Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Hunky Panentheism

  • Published:
Sophia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Panentheism, a frequently discussed view in recent theological debate, claims that the world is ‘in God’ but that God is ‘more than’ the world. Different theories of the structure of the world produce distinct panentheist views. According to the hunky structure, the world is composed of an infinite number of layers and lacks an ungrounded level. To depict this model, I employ the concepts of ‘grounding’ and ‘emergence.’ The outcome is that if the world is hunky and material reality emerges from such a structure, the world can be in God, but the model of God the Creator is dismissed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See, e.g., Clayton (2010), Lataster (2014, 2015a), and Göcke (2017). For an overview of panentheism across world traditions, see Cooper (2007) and Biernacki and Clayton (2014); see also articles in a special issue of Sophia on panentheism wherein a number of panentheistic views are discussed (e.g., Indian panentheisms), Vol. 49(2), 2010. Also see, Lataster and Bilimoria (2018)

  2. Lataster mentioned this panentheist option in response to Göcke (2013).

  3. Grounding is a relation among entities, for instance, facts, events, or objects. In this essay, I refer above all to concrete objects.

  4. See, e.g., Fine (2012) for a characterization of grounding.

  5. See Schaffer (2010) on this topic. A rival position is existence monism, in which just one concrete thing exists: the whole. All the plurality is merely an illusion.

  6. One of the main strands of controversy regarding classical extensional mereology concerns mereological universalism, which is rejected in a hunky perspective. On this topic, see, e.g., Cotnoir (2014) and Mormann (2014).

  7. Following a suggestion by Thomas Aquinas, ‘necesse est totum esse prius parte, ordine scilicet naturae et perfectionis. Sed hoc intelligendum est de parte materiae’ (Aquinas 1966: I, lect.1, n. 38). Here, the totality of things is prior to its proper parts.

  8. See, e.g., Susskind (2006), Chapter 11. This view is compatible with the hunky hypothesis.

  9. Morganti (2015) stressed this point.

  10. Note that metaphysical infinitism could endorse the lack of just one closure.

  11. See Clayton (2006) for a description of these features, which can be understood in a weak or strong sense. Weak emergence entails grounding, whereas strong emergence seems incompatible with grounding.

  12. See also Morganti (2015) on this topic. The series is: \( Sn=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{4}+\cdots +\frac{1}{2^n} \). The original length is achieved only in the limit: \( \underset{n\to \infty }{\lim } Sn=1 \).

  13. In this view, extended simples are relative to universes in that extended simples are differently sized between universes. I will return to this topic in ‘Infinite Grounding Chains, Emergence, and Panentheism.’

  14. Without referring to a hunky world, Cahoone (2009) proposed an argument of this kind.

  15. In the words of Aquinas, ‘Creator et creatura reducuntur in unum, non communitate univocationis sed analogiae’. The commonality that refers to the analogy is described as follows: ‘creatura enim non habet esse nisi secundum quod a primo ente descendit, nec nominatur ens nisi inquantum ens primum imitatur’ (1929, I Prol.q1.a2.ad2).

  16. Moltmann (1985) referred to the Kabbalistic notion of zimzum for which there is a self-limitation internal to God that makes room for all creation.

  17. This attempted absorption of panentheism into classical theism has been criticized by, e.g., Lataster (2014, 2015a), who objected to God’s concept as defended by Göcke (2013, 2014, 2015).

  18. This panentheist view denies an ontological division between God and the multiplicity. However, it does not avoid the criticism of ontological dualism that derives from the idea, claimed by any type of panentheism, that the physical world is not exhaustive of the divine being. Accordingly, there are ‘at least two ontological categories: matter and spirit’ (Leidenhag 2013, p. 977). Pantheism overcomes this criticism.

  19. See, e.g., Mullins (2016) on this point.

  20. See, e.g., Tegmark (2004) and Bousso and Susskind (2012). This view, which develops Lewis’ modal realism (1986) in mathematical terms, connects quantum mechanics, general relativity, and cosmology.

  21. Quantum mechanics describes reality in terms of wave functions, which assign amplitudes to all the possibilities that can be observed. In the Copenhagen interpretation, when a wave function collapses, one possibility prevails over the others. For MWI, the wave function never collapses; thus, every possible outcome actually happens, each in a parallel universe. For some physicists (e.g., Tegmark 2004), the evolution of the world is described using a universal wave function that contains an infinite number of possibilities.

  22. For more on this topic, see Malin (2012), who noted that ‘the suggestion that during a collapse nature makes a choice is reminiscent of Plotinus’s idea that nature contemplates’ (2012, p. 125).

  23. Whitehead is one eminent forefather of point-free space. Recently, Whiteheadean space has been attacked. Alternative options are possible. On this topic, see Russell (2008).

  24. If there is a minimal region that lacks proper subregions, there is no place for the proper parts of an object that occupies the minimal region (Tognazzini 2006).

References

  • Aquinas, T. (1882–). Sancti Thomae Aquinatis Doctoris Angelici. Opera Omnia. Iussu Leonis XIII. Rome: Vatican Polyglot Press.

  • Aquinas, T. (1929). Scriptum super Libros Sententiarum, P. Mandonnet (ed.), Paris: Lethielleux.

  • Aquinas, T. (1966). In Octo Libros Politicorum Aristotelis Expositio, R. M. Spiazzi (ed.), Turin-Rome: Marietti.

  • Biernacki, L., & Clayton, P. (Eds.). (2014). Panentheism across the World's traditions. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohn, E. D. (2009a). An Argument against the Necessity of Unrestricted Composition. Analysis, 69(1), 27–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohn, E. D. (2009b). Must there be a top level? The Philosophical Quarterly, 59(235), 193–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bousso, R., & Susskind, L. (2012). Multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics. Physical Review D, 85(4), 045007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braddon-Mitchell, D., & Miller, K. (2006). The physics of extended simples. Analysis, 66(3), 222–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrell, D. B. (2010). The act of creation with its theological consequences. In D. B. Burrell, C. Cogliati, J. M. Soskice, & W. R. Stoeger (Eds.), Creation and the god of Abraham (pp. 40–53). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cahoone, L. (2009). Arguments from nothing: God and quantum cosmology. Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, 44(4), 777–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clayton, P. (1997). God and Contemporary Science. Edimburgh. University Press.

  • Clayton, P. (2006). Conceptual foundations of emergence theory. In P. Clayton & P. Davies (Eds.), The re-emergence of emergence. The Emergentist hypothesis from science to religion (pp. 1–34). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clayton, P. (2010). Panentheisms east and west. Sophia, 49(2), 183–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, J. W. (2007). Panentheism. The Other God of the Philosophers. From Plato to the present. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

  • Cotnoir, A. J. (2014). Universalism and junk. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 92(4), 649–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fine, K. (2012). Guide to ground. In F. Correia & B. Schnieder (Eds.), Metaphysical grounding (pp. 37–80). Cambridge University Press.

  • Ford, L. S. (1991). Contrasting conceptions of creation. The Review of Metaphysics, 45(1), 89–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Göcke, B. P. (2013). Panentheism and classical theism. Sophia, 52(1), 61–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Göcke, B. P. (2014). Reply to Raphael Lataster. Sophia, 53(3), 397–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Göcke, B. P. (2015). Another reply to Raphael Lataster. Sophia, 54(1), 99–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Göcke, B. P. (2017). Concepts of god and models of the god-world relation. Philosophy Compass, 12(2), e12402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, D. R. (2004). Panentheism: a postomodern revelation. In P. Clayton & A. Peacock (eds.), In whom we live and move and have our being: panentheistic reflections on God’s presence in a scientific world, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 36–47.

  • Kaufmann, G. G. (2007). A religious interpretation of emergence: creativity as god. Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, 42(4), 915–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, P. (2005). Infinitism is the solution to the regress problem. In M. Steup & E. Sosa (Eds.), Contemporary debates in epistemology (pp. 131–140). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lataster, R. (2014). The attractiveness of panentheism—a reply to Benedikt Paul Göcke. Sophia, 53(3), 389–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lataster, R. (2015a). Theists misrepresenting panentheism—another reply to Benedikt Paul Göcke. Sophia, 54(1), 93–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lataster, R. (2015b). Pantheistic God-concepts: ancient, contemporary, popular and plausible alternatives to classical theism. Literature & Aesthetics, 25(1), 65–82.

  • Lataster. R., & Bilimoria, P. (2018). Panentheism(s): what it is and is not. Journal of World Philosophies, 3(2), 49–64.

  • Leidenhag, M. (2013). The relevance of emergence theory in the science-religion dialogue. Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, 48(4), 966–983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, M. (1994). Pantheism: a non-theistic concept of deity. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, M. (2013). Introduction to ultimate reality. In J. Diller & A. Kasher (Eds.), Models of god and alternative ultimate realities (pp. 603–614). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. (1986). On the plurality of worlds. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malin, S. (2012). Nature loves to hide. Quantum physics and the nature of reality, a Western perspective. (Revised edition). Singapore: World Scientific.

  • Moltmann, J. (1985). God in creation: a new theology of creation and the spirit of god. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morganti, M. (2015). Dependence, justification and explanation: must reality be well-founded? Erkenntnis, 80(3), 555–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mormann, T. (2014). Set theory, topology, and the possibility of junky worlds. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 55(1), 79–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullins, R. T. (2016). The difficulty with demarcating panentheism. Sophia, 55(3), 325–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, J. S. (2008). The structure of gunk: adventures in the ontology of space. In D. Zimmerman (Ed.), Oxford studies in metaphysics (Vol. 4, pp. 248–274). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaffer, J. (2010). Monism: the priority of the whole. Philosophical Review, 119(1), 31–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaffer, J. (2016). Grounding in the image of causation. Philosophical Studies, 173(1), 49–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Susskind, L. (2006). The cosmic landscape: string theory and the illusion of intelligent design. New York: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tegmark, M. (2004). Parallel universes. In J. D. Barrow, P. C. W. Davies, & C. L. Harper (Eds.), Science and ultimate reality (pp. 459–491). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tognazzini, N. A. (2006). Simples and the possibility of discrete space. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 84(1), 117–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, A. N. (1929). Process and reality: an essay in cosmology. Corrected edition (1978), D. R. Griffin and D. W. Sherburne (eds.), New York: Free Press.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Via E. Mattei 60 - 10040 Leinì, Turin, Italy

    Roberto Rodighiero

Authors
  1. Roberto Rodighiero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roberto Rodighiero.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rodighiero, R. Hunky Panentheism. SOPHIA 58, 581–596 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-018-0693-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-018-0693-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation