Panentheism

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

There is a lot of discussion in these threads that revolves around various naive and simplistic models of theism, especially forms of theism that have been prevalent in orthodox, evangelical, or fundamentalist Christianity. It is not unusual to see participants employing such models as "straw men" in order to demonstrate that theism is silly or immature.

I wonder if folks are interested in examining a broader range of models for theism, beginning, perhaps with panentheism.

I encountered panentheism years ago, and, just now, trying to refresh my memory of this model, I was surprised to see that forms of it have been contemplated by such disparate groups as North American native peoples and some practitioners of Hindu religions.

I would emphasize that my interest is not to prove or disprove this or any other model of theism, but rather to try to understand the model and discover how it functions for those who employ it.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,597 • Replies: 44

No top replies

@Dichanthelium,

Dichanthelium wrote:

I wonder if folks are interested in examining a broader range of models for theism, beginning, perhaps with panentheism.

Awesome idea.

In searching around for more information on this, it seems I learned something: Immediately I thought you might've typo'd there; I thought you meant pantheism (which although not mutually-exclusive, is distinctly different). Reading up on it, I think I get it now.

From what I gather, this is still a waking, active belief system. Many of the opinions expressed here on the forum fall right into this classification nicely (although the distaste with which so many feel against 'labels' might preclude its dispassionate use).

So thank you: This is a good subject. Of the pages I found which compared and contrasted Pantheism and Panatheism, this one seems to describe it well.

Thanks

2 Replies

@Khethil,

Ive always thought a pantheist was an atheist with a monks frock on..He carries a holy book with nothing written in it..He has found his god but cant describe him..he believes but does not worship..I find them an enigma..

1 Reply

@xris,

I can see how Christians might adopt the panentheistic point of view, given the idea of being a part of the body of Christ and all that.

1 Reply

@Solace,

Some other non-Semitic models for theism:

In Hinduism gods are themselves semi-anthropomorphic (Forms, if you will) features of the natural world, like Agni being what gives fire its fiery qualities; these are, in turn, aspects of the universe (i.e., Brahman). Brahman is everything: like the Force, it surrounds and permeates us; our souls--selves--our atmans--are aspects of Brahman.

In Buddhism there is a narrow range in which a god can exist. This range is called the doctrine of interdependent arising, that is, all things, having been caused by discernible effects, themselves cause others. Now while most use this to say Buddhism is an atheistic religion, as they say, the devil--or in this case, God--is in the details. What causes causation? Buddhists are unclear on that; it could well be that God is causation which then helps reconcile the paradoxical notions of interdependent arising and reincarnation.

2 Replies

@hammersklavier,

Its all down to the same thing at sunset ..what you believe and what you can prove..it could be a christian benevolent god in all his majesty or a slight inclination to believe that his is in us all..A manifestation of desire..

0 Replies

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

Awesome idea.

In searching around for more information on this, it seems I learned something: Immediately I thought you might've typo'd there; I thought you meant pantheism (which although not mutually-exclusive, is distinctly different). Reading up on it, I think I get it now.

From what I gather, this is still a waking, active belief system. Many of the opinions expressed here on the forum fall right into this classification nicely (although the distaste with which so many feel against 'labels' might preclude its dispassionate use).

So thank you: This is a good subject. Of the pages I found which compared and contrasted Pantheism and Panatheism, this one seems to describe it well.

Thanks

Thanks for the reply and link.

It seems a key concept in panentheism is that of the gestalt. Whether or not panentheism appropriately applies this concept is no doubt the subject of some debate. However, one analogy that has been suggested is that of an individual human being. An individual is more than just the sum of his or her parts, so to speak. If we are content to reduce a human being to a very complicated machine, then we could dispense with the idea. But it appears that there is some greater (and awe-inspiring) reality there that arises, in some sense, from the materials and physiological functions going on in that person's body.

If we transfer this idea to theology, we might "dumb down" the idea by saying that "God" in the panentheistic model, is the gestalt arising from the "Totality." I prefer to think of the "Totality" rather than the universe, because we are trapped (at least physically) in the universe, and cannot fathom whatever is outside or beyond the universe. Obviously this is speculative, assuming that there is at least a possibility that there are existences or universes outside ours. Combine that with the realization that we are caught in a space-time continuum and everything is in flux--in a state of continual creation.

Thus, the gestalt arising from an incomprehensible, eternal, and infinite, all-pervading, dynamic Totality may be a good model to contemplate in order to see what some people may be trying to point to when they talk about "God."

0 Replies

@hammersklavier,

hammersklavier wrote:

Some other non-Semitic models for theism:

In Hinduism gods are themselves semi-anthropomorphic ...Brahman is everything: like the Force, it surrounds and permeates us; our souls--selves--our atmans--are aspects of Brahman.

In Buddhism there is a narrow range in which a god can exist. This range is called the doctrine of interdependent arising, ... What causes causation? ....

Thanks. It's good to investigate theological concepts from other religions besides Judeo-Christian because it helps to illustrate that theology is a world-wide pre-occupation, and it demonstrates the depth and complexity of the topic.

This causation business is central to the matter isn't it? I mean if you ponder the question "Why is there anything rather than nothing?" you have to say, from a modern scientific stance, "We just don't know, and so far we have no data." From a religious perspective, the answer is exactly the same, except that you might say, "We don't know, and we have no data, but whatever is the Ultimate Cause, I stand in awe of it, and I recognize my utter helplessness in the face of it."

Of course, you could go on from there to build all kinds of reactions to it, or other observations or attitudes, and that may (at least in part) explain the diversity of religious traditions.

1 Reply

@Dichanthelium,

Dichanthelium wrote:

This causation business is central to the matter isn't it? I mean if you ponder the question "Why is there anything rather than nothing?" you have to say, from a modern scientific stance, "We just don't know, and so far we have no data." From a religious perspective, the answer is exactly the same, except that you might say, "We don't know, and we have no data, but whatever is the Ultimate Cause, I stand in awe of it, and I recognize my utter helplessness in the face of it."

This is true if by religion you mean theism. But pantheism and panentheism allow the possibility of acquiring certain knowledge of the Ultimate. How so? We can see how if we consider that mysticism is sometimes defined as 'The art of union with reality.' Thus to know thyself would be to know the origin of the universe, as Lao-tsu states in his bestseller.

I agree that causation is central. There is a trick here which is useful. Wherever we are met with an intellectual dilemma of the kind that arises when we ask whether the universe is caused or uncaused, you can guarantee that the mystic's solution will be to say that the dilemma is founded on a category error. That is, we are assuming that the universe must be caused or uncaused, while the truth would be that there are these two ways of looking at it, neither of which quite captures the truth. Nagarjuna proves that both these extreme views are incorrect when in his Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way he refutes all positive metaphysical positions. Likewise, for Lao-tsu the universe would originate with a 'causeless cause.' The laws of Heaven would determine the laws of Earth, and the laws of Heaven would be as they are because the Tao is what it is, not because of an action.

The article referenced above goes: "Panentheism recognizes that everything shares God's being (or becoming) but that God's being operates from innumerable relatively freely-choosing centers or perspectives of existence. God and the world, which is God's body, are interdependent. To be is to be free, to be choosing, and to be enjoying (slightly or greatly, positively or negatively) the process of selecting from among competing influences. To be doing this is to be alive. To be doing it with the complexity of performing these tasks self-consciously, rationally, purposefully is to be doing it as a person."

I feel this is not quite right. My view would be that while we act as independent agents and not as God we are automata, driven by deterministic forces. This is a point often stresssed by Gurdjieff, who says that in order to learn to act it is necessary to learn to be. Only if we are God can we act freely. This was Schroedinger's conclusion, and it would be the orthodox view in mysticism. Thus we would and would not have freewill, depending on how we look at it, the universe would be caused and uncaused, and so on, and extreme (metaphysically positive) views are avoided.

The main point I wanted to make in reply to the previous post is that while monotheism is clearly an appeal to ignorance, mysticism is an appeal to knowledge.

3 Replies

@Whoever,

My problem with academic pantheists they debate from an atheist point of view and never answer a direct question about describing their theories.They use their faith like a debating tool rather than a real sense of belief..Is there one here that can respond..As Ive already said they are atheists with frocks on..I dont think the examples given really express what a confirmed modern academic pantheists will agree with.

0 Replies

@Whoever,

Whoever wrote:

The main point I wanted to make in reply to the previous post is that while monotheism is clearly an appeal to ignorance, mysticism is an appeal to knowledge.

I like this train of thought. For example, it has always been in the interest of the monotheistic religions to limit followers freedom of thought. For example, the Bible is supposedly the word of God to Christians, but very little has been added to the Christian cannon over the centuries. Did God quit talking to people? Probably not, but the idea is to limit new thinking to keep the powers that be in charge. It seems that mysticism is about increasing one's personal awareness and knowledge, while monotheism seems to seek the subjection of followers to authority. I see panentheism, and pantheism as more of the former than the later.

3 Replies

@Theaetetus,

Try debating the subject from a pantheists view against my agnostic view..I cant see how you can describe the effects without questioning the concept..

0 Replies

@Dichanthelium,

I don't know much about modern pantheists, but you must be right to say that many people argue for theories that they clearly do not believe are true.

0 Replies

@Whoever,

Whoever wrote:

This is true if by religion you mean theism.

You have certainly provided a lot of material to consider. I would start by saying that, no, I do not equate religion and theism.

I would propose that the essential character of religion, in a generic sense, is any kind of value system for any individual or community, which the individual or community takes utterly seriously. Thus some people make a religion of their political views, their patriotism, the "scientific method," or their tribe or clan. Normally, though, when I use the term, I refer to the phenomenon of institutional religion that we see across the world, expressed in more or less general (and thus ambiguous) ways with the words "Judaism," "Chritianity," "Islam," etc.

Theism, on the other hand, I take to mean merely a belief in the existence of some kind of supreme being. The type of supreme being may vary enormously between any one theist and another. Nor do I assume that theism is necessarily linked to religion, though it would appear that it normally is.

Whoever wrote:

But pantheism and panentheism allow the possibility of acquiring certain knowledge of the Ultimate. ...

Do mean that pantheism and panentheism presume that knowledge of the Ultimate is indeed possible? And what do you mean by "the Ultimate"?

1 Reply

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

I like this train of thought. For example, it has always been in the interest of the monotheistic religions to limit followers freedom of thought. For example, the Bible is supposedly the word of God to Christians, but very little has been added to the Christian cannon over the centuries. Did God quit talking to people? Probably not, but the idea is to limit new thinking to keep the powers that be in charge. It seems that mysticism is about increasing one's personal awareness and knowledge, while monotheism seems to seek the subjection of followers to authority. I see panentheism, and pantheism as more of the former than the later.

History would certainly seem to support that view, but I would offer a slightly different interpretation. It seems to me that political forces are always inclined to utilize religion for the sake of political goals, just as they use economics, history, technology, patriotism, and popular culture. In other words, I don't see a logical connection between a theistic model for God and any particular approach to knowledge or authority.

0 Replies

@Dichanthelium,

Dichanthelium wrote:

I would propose that the essential character of religion, in a generic sense, is any kind of value system for any individual or community, which the individual or community takes utterly seriously.

Hmm. I'd be inclined to call this post-modernism.

Quote:

Do you mean that pantheism and panentheism presume that knowledge of the Ultimate is indeed possible? And what do you mean by "the Ultimate"?

I don't think they presume such knowledge is possible, but it seems to me that some sort of pantheism would be necessary for it to be possible. This is because it would be 'knowledge by identity', to use Aristotle's phrase, and such knowledge would be trivially impossible unless there is this shared identity.

By the 'Ultimate' I mean the unconditioned phenomenon from which psychophysical phenomena are emergent. It would be their common origin and underlie their moment to moment existence.

1 Reply

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

I like this train of thought. For example, it has always been in the interest of the monotheistic religions to limit followers freedom of thought. For example, the Bible is supposedly the word of God to Christians, but very little has been added to the Christian cannon over the centuries. Did God quit talking to people? Probably not, but the idea is to limit new thinking to keep the powers that be in charge. It seems that mysticism is about increasing one's personal awareness and knowledge, while monotheism seems to seek the subjection of followers to authority. I see panentheism, and pantheism as more of the former than the later.

In this manner, we could say that the Semitic faiths (and by Semitic I mean Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as to a lesser extent moribund Zoroastrianism and late Manichaeanism), being inherently mono- or bi- theistic and having only limited canon, are actually greater impediments to knowledge than are religions with strong mystical traditions, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, or Sikhism? Yet that, too, leaves us with unanswerable questions, for there lies in all Semitic traditions deep (if necessarily somewhat secretive) mystical traditions; that is, are religions borne out of a want to know and mystics wish to strengthen their knowledge by appealing to what we know to explain the unknown? (Note this was the appeal mechanism made.)

Thus, to explain God, we can either:
1. Appeal to the dogmatic concepts of God forged by the best thinkers in antiquity, even if their arguments for His existence have severly weakened with the passage of time, or
2. Appeal to the aid of knowledge--which is precisely what said dogmatic thinkers must have once appealed to--which will, inevitably, change what we perceive the nature of God to be as what we perceive to know changes.

...Sorry. Back to the discussion already scheduled.

2 Replies

@hammersklavier,

hammersklavier wrote:

In this manner, we could say that the Semitic faiths (and by Semitic I mean Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as to a lesser extent moribund Zoroastrianism and late Manichaeanism), being inherently mono- or bi- theistic and having only limited canon, are actually greater impediments to knowledge than are religions with strong mystical traditions, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, or Sikhism?Yet that, too, leaves us with unanswerable questions, for there lies in all Semitic traditions deep (if necessarily somewhat secretive) mystical traditions; that is, are religions borne out of a want to know and mystics wish to strengthen their knowledge by appealing to what we know to explain the unknown? (Note this was the appeal mechanism made.)

All these religions have their roots in mysticism, as you say, or this would be my view, so you've answered your first question. Only if we deny the mystical source of religion would it become an impediment to knowledge. I don't quite understand what your second question is asking.

Quote:

Thus, to explain God, we can either:
1. Appeal to the dogmatic concepts of God forged by the best thinkers in antiquity, even if their arguments for His existence have severly weakened with the passage of time, or
2. Appeal to the aid of knowledge--which is precisely what said dogmatic thinkers must have once appealed to--which will, inevitably, change what we perceive the nature of God to be as what we perceive to know changes.

True knowledge is not what someone else tells us. That would be heresay.

1 Reply

@Whoever,

Whoever wrote:

Hmm. I'd be inclined to call this post-modernism.

Okay, what does that imply?

Whoever wrote:

I don't think they presume such knowledge is possible, but it seems to me that some sort of pantheism would be necessary for it to be possible. This is because it would be 'knowledge by identity', to use Aristotle's phrase, and such knowledge would be trivially impossible unless there is this shared identity.

Sorry, I just don't follow. This strikes me as more cryptic than explanatory. Your original statement was,

Whoever wrote:

But pantheism and panentheism allow the possibility of acquiring certain knowledge of the Ultimate.

I'm just trying to understand what you mean by that. That statement could be understood as "The acquisition of certain knowledge of the Ultimate is made possible by pantheism and panentheism." Or... "Within the models of pantheism and panentheism, it is assumed that acquisition of certain knowledge of the Ultimate is possible." In either case (or in whatever meaning you intended) I don't understand what may be the logical connection with the statements that follow:

Whoever wrote:

How so? We can see how if we consider that mysticism is sometimes defined as 'The art of union with reality.' Thus to know thyself would be to know the origin of the universe, as Lao-tsu states in his bestseller."

1 Reply

@Dichanthelium,

Dichanthelium wrote:

Okay, what does that imply?

I was suggesting that religion must be more than just any old belief that an individual or a community happens to take seriously. I was nitpicking. I'd say that a religion must at least be a cosmological theory, even if it's a bad theory.

The point about knowledge and pantheism was this. Mysticism is the claim that the unknown is not the unknowable. That is, everything that is knowable can be known by you and me. This claim depends utterly on the identity of everything, since knowledge can only be certain if it is knowledge by identity. To put it clumsily, if there is something that is not us then it cannot be fully known. (This is an old problem in 'western' epistemology). Thus the common saying in mysticism, 'Thou art that.' An equivalently saying would be, 'I am God.'

In order for us to have certain knowledge (according to Aristotle as well as the mystics) we must be what we seek to know. Knower and known must become one. Thus pantheism or panentheism must be (more or less) true if the doctrine of mysticism regarding true knowledge is true.

Quote:

I'm just trying to understand what you mean by that. That statement could be understood as "The acquisition of certain knowledge of the Ultimate is made possible by pantheism and panentheism." Or... "Within the models of pantheism and panentheism, it is assumed that acquisition of certain knowledge of the Ultimate is possible."

I meant to suggest that some form of pantheism is a necessary condition for such knowledge, but it would not be a sufficient one.

Does this explain the relevance of the 'art of union with reality'? If not I'll have another go. Sorry if some of this sounds cryptic, but it's pretty much bound to given the topic.

Cheers
Whoever

1 Reply

Panentheism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know