No, I do not espouse an "atheistic impersonal monism".
Thank you perhaps you could help me to understand just what it is that you do believe. Clearly the atheistic aspect is wrong because you say that there is a God. I'm having trouble however seeing how god can be personal if we and god are not "separate and independent entities."? If there is no distinction then there is no meaning in how we treat others either good or bad because there are no "others".
I prefer to use impersonal monism as opposed to Pantheism because I think Pantheism smuggles in the connotation of person when there is no person there. I think Schaeffer uses the term Paneverythingism. I just found what was to become the first chapter of He is there and He is not silent, on-line. It was first given as a speech back in 71 (wow that was awhile ago.) Here is the link. Have a boo and let me know what you think.
chaleteagle.org
"As soon as you accept the impersonal beginning of all things, you are faced with some form of reductionism. The present form of evolution is reductionism, and in the intellectual circles of the world reductionism is taking a tremendous battering just as original Darwinian evolution did. Reductionism in science and philosophy means that everything there is from the stars to man can be understood by reducing them to an original, impersonal factor or factors.
Beginning with the impersonal, everything (including man) must be explained by the impersonal plus time plus chance. Do not let anybody divert your mind at this point. If you begin with an impersonal, then everything must be explained by time plus chance. There are no other factors in the formula, no other factors exist. If you begin with an impersonal, you cannot then have some form of teleological concept; you are left only with the impersonal plus time plus chance. No one has shown us how time plus chance can produce the needed complexity of the universe, let alone the personality of man if you begin with an impersonal.
Beginning with the impersonal is often called pantheism. The far-out young people, the new mystical thought, the underground newspapers almost always have some form of pantheism. Modern liberal philosophy is pantheistic as well. This beginning with the impersonal is often called pantheism, but this is a semantic trick. By using the word "theism," you bring in a connotation of the personal, when by definition you have said that you mean the impersonal. I never let anybody talk about pantheism without making this point clear. Pantheism gives you an illusion of personality on the basis of the word "theism," but this is really "paneverythingism." Whether they are from the old Hinduism, the old Buddhism, the modern mysticism, or the new Pantheistic theology, do not let them use the term pantheism. Every time they use pantheism, use paneverythingism. This deflates the argument, and it is fair to do because their pantheism is really a paneverythingism. It is only a semantic solution that is being offered because the word "theism" is a connotation word.
The modern, liberal theological thought of both the Protestant or Roman Catholic progressive side is basically pantheism. The modern scientific paneverythingism does the same thing by reducing everything to the impersonal energy particle. It does not matter which of these you encounter, you always have the same problem. The end is the impersonal.
Paneverythingism gives an answer for the need of unity, but none for the needed diversity. It gives an answer for form, but no meaning for freedom. The great problem with beginning with the impersonal is to find meaning for the particulars. A particular is any individual factor, any individual thing, the individual parts of a whole. A drop of water in this definition is a particular, and a man is a particular. What no one has ever been able to show is that if you begin with the impersonal, how do any of the particulars that now exist have any meaning, any significance, including man. Morals under any form of pantheism can have no meaning for everything is finally equal. You may use the word morals, but it is only a word.
These are the dilemmas of the second great answer, and it is the one that almost everybody holds today. Every naturalistic science holds this today, beginning everything with the energy particles. Almost every university student is some form of paneverythingist. Modern theological books today are almost uniformly pantheist. But beginning with an impersonal, you do not have answers in regard to existence either in regard to the complexity of the universe or the personality (the mannishness) of man." |
