In my continuation of explaining the 3 “p“s of natural theology, the second p of Naturalismppp is panentheism.

This term is often mistaken for “pantheism.” There is nothing wrong with a word like pantheism. It simply means God or gods are in every natural thing.

“Panentheism”, on the other hand, simply means all are in God. By “all”, I mean ALL….the universe(s), every living creature, every particle. Thus, via panentheism, all is contained in God and God experiences what everything experiences. This “everything experiences” is the concept of panexperientialism (the third “p“) which will be discussed later.

The God of panentheism is different from the Aristotelian God. Per Aristotle:

“For the most divine science is also most honourable; and this science alone
must be, in two ways, most divine. For the science which it would be most meet for God to have is a divine science, and so is any science that deals with divine objects; and this science alone has both these qualities; for (1) God is thought to be
among the causes of all things and to be a first principle, and (2) such a science either God alone can have, or God above all others.”

By the way, a great 1907 open access article about Aristotle’s God has been written that I highly recommend.

Let’s think about what Aristotle is saying here. God is the “Prime Mover” or the first cause / first principle. God is separate from the world (“God alone can have…”). Is God separate from creation? I would argue that creation IS IN GOD, i.e. panentheism. God is not some lofty ideal that is separate from us, looking down at us, judging us, or perhaps not understanding us as God would be the prime meaning of God and of existence. Perhaps, just perhaps, God is a mighty God that contains all of us. When we say, “I feel God beside me” or “I feel the Spirit within me”, then these are statements that parallel the idea of panentheism. Many religions express or contain such statements. I am Christian, and Christians often say such words not realizing that they are expressing panentheism.

Personally, I find having God in every moment with me, in me, and surrounding me somewhat peaceful. Perhaps, I am simply a mystic here, but God surrounding me and experiencing what I go through is much more reasonable (to me) compared to a separate “God above.”

One more thing……..

In my upcoming book, A Theology of the Microbiome (SacraSage Press), I talk about panentheism in the setting of the microbiome in much detail. It will be much more expansive than an earlier article about this idea that I wrote in God and Nature in 2020. The editors of God and Nature have kindly let me re-use a figure that I initially made to describe panexperientialism, but to be honest, it also conveys the idea of panentheism:

Nature, bacteria, the Earth, and humanity are all in God. It’s quite a lovely idea, IMO.

By the way, I’m heading off to do some kayaking with my spouse tomorrow. It is hot in the grand state of Utah, so we shall see how it goes. I will continue the Naturalismppp route to finish off the trifecta of “p“s. However, there is a small NEJM editorial that I may comment on this weekend.

Thank you for reading.

image generated by Meta AI

In order to understand the concept of God in the world without the need of the supernatural, the term Naturalismppp has been developed by Griffin. Three philosophical ideas (the three “p“s) with theological overlap can describe God in such a setting — prehension, panentheism, and panexperientialism.

It is completely reasonable to believe in supernatural events as seen in miracles described in the word’s religions. However, as science has progressed and more of nature is understood and explained, it is important to consider a concept of God being present IN NATURE as a theological explanation of the world and our existence.

Prehension: This term means the totality the possible. I like to consider it the pre-cognitive possibilities of outcomes over time. Thus, in the world of process philosophy and process theology (as well as the theological cousin, open and relational theology), time is the essential unit of reality and not matter. On a grander scale, change itself is the ultimate reality.

image created by Meta AI

Prehensions (or possibilities) come together / solidify over time in a process known as “concrescence” to form an actual occasion. The occasion is present and then passes. The universe moves on with prehension –> concrescence –> occasion –> repeating eternally.

I like to think of each occasion from the quark to the galaxy to have an eternal presence in God’s memory. In many ways, I find such a idea comforting.

One religious idea to add to the eminence of time is to consider a “divine lure“. Namely, God never forces an outcome but quietly suggests or lures for the good of all creation. Good could be characterized as creativity (not necessarily involving destruction), and creativity could be described as love. Bruce Epperly has described this type of divine love as majestic, overpowering in its love of creativity, and intertwining throughout all of nature. He states clearly:

“Love neither rules, nor is it unmoved; also it is a little oblivious as to morals. It does not look to the future; for it finds its own reward in the immediate presence.”

This is God expressed as eternal creativity in all of nature — all of it. This is pure love — beyond morals, beyond evil, beyond ethics, beyond absolutes. It may sound terrifying at first, but upon thinking that God wants the best of all entities in nature, this idea provides a theological foundation of God who wants (but does not force) the good.

In future posts, I will describe panentheism and panexperientialism.

image created by Meta AI

Morality — I put the idea right up there with consciousness in terms of items we don’t understand.

Many religious people are immoral as seen in world history. Some of the most moral people I have ever met are atheists.

War, murder, eating animals, tax evasion, not helping the poor, etc.: I would think that all of us think that such ideas are morally wrong yet we often do these things. It appears to be in our nature as a part of some genetic / epigenetic / societal “original sin”. Also, other creatures do these things — eating other animals is a huge part of animal life. Animals may even do very human-like things such as war.

Hence, I come to this 2015 on-line article by Leslie Allan in 2015. He states:

By the way, his essay is a great read. I highly recommend it.

Perhaps morality has BOTH an subjective and objective quality. In my new upcoming book, A Theology of the Microbiome, (SacraSage Press), I ask the reader to consider reality as a subjective-objective monad (or, a SO-Monad).

From the upcoming book:

One type of thought may be more important than the other at one point of time although both aspects of the SO-Monad continue to exist in and through time. Subjective and objective knowledge may change in importance, and at other times, subjectivity and objectivity knowledge may be of equal importance. Both are always present eternally, moving through time. God is present through all aspects of this SO-Monad via the divine lure through time.

Theology should emphasize God’s love in the appreciation of science. The SO-Monad can be seen as an attribution of this divine love. Thomas Jay Oord states “Thinking of ourselves as being composed of episodes or as a connected series of event-experiences is important for understanding central religious claims about love.”131 As an example, humans and many other animals demonstrate altruistic behavior. It does not matter whether such behavior is considered genetic, epigenetic, spiritual, or a combination of these factors. In fact, it is not at all clear if increased religiosity makes one more altruistic, suggesting that humans often misinterpret the divine lure.132 God’s love should be emphasized over religious fervor when caring for others and for the planet.

The existence of the SO-Monad is a theological argument, and perhaps, a philosophical argument. Needless to say, in our post-modern world, a better understanding of subjectivity is of immense importance. This need for understanding is especially important in the world of theology where religious people (such as me) can get very confused.

image made by Meta AI