List, I should preface these comments by noting that I consider panentheism to be at present an underdeveloped concept. So, for example, my understanding of it is none of the three versions which Jon outlined (including Soteriological panentheism) which he considers my 'version' to be. I would hope that there are some here who might be interested in further developing a 21st century version of panentheism, and I offer these thoughts as a kind of hope and stimulus to the possibility of its further development.
Panentheism, as I see it, provides a framework for reconciling diverse perspectives on God, including those of theists, atheists, and agnostics. By viewing God through the lens of the conception of universal Mind (whatever Peirce's personal views may have been as expressed in, for example, the 'Neglected Argument') allows for a more flexible and inclusive understanding of divinity -- one that transcends traditional theistic models while remaining open to scientific inquiry. *If* one accepts the notion of God as universal Mind -- and it's clear that even some in this forum will not -- a path is opened to reinterpret the divine in ways that both theists and atheists could find plausible. Instead of a personal, anthropomorphic God, this panentheistic interpretation represents *a cosmic order of intelligence that permeates all reality*. The concept of a universal Mind holds that God is *not *separate from the universe but through the action of the three categories in communion, as it were, creating 'then' structuring matter and the characters and 'feelings' involved in matter at various levels of evolution -- thus both immanent within it and transcending it: Yes, *Ens Necessarium* initiating the creation of a cosmos, in this case, our universe.For theists, Peirce's universal mind can still be considered "God," but not God as confined to a remote, external being; rather, God as creating the rational structure of the cosmos itself, guiding its unfolding and development. For atheists, universal Mind does not demand belief in a supernatural deity but instead allows one to view reality as being structured by logical, meaningful processes. This could be seen as a metaphor for the emergent properties of the universe, resonating with naturalistic and scientific perspectives. Thus, panentheism represents a framework for reconciling theism and atheism.The idea that God created the cosmos but is separate from it is, as we well know, often a source of tension between religion and science. Classical theism (as Jon has properly defined it) in which God is a distant creator, tends to make a dualistic separation between the spiritual and the physical worlds. This makes it difficult for many to integrate scientific understandings of the universe into religious worldviews. I find myself more and more in that camp. Panentheism, particularly as informed by certain aspects of Peirce’s philosophy which are not centered on his personal theistic beliefs, offers an alternative: to see God as *the *divine Reality that is dynamically interwoven with all of existence. Since God is seen as *Ens Necessarium * *and* involved inthe very fabric of the universe, scientific discoveries become revelations of the divine order, rather than threats to it. The reality of the cosmos being “perfused with signs" can be seen as inherently semiotic, and so the evolution of the universe, including life and consciousness, can be understood as a process of unfolding meaning, in line with a deep cosmic principle of evolution. Peirce’s semiotic theory offers a framework for both theists and atheists to understand the workings of reality. Further, the categories can help explain the universe in a way that resonates with both religious and secular views. 3ns, as involving mediation, continuity, and the laws that govern relationships between things is where the idea of a universal mind can come into play as the Mind (intelligence) which through 2ns and 1ns creates, connects, and ultimately makes scientific, spiritual, and emotional sense of the universe. A trichotomic framework implies that the universe is fundamentally intelligible and meaningful, not random or chaotic. >From a panentheistic perspective this aligns with the idea that God’s presence is immanent in the unfolding of cosmic order through the concerted effort of all three categories created by Mind, which is as I've discussed it here is the the ur-continuum (ur-3ns 'already' involving 2ns and 1ns) which will in time create a universe. For atheists or naturalists, this can be understood as an emergent process within the universe, without requiring supernatural intervention, while acknowledging the Mind which sets the evolution of a universe -- our Universe -- into action. Such a perspective can (hopefully) provide a ground for a rapprochement between religion and science, and between theists and atheists, because it reframes the discussion in terms of meaning, logic, and evolution, rather than metaphysical debates about the reality of a personal deity (and all the other theological baggage which, in my opinion, the 21st century should be working to divest itself of). But don't get me wrong. At least for now, for theists, the universal mind is still “God,” but this God is seen as the animating force of reason and evolution, integrated into the workings of the cosmos itself. For atheists the self-same idea can be understood in non-theistic terms as a kind of metaphor for the deep, rational structures of the universe, and whether this is interpreted as natural law, complexity, or emergence. And, of course, for panentheists -- like me --this perspective naturally fits within a belief that God is both transcendent of the universe (*Ens Necessarium*, the First Person of the Trinity, the* ur-continuity* *of all the categories as one* -- with the infinite potential that that suggests) and immanent within the cosmos (as all *three created categories* work together), thus fostering a worldview in which science reveals the nature of God, and a panentheology explores the meaning and purpose behind that revelation. In a word, a panentheistic vision, particularly with its emphasis on the cosmos as an *integral sign* (*uni*verse) which is in turn an *evolving complexus of signs*, offers an argument for both theists and atheists to find common ground. It allows for a view of reality that is suffused with meaning, structured by logic, and compatible with scientific inquiry, while also retaining space for religious awe and wonder. This approach can serve as a bridge, fostering dialogue and understanding across traditionally opposing worldviews. Best, Gary R On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 1:42 PM Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, List, > > The former discussion, I want to leave to theologists, and have therefore > renamed the thread with "A logical problem", is rather about logic and > mathematic, than about God: > > -- Position 1 (false): Because God doesn´t have a body, so you cannot talk > about containment at all. So you can say neither, that the universe is > contained within God, nor that it is not contained within God. So both is > true, it is not contained and not not contained. > This position breaks the law of the excluded middle, so it must be false. > > -- Position 2, panentheism: The only option left, to save the excluded > middle, is to widen the concept of "containment" from spatial to functional > composition. This would mean for panentheism, that the universe´s function > is contained within God´s function, but God´s function is not contained in > the universe´s function, that would be pantheism. > > -- Position 3, theism: The universe´s function is not contained in God´s > function, although God is omnipresent. Omnipresence is, that there is no > place and no particle in the universe, that is not always in a functional > connection with God. But: Function is not a symmetrical relation. "x=f(y)" > means, that for every point on the x-axis there is not more than one point > on the y-axis. But for a point on the y-axis, there may be more than one > point on the x-axis. So, if x and y are points in the universe, and form > the said function, for God, this x can apply to more than one point on y in > His world, thus this function in the universe isn´t a function for Him. So > this function in the universe is not a part of God´s function. > > Besides not being a theologist, I neither am a mathematician, but I guess, > that this nonsymmetry of "function" is the basis for the difference between > theism and panentheism. Jon, is there the discipline "mathematical > theology"? If not, I think, there should be! > > Best regards, Helmut > > > 18. September 2024 um 18:30 Uhr > *Von:* "Helmut Raulien" <[email protected]> > > Jon, List, > > God is omnipresent, but not immanent, is pure mind, like the universe is, > as matter is mind too, although effete, the universe is not contained > within God, though my argument said, that it is not not-contained, because > God doesn´t have a limited body... I don´t understand these differences > now, I guess I better leave the topic to studied theolgists. Because these > differences are so tricky, I think, that a lay person like me cannot be > blamed for agreeing with panentheism. > > Best regards, Helmut > > > 17. September 2024 um 20:09 Uhr > *Von:* "Jon Alan Schmidt" <[email protected]> > > Helmut, List: > > The question is not whether creation is immanent in God, but whether God > is immanent in creation. For Peirce and other theists, God is *not *immanent > in the universe, which simply means that the universe is neither *identical > to* God (pantheism) nor somehow *contained within* God (panentheism). > Nevertheless, God is *omnipresent *in the universe, both spatially > (everywhere) and temporally (always), although God is not at any *one *place > nor at any *one *instant because God does not have a physical body, > limited or otherwise--as Peirce says, God is a "disembodied spirit, or pure > mind" (CP 6.490, 1908). God's omnipotence is his ability to do anything > that is logically possible in accordance with his eternal divine nature. > > Again, unlike theism, the incarnation of God as Jesus Christ is a > uniquely Christian teaching, along with the Trinity. The traditional > understanding is that the immaterial and eternal Son (second Person) *assumed > *a human nature and *voluntarily *refrained from exercising many of the > prerogatives of his divine nature during his life on earth. He was still > almighty/omnipotent according to his divine nature, but he suffered and > died according to his human nature. When he ascended into heaven forty days > after his resurrection, he communicated some of his divine attributes to > his human nature, such that he remains both divine and human forever. In > the words of the Apostle Paul ... > > > Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, > though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing > to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being > born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled > himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. > Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is > above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in > heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that > Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:5-11) > > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 11:35 AM Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Jon, List, >> >> I was asking, how can God´s creation (I said property too) be called >> "non-immanent", if God doesn´t have a limited body, and also pervades His >> creation / property. The same question works, instead of with >> "non-immanent", also with "distinct from God´s necessary being", or "not an >> organically connected part of God". >> >> I see, that having not a limited body, and pervading everything, is not >> only a capability, but a non-capability as well, as this way God is not >> able to step away, and leave His creation alone, not even for a moment. >> That contradicts almightiness, the same way, like the paradoxon, that God >> cannot create a stone so heavy, that he cannot lift it. I guess, this >> paradoxon has been solved by the introduction of Jesus, who is God too, but >> isn´t almighty, even died on a cross. >> >> So i guess, that sin and sinners, actions and actors, that "have fallen >> from God", are not non-immanent or apart from God, but rather like a >> sickness of God´s. But He has a good immune system: The good. >> >> Best regards, Helmut >> > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at > https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . > It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L > subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to > this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To > UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] > with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in > the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► > PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell. > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at > https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . > It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L > subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to > this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To > UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] > with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in > the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► > PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell. > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at > https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at > https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the > links! > ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > [email protected] . > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to > [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the > message and nothing in the body. More at > https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
