Reply #22: Collecting my thoughts on your points....

[marions ghost]

So you seem to say that "secular humanism" is more or less the ethical code of atheists and is not equated with Pantheism. But one poster here said Pantheism IS equated with secular humanism, and yet another poster says Pantheism is "glorified Atheism"--so I see there is no general agreement on this. Seems to me that Secular Humanism might be an ethical code anyone could live by, regardless of their theism. Does one need a belief system beyond Secular Humanism at all?

IMO everyone who manages to get by in this world has some sort of system of belief, and certainly Atheism/Secular Humanism is as good as any. It is still a belief to live by, tho defined more in terms of what it is not than what it is.

"Multiple deities" is technically "Polytheism." This is NOT my understanding of Pantheism. Pantheism is the philosophy that spirit or life force (or whatever you want to call it rather than God) exists in and is not separate from all things (this would be true in my understanding of Buddhism and Taoism also). However there are NO divine beings to be worshipped in Pantheism, certainly not multiple ones.

I don't know if I can buy that humanity is "evolving" based on number of deities worshipped. I see different belief systems as appealing to different personalities, especially these days where people are not dictated as to beliefs (we hope :-( ) Before you could stamp out all religion, you'd have to address the individual psychological need for it and IMO fill that need with something else. (Alternative religion/belief systems are growing in this country, not dwindling...and certainly monotheism seems healthy).

Perhaps "scientific mysticism" is just what appeals to my particular head, while "secular humanism" appeals to yours. Maybe the difference is that I have a need for something beyond an ethical system for living in the here and now. For one thing, I see death as a transformation of energy, not really death (as in no more, gone). This I conclude is a mystical belief, since it cannot be "proven" in the scientific sense (yet). I think we will come to understand the transformation of material forms better in the future, scientifically speaking. I'm not sure if I actually care whether this is an "evolved" viewpoint or not. It's just an avenue I'm exploring, (having pretty much absorbed what the major religions have to offer and being well aware of the pitfalls of adhering to any one of them). I don't necessarily think "scientific mysticism" would work for everyone as a mass belief, most likely not. It's a certain "head." I respect all ways of dealing with this mystery called Life.

As far as the Atheism/Pantheism debate -- I can see there's no consensus so far. Some Atheists (which I see as a clearly defined philosophy) seem to absorb Pantheism, others like yourself, do not...
2 be cont of course ;) it's all debatable, as far as I'm concerned