Nothing, as far as I can tell, in so far as nature (plus "divinity-providence") is indistinguishable from nature (minus "divinity-providence").Pantheism is "a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God". But what exactly does this mean when taken literally? — Michael McMahon
Panentheism: God is in the tree, the rock, and the river.
Pantheism: the tree, the rock, and the river are in God.
However, a lot people with these beliefs don’t think carefully about this difference, so, practically speaking, pantheism and panentheism tend to overlap or blend, as they do with polytheism.
Panentheism is "the belief or doctrine that God is greater than the universe and includes and interpenetrates it". This may be closer to what you have in mind.
Pantheism is "a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God". But what exactly does this mean when taken literally? — Michael McMahon
Pantheism is "a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God". But what exactly does this mean when taken literally? — Michael McMahon
Pantheism is "a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God". But what exactly does this mean when taken literally? — Michael McMahon
I've studied Spinoza's writings & correspondances, that's why. As Maimon, Fichte & Hegel explicitly recognized centuries ago, Spinozism is more consistent with acosmism than with pantheism (or panentheism).In that thread you say Spinoza is not a pantheist, a panentheist, nor a theist. Why are you cutting such distinctions so this? — Gregory
Trouble with local church & civil authorities, in part, is why most of his writings were published posthumously. However, Spinoza trusted that the letter to Henry Oldenburg of the Royal Society in London I quoted from would not be published and that his purpose therein was to clarify the ideas and positions which he'd shared with select, clandestine circles of "readers" – in this case in response to a specific question – and not in order to avoid "being called a pantheist" which, btw, is an epithet coined twenty years after Spinoza's death. If Spinoza had feared sharing Giordano Bruno's fate for "heresy" (why would he when he was not a Catholic, Protestant or cleric/professor with "followers"?), then he wouldn't have undertaken such a wide and varied correspondence wherein he'd excerpted many heterodox, even "blasphemous", passages from his unpublished works. Famously cautious, Spinoza had the courage of his convictions, and thereby (unadvisedly perhaps) sought out dialectical engagement with – to test his thought against – some of the best scientific and philosophical minds of his day.Spinoza did not want to be *called* a pantheist because he would be executed for that.
The nineteenth and twentieth centuries saw the development of panentheism as a specific position regarding God’s relationship to the world. The awareness of panentheism as an alternative to classical theism and pantheism developed out of a complex of approaches. Philosophical idealism and philosophical adaptation of the scientific concept of evolution provided the basic sources of the explicit position of panentheism. Philosophical approaches applying the concept of development to God reached their most complete expression in process philosophy’s understanding of God being affected by the events of the world.
...
The nature of a panentheistic mutual relationship between the infinite and the finite is crucial to the claim by panentheism to be a creative alternative to classical Christian theism and pantheism. Unlike classical Christian theism which prioritizes transcendence by deriving divine immanence from divine transcendence, panentheism balances divine transcendence and immanence (Clayton 2020). In the classical Christian understanding, divine transcendence is based on the ontological difference in substance between God and the world making interaction between the two distinct substances impossible (Schaab 2006, 547, 548). The panentheistic mutual relation also differs from pantheism which prioritizes divine immanence by identifying the infinite with the finite. The nature of this mutual relationship basically depends upon the understanding of the ontology of each member of the relationship. The issue is the nature of being for God and for the world as the basis for mutual influence between God and the world.
— SEP on Panentheism
Intriguingly, this merger is asymmetric and/or illusory - God loses his attribiutes, but the universe neither loses nor gains any property. — Agent Smith
What if I told you that I'm one with my room and when you enter my room, all you see is the room? — Agent Smith
In that sense, both suffering and happiness are maya (illusion). — DA671
Truth is happiness for me. But thanks for sharing this — DA671
In isolation? Perhaps. Totally? Might be subjectively possible, but not always. — DA671
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.