Pantheism from the Perspective of Wittgensteinian Nonoverlapping Magisteria (WNOMA)

Author:

Andrejč Gorazd12ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Faculty of Religion, Culture and Society, University of Groningen, 9712 CP Groningen, The Netherlands

2. Institute for Philosophical and Religious Studies, Science and Research Centre of Koper, Garibaldijeva 1, 6000 Koper, Slovenia

Abstract

This essay examines pantheism within the framework of the ‘faith and reason’ field in the philosophy of religion, with an emphasis on the question of the relationship between pantheism and empirical–scientific rationality. I address this question from what I call the Wittgensteinian Nonoverlapping Magisteria (WNOMA) approach to religion and science. WNOMA affirms a categorial difference between religious and scientific language and attitudes. This difference is interpreted with the help of Wittgenstein’s distinction between religious and scientific beliefs and van Fraassen’s distinction between religious and empiricist stances. This means that WNOMA is antievidentialist regarding religious beliefs and sees the experiential and instinctive aspects of religion as more fundamental than the systematic–intellectual aspect. Part of the variety in contemporary pantheism relates to the question of whether the emphasis is on the experiential–spiritual side of pantheism or its intellectual side, i.e., whether pantheism is ‘hot’ or ‘cold’. I examine a few telling examples: Spinoza, Einstein, the World Pantheism Movement and a recent awe-some argument for pantheism by Ryan Byerly. The main contribution of this paper is a critical reading of these versions of pantheism from a WNOMA perspective, through which I hope to establish the plausibility and show some of the persuasive force of the WNOMA approach to pantheism, focusing on the relation of pantheism to scientific rationality on the one hand and felt experience on the other. I argue that hotter kinds of pantheism can be intellectually virtuous if they find a way to combine the empiricist stance and pantheist religious stance, even without a developed philosophical or theological system. I also argue that colder and philosophically rigorous pantheism can be problematic if it assumes religious evidentialism, neglects the experiential part of pantheism in favor of intellectualism or/and confuses the spheres of science and religion.

Funder

Science and Research Centre of Koper and the Slovenian Research Agency

“Constructive Theology in the Age of Digital Culture and Anthropocene”

Publisher

MDPI AG

Subject

Religious studies

Reference49 articles.

1. Allison, Henry E. (1987). Benedict de Spinoza: An Introduction, Yale University Press.

2. Andrejč, Gorazd (2016). Wittgenstein and Interreligious Disagreement: Philosophical and Theological Investigation, Palgrave McMillan.

3. Buckareff, Andrei (2022). Pantheism (Cambridge Elements in Philosophy of Religion), Cambridge University Press.

4. The Awe-Some Argument for Pantheism;Byerly;European Journal for Philosophy of Religion,2019

5. Carrette, Jeremy (2023, October 10). Grace Jantzen. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2006/may/11/guardianobituaries.gender.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3