Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can Christians Believe That God Is Immanant In The Natural World?
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 1 of 88 (409610)
07-10-2007 2:02 PM


Here is a definition for immanance from Catholic Encyclopedia
Immanence is a conception in philosophy and theology that the intelligent and creative force or being that governs the universe pervades the natural world. Immanence is a fundamental doctrine of pantheism and can be contrasted with transcendence, which conceives of the intelligent and creative force as existing outside the natural world. In pantheistic systems of thought, for example, all material objects in the universe are pervaded with the infinite divine presence.
In Judeo-Christian religions, however, God both participates in the universe, that is, is present and active in the natural world; and at the same time, transcends, that is, figuratively, rises above, the universe he created.
Here is a short article from the same to illustrate where I am going.
Immanence is the quality of any action which begins and ends within the agent. Thus, vital action, as well in the physiological as in the intellectual and moral order, is called immanent, because it proceeds from that spontaneity which is essential to the living subject and has for its term the unfolding of the subject's constituent energies. It is initiated and is consummated in the interior of the same being, which may be considered as a closed system. But is this system so shut in as to be self-sufficient and incapable of receiving anything from without? -- or can it enrich itself by taking up elements which its environment offers and which are at times even necessary, as nourishment is to the immanent activity of the body? This is the problem which the philosophies of immanence propose and attempt to solve, not only in respect to man considered as a particular being, but also in respect to the universe considered as a whole. It is, indeed, with reference to this latter aspect that the controversy arose in ancient times.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My question for discussion is two-fold: Would evolutionists say that the operations of nature are immanant, as in exclusively beginning and ending with themselves, to the extent that a creator is ruled out as a possibly necessary source of nourishment for the immanant activity of nature?
AND
Do we as Christians often see God as completely transcendent, perhaps mistakenly? For a time I thought that to view God as immanant in creation would put me squarely in a heretical camp. Discussions on the board by Creationists usually refer to creation as a done deal, and when it is shown that this is not so, that life continues to evolve, ID'ists attempt to push God's activity to some far distant time, where He sneezed and all things seen began spreading out in the universe according to plan. This causes a theological problem, or maybe simply a logical problem.
Evolution shows that there is no need for a plan. Man may or may not have been a result of its action. If God's creation was not designed, merely put in motion, it is possible to say that God in His omniscience knew that man would exist, but that He did not cause man directly, and consequently had no place for us in His divine plan. Many Christians have a hard time accepting this 'accident', so I would like to discuss whether the idea of God immanant in nature is one which is consistant with Christian theology/Bible study, whether God can be seen as guiding evolution's direction, {notwithstanding the fact that evolution COULD and DOES go about its own devices}, and whether God's immanace in the universe would reconcile the problem. From the definition above, I think it is safe for Christians to view God as still creating.
I foresee a lack of Biblcal affirmation for my emergent view, so if this topic is promoted, it may be good for Bible study. Otherwise, Faith and Belief.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 07-10-2007 2:12 PM anastasia has replied
 Message 4 by ringo, posted 07-10-2007 2:27 PM anastasia has replied
 Message 13 by Grizz, posted 07-10-2007 9:19 PM anastasia has replied

  
AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 88 (409611)
07-10-2007 2:07 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
I put it here, Ana, because you seem to want both sides participating in the discussion and this is a topic that has potential scientific as well as theological input.
Edited by AdminPhat, :

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 3 of 88 (409613)
07-10-2007 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by anastasia
07-10-2007 2:02 PM


Blueprints
Anastasia writes:
Evolution shows that there is no need for a plan. Man may or may not have been a result of its action.
Does a plan need a planner or can a plan be defined as a blueprint that is observed over a period of time?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by anastasia, posted 07-10-2007 2:02 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by anastasia, posted 07-10-2007 3:44 PM Phat has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 4 of 88 (409618)
07-10-2007 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by anastasia
07-10-2007 2:02 PM


anastasia writes:
Do we as Christians often see God as completely transcendent, perhaps mistakenly?
Isn't it pretty obvious that we can only "see" - i.e. sense/observe/feel - the immanent bits of "God"? Any ideas about transcendence are strictly speculation, produced by the "god" immanent in all of us.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by anastasia, posted 07-10-2007 2:02 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by anastasia, posted 07-10-2007 3:47 PM ringo has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 5 of 88 (409631)
07-10-2007 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Phat
07-10-2007 2:12 PM


Re: Blueprints
Phat writes:
Does a plan need a planner or can a plan be defined as a blueprint that is observed over a period of time?
Can you clarify? I would say that a plan needs a planner, whether or not we are around or included in the unfolding of the plan. Or, more to the point, whether God is included in the unfolding of the plan.
Oh, and this forum is fine. It had slipped my mind.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 07-10-2007 2:12 PM Phat has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 6 of 88 (409632)
07-10-2007 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by ringo
07-10-2007 2:27 PM


Ringo writes:
Isn't it pretty obvious that we can only "see" - i.e. sense/observe/feel - the immanent bits of "God"? Any ideas about transcendence are strictly speculation, produced by the "god" immanent in all of us.
That is the opinion of a completely different school of thought, which says man is immanant, that all things/ideas begin and end in his own being. Either God created us, or we created Him. I was discussing aspects of the former specifically.
Maybe I miss your point? If you are saying God exists and IS immanant in us, is it the 'god' in us sensing God, or the human sensing God? I would agree that only God can sense God. Does, then, the God in us sense God in the universe?
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ringo, posted 07-10-2007 2:27 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Phat, posted 07-10-2007 4:54 PM anastasia has replied
 Message 8 by ringo, posted 07-10-2007 5:06 PM anastasia has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 7 of 88 (409644)
07-10-2007 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by anastasia
07-10-2007 3:47 PM


The origins of human awareness
anastasia writes:
Either God created us, or we created Him.
Assume for a moment that a person believes that in the knowable sense, we create God in our own minds. Assume also that we allow ourselves, through gathering of evidence, to speculate how the universe began.
In that sense, humanity is forming a hypothesis. We are in a sense making a blueprint based on what we know and have evidence for. Archeologist's piece together evidence, as do Cosmologists.
Personally, I believe that God created us long before we even had the capacity to imagine/create Him. Are you suggesting that God is within all humanity and gives us the intelligence to question anything?
If so, that is a good theory of imminence.
Mr.Dictionary writes:
Immanence is a religious and philosophical concept. It is derived from the Latin words, in and manere, the original meaning being "to exist or remain within".
A Theistic Evolutionist would perhaps be comfortable with the concept.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by anastasia, posted 07-10-2007 3:47 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by anastasia, posted 07-10-2007 6:50 PM Phat has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 8 of 88 (409651)
07-10-2007 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by anastasia
07-10-2007 3:47 PM


anastasia writes:
If you are saying God exists and IS immanant in us, is it the 'god' in us sensing God, or the human sensing God?
I'm saying: How can we know?
If God exists, and if we can sense Him, it can only be something inside us sensing Him. How can we know whether we are sensing something inside or outside? Where is the boundary of our "self"?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by anastasia, posted 07-10-2007 3:47 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by anastasia, posted 07-10-2007 6:34 PM ringo has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 9 of 88 (409670)
07-10-2007 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by ringo
07-10-2007 5:06 PM


Ringo writes:
I'm saying: How can we know?
Good heavens, Ringo, we don't. I think that the doctrine on this would say that it is the divine life of the soul which longs for union with the 'whole' God.
If God exists, and if we can sense Him, it can only be something inside us sensing Him. How can we know whether we are sensing something inside or outside? Where is the boundary of our "self"?
Yes, the first part is true. If part of our self is God, then our boundary is the same as the boundary of God. Mysticism would imply that we must work to take our fleshly blinders off and get to sensing the infinite. I don't believe God begins and ends within me, therefore the God in me can sense Himself anywhere, and none of that seems very relevent to the topic.
Again, Christians are not exactly praying for union with the universe, they are praying to some Thing which transcends it. This was supposed to be a discussion on whether we may believe, as Christians, that God is immanant in the actions of evolution or nature in general. I would say that we have free will, and we can choose whether we accept God's plan. Does other life have some God in it? I am looking for yeahs and nays from the Christians community. It is my feeling that Christians stop at the 'creator' part when God is also the sustainer of life, according to that definition I gave. They see God as entirely seperate from creation, that He just made stuff, and plop, it sits here going down-hill. That doesn't sound like He is doing any sustaining or is at all immanant in what He made. Allowing something to continue existing is not exactly sustaining, is it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ringo, posted 07-10-2007 5:06 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by ringo, posted 07-10-2007 7:00 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 10 of 88 (409672)
07-10-2007 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Phat
07-10-2007 4:54 PM


Re: The origins of human awareness
Phat writes:
Assume for a moment that a person believes that in the knowable sense,
I don't get how we can believe in the knowable sense.
we create God in our own minds. Assume also that we allow ourselves, through gathering of evidence, to speculate how the universe began.
Ok.
Personally, I believe that God created us long before we even had the capacity to imagine/create Him. Are you suggesting that God is within all humanity and gives us the intelligence to question anything?
Well, I wouldn't be a theist if I didn't believe that somehow, God created everything including us and our intelligence. I would not claim that God IS our intelligence, and that we can only think rationally because of His life with in us. Not by a long shot.
Actually, I sort of believe in an enlightenment from faith, but I believe that it is as Ringo would say 'God sensing God'. That may, if it is a sensing of our place in the divine plan, cause us to act with greater reasoning, to make wise choices. Since God's wisdom is not our wisdom, as Ringo would also say 'how would we know?'
Anyway, I already concluded that God was in us. Now, how do you feel about God being part of the natural world?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Phat, posted 07-10-2007 4:54 PM Phat has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 11 of 88 (409675)
07-10-2007 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by anastasia
07-10-2007 6:34 PM


anastasia writes:
This was supposed to be a discussion on whether we may believe, as Christians, that God is immanant in the actions of evolution or nature in general.
I don't see it as a question of whether you "can" or "may" believe that God is immanent in the actions of evolution/nature. I think you have to. Otherwise you're stuck with empty beliefs about a "transcendence" that you can never really know anything about.
The whole "free will" business implies a responsibility to use our faculties. An intellectually honest approach can't be based solely on "I believe".

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by anastasia, posted 07-10-2007 6:34 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by anastasia, posted 07-10-2007 9:16 PM ringo has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 12 of 88 (409686)
07-10-2007 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by ringo
07-10-2007 7:00 PM


Let me apply part of my quote to evolution, and ask?
Is this system so shut in as to be self-sufficient and incapable of receiving anything from without? -- or can it enrich itself by taking up elements which its environment offers and which are at times even necessary, as nourishment is to the immanent activity of the body?
In other words, can God be acting within evolution? It's a nonsense question really, and I am beginning to be sorry I posted it so hastily. At the same time, I try to incorporate evolution into my personal beliefs, and this is what I end up with, sometimes.
Thus I asked if evolution in any way precludes this idea, and even if it does not, does doctrine?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ringo, posted 07-10-2007 7:00 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by ringo, posted 07-10-2007 9:57 PM anastasia has replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5470 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 13 of 88 (409687)
07-10-2007 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by anastasia
07-10-2007 2:02 PM


My question for discussion is two-fold: Would evolutionists say that the operations of nature are immanant, as in exclusively beginning and ending with themselves, to the extent that a creator is ruled out as a possibly necessary source of nourishment for the immanant activity of nature?
I think this boils down to what place fundamentals have within causality. Our knowledge of the world tells us all effects must have causes. It does not neccesiate that all causes need be effects themselves. We assume all 'things' must have causes. This is not what causality tells us. Only effects need have a cause. Casuality does not rule out self sufficient entities that are not contingent upon any other 'thing' for their existence.
The big question is why would nature as a whole not qualify as a self sufficient entity that is fundamental? In other words nature itself is not an effect but a fundamental cause which is not contingent. It needs no cause because it is not an effect of something ontologically prior. Nature itself is the fundamental generator of causation.
If you could show 'nature' itself is incapable of explaining certain observations or facts then one would have reason to believe that nature is not fundamental and a further level of causality is required. Currently I do not see any reason to believe nature is not fundamental and is contingent. .
Ultimately, to avoid an infinite regress of casuality there must be fundamental self sufficient entities that rely on nothing for their existence. They are not effects - they are simply fundamental causes.
So yes - at this time I would say nature is immanant. Until further evidence points to a different conclusion I would divert to Laplace who stated "Sir, I simply have no need of that hypothesis".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by anastasia, posted 07-10-2007 2:02 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by anastasia, posted 07-10-2007 10:10 PM Grizz has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 14 of 88 (409697)
07-10-2007 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by anastasia
07-10-2007 9:16 PM


anastasia writes:
Is this system so shut in as to be self-sufficient and incapable of receiving anything from without?
First, it depends on what you mean by "this system". If you mean the (material) earth/sun system then yes, it is self-sufficient.
Second, there's a difference between "self-sufficient" and "incapable of receiving anything from without". The system might very well be able to take in something from without if there was anything there.
Third, I have no idea what this has to do with the topic.
In other words, can God be acting within evolution?
*shrug* If He is acting, He must be acting within evolution. You might as well ask if the wind can act within the atmosphere.
Thus I asked if evolution in any way precludes this idea, and even if it does not, does doctrine?
As far as I know, evolution doesn't preclude "acts of God" - it just tries to explain them. As for doctrine, how can it preclude the truth?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by anastasia, posted 07-10-2007 9:16 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Grizz, posted 07-10-2007 10:07 PM ringo has replied
 Message 17 by anastasia, posted 07-10-2007 10:21 PM ringo has replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5470 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 15 of 88 (409700)
07-10-2007 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by ringo
07-10-2007 9:57 PM


First, it depends on what you mean by "this system". If you mean the (material) earth/sun system then yes, it is self-sufficient.
Second, there's a difference between "self-sufficient" and "incapable of receiving anything from without". The system might very well be able to take in something from without if there was anything there.
Third, I have no idea what this has to do with the topic.
The topic at hand ultimately is an issue of casuation and what role casual agents play. Sending and recieving involve causal agents doing the sending or recieving. My point is any 'external' agent able to influence a system would itself be part of the system since it would be just another causal agent within a larger system. It would still be part of the 'Universe' because it is causally connected to it. There would be nothing 'external' about it.
If you consider the Universe as a set of non-contingent fundamental causal agents there is no need for any other level of causal influence. There is no need to incorporate a larger level of causation. You are free to speculate on what those agents are but the Universe as such a whole is Immanent - it does not need to account for itself as the agents are fundamental. It is not an effect and does not require other agents to sustain it.
Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ringo, posted 07-10-2007 9:57 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by ringo, posted 07-10-2007 10:29 PM Grizz has not replied
 Message 21 by anastasia, posted 07-10-2007 10:55 PM Grizz has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024