<story><title>Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?</title><url>https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/philosophy/spinozas-religion-clare-carlisle-god-einstein-philosophy-religion-review</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>Barrin92</author><text>&amp;gt;For one thing, it manages to create a profound metaphysical intimacy with God without denying His transcendence.&lt;p&gt;this kind of thinking which I often see when people express pantheistic views is exactly what turns me away from it. It&amp;#x27;s just as much of an anthropomorphization as the article accuses traditional conceptions of God of.&lt;p&gt;I guess you can think that the universe is in some vague sense conscious, although I don&amp;#x27;t think the arguments for that are great either, but to jump from this to thinking one can experience &amp;#x27;intimacy&amp;#x27; with it (and explicitly not &amp;quot;him&amp;quot;)  is I think already making mistakes. One can experience intimacy while being in nature but not &amp;#x27;with nature&amp;#x27;, Intimacy is a human emotion, &amp;#x27;nature&amp;#x27; does not empathize back.&lt;p&gt;To me pantheism just seems like a misapplied psychological need. People have a (understandable) revulsion against seeing the universe as mechanic, or random, or &amp;#x27;cold&amp;#x27; or what have you, and pantheism not unlike Gaia type theories are comforting.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>jonnybgood</author><text>&amp;gt; To me pantheism just seems like a misapplied psychological need. People have a (understandable) revulsion against seeing the universe as mechanic, or random, or &amp;#x27;cold&amp;#x27; or what have you, and pantheism not unlike Gaia type theories are comforting.&lt;p&gt;Pantheism is nothing more than seeing the universe, or nature, as god. What you’re reading is one particular flavor of pantheism. A pantheist can also view god, or universe, or nature, as cold and mechanical as well.</text></comment>
<story><title>Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?</title><url>https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/philosophy/spinozas-religion-clare-carlisle-god-einstein-philosophy-religion-review</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>Barrin92</author><text>&amp;gt;For one thing, it manages to create a profound metaphysical intimacy with God without denying His transcendence.&lt;p&gt;this kind of thinking which I often see when people express pantheistic views is exactly what turns me away from it. It&amp;#x27;s just as much of an anthropomorphization as the article accuses traditional conceptions of God of.&lt;p&gt;I guess you can think that the universe is in some vague sense conscious, although I don&amp;#x27;t think the arguments for that are great either, but to jump from this to thinking one can experience &amp;#x27;intimacy&amp;#x27; with it (and explicitly not &amp;quot;him&amp;quot;)  is I think already making mistakes. One can experience intimacy while being in nature but not &amp;#x27;with nature&amp;#x27;, Intimacy is a human emotion, &amp;#x27;nature&amp;#x27; does not empathize back.&lt;p&gt;To me pantheism just seems like a misapplied psychological need. People have a (understandable) revulsion against seeing the universe as mechanic, or random, or &amp;#x27;cold&amp;#x27; or what have you, and pantheism not unlike Gaia type theories are comforting.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>DennisP</author><text>I agree that &amp;quot;I believe X because it makes me feel Y&amp;quot; isn&amp;#x27;t a good argument. But it&amp;#x27;s also not a good argument to say &amp;quot;you  believe X because it makes you feel Y.&amp;quot; We could apply that, fallaciously, in any direction.&lt;p&gt;For example, I could say &amp;quot;you believe in pantheism because you find it comforting,&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;you believe in materialism because it makes you feel like a strong, tough-minded person who does need that fuzzy comforting stuff.&amp;quot;</text></comment>