Thursday, October 9, 2014
I am not a panentheist
In the past, while reading about panentheism I've had a hard time seeing how it's not simply a version of orthodox theism. That we are in God, that all our existence is a participation in God and that God is present in everything by his omnipresence and universal sustenance and causal concommittance are all perfectly orthodox ideas, ones that, for instance, any Thomist will embrace. Thus I thought that I probably am a panentheist if panentheism is understood as "All things are in God and God is in all things" (Matthew Fox). Of course, many panentheists would add to the above various unorthodox doctrines, but these did not seem to me to be a part of panentheism. However, I am now thinking, after a careful look at the rather confusing panentheism article in SEP that a core doctrine of panentheism is divine dependence on the the non-divine. And that's not compatible with orthodox theism, I think, and certainly not with what I think. So I guess I'm not a panentheist after all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I can't follow that SEP article. I've studied a bunch of Hartshorne, and that SEP article makes no sense to me. Of course, panentheism doesn't make much sense to me either. But there are some very interesting ideas in Hartshorne, that, probably due to his strange way of writing, have never been picked up in analytic theology.
Perhaps the onus is on the panentheist to clarify how their doctrine differs from the orthodox theists? Why should you have to do all the work?
As someone who flirted with strands of progressive theology for a year and a half, it may just be a combination of a desire to remain separate from conservative theology and to minimize the transcendence perhaps? Also to minimize the "omni's" to avoid most criticisms of traditional theism. The problem of Evil can hardly be applicable if you don't hold God as all good and all powerful.
So Alexander, if God was just another name for everything, would you believe in God? =
Sure, but I'd need to use a different word for God than "God." Likewise, if "leg" meant leg or tail, I'd still believe that a dog has four legs, but I wouldn't express it with the words "A dog has four legs."
There are those who grasp the tail of a lion in search of the lion (Einstein), and a very few others who find One is the other, and the other just One. =
My impression is that panentheism, whether Fox's or other's versions, essentially require thinking of the world as a proper part of God. The world does not exhaust God's essence, but is some proper part of Him. Spinozistic monism would be a version of the view. But this view both involves a denial of divine simplicity and makes God ontologically dependent on His proper parts. So it seems to me that, not only for the reason you mention but also insofar as it involves denial of simplicity, would the view conflict with orthodoxy.
There are many definitions of panentheism, I think, and they differ on this, I expect.
The panentheism you mentioned is called strong panentheism and i agree that it is not biblical. But, Palamite panentheism or weak panentheism,by gregory palamas(a 13th century theologian) states that while God is not dependent, transcendent and distinct(in essence and in ontology) from the universe, the universe is dependent on him and lives by his divine energy. And it is biblical like in Acts 17:18 and John 14:20.
for more info: https://youtu.be/_xki03G_TO4
Unknown
That may be biblical, but it is not compatible with divine simplicity.
Post a Comment