Panentheism

[fooloso4]

Reflex:

But unless someone gives me a positive reason to reject my “absolutist” beliefs …

How about the fact that you are not infallible? That you do not know the absolute truth? Would that be in conflict with your cognitive stance?

… a genuine alternative to those beliefs …

These are two different things. I may find good reason to reject something that I held to be true but not have anything to replace it with. This is why philosophy can be destabilizing. It is only after I see that my former assumption is untenable that I begin to look for a more satisfactory alternative. The Platonic dialogues are aporetic. Many students of philosophy have experienced periods of confusion and doubt. The rug has been pulled out from under them. Some retreat and denounce philosophy, others are more comfortable with this and come to see it as a sign of progress.

The relativism to which you refer, "relative to other truths, other facts, other ideas," is arbitrary and gives you a compass that points to nowhere but yourself.

How is this arbitrary? Are we to disregard truths and facts and ideas? Knowingly or not, this is what you and everyone else does. It is what Morris describes, isn’t it?

The idea is one thing; the ideal-reality it points to is quite another.

The “ideal-reality” is just another idea, something you think must exist, something that must direct for otherwise we are directionless. You may be uncomfortable with that possibility but the truth is determined by we would prefer it to be.

[Reflex]

Relativism removes the notion that we need to conform to a reality that is bigger than our own opinions, values, and preferences.

Relativism doesn't necessarily say anything goes, does it?

It doesn't say anything at all.

BTW: the fact that you acknowledge that we have our own opinions, values, and preferences exemplifies how impossible it is to avoid relativism, no matter how much you deny its necessity.

Illiterate? Write for free help!

[Harbal]

Then give me a viable alternative

The fact that I don't know how everything came about does not mean that anyone who thinks he does know how it came about is automatically right.

instead of acting like a troupe of baboons gathered around a snake and screeching at it.

Pointing out to you that you are thinking like a baboon is not acting like a baboon.

"I don't know, but not that" is not a cogent philosophy or meaningful in any way.

Making stuff up just because it would be nice if things were that way is not cogent philosophy or meaningful in any way either.

[Nick_A]

Here is where we reach an impasse. You and I see the Absolute as Isness. The Absolute is immutable or unchanging. In contrast ever changing nature is a process taking place within the Absolute. God as nature is always changing for the pantheist which means God is a perpetual motion machine. How could this ever be acceptable to science which denies perpetual motion machines? For the Panentheist, nature is sustained by the Isness it is within.

There's a saying made famous by President Harry Truman: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." If you can't stand dealing with meaningful ideas, get out of the business of philosophizing. Relativism removes the notion that we need to conform to a reality that is bigger than our own opinions, values, and preferences. It erodes the mortar that builds a society and undermines honest inquiry, leading to irrational and bigoted nonsense like: "It's as if they cannot appreciate the wonder of the universe here and now and so take flight to somewhere above and dig to find something hidden below."

Excerpted from a letter Simone Weil wrote on May 15, 1942 in Marseilles, France to her close friend Father Perrin:

At fourteen I fell into one of those fits of bottomless despair that come with adolescence, and I seriously thought of dying because of the mediocrity of my natural faculties. The exceptional gifts of my brother, who had a childhood and youth comparable to those of Pascal, brought my own inferiority home to me. I did not mind having no visible successes, but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides. I preferred to die rather than live without that truth.................

If she were alive today the secularists would ridicule the fourteen year old Simone as living in a fantasy world. She should be playing with her cell phone and worrying about the shape of her behind. They would say there simply is no level of reality in which truth abides. It is all relative so just create your own reality. She would be sent to a psychiatrist and put on drugs to make her normal. Progress!

[Reflex]

How about the fact that you are not infallible? That you do not know the absolute truth? Would that be in conflict with your cognitive stance?

Is you understanding that selective or are you just stupid?

These are two different things. I may find good reason to reject something that I held to be true but not have anything to replace it with. This is why philosophy can be destabilizing. It is only after I see that my former assumption is untenable that I begin to look for a more satisfactory alternative. The Platonic dialogues are aporetic. Many students of philosophy have experienced periods of confusion and doubt. The rug has been pulled out from under them. Some retreat and denounce philosophy, others are more comfortable with this and come to see it as a sign of progress.

It that what relativism is to you? Progress?

How is this arbitrary? Are we to disregard truths and facts and ideas? Knowingly or not, this is what you and everyone else does. It is what Morris describes, isn’t it?

Illiterate? Write for free help.

The “ideal-reality” is just another idea, something you think must exist, something that must direct for otherwise we are directionless.

True.

You may be uncomfortable with that possibility but the truth is determined by we would prefer it to be.

That doesn't subtract from the consequences of relativism: the belief that truths are relative to other truths, other facts, other ideas.

[Dubious]

Re quote: Simone Weil:

I did not mind having no visible successes, but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides. I preferred to die rather than live without that truth.

There never was any such kingdom in the entire history of the human race. We can only imagine such! This truly is an adolescent assumption.

[Harbal]

Excerpted from a letter Simone Weil wrote on May 15, 1942 in Marseilles, France to her close friend Father Perrin:

At fourteen I fell into one of those fits of bottomless despair that come with adolescence, and I seriously thought of dying because of the mediocrity of my natural faculties.

There you have it from the horse's mouth, even she knew she was nothing out of the ordinary.

She should be playing with her cell phone and worrying about the shape of her behind.

I think the shape of her face would have been a more immediate source of concern to her.

They would say there simply is no level of reality in which truth abides. It is all relative so just create your own reality.

How is creating your own reality and then calling it absolute any better? This is a classic example of dogmatic intolerance.

[Greta]

This topic is simple enough.

Either we just have/are a universe. No theism.

Or we have/are a universe with a kind of integrated universal sentience. Pantheism.

Or we have/are a universe that is an expression of a larger sentience. Panentheism.

Or we have a universe that is created by a larger sentience. Theism.

If anyone tells you that they know for sure which is the case, they are presenting speculation as fact.

[Belinda]

Reflex quoted:

For any proposition, P: If

1. Taking a certain cognitive stance toward P (for example, believing it, rejecting it, or withholding judgement) would require rejecting or doubting a vast number of your current beliefs,

2. You have no independent positive reason to reject or doubt all those other beliefs, and

3. You have no compelling reason to take up that cognitive stance toward P.

Then it is more rational for you Not to take that cognitive stance toward P.
Morris goes on to say, “In other words, it is most rational, as we modify our beliefs through life and learning, to do the least damage possible to our previous beliefs as we accommodate new discoveries that we are making along the way.” Only rarely does a paradigm shift become necessary. Knowing this, I can forgive the obstinacy of my critics, critics who don't even attempt to proffer an "independent positive reason to reject or doubt all those other beliefs" or an alternative for consideration. They are mere gadflies.

But who wants to go through life without curiosity, risks, novelty, and adventure? Hypothyroidism, morbid timidity, learned docility are pathological states but are what the author calls "rational". It is true that committing to the learning process uses up a lot of energy and courage, and the learner may have to defer immediate comfort.
I like prudence as much as anyone else but there are times when it's better to be more adventurous. Also some individuals are better equipped than others for intellectual flexibility.

It's odd to attribute paradigm shifts to personal psychology. Paradigm shifts are social changes.

[fooloso4]

Reflex:

Your rudeness and cluelessness go hand in hand. I remain anonymous on the discussion boards in order that we may start on an equal footing. I assure you that my training in philosophy is far more rigorous and extensive than yours. That you question my competency instead of replying substantively tells me all I need to know. I won’t waste any more of my time.

[Reflex]

Reflex:
I won’t waste any more of my time.

Good. I'm tired of you attributing to me things never said, implied, suggested or even hinted at in the slightest way.

[Reflex]

Reflex quoted:

For any proposition, P: If

1. Taking a certain cognitive stance toward P (for example, believing it, rejecting it, or withholding judgement) would require rejecting or doubting a vast number of your current beliefs,

2. You have no independent positive reason to reject or doubt all those other beliefs, and

3. You have no compelling reason to take up that cognitive stance toward P.

Then it is more rational for you Not to take that cognitive stance toward P.
Morris goes on to say, “In other words, it is most rational, as we modify our beliefs through life and learning, to do the least damage possible to our previous beliefs as we accommodate new discoveries that we are making along the way.” Only rarely does a paradigm shift become necessary. Knowing this, I can forgive the obstinacy of my critics, critics who don't even attempt to proffer an "independent positive reason to reject or doubt all those other beliefs" or an alternative for consideration. They are mere gadflies.

But who wants to go through life without curiosity, risks, novelty, and adventure? Hypothyroidism, morbid timidity, learned docility are pathological states but are what the author calls "rational". It is true that committing to the learning process uses up a lot of energy and courage, and the learner may have to defer immediate comfort.
I like prudence as much as anyone else but there are times when it's better to be more adventurous. Also some individuals are better equipped than others for intellectual flexibility.

It's odd to attribute paradigm shifts to personal psychology. Paradigm shifts are social changes.

Illiterate? Write for free help.

[Reflex]

This topic is simple enough.

Either we just have/are a universe. No theism.

Or we have/are a universe with a kind of integrated universal sentience. Pantheism.

Or we have/are a universe that is an expression of a larger sentience. Panentheism.

Or we have a universe that is created by a larger sentience. Theism.

If anyone tells you that they know for sure which is the case, they are presenting speculation as fact.

Right. Each has their own logical consequences and their own absolute against which to measure the validity of ideas. Some prefer the ease of "I don't know" over exploring the logical consequences of each; some prefer to rest their laurels on relativism and the aimlessness it leads to over exploring other possibilities and their uncertainties.

Is there a name for fear of being wrong?

[seeds]

This topic is simple enough.

Either we just have/are a universe. No theism.

Or we have/are a universe with a kind of integrated universal sentience. Pantheism.

Or we have/are a universe that is an expression of a larger sentience. Panentheism.

Or we have a universe that is created by a larger sentience. Theism.

If anyone tells you that they know for sure which is the case, they are presenting speculation as fact.

I agree with you, Greta, but with one (nit-picking) little question concerning your list.

Now I could be making the wrong assumption about what you are implying, but what is it about “Theism” that makes you suggest that it represents a “larger sentience” than that which is present in Panentheism?
_______

[Reflex]

Nick,

While I appreciate you starting this thread, I've lost patience with the straw man arguments (if you want to call them "arguments" at all) and the groundless nay-saying. Not one of our critics have shown a willingness to discuss the matter with "I disagree because...." The "screeching baboon" analogy is therefore fitting one.