Pantheism and Panentheism

[Thomas]

But I thought you believed that God is three in one. That's three ways of being while still being one. Why not more?

It's a good point ... if there is multiplicity, then the principle of multiplicity must exist in the One, and yet without rendering the One as Itself multiple. That's precisely what the Trinity does. Without the Trinity, there would be nothing. You don't need more than three to affirm the full scope of the principle.

But... well, obviously God holds the possibility within himself to be himself.

we tend to say that regarding God, 'possibility', 'potentiality' and 'actuality' do not apply — in that all three coincide. God is that which IS, utterly and entirely, AS IT IS, without potential or possibility to be anything other ...

... the possibility, potentiality and actuality applies to other things.

I guess what you're saying is that nothing besides God has the possibility to be God. I agree.

That's my issue with panentheism. If panentheists says this is what they mean, then the term is redundant ... this is Christian monotheism, plain and simple.

But I do believe that things that God creates have the possibility of possessing certain Qualities of God. In fact, Qualities of God is a much better way of putting it than 'parts' of God for what I mean. Just reassign parts as qualities in my earlier post. It's sadly, another case of not being able to find the right wording to get my ideas across.

Christian monotheism again.
I think we agree. I would say that we participate in the Qualities we participate in the Divine, acknowledging, of course, that the Divine transcends all qualities, as (in most cases) a quality infers its contrary. This leads people to the error in assuming that because God is the source of good, God is also the source of evil, for example.

I didn't mean to make him sound like a composite being, I think a clearer way of saying what I meant, is that he isn't the physical universe, and the physical universe isn't him, but the physical universe('s) is a possibility within him, and therefore exists within him, and because of him.

Agreed. But that does not prevent the two, God and the universe, or Creator and creation, from being absolutely distinct. Everything is in God, but that does not make it God.

I don't believe that there is such a state as away from God, because I don't believe that existence is possible without God. Being completely apart from him would mean you didn't exist, or that you were no longer a possibility within God. And God holds all possibilities and is responsible for all existence.

Ah, well here we disagree. In the Christian Tradition we have 'made in the image and likeness', so we hold man as possessing, as near as possible, those higher qualities of the Divine nature, so a moral and intellectual dimension. We hold that evil arises in the creature, not in the Creator.

We are 'away' from God in the sense that we are not mindful of Him, we are 'separated' from God in the sense that we act towards our own perceived good. We do not see, we do not listen ... but He is there.

The world is a possibility within God, actualized in matter, another possibility within God, and being a possibility of God, is part of him.

That 'part of' again! ...

Why cannot God create that which is not Himself?

Here is the real crux of our disagreement methinks. I don't believe that negative qualities are non qualities. Just qualities like the rest. And I believe that God holds all qualities. Not just the virtuous ones. Or what we think of as virtuous. I believe that this is you limiting God by saying that he is only virtuous, and not anything else.

I am saying that the virtues are divine qualities, and the vices are the absence of those qualities. I think we actually agree on this.

Why I argue is that there is a tendency to say that vices are also divine qualities, that evil is willed by God, and therefore what 'I' do is not my fault, is not my responsibility, and is all as God planned ... I see the modern idea of God as often a discreet way of absolving oneself of any responsibility for anything, and making God responsible for everything.

But I think we agree on more than we disagree.

Thomas

 

[dauer]

It would be relevant if theology is determined by linguistic parameters and the conceptual metaphors that reflect linguistic conventions shape larger analogical arguments about divine attributes, etc.

As someone put it, the Bible is written in a kind of "code." Presumably the same concepts can be described using a different code. The codes could be equally - kind of like different translations of the same original text except here we are talking about alternate renderings of the same ideas.

Either I misunderstood what you said or your misunderstood what I said, but I think there must have been some miscommunication at some point because I don't see how that relates. I don't see how maintaining that one's religious beliefs are absolutely true is of value to what you're suggesting. I see religion as mistaken in its focus on truth which, again, is not to say that I think religious models are truly wrong (I'm agnostic on that issue) nor is it to say that I think religious people should shed their ontological models. A model can be embraced and experienced as real without assuming that it represents absolute truth. If one were to accept the possibility that it doesn't, then it would be much easier to shift between different models based on one's goals in the present moment. I've had both theistic and non-theistic experiences in meditation. I don't think that'd be possible unless I were willing to entertain both the idea of Deity and the idea of not-Deity at different times. I've been playing around in my head a lot with some sort of contextualist approach to theology. Not sure exactly where I'm going with it yet and don't want to talk about it much more right now. But perhaps that statement alone will clarify my intention.

 

[Thomas]

Thomas,
This is a bogus distinction. Your primary source for classic theism would seem to be Aquinas, who was a priest/ideologue with the Catholic Church. for about 30 years.

Actually my primary source in this is Plato and Aristotle, Dionysius and Eriugena. It's you who keeps banging on about Aquinas, and making completely subjective and erroneous judgements.

I might mention in passing that Aquinas evidently suffered a "complete collapse" (a stroke or a nervous breakdown) when he finally confronted the inadequacy of "reason" to understand G-d. Your distinction between Catholicism and philosophy is questionable at best.

Like the above. No chance it might have been a mystical experience? You rule that out in your panenthism, do you?

And if you are asserting the inadequacy of reason in understanding God ... if you think that then you have no grounds on which to argue, do you? So I think it's your logic or your purpose is bogus in this case.

Christian panentheism appeared as a corrective for the old 'monarchical" model of G-d that emphasized His transcendence to the exclusion of His immanence.

D'you think so? I have no idea what model you're talking about, so I can't comment. Made a big boo-boo in trying to apply it to Christianity tho, obviously. In fact the Abrahamic Tradition is, by its very nature, a tradition that asserts the Immanent Presence of the Transcendent God.

Panentheism is a variation on traditional theism, with the notable primary difference being an emphasis on immanence. You seem to have missed this entirely in you blind zeal to defend classic theism.

Really? I rather thought I had stressed that God is immanently present to and in creatures, without which God would not be known at all. A doctrine of absolute transcendence, without immanence, is deism ... a non-starter in my book.

And I rather think you've highlighted the fundamental error — in over-emphasising the immanence, you've become subjective.

Panentheism cannot properly be considered a doctrine of immanence, by the way, as immanence rightly understood is a state in which object is present to subject. Something cannot be immanent to itself.

It's actually very possible (and very reasonable) to accept that G-d does not have foreknowledge of all events if you can accept that events are not fully determinate.

Only if you accept that God is subject to temporal determination, which I and the Christian tradition do not.

And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, “... I am sorry I made them.” (Genesis 6:6-7)
​

Why would G-d be disappointed and aggrieved about what happened if He had could have foreseen that things were going to go bad?

If the God of Scripture is anything like the God you read into it, then according to your interpretation of the texts cited, then we have a deity who is subject to finite contingencies, who is fallible ... in fact a deity that hardly comforms to any meaningful notion of a 'god' at all, certainly not the deity of an panentheist model.

Again, Panenthesm is an elaboration of a traditional theistic view of divine attributes.

Well not your brand of panentheism, as you've just refuted all divine attributes anyway. Your god hardly measures up to the character of decent human being, let alone a divine one. Frankly I wonder what you see in such a deity at all? I mean, if you're right, then you could both be wrong.

Thomas

 

[shawn]

Thomas:
Why cannot God create that which is not Himself?

Omnipresence.
When you "know" something it is because it has become a part of you.
You "know" your wife by becoming "one" with her.
God is said to "know" all of creation, which implies that He permeates it entirely.

 

[path_of_one]

I agree. The basic issue, it seems to me, is that it presupposes a contiguity between Creator and creation, some order of co-essentiality, which therefore supposes that each conditions the other.

Again, this issue of co-essentiality is mostly an issue if we insist on a creator/creation distinction to begin with. If we look at things as process itself- not as something that does something and not as something that evolves into something- but as being and evolution itself... these issues melt away.

That said, all things in existence inter-are (as Thich Nhat Hanh puts it) with everything else. God Herself inter-is within Herself, and this interbeingness is indistinguishable from the interbeingness between all things in existence, as all things are manifested out of Her interbeingness.

To me, this is one of the ways the Trinitarian God concept is useful- God inter-is. Never has or will exist alone as a single entity, but rather is both a single entity and a relationship within that entity. If this is the case, why suppose that anything in existence could ever be outside the interbeingness? The dichotomous categories of "creator" and "creation" are not very meaningful if everything is the manifestation of Being Itself. There is a co-existence in this that is not cause/effect, nor is it saying one is dependent on the other, as both are part of one process, which is God.

I don't agree. If there is a God beyond everything, and the God beyond everything lacks for nothing, then there certainly is a distinction between God and everything (else) because everything (else) possesses none of the qualities that God does.

How do we know everything (else) does not possess the qualities God has? By virtue of everything being within God, does that not mean that everything possesses some manifestation of God? Or does God have to operate in a certain way?

This brings us back to contiguity: A divine connection with everything, which I read as God's Immanence in creation, does not presuppose a divine essence of everything. If everything is intrinsically divine, then how can it not know its own divinity, if a marker of the divine is that which lacks for nothing, and is subject to not condition nor determination?

Can God play hide and seek with Herself?

In Christianity, Jesus is accepted as divine in both connection and essence, yet he was a human being that was not infinite, nor absolute. He suffered, he died, and if one reads the Gospels carefully, he seems to make mistakes and learn from others around him. In traditional Protestant reading, he was foresaken at the cross when he took on all sin. Yet, he is accepted as God- not just a manifestation of God, but God Himself.

If God can do that, why could She not do it in general with everything?

It is my belief that we are both divine in connection and in essence. "I" do not exist outside of my connection to God. I might be a temporary illusion of a personality and brain and body, but these things die one day, and so from the standpoint of eternity, I am just a little blip of a short play. What I "really" am, what is lasting, is the bit of me that is God- the connection to Her, the capacity to be a conduit for Her. The more I cultivate this, the more real and eternal I become.

Cultivation of the divine essence in oneself causes death of the ego-self, which means one recognizes one's own illusory and non-existant nature... yet in so doing, one finds one's "real" self. It's the whole "dying to self to live" thing.

That God is immanently present in and to things does not adequately infer the assumption that things are divine by essence and nature — in fact I read it as quite the opposite — by being immanent presupposes a distinction of essence and nature — that the apprehending nature perceives something other than itself.

I disagree- and explain above. I am not saying things are divine in essence out of an inference from immanence. I am saying that the nature of things is that they are manifestations of God Herself as Being (the verb, not the noun). Things could be different, but they aren't. God Herself could have not manifested what is existing, but She manifested reality as it is. As such, what She manifested is within Herself- She holds it all within Her.

That things do not realize this means nothing whatsoever about the nature of reality itself. This is like saying that because the cells in my body are not conscious of my consciousness, are not aware of being me, that they are not me. In fact, we know that the paradox is that my cells are both their own entities, doing their own thing, and yet they are me- a me with a consciousness. The process of my being gives rise to both "me" as the consciousness and "me" as each individual cell, and both are held within "me."

The cells' perspective of being singular entities is a faulty one, because they do not realize that their essence is "me." But their lack of awareness does not make the reality of "my" wholeness any less real.

Separation is a whole other issue, to do with the ontology of freedom.

I would say we have the freedom to choose to feel separated. We never real are separated, but God manifests into some things the ability to feel like we are. God manifests the temporary illusion of free will. Even in Christianity, it is clear that eventually we do not have free will, as everyone will be met by God, judged by God, and appointed a certain existence by God. So free will is really just a temporary illusion- a fleeting sense we have.

In the paradox of panentheism, free will and predestination are both faulty ways of looking at what is going on, as both presume a disconnect that does not really exist.

I disagree. I think you're reading too much into nature v supernature. One could define nature as that which is accessible to the senses, and the supernatural as that which is accessible to the intellect.

I don't think those would be very good definitions, since things that are widely considered supernatural, like gods/goddesses, ghosts, spirits, and forces are easily perceived by the senses even in relatively unaware individuals. People say they get goosebumps, they see or hear things, the hair on their neck raises up, their stomach churns. These are all sensory things. Conversely, if you say the supernatural is what is accessible to the intellect, then scientific theory, atheism, secular philosophy, and math belong to the supernatural. That doesn't make much useful sense.

And I think you're inferring too much by inferring 'separation' to a theist doctrine. It's certainly not in the Latin or Greek mode of thinking. Nor does not separation infer contiguity. So I'm afraid I think the idea of separation is false, if you're assuming that's what the Christian West thinks.

So in Christianity, we are not separate from God? Yet we are not in God either? We are not not-God and we are not God. That sounds like panentheism to me. Perhaps describe this state of non-separation and non-connection- and is this state overcome through baptism or is it an issue of awareness in the individual?

I'm not sure. Does that render the individual as non-participant? God is the cause of evolution and change, the calling ... but is does not change.

Personally, I think there is an issue with saying God causes this and that, and yet what God does is somehow divorced from Godself. To me, it just isn't very useful to make categories like this. Why is this useful to you?

One of the major distinctions between Catholic/Orthodox and Protestant theologies is the idea of individual freedom, responsibility and participation. It's a given in Catholic/Orthodox theology that the 'yes' of the individual is paramount; without that yes there is no love, only obligation; no free act, only predetermination; the individual will is not-participant, and immaterial, and eventually freedom is reduced to nothing. (This is the basis of C/O Marian theology, by the way, which its critics refute without understanding.)

Again, I think I address this above. I am interested in the space between ideas about free will and predetermination. Personally, I think this sort of dichotomous thinking misses the boat in addressing reality. Clearly, there is some middle ground because free will is a temporary phenomenon. In either case, as God can manifest whatever She manifests, the presence of free will to be aware or not be aware, to embrace or not embrace, the divine essence of oneself and the divine connection are irrelevant in terms of whether or not that divine essence and connection exist. I can ignore the news, but it doesn't mean things don't keep on happening around me.

So God is the cause of change, but God is passive in the sense that God works by invitation, not by coercion. Man is free at any point to say 'No' and cease to participate in the divine life.

Again, this issue of coercion only applies if we are indeed separate from God to begin with. If we are not, there is no sense of coercion. God can only be a puppeteer if the puppets are not a part of Her. It is our choice whether or not to awaken and be aware of our own connection and essence, and just as we know we can hide from memories, feelings, thoughts, and so on in our psyche, so too can we hide from that which is divine in us and all around us. The invitation is always there, by virtue of our being manifested in the first place.

One thing to realise is theosis, divinisation, is not something that happens as the end result of a good and ascetic life ... it is an ongoing process from the very start, and proceeds by degree, but not, as you point out above, in a strictly linear manner (linearism is itself an artificial concept with few referrants in nature, I rather spirals ... )

So from the very beginning one participate in the Divine Life, or not, by degree; some along the interface, as it were, some heading deeper in, others ever further away ...

Of course. I would say that from the beginning, we can awaken or fall asleep to the divine essence and connection. Living in an awake and connected manner affects how one lives, and how one lives can help or hinder this awakening and connecting, but one cannot awaken and connect simply through trying to be "good" or ascetic. One's motivations matter.

But that's you ... in fact in many ways its very Christian, as 'we' are not divine, but the divine indwells in us.

I don't consider myself not-Christian. But the distinction between divine indwelling and divine essence is, to me, useless. It makes sense, I suppose, if one believes there is a hell where some people will be chucked for all eternity, but I don't. If there isn't this punishment or annihilation looming, then it isn't necessary to have a God that withdraws that indwelling from the individual. Rather, it makes sense for the individual to be aware (or not) of this indwelling. The more aware one is of it, the more one can cultivate being a conduit for it, and thereby become what one's potential is- to be one with God. However, from the standpoint of eternity, our potential is already us, as all potential already resides within God Herself. So, we are already one with God- we just need to be aware of it.

What 'unfolds' does not evolve, nor change, as a flower unfolds, the unfolding is in fact a revealing, and again I would say that this process is ongoing, a stripping away of veils, and the world and its contents, and all its being, is a veil ...

Thomas

I think evolution and change is also a revealing, a revealing of potential that has always existed. Things may evolve or change, but they are all temporary- their essence alone is eternal, and this essence is at one with God. We exist as artistic manifestations of God, as God's poetry and sculpture and theater, pouring out of God as creativity itself and eventually winding our way back into Her Presence.

The world and its conents are not the veil unto themselves, but rather we create them as such through our lack of awareness. When I choose to be aware of God's Presence, everything around me speaks to me of Her- opportunities to serve, to love, to learn, to find joy and peace. And when I choose to be asleep, I create the barriers, the illusions that make up the veil between myself and the Divine One. The world is not at fault; I claim responsibility for any veil I have between God and myself.

 

[Thomas]

Omnipresence.
When you "know" something it is because it has become a part of you.

Well ... aren't we pushing a poetic analogy to the very limit here? I could say 'harmony' without inferring any substantiality.

You "know" your wife by becoming "one" with her.

Scripturally? Then you're talking about marriage. Non-scripturally? I know the next door neighbour, that is, we're acquainted, I mean, I know her, but I don't know her ... But I'm not trying to make fun at your expense ...

God is said to "know" all of creation, which implies that He permeates it entirely.

I entirely agree, but still that does not make creation substantially the same stuff as God ... we are permeated by cosmic rays/particles/stuff ... electromagnetic fields ... but because A permeates B does not imply any material, substantial unity between A and B.

Then again, it's that kind of comment "He sees everything you do" that we were terrorised with at catechism class! So without disagreeing with you, how that is implied is all important.

I often withstand panentheism because it undermines the reality of the existing being. Whereas, as a theologian I can say I exist only in that God upholds my existence from moment to moment, the fact remains the entity that says "I" does exist, because it is the ability to say "I" that sets man apart from animal nature, and it is a gift of the Divine, by participation in this "I-ness" — not the same "I" substantially (that is a later grace), but, like God, we can say "I" in reference to a subjective mode of being ...

Perhaps it is this "I" that most closely resembles the Divine Image and Likeness. For God alone is truly "I" in that He exists because He exists, rather than He subsists according to something other, and the 'gift' of God to man, that he is able to savour the freedom of existing entirely for his own sake, and this is what harmony/union/oneness with God is, an order of communion, of love, not by a consubstantiality of nature (in which he has no physical choice), not by obligation (in which he has no logical choice), but in the pure free act of giving, for no other reason than one chooses to...

It is this, to me, this absolute freedom, ontologically founded in a God upon whom one is simultaneously absolutely dependent, that all other theisms erode and derrogate ...

Man is free because God has made him, and made him free, whereas all these other theisms seem to be trying to assert ties of nature or obligation to say man is not free, the gift is not real ...

I cannot settle for what I can only see as a reduction of the gift of life. The more one argues for a divine substrate of things, the more one reduces their actuality and integrality as existential beings. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

God is present in all things everywhere and at all times ... but that does not make those things God, or accord to them any divine quality, essence or nature ... the gift and the power are His alone.

If I believe in God, absolutely, then to believe in man, absolutely, draws attention to the most profound of mysteries of being ... anything other than that is, as my old friend used to say, toothpaste.

Thomas

 

[path_of_one]

A few questions, Thomas...

I entirely agree, but still that does not make creation substantially the same stuff as God ... we are permeated by cosmic rays/particles/stuff ... electromagnetic fields ... but because A permeates B does not imply any material, substantial unity between A and B.

So there is no material, substantial unity between me and my cells, atoms, and so forth?

I often withstand panentheism because it undermines the reality of the existing being.

Why is this a problem? Who is the "existing being" we're clinging to and why should we be attached to it?

the fact remains the entity that says "I" does exist, because it is the ability to say "I" that sets man apart from animal nature, and it is a gift of the Divine, by participation in this "I-ness" — not the same "I" substantially (that is a later grace), but, like God, we can say "I" in reference to a subjective mode of being ...

How do we know what every other existing being in the universe thinks, feels, and communicates? How do we know this sets humankind apart from all else? On the contrary, many intelligent mammals are known to have a sense of personality and individuality, as well as the capacity to manipulate others to shore up individual power, status, and so forth.

And none of that makes the "I" real. I have the ability to imagine pink unicorns, but that doesn't necessarily make the pink unicorns real. Some people have multiple personality disorder, but it doesn't make them literally half a dozen different individuals... or does it? My point is the human mind's capacity to imagine or to think is not evidence of its correct grasp of reality. We are so inherently limited, it is folly to believe that whatever we generate in our minds is necessarily evidence of how things are.

It is this, to me, this absolute freedom, ontologically founded in a God upon whom one is simultaneously absolutely dependent, that all other theisms erode and derrogate ...

Yet it is a temporary and limited freedom, is it not? We are bound by our human brains and bodies, our personalities, our conditioning, so many circumstances... And all this in the Christian perspective is very, very brief indeed. A minute slice of eternity, and our "freedom" to choose not to "believe" is punished forever if we make the "wrong" choice.

Tell me, where is the freedom in that? It is rather an illusion, if there is no lasting freedom, and only dependency remains.

I cannot settle for what I can only see as a reduction of the gift of life. The more one argues for a divine substrate of things, the more one reduces their actuality and integrality as existential beings. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

Well, that is the nature of impermanence-- nothing really has is-ness very long, except the substrate itself. In Christian ideology itself, the human being only has the characteristics we ascribe as individual for a very brief moment, followed by an eternity dictated by God's response to one's "choice." This is not true freedom, and it does not support a lasting actuality of beings. Rather, this is more like a semblance of freedom but we are really enslaved, because we only have the choice of embracing God (and in the "correct and right only way"!) or being eternally tormented.

Where is the freedom in that?

No offense, but in my view of things, at least my belief system upholds an essential liberty of the individual being to indefinitely pursue growth or eschew it, by which the individual being creates his or her own heaven (in the Presence of God) or hell (choosing to remain in a feeling of separation). At least in saying the being has a divine essence, it does not give the being a timeline in which to correctly choose or be eternally punished. No, ultimately no one being is "free" in some sense of long-term actuality as all will eventually return to the Divine One. No one being can escape interbeingness- we so obviously cannot do this even on a physical level, as everything is interdependent with everything else. However, Christian ideology does not provide any more freedom- only the illusion of a temporary freedom in which all but one "choice" leads to eternal bondage. The only invitation of escaping this torment is through the One and Only Way (at least in mainline and traditional views). That doesn't sound like liberty to me. And in fact, any government that operated in this manner would be notably thought of as an enemy of freedom.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Man is free because God has made him, and made him free, whereas all these other theisms seem to be trying to assert ties of nature or obligation to say man is not free, the gift is not real ...

I cannot settle for what I can only see as a reduction of the gift of life. The more one argues for a divine substrate of things, the more one reduces their actuality and integrality as existential beings. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

I agree with this. If personal Will is real, then we can't all be God's pawns. There has to be space to do evil and reap the result or God's goodness falls into question.

Chris

 

[shawn]

Well ... aren't we pushing a poetic analogy to the very limit here? I could say 'harmony' without inferring any substantiality.

I see it as using the information provided the way it was intended.


Scripturally? Then you're talking about marriage. Non-scripturally? I know the next door neighbour, that is, we're acquainted, I mean, I know her, but I don't know her ... But I'm not trying to make fun at your expense ...

Know, as in intimate, analogous to sex.


I entirely agree, but still that does not make creation substantially the same stuff as God

how can we prove that either way???

... we are permeated by cosmic rays/particles/stuff ... electromagnetic fields ... but because A permeates B does not imply any material, substantial unity between A and B.

We are dealing with "presence", or awareness, or consciousness, and not material or substance, besides which there is no such a thing as "substance" as all is very insubstantial when looked at microcosmically.

Then again, it's that kind of comment "He sees everything you do" that we were terrorised with at catechism class! So without disagreeing with you, how that is implied is all important.

Well, that is just another version of "big brother is watching" which is a political control mechanism and history very clearly shows that catholicism has been used for over a millenia by empire as a means to control the population

I often withstand panentheism because it undermines the reality of the existing being. Whereas, as a theologian I can say I exist only in that God upholds my existence from moment to moment, the fact remains the entity that says "I" does exist, because it is the ability to say "I" that sets man apart from animal nature, and it is a gift of the Divine, by participation in this "I-ness" — not the same "I" substantially (that is a later grace), but, like God, we can say "I" in reference to a subjective mode of being ...

Perhaps it is this "I" that most closely resembles the Divine Image and Likeness. For God alone is truly "I" in that He exists because He exists, rather than He subsists according to something other, and the 'gift' of God to man, that he is able to savour the freedom of existing entirely for his own sake, and this is what harmony/union/oneness with God is, an order of communion, of love, not by a consubstantiality of nature (in which he has no physical choice), not by obligation (in which he has no logical choice), but in the pure free act of giving, for no other reason than one chooses to...

It is this, to me, this absolute freedom, ontologically founded in a God upon whom one is simultaneously absolutely dependent, that all other theisms erode and derrogate ...

Man is free because God has made him, and made him free, whereas all these other theisms seem to be trying to assert ties of nature or obligation to say man is not free, the gift is not real ...

I cannot settle for what I can only see as a reduction of the gift of life. The more one argues for a divine substrate of things, the more one reduces their actuality and integrality as existential beings. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

No need to apologize. It is not shameful to have a dominant ego structure which reduces your awareness.
With help you can grow out of that issue.

God is present in all things everywhere and at all times ... but that does not make those things God, or accord to them any divine quality, essence or nature ... the gift and the power are His alone.

If I believe in God, absolutely, then to believe in man, absolutely, draws attention to the most profound of mysteries of being ... anything other than that is, as my old friend used to say, toothpaste.

Thomas

First off.....did you even watch the video????
[youtube]SNj0lZdNpCQ&feature[/youtube]

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

What about the idea of Logos? Logos permeates meaning entirely. Everything about a thing can be referenced in its logos. What makes seeds grow, Thomas, must be a function of planetary logos. There is only one Logos, correcto? So the argument against pantheism really is one of folkloric versus theological labeling, isn't it?

Chris

 

[Avi]

First off.....did you even watch the video????

I liked the video. But it seems to me that conservative religious folks (in this case an Orthodox Jew) who are scientists live in their own duality.

 

[nativeastral]

l liked that video too; psychoneuroimmunolgy...put a bunch of females together and they start bleeding ranting at the moon

What about the idea of Logos? Logos permeates meaning entirely. Everything about a thing can be referenced in its logos. What makes seeds grow, Thomas, must be a function of planetary logos. There is only one Logos, correcto? So the argument against pantheism really is one of folkloric versus theological labeling, isn't it?

Chris

l think so, back to the world soul of Stoicism , the major philosophy which was subsumed within the ascendancy of Christianity along with the successful merging of the mystery cults and so appealing to all strata.

Spinoza too pinpointed the connecting link [the Mind of g#d] with reason/intellect or rather the higher, intuitive knowledge, Understanding with a capital U! ie the only 'thing' eternally consubstantial with the Infinite.

Avi if he was athiest would he believe in angels? l think his apparent materialism got hijacked by Marxist thought [dialectical materialism] via Hegel who called his philosophy Acosmism
[but only to refute another guy Schelling both 'paradoxically idealists probably accused of athiesm, positing a 'world soul' - geist [spirit,mind]],

in that same standford article

'We conceive things as actual in two ways: either insofar as we conceive them to exist in relation to a certain time and place, or insofar as we conceive them to be contained in God and to follow from the necessity of the divine nature. But the things we conceive in this second way as true, or real, we conceive under a species of eternity, and to that extent they involve the eternal and infinite essence of God. (Vp39s)'​

“The third kind of knowledge proceeds from an adequate idea of certain attributes of God to an adequate knowledge of the essence of things, and the more we understand things in this way, the more we understand God” (Vp25d). Knowledge of God is, thus, the Mind's greatest good and its greatest virtue.'
What we see when we understand things through the third kind of knowledge, under the aspect of eternity and in relation to God, is the deterministic necessity of all things. We see that all bodies and their states follow necessarily from the essence of matter and the universal laws of physics; and we see that all ideas, including all the properties of minds, follow necessarily from the essence of thought and its universal laws. This insight can only weaken the power that the passions have over us. We are no longer hopeful or fearful of what shall come to pass, and no longer anxious or despondent over our possessions. We regard all things with equanimity, and we are not inordinately and irrationally affected in different ways by past, present or future events. The result is self-control and a calmness of mind.'


very stoical.



'What, in the end, replaces the passionate love for ephemeral “goods” is an intellectual love for an eternal, immutable good that we can fully and stably possess, God. The third kind of knowledge generates a love for its object, and in this love consists not joy, a passion, but blessedness itself. Taking his cue from Maimonides's view of human eudaimonia, Spinoza argues that the mind's intellectual love of God is our understanding of the universe, our virtue, our happiness, our well-being and our “salvation”. It is also our freedom and autonomy, as we approach the condition wherein what happens to us follows from our nature (as a determinate and determined mode of one of God's attributes) alone and not as a result of the ways external things affect us.'


the ontology of the athiest minus the g and s word?



Spinoza's “free person” is one who bears the gifts and losses of fortune with equanimity, does only those things that he believes to be “the most important in life”, takes care for the well-being of others (doing what he can to insure that they, too, achieve some relief from the disturbances of the passions through understanding), and is not anxious about death. The free person neither hopes for any eternal, otherworldly rewards nor fears any eternal punishments. He knows that the soul is not immortal in any personal sense, but is endowed only with a certain kind of eternity. The more the mind consists of true and adequate ideas (which are eternal), the more of it remains—within God's attribute of Thought—after the death of the body and the disappearance of that part of the mind that corresponds to the body's duration. This understanding of his place in the natural scheme of things brings to the free individual true peace of mind.

a natural continuation being existentialism; Heidegger continually makes reference to the man of practical wisdom, Aristotle's Phronesis in his authentic dasein who cant get behind his throwness and has but a moment [essentially] of existence in temporality to actualise his possiblities until his demise or the reality of no more possibilities. [though his dasein is not a substance and so may be more transcendental than assumed, just as materialism may in fact be idealism].

light is substance right?

 

[immortalitylost]

I am saying that the virtues are divine qualities, and the vices are the absence of those qualities. I think we actually agree on this.

Why I argue is that there is a tendency to say that vices are also divine qualities, that evil is willed by God, and therefore what 'I' do is not my fault, is not my responsibility, and is all as God planned ... I see the modern idea of God as often a discreet way of absolving oneself of any responsibility for anything, and making God responsible for everything.

Virtues are divine qualities, qualities that man should strive for with his free will, vices, I believe, are also qualities that the divine holds, for the sole reason that he holds all qualities. If man strives for these qualities, it is by his own free will, not directed by God as a puppet would be directed, and yet God created the possibility for man to strive toward these qualities, knowing the outcome it would have on every single soul.

I believe that there is a reason for these qualities to exist, and that is as a catalyst for learning and spiritual growth. All I am saying is that the possibility of evil, of vices, exists within God, as he holds all possibility. He presents us with the possibility, and, knowing what each and every one of us will do with it, still offers it. It is "part of his plan" in the sense that it exists, and he allows it to exist, and I believe that it is there purposefully.

But though he knows what each of us will do with these possibilities, and knew before we were created, we choose with free will to reach for either, or both. It's not God's fault that we do wrong, any more than it is his fault that we do good. We do it. God just created us knowing that we would. And by the fact that he allowed us to be at all, evil or good, we can see his unwaivering love for all his creation.

Now, along that line of thinking, the reason that I have a problem with Hell and divine judgment, is that a loving God would not create man--knowing even before mans creation what each and every individual of that race would do with the possibilities of virtue and vice that he had placed in their created world--and then throw some of them into eternal hell upon judgment of what he already knew would happen. Why create those souls in the first place? There would be no reason for it. This is especially senseless if you, as I do, see evil as a necessary catalyst for spiritual growth, given with purpose by an all knowing God.

Also, we see Jesus telling people to forgive man's evils indefinitely. If we are to do this, if Jesus could do this, why would God do any different? Even more so as their creator, as opposed to just another member of the same race. The idea of hell, an eternal hell, is why I will never be a Christian, as much as the concept that God did not consciously create the universe means that I will never be a panentheist.

Hopefully you can see my dilemma with this. And see that, though I agree with you on most things, I cannot on this.

But I think we agree on more than we disagree.

I do believe you're right on that account.

 

[Avi]

Would like to explore the phase space around Spinoza. Descartes is cited in the SEP. He lived earlier than Spinoza, he lived from 1596-1650:

In discussing the mark of truth, Descartes suggested that the human intellect is as reliable as it is because it was created by God. In discussing the functioning of the senses to preserve or maintain the body, he explained that God has arranged the rules of mind–body interaction in a manner that is conducive to the good of the body. Nonetheless, in each case, errors occur, just as, more broadly, human beings make poor moral choices, even though God has given them a will that is intrinsically drawn to the good (1:366, 5:159, Princ. I.42).

The role of error in making poor moral choices. So we are a faulty species, making errors that cause moral problems.

Free will is intrinsically drawn to the good. I believe that. That is an optimistic world view.

Descartes responded these problems differently. He explained cognitive and moral errors as resulting from human freedom. God provides human beings with a will, and wills are intrinsically free.

In this way, there is no difference in degree in freedom between God and man.

He sounds a little like a trouble maker.

But human beings have finite intellects. And because they are free, they can choose to judge in cognitive or moral situations for which they do not have clear and distinct perceptions of the true or the good.

If human beings restricted their acts of will to cases of clear and distinct perception, they would never err.

Now here is some good advice, but how do we do this ?

But the vicissitudes of life may require judgments in less than optical circumstances, or we may decide to judge even though we lack a clear perception. In either case, we may go wrong.

Still thinking about free will.

Matters are different for the errors of the senses. The senses depend on media and sense organs, and on nerves that must run from the exterior of the body into the brain. God sets up the mind–body relation so that our sensations are good guides for most circumstances. But the media may be poor (the light may not be good), circumstances may be unusual (as with the partially submerged stick that appears as if bent), or the nerves may be damaged (as with the amputee). In these cases, the reports of the senses are suboptimal.

Since God has set up the system of mind–body union, shouldn't God be held accountable for the fact that the senses can mislead?

Accountability, that is new.

Here Descartes does not appeal to our freedom not to attend to the senses, for in fact we must often use the senses in suboptimal cognitive circumstances when navigating through life. Rather, he points out that God was working with the finite mechanisms of the human mind and body,

and he suggests that God did the best he could (7:88).

Now there is a new perpective, imagine where we would be today if G-d didn't do the best he could ???

 

[nativeastral]

'They were joined in this generalization by Wolfgang Pauli, most celebrated for his “Exclusion Principle,” but perhaps more importantly for our purpose, for his collaboration with Carl Jung on the concept of “sychronicity.” Pauli wrote:On the one hand, the idea of complementarity in modern physics has
demonstrated to us, in a new kind of synthesis, that the contradiction in the applications of the old contrasting conceptions (such as particle and wave) is only apparent; on the other hand, the employability of old alchemical ideas in the psychology of Jung points to a deeper unity of physical and psychical occurrences. To us... the only acceptable point of view appears to be to the one that recognizes both sides of reality—the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical—as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously... It would be most satisfactory of all if physics and psyche could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality [37].'

'Einstein stated the problem succinctly several decades ago:
Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind [38].'
[R.Jahn, B.dunne 'science of the subjective'].

Should the concept of g#d now be contemporarily called HVT [hidden variable theory?!]

 

[Tao_Equus]

This is all very well as an historical analysis of the philosophers cited but surely with recent developments in understanding the means of our evolutionary path to our current level of self-awareness it is but a point for historians alone and has no bearing on a debate about what are the real drivers of sentience. To believe that an intelligence gifted us with intelligence is fanciful to say the least and there is a rock solid body of evidence to the contrary that clearly shows how intelligence evolved with no intervention.

 

[immortalitylost]

*blows raspberries at you tao*

There's no rock solid evidence either way. Nya nya! Lol.

Sorry couldn't help myself...

 

[shawn]

To believe that an intelligence gifted us with intelligence is fanciful to say the least and there is a rock solid body of evidence to the contrary that clearly shows how intelligence evolved with no intervention.

Sure....and the core of the globe stays molten with.....*no intervention*.
(yet there is evidence to show that the sun is connected to the core of each planet and keeps them "hot" in a way that is analogous to how Tesla was able to power electrical devices without wires.

The thing is m8 there are so many things that we don't know, which even to our best scientific sensors are still elusive and invisible.
So we are busy cobbling together conjecture based on incomplete data.
This means that one must.....absolutely must, keep an open mind which discards none of the possibilities, as there are no absolutes as of yet.

 

[Tao_Equus]

*blows raspberries at you tao*

There's no rock solid evidence either way. Nya nya! Lol.

Sorry couldn't help myself...

Oh noooooo!! Owww!! You gotta stop doing that after eating curry.... its like pepper spray!

Sure....and the core of the globe stays molten with.....*no intervention*.
.

No intervention? As just a casual reader of science digests I can think of several 'interventions' that help maintain a molten mantle and upper mantle, (the actual core is believed to be composed of vey hot dense iron and the debate as to whether there is convection that would justify the term 'molten' within it is still ongoing). The Sun, Moon and Jupiter all have enough mass to contribute. Thats 3 'interventions'. As the search for dark matter shows us gravity is not fully understood yet. It seems to me like it, dark matter, does not exist at all but that gravity is far more powerfull than current theories predict. We should know more in the near future with all the research currently underway.
But I get your point, however misapplied to my statement it is. There is a difference about what evidence remains to be brought to the table from the musings of thinkers that had less information at their disposal than a junior school child of our modern era. The evidence for the evolutionary emergence of intelligence is beyond question within the field. The evidence to support it grows daily, the truths there will only grow ever more reasoned.

 

[shawn]

The evidence for the evolutionary emergence of intelligence is beyond question within the field. The evidence to support it grows daily, the truths there will only grow ever more reasoned.

I would not argue against that evidence either, but I think that there is more to the reasons as to WHY life emerges than you seem to think.
Small point of difference.