pp 1–16 | Cite as

Hunky Panentheism

  • Roberto RodighieroEmail author


Panentheism, a frequently discussed view in recent theological debate, claims that the world is ‘in God’ but that God is ‘more than’ the world. Different theories of the structure of the world produce distinct panentheist views. According to the hunky structure, the world is composed of an infinite number of layers and lacks an ungrounded level. To depict this model, I employ the concepts of ‘grounding’ and ‘emergence.’ The outcome is that if the world is hunky and material reality emerges from such a structure, the world can be in God, but the model of God the Creator is dismissed.


Panentheism Emergence Grounding Fundamentality Creation 



I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.


  1. Aquinas, T. (1882–). Sancti Thomae Aquinatis Doctoris Angelici. Opera Omnia. Iussu Leonis XIII. Rome: Vatican Polyglot Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aquinas, T. (1929). Scriptum super Libros Sententiarum, P. Mandonnet (ed.), Paris: Lethielleux.Google Scholar
  3. Aquinas, T. (1966). In Octo Libros Politicorum Aristotelis Expositio, R. M. Spiazzi (ed.), Turin-Rome: Marietti.Google Scholar
  4. Biernacki, L., & Clayton, P. (Eds.). (2014). Panentheism across the World's traditions. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bohn, E. D. (2009a). An Argument against the Necessity of Unrestricted Composition. Analysis, 69(1), 27–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bohn, E. D. (2009b). Must there be a top level? The Philosophical Quarterly, 59(235), 193–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bousso, R., & Susskind, L. (2012). Multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics. Physical Review D, 85(4), 045007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Braddon-Mitchell, D., & Miller, K. (2006). The physics of extended simples. Analysis, 66(3), 222–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burrell, D. B. (2010). The act of creation with its theological consequences. In D. B. Burrell, C. Cogliati, J. M. Soskice, & W. R. Stoeger (Eds.), Creation and the god of Abraham (pp. 40–53). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cahoone, L. (2009). Arguments from nothing: God and quantum cosmology. Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, 44(4), 777–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clayton, P. (1997). God and Contemporary Science. Edimburgh. University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Clayton, P. (2006). Conceptual foundations of emergence theory. In P. Clayton & P. Davies (Eds.), The re-emergence of emergence. The Emergentist hypothesis from science to religion (pp. 1–34). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Clayton, P. (2010). Panentheisms east and west. Sophia, 49(2), 183–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cooper, J. W. (2007). Panentheism. The Other God of the Philosophers. From Plato to the present. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.Google Scholar
  15. Cotnoir, A. J. (2014). Universalism and junk. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 92(4), 649–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fine, K. (2012). Guide to ground. In F. Correia & B. Schnieder (Eds.), Metaphysical grounding (pp. 37–80). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Ford, L. S. (1991). Contrasting conceptions of creation. The Review of Metaphysics, 45(1), 89–109.Google Scholar
  18. Göcke, B. P. (2013). Panentheism and classical theism. Sophia, 52(1), 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Göcke, B. P. (2014). Reply to Raphael Lataster. Sophia, 53(3), 397–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Göcke, B. P. (2015). Another reply to Raphael Lataster. Sophia, 54(1), 99–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Göcke, B. P. (2017). Concepts of god and models of the god-world relation. Philosophy Compass, 12(2), e12402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Griffin, D. R. (2004). Panentheism: a postomodern revelation. In P. Clayton & A. Peacock (eds.), In whom we live and move and have our being: panentheistic reflections on God’s presence in a scientific world, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 36–47.Google Scholar
  23. Kaufmann, G. G. (2007). A religious interpretation of emergence: creativity as god. Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, 42(4), 915–928.Google Scholar
  24. Klein, P. (2005). Infinitism is the solution to the regress problem. In M. Steup & E. Sosa (Eds.), Contemporary debates in epistemology (pp. 131–140). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  25. Lataster, R. (2014). The attractiveness of panentheism—a reply to Benedikt Paul Göcke. Sophia, 53(3), 389–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lataster, R. (2015a). Theists misrepresenting panentheism—another reply to Benedikt Paul Göcke. Sophia, 54(1), 93–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lataster, R. (2015b). Pantheistic God-concepts: ancient, contemporary, popular and plausible alternatives to classical theism. Literature & Aesthetics, 25(1), 65–82.Google Scholar
  28. Lataster. R., & Bilimoria, P. (2018). Panentheism(s): what it is and is not. Journal of World Philosophies, 3(2), 49–64.Google Scholar
  29. Leidenhag, M. (2013). The relevance of emergence theory in the science-religion dialogue. Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, 48(4), 966–983.Google Scholar
  30. Levine, M. (1994). Pantheism: a non-theistic concept of deity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Levine, M. (2013). Introduction to ultimate reality. In J. Diller & A. Kasher (Eds.), Models of god and alternative ultimate realities (pp. 603–614). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lewis, D. (1986). On the plurality of worlds. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  33. Malin, S. (2012). Nature loves to hide. Quantum physics and the nature of reality, a Western perspective. (Revised edition). Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  34. Moltmann, J. (1985). God in creation: a new theology of creation and the spirit of god. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.Google Scholar
  35. Morganti, M. (2015). Dependence, justification and explanation: must reality be well-founded? Erkenntnis, 80(3), 555–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mormann, T. (2014). Set theory, topology, and the possibility of junky worlds. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 55(1), 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mullins, R. T. (2016). The difficulty with demarcating panentheism. Sophia, 55(3), 325–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Russell, J. S. (2008). The structure of gunk: adventures in the ontology of space. In D. Zimmerman (Ed.), Oxford studies in metaphysics (Vol. 4, pp. 248–274). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Schaffer, J. (2010). Monism: the priority of the whole. Philosophical Review, 119(1), 31–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schaffer, J. (2016). Grounding in the image of causation. Philosophical Studies, 173(1), 49–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Susskind, L. (2006). The cosmic landscape: string theory and the illusion of intelligent design. New York: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  42. Tegmark, M. (2004). Parallel universes. In J. D. Barrow, P. C. W. Davies, & C. L. Harper (Eds.), Science and ultimate reality (pp. 459–491). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tognazzini, N. A. (2006). Simples and the possibility of discrete space. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 84(1), 117–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Whitehead, A. N. (1929). Process and reality: an essay in cosmology. Corrected edition (1978), D. R. Griffin and D. W. Sherburne (eds.), New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TurinItaly

Personalised recommendations