Jon, List, JAS: [Y]our desire to develop a novel "21st century version," incorporating certain insights from Peirce, effectively confirms Gregersen's thesis that "the concept of panentheism is not stable in itself" and therefore "needs specification." GR: Yes. The further development of panentheism most certainly needs 'specification'. For unlike theism, which has had several centuries to 'stabilize' (with the whole weight of church doctrine and dogma and cultural indoctrination -- kings and popes included -- to support it, and this being so even following the Reformation), a panentheistic understanding which means to bring about a rational rapprochement of science and religion, atheism and theism, will take some time to 'stabilize'. In the language of programmers and developers, I consider that to be a feature and not a bug. For, after all, the theological and religious dogmatism that has suffused religious and, so, *cultural *history -- and not just only Christian culture -- will indeed take much more than 'stabilization' to offset the preemptoriousness of the major religions. Give us a little time.
JAS: On the other hand, I take it that you *do *concur with his two elements of "generic panentheism," namely, "(1) the world is somehow contained by God and (2) the world affects God and returns to God"; but again, please correct me if I am misunderstanding. GR: Re: (1): I continue to hold that a trinitarian (lower case) view of the sacred workings of the cosmos which, despite what you'd written in another thread, is most certainly *not only a Christian 'invention' *but occurs in several other major religions' symbolism. JAS: Concerning (1), it is highly misleading to characterize classical theism as conceiving God to be "separate from the universe," "a remote, external being," and "a distant creator." Frankly, these descriptions sound more like deism--God created the universe and then left it to itself, such that God is not involved *at all* in whatever is happening here and now. GR: Alright. But then *how *is God involved? Is not Christ and the Holy Spirit involved in what "is happening here and now"? You seem to want to have it both ways: *Ens Necessarium* (one God), *and* the Trinity. But then you wrote: JAS: As I have said before, classical theism instead maintains that God is *omnipresent *both temporally and spatially--always and everywhere *immediately *present. God is the creator *and sustainer* of the entire universe and everything within it at every moment, but it is not an *organic part* of God's own eternal and spiritual being. GR: It is very likely that while I am not up to such Scholastic, that is, 'subtle differentiations', as you tend to sometimes offer, Jon, yet for me the implications of trinitatrian thought in several developed religions -- and, yes, perhaps especially in Christianity -- seem critical to approaching these cosmological questions so that it is not only a matter "of God's own eternal and spiritual being," but of how a universe comes into being and sustains itself. So, from a Christian perspective (which one can see as symbolic, but *real* in its cosmic implications), the work of the second and third persons of the Trinity are essential to an understanding of the creation and sustenance of this universe from a Christian perspective. But Peirce's three categories and three Universes suggest a universal parallel. JAS: Concerning (2), if the world affects God, then God is subject to change; and if God is subject to change, then God is (by definition) a *contingent *being in at least some respects, not a thoroughly *necessary *being. In other words, as I have also said before, it is *logically impossible* for God in *any version* of panentheism to be conceived as *Ens necessarium*, without qualification. GR: I am less concerned with "God. . .(by definition)" -- actually, I mean *I am not at all concerned *with "God by definition;" I am not concerned at all with the question if "it is *logically impossible* for God in *any version* of panentheism to be conceived as *Ens necessarium*, without qualification," than I am with an understanding of God as truly involved in the world, as Jesus (or, Mohammed) loved and cared for us -- and wanted us to love and to care for each other, to care, perhaps most especially, for the children. Bringing about that sort of spirituality -- for the religious and the non-religious -- is what my 'version' of panentheism hopes to contribute to. JAS: Moreover, in accordance with Peirce's semeiotic, every sign must be determined by a dynamical object that is unaffected by it; hence, if the universe affects God, then God *cannot *be the dynamical object of the universe as one immense sign. Panentheism thus requires either identifying *something else* as the dynamical object of the universe--and what could that possibly be?--or rejecting a semiosic ontology altogether. GR: So, I reject your interpretation of God as the dynamical object of the universe. Really, finally, I must admit that I find Peirce's theology wanting. But there are elements of his metaphysics and semeiotics which a fully developed panentheology requires. Best, Gary R On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 1:28 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary R., List: > > I appreciate the clarification that what you have in mind is *not > *soteriological > panentheism as outlined by Gregersen, nor either of the other two > "varieties" that he identifies. However, your desire to develop a novel > "21st century version," incorporating certain insights from Peirce, > effectively confirms Gregersen's thesis that "the concept of panentheism is > not stable in itself" and therefore "needs specification." On the other > hand, I take it that you *do *concur with his two elements of "generic > panentheism," namely, "(1) the world is somehow contained by God and (2) > the world affects God and returns to God"; but again, please correct me if > I am misunderstanding. > > Concerning (1), it is highly misleading to characterize classical theism > as conceiving God to be "separate from the universe," "a remote, external > being," and "a distant creator." Frankly, these descriptions sound more > like deism--God created the universe and then left it to itself, such that > God is not involved *at all* in whatever is happening here and now. As I > have said before, classical theism instead maintains that God is *omnipresent > *both temporally and spatially--always and everywhere *immediately *present. > God is the creator *and sustainer* of the entire universe and everything > within it at every moment, but it is not an *organic part* of God's own > eternal and spiritual being. > > Concerning (2), if the world affects God, then God is subject to change; > and if God is subject to change, then God is (by definition) a *contingent > *being in at least some respects, not a thoroughly *necessary *being. In > other words, as I have also said before, it is *logically impossible* for > God in *any version* of panentheism to be conceived as *Ens necessarium*, > without > qualification. Moreover, in accordance with Peirce's semeiotic, every sign > must be determined by a dynamical object that is unaffected by it; hence, > if the universe affects God, then God *cannot *be the dynamical object of > the universe as one immense sign. Panentheism thus requires either > identifying *something else* as the dynamical object of the universe--and > what could that possibly be?--or rejecting a semiosic ontology altogether. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 6:51 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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 >> > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > 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.
