Pantheism and Panentheism

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by shawn

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.

Originally Posted by shawn

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 ...

Originally Posted by shawn

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...

Originally Posted by 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]

Originally Posted by Thomas

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]

Originally Posted by Thomas

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????

[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]

Originally Posted by shawn

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

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Thomas

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.

Originally Posted by Thomas

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]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

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]

Originally Posted by immortalitylost

*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!

Originally Posted by shawn

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]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

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.