This thread could be a place to flesh out how and why this is happening and a place for me to archive my own thoughts and positions on Integral ( foremost to me is integrity and integration). 

I’ve suggested previously that there are at least three divisions occurring: Edward’s spiritual atheism premised and framed within post metaphysical thinking ; Wilber’s framing which is what I classify as a type of *spiritual pantheism ( an impersonal telos driving evolution) this to my thinking is not post metaphysical in a strict sense ; and my position which I call integral theism-- here we could place all ideas about god that are consistent with integral thinking in general ( perhaps panentheism; process philosophy ; emergentist theism ; my favourite-alternative Christianity ; alternative Buddhism ; certain schools of Vedic thought ; Shamanism; entheogen theory, etc .) In an Integral culture these ideas might be classified under alternative metaphysics which may or may not include streams of post metaphysical thought . Also, we should make room for Dembski and Behe and their positions which have not been disproved and not given fair hearing within the church of scientific academia . To my mind-with my years of layman study-I can’t see any tenable position within the scientific endeavour that doesn’t concede that all there is at this time are a multiplicity of camps of beliefs ; that at this point in time there is no definitive scientific proof against spiritual processes in the universe . I’d even go as far to say that in a post-ironic age we have dishonest science critiquing dishonest religion ; at least within popular culture ( the media wars ) . We might add that science has been compromised at some level by personal ideology combined with the corrupting influences of neoliberal capitalism ( that funding is premised on ideology ) . This isn’t to say that non-theism ( atheism ) is wrong ; but rather, in an Integral context all ideas would be given fair hearing based on integrity and integration ( only that which is proven false beyond reasonable doubt would be jettisoned). I don’t believe there is enough evidence to jettison all theistic perspectives at this point in time. 

We might add also that philosophical positions on the nature of reality have not been answered definitively and that once again all we have here are a multiplicity of camps framed within social construction, cultural conditioning, personal bias especially when it comes to IQ, inherent shortcomings on what it is a human can know about such things , etc. 

 *NOTE: sorry for calling Kenny a spiritual pantheist as I know that is not technically correct . He is a panentheist ( I think ) in the way of Advaita Vedanta or Mahayana Buddhism. Or he may be a teflon theist:)

Here are a few links : 

Christian panentheism: 

http://philipclayton.net/files/papers/TheCaseforXtianPanentheism1.pdf

Disputes over metaphysics: 

http://christian-agnostic.blogspot.ca

Views: 282

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hi Andrew. Thanks for the link. As I suggested before, and still after this reading, I don't know if I am closer to panentheist or pantheist. (Or something else, as well.)

Maybe having a clear sense of this sort of conclusion in someone can arise as a result of spending much time or/and intensity with the logics and abstractions of God and of universe, if not from an epiphanically religious/spiritual experience. Perhaps both. Maybe, then, voila, I now have a committed sense of how these big things truly are.

Regarding the theism that Anderson describes, I have a strong gut reaction to his logic and biblical assumptions that, no way, I'm not that. Almost a real visceral gut reaction and my nose begins to squnch up. I must be touching unpleasant associations, some in shadow.

Well. Ehem. Alright then. Carry on, ambo.



andrew said:

Hi Ambo, well, in the words of one iconic Mr. Smith, ' I'm no fan of Mr. Anderson either'. Not that I'm an agent or anything. But it is a good discussion . Um, yes, I consider various states of non-surety to be high on the spiritual line! My god, 'why hath though forsaken me?' Asserting definitively the nature of spiritual truth is a fools errand, or so I suspect . I suspect, also, that by the time of Constantine, the elite figured that one out by realizing  the sheer insanity and huge broad spectrum of spiritual claims; so we will pick this one and subordinate all the rest by imperial proxy . Here is one of the latest from the myriad spectacle of the Story of Eden, Adam, and Eve : 

http://www.truegnosticchurch.org/index.html

This one reminds me of The Urantia Book which I read 24 years ago ( apparently Hendrix and SRV were into it) . Really, endless spiritual claims . Frustratingly maddening that there can be no consensus other than claims of faith based on irrational literalism . So, we have a spiritual conundrum? But hey, a part of my path is to check it all out ( and I try to ) and my hope is there might be some great universal revealing where the veil is lifted and EVERYONE goes 'awe' at the same time ( laughters all around) . I'd be howling if that revealing was along the lines of Eric Dubay ! Everyone , at least once, should suspend judgement and just consider his 200 proofs of the flat earth! Could you imagine ! Not only has every religion been false but so is the story told about the physical universe for the last 500 years ! (hysterics all around ) but hey, in a pretzeled kind of way it fits todays insane circumstances . 

My pursuit these days is more aligned with theurj's, and that is to focus on what I consider more important : how should we live today and  who is deciding how we shall live ? Here is one of the best conversations on that subject that I've read in a long, long  time . I think the, John Cusack, might be the actor . Fantastic  read :

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/33664-things-that-can-and-can...

Who are these 'invisible' rulers  that know everything about us and we are to know nothing about them ?

Zero chance Obama and Trudeau are the rulers, imo, they are the front and someone is handling them .

I'm going to post some thoughts on this article  here as that discussion is relevant to schisms in the integral community ( or so it appears ) . 

https://gallery.mailchimp.com/1096152e57978838e12c47ebf/files/Marqu...!&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9b27ba829a-9e2d77ffc1-21712829

I could have written this . Of course, where I would part ways is on atheism which i have zero problem with per se . I think an IPMS non-theism is even better as it defines spiritual proclivities while being keenly aware of systemic dysfunction especially within economics and ecology . I've argued , however, that there is room for Integral theism. It's the very fact that high levels of development can concede uncertainty that makes certain types of theism possible . But only held and framed within non-dogmatic spiritual hypothesis . In practise it would be personal religion without religion. There isn't the need for code and verse and institutions. It would also be true that different people within different cultures might continue to use ideas and symbols from previous conditioning . It would be highly unlikely, though, within this context , that anyone would claim science as an avenue of proof of spiritual claims . Whatever honest science says about the natural world ( and there is dishonest science out there) is completely compatible with god ( how could it be any other way?) But this view of god wouldn't fetishize evolution even though human development through individual and cultural stages seems to be a given . My idiosyncratic take on this issue would be to never use the would evolution and spirituality in the same sentence . This is in no way saying that things don't evolve ; just not in the way new agism asserts . What I am saying is that I don't believe faith has to be completely abandoned within higher levels of development; although certainly not necessary . 

Note : there was a recent doc. on wild horses in Alta. ; the science expoused for their culling was dishonest .

From his article: 

beyond anything more than a hypothesis or conjecture—what the ultimate nature of reality is. 

Andre then goes on to claim that the ultimate nature of reality is non-theistic . 

Reply to Discussion

RSS

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.

© 2018   Created by Balder.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service