What is Reddit's opinion of Panentheism: The Other God of the Philosophers--From Plato to the Present?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

> If they started redefining the word (which you would have to for most religious discussions) then you have a problem.

What about non-English speakers who's languages have an inherently spiritual/poetic connection with what English speakers call "the Universe"? Are the expected to compromise that uniqueness to appease opposing worldviews?

> However believing that you have the answer without evidence of it actually being the answer? That's foolish. That's stopping the search for knowledge.

I agree. There should be some solid basis for accepting the worldview that you do. I don't subscribe to scientism and think science leaves far too many holes when it comes to things like morality and ethics, so I don't take it as the be-all-end-all in that regard. But if not science, I agree there should still be good reasons for accepting the frameworks that you do.

> To this one there actually is evidence, and that evidence comes from the Euthyphro dilemma. Simply, are certain actions good because God commands them, or does God command them because they are good? Answer this question for me and you will have proven that, if God exists, morality is from God. Otherwise it has to be conceded that morality comes from some other source, or from a mixture of sources (the most likely possibility IMO). This is not a truth claim, but rather a statement of logical impossibilities.

This is, imo, a very weak argument against the existence of a 'God', even the Christian diety (though it could possibly work against the Islamic). If it were any good it would have destroyed Christianity by now. The reason it hasn't is because it is a false dilemma. It presents two options under the guise that they are the only ones, when that is simply not the case. It is the reason why no Christian theologians worth their salt pay much attention to it.

You can check out one possible Christian response here: http://www.str.org/articles/euthyphro-s-dilemma#.Vld-zHarSM8

There is another section of that link which I found interesting though...

> The problem of grounding morality is a difficult one for atheists who claim one can have ethics without God. Certainly, an atheist can act in a manner some people consider "moral," but it's hard to know what the term ultimately refers to. It generally means to comply with an objective standard of good, a Law given by legitimate authority. However, without a transcendent Lawmaker (God), there can be no transcendent Law, and no corresponding obligation to be good.

> Trappist monk Thomas Merton put the challenge this way:

> "In the name of whom or what do you ask me to behave? Why should I go to the inconvenience of denying myself the satisfactions I desire in the name of some standard that exists only in your imagination? Why should I worship the fictions that you have imposed on me in the name of nothing?"

Regarding Sikhi, the dilemma presents a false choice because it rests on the assumption that God transmits morality to humans ad verbum in the form of rules and lists. That simply does not make any sense within the framework of Ik Onkar. Furthermore, ideally, 'good' and 'bad' do not even enter Sikh discussions on morality because Sikh ethics derive from alignment/unalignment with Hukam, not verbal commandments.

I asked this same question to a Sikh on here who is majoring in philosophy and he said something very similar.

But of course, the biggest flaw with this dilemma out of all is that it assumes God communicates with humans in the first place. It has no way to account for a Deistic Deity who simply created the universe and watches it progress entirely from the outside, without intervening in any way at all. That is probably its fatal weakness.

So I will ask again, what evidence do atheists have to make the claim that "God does not exist"?

> Well, okay, yes, but some have more evidence than others.

So far I have seen no good reason to accept the claim "God does not exist", which you mentioned previously is what atheists claim.

> Alright, but this is just another belief without evidence.

How do you know it is "without evidence"? What kind of evidence would satisfy you?

> Do you know what experience each one of those cultures had? Because I can tell you people today certainly are not all having the exact same experience. That is a very bold claim and seems to be unsubstantiated.

I think I have enough information to say for the most part, experiences which fall within the parameters of Panentheism were quite pervasive across human societies over time and geographical distance. This doesn't mean absolutely everyone in each society experienced them, just that they were there within the populations.

> Their own version of panentheism, I suppose not, if you twisted their philosophies around enough. That doesn't mean they meet the Sikh description of panentheism or even come close, though.

Again, that's just not what I said. I didn't say "all of those experiences came directly from a strong Panentheistic understanding of God", I said "None of the examples [i.e. experiences with Jesus/angels/crocodiles/the Jewish man/Theravada Monk] you listed in this paragraph fall outside the general parameters of panentheism. All of them are possible within a panentheistic framework. It doesn't mean the people who experience them necessarily have to self-identify with panentheism themselves...

> The Ancient Greeks certainly did not believe in any kind of panentheism, they were serious polytheists. Same with the Egyptians, and the Arabian tribes. If they had the exact same experience as Sikhs have had, don't you think their philosophy would be at least a little bit similar?

Did I say "the ancient Greeks/Arabians/Amazon Tribes practices Panentheism en masse", or did I say something else? I can't find that statement in any of my posts, so I don't know where you are getting it from. That is not even remotely close to what I mentioned.

> Source? I've only ever seen panentheism coming out of monotheism, with the exception of a few Hindu sects. I've never seen it come from animism or polytheism.

Did I say panentheism came out of these, or that is was "much, much closer" to what people have historically practised? Do you not believe panentheism is closer to the spirituality of most traditional/aboriginal peoples than abrahamic monotheism?

Anyways to address your point,

> with the exception of a few Hindu sects. I've never seen it come from animism or polytheism.

It is not just "a few Hindu sects." Panentheism has strong roots in Vedanta and the polytheism of Hindu society is intended to be an extension, not substitute for it.

The ancient Greeks were another example of a society which may have been polytheistic at a popular/mainstream level, but produced some great work on panentheism. Plato, an ancient Greek, was one of the first to introduce panentheism in western circles and his legacy lives on today.

Animism was very common among the native tribes of the Americas but surprise surprise, even they have significant undercurrents of panentheism:

> In academic terms, Native American spirituality may be described as panentheism (deity/spirit present in, as well as beyond, everything). Such a world view assumes the existence of Spirit beyond the visible world, but also dwelling in all that is. Words like animism (belief in spirits in natural phenomena, such as trees, rocks, animals, fire) are commonly used to describe Native American religion, but when one neglects to include the broader presence of Spirit beyond physical nature, this explanation is incomplete. The Lakota concept of Wakan Tanka (most frequently translated as Great Spirit) illustrates panentheism well: Wakan Tanka is the Spirit over, under, and throughout all of the physical world, its guiding principle, present in individual phenomena yet not confined to it, not strictly singular nor plural, neither truly personal nor impersonal. Manitou/manitos of the Algonkians is a similar concept. Source.

Animism can exist within a greater panentheistic framework. Totemism can exist within a greater panentheistic framework. Shamanism can exist within a greater panentheistic framework. And even polytheism can exist within a greater panentheistic framework (like with the Hindus). While all of these may seem like completely different worldviews on the surface, they are united by a common understanding of being able to see Divinity all around us and not limited to some entity separate from the universe. That is why I said "Panentheism is much, much closer to what people would have be doing a few thousand years ago", because they are on that common wavelength which forms the basis of Panentheism as well.

http://www.pass.va/content/scienzesociali/en/about/history.html

If you're interested spend some time on their site. The foundations of the doxy they're working with come from perhaps the most anti-Catholic 'prophet' one can think of. Certainly the most influential. Heck, his motto is on the Brazilian flag.

http://www.victorianweb.org/philosophy/comte.html

It is interesting that Chardin's life work was devoted to the melding of his panentheistic, positive philosophy with Catholicism. The singularity of course requires a denial of Christ and the belief that man is in the act of becoming God on earth.

The late monk Seraphim Rose wrote extensively on the subject