Eternity Week #2: The Alternatives

[redcrosse]

So today I'm going to try to rough up materialism and pantheism a bit before moving on. This is not really on topic, and may seem downright mean to some people who have accepted the modern idea that to deny someone's beliefs is to make a personal attack. But still, chances are, if I don't, and I just start talking about eternity, all the

Comments

[redcrosse]

You know, you raise a good point, one I thought about over dinner at some length (before I got your comment.) I think, in truth, that I am paraphrasing C.S. Lewis too much, even where I disagree with him. I may edit this, or at least reword it.

I still think, however, that my objection is basically correct. The problem is not that it cannot be better in the future, but rather that it "Is" what it "Is" right now. In your model, my will is part of the will of the universe, rather than an independent will which may conform or fail to do so. Thereby, by the only available standard (the will of the immanent universe to Become what it will,) what I am doing, right now, is Right, regardless of what it is. On the small scale, it may be wrong, but if we were to see with the eyes of God, we would find it perfect. You're right, this doesn't obliterate hope, but rather the reality of evil. It claims that everything occurring in our world is the Will of God. And to that, Christianity says, "Seriously? Cause, you know, this doesn't all seem like what He'd do."

On the other hand, perhaps the universe is striving upwards as you describe, fixing its will (perhaps imperfectly) on a goal which it has not itself defined. Now we suddenly have two terms, the Universe and a separate law which defines just what "better" means for its less fortunate sibling. In this case, we preserve the reality of good and evil, but we've also got this problematic song, forever playing just overhead, guiding us onward into some new dawn we cannot yet see, unchanging and beautiful, revealing itself differently in every circumstance. And at that point, you might as well just opt for eternity.

The fact is that your frozen, forever-instant of Becoming is not at all dissimilar to the Christian image of our universe when viewed from eternity (as I'm certain you know,) except that we posit that there is also something to Become. Still, if you'd like to clarify what your abnormal interpretation of pantheism entails, I may be able to respond better. I recognize that this would break the FGS Prime Directive, that is, never talk about your beliefs other than in extravagantly detailed allegorical code, but, you know. There's a time and a place for everything, and it's called College.

[relevance]

I can see that you're giving the question of pantheism careful attention - I admire your willingness to reevaluate your argument.

I didn't mean to be coy by saying little about my own beliefs. Rather, being uncertain of them, I hesitate to profess them publicly. But as the spirit of these essays seems to be a questing spirit, I think I will not be taken in the wrong vein if I air some spiritual/religious thoughts whose ink is not yet dry.

My working definition of God, insofar as one can define such a concept, is "the integral sum of all creation, across all of time". So all people, and all things, partake in their due proportion - not, I suspect, a strictly democratic proportion - of God.

This is redeemed from being a fairly boring and purely materialistic definition by the existence of free will, a mystery which allows the whole to vastly, impossibly exceed the sum of its parts, but at the cost of evil (action which causes suffering) and suffering (a wish to change circumstances, coupled with an inability to do so).

I suspect that the reason for "why anything?" is a sacred process of self-realization (literally) and self-exploration on the part of God - existence as a sort of divine mirror, or - better yet - divine dream. One which, because of free will, even the Dreamer must be surprised by, though it is of the Dreamer's own creation and self.

The major difference is that I don't perceive the Dreamer as being separate from the Dream that it is enmeshed in. "How can we know the dancer from the dance?"

[relevance]

I should add that, as regards the question of what it all is striving towards, I don't think there is a single universal goal that we are meant to achieve.

That said, I am not a moral relativist. I believe that principles of ethics are inherent in the human condition, and thus - on some level - inherent in the universe. Part of God.

[redcrosse]

Pantheism, unlike Materialism, I do take very seriously. I will not respond until I think more, though I believe that in a sense, my arguments on the Trinity will address this very directly. I will say for the time being that I believe your ardor to not fully separate the dreamer from the dream is laudable and accurate.