DOCSLIB.ORG

Pantheism: a Non-Theistic Concept of Deity/Michael P.Levine

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pantheism: a Non-Theistic Concept of Deity/Michael P.Levine PANTHEISM PANTHEISM A non-theistic concept of deity Michael P.Levine London and New York First published 1994 by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2003. Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001 © 1994 Michael P.Levine All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Levine, Michael P. (Michael Philip) Pantheism: a non-theistic concept of deity/Michael P.Levine. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Pantheism. I. Title BL220.L48 1994 211’.2–dc20 93–34726 ISBN 0-203-01477-4 Master e-book ISBN ISBN 0-203-16234-X (Adobe eReader Format) ISBN 0-415-07064-3 (Print Edition) Buddha in Glory Center of all centers, core of cores, almond self-enclosed and growing sweet— all this universe, to the furthest stars and beyond them, is your flesh, your fruit. Now you feel how nothing clings to you; your vast shell reaches into endless space, and there the rich, thick fluids rise and flow. Illuminated in your infinite peace, a billion stars go spinning through the night, blazing high above your head. But in you is the presence that will be, when all the stars are dead. Rilke (translated by Stephen Mitchell) Stephen Mitchell, editor and translator, The Selected Poetry of Rainer Maria Rilke (New York: Random House, 1982) CONTENTS Preface ix Acknowledgments xi 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Part I Meaning 2 WHAT IS PANTHEISM? 25 2.1 Unity 25 2.1.1 Misunderstandings 26 2.1.2 Pantheistic Unity: a topology 36 2.1.3 Unity as force, principle or plan 40 2.2 Divinity 47 2.3 Monism 71 2.3.1 Substance and Unity 73 2.3.2 Monism and pantheism 84 2.4 Transcendence 93 2.4.1 Panpsychism; animism; macrocosm and microcosm 113 Part II Philosophy of pantheism 3 PANTHEISM AND THEISM 147 3.1 Does theism entail pantheism? 149 3.2 The world as God’s body 161 4 PROBLEMS OF PANTHEISM 175 4.1 Creation 175 4.2 Evil 196 4.2.1 Evil is mysterious 198 4.2.2 Theism’s problem with evil 200 vii CONTENTS 4.2.3 Pantheism and the theistic problem of evil 207 4.2.4 Pantheism and evil: no worries 209 4.3 Ethics and ecology 218 4.4 Salvation and immortality 239 Part III Method 5 WHAT PANTHEISTS SHOULD NOT DO—AND WHY 287 5.1 Belief and practice 289 5.1.1 The Wittgensteinian “non-realist” interpretation 291 5.1.2 Intellectualist and symbolist approaches 297 5.1.3 The practice of pantheism and the theory of religion 308 5.2 Worship and prayer 313 6 CONCLUSION: HOW TO PRACTISE PANTHEISM 341 6.1 Goal: relationship or state? 342 6.2 What to do 351 Bibliography 366 Name index 379 Subject index 385 viii PREFACE The book recognised as containing the most complete attempt at explaining and defending pantheism from a philosophical perspective is Spinoza’s Ethics, finished in 1675 two years before his death. In 1720 John Toland wrote the Pantheisticon: or The Form of Celebrating the Socratic-Society in Latin. He (possibly) coined the term “pantheist” and used it as a synonym for “Spinozist.” However, aside from some interesting pantheistic sounding slogans like “Every Thing is to All, as All is to Every Thing”, and despite promising “A Short Dissertation upon a Twofold Philosophy of the Pantheists” Toland’s work has little to do with pantheism. As far as I know, aside from Thomas McFarland’s excellent study Coleridge and the Pantheist Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969) there has been no other full-length work on pantheism since Spinoza’s Ethics. McFarland’s book is not intended as a philosophical investigation of pantheism although it contains much useful philosophical material. Of course there have been many studies of Spinoza’s Ethics and so indirectly many studies of pantheism. Historically, however, pantheism has numerous forms and Spinoza’s version is best considered as one among many variations, albeit a particularly philosophical variation, on pantheistic themes. In short—and surprisingly in my view—not only is there no recent book-length philosophical examination of the concept itself, there seems to be no such study at any time. No extended analysis of the concept itself exists apart from discussion of particular pantheists such as Spinoza, Hegel (?), Plotinus (?), Eriugena, or the study of panthe- istic aspects of religious and philosophical traditions such as those found in some of the Presocratics. This book is intended to fill what I see as a surprisingly broad ix PREFACE —and somewhat mysterious—lacuna. Given the interest in pantheism, and given that it is the classic religious alternative to theism, I do not understand why there has been no philosophical investigation of it. I should remark that as far as I can tell I am not a pantheist. It is a regrettable sign of the times that an intellectual endeavour of this sort appears to place one in a camp of some kind. Unlike much—not all—of the mainstream philosophy of religion currently being published, this work is neither a profession of faith nor an outline of an evangelical agenda. It is simply a work in natural theology. Contemporary analytic philosophy of religion (mostly “christian”) has become a task undertaken by the brethren, for the brethren—and it is often startlingly parochial. I am at home, philosophically speaking, in less wide open spaces. Yet, given my interest in the philosophy of religion, and a deepening dissatisfaction with some of the provincialism and idle expertise belabouring traditional theism, I find myself with little choice but to answer—like a shabby wild-eyed desert dwelling but unprophetic character, or an overly intellectual indoor-loving Jack London protagonist—the call of the wild. I hope, then, that this book will appear as a howl—not a hoot. Michael P.Levine x ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I have been working on this project for a long time and I completed sections of it while holding various research and teaching positions. I gratefully acknowledge the support of the following: the University of Western Australia; the Australian Academy of Humanities and Social Sciences and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, for a research grant to the People’s Republic of China (1987); La Trobe University Research Fellowship, Melbourne, Australia (1986–7); Andrew W.Mellon Postdoctoral Fellowship in the Humanities, University of Pennsylvania (1985– 6); Andrew W.Mellon Postdoctoral Fellowship in the Humanities, Center for Advanced Studies, University of Virginia (1983–5). Earlier versions of some of the chapters first appeared in journals. “Unity” appeared as “Divine Unity and Superfluous Synonymity,” Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 4 (1990), pp. 211–36; “Monism” appeared as “Pantheism, Substance and Unity,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 32 (1992), pp. 1–23; “Monism and Pantheism” appeared in the Southern Journal of Philosophy, 30 (1992), pp. 95–110; “Transcendence” appeared as “Transcendence in Theism and Pantheism,” Sophia, 31 (1992), pp. 89–123; “Ethics and Ecology” appeared as “Pantheism, Ethics and Ecology,” Journal of Environmental Values (1994). My thanks to the editors of these journals for permission to use this material; and to Random House Publishers for permission to reprint Rainer Maria Rilke’s poem “Buddha in Glory” in Stephen Mitchell, editor and translator, The Selected Poetry of Rainer Maria Rilke (New York: Random House, 1982). Mary Ellen Trahan bore the brunt of the early bibliographical research necessary to this work and I thank her. I am especially grateful to Kirn Grant for her editing and comments. I am indebted to the following people (among others) for discussion and xi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS interest: Lorna Aikman, Ira Auerbach, Lee Carter; Marie-Louise Carroll; Wendell Dietrich; Sue Dodds; Robyn Ferrell; Colleen Henry; Jeff Malpas; Behan McCullough; Dov Midalia; Page Nelson-Saginor; Jocelyn Rappaport; John P.Reeder Jr; Ted Roberts; Robert Scharlemann; Stewart Sutherland—in whose series the book was long ago to be published; Alan Tapper; Robert Young and Susan Williamson. My mother still on occasion asks me what I do, but thankfully she has stopped suggesting accountancy as a suitable career— despite the fact that, “they do very well you know.” Judi, Madeline, Susan and Debbie are my sisters, and I am their brother, and there is something so marvellously familial about it that it is to them I not only dedicate this book but promise to send a copy. The book is also in memory of my father Charles C.Levine. xii 1 INTRODUCTION There are two and only two systems of philosophy that can be offered. The one posits God as the transcendent cause of things; the other makes God the immanent cause. The former carefully distinguishes and separates God from the world; the latter shamefully confounds God with the universe… The former establishes a foundation for every religious devotion and for all piety, and this the latter fundamentally overturns and takes away.1 Christoph. Wittich There is a great deal of confusion as to what pantheism is, and so I begin by defining pantheism and distinguishing it from theism. I then argue that pantheism is not atheism. The remainder of the introduction describes the general scope and outline of the book, and some of its principal contentions.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Is Saving Lives Your Task Or God's? Religiosity, Belief in God, and Moral Judgment
    Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 12, No. 3, May 2017, pp. 280–296 Is saving lives your task or God’s? Religiosity, belief in god, and moral judgment Netta Barak-Corren∗ Max H. Bazerman† Abstract Should a Catholic hospital abort a life-threatening pregnancy or let a pregnant woman die? Should a religious employer allow his employees access to contraceptives or break with healthcare legislation? People and organizations of faith often face moral decisions that have significant consequences. Research in psychology found that religion is typically associated with deontological judgment. Yet deontology consists of many principles, which may, at times, conflict. In three studies, we design a conflict between moral principles and find that the relationship between moral judgment and religiosity is more nuanced than currently assumed. Studies 1 and 2 show that, while religious U.S. Christians and Israeli Jews are more likely to form deontological judgments, they divide between the deontological principles of inaction and indirectness. Using textual analysis, we reveal that specific beliefs regarding divine responsibility and human responsibility distinguish inaction from indirectness deontologists. Study 3 exploits natural differences in religious saliency across days of the week to provide causal evidence that religion raises deontological tendencies on Sundays and selectively increases the appeal of inaction deontology for those who believe in an interventionist and responsible God. Keywords: religion, normative conflict, inaction, indirectness, deontology, utilitarianism, Sunday effect 1 Introduction event, he declared it to be a direct and impermissible abortion and excommunicated Sister McBride. The tension between In late 2010, St. Joseph’s Hospital of Phoenix, Arizona, these positions appears to reflect different moral judgments.
    [Show full text]
  • An Ethnographic Study of Mystics, Spirits, and Animist Practices in Senegal Peter Balonon-Rosen SIT Study Abroad
    SIT Graduate Institute/SIT Study Abroad SIT Digital Collections Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection SIT Study Abroad Spring 2013 Out of this World: An Ethnographic Study of Mystics, Spirits, and Animist Practices in Senegal Peter Balonon-Rosen SIT Study Abroad Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/isp_collection Part of the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons, and the Social and Cultural Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Balonon-Rosen, Peter, "Out of this World: An Ethnographic Study of Mystics, Spirits, and Animist Practices in Senegal" (2013). Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection. 1511. https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/isp_collection/1511 This Unpublished Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the SIT Study Abroad at SIT Digital Collections. It has been accepted for inclusion in Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection by an authorized administrator of SIT Digital Collections. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Out of this World: An Ethnographic Study of Mystics, Spirits, and Animist Practices in Senegal Balonon-Rosen, Peter Academic Director: Diallo, Souleye Project Advisor: Diakhaté, Djiby Tufts University American Studies Major Africa, Senegal, Dakar “Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for National Identity and the Arts: Senegal, SIT Study Abroad, Spring 2013” Table of Contents Abstract 3 Introduction 4 Research Methods 5 Validating Findings 7 Ethical Issues 7 What is Animism? 8 Marabouts 9 Rabbs, Djinnes, and Ndepps 11 Sandiol and the Village of Ndiol 13 Gris-Gris 16 Animism in Dakar: An Examination of Taxis and Lutte 18 Taxis 18 Lutte 19 Relationship with Islam 21 Conclustion 22 Bibliogrpahy 24 Time Log 25 2 Abstract Although the overwhelming majority of Senegal’s inhabitants consider themselves Muslim, there are still many customs and behaviors throughout the country that derive from traditional animism.
    [Show full text]
  • The Invention Of
    How Did God Get Started? COLIN WELLS the usual suspects One day in the Middle East about four thousand years ago, an elderly but still rather astonishingly spry gentleman took his son for a walk up a hill. The young man carried on his back some wood that his father had told him they would use at the top to make an altar, upon which they would then perform the ritual sacrifice of a burnt offering. Unbeknownst to the son, however, the father had another sort of sacrifice in mind altogether. Abraham, the father, had been commanded, by the God he worshipped as supreme above all others, to sacrifice the young man himself, his beloved and only legitimate son, Isaac. We all know how things turned out, of course. An angel appeared, together with a ram, letting Abraham know that God didn’t really want him to kill his son, that he should sacrifice the ram instead, and that the whole thing had merely been a test. And to modern observers, at least, it’s abundantly clear what exactly was being tested. Should we pose the question to most people familiar with one of the three “Abrahamic” religious traditions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), all of which trace their origins to this misty figure, and which together claim half the world’s population, the answer would come without hesitation. God was testing Abraham’s faith. If we could ask someone from a much earlier time, however, a time closer to that of Abraham himself, the answer might be different. The usual story we tell ourselves about faith and reason says that faith was invented by the ancient Jews, whose monotheistic tradition goes back to Abraham.
    [Show full text]
  • Kant's Theoretical Conception Of
    KANT’S THEORETICAL CONCEPTION OF GOD Yaron Noam Hoffer Submitted to the faculty of the University Graduate School in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Philosophy, September 2017 Accepted by the Graduate Faculty, Indiana University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Doctoral Committee _________________________________________ Allen W. Wood, Ph.D. (Chair) _________________________________________ Sandra L. Shapshay, Ph.D. _________________________________________ Timothy O'Connor, Ph.D. _________________________________________ Michel Chaouli, Ph.D 15 September, 2017 ii Copyright © 2017 Yaron Noam Hoffer iii To Mor, who let me make her ends mine and made my ends hers iv Acknowledgments God has never been an important part of my life, growing up in a secular environment. Ironically, only through Kant, the ‘all-destroyer’ of rational theology and champion of enlightenment, I developed an interest in God. I was drawn to Kant’s philosophy since the beginning of my undergraduate studies, thinking that he got something right in many topics, or at least introduced fruitful ways of dealing with them. Early in my Graduate studies I was struck by Kant’s moral argument justifying belief in God’s existence. While I can’t say I was convinced, it somehow resonated with my cautious but inextricable optimism. My appreciation for this argument led me to have a closer look at Kant’s discussion of rational theology and especially his pre-critical writings. From there it was a short step to rediscover early modern metaphysics in general and embark upon the current project. This journey could not have been completed without the intellectual, emotional, and material support I was very fortunate to receive from my teachers, colleagues, friends, and family.
    [Show full text]
  • Spiritual Ecology: on the Way to Ecological Existentialism
    religions Article Spiritual Ecology: On the Way to Ecological Existentialism Sam Mickey Theology and Religious Studies, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94117, USA; [email protected] Received: 17 September 2020; Accepted: 29 October 2020; Published: 4 November 2020 Abstract: Spiritual ecology is closely related to inquiries into religion and ecology, religion and nature, and religious environmentalism. This article presents considerations of the unique possibilities afforded by the idea of spiritual ecology. On one hand, these possibilities include problematic tendencies in some strands of contemporary spirituality, including anti-intellectualism, a lack of sociopolitical engagement, and complicity in a sense of happiness that is captured by capitalist enclosures and consumerist desires. On the other hand, spiritual ecology promises to involve an existential commitment to solidarity with nonhumans, and it gestures toward ways of knowing and interacting that are more inclusive than what is typically conveyed by the term “religion.” Much work on spiritual ecology is broadly pluralistic, leaving open the question of how to discern the difference between better and worse forms of spiritual ecology. This article affirms that pluralism while also distinguishing between the anti-intellectual, individualistic, and capitalistic possibilities of spiritual ecology from varieties of spiritual ecology that are on the way to what can be described as ecological existentialism or coexistentialism. Keywords: spirituality; existentialism; ecology; animism; pluralism; knowledge 1. Introduction Spiritual ecology, broadly conceived, refers to ways that individuals and communities orient their thinking, feeling, and acting in response to the intersection of religions and spiritualities with ecology, nature, and environmentalism. There are other ways of referring to this topic.
    [Show full text]
  • The Macmo/Rnicno-Mana9ernent Oç Cueation
    monotheism: Thinking Tsuiami '04 the macmo/rnicno-mana9ernent (continued) oç cueation For this Thinksheet, the impetus was this letter-to-the-editor title: "God does not micromanage." My first thought: How unlike godly President Truman, who in the Oval Office maintained the sign-up sheet for the White House tennis courts. A more efficient President would have turned this micro-detail over to an assistant or (better) had it automated, requiring nobody's continuous attention. The deist who wrote that letter has a lot of company: 50% of those auto-polled by beliefnet's Tsunami survey (Thinksheet #3230.5) said "Although I believe in God, the supernatural has nothing to do with this tragedy." This is half-atheist, the the- ism of faith in the god of the non-nature half of reality. The full-atheist position is avowed in a spate of letters today in the LATimes, titled "It was an act of nature, period." As beliefnet put it (& 9% of the polled checked this box), "God doesn't exist, and disasters like this are just forces of nature." Combining the two positions, we get this half-atheist (deist) statement: "Although I believe in God, dis- asters like this are just forces of nature." This compromise statement could be signed by almost all of the religion-oriented material I've read on the Tsunami: let's move on (as Rabbi Jon.Sacks put it) from "Why did this happen?" to "What then shall we do?"...Ditheism has two deities, "God" & "Nature"; dualism has two realities, the spiritual & the material; deism preaches one or the other form of modified monotheism --(1) God created but does not manage ("nature" is self-managing); (2) the Creator macro- but does not micro-manage (so, no "miracles").
    [Show full text]
  • An Anselmian Approach to Divine Simplicity
    Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Volume 37 Issue 3 Article 3 7-1-2020 An Anselmian Approach to Divine Simplicity Katherin A. Rogers Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy Recommended Citation Rogers, Katherin A. (2020) "An Anselmian Approach to Divine Simplicity," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 37 : Iss. 3 , Article 3. DOI: 10.37977/faithphil.2020.37.3.3 Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol37/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers by an authorized editor of ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. applyparastyle "fig//caption/p[1]" parastyle "FigCapt" applyparastyle "fig" parastyle "Figure" AQ1–AQ5 AN ANSELMIAN APPROACH TO DIVINE SIMPLICITY Katherin A. Rogers The doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS) is an important aspect of the clas- sical theism of philosophers like Augustine, Anselm, and Thomas Aquinas. Recently the doctrine has been defended in a Thomist mode using the intrin- sic/extrinsic distinction. I argue that this approach entails problems which can be avoided by taking Anselm’s more Neoplatonic line. This does involve AQ6 accepting some controversial claims: for example, that time is isotemporal and that God inevitably does the best. The most difficult problem involves trying to reconcile created libertarian free will with the Anselmian DDS. But for those attracted to DDS the Anselmian approach is worth considering.
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas Aquinas' Argument from Motion & the Kalām Cosmological
    University of Central Florida STARS Honors Undergraduate Theses UCF Theses and Dissertations 2020 Rethinking Causality: Thomas Aquinas' Argument From Motion & the Kalām Cosmological Argument Derwin Sánchez Jr. University of Central Florida Part of the Philosophy Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the UCF Theses and Dissertations at STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Undergraduate Theses by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recommended Citation Sánchez, Derwin Jr., "Rethinking Causality: Thomas Aquinas' Argument From Motion & the Kalām Cosmological Argument" (2020). Honors Undergraduate Theses. 858. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses/858 RETHINKING CAUSALITY: THOMAS AQUINAS’ ARGUMENT FROM MOTION & THE KALĀM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT by DERWIN SANCHEZ, JR. A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Honors in the Major Program in Philosophy in the College of Arts and Humanities and in the Burnett Honors College at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Fall Term 2020 Thesis Chair: Dr. Cyrus Zargar i ABSTRACT Ever since they were formulated in the Middle Ages, St. Thomas Aquinas’ famous Five Ways to demonstrate the existence of God have been frequently debated. During this process there have been several misconceptions of what Aquinas actually meant, especially when discussing his cosmological arguments. While previous researchers have managed to tease out why Aquinas accepts some infinite regresses and rejects others, I attempt to add on to this by demonstrating the centrality of his metaphysics in his argument from motion.
    [Show full text]
  • Kant's Doctrine of Religion As Political Philosophy
    Kant's Doctrine of Religion as Political Philosophy Author: Phillip David Wodzinski Persistent link: http://hdl.handle.net/2345/987 This work is posted on eScholarship@BC, Boston College University Libraries. Boston College Electronic Thesis or Dissertation, 2009 Copyright is held by the author, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise noted. Boston College The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Department of Political Science KANT’S DOCTRINE OF RELIGION AS POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY a dissertation by PHILLIP WODZINSKI submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2009 © copyright by PHILLIP DAVID WODZINSKI 2009 ABSTRACT Kant’s Doctrine of Religion as Political Philosophy Phillip Wodzinski Advisor: Susan Shell, Ph.D. Through a close reading of Immanuel Kant’s late book, Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason, the dissertation clarifies the political element in Kant’s doctrine of religion and so contributes to a wider conception of his political philosophy. Kant’s political philosophy of religion, in addition to extending and further animating his moral doctrine, interprets religion in such a way as to give the Christian faith a moral grounding that will make possible, and even be an agent of, the improvement of social and political life. The dissertation emphasizes the wholeness and structure of Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason as a book, for the teaching of the book is not exhausted by the articulation of its doctrine but also includes both the fact and the manner of its expression: the reader learns most fully from Kant by giving attention to the structure and tone of the book as well as to its stated content and argumentation.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of the Problem 1
    Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF OPEN THEISM WITH THE DOCTRINE OF INERRANCY A Report Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Theology by Stuart M. Mattfield 29 December 2014 Copyright © 2015 by Stuart M. Mattfield All Rights Reserved ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As with all things, the first-fruits of my praise goes to God: Father, Son and Spirit. I pray this work brings Him glory and honor. To my love and wife, Heidi Ann: You have been my calm, my sanity, my helpful critic, and my biggest support. Thank you and I love you. To my kids: Madison, Samantha, and Nick: Thank you for your patience, your humor, and your love. Thank you to Dr. Kevin King and Dr. Dan Mitchell. I greatly appreciate your mentorship and patience through this process. iii ABSTRACT The primary purpose of this thesis is to show that the doctrine of open theism denies the doctrine of inerrancy. Specifically open theism falsely interprets Scriptural references to God’s Divine omniscience and sovereignty, and conversely ignores the weighty Scriptural references to those two attributes which attribute perfection and completeness in a manner which open theism explicitly denies. While the doctrine of inerrancy has been hotly debated since the Enlightenment, and mostly so through the modern and postmodern eras, it may be argued that there has been a traditional understanding of the Bible’s inerrancy that is drawn from Scripture, and has been held since the early church fathers up to today’s conservative theologians. This view was codified in October, 1978 in the form of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy.
    [Show full text]
  • A Contextual Examination of Three Historical Stages of Atheism and the Legality of an American Freedom from Religion
    ABSTRACT Rejecting the Definitive: A Contextual Examination of Three Historical Stages of Atheism and the Legality of an American Freedom from Religion Ethan Gjerset Quillen, B.A., M.A., M.A. Mentor: T. Michael Parrish, Ph.D. The trouble with “definitions” is they leave no room for evolution. When a word is concretely defined, it is done so in a particular time and place. Contextual interpretations permit a better understanding of certain heavy words; Atheism as a prime example. In the post-modern world Atheism has become more accepted and popular, especially as a reaction to global terrorism. However, the current definition of Atheism is terribly inaccurate. It cannot be stated properly that pagan Atheism is the same as New Atheism. By interpreting the Atheisms from four stages in the term‟s history a clearer picture of its meaning will come out, hopefully alleviating the stereotypical biases weighed upon it. In the interpretation of the Atheisms from Pagan Antiquity, the Enlightenment, the New Atheist Movement, and the American Judicial and Civil Religious system, a defense of the theory of elastic contextual interpretations, rather than concrete definitions, shall be made. Rejecting the Definitive: A Contextual Examination of Three Historical Stages of Atheism and the Legality of an American Freedom from Religion by Ethan Gjerset Quillen, B.A., M.A. A Thesis Approved by the J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies ___________________________________ Robyn L. Driskell, Ph.D., Interim Chairperson Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Baylor University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts Approved by the Thesis Committee ___________________________________ T.
    [Show full text]
  • The Teleological Argument Looks at the Purpose of Something and from That
    The teleological argument looks at the purpose of something and Cosmological arguments start with observations about the way The Third Way: contingency and necessity William Paley (1742 – 1805) observed that complex objects work from that he reasons that God must exist. Aquinas (1224 – 1274) the universe works and from there these try to explain why the with regularity, (seasons, gravity, etc). This order seems to be the gave five ‘ways’ of proving God exists and this, his teleological universe exists. Aquinas gives three versions of the cosmological Aquinas’ point here is that everything in the universe is result of the work of a designer who has put this regularity and arguments, starting with three different (although similar) argument, is the fifth of his five ways. contingent – it relies on something to have brought it into order into place deliberately and with purpose. For example, the observations: motion, causation and contingency. Aquinas, influenced by Aristotle, believed that all things have a existence and also things to let it continue to exist. eye is constructed perfectly to see. For Palely, all of this pointed to purpose, but we cannot achieve that purpose without something The First Way: the unmoved mover a designer, who is God. In nature, there are things that are possible ‘to be’ and to make it happen – some sort of guide, which is God. Inspired by Aristotle, Aquinas noticed that the ways in which things ‘not to be’ (contingent beings) The analogy of the watch move or change (changing state is a form of motion) must mean These things could not always have existed because that something has made that motion take place.
    [Show full text]