Criticism of panentheism and pantheism.

[mdsimpson92]

As I read it, he means that everything is "in" god as architecture is "in" brick - God is substance, the substrate of everything. It's like Tao because it isn't anything (in particular) but enables everything. So it's continuous with the particular even though it is itself general.

I had some notes about naturing nature and nurturing nature, probably cribbed from SEP. Will see if I can dig them up. And I also found a lecture by Nadler on Spinoza that addresses his supposed pantheism - http://youtu.be/mIYOC6RQ_LY

Ah, Nadler. here is the issue that I have with him. God in Ethics as of this view is "Nature" but it wouldn't be correct to say cosmos so to speak. Spinoza himself stated this in his letter to Henry Oldenberg.

"as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken"

Furthermore, Intellect or Consciousness is also an attribute along with extension. Spinoza explicitly refers to God as a "thinking thing."

On the Brick analogy, that isn't quite right, I get where you are going but it is more than that. The issue with it is that a brick is still just a mode. Spinoza's God is more than just the sum total of existing things. The cosmos (being the brick) is just a mode made of at least two attributes (so far as we can experience), thought and extension, of which God possessess infinitely more attribute. So unless we say the universe is defined as Infinite Being to the point that it is beyond "existing" things, or modes, I don't think it is quite appropriate.

[Magritte]

Ah, Nadler. here is the issue that I have with him. God in Ethics as of this view is "Nature" but it wouldn't be correct to say cosmos so to speak. Spinoza himself stated this in his letter to Henry Oldenberg.

"as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken"

He seems to be arguing not against the identity of God and nature there, but against nature as merely physical.

Furthermore, Intellect or Consciousness is also an attribute along with extension. Spinoza explicitly refers to God as a "thinking thing."

So would nature be if nature were conceived of as not merely physical but a neutral substance that has aspects of both the physical and the mental.

On the Brick analogy, that isn't quite right, I get where you are going but it is more than that. The issue with it is that a brick is still just a mode. Spinoza's God is more than just the sum total of existing things. The cosmos (being the brick) is just a mode made of at least two attributes (so far as we can experience), thought and extension, of which God possessess infinitely more attribute. So unless we say the universe is defined as Infinite Being to the point that it is beyond "existing" things, or modes, I don't think it is quite appropriate.

OK, it's an analogy. I didn't mean to restrict substance to the physical - I understand that for Spinoza substance is not synonymous with material. Anyhow I tend to think of universe or cosmos as encompassing all that is real, not just all that is tangible or "existent" in that sense. Maybe I'm spinning off into my own thing here.

[Metacrock]

God is both in creation and beyond it.

The universe would be a subset or part of God.

BUll SHIT. If you are in a house and go outside does that mean the house is subset of you?

I build a house, I go inside and stick my hand out the window, I'm in it and beyond it. the house is not a subset of me.

[mdsimpson92]

BUll SHIT. If you are in a house and go outside does that mean the house is subset of you?

I build a house, I go inside and stick my hand out the window, I'm in it and beyond it. the house is not a subset of me.

That is an alternative version that meta has so angrily put up. There are several versions. Some forms of panentheism have the universe as a "part" of god. Other's are closer to the classical theism but put MUCH more emphasis on its immanence like let's say process theology (though transcendence and immanence are required in panentheism).

[Magritte]

God is both in creation and beyond it.

The universe would be a subset or part of God.

BUll SHIT. If you are in a house and go outside does that mean the house is subset of you?

I build a house, I go inside and stick my hand out the window, I'm in it and beyond it. the house is not a subset of me.

You think God is a big man in a house.

[mdsimpson92]

.....It does fit the analogy......

Anyways, there are varying types of panentheism that cover this. To oversimplify panentheism is something of a hybrid between pantheism and classical theism, so they can be anywhere along that spectrum that they can blur a bit. Hence my Spinoza example.

[Magritte]

.....It does fit the analogy......

Anyways, there are varying types of panentheism that cover this. To oversimplify panentheism is something of a hybrid between pantheism and classical theism, so they can be anywhere along that spectrum that they can blur a bit. Hence my Spinoza example.

In pantheism God and nature are identical. In panentheism God's boundaries are greater than nature's boundaries. But God is still immanent within all things, and all things are in God. (conceptually and metaphysically, not physically - God isn't "outside" in a directional sense, like you could go far enough and come to a wall or membrane separating the two)

But Metacrock seems to think that God is a man in a big room, and nature is his little terrarium and he can come and go in and out of the terrarium as he pleases. And what's the big room God and the terrarium are in? Well now...

[mdsimpson92]

In pantheism God and nature are identical. In panentheism God's boundaries are greater than nature's boundaries. But God is still immanent within all things, and all things are in God. (conceptually and metaphysically, not physically - God isn't "outside" in a directional sense, like you could go far enough and come to a wall or membrane separating the two)

That is roughly accurate. Though it can get a little vague depending on the definition of "nature" and "natural." Unfortunately, those definition along with supernatural have been pretty diluted over the past 2500 years.

Edit: When I'm feeling less tired I look up some examples in that book. Though Scottus of Ireland's definition of God as beyond being or non-being or Nature might be a good example. Definitely neoplatonic and panentheist, but there I did remind me of the dao for just a bit.

Code: Select all

Nature is defined as universitas rerum, the ‘totality of all things’, and includes both the things which are (ea quae sunt) as well as those which are not (ea quae non sunt). This divine nature may be divided into a set of four ‘species’ or ‘divisions’ (divisiones) which nevertheless retain their unity with their source. These four divisions of nature taken together are to be understood as God, presented as the ‘Beginning, Middle and End of all things’.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scottus-eriugena/#3.2

He was pretty cool for a philosopher of the Dark Ages. Universalist at heart, kind of had a belief in divine humanism or a sort. Hell his death is interesting. He is said to have died at the pens of his students. The interpretations being that he was either stabbed to death by his students with pens for his eastern neoplatonic ideals or that he died of boredom while grading their papers.

[Magritte]

Nature is defined as universitas rerum, the ‘totality of all things’, and includes both the things which are (ea quae sunt) as well as those which are not (ea quae non sunt). This divine nature may be divided into a set of four ‘species’ or ‘divisions’ (divisiones) which nevertheless retain their unity with their source. These four divisions of nature taken together are to be understood as God, presented as the ‘Beginning, Middle and End of all things’.

Yes, that's more like what I'm talking about - totality, or unity. At any rate, what we perceive as being the universe plus anything else whatsoever. I shouldn't use universe or cosmos as they already have well established meanings, being something less inclusive than what I'm getting at.

He was pretty cool for a philosopher of the Dark Ages. Universalist at heart, kind of had a belief in divine humanism or a sort. Hell his death is interesting. He is said to have died at the pens of his students. The interpretations being that he was either stabbed to death by his students with pens for his eastern neoplatonic ideals or that he died of boredom while grading their papers.

Ha! That's terrible and also great. You've mentioned him before and now he's definitely on my reading list, or reading-about list.

[mdsimpson92]

Yes, that's more like what I'm talking about - totality, or unity. At any rate, what we perceive as being the universe plus anything else whatsoever. I shouldn't use universe or cosmos as they already have well established meanings, being something less inclusive than what I'm getting at.

Here's another good examples, actually kind of wierd the medieval and Renaissance theologians seem to be the ones closer related to pantheism than classical theism on the spectrum. Go figure.Nicolas of Cusa, Meister Eckhart all seem to emphasize the universe being part of god in one sense or another, but with God trascendent by being "nothing" or "beyond being." Again,I kind of got a Daoist vibe from it if I took out the Christian element aside from the divine immanence.

Scottus of Ireland is pretty explicit in equating God and nature, but again makes that distinguishment between that and the cosmos or the world (as the dark ages people would probably have thought of). Here's a statement he does make distinctions but at other times he definitely emphasizes the unity of God and the world

We Should not therefor understand God and creation as two differnt things, but as one and the same.

. However, the distinction is similar to spinoza's "Nature making nature" and "Nature being made nature." God plays a creative role and is transcendent in its absolute infinity.

Just food for thought.