Is this even possible? 

Here is the wiki:

How does one integrate a religious philosophy like this? 

But first, let's make sure I am understanding it correctly, and please correct any deficiencies in my understanding. 

Okay, apparently an emanation  of the pleroma (god); Sophia, took it upon her naughty self to get creative, and created a demiurge. Now, apparently, the pleroma was napping while Sophia was waxing creative. Apparently, Sophia concealed the truth of its existence from the demiurge, and the demiurge extended this breaking bad theme and created the whole known material universe while the pleroma continued his napping. At some point, the pleroma awakens to the fact that there is this thing now in existence that is the material universe, and the pleroma decides that, yes, indeed, this universe is exceedingly evil, and implements a plan to redeem it, and bring it to an inevitable destruction. Is this summary anywhere close? 

Now, is there any scientific evidence that the universe itself is inherently evil ? 

How can anyone who believes this ever be convinced that this view is incoherent? 

Apparently, very very intelligent people buy into this view of the universe including Aleister Crowley; whom Mike Hockney is apparently related to. His view, he says, is premised on reason and logic; he argues that mathematics is evidence for a created universe ( which I concede is an interesting argument for theism ), but then frames this possibility in what seems to me to be a bizarre and untenable metaphysics. 

Views: 383

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Am not sure who I am quoting here but it goes to the lightness of grip: 

" science suffers from "cosmic incapacity", reality is a potential infinite totality, of which we know something , but not how much and there may be levels of reality forever unknowable to the talking monkey."


A couple more pieces to check out that may help you in your quest.

1) This book chapter by Nancy Frankenberry on "The Major Themes of Empirical Theology." Bonnita Roy situates her "Onto-Logics" as coming from a stream that comes out of Bergson to Whitehead to Hartshorne."  The "Chicago School" of empirical theology/radical empiricism is very closely related to Hartshorne, as it is also partially based on Whitehead's process theology.  In fact, process philosophy was actually named by one of these fellows, Bernard Loomer (who later wanted to rename it process-relational).  I haven't heard Bonnita comment about this particular stream, but would be very interested in her opinion. 

Frankenberry articulates the major themes very well. She writes:

“Summarily stated, empirical theology presupposes a naturalistic, neo-materialistic world-view in which the basic constituents of reality are energy-events, happenings, or processes. Nature comprises the realm of the experienceable. Matter turns out to be patterning energy and energy is radiating matter, the only “stuff” of experience. “Substances” are radically deconstructed into their constitutive processes of becoming, and processes themselves are constituted by energy-events. All so-called substances or enduring entities can be understood as processes of becoming  which are radically relational.”

A number items come up that seem to have parallels to B. Roy's paper linked above, such as "the reality of experience vs. the world of experience".  Radical Empiricism was also discussed in this thread discussing Frankenberry's book "Religion and Radical Empiricism."

2) In regards to understanding/integrating Wilber and Bhaskar, Tim Winton's ITC 2013 paper, which Balder nicely summarized thusly: "he finds that both Wilber and Bhaskar fall short of embodying, in their actual theoretical constructs, the nonduality they espouse -- subtly privileging the epistemological or ontological domains, respectively.  To more effectively embody a nondual orientation, he recommends a "methodogolical" solution rather than a metaphysical one:  develop and follow a Method which allows one to simultaneously hold, and shuttle between, both epistemological and ontological zones as necessary, without reduction.  He follows Morin here, but this is also Franscisco Varela's strategy."

A longer discussion of Tim's paper occurred here. Copies of the ITC 2013 papers are available for downloading here.

Reply to Discussion


What paths lie ahead for religion and spirituality in the 21st Century? How might the insights of modernity and post-modernity impact and inform humanity's ancient wisdom traditions? How are we to enact, together, new spiritual visions – independently, or within our respective traditions – that can respond adequately to the challenges of our times?

This group is for anyone interested in exploring these questions and tracing out the horizons of an integral post-metaphysical spirituality.

Notice to Visitors

At the moment, this site is at full membership capacity and we are not admitting new members.  We are still getting new membership applications, however, so I am considering upgrading to the next level, which will allow for more members to join.  In the meantime, all discussions are open for viewing and we hope you will read and enjoy the content here.

© 2021   Created by Balder.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service