I'm currently reading Theism and Ultimate Explanation: The Necessary Shape of Contingency by Timothy O'Connor. I'm very interested in the cosmological argument from contingency, and this book is an up-to-date take on that and related metaphyical issues. I hope to have a post on this at some point but in the meantime here is a review from a naturalist's perspective by Graham Oppy (HT: sideblog at FQI).
I really enjoyed this insightful cartoon posted at Cosmic Variance along with the comments by Sean Carroll (the original source for the cartoon is here). No offense to cosmologists, but for purely philosophical reasons I think it is best to identify the actual world with the observable or causally connected universe (not that I think that's all there is, but because the regions we assume exist beyond the observable have a different ontological as well as epistemological status - see a related post here).
Finally, I want to post a friendly link to the discussion forum at Panendeism.org. Panendeism, as I understand it, is meant to be like Panentheism, but with the "deism" label stressing that this is a worldview arrived at through reason, without reliance on authority or revelation.
This proves how everything is derivative of everything else -- panendeism, you see, comes from panentheism (God is the Universe, but also something greater than) and pandeism (God is no longer God, but became the Universe), and pandeism came from pantheism (God is the Universe) and deism (God created the Universe but now ignores it) at the same time that panentheism came from pantheism with an extra "en" thrown in for oomph. I can't say that panendeism is an advance on pandeism, since it just takes pandeism and adds an element of God that rather uselessly exists outside the Universe but does ignores it.
Thanks for your comment. I'll defend the "en" a bit. Considerations from philosophy and physics lead me to be confident that reality extends beyond what we usually think of as the universe.
Post a Comment