I haven't read the book, but I'm scratching my head about hylotheism being the same as pantheism.  Or maybe not.

let me just work this out - Pantheism - "God" is part of/in everything, not outside of it (now, what is God - is it Spirit, is it the instinct for betterment/evolution/greatergood?)

hylotheism - "God" is (actually) the matter, the everything - is that right?  if that is the case, it is different from pantheism perhaps - it seems to lack a 'spirit/goodness' and is only existence.

and these are different from panentheism - "God" is in & around everything, spirit/goodness (or a personality God, if you'd rather) connecting it but exists whether 'everything' exists or not?  (is that pretty good?)

I don't know- I don't hear hylotheism as a real 'theism' - I hear it more as just a respect of matter/creation/existence.  Perhaps in 'respect', there is something higher/ theistic-like  compared to a generalized acceptance of a place in a material world.  Maybe?

But I haven't read the book yet, so is there more to it?

I have read Richard Dawkins, heard him speak, and seen him interviewed several times.  In my opinion, he is a deeply troubled man for reasons I cannot discern and this has made him into an angry bigot.  He knows nothing about religion and society and not a lot about history.  I would feel more sorry for him if he were not responsible for fanning the flames of hatred.  

I've read Dawkins and heard him speak. In my opinion he is an enlightened individual, substantiated by the works he has produced both in the scientific community and in popluar media. His positions are well articulated and evidenced, unlike the bigoted accusations of his critics. He knows substantially more about religion and society than his critics tend to know about his professional specialty in evolutionary biology and genetics. I feel proud of him in his efforts to give a public voice to the growing number of us who are weary of the hatred fanned by religiousity and ignorance.

LL&P

Spock

<aside>

I know this doesn't apply to the topic of the thread, but I think both Spock and Flitcraft are right to some degree: Dawkins is a very intelligent and knowledgeable man with a good understanding of religion and society, but he is also very angry/bitter a lot of the time...

What's wrong with being angry and bitter?

When warranted, they are natural emotions.  Are you saying that Dawkins has a psychological problem of some sort??

LL&P

Spock

Many of his words and talks are freely available on the web.  Explain where and why you call him "angry" or "bitter".  "Exasperated" might be a better choice in some of his moments, but overall I think he approaches the subject with great humour.

Ditto, based on what I can discern at this point...

In the words of Mr. Spock (of Star Trek), "fascinating".  This issue warrants further research.

I didn't say it was wrong to be angry and bitter. Might be if you act out of anger instead of acting rationally, but I don't think he does that.

Hylotheism...

A word, created to incorporate "theism" into something just to keep the word, "god" alive in a definition.

Useless endeavour.

LL&P

Spock

Chansen,

I would agree with exasperated, but might favour the word "annoyed,"

If you have read him or seen him interviewed and haven't seen the bitter side of him, then what I would present to you wouldn't convince you either.

I don't want to derail this into a Dawkins topic, but come on. The man is either genuinely bitter, or faking it to get publicity.

"Who will say with confidence that child sexual abuse is more permanently damaging to children than threatening them with the eternal and unquenchable fires of hell?"

Richard Dawkins

Hello everyone:

Holotheism, Hylotheism, Unitheism, Syntheism, Pantheism—they all are forms of atheism because they regard the the ceaseless creativity of the universe as a natural part of the universe and do away with the supernatural God.

As far as Dawkins is concerned, I'm just beginning to read his book "The GOD Delusion." I think he is writing from an anti-religious bias which is not very conducive to the point he is making. I, as a member of organized Christian religion, could argue better against Christian religion than he.

And, being the atheist that I am, I could argue just as convincingly against atheism.

When the medieval mystic, Meister Eckhart, was asked what he prayed for, he answered: "I pray to God to rid me of God."

So he's bitter. So what's your point??

His quote was legitimate. Both threats to a child are cruel and tragic.

The problem with Dawkins is not that he thinks things like the threat of eternal hell is bad for children.  I agree with him.  The problem with Dawkins is that he assumes this point of view sums up Christianity which, as any Christian knows, it doesn't.  He is a great scientist but knows squat about religion, history and society.  He approaches the topic like a set of abstract statements, which it isn't. 

He should stick to what he knows.  His opinions on religion are as informed as mine on subatomic particles.  I don't presume to be an expert yet, despite his protests to the contrary, this is exactly what he does, to the point of implying that those who don't agree with him are deluded.

But yah, let's not let poor Dawkins derail the topic.  I won't say any more about him.  I will just pray for him.   :>)

Back to Holotheism, which is the topic of this thread, and actually is my kind of theism.

Holotheism regards the universe as an inseperable whole, or holon, which contains holons within holons within holons, etc., right down to pure energy, which is a singularity, just as the supra holon, a.k.a. universe, or God, is a singularity.

Cosmic energy is a singularity which possesses the creative power to transcend itself while remaining what it is. Thus, the cosmic singularity became plurality and diversity while remaining a singularity.

This, in a nutshell, is Holotheism—as I would explain it. I never actually read anything about it.

Spock, my post was in response to one that argued he was not bitter. The quote, to me, clearly shows an imbalance in his thinking. While I agree that filling children with fear of fire and brimstone is harmful, at it's mainstream level I could never, ever support a position that says it is as harmful as sexual abuse. I find that to be a disgusting comparison.

As far as holotheism... I haven't wrapped my head around the various descriptions. I understand Arminius' explanation, which to me allows for a concept of God (singularity/plurality) but previous descriptions seem to indicate no room for a God concept... which is it (or is it both)?

i know someone who was angry & bitter for a long long time, with good reason.  He came from a family that was angry & bitter for good reasons (WW2).

The atheism he felt came from rejecting a God that could intervene but chose not to, and all the people who felt they would worship that God, because they were supposed to, and God must have a plan somewhere.  The people became the religion became the image of God that was rejected.

That is not an objective image of religion/god/hope/possibility/experience at all.  And so if anger & bitterness fuel the research & explanations, it is not easily objective.

As that person has healed his heart over many years, and much by accident & discovery, his atheism has softened into an interest in Spong & Borg & such visions of how a GOD might not be so vile.

So - nothing wrong with anger & bitterness - it is what it is and comes from honest places sometimes.  But it isn't enough if pursuing something the way Dawkins does, especially when used with little objectivity around people's experiences.

Holotheism  - I generally agree that it sounds like an excuse to keep some glimmer of "god" alive.

That said, I can believe a more panentheist image, and then again, if I follow the process thought train my well-learned friend led me through last year, I might just toss it all out, say if there is a God, it won't matter much, and then I'll just try to be nice anyway.  Big deal one way or the other.

Hi cate:

It is both, cate, always both.

As you know, I am not a man of either/or, but both. However, sometimes one has to stand up and be counted, and I totally share your disgust at comparing fillings children's minds with fear of hellfire to sexual abuse.

Sure, the traditionalist Christian motivators of fear, guilt, and shame can be—and often are—psychologically crippling, but this is in no way comparable to sexual abuse. Moreover, these aspects of traditionalist Christian education are no longer practiced by most modern Christian parents and educators, and this is another indicator of how ignorant Dawkins is of modern, liberal and progressive Christianity.

Coming back to holotheism. All these theisms that are indicative of a self-generative universe, such as pantheism, unitheism, syntheism, holotheism, even panentheism, could be regarded as atheism—if theism is defined as the belief in a separate, supernatural God.

Thus, holotheism could be both theism and atheism.

Atheism in the name of God  

-Allan Watts

Arminius, thanks for the help.

You say, "Thus, holotheism could be both theism and atheism." This is why I like using the acronym 'GØD'; it covers both concepts.

What does that acronym stand for?

Hi cate:

The Ø in GØD stands for Zero, or Infinity: atheist definitions of what Christians think of as God.

But I'm not speaking on RevKing's behalf; this is only my definition. RevKing will have to answer for himself.

So it's not technically an acronym per se... more like that symbol that Prince took on when he changed his name

The symbol Ø doesn't mean zero or infinity, Arminius, it's the common symbol for the empty set.

What is the "empty set," nighthawk? Nothingness? The "dark void" of Budhhism? The nothing that became everything, and contains everything, and, in a manner of speaking, is everything?

Oops, double posting! Sorry.

Birthstone and Nighthawk ( suggests?) there are important questions about the issue of worship - nothingness is not everything - it is when the material reality is shown to what it reality is nothingness and so why attach oneself to it.

There is another concept of part-whole holarchy which suggests that the material world is made up of sentient reality - actual entities - individuals and the world is a collection of these realities.  The next question is "It is a noun meaning the doctrine of belief that matter is God, or that there is no God except matter and the universe; pantheism. " If it is a form of pantheism then either material reality is nothing or all reality is God, but not in the sense of God as an actual entity   The religious question is how to worship matter?

God is more a verb - interactive - receiving and giving an aim to each moment.

Again, to beat a dead horse, panentheism allows one to still have a worship experience in the idea that sentience is the experience of all actual entities including God - God being the supreme illustration.   God is related to the world and the world is related to God and both are in one another - this allows the experience of being individual as well as being related - self -in - the world. 

Dawkins is a strict materialist/mechanist so it would not be fair to his position to say  "In my opinion, Richard Dawkins is more of a hylotheist than an atheist"   The point is language means something - ideas mean something.   We may want to be inclusive but let us let the other be what they say they are.  In person we can offer a suggestion in "this is what I mean and hear in what you say - does it connect?" In this way we get more understanding - Also I understand that to be an atheist and a theist is a way of saying I don't believe in classical theism and here is my sense of the divine.  But in the end one has to come back to some model ( theory) of what is meant by God and thus one is not within the definition of being an atheist  but a new theist.

Hi pan: The "nothingness" that I mentioned, and that gives birth to everything, and in a manner of speaking is everything, is, of course, not an absolute nothing, but unquantified, eternal energy, which possesses the creator power to transcend its unquantfied state and quantify itself, and further transcend its quantified forms into ever higher forms, all the while transcending and including what it was before, so that the original unquantified energy is still in everything, and is everything. The transcendental power could either be an innate quality energy, which would be pantheism, or the transcendental quality is just there, and uses energy, which would be panentheism.

I have read parts of Dawkins book..  My own personal opinion is that he should stick to his field of science.  His ignorance concerning religion is absolutely astounding..  He struck me as an angry ranting scientist.  He is just another fundamentalist atheist.

Shalom

Mate

Yes, Mate, I quite agree. Although he seems to be an impeccable scientist, he does not make a good case against religion.

He could actually make a better case against religion if he were more informed about religion.

I think science-based spirituality would be the best case against fundamentalist religion. But if he argued that, he would already be in the camp of progressive religion, of which he, like some other rabidly anti-religious scientists, appears to be largely ignorant.

In many ways we agree - and let me say in my words where I see the agreement:   There is a reality that is both transcendent and omnipresent - that is, is  experienced in everything.  That reality is experienced in every moment even if one says it is not there.  The religious task is to make that reality more vivid or accessible to each person, to join with that reality in the becoming of the world.( Co-creators)

So when I use the word nothingness I use it in the sense of the mystic or the buddhist - one moves toward non being - to let go of ego - or in the buddhist sense detach oneself from that which is empty in reality toward emptiness as the real, also to lose ego but as well the world.

In either case there are practices that move one toward that experience.  In the christian mystic sense, one does move toward fullness within reality to experience the omnipresence of love or the really real.   Now to make this experience more vivid and rich one does move to 'religious' language and here we can use a panentheism model of God - God who is personally concerned with reality - in one sense has an aim toward beauty and increased experience ( which can be ingored) and the religious task is to attach oneself to that lure, which is not to nothingness but fullness.   This is why I suggest language is crucial for the practice of worship and why we still need to explore what we mean by God so we have faith in God.  The health of the christian church requires faith in God and it is hard to have faith in God as long as the modern world view dominates our thinking. ( So the practice of nothingness could be to detach ourselves from that world view)  We do need to break with the old models of thinking about God which either give us non realistic views or merely immanent views -

The issue for theology is how to affirm  God as agent but who is not the only cause of what is. 

Hi Pan:

I regard God not just as the original cause but as the creative agent that is behind the ceaseless creativity in the world. And we humans, who are consciously aware of that ceaseless creative process, are God's co-creators in the process.

It is difficult if not impossible to precisely define God. If the direct experience of God were more encouraged—through meditation, centering prayer, or similar practices— then God would be easier to conceptualize and understand. And, most importantly, the relational aspect of our relationship with God would be experienced directly rather than understood abstractly.

That's why I've been pushing mystical experience ever since I joined wondercafe. But in a largely doctrinal religion, mysticism is a hard sell.

Of course God is both the originating aim and the lure in each moment - so your first sentence is one that I affirm - I speak of the experience of God which is mystical in one sense and feeling in another and language helps make that vivid - so where you speak of doctrinal religion I use the word dogmatic - for doctrine is an evolving context of language to help us feel the experience, and thus is always been revised.

Hi Pan:

I keep forgetting about that fine line dividing doctrine from dogma.

Dogma is doctrine that has hardened into absolute, unchanging truth, whereas soft doctrine evolves as new insights arise. Doctrines, ideally, are a set of collective explanations that are constantly evolving. I imagine that Process Theology and Panentheism fit that description.

We do, of course, need doctrines. Purely experiential or mystical spirituality is not for everyone. Even in Buddhism, which has an official, purely mystical school, few individuals tread that path.

Cate, the G--and this is just my opinion--stands for the actual and potential Good in all things--physical, mental and spiritual.

Ø, in my opinion, stands for the Order of things as explored by the sciences. In a non-science sense, one could just use O.

Interestingly, the symbol came to my mind in 2005, before I was told by a fellow poster in a science forum that it is a mathematical symbol called the null.

Then I checked out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_symbols

I found: ∅ means the set with no elements. { } means the same thing. I assume it is like the point in calculus; it has no dimensions.

Interestingly, the great inventor Nicola Tesla, who wrote about religion, said, "God has no properties." Do a google search and you will find that Tesla was a very spiritually-minded scientist who, with his invention of AC electricity, gave us the technology as to how to put hydro power to practical use.  He was the son of an Orthodox priest, and also said that Christianity and Buddhism, put together, would make for the best philosophy of religion.

D, all that we find Desirable, the beautiful, the true and the  well-designed.

When push comes to shove, do not all humane people want a universe filled with Goodness, Order and that which is Desirable?

In my opinion, GOD, or GØD is too large a hypothesis or concept to be contained in even a proper noun. For me, it avoids the danger of  athropomorphism--the tendency to create a god in our own image.
=================================

BTW, when I think of GØD as the one idea behind all that is, I can think as a theist; when I think of GØD as the point or unit of all things, I think as a unitheist; when I think of GØD as the whole, which contains and interpentrates all things, I think as a holotheist. I suppose that, guided by the love principle, it is possible to see GØD in all things: as do the polytheists. After all, as Bible scholars tell us: Moses was actually a henotheist--My God (YAHWEH) can beat up on your god.

REALITY, EXCEPT IN THE ABSOLUTE SENSE OF THE WORD, IS NOT JUST ONE THING

============================

I have this theory--and I am sure it is not unique with me--that every single living creature--with any level of consciousness--including human beings, animals and insects are constantly creating holograms of what they perceive reality to be. And, especially for human beings, it can happen moment by moment. Even people who live together in families, or as husband and wife, do not perceive of things--physical, mental or spiritual--in exactly the same way. Perhaps we are incapable to perceiving the absolute--GØD. I find that the process philosophy and theology of Alfred North Whitehead--do a google search on this name--is very helpful here in understanding the idea that we--including what we call God--are all in the process of becoming, ad infinitum.

We are constantly creating the hologram of reality we need: If we need a father it is easy to think of God as the Father, a loving heavenly father, especially if we were raised by one who was loving. But what if father was a drunk who beat your loving mother. What then?

Perhaps there are those of us who need a Mother, a Child, a Lover, or just a Friend. This why I feel it is so important for us to be careful not to impose our holograms on others. Some of us need a god who lords it over us, and judges us and forgives our sins when we repent and bow before him. I could be a cynic and say: There are even those of us who need things: power, property, fame and wealth. Some of us even need to be our own god and have all the answers.

Some very creative people are so good at hologram thinking that we think of them as having illusions and being deluded, even insane. They think of themselves as philosophers, scientists, artists, geniuses, or even clergy  mediators of the power and love of God. Within limits--limits set by the Golden Rule and the quality of agape/Love--it is okay, IMO, to have illusions and to be deluded. My hologram tells me, sincerely held good illusions will not bar us from what Being has in store for us.

BTW, atheists, with respect: Tell us about the holograms of reality you are creating. No sarcasm intended. I am interested in serious dialogue.

Hi RevKing: Fascinating stuff!

For the past 25 years I myself had that idea of a cosmic hologram in inverse space, as a cosmic memory body, and every one of us creating their individually unique personal hologram within the cosmic hologram, as a personal memory body. And I imagine that my hologram will survive the death of the brain that created it.

=============================

As you say above, "... I imagine that my hologram will survive the death of the brain that created it."  This is why it is so important for us to be consciously aware of the pictures--accompanied by our thoughts, desires and feelings--we keep making, constantly, in our minds. We need to be conscious of how we project the mental pictures into space and especially to others.

IMO, we may not be able to predict the future, but I strongly feel that we can, for good or evil, create it. For good (whatsover things are beautiful, true, joyful and lovely) or ill (whatsoever things are filled with revenge, pain and suffering) what we project we will bring to pass. In Galatians 6:7, Paul put it this way: "A person will reap exactly what he plants.".

Hi RevKing:

It could be that our thoughts and actions in the here and now are being etched into the cosmic hologram. We'd do well to consider the possibilty.

I always ask myself and others: "What do you want to be known for to the universe for all of eternity?"

Yes, indeed! I wonder how many people actually believe that heaven and hell are places to which we are sent, by a "just" God,  after our death and after the "Day Of Judgment".

ACTIONS SPEAK. WITHOUT THEM, ALL CREEDS AND AFFIRMATIONS ARE  JUST HYPOCRITICAL NOISES. BELIEFS CAN HAVE VALUE, BUT OTHODPRAXY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ORTHODOXY

Regardless of what the future may hold, I simply choose to act now, lovingly and humanely, on basis of the Golden Rule of Love as found in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and in the sayings of many other sons and daughters of GØD of other faiths.

Therefore, I affirm, without any intent of imposing my affirmations on others, the following: In GØD, as Love and Being, I live and move and have my being. I have it within what I think of a mysterious Presence. I have this in cooperation with all other beings, including the total ecology.

With GØD and others, I have a clear choice now, at this moment: In the process of living I can choose to create the misery, pain and suffering of hell--for myself and others--or I can have peace of mind and the joy and grace of heaven. Of course, for me the choice is clear: I choose, or will, to live by Love (positive will power), leading to justice and peace in the here and now. What happens beyond death will be what it will be.

Dear humane Atheists, do words like GØD, God, heaven, hell, religion, Jesus, the Prophets and the like annoy you? How do you feel about faith, hope, love, joy, justice, peace of mind and life?

THE VALUE OF USING THE ACRONYM, GØD
=====================================
The value I find in using the acronym GOD, or GØD, and not the confusing noun, God, is this: Due to our ignorance there may be a lack of scientific information about existence--the all that IS (or GØD)--but who is prepared to say that there is no such thing as existence? Existence is self-evident and needs no other proof.

GØD is not just a probability; GØD is the reality of reality. Humane and positive Atheists, try denying that you exist within existence. It is a logical impossibility to exist and, at the same time, to deny it.

Forget about the creeds and dogmas of narrow religions, which create nothing but division--the work of the diabolic spirit. In the Now, let's get connected with, tuned into Being--which, BTW, I find is the best way for me to "pray". Therefore, I "pray" breath by breath, moment by moment--consciously and unconsciously. It enables me (us) to keep in touch, with all Being, with every breath (I) we take.

WHY?

Because, for the social good of all, let's all--and I mean ALL--with the help of the arts and sciences, unite in a higher philosophy of religion and start eliminating all pain and suffering, beginning now. Enabled by the power of faith, hope, and love, let us work in unison to bring on the justice, peace and joy for everyone.

IMO, unitheism/holotheism is an evidence-based kind of approach to theology.

Who among us is NOT in favour of such a worthwhile goal?

KNOWING GOD:

The great Carl Jung, the son of a Swiss Protestant Minister, gave the following famous witness, on a BBC program, years ago:

Your comments?

Rev, I have no problem with "matter is god" being the basis for belief and religion. I've yet to see anyone take it to the next step to guide moral actions, however. Rather, what I see instead is people applying sleight of hand to say it means we should embrace Christianity.

Hi Ergo Ratio: I would say that the cosmic totality is God.

This totality, however, is in a unitive state of synthesis, which can only be experienced in the pure, unconceptualized experience of reality. When we immerse ourselves in an unthinking state of mind, as in meditation or similar, then we experience the ultimate, unitive state. Such an experience usually results in inner and outer peace, unitive awarenss, unitive love, unitive conscience and consciousness, all of which are excellent moral guides.

Christianity happens to embrace all of those. But if one can't stomach Christian doctrine, then one can just immerse oneself in the pure experience and experience what Christianity teaches without any need for doctrines.

Ergo has raised an important question - if matter is god and it is impersonal or is just is it, how then does that effect living?  This is why the question of the 'purpose of God' is crucial.  This why process theology speaks of the aim of God - God being relational, which means like us, has two aspects - the container ( source) of the aim which is eternal, and the presence of the aim as lure in each moment which can be accepted or rejected, but is there and even in the acceptance of the aim, means it too is in process, in a metaphorical sense God learns from what happens, that is must adjust the aim ( which is constant) to the shifting situation.  The next level of the question is the meaning of the aim - it is suggested it is an aim toward beauty, justice, compassion, intensity and harmony.  In one sense the aim is directed to novel outcomes that enhance reality.   Of course this statement is a proposition and the issue becomes, is it a helpful proposition that as well fit with our rational and empirical experience?

IN THE SPIRIT OF DIALOGUE, NOT DEBATE

Arminius, Ergo Ratio and Panentheism: Thanks for your input in this dialogue.

==============================================

As one who admits I have much to learn, may I make myself, in the spirit of dialogue, as clear as possible:

I am not a pantheist--that is, one who says that matter is GOD, in total. By the way, I respect pantheists as I do monotheists: Therefore, I can accept that matter is part of and linked to GOD.

As a unitheist/holotheist, I have a lot--maybe more than just a lot--in common with the panENtheism of Alfred North Whitehead.

For me, GOD--that is, as I understand the god hypothesis--includes all that which is:  in, through and around matter, while not being confined to matter.

=============================

Panentheist, you say:

"Ergo has raised an important question - if matter is god and it is impersonal or is just is it, how then does that effect living?  This is why the question of the 'purpose of God' is crucial."

May I respond: In my opinion--and I make no claim to being infallible--GOD is not a personal being to whom we can point. That it, GOD is not a someone in the great beyond, who has a purpose for us.

In my opinion, GOD is purpose--in and through us. We--polytheists, monotheists, atheists, agnostics, panentheists, unitheists/holotherists, or just plain nihilists--however we decide to label ourselves--are the ones who have the power and freedom to purpose and will who we are and how we purpose to behave in the now.

THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING A WILL AND MAKING A CHOICE

Once we make any moral and ethical choices, and lovingly act on them,  we will, in my humble opinion, eventually reap what we sow--as Paul said. If, as moral beings, we choose to involve GOD in the process I have the feeling  that what we reap will be Good, Orderly and Desirable for all involved, regardless of what label we happen to use. If we choose not to involve GOD, we are on our own.

I have made my choice. How about you?

The lamps are different,

but the light is the same:

One matter, one energy, one light, one light-mind,

endlessly emanating all things.

-Rumi

Interesting post RevLindsayKing.

If I were to place my beliefs in a box then I would say they belong in the box labeled Panentheism as opposed to Pantheism. The latter being more reflective of the 'matter is god' concept. I don't see that myself, in the same way that I don't believe that my own body is all there is. I believe that just as there's a formless cause to my body of form, so is the Universe itself but the effect of an unseen cause. After all, my body is made out of the same stuff the Universe is made out of. I can see how an atheist would lean towards this pantheistic hylotheism.

Now speaking of new words that start with an 'h', how about "hylozoism". That's the belief that life and matter are inseparable.

See http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Hylozoism

Cheers
 

Neo, thanks for the valuable input. It all goes to help us deal with the problem of evil.

Speaking of which, I paraphrase Edmund Burke: Evil always succeeds when good people do nothing. In this sense, doing nothing is a form of evil by default.
http://www.google.ca/search?q=edmund+bur...lient=firefox-a
For me--one who has chosen to be and live in GOD (the highest good)--remaining neutral is never an option.