AI-dolatry among Christians is the flip-side of fundamentally anti-personal metaphysical assumptions

I have commented before about my dismay at AI-dolatry among so many self-identified Christians - specifically their failure to recognise and grasp that the current iteration of "Artificial Intelligence" (which was top-down launched nearly three years ago, at the end of November 2022) is primarily a totalitarian - hence evil - strategy; designed for the accelerating corruption and damnation of Men. 

But vulnerability to AI-dolatry is the other side of a coin which in practice asserts and assumes the abstract impersonality of God and created reality - despite that Christians are supposed to recognize God as a person, as our Father, and we his children. 

That this is "in practice" and almost indifferent to theological theory, is evident from the official Mormon church's positive response to AI, describing it as: "a rapidly developing technology that has significant potential to assist the Church in accomplishing God’s work of salvation and exaltation." 

This despite that the CJCLDS officially regards God as an exalted and embodied Man; indeed as two Men - a Heavenly Father and Mother; which is an explicitly non-abstract primary understanding of the creator and creation that, one might have supposed, should have protected Mormons from AI-dolatry. 

But no. 

The fact is that modern Christians get their fundamental metaphysical assumptions from mainstream society, not from their religion; and our society is bureaucratic hence fundamentally anti-personal, anti-human. 

We have, for many decades, denigrated individuals and their personal judgments and evaluations; and instead given primary moral authority to the impersonal: to system; laws and regulations; process and procedures; voting and committees. 

(And all churches operate internally by these same assumptions; all churches are bureaucratic, procedural, deploy committees and voting at their fundamental levels of decision-making etc. - which of course affects their evaluations.)

It has been a "natural" extension of this abstract-impersonal way of thinking; that the human element ought ideally to be minimized or eliminated - such that computers, robots, "AI" are by their nature potentially superior to humans... 

Supposedly superior because less prone to corruption, error, variation; and (by our false but common mainstream understanding of these terms) more informed, more knowledgeable, more intelligent - hence wiser and authoritative; than any possible human or combination of humans.  

In short: the assertion is that "AI" is potentially superior because (and insofar as) it is not human.      

In theory, Christians ought to be immune to such self-destructive and deluded foolishness - but in practice they are qualitatively as bad as everyone else! (ie. Any measured differences between modern Christians and the mainstream - e.g. in surveys - are merely quantitative, and insufficient to make a qualitative difference.) 

My understanding of this, is that Christians are now reaping the consequences of ancient errors in their metaphysics - in particular of rejecting our spontaneous knowledge that reality is plural and animated: in other words that the ultimate reality includes many living, conscious, purposive and eternal beings - and these are the basis with which divine creation has worked. 

(That is; God created from and by-means-of many pre-existent Beings.)

There was, very early, a capture of the Christianity of Jesus Christ; by a metaphysics of oneness (hence monotheism) - and the adoption of multiple abstract assumptions (which became dogmas) such as: creation from nothing; omnipotence/ omniscience, omnipresence; and the conceptualization of God's creation as including unalive/ non-living aspects such as minerals...

This metaphysics imposed itself upon the simple teachings of Jesus (essentially, the promise of resurrected eternal life in Heaven to those who followed Him) to make a complex systemic religion of this-world and its institutions - in which the essential teaching became obscured, distorted... 

(And indeed all-but denied at times and in some places, such that salvation became so complex and contingent-upon-this-world, as to be regarded as actually impossible for some/ many people.).  

Many centuries downstream; and in the unique and unprecedented actual conditions of our modern society; these have led to underpinning assumptions that dominate (often unconsciously) most Christians - and almost everybody else. 

We see physics or mathematics as the primary reality, and the unalive as existing prior to (what we regard as) living beings - and as life and consciousness as having been made-from and/or added-to dead materials.   

In a nutshell; even those who believe in creation imagine God as starting with non-living materials; then making plants, animal, then Men by adding life, movement, consciousness etc. 

Whereas we ought instead to imagine everything created as alive (and outside it, only incomprehensible chaos); spirit as coming before matter; with matter "condensing" from spirit - so that spiritual life and consciousness are basic, have always-been - and always shall be. 

I think this is how we spontaneously (but mostly unconsciously) come into this world understanding things; and that young children still think this way. And I think the reason for this is that God implanted such knowledge in us, as innate knowledge which we (nearly always) need in order to live well and attain salvation. 

The discarding of our innate animism and pluralism did not matter much when Men spontaneously retained "participation" through into adulthood. 

Because in effect these Men (e.g. in the Classical and Medieval times) continued - but unconsciously and unavoidably - to perceive the world in the same way as young children, or could return to this way of thinking via the methods of religion (ritual, symbol, scripture etc). 

But now we all become alienated through adolescence; becoming cut-off from this innate knowledge and the spontaneous sense of being part of a living world - and from this state of alienation; modern Men therefore consciously need to choose to return to our innate knowledge and understanding. 

And we need to do this conscious act of return for-ourselves, because there are no institutions - not even churches - that will teach or encourage us to do so. 

Not just for-ourselves; but from-ourselves; because it is actually contradicted by many of the actual, here-and-now dominant and mandatory, Christian church teachings. 

And therefore church-orientated Christians (those who regard a church, or any external source, as having primary authority over Christian understanding) are stuck in delusional materialism; including AI-dolatry... 

Which, unless identified and repented at some point, has the potential to lead to their self-chosen damnation.   

My take-home message here, is that anyone who hopes to escape their own self-chosen damnation - which will eventuate for those who follow external "authority" in this actual world, including church authority; would be wise to bring to consciousness, and reflect deeply upon, their most fundamental assumptions concerning the nature of reality. 

 

How Not to conduct a metaphysical enquiry! (Further responses added 3 May 2024)

Kristor, of The Orthosphere, is very good at expounding his own metaphysical assumptions (which are essentially those of Thomistic Roman Catholicism); but when it comes to making a comparative evaluation of different metaphysical "systems"... well, he just doesn't ever do it!

Kristor is an old internet pal, going back to the time before I was a Christian, and we interact affectionately offline. Indeed I would regard him as a pen-friend, a good person, honest and trustworthy and (so far, at least) On the Right Side in the spiritual war of this world!

But for more than a decade this matter of what it is to conduct a metaphysical enquiry is one concerning which I have been apparently (across multiple online interactions) utterly unable to get across my argument.

In a recent post; Kristor discusses the matter of whether reality is ultimately one (monism) or many (pluralism). By his argument, Kristor apparently supposes that he has logically rejected pluralism as in essence incoherent, therefore necessarily wrong. 

Yet what he has done in his discourse is merely to demonstrate that when someone has accepted the assumptions of monism - then swapped-out the assumptions that everything is one and replaced it with an assumptions of pluralism, the result does not make sense. 

I say again: Kristor believes he is conducting a metaphysical enquiry and comparing different metaphysical systems - but he is not. 

In actuality he is just expounding his pre-existing metaphysics, rooted in pre-existing assumptions (and I assert they are assumptions) concerning the fundamental nature of reality. And then Kristor is correctly demonstrating that his Thomism becomes incoherent if one was to introduce pluralism into it... 

Which is - of course - true! Pluralism does not (and cannot) cohere with an otherwise monist metaphysical system! 

Kristor's argument does not at all mean that pluralism is necessarily incoherent; for example when pluralism is one part of a different set of fundamental assumptions concerning the nature of reality.

I think the fundamental reason why I "cannot get-through" to Kristor on this matter, why we keep having the same non-argument over and again, is that he regards his own metaphysical assumptions as necessarily true; and this blocks his ability (and interest) in making any other assumptions - even for the purposes of philosophical debate. 

And perhaps Kristor regards his own assumptions as necessarily true because he does not acknowledge that they lead to any fundamental problems. 

For example, I think he does not acknowledge the ineradicable depth of the problem of explaining genuine free agency for Men in a reality conceptualized as created from nothing by an "omni-God". Nor do I think Kristor appreciates the ineradicable depth of the problem of accounting for the existence of evil in a reality wholly-created by a wholly-Good (and omnipotent) God.  

And, to speculate further! - I think Kristor does not acknowledge the depth of these problems, because he is satisfied by those abstract and complex "answers" provided by Thomism. 

And (to complete the circle) these are answers that themselves assume the metaphysical primacy of abstractions. 

(As examples; Kristor - following traditional RC teaching - assumes the fundamental and necessary truth of God's omniscience/ omnipotence/ omnipresence (etc) - and these are abstractions. Similarly; creation-from-nothing (ex nihilo) is assumed to be necessary, and that is an abstraction. More fundamentally; Kristor's understanding of God as God, is an abstract one: his understanding of God is in terms of the definitional necessity of God having certain abstract attributes - such as those above.) 

Although we can note that such a focus seems to date from early in the history of Christianity (albeit there is no evidence of it in the contemporary eye-witness account of the Fourth Gospel) we can still ask why is it that abstraction occupies such a fundamental position in Christian metaphysics? 

And our answer will depends on further assumptions regarding the nature of Christianity. For Kristor (and apparently for most Christians since some time after the ascension of Jesus) there can be no such thing as Christianity except from within the perspective of The Church (however that "The" is defined). 

For Kristor; "The" Church just-is Christianity; and this is not a matter for legitimately Christian metaphysical enquiry. To challenge or doubt what has been assumed for maybe 1900 years; makes no Christian sense: to do so is simply Not to be a Christian. 

To assume (as I do) that "being a Christian" is a primary reality that has no necessary link to any particular metaphysical assumptions; and no necessary relationship to any church in general or particular; does not for Kristor imply the legitimate possibility of further enquiry - but invites explanation in terms of ignorance, insanity or sin. 

This is related to other matters concerning what Christians ought to be doing, here-and-now. 

For Kristor; Thomism is just true, the nature of Christianity derives from the truth and necessity of the RCC; and therefore all legitimately Christian futures must build upon these. 

But for me; this version (as I regard it) of Christianity has deep metaphysical problems, that require better metaphysical solutions (or else, Christianity will continue to disappear). For me; "modernity" has been - in part - an increased conscious awareness of the unsatisfactory nature of traditional Christian (e.g. monist, omni-God, abstract) understandings of human freedom and the origins of evil. 

I regard metaphysical awareness and enquiry as non-optional, as absolutely necessary if Christianity is to avoid (what I see as) the long-term, relentless, and accelerating trend of either explicit or de facto apostasy; which (for me) was made evident in 2020 - when all the Christian churches (including RCC) willingly (and without later repentance) subordinated themselves to the globalist agenda of totalitarian evil. 

So! These apparently trivial interpersonal debates between myself and Kristor - or, failures to debate, as I regard them - are like the tip of an iceberg of differences; that I regard as ultimately sustained by a deep and long-term problem of wrong metaphysical assumptions about Christianity being instead regarded as necessary and true metaphysical assumptions. 

Note added: 

Kristor responded to this post here. 

@Kristor - I - like you - reject "radical ontological pluralism" - as being incoherent - so everything you say about that subject is (I'm afraid) irrelevant.

Instead, you can and should assume that I regard every single theologian of the past as significantly in error; and that there really is nobody else who has the same metaphysical assumptions as I do.

You are candid enough to acknowledge your assumption that since I am in a minority of one, therefore I must necessarily be wrong - so (from your perspective) there is no point in wasting time on finding out what I do believe!

I don't blame anyone for ignoring anything - we are each responsible for our own salvation, primarily. But I personally believe that this attitude of seeking truth in (some kind of) consensus of past and status, is both anti-Christian (in the sense of being opposed to what Jesus said and wanted), and (here and now) a guarantee of choosing the wrong side in the spiritual war of this world.

(We are not so alone nor so ignorant as you assume! Much true knowledge is born into us as children, and God has ensured that each of us has sufficient wit to discern his own salvation - with the personal guidance of the Holy Ghost. God would surely not have been so foolish as to depend upon each and every person getting good guidance from his external social environment!)

But, there again we are up against utterly different basic assumptions! Yours is that anything true and important on the subject of Christian theology has already been said - and therefore truth should be sought among external authorities.

My assumption is that the prime reality of our life of salvation and theosis is rooted in a personal relationship between ourselves and Jesus Christ, and that we not only can but must (post-mortally if not before) take personal responsibility for our ultimate choices.

You complain that I do not explain myself in the comments sections of blog posts. True enough! I have given up on that mug's game!

Instead; I have written hundreds of blog posts (as well as the Lazarus Writes mini-book) over the past decade, explaining and re-explaining my metaphysical assumptions and arguments from as many different angles as seemed helpful - and as simply and clearly as I am able.

I have also addressed the specific critiques you make. But I expect you would not find my points acceptable - exactly because your basic assumptions are so completely different.

(For example, your discourse takes place outside of Time/ Time-less/ in simultaneity of Time (sub specie aeternitatis); whereas I assume that Time is (as it were) intrinsic to reality (because the pluralism of primal reality is made of Beings, and Beings are living and "dynamic" conscious entities). Therefore, for me, all fundamental explanations require allowance for Time. This has many consequences. For instance, I believe we began with pluralism, with many uncoordinated entities; and God's creation - which is happening in Time - has-been and is progressively imposing "unity" or cohesion upon that primal "chaos". For me, this explains why both oneness and pluralism, creation and chaos, are part of our mortal experience.)

It's all there, on my blog, for anyone who is interested - of which only a handful of people have been, but those few seem to understand me accurately enough. And if someone is Not interested - well, that's his business, but not mine. After all, my main motive in writing so many hundreds of posts per years, is to clarify and critique my ideas for my benefit. The readers are mostly just looking over my shoulder.

In sum, you have clearly set-out some of the Many reasons why you do not want to engage with what I actually believe. You feel no Need for it, and already assume I Must Be wrong.

While, on my side, my unique theology has happened only because I have already (to my own satisfaction) known and rejected that which you regard as true.

What I am saying is that our decisions rule-out any genuine metaphysical discourse - which explains why this has never actually happened!

While it only takes one side to make a war - it takes at least two people to have a metaphysical discussion!

Monism/ oneness, dualism - and pluralism

The metaphysical idea of monism, or oneness has apparently always held a powerful attraction for intellectuals - at least since the times of ancient India and ancient Greece; and this continues to be the case - including that many self-identified Christians espouse oneness ideas or push Trinitarian concepts a long way in that direction. 

Pluralism, on the other hand, has not been taken seriously as a metaphysical assumption except by William James; despite that (or, more likely, because) it seems to be the spontaneous way of thinking of all children and all hunter gatherers - where it gets called 'animism'. 

The main group of literate explicit pluralists on earth are the millions of Mormons - but they do not seem to be at all interested in the staggeringly radical implications of this foundational assumptions of their faith - and have instead (historically) focused on creating a distinctive church and lifestyle (which is, like other Christian churches under global totalitarianism, rapidly collapsing and being corrupted into The System).

Consequently, monist/ oneness criticisms of dualism, and dualist counter-arguments to monism, take up the whole of the discussion of possibilities that I have come across. 

One main intuitive appeal of monism of the kind that (in the West) is associated with Vedanta Hinduism, Buddhism, Sufism and the various syncretic advocates of a Perennial Philosophy - is that it includes everything; and therefore creates a deep and spiritual connection between man and 'nature'. 

Whereas, by contrast, dualistic Christianity focuses almost wholly on God and Man - and modern Christians tend to regard ideas about nature (animals, plants, landscape) as being in fact alive and conscious and in spiritual contact and communication with Men - as being a demonic delusion, a return towards the evils of paganism, magic, etc. 

This attitude of dualist Christians is deep and recurrent, because it stems from metaphysical assumptions - therefore even when Christians personally feel the kind of 'contact' with nature; they have difficulty explaining it it any way which does not subordinate it almost out of existence, which gives it sufficient weight and reality. 

In other words, the dualism of most Christians has been a strong factor working against the kid of Romantic Christianity that I advocate. It can be overcome, and is overcome - nevertheless dualism presents a structural obstacle, a centrifugal tendency. 

If, on the other hand, one adopts a pluralist attitude to reality; which regards ultimate reality as consisting of many, many Beings - with God (the creator) and Men being two of these types of Being; then there is immediately a metaphysical basis for that community with nature which the oneness-advocates put forward as pantheism. 

The difference is that monism/ oneness-advocates regard Man and nature as one with each other only in terms of being aspects of deity - and with the ultimate aim of removing all separation towards an undifferentiated unity.  

Whereas a pluralist hopes for increasing communication and harmony between Beings that shall remain forever and irreducibly separate. The emphasis is on the harmony of aim and methods between Beings, each of whom is alive conscious and with purposes. 

Indeed, the role of God the Creator can be seen as providing the basis for this harmony; so that the pluralist view is 'developmental'. It begins with a chaotic clash of each Being against all; and works towards that harmony of multiple separate Beings which is called Heaven. 

Thus pluralism offers a third possibility - very seldom considered; but which - I believe - combines the best of both monism and dualism. 

Pluralism of Beings, oneness of consciousness - the metaphysical starting point

I accept the intuition of most young children and tribal peoples that reality is made of many Beings - thus I am a pluralist. 

I therefore reject the usual 'monist' mainstream metaphysical and theological assumption that every-thing began as one thing; e.g. the pantheistic assumption that everything is really one deity, or the monotheist assumption that one God created everything from-himself. 

Instead I regard God as one (or, in fact, two) of the original Beings; and that God creates 'using' pre-existent Beings from-which to create. 

Like most pluralists - I regard linear and sequential Time as real, essential - thus reality has a history. Things have changed through history and there is a future aim; thus reality is 'evolutionary' or more exactly developmental.   

But while I believe that there always-have-been many Beings in reality; I also believe that these Beings originally shared in one original consciousness. 

Therefore history has been a developmental separation of the consciousness of Beings; so that by now (especially in The West) Men experience the world as if they each had a completely separate consciousness. 

Indeed many Men believe that this is a 'scientific fact' and that Men can only 'communicate' indirectly and symbolically - hence unreliably and distortedly - via language. 

So I regard the developmental history of Men as having gone from a single consciousness with minimal self-awareness and minimal autonomy of thought and agency of action; through to the current situation when (adult) Men assume a complete separation of awareness and agency: each locked inside his own mind/ brain. 

I regard this current separation of consciousness as ultimately a choice, albeit a choice based upon deep assumptions and ingrained habits. 

My understanding of God's motivation is that the destiny of men (that is, what God hopes from us, each individually; and makes possible) is that from our state of self-separated consciousness; men will individually choose to re-enter the common consciousness of Beings. But not as a return to the primal situation of minimal awareness, autonomy and agency... 

This time, Men are given the choice to enter a creative group-consciousness in Heaven; a group-consciousness of resurrected eternal Men. 

In other words; Men will have gone from an involuntary pluralism of Beings with oneness of passive unconsciousness...

Through the current situation of pluralism of Beings with a chosen pluralism of consciousness...

To a pluralism of Beings with a chosen oneness of creative consciousness. 

The advantages of Pluralist Christianity

I used to write a fair bit about pluralism; but have not done so recently. I continue to regard it as absolutely vital to my Christian thinking. 

Yet nearly all Christians, who expressed a preference, seem to have regarded themselves as monists: that is, they assume that originally there is just 'one thing' and that is God - and every-thing that exists comes from God, and everything is, therefore, ultimately part-of-God.

This assumption creates terrible - I would say insoluble - problems of contradiction for Christians particularly; because it is vital for Christians to be able to explain evil and free will, but monism leaves no 'space' for these. 

The Problem of Evil is simple and obvious. If God is everything and made everything, then he must have made evil things too; yet the Christian God is known to be wholly Good. 

But where does the evil in this world come-from if God is wholly Good? 

If everything is God, and God is Good - there cannot be any real evil. 

Most monist Christians usually end-up asserting exactly this - that there is no real evil; that evil is just a temporary or illusory appearance of Good; and everything that is, or that happens, is ultimately Good. 

However, while such a view is coherent for a Hindu or Buddhist, it is not compatible with being a Christian - where evil needs to be real. 

Thus the problem of trying to be monist and Christian is the problem of trying to explain What Real Evil Is, without violating the assumption that God made/is every-thing.

In a nutshell - if you really want to be explain why evil is real - you need to be a pluralist. 

The Free Will (human agency) problem is similar in form, but the problem comes from the fact that Christianity (but not all other religions) is based on love of God (and Jesus Christ); and that love must be freely chosen (or else it is not love). 

Indeed each Christian must be able to choose to become a Christian; to follow Jesus by a genuine act of agency. 

To put it the other way around; it is not possible (is not coherent) to be able to compel somebody to really-be a real-Christian. 

So free will is essential to Christianity; which means we need to be able to explain where free will comes-from... Yet the monist has assumed that everything comes from God, and is God: everything.

Where could free will come-from if everything comes from God? 

How can a total system create something like free will that is supposed to be independent of its creator? 

There is no basis for free will in monism, because it is already assumed that every possible 'basis' has been made by God.  

If God is everything; where is free will (to choose or reject God, to love God or not?) supposed to come-from?   

Thoughtful monist Christians usually acknowledge that their metaphysical assumptions cannot explain free will; but state some version of the assertion that 'free will of Men was created by God by some mystical divine act beyond human comprehension'. 

But this inability to explain free will in a monist reality is a problem, given that agency is so vital for Christians. (Not for Muslims perhaps - but for Christians, yes.)

And because monists cannot explain free will, there is a tendency to downplay free will, to ignore it; not to talk about it. Or simply to get confused about it.

At an rate, it is a chromic weakness, and indeed something of an embarrassment, that mainstream Christians are unable to give a clear and coherent explanation of free will in relation to God the creator.  

The above are only two of the intractable problems that Christians encounter in being a monist; yet nearly all Christians are monists. 

Intellectual Christians are, indeed, more serious about their monism than about Christianity - more concerned to maintain their monist assumptions than to be able to explain their faith clearly and simply. If any sacrifices need to be made in squaring Christianity with monism - it is Christianity that makes the sacrifices. 

(In some times and places, Christianity has seemed to forget or suppress free will; and converged with pure monotheism in engaging in compelled conversion and demanding obedience to the uncomprehended will of a God, who is not 'loving' by any human discernment of love - but rather by definition (i.e. love is God, rather than God is love).) 

This has been a problem since very early in the Christian Church, and has remained so. 

The strange thing is that it seems likely that all humans begin as pluralists when explaining the world, and the Bible (including the Gospels) makes the easiest 'common sense' when read from a pluralist perspective. Yet nearly-all the Christian denominations and churches insist on monism as an article of faith - sustaining this ancient and intractable problem and confusion. 

Mormons are the major exception - since Joseph Smith 'discovered' pluralism as a principle of Christian theology; and it was in Mormon theology, as well as the philosophy of William James, that I discovered explicit pluralism and realized it worked much better than monism in explaining those things that most need to be explained for a Christian. 

Or, to put matters more accurately; the problem is monism more obviously than the solution is pluralism!

Monism is an alien philosophy wrongly-applied to Christianity; and, unsurprisingly, therefore it creates all sorts of insoluble difficulties. 

However, monism will not be abandoned until there is an alternative; and almost nobody knows that there is indeed an alternative. That is the role of explicit pluralism. 

Yet of those who know this alternative, extremely few bother to make the intellectual effort to understand things differently, to think them through; despite that it is so easy to do so - literally child's play!

My tendency to reverse causality

It is actually one of the most difficult of insights genuinely to reverse the direction of causality - especially for the first time (ie. doing it for yourself, rather than following in footsteps). But I can see that I have often made what I regard as my most-important 'breakthroughs' by reversing assumptions. For example, reversing the causal arrows of a relationship between entities or phenomena.

For instance, in medical science, maybe my best idea was related to 'depression' (i.e. severe endogenous/ psychotic depression, or melancholia) being a psychological response to immune-activating illnesses. This reverses the usual idea that depressed people have - as a consequence of their psychiatric condition - raised imnune markers, symptoms of malaise, pyrexia, increased rates of autoimmune and cardiovascular diseases etc. (This also meant that effective antidepressants worked by treating these physical causes and symptoms, rather than by treating the 'emotions'; again a reversal of causality.)

Reversing the direction of causality for depression and its treatment may seem simple, and it is simple once formulated; but it took me about fifteen years to sort-out and piece-together.  Once the idea was formulated there was plenty of evidence to support it - but it was having the idea that was so difficult.


I came across a similar thing today in relistening to a lecture by William Arkle. It suddenly struck me with full force that I had taken Arkle's scheme of God's work and reversed the causality, in a way that might well confuse anyone following my frequent links to Arkle's work.

From Arkle I got the invaluable insight that God's purpose is to produce 'divine friends' - to raise his Sons and Daughters to (as near as possible) God's own level and to participate with God in the ongoing work of creation; but for these divine friends each to be a distinct person, an individual - so that each brings something new and original to the work (rather than merely repeating what God already brings to the business). This understanding I still hold-to.

But for Arkle, God's problem is how to make individuals from an original divine unity - from the singleness of one creator God. He suggests that this was achieved by God first dividing himself into male and female, then implanting a little flame of divinity into each person, then making a complex educational world unique for each person (i.e. unique from the specific perspective in which each specific person was 'placed' by God). In this varied reality, each person becomes unique by tackling the challenges and problems differently - thus Men grow-apart and become more and more different. So much for Arkle...

But underpinning my own Christianity is Mormon theology; which has men and women as distinct from the beginning, and each man and women an unique 'being' existing from eternity. (This also applies to God, who consists of two Heavenly Parents, a man and a woman).

From this combination between Mormonism and Arkle; I have developed my own understanding of God's problem which ends-up being almost the opposite of what Arkle said. I believe that God started-out with zillions of unique individuals (at odds with each other), living in a state of chaos - and God is aiming at a state where the 'divine friends' are able and desirous to cooperate harmoniously in the ongoing work of creating.

For me, now, this is the key to the specifically Christian concern with love; since it is by love that unique individuals are able-to choose-to cooperate in harmony (as we can imagine would happen in an ideal family).

It also clarifies the role of Jesus's work, which made it possible for any number of unique Men to choose (by following Jesus to resurrected eternal life in Heaven) to make a permanent commitment to loving creation. Each person is bringing his or her own unique perspective, abilities and motivations to the job - so that divine creation may continually expand in scope while remaining in harmony.

(My favoured analogy for Heaven is with an idealised wholly-loving extended family of immortals; continually being added-to by new and unique people - by descent, marriage, adoption, and true-friendship; but always - because of their mutual love - working together, and cohering in their work; because they each work for each other, as-well-as for themselves.) 

Such a view is simple enough to explain (it didn't take me many words!) yet was probably impossible to formulate explicitly until the 19th century at earliest...

At least there seem to be no pluralist philosophies of this kind, until first Joseph Smith (the Mormon prophet) and later William James (the philosopher and psychologist) saw and embraced the possibility. This idea of metaphysical pluralism is, for me, one of the very greatest US contributions to the history of human development. Because, as far as I know, all previous philosophers/ theologians - since the ancient Greeks - seem to have assumed the primal unity of reality.

So here is another example of reversing causality - and an indication that it is a genuinely difficult thing to do!

Monism ("oneness") teaching and theory is (in practice) always Dualism

I've written recently about 'oneness'- distinguishing it from what I believe to be the correct understanding of Christianity.

But I should clarify that the teaching of oneness as an ideal always entails duality in practice: monism is always really dualism.


And this has been the case since the very earliest, pre-Socratic philosophers and Plato and the Neo-Platonists; Hinduism and Buddhism, and the Platonic-influenced but mainstream versions of Christianity... Some of these claim variously to be monisms, but all actually are dualisms.

This can be seen in the attitude to change and changelessness. All assert that ultimate reality is changeless, outside of time, unified and perfect.

But all are forced to account for the fact that the world as we know it is changeable - characterised by with disease, decay and death - and im-perfect.


This is regarded as an illusion (maya), a temporary misunderstanding and/or misinterpretation (eg. due to sin, perhaps due to a 'fall') - nonetheless, this claim only kicks the can; because if all is truly one-ness and perfect - where/ why/ how, then, does illusion come-from?

Sooner or later, some kind of dualism of reality must be introduced; and always is introduced.


Total reality is - in effect - divided into two abstract categories; one true real-reality and the other erroneous mere-appearance. The key assumed fact - needed to complete the basic picture - concerns the source of that error. 

*

The only alternative to dualism (or the ultimate two-ness of reality) is not oneness (which simply does-not-work), but pluralism: more-than-twoness. I am a pluralist, and my ultimate category is Beings, which are living/ conscious, eternal, many, and remain them-selves - through whatever transformations they undergo. Other pluralisms are possible (e.g. pluralism seems to be the spontaneous assumption of children and hunter-gatherers; and is proposed theoretically by William James and Mormon theology), but the assumption has never been popular among philosophers; and is regarded as a mere mistake in reasoning by the vast majority. Regardless, I believe it to be true!  

Two irreconcilable concepts of Heaven - Platonic and Pluralistic

The traditional, orthodox concept of Heaven derives from ancient Greek philosophy - I shall call it Platonic - this can be summarised:

God - Creation - Beings

The first thing is God, alone - who does Creation - and late in Creation God makes Beings, including Man.  

For Christians; God is a God of Love, whose creation is a kind of gratuitous overflow of love: so we get

God-Love - Creation - Beings


By contrast, what I will call the Pluralist concept of Heaven - which is the one I believe to be true - can be summarised:

Beings - Love - Creation

The primordial situation is of many Beings, of whom two are are Heavenly Parents - Father and Mother.

Thus God is Dyadic, irreducibly Two and not a unity (or, the unity is of two always-distinct aspects, permanently-made a unity by Love); and it is from the Love between our Heavenly Parents that Creation comes into existence (Love, being the coherence and purpose of Creation; Love harmonising the diverse elements of Creation). So we get:

Beings-God - Love - Creation


The Platonic Heaven seems to be associated with a wish for absolute, abstract, infinite perfection - and God is defined in such terms - including that God is undivided unity, of infinite power and presence (omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent).

And this primal God creates everything else (everything other than God) from nothing (ex nihilo) instantaneously, in zero-Time (first Nothing, then Something... there can be no graduation or graduality) - including Beings, including Men.

In a Platonic Heaven, therefore, Creation remains entirely God's business, and nothing/ nobody else can contribute to primary Creation (only to secondary details within Creation). Also Heaven is perfect, so there is nothing for Men to contribute to it. Also primary Creation happens in zero-Time.

The Platonic Heaven is essentially contemplative: Man has nothing necessary or useful to Do. Man enjoys heaven, but does not add to it (because it is perfect). In Platonic Heaven; we may express gratitude, worship, may do many things - but none of them are necessary, none make any qualitative difference to Heaven.

In sum, the Platonic Heaven, is a state not a 'process'. It is a state of being, a state of communion with God, of bliss... but essentially it is static - there is no dynamic to Platonic Heaven - because movement comes from difference, from desire, from deficit... and this cannot be because the Platonic Heaven is perfection.   


In distinction, the Pluralistic Heaven in a world of Love, but not of perfection. Love is understood as itself dynamic ('in' Time: Time is a part of primary reality), between Beings; and therefore Heaven is a continuation of Creation - and for Christians it is a Heaven of active, personal participation in Creation.

This happens because Christians will be resurrected into Heaven, and resurrection is understood as becoming divine - immortal, indestructible, grown-up children of God. The actuality of God's primary Creation is opened-to the contributions of resurrected Men.

Part of pluralism is the uniqueness of each being, including of each man. Each resurrected Man brings to Heaven something unique, that did not previously exist in heaven. Every single individual Man who enters heaven therefore brings something irreplaceable to the ongoing Creation.

In sum everybody who is capable of Love and who chooses to follow Jesus, may be resurrected into heaven; and each such person has something unique and irreplaceable to contribute to God's ongoing work of Creation.

The Pluralistic Heaven is not only-contemplative (although contemplation is surely possible, and part of things) - but is active dynamic and open-endedly creative: a growing Heaven. And this Creation of Men is included in the primary and divine Creation.

Man's unique and individual contribution is woven-into Creation permanently, forever. And this is made possible by Love.

It is Love that harmonises God's creation with the contributions of many individual and unique Men - resurrected Men joining in increasing numbers with time.


The Pluralistic Heaven is not perfect, it is not closed, it is not complete, it is not outside Time... on the contrary Time (sequential, continuous, linear) is an assumed part of reality. The Pluralistic Heaven is, therefore, developing, open-ended, growing... Heaven is in-movement, is changing, has a past and a future; and changing, expanding personnel - each with an unique contribution to make to the whole. 


So, we can see that the Platonic Heaven and the Pluralistic Heaven are very different places. While one may be contained within the other - only one or the other (or neither) could ultimately be true - since they each have extremely different ultimate metaphysical assumptions. 

JC Powys gets to the bottom of Nietzsche

I've been listening to my penfriend Keri Ford's reading (in his inimitable, fascinating New Zealand dialect!) of John Cowper Powys's early (1915) essay collection Visions and Revisions on the Librivox site:

https://librivox.org/visions-and-revisions-by-john-cowper-powys/

Despite being so early in his oeuvre, this book is full of Powys's typically original and surprising insights (and his craziness, of course); and I have been especially bowled-over by his psychological understanding of Nietzsche - which makes sense of this strange yet compelling philosopher whom I have been reading (off and on, albeit mostly off) for some 35 years.

In a nutshell, Powys sees Nietzche as abnormally sensitive to suffering, and his project as a need to know the worst possible about Life, and to accept it.

So N. put forward and developed a series of ideas that he personally found to be the most horrible and horrifying aspects of his experience. He stated these as truths, explored their implications; then (in effect) Nietzsche challenged himself to accept, and indeed embrace, these distinctively personal horrors as positive Goods.

So, for example, the idea of eternal recurrence - by which every life, every specific event, is (supposedly) recycled and relived again-and-again forever; meant that everything that most horrified Nietzsche could never be coped-with, would become utterly intolerable; unless he was able to embrace it as not merely necessary but positively Good, indeed the best possible.

Ultimately Life as is, Just Is; and we must choose to Love it.

This strikes me as a similar end-point as was reached by Charles Williams in his essay The Cross; although CW reached his view from a 'Platonic' perspective that all time is present at all times, so that the worst that any human has ever suffered is always happening everywhere (e.g. Christ Is Being crucified as you read This; and again Now).

Nietzsche, as well as being a very strange and strangely-driven person; was an extremely rigorous thinker; who took a sadistic delight in following ideas through to unpleasant conclusions. But the sadism was ultimately self-directed - and led to insanity and silence (abetted by syphilis).

The reason N. was and is highly regarded as a philosopher, is that something very much of this kind was a genuine consequence of mainstream classical philosophy and theology; Nietzsche saw, and experienced, this unwelcome truth with absolute lucidity; which in turn (thanks to his unexcelled quality of prose) carries conviction.

The Answer to Nietzsche, as I understand it, is to regard the mainstream as erroneous; and to embrace instead some kind of developmental pluralism (as I have done over the past five plus years).

And this was, indeed, what JC Powys attempted to do, explicitly; although Powys failed to achieve it, and instead got stuck in a failed attempt at reverting to Original Participation*, ultimately because of his rejection of the reality of God as a loving Father and creator; which rejection stemmed from an awareness that this was what he most deeply wanted and knew must be true if his totally-despairing conclusion was to be avoided.

For Nietzsche; the fact that a properly understood Christianity was The Only Possible Answer, was sufficient reason to reject it - since this meant that it was too good to be true+.


*Note: Many Romantics over the past 200 years have attempted to 'revert' to an early childhood/ hunter gatherer state of unconscious, passive, immersive participation in The World - but it is impossible. Or, insofar as it is possible, it cannot be remembered, nor advocated - precisely because it is un-conscious and passive; it entails the obliteration of conscious thinking. People can only get back as far as totemism; which is the earliest and simplest phase of ordinary religion. Totemism (as of Australian Aborigines, or Pacific Northwest Amerindians) is a communal religious practice, that deploys symbols (the totems) and a fixed body of stories about-them; preserved in a ritual oral tradition. Powys describes his personal subjective totemism in considerable detail in his Autobiography. It involved daily observances (eg tapping his forehead against a specific stone, and praying to one of his deities) and extensive propitiation ceremonies (e.g. transferring fish from small drying puddles to larger volumes of water). 'Paradoxically' these imply the early stages of exactly the kind of mainstream, conventional church religion that Powys deplored; those temple religions based on ritual sacrifices designed to placate essentially-malign deities. Similar types of totemism were written about by DH Lawrence. It seems to me that to refuse objective external church Christianity, but advocate subjective individualistic internally-validated totemism, is to jump from the frying pan into the fire. This 'move' fails to solve the main problems of religion and instead exacerbates them, by privatising doctrine and practice.

+ This, in turn, implies that Nietzsche was saved, that he chose Heaven not Hell. Because when, after death, Nietzsche learned that Christianity was really true, not TGTBT, he would certainly have embraced that truth; and done so with a joy and gratitude that we can scarcely imagine.      

God and the Universe and Creation - two pictures

The mainstream Christian view is of God outside of everything to start with; and God, as it were, creating the Universe from nothing, inside of Himself. Time exists only within the created Universe. Men are wholly created by God within this Universe.

My view (which I got from Mormonism) is - to start with - God inside-of a chaotic Universe and 'in' Time; and Creation as a matter of God shaping the chaos around-Himself; in a progressive and cumulative fashion. Men, in a primordial form, are already-present in the original chaos, and are incrementally taken and shaped-into Children of God, inside of Creation. 

The mainstream view is a monism, because everything began as, and implicitly reduces to, the unity of God. My view is a type of pluralism (the term taken from William James); in which primary reality is of many and irreducible entities.

The mainstream God's problem is to Create anything that is not merely Himself - hence futile; the pluralist God's problem is that Creation is partial and on-going - an imperfect, developing work-in-progress.

The mainstream God's Goodness is perfect conformity with God; the pluralist God's Goodness is the process of creating.

The mainstream God's Universe does not need to be 'held-together' because He created it all from nothing as a unity; the pluralist God's dynamic, expanding, developing Universe is held-together by Love - and Love is a choice, voluntary; an opt-in kind of thing.

To opt-out from the mainstream God's Universe is irrational because there is nowhere else to go - in fact, there can be no real opting-out. But to opt-out from the pluralist God's universe is rational; since each person has a primordial independence - it is to opt-out from God's plan of creation into chaos; to opt-out from the cohesion of Love into the solitude of pride.

Indeed, it is a positive choice for each Child of God, to join-with God in the plan of living and creating within a dynamic, expanding, developing Universe.

What is my reason for saying that agency/ free will entails uncaused causality? Some notes...

My answer is metaphysical - that is, a matter of primary assumptions.

It is that agency is a divine and indivisible attribute. (Coleridge/ Barfield is clear that some things which can be distinguished - discussed separately - such as existence and agency - cannot be divided: this is a characteristic of 'polarity'.)

Indeed, one of the very primary attributes, maybe even the most important.

*

I therefore think of agency as a primary attribute of the essence of the self that - from itself - it can originate. What does agency originate? Thought.

(This derived from Rudolf Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom.)

So the agency we are concerned with is thinking (not doing stuff, not actions).

Some thinking is just a consequence of previous causes; but when it is divine, our thinking is an aspect of our primary essence. This is possible because we are - by origin - eternal intelligences: i.e. divine. This is what makes agency possible.

So, from eternity we have existed and had thoughts originating in our selves. I imagine, as a picture, an immaterial thinking entity; thinking things from itself, not in response to anything at all - this thinking entity would still have thoughts even if nothing else existed.

From this primal state, we have been built-up by the agency of the creator and by various accumulations and modifications - but everything ultimately depends on the fact that we are micro-gods by origin, generating our own realities by thinking. This also means that thinking (cognition) is primary, comes first for us as individuals.

*

The above is, of course, a pluralistic universe, because there are many other entities in the same basic situation; including God. God's role is therefore 'secondary' for us - we do not depend on God either for our primary existence or for agency/ thinking; but of course without God is a very simple state of aloneness.

One consequence is that rejection of God could mean simply declining to 'join' the shared and complex created reality - the economy of love - which was made by God - and this choice is not necessarily evil: we could choose silence, simplicity, aloneness, lack of self-awareness - just being, in our own world of thinking.

*

Often, in not understanding the possibility of agency/ free will, people are making a metaphysical assumption which is dominating.

Something like: everything that happens must either be caused by something else or just happen for no reason, 'randomly'.

But this does not exhaust all possibilities, and indeed is probably not a natural or spontaneous way of thinking. Indeed, randomness doesn't really make sense at all, at any level. It is just a pragmatic mathematical tool.

So, to simplify, most people are probably assuming that everything which happens is caused; a consequence of something else, back to infinity...

But then that doesn't make sense either - as Thomas Aquinas perceived. An infinite regress means that nothing could ever happen, or else everything just makes a gigantic circles of causes.

So, neither randomness nor all actions being consequences of prior causes is imaginable.

*

The way out of this impasse is probably by imagination - if an alternative can be imagined then he can be felt as real.

 If a self can be imagined that is a real self (and not just consequences) then it must have the power to be an uncaused case (a first mover).

Such primary causes must be the causes of everything - I don't see that there just has to be one such cause (God) - rather I think the totality is full of such first causes (pluralism) - these are why things happen rather than nothing.

This is a situation I feel I can imagine, which is why it satisfies me. Therefore I accept it as assumption.

By contrast, universal causality, or randomness, don't make sense to me.

The basic problem here is how to do metaphysics, how to evaluate rival metaphysical assumptions...

I don't think we can go deeper than what we can imagine: imagine in a thorough kind of way, when giving it our best shot.

Reader's Question: Are you still interested by morphic resonance?

*

Reader's Question: "I am wondering about your thoughts on Rupert Sheldrake and his morphic resonance theory. It was something that you blogged about in the past that I haven't seen in awhile."

My Answer: I have stopped writing about this because I have lost interest in it -  and I lost interest in it when my Christianity became Mormon and my metaphysics pluralist. 

The peak of my interest in Sheldrake was after I had immersed myself in the work of Aquinas (from reading Ed Feser's book on the subject), had adopted a Scholastic philosophy, and was considering becoming a Roman Catholic (hoping and waiting for a group of the Anglican Ordinariate to emerge nearby). After that my interest had moved towards Eastern Orthodoxy and Platonism (via Seraphim Rose), and I got so far as becoming 'officially' a catechumin at a Russian Orthodox church.

Sheldrake's  metaphysical system fits well with this kind of classical theology - especially with Aristotelian-Thomism from which is is apparently derived. 

But when my spontaneous pluralism/ pragmatism again came to the fore, and I discovered that Mormon theology matched this perfectly, this led to a turn-around (and clarification) of my metaphysical assumptions - indeed a clarification of what metaphysics actually is, and how it differs from science. 

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/what-is-rupert-sheldrake.html

So - my conclusion was that Sheldrake is essentially a metaphysical philosopher (and a very good one!) but not a scientist; and therefore empirical research cannot either confirm or refute his ideas about morphic resonance. 

I was in touch with Sheldrake at this time, by e-mail and on friendly terms (he does seem to be a very pleasant chap!) but I was never able to be clear whether he accepted or agreed with my understanding - nor was I ever able to be clear whether he regarded 'forms' as coming from God, or being things that were 'just there' and built-into reality (this is left-out of the books); nor was I clear about how humans were supposed to be able to know what was a form, and what was not.

Anyway, having established to my own satisfaction that Sheldrake's ideas were derived from/ dependent on classical Aristotelian metaphysics - and that being metaphysical they were not 'testable' - and then my own metaphysical assumptions having changed towards William Jamesian/ Joseph Smithian pragmatism - naturally I lost interest in Sheldrake's work and ceased to read, think or write about it!

*

The evilness of evil (in a pluralist universe)

*

The reason that mainstream theologians have persisted for 2000 years with monism (and an Omni- concept of God) despite the insoluble and fundamental problems these cause for Christianity is that they want to be able to say that God is necessarily good - i.e. that the goodness of God is built-into reality, part of the existence of the universe; and therefore that to oppose God is to be irrational (i.e. they want to be able to state that evil is simply irrational).

(Note: this doesn't actually work, because it makes evil into a kind of insanity rather than a deliberate choice of evil. For instance, Satan could not rationally choose to rebel against God and reject salvation, and because he is a high angel who would know for certain the terrible consequences of rebellion; this framework makes Satan into a kind of lunatic or demented creature, rather than truly-evil).

Pluralism would regard this as a mistaken purpose in theology since it makes a universe where choice is meaningless and Man is a puppet. Such a universe is incompatible with Christianity.

(i.e. Incompatible in a common sense way. But obviously if theology is allowed to get-away-with recourse to paradox and mysticism then anything is possible - and paradox and mysticism have duly been built-into mainstream intellectual Christianity since not long after the death of the Apostles - e.g. in describing the nature of Christ, the Holy Trinity and the operations of free will.)

*

As I understand it, pluralism starts with assumptions and a situation that 'just is' and cannot be (or does not need to be) explained further - and the main assumption is the God is God - He is just there.

(And, for Mormons, so is Mother in Heaven 'just there' - because reality is dyadic, male and female are two complementary and irreducible parts that together make unity. ^See note below)

God is inside the already existing universe of reality (matter or 'stuff') which is also 'just there' and has certain properties which are understood by us as the laws of nature including the principles of beauty and morality.

We Men (and other intelligences) were also 'just there' but as some kind of essence that lacked self-awareness.

*

God (and, for Mormons, Mother in Heaven) then made us into self-aware 'children of God' so that now we are all related to God and to each other - relationships (or one enormously large family with multiple sub-families) is the reality of the situation in which we find ourselves.

Therefore, 'good' is to choose to live in accordance with these relationships, as established by God; evil is to reject these relationships and aim to live as solitary and self-sufficient gods. (This is pride.)

*

So evil is a choice. It is not necessarily irrational, it is not necessarily dishonest - except that it seems always to involve a denial of the true situation and of our debt to God - but evil can be a hatred and rejection of the divine families in which we find ourselves - perhaps a hatred of God for forcing us to become self-conscious (and therefore liable to suffer) and to having saddled us with unasked-for responsibilities to our divine parents and siblings.

I think it is at least conceivable that a person might simply choose to reject self consciousness, and/or family ties  and aspire to live utterly alone. By the mercy of God this state could be made into an unselfconscious bliss; but this state too might be rejected and the person would then live in 'hell' of utter and self-imposed eternal and self-aware solitude.

The evil of this 'hell' comes from rejecting divine relationships but clinging to selfhood; rejecting gratitude and responsibility towards God but clinging to God-given powers.

*

The primary moral decision in the history of reality was therefore that God (and Mother in Heaven) unilaterally decided to 'make' us into self-conscious personages, to make us into His children. His motive for this was love and our own benefit, just as the motive of earthly parents for 'making' children should be love and the children's own benefit - nonetheless it was unilateral, and is irreversible.

Consequently, because God is loving; I think it must have been the case that God made provision for us to opt-out of this situation in which we find ourselves, and to return to primordial unawareness and unpersonhood.

This is why I believe God has made provision for 'Nirvana' i.e. what feels-like loss of self/ personhood, and reabsorption into the blissful state of His goodness.

This is not an actual stripping away of our status as Sons and Daughters of God - that is irreversible - but it does allow a non-evil choice to reject the basic situation in which we find ourselves - to reject self-awareness, incarnation, intelligence, power and everything else. 

To 'return' to original un-consciousness.

*

But these are all choices: suboptimal, sad - but self-chosen and self-inflicted. They are simply a consequence of the reality of agency/ free will.

The evilness of evil is really about the gratuitous spitefulness of trying to wreck the self-consciousness and divine family relationships which other people want and have chosen; of trying to persuade other people to inhabit 'hell' as some kind of eternal consolation for the misery of one's own choice of hell. 

*

^The other explanation for God in a pluralist universe is an infinite regress - i.e. that God the Father and Heavenly Mother are children of previous Gods, are children of previous Gods, and so on forever. But this amounts to the same thing as saying 'just there' - it is merely substituting a process which is 'just there' for entities which are 'just there'.

(More) On being a pluralist Christian - implications of Christian pluralism

*
See also:
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=pluralism
*

I am a pluralist Christian; because I believe that we need pluralism to break the (often) tyranny, the false implications, of the absolute and crushing grip of monist monotheism.

Accepting, as I do, that neither monism nor pluralism is a complete and fully-coherent metaphysical description of ultimate reality - I assert that, despite its historical rarity, pluralism is better for Christians (although not for the other major monotheisms).

*

None of this is to challenge the truth that there is, for Christians, One God. But One God does not, according to scripture and by common-sense, imply philosophical monism.

Monism is a philosophical theory that predates Christianity - and which states that everything ultimate reduces to one thing - in Christian terms that God is one entity that is/ contains everything else.

It has always been extremely difficult (I would say impossible) for Christians satisfactorily to accommodate the primary and essential reality of Jesus Christ within monism in a manner which is comprehensible or meaningful.

The only widely acceptable answer has been to declare the whole thing a mystery, expressible only in self-contradictory/ paradoxical language (e. the mainstream dogmatic linguistic formulations regarding the Trinity). But in terms of philosophy or common-sense this is no answer at all, but an evasion positioned at the very heart of Christianity.

*

The fundamental distinction is that pluralism is anything more-than monism; the fundamental distinction is between One and More-Than-One.

The precise numeration of how-many more-than-one is secondary, and a subject for revelation rather than philosophy.

In other words, we cannot known how many more than one by reason alone - such knowledge must be told us, must come to us, from divine sources.

General Christian revelation tells us that more-then-one includes primarily and minimally Jesus Christ; also, but in a different sense, the Holy Ghost; Mormon revelation adds our Mother in Heaven.

These are minimally and essentially necessary to complete the basic picture; but in fact they do not complete the picture; because the picture includes all the Men and Angels who ever lived. All personages bring to reality something significant and permanent - albeit not-essential to its existence.

*

For a pluralist Christian there is One God, meaning that our Heavenly Father is primary as creator and legitimate authority - but also God needed, and continues to need (and always will need), others to do his primary work.

Since we are not monists, there is no requirement to reduce a multiplicity to one. Indeed, more-than-one implies irreducible and necessary qualities as the basis of difference between personages.

Pluralism makes clear why the Good Shepherd cares about all his flock, each and every individual; because each is unique and by his or her nature unique. Take one away, and the universe is changed; and changed for the worse from the perspective of the Good Shepherd - who will forever grieve the loss.

*

The greatest temptation is therefore to choose damnation as a sure way of hurting God - the power to do this is real and intoxicating for those not bound by Love.

The power to hurt God is real in a pluralist universe but it is nonetheless a snare; because while every act is permanent and irreversible, and by it the universe is changed; nonetheless overall progression has merely been delayed and not stopped.

Over eternity, and with spiritual growth of multiple personages, there are unbounded possibilities for Goods - there is not a single 'perfect' Good which can be marred, but an open-ended number of Goods all of which are capable of further enhancement and which can be achieved in uncountable ways.

*


Note added: This is related to the necessity for divine revelation.

Revelation is required precisely because metaphysics (i.e. the structure and history of ultimate reality) is contingent. It could have been different, and its future is undetermined in detail (although not in direction) due to the multitude of choices by a multitude of relevant personages.

Therefore reality cannot be inferred by philosophy, from reason.

The primacy of revelation itself implies pluralism as the best metaphysics for Christians; because pluralism allows for contingency in a way ruled-out by monism.  

*

Why I am not, personally, a Platonist

*
I hope that in yesterday's post I was able to demonstrate my immense respect for Platonism, and for the achievements of Platonist intellectuals

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/is-platonism-religion-yes-it-has-been.html

I regard Platonism as the only philosophy with power to motivate good work, and make sense of life; nonetheless I am not now a Platonist - although I have been, at various times in the past including quite recently:

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=platonist

*

Platonism was never quite natural for me, and I always responded most instinctively and spontaneously to the Pragmatism of William James, which I first encountered in Robert Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. However, this pluralism does seem shallow, unspiritual and incomplete, especially in comparison with Platonism, so I would vacillate and oscillate.

It was only after re-reading and second-time-round grasping Sterling McMurrin's The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion that I saw the bigger picture; which was the Christianity was primary and the foundation and the framework; and pluralist pragmatism was the metaphysical philosophy secondary, built-on and located-within that framework.

From this perspective, I perceive that Platonism is so strong a philosophy (for serious intellectuals, at least - it is incomprehensible or silly for 'normal people') that it had (very early in the history of the Christian church) usurped the primacy of Christianity, and had slotted-Christianity-into the Platonic framework which Greco-Roman intellectuals already had in place before they were Christians.

(In the above and what follows, I regard Aristotelian philosophy, and Thomism, as being a sub-set of the broad category of Platonism. It is different, but the difference in in detail; Aristotle was a modification, not replacement, of Plato; and the basic assumptions of Aristotelianism are within Platonism.) 

*

Platonism is so strong, so satisfying - including spiritually satisfying, and so nearly-complete a metaphysical system; that it almost cannot-help but become a rival to plain, storytelling, personal relations-based Christianity as revealed in the New Testament (and the Old).

Thus, Christian theologians have generally defended Platonism as if it was Christianity, and regarded non-Platonic philosophy as heretical - failing to see that in doing so they are putting philosophy before theology.

I am NOT saying that one cannot be both a Platonist and a Christian - that would be utterly ludicrous since so many great Christians (including church Fathers and Saints and people of high holiness) have been Platonists. What I am saying is that it is hard to be this and not to put the Platonism first.

So while I, as a pluralist pragmatist, freely and happily acknowledge the real and high Christianity of Christian Platonists; Christian Platonists cannot return the compliment! Or at least they do not, but indeed do the opposite - they deny the validity of non-Platonic (pluralist, pragmatist) Christians.

*

The focus of disagreement between Platonism and what might be termed plain Christianity is the nature of God.

For Platonism God is primarily - and in reality - abstract, has attributes and properties; and the person-hood of God is a kind of interactive software designed for our convenience and benefit - but not the core of the matter. God is, really, a God of the Philosophers; and God as Father is seen as a metaphor, a help for weaker vessels, but not really correct. Thus the philosopher has a better (deeper, truer) understanding of the nature of God than is possible for children and simple people.

For the pragmatist pluralist, who rests on Biblical revelation, the bottom-line nature of God is that He is Our Father; a person; and the way to describe Him and the Human Condition is properly to use the language of relationships. The philosophical descriptions of God, his abstract properties, are relatively shallow compared to this; and when philosophy comes into conflict with the personal and relational understanding - it is philosophy that must yield.

Since it is children and simple people (that are Christian) who most naturally perceive God as a person with whom we have a relationship, then it is children and simple people of faith who have a better (deeper, truer) understanding of the nature of God than the philosophical description.

*

So this is why, despite my enormous respect for Platonism, and my experience of its gravitational attraction, I am not myself a Platonist.

*

A few notes on Oswald Spengler's Decline of the West

*
I have been reading in Spengler's big book over the past few days ('reading in' means I have only sampled it - by no means read it all).

I have had a shot at Decline of the West before, about ten years ago I think; but then I was reading it on recommendation whereas this time I was reading it because I wanted to - consequently this time was much more rewarding.

Indeed, to my great surprise, I found the introduction and early chapters to be absolutely superb metaphysics (i.e. 'first philosophy', about the primary nature of reality and our concepts of it - not history) - it was about the nature of knowing and the deficiencies of thinking in terms of causality. To me, it seems more profound than the monism/ pluralism distinction I have been using recently (derived from William James, and lying behind Wittgenstein's late work).

I have read other works in this line of 'lebensphilosophie', such as Dilthey, which was popular and dominant in German academia and literary culture of the late 19th and early 20th century, but nothing I have come across before was anything like so good as Spengler.

On the basis of these early chapters of DotW, I would regard Spengler as being in the first rank as a modern writer on metaphysics. Of course, I will need to go back over this again soon - because it was too much to take in at one go.

As for the rest of the book, the bulk of it and the best known part, it contains all sorts of insights - but I often got bogged down.

The lesson I take away is as follows: 100 years ago Spengler wrote that the culture of the West was dead, and this was generally accepted by many of the deepest and most thoughtful thinkers of Central Europe (Wittgenstein for instance) - not because Spengler said it, but because they already knew it.

That is our present situation and has been for five generations - nowadays, we are not awaiting nor even experiencing the death of the West, we are living at least a century after it has happened! - We are currently living in the decaying of the already-dead West.

That seems to make sense of the things that Spengler did not predict, did not imagine - the literal insanity of political correctness, the aggressive official enforcement of ridiculous lies and inversions of reality, virtue, truth and beauty.

One aspect Spengler remarked-on which is illustrative and probably a deep poetic truth: that (in contrasting men and women) women embody destiny; women are history - bound-up in the process, so that it is wrong to talk of causality. So we need to look at what women are, generically - rather than what men say - in evaluating Western culture.

And that is the measure of our situation.

*

Is Time inevitable? Time and pluralism versus out-of-Time and monism

*
The attitude to Time defines much. If Time is inevitable, always a factor - then there can be no unity of entities, no omnipotence, no omniscience... at least not in any absolute sense. Because if it takes time to know something, then knowledge is always incomplete; if it takes time to do something, then power is thereby limited.

*

If communication is necessary, Time is necessary; or, if things can be causally linked without need for communication - this requires that Time is not necessarily a factor.

(This is akin to the distinction between General Relativity, where Time and communication are necessary; and Quantum theories, where they are not.)

To put it another way, any doctrine of the utter unity of (say) the Holy Trinity, or God and Man, or the reality of several absolute attributes accorded to God; all depend on the reality of simultaneity - things must be able to happen at exactly the same moment, without need for communication, and without any time-lag.

*

Consider the Holy Trinity and the one-ness between God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost - is this a complete harmony which require communication and therefore some 'elapsing of Time'? Or is the unity one entailing a simultaneity of will and therefore no Time elapsing? - that the unity of will is therefore necessarily outside of Time.

If Time is inevitable, and communication takes Time (no matter how minuscule this Time may be - some Time must have elapsed in the process of communication), then the Holy Trinity are separate persons in communication; but if Time can be transcended, then there could in principle be a non-communicative one-ness of unity (but then the status of the Trinity as individual persons loses meaning).

*

Upon this distinction depends whether deification/ theosis is a matter of unity with God or relationship with God. 

Unity with God entails the reality of a state of being outside of Time - in this state God and Man are merged, and therefore in practice (given the vastness of difference) Man is absorbed into God.

But if Time is an absolute, then there can be no merging - rather the highest goals is a perfection of communication; but status as separate persons would necessarily be retained because of Time.

Any communications between God and a Man would take some Time, and the elapsing of that Time (however brief) is a mark of the separation of God and each Man.

*

So Time goes-with pluralism - with an irreducible multiplicity of entities in communication; while the possibility of outside-of-Time implies that reality, or at least highest reality, is a unity with no distinction of parts or persons.

And the possibility of transcending Time goes-with a Heaven of static, unchanging bliss - perfect, outside of Time; while the absolute reality of Time goes-with a Heaven of multiple persons and wills in communication - the highest satisfaction is not fixed or final, but a continuation and expansion of communication: i.e. relationship.

So, according to our attitude to Time, we get a very different concept of the highest aim of becoming Sons of God, ourselves god (deification) - and of the process towards this variously called theosis, sanctification or spiritual progression.

On the one hand, it is a movement towards a loving and blissful merging-into and assimilating-with God. This out-of-Time Heaven is unity in divinity.

Or, on the other hand, it is becoming sufficiently like God as to enter into in a close and loving and permanent relationship with Him, with other beings of similar kind (such as angels) and with other deified Men (including potentially spouses and families); and continue with theosis, and to join with the work or task of helping others to attain theosis, and participate ever more fully and widely in the relationships of divine community - which is Heaven.

*

It is fascinating how so much hinges on our understanding-of, and belief-in, the necessity and possibility of Time/ not-Time.

*

Summary of the metaphysics of free will

*

I have written quite often about free will on this blog

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=free+will

*

The reason why people (why I myself) find it hard to grasp this subject is that it is metaphysical, not scientific; i.e. it is about our assumptions concerning reality - not about our investigations of reality.

Another problem is that the metaphysics of free will is that - to be real - the free will must be an unmoved mover, an uncaused cause.

It must be - so it is!

*

That places free will outside of science - because science is only concerned with caused things.

This means that science is necessarily incomplete - since there must BE uncaused causes, or else we have infinite regress in a-caused-b-caused-c-caused-d forever! - and a situation which nothing could happen (this was pointed-out centuries ago by Aquinas).

*

But free will conceptualized as an uncaused cause implies that each Man (and maybe other things) is to some extent an uncaused cause - and this creates difficulties for most philosophies, which are monist - and refer all causes back to one cause.

The conclusion seems to be that God has free will and is an uncaused cause; but the same also applies to each Man.


How can this be understood?

The only two rational conclusions I can see; are either

1. To state that God caused each uncaused cause: i.e. God caused (created) each Man to as an uncaused cause.

Or

2. The theology of pluralism: that God and also each Man are alike in being uncaused causes, and 'always'-have-been. God and each Man are (at the level of being uncaused causes -  although not necessarily as 'persons') basic constituents in the universe.

*

The first is the solution of Aquinas, the second is the solution of Mormon theology. Each solution has advantages and problems - and different implications.

I personally favour the Mormon metaphysics, partly from temperament - but mostly because it solves the problems that are most dominant for me, and I find the consequences congenial; while the Thomist solution  seems too obviously paradoxical and leads to problems (such as the problems of pain/ suffering and moral responsibility) further down the line.

But both solutions are viable in some ways, unsatisfactory in others; and both are much preferable to the up-front, in-your-face nihilistic incoherence of denying the reality of free will!
*

General Relativity versus Quantum Physics - Metaphysical Pluralism versus Monism

*

It seems to me that as relativity is to quantum physics, so the metaphysics of pluralism is to monism.

Sort of.

*

These are two different, basic ways of looking at the world. Thus relativity cannot be integrated with quantum physics, the particle theory of light cannot be integrated with the wave theory of light, and pluralist theology cannot be integrated with monist.

*

If Einstein was perhaps the most creatively inspired scientist who ever lived, then the fact that he regarded quantum physics (which he helped to found) as fundamentally wrong, ought to be of significance - significant in the sense that Einstein recognized that quantum physics was simply based on a fundamentally different set of assumptions - and one which he regarded as alien to his basic understanding of how things work.

General Relativity is based-in, extrapolated-from, a metaphysical world that is common sense, real world, normal logic: a world where time is linear and sequential, where you get nothing from nothing, where causality is understood like bouncing billiard balls and where all interaction is constrained by the maximum possible speed of even the tiniest and fastest billiard ball: the speed of light.

Relativity can be, and is,explained by 'thought experiments' such as 'riding on a beam of light' - apparently Einstein used these thought experiments to discover the theory. Quantum physics cannot be explained by thought experiments - and what you get from an attempted quantum thought experiment such as Schrodinger's cat is the fact that quantum physics cannot be explained by thought experiments!

*

Quantum physics is a world outwith common sense and human experience: where you can get something from nothing, where time may not be linear nor sequential, where there may be instantaneous interaction regardless of distance, and things can-and-cannot be simultaneously.

Ultimately, quantum physics is a world of equations - of formal models - it is not a human world, it is utterly non-commonsensical.

*

General relativity and quantum theory cannot both be true, because at a metaphysical level they inhabit different universes. Both could be wrong, but only one can be true - with the other an un-grounded, ad hoc set of assumptions which happen to be useful for particular tasks.

*

In theology somewhat likewise. Pluralism is based in common sense and everyday mechanisms of pragmatic causality; monism is based in a world of absolute theory.

This best comes out in relation to time. For pluralists, time is what it seems to be - linear and sequential; for monism, time can stop, be reversed... all sorts.

In fact, monists do not regard time as a constraint - since time is neither linear nor sequential, time can - in practice, time can be fitted-around other - more important, more fundamental - things.

Pluralism is ultimately materialist and there is one kind of stuff. Causality is direct - one thing causes another because in bangs-into the other. There can be no causality without physical interaction, which takes time - and time cannot be reversed. There is no communication which does not take time.

Monism sees all kind of interactions, and things different in kind. Monism may posit immaterial things, causality without substance - so causality may be instant over all of space: there may be action at a distance without any time elapsing. There is no before nor after - so the future may cause the past.

*

Pluralism and monism cannot both be true, because at a metaphysical level they inhabit different universes: either everything has one ultimate cause, or more-than-one ultimate cause.

Both could be wrong, but only one can be true - with the other an un-grounded, ad hoc set of assumptions which happen to be useful for particular tasks.

*

In religion, when it comes to the soul, a pluralist imagines it as a kind of stuff; a monist may regard the soul as immaterial.  Same with consciousness. Same with the Holy Ghost.

A pluralist necessarily regards God as material - because everything real is material; a monist can posit a God that is everything - all things; a God that is 'nothing' no-thing (in the sense of having no substance, material or stuff.

A pluralist supposes God to do things in broadly the same kind of way that humans do things: by one thing causing another over time, by taking pre-existing material and shaping it - all extrapolated to happen vastly accelerated and vastly larger in scope; but a monist regards God as working by entirely other means: making something from nothing, making many things happen instantly, making things happen simultaneously without any specific communication between them, whatever... 

*

A pluralist regards God as broadly being of the same kind as Man - as a personage - having a character: a God of passions, emotions, feelings, intentions, desires, motivations - God as linearly and continuously linked to Man and inhabiting the same reality; but a monist regards God as utterly different from Man, inhabiting a different reality, qualitatively different, utterly incomprehensible, fundamentally unknowable, unpredictable, of a nature so other-than Man that it is ridiculous, childish, blasphemous to talk of God being a person or having passions, emotions, intentions etc.

The pluralist regards God as having a morality, the monist regards God as being morality. 

And so on.

*

From all this it can be seen that Christians, trinitarians, have a tough job - probably an impossible job - in creating an adequate philosophy of Christianity; since necessary features and properties lie on both sides of the pluralism-monism divide; and this divide cannot be mended any more than relativity can be integrated with quantum physics.

My conclusion is that deep metaphysical coherence is unattainable in Christianity.

Christians must not get 'hung up' on philosophy.

Of course, most don't - but intellectuals, including theologians, certainly have done and continue to do.

*