lorie
you fascinate me...
Regjistruar: 24/07/2003
Vendbanimi: in you
Mesazhe: 3137
|
Alex McFarland
McFarland’s list of worldviews is very similar to the listing offered by Geisler and Watkins, with one major difference: McFarland divides theism into monotheism and Biblical Christianity (Trinitarianism). This division notes the fundamental difference between traditional (Trinitarian) Christianity and the other faiths of the world which espouse one God in the form of one person (Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unitarian Christianity, etc.). McFarland’s list[13] is as follows:
1.Atheism
2.Pantheism
3.Panentheism
4.Deism
5.Finite Godism
6.Polytheism
7.Monotheism
8.Biblical Christianity (Trinitarianism)
Putting a List Together
Although many other lists are offered by various scholars, most are similar to the worldview categories proposed by the above apologists. Based upon the lists of Sire, Noebel, Lewis, Geisler and Watkins, and McFarland, how might one construct a thorough, yet practical, list of worldview categories to be used in his or her own ministry? This is the question that the author has recently contemplated.
To begin with, what worldview categories appear in all of the above lists? As it turns out, there are two categories that appear in all five lists. Atheism, whether referred to by a different term (naturalism), or in one of its various forms (nihilism, atheistic existentialism, secular humanism, Marxism) and pantheism, again as referred to by a different term (Eastern pantheistic monism, New Age spirituality, cosmic humanism) or in one of its various forms (Hinduism), are major worldview categories proposed by all six apologists.
Additionally, with the sole exception of Geisler and Watkins’ list, each of the apologists includes Christianity, which may also be referred to either as Christian theism or Biblical Christianity (Trinitarianism). However, theism is a broader category which takes into account any religion or philosophy which adheres to the belief in one supreme Creator-God. Sire and Noebel include Islamic theism in their lists, which would be included under the umbrella of theism, of course. Therefore, theism is the broad category, and Christianity and Islam are sub-categories.[14]
Sire, Geisler, Watkins, and McFarland note that deism is a separate category within worldview philosophy, and the author agrees wholeheartedly with that proposition – although many Christian scholars may be inclined to include deism as a sub-category of theism. On a personal note, for six months prior to my December 2009 Examine the Evidence presentation entitled, “Christianity or Deism? The Faith of the Founding Fathers,” I engaged in an in-depth study of deism. Rather than my usual approach of reviewing only Christian literature in preparation for a presentation, I instead decided to not only consult deist literature, but also consult with deists via email in an attempt to get beyond the standard doctrinal differences that appear in books and find out what really makes deists “tick.” As it turned out, I discovered that deism really has two major divisions: traditional deism and Christian deism. The two Christian deists that I consulted with were extremely friendly and very supportive of my research and upcoming presentation, whereas the sole traditional deist whose brain I attempted to pick was easily the most hardened skeptic that I have ever encountered…far beyond any of the atheists that I have dealt with. Interestingly, many people are deists and not even aware of it; they may not be familiar with the term “deism,” but nonetheless they think and live according to that belief system.
Geisler, Watkins, and McFarland include both panentheism and finite godism on their lists. Since panentheism is the metaphysical “engine” behind process theology, and finite godism is intimately linked to open theism, it is only proper that these two philosophical approaches be included as separate categories on every list of worldviews.
Once again, the two previously mentioned lists contain polytheism as well. As this worldview was not only prevalent in the ancient world but also contains several examples today, it should be included in every list as well.
Finally, both Sire and Noebel list postmodernism as a worldview. As we live in a postmodern culture in which religious and moral relativism is the “politically correct” stance to maintain, it is only fitting that postmodernism be included in all current lists.
Therefore, the list of major worldview categories used by the author is as follows:
1.Theism
2.Naturalism (Atheism & Agnosticism)
3.Pantheism
4.Deism
5.Panentheism
6.Finite godism
7.Polytheism
8.Postmodernism
This list is essentially the same as that used by Geisler and Watkins, with the addition of postmodernism. Therefore, the world’s fundamental ideologies are described by eight basic worldviews. Within each of these major worldviews, however, are a number of variations or “expressions.”
Theism
Theism is the belief that a personal Creator-God exists, who is active in his creation.[15] The God of theism is personal in two ways:
1.God has the attributes of personality, be they emotional, volitional, or logical-rational.
2.It is possible to enter into a personal relationship with God. With that being said, however, it must be noted that some theistic-based religions teach that God is distant and not generally concerned with having a personal relationship with people. For example, as previously mentioned Islam views God as being far less interested in human affairs than does Christianity. In this sense, it may be much more accurate to label Islam as “Islamic deism” rather than “Islamic theism.”
Christian theism, which is the belief in the God of both the Old and New Testaments, offers a much more extensive definition of God as based upon Scripture. Since we live in a culture of religious skepticism, in which God’s existence is far too often either denied or at least seriously called into question, the first step in the classical apologetic method – which is establishing theism in general – is often crucial in sharing the Christian faith.
The history of theism is as old as humanity itself, dating back to the earliest times of human existence. The book of Genesis opens up with a description of our first parents’ positive relationship to God, which far too quickly turned negative. Although many ancient civilizations practiced polytheism, the belief is held by many scholars that most all, if not all, of the earliest civilizations initially practiced monotheism – which is certainly in line with the history of Genesis. Today, at least half of the world believes in the God of theism, as Christianity and Islam combined make up approximately half of the world’s population. Add to their numbers Judaism, Sikhism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, some members of Unitarian Universalism, and various others, and it becomes apparent that a very significant percentage of the world believes in one “Supreme Being” who is involved in his creation.
The Evidence for Theism
The evidence for theism is abundant. Natural theology alone establishes the existence of God, although not necessarily the God of the Bible. Confirming the existence of a “Supreme Being” is nonetheless a crucial step in the right direction, leading the non-believer away from atheism and agnosticism and preparing him or her to contemplate the overwhelming evidence for the God of Christian theism, the triune God of the Bible who is physically embodied in the person of Jesus Christ.
Non-Scriptural Evidence
The cosmological argument is solely adequate to establish God’s existence. When the teleological, moral, and ontological arguments are added as further lines of evidence, the “case for theism” becomes overwhelmingly powerful. The argument from aesthetics, the argument from meaning and purpose in life, and the argument from religious experience merely serve as “icing on the cake” and demonstrate that the God of theism is in line with the biblical description of the Creator.
Scriptural Evidence
The entirety of the Bible is a proclamation of God’s existence, nature, and attributes. Scripture is self-attesting regarding God; the Creator of the “heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1) is never argued for by the biblical authors. In fact, the Apostle Paul states with confidence that no one is excused for failing to see the evidence for God, which is plainly before all people (Romans 1:20). This proclamation of intelligent design is a biblical precursor to the modern ID movement.
Of course, the Bible establishes that Christian theism is the correct version of this worldview, as opposed to Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. The classical, or two-step, apologetic method begins by first demonstrating that theism is the only correct worldview, as based upon the evidences of natural theology, intelligent design, and creatio ex nihilo. The classical apologist then follows-up with several lines of evidence which establishes that only Christianity is wholly truth. In addition to the evidence for miracles and the deity of Christ, the fact of biblical infallibility plays a key role in the second step of classical apologetics.
Sub-Categories of Theism
Theism may be further divided into strict monotheism and Christian theism (Trinitarianism). The following descriptions note the primary differences.
Strict Monotheism
Strict monotheism is the belief in one supreme, personal Creator-God who exists in the form of one person. This includes not only Judaism and Islam, but also Sikhism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Unitarians, and anyone who might label him or herself as a “general theist.”
Christian Theism (Trinitarianism)
Most Christian believers, with the exception of Christian Unitarians and “modalists,” believe in one supreme, personal Creator-God who exists in the form of three persons – God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit. This concept is referred to as the Trinity, although the term itself does not appear in Scripture. The triune nature of God is evident from the testimony of the Bible, however. Despite the clear teaching that God is one (Isaiah 44 ; John 5:44; 17:3; Romans 3:29-30; 1 Corinthians 8:4; Ephesians 4:4-6; 1 Timothy 2:5; James 2:19), God’s triune nature is surmised through many verses such as 1 Peter 1:1-2 (God the Father), John 1:1-14 (God the Son), and Genesis 1:1-2 (God the Spirit). The Bible clearly teaches a three-in-oneness within the Godhead in other key places as well (Matthew 3:16-17; 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14).
Naturalism (Atheism & Agnosticism)
Naturalism, like the other worldviews, is based upon certain propositions. Sire lists these[16] as follows:
1.Matter exists eternally and is all there is: God does not exist. Carl Sagan’s famous dictum, “The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be,” is held to be truth.
2.The cosmos exists as a uniformity of cause-and-effect in a closed system. Nothing outside of the universe, namely God, can be responsible for bringing this closed system into existence.
3.Human beings are complex “machines”; personality is an interrelation of chemical and physical properties we do not yet fully understand. Accordingly, our thoughts and emotions are nothing more than chemical reactions.
4.Death is the extinction of personality and individuality. Naturalism does not offer the hope of eternity, as life ends at the grave.
5.History is a linear stream of events linked by cause-and-effect but without an overarching purpose. Things “just happen” for no reason, and certainly for no divinely-inspired reason.
6.Ethics is related only to human beings. By this, Sire is drawing attention to the fact that naturalists do not base their ethics in what God would have us do, but rather upon what we as human beings would like to see ourselves do.
Naturalism, no matter how it is lived out (religious humanism, secular humanism, existentialism, nihilism, etc.), holds to these basic propositions, although some forms of naturalism offer more hope for human beings than do others. For instance, religious humanism is a far more positive version of atheistic-based ideology than is nihilism.
As previously mentioned, the author includes both atheism and agnosticism within the category of naturalism, since the agnostic also fails to accept the overwhelming evidence for theism.[17] “Riding the fence” between atheism and theism may seem like the intellectually safe position to adopt, but in reality agnosticism struggles against the clear evidence for God’s existence exactly as atheism does. Additionally, it has been the experience of the author that agnostics, who by definition should be mid-way between atheists and theists in their metaphysical orientation, generally align themselves much more closely with atheists – even to the point of sharing the intense skepticism that atheists are known for brandishing.
Although polls continue to demonstrate that most Americans believe in a “Higher Power” of some sort,[18] it is also noteworthy “that the fastest-growing segment of belief among the young is atheism, which has leapt in popularity in the new millennium.”[19] Therefore, it is becoming increasingly necessary for Christian believers to “always be ready with an answer” (1 Peter 3:15) to the question, “Does God exist?”
Naturalism Refuted
Of the various non-theistic worldviews, naturalism is perhaps the easiest to refute, both through the classic theistic arguments as well as through an appeal to Scripture. In fact, one may say that both natural theology and Scripture combine to form a “lethal” combination that destroys the foundation of naturalism.
Non-Scriptural Evidence
Whether it is the cosmological, teleological, or any other argument, natural theology seriously challenges atheism and agnosticism at every turn. The cosmological argument, although beyond the limited scope of this paper, establishes the existence of the “Uncaused First Cause” and by itself is enough to sound the death knell of naturalism. The other previously mentioned non-scriptural arguments combine to form an even stronger case against naturalism.
Scriptural Evidence
Once again, the entirety of Scripture is a refutation of naturalism. The verses and passages of Scripture which highlight creation (Genesis 1:1; Job 36:24-37; 38:1-39:30; Psalm 19:1-5; John 1:1-3; Acts 4:24; Romans 1:20; Colossians 1:16-17; Revelation 4:11) are more than sufficient to dispel the notion that the universe is an uncaused “cosmic accident” brought about by a quantum fluctuation.
Sub-Categories of Naturalism
Naturalism may be further divided into several different sub-categories: religious humanism, secular humanism, scientism, atheistic existentialism, nihilism, anti-theism, functional atheism, and agnosticism. The following descriptions note the primary differences.
Religious Humanism
Religious humanism may be defined as “any religious belief system which incorporates humanistic beliefs and principles.”[20] Austin Cline further notes that, “It might be better, however, to describe this situation as a humanistic religion (where a pre-existing religion is influenced by humanist philosophy) rather than as a religious humanism (where humanism is influenced to be religious in nature).”[21] Regardless of the approach taken, however, religious humanists seek to impose meaning and purpose to their lives, in light of their metaphysically naturalistic position. For them, spirituality is “what we make it,” and is limited to this life only, of course.
The Reverend Joseph Ben-David, a religious humanist, lists seven elements of his worldview approach,[22] as follows:
1.Religious humanists seek “to understand, love and serve God – in a rational and naturalistic sense.”[23] Therefore, the definition of “God” must mean something other than the traditional meaning of a “Supreme Being” or Creator; for religious humanists, God might be defined as the totality of the laws of nature, or perhaps love becomes synonymous with God.
2.Reason, wisdom, love, and an authentic relationship with oneself, others, and the environment are “sacred” responsibilities – “sacred” in a metaphysically naturalistic sense, of course.
3.Religious humanists seek “to elevate and strengthen character, to resist all actions and involvements that abuse, violate and oppress other human beings, animals and the environment.”[24] In short, religious humanists strive to demonstrate respect for themselves, others, animals, and the environment.
4.Religious humanists seek to know truth, which is defined as “any statement, thought or feeling that corresponds with reality.”[25] Of course, this entails a denial of the classic theistic arguments – which are based in both reason and science.
5.Religious humanists strive “to transcend the cruel and brutal aspects of nature and attain a higher reality of being through the process of enlightenment and personal growth.”[26] Even though Darwinian evolution describes an environment which is “red in tooth and claw,” religious humanists seek to go beyond this tenet of their faith and impose a greater meaning and purpose to life than naturalistic evolution can offer.
6.Religious humanists seek “to become a part of the intellectual, moral and sensory-awakened avant garde of society, while identifying with all humanity.”[27] Religious humanists seek to understand their surroundings and their place in the universe at the highest level, while avoiding an “elitist” label. This element implies that religious humanists avoid the intellectually snobbish term “Bright’s” which is often used by adherents of scientism and anti-theists such as the “New Atheists.”
7.Religious humanists seek to fuse their belief system into as many world religions and ideologies as possible, rendering a “panreligious, ethically pluralistic frame of orientation”[28] throughout the world. Based upon the current religious status of the world, they seem to be making progress.
Examples of religious humanism would include participants within Humanistic Judaism, Ethical Culture Societies, some adherents of Unitarian Universalism, and the Church of Humanism. At the basic level, anyone who seeks to explore their spiritual needs and desires, but does so within the context of atheism or agnosticism, would be labeled as a “religious humanist.”
Secular Humanism
Secular humanism is a term which has come into usage only in the last thirty years or so, although its foundations date back to ancient Greek philosophy as well as the writings of Confucius.[29] Secular humanists strive to obtain purpose, meaning, and hope in this life, despite their underlying basic assumption that life is a “cosmic accident” that ends at the grave, and that human cognition is merely caused by biochemical reactions and therefore cannot really be trusted. Many secular humanists refer to the following seven principles[30] to define their worldview:
1.Secular humanism is a conviction that dogmas, ideologies, and traditions – whether religious, political, or social – must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.
2.Secular humanism is a commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry – as opposed to faith and mysticism – in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
3.Secular humanism is primarily concerned with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
4.Secular humanists are constantly searching for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
5.Secular humanists are concerned for this life, and they have a commitment to making it meaningful through a better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
6.Secular humanists search for viable individual, social, and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
7.Secular humanists are convinced that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for both ourselves and future generations.
In general, secular humanists are not concerned with attempting to form a “spiritual bond with the universe” as religious humanists are, but they do tend to be much more optimistic and hopeful concerning the value and meaning of life than are existentialists and (especially) nihilists. As with the other worldviews, naturalists tend to form differing expressions of their philosophical outlook as based upon the degree of hope or despair that is offered by the general tenets of that philosophy.
It must be stressed that not all people who label themselves as “secular humanists” are, in fact, atheists. Rather, secular humanists more broadly define themselves as being “non-theists,”[31] which may cover a wide-range of philosophical positions – including agnosticism, religious pantheism, and essentially any worldview which denies the belief in a personal Creator-God yet strives to find meaning and value in life. In the experience of the author, however, most secular humanists are atheistic in their metaphysical orientation.
Scientism
Martin Ryder defines scientism as “a philosophical position that exalts the methods of the natural sciences above all other modes of human inquiry. Scientism embraces only empiricism and reason to explain phenomena of any dimension, whether physical, social, cultural, or psychological.”[32] Michael Lerner builds upon Ryder’s definition: “Scientism is the worldview held by a majority of people in the Western world that claims that all that ‘is’ and all that ‘can be known’ is verifiable or falsifiable through the scientific method, and that which cannot be so measured is simply opinion, belief, or fantasy. It cannot be known and sensibly talked about and hence should be relegated to the private sphere.”[33]
In short, scientism is the “elitist” position which claims that only science is the truly reliable source of knowledge. Since God lies outside of science, which is methodologically naturalistic by nature,[34] scientists are quick to deny that God exists. An example of a proponent of scientism today would be Richard Dawkins, who places great emphasis upon the scientific method. He would also fit nicely into the category of anti-theism, to be described shortly. In fact, it is not unusual for some naturalists to classify themselves in two or more of these sub-categories.
Atheistic Existentialism
Although existentialism may be expressed in theistic terms, it is most amenable to an atheistic worldview. This is because existentialism “emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe, regards human existence as unexplainable, and stresses freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one’s acts.”[35] Although theists recognize the hostility of this world, which often seems to be a place of indifference, they nonetheless acknowledge a personal Creator-God who by nature refutes the notion that humanity is “isolated” and has no one to rely upon. Additionally, theism offers a reasonable and even scientifically-based explanation for human existence. Therefore, theistic-based existentialism struggles against the clear teaching of the fiat creation of humanity.
Atheist Jehne Lunden fairly describes the existentialist outlook on life: “Existentialism is my metaphysical paradigm. I think that we are born, live as physical beings on earth, and then die. That’s it. There is no god, karma, nor fate that has predestined our life’s purpose. We are free to choose our life’s course. Of course the environment and genetics will limit our agency. Therefore, we must give our lives meaning. Perhaps we can find it through the connections we have with our fellow beings or through creating art, music, or literature. This philosophy is enough for me. It can be bleak but it is the only one I’ve come across that makes sense to me. All others encompass leaps of faith and wishful thinking.”[36] The “leaps of faith” that Lunden notes is surely in reference to Soren Kierkegaard’s belief that accepting Christian theism involves a “leap of faith” that surpasses rational understanding – Kierkegaard was the progenitor of theistic existentialism and a Christian fideist.
Atheistic existentialism maintains the following beliefs:
1.The only reality is the physical universe; no God, gods, or supernatural realm exists.
2.Objective (absolute) truth does not exist.
3.“Existence precedes essence,” or we exist but do not know why.
4.Life has no meaning other than what we ascribe it.
Atheistic existentialists have followed naturalism to its logical conclusions, but nonetheless they seek to impose value and meaning upon their lives. This is really what separates atheistic existentialists from nihilists, who lack that hope and meaning.
The most influential atheistic existentialists are generally held to be Friedrich Nietzsche, Jean-Paul Sarte, and Albert Camus. Their combined work stretched from the last half of the nineteenth century with Nietzsche to the death of Sarte in 1980.
Nihilism
Nihilism, from the Latin word nihil (“nothing”) “is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy.”[37] Sire notes that, “Nihilism is more a feeling than a philosophy,”[38] and that it is, in fact, “a denial of philosophy, a denial of the possibility of knowledge, a denial that anything is valuable. If it proceeds to the absolute denial of everything, it even denies the reality of existence itself. In other words, nihilism is the negation of everything – knowledge, ethics, beauty, reality. In nihilism no statement has validity; nothing has meaning.”[39]
It should be noted that in terms of following through on the tenets of atheism, nihilists are the only group of naturalists that do precisely that. Since most people are unable – or unwilling – to live a life of futility, which is the logical conclusion of atheism, the vast majority of naturalists instead opt for a form of their worldview that is tempered with hope, be it atheistic existentialism, secular humanism, or religious humanism.
Anti-Theism
Anti-theism is the position that is self-described by the two words which comprise the term itself: anti (“against”) theism (“pertaining to God”) is the view which strongly and intentionally opposes the concept of God in every way. Anti-theists are not so much atheists as they are people who despise both God and those who accept God’s existence.
The so-called “New Atheists” such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, etc. are not so much new doctrinally – that aspect of naturalism never really changes – as they are characterized by their high-level of animosity toward God and those who proclaim allegiance to the Creator. One must ask him or herself the question, “Why does someone who claims to not believe in God hate God so much?” This seems to be the major flaw in the reasoning of the anti-theists.
Functional Atheism
Functional atheism is the position that whether or not God exists, people nonetheless must live as though there is no God. Functional atheism may also be referred to as “apatheism” since it is the metaphysical concept that exhibits apathy toward God’s existence: “The ‘functional atheist’ is one who is apathetic concerning God’s existence.”[40]
It should be noted that some Christians define a “functional atheist” as being “someone who professes faith in Christ, but behaves as if He doesn’t exist. They don’t say, “There is no God,” but rather they deny the existence of God in their lives by the way they are living at a particular time. The functional atheist has decided to live apart from the revealed truth of Scripture. He professes faith in Christ, but lives life as a practicing atheist.”[41] Of course, this is not the intended definition of a functional atheist; this usage of the term refers to theists who are lacking any display of true faith in their lives. Craig Groeschel’s book The Christian Atheist perhaps best exemplifies this usage of the term.
Agnosticism
The term agnosticism comes from two Greek words: a, the prefix which means “no” or “without,” and gnosis, meaning “knowledge.” Therefore, agnosticism describes the philosophical position in which its adherents possess “no knowledge,” in this case concerning the existence of God. The agnostic is simply unsure as to whether or not God exists.[42]
Agnosticism comes in two varieties. “Soft” agnosticism (a.k.a. “weak” agnosticism) is the position that people do not know if God exists, whereas “hard” agnosticism (a.k.a. “strong” agnosticism) is the position that people cannot know if God exists.[43] The soft agnostic believes that people currently do not know if God exists, but perhaps someday in the future there will be irrefutable evidence either for or against the existence of God, settling the question once and for all. The hard agnostic, on the other hand, believes that people will never have irrefutable evidence one way or the other. In their minds, God is unknowable – both now and in the future.
Pantheism
Pantheism, from the Greek words pan, meaning “all,” and theos, or God, is the philosophical worldview which exclaims that God is all. The pantheist holds that everything is God – the forests, the mountains, the birds in the sky and the fish in the sea, human beings…everything is God – or, more accurately, god. Unlike the God of theism, the pantheistic god is impersonal, lacking the attributes of personality that the Creator-God of theism possesses. Pantheism is often combined with monism, the belief that everything is one – everything is of one substance and is connected in some very intimate way. Therefore, the pantheistic monist claims that not only is everything god, but everything is of one substance; everything is god, and connected to everything else in some manner.
Paul Harrison, the president of the World Pantheist Movement, lists his organization’s statement of principles,[44] word-for-word as follows:
1.1. We revere and celebrate the Universe as the totality of being, past, present, and future. It is self-organizing, ever-evolving, and inexhaustibly diverse. Its’ overwhelming power, beauty, and fundamental mystery compel the deepest human reverence and wonder.2.2. All matter, energy, and life are an interconnected unity of which we are an inseparable part. We rejoice in our existence and seek to participate ever more deeply in this unity through knowledge, celebration, meditation, empathy, love, ethical action, and art. 3.3. We are an integral part of Nature, which we should cherish, revere, and preserve in all its magnificent beauty and diversity. We should strive to live in harmony with Nature, locally and globally. We acknowledge the inherent value of all life, human and non-human, and strive to treat all living beings with compassion and respect. 4.4. All humans are equal centers of awareness of the Universe and nature, and all deserve a life of equal dignity and mutual respect. To this end we support and work towards freedom, democracy, justice, and non-discrimination, and a world community based on peace, sustainable ways of life, full respect for human rights, and an end to poverty. 5.5. There is a single kind of substance, energy/matter, which is vibrant and infinitely creative in all its forms. Body and mind are indivisibly united. 6.6. We see death as the return to nature of our elements, and the end of our existence as individuals. The forms of “afterlife” available to humans are natural ones, in the natural world. Our actions, ideas, and memories of us live on, according to what we do in our lives. Our genes live on in our families, and our elements are endlessly recycled in nature. 7.7. We honor reality, and keep our minds open to the evidence of the senses and of science’s unending quest for deeper understanding. These are our best means of coming to know the Universe, and on them we base our aesthetic and religious feelings about reality. 8.8. Every individual has direct access through perception, emotion, and meditation to ultimate reality, which is the Universe and Nature. There is no need for mediation by priests, gurus, or revealed scriptures.9.9. We uphold the separation of religion and state, and the universal human right of freedom of religion. We recognize the freedom of all pantheists to express and celebrate their beliefs, as individuals or in groups, in any non-harmful ritual, symbol, or vocabulary that is meaningful to them.From a Christian perspective, there is some that is good – and some that is not so good – about Harrison’s viewpoint. Addressing the first principle, although it is true that Christians are awed by the wonders of creation, we revere and worship only the Creator of nature, not nature itself. Harrison states that the “Universe,” which he capitalizes so as to equate it with deity, is the totality of being. However, nature is not all there is, a mistake that Sagan also made with his famous naturalistic mantra, “The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” God, the Creator of everything, fashioned both a non-physical (supernatural) realm as well as the physical (natural) universe. Therefore, the physical universe is not the totality of being. Harrison states that the universe is self-organizing. However, there is no self-organizing principle, law, or force that has been confirmed by science. In fact, just the opposite is the case. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is the rule of entropy, states that the universe is winding down rather than building up; physical and biological systems are moving from a state of order to a state of disorder, and from a state of usable energy to a state of unusable energy. Although all people, regardless of their philosophical stance, will generally agree with Harrison that the grandeur of the universe encourages in each of us feelings of deep reverence and wonder, the Apostle Paul reminds us that we all should make the obvious connection between the Creator and the creation – no one is without excuse in this manner (Romans 1:20). The apostle goes on to state that pantheists, the “pagans” of his day,[45] confuse the Creator with the creation (Romans 1:25).
The next three principles (#2-4) contain elements of truth that many Christians would agree with, at least in part. However, in the fifth principle Harrison states that there is a single kind of substance, which he identifies as energy/matter, which is vibrant and infinitely creative in all of its various forms. This is essentially the “Atomic” theory of Democritus, which the Epicurean philosophers adopted. However, it is clear from an examination of both natural theology and Scripture that matter (atoms and molecules) is not all there is. Harrison further states in the fifth principle that one’s physical body and mind are indivisibly united. However, theism in general – and perhaps Christian theism in particular – is adamant that the soul or soul/spirit is an immaterial reality that continues existing after the death of the physical body. Conscious life continues on after the grave.
In the sixth principle Harrison shares his position on physical death: “[death is] the end of our existence as individuals.”[46] As stated in the previous paragraph, death is only the end of our physical existence, at least in the mortal bodies that we now possess, but death is certainly not the end of our conscious existence. Scripture, and the testimony of human history,[47] tell us that there is a non-physical component to our existence that survives death.
In the seventh principle Harrison shares his belief that empiricism and the scientific method are the best methods of epistemology. However, the authority and infallibility of Scripture is a testimony to the power of God’s Word as the single most reliable source of knowledge concerning both natural and supernatural matters. Human reasoning and the theistic arguments are a reliable source of knowledge as well, but ultimately most devout Christian believers “hang their hats” on the sure Word of God.
Harrison’s eighth principle espouses a mystical approach to believing in pantheism. Although the mystical, existentialist approach to faith holds some merit,[48] the best means of establishing a worldview should involve rational evidences in adequate dosages. Additionally, Harrison states that “there is no need for mediation by priests, gurus, or revealed scriptures.”[49] Although the assistance and teaching of “priests” and “gurus” can be helpful regarding spiritual matters, once again the guidance offered by Scripture is of paramount importance – provided the term “Scripture” is the Bible, of course.
Finally, as a believer in the Baptist tradition,[50] the author is in full agreement with Harrison on his final statement. Freedom of religion should be a right of every human being.
In summary, many of Harrison’s principles of the pantheistic position are noble and good. Many others, however, miss the mark of truth, which is wholly found in Christian theism alone.
Geisler also lists the central tenets of pantheism, but this time from a Christian perspective,[51] as follows:
1.Pantheism utilizes a basic intuitive epistemology. “God is understood in the highest and most significant sense not by sensible observation nor by rational inference but by mystical intuition that goes beyond the law of non-contradiction.”[52] Pantheists tend to “know” God through an existentialist-type intuition that is freed from empirical or rational processes, as Harrison also pointed out.
2.Since the god of pantheism is beyond empirical and rational knowledge, the “way of negation” in religious language must be stressed. In other words, God cannot be adequately expressed in positive terms, because we simply do not – and cannot – know enough about God to make positive metaphysical statements.
3.The central conception of God is the absolute unity and transcendence of God. Ultimate reality is based upon God’s supremacy and unity; everything we know about God is derived from this supremacy and unity.
4.Creation in pantheism is ex Deo (“out of God”) not ex nihilo (“out of nothing”) as in theism and deism. Everything manifests or emanates from God, because God is the source for everything.
5.Both creation and evil flow necessarily from God. Every material object, force, or emotion which exists, or ever has existed, does so because God is the source of everything.
6.God is neither personal nor conscious. God is viewed as being an impersonal force – in other words, a force which lacks the attributes of personality – and therefore as a force God is not existentially conscious as are sentient beings. God, the “Absolute Reality” or “Supreme Force,” is not a “He,” but rather an “It.” It should be noted, however, that Christian theists refer to God in the masculine sense not because they truly believe that God is male, but rather out of Judeo-Christian tradition. Scripture as a whole makes it clear that God is not solely masculine, or solely feminine, or simultaneously both. Rather, God is beyond gender as we know it, encapsulating emotional qualities of each gender while transcending the biological classification of either sex.
7.The universe is ultimately one, rather than many. “Temporarily and/or manifestationally there are many modes and aspects of reality. But like radii, there is really only one central point of reality all have in common.”[53]
As is readily seen, pantheism in many ways is a polar opposite of the theistic worldview.
Pantheism Refuted
Like the other philosophical worldviews, apologetics has much to offer in addressing pantheism. Both natural theology and Scripture offer an adequate refutation of pantheism.
Non-Scriptural Evidence
First, the whole notion that God is impersonal when personal, sentient beings exist in the universe seems a bit odd. Why would one hold to the idea that everything which exists manifests or emanates from an impersonal being when there are creatures in the universe which possess the attributes of personality? Assuming that we are alone in the physical universe, why would even one planet in the cosmos contain beings which are capable of thought, self-contemplation, and emotions when the supposed source of everything is impersonal? Geisler comments further on this matter: “Personality is at best a lesser or lower level of God. The Judeo-Christian personal God is a second-class citizen in the heavens.”[54] The fact of intelligent design, which is made obvious from a thorough study of nature, points to a Designer who skillfully crafted the heavens and Earth with an eye for mind-boggling detail and complexity. Would an impersonal force – that is, a mere force of nature which lacks the attributes of personality – be capable of designing the universe with that much symbiotic pre-planning and attention to detail? The answer seems to clearly be no. Therefore, the complexity and interconnectedness of the creation itself refutes the pantheistic worldview.
Secondly, and inseparably from the first refutation, is that pantheism confuses the creation with the Creator, a mistake that the Apostle Paul discusses in his letter to the church in Rome (1:25). Since the god of pantheism is “All” or co-extensive with creation, there really is no difference between pantheism and atheism. “The only difference is that the pantheist decides to attribute religious significance to the All and the atheist does not.”[55] The World Pantheist Movement defines scientific or natural pantheism as “a form of pantheism that deeply reveres the universe and nature and joyfully accepts and embraces life, the body and earth, but does not believe in any supernatural deities, entities or powers.”[56] This is, of course, nothing but atheism with the addition of a reverence for – and even worship of – nature. Scientific pantheism is indistinguishable from religious humanism, which is merely a philosophical construct designed to impose purpose upon a materialistic worldview,[57] in the attempt to avoid the despair of nihilism. Regardless of what term one chooses – religious humanism, religious naturalism, naturalistic spirituality, positive atheism, deep ecology, etc. – scientific pantheism is a cleverly-disguised way of holding a deep reverence in something greater than humanity, while at the same time denying the existence of a “Supreme Being.”
Finally, although the pantheist often claims that nature has a built-in self-ordering component or “force” that guides evolution, the only tendency in nature which is observed is entropy, which is the scientific principle that describes how physical and biological systems always proceed from a state of order to a state of disorder, or from a state of usable energy to a state of unusable energy, unless acted upon by an outside force. Entropy, which is described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, is a fact of science, as opposed to the self-ordering principle of pantheism which is based upon speculation and, in fact, is rendered false in the light of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, scientific pantheism is an example of “science falsely so-called.”[58]
Scriptural Evidence
God created the physical universe (Genesis 1:1), and therefore he transcends the creation. Pantheists, however, fail to understand this: they confuse the Creator and the creation (Romans 1:25). When we experience awe and wonder through an examination of the world around us, we should remember that this is so that we can “find” God and enter into a healthy, loving relationship with him (Acts 17:24-28).
Christ transcends his creation, as demonstrated by his command over the physical universe (Matthew 14:13-21; Mark 4:35-41; John 2:1-11; 11:38-44). Only the one true God of the universe – who is not the god of pantheism – can exercise that kind of total control over the atomic structure and forces of nature.
Sub-Categories of Pantheism
Pantheism may be further divided into scientific pantheism, idealistic-monistic pantheism, and dualistic pantheism. The following descriptions note the primary differences.
__________________
Philippians 4:8-Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things.
Denonco këtë mesazh tek moderatorët | IP: e regjistruar
|
11 Shkurt 2013 20:50
Forumi Horizont > Tema Shoqërore > Gjuhët e Huaja > Gjuha Angleze > *Interesting articles* > A Survey Of Worldviews
