And the words I kept hearing as you went through these possibilities were "Evolutionary panentheism."
Having attended over 1000 Catholic masses as music director of a Catholic church, at least 500 Unitarian church services as a child, 50 Christian services in a black Pentecostal church, and at least another 50 or so in various churches over my 70+ years, I think I have enough experience to say with some confidence, I'm not likely to be a person drawn to focus on Christianity! (and I love several of the Christian mystics).
I don't see much (even with de Chardin) within the tradition that answers your question about suffering (and the implied questions about theodicy - the question of evil in conjunction with a "good and loving God.'
Whereas in a non dual evolutionary view, there's no problem. of course there's suffering and ignorance and inability to express pure love and compassion - that's the whole point of evolution! That it's all hidden at first and only slowly (it's been only some 13 billion years or so so far) comes out!
Yes, and in a similar vein - what may appear as a longing for a lost “golden age” could be better understood as a pining for a golden age to come; we simply (& understandably, given the slipperiness of consciousness) got the direction of time wrong. This harmonizes with ideas about the world to come that appear in many spiritual disciplines, Christianity included
I absolutely love this. And I think I agree with it in principle. I suggest a way forward, grounded in the ideas of William James. Speculatively I think that consciousness is sort of a non-material deity that connects to various things and then guides evolution of thought and man forward. Under this view not everything is conscious, and some things may be P-Zombies of sort. But our perspectives, beliefs, etc., act as a sort of feedback loop. So, we create not only the meaning, but the benevolence we wish to see in the world. The suffering is valid but also can create a fuller deeper reality, and moral feelings are not static. The universe, guided by and concomitantly guiding the evolution of thought, evolves as a result of the impressions that consciousness leaves on it.
Galen Strawson (who you mention at the start of the essay) is panpsychist yet his attitude is much more aloof than that of Goff etc. For him panpsychism is simply the solution to the problem of emergent consciousness. We can see his aloofness in his writings on consciousness (where electrons might be conscious but they just experience a bland buzzing) the self (there is no self over time) and death (an infinite void)
There is a reason that consciousness stays properly a property of humanity — pathos. This is not to claim that we are the only animals who suffer. It is to claim that we are the only animals who suffered being cleaved from World, from that which had until this very moment held us secure in perfection. For what is World if not perfection; the pathos resides in our bodies’ ‘memory’ of it, haunted now by our vainglorious ideals of such.
Those who wish to preserve belief in a God of Love may then be better with some form of polytheistic pan-ism. The Old Testament, after all, was originally a collection of writings about many gods of many names -- thus the inconsistencies of character among them despite their later consolidation into a monotheist story. Given the size of the universe, it's strange that anyone would believe that creatures as small as us in comparison would, in connecting with it on some mystic level, be directly addressed by the whole thing, rather than just by some local, yet larger than our individual selves, intelligence or another. Panpolypsychism? May there be spirits in everything, abundantly, on many scales, yet no single Spirit which is the sum of all?
Where the world is safe and hospitable, it is because we have made it so. In green and pleasant England, there are no more wolves and bears to devour us on our country walks. We have created a sanctuary for ourselves in a maniacal realm." Whoa!!! Are you actually serious here? I'm am absolutely blown away by this statement. Are you actually serious? Please tell me. If you are, I will have to suggest that you may know absolutely nothing about Nature, which seems to be the default these days, so I won't entirely blame you. But I am utterly amazed at this stance.
Very interesting. Is this close to the position Sri Aurobindo advocates?
And the words I kept hearing as you went through these possibilities were "Evolutionary panentheism."
Having attended over 1000 Catholic masses as music director of a Catholic church, at least 500 Unitarian church services as a child, 50 Christian services in a black Pentecostal church, and at least another 50 or so in various churches over my 70+ years, I think I have enough experience to say with some confidence, I'm not likely to be a person drawn to focus on Christianity! (and I love several of the Christian mystics).
I don't see much (even with de Chardin) within the tradition that answers your question about suffering (and the implied questions about theodicy - the question of evil in conjunction with a "good and loving God.'
Whereas in a non dual evolutionary view, there's no problem. of course there's suffering and ignorance and inability to express pure love and compassion - that's the whole point of evolution! That it's all hidden at first and only slowly (it's been only some 13 billion years or so so far) comes out!
Yes, and in a similar vein - what may appear as a longing for a lost “golden age” could be better understood as a pining for a golden age to come; we simply (& understandably, given the slipperiness of consciousness) got the direction of time wrong. This harmonizes with ideas about the world to come that appear in many spiritual disciplines, Christianity included
I absolutely love this. And I think I agree with it in principle. I suggest a way forward, grounded in the ideas of William James. Speculatively I think that consciousness is sort of a non-material deity that connects to various things and then guides evolution of thought and man forward. Under this view not everything is conscious, and some things may be P-Zombies of sort. But our perspectives, beliefs, etc., act as a sort of feedback loop. So, we create not only the meaning, but the benevolence we wish to see in the world. The suffering is valid but also can create a fuller deeper reality, and moral feelings are not static. The universe, guided by and concomitantly guiding the evolution of thought, evolves as a result of the impressions that consciousness leaves on it.
Yes, I resonate with this very much.
Galen Strawson (who you mention at the start of the essay) is panpsychist yet his attitude is much more aloof than that of Goff etc. For him panpsychism is simply the solution to the problem of emergent consciousness. We can see his aloofness in his writings on consciousness (where electrons might be conscious but they just experience a bland buzzing) the self (there is no self over time) and death (an infinite void)
The world is full of meaning, but it's not all about us.
There is a reason that consciousness stays properly a property of humanity — pathos. This is not to claim that we are the only animals who suffer. It is to claim that we are the only animals who suffered being cleaved from World, from that which had until this very moment held us secure in perfection. For what is World if not perfection; the pathos resides in our bodies’ ‘memory’ of it, haunted now by our vainglorious ideals of such.
Those who wish to preserve belief in a God of Love may then be better with some form of polytheistic pan-ism. The Old Testament, after all, was originally a collection of writings about many gods of many names -- thus the inconsistencies of character among them despite their later consolidation into a monotheist story. Given the size of the universe, it's strange that anyone would believe that creatures as small as us in comparison would, in connecting with it on some mystic level, be directly addressed by the whole thing, rather than just by some local, yet larger than our individual selves, intelligence or another. Panpolypsychism? May there be spirits in everything, abundantly, on many scales, yet no single Spirit which is the sum of all?
Where the world is safe and hospitable, it is because we have made it so. In green and pleasant England, there are no more wolves and bears to devour us on our country walks. We have created a sanctuary for ourselves in a maniacal realm." Whoa!!! Are you actually serious here? I'm am absolutely blown away by this statement. Are you actually serious? Please tell me. If you are, I will have to suggest that you may know absolutely nothing about Nature, which seems to be the default these days, so I won't entirely blame you. But I am utterly amazed at this stance.