While the term 'impersonal God' can be used to refer to life or the creative principle, what distinguishes a personal God is a thinking, feeling, intending planner. That is, a God who functions much the way humans do, and this is man creating God.
There are multiple reasons why we're inclined to envision such a God, not the least of which is that the only model we have is ourselves. Our primary reason for even being interested in a personal God is the security that such an idea brings. The idea of joining with God after death alleviates our fear of death, while the idea of reward in the afterlife makes the struggle of life more bearable. If the God is an impersonal God, the idea of spending eternity with whatever God is, or being rewarded, have no real meaning or attraction.
However, even with an impersonal God, the question of the source of life still remains, and I have no particular issue with calling this source God as long as what we're imagining is an 'impersonal God', as a kind of creative intelligence. To be clear, this doesn't mean uncaring or unloving, it means that life moves as a singular whole and not according to the particular desires and whims of a particular individual. This does not mean that the individual does not get his needs met, though it may mean that he doesn't get what he personally desires.
Nature, in it's overall functioning, can be seen to be holistic. That is, everything seems to be designed to serve everything else, not by choice, but by the natural process by which it is, itself, served. As an example, the tree grows by spreading leaves to collect sunlight, thereby providing shelter and food for animals. It 'inhales' carbon dioxide for it's own use, and 'exhales' oxygen for the animals. It grows fruit that contains it's own seed, which also feeds the animals, who may also help to spread the seeds. The waste, as well as the body of the animal, serve to fertilize the ground for the trees.
Such a closed loop of inter dependency and mutual support occurs everywhere in nature because it is inherently self supporting, and it is self supporting because it is functioning as a whole rather than a collection of discrete parts. The creatures of the forest do indeed get their individual needs met, but only insofar as these needs are in alignment with the whole. The simple sentient creatures may have individual desires, such as not being eaten, but nature is not trying to preserve life as long as possible, and ultimately the creature serves by becoming nourishment for other creatures.
This is how nature functions, and the human is fully integrated into this functioning as he only imagines he is somehow apart from nature. The needs of the human will be supported by nature such that the fulfillment of those needs also serves the whole of nature. There is no function in nature that fulfills or even recognizes, your individual desires that originate in your idea of being a separate person apart from this impersonal God.
Nature will fully support your continuing existence until the whole of nature is better served by your death. It will not recognize your desire for immortality, as nature is life itself and has no concern about death. Nature will fully support your relating with others such that it serves your own evolution and that of others, but will not recognize your desire to have your neurotic relationship desires fulfilled.
Other 'Philosophy of Life' articles:
Click below to see contributions from other visitors to this page...
Discussion of 'Nature as Impersonal God (Part 1)' Not rated yet
Feel free to offer your questions or comments on this article....