Panentheism and God as a real epiphenomenon

Question

Just trying to think of God as something that explains nothing at all, as per Russell's Teapot, I think.

God must withdraw in order for creation to exist

claim's Cooper's panentheism. Does this mean that God is real but creates - is responsible for - nothing? If not, does such a panentheism exist? I don't think pantheism would work with this hypothetical role for God. If God is in everything and nothing else besides, then His creative activity explains it all, same as theism.

Same as "A must withdraw in order for B to exist" and "if B comes from A, A must not have what B has" and "Being cannot be explained through the beings" as [here](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/100137/5154). So Being (A) is the ground of beings (B), and beings may make of nature a god -- pantheism -- but there is still A, but A cannot be conceived because it is ineffable. — Chris Degnen, Jul 26 '23 at 23:32
but can beings be explained through the Being @ChrisDegnen ? — , Jul 26 '23 at 23:33
i think i kinda get what you mean though @ChrisDegnen if God is something more than His parts then He is an an abstract object and these are [causally inert](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dharmakiirti/#Nom). but you need further assumptions, i think, to decide that, and i'm interested in panentheism and its ideas, not in the non-existence of God exactly — , Jul 26 '23 at 23:40
Being is simply first cause. In phenomenology, as in pure reasoning, one goes to the origin of thought and this is being, which can hardly be fathomed without turning into thought. This is as far as reason can go: being is a mystery; inconceivable, 'nothing' even (as in unobservable therefore not obtaining of existence in relation to cognition). Conceived beings depend on something to be, that is 'being' by the logic of the phrase 'to be', but 'being' despite Kant's *gedankenlose Anschauung* (thoughtless intuition) is an impenetrable mystery like the Tao that cannot be named & other analogies. — Chris Degnen, Jul 26 '23 at 23:51
If God does nothing and is reponsible for nothing then discussing wether it exists or not is both indecidable and pointless. — armand, Jul 26 '23 at 23:57
I find it a push to call Being nothing just because it's unobservable. Funnily enough this is the same argument I have on this forum with absolute time. Technically it's [unobservable so doesn't exist](https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/einstein-relativity-and-absolute-simultaneity/). On the face of it it's the same problem. — Chris Degnen, Jul 27 '23 at 00:01
In buddhism Kant's *gedankenlose Anschauung* is described as nirvana; in Taoism, if the machinations of thought were discarded "the virtue of all men would begin to display its mysterious excellence." [Chuang Tzu, Bk X](https://www.sacred-texts.com/tao/sbe39/sbe39131.htm#fr_423). I'm trying it. — Chris Degnen, Jul 27 '23 at 06:51
Some languages do not have the verb "to be", Mayan for example. Some languages do not have words for time. We should bear in mind when pondering our concepts and their ramifications, that "*It's all invented*", as it says in *The Art of Possibility*. — Scott Rowe, Jul 27 '23 at 16:42
In terms of phenomenology, the *basis* of experience is everything that facilitates that experience, which cannot be known simply by pure reasoning. That basis is 'being', (whatever that is). There is experience so there must be a basis/reason/cause. But this is different from the basis of Russell's creation, unless the existence of creation is also taken in a Kantian mode, phenomenologically, as experience. Where again 'being' is the basis of experience. — Chris Degnen, Jul 28 '23 at 21:05
yeah sorry @ChrisDegnen just ignore me if you can! you lost me with the kant reference, apologies — , Jul 28 '23 at 21:44
Quoting from the [Encyclopaedia Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Kantianism/Early-Kantianism-1790-1835) : "Kant inaugurated a Copernican revolution in philosophy, which claimed that the subject doing the knowing constitutes, to a considerable extent, the object—i.e., that knowledge is in part constituted by a priori or transcendental factors (contributed by the mind itself), which the mind imposes upon the data of experience. Far from being a description of an external reality, knowledge is, to Kant, the product of the knowing subject." — Chris Degnen, Jul 29 '23 at 15:28
Basically Kant's revolution was to define or observe that 'existence' *involves* the 'cogito', so if that ingredient is missing: "no cogito" = "no existence", at least on a first-person basis (such as Descartes' "I think therefore I am" (*cogito ergo sum*). Kant clarified Descates' notion of 'am' (being) as intrinsically connected with thinking. Heidegger further emphasises that being + time = thought, and perception: hence actual 'beings'. Thoughts need time to happen in. Without time the rest is being, but this is foundational 'being' rather than the existence-being of a perceived thing. — Chris Degnen, Jul 29 '23 at 19:30

score 2 · Answer 1 · edited Jul 31 '23 at 14:20

2

The notion of panentheism starts with the assumption that a god exists. It then further assumes that this god is in everything and transcends everything. This is a claim that is not demonstrable and falls into the realm of unfalsifiable hypotheses, much like Russell's Teapot. It is, in essence, a non-starter for any serious discussion about reality.

As for the concept of 'divine kenosis,' the idea that a god must 'withdraw' or 'self-empty' for creation to exist, it's another unfounded assertion. It adds unnecessary complexity and mysticism to our understanding of the universe, which can be better explained through natural processes as detailed by science.

The claim that God's 'withdrawal' is a creative act that enables the existence of the universe simply redefines what we mean by 'creation' to fit a particular theological agenda. It's a linguistic game that adds no real explanatory power or evidence to support the existence of a god.

If God is an epiphenomenon, a secondary effect or by-product, then the supposed omnipotence and omniscience of a god is devalued. It raises more questions than it answers about the nature and role of this god.

In essence, these ideas serve to illustrate our human tendency to invent elaborate explanations and entities to answer fundamental questions about our existence, rather than relying on empirical evidence and reason

edited Jul 31 '23 at 14:20

Ludwig V

2,247
4
22

answered Jul 31 '23 at 13:04

Hear hear to your final paragraph in particular. – Marco Ocram Jul 31 '23 at 13:20
Nevertheless our "our understanding" (of the universe) must be underpinned by an actuality that is, at least so far, unknown in its totality. This 'actuality' is what is withdrawn while we engage in naming, measuring and making a scientific understanding of things. The existence of an unobservable actuality effectively resolves to 'nothing' philosophically and scientifically, but it bears thinking about. Empirical evidence and reason are limited, e.g. [Kant's antinomies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant%27s_antinomies). – Chris Degnen Aug 01 '23 at 08:40
The notion that there is some 'actuality' beyond our understanding might be tantalizing, but without evidence, it's just speculation. And while speculation can be a starting point for inquiry, it must be followed by rigorous investigation. If it's not, it risks becoming merely a comforting narrative or an intellectual dead end. – Aug 01 '23 at 08:43
Most of Heidegger's oeuvre is about this underpinning, as Being. "it is supremely simple, too simple really for our complex modern consciousness to grasp. Only those ingenuous souls who have stripped away, or never possessed, the superfluities of thought and emotion know what it is to stand in the light of Being." So said [J. Glenn Gray](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2021188) in 1952. Perhaps it is what it throws into contrast that makes its effect, resituating phenomenological thinking; grounding experiential reality. – Chris Degnen Aug 01 '23 at 09:22

Chris Degnen · Answer 2 · 2023-07-31T12:36:44.850

As I understand from G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy (1908), the Christian God is separate from nature and the cosmos: a refuge and solace separate from the turmoil of nature. "That transcendence and distinctness of the deity ... was really the only reason why any one wanted to be a Christian." In contrast, a pantheistic God is immanent in nature, perhaps in a cosmopsychic mode.

"While pantheism asserts that "all is God", panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe. Some versions of panentheism suggest that the universe is nothing more than the manifestation of God." Wikipedia

Focusing on the OP's quote, with some more context from the SEP on Panentheism:-

Utilizing resources from the tradition of German Idealism, Jürgen Moltmann developed a form of panentheism in his early work, The Crucified God in [1972] . . . Moltmann moves away from a Hegelian understanding of the trinity as a dialectical development in history (J. Cooper 2006, 251). The relationship between God and the world develops because of God’s nature as love that seeks the other and the free response of the other (Molnar 1990, 677). Moltmann does not consider creation necessary for God nor the result of any inner divine compulsion. Instead creation is the result of God’s essential activity as love rather than the result of God’s self-determination (Molnar 1990, 679). This creation occurs in a process of interaction between nothingness and creativity, contraction and expansion, in God. Because there is no “outside” of God due to God’s infinity, God must withdraw in order for creation to exist. Kenosis, or God’s self-emptying, occurs in creation as well as in the incarnation.

To elaborate on this in a modern context it is necessary to pass through some Kant.

“Thus all the possibility of things (as regards the synthesis of the manifold of their content) is regarded as derivative, and only that which includes all reality in it is regarded as original.” Kant A578/B606

As rendered by Tang Huyen who also relates it to a quote from Heidegger:-

if B comes from A, A must not have what B has

“Being cannot be explained through the beings” (Sein nicht durch Seiendes erklärt werden kann), (Sein nicht durch Seiendes erklärbar ist). B & T, 251, GA 2 275.

So above are four analogues, with the withdrawing panentheistic God now aligned to 'Being'. What can this 'Being' mean?

The Cartesian answer proceeds from pure reason; that which can be ascertained by thought alone. The scientific answer uses practical reason, insofar as it can.

In pure reason (phenomenology) the existence of things requires the involvement of cognition. Things that 'are' are beings, whether living or inanimate, but the experience of living is a higher order of being. In Heidegger's development of Kant, 'thought' is a product of time and (yet another) more primordial 'Being'.

In the scientific view, 'Being' is that whole state of affairs upon which time can operate to produce thought.

In the phenomenological view one cannot step back earlier than thought so the foundation, so to speak, is unobservable. 'Being' withdraws.

Even in the scientific view, "that whole state of affairs" is an open-ended idea containing many mysteries (including the origin of the Big Bang), and to a large extent is a loose hypothesis in thought rather than a conclusion of physics.

So this "X withdraws" is a way of describing the state of nature, as obtains, right up to the point at which cognition takes over and starts naming things for itself, from which point the actual and unknown "state of nature" has withdrawn and is a mystery to cognition. The panentheistic God or 'Being' is a label for 'the mystery'.

Returning to the OP's question: "Does this mean that [the panentheistic] God is real?" Unknown or unobservable things are only real to cognition insofar as they are 'unknown or unobservable'.

It is worth noting that the buddhist aspiration to quell thought brings one closer to simply Being, and is called nirvana. In Taoism it is suggested that by this simplicity "the virtue of all men would begin to display its mysterious excellence". Chuang Tzu, X

Panentheism and God as a real epiphenomenon

2 Answers2