• Art48
    496
    Below is an ambitious, 51-minute video that describes a theology based on the Perennial Philosophy. The theology rejects religion’s usual “superhero/storybook” epistemological method and uses something similar to science’s method. It’s a monist theology whose fundamental premise is that all existence (physical, emotional, mental) is grounded in an ultimate ground of existence which we may choose to regard as God (an imminent, impersonal God in contrast to the more familiar Gods who are Persons of many religions). I created the video and will be doing a presentation of its content this March at my Quaker Meeting. I’ve very interested in feedback (positive or negative) about it.

    108 - Religion 2.0 (Science+Religion) https://vimeo.com/1135038281

    I can’t promise you’ll like it or agree with it, but I’m confident that you’ll see many interesting ideas, some perhaps for the first time.
  • Astorre
    383
    If I'm not mistaken, this isn't the first time this author has published posts containing direct links to his YouTube content. He hasn't responded to questions since publishing them.
  • 180 Proof
    16.4k
    Deus, sive natura – from the perspective eternity (deus): a-cosmism or from the perspective of duration (natura): pan-deismAmor intellectualis Dei (ataraxia).

    No "Perennial" Woo (of-the-gaps) required.

    108 - Religion 2.0 (Science+Religion) https://vimeo.com/1135038281

    I can’t promise you’ll like it or agree with it, but I’m confident that you’ll see many interesting ideas, some perhaps for the first time.
    Art48
    :sparkle: :eyes:
  • Art48
    496
    You are correct that I've posted before. If I neglected to respond at times, there were probably reasons, or the comment was not a question but merely expressed an opinion, backed up with zero evidence, or about some irrelevant issue.

    For instance if someone were to call the Perennial Philosophy "No 'Perennial; Woo (of-the-gaps) required." would that in your opinion merit a response?
  • 180 Proof
    16.4k
    For instance if someone were to call the Perennial Philosophy[state as a corollary] "No 'Perennial; Woo (of-the-gaps) required." would that in your opinion merit a response?Art48
    Only if you disagree with that someone's statement.
  • Astorre
    383


    Please let me know when you get to version 3.0, or at least 2.1.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.