Bernardo Kastrup Rejects Theology, But Tries To Defend It

[Jason Barr]

God is a personal being (this is how he is conceived by virtually all Philosopher's of Religion, and personality as an attribute is even more fundamental to his essence than being tri-omni). Bernardo's view is that Mind-At-Large is impersonal.... Thus, no Theist educated in the Philosophy of Religion (or any Theist that I know) is going to accept this view in a trillion years. If Bernardo wants his view to be open to Theism it seems he has to accept that Mind-At-Large could be personal; but it is a person who experiences reality from a more holistic perspective instead of a localized one. 

This doesn't mean that Bernardo must accept that Mind-At-Large is personal, just that he must reject the notion that Mind-At-Large being impersonal is implied by his view (I don't think it is). I know he is aiming to convert Materialists, but I plead with him to not leave Theists out in the cold. In Bernardo's blog "In Defence Of Theology" he acts as if he is sympathetic to Theism, then he outright seems to reject it by claiming that Mind-At-Large is impersonal. What Theist do you know would accept God is impersonal Bernardo?! 

[George]

Should one attempt to be accepted, or accurate?

If M@L is "that which personal viewpoints are within" then it can't be personal - in the same way that a country can't be a city, and a solar system can't be a planet, etc.

[Jason Barr]

How accurate is it to defend Theology but reject it like Bernardo does? Also, even if personal view points exist within consciousness, that doesn't mean that Mind-At-Large cannot be a person. After all, my personal view points exist within me but that doesn't mean I (a person) exist within me. 

[Bernardo]

Jason,

It's not the case that theology only accepts personal deities. This isn't the case even in Western theology. Of course, in the East, the ultimate divine essence is often non-personal, like Brahman in Hinduism and Brahmanism. But even in monotheistic middle-eastern religions God is often articulated as non-personal, like the Godhead of Jewish theology.

I have no problem with the idea that God (mind-at-large) can express itself in personal form. We are examples of it. What Jungians call the archetype of the Self, when appearing in personified form, is another, less concrete example of it. But to say that God is personal is limiting, because then God can't be something else in addition to personal; something more essential and less localized. This, in my view, contradicts the notion that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

To deny that God is a personal entity is basically to say that he is more than personal, because it avoids placing a limitation on the divinity. But this denial does not eliminate the possibility that God may manifest itself in personal form.

Cheers, B.

[George]

Bernardo has of course said it best, and you've essentially said the same thing:

Also, even if personal view points exist within consciousness, that doesn't mean that Mind-At-Large cannot be a person.

It is certain that M@L cannot be a person in the same way that you or I are a person. That doesn't mean it can't have some sort of identity, in the same way that the body has a form but consists of other forms.

After all, my personal view points exist within me but that doesn't mean I (a person) exist within me. 

That is a different thing. You might consider, what is this "me" in that sentence, and then extent out from there.

This would give us:

• "What you are" might be able to take on different personal viewpoints - but this means that "what you are" is not any particular one of those viewpoints. You are beyond this.

• M@L is able to adopt personhood - because what it is, is that which forms into our persons. However this means it cannot be any one person. It must be beyond this.

• M@L could take on the form of an "Entity God", however it would never be that Entity God; it would be just another perspective. It might seem to have greater power than us, but it would not be the Ultimate God. It would just be a powerful person.

• M@L therefore must be impersonal. Anything that has existence, exists within it. M@L as-it-truly-is, simply "is". It is the Ultimate God beyond all form.

The properties usually attributed to God are those of M@L. Everything else is aspects of that. If we confuse the aspects with God, we are misidentifying the entirety of God with one of the creations within Him...

[Peter Jones]

Bernardo's reply seems to cover it. My guess would be that among theists (or people who at least speak in terms of God) the idea that He has a personality (or a gender) would be a minority view. It is certainly a hotly argued issue in Indian religion.

The Christian doctrine of Divine Simplicity seems relevant since it seems to rule out the idea that God can 'have' any attributes at all.    

[Sciborg]

Is there a reason we can say much about the Ground of Being besides establishing a metaphysical argument that suggests it must exist?

Or, to put it another way, isn't saying much about God dependent on faith rather than logic?

[George]

I'd say there is no evidence in experience.

Very loosely, as I follow it:

(1) We assume the person-shaped images we see correspond to something like the experience we have of ourselves (even though we do not experience ourselves as a person-shape image), and deduce there must be other minds such as us, sharing the same spatial-temporal environment experience, here and now.

(2) We note that we don't experience ourselves deliberately creating the world in our mind, and deduce it must be created by another larger mind and in some sense given to us.

(3) We conclude that we must be one of many minds, within a larger creative mind.

 

It seems that (1) and (2) make all sorts of assumptions which assume an environment in which an overlapping of experience and some "doing of creation" occurs. 

But In direct experience we can only confirm that there is one unbounded mind (which is what we are) which takes on the shape of various experiences (one of which is being-this-person-in-this-world). And the rest is story-making about something cannot be conceived of or brought into mind. So in what sense does it exist?

[Sciborg]

How does experience confirm an unbounded mind?

Whose experience has done this?

[George]

How does experience confirm an unbounded mind?

By revealing that experience arises within it - space and with that sensations, perceptions and thoughts - but there is no permanent experience and no detectable end to it.

 

Whose experience has done this?

It is impersonal. It is nobody's experience but from time to time it has the experience of being-a-person.

[Sciborg]

Hmmmm I'm not sure we can infer experience is limitless?

But then I'm not sure we can definitively say there is a Ground of Being. I mean I think the arguments for some kind of Ground are persuasive, but I don't know if they are definitive.

I think it'd be interesting for an Inception Dialogue to debate this with someone taking the opposite view - say a Scholastic or another Christian/Muslim philosopher.

IIRC in Beyond Physicalism their argument for Panentheism stopped short of declaring the divine as being a personal or impersonal being.

[George]

Hmmmm I'm not sure we can infer experience is limitless?

I mean in the sense that the "space that you are" isn't inherently structured or bounded - rather than in the sense of "all possibilities". 

You can observe this directly.

But then I'm not sure we can definitively say there is a Ground of Being. 

I mean I think the arguments for some kind of Ground are persuasive, but I don't know if they are definitive.

I think it just doesn't mean anything - other than perhaps the name we give to the state where all experience has faded (the gap between thoughts; deep sleep).

 

I think it'd be interesting for an Inception Dialogue to debate this with someone taking the opposite view - say a Scholastic or another Christian/Muslim philosopher.

Would it consist of one side taking a view, and the other side saying there is no view, though?

 

IIRC in Beyond Physicalism their argument for Panentheism stopped short of declaring the divine as being a personal or impersonal being.

That's interesting. And I think we do have to stop short because we are shifting into literally unthinkable territory. You can directly notice that what you are is not "content" but after that you can't say much more, except about content.

What was the reason given for stopping short in the book?

Looking at, say QBism and P2P, they end up proposing a "private view" and a copy of the world, but the moment they talk about an objective aspect to this and how multiple views would interact (never mind how you would prove they exist) it becomes handwaving and a future promise (a bit like emergence of consciousness from the brain). At that stage I think we just have to say that there are "useful fictions" about interconnections- and those fictions may even influence our experience of apparent interaction with apparent other views - but they will still be experiences arising within a view.

Does that leave us with:

• Something like: There's a sheet of metal with all possible patterns etched into it, each pattern etched at a slightly different angle. As you tilt the sheet the light will highlight different patterns and they will be much brighter than the others. We are the sheet, the etched patterns are the world, the highlighted pattern is the current experience. The being-a-person experience is therefore part of the world-pattern.

• Logically, you are the "ground of being" having an experience of being-a-world-from-a-particular-perspective. And so there is nothing outside of you and nothing "happening" elsewhere; any ideas of an outside (other views) are thoughts, inside.

 

[Scott Roberts]

On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 4:03:16 PM UTC-10, Jason Barr wrote:

God is a personal being (this is how he is conceived by virtually all Philosopher's of Religion, and personality as an attribute is even more fundamental to his essence than being tri-omni).

This is incorrect. There is an ongoing debate in theological circles over this. One side is that of "classical theists" (e.g., Feser, Hart) who argue that traditionally, God is not a being, personal or otherwise, rather He is Being itself. The other side, who can be called "personalistic theists" (eg Plantinga) say God is the Supreme Being, which is to say, a being. This is largely a modern debate, in that the classical view (as indicated by ts name) was predominate until modern times.

The classical theists, by the way, do maintain that God is personal (thus justifying referring to him as Him), but only in the sense that God is described with characteristics that we assign to persons, such as Intellect, Will, Love, and so on. (It should also be noted that for classical theists these characteristics are, as Peter mentioned, not separable, by the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity. That is, God is Being is Intellect is Love is Will, not a being that has an  intellect, loving disposition, etc.)

So given all that, Bernardo's Mind-At-Large is very close to the classical theist's view of God. Where it is likely to differ is in how the relation between God/M@L and creatures is understood.

[Sciborg]

I think a discussion between Bernardo and Feser or some other Scholastic would be interesting. That or a Christian Idealist, or perhaps Sheldrake who is Anglican but doesn't see this is an exclusive path.

[George]

Sheldrake would be an interesting choice.

[Peter Jones]

On Saturday, 25 July 2015 22:50:32 UTC+1, Scott Roberts wrote:

"There is an ongoing debate in theological circles over this. One side is that of "classical theists" (e.g., Feser, Hart) who argue that traditionally, God is not a being, personal or otherwise, rather He is Being itself. The other side, who can be called "personalistic theists" (eg Plantinga) say God is the Supreme Being, which is to say, a being. This is largely a modern debate, in that the classical view (as indicated by ts name) was predominate until modern times."

Yes!!! God became a very naïve idea somewhere along the line. Modern Christians often have no idea of what they have left behind.

[Bernardo]

First I need to publish my book on religion next year ;)

[Sciborg]

@Bernardo: Ah yes, that book. ;-)

@Everyone: I don't know if the idea of Divine Simplicity is actually compatible with the idea of Brahman. In the sense that both would refer to a Ground of Being, I would say they are similar but it seems to me the Scholastics and Hindus would disagree regarding the particular nature of the said Ground?

[Peter Jones]

On Sunday, 26 July 2015 21:32:14 UTC+1, Sciborg wrote:

@Bernardo: Ah yes, that book. ;-)

@Everyone: I don't know if the idea of Divine Simplicity is actually compatible with the idea of Brahman. In the sense that both would refer to a Ground of Being, I would say they are similar but it seems to me the Scholastics and Hindus would disagree regarding the particular nature of the said Ground?

Possibly. I haven't studied it as deeply as I might. But it seems to be more or less the same idea.  To me the idea of divine simplicity would be difficult to formulate in more than a couple of ways so it seems almost certain to be in line with the idea of the two Brahmans. No doubt there is endless inconclusive debate on this topic. Perhaps they are different ideas, but both would function the same way in philosophy.