Answering Transtheism?

[YHWH_Christ]

So how do we answer the assertions of transtheism? Transtheism claims of itself, as a philosophy, that it is beyond both theism and atheism, in that, whilst it may affirm the existence of divinity(s), it doesn’t perceive that as particularly useful in providing answers to the most fundamental existential concerns. Religions like Jainism and sometimes even Buddhism are classified as transtheist. Some objections I have heard from transtheists in regards to monotheism is that, even if there is a monotheistic God who can provide morality and value to human life, isn’t that particularly “subjective” on God’s part? How would that truly become objective within the true nature of things? Isn’t it rather arbitrary? Even if it is being made by a timeless, unchaging, and absolute being, wouldn’t this exist apart from objective reality? Unless God’s mind would have to, in some sense, be objective? But then wouldn’t that become pantheism to some extent? So the argument transtheists make is that although you can derive value from God, God doesn’t really provide meaning in the absolute sense. I apologize if I’m not really explaining it well, the argument is a little difficult to explain and wrap your head around but once you do it does seem to have a degree of logic to it.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

I’ve been watching a section of the internet have this type of discussion.

They see that there are a lot of problems with the breakdown of communication and information and even with fundamental questionS like “is anything real? Is anything true?” in Western society.

They seems to get that there is a tremendous amount of rage and tribalism, and they know this is not good or helpful.

But as their answers and discussions get closer to a Christian worldview, the more antsy they get and shy away from the answer.

So they basically want the benefits of a well ordered society without God, and a morality without being too binding.

Basically, Jesus-free Christianity.

That’s the context where I see this kind of talk arise.

 

[Pattylt]

I read the Wiki article on trans theism and it sounds awfully similar to plain old Deism. Deism has a creator God that then sat back and doesn’t interact with His creation. Trans theism doesn’t seem to go much further…it seems to accept that there may be a God but one that can not be known or understood? Obviously, it’s not a God revealed by revelation so it is a completely unknowable entity. Am I understanding that correctly?

To me, this and deism are both in the category of “what’s the point”. A totally inactive God can’t be distinguished from no God. How could anyone desire to worship such as this? If this God has any plans, who would know? Kind of pointless…

 

[CRM_Brother]

I would refer you to St. Pope Pius X’s encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis which was the first approach of the Church to addressing the Modernist heresy which has today arisen in the transtheism movement. I would also suggest works by Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P who wrote on Thomism with regards to modernist tendencies. The movement Nouvelle theologie also has put forward many works via Frs. Yves Congar, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Romano Guardini and eventually Pope Benedict XVI, himself.

It seems that the transtheists ignore that the morality and truth put forward God must be in line with the objective reality of the world. Their ‘subjective’ view of God’s word only treads water if God is not the source of reality. To be subjective, God would need to have a perspective which would be totally outside and separate from reality itself. Instead reality is contained within the mind of God. Thus, God’s thought about reality is inherently the objective truth about that reality.

 

[TK421]

But God doesn’t provide meaning to life, he is the meaning of life, because God is the source and summit of reality. There is no such thing as reality or meaning apart from God, which isn’t synonymous with pantheism because something having its source and sustenance from God (being created rather than uncreated) isn’t the same thing as being God, and taking on the Divine life in the Beatific Vision isn’t the same thing as being Divine. i.e. if you put a metal rod in a fire, it becomes bright and hot like the properties of the fire, but it is not fire and if you were to remove it from the fire it would cease to take on the properties of the fire. It produces no heat or light by itself.