Panentheism is the belief that the divine pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond time and space.
Contrast this with:
Pantheism is the belief that all reality is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god.
In many respects, pantheism appeals to those who simply see the divine in nature. It is often considered philosophical monism, which implies a determinism in which free will cannot exist.
Quote:For an atheist, free will functions like redemption does for a Christian: it is a comforting thought with no empirical basis. It is nice to believe, and reduces your subjective anxiety, but if monism is true then free will is almost certainly not true. - https://santitafarella.wordpress.com/201...issonance/
Panentheism is distinguished from pantheism as being considered philosophically dualistic, thus allowing for free will. This doesn't necessarily imply anything more than pantheism suggests. After all, whatever initiated the Big Bang was, by definition, outside of the space and time of our universe. Nor is the remainder of "god" that is not the universe something inherently different. So panentheism could be considered monist as well.
Quote:At the outset, let me state that Buddhism is not atheistic as the term is ordinarily understood. It has certainly a God, the highest reality and truth, through which and in which this universe exists. However, the followers of Buddhism usually avoid the term God, for it savors so much of Christianity, whose spirit is not always exactly in accord with the Buddhist interpretation of religious experience. Again, Buddhism is not pantheistic in the sense that it identifies the universe with God. On the other hand, the Buddhist God is absolute and transcendent; this world, being merely its manifestation, is necessarily fragmental and imperfect. To define more exactly the Buddhist notion of the highest being, it may be convenient to borrow the term very happily coined by a modern German scholar, "panentheism," according to which God is πᾶν καὶ ἕν (all and one) and more than the totality of existence. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism#Buddhism
Considering that panentheism could be conceived as monist, free will could come down to a simple endowment or concentration of this single divine substance. In which case, pantheism could also support the notion of free will. There's no reason to believe that free will couldn't be both emergent and of the sort that requires moral responsibility.
(Sep 20, 2017 01:17 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Panentheism is the belief that the divine pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond time and space.
Contrast this with:
Pantheism is the belief that all reality is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god.
In many respects, pantheism appeals to those who simply see the divine in nature. It is often considered philosophical monism, which implies a determinism in which free will cannot exist.
Quote:For an atheist, free will functions like redemption does for a Christian: it is a comforting thought with no empirical basis. It is nice to believe, and reduces your subjective anxiety, but if monism is true then free will is almost certainly not true. - https://santitafarella.wordpress.com/201...issonance/
Panentheism is distinguished from pantheism as being considered philosophically dualistic, thus allowing for free will. This doesn't necessarily imply anything more than pantheism suggests. After all, whatever initiated the Big Bang was, by definition, outside of the space and time of our universe. Nor is the remainder of "god" that is not the universe something inherently different. So panentheism could be considered monist as well.
Quote:At the outset, let me state that Buddhism is not atheistic as the term is ordinarily understood. It has certainly a God, the highest reality and truth, through which and in which this universe exists. However, the followers of Buddhism usually avoid the term God, for it savors so much of Christianity, whose spirit is not always exactly in accord with the Buddhist interpretation of religious experience. Again, Buddhism is not pantheistic in the sense that it identifies the universe with God. On the other hand, the Buddhist God is absolute and transcendent; this world, being merely its manifestation, is necessarily fragmental and imperfect. To define more exactly the Buddhist notion of the highest being, it may be convenient to borrow the term very happily coined by a modern German scholar, "panentheism," according to which God is πᾶν καὶ ἕν (all and one) and more than the totality of existence. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism#Buddhism
Considering that panentheism could be conceived as monist, free will could come down to a simple endowment or concentration of this single divine substance. In which case, pantheism could also support the notion of free will. There's no reason to believe that free will couldn't be both emergent and of the sort that requires moral responsibility.
Quote:There's no reason to believe that free will couldn't be both emergent and of the sort that requires moral responsibility.
Quote:requires moral responsibility
i feel this leaning on the nurture nature debate.
Morality must be defined and dictated to a child for the adult to have a sense of collective "morality".
Morality as a state of derivative individuation comes to a purely egocentric manifestation.
thus you propose in guise, "Free will is dependant on cultural education" ... ?
(Sep 20, 2017 03:03 PM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: [ -> ]i feel this leaning on the nurture nature debate.
Morality must be defined and dictated to a child for the adult to have a sense of collective "morality".
Morality as a state of derivative individuation comes to a purely egocentric manifestation.
thus you propose in guise, "Free will is dependant on cultural education" ... ?
Nope. You're apparently reading whatever you like between the lines of what was actually written. Many animals demonstrate a sense of fairness which could be a precursor to morality. I doubt you're asserting that animals "dictate" anything to their young.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/12/us/baby-la...index.html
(Sep 20, 2017 03:37 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ] (Sep 20, 2017 03:03 PM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: [ -> ]i feel this leaning on the nurture nature debate.
Morality must be defined and dictated to a child for the adult to have a sense of collective "morality".
Morality as a state of derivative individuation comes to a purely egocentric manifestation.
thus you propose in guise, "Free will is dependant on cultural education" ... ?
Nope. You're apparently reading whatever you like between the lines of what was actually written. Many animals demonstrate a sense of fairness which could be a precursor to morality. I doubt you're asserting that animals "dictate" anything to their young.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/12/us/baby-la...index.html
Quote:Many animals demonstrate a sense of fairness
quite puzzled by your use of words here.
could you post a video of it being filmed between 2 animals which are not parentally bonded or bound for breeding so i know what behaviour you are referring to please ?
unles your attempting to surrepticiousely re-write darwinisn to be some type of neo-religous fraudulence ?
0% expectation of you posting an example.
because i can read between the lines to find the core dogma your referring to instead of science.
Morning, Syne.
Thanks!
Let’s start with emergence, okay?
Quote:Emergence
Emergence is often a product of particular patterns of interaction.
Having a large number of interactions is not enough by itself to guarantee emergent behavior; many of the interactions may be negligible or irrelevant, or may cancel each other out. In some cases, a large number of interactions can in fact work against the emergence of interesting behavior, by creating a lot of "noise" to drown out any emerging "signal"; the emergent behavior may need to be temporarily isolated from other interactions.
The system has to reach a combined threshold of diversity, organisation, and connectivity before emergent behavior appears.
Think about this in light of our group. We’re basically competing for resources and information, but more information isn’t necessarily better. We also don’t want to become like Sciforums—too like-minded, or we’ll start acting like a single explorer rather than like a federation of independent explorers.
Now, that you’ve started your own thread, we might see a little more emergent behavior in here, but I’m not holding my breath.
First off, panentheism amounts to nothing more than pure speculation. You can’t just conclude that a system as a whole is more than the sum of its parts, nor can you simply assume that you can apply a certain property of a constituent to a system as a whole without evidence.
Our bodies are composed of trillions of cells. Our cells are composed of elements. Elements are composed of atoms, but all the things made up of atoms are not alive.
Quote:Considering that panentheism could be conceived as monist, free will could come down to a simple endowment or concentration of this single divine substance.
So freewill is concentrated Godstuff? How does that follow?
(Sep 20, 2017 04:01 PM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Many animals demonstrate a sense of fairness
quite puzzled by your use of words here.
could you post a video of it being filmed between 2 animals which are not parentally bonded or bound for breeding so i know what behaviour you are referring to please ?
unles your attempting to surrepticiousely re-write darwinisn to be some type of neo-religous fraudulence ?
0% expectation of you posting an example.
because i can read between the lines to find the core dogma your referring to instead of science.
Dogs Understand Fairness, Get Jealous, Study Finds
So it seems your expectation is just your own anti-religious bias blinding you to actual science.
(Sep 20, 2017 04:42 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Considering that panentheism could be conceived as monist, free will could come down to a simple endowment or concentration of this single divine substance.
So freewill is concentrated Godstuff? How does that follow?
The same way a concentration of synapses separates humans from animals.
(Sep 20, 2017 04:42 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]Let’s start with emergence, okay?
Quote:Emergence
Emergence is often a product of particular patterns of interaction.
Having a large number of interactions is not enough by itself to guarantee emergent behavior; many of the interactions may be negligible or irrelevant, or may cancel each other out. In some cases, a large number of interactions can in fact work against the emergence of interesting behavior, by creating a lot of "noise" to drown out any emerging "signal"; the emergent behavior may need to be temporarily isolated from other interactions.
The system has to reach a combined threshold of diversity, organisation, and connectivity before emergent behavior appears.
First off, panentheism amounts to nothing more than pure speculation. You can’t just conclude that a system as a whole is more than the sum of its parts, nor can you simply assume that you can apply a certain property of a constituent to a system as a whole without evidence.
Our bodies are composed of trillions of cells. Our cells are composed of elements. Elements are composed of atoms, but all the things made up of atoms are not alive.
Who said panentheism was anything more than speculation? That would be like saying the debate between monism and dualism is settled. I can conclude whatever I like. Nothing says that my own, personal conclusions must be compelling to others.
The number of synapses in the human brain would certainly seem to increase the odds of "having a large number of interactions". But that not necessarily being enough may explain why some don't believe in free will...or morality.
(Sep 20, 2017 04:44 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ] (Sep 20, 2017 04:01 PM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Many animals demonstrate a sense of fairness
quite puzzled by your use of words here.
could you post a video of it being filmed between 2 animals which are not parentally bonded or bound for breeding so i know what behaviour you are referring to please ?
unles your attempting to surrepticiousely re-write darwinisn to be some type of neo-religous fraudulence ?
0% expectation of you posting an example.
because i can read between the lines to find the core dogma your referring to instead of science.
Dogs Understand Fairness, Get Jealous, Study Finds
So it seems your expectation is just your own anti-religious bias blinding you to actual science.
(Sep 20, 2017 04:42 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Considering that panentheism could be conceived as monist, free will could come down to a simple endowment or concentration of this single divine substance.
So freewill is concentrated Godstuff? How does that follow?
The same way a concentration of synapses separates humans from animals.
(Sep 20, 2017 04:42 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]Let’s start with emergence, okay?
Quote:Emergence
Emergence is often a product of particular patterns of interaction.
Having a large number of interactions is not enough by itself to guarantee emergent behavior; many of the interactions may be negligible or irrelevant, or may cancel each other out. In some cases, a large number of interactions can in fact work against the emergence of interesting behavior, by creating a lot of "noise" to drown out any emerging "signal"; the emergent behavior may need to be temporarily isolated from other interactions.
The system has to reach a combined threshold of diversity, organisation, and connectivity before emergent behavior appears.
First off, panentheism amounts to nothing more than pure speculation. You can’t just conclude that a system as a whole is more than the sum of its parts, nor can you simply assume that you can apply a certain property of a constituent to a system as a whole without evidence.
Our bodies are composed of trillions of cells. Our cells are composed of elements. Elements are composed of atoms, but all the things made up of atoms are not alive.
Who said panentheism was anything more than speculation? That would be like saying the debate between monism and dualism is settled. I can conclude whatever I like. Nothing says that my own, personal conclusions must be compelling to others.
The number of synapses in the human brain would certainly seem to increase the odds of "having a large number of interactions". But that not necessarily being enough may explain why some don't believe in free will...or morality.
Thanks.
ok, so your referring to group co-operation of survival instincts of primates.
They operate as a group. sharing food benifits them to gain food when they have none.
though the examples are in captivity and so are extranious of learnt behaviours manipulating a survival instinct... aka dawinism by survival of those who share food with the group...
in the wild primates co-operate to gain food and share parental processes.
again darwinian by survival of those that share food and maternal control of babys.
passing on the gene that shares parental control & sharing food.
i would suggest the test must be carried out while both primates have excess food.
observing them to see if they habitually share food while not needing any and if that is autonomic or fluidly behavioural.
as you refer to morality a good example is new human mothers.
they seek to create and maintain a social system of socialism.
mean while some male humans advocate individualism of resources and moral ideology.
it could be argued that males have genetically inherited the process of being selfish which provides their genetic liniage being carried on.
This heard behaviour for best survival is not what i would define as morality.
excellent points of dicussion to observe the interaction of capitlism(resource individualism[selfishness]) Vs socialism(resource sharing).
Trading what is in excess to gain something of non survival based need is a slightly different aspect of higher brain function and probably atributes more so to play and discovery where finding new food sources have been the genetic requirement while others of the species starve to death/die-out.
But Syne, just like with any other religion, panentheism unnecessarily introduces a supernatural deity.
You can still experience connectivity without having to invoke a divine agency. Personally, I think awe is a form of self-transcendence. I also think that you can acknowledge your insignificance in a larger scheme of things without feeling insignificant. Unlike you, I don’t view such vastness as an extension of myself. I view myself as an extension of the vastness. There are many things in life that I am able to love and enjoy without having to have them love me in return, e.g., wind, sunlight, water, food, landscapes, experiences, and even people. Everything doesn’t have to be tied up in a neat little bow, Syne. You can still have some form of personification if you need to. The majority of people probably think of it as a parental figure, but Nietzsche thought of it as a woman. I like to think of it as an interactive field. Occasionally, I think of it as a man, depending on my mood. My point is that you can love life without having to invoke a divine agency.
(Sep 20, 2017 04:44 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Who said panentheism was anything more than speculation? That would be like saying the debate between monism and dualism is settled. I can conclude whatever I like. Nothing says that my own, personal conclusions must be compelling to others.
Here’s what I don’t get, Syne. You know that a majority of them claim that they have access to god’s mind in some context or another. If they were like you, and just admitted that they were just speculating, then they wouldn’t feel so compelled to impose their ideology on others, but they’re not like you. So, why do you defend them? Why dabble in Christian apologetics ?
Quote:The same way a concentration of synapses separates humans from animals.
Why would the concentration of this hypothetical Godstuff result in freewill? There's nothing even intuitively appealing about such an explanation. Are you saying Godstuff is like synapses? In what way? Why not strive for parsimony and say freewill emerges magically from concentrated synapses? At least there's empirical evidence for synapses.