Panentheism

  • Thread starter Thread starter James_Bogle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
God exists with or without His created universe but I do believe it’s helpful to understand that He’s also in it in the sense that He’s intimately involved in it, and that His creation is an expression or even extension of Himself-His nature-in some manner or another- His handiwork in similar manner to the way in which anything we create is an expression of ourselves.

I think we need to understand better that each of us, being made in His image, is an expression-at least potentially-of His nature. The verse, “In Him we live, and move, and have our being”, (Acts 17:28) speaks to this intimate relationship-and of our absolute dependency on Him for every breath-while we’re meanwhile nonetheless given the freedom to reject faith in Him along with any control He should have in our moral sphere.
 
empther said:
It’s not about denying and rejecting.

It’s about not taking this world as all there is.

Some trillions of trillions of years from now, the last proton will spontaneously decay into energy and that will be the end of the material universe.
But our eternity in Heaven will have barely begun.
Click to expand...
It helps not to rely on such speculation as a means of dealing with reality, though…
 
fhansen said:
God exists with or without His created universe but I do believe it’s helpful to understand that He’s also in it in the sense that He’s intimately involved in it, and that His creation is an expression or even extension of Himself-His nature-in some manner or another- His handiwork in similar manner to the way in which anything we create is an expression of ourselves.

I think we need to understand better that each of us, being made in His image, is an expression-at least potentially-of His nature. The verse, “In Him we live, and move, and have our being”, (Acts 17:28) speaks to this intimate relationship-and of our absolute dependency on Him for every breath-while we’re meanwhile nonetheless given the freedom to reject faith in Him along with any control He should have in our moral sphere.
Click to expand...
And part of the problem seems to be belief that we depend on something that is imagined to be transcendent to the universe, rather that upon that which verifiably exists and has effects upon us in our daily lives.
 
Sair said:
And part of the problem seems to be belief that we depend on something that is imagined to be transcendent to the universe, rather that upon that which verifiably exists and has effects upon us in our daily lives.
Click to expand...
Why should it be necessarily possible to scientifically verify everything though? We can infer the existence of a creator by his handiwork. We’d be justifiably startled by the existence of something as simple as a doghouse found on some uninhabitable planet. Why shouldn’t we be much more impressed-and amazed- by something hugely more complex and orderly-consisting of everything we know and experience in this universe!
 
ParvaDei said:
Here’s the short answer from Stanford University:

On the other hand, pantheism usually refers to the belief that* everything in the universe* is God (and as such, God is present in everything). So, in such a world, I am God; you are God; the computer, your house, and your tree are God, etc.

Hope that helps. . . . 🙂
Click to expand...
true, but do you think it would be considered “pantheism” to merely assert that all matter is basically one with the cosmos. since this is actually scientifically true. we are all made of atoms which are all within the same universe. and doesnt catholicism also teach that God is present everywhere?
so is it fair to say that not all aspects of pantheism are contrary to regular theism?
 
In Panenthiesm, God is just a big fat creature. That is not the God of the Catholic Church.
 
Originally Posted by empther
Click to expand...
forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
It’s not about denying and rejecting.

*It’s about not taking this world as all there is. *

Some trillions of trillions of years from now, the last proton will spontaneously decay into energy and that will be the end of the material universe.
But our eternity in Heaven will have barely begun.

It helps not to rely on such speculation as a means of dealing with reality, though…
Click to expand...

It seems that pantheism and panentheim certainly qualify as speculations. Where’s the evidence for these systems?
Most importantly,
… where’s the mechanism for these systems? How does it work? How did it get started? Where is it going?

In Catholic theology there is plenty of explanations of the mechanism.
God is eternal, infinite, necessary, omnipotent, omniscient etc. None of these things can be true in the "“God” of pantheism or panentheism. So where is the mechanism?

It’s like the Mormons. God the Father started out as a man on another world and because he was a good Mormon he developed into a god, and all good Mormons will similarly be promoted to gods etc etc etc etc. 😊
Oh, really? How does this system work? Where’s the mechanism? 🤷
 
fhansen said:
Why should it be necessarily possible to scientifically verify everything though? We can infer the existence of a creator by his handiwork. We’d be justifiably startled by the existence of something as simple as a doghouse found on some uninhabitable planet. Why shouldn’t we be much more impressed-and amazed- by something hugely more complex and orderly-consisting of everything we know and experience in this universe!
Click to expand...
You can infer the existence of any number of things by looking at the natural world - the god of classical theism is, in that respect, no different to the gods or creator entities of other religions. Australian Aborigines saw rivers and inferred the existence of the Rainbow Serpent who carved out the channels with its body; the Norsemen saw the mountains of their homelands and inferred the existence of frost giants whose bones remained in the forms of the rocky peaks. There’s no reason to suppose these explanations any more or less likely than anything described in the Genesis creation myth, for example.

There’s really very little that’s impressive - if the god of classical theism exists - about the creation of a universe. It’s no more than might be expected from an immensely complex, intelligent being. It’s far more amazing to entertain the possibility (supported as it is by an increasing amount of scientific observation and experimentation) that the universe is in fact self-creating and self-sustaining; this is the kind of contemplation that really inspires the feelings of awe and reverence that lie at the heart of modern naturalistic pantheism.
 
empther said:
It seems that pantheism and panentheim certainly qualify as speculations. Where’s the evidence for these systems?
Most importantly,
… where’s the mechanism for these systems? How does it work? How did it get started? Where is it going?
Click to expand...
The mechanisms of the ‘god’ of naturalistic pantheism are the very same mechanisms described by science, the processes of the natural universe.
In Catholic theology there is plenty of explanations of the mechanism.
God is eternal, infinite, necessary, omnipotent, omniscient etc.
Click to expand...
These are not explanations - they are assertions. Like a child making up a game, saying, “Let’s make it that we have this all-powerful being who can do anything and be anywhere and knows everything.”
Oh, really? How does this system work? Where’s the mechanism? 🤷
Click to expand...
As intimated above, science is continually revealing the systems and mechanisms at work in the universe. The only assertion made by adherents of naturalistic pantheism is that nature itself is worthy of reverence and awe - an emotional response properly and frequently inspired by the observation and enquiry undertaken in the pursuit of science. What naturalistic pantheism is about is respecting nature for itself alone, as the source of everything we are; not because it might be the work of some other being of which we can really know nothing except what stories people tell about such beings.
 
Sair said:
There’s really very little that’s impressive - if the god of classical theism exists - about the creation of a universe. It’s no more than might be expected from an immensely complex, intelligent being. It’s far more amazing to entertain the possibility (supported as it is by an increasing amount of scientific observation and experimentation) that the universe is in fact self-creating and self-sustaining; this is the kind of contemplation that really inspires the feelings of awe and reverence that lie at the heart of modern naturalistic pantheism.
Click to expand...
Hard for me to be impressed by a self-sustaining universe with no “self” involved-rather it sounds like the aborigines and norsemen were on to something there- at least heading in the right direction with their inferences. And self-creation just sounds to be of a higher order yet on the complexity scale than an eternal, immensely complex intelligent being.
 
fhansen said:
Hard for me to be impressed by a self-sustaining universe with no “self” involved-rather it sounds like the aborigines and norsemen were on to something there- at least heading in the right direction with their inferences. And self-creation just sounds to be of a higher order yet on the complexity scale than an eternal, immensely complex intelligent being.
Click to expand...
Not so much, since from what has been discovered and described and inferred from scientific investigation, any immensely complex intelligent being must itself be the result of a lengthy process of development. Most religions are silent on the subject of the source of their deity, preferring instead to assume that such a being has just existed for all eternity as a brute fact.

That might indeed be impressive if it were the case. However, proponents of divine creation, believers in the god of classical theism, tend to hold to a belief not only in the eternal existence of their intelligent creator, but also in the inexplicable simplicity of this being. If complexity of this kind - the kind that can create other immensely complex realities though a mere act of will - really is simple, then it can hardly be impressive at the same time. It would merely be acceptable as a matter of course.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by empther
Click to expand...
forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
It seems that pantheism and panentheim certainly qualify as speculations. Where’s the evidence for these systems?
*Most importantly, *
… where’s the mechanism for these systems? How does it work? How did it get started? Where is it going?

The mechanisms of the ‘god’ of naturalistic pantheism are the very same mechanisms described by science, the processes of the natural universe
Click to expand...

How did the pantheistic system begin? Or did it exist for an infinite past?

How can scientific laws explain a ‘god’ ? Wouldn’t they only explain nature’s processes? Or is the pantheist ‘god’ really nothing but nature?.
Quote:
In Catholic theology there is plenty of explanations of the mechanism.
God is eternal, infinite, necessary, omnipotent, omniscient etc.
Click to expand...
These are not explanations - they are assertions. Like a child making up a game, saying, “Let’s make it that we have this all-powerful being who can do anything and be anywhere and knows everything.”
Click to expand...

These Catholic assertions at least explain how everything works.
Pantheism’s assertions don’t explain how everything works. Scientific laws don’t explain why there is a world in which scientific laws can operate.
 
I would argue that panentheism is inconsistent with Church teaching on the nature of God. Consider this formulation from the First Vatican Council:

"1. The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, creator and lord of heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection.
  1. Since he is one, singular, completely simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, he must be declared to be in reality and in essence, distinct from the world, supremely happy in himself and from himself, and inexpressibly loftier than anything besides himself which either exists or can be imagined."
Panentheism is inconsistent with this on very many points. The panentheistic God is not eternal, since being in the universe it must be bound by time. It is clearly not immeasurable; if the universe is a part of God in some sense then of course, being material, it is measurable. It does not possess every perfection, since if the universe is a part of it, then it depends in some way for its existence on parts, and thus exists less perfectly than a being which exists entirely of itself. It should also be clear that this being, having parts, cannot be simple, and since the universe changes it cannot be unchangeable.

Thus, I think it can be said that panentheism is heretical.
 
awatkins69 said:
I would argue that panentheism is inconsistent with Church teaching on the nature of God. Consider this formulation from the First Vatican Council:

"1. The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, creator and lord of heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection.
  1. Since he is one, singular, completely simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, he must be declared to be in reality and in essence, distinct from the world, supremely happy in himself and from himself, and inexpressibly loftier than anything besides himself which either exists or can be imagined."
Panentheism is inconsistent with this on very many points. The panentheistic God is not eternal, since being in the universe it must be bound by time. It is clearly not immeasurable; if the universe is a part of God in some sense then of course, being material, it is measurable. It does not possess every perfection, since if the universe is a part of it, then it depends in some way for its existence on parts, and thus exists less perfectly than a being which exists entirely of itself. It should also be clear that this being, having parts, cannot be simple, and since the universe changes it cannot be unchangeable.

Thus, I think it can be said that panentheism is heretical.
Click to expand...
A panentheistic God can still be eternal even though one of our views of God (the universe) might not be.

Same goes for measurablilty.

In what sense do we mean God is omnipresent if not present in the universe?
What do we mean by indwelling presence?

God is transcendent but also immanent, correct? How so?
 
James_Bogle said:
Is Panentheism a heresy?
Click to expand...
Yes, absolutely. Pantheism equates the universe with God. The pantheist claims the universe is in some way God, or it is God creating himself. There are different nuances, all heretical.

On the other hand the Church teaches that God operates in all things, most intimately, causing, sustaining, directing. St. Thomas describes God as being the primary cause of all movemen/change, sustaining, directing, while created beings are secondary causes. 👍
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Yes, absolutely. Pantheism equates the universe with God. The pantheist claims the universe is in some way God, or it is God creating himself. There are different nuances, all heretical.

:
Click to expand...
But we are talking about panentheism which is different,
 
Linux said:
If it refers to the universe as being an intrinsic extension of Gods essence, then yes it is heretical. It is also irrational metaphysically speaking.
Click to expand...
Far less irrational than creatio ex nihilo. Using some parts of yourself to create something seems much more plausible than creating something using absolutely nothing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top