I SEARCH FOR GOD,
BUT FIND NO COMFORT. I BEGIN TO WONDER, IS
MY SEARCH TOO NARROW? PHILOSOPHER FRIENDS
TELL ME TO WIDEN MY GAZE; THEY INVITE ME TO A SMALL
WORKSHOP ON ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS OF GOD WHERE, IN PRIVATE, THEY
EXPLORE UNUSUAL IDEAS ABOUT GOD. A FAVORITE IS PANTHEISM,
THE IDEA THAT GOD IS THE WORLD, AND THE WORLD IS GOD. PANTHEISM'S CLAIM IS
NOT SHY; GOD IS EVERYTHING, AND EVERYTHING IS GOD. IT SEEMS THAT PANTHEISM
IS BECOMING MORE POPULAR, ESPECIALLY AMONG
SOME PHILOSOPHERS. WHAT DOES PANTHEISM OFFER? I'M ROBERT LAWRENCE KUHN, AND
CLOSER TO TRUTH IS MY JOURNEY TO FIND OUT. PANTHEISM - GOD IS THE WORLD
- SEEMS SO ALIEN TO JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM, WHERE A
TRANSCENDENT GOD IS RADICALLY DISTINCT FROM ALL
THAT GOD CREATED. PANTHEISM IS UNFAMILIAR
TERRITORY AND I AM NOT CONFIDENT IN EXPLORING IT. BUT WITH SO MANY ROOTS
TRYING TO REACH REALITY, FAMILIARITY AND CONFIDENCE
MAY NOT BE GOOD SIGNPOSTS. THE WORKSHOP IS BEING
HELD AT THE UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM, IN ENGLAND. I MEET A LEADING
EXPERT ON PANTHEISM, AUTHOR OF PANTHEISM AND
THE STANFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY, MICHAEL LEVINE. MICHAEL, IF I'M TRYING TO WEIGH
THE DIFFERENT WAYS OF LOOKING AT THE WORLD, THEISM AND ATHEISM
ARE ALWAYS THE TWO TENSION-PARTS OF THIS BARBELL OF EXISTENCE. I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND
HOW YOU DIFFERENTIATE PANTHEISM FROM THEISM. PANTHEISM IS THE
CLASSIC ALTERNATIVE TO THEISM. THE TWO REALLY CRUCIAL POINTS
AT WHICH IT DISTINGUISHES ITSELF IS, FIRST OF ALL,
THEISM IS, OF COURSE, BELIEF IN A PERSONAL GOD,
A GOD THAT'S CONSCIOUS, IN SOME SENSE. THERE IS NO PERSONAL
GOD - THERE IS NO PERSON. IF THERE IS NO PERSON, THERE IS
GOING TO BE NO OBJECT OF PRAYER, AS SUCH, NO OBJECT
OF WORSHIP, OF SUCH. SO, FIRST OF ALL,
NO PERSONAL GOD. THE OTHER ONE I THINK DENIES
NOT JUST THE PERSONALITY OF GOD, IT DENIES THE
TRANSCENDENCE. FOR THE THEIST, GOD IS
UTTERLY TRANSCENDENT, ONTOLOGICALLY DISTINCT - QUITE
THE OPPOSITE WHAT THE ESSENCE OF PANTHEISM - IF YOU WILL -
ALTHOUGH IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO REALLY DESCRIBE IT. PANTHEISM INSISTS ON
EMINENCE, DIVINE EMINENCE, AND TAKES IT TO THE NTH
DEGREE, SO THAT GOD IS, AS IT WERE, EVERYWHERE. THE OTHER WAY IN WHICH
PANTHEISM DISTINGUISHES ITSELF FROM THEISM IS THE WAY IN WHICH
IT ADDRESSES CERTAIN KINDS OF THEISTIC PROBLEMS - FOR
EXAMPLE, PROBLEM OF EVIL. THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
IS A THEISTIC PROBLEM, THEISTICALLY CONCEIVED. SO, THE PROBLEM OF EVIL IS, HOW
COULD ONE ACCOUNT FOR THE SCOPE AND THE NATURE OF THE
MISERIES OF THIS WORLD, GIVEN THE EXISTENCE OF A
GOD WHO IS PERFECTLY GOOD, ALL KNOWING AND ALL POWERFUL. ET CETERA - AND ALL POWERFUL. NOT THAT THERE MAY NOT BE A
PROBLEM OF EVIL FOR A PANTHEIST. THERE IS INDEED
A PROBLEM OF EVIL, AND THERE IS PROBABLY A VARIETY
OF OTHER KINDS OF PROBLEMS, BUT THEY CAN'T BE
THEISTICALLY CONCEIVED. BECAUSE, AT THE HEART OF
EVERY THEISTIC PROBLEM, THERE IS GOING TO BE A
PERSONAL BEING, ET CETERA. SO, HOW WOULD A PERSON -
HOW MIGHT A PANTHEIST ADDRESS THE PROBLEM? THEY MIGHT ADDRESS IT BY
SUGGESTING THAT THE UNIFYING FORCE ISN'T BEING ATTENDED TO. IT HAS TO BE ENHANCED
IN CERTAIN KINDS OF WAYS, THAT ONE HAS TO BRING ONE'S MODE
OF LIVING INTO LINE WITH THE NATURE OF THINGS, AS SUCH. SO, WE MUST BE A
CO-CREATOR WITH THE FORCE TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. THAT'S RIGHT. IS THE FORCE MORALLY
POSITIVE, OR MORALLY NEUTRAL? FOR MOST PANTHEISTS, UNDENIABLY,
IT WOULD BE A POSITIVE FORCE. IT WOULD INSTITUTE
SOMETHING LIKE MANICHAEISM, WHICH SUGGESTS THAT THERE ARE
THESE NATURALLY OPPOSING KINDS OF FORCES. NOW, ANOTHER PROBLEM WOULD
BE SOMETHING LIKE CREATION. WHY WOULD GOD CREATE ANYTHING? PEOPLE WILL GIVE YOU AN
ACCOUNT OF, WELL, GOD MIGHT HAVE DONE IT
OUT OF THE GOODNESS, TO ACHIEVE MAXIMUM
GOODNESS, ET CETERA. THE PANTHEIST DOESN'T HAVE TO
HAVE A KIND OF SOLUTION THAT'S ROOTED IN THE NATURE OF
A DIVINE PERSONALITY. SALVATION, OR ANOTHER WAY
IN WHICH ONE IS GOING TO DISTINGUISH
PANTHEISM AND THEISM. SALVATION, FOR THEISTS, HAS TO
DO WITH PERSONAL IMMORTALITY. PANTHEISTS OFTEN TALK
ABOUT IMPERSONAL IMMORTALITY. SO, ROBINSON JEFFERS,
A CALIFORNIA POET, SAYS, TO BE PART AND PARTICLE
OF EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS, WHAT CAN POSSIBLY
BE BETTER THAN THAT? AND IMPERSONAL IMMORTALITY
IS SOMETHING THAT'S ACHIEVED, NOT POST-MORTEM, IF YOU
WILL, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT, IN SO FAR AS ONE LIVES
IN ACCORDANCE WITH ONE'S PANTHEISTIC PRECEPTS, YOU
ACHIEVE THIS IMPERSONAL IMMORTALITY IN EVERY
MOMENT IN WHICH ONE LIVES. PANTHEISM IS THE
CLASSIC ALTERNATIVE TO THEISM, DEFINED BY DENYING
WHAT THEISM DECLARES. PANTHEISM DENIES THAT GOD
IS A PERSONAL-MINDED BEING, AND IT DENIES THAT GOD
IS RADICALLY DISTINCT FROM THE WORLD. PANTHEISM CLAIMS TO
AVOID THE PROBLEM OF EVIL. WELL, WHAT ABOUT EVIL? IF ALL IS GOD, AND
EVIL IS PART OF ALL, THEN ISN'T EVIL PART OF GOD? THAT'S FINE FOR PANTHEISTS,
BECAUSE PANTHEISM'S GOD IS IMPERSONAL, DEVOID OF
MIND, AND MORALLY NEUTRAL. ALSO, CALL ME SELFISH OR
ALTRUISTICALLY CHALLENGED, BUT IMPERSONAL
IMMORTALITY IS NOT FOR ME. I'D FIND NO THRILL IN MY
POST-MORTEM BODY PROVIDING THE MOLECULAR FEEDSTOCK FOR
FORESTS AND OCEANS AND PEOPLE YET TO BE BORN. ALTHOUGH I'D BE DISAPPOINTED BY
WHAT PANTHEISM WOULD OFFER FOR MY LONG TERM FUTURE, I CANNOT
DISMISS ITS CLAIMS OF TRUTH. SO, I GO AFTER
PANTHEISM'S IMPLICATIONS. I MEET PETER FOREST, A
MATHEMATICS TRAINED PHILOSOPHER FROM AUSTRALIA, WHO OFFERS
DIZZYING IDEAS ABOUT GOD. CAN PETER EXPLAIN HOW A
PANTHEISTIC WORLD CAME TO BE? OFTEN, WHEN PEOPLE
TALK ABOUT PANTHEISM, THEY HAVE THE IDEA OF A
PURELY INANIMATE UNIVERSE, AND IT BEING SO
WONDERFUL THAT YOU'D SAY, WOW, THAT'S GOD. THAT'S NOT WHAT I
MEAN BY PANTHEISM. WHAT I MEAN IS
THAT THE UNIVERSE, SUM TOTAL OF THINGS, THE
WHOLE PHYSICAL SET UP, THE ACTUAL AND THE POSSIBLE, IS
GOD'S BODY - THE DIVINE BODY. DOES GOD HAVE ANYTHING
ELSE OTHER THAN THE BODY? WELL, OUR VIEW IS
THAT, IN OUR CASE, AND IN GOD'S CASE, THERE'S
NO EXTRA PART - THE SOUL. THAT DOESN'T EXIST, BUT
I HOLD THAT THERE IS SOMETHING DEEPLY MYSTERIOUS
ABOUT CONSCIOUSNESS AND ABOUT AGENCY. IF YOU SIMPLY DESCRIBE THE
UNIVERSE IN PURELY PHYSICAL TERMS, THAT'S WONDERFUL. BUT I THINK IT LEAVES OUT
WHAT THE DESCRIPTION OF US, IN PURELY BODILY
TERMS, LEAVES OUT. NAMELY, HOW IT FEELS TO GOD,
AND GOD'S CAPACITY TO DO THINGS. SO, LET ME UNDERSTAND HOW THIS
PANTHEISTIC WORLD COULD HAPPEN. I MEAN, A USEFUL IMAGE HERE
IS TO THINK OF POSSIBLE WORLDS, WAYS UNIVERSES MIGHT BE, AND
THE ACTUAL AS JUST SOME OF THOSE POSSIBLE ONES. THERE'S NO ACTUAL
UNIVERSE AS YET. SO, INITIALLY, THE BODY
OF GOD CONSISTS OF ALL THESE POSSIBLE WORLDS. AS TIME PASSES, AS
CHOICES ARE MADE BY GOD, OR BY OTHER AGENTS, THEN THERE
IS LESS THAT IS MERELY POSSIBLE, AND MORE THAT IS ACTUAL. THE ONLY THING ACTUAL IS
THAT THERE ARE POSSIBILITIES. NOW, THERE ARE POSSIBILITIES
FOR PHYSICAL UNIVERSES, BUT IS THERE AN INDEPENDENT
EXISTENCE OF SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO CHOOSE WHICH
ONE BECOMES ACTUAL? I'M INCLINED TO THINK NOT,
BECAUSE I'M INCLINED TO THINK THAT EVEN IN THE HUMAN CASE,
IT'S A MISTAKE TO THINK THAT THERE'S A SEPARATE CHOOSER
THAT SURVEYS THIS ARENA OF MENTAL POSSIBILITIES. ALL RIGHT. BEFORE THERE'S ANYTHING
EXISTING, THERE ARE ONLY POSSIBILITIES, THERE ARE ALL
THESE POSSIBLE UNIVERSES. THERE'S NO INDEPENDENT
SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO SELECT THEM. SO, HOW DOES
ONE GET ACTUALIZED? BECAUSE THE AGENCY,
WHAT IT IS TO BE A CHOOSER, AN AGENT, IS, I THINK,
MADE UP BY THE CHOICE. HOW DO - YOU HAVE AN INFINITE
RANGE OF POSSIBILITIES - HOW DOES ANY POSSIBILITY
BECOME ACTUAL? THE CHOICES MADE ON
THE BASIS OF WHAT THOSE POSSIBILITIES ARE LIKE. SO, THE POSSIBILITIES
THEMSELVES HAVE A BUILT-IN GENERATIVE POWER
TO BECOME ACTUAL? I WOULDN'T DESCRIBE IT AS
A POWER TO BECOME ACTUAL. I WOULD SAY THAT THERE IS A
BASIC MYSTERY OF AGENCY HERE, WHICH WE DON'T UNDERSTAND
IN THE HUMAN CASE. I MEAN, THAT'S FAIR. THAT'S FAIR. I MEAN, WHEREVER YOU WANT TO
INTRODUCE MYSTERIES IS FINE. I DON'T LIKE MYSTERIES. BUT I THINK WE'RE
FORCED TO ACCEPT SOME, AND I THINK, IN THE HUMAN CASE,
WITH THE MYSTERIES THAT THINGS APPEAR, AND THERE'S THE
MYSTERY THAT CHOICE IS MADE, AND I DON'T THINK IT ACTUALLY
HELPS UNDERSTAND TO POSIT A SOMETHING TO WHICH THESE
APPEAR, OR SOMETHING THAT DOES THE CHOICE. I THINK THE BASIC MYSTERY IS
THAT THE FUTURE POSSIBILITIES, OR THE PRESENT
ACTUALITIES APPEAR, AND THAT A CHOICE IS MADE. YOU START OFF WITH THESE
SORT OF LUMINOUS POSSIBILITIES. I'M WITH YOU. YES. NOTHING INDEPENDENT OF THEM. THAT IS GOD. SO THE POSSIBILITIES ARE GOD. THE BODY OF GOD, YES. THE LUMINOUS
POSSIBILITIES - THAT IS GOD. AND THEN, ONE OR MORE OF
THEM, BASED UPON THAT THING, COMES INTO EXISTENCE, SO
GOD CAN THEN, IS ACTUAL. IN THE ONES WHERE THERE'S
THE - FOR WHATEVER REASON - COMES INTO EXISTENCE. I DO WANT TO SAY, THOUGH,
THAT THE RANGE OF POSSIBILITIES ISN'T SELF-ACTUAL. BUT IT'S ACTUALLY THE CASE THAT
THERE ARE THESE POSSIBILITIES, THEREFORE IT'S ACTUALLY THE CASE
OF IT'S THIS PRIMORDIAL GOD. OKAY. THE CHOICE IS MADE
- THAT'S MYSTERIOUS, BUT IT'S A CHOICE FOR THE GOOD,
AND THAT'S SOMETHING I DON'T UNDERSTAND, BUT THAT
MAKES FOR AN AGENT. I DON'T FIND IT HELPFUL TO
THINK OF AN AGENT AS SOMETHING THAT HAS CERTAIN KIND OF
POWERS AND CAPACITIES, BEFORE THE CHOICE. SO GOD HAS THAT CHOICE. SO THROUGHOUT THE PROCEDURE,
THE SUM TOTAL OF WHAT IS ACTUAL AND POSSIBLE CONSTITUTES GOD. SO IN SUMMARY, WHAT I'M
SPECULATING IS THIS: AT ALL TIMES, GOD IS THE SUM OF
ACTUALITIES AND POSSIBILITIES. WHERE CHOICE IS
MADE, THE MORE IS ACTUAL, THE ACTUAL IS DEFINED
MORE, AND AS A RESULT, WE HAVE WHAT WE THINK
OF AS THE UNIVERSES. AND THIS IS GOD'S CHOICE
OVER GOD'S OWN BODY. I THINK I GET IT. PETER IS A PANTHEIST,
AND THAT THE UNIVERSE, ALL THAT EXISTS, INCLUDING
THINGS THAT ARE MERELY POSSIBLE, IS LITERALLY GOD'S BODY. AS TIME PASSES, PETER SAYS,
SOME POSSIBLE THINGS BECOME ACTUAL THINGS, AS GOD
HAS A CHOICE OVER WHAT CONSTITUTES GOD'S BODY. BUT STILL, NOTHING OF THE BODY
OF GOD IS OUTSIDE THE UNIVERSE, SO THERE MUST BE A
BASIC MYSTERY OF AGENCY. WHAT IS THE ULTIMATE TO
WHICH PANTHEISTS TRANSPIRE? I ASKED A COLLEAGUE AND
MENTOR, PHILOSOPHER JOHN LESLIE, CO-EDITOR OF THE MYSTERY
OF EXISTENCE: WHY IS THERE ANYTHING AT ALL? JOHN, YOU WERE MY
INTELLECTUAL MENTOR FOR DECADES. SO, I WAS SURPRISED TO LEARN
THAT YOUR FUNDAMENTAL BELIEF IS AS A PANTHEIST, BECAUSE,
THAT ALWAYS SEEMED ODD TO ME. WELL, LET ME SAY THAT
I HAVE NO FIRM BELIEFS. I HAVE A BELIEF -
MAYBE 55% IN GOD, AND 45% THAT THE UNIVERSE
JUST HAPPENS TO BE THERE. OKAY? AND IF YOU'RE GOING
TO BELIEVE IN GOD, I THINK YOU HAVE
TO BE A PANTHEIST, BECAUSE OTHERWISE, YOU'RE STUCK
WITH THE VIEW THAT THERE'S GOD, AND HE'S THERE,
IN ALL HIS GLORY, AND HE CREATES A WORLD
WHICH IS INFINITELY INFERIOR. THE QUESTION IS: WHY
DIDN'T HE CREATE ANOTHER GOD? IT SEEMS TO MAKE MUCH MORE SENSE
TO BE A PANTHEIST AND SAY THAT THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE IS GOD. IF THE UNIVERSE IS GOD,
DID GOD CREATE IT? CAN YOU CREATE
SOMETHING THAT'S PART OF YOU? WELL, ON THE PANTHEISTIC
VIEW, THE UNIVERSE IS GOD, BUT YOU ARE SAYING SOMETHING
DEFINITELY MORE THAN JUST SAYING GOD IS ANOTHER NAME
FOR THE UNIVERSE. YOU ARE SAYING YOU CAN GET
SOME UNDERSTANDING OF WHY THE UNIVERSE IS THERE. IF YOU SAY THAT IT HAS THE
CHARACTERISTICS OF BEING UNIFIED IN SOME DRAMATIC WAY, AND IF IT
HAS THE CHARACTERISTIC OF BEING ESSENTIALLY MENTAL, AND
IF YOU SAY THAT IT HAS THE CHARACTERISTIC OF
BEING ESSENTIALLY GOOD. AND IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT - AS
I PREFER TO DEVELOP PANTHEISM - THE GOODNESS OF THE UNIVERSE IS
THE REASON WHY THE UNIVERSE IS THERE, ALL THESE ARE WAYS IN
WHICH YOU ADD MORE TO THE IDEA OF GOD THAN JUST
SAYING, GOD IS THE UNIVERSE. HOW COULD YOU SAY
THE UNIVERSE IS MENTAL? I MEAN, IT'S PHYSICAL. MANY NEUROSCIENTISTS THINK THAT
THE MENTAL IS JUST AN ILLUSION FOR THE OUTPUT OF
THE PHYSICAL BRAIN. ONE WAY INTO THIS WOULD BE TO
LOOK AT THOSE SCIENTISTS WHO THINK OF THE UNIVERSE
AS A COMPUTER SIMULATION. THEY SAY IT IS POSSIBLE TO HAVE
ENORMOUSLY POWERFUL COMPUTERS, AND ONE OF THE THINGS WHICH
THEY'LL BE ABLE TO SIMULATE IS THE PATTERNS OF
ENTIRE UNIVERSES, AND WE ARE A PATTERN IN
ONE OF THESE SIMULATIONS. WE COULD BE INSIDE
AN ELECTRONIC BRAIN. YOU DON'T REALLY SAY VERY MUCH
ABOUT THE UNIVERSE WHEN YOU SAY IT'S MADE OF PHYSICAL STUFF. MODERN PHYSICISTS TALK
ABOUT THE UNIVERSE AS PATTERN. IF YOU SAID THIS PATTERN
IS CARRIED BY A COSMIC MIND, YOU'RE NOT SAYING ANYTHING
WHICH A PHYSICIST SHOULD BE OFFENDED BY. WHAT DO YOU GAIN BY
ADDING THAT ENTITY, INSTEAD OF JUST SAY,
YES, IT IS A PATTERN. IT'S THE PHYSICAL PATTERN, THE
INFORMATION - THAT'S WHAT IT IS. YOU'RE ADDING ANOTHER ENTITY. YOU'RE SAYING THAT
PATTERN IS WITHIN A MIND. WELL, ONE THING YOU MIGHT
GAIN IS ADDING MORE VALUE TO THE UNIVERSE. IF YOU THINK THAT MOST OF THE
UNIVERSE IS MADE OF PHYSICAL STUFF AND HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
TO DO WITH CONSCIOUSNESS, THEN MOST OF THE UNIVERSE MIGHT
AS WELL MIGHT NOT BE THERE, AS FAR AS VALUE IS CONCERNED,
BECAUSE IT'S SIMPLY THAT ONLY CONSCIOUSNESS HAS VALUE. ANOTHER THING YOU'RE ADDING IS,
WITH THE TRADITIONAL CONCEPT OF MIND, BEFORE THE
NEUROPHYSIOLOGISTS CAME ALONG AND SAID THE MIND
IS JUST THE BRAIN, THE MIND IS UNIFIED. AND SOME PEOPLE WOULD SAY,
A LOT OF THE NEUROSCIENTISTS AREN'T TAKING ON BOARD THE
EXTENT TO WHICH QUANTUM PHYSICS TALKS ABOUT THE
UNIVERSE AS UNIFIED. YOU MENTIONED THAT PANTHEISM,
IN ADDITION TO GIVING A MENTALITY TO THE UNIVERSE,
GIVES UNITY TO THE UNIVERSE. YOU CAN SEE A
UNITY IN THE PHYSICS. WHAT GREATER UNITY DO YOU
BUY, BY ADDING THIS PANTHEISTIC 'GOD'- QUOTE, UNQUOTE. WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THERE IS WE
HAVE UNITY OF A RULE OF LAW - THE SAME LAW OF PHYSICS
RUNNING THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE. IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE'S
THE IDEA THAT THE INDIVIDUAL PARTS OF THE UNIVERSE COULDN'T
EXIST IN ISOLATION ANY MORE THAN THE WEIGHT OF THE STONE
COULD EXIST ABSOLUTELY IN THE ISOLATION, OR THE
COLOR OF THE STONE, OR THE SHAPE OF A STONE. THESE ARE ALL PARTS OF
ONE AND THE SAME STONE, AND THEY COULDN'T EXIST
APART FROM EACH OTHER. AND SIMILARLY, IT'S SAID
BY A LOT EVEN OF QUANTUM PHYSICISTS, THE INDIVIDUAL PARTS
OF THE UNIVERSE COULDN'T EXIST IN ISOLATION FROM EACH OTHER. THEY'RE ALL ABSTRACTIONS. NOW, WHEN YOU SAY THAT, YOU'RE
SAYING THE SORTS OF THINGS WHICH PANTHEISTS HAVE SAID. BUT, DO YOU GAIN ANYTHING
WITH THE PANTHEISM? BECAUSE MAYBE THE PHYSICISTS
ARE SAYING WHAT'S CORRECT, BUT THAT'S ALL THERE IS. I DON'T SEE THE INCREMENTAL
VALUE THAT YOU GET FROM DOING SO. I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS
YOU'D GET IS THE BELIEF THAT THE UNIVERSE IS ESSENTIALLY GOOD. WHEN I'M TRYING
TO DEFEND PANTHEISM, I WOULD SAY THAT THE
UNITY OF THE UNIVERSE, AND THE FACT THAT THE
UNIVERSE IS ESSENTIALLY MENTAL, ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE
GOODNESS OF THE UNIVERSE, AND THE GOODNESS OF THE UNIVERSE
IS SOMETHING WHICH CAN HELP EXPLAIN WHY IT EXISTS. THAT'S MY TAKE ON PANTHEISM. THERE ARE PANTHEISTS OF
ALL DIFFERENT DESCRIPTIONS, WHO HAVE A PANTHEISM WHICH
SIMPLY SAYS THERE'S GOD'S EVERYWHERE - THERE'S
A GOD OF THE EXTREMES, A GOD OF THE TREES, AND SO ON. THERE'S THAT SORT OF PANTHEISM. I'M THINKING OF
RESPECTABLE PANTHEISM, THE SORT THAT I DEFEND. JOHN ARGUES FOR PANTHEISM BY
REJECTING THE TRADITIONAL VIEW THAT AN ALL POWERFUL GOD WOULD
CREATE WORLD INFINITELY INFERIOR TO GOD ITSELF. THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE,
JOHN SAYS, IS THAT THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE
IS, IN A WAY, GOD. THE UNIVERSE, HE SAYS,
IS UNIFIED, AND MENTAL, AND COULD EXIST
WITHIN A DIVINE MIND. JOHN ARGUES THAT THE REASON
THE UNIVERSE EXISTS IS VALUE; THE FUNDAMENTAL
GOODNESS OF THE UNIVERSE. VALUE, HE SAYS, RESONATES
WELL WITH RESPECTABLE PANTHEISM. LOVE AS I DO THESE HOT,
EXTRAVAGANT SPECULATIONS OF PANTHEISTIC PHILOSOPHERS,
I NEED A DOSE OF COOL, CRISP ANALYSIS. I'M PLEASED THAT PHILOSOPHER
JOHN SCHELLENBERG IS ATTENDING THE ALTERNATIVE
CONCEPTS OF GOD WORKSHOP. JOHN IS NOT A PANTHEIST. AND HE IS CERTAINLY
NOT A THEIST. JOHN, YOU ARGUE THAT THEISM
IS FALSE BECAUSE OF THE HIDDEN-NESS OF GOD. NOW, IN PANTHEISM, GOD
IS DEFINED AS EVERYTHING. SO THEN, GOD IS THE
MOST OBVIOUS UNHIDDEN THING IN PANTHEISM. DOES THAT MAKE PANTHEISM RIGHT? I THINK THAT IT'S POSSIBLE TO
PROVIDE A CREDIBLE NOTION OF GOD IN THIS WAY, THIS
PANTHEISTIC IDEA OF GOD. FIRST OF ALL, YOU HAVE THE VERY
SIMPLE IDEA THAT WE IDENTIFY GOD WITH THE WORLD, AS WE
KNOW IT, AND THAT'S ALL, OKAY? SO THE WORLD, PERHAPS, AS
DESCRIBED BY CONTEMPORARY SCIENCE, THE NATURAL WORLD, ALL
WE DO IS WE ADD THE STICKER OF GOD, OKAY? WE SAY, THIS THING, YOU KNOW,
THAT SCIENCE IS TALKING ABOUT AND TELLING US ABOUT,
WE'LL JUST CALL THAT 'GOD'. I DON'T FIND THAT
TERRIBLY PLAUSIBLE. WHY SHOULD I CALL
THAT 'GOD?' I MEAN, IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ULTIMATE
IN ANY VALUE-RELATED SENSE. AND I THINK THAT ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT A RELIGIOUS IDEA REQUIRES IS THAT SORT
OF AXIOLOGICAL ULTIMACY. VALUE OF SOMETHING. YEAH, AXIOLOGY -
THE THEORY OF VALUE. SO, THAT FIRST IDEA
TENDS TO LEAVE ME COLD. BUT IT COULD BE THAT, INSTEAD,
WE THINK OF THE POSSIBILITY THAT THERE MAY BE AN AWFUL LOT
MORE TO REALITY THAN WE DO KNOW ALREADY. ONE OF THE FIGURES - HISTORICAL
FIGURES - ASSOCIATED WITH PANTHEISM IS SPINOZA, THE
17TH CENTURY DUTCH PHILOSOPHER. AND HE, IN ONE PLACE,
SAYS THAT, OF THE MODES OF GOD, WE'RE ACQUAINTED
WITH TWO: MENTALITY AND MATERIALITY, OKAY? SO, THE MIND AND MATTER. BUT REALITY AS A WHOLE - GOD
AS A WHOLE - INCLUDES JUST AN INFINITE NUMBER OF MODES. AND THAT IDEA STARTS TO
TANTALIZE ME A LITTLE MORE. SO IF WE THINK THAT REALITY
MIGHT INFINITELY TRANSCEND OUR PRESENT UNDERSTANDING OF IT, OR
THE EXTENT TO WHICH WE COME TO KNOW IT THROUGH
SCIENCE, FOR EXAMPLE - THEN, WHEN SOMEBODY SAYS, I'M
GOING TO CALL THAT "GOD", WELL, MAYBE THAT WOULD
BE WORTHY OF SUCH A LABEL. WELL, THEISM WOULD CLAIM THAT
THIS IS AN IMPOVERISHED VIEW OF GOD, BECAUSE GOD
IS NOT A PERSON, AND THERE'S NO RELATING
TO THAT PERSON, AND NO PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS. WELL, THERE MIGHT BE SOME ROLE
FOR PERSONHOOD - PERHAPS NOT PERSONHOOD AS WE KNOW IT. IT COULD BE THAT
PERSONHOOD, AS WE KNOW IT, IS SORT OF THE THIN EDGE OF A
WEDGE THAT EXPANDS INFINITELY, AND THERE COULD BE A WAY OF
UNDERSTANDING PERSONHOOD THAT IS EXEMPLIFIED IN GOD, THAT EXCEEDS
OUR PRESENT COMPREHENSION. IT COULD ALSO BE THAT
PERSONHOOD AS WE KNOW IT, CONSCIOUSNESS, IN
ONE FORM OR ANOTHER, HAS SOME PLACE WITHIN
THE INFINITE DIMENSIONAL DIVINE REALITY. I THINK IT WOULD BE
WELL-ADVISED TO TAKE THE SPINOZA ROUTE, TO SAY THAT THE DIVINE
REALITY MIGHT INFINITELY EXCEED CONSCIOUSNESS AND WHAT
WE KNOW OF PERSONHOOD. JOHN, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE
MORPHING FROM AN ATHEISTIC CRITIC INTO A KIND
OF A SOFT PANTHEIST. NO. I WOULDN'T SAY THAT, I THINK
THAT CERTAIN FORM OF PANTHEISM IS EPISTEMICALLY POSSIBLE. BY THAT I MEAN IT'S NOT
OBVIOUS THAT IT'S FALSE. I MEAN, IT'S WORTH
INVESTIGATING FURTHER, AND IT'S QUITE COMPATIBLE
WITH THAT VIEW TO SAY THAT TRADITIONAL THEISM
IS JUST PLAIN FALSE. THE IDEA OF CONSCIOUSNESS,
INFINITIZED, THE TRADITIONAL IDEA OF GOD, HAS EREMITICAL
PROBLEMS ATTACHED TO IT. SO, ALTHOUGH I
REMAIN OPEN ON PANTHEISM, I AM AN ATHEIST. THOSE TWO ARE COMPATIBLE. IS PANTHEISM REALITY? I'D BE DISAPPOINTED, AS
WELL AS SHOCKED, IF IT WERE. BUT HERE'S WHAT I DO
GET FROM PANTHEISM. GOD, IF THERE IS A GOD, HAS A
TRULY INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE WORLD. I ALSO TAKE SERIOUSLY THE
DESIRE TO HAVE ONLY ONE KIND OF STUFF - NOT THE SHARP,
DUALISTIC DISTINCTION BETWEEN PHYSICAL AND SPIRITUAL. BUT I CANNOT GO WITH PANTHEISM. MOREOVER, I ROOT AGAINST IT. IF I GO FOR EXPLANATIONS
BEYOND SCIENCE, I'D HOPE FOR A
PERSONAL AFTERLIFE, WHICH PANTHEISM CANNOT OFFER. I PUT PANTHEISM TO THEISTIC
PHILOSOPHER RICHARD SWINBURNE. THAT WOULDN'T MAKE GOD A
VERY SIMPLE BEING, WOULD IT? THAT IS TO SAY, THERE WOULD
BE A LARGE NUMBER OF PARTS OF GOD, AND ONE WOULD WONDER
HOW THESE ARE RELATED TO EACH OTHER, AND SINCE THINGS
BEHAVE IN THE UNIVERSE; IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE
UNIVERSE, IN THE SAME WAY, ONE WOULD SUPPOSE THE SIMPLEST
EXPLAINATION OF THAT WOULD BE IN TERMS OF SOMETHING OUTSIDE
THEM, CONTROLLING HOW THEY BEHAVE, IN THE SAME WAY. SOME SCIENTISTS ARE ATTRACTED
TO PANTHEISM TO MAKE SCIENCE SACRED, TO INVEST
THE WORLD WITH WONDER, TO SENSE AWE IN LIGHT
OF THE VAST UNIVERSE. WHILE WONDER AND AWE
BRING SHORT TERM JOY, ALONE, THEY PROVIDE
NO LONG TERM SOLACE. TURNING TO PANTHEISM TO REPLACE
WORSHIP IN THEISM WITH REVERENCE IN SCIENCE PAYS
A PRICE TOO HIGH. SO, WHILE PANTHEISM,
FOR ME, IS NOT TRUTH, IT MAY HELP GET
US CLOSER TO TRUTH.
