Wow… you have a pretty terse criteria for being a Christian!
To me the “laws of physics” ARE definitions. When someone with modern technology does something
that some mountain tribe might consider “overcoming the laws of nature” (i.e., magic), I would call a more
sophisticated application of science.
So, naturally enough, this whole view of what is the nature of universal law and of God colors my whole interpretation
of Evolution, Science and Religion. The fabric of God is natural law.
My personal situation is complicated somewhat by the fact that I’m a Unitarian Universalist (a good ol’ New England
protestant denomination); but there are those who don’t think UU is part of Christianity. But let’s set aside my personal
situation aside for now.
I know PLENTY of Christians who think God works THROUGH natural law, rather than in violation of it.
You write:
"I’m using the standard definitions used by religion scholars worldwide. Theism affirms a personal, conscious, volitional God. Pantheism doesn’t. "
You are going to have to prove that… because I think that’s bunk.
“Most typically, the concept in question is that of ‘God’, or ‘perfect being’, in which case pantheism appears as the logical terminus or completion of theism. The following paragraphs illustrate four examples of such reasoning."
"Traditional theism asserts the omnipresence of God and, while it strongly wishes to maintain that this is not equivalent to pantheism, the difference between saying that God is present everywhere in everything and saying that God is everything is far from easy to explain.”
“. . . while it is true that traditional theism has regularly opposed pantheism on the grounds that it tends to be impersonal, and true also that many pantheists would deny that God is personal, it is nonetheless the case that many other pantheists have thought mind-like attribution of some form or other to the cosmos absolutely central to their position.”
“No doubt many pantheists self-consciously and deliberately reject theism, while many theists strongly reject pantheism. But to conclude from this that pantheism should be understood as essentially opposed to theism would seem precipitous (like concluding mutual incompatibility from the fact that many Christians oppose socialism and many socialists oppose Christianity).”
CONCLUSION:
If a Pantheist has adopted the kind of pantheism which characterizes God as a conscious entity - - I think you are going to have a very difficult time convincing anyone that such a belief is not THEISM!
And you provided ZERO documentation - - just your lofty opinion.
It’s your turn…
Actually… don’t bother.
I’ve seen plenty of Christian-focused commentaries … defining theological
terms all over the map… There’s really no point in trying to arrive at a mutually acceptable resolution
when you and I are never going to agree on the definition of Theism.
It’s bad enough trying to discuss these issues when both sides agree on the definitions…
Any theology that describes an immortal CONSCIOUSNESS cannot be non-theism.
Immortality and Consciousness are the Sine Qua Non of DEITY!
Anyone who argues that such a theology is NOT about God is obviously trying to
manipulate a defense for some additional ideas.
The pat phrase that “Pantheism is just Nature” is where this non-Theism label comes from.
But there are MANY other kinds of Pantheism. Advanced theologians know this.
I note with incredible interest how you attempt to divert a discussion with non-sequiturs.
In this case, implying that Miller, Falk, Giberson and Collins are failing by “desperately trying
to readjust Christian theology to harmonize with scientifically outmoded conception of how evolution works.”
Perhaps the link to the article below touches on how you see evolution as really working.
But even if you don’t like the article, this new evolutionary theory you invoke, hardly
invalidates evolutionary theory in its broad strokes. I think you will find Young Earth
Creationists don’t like the “modern synthesis” any more than the old one.
"You haven’t given a single example of a pantheism which holds that God is conscious. "
AHHHH … so apparently your opposition is based on the fact you’ve never encountered this before? Oh brother.
Then you write: “And even if you could find a few rare examples of “pantheists whose God is in some sense
conscious or personal,” that would not show that I was wrong.”
No?
You write:
"Generally speaking, pantheism is not theism. "
Agreed - GENERALY SPEAKING. But it is not universally true. And so, dear sir, you ARE wrong when
you tried to conclude that Pantheism is not a Theism!
If a PROFESSIONAL Jeweler tells my wife that the cubic zirconium bracelet I got her is NOT Jewelry …
we all know that this Professional is motivated to sell a more expensive ornament . . . and we move on.
He doesn’t spend DAYS trying to explain that his professional expertise means that the bracelet REALLY
ISNT JEWELRY. It’s silly on its face.