Sophia

, Volume 53, Issue 3, pp 389–395 | Cite as

The Attractiveness of Panentheism—a Reply to Benedikt Paul Göcke

Reply

Abstract

In his recent article in Sophia, Benedikt Paul Göcke concluded that ‘as long as we do not have a sound argument entailing the necessity of the world, panentheism is not an attractive alternative to classical theism’ (Benedikt Paul Göcke, ‘Panentheism and Classical Theism’, Sophia 52, no. 1 (2013): 75). As the article progresses, Göcke clarifies his view of what panentheism is, essentially identical to Göcke’s view of classical theism in every way, except in the world’s modal relation to God. This concept is vastly different to many of the panentheistic notions that are more commonly held. While it is not initially made transparent—especially with the label Göcke chooses to use—it becomes increasingly clear that Göcke critiques a God concept of his own making. More common variations of panentheism are contrasted with Göcke’s version, in order to provide a broader and more accurate view of the ancient concept, and to demonstrate that Göcke’s view of panentheism is idiosyncratic. It is finally explained that even if Göcke’s view of panentheism were definitive, he has not successfully argued for the relative unattractiveness of the concept, relative to his view of classical theism.

Keywords

Panentheism Göcke Pantheism Theism 

References

  1. Baltzly, D. (2010). Is Plato’s Timaeus panentheistic? Sophia, 49(2), 193–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barua, A. (2010). God’s body at work: Ramanuja and panentheism. International Journal of Hindu Studies, 14(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benedikt Paul, G. (2013). Panentheism and classical theism. Sophia, 52(1), 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bilimoria, P. (2012). Why is there nothing rather than something? An essay in the comparative metaphysic of nonbeing. Sophia, 51(4), 509–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bilimoria, P., & Stansell, E. (2010). Suturing the Body Corporate (Divine and Human) in the Brahmanic Traditions. Sophia, 49(2), 237–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chalmers, J. D. (2002). Does conceivability entail metaphysical possibility? In T. S. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Conceivability and possibility (pp. 145–200). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Clayton, P. (2010). Panentheisms East and West. Sophia, 49(2), 183–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Copan, P., & Craig, W. L. (2004). Creation out of nothing: a biblical, philosophical, and scientific exploration. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.Google Scholar
  9. Hutchings, P. (2010). Postlude: panentheism. Sophia, 49(2), 297–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kazantzakis, N. (2005). Saint Francis. Chicago, IL: Loyola Press.Google Scholar
  11. Morillo, C. R. (1977). The logic of arguments from contingency. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 37(3), 408–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Philipse, H. (2012). God in the age of science?: A critique of religious reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Phillips, S. H. (1989). ‘Mutable God’: Hartshorne and Indian Theism. In R. Kane & S. H. Phillips (Eds.), Hartshorne: process philosophy and theology (pp. 113–134). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  14. Prabhu, J. (2010). Hegel’s secular theology. Sophia, 49(2), 217–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rundle, B. (2004). Why there is something rather than nothing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Stansell, E., & Phillips, S. H. (2010). Hartshorne and Indian panentheism. Sophia, 49(2), 285–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tritten, T. (2010). Nature and freedom: repetition as supplement in the late Schelling. Sophia, 49(2), 261–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Yih-jiun Peter, W. (2010). Prelude. Sophia, 49(2), 181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations