Abstract
Theologian Benedikt Paul Göcke claimed 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 much of my research considers the alternatives to classical theism, I published a damning reply essay (Raphael Lataster, 'The Attractiveness of Panentheism—a Reply to Benedikt Paul Göcke', Sophia 53, no. 3 (2014): 389–395). I comprehensively noted the many problems with his notion of ‘panentheism’, finding that it differed greatly from mainstream and earlier Eastern and Western interpretations, had little to do with the etymology of the term and differed only from his concept of theism in that the world is necessary instead of contingent. It is the latter point that led to Göcke’s ‘unattractive’ conclusion, though he had not demonstrated whether the world is contingent or necessary. Göcke responded to my essay (Benedikt Paul Göcke, 'Reply to Raphael Latester', Sophia 53, no.3 (2014): 397–400), and this is my further response, which explains that—and why—my criticisms still stand.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
Benedikt Paul Göcke, 'Reply to Raphael Latester', Sophia 53, no. 3 (2014): 397.
Ibid.
Barua notes Christian reactions to notions of the world where God and the Universe are of the same substance, and Ramanuja’s belief that the “world literally is the body of Brahman”. See Ankur Barua, ‘God’s Body at work: Ramanuja and panentheism’, International Journal of Hindu Studies 14, no. 1 (2010): 1–3.
It is quite astonishing that he did not properly compare his brand of panentheism with even one alternative, let alone all of them. If he is going to claim that his version is more plausible, Göcke needs to clarify the ‘compared to "what" and the "why" '. He ignores the former, and fails to explain the latter.
Göcke, 'Reply to Raphael Latester': 397.
Bilimoria and Stansell interpret Ramanuja as explaining that ‘the individual as a body, and so on, is part and parcel of God’s body and yet delimited by a soul’. See Purushottama Bilimoria and Ellen Stansell, ‘Suturing the body corporate (divine and human) in the Brahmanic traditions,’ Sophia 49, no. 2 (2010): 252. They go on to discuss panentheisms that more explicitly involve the world as literally originating ‘from his body’ (240, 258). For more on such panentheistic notions, see Anne Hunt Overzee, The body divine: the symbol of the body in the works of Teilhard De Chardin and Ramanuja (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). I also earlier directed Göcke to Sophia’s recent special issue on panentheism.
Göcke, 'Reply to Raphael Latester': 398.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Göcke, 'Reply to Raphael Latester': 399.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Göcke, 'Reply to Raphael Latester': 399–400.
Göcke, 'Reply to Raphael Latester': 400.
Ibid.
Benedikt Paul Göcke, ‘Panentheism and classical theism’, Sophia 52, no. 1 (2013): 62.
Benedikt Paul Göcke, ‘Reply to Raphael Latester’, Sophia (2014): 4. This also seems to implicate Göcke’s feigned ignorance regarding my apparent failing to mention alternative panentheistic models (1).
Interestingly, the term ‘God’ was also not used by ancient Greek and Hebrew peoples.
‘Thus it is the nature of infinite reality (if such exists) to contain all things within itself. Panentheists in the East and West are those who believe there is in fact an infinite or ultimate reality and who agree with Hegel that it cannot be limited by anything outside itself. Brahman for many in the Vedic traditions, and God for many theologians in the West, is such a reality. Hence they are panentheists.’ See Philip Clayton, “Panentheisms East and West,” Sophia 49, no. 2 (2010): 184. In fact, Clayton considers the work of Ramanuja ‘to be one of the greatest expressions of panentheistic thought across the world’s tradition, and I hold it up unapologetically as a model for contemporary Western panentheisms’ (187). While discussing Ramanuja’s panentheism, Clayton notes that God is not merely ‘the efficient cause of things, the way that the potter molds the clay, but is also the substrative cause, that of which everything is made’ (189). Note that like certain Indian mystics, other Western panentheistic scholars explicitly rejected creatio ex nihilo, such as Hartshorne and Jantzen. See Ankur Barua, “God’s body at work: Ramanuja and panentheism,” International Journal of Hindu Studies 14, no. 1 (2010): 10, 21.
Göcke, ‘Reply to Raphael Latester’: 397
His insistence on linking panentheism to creatio ex nihilo beggars belief; it goes against all scholarship on the matter.
As noted in my initial reply piece, many philosophers feel that a necessary God can only create a necessary universe.
Incredibly, part of Göcke’s piece may inadvertently be highly significant to Christian philosophers of religion. The concept he does formulate could be seen as a form of theism that is superior to that most prominent, if it is accepted that the world is necessary. In his failed quest to combat panentheism, he may have stumbled upon a more plausible form of theism.
References
Barua, A. (2010). God’s body at work: Ramanuja and panentheism. International Journal of Hindu Studies, 14(1), 1–30.
Bilimoria, P., & Stansell, E. (2010). Suturing the body corporate (divine and human) in the Brahmanic traditions. Sophia, 49(2), 237–259.
Clayton, P. (2010). Panentheisms east and west. Sophia, 49(2), 183–191.
Darwin, C. (1911). On the origin of species. London: Ward Lock & Co.
Göcke, B. P. (2013). Panentheism and classical theism. Sophia, 52(1), 61–75.
Göcke, B. P. (2014). Reply to Raphael Latester. Sophia, 53(3), 397–400.
Lataster, R. (2014). The attractiveness of panentheism—a reply to Benedikt Paul Göcke. Sophia, 53(3), 389–395.
Overzee, A. H. (1992). The body divine: the symbol of the body in the works of Teilhard De Chardin and Ramanuja. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The Editors of Sophia apologise to Mr. Raphael Lataster for failing to pick up Dr. Göcke’s misspelling of his name.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lataster, R. Theists Misrepresenting Panentheism—Another Reply to Benedikt Paul Göcke. SOPHIA 54, 93–98 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-014-0456-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-014-0456-7