Panentheism Links – Pros and Cons

Because I made peace with my own personal definition of Panentheism quite a while ago, it has been a long time since I’ve Googled the term. However I was inspired to do so today and of course came across a whole new crop of articles that I found interesting for one reason or another.

One of the first articles that I read today – Why I am not a Pantheist (Nor a Panentheist) is very long, but quite worth reading. I wish I had cut and paste some of the paragraphs that made me go “Hmmm” as I read them, but alas, I did not and now most of those thoughts are gone. However, I will say that I wish that the author had called his article “Why I am not a Pantheist” only because, in my opinion, none of his arguments apply to Panentheism. Here are two quotes that I did make a mental note of my reaction:

So far, I have argued as follows: If the absolute is considered impersonal, than to call it “God” is disingenuous to both the original tenor of Abrahamic theism (before its absorption of ideologies like Gnosticism and Neo-Platonism) as well as the traditions which have always espoused a radically immanent notion of the divine. The latter have typically been either flatly non-theistic, or have depicted personal gods as derivative, a manifestation of a deeper and undifferentiated reality. If we must spiritualize all of existence, labeling it God adds nothing at best, and plays frivolously with a word deeply resonant to the great majority of theists. That is, unless the cosmos or the “All” can be argued to have a personal element over and above the sentient beings who occupy it (as insisted upon by process theologians), a position which has little experiential or philosophical justification.

Well that’s just it, isn’t it? Panentheists DO argue that The All DOES have a ‘personal element’ over and above the sentient beings that occupy it. Otherwise they would be Pantheists. And many Panentheists would argue that there is experiential justification (as they have experienced it). And I’d think that Panentheists like Whitehead or Clayton would argue that there is philosophical justification, as they are, ummm, philosophers and Panentheists.

It is neither the cosmos which merits spiritualization, nor the self considered alone, but the depth of the relationship between the two.

An obvious rejoinder is that this relationship is itself part of the All, and to think of it in abstraction from the totality of things is as fallacious as conceiving of heightened and exalted experiences without the human beings undergoing them. I have no quarrel with this picture; that we are part of the totality of things is a matter of logic (where else can we be?). But this is no argument for pantheism or panentheism, and in fact can be turned against both: For the relationship of the self to the rest of existence is indeed part of the All—and not to be identified with the totality in which it inheres.

Of course it’s an argument for Panentheism. It’s the very definition of Panentheism – that we are part of the totality of things and are not to be identified with the totality in which we inhere. (That would be Pantheism.)

A blog that I found during my searching is Theology in the 3rd Millennium. There is a very good article on Panentheism. Alas it doesn’t look like it has been updated since 2008. (I’d hoped I’d found a new blog to put on my RSS reader. )

I’m out of time but will return to this post later and add more links and comments. Until then, your thoughts are appreciated.