Panentheism and Essense-Energies

[CatholicSoxFan]

There are two Protestant YouTubers that I’ve been watching, and they hold a view of reality that I hadn’t heard of before; they think that the physical world is a construct of the mental world, kind of like the opposite of what materialists believe. They also hold panentheism; however, when one of them was explaining this, he said that he found a “non-heretical” (again, he’s Protestant, so we could be talking past each other) version of it which accepts the Essense-Energies distinction. Does this save it though, from either a Catholic or a Protestant perspective? And if it doesn’t, what would be the responses to some of the arguments they use to support their position and against dualism?
Here are the channels:
www.youtube.com/user/InspiringPhilosophy
www.youtube.com/JohananRaatz
And here are some videos which I think sum up their viewpoint the best:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l1lQMCOguw
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eKG_OZuAkw
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM
Btw, there should be a icon for threads; I would have used it for this if there was one.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Ok, first off, I want to make this abundantly clear. There is no such thing as Non-Heretical Pantheism. It cannot exist, period. (Also, since they have no true structure of magisterial authority, the concept of a protestant talking about heretical behavior is something I find laughable, since you have to have authoritative teaching before something can be considered heretical.)

You can know that their claims are blatantly wrong specifically because they hold to pantheism. In pantheism, all the gods of humanity are just different representations of the same being or series of ideals. This is, however, completely impossible due to the law of non-contradiction. The different gods throughout history have “taught” radically different and opposing notions, and it is impossible for two contradictory statements to be true. (1+1 cannot equal both two and three, a statement cannot both be true and false, etc.)

This is relativism at its worst, and attempts to negate the reality that there are consequences for our actions and the decisions we make. If all things are true, then nothing is true and we aren’t responsible for adhering to any moral standard.

Frankly, i’d be careful about what you watch on youtube. While being a great tool for evangelization and entertainment in general, it has given a pulpit to the crazies of the world to spout their nonsense. Whenever you come across these sorts of groups that try to rationalize and coalesce radically opposing world views, you should recognize immediately that they are denying one of the most fundamental truths of logic and reality (Two contradictory statements cannot both be true). If they cannot even adhere to the most basic tenants of logic, then you can’t expect the rest of their world view to hold up either. There are far more constructive channels you could be watching

As for the whole “The world is the mind” thing, that’s only one step short of I think therefore I am, which ascribes a person’s existence wholly unto itself, which is nonsense, since a being cannot create itself. Even God did not create himself, he simply always has Been, Is now and always will Be. Now, I have heard arguments that we exist within God’s mind, but I’m not familiar enough with them to give a critique.

Hope this helps, God Bless.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

Ok, first off, I want to make this abundantly clear. There is no such thing as Non-Heretical Pantheism. It cannot exist, period. (Also, since they have no true structure of magisterial authority, the concept of a protestant talking about heretical behavior is something I find laughable, since you have to have authoritative teaching before something can be considered heretical.)

You can know that their claims are blatantly wrong specifically because they hold to pantheism. In pantheism, all the gods of humanity are just different representations of the same being or series of ideals. This is, however, completely impossible due to the law of non-contradiction. The different gods throughout history have “taught” radically different and opposing notions, and it is impossible for two contradictory statements to be true. (1+1 cannot equal both two and three, a statement cannot both be true and false, etc.)

This is relativism at its worst, and attempts to negate the reality that there are consequences for our actions and the decisions we make. If all things are true, then nothing is true and we aren’t responsible for adhering to any moral standard.

Frankly, i’d be careful about what you watch on youtube. While being a great tool for evangelization and entertainment in general, it has given a pulpit to the crazies of the world to spout their nonsense. Whenever you come across these sorts of groups that try to rationalize and coalesce radically opposing world views, you should recognize immediately that they are denying one of the most fundamental truths of logic and reality (Two contradictory statements cannot both be true). If they cannot even adhere to the most basic tenants of logic, then you can’t expect the rest of their world view to hold up either. There are far more constructive channels you could be watching

As for the whole “The world is the mind” thing, that’s only one step short of I think therefore I am, which ascribes a person’s existence wholly unto itself, which is nonsense, since a being cannot create itself. Even God did not create himself, he simply always has Been, Is now and always will Be. Now, I have heard arguments that we exist within God’s mind, but I’m not familiar enough with them to give a critique.

Hope this helps, God Bless.

Well, panentheism isn’t pantheism (although I forgive the error; you might not be able to distinguish between the two by just looking at the words.) I think that the best way to solve this is just to list the Church teachings on these matters, so that we can examine if there is a version of panentheism that could affirm all of them.

 

[balto]

Well, panentheism isn’t pantheism (although I forgive the error; you might not be able to distinguish between the two by just looking at the words.) I think that the best way to solve this is just to list the Church teachings on these matters, so that we can examine if there is a version of panentheism that could affirm all of them.

Well I had to look up what panentheism is because I’ve only heard the term a couple of times. It seems that pantheism (not panentheism) claims that the world is solely material, but all of this material reality is God, which is obviously false from a Catholic standpoint. Panentheism takes it a step further by saying that there is a pervading spirit that animates the universe. Although this seems better, it is still heretical because it says that this animating spirit together with the matter of the universe is God. So God is pretty much exactly like a human, only His body is the universe and His soul is the spirit that animates it. Not only does this contradict God being pure spirit, but it also contradicts creation ex nihilo since God depends on the material universe. It also contradicts divine immutability, since in panentheism God would change with the universe, which by extension denies omnipotency since if God changes, then He is a composite of act and potency and hence not the unmoved Mover. The other omni-attributes are probably weakened as well. And it contradicts divine simplicity, so I think it’s safe to say there is no non-heretical way to integrate panentheism into Catholicism or Christianity in general.

The only way you might be able to say that God is in all things would be to say that, since God is Being Itself, all that exists participates in this being to some extent, else it would not exist at all. But God is willing everything to exist, so what He wills to exist is not interchangeable with Himself. There is a distinction between Creator and creation, which panentheism seems to deny.

 

[empther]

The way to answer these “the world as I wish it was so I won’t feel guilt or responsibility” philosophies is this:

The universe could not have existed through an infinite past.
It had to start.
It had to be started by a God who once existed without it.
Therefore, God can’t be the universe, part of the universe, the spirit of the universe, or anything of that nature.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

Well I had to look up what panentheism is because I’ve only heard the term a couple of times. It seems that pantheism (not panentheism) claims that the world is solely material, but all of this material reality is God, which is obviously false from a Catholic standpoint. Panentheism takes it a step further by saying that there is a pervading spirit that animates the universe. Although this seems better, it is still heretical because it says that this animating spirit together with the matter of the universe is God. So God is pretty much exactly like a human, only His body is the universe and His soul is the spirit that animates it. Not only does this contradict God being pure spirit, but it also contradicts creation ex nihilo since God depends on the material universe. It also contradicts divine immutability, since in panentheism God would change with the universe, which by extension denies omnipotency since if God changes, then He is a composite of act and potency and hence not the unmoved Mover. The other omni-attributes are probably weakened as well. And it contradicts divine simplicity, so I think it’s safe to say there is no non-heretical way to integrate panentheism into Catholicism or Christianity in general.

The only way you might be able to say that God is in all things would be to say that, since God is Being Itself, all that exists participates in this being to some extent, else it would not exist at all. But God is willing everything to exist, so what He wills to exist is not interchangeable with Himself. There is a distinction between Creator and creation, which panentheism seems to deny.

InspiringPhilosophy responds:
"Yes, that is heretical, but it confsues strong panentheism with weak panentheism. I hold to weak panentheism God in all, but not all in God. Second, this assume realism, being the universe is the body of God. But if idealism is true the universe is emergent from information processing, an illusion. Matter only exists as an illusion, not as a real substance. So the universe is not the body of God.
God in all, but not all in God. His transcendent essence is not in all, but distinct and separate from us. Also it becomes more clear this person is assuming realism because I hold to ex nihilo. The material doesn’t exist as a separate substance. It emerges ex nihilo like a great thought.
The essence energy distinction protects God’s immutability. His eternal essence is unchangeable. I am planning a video to point out what this doctrine is so important, as it prevents stoic and static views of God, and prevents pantheistic views. It is the safe middle. We have the distinction between God and creation, while maintaining all the important doctrines.

There is no way to integrate strong panentheism into Christianity, but I argue weak panentheism is the only proper view."

 

[balto]

InspiringPhilosophy responds:

Is InspiringPhilosophy responding to me, or are they responding to you and you’re asking us?

"Yes, that is heretical, but it confsues strong panentheism with weak panentheism. I hold to weak panentheism God in all, but not all in God.

Well I guess we’ll need a clear cut definition of what panentheism is, but I still hold that it is not amenable to Catholicism. See below.

Second, this assume realism, being the universe is the body of God. But if idealism is true the universe is emergent from information processing, an illusion. Matter only exists as an illusion, not as a real substance. So the universe is not the body of God.

I disagree that the material universe is an illusion, so realism is true. This sounds too much like the whole “brains in a vat” thought experiment. Is there intelligibility (I understand that as being similar to Aristotelian forms, if not the same thing entirely) in nature? Yes, I agree with that. But there is also material reality. If we’re going to say that matter is an illusion, then how are we to know that the intelligible content we abstract from matter is accurate?

Incidentally, yesterday I was reading about St. Thomas’ views on epistemology and he holds that ideas are the ways in which we understand reality. InspiringPhilosophy seems to take the erroneous, but very common viewpoint (at least in modern times) that ideas are objects in and of themselves. So we know our ideas, but we have no understanding of how these ideas relate to the external world:

St. Thomas: Intellect ===(Idea)===> Reality
Moderns: Intellect ===> Idea ===???===> Reality

His transcendent essence is not in all, but distinct and separate from us.

Agreed, although I would clarify that realities existing is a participation in Being (God) and good realities are participating in Goodness (God), etc.

Also it becomes more clear this person is assuming realism because I hold to ex nihilo.

I hold to creation ex nihilo as well so I’m not sure what the problem is here. I hold to realism because it’s the only way to make sense of the universe.

The material doesn’t exist as a separate substance.

I agree that matter does not exist as a separate substance, because it always has a form associated with it, but the matter that informs these forms does really exist.

It emerges ex nihilo like a great thought.

Not disagreeing there, but I still don’t see how realism is false. This almost sounds like gnosticism to me, which says that matter is evil and spirit is what is good. Everything that God created was created good. I don’t think He would create illusions for us as that would contradict Him being Truth itself. I think Plato might somewhat agree with InspiringPhilosophy, because I think that Plato, with his theory of forms, thought that material representations of these forms were only crude approximations of the idealizations that existed in the third realm.

Continued…

 

[balto]

…Continued from above.

The essence energy distinction protects God’s immutability. His eternal essence is unchangeable. I am planning a video to point out what this doctrine is so important, as it prevents stoic and static views of God, and prevents pantheistic views. It is the safe middle. We have the distinction between God and creation, while maintaining all the important doctrines.

I don’t think this Essence-Energy distinction is valid, but apparently it is a somewhat popular theology held by the Eastern Orthodox Church: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence%E2%80%93Energies_distinction (yes this is Wikipedia so all the usual caveats apply).

It seems to be critical of the Aristotelian-Thomistic understanding of God as pure actuality and instead suggests that God has an unchanging, eternal essence and these so-called “energies” which are changing actions that God does. They claim that pure actuality leads to pantheism , I guess because it says that there are no distinctions in God between Himself and His will/actions (which there aren’t). So the energies are supposed to let God off the pantheist hook.

But there is no pantheist hook to begin with. A necessary, unchanging essence can will eternally and unchangingly a changing universe. That’s not pantheism because the universe is not God.

I’m also having trouble understanding how conceiving of God using this essence-energies distinction is even coherent. It seems to say that God is both changing and not changing at the same time. You would have to deny divine simplicity and say that they are two parts of God, which leads to difficulties. The energies would have to be contingent on the essence, which actualizes the potencies in the energies, so the energies would not be God at all. The essence of God would be God. It also suggests that God cannot exist without the universe because He needs to have some kind of changeable action on something which He does not essentially possess. Which seems to get us right into some form of pantheism which is what we were trying to avoid in the first place .

It sounds almost like the way the Greek pagan philosophers like Plato and Aristotle understood reality. They thought that there’s some kind of pure actuality essence that is necessary and it spawned all these gods and goddesses that have changing, anthropomorphic wills and actions in the universe. This just says that there is only one, like God is the brain and some lesser, created reality is the one who does all the heavy lifting. Which seems to have taken us full circle to arguing that God is like a human: a composite of essence (similar to soul) and energies (similar to body).

There is no way to integrate strong panentheism into Christianity, but I argue weak panentheism is the only proper view."

Well, I guess we might need a concrete definition of panentheism, both strong and weak, but I remain unconvinced that it can be reconciled with Christianity, certainly not with Catholicism.

 

[jimmy]

There are two Protestant YouTubers that I’ve been watching, and they hold a view of reality that I hadn’t heard of before; they think that the physical world is a construct of the mental world, kind of like the opposite of what materialists believe. They also hold panentheism; however, when one of them was explaining this, he said that he found a “non-heretical” (again, he’s Protestant, so we could be talking past each other) version of it which accepts the Essense-Energies distinction. Does this save it though, from either a Catholic or a Protestant perspective? And if it doesn’t, what would be the responses to some of the arguments they use to support their position and against dualism?
Here are the channels:
www.youtube.com/user/InspiringPhilosophy
www.youtube.com/JohananRaatz
And here are some videos which I think sum up their viewpoint the best:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l1lQMCOguw
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eKG_OZuAkw
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM
Btw, there should be a icon for threads; I would have used it for this if there was one.

This is a question that should be addressed to the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics. Panentheism and the essence-energy distinction are their theology. They don’t believe the world is a mental construct though. They are realists who accept the reality of the world, but they believe that Gods energy is present in and through creation. Gods essence is incomprehensible to created beings. Grace and Gods energy are synonymous. The acquisition of Gods Grace/energy is the purpose of life.

 

[jimmy]

Ok, first off, I want to make this abundantly clear. There is no such thing as Non-Heretical Pantheism. It cannot exist, period. (Also, since they have no true structure of magisterial authority, the concept of a protestant talking about heretical behavior is something I find laughable, since you have to have authoritative teaching before something can be considered heretical.)

You can know that their claims are blatantly wrong specifically because they hold to pantheism. In pantheism, all the gods of humanity are just different representations of the same being or series of ideals. This is, however, completely impossible due to the law of non-contradiction. The different gods throughout history have “taught” radically different and opposing notions, and it is impossible for two contradictory statements to be true. (1+1 cannot equal both two and three, a statement cannot both be true and false, etc.)

This is relativism at its worst, and attempts to negate the reality that there are consequences for our actions and the decisions we make. If all things are true, then nothing is true and we aren’t responsible for adhering to any moral standard.

Frankly, i’d be careful about what you watch on youtube. While being a great tool for evangelization and entertainment in general, it has given a pulpit to the crazies of the world to spout their nonsense. Whenever you come across these sorts of groups that try to rationalize and coalesce radically opposing world views, you should recognize immediately that they are denying one of the most fundamental truths of logic and reality (Two contradictory statements cannot both be true). If they cannot even adhere to the most basic tenants of logic, then you can’t expect the rest of their world view to hold up either. There are far more constructive channels you could be watching

As for the whole “The world is the mind” thing, that’s only one step short of I think therefore I am, which ascribes a person’s existence wholly unto itself, which is nonsense, since a being cannot create itself. Even God did not create himself, he simply always has Been, Is now and always will Be. Now, I have heard arguments that we exist within God’s mind, but I’m not familiar enough with them to give a critique.

Hope this helps, God Bless.

The subject is panentheism, not pantheism. The former is the idea that God is present in all things; the latter says that God is all things. I have seen some Eastern Orthodox use panentheism to describe their theology

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

This is a question that should be addressed to the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics. Panentheism and the essence-energy distinction are their theology. They don’t believe the world is a mental construct though. They are realists who accept the reality of the world, but they believe that Gods energy is present in and through creation. Gods essence is incomprehensible to created beings. Grace and Gods energy are synonymous. The acquisition of Gods Grace/energy is the purpose of life.

Has the Church said anything about dualism vs. idealism though?

 

[jimmy]

Has the Church said anything about dualism vs. idealism though?

I am not sure what dualism has to do with idealism. I have always seen idealism opposed to realism and knowledge of an object. According to the Orthodox an object is known through its energy. God is known through His energy. So I guess they would be more idealists than the west.

The west has never really made this distinction, although they would agree that God is incomprehsible. Pope John Paul II was positive about Eastern theology in his encyclical on the east.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

I am not sure what dualism has to do with idealism. I have always seen idealism opposed to realism and knowledge of an object. According to the Orthodox an object is known through its energy. God is known through His energy. So I guess they would be more idealists than the west.

The west has never really made this distinction, although they would agree that God is incomprehsible. Pope John Paul II was positive about Eastern theology in his encyclical on the east.

Here’s a summary:
materialism- only the physical world exists; the physical world creates the mental world.
dualism- the physical world exists, and the mental world exists; neither are reducible to the other.
idealism- only the mental world exists; the mental world creates the physical world. Note that this doesn’t mean that your mind creates the physical world, but the mental world (God) creates it.

 

[jimmy]

Here’s a summary:
materialism- only the physical world exists; the physical world creates the mental world.
dualism- the physical world exists, and the mental world exists; neither are reducible to the other.
idealism- only the mental world exists; the mental world creates the physical world. Note that this doesn’t mean that your mind creates the physical world, but the mental world (God) creates it.

It sounds like that definition of idealism is similar to Neoplatonism, which had a large influence in early Christianity. All the early Greeks and latins were heavily influenced by Plato, Plotinus, and the other platonists. Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, and Dionysius the aereopagite are some examples of Christians who were influenced by the idealism of Plato.

The platonists viewed the world in terms of a great chain of being. There is the One (God), the logos, and the world Spirit. Everything in this world has a form, which makes it what it is. There is a form of man, which basically defines what a man is. The forms of everything in this world is found in the world of the mind or the neumenal realm. The spirit informs the created world.

Aristotle was a realist on the other hand. He believed the form of a thing was in the thing itself. The west is far more Aristotelian and the east tends more toward Plato. They are only tendencies though. There is no official position on the idealism of Plato or on the realism of Aristotle.

 

[yppop]

I’m not sure that the following fits in with this discussion, but I’ll offer it up for anyone that cares to think about reality.

Objective Reality
Consider an apple sitting on a table: We see a smooth, round, red object, a texture, a form, and a color. However, the apple consists of elements such as carbon and oxygen; carbon and oxygen are made up of molecules; molecules are made up of atoms; atoms are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons; and protons and neutrons are made up of quarks. But we don’t see that hierarchy of matter; we see a smooth three dimensional red form that we recognize as an apple. What we really see is the light that is reflected from the skin molecules of the apple in the form of photons of a particular energy (wavelength). When light from the apple enters our eyes the photons are focused by the lens on the retina at the back of the eye where specific neurons are excited and send electric impulses along peripheral nerves to the various parts of the brain. In the brain, specific groups of neuronal circuits are excited and we “perceive” an image of the smooth, three dimensional, red, form that we recognize as an apple. The question is: which is real, the configuration of quarks and electrons sitting on the table that we see or the image of a smooth 3-D red object that we perceive? Of course, both aspects exist and are therefore real. It is evident that these two aspects of reality, although existing in radically different ways, are intimately connected. The ordered arrangement of quarks and electrons is manifested as the form of the apple, but not the redness. Objective reality is essentially nothing but forms; and forms are nothing more than orderly configurations of quarks and electrons. Objective reality is external and discrete.

Subjective Reality
The redness doesn’t inhere in the apple; but rather is associated with the nature (wave length) of the photons reflected from the skin of the apple. We know that the photons are not red, nor does the redness arise in the eye, which brings us to the neurons in the brain. Neurons can induce the redness to merge with the form of the apple, but neurons cannot create redness or any other qualia. The redness is formless and exists in the mind, coalescent with brain but not in the neuronal circuits of the brain. There must be a second element, a non-material element, that is an essential part of the mind, that provides the source of the redness and all other qualia. The mind has a spiritual component that stores redness and all other qualia in what might be called the perceptual memory. The specific mechanism that allows us to perceive an image of a red apple is not known (the mind/body problem), but all we can say for certain is that redness is real, but real in a different sort of way than the configuration of quarks and electrons that occupy, outside ourselves, a specific segment of space and are identified in the mind as the “form” of the apple. In other words the apple exists at two levels of reality: the objective and the subjective. Since objective reality is nothing but form; it is subjective reality that is the kaleidoscope of sensations that creates the world as we experience it. Subjective reality is internal and continuous.

Rational Reality
An important part of the recognition of the red object sitting on the table is the symbol, in this case, the word ‘apple’ that we associate with the image stored in the mind. The mind can be defined as a combination of the language instinct residing in the neuronal circuits of the brain and the perceptual memory. Symbols are essential to the working of the mind. They consist primarily of words and numbers, both written and spoken; but also include signals, pictures, and music. What symbols define is another aspect of reality called rational reality. Rational reality is similar to subjective reality because it exists internally within an individual mind, but unlike subjective reality that stores continuous percepts in memory as qualia, rational reality stores discrete symbols in the brain that evoke the associated meaning and percepts stored in the mind. Rational reality is internal and discrete.

Transcendental Reality
Finally, we recognize certain words to be associated with experiences that do not fit nicely with the three levels of reality already mentioned, words such as beauty, truth, and justice. We can experience beauty in the form, color, and existence of the apple! We cannot sense or measure beauty. We cannot feel beauty. We cannot imagine beauty. We can sense, measure, and feel things that are beautiful, but not the intrinsic beauty of the thing. Beauty is one of those uniquely human experiences that transcend the objective, subjective, and rational. It resides with other concepts such as truth and justice at a higher level of existence. Beauty, truth, and justice exist outside the individual body but can evoke formless feelings, we say such feelings exist in transcendental reality. Transcendental reality is external and continuous.

Yppop

 

[openmind77]

Well I had to look up what panentheism is because I’ve only heard the term a couple of times. It seems that pantheism (not panentheism) claims that the world is solely material, but all of this material reality is God, which is obviously false from a Catholic standpoint. Panentheism takes it a step further by saying that there is a pervading spirit that animates the universe. Although this seems better, it is still heretical because it says that this animating spirit together with the matter of the universe is God. So God is pretty much exactly like a human, only His body is the universe and His soul is the spirit that animates it. Not only does this contradict God being pure spirit, but it also contradicts creation ex nihilo since God depends on the material universe. It also contradicts divine immutability, since in panentheism God would change with the universe, which by extension denies omnipotency since if God changes, then He is a composite of act and potency and hence not the unmoved Mover. The other omni-attributes are probably weakened as well. And it contradicts divine simplicity, so I think it’s safe to say there is no non-heretical way to integrate panentheism into Catholicism or Christianity in general.

The only way you might be able to say that God is in all things would be to say that, since God is Being Itself, all that exists participates in this being to some extent, else it would not exist at all. But God is willing everything to exist, so what He wills to exist is not interchangeable with Himself. There is a distinction between Creator and creation, which panentheism seems to deny.

This is not strictly true that panentheism means that God is dependent on his Creation or that God changes.

The Hindu concept of Brahman - an impersonal, unknowable, limitless, eternal being is panentheistic.

While Brahman remains changeless, the physical Universe is continuously going through cycles of birth and death. So there is a time between Universes when there is no physical Universe and only Brahman remains. However, when the Universe appears, Brahman pervades all of it and is present everywhere.

 

[jimmy]

Catholicism is panentheistic with its concept of Grace. Grace isn’t just favor according to Catholicism. Grace is the presence of God in man.