Panentheism

There is a close systematic relationship between panentheism, as a metaphysical theory about the relation between God and the world, and transhumanism, the ethical demand to use the means of the applied sciences to enhance both human nature and the environment. This relationship between panentheism and transhumanism provides a ‘cosmic’ solution to the problem of evil: on panentheistic premises, the history of the world is the one infinite life of God, and we are part of the one infinite divine being. We ourselves are therefore responsible for the future development of the life of the divine being. We should therefore use the means provided by the natural sciences to develop the history of the world in such a way that the existence of evil shall be overcome and shall no longer be part of the divine being in whom we move and live and have our being. The metaphysics of panentheism leads to the ethics of transhumanism.

This chapter questions the reductionist assumption that bits of lifeless matter must have grouped themselves into complex patterns that eventually became living conscious beings. There is no decisive reason to question Peirce’s suggestion that mind came first and that mechanical causality emerges when regions of a fundamentally conscious universe settle into deterministic habits. If we define consciousness in a way that ignores clearly accidental properties such as looking and behaving like us, some form of panpsychism is not only possible but plausible. Ignoring this possibility could cause us to subconsciously exclude legitimate avenues of research.

Eine Analyse der Unendlichkeit Gottes Obwohl sich die Idee der Unendlichkeit Gottes wie ein Tiefenstrom durch die religionsphilosophische Analyse des Wesens Gottes zieht, ist es nicht klar, was genau es bedeutet, zu behaupten, dass Gott unendlich ist. Um diese Aussage zu klären, werde ich zunächst einen synkategorematischen und einen kategorematischen Unendlichkeitsbegriff voneinander unter-scheiden. Während eine synkategorematische Analyse der Unendlichkeit Gottes auf die Unendlichkeit einzelner göttlicher Attribute beschränkt ist, besteht der Kern der kategorematischen Analyse darin, dass Unendlichkeit als ein eigenständiges kategoriales Attribut Gottes aufgefasst wird. Nach einer kurzen Kritik der Leistungsfähigkeit einer synkategorematischen Analyse der Unendlichkeit Gottes wird die Analyse des kategorematischen Unendlichkeitsverständnisses zeigen, dass die Rede von der Unendlichkeit Gottes als eigenständigem göttlichen Attribut eine Chiffre dafür ist, dass Gott als erstes Prinzip der Schöpfung alle in der Schöpfung zu findenden Unterschiede in der Einheit seines Wesens vereint. Ich ende mit einigen kurzen Bemerkungen über die Voraussetzungen und Konsequenzen dieser Interpretation der Unendlichkeit Gottes.

מחקר זה עוסק במשנתו החדשנית של ר' צדוק הכהן מלובלין. לפי רוב החוקרים, ר' צדוק ממשיך את משנת רבו, ר' מרדכי יוסף ליינער מאיזביצה, ומציג פטליזם אקזיסטנציאליסטי: לאדם יש חופש כנגד החוק המקובל, לפי רצון האל הנגלה בליבו, אפילו בתשוקותיו, החורג מההלכה; ואולם, האדם אינו קובע את הרצון המתגלה בשורש נשמתו, אלא חושפו בלבד. בכתבי ר' צדוק ניתן למצוא ביטויים רבים, בתוכן ובצורה, לפטליזם זה; עם זאת, הוא מציג גם התבטאויות רבות בדבר הבחירה האנושית החופשית וכוחה היצירתי לכונן ולקבוע את שורשו של האדם, ולחדש ולהשפיע על העולמות האלוקיים ועל העולם-הזה. מחקר זה מתמקד בקטעים אלו שמרכזיותם הוזנחה במחקר עד כה, ומכאן הבנתו המחודשת במשנתו.
את עמדת ר' צדוק ניתן להסביר באמצעות התפיסה הפרדוקסלית, הטוענת לכוחם המלא של שני הקטבים הסותרים ואף להשפעה הדדית ביניהם, היוצרת מתח קשה אך פורה: בניגוד לתהליך הפורמלי, האניטלקטואלי והאפריורי של הפטליזם, שבו 'הידיעה' האלוהית מבטלת את 'הבחירה' האנושית החופשית, ר' צדוק מציג פטאליות, המזהה המציאות עצמה את הידיעה והרצון האלוהיים המצויים בכל. בפטליות זו הידיעה אינה מבטלת את הבחירה; להיפך: ללא הידיעה האלוקית אין לאף דבר קיום, ולכן רק מציאות הידיעה בבחירה היא המאפשרת את קיומה הממשי.
תפיסתו האונטולוגית של ר' צדוק מתקיימת לא רק בתוכן הישיר של דבריו, אלא גם בעקיפין, באופן דרשנותו ובמובן שהוא מעניק למושגים שבהם הוא דן; לכן, הפטליות מתגלה גם בתחומים נוספים, שבהם מצוי פער בין הממד המוחלט וההכרחי ('ידיעה') לממד הקונטינגנטי, הארעי והיחסי ('בחירה'): השקר, הדמיון, הרוע, החטא, הייסורים ועוד, אמנם קונטינגנטיים ויחסיים לעומת מוחלטות האמת, הטוב וכו'; אך לפי ר' צדוק, האל רוצה בהם ככאלה – כלומר יש להם ממשות שאינה מוחלטת, אלא ממשות ככאלה, כקונטינגנטיים. אך ממשות זו אינה מאשרת אותם כפי שהם, אלא יוצרת בהם-עצמם טרנספורמציה. למשל, הרוע אינו הופך לטוב מוחלט או נותר כרוע, אלא הופך ל'טוב מאד' שלפי ר' צדוק גדול מהטוב הרגיל.
מכאן עולה גם ההשפעה ההפוכה, זו של הבחירה על הידיעה. לפי ר' צדוק, משקבלה הקונטינגנטיות והיחסיות של 'הבחירה' – שהיא למעשה מהות הבריאה ומהות האדם ומעשיו – את ממשותה, בכוחה אף להוסיף כביכול על המוחלטות האלוקית הקבועה של 'הידיעה': 'נגע' החטא או הייסורים הופך בעצמו, בחילוף אותם אותיות, ל'ענג' הגדול מההנאה הרגילה; בכוח האדם להשפיע על העולמות העליונים בגזירת גזירות ובביטול גזירות אלוקיות; בכוחו אף להשפיע על העולם-הזה, בחידושו היומיומי על-ידי חידושי התושב"ע, ובקידוש החודש המסוגל לשנות את תנועת המזלות השמימיים. מצד אחד, היצירתיות האנושית של חידושי התושב"ע כלולה באמת האלוקית הגנוזה בתושב"כ האלוקית והיא רק חושפת אותה; אך לפי ר"צ, מצד אחר מתברר שמקור חידושי התושב"ע דווקא גבוה ממקור התושב"כ והם אלו היוצרים וקובעים אותה.
ר' צדוק מציג שני מושגים מרכזיים לפרדוקס שלו: בממד האונטולוגי – 'הייחוד הגמור' של האל, שבו הדואליות הקונטינגנטית (בין האל לנבראיו, והבחירה שהיא מאפשרת) של 'הייחוד התחתון' מתקיימת פרדוקסלית עם האחדות המוחלטת ו'הידיעה' האלוהית של 'הייחוד העליון'.
בממד של מצבו האקזיסטנציאלי של האדם – 'השורש הנעלם': בניגוד לר' מרדכי יוסף רבו, ר' צדוק טוען שהאדם קובע את גורלו על-ידי מעשיו הבחיריים והקונטינגנטיים; ואולם, במקביל, בדומה לרבו, הוא טוען גם שהשורש הקבוע של האדם נקבע על-ידי 'הידיעה' האלוהית והיא זו הקובעת את מעשיו לטוב או למוטב. אך מעל אלו מציג ר' צדוק שורש נוסף, 'נעלם' הגבוה מהשורש הקבוע: הוא אכן שורש מוחלט ('ידיעה'), אך הוא נקבע ומכוּנן על-ידי מעשיו הבחיריים של האדם, בדומה לבריאה האלוהית 'יש מאין'.
This research deals with R. Zadok's innovative writings. According to most scholars R. Zadok continues the doctrine of his rabbi R. Mordechai Yosef Leiner of Izbica and introduces existential fatalism: man has the freedom to act against the customary law, according to God's will which is revealed in his heart, even in his passions, which exceed the Halacha; however, man does not determine the will that is revealed in the root of his soul, but only uncovers it. Many expressions, in content and form, of this fatalism can be found in R. Zadok's writings; yet, he also introduces many remarks about human free choice and its creative power to establish and determine man's root and re-establish and influence the Divine worlds and this world. This research focuses on these passages whose centrality has been so far neglected by research. Hence, its renewed understanding of his doctrine.
R. Zadok's position can be explained by means of the paradoxical perception, which claims the full strength of the two opposites and even a mutual influence between them, which creates a difficult yet fertile tension: as opposed to the a priori intellectual and formal process of fatalism where Divine Foreknowledge eliminates free choice, R. Zadok introduces fatality which identifies in reality itself the Divine foreknowledge and will that exist in all things. In R. Zadok's fatality, Divine foreknowledge does not eliminate free choice; on the contrary, without Divine foreknowledge, nothing has existence. Therefore, only the existence of Divine foreknowledge within free choice enables its true and indeed free fulfillment. R. Zadok's ontological perception is realized not only in the direct content of his words but also indirectly, in the method of his exegesis and the sense he gives to the concepts he discusses. Therefore the fatality is revealed in other areas in which there is a gap between the absolute dimension ('Yedi'ah') and the contingent dimension ('Bechirah'): the lie, imagination, evil, sin, suffering etc., indeed contingent compared with the absoluteness of truth, good, etc.; however, according to R. Zadok, God wants them as such – that is to say, they have an essential existence and actuality that are not absolute, but rather as such: as contingent, temporary and relative. However, these essential existence and actuality do not confirm them as they are but create a transformation within them. For example, evil does not become absolute good or remains evil but rather turns into 'Very Good' (Tov Me'od) which includes evil and according to Rabbi Zadok is greater than regular good.
From this, rises also the opposite influence: that of free choice, or contingent Bechira in general, on Divine Foreknowledge, or absolute Yediah in general. According to R. Zadok, when the contingency and relativity of "Bechirah" received its essential existence and actuality, it has the power so to speak, to add dynamism to the permanent Divine absoluteness of the 'Yedi'ah': the affliction (Nega; נגע) of sin or suffering turns by itself, by interchanging its letters, into pleasure (Oneg; ענג) which is greater than regular delight. Man has the power to influence the upper worlds by decreeing decrees or by canceling Divine decrees; he also has the power to influence the daily novelties of this world, by the novellaes of the Oral Law and the sanctification of the new month which is capable of changing the movement of the zodiac. The human creativity of the novellae of the Oral Law is included in the Divine truth which is hidden in the Written Law and it only reveals and interprets the latter; but on the other hand, according to R. Zadok, the source of the dynamic vital novellaes of the Oral Law is higher than the source of the permanent absoluteness of Written Law and they are those which create and determine the latter.
R. Zadok introduces two main concepts for his paradox: On the ontological perception – Yichud Gamur, the Ultimate Unification of God, in which the contingent duality (between God and His creation, and the choice it enables) of the Lower Unification paradoxically exists with the absolute unification and Divine Foreknowledge of the Upper Unification.
On the perception of man's existential situation – HaShoresh HaNe'elam, The Hidden Root: unlike Rabbi Mordechai Yosef, his rabbi, rabbi Zadok claims that man determines his destiny by his willful contingent actions – yet, simultaneously, like his rabbi, he also claims that the man's permanent root is determined by God and His Foreknowledge and it is what determines his actions for better or worse. But above these R. Zadok points to an additional Hidden Root which is higher than the permanent one: it is indeed an absolute root (Yediah) yet is determined and established by man's willful actions (Bechira), similar to the Divine creation of 'ex nihilo'.

O]n other planets with the conditions for life to emerge and to evolve for many billions of years, we should expect there to be some with creatures that, no matter how different in physical constitution and appearance, would share some of our capacities, such as those for mathematics, music and morality, or, more generally, truth, beauty and goodness.

Focusing on the Western intellectual lineage, this essay traces the human archetypal metaphor for the universe as it shifts three times, from that of a great mind, to a great machine, to the modern-day transition toward an organismic view of the universe. We explore how the way we talk about nature can ultimately be scaled to a grounding cosmic metaphor, which itself comes to serve as the lens through which we interpret our deepest questions, - about what we are, and our place in reality. Discussed are the implications of the emerging organismic paradigm to the fundamental orientation of the self to the world, to other beings, and its place in reality.

"Sargon Donabed provides a comprehensive overview of the modern Assyrian story, merging emic and etic perspectives of their struggle to attain sovereignty over the past century and beyond. His work offers both an informative source for Assyrian ethnic history and an alternative reading for Mesopotamian regional history as a whole." -- Nabil Al-Tikriti, University of Mary Washington

"In telling the story of modern Assyrian responses to a history of tragedy, Sargon Donabed helps us understand them as actors in their own right. He thereby rewrites Iraqi history from the perspective of the oppressed. No longer may we ignore the plight of this misunderstood minority." -- Paul S. Rowe, Trinity Western University

The Author proposes to describe the possible foundations of a Trinitarian theism that may be a philosophically adequate translation of the Johannine declaration: " God is love " , introduced by some contemporary thinkers as a key to resolving some aporias within classic theism. This is done by way of analysis of Trinitarian ontology and relational ontology, for which there is an attempt to provide a shareable phenomenological basis. The paper then goes on to questions of epistemology (hyperphatic theology) linked to the ability of human reason and human language to express the categories introduced in this analysis, categories that are nothing else but a renewed philosophical appreciation of the terminology proper to Trinitarian speculation.

Sommario: L'autore si propone di descrivere i possibili fondamenti di un teismo trinitario che sia una traduzione filosoficamente adeguata dell'affermazione giovannea " Dio è amore " , introdotta da alcuni pensatori contemporanei come chiave di volta per risolvere alcune aporie interne al teismo classico. Il percorso descritto passa attraverso l'analisi dell'ontologia trinitaria e dell'ontologia relazionale, alle quali si tenta di fornire una base fenomenologica condivisibile. Per poi spostarsi su questioni di epistemologia (teologia iperfatica) legate alla capacità della nostra ragione e del nostro linguaggio di esprimere le categorie introdotte nell'analisi, le quali non sono altro che la rivalutazione filosofica della terminologia propria della speculazione trinitaria.

In certain theological circles today, panentheism is all the rage. One of the most notorious difficulties with panentheism lies in figuring out what panentheism actually is. There have been several attempts in recent literature to demarcate panentheism from classical theism, neo-classical theism, open theism, and pantheism. I shall argue that these attempts to demarcate panentheism from these other positions fail. Then I shall offer my own demarcation.

REVIEW: YITZHAK Y. MELAMED, "La metafisica di Spinoza. Sostanza e pensiero", a cura di Emanuele Costa, Mimesis, Milano-Udine 2020. Un volume di pagine 336. [Forthcoming in "Rivista di Filosofia Neo-Scolastica" (Received: 23/12/2020, Approved: 26/12/2020). Draft version - do not quote it without the author's permission / Versione bozza - non citare senza il permesso dell'autore].

Including the effects upon the world's poor within the scope of global environmental destruction, the ecofeminist critique identifies the roots of ecological degradation to be patriarchal domination of the natural world and women as 'other.' This domination, according to Rosemary Radford Ruether--though certainly rooted in ancient patriarchal cultures such as the Israelites of the Biblical narrative--was "sparked and fed by modern industrialization and colonialism," and the "Western theological tradition of the hierarchical chain of being." This 1 2 chain begins with immaterial spirit/God as its source and ends with the material world underneath, at the bottom of which lie the "most inferior, valueless, and dominated." This 3 dichotomy is rooted in a dualism that emphasizes divine transcendence over immanence and supports the devaluation of matter, which, according to Ecofeminism, undergirds hierarchy and patriarchal domination. The critique of this structure is inherently critical of classical theism and seeks to realize an egalitarian and theology of nature which re-values nature and re-humanizes women and the marginalized of society by recasting the universe as both the body of God and sacramental. This paper will examine one such approach, taken by Sallie McFague, towards a panentheistic reconstruction of the God-world relationship based on eliminating dualistic hierarchies so as to carve out a more ecologically appropriate theological vision.

This article tries to clarify the various senses of
the term “Bahala na” in Filipino usage. It attempts
to show that the term has many senses but the primary
one is to leave one’s life—or anything—in the care of
God. The paper explores the various types of
determinism and points out the types which entail the
"Bahala na" fatalistic attitude. Finally, the work
shows that “Bahala na” as a cultural value is
ambivalent in that it can be applied in various situations
responsibly or irresponsibly. The author contends that
it is best for Philippine society if Filipinos themselves
can avoid using “Bahala na” irresponsibly.

It would probably not be an overstatement to say that with Hinduism, we are in knee-deep, swimming in panentheisms. Indeed, of all the world's major religious traditions, Hinduism, with its fluid multiplicities, offers one of the easiest, most fluent representations of a panentheistic worldview anywhere. Hinduism's legendary 330

Alevilik, belirli bir ilk çekirdeğin farklı etkilenimler doğrultusunda süreğen biçimde başkalaştığı ve en sonu heterodoks İslam yorumları altında verili olanın yeniden yoğurulduğu ve bütünleştirildiği bir inanç ve düşünce sistemidir. Bu sistemin oluşumunda etkili olan başlıca isim Hallacı Mansur’dur. Zira nefeslere ve mensurlara ilişkin bütünsel bir okuma, Aleviliğin felsefi iskeletinin doğrudan Mansur’un düşüncelerine bağlı olduğunu göstermektedir. Hatta felsefi boyutuyla Aleviliğin, Mansur’un felsefesinin gelişkin bir halini temsil ettiği açıkça savunulabilir.

Alevilik Mansur dolayımıyla inşa ettiği iskeleti, bir yandan ona sadık kalarak, bir yandan onu aşarak, oldukça kapsamlı bir noktaya taşımıştır. Bu çalışma da, söz konusu dolayımı, Plotinos’tan Mansur’a ve Mansur’dan Aleviliğe sorgulamayı ve sonrasında Aleviliğin felsefi boyutunu ayrıntılı biçimde açığa çıkarmayı ve sergilemeyi amaçlamaktadır.

Two great forms of unity metaphysics enjoy energetic discussion in the
current debates of philosophy and theology. Firstly, panpsychism as a naturalistic, non-reductive ontology of mind has gained ground in the analytic philosophy of mind over the last 25 years. Additionally, and dating back to early 20th century, panentheism has found use in theology and the analytic philosophy of religion to describe the relationship between God and the world. This volume is the first attempt to create an anthology of the more recent history of philosophy and theology, and aims to bring these two research directions together in an interdisciplinary conversation.
Our aim is to examine the benefits which panpsychism and panentheism
offer to one another; which problem-solving proposals are made possible by a synthesis of the two; and where the limitations of their interplay need to be demarcated.

Bulgakov's comprehensive kenotic theory is a largely neglected aspect of his theology. The article situates Bulgakov's kenoticism in the context of nineteenthtwentieth century European and Russian theology. For Bulgakov kenosis was a feature not only of the divine incarnation, but also of creation and of the inner life of the Trinity. Bulgakov distinguishes between different aspects of the divine kenosis: the suffering of compassionate and sacrificial love; the restraint of omnipotence, omniscience and other perfections; the descent into the world of temporality and becoming; the acceptance of human emotions and suffering; the identification with sinful humanity; and ultimately the experience of Godforsakenness in the incarnation. God freely limits his actions in the world by time and space. According to Bulgakov, God always acts by persuasion and never by compulsion. Incarnation for Bulgakov is a kenotic act par excellence. Critically appropriating the ideas of Thomasius and Hegel, Bulgakov argues that in the incarnation the Word retains his divine nature, but divests himself of his glory. This entails that the Son empties himself of his foreknowledge, and becomes temporarily subordinate to the Father and the Holy Spirit. The Son's kenosis is matched by that of the Holy Spirit, who restricts his power in communicating his gifts to the world.

Jurgen Moltmann stands as one of the most important and influential theologians of the 20th century.  After providing a brief biographical sketch and discussion of the philosophical commitment to a distinctly eschatological theology, the paper explores the key features of Moltmann's theological method and his doctrine of God.  Special attention is paid to his proposal of dynamic relatiionality (or perichoresis), his identification of the immanent Trinity with the economic Trinity, his view of divine passibility, and his conception of God in terms of panentheism.  The paper concludes with a critique of Moltmann's views, paying close attention to his strengths and ongoing revelation while also showing why many of his controversial proposals remain unconvincing.

ÖZET Felsefe tarihinde Tanrı'nın niteliğine, Tanrı, insan ve evren arasındaki ilişkiye dair birçok görüş ileri sürülmüştür. Varlığın ne olduğunun açıklanması için ortaya konan bu konuyla ilgili görüşlerden hareketle değerler yapısı oluşturulur. Ayrıca bu bağlamda insanın ne olduğu da izah edilmeye çalışılır. Varlıkla ilgili meydana getirilen fikirler soyut bir alana tekabül etmektedir. Dolayısıyla bu alandaki fikirler, düşünceyi ortaya koyan kişi ya da kültürel ortamın zenginliğini de açığa çıkarır. Tanrı'nın aşkın ya da içkin olması meselesi felsefe tarihinde üzerinde tartışılan önemli bir konudur. Tanrı'nın ve Tanrı'nın varlıkla olan ilişkisinin açıklanması insanın kendisini anlamlandırması ve değerler yapısının kurulması, devam ettirebilmesi için gereklidir. Bu bağlamda Tanrı'nın sonsuz, bir ya da çok, aşkın ya da içkin olup olmadığı; nasıl yarattığı, ruhun ve maddenin ne olduğu tavzih edilmeye çalışılır. Bunun yanı sıra yine tikellerin gerçekten var olup olmadığı, Tanrı'nın tikelleri bilip bilmediği; insanın Tanrı'yı nasıl bilebileceği araştırılır ve bu araştırılan soruların cevapları çerçevesinde ahlaki bir yapının esaslarının neler olacağı belirlenir. Batı felsefesi düşünce geleneğinde bu tür birçok yaklaşımı görmek mümkündür. Doğu felsefe geleneğinde de belirtilen konular dâhilinde birçok görüşün oluşturulduğu fark edilmektedir. Bu bağlamda bakıldığında anlaşılmaktadır ki Doğu felsefe geleneğinde de oldukça gelişmiş ontoloji teorileri mevcuttur. Bunun yanı sıra, düşünce sistemleri incelendiğinde, Batı felsefesi ve Doğu felsefesi geleneğinin birbirinden bütünüyle kopuk veya ilişkisiz olmadığı ortaya çıkmaktadır. Bu kapsamda yapılmış olan çalışmada, Hint inanç sisteminin en önemli metinlerinden birisi olan Bhagavadgita'da geçen felsefi fikirler, Plotinos ve Spinoza'nın görüşleriyle karşılaştırılarak ortaya konmaya çalışılmıştır.

There is no single Jewish philosophical conception of God, and the array of competing conceptions does not lend itself to easy systemization. Nonetheless, it is the aim of this chapter to provide an overview of this unruly theological terrain. It does this by setting out ‘maps’ of the range of positions which Jewish philosophers have taken regarding key aspects of the God-idea. These conceptual maps will cover: (i) how Jewish philosophers have thought of the role and status of conceiving of God in the first place; (ii) what Jewish philosophers have understood to be definitive of God or Divinity; (iii) Jewish philosophical conceptions of God’s oneness; (iv) Jewish philosophical conceptions of God’s transcendence or immanence; (v) Jewish philosophical conceptions of God’s personhood or lack thereof; (vi) Jewish philosophical understandings of why God created (or caused) a world; and (vii) Jewish philosophical understandings of God’s relationship to the Jewish people. Jointly, these seven conceptual maps outline the broad range of vying conceptions of God that have been held by Jewish philosophers over the centuries, while also enabling the reader a bird’s-eye-view of how these multiple conceptions relate to one another. The chapter concludes by touching on what Jewish philosophers have made of this immense diversity of theological conceptions included within the tradition.

This article outlines and defends an 'Integral Advaitic' theodicy that takes its bearings from the thought of three modern Indian mystics: Sri Ramakrishna, Swami Vivekananda, and Sri Aurobindo. Their Integral Advaitic theodicy has two key dimensions: a doctrine of spiritual evolution and a panentheistic metaphysics. God has created this world as an arena for our moral and spiritual evolution in which evil and suffering are as necessary as good. The doctrine of spiritual evolution presupposes karma, rebirth, and universal salvation. The doctrines of karma and rebirth shift moral responsibility for evil from God to His creatures by explaining all instances of evil and suffering as the karmic consequence of their own past deeds, either in this life or in a previous life. The doctrine of universal salvation also has important theodical implications: the various finite evils of this life are outweighed by the infinite good of salvation that awaits us all. After outlining this Integral Advaitic theodicy, I address some of the main objections to it and then argue that it has a number of comparative advantages over John Hick's well-known 'soul-making' theodicy.

This chapter examines the Bengali philosopher-mystic Sri Aurobindo’s highly original and sophisticated commentary on the Īśā Upaniṣad—which was first published in 1924—and brings him into dialogue with both traditional and modern commentators. Militating against the reductive view that he simply read his own mystical experiences into the Īśā Upaniṣad, the author argues that Sri Aurobindo consciously strove to avoid eisegesis by adopting a “hermeneutics of mystical immanence.” According to Sri Aurobindo, the fundamental principle of the Īśā Upaniṣad is the reconciliation of opposites. This chapter makes the case that Sri Aurobindo’s distinctive reading of the Īśā Upaniṣad in the light of this principle provides new ways of resolving numerous interpretive puzzles and difficulties that have preoccupied commentators for centuries. Drawing on the hermeneutic insights of Hans-Georg Gadamer and Francis X. Clooney, the author demonstrates that Sri Aurobindo combines a traditional commitment to the transformative power of scripture with a historico-philological method favored by recent scholars. On this basis, the author contends that Sri Aurobindo’s unduly neglected commentary on the Īśā Upaniṣad deserves a prominent place in contemporary scholarly discussions.

The term pneumatophore, originally drawn from the taxonomy of botany, has profound ecological implications. In the plant kingdom, it refers to roots which stick out of swampy waters to reach for pneuma, or the breath of life. For Bulgakov, the Theotokos serves as a vibrant bearer of Spirit and sophia-wisdom, but the term pneumatophore is also used today as an inspiration to guide us toward a heightened sense of global responsibility, which characterizes all modern theologies of panentheism. This is chapter 7  of the book "Sergius Bulgakov and the Patristic Roots of a Feminine Spirit," which explores the recently discovered text on Mary by Maximus. Subsequent chapters discuss Bulgakov's panentheism in more depth.

This paper attempts to define panentheism in general and introduces a variety of panentheistic God-World models. It traces some of the historical roots and attempts to explain its appeal. From a thomistic perspective, it gives a philosophical evaluation of panentheism with a focus on metaphysics. With a mildly-Calvinistic and evangelical Christian perspective, it also attempts to evaluate some of the biblical data for and against panentheistic God-World models.

This project investigates challenges to the New Testament’s presentation of the Incarnation of the Son of God which derive from the theological and philosophical worldviews of Orthodox Judaism, namely those promoted by Maimonides and Kabbalah. Maimonides’s worldview entailed that the interaction of the God of Israel with his creation in any concrete form is impossible, thereby negating any possibility for Jesus to be divine. Kabbalah teaches that the entire cosmos is an emanation of God that is ontologically a part of God, which entails that everything is divine. This worldview makes the Incarnation redundant. After surveying these worldviews, this project provides cosmological, revelatory, theological, rational, and hermeneutical foundations for why the Incarnation ought to be believed over the previously mentioned options. A seminar was devised to determine how familiar the Messianic movement is with the concepts involved, and to see how much progress in comprehension could be made. Analysis of the seminar data shows that the Messianic movement may benefit from increased interaction with Jewish theological and philosophical discourse.

""Michel Weber, La dialectique de l’intuition chez A. N. Whitehead : sensation pure, pancréativité et contiguïsme [Introduction à la lecture de Process and Reality (1929)]. Préface de Jean Ladrière. Mémoire couronné par la Classe des Lettres et des Sciences morales et politiques de l’Académie Royale de Belgique (2000) et publié avec le concours de la Commission des publications de l’Institut supérieur de Philosophie (Université catholique de Louvain), Frankfurt / Paris / Lancaster, ontos verlag, Chromatiques whiteheadiennes I, 2005. (391 p. ; ISBN 3-937202-55-2 ; 75 €)
Procès et réalité (1929) d’A. N. Whitehead (1861–1947) est sans doute l’ouvrage le plus important pour saisir le sens et la portée de la pensée du processus. A l’instar du corpus whiteheadien, la présente introduction procède de manière circumambulatoire, c’est-à-dire qu’elle met en œuvre une série convergente d’analyses contextualisantes. La première partie met en scène le concept de « sensation pure » à l’aide d’un examen contrasté de ses inflexions bergsoniennes et whiteheadiennes. La seconde partie expose l’intuition « systématique » de Whitehead, c’est-à-dire la rationalisation d’un mode relationnel qui rend compte de — et est justifié par — l’intuition pré-systématique. La troisième partie affine le concept de l’Ultime en opérant un remembrement principiel « contiguïste » des paysages jusque là profilés sectoriellement.
« Cette étude me paraît remarquable à plusieurs égards. […] Je salue la rigueur de maintes analyses précises […]. Outre qu’il témoigne d’une culture philosophique tout à fait notable, allant des présocratiques aux contemporains, ce mémoire a le grand mérite de prêter une attention scrupuleuse au texte original de l’auteur dont il traite et de se débattre en permanence avec les interprétations qui en ont été proposées, et ce jusqu’aux plus récentes. » (Jacques Taminiaux, Institut supérieur de Philosophie, Université catholique de Louvain et Department of Philosophy, Boston College, in « Concours annuel de 2000. Rapports des Commissaires », Bulletin de la Classe des Lettres et des Sciences Morales et Politiques, 6e série, Tome XI, Bruxelles, Académie Royale de Belgique, 2000, pp. 122-126.)
« Il s’agit, concernant un philosophe particulièrement difficile, d’un ouvrage remarquable et impressionnant par sa vaste culture philosophique, sa pénétration conceptuelle, son organisation systématique et la connaissance approfondie de son auteur. Il faut se réjouir de cette étude, l’une des rares qui soit exhaustive en langue française, sur Whitehead qui reste méconnu sur le continent. […] » (Marc Richir, Institut de Philosophie, Université Libre de Bruxelles, in « Concours annuel de 2000. Rapports des Commissaires », Bulletin de la Classe des Lettres et des Sciences Morales et Politiques, 6e série, Tome XI, Bruxelles, Académie Royale de Belgique, 2000, pp. 122-126.)""

Pantheism – roughly, the view that all things are in God – seems to be enjoying a genuine renaissance of late. Arguably, pantheism (in its various forms) is attractive to our age not only because it is more amenable to a naturalist conception of both God and humanity, but also because it has been traditionally associated (in Christendom) with heresy.  In this sense pantheism offers a certain form of religiosity that is detached from the burden of old religion and its violent, dogmatic, and intolerant history.
Though I am a proud card-carrying member of the pantheistic club, I will not at all argue for this view in the current paper. My aim here is much more modest and rudimentary: to clarify the logical space of the family of views that are commonly put together under the rubric of pantheism or panentheism. Such a clarification is urgently needed for two main reasons. First, agreeing on a common terminology for the various branches of pantheism will help us avoid the unfortunate, yet quite common, state of talking past each other, rather than engaging in genuine philosophical debate. Second, some of the folk formulations of pantheism seem to prejudge its very possibility. For example, if one defines pantheism as the view that “all things are parts of God,” and one is committed to a mereology in which parts are prior to their whole, it would seem that the road to pantheism is virtually blocked unless one is willing to embrace the unpalatable view that your smallest left finger and Billy the porcupine are prior to God. To avoid such pre-judgements, we will allow for a variety of ways in which things can be “in” God, i.e., we will allow for things to be in God, but not as parts of God.
In the first part of this paper, I introduce a distinction between Substance-Mode Pantheism and Whole-Part Pantheism. The Substance-Mode Pantheist holds that all things (bodies, thoughts, and everything that is) are modes or states of God, while the Whole-Part Pantheist holds that all things are just parts of God. As noted, the distinction between these two forms of pantheism is related to one’s premises about (1) the priority relation holding between parts and wholes and (2) the possibility of allowing God to be posterior to anything.
In the second part, I suggest two alternative ways to draw the dichotomy between pantheism and panentheism. According to the one, pantheism asserts a symmetric dependence between God and the world of finite things, while panentheism asserts an asymmetric dependence of the world on God. An alternative way to draw a distinction between pantheism and panentheism is to say that pantheism asserts an identity between God and nature – as the totality of bodies and mental items – while panentheism asserts that all bodies and thoughts are in God, yet they do not exhaust God, i.e., there are some aspects, or elements, of God beyond physical and mental nature.

Der Panentheismus hat sich in den letzten Jahren augenscheinlich zur beliebten religionsphilosophischen Alternative für diejenigen entwickelt, die dem gängigen theistischen Paradigma nicht länger zutrauen, die es konfrontierenden religionsphilosophischen Probleme zufriedenstellend zu lösen.  Während sich im deutschsprachigen Raum vor allem durch die subjektphilosophischen Publikationen von Wolfhart Pannenberg, Dieter Henrich und Klaus Müller ein am Idealismus orientierter panentheistischer Tiefenstrom Bahn bricht, liegt im angelsächsischen Raum der Schwerpunkt panentheistischen Denkens vor allem im Bereich der sogenannten „analytischen“ Religionsphilosophie, die den Panentheismus ohne expliziten Bezug auf den Deutschen Idealismus als neues Paradigma religionsphilosophischen Denkens zu etablieren trachtet.  Obwohl der Panentheismus also von Vielen als Leitkategorie spekulativ-theologischen Denkens wahrgenommen wird, zeigt der Versuch einer begrifflichen und systematischen Präzisierung, dass er auf Grund der fehlenden systematischen Einheit panentheistischer Positionen aus sich heraus keine eindeutige Leitkategorie spekulativ-theologischen Denkens konstituieren kann: Das panentheistische Paradigma als solches gibt es nicht.

این کتاب در مورد دین شناسی تطبیقی و وحدت متعالی ادیان است. بنده در این کتاب به تعریف و منشا دین پرداختم که این مسئله ی جدیدی نیست. ولی در ادامه به بحث پلورالیسم دینی و جمع کردن بین اموزه ی تثلیث در مسیحیت و وحدت وجود اسلامی و توحید پرداختم. این بخش از کتاب به وحدت متعالی ادیان میپردازد که چگونه اموزه ی تثلیث با توحید قابل جمع است و عرفای اسلامی به این امر اشاره کردند. ضعف این کار اینه که وقت نکردم کتاب را تدوین کنم که انشالله در اینده به تدوین این اثر خواهم پرداخت ولی در کل اطلاعات خوبی در باب تاویل تثلیث و توحید و چرایی پلورالیسم دینی را در اختیار خواننده قرار داده ام.

Panentheism seems to be an attractive alternative to classical theism. It is not clear, though, what exactly panentheism asserts and how it relates to classical theism. By way of clarifying the thesis of panentheism, I argue that panentheism and classical theism differ only as regards the modal status of the world. According to panentheism, the world is an intrinsic property of Godnecessarily there is a worldand according to classical theism the world is an extrinsic property of Godit is only contingently true that there is a world. Therefore, as long as we do not have an argument showing that necessarily there is a world, panentheism is not an attractive alternative to classical theism.

Divine Action and Emergence puts the classical Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition in conversation with current philosophy and theology.

As a middle path between classical theism and pantheism, the panentheistic turn in the twentieth century has been described as a “quiet revolution.” Today, in fact, many theologians hold that the world is “in” God (who, at the same time, is more than the world). Panentheism has been especially influential in the dialogue between theology and the natural sciences. Many have seen panentheism as compatible with emergentism, and thus have brought the two together in developing models of divine action that do not abrogate the regularities of processes of the natural world. In Divine Action and Emergence, Mariusz Tabaczek argues that, as inspiring and intriguing as emergentist panentheism is, it requires deeper examination. He begins by looking at the wonder of emergence (which calls into question the overly reductionist attitude in natural science) and by reflecting philosophically on emergence theory in light of classical and new Aristotelianism. Moving in a theological direction, Tabaczek then offers a critical evaluation of emergentist panentheism and a constructive proposal for how to reinterpret the idea of divine action as inspired by the theory of emergence with reference to the classical Aristotelian-Thomistic understanding of God’s action in the universe.

Through a unique interdisciplinary approach that puts theology and the natural sciences into a dialogue through philosophy, Divine Action and Emergence offers a comprehensive evaluation of panentheism. It then puts forward an original reinterpretation of emergence theory, thus setting forth a constructive proposal for reinterpreting the concept of divine action that is currently espoused by emergence theory. It will appeal to scholars of theology and philosophy, those who work in the area of theology and science, those interested in emergence theory or panentheism, and finally those who are interested in the dialogue between the classical Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition and contemporary philosophy and theology.

The shift to organic modes of thought undergirding Whitehead’s “philosophy of organism” continues to blossom fresh possibilities for rethinking the world of nature, the place of human beings, and our current ecological precarity. This shift is being felt across disciplines, from philosophy to economics, society, and religion, as scholars are making new connections, challenging older contentions, and working together to realize an ecological civilization. The contributions to this volume exemplify the interdisciplinary nature of this quest. Written by scholars from around the world, these proposals reconceive our understanding of philosophy, society and religion in an organic universe.