Non-Anthropomorphic Immanent God = Atheism?

[SalixIncendium]

Not in the original Arabic and Persian writings concerning Islam and the Baha'i Faith.

The reason 'it' is not used in the writings translated into English to refer to God, because by definition it refers to the impersonal or lifeless subjects.

You mean impersonal and lifeless like how a fluffy kitten purrs when in the company of its mother?

Or how a tiger stalks its prey?

I see no issue with using 'It' (capitalized) when referring to a gender neutral God. It professes gender neutrality while showing respect and reverence.

 

[shunyadragon]

What point are you trying to make here? That religion cannot use gender-neutral English terms? Or that it refuses to?

No, because gender neutral pronouns in English refer to the impersonal and the lifeless. The references concerning animals is impersonal. Your neglecting the fact that the original writings are gender neutral as a matter of fact, and simply English convention concerning the pronouns used in translation.

All Baha'is and Muslims know the original text is gender neutral, and even realize that the true meaning can only be understood with explanations of the original text and not translations alone.

 

[shunyadragon]

What point are you trying to make here? That religion cannot use gender-neutral English terms? Or that it refuses to?

To add, it is possible that religions could use them, but it does not suit the translation of the text.

The problem is the neutral pronouns like 'it' have never been used for respect and reverence in the English language.

It is a fact in the English language the male pronouns may be used for gender neutral references. This may change in the future, but it remains a fact of the English language that this is the case,

 

[idav]

I originally posted the whole definition and it was you who chose to cite it partially.

Pantheists are free to believe what they want so long as it satisfies the definition, all is god, otherwise it is a different type of theism. You said yourself "all is God" covers all sorts of monist beliefs, that's the point, that's what umbrella terms do. Do you not believe your own words?

 

[shunyadragon]

Pantheists are free to believe what they want so long as it satisfies the definition, all is god, otherwise it is a different type of theism. You said yourself "all is God" covers all sorts of monist beliefs, that's the point, that's what umbrella terms do. Do you not believe your own words?

Of course, I believe my own words, and yes it is more than obvious as the sky is Carolina blue on a clear day at noon on the fourth of July that 'anyone is free to believe as they wish and define their belief as they chose.' That is not remotely the question at hand.

 

[idav]

What you are describing is Spinoza's panentheist world view, which is similar to Hinduism. I cited Spinoza's definition of pantheism, which is not necessarily what Spinoza believed.

Are pantheists obligated to use cosmos instead of "all" because of Spinoza? Then continue to ignore the pertinent parts suggesting cosmos is a metaphor.

 

[shunyadragon]

Are pantheists obligated to use cosmos instead of "all" because of Spinoza? Then continue to ignore the pertinent parts suggesting cosmos is a metaphor.

We are not discussing what pantheists are obligated to believe.

Spinoza makes no reference to the cosmos as a metaphor in the citation I gave. Also Spinoza's definition more than sufficiently agrees with other definitions of pantheism..

 

[idav]

We are not discussing what pantheists are obligated to believe.

Spinoza makes no reference to the cosmos as a metaphor in the citation I gave. Also Spinoza's definition more than sufficiently agrees with other definitions of pantheism..

Ok well it wasn't describing god as an allegory, cosmos are real, you live in it. It's called a metaphor. The word greater suggests cosmos is a metaphor.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok well it wasn't describing god as an allegory, cosmos are real, you live in it. It's called a metaphor. The word greater suggests cosmos is a metaphor.

Well ok, no, the use of God in Spinoza's definition does not fit a transcendent God.

No, the word 'greater' does not suggest cosmos is a metaphor. It simply refers to cosmos in its greatest extent possible even beyond the present limits of our scientific knowledge. Nonetheless cosmos=physical existence, and not the transcendent by definition.

 

[idav]

Nonetheless cosmos=physical existence, and not the transcendent by definition.

Cause you say "physical" existence doesn't mean much. The physical includes the spiritual in my opinion. The universe is trascendant of space time making the universe eternal and omnipresent, by definition that equals god, quite literally.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not in the original Arabic and Persian writings concerning Islam and the Baha'i Faith.

The reason 'it' is not used in the writings translated into English to refer to God, because by definition it refers to the impersonal or lifeless subjects.

And so to capture the fact that Muslims and Baha'i have imbued God with the human characteristics of personhood and life, we use "He."

 

[shunyadragon]

And so to capture the fact that Muslims and Baha'i have imbued God with the human characteristics of personhood and life, we use "He."

No, the use of 'He' in English translations is the accepted used of 'He' in the English language as a gender neutral pronoun. It is the accepted use of 'He' in this context. The original writings in Persian were gender neutral.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, the use of 'He' in English translations is the accepted used of 'He' in the English language as a gender neutral pronoun. It is the accepted use of 'He' in this context. The original writings in Persian were gender neutral.

But you just said that the original Persian included the ideas of personhood and life... both of which are human attributes.

 

[shunyadragon]

But you just said that the original Persian included the ideas of personhood and life... both of which are human attributes.

Hold on! Your jumping around here. 'Ideas of personhood and life? Well yes, but I did not say that.

Ideas of person hood and life are in terms of human spiritual existence and not God.

Person hood and life do not remotely define God, they are attributes of Creation and humanity Created by God.

 

[atanu]

What you are describing is Spinoza's panentheist world view, which is similar to Hinduism. I cited Spinoza's definition of pantheism, which is not necessarily what Spinoza believed.

I do not know that Spinoza defined Pantheism. Can you please point me to that definition and the source, if possible?

 

[shunyadragon]

I do not know that Spinoza defined Pantheism. Can you please point me to that definition and the source, if possible?

I posted this on the first page of the thread:

From: Panentheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
For Spinoza the claim that God is the same as the cosmos is spelled out as the thesis that there exists one and only one particular substance which he refers to as ‘God or nature’; the individual thing referred to as ‘God’ is one and the same object as the complex unit referred to as ‘nature’ or ‘the cosmos.’ On such a scheme the finite things of the world are thought of as something like parts of the one great substance, although the terminology of parts is somewhat problematic. Parts are relatively autonomous from the whole and from each other, and Spinoza’s preferred terminology of modes, which are to be understood as more like properties, is chosen to rectify this.

 

[atanu]

The concept of an apophatic unknowable God, as in the Baha'i Faith lacks any attribution of 'human' characteristics.' The undefinable Source some call God(s) in Vedic traditions called the Brahman, and in Taoism the Tao also lack attribution of human characteristics.

i disagree with the Dawkin's description of sexed up atheism, and part of the problem is that atheists and strong agnostics object to any 'ism that uses the word God. I believe the use of the word 'God' in this view is allegorical or figurative. I prefer Spinoza's description which is relatively simple and to the point.

From: Panentheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
For Spinoza the claim that God is the same as the cosmos is spelled out as the thesis that there exists one and only one particular substance which he refers to as ‘God or nature’; the individual thing referred to as ‘God’ is one and the same object as the complex unit referred to as ‘nature’ or ‘the cosmos.’ On such a scheme the finite things of the world are thought of as something like parts of the one great substance, although the terminology of parts is somewhat problematic. Parts are relatively autonomous from the whole and from each other, and Spinoza’s preferred terminology of modes, which are to be understood as more like properties, is chosen to rectify this.

I need to understand this. The OP is about non transcendence, whereas you refer to Panentheism. Can you please explain?

Furthermore as far as I know Spinoza did not define Pantheism. And it is also not correct that Spinoza’s philosophy was aligned to Pantheism. Spinoza’s philosophy was more like Panentheism, as the Stanford article shows.

 

[shunyadragon]

I need to understand this. The OP is about non transcendence, whereas you refer to Panentheism. Can you please explain?

The title is a bit misleading as to what followed.

The following post of yours brought about a comparison of pantheism and panentheism.

Actually what is meant by non-anthropomorphic? Is it lack of consciousness or is it lack of a form? A particular form can never be immanent -- all pervading. And, lack of consciousness is contrary to definition of God/Brahman, in Hindu, and in all other religions as per my understanding.

OTOH, regarding immanence, I think that what is immanent in the whole system ought to be transcendental too. Like, suppose, air. It is within and without all forms, yet it is distinct from all forms.

This resulted in what the views of Vedic traditions (Hinduism, Buddhim) consider as the non-anthropomorphic 'Source' versus those that describe an anthropomorphic 'Source' such as Christianity.

The non-anthropomorphic source of pantheism as simply our physical existence (cosmos=God) is contrasted with panentheism where the non-anthropomorphic 'Source' exists independent from our physical existence but intimately involved with our physical existence as some describe as the 'All is within God,' and 'God is within all.' This similar but not the same as the non-anthropomorphic 'Source' in Islam and the Baha'i Faith where this intimate relationship is described as Creation/Revelation.

I believe that non-anthropomorphic means lack of form from the transcendental view of panenthism, but in terms of pantheism the non-anthropomorphic form is our cosmos.

The question of consciousness is an interesting issue. Most forms of pantheism the 'Source' the non-anthropomorphic cosmos is without consciousness. While in panentheism the question is open as to whether a non-anthropomorphic transcendental 'Source' has consciousness.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hold on! Your jumping around here. 'Ideas of personhood and life? Well yes, but I did not say that.

Yes, you did:

The reason 'it' is not used in the writings translated into English to refer to God, because by definition it refers to the impersonal or lifeless subjects.

Ideas of person hood and life are in terms of human spiritual existence and not God.

Person hood and life do not remotely define God, they are attributes of Creation and humanity Created by God.

So...

- you refer to God as "Him" because "it" would imply God was impersonal or lifeless, but

- God is not personal or alive.

Is this supposed to make sense?

 

[shunyadragon]

- you refer to God as "Him" because "it" would imply God was impersonal or lifeless, but

- God is not personal or alive.

Is this supposed to make sense?

of course it will not make sense to you from the narrow perspective of an atheist.

The use of the male pronouns simply follows the English convention of using male pronouns for gender neutral pronouns in translation of the Persian which uses only gender neutral pronouns.

These remain terms such as impersonal, personal, lifeless or life, describe the natural and human condition and the condition of other forms of life in our physical existence and not God.

It is a matter of English convention that the pronouns such as 'it' are not used in this context.