Pantheism and Panentheism

[Thomas]

Hi Netti-Netti —

Thomas Aquinas, who genuinely sought to balance both, was hobbled by his Aristotelian theory of knowledge and by a metaphysics of perfection that identified goodness with immutability.

But change suggests the movement of an object towards it's end, which is it's good, and it's perfection. Once it has reached its perfection, it suffers no further need of change, or movement. Hence the idea of rest.

Anything that moves is metaphysically not perfect in itself, and/or not perfect in its place and time ...

As a result, he allowed God to know the world only through the forms of worldly things located in the mind of G-d, rather than knowing material things through their ever-changing “accidental” qualities.

Here the author misunderstands the philosophical meaning of the word 'accident' - which by any definition do not effect the essential nature of the object ... in modern philosophy, accidents are the union of property and contingency, but again, as any essence is not effected by contingency, then what the author seems to be saying is that the superficial and ephemeral appearance of this is as 'real' as their essential natures ... which is easily disproved.

A G-d who directly responded to the world at some point would be different after that point than before, hence changing, hence imperfect. (U)nfortunately, a G-d who cannot respond to the world cannot show genuine compassion toward it either.

Well if one posits God as transcending the spatiotemporal continuum, that's wrong, too.

At the same time, however, it’s true that our actions do affect the responsive nature of G-d: that “part” of G-d that emerges out of G-d’s response to the universe and to humanity. This process insight — that a responsive God is greater, is more fully G-d, than a dispassionate G-d-above-history — beautifully summarizes a deep underlying motivation of panentheism.

Only if one makes the fundamental mistake of assuming that humans don't change, and God does ... I rather suggest that it's not God's understanding that changes, but the human understanding of God.

G-d is the all embracing presence; we live and move and have our being within that Presence;

But we are not that Presence ...

G-d continually responds to our thoughts and actions with all the perfection of G-d’s character; and that interweaving of our action and G-d’s response of grace yields an overall whole that is richer than either would have been on its own.

Well as God foreknew the outcome, then God cannot be richer.

This argument brings God into 'this' side of space and time, and renders God subject to events that occur in space and time. The God of the philosophers, and the God of Christianity, stands above space and time.

So a workable panentheist process, I suppose, but not at a Christian one.

And by the way, Aquinas wasn't hobbled by Aristotle, he just used Aristotelian methodology, he didn't hold with Aristotelian metaphysics without question, else he wouldn't have been a Christian.

And if you look at the sources he draws from, the two most mentioned are Denys the Areopagite and Augustine, who were both Platonists (although both knew Aristotle).

Thomas

[Thomas]

I suppose my big question is ...

If nature, or natures, are inherently divine — that is, if deity is a quality of a nature, how than does that nature not experience and know itself accordingly, as omniscient, omnipotent, self-subsisting, and so on?

Thomas

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Hi Tao —

When I said 'because the universe shows signs of its own inhering rationality', I mean there are indications of natural laws and an order to things ... otherwise how could we theorise about anything? All would be choas and anarchy.

Unfortunately for theists what order, and I use the word accepting it is only fractionally comprehensive, we do perceive requires no creator, is highly anthropocentric and bares no relationship to what any of the ancient theists, on whose testimony modern doctrines are based, ever purported to have been told by their voices of god. To stay away from our standard of contention and invoke the claims of Islam, for example, as so often seen on these pages we see absolutely banal, idiotic effort to reverse engineer the words of some long dead arab to encompass everything from genetics to quantum mechanics. It is absurd to say the least. To return to our normal crown of thorns, the CC, it spends vast sums on trying to fit the science to its doctrine. As you well know. The are Catholic Priests and Monks working in Vatican funded research projects in just about every field of the scientific endeavour. Such vast sums of money to prevent being so wrong-footed as they were made to feel during The Enlightenment. Unfortunately money does buy the right to dominate information, including history, and the truth we learned are being fast forgotten.

Theists theorise the existence of a deity ... atheists theorise otherwise.

I would class my own enquiry as having a strong interest in theology, I am part theologian too. I am more interested in understanding the effect belief in deity has on us as a species though, the origins of, the how, the why and the politics that drives it. I long ago realised if there is anything real then out of the billions of people who ever claimed their belief confirmed at least one could prove it. There are enough people caught up in the belief trap for whatever reasons, I just choose to look at it critically.

And if we really know as little about the world in which we live as you suggest, then we certainly don't know enough to say there isn't a deity, surely?

Lol! How weak is that ?

Originally Posted by immortalitylost

Wow, you know a lot more about black holes than me.

The decorum required here spares you the most lewd and lascivious jokes..... but you have imagination....

Well, It's just a belief. It's a theory. It's a hope that there is some point to all of this, and it's not all just for nothing, and has no purpose. Like Thomas says. If we don't know enough to say that there is a God, we certainly don't know enough to say there isn't. It's all down to choice of belief. I choose to believe in a God, a universe with purpose, even if I have no clue about that God, or the purpose of this universe. Even if it looks like complete chaos, I just choose to believe that it only looks that way because we don't know anything about it. I choose to believe that there is something more than this life, and this limited knowledge. And you choose the opposite route. You choose to believe in what you can see and prove. Which is fine. It's all choice. And everyone comes at that choice from a different angle.

Different horses for different courses....so the saying goes. You believe because you want to believe. I think that just about the only credible reason to believe there is. So congratulations!!

Originally Posted by Thomas

I suppose my big question is ...

If nature, or natures, are inherently divine — that is, if deity is a quality of a nature, how than does that nature not experience and know itself accordingly, as omniscient, omnipotent, self-subsisting, and so on?

Thomas

By thinking outside an anthropocentric box. Just look at the pure unfiltered information. As best you can. If there is a deity you really think it is so human that these are even concepts to it? If the multiverse is a deity you think we are its braincells or something? Does the bacteria under my armpit worship me? Should I demand that it does? Shall I asign just one of them a few words to convince them all to be nice little bacteria, stop competing for a fare share and pay taxes to my appointed subject and its chosen brethren? No? So why would such an enormous deity expect the same of us? Belief as is practised here on this wee blue planet is a money and control scam.....nothing more. It taps into a prehistoric part of our psyche that craves a pattern to cling to in the chaos of existence. It exploits it ruthlessly. And gives dissonant solace to the multitudes. I do not know if there is or is not a deity of such scale our universe is contained within what it created. And I cannot know. And even if I did know there was it would change nothing. So if the universe is god it does not matter. It is irrelevant except as a pretty far out curiosity that only begs more questions. Like what made god.

[I, Brian]

Aw, shucks - Tao, you're really a Panentheist.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Aw, shucks - Tao, you're really a Panentheist.

lol....more a Pandemoniumist shoorly!!


Forgot how good this track is!!

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I suppose my big question is ...

If nature, or natures, are inherently divine — that is, if deity is a quality of a nature, how than does that nature not experience and know itself accordingly, as omniscient, omnipotent, self-subsisting, and so on?

Thomas

Precisely what I've said all along.

It does!

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by taijasi

Precisely what I've said all along.

It does!

There's that pesky free-will-being-necessary-for-love-thing again....

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by taijasi

Precisely what I've said all along.
It does!

Andrew, hi!

I never realised you were omniscient, omnipotent, etc., etc., the One Source of All Being ... I'll have to watch how I respond to you in future!

Good to see you back ...

You may be unaware of it, but I have elected not to refer to Christian doctrine of my faith furthermore in these discussions (a post in the 'is Jesus a gnostic' section sneaked through when I wasn't thinking... ), so I limit myself to philosophical speculations, and the odd aside.

I'm deep into apophatic thinking, meontology, and am currently absorbing the works of John Scottus Eriugena, 'the last great Platonist of the West', as some have called him, who is challenging some of my own conceptions.

I'll be posting odd snippets over on the theology board, and would look forward to discussing things there, from a philosophical point of view ...

Thomas

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Well according to Christianity it is ...

Whose version?

Originally Posted by Thomas

I suppose my big question is ...

If nature, or natures, are inherently divine — that is, if deity is a quality of a nature, how than does that nature not experience and know itself accordingly, as omniscient, omnipotent, self-subsisting, and so on?

Thomas, not sure why you're raising the question here. It's an ok starting point for an argument against pantheism, but does not pose any problem for panentheism. In a panentheistic view, the world is only part of G-d and therefore would not reflect all of the Creator's divine/transcendental attributes/powers.

Are you aware of a panentheist who claimed nature would be expected to perfectly share the Creators' traits of being omniscient, omnipotent, self-subsisting, and so on?

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Thomas, not sure why you're raising the question here ... It's an ok starting point for an argument against pantheism, but does not pose any problem for panentheism. In a panentheistic view, the world is only part of G-d and therefore would not reflect all of the Creator's divine/transcendental attributes/powers.

Same applies, moreso. An essence is an essence, a nature is a nature, and neither are composed of parts.

So again, if human nature is divine by nature, then it cannot be, and it cannot not know itself to be, anything other than divine.

As you haven't responded to my critiques of the author directly, I assume you agree he misrepresents Aquinas, and that he seems to misunderstand what 'accidents' implies philosophy?

Thomas

[Netti-Netti]

Author Philip Clayton wrote:

G-d continually responds to our thoughts and actions with all the perfection of G-d’s character; and that interweaving of our action and G-d’s response of grace yields an overall whole that is richer than either would have been on its own.

Bro. Thomas responded:

Originally Posted by Thomas

So a workable panentheist process, I suppose, but not at a Christian one.

The irony. In the Bible Jesus is portrayed as a panentheist: "The Father is in me and I am in the Father." ( John 10:37-38) It seems I'm not the first to notice:

The conscious realization of a life in God, and not as a speculative thesis to be argued and disputed, is the fundamental thought in the system taught by the Christ--a union with God so complete in every department of our being that we can say: "The Father is in me and I am in the Father," and "I and my Father are one."

A Christian Pantheism which does not destroy the individuality of man, nor separate God from the universe which he continually creates out of Himself, nor sunder Him from the activities of the human soul by the intervention of second causes, is the highest development of religious thought. An intuitive perception of the unity of the human with the Divine existence is the highest attainable spiritual intelligence, and one which raises man above disease and the possibility of death.

I think Warren Felt Evans would have had a problem with you telling him he's not a Christian. He might also have had a problem with you positioning yourself as someone who can say conclusively what views are "Christian" and which are not.

And by the way, Aquinas wasn't hobbled by Aristotle, he just used Aristotelian methodology, he didn't hold with Aristotelian metaphysics without question, else he wouldn't have been a Christian.

I'm not sure what the issue is here. Are you saying that Aquinas and Aristotle used the term "accident" differently, thus indicating different metaphysics, and that's why Aquinas was not "hobbled" by Aristotle ?

[immortalitylost]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

The decorum required here spares you the most lewd and lascivious jokes..... but you have imagination....

Lol, icky. *washes imagination*

You believe because you want to believe. I think that just about the only credible reason to believe there is. So congratulations!!

Oh, no! I've tricked someone into thinking me credible. What to do!

Like what made god.

Super God?

[Avi]

Dauer moved a branch of this thread to the Judaism sub-forum, so the comments that I have, which are related to Judaism (which are probably most of mine), I will continue over there. As I mentioned on that thread, I think it might provide a nice parallelism.

But I think there is an idea which is more interfaith in nature, which I would like to continue here as well, and is why I started this thread in the Belief and Spirituality sub-forum. I think that pantheism and panentheism is unique because it is a set of ideas which might transcend traditional religions. I believe that there are a hierarchy of ideas, which may arise out of our understanding of traditional religion, which are common to these religions.

An example might be, for example, a convergence of our scientific understanding of creation of the universe, with a religious understanding of creation from many different faiths. I think this convergence could be an important aspect of interfaith dialogue.

[immortalitylost]

One God to rule them all.

Lol, think about it. If there is a God, then he created all matter, all life, and in creating that life, which has resulted thus-far in all life including us, he has created all religions. Religions are simply a creation of his creation's.

If a religion states that God created the universe, or, this plane of existence as we know it, and beyond, then it's only natural to assume that all peoples, and all thoughts ideas and creations of those peoples are in reality thoughts ideas and creations of that God, as manifestations of creation arising out of his initial creation. And all of those thoughts ideas and creations should be encompassed into any understanding of that God. Any religion therefore that does not acknowledge all of God's creations that we are privy to so far, ie. all religions and ideas, is flawed in the sense that it is ignoring vast aspects of that God's creation.

If one believes that God created everything. Then everything is important, every single thing, as it is all a manifestation of God's will.

Or at least that's the way I see it...

[dauer]

I believe that there are a hierarchy of ideas, which may arise out of our understanding of traditional religion, which are common to these religions.

An example might be, for example, a convergence of our scientific understanding of creation of the universe, with a religious understanding of creation from many different faiths. I think this convergence could be an important aspect of interfaith dialogue.

If you haven't yet, given that position, you might find reading Ken Wilber to be worthwhile.