汎神論 - 暇つぶしWikipedia

汎神論

□記事を途中から表示しています
[最初から表示]

^ a b c d Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Religion, edited by Chad Meister, Paul Copan, Routledge; 1st edition (September 1, 2007), ISBN 978-0415380386, p. 275 "Like "atheism" the term "pantheism" was used in the eighteenth century as a term of "theological abuse," and it often still is (Tapper 1987). A.H. Armstrong says the term "pantheistic" is a "large, vague term of theological abuse," (Armstrong 1976: 187). With some exceptions, pantheism is non-theistic, but it is not atheistic. It is a form of non-theistic monotheism, or even non-personal theism. It is the belief in one God, a God identical to the all-inclusive unity, but pantheists (generally) do not believe God is a person or anything like a person. The fact that pantheism clearly is not atheistic, and is an explicit denial of atheism, is disputed by its critics. The primary reason for equating pantheism with atheism is the assumption that belief in any kind of "God" must be belief in a personalistic God, because God must be a person."
^ a b c The New Oxford Dictionary Of English. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1998. p. 1341. ISBN 978-0-19-861263-6.
^ a b c Levine, Michael, Pantheism: A Non-Theistic Concept of Deity, Psychology Press, 1994, ISBN 9780415070645, pgs 44, 274-275.

"The idea that Unity that is rooted in nature is what types of nature mysticism (e.g. Wordsworth, Robinson Jeffers, Gary Snyder) have in common with more philosophically robust versions of pantheism. It is why nature mysticism and philosophical pantheism are often conflated and confused for one another."

"[Wood's] pantheism is distant from Spinoza's identification of God with nature, and much closer to nature mysticism. In fact it is nature mysticism

"Nature mysticism, however, is as compatible with theism as it is with pantheism."

^ a b Pantheism: A Non-Theistic Concept of Deity, By Michael P. Levine, Routledge; 1st edition (May 19, 2014), Chapter 5.2 Worship and Prayer, pp. 314-315 "Worship and prayer are not suitable to pantheism. It has often been claimed by theists and atheists that pantheistic worship (e.g. worshipping the Unity) is idolatrous. It is worshipping a false god. Unlike the theist or atheist, however, the pantheist believes a divine Unity exists ? a kind of god. So pantheists, if they do worship the Unity, reject the idea that they are worshipping a false god. What is wrong with pantheistic worship is not that it is idolatrous, but something more basic having to do with both the nature of worship and Unity. Even if the Unity exists, worshipping it would not be proper pantheistic practice.... What makes it unsuitable is that worship, and especially prayer, are basically directed at "persons" ? or at a being with personal characteristics separate and superior to oneself. Whether one's reasons for worship are petitionary or devotional is irrelevant; and so is one's motivation ? whether a Freudian way of coping with guilt, or a rationally-based sense of duty. Objects of worship are not oneself, and perhaps not even ontologically distinct from oneself as theism claims, but they are generally taken to be conscious, personal and superior."
^ a b Mastin, Luke. "Pantheism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy". www.philosophybasics.com.
^ Owen, H. P. Concepts of Deity. London: Macmillan, 1971, p. 65..
^ Non-personal God: A Quantum Logical Explanation, Siavash Asadi, International Journal of Philosophy and Theology December 2016, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 29-39. "When we use the term “personal God” we are contemplating such a God who is one of the beings of the world. Therefore if we suppose the number of beings n, for people who are believers in a personal God the number of beings except God is n-1, and for people who are believers in a non-personal God the number is, as before, n. In other words, a personal God implicates at least one other person. A non-personal God, however, cannot accept another thing as an independent being."
^ Non-personal God: A Quantum Logical Explanation, Siavash Asadi, International Journal of Philosophy and Theology December 2016, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 29-39. "On the other hand, although there are a lot of verses in sacred texts that designate a personal God, there are some that indicate a non-personal God. Most sacred texts commentators, of course, expound these verses in such a way that, despite the non-personal God idea, beings still have their personality. Therefore, for believers in a nonpersonal God, especially in Abrahamic religions, beings ‘personalities are surface realities and they are the appearance of God but, the non-personal God is the deepest layer of the reality of beings. On this basis, there is a phrase that has been converted to a famous motto in the non-personal God context: "
^ Spinoza’s Physical Theory, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, URL=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza-physics/
^ バールーフ・デ・スピノザ『倫理学』一巻二部命題VIII、"Ethics, Baruch Spinoza, translated by R.H.M. Elwes (1883), Book I, Part II, Propositions VIII The ideas of particular things, or of modes, that do not exist, must be comprehended in the infinite idea of God, in the same way as the formal essences of particular things or modes are contained in the attributes of God."
^ a b c d バールーフ・デ・スピノザ『倫理学』一巻一部命題XIV補論1、"Ethics, Baruch Spinoza, translated by R.H.M. Elwes (1883), Book I Part I PROP XIV Corollary I.-- Clearly, therefore: 1. God is one, that is (by Def. vi.) only one substance can be granted in the universe, and that substance is absolutely infinite, as we have already indicated (in the note to Prop. x.)"

次ページ

記事の検索

Size:117 KB
出典: フリー百科事典『ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
担当:undef