Welcome to a node of the Pandeism index!!
I will attempt to explain here why
Pandeism ought to be considered as the
natural theological viewpoint for
adherents of the
libertarian political viewpoint. I
confess, at the outset, that though the pandeists I know run across the political
spectrum, there tends to be a concentration toward what is modernly
euphemistically denoted the "
progressive" end of the political spectrum (seeking to broaden the activities of
government into as many areas as it may be conceived to possibly be "helpful" -- which is, ultimately, all of them). But Pandeism can equally be taken as supporting a fundamentally
conservative political position (regarding
conservatism in the
traditional political sense of seeking to minimize the
intrusiveness of government against individual freedom). Two lines of
reasoning support this assertion.
The liberalism of the leaps of theism:
The first is that the theistic faiths tend to make leaps of assumption beyond what a reasoned examination of the facts allows. That is, just like political ideologies imagining an expansive role for government, theistic theologies take from the facts an overly
imaginative (and self-servingly
optimistic), and in that sense overly liberal set of
suppositions as to what
conclusions may be drawn from them. The pandeistic model, conversely, allows no
nonsense, and admits of no assumptive leaps of
belief beyond what is justified by a rational, logical examination of the facts before us.
I level this charge at no theistic group in particular, though I'll comment that I've known very few libertarian practitioners of
Islam, and very many who
claim to mix the oil and water of libertarianism and
Christianity, including even those who fancy themselves libertarian and yet would use the rough tool of government
coercion to impose religious prohibitions against the most essential freedoms of their
fellows. But I tell you now, a rational examination of our physical and spiritual realities requires as dispassionate an eye as an examination of our civil and economic realities.
To look upon the face of our
Universe and imagine that it supports the view of a deity which cares for our interests is simply a proposition lacking of effective proof and even further removed than looking at the solid evidence right here on Earth, where so many look upon the face of human endeavor and imagine that a government, in token part representative or otherwise, cares for our interests. A solid portion of mankind remains forever hopeful that God and Government will right themselves and rush to our
rescue, but the sorry catalogue of
history reveals the rarity with which belief in either has done much more than squander human resources in webs of all-too-human
corruption.
It can not be too keenly stressed how the pandeistic model, on the other hand, fully accounts for every thing touted as proof of any and all theistic faiths -- every
scripture, every
miracle, every
vision,
prophecy,
emotional response -- all of it, fully accounted for, and all without contradicting any
shred of
scientific evidence. And, it accomplishes this without offending the rule of logic expressed by
Occam's Razor by requiring any of the dreaded excess
assumptions which gum up the works of other theological models (things such as
theodicy,
inconsistent revelations, the question of the destiny of the unevagelised,
evil spirits, deities so faulty as to need to
tinker with their own creation, and all the rest). Pandeism, then, truly, is literally the most conservative religious view, taking no liberal leaps of fancy from the evidence presented to land on
vain conclusions contradicting
common sense.
Theistic oppression of personal freedom:
The second is how theistic faiths tend overwhelmingly to be opposed to
liberty, proscriptive of
freedom, and especially encouraging of government interference with that freedom. The fundamental Libertarian ideal is that man is born free, and that every man is free to do whatever he wishes so long as his actions do not unduly injure his neighbor's rights and capabilities to do the same.
But the tendency of the theistic faiths, as expressed by American theocrats, is proscriptiveness which cuts against disfavored behavior, and especially against sexual behavior, against
fornication (even between unmarried adults!!), against
masturbation,
consumption of
pornography (as it is a masturbational aid), against
commerce in sexual activity, against
divorce, and, naturally, against
homosexuality. Though the
disposition against almost all of these may be traced to sociobiological factors,
theocrats prefer to echo them as pronouncements from a deity. And, though they assure their fellow man that such deity will undertake to punish whoever engages in these disfavored activities, they obviously remain unsure enough of that to seek to use the government as an
engine of
enforcement of their religious restrictions. The
brute impositions of Islamic
tyrannies simply echoes what would be the situation in America and other Western countries if Christians were able to fully impose their Biblical ideologies on those nations, with a lowly few of the least civilised still deigning, in the name of Christianity to stone sinners to death.
But denouncement of sexual conduct is hardly the only activity upon which theistic faiths seek to bring down the fist of the state. As loose as theistic scriptures are, there is hardly a cause or an industry which may not find cause to restrict the freedom and tap the wallets of individuals on the basis of some religious commandment. Throughout much of history, state-run and enforced public
welfare has come at the behest of the Church, and under the prompting of scripture. Remember that the first American compulsory
public school systems were established at the direction of
Protestants seeking to use these institutions to inculcate the children of
Catholic immigrants into Protestant ideology.
Labor movements and
environmental laws have equally benefited from citations to religious authority. The
Death Penalty is pressed and opposed with equal vigor based on arguments from revelational texts.
Slavery found powerful verses to its advantage in the religious books, just as did the opponents of this practice. Costly
war has been brought and justified all down history on the wings of words in religious texts, contending that there is a God which wishes this or that group of nonbelievers (or just "other" believers) crushed and subjugated to "its" will in "our" name. Even such simple things as the special tax exemptions for theistic institutions (who naetheless continue to generate the public costs of roads and police and fire department services), zoning to favor the interests of the church, and fights over whether textbooks ought to contain scientific or religious accounts, all of these drain the public
coffers and create pressures for the government to find ways to extract from our private household economies what is required to pour into the economic void of theistic fulfillment.
Imagine the boon to government coffers if the churches were forced to pay even only the cost of police investigations into thieving ministers and pedophile priests!! And if mosques and cathedrals were forced to pay for their own roads and swails and sidewalks, instead of extracting the cost of those out of citizen pockets!! And lest we forget that this spigot turns both ways, many are the periods in human experience where the weight of the thumb of government has pushed the pen of the religious writer, so that the words of the religious texts may be rewritten or reinterpreted in line with the interests of the holders of political power.
Pandeism: cutting through the waste and oppression:
The theological theory of Pandeism offers none of these reasons for
waste and
oppression in the name of religious faith. It has no scripture. Again, it instead accounts for all asserted signs of the divine as simple manifestations of the unconscious power of a Creator which only underlies and sustains our Universe -- the most conservative
extrapolation to be made from the available evidence. It has no need for tax exempt buildings, and indeed asks no favors from the state, and does not seek to pick your pocket either directly or indirectly. Now there is some logical justifiability to the progressive pandeist sentiment as well, for if we are to believe that all of our shared experience is the experience had by our Creator, we might feel compelled to use the levers of power to ensure a society which provides positive experiences even to the downtrodden.
But the pandeist who is able to surpass the momentary
sentimentality of believing that government will tend to operate as it ideally ought to will admit the general and typical failure of government to work with
efficiency (except when achieving malevolent ends), or to achieve the very best of its aims. And, it may hardly be denied that each of us, as individuals, is in the best position to determine what will advance our own fulfillment of experience, and to take responsibility for pursuing that advance. We ought not to rely on some collective governmental entity, inevitably and perpetually falling subject to the influences of powerful interests seeking to benefit themselves and not their fellows. And so, the pandeistic model, seen through open eyes, augments the argument of libertarianism and derails the capacity of the theistic faiths to engage government as a tool of oppression in favor of their man-manufactured divine prohibitions.