For those of you who are interested in this sort of thing.

But the related articles indicate that creationists still have influence in Korea.

More Koreans believe in evolution

Survey reveals more Catholics support the scientific theory than Protestants

ucanews.com reporter, Seoul

Korea

July 25, 2012



A life-sized model of an archaeopteryx, thought to be the first bird

A recent survey has revealed that almost half of South Koreans believe in evolutionary theory and that Catholics believe in it more than Protestants do.

More at http://www.ucanews.c...e-in-evolution/

let's see South Korea has a population of close to 50,000,000 people , and they

surveyed 613 Koreans , and from that they derived a statistically correct sample?

Not that I really gave it a thought or ever cared what Koreans think about evolution .

let's see South Korea has a population of close to 50,000,000 people , and they

surveyed 613 Koreans , and from that they derived a statistically correct sample?

Not that I really gave it a thought or ever cared what Koreans think about evolution .

let's see South Korea has a population of close to 50,000,000 people , and they

surveyed 613 Koreans , and from that they derived a statistically correct sample?

Good question.

I'm not too good on stats. I did a calculation from http://www.surveysys.../sscalc.htm#two based on a sample of 600 in a population of 50 million and got a Confidence Interval of 4.0, but I'm not really sure what that means. It sounds not too bad, but I don't know if it's good or not.

Intuitively, I would think that 613 isn't a bad sample size for a population of 50 million if the sampling is done properly.

As to why we should care about what Koreans think, I suppose it depends on how representative Korea is of traditional societies, i.e. those who have not gone through an Enlightenment like the one that occurred in France and Scotland in the 18th century and revolutionized the way we think about religion and science in societies directly affected by the Enlightenment.

Korea is interesting in that it has experienced a substantial shift away from Buddhism, with its own views on Enlightenment, towards Christianity, which has had mixed views on the European Enlightenment project right up to 1950 when Pius XII declared the Church's neutrality on Evolution. (Earlier, in 1943, the pope freed up scriptural analysis for Catholic scholars).

Traditional societies seem to be notable for their willingness to believe without analysis and to be skeptical of the findings of science. Korea, being in a state of substantial and rapid social evolution, reveals the fault lines between those who accept scientific opinion and those who prefer more traditional views based on narrative, anecdote and received wisdom. (I realize this is a broad generalization and wide open to challenge.)

I don't know what the degree of support for evolutionary theory is in Thailand. We have a mural at our school that directly questions it, but I don't know if the artist painted it from his intellectual perspective or just copied it from a book. When I've pointed it out to Thai administrators, they've never previously noticed the anti-Darwinian message in it or seemed to think it was important. They either agree with it or just regard it as a work of art.

let's see South Korea has a population of close to 50,000,000 people , and they

surveyed 613 Koreans , and from that they derived a statistically correct sample?

Not that I really gave it a thought or ever cared what Koreans think about evolution .

let's see South Korea has a population of close to 50,000,000 people , and they

surveyed 613 Koreans , and from that they derived a statistically correct sample?

Good question.

I'm not too good on stats. I did a calculation from http://www.surveysys.../sscalc.htm#two based on a sample of 600 in a population of 50 million and got a Confidence Interval of 4.0, but I'm not really sure what that means. It sounds not too bad, but I don't know if it's good or not.

Intuitively, I would think that 613 isn't a bad sample size for a population of 50 million if the sampling is done properly.

As to why we should care about what Koreans think, I suppose it depends on how representative Korea is of traditional societies, i.e. those who have not gone through an Enlightenment like the one that occurred in France and Scotland in the 18th century and revolutionized the way we think about religion and science in societies directly affected by the Enlightenment.

Korea is interesting in that it has experienced a substantial shift away from Buddhism, with its own views on Enlightenment, towards Christianity, which has had mixed views on the European Enlightenment project right up to 1950 when Pius XII declared the Church's neutrality on Evolution. (Earlier, in 1943, the pope freed up scriptural analysis for Catholic scholars).

Traditional societies seem to be notable for their willingness to believe without analysis and to be skeptical of the findings of science. Korea, being in a state of substantial and rapid social evolution, reveals the fault lines between those who accept scientific opinion and those who prefer more traditional views based on narrative, anecdote and received wisdom. (I realize this is a broad generalization and wide open to challenge.)

I don't know what the degree of support for evolutionary theory is in Thailand. We have a mural at our school that directly questions it, but I don't know if the artist painted it from his intellectual perspective or just copied it from a book. When I've pointed it out to Thai administrators, they've never previously noticed the anti-Darwinian message in it or seemed to think it was important. They either agree with it or just regard it as a work of art.

A thoughtful reply, It is nice to see people thinking before they pull the trigger.

as I understand it .

"confidence interval

(also called margin of error) is the plus-or-minus figure usually reported in newspaper or television opinion poll results. For example, if you use a confidence interval of 4 and 47% percent of your sample picks an answer you can be "sure" that if you had asked the question of the entire relevant population between 43% (47-4) and 51% (47+4) would have picked that answer"

This will give the overall sample of 613 a plus or minus error of 4%, a good enough margin for the overall results to be of substance, but if you further analyze the statistical factor you will see that 65 of them were Catholic, so the catholic answer would have a margin of error of 16% and the Protestant sample of 133 a 11.6% margin of error,

when you start to get in to double digit margins, then the results are unreliable. Sorry I thought about that again and the Catholic population in Korea is only 10% so that will give us 515,000 of Catholics, sot the margin of error for that would be 11.16% still to high for comfort

It is always nice to see a shift away from superstition and toward reason, in any country,but I am not sure if I correctly understand your position on the relation of enlightenment and Christianity. If you could expand on that a little bit more.

Korea is a 33% Christian where The Philippines are 93% Christian, and even though I don't know the percentage of people from the Philippines who believe in creationism, I am willing to bet that it is a lot higher than Korea

I base my opinion on the fact that Korea has 99% literacy rate , where the Philippines have a 95.7% of literacy rate.

and I find education to be just as strong a precursor in determining once position on evolution, as religion .

Regardless of the validity of the statistics , and whether it is education or religion that determines a persons position on subject as scientifically vetted as evolution. It is disturbing to see the large percentage of people that still believe in magic.

These data (I can't copy and paste them) are interesting in respect of your thoughts about the Filipinos.http://www.religious...tm/chr_capr.htm

They are taken from a 1991 Gallup Poll of religious beliefs in various countries, so they're a bit dated, but interesting nevertheless. Not least because they put paid to my generalization that people from places less influenced by the 18th century European Enlightenment are more likely to accept the findings of science and less likely, therefore, to adhere to traditional beliefs for which there is little scientific, or even analytical philosophical support.

A fairly high proportion (64%) of people in the US in 1991 were prepared to say they "know" God exists and only <35.4% (?) accepted evolutionary theory. However, relatively high numbers (50% - 63%) believed in an afterlife, heaven and hell. There were slightly smaller figures for belief in the devil and miracles. And yet only a third of Americans believed in the literal truth of the Bible.

In the Philippines, however, which would not have been exposed to Enlightenment philosophy either in their indigenous beliefs or via the Spanish Church, the profile was quite different in 1991. A very high (86.2%) of Filipinos said they were certain of God's existence, and 53.7% accepted the literal truth of the Bible, but 60.9% expressed a belief in evolution. Furthermore, Filipino acceptance of heaven, hell, the devil and miracles was significantly lower than that of the US.

I'm not sure what to make of this. Belief in a supreme being is, I believe, common across the Malayo-Polynesian region in which Filipinos find their indigenous roots, but it doesn't explain their skepticism about heaven and hell or their solid take-up of evolutionary doctrine. I wonder if the explanation is more in the comparison, and lies in the ethnic and socio-cultural make-up of the United States. Many people in the US in fact do not have a close identification with the industrial nations that experienced the 18th century Enlightenment and whose ancestors, if not actually forced to come to the States, arrived as a result of persecution, marginalization, famine and unemployment in their home countries and had no wish to identify with the Enlightenment heritage.

A belief in evolution does not exclude a belief in creation. What happened before the Big Bang? What caused life to start? There are still unanswered questions which, maybe, one day science will be able to answer; personally, I doubt it.

A belief in evolution does not exclude a belief in creation. What happened before the Big Bang? What caused life to start? There are still unanswered questions which, maybe, one day science will be able to answer; personally, I doubt it.

These data (I can't copy and paste them) are interesting in respect of your thoughts about the Filipinos.http://www.religious...tm/chr_capr.htm

They are taken from a 1991 Gallup Poll of religious beliefs in various countries, so they're a bit dated, but interesting nevertheless. Not least because they put paid to my generalization that people from places less influenced by the 18th century European Enlightenment are more likely to accept the findings of science and less likely, therefore, to adhere to traditional beliefs for which there is little scientific, or even analytical philosophical support.

A fairly high proportion (64%) of people in the US in 1991 were prepared to say they "know" God exists and only <35.4% (?) accepted evolutionary theory. However, relatively high numbers (50% - 63%) believed in an afterlife, heaven and hell. There were slightly smaller figures for belief in the devil and miracles. And yet only a third of Americans believed in the literal truth of the Bible.

In the Philippines, however, which would not have been exposed to Enlightenment philosophy either in their indigenous beliefs or via the Spanish Church, the profile was quite different in 1991. A very high (86.2%) of Filipinos said they were certain of God's existence, and 53.7% accepted the literal truth of the Bible, but 60.9% expressed a belief in evolution. Furthermore, Filipino acceptance of heaven, hell, the devil and miracles was significantly lower than that of the US.

I'm not sure what to make of this. Belief in a supreme being is, I believe, common across the Malayo-Polynesian region in which Filipinos find their indigenous roots, but it doesn't explain their skepticism about heaven and hell or their solid take-up of evolutionary doctrine. I wonder if the explanation is more in the comparison, and lies in the ethnic and socio-cultural make-up of the United States. Many people in the US in fact do not have a close identification with the industrial nations that experienced the 18th century Enlightenment and whose ancestors, if not actually forced to come to the States, arrived as a result of persecution, marginalization, famine and unemployment in their home countries and had no wish to identify with the Enlightenment heritage.

Statistics are useful , but there are two type of statistics, Factual statistics, such as the number of cold days in various countries, and opinion statistics, such as "do you believe in God" . Factual statistics, are objective,you take a thermometer and you count the number of cold days, Opinion statistics on the other hand are subjective, subject to . how the question was asked, to the willingness of the person answering the question to be honest, and cultural variables with in particular samples that would affect their understanding of the question. Especially in a politically charged question such as religion.

So I am not surprised by the schizophrenic nature of religious statistics. people are still trying to come to terms, with their own personal debate between their superstition, and their political and cultural pressures.

By the way, thank you for that link, it was interesting reading.

A belief in evolution does not exclude a belief in creation. What happened before the Big Bang? What caused life to start? There are still unanswered questions which, maybe, one day science will be able to answer; personally, I doubt it.

Evolution is not a odds with creationism, as you said, we don't know what happen before the big bang, it is possible that a

"God" used evolution as a means of creation .

But, it is in odds with biblical religions. Biblical, religions have at their core, set of beliefs that are diametrically opposed to evolution. Especially the one that includes the suspension of the laws of Physics, and the introduction of magic in to the mix.

There can be confusion over terms.

Creation is simply that - at a point in "time" God brought the cosmos into being, either from nothing (creatio ex nihilo), by God's creativity with earlier materials (creatio ex materia), or by God drawing on his own being (creatio ex deo).

Creationism is based on the biblical account, rejects Darwinian evolution, and subscribes to a fairly recent origin for the world as we know it.

What was for a while known as Creation Theology is a different kettle of fish again. It is "green" theology, very ecumenical, has high regard for the spirituality and stewardship ethos of indigenous people, and has a strong mystical character. Because of this term's confusion with Creationism, Creation Theology is now better known as Creation Spirituality. The latter was very popular among people I worked with in the Church in the 80s and 90s. It is in fact quite attractive and some very learned and sensitive people ascribe to it. Its underpinning theology is based in Panentheism, a theology with which Christians and Hindus can join hands.

New Creation Theology is Pauline theology, based on Paul's teaching that "all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time", and that the child to be born is "a new man", spiritually reborn in Jesus Christ.

Hope this helps.

There can be confusion over terms.

Creation is simply that - at a point in "time" God brought the cosmos into being, either from nothing (creatio ex nihilo), by God's creativity with earlier materials (creatio ex materia), or by God drawing on his own being (creatio ex deo).

Creationism is based on the biblical account, rejects Darwinian evolution, and subscribes to a fairly recent origin for the world as we know it.

What was for a while known as Creation Theology is a different kettle of fish again. It is "green" theology, very ecumenical, has high regard for the spirituality and stewardship ethos of indigenous people, and has a strong mystical character. Because of this term's confusion with Creationism, Creation Theology is now better known as Creation Spirituality. The latter was very popular among people I worked with in the Church in the 80s and 90s. It is in fact quite attractive and some very learned and sensitive people ascribe to it. Its underpinning theology is based in Panentheism, a theology with which Christians and Hindus can join hands.

New Creation Theology is Pauline theology, based on Paul's teaching that "all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time", and that the child to be born is "a new man", spiritually reborn in Jesus Christ.

Hope this helps.

Sorry but it does not

I am more confused now than ever.

How can Pantheism and Christian Monotheism join hands?

Though I agree that the whole debate is a confusion of terms

Before a word is spoken, all the participants need to agree on a definition of God

what is your concept of God? I bet if you asked 100 people you will get 100 different answers.

Are we talking about Spinoza's God or are we talking about Abraham's God? and or anything in, between?

How can we have a productive debate if we are talking about different things?

There can be confusion over terms.

Creation is simply that - at a point in "time" God brought the cosmos into being, either from nothing (creatio ex nihilo), by God's creativity with earlier materials (creatio ex materia), or by God drawing on his own being (creatio ex deo).

Creationism is based on the biblical account, rejects Darwinian evolution, and subscribes to a fairly recent origin for the world as we know it.

What was for a while known as Creation Theology is a different kettle of fish again. It is "green" theology, very ecumenical, has high regard for the spirituality and stewardship ethos of indigenous people, and has a strong mystical character. Because of this term's confusion with Creationism, Creation Theology is now better known as Creation Spirituality. The latter was very popular among people I worked with in the Church in the 80s and 90s. It is in fact quite attractive and some very learned and sensitive people ascribe to it. Its underpinning theology is based in Panentheism, a theology with which Christians and Hindus can join hands.

New Creation Theology is Pauline theology, based on Paul's teaching that "all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time", and that the child to be born is "a new man", spiritually reborn in Jesus Christ.

Hope this helps.

Sorry but it does not

I am more confused now than ever.

How can Pantheism and Christian Monotheism join hands?

Though I agree that the whole debate is a confusion of terms

Before a word is spoken, all the participants need to agree on a definition of God

what is your concept of God? I bet if you asked 100 people you will get 100 different answers.

Are we talking about Spinoza's God or are we talking about Abraham's God? and or anything in, between?

How can we have a productive debate if we are talking about different things?

Basically, this is where the discussion comes to a grinding halt. You cannot define God; if He is not more complex than our intellects, He is nothing.

There can be confusion over terms.

Creation is simply that - at a point in "time" God brought the cosmos into being, either from nothing (creatio ex nihilo), by God's creativity with earlier materials (creatio ex materia), or by God drawing on his own being (creatio ex deo).

Creationism is based on the biblical account, rejects Darwinian evolution, and subscribes to a fairly recent origin for the world as we know it.

What was for a while known as Creation Theology is a different kettle of fish again. It is "green" theology, very ecumenical, has high regard for the spirituality and stewardship ethos of indigenous people, and has a strong mystical character. Because of this term's confusion with Creationism, Creation Theology is now better known as Creation Spirituality. The latter was very popular among people I worked with in the Church in the 80s and 90s. It is in fact quite attractive and some very learned and sensitive people ascribe to it. Its underpinning theology is based in Panentheism, a theology with which Christians and Hindus can join hands.

New Creation Theology is Pauline theology, based on Paul's teaching that "all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time", and that the child to be born is "a new man", spiritually reborn in Jesus Christ.

Hope this helps.

Sorry but it does not

I am more confused now than ever.

How can Pantheism and Christian Monotheism join hands?

Though I agree that the whole debate is a confusion of terms

Before a word is spoken, all the participants need to agree on a definition of God

what is your concept of God? I bet if you asked 100 people you will get 100 different answers.

Are we talking about Spinoza's God or are we talking about Abraham's God? and or anything in, between?

How can we have a productive debate if we are talking about different things?

Basically, this is where the discussion comes to a grinding halt. You cannot define God; if He is not more complex than our intellects, He is nothing.

It is not defining God that I am interested in, it defining our understanding of God, You can not deny that we all have a different preconception of what God is.

If we as the question do you believe in God, or do you believe that God created the universe, with out knowing what that person thinks God is, then we are not relay getting a meaningful answer.100% of the people might answer that they believe in God, but each one of them might have a different idea of what God is.

There can be confusion over terms.

Creation is simply that - at a point in "time" God brought the cosmos into being, either from nothing (creatio ex nihilo), by God's creativity with earlier materials (creatio ex materia), or by God drawing on his own being (creatio ex deo).

Creationism is based on the biblical account, rejects Darwinian evolution, and subscribes to a fairly recent origin for the world as we know it.

What was for a while known as Creation Theology is a different kettle of fish again. It is "green" theology, very ecumenical, has high regard for the spirituality and stewardship ethos of indigenous people, and has a strong mystical character. Because of this term's confusion with Creationism, Creation Theology is now better known as Creation Spirituality. The latter was very popular among people I worked with in the Church in the 80s and 90s. It is in fact quite attractive and some very learned and sensitive people ascribe to it. Its underpinning theology is based in Panentheism, a theology with which Christians and Hindus can join hands.

New Creation Theology is Pauline theology, based on Paul's teaching that "all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time", and that the child to be born is "a new man", spiritually reborn in Jesus Christ.

Hope this helps.

Sorry but it does not

I am more confused now than ever.

How can Pantheism and Christian Monotheism join hands?

Though I agree that the whole debate is a confusion of terms

Before a word is spoken, all the participants need to agree on a definition of God

what is your concept of God? I bet if you asked 100 people you will get 100 different answers.

Are we talking about Spinoza's God or are we talking about Abraham's God? and or anything in, between?

How can we have a productive debate if we are talking about different things?

It is confusing, but Panentheism isn't the same as Pantheism. The latter constitutes (1) popular or primitive belief in multiple gods, whatever their source, or (2) amongst philosophers, belief in the presence of deity in all phenomena without necessarily any supreme source from which the embedded deity is derived. Spinoza spoke of individual things (phenomena) as "the modes by which the attributes of God are expressed in a fixed and definite manner". Whether Spinoza was a pantheist or a panentheist is a matter of contention.

Panentheism is the belief that all phenomena are manifestations of God's being. The constitution of each phenomenon, whether animal, vegetable or mineral, expresses the "being" (esseity, from sanskrit asti) of the divine source of all things, but is not identical with that source. God's being (or Brahman) is manifested in phenomena, but phenomena are not manifested in God. As the Hindus say "Atman is Brahman", but Brahman is not Atman (or "Atman is Brahman in a pot", i.e. the body). For the human, the point at which the individual person intersects with Brahman (God) is Atman (the self, or soul). The self is derived from and depends upon Brahman (the Self, Divine Consciousness, or God), but Brahman, though present in Atman, is not dependent upon it. Panentheists say all of this without using the Hindu terminology and with probably more emphasis on the non-human world as a manifestation of God (it's deep green theology). Hence, there is plenty of overlap for ecumenism between Esoteric Hinduism and this form of mystical, or esoteric Christianity. Of course, many Christians would not see it as Christianity at all. The Vatican certainly took a rather dim view of it.

To refer to Isaanbirder's suggestion that, because God cannot be defined he is nothing, I both agree and disagree (I think). While it's true that God can't be defined in phenomenal terms, as God is not a phenomenon, the question of whether he is "nothing" in consequence is still open.

If the only things that are allowable in thought and discussion are things that can be defined, then one must discard any thought or expression about God. However, the fact that there is any phenomenal existence at all in the universe has always been the cause of speculation that there is some source from which this existence is derived. That is, there is an underpinning reality that by its nature (non-phenomenal, noumenal, primordial, substantive) does not have definable form.

Of course, this inferred level of reality is speculative. It can't be verified or falsified. There are those - mystics and yogis - who say it can be experienced in deep and advanced forms of meditation, and they may talk and write persuasively about these experiences. These people may be highly worthy and credible people, but their claims are not scientifically verifiable.

The direction in which theoretical physics and microbiology seems to be going suggests that the source of all phenomena appears to be extremely elusive and certainly beyond the material, but of course it's found nothing labelled "God" or "Brahman was here".

Nevertheless, the boundaries between "something" and "nothing" appear to be thinning, and to say, as the Mahayana Buddhists do, that the source of phenomenal, or aggregated existence is "emptiness", but an emptiness that gives rise to form, may not be as outlandish as it sounds. Certainly, esoteric Hindus have been saying for thousands of years that "spirit" or "consciousness" is the source from which matter derives its form.

There can be confusion over terms.

Creation is simply that - at a point in "time" God brought the cosmos into being, either from nothing (creatio ex nihilo), by God's creativity with earlier materials (creatio ex materia), or by God drawing on his own being (creatio ex deo).

Creationism is based on the biblical account, rejects Darwinian evolution, and subscribes to a fairly recent origin for the world as we know it.

What was for a while known as Creation Theology is a different kettle of fish again. It is "green" theology, very ecumenical, has high regard for the spirituality and stewardship ethos of indigenous people, and has a strong mystical character. Because of this term's confusion with Creationism, Creation Theology is now better known as Creation Spirituality. The latter was very popular among people I worked with in the Church in the 80s and 90s. It is in fact quite attractive and some very learned and sensitive people ascribe to it. Its underpinning theology is based in Panentheism, a theology with which Christians and Hindus can join hands.

New Creation Theology is Pauline theology, based on Paul's teaching that "all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time", and that the child to be born is "a new man", spiritually reborn in Jesus Christ.

Hope this helps.

Sorry but it does not

I am more confused now than ever.

How can Pantheism and Christian Monotheism join hands?

Though I agree that the whole debate is a confusion of terms

Before a word is spoken, all the participants need to agree on a definition of God

what is your concept of God? I bet if you asked 100 people you will get 100 different answers.

Are we talking about Spinoza's God or are we talking about Abraham's God? and or anything in, between?

How can we have a productive debate if we are talking about different things?

It is confusing, but Panentheism isn't the same as Pantheism. The latter constitutes (1) popular or primitive belief in multiple gods, whatever their source, or (2) amongst philosophers, belief in the presence of deity in all phenomena without necessarily any supreme source from which the embedded deity is derived. Spinoza spoke of individual things (phenomena) as "the modes by which the attributes of God are expressed in a fixed and definite manner". Whether Spinoza was a pantheist or a panentheist is a matter of contention.

Panentheism is the belief that all phenomena are manifestations of God's being. The constitution of each phenomenon, whether animal, vegetable or mineral, expresses the "being" (esseity, from sanskrit asti) of the divine source of all things, but is not identical with that source. God's being (or Brahman) is manifested in phenomena, but phenomena are not manifested in God. As the Hindus say "Atman is Brahman", but Brahman is not Atman (or "Atman is Brahman in a pot", i.e. the body). For the human, the point at which the individual person intersects with Brahman (God) is Atman (the self, or soul). The self is derived from and depends upon Brahman (the Self, Divine Consciousness, or God), but Brahman, though present in Atman, is not dependent upon it. Panentheists say all of this without using the Hindu terminology and with probably more emphasis on the non-human world as a manifestation of God (it's deep green theology). Hence, there is plenty of overlap for ecumenism between Esoteric Hinduism and this form of mystical, or esoteric Christianity. Of course, many Christians would not see it as Christianity at all. The Vatican certainly took a rather dim view of it.

To refer to Isaanbirder's suggestion that, because God cannot be defined he is nothing, I both agree and disagree (I think). While it's true that God can't be defined in phenomenal terms, as God is not a phenomenon, the question of whether he is "nothing" in consequence is still open.

If the only things that are allowable in thought and discussion are things that can be defined, then one must discard any thought or expression about God. However, the fact that there is any phenomenal existence at all in the universe has always been the cause of speculation that there is some source from which this existence is derived. That is, there is an underpinning reality that by its nature (non-phenomenal, noumenal, primordial, substantive) does not have definable form.

Of course, this inferred level of reality is speculative. It can't be verified or falsified. There are those - mystics and yogis - who say it can be experienced in deep and advanced forms of meditation, and they may talk and write persuasively about these experiences. These people may be highly worthy and credible people, but their claims are not scientifically verifiable.

The direction in which theoretical physics and microbiology seems to be going suggests that the source of all phenomena appears to be extremely elusive and certainly beyond the material, but of course it's found nothing labelled "God" or "Brahman was here".

Nevertheless, the boundaries between "something" and "nothing" appear to be thinning, and to say, as the Mahayana Buddhists do, that the source of phenomenal, or aggregated existence is "emptiness", but an emptiness that gives rise to form, may not be as outlandish as it sounds. Certainly, esoteric Hindus have been saying for thousands of years that "spirit" or "consciousness" is the source from which matter derives its form.

Spinoza's god distilled to it's essence, is " the sum total of all the physical laws that govern the universe.an in that sense he would be a Panentheist.

But this neither here or there

I dont think it is helpful to use Sanskrit terms such as Brahman and Altman , other than in esoteric discussions.

To use terms like Brahman and Altman only confuses most people and turns them off to the conversation.

With in the context of this Thread, any and all poll driven statistics that use ambiguous terms such God, are highly

questionable. Unless there is a by all, agreed upon definition of what God is, which clearly there is not.

I dont think it is helpful to use Sanskrit terms such as Brahman and Altman , other than in esoteric discussions.

To use terms like Brahman and Altman only confuses most people and turns them off to the conversation.

I agree, but in relation to the conversation on this thread, using these terms is very helpful to those of us who are not normally very interested in religion.

To refer to Isaanbirder's suggestion that, because God cannot be defined he is nothing, I both agree and disagree (I think). While it's true that God can't be defined in phenomenal terms, as God is not a phenomenon, the question of whether he is "nothing" in consequence is still open.

Sorry, XSH, this is not what I said. I said "You cannot define God; if He is not more complex than our intellects, He is nothing."

But I think we are all going to have a different idea of what we mean by God, and I'm not sure that this is capable of resolution.

To refer to Isaanbirder's suggestion that, because God cannot be defined he is nothing, I both agree and disagree (I think). While it's true that God can't be defined in phenomenal terms, as God is not a phenomenon, the question of whether he is "nothing" in consequence is still open.

Sorry, XSH, this is not what I said. I said "You cannot define God; if He is not more complex than our intellects, He is nothing."

But I think we are all going to have a different idea of what we mean by God, and I'm not sure that this is capable of resolution.

OK, IB, I see what you mean. Sorry to misinterpret you.

There can be confusion over terms.

Creation is simply that - at a point in "time" God brought the cosmos into being, either from nothing (creatio ex nihilo), by God's creativity with earlier materials (creatio ex materia), or by God drawing on his own being (creatio ex deo).

Creationism is based on the biblical account, rejects Darwinian evolution, and subscribes to a fairly recent origin for the world as we know it.

What was for a while known as Creation Theology is a different kettle of fish again. It is "green" theology, very ecumenical, has high regard for the spirituality and stewardship ethos of indigenous people, and has a strong mystical character. Because of this term's confusion with Creationism, Creation Theology is now better known as Creation Spirituality. The latter was very popular among people I worked with in the Church in the 80s and 90s. It is in fact quite attractive and some very learned and sensitive people ascribe to it. Its underpinning theology is based in Panentheism, a theology with which Christians and Hindus can join hands.

New Creation Theology is Pauline theology, based on Paul's teaching that "all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time", and that the child to be born is "a new man", spiritually reborn in Jesus Christ.

Hope this helps.

Sorry but it does not

I am more confused now than ever.

How can Pantheism and Christian Monotheism join hands?

Though I agree that the whole debate is a confusion of terms

Before a word is spoken, all the participants need to agree on a definition of God

what is your concept of God? I bet if you asked 100 people you will get 100 different answers.

Are we talking about Spinoza's God or are we talking about Abraham's God? and or anything in, between?

How can we have a productive debate if we are talking about different things?

It is confusing, but Panentheism isn't the same as Pantheism. The latter constitutes (1) popular or primitive belief in multiple gods, whatever their source, or (2) amongst philosophers, belief in the presence of deity in all phenomena without necessarily any supreme source from which the embedded deity is derived. Spinoza spoke of individual things (phenomena) as "the modes by which the attributes of God are expressed in a fixed and definite manner". Whether Spinoza was a pantheist or a panentheist is a matter of contention.

Panentheism is the belief that all phenomena are manifestations of God's being. The constitution of each phenomenon, whether animal, vegetable or mineral, expresses the "being" (esseity, from sanskrit asti) of the divine source of all things, but is not identical with that source. God's being (or Brahman) is manifested in phenomena, but phenomena are not manifested in God. As the Hindus say "Atman is Brahman", but Brahman is not Atman (or "Atman is Brahman in a pot", i.e. the body). For the human, the point at which the individual person intersects with Brahman (God) is Atman (the self, or soul). The self is derived from and depends upon Brahman (the Self, Divine Consciousness, or God), but Brahman, though present in Atman, is not dependent upon it. Panentheists say all of this without using the Hindu terminology and with probably more emphasis on the non-human world as a manifestation of God (it's deep green theology). Hence, there is plenty of overlap for ecumenism between Esoteric Hinduism and this form of mystical, or esoteric Christianity. Of course, many Christians would not see it as Christianity at all. The Vatican certainly took a rather dim view of it.

To refer to Isaanbirder's suggestion that, because God cannot be defined he is nothing, I both agree and disagree (I think). While it's true that God can't be defined in phenomenal terms, as God is not a phenomenon, the question of whether he is "nothing" in consequence is still open.

If the only things that are allowable in thought and discussion are things that can be defined, then one must discard any thought or expression about God. However, the fact that there is any phenomenal existence at all in the universe has always been the cause of speculation that there is some source from which this existence is derived. That is, there is an underpinning reality that by its nature (non-phenomenal, noumenal, primordial, substantive) does not have definable form.

Of course, this inferred level of reality is speculative. It can't be verified or falsified. There are those - mystics and yogis - who say it can be experienced in deep and advanced forms of meditation, and they may talk and write persuasively about these experiences. These people may be highly worthy and credible people, but their claims are not scientifically verifiable.

The direction in which theoretical physics and microbiology seems to be going suggests that the source of all phenomena appears to be extremely elusive and certainly beyond the material, but of course it's found nothing labelled "God" or "Brahman was here".

Nevertheless, the boundaries between "something" and "nothing" appear to be thinning, and to say, as the Mahayana Buddhists do, that the source of phenomenal, or aggregated existence is "emptiness", but an emptiness that gives rise to form, may not be as outlandish as it sounds. Certainly, esoteric Hindus have been saying for thousands of years that "spirit" or "consciousness" is the source from which matter derives its form.

Spinoza's god distilled to it's essence, is " the sum total of all the physical laws that govern the universe.an in that sense he would be a Panentheist.

But this neither here or there

I dont think it is helpful to use Sanskrit terms such as Brahman and Altman , other than in esoteric discussions.

To use terms like Brahman and Altman only confuses most people and turns them off to the conversation.

With in the context of this Thread, any and all poll driven statistics that use ambiguous terms such God, are highly

questionable. Unless there is a by all, agreed upon definition of what God is, which clearly there is not.

Yes, use of these terms in a conversation where they are not known would be inappropriate. I used them because I thought you were questioning my suggestion that Christian Panentheists and Hindus could have some things in common. I may have misunderstood you, but that was the context; hence the use of Hindu terms.

Perhaps I'm reading people's posts too quickly, or reading too much into them.

Yes, use of these terms in a conversation where they are not known would be inappropriate. I used them because I thought you were questioning my suggestion that Christian Panentheists and Hindus could have some things in common. I may have misunderstood you, but that was the context; hence the use of Hindu terms.

Perhaps I'm reading people's posts too quickly, or reading too much into them.

XANGSAMHUA,

I must say , when I see your name associated with a thread I always read it because I know your reply to be well thought out and intelligent.

But when some one is replying ,one has to take in to consideration his/hers audience when choosing the appropriate language. and then context of the conversation.

It is my fault for not making this oppinion clear in my response, In reading it again I can see why you might misunderstood what I said. Other than that everything you said is correct in my opinion.

My point is simple, in any poll driven statistic the results are always flawed when using subjective terms such as God in your leading question.The results are always skewed by each individuals interpretation of God.