Panentheism

[Inigo Montoya]

Panentheism (from Greek pân (all); en (in); Theós (God): "all-in-God") is the theological position that God is immanent within the Universe, but also transcends it. In panentheism, God is viewed as the Creator and/or "animating force" behind the Universe, and often also the source of universal morality. It is distinguished from pantheism, which holds that God is synonymous with the material universe. 


In this case, "God" is viewed as creator/animating force behind the universe, immanent within it whilst also transcending it.

I notice William adopts this belief as well as our own esteemed Mithrae.

For myself, and the reason I'm asking for some clarity, I find panentheism (as I'm reading its description) manages, extraordinarily, to be even more vague than the standard "revealed" religions and philosophical worldviews we normally debate here. I mean no personal disrespect when I admit it strikes me as a sort of distancing from specific doctrines and dogmas (and the nightmare of defending conflicting attributes and shady histories) while still wanting to maintain some sort of spiritual position. A position that looks, on its face, absurdly difficult to even comprehend.

Questions for debate:

All the questions. Really. All of them. Are you able to discern whether the God of the Bible or Quran meshes with the panentheistic view, whatever that might be? This God simultaneously exists within and beyond the universe how? As a mind? A discrete agency? Which is it, animating force or creator? Says "and/or." What authority settles the matter regarding questions within panentheism? In what way does an animating force impart moral values to humankind? How is the existence of the panentheistic God deduced/verified/demonstrated? On what basis is its existence rationally justified?

And more! Chime in and help me understand. It presents as Deepak-ish woo; carefully non-commital and simultaneously sage-like, a very light (possibly empty) bag of pseudo-religious attachments just hazy enough to avoid the horrors of outright atheism.

Mithrae, you're a word-smith and you have a fan in me. Make sense of this position, how it's defined in detail, and why it's more rational than the rest of the buffet of belief or non-belief options.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Inigo Montoya]

If one latches on to the passage from Acts, could the Christian God qualify as Panentheistic?

To paraphrase Paul to the Athenians, "Yet God is never far from any of us, for in Him we live and move and have our being".

[dio9]

[Replying to post 1 by Inigo Montoya]

" Which is it, animating force or creator? "

God is both. Hinduism puts it clearer than Christianity. Of course they have multi Gods but , Hebraism combines both ideas into one. God creates and maintains the world as the creator savior and maintainer. God is actively engaged in human happenings. God has a stake in human history. This is damn close to panentheism. Jesus is perhaps the penultimate example of panentheism in whom God is believed to be actually incarnate in him wholly God and wholly man, where incarnation=panentheism. You will have to sort out yourself at what point his humanity and divinity co-mingle .

[Mithrae]

Panentheism (from Greek pân (all); en (in); Theós (God): "all-in-God") is the theological position that God is immanent within the Universe, but also transcends it. In panentheism, God is viewed as the Creator and/or "animating force" behind the Universe, and often also the source of universal morality. It is distinguished from pantheism, which holds that God is synonymous with the material universe. 


In this case, "God" is viewed as creator/animating force behind the universe, immanent within it whilst also transcending it.

I notice William adopts this belief as well as our own esteemed Mithrae.

For myself, and the reason I'm asking for some clarity, I find panentheism (as I'm reading its description) manages, extraordinarily, to be even more vague than the standard "revealed" religions and philosophical worldviews we normally debate here. I mean no personal disrespect when I admit it strikes me as a sort of distancing from specific doctrines and dogmas (and the nightmare of defending conflicting attributes and shady histories) while still wanting to maintain some sort of spiritual position. A position that looks, on its face, absurdly difficult to even comprehend.

Questions for debate:

All the questions. Really. All of them. Are you able to discern whether the God of the Bible or Quran meshes with the panentheistic view, whatever that might be? This God simultaneously exists within and beyond the universe how? As a mind? A discrete agency? Which is it, animating force or creator? Says "and/or." What authority settles the matter regarding questions within panentheism? In what way does an animating force impart moral values to humankind? How is the existence of the panentheistic God deduced/verified/demonstrated? On what basis is its existence rationally justified?

And more! Chime in and help me understand. It presents as Deepak-ish woo; carefully non-commital and simultaneously sage-like, a very light (possibly empty) bag of pseudo-religious attachments just hazy enough to avoid the horrors of outright atheism.

Mithrae, you're a word-smith and you have a fan in me. Make sense of this position, how it's defined in detail, and why it's more rational than the rest of the buffet of belief or non-belief options.

Thanks... but no pressure or anything, huh?

I can't explain how panentheism is defined in detail, because as far as I'm concerned its just a word which seems to pretty reasonably match the views I've formed over the years. I was a Christian from age 12 to 20 (2004), then for a while considered myself an agnostic theist, then an agnostic or atheist by the time I joined this forum in 2010. I'm still agnostic and I suppose some folk would say that I'm still an atheist, since I don't "believe" in any kind of deity, simply consider theism more probable or more plausible than any alternatives I've yet encountered.

That belief/non-belief question of yours is troubling to me, because given the scope of uncertainty attending everything we 'know,' how can a binary division possibly produce anything except confusion and misguided thinking? Since I've never been to say Minsk, don't personally know anyone who has, and don't know the names or anything about the people who've written encyclopedia articles or marked it on a map, I have to assume perhaps a 0.01% chance that this 'knowledge' is incorrect. If there's only a 99.99% probability that Minsk is real, perhaps there's only a 99% probability/plausibility that Charles Darwin wrote Origin of Species... perhaps only a 90% probability that Socrates existed. So at what point should I 'believe' something? While there's obviously plenty of uncertainty around those estimates of uncertainty themselves, to simply say that I "don't believe" something would be far more imprecise again; and that lack of any attempt at quantitative analysis is one of the habits shared by conspiracy theories, amateur 'scepticism' of mainstream science, political hyperpartisanship, religious dogmas and so on.

So how much uncertainty do you suppose is likely to attend any question about the fundamental nature of reality itself?

You've made comments that this word panentheism is vague or difficult to comprehend, as if that's a bad thing. I would suggest otherwise. As usual, South Park shows the way here in the episode "Fantastic Easter Special" (best Jesus scene ever fyi, well worth watching). Even when the most accurate and honest answer to a question is that we don't really know, it's difficult to try to maintain a mental void or continually entertain multiple competing views at the same time; again, that's part of the reason why we get religious dogmas and conspiracy theories. And perhaps that's why we see so many people on the forum arguing from the position of philosophical naturalism, even though I have never seen it coherently defended (or defined, for that matter): Taking the simple, imprecise "don't believe" approach regarding religious claims, it seems to be widely accept as some kind of 'default' that instead there must be a specific natural order largely understood by and extending just a few decades beyond current scientific knowledge. Inasmuch as we need a placeholder for uncertainty, a bunny or a flying spaghetti monster or a somewhat vague word like panentheism are useful in reminding us of the possibilities still open, rather than assuming that "don't believe" leads to a default of those possibilities being probably closed.

As to why theism is the more plausible way of imagining reality - perhaps somewhere in the order of 50-70% 'probability' - I'll provide some links to earlier threads below. But basically the reasoning is that substance dualism is nonsensical (for example, if 'god' were a non-spatial entity it would be incoherent to even talk of it having any contact with our spatial reality) and compared with the monistic view which imagines reality in terms of materialism or non-consciousness, the one which imagines reality in terms of idealism or consciousness:
A > Introduces fewer new assumptions, in that we know that minds and thoughts exist but have no proof of non-mental 'physical' stuff;
B > Poses fewer new conceptual difficulties in explaining how consciousness exists in a non-conscious universe and
C > Provides a more elegant and comprehensive explanatory framework, in that alongside biological evolution thoughts are the only thing we know which can explain complexity from simpler origins.

Are you able to discern whether the God of the Bible or Quran meshes with the panentheistic view, whatever that might be?

Christians usually come across as having a dualistic view; certainly in regards to human body/spirit dualism, and by implication that this is a mere 'fallen' material reality while God is pure and spiritual; that God sustains the world but the Creator is distinct from creation. However there have been some monistic Christian sects and even some bible verses which could be interpreted that way (Elijah John has mentioned the most obvious, in Acts 17). Of course Christians and Muslims who don't subscribe to the doctrine that ancient authors should do their thinking for them might understand their religion more broadly than the written texts in any case.

This God simultaneously exists within and beyond the universe how? As a mind? A discrete agency? Which is it, animating force or creator?

As Mind/s yes, that's the reasoning which brought me here. "Within" the universe doesn't seem like a very good choice of words; it implies that there is a universe, and God happens to be in it. Panentheism (all-in-god) suggests instead that the universe is within God; her daydream or perhaps her magnum opus, but the thoughts of God either way. Whether there is any more God "beyond" the universe is a good question - what would that even mean, especially if the universe (or multiverse) consists of all space and time? While I'm not a fan of grandiose claims about 'infinite' attributes, one possible answer is that even if God, reality, time/space and the universe were coextensive, there's no reason to suppose that every attribute of reality/God could affect, interact with or be perceived or conceived by us, even in theory, which would make them for all intents and purposes distinct from our universe:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Sp ... atheist.3F
  It is a widespread belief that Spinoza equated God with the material universe. He has therefore been called the "prophet"[96] and "prince"[97] and most eminent expounder of pantheism. More specifically, in a letter to Henry Oldenburg he states, "as to the view of certain people that I identify God with Nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken".[98] For Spinoza, our universe (cosmos) is a mode under two attributes of Thought and Extension. God has infinitely many other attributes which are not present in our world.

What authority settles the matter regarding questions within panentheism?

Settles what matter? If I'm curious about observable/repeatable reality, I look to scientists. I'm curious about non-repeatable history, I look to historical sources. If I'm curious about morality, I think about it and perhaps read what scientists, philosophers, religious folk and those with relevant experience have had to say.

In what way does an animating force impart moral values to humankind?

I don't know whether that's the case. If it were, it must have been through the process of evolution, given the apparent empathy and altruism which can be seen in other primates and doubtless other animals also.

How is the existence of the panentheistic God deduced/verified/demonstrated? On what basis is its existence rationally justified?

As above: But I'll add/reiterate that the question is not "Does this entity ('god') exist?" It's "This entity (reality) exists, so what can we most reasonably infer/speculate about its nature?"

Pretending that god's existence is a distinct question suggests that you can "not believe" that answer and you're still left with a 'default' view of reality, which is obviously entirely fallacious. Hopefully that three-point summary above will suffice as an explanation for now, but I've explained my opinions in more detail in various older and newer threads:

Knowledge from first principles - Minds and matter: What can I reasonably believe?
A 2012 thread thoroughly explaining argument A above, also with some discussion in pages 2 and 3 of the 'emergence' theory of consciousness (point B above)

Skyhooks and cranes - Richard Dawkins makes a case for panentheism
A 2013 thread explaining point C above.

One recent thread discussing these ideas with Marco and Kenisaw.

An even more recent thread explaining my opinions to Benchwarmer (whose response I didn't answer, but touched on pages 5-6 in discussion with Bust Nak).



Edit: I'll also add in response to some of the above comments that I occasionally wish I could be one of those 'spiritual,' woo-woo kind of folks. Doubt and questioning everything and trying to consistently quantify uncertainty can be a pretty joyless existence, at least until my next night on the town or trip to the brothel I don't have any particularly strong reason to believe that people who have claimed personal spiritual or divine experiences (eg. biblical authors and some forum members including William) are incorrect, but nor do I have particularly strong reasons to believe any given account or had any such experience myself that bears the scrutiny of hindsight.

[marco]

[Replying to post 1 by Inigo Montoya]

Some months ago we were treated here to a discourse on Process Theology and we learned of Whitehead's interest in panentheism. I am not sure that when we left the lecture we were any more the wiser.

I believe Einstein was attracted to pantheism. Panentheism has the merit of making the confused more confused and so unlikely to throw stones. If the premise is that God is everything and more and feels all we feel, there is nothing much to be done but get on with living our formic existence.

My question is always: how do we know? Whitehead concluded that God's existence is essential or there would be chaos. Perhaps. But the panentheistic God seems no more capable of communicating properly than the others, unless we believe that Yahweh did indeed shout from mountains.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 4 by Mithrae]

Just a few simple responses here

Taking the simple, imprecise "don't believe" approach regarding religious claims, it seems to be widely accept as some kind of 'default' that instead there must be a specific natural order largely understood by and extending just a few decades beyond current scientific knowledge.

This is incorrect. You're taking two things and collating them into one.
My approach is this
Person with Religious Claim: The truth of reality is {Insert Religious Claim}, e.g. Jesus's death was a ransom payment for humanity's sins.
Me: I don't believe this claim.

Notice that the other person did not present evidence to support his claim. He just made a claim about reality and did nothing to back it up.

After that...if I am so minded, I will examine his claim. Going by previous experience and knowledge of other religions (some of which have since died out, others that the other person will dismiss), I will point out that time after time after time, religious claims have fallen out of favour when science came along. A significant chunk of the European population once believed thunder and lightning to be caused by the god Thor throwing his hammer against his enemies: now we know it has to do with electromagnetic discharges and pressure in the atmosphere.

The reason I start off by 'don't believe', is because I quite simply am incapable of believing any and all claims I hear. If I tried to do that, I'd inevitably somehow end up trying to believe mutually exclusive claims e.g. trying to believe that thunder is caused by Thor, Zeus and Tlaloc.

rather than assuming that "don't believe" leads to a default of those possibilities being probably closed.

No, 'don't believe' doesn't mean possibilities are closed. It simply means that you don't give credence to someone's claim before they've given evidence.

A > Introduces fewer new assumptions, in that we know that minds and thoughts exist but have no proof of non-mental 'physical' stuff;

What evidence do we have of minds that do not require a physical shell of some sort?

As Mind/s yes, that's the reasoning which brought me here.

As you noted above, it doesn't make sense talk about a God who is a non-spatial entity somehow interacting with our spatial reality. The same applies here in my mind. How does it make sense to talk about a mind without a physical shell of some kind? Every single example we have of a mind in reality has existed conterminously with a shell, to the point that in my eyes, minds cannot exist without them.

But I'll add/reiterate that the question is not "Does this entity ('god') exist?" It's "This entity (reality) exists, so what can we most reasonably infer/speculate about its nature?"

I agree that reality exists, but why are you seemingly conflating reality with God? What steps have you gone through to show that the two are (more or less) one and the same?
If the two are not (more or less) one and the same, how does it make sense to say the following "Does this entity (FSM) exist - It's "This entity (reality) exists"?

Pretending that god's existence is a distinct question suggests that you can "not believe" that answer and you're still left with a 'default' view of reality, which is obviously entirely fallacious.

My "default" view" is to not believe claims from people until evidence is provided. Notice that this does not in and of itself consist of a view, just a (temporary?) rejection of other's views.

[Inigo Montoya]

Riku and Marco, excellent posts. Dio, in one sentence, has made more sense out of wholly god/wholly human than any Christian apologist I've ever read.

Mithrae, I owe your efforts a lengthy wander down the rabbit hole before I respond. You've provided links and a response I'll first digest before coming back. Appreciate the thorough consideration.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 4 by Mithrae]

Just a few simple responses here

And perhaps that's why we see so many people on the forum arguing from the position of philosophical naturalism, even though I have never seen it coherently defended (or defined, for that matter): Taking the simple, imprecise "don't believe" approach regarding religious claims, it seems to be widely accept as some kind of 'default' that instead there must be a specific natural order largely understood by and extending just a few decades beyond current scientific knowledge.

This is incorrect. You're taking two things and collating them into one.
My approach is this
Person with Religious Claim: The truth of reality is {Insert Religious Claim}, e.g. Jesus's death was a ransom payment for humanity's sins.
Me: I don't believe this claim.

Notice that the other person did not present evidence to support his claim. He just made a claim about reality and did nothing to back it up.

That's not quite true though, is it? In fact it's clearly false; usually when someone on a debate forum asserts a significance to Jesus' death they also point to his alleged resurrection as evidence for that significance: Evidence backed up by several lines of alleged credible witness testimony (eg. Peter via Mark, James via Paul and John in his gospel) and numerous circumstantial details (eg. persecution for their belief, women being the first to find the empty tomb). Of course under analysis it's not very strong evidence because the paucity of historical information leaves several alternative explanations wide open, but it's not uncommon to see critics responding with little more than the bald assertion that resurrections don't happen, period. Similarly when more thoroughly-documented and scientifically scrutinized examples of medically unexplained rapid cures of serious illness are raised for discussion, there's often a presumption that there simply must be a 'natural' explanation even if there's no evidence for one. I didn't say that every critic of religion takes that approach, but when it is used it is a position of philosophical naturalism, and it is fairly common.

A > Introduces fewer new assumptions, in that we know that minds and thoughts exist but have no proof of non-mental 'physical' stuff;

What evidence do we have of minds that do not require a physical shell of some sort?

As Mind/s yes, that's the reasoning which brought me here.

As you noted above, it doesn't make sense talk about a God who is a non-spatial entity somehow interacting with our spatial reality. The same applies here in my mind. How does it make sense to talk about a mind without a physical shell of some kind? Every single example we have of a mind in reality has existed conterminously with a shell, to the point that in my eyes, minds cannot exist without them.

What evidence do we have of anything without a prior cause or substrate for its existence, however that might be perceived? That's a problem which afflicts every way of imagining reality, but imagining a non-mental reality without prior cause adds the additional supposition of non-mental stuff, compared to imagining a mental reality without prior cause.

It should be noted that some of the reports of veridical near death/out of body experiences are quite compelling, at least as far as the question of a 'physical' shell goes, though they can't obviate the broader problem. We also have little or no basis for supposing that sensing/reacting organisms like bacteria don't have some form of consciousness or mind, besides a fallacious inference from structural dissimilarity. And in fact disregarding that fallacious inference, a viewer with a much broader and less anthropocentric perspective observing our planet's responses to orbital variations and so on might even reasonably conclude that its behaviour displays many if not all of the reactivity, adaptivity and long-term coherent development signs of advanced consciousness!

This is an important caveat, that "every single example we have of a mind" is extremely limited by our inability to actually detect other minds, and we rely instead on the analogy of observed structure and behaviour. But let's suppose for the sake of argument that all minds do require something external to themselves as either a cause or effect of themselves: This supposition would invalidate the strictest form of monotheism, but would not contradict something like the Christian trinitarian concept of three distinct minds which are nevertheless intertwined and dependent on each other (X provides a substrate for Y, which provides a substrate for Z, which provides a substrate for X). And in general terms some kind of cyclic model is also arguably the best solution to the prior cause/infinite regress dilemma in the first place.

But I'll add/reiterate that the question is not "Does this entity ('god') exist?" It's "This entity (reality) exists, so what can we most reasonably infer/speculate about its nature?"

I agree that reality exists, but why are you seemingly conflating reality with God? What steps have you gone through to show that the two are (more or less) one and the same?

That would be the three points I summarized in my post. So your question should be what steps has anyone gone through to show otherwise?

I'm always open to correction, but unless and until an alternative is shown to be as plausible it seems that the more reasonable view is that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality, that mental monism is more reasonable than 'physical' monism. One of the most obvious and simplest English words to describe that perspective is that reality is god/s.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by Inigo Montoya]

All the questions. Really. All of them.

As far as I am aware, Panentheism as a philosophical position is able to comfortably fit everything into it, including Pantheism...and atheism...because the position of atheism is within the scope of all that is. It is a choice to lack belief in all ideas of GODs.

Are you able to discern whether the God of the Bible or Quran meshes with the panentheistic view, whatever that might be?

Nothing which exists is outside the scope of the idea of Panentheism.
One online dictionary describes Panentheism as 'the belief or doctrine that God is greater than the universe and includes and interpenetrates it.'

Personally I can't say I know much about the idea of the GOD described in the Quran, but from what I have read re the GOD idea described in the bible, yes. I assume it would be the same for all other religious ideas of GOD too.

This God simultaneously exists within and beyond the universe how?

Short answer. Through divesting an aspect of its Consciousness within said universe.

As a mind?

No. The mind of the GOD is what allows for the creation of things like the universe. Consciousness is that which experiences those things.

In this sense, the overall Consciousness (Which I refer to as First Source as a way of denoting the position) creates everything in its mind and then explores those creations through a series of processes which enable IT to divest aspects of its consciousness into those things, for the experience and through the experience creates more things to explore, ad infinitum.

A discrete agency?

Please elaborate.

Which is it, animating force or creator?

Both, there is no distinction - or no distinction which is real, so to speak. Distinction is largely based on personal interpretation.

Says "and/or." What authority settles the matter regarding questions within panentheism?

As far as I can tell, the meaning of the position is the only 'authority' which settles whatever is 'the matter'. Panentheism is not like an organised religion. The idea is that all things fit into it/are included and no thing is separate from it. Otherwise it wouldn't be Panentheism.

In what way does an animating force impart moral values to humankind?

There is not just one way but many ways. They are evident within the structures of human societies and appear to be a necessary quality of the succeeding human experience.

How is the existence of the panentheistic God deduced/verified/demonstrated?

Primarily through the existence of consciousness. Thus, most verifiable through biological life forms on the planet.

On what basis is its existence rationally justified?

On the basis that consciousness and its accompanying attributes, exist. (Attributes such as intelligence, creativity, self awareness, thought processes, imagination, inventiveness et al.) It is demonstrated in nature that some of these attributes do not necessitate the forms are required to have brains.

And more! Chime in and help me understand. It presents as Deepak-ish woo; carefully non-commital and simultaneously sage-like, a very light (possibly empty) bag of pseudo-religious attachments just hazy enough to avoid the horrors of outright atheism.

Panentheism described through the filters of atheistic belief systems? Panentheism does not see atheism as anything to be horrified about.

I understand Panentheism to being anything but hazy. Nor is it non committal. It simply acknowledges that what is observed in the material world is not all material as some of it appears to be a reaction to the immaterial and understands that those who believe in materialism do so by taking those same things observed and interpreting those things through the filters of materialism.

Perhaps to avoid the horrors of GOD?

But whatever the case may be, I have yet to be shown why pure materialism is the best position to hold, especially in relation to the evidence of some of my subjective experiences as a human being and the notion that 'the brain did it' as a suitable explanation.

I mean no personal disrespect when I admit it strikes me as a sort of distancing from specific doctrines and dogmas (and the nightmare of defending conflicting attributes and shady histories) while still wanting to maintain some sort of spiritual position. A position that looks, on its face, absurdly difficult to even comprehend.

I don't find Pantheism absurdly difficult to comprehend in relation to my subjective experience as a human being. Mind you, that is all of 55 years so far and admittedly I have done things which have instigated an opportunity to - I would say - 'Take a peek behind the curtain', so to speak.

I can appreciate we all start from the position of outright ignorance and there are places that not only angels fear to tread, but humans as well...it is enough that we are in a physical rabbit hole which demands much of our attention without adding that extra layer of complexity to it, but even that this has been the case with me, it turns out that this actually assists me rather than causes me extra confusion.

If one doesn't go looking one is not going to find - that is a sure thing. But if one does decide to go looking one is best to understand that 'what is found' is never 'all that is.'

Which is to say, you never stop finding things, but at least with Panentheism, those things all relate to each other and are all inclusive for that. No thing is outside the box and because there is no box.

Because the mind of First Source is not outside of the consciousness of First Source.

[William]

[Replying to post 144 by Inigo Montoya]

William, out of curiosity..

What is the utility in believing consciousness and "God" are essentially synonymous? You argue to establish something with no useful future, it seems to me. The appearance is that you take many things we don't have a clear notion of, then replace a conceptual label with another, and presto! Panentheism. But I fail to see how it's in any way impactful or enlightening, let alone fares any better in a debate about verifying truth claims. Assuming every philosophical position the non-theist takes is flawed, or that science has wildly missed in its descriptions of reality, I don't understand how a God/consciousness/immanent/shared experience claim is demonstrated to be true. Are you not subject to the same faith as any other worldview carrying "God" as luggage?

[Replying to post 160 by Inigo Montoya]

God is essentially consciousness. The totality of human consciousness.

Consciousness exists, therefore God exists.

That's what I'm getting anyhow.

[Replying to post 164 by Inigo Montoya]

All consciousness, not just human consciousness. Ok.

So tell me again what anyone can know or learn from renaming "all consciousness" to "God."

Are you doing anything more complicated than calling something that exists by a different name?

Inigo

Are you looking for in, or otherwise expecting that theist ideas should be impactful or enlightening?
For me Panentheism isn't about that. Not to say that for the individual it cannot provide such, but this is in relation to the individual delving into it in practical terms, in a participating manner, rather than simply remaining expectant from the sidelines and blowing off disappointment by assuming those participating must be a little dipsy in the head.

I am not 'renaming' all consciousness as GOD, I am acknowledging that this is where GOD is to be 'found' - not in the individual parts but in the whole.

Yet individuals can be observed playing their part in relation to the whole, and in this one can ascertain what GOD is 'up to' in relation to our local.

We can understand therein that much confusion is presently accompanying the unfolding relationship of GOD and the human instrument and has been for a few thousand years now, but what is a few thousand years in relation to time'space?

It is just a phase. The nature of the beast as it traverses the upward curve towards the next step in human evolution - to become a Type One Species - which is to say, gaining a foot-hold in the universe which will greatly extend the chances of remaining in the universe, rather than the forms becoming extinct and consciousness having to try again in another way, redesigning form based upon what was learned from the previous design.

Faith is not limited to theism. Atheists too, have faith.

From my perspective it isn't about faith though, because this implies wanting a desired outcome. I support the idea of assisting the fact of life and its obvious desire to continue doing what it does, but I also acknowledge that it might not succeed in this present phase and - as I said - will have to start again.

However, I do think that with the advent of AI and genetic engineering that the chances are some will make it through, and that would signify that starting from scratch won't be necessary.

In that I might agree that the sacrifice of the many that the few would make it, is acceptable, as the many seem more preoccupied with being entertained from the sidelines rather than participating through whatever means the individual feels best suits them to that purpose. It is just one of those things, but if some make it through, i won't feel the need to complain. Not to say that I won't be sad for the many, but it is not my right to complain about their choices., even if their choices affect me negatively. I am but one individual and my focus is on supporting the Whole, rather than the parts.

I think this is just the way of the Panentheist.