Gary R., List: In light of how transcendence and immanence are commonly defined today, it now seems to me that treating them as mutually exclusive, like Peirce evidently did, is unhelpful for distinguishing theism and panentheism. Instead, it comes down to whether (a) God is immutable and impassible, as entailed by theism's definition of God as *Ens necessarium*; or (b) God is affected in some way by events within the universe, as panentheism maintains. Gregersen reaches the same conclusion in his 2004 paper, "Three Varieties of Panentheism," which I have quoted previously.
NHG: Thus the real demarcation line between panentheism and classic philosophical theism is neither the immanence of God nor the use of the metaphor of the world's being "in" God. The real difference, according to Thomas [Aquinas], is that the natures and activities of the creatures do not have a real feedback effect on God. There is, in other words, no return from the world into God. ( https://www.profligategrace.com/documents/Grant/Gregersen_Three%20Varieties%20of%20Panentheism.pdf, p. 24) Theists generally understand prayer accordingly--it is not a matter of influencing God, as if that were even possible, but of acknowledging our utter dependence upon God for all things, including our very being. As Peirce says at the end of the paragraph that I quoted Saturday, "To pray for specific things,--not merely for the ἐπιούσιον bread, but that it may be better baked than yesterday's, is childish, of course; yet innocent" (CP 6.516, c. 1906). The Greek word before "bread" is found only in the two New Testament accounts of the Lord's Prayer, traditionally translated as "daily" but more literally meaning either "for being" or "supersubstantial" as a compound of *epi*- and *ousia*. I agree that "the soul's consciousness of its relation to God" is not limited to an *individual *"state of mind," but also can be *communal*, especially in the context of corporate worship. Here are a couple of relevant Peirce quotations about poetry. CSP: The generalization of sentiment can take place on different sides. Poetry is one sort of generalization of sentiment, and in so far is the regenerative metamorphosis of sentiment. But poetry remains on one side ungeneralized, and to that is due its emptiness. The complete generalization, the complete regeneration of sentiment is religion, which is poetry, but poetry completed. (CP 1.676, 1898) CSP: Bad poetry is false, I grant; but nothing is truer than true poetry. And let me tell the scientific men that the artists are much finer and more accurate observers than they are, except of the special minutiae that the scientific man is looking for. ... [T]he Universe as an argument is necessarily a great work of art, a great poem,--for every fine argument is a poem and a symphony,--just as every true poem is a sound argument. (CP 1.315&5.119, EP 2:193-194, 1903) Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sun, Oct 27, 2024 at 6:08 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, List, > > It does appear that we are getting closer in what has been "our > disagreement about whether God is transcendent or immanent (or both)," and > that it "might be more terminological than conceptual." And further, that > Peirce ' "would have no issue with describing God as "permanently > pervading and sustaining the universe".' > > You also remarked that you acknowledged a few weeks ago that theists > *affirm *this as following from God's transcendence and omnipresence." > Well, yes, certainly from God's omnipresence. But how from God's > transcendence? If God is as well 'omnipresent', then how does this > radically differ from panentheism (as I've presented it), since God's > *presence* is precisely -- and *especially from the standpoint of > synechism* -- the reason that we* are able* to have a personal > relationship with God? Panentheism, in the sense that I have been outlining > it, involves (among many ideas) the idea that whatever aspect of God* is* > transcendent that there are aspects that are not, that are immediately > present to us. In a word, how can God be both wholly 'transcendent' and > wholly 'present' to us? In other words, doesn't transcendence contract > immanence if there is not something like a division of divine tasks, so to > speak? > > I had earlier thought that the doctrine of the Christian Trinity might be > helpful in resolving that contradiction (or, perhaps better, bridging that > conceptual gap), one which we've entertained may be more linguistic than > anything else. But at the moment I don't see it is merely or even > principally linguistic, rather that the transcendent aspect of God (the > Father) relates especially to the two other persons of the Trinity, that > the Father is wholly transcendent in relation to us, but not to them. That, > for example (and as suggested by religious language, here used only as a > kind of shortcut), some would say that we pray to the Father through the > Son and to the Son via the Holy Spirit (it's difficult fro me to discuss > this metaphysically without throwing in some theology by way of example). > The important point is that in our discussion of "whether God is > transcendent or immanent (or both)" that, I would opt for 'both', but > distinguishing between the 'roles' of the persons of the creation and in > relation to the cosmos generally, but especially in relation to human > creation and its spiritual experience; and continuing the Christian > analogy, acknowledging that the three Persons are One God. > > [However, in an off List note to you, Jon, a few months ago I alluded to > the trinities of several other religions so, again, I am using the > Christian Trinity principally by way of example and the form of trinity > which I know best.] > > Turning now to prayer, you quoted Peirce: > > I do not see why prayer may not be efficacious, or if not the prayer > exactly, the state of mind of which the prayer is nothing more than the > expression, namely the soul's consciousness of its relation to God, which > is nothing more than precisely the pragmatistic meaning of the name of God; > so that, in that sense, prayer is simply calling upon the name of the Lord. > (CP 6.516, c. 1906) > > This is most interesting as I have throughout my life found the notion of > prayer being 'efficacious' in the sense of being "successful in > producing a desired or intended result" to be at best naive, that is, > imagining that God is hearing and acting upon every person's entreaty > seems, well, factually disproved (for example, considering that both Union > and Confederate soldiers called on God for success in their battles > together). > > Peirce adds an interesting alternative to the usual notion of prayer as > efficacious (in the dictionary sense): ". . . or if not the prayer > exactly [that is efficacious], *the **state of mind* of which the prayer > is nothing more than the expression, namely the soul's consciousness of its > relation to God" (emphasis added).This is most certainly how I've come to > pray and to think of prayer as efficacious. > > But I think it is -- or can be -- more than just the state of mind of an > individual. Peirce describes a very large gathering of young Christians in > New York City which he observed one year, and remarks that there was a > palpable sense of a lightening and brightening -- a kind of spiritual > uplift -- of the spirit in a general sense. Well, this* might* just > represent the kind of uplift that an audience, seemingly as one, feels and > palpably expresses at, say, a particularly beautifully performed passage in > a profound piece of music. And as Peirce writes elsewhere, he viewed > religion as poetry completed (or something like that -- I'm sure you recall > the passage). So, to my way of thinking, just as "the reasonable in itself" > can be seen as the summum bonum of scientific thought, "the expression of > authentically deep spiritual emotion" might be seen as the summum bonum of > religion (vide, some of the cantatas of Bach; also, Suzanne Langer's* > Feeling and Form* hints at this in places in reference to art). > > JAS: Peirce says that "it is absolutely impossible *really* to think of > God without awe mingled with love" [. . .] Notice also that he calls this > state of mind "precisely the pragmatistic meaning of the name of God," so > anyone who claims that propositions about God--or even personal encounters > with God--are "outside pragmatism" is clearly mistaken. > > I couldn't agree more! > > Cheers, > > 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.
