| 词条 | Draft:Criticism of Pandeism |
| 释义 |
Pandeism has been criticized in various ways by proponents of other theological theories, particularly atheists and theists. Proponents of Pandeism have themselves published collections of such criticisms, including those written from Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Bahá'í, New Thought, and Atheist perspectives, as part of an ongoing project to increase awareness and debate regarding Pandeism.[1] At times, political and religious figures have been accused by ideological foes of secretly being Pandeists, as a means of casting aspersions on those accused. TheologyEarly oppositionIn 1834, publisher Giovanni Silvestri posthumously published a volume of sermons of Italian Padre Filippo Nannetti di Bibulano (aka il Filippo Nani, Padre da Lojano; 1759–1829), who named pandeism as being among beliefs he condemned, railing against "Jews, Muslims, Gentiles, Schismatics, Heretics, Pandeists, Deists, and troubled, restless spirits."[2] Nannetti further specifically criticized pandeism, declaring, "To you, fatal Pandeist! the laws that create nature are contingent and mutable, not another being in substance with forces driven by motions and developments."[3] In 1838, another Italian, phrenologist Luigi Ferrarese in Memorie Riguardanti la Dottrina Frenologica ("Thoughts Regarding the Doctrine of Phrenology") critically described Victor Cousin's philosophy as a doctrine which "locates reason outside the human person, declaring man a fragment of God, introducing a sort of spiritual pandeism, absurd for us, and injurious to the Supreme Being."[4] In 1897 Reverend Henry Grattan Guinness wrote critically that in India, "God is everything, and everything is God, and, therefore, everything may be adored. ... Her pan-deism is a pandemonium."[5] Later oppositionLater opposition to Pandeism has come both from theistic and atheistic or nontheistic directions. Theistic criticismPandeism has been criticized for not having a personal God, with Christian website GotQuestions.org stating: {{quote|the god of pandeism is not involved in the operation of the universe, and neither can he/it at all discern human experience. “God” is as near to you as the chair you’re sitting on, and he/it is just as inert. The pandeistic god has no more concern for you than the chair has.[6]}}Christian apologist John Oakes has described pandeism as an "ad hoc and a weak marriage" of pantheism and deism.[7] In Islam, a criticism is raised, wherein it is argued that "from the juristic standpoint, obliterating the distinctions between God and the universe necessarily entails that in effect there can be no Sharia, since the deontic nature of the Law presupposes the existence of someone who commands (amir) and others who are the recipients of the command (ma'mur), namely God and his subjects."[8] In 1996, Pastor Bob Burridge[9][10] of the Genevan Institute for Reformed Studies[11] wrote in his Survey Studies in Reformed Theology an essay on "The Decrees of God,"[12] also identifying the notion of God becoming the universe as incompatible with Christianity: {{quote|All the actions of created intelligences are not merely the actions of God. He has created a universe of beings which are said to act freely and responsibly as the proximate causes of their own moral actions. When individuals do evil things it is not God the Creator and Preserver acting. If God was the proximate cause of every act it would make all events to be "God in motion". That is nothing less than pantheism, or more exactly, pandeism.[13][12]}}Burridge disagrees that such is the case, decrying that "The Creator is distinct from his creation. The reality of secondary causes is what separates Christian theism from pandeism."[12] Burridge concludes by challenging his reader to determine why "calling God the author of sin demand[s] a pandeistic understanding of the universe effectively removing the reality of sin and moral law."[12][13] Nontheistic criticismSome theologians have specifically criticised the pandeistic notion of a Creator wholly becoming the universe. An example is William Walker Atkinson, in his Mastery of Being:[14] {{quote|It will be seen that this fact of the Immutability of REALITY, when clearly conceived, must serve to confute and refute the erroneous theories of certain schools of Pantheism which hold that "God becomes the Universe by changing into the Universe." Thus it is sought to identify Nature with God, whereby, as Schopenhauer said, "you show God to the door." If God changes Himself into The Phenomenal Universe, then God is non-existent and we need not concern ourselves any more about Him, for he has committed suicide by Change. In such case there is no God, no Infinite, no Immutable, no Eternal; everything has become finite, temporal, separate, a mere union of diverse finite parts. In that case are we indeed adrift in the Ocean of Diversity. We have lost our Foundation of REALITY, and are but ever-changing "parts" of physical things governed by physical laws. Then, indeed, would be true the idea of some of the old philosophies that "there is No Being; merely a Becoming." Then would there, in truth, be nothing constant, the universe never the same for two consecutive moments, with no permanent ground of REALITY to support it. But the reason of man, the very essence of his mental being, refuses to so think of That-which-IS. In his heart of hearts he recognizes the existence of THAT-WHICH-CHANGES-NOT, THAT-WHICH-IS-ETERNAL, THAT-WHICH-IS-REALITY..... Moreover, the idea of the immutability of REALITY must, serve to confute the erroneous idea of certain schools of metaphysics which assert the existence of "an Evolving God"; that is, a God which increases in intelligence, nature, and being by reason of the change of the universe, which is an expression of Himself. This conception is that of a Supreme Being who is growing, developing, and increasing in efficiency, wisdom, power, and character. This is an attempt to combine the anthropomorphic deity and the pantheistic Nature-God. The conception is clearly anthropomorphic, as it seeks to attribute to God the qualities and characteristics of man. It defies every fact of Ultimate Principle of REALITY. It is extremely unphilosophical and will not stand the test of logical examination.[14]}} Atkinson's passage to this effect has been identified as a criticism of Pandeism.[15] He claims that if God were evolving or improving, being an infinite being, it would have to be traceable back to some point of having "an infinitely undeveloped state and condition."[14] But, this claim was made prior to the rise of scientific knowledge pinpointing the beginning of the universe in time, and connecting time with space, so that time would not exist as we know it prior to the universe existing. In Pandeism: An Anthology, atheist Dan Dana criticizes Pandeism as simply unnecessary, despite acknowledging that it has fewer drawbacks than other theological models.[16] As an accusationDuring the 2008 United States presidential election, psychologist Alan J. Lipman wrote a fictitious account of a "Dr. Negative" being employed by candidate John McCain, and using a book the title of which grouped Pandeism together with concepts such as Drug Use, Adultery, Cubism, and Miscegenation as things a candidate could accuse a political opponent of.[17] The following year, conservative blogger Mark Finkelstein labeled Barack Obama, Al Gore, and New York Times columnist Gail Collins as Pandeists, in a piece titled "Happy Pan-Deism Day From Gail Collins".[18] Collins having noted the coincidence of Easter and Passover falling in the same week, wrote that "Americans with less religious inclinations can look forward to the upcoming Earth Day celebrations, when the president is planning to do something as yet unannounced, but undoubtedly special, and Arbor Day, when rumor has it that he will not just plant a tree, but personally reforest a large swath of the nation of Mali". Finkelstein retorted that "environmentalism has essentially become a religion, and Earth Day effectively a religious holiday. Yesterday's pan-deists, who worshiped trees and brooks, have become members of various environmental groups doing much the same thing. People like Al Gore others, and perhaps the reforesting Obama, have become their latter day shamans".[18] Renegade priest Paul Kramer deemed Pope Francis "a pandeist who does not believe in the transcendent God and Creator of Catholicism, but in the immanent ‘divine principle’ of Paganism, the life giving world soul (anima mundi) within the Universe", describing this as a creed "remarkably like a synthesis of the belief systems of Lord Shaftsbury (sic), Friedrich Schleiermacher, Benedict Spinoza, Auguste Compte, and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin."[19][20] Relations with other religions and communitiesReferences1. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.pandeismanthology.com|title=Pandeism Anthology Project|access-date=February 7, 2019}} {{Criticism of religion}}{{Draft categories|Pandeism2. ^Padre Filippo Nannetti di Bibulano (aka il Filippo Nani, Padre da Lojano), in [https://books.google.com/books?id=4kZjAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA284&dq=pandeisti&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjG05yUs8vJAhWuuYMKHfawCsYQ6AEILTAC#v=onepage&q=pandeisti&f=false Sermons and Panegyrics of the Father Filippo Nani of Lojana], Giovanni Silvestri, publisher, 1834, p. 284, Sermon XVIII: Miracles: "Ma questa religione predestinta col taumaturgo segnale si trova ella nel mondo i' Dove? in qual gente? in qual lido? Nelle sinagoghe giudaiche, o nelle meschìte dell l'Asia? Nelle pagoda cinesi, o nella società di Ginevra? Giudei, Maomettani, Gentili, Scismatici, Eretici, Pandeisti, Deisti, geni torbidi, e inquieti." ("But this religion predestined by the thaumaturgist signal, where in the world is she? in which people? on which shores? In Jewish synagogues, or mosques of Asia? Pagoda in Chinese, or in society in Geneva? Jews, Muslims, Gentiles, Schismatics, Heretics, Pandeists, Deists, and troubled, restless spirits.") 3. ^Padre Filippo Nannetti di Bibulano (aka il Filippo Nani, Padre da Lojano), in [https://books.google.com/books?id=QqV75cGMYsoC&pg=PA286&dq=pandeista&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9dfQUsTcMYvaoASCkoHYBw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=pandeista&f=false Sermons and Panegyrics of the Father Filippo Nani of Lojana], Giovanni Silvestri, publisher, 1834, p. 286, Sermon XVIII: Miracles: "A te, fatal Pandeista! le leggi della creata natura son contingenti e mutabili; non altro essendo in sostanza che moti e sviluppi di forze motrici." ("To you, fatal Pandeist! the laws that create nature are contingent and mutable, not another being in substance with forces driven by motions and developments.") 4. ^{{cite book|author = Luigi Ferrarese|title=Memorie risguardanti la dottrina frenologica|year=1838|page=15|quote=Dottrina, che pel suo idealismo poco circospetto, non solo la fede, ma la stessa ragione offende (il sistema di Kant): farebbe mestieri far aperto gli errori pericolosi, così alla Religione, come alla Morale, di quel psicologo franzese, il quale ha sedotte le menti (Cousin), con far osservare come la di lui filosofia intraprendente ed audace sforza le barriere della sacra Teologia, ponendo innanzi ad ogn'altra autorità la propria: profana i misteri, dichiarandoli in parte vacui di senso, ed in parte riducendoli a volgari allusioni, ed a prette metafore; costringe, come faceva osservare un dotto Critico, la rivelazione a cambiare il suo posto con quello del pensiero istintivo e dell' affermazione senza riflessione e colloca la ragione fuori della persona dell'uomo dichiarandolo un frammento di Dio, una spezie di pandeismo spirituale introducendo, assurdo per noi, ed al Supremo Ente ingiurioso, il quale reca onda grave alla libertà del medesimo, ec, ec.}} 5. ^Henry Grattan Guinness, "First Impressions of India", in John Harvey Kellogg, and the International Health and Temperance Association's, The Medical Missionary (1897), pages 125-127. 6. ^https://www.gotquestions.org/pandeism.html 7. ^http://evidenceforchristianity.org/what-is-your-response-to-pandeism/ 8. ^Aḥmad ibn ʻAbd al-Ḥalīm Ibn Taymīyah, Wael B. Hallaq, Ibn Taymiyya against the Greek logicians, 1993, xxvi. 9. ^Genevan Institute for Reformed Studies. 10. ^Homepage of Bob Burridge. 11. ^Genevan Institute for Reformed Studies. 12. ^1 2 3 Bob Burridge, "Theology Proper: Lesson 4 – The Decrees of God", Survey Studies in Reformed Theology, Genevan Institute for Reformed Studies (1996). 13. ^1 Knujon Mapson, "A Brief History of Pandeism," Pandeism: An Anthology (2017), p. 31. 14. ^1 2 William Walker Atkinson, [https://books.google.com/books?id=2QpsrDUijTUC&pg=PA56&dq=%22Another+error+of+pantheism%22&cd=5#v=onepage&q=%22Another%20error%20of%20pantheism%22&f=false Mastery of Being], 1911, pages 56 to 59. 15. ^Atkinson, William Walker (January 27, 2017). "Axioms of Reality -- Concluded". In Mapson, Knujon. Pandeism: An Anthology. John Hunt Publishing. pp. 438–444. {{ISBN|978-1785354120}} 16. ^Dan Dana, Pandeism: An Anthology (2016). 17. ^Dr. Alan J. Lipman, The Impulsively Unreflective Duo In..."McCain Goes Negative!", Dr. Alan J. Lipman's Head of State: Political and Media Psychology, Saturday, October 04, 2008. 18. ^1 "Happy Pan-Deism Day From Gail Collins" (April 11, 2009). 19. ^{{cite web|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180612162446/https://biblefalseprophet.com/2016/09/06/jorge-bergoglios-religion-freemasonry-naturalism-rationalism-pandeism/|first=Father Paul|last=Kramer|title=Jorge Bergoglio’s Religion — Freemasonry (Naturalism, Rationalism, Pandeism |date=6 September 2016}} 20. ^{{cite web|url=https://gloria.tv/article/2cT4DpYn94DW3JJEGZyLZ4NFs|title=Why this Catholic priest Paul Kramer does not think Pope Francis is the true pope|date=12 March 2017|first=Libor|last=Halik|website=gloria.tv}} }} |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。