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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
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)
Lataster mentioned this panentheist option in response to Göcke (2013).
Grounding is a relation among entities, for instance, facts, events, or objects. In this essay, I refer above all to concrete objects.
See, e.g., Fine (2012) for a characterization of grounding.
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.
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.
See, e.g., Susskind (2006), Chapter 11. This view is compatible with the hunky hypothesis.
Morganti (2015) stressed this point.
Note that metaphysical infinitism could endorse the lack of just one closure.
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.
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: \( \underset{n\to \infty }{\lim } Sn=1 \).
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.’
Without referring to a hunky world, Cahoone (2009) proposed an argument of this kind.
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).
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.
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.
See, e.g., Mullins (2016) on this point.
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.
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).
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).
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.
Bohn, E. D. (2009a). An Argument against the Necessity of Unrestricted Composition. Analysis, 69(1), 27–31.
Bohn, E. D. (2009b). Must there be a top level? The Philosophical Quarterly, 59(235), 193–201.
Bousso, R., & Susskind, L. (2012). Multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics. Physical Review D, 85(4), 045007.
Braddon-Mitchell, D., & Miller, K. (2006). The physics of extended simples. Analysis, 66(3), 222–226.
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.
Cahoone, L. (2009). Arguments from nothing: God and quantum cosmology. Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, 44(4), 777–796.
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.
Clayton, P. (2010). Panentheisms east and west. Sophia, 49(2), 183–191.
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.
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.
Göcke, B. P. (2013). Panentheism and classical theism. Sophia, 52(1), 61–75.
Göcke, B. P. (2014). Reply to Raphael Lataster. Sophia, 53(3), 397–400.
Göcke, B. P. (2015). Another reply to Raphael Lataster. Sophia, 54(1), 99–102.
Göcke, B. P. (2017). Concepts of god and models of the god-world relation. Philosophy Compass, 12(2), e12402.
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.
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.
Lataster, R. (2014). The attractiveness of panentheism—a reply to Benedikt Paul Göcke. Sophia, 53(3), 389–395.
Lataster, R. (2015a). Theists misrepresenting panentheism—another reply to Benedikt Paul Göcke. Sophia, 54(1), 93–98.
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.
Levine, M. (1994). Pantheism: a non-theistic concept of deity. London: Routledge.
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.
Lewis, D. (1986). On the plurality of worlds. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
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.
Morganti, M. (2015). Dependence, justification and explanation: must reality be well-founded? Erkenntnis, 80(3), 555–572.
Mormann, T. (2014). Set theory, topology, and the possibility of junky worlds. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 55(1), 79–90.
Mullins, R. T. (2016). The difficulty with demarcating panentheism. Sophia, 55(3), 325–346.
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.
Schaffer, J. (2010). Monism: the priority of the whole. Philosophical Review, 119(1), 31–76.
Schaffer, J. (2016). Grounding in the image of causation. Philosophical Studies, 173(1), 49–100.
Susskind, L. (2006). The cosmic landscape: string theory and the illusion of intelligent design. New York: Little, Brown.
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.
Tognazzini, N. A. (2006). Simples and the possibility of discrete space. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 84(1), 117–128.
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.
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
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rodighiero, R. Hunky Panentheism. SOPHIA 58, 581–596 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-018-0693-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-018-0693-2