Dialogue between a PanenDeist and a panentheist - 051209
Larry C. is building a model of reality which he calls ‘PanenDeism’. Like all thinkers participating on this site, Larry has put a great deal of thought into his model and is doing so for the betterment of humankind. Larry’s web sites: http://panendeism.com.futuresite.register.com/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/larrycopling/Introducing_Part_1.html
051209
Larry: You and I are on the very same page with this issue. But the earlier, supremely negative rantings of our friend in this forum about how the whole world seems to be going to "hell in a handbasket" (my term- not his) illustrates the very situation that has motivated me to seek another way of describing Deity and "faith traditions" in the first place.
I don't know about you, but I have discovered that those of whom I tend to agree with the most spiritually, I also tend to disagree with the most when it comes to economics or political ideology!
It may be because I am a "recovering Democrat" (I was raised in a home with a southern, "JFK Democrat" as a father who has also recently embraced modern conservatism as his political orientation). Perhaps I have "over-compensated" in my political views. But somewhere along the line I made a distinction between one's political views and spiritual views.
It occurred to me that there must be a way to merge the solid, rational ideas of American Conservatism (empowering the individual, small and limited governmental interference in one's personal life, free-market economics, etc.) with a more enlightened, rational approach to spirituality that is not tied to the middle-ages like classical Theism happens to be.
What if we could actually embrace nano-technology, quantum physics and AI (artificial intelligence) within our ideas of Spirituality? What would happen if we were no longer limited by bronze-age ideas like demons, devils, Heaven/Hell, "original sin", a "puppet-master" conception of God, etc.?
Can you imagine what kind of FREEDOM a spirituality like that would bring? If there were a way to "untether" a more libertarian or conservative social viewpoint from the clutches of our traditional Christian heritage, we could reach levels of awareness in science and religion that is currently unimaginable.
THAT is my motivation for developing "TransDeism"- a proposed "faith tradition" that is based upon the ideas of "PanenDeism".
PanenTheism is a wonderful advance beyond Classical Theism, but it is still, in my view, somewhat tied to the latter because Mr. Krause's original idea in developing the term was based upon his desire to merge the ideas of Classic Pantheism with those of Classic Theism- thus the word, "PanenTheism".
My intention in developing "PanenDeism" in late 1999 and early 2000 was to divorce the ideas of process thought from Classical Theism altogether. I honor my Christian heritage and respect the spiritual views of all seekers, but I honestly believe that there is a better way to define Deity.
Sorry about the long post here! I'll shutup now and let someone else have a say.
Dan: Welcome Larry,You say: 'Personally, the jury is still out on this issue. Although I take the side of the conservatives on Global Warming, I am very open to changing my position once compelling scientific evidence has been presented.'I agree with you.
If one keeps the historical time line of the earth in perspective, one cannot ignore the fact that the earth's climate has always been in a state of flux. It is only in geologically recent times that we have been involved with the ebb and flow of ice ages. During the time of the dinosaurs there were not ice caps, no glaciers.
Plant life and animal life thrived for millions of years. Now one may state: Yes, but look what happened to them! That is true but it is also true it was not global warming that caused them to become extinct.
The latest scientific theory espouses their demise was initiated by a natural apocalyptic event, namely: a meteor strike.To unequivocally state that it is man who is changing the climate and bringing about his own demise is in my opinion, which by the way is supported by many scientists, a little pretentious at this point.
The point: Man often gets caught up in his own vanity.
Larry: There is a nagging dispute in America concerning the "global warming" issue. Generally, those on the political left accept the scientific explanation of global warming and embrace it.
Those on the political right generally do not embrace it- not because it doesn't exist, but because the scientific community is not generally agreed as to the veracity of the proposition in the first place.
In other words, those on the right are ready to accept any scientific conclusion that has "passed muster" of the peer review process and is demonstrably viable. They are not willing, however, to allow liberals to use the "global warming" proposition as an economic lever, in order to advance more costly social programs that will further restrict business freedoms and individual rights.
Personally, the jury is still out on this issue. Although I take the side of the conservatives on Global Warming, I am very open to changing my position once compelling scientific evidence has been presented.
Stephen: Moderator: Fundamentalism is hampering global efforts to tackle climate change,
In his final speech as president of the Royal Society, Lord May of Oxford said that scientists must speak out against the climate change "denial lobby."
He warned that core scientific values are "under serious threat from resurgent fundamentalism, West and East."
Lord May completed his five-year term as president of the UK'sacademy of science in November 2005.Source: BBC News
