Panentheism (response to Nykytyne2's questions for theists)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

1) What evidence convinces you of God? - Not miracles, scripture, or beliefs, but the immediate experience of creativity within myself and every other being. The evolutionary history of our cosmos is evidence enough for me that creativity (an immanent creator) is operating, that some sort of divine lure is pulling matter ever-nearer to spirit. Teilhard de Chardin has influenced me heavily in this respect. For him, not scripture (only), but science points to God at work in/as cosmogenesis.

2) Is God moral, is God good? - Good and evil have different meanings depending on the historical circumstances in which they meant to apply. I do find it necessary to think in terms of an ideal Good with true ontological standing, but this idea participates differently in human history depending on circumstances. A panentheistic theology does not posit an all-powerful God, but a God who lures creation and creatures toward a more ideal future without determining them. Each being, to a greater or lesser extent depending on its complexity/consciousness, is free to accept God's ideals or to deviate from them.

More on Steiner's conception of evil as Lucifer and Ahriman: http://www.doyletics.com/arj/landarvw.htm

3) If you woke up and found you were God, what, if anything, would you change? - We are Gods, God is in All, and it is now our responsibility to bring Goodness into the world (in the Goodness form that our particular age requires).

4) What evidence supports my religion? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy

5) If your religion is false, would you want to know? - I think religion adequate to modern standards must be based in experience, not belief.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• theism
• atheism
• panentheism
• spirituality
• philosophy

[Nykytyne2]

I think we can avoid this problem simply by thinking of consciousness as an emergent property. Hydrogen atoms are the basis for hydrogen gas, but hydrogen atoms on their own are not gasses or proto-gasses. Air molecules in a tornado need not be proto-tornadoes, nucleic acids don't need to be considered proto-life. In the same way I think experience can emerge without some sort of proto-experience in its most basic units.

[GeistWerk]

Great video, Matt.

I just have to disagree on one tiny point. You say that hell is an idea of the old testament and that it is somehow overcome by jesus and that all people are saved by jesus.

Quite the opposite is true, actually. In early judaism there was not even a concept of afterlife.

The idea of hell, the idea of seperating good from evil after death started with Jesus Christ.

[SLemonspunk]

I just want to say thanks for explaining these things.

[GnomesAmok]

@vexgodglove

your confusing intelligence with consciousness. every animal is concsious.

[futab1000]

you'd be better off sticking to pantheism...

[vexgodglove]

@0ThouArtThat0 There is no reason to think of consciousness as an either/or thing. Animals other than humans arguably display signs of possessing some level on consciousness. It isn't that consciousness suddenly sprang into existence, it emerged gradually through ever increasing neurological complexity.

[edwardtang1977]

you say god is undefined and can't be defined so to avoid the question...then how do you believe in something so abstract?

When you answer things that takes this much time....it is probably you are trying to convince yourself.

What does god have to do to make YOU think twice?...asking YOU!

Your opinion, not asking for facts so there should be an answer

[wimsweden]

I enjoyed watching this video, but I'm somewhat confused on a couple of points. At one moment you say that a certain question by Nykytyne presupposes an anthropomorphic conception of "God" (which you presumably don't hold), but later on you say something like "God" allows us to have or chooses to give us freedom. That sounds like a person with intentions. I'm also confused by "God" not being evil and only us humans being evil, but then you say later on that we are "God".

[normonics]

So if these discussions are speculative, why identify yourself with any label such as this? If you believe this perspective is 'right', then others must be 'wrong', and in that case you haven't escaped any of the pitfalls of standard dogmatic religion. Why not just discuss them as interesting ideas, and not commit to any of them?

[0ThouArtThat0]

I think we have every reason to believe there are many, many other conscious intelligent organisms on other planets in our own galaxy, and just as many in every other spiral galaxy.

We live in a universe, as the ancient already knew, whose center is everywhere.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Natural science studies the conceptual relationships between perceptions--it finds the lawful patterns hidden beneath the flux of appearances. A science of consciousness turns to look at the conceptual process itself. Can you catch yourself in the act of thinking? It seems we can only lay hold of thoughts, of the byproduct of thinking--not ourselves as thinkers. We as thinkers are 'free' in this sense, that we determine thoughts and are not determined by them. We are the thinker, not the thought