Deism and Pandeism

[Padraic Brown]

Pandeism combines Deism with Pantheism, the belief that the universe
is identical to God. Pandeism holds that God was a conscious and
sentient force or entity that designed and created the universe, which
operates by mechanisms set forth in the creation.

So far, so good.

God thus became an
unconscious and nonresponsive being by becoming the universe.

What reason is there to suspect that the Creator became an
"unconscious being"? What is there about creation itself that would
suggest this transformation on the part of the Creator?

Other
than this distinction (and the possibility that the Universe will one
day return to the state of being God), pandeistic beliefs are
identical to Deist.

Otherwise agreed: this Pandeism simply takes run of the mill Deism and
adds a peculiar twist.

Padraic

The term, pandeism, was coined in 1859 by German
philosophers and frequent collaborators Moritz Lazarus and Heymann
Steinthal in Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft.
Man stelle es also den Denkern frei, ob sie Theisten, Pan-theisten,
Atheisten, Deisten (und warum nicht auch Pandeisten?) [Moritz Lazarus
and Heymann Steinthal, Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und
Sprachwissenschaft (1859), p. 262.]
Man leaves it to the philosophers, whether they are Theists, Pan-
theists, Atheists, Deists (and why not also Pandeists?)
In the 1960s, theologian Charles Hartshorne scrupulously examined and
rejected both deism and pandeism (as well as pantheism) in favor of a
God whose characteristics included "absolute perfection in some
respects, relative perfection in all others" or "AR", writing that
this theory "is able consistently to embrace all that is positive in
either deism or pandeism", concluding that "panentheistic doctrine
contains all of deism and pandeism except their arbitrary negations".
[Charles Hartshorne, Man's Vision of God and the Logic of Theism
(1964) p. 348.]
In 1995, Jim Garvin, a Vietnam vet who became a Trappist monk in the
Holy Cross Abbey of Berryville, Virginia, and went on to lead the
economic development of Phoenix, Arizona, described his spiritual
position as "'pandeism' or 'pan-en-deism,' something very close to the
Native American concept of the all- pervading Great
Spirit..."[Albuquerque Journal, Saturday, November 11, 1995, B-10.]

[y***@gmail.com]

Thanks for that. I am a sort of Panendeist... and while Deism gets
limited attention in today's world... Panendeism gets next to nothing.

[k***@hotmail.com]

Post by y***@gmail.com
Thanks for that. I am a sort of Panendeist... and while Deism gets
limited attention in today's world... Panendeism gets next to nothing.

I've looked at Panendeism -- also an interesting twist, but I have no
use for any part of God existing beyond the Universe itself, and if
God indeed made the Universe to experience limitation or (as Scott
Adams suggests) nonexistence, the excess existence would be downright
detrimental to that!!

[k***@hotmail.com]

Post by Padraic Brown

Pandeism combines Deism with Pantheism, the belief that the universe
is identical to God. Pandeism holds that God was a conscious and
sentient force or entity that designed and created the universe, which
operates by mechanisms set forth in the creation.

So far, so good.

God thus became an
unconscious and nonresponsive being by becoming the universe.

What reason is there to suspect that the Creator became an
"unconscious being"? What is there about creation itself that would
suggest this transformation on the part of the Creator?

Other
than this distinction (and the possibility that the Universe will one
day return to the state of being God), pandeistic beliefs are
identical to Deist.

Otherwise agreed: this Pandeism simply takes run of the mill Deism and
adds a peculiar twist.
Padraic

The twist it adds, though, explains exactly why God is unresponsive,
and why prayer won't work and miracles can't be expected.... and,
after all, explains where the matter of the Unvierse came from -- it
came from, and is of, the Creator, which is experiencing existence
through us (a kind of experience it can't get any other way)....

Post by Padraic Brown

The term,pandeism, was coined in 1859 by German
philosophers and frequent collaborators Moritz Lazarus and Heymann
Steinthal in Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft.
Man stelle es also den Denkern frei, ob sie Theisten, Pan-theisten,
Atheisten, Deisten (und warum nicht auch Pandeisten?) [Moritz Lazarus
and Heymann Steinthal, Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und
Sprachwissenschaft (1859), p. 262.]
Man leaves it to the philosophers, whether they are Theists, Pan-
theists, Atheists, Deists (and why not also Pandeists?)
In the 1960s, theologian Charles Hartshorne scrupulously examined and
rejected both deism andpandeism(as well as pantheism) in favor of a
God whose characteristics included "absolute perfection in some
respects, relative perfection in all others" or "AR", writing that
this theory "is able consistently to embrace all that is positive in
either deism orpandeism", concluding that "panentheistic doctrine
contains all of deism andpandeismexcept their arbitrary negations".
[Charles Hartshorne, Man's Vision of God and the Logic of Theism
(1964) p. 348.]
In 1995, Jim Garvin, a Vietnam vet who became a Trappist monk in the
Holy Cross Abbey of Berryville, Virginia, and went on to lead the
economic development of Phoenix, Arizona, described his spiritual
position as "'pandeism' or 'pan-en-deism,' something very close to the
Native American concept of the all- pervading Great
Spirit..."[Albuquerque Journal, Saturday, November 11, 1995, B-10.]

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[Padraic Brown]

Post by k***@hotmail.com

Post by Padraic Brown

Pandeism combines Deism with Pantheism, the belief that the universe
is identical to God. Pandeism holds that God was a conscious and
sentient force or entity that designed and created the universe, which
operates by mechanisms set forth in the creation.

So far, so good.

God thus became an
unconscious and nonresponsive being by becoming the universe.

What reason is there to suspect that the Creator became an
"unconscious being"? What is there about creation itself that would
suggest this transformation on the part of the Creator?

Other
than this distinction (and the possibility that the Universe will one
day return to the state of being God), pandeistic beliefs are
identical to Deist.

Otherwise agreed: this Pandeism simply takes run of the mill Deism and
adds a peculiar twist.
Padraic

The twist it adds, though, explains exactly why God is unresponsive,

Who says God is unresponsive (unconscious)? I don't see any _reason_
to suppose that God is unresponsive. More likely than not, we're
simply blind and deaf to any response he makes.

Also, there is no reason to suppose that God _must_ respond to us on
our own terms. It may be that our expectations of what "responsive"
must mean are clouding true facts of the matter.

As I understand Deism, it is a theological theory that holds that God
can be known through reason and examination of the creation itself
(God's own revelation). Pandeism seems simply to add a twist more
reminiscent of a revealed religion than one based on rational
observation.

Post by k***@hotmail.com
and why prayer won't work and miracles can't be expected.... and,
after all, explains where the matter of the Unvierse came from -- it
came from, and is of, the Creator, which is experiencing existence
through us (a kind of experience it can't get any other way)....

From what I read of the theory, it makes assumptions above and beyond
what Deism seems to do.

Padraic

[k***@hotmail.com]

Post by Padraic Brown

Post by k***@hotmail.com

Post by Padraic Brown

Pandeismcombines Deism with Pantheism, the belief that the universe
is identical to God.Pandeismholds that God was a conscious and
sentient force or entity that designed and created the universe, which
operates by mechanisms set forth in the creation.

So far, so good.

God thus became an
unconscious and nonresponsive being by becoming the universe.

What reason is there to suspect that the Creator became an
"unconscious being"? What is there about creation itself that would
suggest this transformation on the part of the Creator?

Other
than this distinction (and the possibility that the Universe will one
day return to the state of being God), pandeistic beliefs are
identical to Deist.

Otherwise agreed: thisPandeismsimply takes run of the mill Deism and
adds a peculiar twist.
Padraic

The twist it adds, though, explains exactly why God is unresponsive,

Who says God is unresponsive (unconscious)? I don't see any _reason_
to suppose that God is unresponsive. More likely than not, we're
simply blind and deaf to any response he makes.
Also, there is no reason to suppose that God _must_ respond to us on
our own terms. It may be that our expectations of what "responsive"
must mean are clouding true facts of the matter.
As I understand Deism, it is a theological theory that holds that God
can be known through reason and examination of the creation itself
(God's own revelation).Pandeismseems simply to add a twist more
reminiscent of a revealed religion than one based on rational
observation.

Post by k***@hotmail.com
and why prayer won't work and miracles can't be expected.... and,
after all, explains where the matter of the Unvierse came from -- it
came from, and is of, the Creator, which is experiencing existence
through us (a kind of experience it can't get any other way)....

From what I read of the theory, it makes assumptions above and beyond
what Deism seems to do.
Padraic
--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

There are admittedly multiple definitions of Deism (indeed and of
Pantheism and Pandeism, as a consequence) -- some Deists hold that
there are no miracles, no intervention by God in the Universe....
either God has abandoned it altogether or watches silently and without
interference.... more importantly (to me, anyway) although Deism
offers excellent proofs that this is indeed a God-designed Universe,
Deism offers no explanation of why God would create a Universe, nor
generally of what material this Universe should originate....

Emanationists, which run very close to Pandeism or Panendeism at any
rate, suggest that it's an unintended side effect of God's existence,
but I think the Universe is too finely tuned to be an accident on
God's part, just as I think it is too finely tuned to be an accident
of nature itself.... so why would God create a Universe at all, one in
which we already admit the theistic faiths are misguided in their
theories.... what makes this a necessary act for a deity?

The only answer I come back to is that there must be something to
experience in the Universe that can not be experienced otherwise, and
surely the best way to experience something is to become it!

[Padraic Brown]

Post by k***@hotmail.com
There are admittedly multiple definitions of Deism (indeed and of
Pantheism and Pandeism, as a consequence) -- some Deists hold that
there are no miracles, no intervention by God in the Universe....
either God has abandoned it altogether or watches silently and without
interference.... more importantly (to me, anyway) although Deism
offers excellent proofs that this is indeed a God-designed Universe,
Deism offers no explanation of why God would create a Universe, nor
generally of what material this Universe should originate....

I'm not sure Deism _can_ address those issues. It seems to deal in
what _is_, and what is deducible on a rational basis, not what is
conjectured to might could be.

Post by k***@hotmail.com
Emanationists, which run very close to Pandeism or Panendeism at any
rate, suggest that it's an unintended side effect of God's existence,

Sort of "If God exists, then the universe is bound to exist."

Post by k***@hotmail.com
but I think the Universe is too finely tuned to be an accident on
God's part, just as I think it is too finely tuned to be an accident
of nature itself....

Unless we should discover a more perfect universe somewhere!

Post by k***@hotmail.com
so why would God create a Universe at all, one in
which we already admit the theistic faiths are misguided in their
theories.... what makes this a necessary act for a deity?

Is it even a "necessary" act? Other than by analogy -- artists must
paint/sculpt; writers must write; cops must chase robbers; Creators
must create universes.

Post by k***@hotmail.com
The only answer I come back to is that there must be something to
experience in the Universe that can not be experienced otherwise, and
surely the best way to experience something is to become it!

Sort of like fictional worlds and alternate histories for us -- what
would it be like to...? The only way to find out is to subcreate such
a fictional realm and explore it.

Padraic

[k***@hotmail.com]

Post by Padraic Brown

Post by k***@hotmail.com
There are admittedly multiple definitions of Deism (indeed and of
Pantheism andPandeism, as a consequence) -- some Deists hold that
there are no miracles, no intervention by God in the Universe....
either God has abandoned it altogether or watches silently and without
interference.... more importantly (to me, anyway) although Deism
offers excellent proofs that this is indeed a God-designed Universe,
Deism offers no explanation of why God would create a Universe, nor
generally of what material this Universe should originate....

I'm not sure Deism _can_ address those issues. It seems to deal in
what _is_, and what is deducible on a rational basis, not what is
conjectured to might could be.

I will argue that Pandeism does in fact deal in what is deducible on a
rational basis.... if the creation allows us to deduce that there was
a creator, then surely the nature of the creation allows us to deduce
the intent of the creator, if we believe the creation to be correctly
fulfilling that intent?

Post by Padraic Brown

Post by k***@hotmail.com
Emanationists, which run very close toPandeismor Panendeism at any
rate, suggest that it's an unintended side effect of God's existence,

Sort of "If God exists, then the universe is bound to exist."

Yes, but I don't buy that -- it presumes that God had no control, no
power to decide not to create the Universe!!

Post by Padraic Brown

Post by k***@hotmail.com
but I think the Universe is too finely tuned to be an accident on
God's part, just as I think it is too finely tuned to be an accident
of nature itself....

Unless we should discover a more perfect universe somewhere!

Talk about conjecture!! Sure, there may be infinite alternative
Universes, but we only know of one, so lets stick with the evidence
before our eyes!! And could another Universe be "more perfect" if the
goal is to provide a sort of bizarre set of experiences? The physics
of ours precisely permit complexity, and complexity leads to
experience....

Post by Padraic Brown

Post by k***@hotmail.com
so why would God create a Universe at all, one in
which we already admit the theistic faiths are misguided in their
theories.... what makes this a necessary act for a deity?

Is it even a "necessary" act? Other than by analogy -- artists must
paint/sculpt; writers must write; cops must chase robbers; Creators
must create universes.

If God is rational, then why would God create anything at all, unless
that creation would fulfill some need of God's?

Post by Padraic Brown

Post by k***@hotmail.com
The only answer I come back to is that there must be something to
experience in the Universe that can not be experienced otherwise, and
surely the best way to experience something is to become it!

Sort of like fictional worlds and alternate histories for us -- what
would it be like to...? The only way to find out is to subcreate such
a fictional realm and explore it.

Might we be fictional to God? If we are a figment of God's
imagination, would we know the difference?

Post by Padraic Brown
Padraic
--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

Very thoughtful comments, you challenge me to further develop my
views!!

[Padraic Brown]

Post by k***@hotmail.com

Post by Padraic Brown

Post by k***@hotmail.com
There are admittedly multiple definitions of Deism (indeed and of
Pantheism andPandeism, as a consequence) -- some Deists hold that
there are no miracles, no intervention by God in the Universe....
either God has abandoned it altogether or watches silently and without
interference.... more importantly (to me, anyway) although Deism
offers excellent proofs that this is indeed a God-designed Universe,
Deism offers no explanation of why God would create a Universe, nor
generally of what material this Universe should originate....

I'm not sure Deism _can_ address those issues. It seems to deal in
what _is_, and what is deducible on a rational basis, not what is
conjectured to might could be.

I will argue that Pandeism does in fact deal in what is deducible on a
rational basis....

Fair enough. I don't think we can rationally deduce the Creator's
_motive_ for creating. In that regard, Pandeism really is much further
away from Deism than it might at first seem.

Post by k***@hotmail.com
if the creation allows us to deduce that there was
a creator, then surely the nature of the creation allows us to deduce
the intent of the creator, if we believe the creation to be correctly
fulfilling that intent?

I wouldn't agree with that at all. We could come up with half a dozen
perfectly plausible rationales for creating this universe. Which one
would we choose to be right when all of them are not only possible but
even likely?

I think all we can really deduce is that there _is_ a Creator. Untill
we can meet the Creator face to face and discuss the matter, I don't
think we can really discover the rationale -- unless the Creator
placed the explanation _within_ the creation somewhere. Perhaps a
cache of gold plates buried in New Jersey somewhere that explain
everything?

Post by k***@hotmail.com

Post by Padraic Brown

Post by k***@hotmail.com
Emanationists, which run very close toPandeismor Panendeism at any
rate, suggest that it's an unintended side effect of God's existence,

Sort of "If God exists, then the universe is bound to exist."

Yes, but I don't buy that -- it presumes that God had no control, no
power to decide not to create the Universe!!

Perhaps. It's no worse to presume that God can not NOT create than it
is to presume that God created for this or that reason and not the
rest on the list. It all comes down to presuming knowledge of God's
own will and plan, or pretending that we can know it. It begins to
smack of revelation, which is something Deism seems to abhor.

Post by k***@hotmail.com

Post by Padraic Brown

Post by k***@hotmail.com
but I think the Universe is too finely tuned to be an accident on
God's part, just as I think it is too finely tuned to be an accident
of nature itself....

Unless we should discover a more perfect universe somewhere!

Talk about conjecture!!

Not at all. If we should discover some means of exiting this universe
and entering another, we might just find one that is even more perfect
than ours. Ours might turn out to be an experimental model.

Post by k***@hotmail.com
Sure, there may be infinite alternative
Universes, but we only know of one, so lets stick with the evidence
before our eyes!!

Then we limit ourselves and must be even more careful about our
conjectures! It's like a judge granting the cops a search warrant
_only_ for the outside of a suspect's house. The cop says: "If only we
could see inside, we might find some clues!" The other says: "Sure,
there might be evidence inside, but we've only got the outside to deal
with, so let's stick with the evidence before our eyes!" ;)

Post by k***@hotmail.com
And could another Universe be "more perfect" if the
goal is to provide a sort of bizarre set of experiences?

Probably. "Bizzare" is in the mind of the beholder. I consider the
experiences to be had *here* fairly mundane.

Post by k***@hotmail.com
The physics
of ours precisely permit complexity, and complexity leads to
experience....

Post by Padraic Brown

Post by k***@hotmail.com
so why would God create a Universe at all, one in
which we already admit the theistic faiths are misguided in their
theories.... what makes this a necessary act for a deity?

Is it even a "necessary" act? Other than by analogy -- artists must
paint/sculpt; writers must write; cops must chase robbers; Creators
must create universes.

If God is rational, then why would God create anything at all, unless
that creation would fulfill some need of God's?

Perhaps the need is not a rational need. Perhaps God doesn't even
know. Perhaps God is an artist. Perhaps God is a theoretical physicist
interested in modelling realities in small scale. The "need" may not
be so much God's as the science or culture in which God lives.

Post by k***@hotmail.com

Post by Padraic Brown

Post by k***@hotmail.com
The only answer I come back to is that there must be something to
experience in the Universe that can not be experienced otherwise, and
surely the best way to experience something is to become it!

Sort of like fictional worlds and alternate histories for us -- what
would it be like to...? The only way to find out is to subcreate such
a fictional realm and explore it.

Might we be fictional to God?

We might be.

Post by k***@hotmail.com
If we are a figment of God's
imagination, would we know the difference?

_We_ might not. God might be surprised to meet us some day!

Post by k***@hotmail.com
Very thoughtful comments, you challenge me to further develop my
views!!

Likewise!

Padraic