Recently, when I got to the end of an op-ed piece in the New York Times, a sense of "there's something missing from this argument" filled me.
The author had been talking about Hollywood's religious preference as expressed in the movie, Avatar, which he argued was pantheism. Pantheism was contrasted unfavorably to Christianity and monotheism. Humanity's participation in the biosphere's life-and-death-cycles was painted as a midway-point between Nature and God, requiring the transcendence of God to be borne. Pantheism -- "atheism sexed up" -- was portrayed as a way to drop out, a regression from the human state to a animalistic pre-consciousness.
After some reflection, I concluded what was missing from the piece were the flip-sides of the author's arguments. The first assumes that there is a Great Chain of Being stretching from Earth (Nature) to the Deity. In mediaeval and renaissance times this great chain was sometimes depicted as a ladder with -- in ascending order -- an ape, a man, the Perfect Man, and Angel, maybe an arch-angel, and Deity at the top. The other flip-side of the argument is the assumption that because we are self-conscious we are somehow apart from Nature and Deity.
It seems as if the author is stuck on the mid-point of his monotheistic ladder. He neglected to speak about an important aspect of pantheism: Deity is immanent in the material world, not transcendent to it. The entire Great Chain of Being is flattened -- God is the ape, God is the ladder, God is humankind, God is....
Yes, certainly every living thing needs to metabolize, and everything dies. Welcome to the second law of thermodynamics; there's no such thing as a free lunch. But our self-awareness demands a transcendent God to help us deal with it in order to be fully actualized as spiritual beings? I guess I prefer pantheism because using my conscious awareness to commune with universal processes reminds me that I am here, now, in body, mind and spirit.
And, hey -- it's only a movie.
2 comments:
At this hour I'm having trouble replying brilliantly, so I'd just list one question and one statement.
1. Question: Is Douthat's statement that pantheism "equates God with nature," an accurate short definition of pantheism?
2. Statement: the Christian position as I understand it, is precisely that there IS such a thing as a free lunch: most notably in Christ, but also in the gift of creation, which none of us deserve. Love is also a gift, the most "universal" process there is, or at least the most real, because it is both God's character and God's intention.
Hi Dave!
1) I think it would be accurate to say that both of us are playing fast and loose with what pantheism means. My sense is that Douthat is using "Pantheism" and "Nature Worship" (and possibly "Animal Worship") interchangeably. In my own mind, I tend to get stuck in a specific pantheon, and forget the greater pantheism. "God = Nature" is too simplistic and limiting of God.
2) I came close to wring "forever now" and "forever here" in my conclusion. And I shied away from writing about a Pantheistic interpretation of Chardin's Omega Point... but, Chardin says, "Well, on the spiritual dimension, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is reversed." Which plays into my argument because mind and consciousness become one with spirit after the Omega Point.
So with extra-dimensional hand-waving, you can get a free lunch in the same way that MC Escher can get a waterfall to be its source.
Post a Comment