In simple terms philosophy traditionally split into two basic camps, accepting that each has a wide variety of tents, which are materialism and idealism. Idealism posits the notion that all phenomena are ultimately mental constructs, while materialism reduces the very same phenomena to matter and its properties.
Idealism begs the question as to what is the source of the consciousness giving form to the world. If it is not material in origin then there must be a positive absence giving rise to the thoughts constructing the phenomenal world.
However, materialism fares little better as an explanation: despite appearances, matter is not the fundamental source of the physical realm. Science has demonstrated clearly that energy is required for mater to come into existence, while a vacuum-potentiality is required for energy to emerge.
So, it can be said that both idealism and materialism arise from some sort of super-nothingness. Idealism suggests an infinite consciousness manifesting as if vacuous matter was the source of its own being. Materialism, meanwhile, is a 19th century concept reflecting definite ideas about a hard reality that has been subsequently dissolved by modern physics.
As “nothingness” lies at the heart of both idealism and materialism it is reasonable to begin with that as the underlying ground of reality. Indeed, a “fecund void” becomes the source of everything, the prerequisite of both mind and matter, and consistent with the understanding of quantum physics.
Why does nothing, that is “nothing-with-potential”, bring something into being? Because if it didn’t, that potential would, by definition, be non-existence which for obvious reasons can’t exist: the circularity of this argument is unavoidable because undifferentiated potential cannot come into being if nothing exists, yet as the source of all existence, neither is it non-being.
What there is, is a state of continuous becoming, the infinite is the source of the finite, indeed, exists through the finite. This is the universal dialectic, the objective realised through the subjective. The world is not an illusion, a mental construct, nor is it a hard unchanging reality, but a constantly arising limited expression of limitless potentiality.
Crucially, the two dialectical poles of infinite and finite are aspects of a single reality that can only be perceived as a dualism. There is no ultimate reality transcending the mundane: the mundane and the transcendent are both elements of a single reality, the universal dialectic.
The universal dialectic is an expression of the principle of creativity, of how existence becomes, how nature works. As unity appears as duality there arises a contradiction in nature, producing complimentary opposites interacting with each other, ceaselessly producing new syntheses.
This results in progressive creation, a naturalistic teleology of which evolution is an example. All things possess within them pairings of opposites and exist in a milieu of contending opposites. These are the creative forces acting and reacting, to shape and change, within the universal context of one reality.
There is a strand of deism, panendeism (a word coined by Larry Copling in 2000, literally meaning, “all in God”), that considers the universe to be an element of God, but not all of God. This obviously corresponds with the finite being one with the infinite, but patently not all the infinite.
By way of analogy, an organism is an assemblage of semi-autonomous individual cells and is a semi-autonomous individual in its own right. As an organism it amounts to rather more than just being the sum total of its cells. Similarly, God is every particle of the universe, while simultaneously transcending it.
While an individual cell might be “aware” of being part of something larger, it cannot comprehend the organism of which it is a component. Similarly, an organism, man for instance, can appreciate being a finite expression of infinite potential, part of its self-realisation, but remains incapable of truly apprehending it.
Deists, and panendeists, refer to this as God, or Deus; or some other word with non-religious connotations could be coined if preferred. It serves as the X in a cosmic equation to which there is no final solution, the answer constantly recurring, otherwise the potential would not be infinite.
For a deist/panendeist infinite potential arising out of nothingness is the divine process. This is not to introduce a supreme being as the manufacturer of that potential. Indeed, deists understand only too well that the concept of God is fraught with cultural accretions and difficulties. That is why God in deism is ineffable; definitely not to be thought of anthropomorphically.
Deism/panendeism is a human construct for contemplating and celebrating the awe inspiring nature of reality, and the reality of nature. Universal dialectic gives some inkling as to how whatever is came about and that it is transitory. Materialists and idealists do not have to shed cherished conceits, though they might appreciate they hold to only half the story.
Words, like all aspects of reality are finite and though, therefore, they are of the infinite they cannot encompass it. So the word “God” is bound to be inadequate, acceptable to some as an indication, a way of talking about something that’s beyond any language. Those for whom “God” is anathema find other verbal signs to point towards an ever receding concept that can never quite be grasped.
(Source: “Dialectical Monism” by Naturyl, http://naturyl.humanists.net/diamon.html )
deismuk 