Pantheism and Panentheism

[Thomas]

Thomas, from what I see, you're into faith dependent on proof, evidence, the testimony of time. You believe in the long standing, tride and true, centuries tested idea.

What I believe in is Revelation in the Catholic Tradition, and the philosophical method of testing reality as we perceive it. It's the foundation of all knowledge in the West and has yet to be bettered.

Others will naturally shy away from believing the centuries old idea, simply because it has been around for centuries.

Well that's a silly reason, isn't it?

Actually I think the more accurate description is that the quest for objectivity and truth has given way to the personal narrative. It doesn't matter what someone believes, what's more important is that because they believe in something, that validates what they believe.

It's a position of the western psyche emerging in the last 50 years, and has been identified in all areas of life, not just religion. Most tellingly, in fact, the recent conflicts were justified by this process. "The intelligence was wrong, but I was right because I believed that was the right thing to do ... "

They look for the open ended question, and when they find answers, they don't consider them fixed, bullet proof, and infallible. They tend to leave them as possibilities. They hear the questions, why are we here, and what awaits us when we die, and they say, "I dunno, but here's my best guess so far."

Two points:

I have consistently been highlighting a flaw in the panentheist model, and no-one addresses that question. Everyone, as you are here, is defending the right to believe in something as more important than whether that thing is a true or false speculation.

Furthermore, when faced with the question, the response is "I dunno... " or "it's a paradox you can't understand" ... no-one even attempts to answer the question or acknowledge the fundamental paradox to see if it can be resolved.

Your assumption that Catholicism is a closed book, a fixed model, is pure presumption. I'm arguing that my way is open and searching, your way is locked down and closed off by accepting questions as unanswerable, and so not even bothering to make an approach.

People get interested in science as kids, and they find things that intrigue them ... they go on to school and university, and at each step, the veils are drawn aside, but there's always something more to intrigue them ... and eventually they end up at the top of the tree, leaders in their field, and they're as inspired then as they were the day they started.

They end up looking with wonder from a place that few people are even aware of. The point is, they're still searching, but they know way more than a kid knows.

So we say 'I dunno' ... but we keep looking. My point is, it seems to me people settle for not knowing, and make a virtue of it.

I'm with Socrates: "The unexamined life is not worth living" I mean, where would all the natural sciences be if people settled for 'I dunno' and left it at that?

All religions, all schools of thought, are in the end, really no more than best guesses.

No, from here on you're into gueswwork, opinion and assumption ... so I'll leave it there.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Dear all —

I have thrown up various questions with regard to the principles of pantheist philosophy, seeking explanation.

All I've got so far is it cannot be explained, and I'm wrong in seeking an answer.

Not my way folks, sorry.

I'll address the issue if anyone else cares to, but I will no longer expend time and effort responding to ill-informed assumptions about Catholicism as a means of avoiding the question. I'm not even talking about Catholicism, I'm talking about philosophy.

Thomas

 

[wil]

The Orthodox Church also has a doctrine that is called "panentheism" that is not the same as the western doctrine. For us Orthodox Christians, "panentheism" is the concept that nothing can exist without God's active presence and intervention. However creation ("the universe") is not part of God. God and creation are still ontologically distinct. Creation cannot exist without God's direct presence at all times, but God and creation are still completely distinct from each other. Thus, God is "in all things", but none of those things are "part of" God. God IS the Creator in our verson of panentheism, and the creation IS NOT "the manifest part of God".

Exactly as I believe. Thank you.

Thomas

Namaste Thomas,

I love it you panentheist! And after all those arguments...suddenly you find a defintion you can appreciate and agree with, yippee.

Lets see, we've all been saying G!d is in all things and you've been disagreeing. We've been saying we and creation are the expression of G!d in 3d, you know man in his image and all... I've said G!d isn't this but the ether or behind it all, not the molecule and not the string that vibrates but the essence that allows it all and you've been disagreeing, however dogbrain puts it in a way that is acceptable to you, tis ok with me.

Of course Jesus told the Jews, 'ye are all G!ds, isn't that what your book says?'

I sort of see creation sort of like a fingerprint. You have evidence I was there, evidence I was involved, you've got a unique copy of my finger, but it is not my finger, you have some of my dna (which by golly science could understand all of me from), you can't see me, but you know it was me...

I have thrown up various questions with regard to the principles of pantheist philosophy, seeking explanation.

There is that blinking again brother...

Are there any pantheists here? I can't recall any, most of us are discussing from what we deem our panentheist point of view.

But the insistence seems to continually revert back to pantheist viewpoints which we aren't interested in defending (personally, but leave others the right to believe and defend)

 

[shawn]

Thomas:
Two points:

I have consistently been highlighting a flaw in the panentheist model, and no-one addresses that question. Everyone, as you are here, is defending the right to believe in something as more important than whether that thing is a true or false speculation.

Really, thomas...how are we going to put that issue to rest and decide....once and for all, which speculation is true and which is false????
It is obvious that you are biased and assume that you have the true insight and are seeking to correct all us poor lost lambs, to which we all, pretty consistently, have come back with our own thoughts on the matter which are not merely knee-jerk reactions, but equally valid speculations...but you have the truth and we are stuck in guess-work.


Furthermore, when faced with the question, the response is "I dunno... " or "it's a paradox you can't understand" ... no-one even attempts to answer the question or acknowledge the fundamental paradox to see if it can be resolved.

Maybe simplify "the question" to which you refer.

Personally, I do not agree with the pantheist position, but see much of merit in the panentheist ideas.

 

[Thomas]

Namaste Thomas,

I love it you panentheist!

Mmm ... not really. I'm inclined towards apophatic metaphysics, so I can see the cataphatic value of a properly-defined definition (in the same way I'm a Platonist, but of a revised Platonism).

And after all those arguments...suddenly you find a defintion you can appreciate and agree with, yippee.

Precisely. That's all I've been asking for ... a definition that makes sense. hardly surprising, considering its provenance. I still don't agree with the alternative definitions proposed here, for reasons stated, which remain unanswered.

Lets see, we've all been saying G!d is in all things and you've been disagreeing.

No, a lot of people have been making various statements, with more or less exactitude. I'm not interested in opinions, I was asking about the issue with the panentheist position.

Mostly people take oeffence at the idea that anyone might challenge the logic of a position, rather than actually reason the point. Everyone's telling me my position is illogical, for challenging another logic, on the basis that the logic should not be challenged ... in which case, nor should mine ... so I find everyone here contradicting themselves in evading the simple issue.

But the insistence seems to continually revert back to pantheist viewpoints which we aren't interested in defending (personally, but leave others the right to believe and defend)

No again ... this is what this thread is about ... I just ask for a simple answer to a simple question, which everyone seems to avoid answering, by wandering off into extraneous and immaterial discussion.

Thomas

 

[Tao_Equus]

It's the foundation of all knowledge in the West...

What utter nonsense.

I have been following this thread but have been physically too exhausted to contribute. Thomas there are glaring holes in both your contentions and your questions and even self-contradictory statements and reasoning appearing in consecutive statements. Yet you are almost like a child in your smug certainty. Truth is Thomas that you accept nothing outside the doctrine of the most corrupt and murderous institution in the history of humanity. Try not to forget that.

 

[Netti-Netti]

when faced with the question, the response is "I dunno... " or "it's a paradox you can't understand" ... no-one even attempts to answer the question or acknowledge the fundamental paradox to see if it can be resolved

Very astute but also somewhat ironic in light of your tendency to "flick away" points of view that are not to your liking.

 

[nativeastral]

This one boggles my mind. I do not see the link of immortality or the soul to the triangle in the discussion.

don't you mean rectangles?! geometry boggles me too; l posted that because of its discussion on mind [theres another good article there on Information which is confirming his panpsychism approach and to me how much heideggers Dasein is similar to spinozas Conatus,]. curiously the 'rectangle' description reminded me of a diagram on a kabbalah video [skip to 8 mins].. !

However, I do find this quote interesting:
Which seems to connect the idea of pantheism with temporal notions. I had not thought about the relation of panteism with time and it is an interesting context.



This article makes more sense to me, but it seems like the main point is the connection of Spinoza's pantheism to the Tao. A fairly simple concept. Do you see more sophistication to the argument ?

was there a mention of tao in that particular one? l have to admit l would have to re read it, again posted due to its title; l had been skimming other parts of that site which had a more teleological conclusion than spinozas apparent negation of a final cause but his idea of perfection is compatible.

 

[path_of_one]

OK. But we can explain the principles.

I keep asking for clarification of the principle. How can something that is beyond time and space, change?

The problem is you are proposing is, to me, fundamentally a problem with how we understand space-time and change. If you could put forth how you understand these concepts, that would give me a starting point for communicating.

I think what is necessary to start with, at least in terms of my flavor of panentheism, is that God is both non-changing and beyond space-time (one might say as a sort of force fabric that is the foundation for all things, but can exist independently, though it does not) and that God permeates all forms within space-time- that is, that God is space-time and change itself (as the manifest reality we experience).

When I dream, I am both everything that I dream (that is, I permeate my dream and all things within my dream find their origin, sustenance, and essence of selfhood within me) and I am sleeping in my bed.

Most people, when they dream, do not realize they are dreaming. They do not realize that the entire dream is really within their own head, and that they are sleeping in bed. But when one lucid dreams, the self in the dream becomes aware of the self that is sleeping, awakening a consciousness of connection between the two and opening new potentialities within the dream.

If this is possible, even within the human mind, how much more complexity and mystery is possible within the Divine?

 

[immortalitylost]

Thomas, you've misunderstood me again, if only because of my bad wording. When I said that some people shy away from believing in a centuries old idea, just because it has been around for centuries. I meant that they don't ascribe to that particular belief on the sole basis that it is long held tradition. They don't give it more favorable consideration than other beliefs just because it's old.

So, just thought I'd clear that up.

Also, notice when I said people replied to the question with "I dunno... but here's my best guess so far." Now, you wrote a great deal after that about how simply stating 'I dunno' to that question was being closed minded. But you seem to have missed the last part of the sentence. What that last part implies, is that they are striving for an answer just as assuredly as you are. They just don't take any one particular tradition or teaching for granted as being true. I quite agree with you that one of the greatest joys imaginable is striving towards the answer to seemingly unanswerable questions.

Also, I am not a pantheist, nor am I a panentheist. That would be the reason that I didn't answer any questions that you asked about those beliefs. I wasn't trying to slap you on the wrist for asking them either, just trying to share some insight as to the mindset of someone who doesn't look to religious teaching, or tradition, for all of the answers to their questions.

And as to me going into opinion, guesswork, and assumption. Of course I am. So are you. You're just using someone else's opinions, guesswork, and assumptions to make what you're saying sound more truthful, more accurate, with more 'proof' to back it up. My point, was that all of humanities contemplations on the divine, are all just a compilation of best guesses. There are no facts. No evidence. No concrete proof in any theory. It's all just opinions, guesswork, and assumptions.

It's all just a question of which best guess you're willing to put your faith in. Which track, if any, you feel is the right one to the truth.

Sorry for the confusion my text is wont to bring, and I hope this helps...

 

[Thomas]

What utter nonsense.

Your opinion. No discussion. Not much use.

Thomas there are glaring holes in both your contentions and your questions and even self-contradictory statements and reasoning appearing in consecutive statements.

Really? No-one's picked me up on that. I'll be glad to discuss them, but without knowing what they actually are, this is not really very helpful.

Yet you are almost like a child in your smug certainty.

Oh dear.

Truth is Thomas that you accept nothing outside the doctrine of the most corrupt and murderous institution in the history of humanity. Try not to forget that.

Oh, now who's being childish? These kinds of statements are typical of strident, ill-informed teenage-ism.

Simple date comparisons show Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin et al top the league of murderous institutions.

Regarding the Catholic Church, the institution you're alluding to, then it's you who's spouting nonsense, as historical data shows, if you bothered to read anything beyond the works of fiction, sensationalism and propaganda posturing as history.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Very astute but also somewhat ironic in light of your tendency to "flick away" points of view that are not to your liking.

Actually, if you look, I tend to respond to points made. Your tendency is to ignore the responses — as you have failed to respond to the basic issue with panentheism as has almost everyone else — and, being unable to respond, learn nothing from the encounter, but just keep on trumping up points of contention.

Thomas

 

[iBrian]

Interesting - it seems a core problem is that in some traditions, humanity is believed to be the pinnacle of intelligence, therefore any problems relating to the Divine can therefore be reasoned - hence Thomas's contention.

To some of us, humanity is anything but a pinnacle of intelligence, and instead we are nothing more than glorified monkeys, and our understanding of the universe is about as advanced as an ant's. In that regard, we cannot reason an explanation of the Divine that is Objective Truth, because we lack both the ability to comprehend and community the Divine fully.

Does that therefore mean an argument must be made that humanity's perception of itself, the universe, and the Divine is flawed and incomplete for in order to provide a philosophical basis for a Panentheist view?

Not a challenge, but a general question.

 

[Thomas]

The problem is you are proposing is, to me, fundamentally a problem with how we understand space-time and change. If you could put forth how you understand these concepts, that would give me a starting point for communicating.

OK. Taking God philosophically as Absolute and Infinite, then the Absolute is that to which nothing can be added, nothing taken away, no repetition and no division, it is that which is solely itself and totally itself, and being Infinite it is not determined by any limiting factor nor does it end at any boundary.

All creation on the other hand displays its inherent finitude in its way of being. Nothing in nature is absolute as such because there is diversity and multiplicity, nothing is infinite as everything acts and is being acted upon.

I think what is necessary to start with, at least in terms of my flavor of panentheism, is that God is both non-changing and beyond space-time ...

Agreed, as above.

As regards creation as a whole, I believe in a creatio ex nihilo, in which that primordial becoming is a 'movement' from nothing to something.

If we take change, which is synonymous with movement, then left to its own devices, nature and everything within it moves towards its own perfection, at which point it reaches its point of rest, and moves no more ...

God however is beyond space and time, God is Absolute and God is Infinite, so there can be no change in God, for there is nothing other than God; there can be no movement in God, for there is nothing God can be other than God.

(one might say as a sort of force fabric that is the foundation for all things, but can exist independently, though it does not)

I would prefer the idea of purusha/prakriti or essence/substance or spirit/matter ... but then although universals, these are abstracts by which we might approach the unapproachable.

... and that God permeates all forms within space-time- that is, that God is space-time and change itself (as the manifest reality we experience).

Well there I disagree. Everything that 'is' is defined by its act, its 'is-ness', and its act is to seek its own perfection. But God is already perfect ... God is already Absolute and Infinite, and that cannot be bettered or perfected.

I would argue the God that is the Efficient Cause of all is one and the same God that is the End of all, the Alpha and the Omega are One, and aeternal ... we see two, but there is just One ... so when you say "God is space-time and change itself" I argue that's from where you're looking, not from where God is ... God is not space nor time nor change nor movement ... God is not becoming, God is.

God permeates all and everything, and moreover it is by God that all and everything exists, and God sustains all and everything in existence, but God is not space nor time nor any other condition or determination, not even existence ...

Thomas

 

[Snoopy]

All creation on the other hand is finite by virtue of the fact it has a beginning and an end

How can one know or assert this?

(leaving aside that there is no 'before' prior to creation, no 'after' subsequent to it).

How can one know or assert this?

nothing is infinite as everything acts and is being acted upon.

How does the latter explain the assertion?

If we take change, which is synonymous with movement, then left to its own devices, nature and everything within it moves towards its own perfection, at which point it reaches its point of rest, and moves no more ...

I think this depends on what one understands by "perfection". Is your assertion demonstrable?

s,

 

[path_of_one]

Thomas, more or less what Snoopy said. Your discussion, while I am grateful for it, as it explains a good deal of your position, has many assumptions that I do not share.

I'll try a bit to explain how I have rationally thought about the paradox of my flavor panentheism, but please be aware this doesn't encapsulate the experience of it.

Basically, from our normal conscious perspective, time appears linear and things appear to change. But in another perspective, all moments exist as one moment and everything is unchanging. There is a sum total of all experience, all time, all space, all things. This is what I was getting at about dreaming and the dreamer. In the dream, there is a sense of time, change, characters, diversity, and so forth. But it all exists inside the mind of the dreamer and it is the dreamer's own reflection and manifestation through this thought-world.

The problem that God can't both be Absolute and Infinite, and be manifesting through and in everything, is a false problem. It sets up a dichotomy where there is not one.

Fractal geometry is the closest thing that I've found to assist in the experience of panentheism. On the one hand, you have an equation. And at one level, you have a single, total image- unchanging, the total representation of the equation. But zoom in closer to that image, and you get diversity upon diversity, change upon change. No two frames are alike, and yet they all bear the unmistakable stamp of the whole, rest entirely on the whole image and equation, and are inseparable from it in their being-ness.

YouTube - Arthur Clarke - Fractals - The Colors Of Infinity 1 of 6

 

[Thomas]

How can one know or assert this?

Because science shows that everything has a beginning, and an end. Whilst one can argue a Steady State, the weight of the working hypotheses these days lies with the Big Bang.

Within that, everything starts somewhere, and ends somewhere?

I think this depends on what one understands by "perfection". Is your assertion demonstrable?

The assertions are philosophical, supported by science as it stands today. So perfection one could read full potential, or fullness.

Thomas

 

[wil]

I believe the current state of scientific hypothesis is the about a growing and collapsing universe (this one of the multiverse) and the after the collapse the big bang is repeated over and over again (again in this verse of the multiverse).

Of course comparing science to Christian beliefs is faulty as science keeps learning and expanding when new information is brought forth. So the analogies used previously no longer hold water. Whereas in the current state of Christianity when anything new is discovered the masses hold their hands over their ears and point to the 66 books and refuse to listen to any evidence contrary.

And while the masses don't like to be referred to as the masses, this Christian understands when we learn that this or that were added or modified, it doesn't detract from beliefs and one has no need to hold their hands over their ears.

But also this Christian is growing tired of banging his head against brick walls, and I let the brick walls have their beliefs.

 

[Thomas]

The problem that God can't both be Absolute and Infinite, and be manifesting through and in everything, is a false problem. It sets up a dichotomy where there is not one.

That's not what I'm saying.

God manifests in and through things by their very existence, but what exists is not God. God is Immanently present to it, and it can participate, according to its nature, in the Divine, an experience which lies solely within the gift of the Divine.

There is nothing in a created nature that is Divine, except when the Divine chooses to indwell therein. This indwelling is always extra to the nature and is a free gift of the Divine

If what exists is God, how can It not know? How can the absolute and the infinite not know Itself? How can a nature limit anything that is unlimited and inconfinable?

...

Fractal geometry is the closest thing that I've found to assist in the experience of panentheism. On the one hand, you have an equation. And at one level, you have a single, total image - unchanging, the total representation of the equation. But zoom in closer to that image, and you get diversity upon diversity, change upon change. No two frames are alike, and yet they all bear the unmistakable stamp of the whole, rest entirely on the whole image and equation, and are inseparable from it in their being-ness.

I know, but all this occurs within a finite mode of being and becoming. I think this is the problem with natural analogies, one transfers the natural state into the supernatural.

Take multiple universe theory, that in everything there is every possible alternative co-existing simultaneously ... the number of universes is infinite ...

... the point is that every universe, every possible existence of every possible existant thing, is foreknown in God ... the same with the fractal ... every possible combination is known, and every possible combination was foreknown in God before the fractal existed, because nothing a fractal can realise, no universe of exponential infinite alternatives, can exist without its being known beforehand in the Divine ...

... my point is that God in His/Herself cannot change, how can He/She? What is the instrument of change? Not time, not space, not knowledge, not being ... because everything that is God, was God and will be God eternally ... and everything that God is, God was and God will be, and because God is so, absolutely and infinitely, there is no possibility of change or mutability in God because there is no state to be that is not already ... everything that God can become, God already is.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

In that regard, we cannot reason an explanation of the Divine that is Objective Truth, because we lack both the ability to comprehend and community the Divine fully.

Agreed.

Does that therefore mean an argument must be made that humanity's perception of itself, the universe, and the Divine is flawed and incomplete for in order to provide a philosophical basis for a Panentheist view?

I think so ... I also think that philosophy demonstrates the flaw. My argument with panentheism is philosophical, not theological. It's a matter of logic.

Panentheism poses a relative absolute ... my theism poses an absolute absolute ... my argument is the absolute is absolute in itself, but appears relative to relative things, because that's how they perceive it, not because that's how it is.

My theism also calls for a contemplation of the thing in itself, not the things as it appears in things.

But none of this requires 'revelation' — it's all the application of logic.

Thomas