Gary R., List: You misunderstand--the definition of "immanent" is what has apparently changed since Peirce's time, not the definition of "panentheism." As Gregersen notes in the very first sentence of his 2004 article <https://www.profligategrace.com/documents/Grant/Gregersen_Three%20Varieties%20of%20Panentheism.pdf> that I have quoted before, "Literally, pan-en-theism means that 'all' (Gk. *pan*) is 'in' God (Gk. *theos*), but God is not exhausted by the world as a whole (G > W)." Google's current definition from Oxford Languages is "the belief or doctrine that God is *greater *than the universe and *includes *and *interpenetrates *it" (emphases mine). Theism maintains instead that God is *other *than the universe and *transcends *and *sustains *it.
As I keep emphasizing, a key resulting difference is "the claim [of panentheism] that there exists a real two-way interaction between God and world," because "the idea that the world affects God differs markedly ... from classic philosophical theism, which has traditionally claimed that God remains unaffected by the fates and fortunes of the world" (Gregersen, p. 20). "Thus the real demarcation line between panentheism and classic philosophical theism ... is that [in the latter] the natures and activities of the creatures do not have a real feedback effect on God" (p. 24). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Oct 3, 2024 at 11:59 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, List, > > - JAS: Remember, in *The Century Dictionary*, Peirce defines the > "doctrine of an immanent deity" as implying "that the world, or the soul of > the world, ... either is or is in God," thus associating it with both > pantheism (the world or its soul *is *God) and panentheism (the world > or its soul *is in *God). This is what he explicitly and repeatedly > rejects, not the *current *dictionary definition of "immanent" as > "permanently pervading and sustaining the universe," which theists affirm > as *following from* God's transcendence and omnipresence. Perhaps that > has caused some confusion in these discussions, thus highlighting the > importance of careful terminology. > > So, rather than following the 19th century definition of panentheism as > "the world or its soul *is in *God," I find that I do indeed hold to the > current dictionary definition of panentheism as God "permanently pervading > and sustaining the universe," and I am perfectly content with that. > > Metaphysics may be divided into, i, General Metaphysics, or Ontology; ii, > Psychical, or Religious, Metaphysics, concerned chiefly with the questions > of 1, God, 2, Freedom, 3, Immortality; and iii, Physical Metaphysics, which > discusses the real nature of time, space, laws of nature, matter, etc. CP > 1.192 > > > So, I am beginning to see that I follow Peirce in most everything except > his religious metaphysics. And further, I am beginning to see why you > cannot call me your Christian brother, for I do not hold to the doctrines, > dogmas, creeds, etc. of "orthodox" Christianity, while I am coming to see > -- through some recent concentrated research -- that Peirce does. Quite a > revelation! > > 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.
