Pantheism: God as Personal or Impersonal? Aware or Unaware?

[The Sum of Awe]

Do you view God as unaware or aware?

I would be surprised to meet a pantheist that isn't an advocate of hard determinism, but is there a conscious will behind these dominoes that have been deterministically falling since The Big Bang on their way to The Heat Death of the Universe? Is there a rhyme or reason?

I am posting this under Theological Concepts because I invite Hindus who are not a member of the Pantheism DIR (especially Advaita Vedanta practitioners).

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Haha well I was going to put this in Theological Concepts but then I forgot. Could a mod please move this?

 

[George-ananda]

I use the concept of 'Brahman' instead of 'God', so the questions asked are kind of tricky to answer.

I am Brahman so that is even beyond a personal or impersonal God. I am that God/Brahman,

Brahman is sat-cit-ananda (being-awareness-bliss), so I would answer 'aware' to the second question.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I use the concept of 'Brahman' instead of 'God', so the questions asked are kind of tricky to answer.

I am Brahman so that is even beyond a personal or impersonal God. I am that God/Brahman,

Brahman is sat-cit-ananda (being-awareness-bliss), so I would answer 'aware' to the second question.

Interesting to think of it that way. What I really meant though, is, do you believe Brahman knows what It is doing in totality? An overarching awareness that is above Maya and in control over all that is happening?

 

[George-ananda]

Interesting to think of it that way. What I really meant though, is, do you believe Brahman knows what It is doing in totality? An overarching awareness that is above Maya and in control over all that is happening?

Yes, Brahman is the scriptwriter of all that happens. But remember too we are that Brahman.

 

[Ella S.]

I am a hylotheist, which is a combination of pantheism and philosophical materialism.

More precisely, I am a metaphysical naturalist and an ontological physicalist.

Due to this, I view Deus as unaware and impersonal.

 

[ChieftheCef]

I view the universe, and all of everything, as having consciousness. I think about it this way, the universe is the body, and that head is consciously aware, but not for it's cells. Even still the brain and body take care of themselves. So do I think God is personally aware of us, no. But his character shows through to us constantly. Everything has some specific meaning to you. Even reading this word: poop.

Not joking by the way, but just having a funny lesson.

 

[freelight]

Do you view God as unaware or aware?

I think 'God' includes all awareness, which includes knowledge of all things actual and potential. So, 'God' who is The One and The All That IS.....would know all that is knowable, since his omnipresence pervades the cosmos, all space and time, although some factors of limitation may be present in the fluctuation field where possibilities turn into realities. 'God' is the total of all consciousness and the unconscious. 'God' is 'both' and 'all', not limited to either.

I would be surprised to meet a pantheist that isn't an advocate of hard determinism, but is there a conscious will behind these dominoes that have been deterministically falling since The Big Bang on their way to The Heat Death of the Universe? Is there a rhyme or reason?

I think free will choices would affect how things are 'determined' in the order and outcome of events to some extent, so not all things are absolutely determined, although they may follow along probable and logical lines in any given context or situation, - this is assuming variables exist.


----------------------o

 

[ChieftheCef]

Do you view God as unaware or aware?

I would be surprised to meet a pantheist that isn't an advocate of hard determinism,

I'm what I call a maleable determinist. I believe it is dominoes but that we are so sheerly free, to our perception, so we are so free. The dominoes, order, generates the freedom, chaos. And that only increases with time and bio diversity.

but is there a conscious will behind these dominoes that have been deterministically falling since The Big Bang on their way to The Heat Death of the Universe?

I don't believe in heat death because of black holes. They emit, in hawking radiation, subatomic particles, like protons, nuetrons, electrons, photons which all eventually coagulate into life!

Is there a rhyme or reason?

I am posting this under Theological Concepts because I invite Hindus who are not a member of the Pantheism DIR (especially Advaita Vedanta practitioners).

 

[vulcanlogician]

I say most likely impersonal.

"Unaware/aware" is a stickier issue. Certainly the phenomenon of awareness is present in reality. After all, we have a first-hand experience of our own awareness. And from that, it is logical to conclude that others are aware. If the whole of reality (aka. God) contains awareness as one of its attributes, it is reasonable to conclude that God is aware.

But maybe not in the way we think. God is aware because WE are aware, and in no way does this imply God's omnipotence or agency. God has a kind of ramshackle consciousness. And (just like us) I tend to think such awareness is just as confused and vague as our own.

 

[Whateverist]

I like this and it makes me wonder how you identify yourself in regard religious matters.

I view the universe, and all of everything, as having consciousness. I think about it this way, the universe is the body, and that head is consciously aware, but not for its cells. Even still the brain and body take care of themselves. So do I think God is personally aware of us, no. But his character shows through to us constantly.

This is very compatible with what I've come to believe myself. Every cell in our body has its own consciousness and yet we have a kind of global consciousness which depends in part on all those cells doing their part and harmonizing compatibly with allied cells while defending against destructive invading cells not part of our body. Perhaps that is why the Christian God is thought to be so intent on loving our neighbor; it is exactly what we ask of our own cells.

I've identified on these forums as a panentheist but also an agnostic. But having finally read McGilchrist's The Matter With Things and being impressed with its argument, I've decided it makes no sense to avoid the God word. However I only use it as a place holder for what cannot properly be represented in any entirely satisfactory way. But your analogy does the job pretty well. How do you classify your position? Are you a theist then?

I'm definitely not a Christian as I'm not convinced that Jesus is anything more than a great example of how to live a life pleasing to God in harmony with ones neighbors. I see no reason to see that as requiring divine status. Also I've not read and have no interest in reading the Bible. I'm fine with people who take their grounding in God that way but it isn't for me. In fact I still don't see God as person-like (as I assume you don't either) and so I don't look for a personal relationship with God. For my money seeing God as person-like does more to exalt our own status then it does that of God, also God as a separate being seems too distant for what I experience as sacred. I think we are part of God and that what is divine is intertwined in our very being. Wonder and awe is the peripheral awareness of what that part ourself experiences.

I'd appreciate any insight you can offer about how best to describe my religious status. I know now that I'm not an atheist and not even truly an agnostic any more but I don't seem to crave any of the ritual or bonding that a religion can provide. Thanks.

 

[ChieftheCef]

I like this and it makes me wonder how you identify yourself in regard religious matters.

I'm a panentheist pluralist, put short. There's SOME truth to all religions, that's why it floats. And a sinking religion doesn't mean no or less truth.

This is very compatible with what I've come to believe myself. Every cell in our body has its own consciousness and yet we have a kind of global consciousness which depends in part on all those cells doing their part and harmonizing compatibly with allied cells while defending against destructive invading cells not part of our body. Perhaps that is why the Christian God is thought to be so intent on loving our neighbor; it is exactly what we ask of our own cells.

Put beautifully, sir!

I've identified on these forums as a panentheist but also an agnostic. But having finally read McGilchrist's The Matter With Things and being impressed with its argument, I've decided it makes no sense to avoid the God word. However I only use it as a place holder for what cannot properly be represented in any entirely satisfactory way. But your analogy does the job pretty well. How do you classify your position? Are you a theist then?

YOu might be damned interested in my religious/spiritual beliefs! Did you know that actually, I believe, for it to be a religion it has to point toward a greater goal of happiness? Did you know that the key to happiness, being positive enough at least inward and outward, basically mimics moral behavior? In fact part of it is simply moral behavior. Do good to feel good.

I'm definitely not a Christian as I'm not convinced that Jesus is anything more than a great example of how to live a life pleasing to God in harmony with ones neighbors. I see no reason to see that as requiring divine status. Also I've not read and have no interest in reading the Bible. I'm fine with people who take their grounding in God that way but it isn't for me.

As long as these two things happen I am and they are tall orders, one of them at least: the first which is probably fine is they do not rise up and kill the nonbeliever like they did with the stoics. Did you know that Christianity, in part, became as wide spread as it is because of the stoics? And then they killed them. There's a sad joke there. Thye other is that they calm the **** down about things that don't actually matter like gay marriage and abortion. Now that's not to say I don't have a beef to pick with basically everyone at all because everyone has their bull****, but Jesus and Moses threatened my life with their talk of killing the nonbeliever and I am not cool with it.

In fact I still don't see God as person-like (as I assume you don't either) and so I don't look for a personal relationship with God. For my money seeing God as person-like does more to exalt our own status then it does that of God,

I agree with you in the forms sense but I believe I interact with the Great Incomprehensible (nature, the universe, shared reality, as God is only a personification of that, at least when referring to an individual God(dess) of a particular group of religions.

also God as a separate being seems too distant for what I experience as sacred. I think we are part of God and that what is divine is intertwined in our very being.

We are all star dust, golden, billion year old carbon and all that. The very shapes of the universe are in us, we are all atoms in universal, replicated shapes. And we are the defining of what the universe is, we regulate it along with all other life and abiotic, or nonlife. We all do the work of The Great God(dess). I believe God is two part, Nothing and Everything including Nothing. I can link you to a post if you want. I am always evolving my thoughts though, so it may not all be current.

Wonder and awe is the peripheral awareness of what that part ourself experiences.

I'd appreciate any insight you can offer about how best to describe my religious status. I know now that I'm not an atheist and not even truly an agnostic any more but I don't seem to crave any of the ritual or bonding that a religion can provide. Thanks.

 

[Whateverist]

I'm a panentheist pluralist, put short. There's SOME truth to all religions

I'd like to think so too and whether or not every one of them have any truth of value to me, I'd concede that the fact that the tradition evolved within a population over time suggests it is deserving of respect.

Did you know that actually, I believe, for it to be a religion it has to point toward a greater goal of happiness? Did you know that the key to happiness

Well we can't win them all. I don't look at it that way but isn't it interesting how there can be not only different expressions of truth but also different ways to evaluate and rationalize those determinations. Viva la difference.

At least we agree on the key point of Christians neither killing us nor threatening us through their revered legendary forebears.

Likewise I that God is only the personification of something we do acknowledge and like you, I think, I do not quibble over how people conceptualize what is greater. It doesn't have to be true in a factual sense, only in the pragmatic sense that it gives one a good focal point toward which to establish a relationship with what is greater.

Thanks for taking the time to elaborate these points of your approach. People are always talking about their practice but I admit I see no need. Being retired and gravitating toward those things which enrich me, what need do I have to meditate. I've got my whole life to do that, or at least what is left of it.

 

[ChieftheCef]

At least we agree on the key point of Christians neither killing us nor threatening us through their revered legendary forebears.

I make one stipulation I think. I don't mind enough to hate or even strongly dislike Christians that don't take it too seriously, though I know some and do still respect them. Everyone deserves respect, even criminals.

Likewise I that God is only the personification of something we do acknowledge and like you, I think, I do not quibble over how people conceptualize what is greater. It doesn't have to be true in a factual sense, only in the pragmatic sense that it gives one a good focal point toward which to establish a relationship with what is greater.

Right, just like the way regardless of what is true there are in a somewhat nebulius way universal truths like don't punch the monkey.

Thanks for taking the time to elaborate these points of your approach. People are always talking about their practice but I admit I see no need. Being retired and gravitating toward those things which enrich me, what need do I have to meditate. I've got my whole life to do that, or at least what is left of it.

I wish you well and many years. Thank for for the same, fare thee well traveler!

 

[ChieftheCef]

At least we agree on the key point of Christians neither killing us nor threatening us through their revered legendary forebears.

I make one stipulation I think. I don't mind enough to hate or even strongly dislike Christians that don't take it too seriously, though I know some and do still respect them. Everyone deserves respect, even criminals.

Likewise I that God is only the personification of something we do acknowledge and like you, I think, I do not quibble over how people conceptualize what is greater. It doesn't have to be true in a factual sense, only in the pragmatic sense that it gives one a good focal point toward which to establish a relationship with what is greater.

Right, just like the way regardless of what is true there are in a somewhat nebulius way universal truths like don't punch the monkey.

Thanks for taking the time to elaborate these points of your approach. People are always talking about their practice but I admit I see no need. Being retired and gravitating toward those things which enrich me, what need do I have to meditate. I've got my whole life to do that, or at least what is left of it.

I wish you well and many years. Thank for for the same, fare thee well traveler!

 

[ChieftheCef]

I'd like to think so too and whether or not every one of them have any truth of value to me, I'd concede that the fact that the tradition evolved within a population over time suggests it is deserving of respect.



Well we can't win them all. I don't look at it that way but isn't it interesting how there can be not only different expressions of truth but also different ways to evaluate and rationalize those determinations. Viva la difference.

At least we agree on the key point of Christians neither killing us nor threatening us through their revered legendary forebears.

Likewise I that God is only the personification of something we do acknowledge and like you, I think, I do not quibble over how people conceptualize what is greater. It doesn't have to be true in a factual sense, only in the pragmatic sense that it gives one a good focal point toward which to establish a relationship with what is greater.

Thanks for taking the time to elaborate these points of your approach. People are always talking about their practice but I admit I see no need. Being retired and gravitating toward those things which enrich me, what need do I have to meditate. I've got my whole life to do that, or at least what is left of it.

See now that's a great lesson there, I wrote both of those but at different times. Totally different yet similar like us and the universe. We are the universe and the universe is the universes conscious.