Comments | redcrosse: Eternity Week #2: The Alternatives

redcrosse

Eternity Week #2: The Alternatives

Jan 22, 2008 15:10

So today I'm going to try to rough up materialism and pantheism a bit before moving on. This is not really on topic, and may seem downright mean to some people who have accepted the modern idea that to deny someone's beliefs is to make a personal attack. But still, chances are, if I don't, and I just start talking about eternity, all the ( Read more... )

Comments 14

relevance January 22 2008, 21:01:57 UTC

Why must pantheism dictate that the world is without hope of anything different? Perhaps my interpretation of pantheism differs from the norm, but it seems that one can imagine a world which Is a certain way, and Is Becoming something different and better, through Its will and agency (of which our own is a not-quite-infinitesimal part).

redcrosse January 23 2008, 01:14:22 UTC

You know, you raise a good point, one I thought about over dinner at some length (before I got your comment.) I think, in truth, that I am paraphrasing C.S. Lewis too much, even where I disagree with him. I may edit this, or at least reword it ( ... )

relevance January 24 2008, 02:18:43 UTC

I can see that you're giving the question of pantheism careful attention - I admire your willingness to reevaluate your argument ( ... )

relevance January 24 2008, 02:24:52 UTC

I should add that, as regards the question of what it all is striving towards, I don't think there is a single universal goal that we are meant to achieve.

That said, I am not a moral relativist. I believe that principles of ethics are inherent in the human condition, and thus - on some level - inherent in the universe. Part of God.

Thread 6

shatterdaymorn January 23 2008, 19:46:40 UTC

I do think there is something distinctly unpalitable about pantheism given the problem of evil. Its one thing to believe that God permits evil and another thing to say that evil is a part of God. The latter seems much more problematic in my eyes than the former.

I am curious though whether the same kind of theodicy that is open to the Christain is open to the panthiest. That is, can the panthiest explain evil as necessary for a mysterious greater good (that, perhaps, is beyond our comprehension).

A note along these lines: Theodicy typically avails of free will to explain some evils of the world. I'm not certain whether such a move can be made by the pantheist.

This is, indeed, the question. redcrosse January 23 2008, 20:31:38 UTC

I questioned this yesterday at some length; can a pantheist universe include free will? The fact is that though traditionally, pantheists do not answer theodicy with free will (but rather mysterious greater good,) I cannot see why it necessarily cannot. I think God could, perhaps, be an engine at the center of the show, causing time and law but also within it, and still create willed beings capable of rebellion. I am currently struggling with this question, and any guidance, from any party, would be appreciated ( ... )

redcrosse January 23 2008, 21:57:17 UTC

It seems to me, on reflection, that a pantheist world with a valid (free-will based) theodicy may be possible. It requires the following ( ... )

relevance January 24 2008, 02:36:11 UTC

This is well expressed, and fairly close to where I stand in my personal beliefs, as articulated above. However, I want to be sure that I understand what you mean by point 3. If I understand you correctly, which I'm not sure whether I do, you're saying:

1. For such a pantheist universe to work, God must know the future so that It can respond in realtime to the choices of free-willed beings.

2. One reason why this is so: to prevent disaster, which I take to mean apocalypse or the obliteration of all free-willed beings?

3. Another reason why this is so: to give suffering a reason to exist, viz. as an instructional tool.

If this sounds like what you're saying, let me know and I'll formulate a response. If not, please clarify. Thanks!

Thread 5

funwithrage January 25 2008, 17:03:24 UTC

Materialism chooses (often for understandable political reasons, but still without logical grounding) to close it artificially. I recently read Dawkins' The God Delusion, and was amazed when I found the central argument of his text. In the middle of the fifth or sixth chapter of loosely-connected polemics and scientific argument (which, as stated above, is barely relevant at this stage of the game,) he wrote one paragraph, one, in which he flatly asserted that the universe is not a thing of which you can ask the question 'why.' Our language has evolved to include the question, he states, but it doesn't apply to everything, and the universe is not within its purview. To this assertion, of course, I can only ask, "Why?" Yay ( ... )

redcrosse January 25 2008, 17:23:37 UTC

funwithrage January 25 2008, 17:48:27 UTC

It is quite true that some people are not drawn to metaphysical questions, and that's just fine. I don't see a reason why we all have to be theologians and philosophers, so long as people who are not understand that they are asking possibly useful questions and may find useful answers. But nonetheless, just because I'm not interested in calculus doesn't mean I get to say that the questions posed by calculus are invalid.

Yeah, that would be my problem with Dawkins et al right there. (Sort of, bathetically enough, the same problem I have with people who bash the stuff I read/play/thing. "Yeah, I get that *you're* not interested. You don't have to be. I've yet to meet a Russian novel I could get through. It doesn't mean there isn't value there.") I have a smidgen of sympathy, because I *think* they're (over)reacting to the fact that people want to make laws based on these things they don't get or care about.* But only a smidgen, because I really don't like being compared to people who believe in freaking werewolves. Bah.

When ( ... )