tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post4091883197604127751..comments2023-10-05T00:44:33.255+08:00Comments on CreationEvolutionDesign: Re: Is ID consistent with atheism?Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-11441587881043560632008-01-24T06:45:00.000+09:002008-01-24T06:45:00.000+09:00Stephen>Intelligent design, by the same reasoning,...Stephen<BR/><BR/>>Intelligent design, by the same reasoning, would be considered atheism. ... It is only dualism that is being endorsed by the separation of God from God's creation<BR/><BR/>ID is compatible with "Theism ... the doctrine of an *extramundane*, personal God, the creator, preserver, and governor of all things" whereas your own comment says that Panpsychism is not compatible with "the *separation* of God from God's creation."<BR/><BR/>So I stand by my comment that Panpsychism is just another form of Atheism, i.e. Panpsychism, like "Polytheism, Hylozoism, Materialism, and Pantheism, belong to the class of anti-theistic theories."<BR/><BR/>But as per my Policies stated on this blog's front page, I no longer debate, so this is my last response to your comments, and I will let you have the last word.<BR/><BR/>Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-19308519687897084072008-01-24T01:26:00.000+09:002008-01-24T01:26:00.000+09:00Intelligent design, by the same reasoning, would b...Intelligent design, by the same reasoning, would be considered atheism. But neither intelligent design, nor panpsychism, endorses atheism despite the claims of Hoyle and others. Panpsychism cannot deny a personal God by the very fact that we people are part of broad reality which includes the physical world. It is only dualism that is being endorsed by the separation of God from God's creation, and I don't think that theism is a restatement of this dualism. Atheism does not even come close to an endorsement of panpsychism, and C.S. Peirce, A.N. Whitehead, Teilhard de Chardin, and C. Hartshorne were not atheists. The atheistic panpsychism of D.S. Clarke is found incoherent, in my view.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-29037968319801676342008-01-23T20:21:00.000+09:002008-01-23T20:21:00.000+09:00StephenThanks for your comment.>...the panpsychist...Stephen<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your comment.<BR/><BR/>>...the panpsychist thesis ... which implies that spirit (or God) is hard wired into the very fabric of space and time.<BR/>><BR/>This leave classical atheism far behind ...<BR/><BR/>Panpsychism, i.e. "all is mind", or "the whole universe is an organism that possesses a mind" (Wikipedia) denies Theism, i.e. the existence of an infinite-personal God who is distinct from the Universe that He created and sustains.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, as the late great Presbyterian theologian Charles Hodge explained, anything that denies Theism, and in particular, Theism's God (which would include Panpsychism) is just another form of Atheism:<BR/><BR/>"As Theism is the doctrine of an extramundane, personal God, the creator, preserver, and governor of all things, any doctrine which denies the existence of such a Being is anti-theistic. Not only avowed Atheism, therefore, but Polytheism, Hylozoism, Materialism, and Pantheism, belong to the class of anti-theistic theories. Atheism does not call for any separate discussion. It is in itself purely negative. It affirms nothing. It simply denies what Theism asserts. The proof of Theism is, therefore, the, refutation of Atheism.. Atheist is, however, a term of reproach. Few men are willing to call themselves, or to allow others to call them by that name. Hume, we know, resented it. Hence those who are really atheists, according to the etymological and commonly received meaning of the word, repudiate the term. They claim to be believers in God, although they assign to that word a meaning which is entirely unauthorized by usage. ... Language, however, has its rights. The meaning of words cannot be changed at the pleasure of individuals. The word God, and its equivalents in other languages, have a definite meaning, from which no man is at liberty to depart. If any one says he believes in God, he says he believes in the existence of a personal, self-conscious being. He does not believe in God, if he only believes in `motion,' in `force,' in `thought,'' in `moral order,' in `the incomprehensible,' or in any other abstraction. Theists also have their rights. Theism is a definite form of belief. For the expression of that belief, the word Theism is the established and universally recognized term. We have the right to retain it; and we have the right to designate as Atheism, all forms of doctrine which involve the denial of what is universally understood by Theism." (Hodge, C., "<A HREF="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hodge/theology1.txt" REL="nofollow">Systematic Theology</A>," [1892], James Clark & Co: London, Vol. I, Reprinted, 1960, pp.241-242).<BR/><BR/>For example, the late Fred Hoyle claimed that the Universe as a whole was "intelligent," which would be a form of Panpsychism, yet he still regarded himself as an atheist. <BR/><BR/>Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-41833976164629738462008-01-23T14:11:00.000+09:002008-01-23T14:11:00.000+09:00Purpose in the universe is also implied by the evo...Purpose in the universe is also implied by the evolution described in Steve McIntosh's "Integral consciousness and the Future of Evolution." It would seem that the panpsychist thesis has won (assuming these new accounts have revealed a closer truth), which implies that spirit (or God) is hard wired into the very fabric of space and time. This leave classical atheism far behind, unless atheism revises itself into something like Buddhism (which also reconnects to spirit).Stephen P. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00040373228933088197noreply@blogger.com