincarnation could not be possible, as a peak human like population would therefore also be later on in universal development. Again, the scientific consensus is that stars such as our own, were at their peak population only a few billions years after the universe started forming.
The final cosmological fact that we see in our universe, that would need to be in place if millions of human like reincarnations were to be the actuality, is that there has been diminishing star production since this peak population of stars such as ours.
These three cosmological facts of star abundance, high production, followed by diminishing production, would all be irrelevant, if human like species could ensure their survival on the relevant planet they habitat, either indefinitely, or at least over a very long period. The biological fact that is the case however, is human made climate change appears to be unavoidable and irreversible, and so nature has its own fail safe mechanism to ensure particular human like species can only survive for a limited duration on the planet they inhabit.
Further to this, there also appears to be no escape from the habitat planet afflicted with severe climate change, due to the sheer distances required to travel in space, to go to potentially suitable alternative planetary habitats.
What is clear are these six facts of our cosmological and biological existence, are indeed pieces of indirect evidence for Pantheism, and though it could be argued this only collectively constitutes a weak inductive argument for this belief, just like in the example of the chair, this weak inductive argument is still stronger than the weaker still abductive argument that the chair is fully broken.
It is the understanding that there is the potential of Pantheism, when previously it was not even considered, that opens up the case that collective failure to believe in it, is humanity’s biggest solvable problem.
I’ll explain this by using another example. Imagine there is a person on a walk by a fast flowing and dangerous river, and they see a child who is definitively not their own, visible in the water, getting pushed along by the current, and who is obviously unable to free themselves from it. What is clear, is that anybody who fell into that river, would surely perish if not assisted.
In the moment, the person sees a solitary tree hanging over the river, and can see it is possible to climb onto the tree and suspend oneself on it, to be able to reach down and catch the child as they go past. It is also known that in not doing this properly, there is the real risk of falling into the river as well.
In this scenario, the person delays their action and before they know it, it is too late, and the opportunity to save the child has been missed. The problem was, there was just not the will to save them, under the circumstances.
This situation is akin to our own, when there is not collective belief in Pantheism, because it reflects what humanity’s biggest solvable problem is, and that is, there is not the collective will to end systemic human poverty on the planet.
Re-imagine the situation when the child in the water could potentially be the person’s own, because this is the change in mindset when Pantheism is believed in, and it is believed that one, that those who suffer human poverty could suffer it in a recurring manner for eternity, and two, that if human poverty on this planet is not alleviated, then that future sufferer of human poverty could also potentially be yourself.
In the re-imagined scenario, the person reaches down from the overhanging tree, and even though there is the potential risk to their own life in so doing, they lift up their child into safety.
What the example shows, is that the alleviation of human poverty could never be a matter of luck. It literally requires Pantheistic belief to enable it to occur. In the same way, the person on the riverside has to believe the child in trouble could be their own, or there will just not be the necessary action required to save them.
I’ve only been given ten minutes here, and you may still be skeptical of belief in Pantheism, but humanity’s biggest problem is a related psychological issue too.
Consider the chair example again. We all want to receive the working actual chair. Just think, is it not malicious for anybody to say this cannot be received? And is the psychological burden of proof not on anybody who says it is not possible?
In the same way, who can say that Pantheism, which is to all intent and purposes what we all want, is not possible? And is it not malicious if anybody questions its lack of potential? Should these people not need to prove that cosmological and biological evolution works differently to how it does, in order to make any serious case against it?
I fear the gong’s about to sound, so I’ll leave you to ponder these questions, and thank you very much for your time.
If you’d like to support my writing, you can use this link to follow me and/or sign up for a Medium membership yourself.
I am the author of two fiction short-stories, Wish (2018) and Humanist World (2022).
