Panentheism and Brute Facts

[Neo-Scholastic]

Atheistic stances place a larger number of phenomena into the “brute facts” category. Naturalistic philosophies have a few more ‘brute facts’ that many atheists feel need no further explanation. Such phenomena include: the link between efficient causes and their effects, the world’s apparent ability to ‘self-organize’, the validity of rational thought, the persistence of being despite change, etc. What needs explaining is not any particular fact; but rather, how they all work together harmoniously. Philosophical inquires look for common principles able to unite these disparate aspects of reality. I believe that panentheism gives a more ontologically complete picture of fundamental reality than its atheistic counterparts.

Panentheism means “within God”. As such the sensible world sits within a larger reality or God. In concept, this view is similar to Plotinus’s wherein the “All” corresponds with God and the “Many” corresponds with sensible reality. By applying reason to sensible reality anyone can deduce two fundamental principles of reality, discernable in thought, but not in actuality: primal matter and informing principle. Primal matter refers to that of which all things are made and which has the potential to be anything that could possibly be. The informing principle supplies primal matter with essential natures and lawfully constrains its potency. Together these provide a framework for uniting the disparate 'brute facts."

I have discussed both these principles at length elsewhere, but hope that the additional context will yield a more fruitful conversation.

[MindForgedManacle]

Atheistic stances place a larger number of phenomena into the “brute facts” category. Naturalistic philosophies have a few more ‘brute facts’ that many atheists feel need no further explanation. Such phenomena include:

1) the link between efficient causes and their effects

2) the world’s apparent ability to ‘self-organize’

3) the validity of rational thought

4) the persistence of being despite change, etc.

[I numbered them for easier reference]

Not really sure what you're saying about 1). How exactly do you think that naturalists hold this to be a brute fact and yet you (and other theists) do not? Further, given that philosophical discussions on the metaphysics of causation persists even to this day - and almost uniformly done by atheists and/or naturalist philosophers - I find it dubious that all of them simply relegate it to a brute fact if theists found a way to avoid such.

As for 2), again, this seems to terminate in a brute fact in your worldview as well. We have promising potential answers from physics via the phenomenon of entropy. But in your worldview it would, I presume, terminate in God's will which doesn't seem a very good answer at all.

3) This is a can of worms I didn't expect from you. :o You're not a presuppositionalist, are you?
Rational thought is valid by definition. By 'rational thought', we means a means of argumentation that follows what we consider correct structure and inference rules. The acceptance of the 'validity' of rational thought is an axiom. One can [try and] reject it, but no one will take you seriously.
Further, if you disagree with me here, your own worldview would seem to have the same brure fact. God cannot account for the validity of logic and reason in any way, as even if I assume God exists, I don't see how that could change the grounding for these things in any sense.

4) Not sure how naturalists are any more at 'fault' here than any other worldview.

What needs explaining is not any particular fact; but rather, how they all work together harmoniously. Philosophical inquires look for common principles able to unite these disparate aspects of reality. I believe that panentheism gives a more ontologically complete picture of fundamental reality than its atheistic counterparts.

Not sure I'm following you here. Facts don't have to 'work together harmoniously'. Sure they have to be consistent (unless one thinks that actual contradictions are a metaphysical possibility) but facts don't 'work together'. I suppose you mean the framework(s) within which we interpret the facts must be harmonious, as that's the only way I can make sense of what you're saying.

Eh, I've run into panentheism before, mostly by quantum woo quacks on YouTube such as some guy calling himself "InspiringPhilosophy" (unsurprisingly, he does no such thing...), and it [panentheism] has its own share of problems which I think unearth some fundamental weaknesses in your worldview (I can unpack this if you want).

Panentheism means “within God”. As such the sensible world sits within a larger reality or God. In concept, this view is similar to Plotinus’s wherein the “All” corresponds with God and the “Many” corresponds with sensible reality. By applying reason to sensible reality anyone can deduce two fundamental principles of reality, discernable in thought, but not in actuality: primal matter and informing principle. Primal matter refers to that of which all things are made and which has the potential to be anything that could possibly be. The informing principle supplies primal matter with essential natures and lawfully constrains its potency. Together these provide a framework for uniting the disparate 'brute facts."

I have discussed both these principles at length elsewhere, but hope that the additional context will yield a more fruitful conversation.

I'll skip over the primal matter and informing principle bit, since we've already had a little back and forth on it, and it's possible I just don't understand (or have the patience to).

More interesting, I think holding to panetheism causes some real contradictions and tensions in your worldview, which I'll detail if asked (this post is getting a tad long).

[bennyboy]

3) the validity of rational thought

3) This is a can of worms I didn't expect from you. :o You're not a presuppositionalist, are you?
Rational thought is valid by definition. By 'rational thought', we means a means of argumentation that follows what we consider correct structure and inference rules. The acceptance of the 'validity' of rational thought is an axiom. One can [try and] reject it, but no one will take you seriously.

I'm not so sure about this. Rational thought is valid by definition IN THE CONTEXT of ideas which are validated by rational thought. There's a dangerous self-reference there that shouldn't be dismissed so readily.

[Esquilax]

3) This is a can of worms I didn't expect from you. :o You're not a presuppositionalist, are you?
Rational thought is valid by definition. By 'rational thought', we means a means of argumentation that follows what we consider correct structure and inference rules. The acceptance of the 'validity' of rational thought is an axiom. One can [try and] reject it, but no one will take you seriously.

I've never understood the way certain theists seem to think that rational thought is some grand mystery that has no external validity or reference points, because it so clearly does. Any given thought can be examined both in terms of the internal consistency of its premises, and the degree to which those premises conform to the observable world around us. Should the thought manage to be both internally consistent and reflective of the world outside of our heads, it can be said to be rational in the sense that... well, it works.

Further investigation might reveal something that revokes the rational status of the thought, but that's no less true of a theist doing the same thing, since nobody is ever working with a complete complement of facts.

[Mudhammam]

The problem with panentheism as I see it is that asserting God doesn't actually serve to explain or clarify anything that it sets out to. As far as I can tell, naturalist/physicalist approaches have served us pretty darn well thus far so I can't really see the point of jumping the gun where it offers no distinguishable advantages in doing so.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

This puts me in mind of the (probably apocryphal) exchange between Napoleon and Laplace. When the emperor asked the astronomer/mathematician why his recent work on the solar system contained no mention of God, Laplace answered, 'I had no need of that hypothesis.'

It strikes me that adding God to the admittedly thorny problem of explaining the interworking of brute facts adds - quite literally - nothing. If the sensible world does indeed lie within a larger reality, what is accomplished by labeling that reality 'God'? Why is the term 'informing principle' more useful than the term 'physical laws'?

Boru

[Esquilax]

This puts me in mind of the (probably apocryphal) exchange between Napoleon and Laplace. When the emperor asked the astronomer/mathematician why his recent work on the solar system contained no mention of God, Laplace answered, 'I had no need of that hypothesis.'

It strikes me that adding God to the admittedly thorny problem of explaining the interworking of brute facts adds - quite literally - nothing. If the sensible world does indeed lie within a larger reality, what is accomplished by labeling that reality 'God'? Why is the term 'informing principle' more useful than the term 'physical laws'?

Boru

Nailed it. That's what gets to me about these kinds of discussions; the theist involved will always scoff at how unjustified the atheist's universe is, and then they'll turn around and present god which A: they can't justify and B: is nothing more than "this is the thing that does the things that I can't account for."

It's a panacea, nothing more.

[Neo-Scholastic]

1). [cause & effect]How exactly do you think that naturalists hold this to be a brute fact and yet you (and other theists) do not? … philosophical discussions on the metaphysics …uniformly done by atheists and/or naturalist philosophers - I find it dubious that all of them simply relegate it to a brute fact if theists found a way to avoid such.

You’ve mentioned the preponderance of atheists among philosophers before. What you say is true. Earlier I chose not to address it since it seems like an argument from authority similar to “4 out of 5 dentists recommend Crest”. I imaging parallel discussions of metaphysics happen in theology departments and do not cross the academic divide.

3) [rational thought] This is a can of … You're not a presuppositionalist, are you?... The acceptance of the 'validity' of rational thought is an axiom.

No, I do not agree with presuppositionalism. I think it’s stupid. And yes this is more of an axiom, but (I think) one that tacitly accepts an active role for intellect. My thoughts on this remain sketchy. I’m still thinking about the issue. We can drop it for now.

As for 2) [self-organization], again, this seems to terminate in a brute fact in your worldview as well. We have promising potential answers from physics via the phenomenon of entropy. But in your worldview it would, I presume, terminate in God's will which doesn't seem a very good answer at all.

I will need to know more about entropy theories. I believe you mentioned Sean Carroll? In the same way that you do not understand my primal matter/informing principle distinction, I’m not fully understanding your references to entropy. I trust that you have put much thought into it and have background knowledge that remains unexpressed.
With respect to your second point, yes, ultimately everything does go back to Divine Will, but I’m stopping short of that holding to intentionality (awareness & choice) as a fundamental aspect of reality that supplies essential attributes.

4)[being & change] Not sure how naturalists are any more at 'fault' here than any other worldview.

[quote='MindForgedManacle' pid='635151' dateline='1395802171']…. I'll skip over the primal matter and informing principle bit, since we've already had a little back and forth on it, and it's possible I just don't understand (or have the patience to).

Fair enough, but that the relationship between being and change serves as a central part of my conceptual framework. Unfortunately these two issues, ‘being & change’ and ‘primal matter & informing principle’ are two sides of the same coin, so to speak. Plus it fascinates me. It’s bound to come up again eventually 
[quote='MindForgedManacle' pid='635151' dateline='1395802171']…. Facts don't have to 'work together harmoniously'. … I suppose you mean the framework(s) within which we interpret the facts must be harmonious, as that's the only way I can make sense of what you're saying…

Not exactly. We all agree that some aspects of reality are readily apparent and everyone (except radical skeptics, like Hume) accepts them, either tacitly or explicitly. I say that based on these facts, you can identify common principles unite them into a single theory. I’m not saying that God IS the unifying principle, since (as you observed) that only pushes the problem back. I am saying that the deduced unifying principles are consistent with those commonly attributed to God.

…. Eh, I've run into panentheism before, mostly by quantum woo quacks on YouTube …and it [panentheism] has its own share of problems which I think unearth some fundamental weaknesses in your worldview (I can unpack this if you want…More interesting, I think holding to panetheism causes some real contradictions and tensions in your worldview, which I'll detail if asked …

There seems to be no shortage of ‘quantum woo’. From ‘What the #&^% Do We Know” to “The Secret”. I find it silly but also somewhat entertaining. That said, I do believe that quantum process deserve serious consideration since a) they bear directly on the fundamental structure of reality and b) some problems, like mind-brain interaction, haven’t advanced using 19th century physics.
If you find it more interesting, I would not mind focusing on the problems you see with panetheism. I welcome the serious criticism. I do not doubt that some are valid, since no philosophical system is entirely complete; questions always remain.

[Faith No More]

It strikes me that adding God to the admittedly thorny problem of explaining the interworking of brute facts adds - quite literally - nothing.

The one thing it does add is the theist feeling as if they've justified their beliefs and have somehow solved all of the problems that plague other worldviews, which is why I think that it's so popular. It allows them to feel as if they have solved certain conundrums, thus verifying their worldview, when in reality, all they've done is kick the can down the road.

[Simon Moon]

It strikes me that adding God to the admittedly thorny problem of explaining the interworking of brute facts adds - quite literally - nothing. If the sensible world does indeed lie within a larger reality, what is accomplished by labeling that reality 'God'? Why is the term 'informing principle' more useful than the term 'physical laws'?

Boru

Nailed it. That's what gets to me about these kinds of discussions; the theist involved will always scoff at how unjustified the atheist's universe is, and then they'll turn around and present god which A: they can't justify and B: is nothing more than "this is the thing that does the things that I can't account for."

It's a panacea, nothing more.

Hammer....nail....head.....


As if Chad's explaining a mystery with a bigger mystery answers anything.