Theists Misrepresenting Panentheism—: Another Reply to Benedikt Paul Göcke

Theologian Benedikt Paul Göcke claimed that ‘as long as we do not have a sound argument entailing the necessity of the world, panentheism is not an attractive alternative to classical theism’ (Benedikt Paul Göcke, 'Panentheism and Classical Theism', Sophia 52, no. 1 (2013):75). As much of...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Sophia
Main Author: Lataster, Raphael
Contributors: Göcke, Benedikt Paul 1981- (Bibliographic antecedent)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Published: Springer Netherlands [2015]
In: Sophia
Year: 2015, Volume: 54, Issue: 1, Pages: 93-98
IxTheo Classification:AB Philosophy of religion; criticism of religion; atheism
NBC Doctrine of God
NBD Doctrine of Creation
Further subjects:B Pantheism
B Ramanuja
B Panentheism
B Creatio ex deo
Online Access: Volltext (Verlag)
doi
Description
Summary:Theologian Benedikt Paul Göcke claimed that ‘as long as we do not have a sound argument entailing the necessity of the world, panentheism is not an attractive alternative to classical theism’ (Benedikt Paul Göcke, 'Panentheism and Classical Theism', Sophia 52, no. 1 (2013):75). As much of my research considers the alternatives to classical theism, I published a damning reply essay (Raphael Lataster, 'The Attractiveness of Panentheism—a Reply to Benedikt Paul Göcke', Sophia 53, no. 3 (2014): 389-395). I comprehensively noted the many problems with his notion of ‘panentheism’, finding that it differed greatly from mainstream and earlier Eastern and Western interpretations, had little to do with the etymology of the term and differed only from his concept of theism in that the world is necessary instead of contingent. It is the latter point that led to Göcke’s ‘unattractive’ conclusion, though he had not demonstrated whether the world is contingent or necessary. Göcke responded to my essay (Benedikt Paul Göcke, 'Reply to Raphael Latester', Sophia 53, no.3 (2014): 397-400), and this is my further response, which explains that—and why—my criticisms still stand.
ISSN:1873-930X
Reference:Kritik in "Another Reply to Raphael Lataster (2015)"
Contains:Enthalten in: Sophia
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1007/s11841-014-0456-7