Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


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 5953 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

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 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 5953 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

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 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 5953 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

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 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

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 16 of 88 (409702)
07-10-2007 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Grizz
07-10-2007 9:19 PM


Grizz writes:
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".
Maybe you could explain to me how this differs from pantheism? I am sure it does, but maybe I could pick your brain for a minute?
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.
I guess you would say that you have no evidence for God, but the big question nowadays is whether anything can have no cause, including God. God is concluded as first cause, by Christians. There is no other possible scenerio in which He could be thought of as THE creator. Yet, the idea of God being only the first of many causes raises problems in theology. The alternative is to see God planning out all that would occur via evolution. ID. Now, even if ID could say all was designed by God, science could show that nature is only contingent upon itself. I guess roundaboutly I am asking 'what if nature IS God' because nature IS contingent upon itself? Is it 'safe' as a Christian, to believe this, and also believe in a trascendent God? Somehow, I doubt it, but from the strict Catholic definition I couldn't find anything which expressly ruled it out.
I am going to take a break and do some reading about it. It is common for me to get to a point where lines blur. If nature is the self-sufficient and principle cause of itself, then there is no need for a creator. God is becoming smaller and smaller.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Grizz, posted 07-10-2007 9:19 PM Grizz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Grizz, posted 07-10-2007 10:40 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 17 of 88 (409706)
07-10-2007 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by ringo
07-10-2007 9:57 PM


Ringo writes:
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?
I agree with your shrugs. I said it was a nonsense question to imagine if evolution could take in 'things' from outside of it. But if evolution can explain things without God, it sort of IS precluding God. Unless, God somehow is evolution itself. THAT is bad territory for a Christian, and doctrine DOES attempt to preclude the truth. It attempts to be the truth.
Let me ask you a hypothetical question. If you believed that God created everything, and you also believed in evolution, what part would you say God played in creation? When did his creating begin and end?

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 19 by ringo, posted 07-10-2007 10:33 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 21 of 88 (409715)
07-10-2007 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Grizz
07-10-2007 10:07 PM


Grizz writes:
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.
Right, so if God were a causal agent, he would be immanant in creation, and not completely transcendent.
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.
Whew, and you guys don't believe in God! What is astounding is that the inconceivable is now being conceived of very often. We have observed a fundamental uncaused agent. We have seen all that God is supposed to be. Does that prove that God exists, but that He is not what we thought He was? Ha, just kidding.
At least though, you have got the point of the topic. Now if only I can get some Christians to tell me if they believe God can be part of the 'system', or if their beliefs hold to utter and complete transcendence! Again, I am having no big melt down over it if I read the doctrine of God as creator and sustainer. I think that we usually say that God sustains the universe, as in, He could end it at any time if He chose. He allows it to be. I could also, within that doctrine, speculate that He keeps it going by His action within it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Grizz, posted 07-10-2007 10:07 PM Grizz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Grizz, posted 07-12-2007 5:57 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 22 of 88 (409716)
07-10-2007 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Grizz
07-10-2007 10:40 PM


Grizz writes:
Asking why nature is here I would currently reply that it simply "just is so". It needs no explanation as it is not an effect but a fundamental cause that is itself not an effect. This is hard to envision as our brain and experience has conditioned us to see effects everywhere. We have never seen a 'cause' that is not congingent so we conclude all 'things' must be effects with causes and ultimately must rely on something else for their own existence.
I understand, because that is precisely what theists claim about God.
The one thing that I have been convinced of is that in order to not revert to circular reasoning or infinite regress one needs to be able to resort to non contingent fundamental 'things' as primary.
Sure, but you aren't solving the problem of regress by moving nature up a notch to the position of primary 'thing'. You are just deifying nature.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Grizz, posted 07-10-2007 10:40 PM Grizz has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 23 of 88 (409720)
07-10-2007 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by ringo
07-10-2007 10:33 PM


Ringo writes:
Hypothetically, the creation would consist of the finger-snap that created the machinery.
Can a machinery be created without a plan?
If we made a robot capable of checking itself for problems, and correcting them, that would be plan. What if the entire universe is capable of doing so? What if it does this by a series of random explorations? What if it does this through trial and error?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by ringo, posted 07-10-2007 10:33 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by ringo, posted 07-11-2007 12:38 AM anastasia has replied
 Message 26 by ReverendDG, posted 07-11-2007 3:54 AM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 25 of 88 (409735)
07-11-2007 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by ringo
07-11-2007 12:38 AM


Not necessarily.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by ringo, posted 07-11-2007 12:38 AM ringo has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 28 of 88 (410418)
07-15-2007 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Grizz
07-12-2007 5:57 PM


Grizz writes:
This is my formed opinion based on common sense, inference, and what I see as necessity. The backbone of this argument is that an infinite regress of causes is implausible. The only way to avoid an infinite regress is by an appeal to fundamental entities that are not contingent upon any other entity for their existence.
Ah, but you don't understand how beautiful that may be to theists. We began with the principle of uncaused effects, and worked out a solution. Now science has offered a better solution to the effects of causes, and is still left with the original question.
Somtimes I feel that we ARE eating of the Tree of Life, working backwards, that Genesis was a premonition, and that as soon as we discover the mysteries of life, we shall die, figuratively. We shall be in the image and likeness of God, capable of creating life. With this, all things will be finalized.
That's a stretch, but again you have emphasized what I find strange in a evo/naturalist idealism: you have concluded your studies in the same manner that theists have started theirs. There must be an uncaused first cause. I remind you that you need not go into depth on that one, as it is a familiar concept.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Grizz, posted 07-12-2007 5:57 PM Grizz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Grizz, posted 07-15-2007 8:52 AM anastasia has not replied
 Message 30 by Straggler, posted 07-15-2007 9:51 AM anastasia has replied
 Message 31 by Grizz, posted 07-15-2007 9:58 AM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 33 of 88 (410565)
07-15-2007 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Straggler
07-15-2007 9:51 AM


Re: Layers of Causality
Straggler writes:
The introduction of god as the uncaused cause seems an unnecessary step and one for which there is less evidence than the natural and more direct alternative.
I don't know about this train of thought. You guys think you are on to something. I think you are onto the same old same old.
Long ago, many humans decided there must be an uncaused first cause. They named this unknown 'God'. Some believed 'God' was energy, some believed 'God' was a sentient being. Some worshipped the mysterious 'God' Nature Itself.
You may choose to leave yours unnamed. You may hesitate to ascribe additional properties to the Uncaused First Cause. Yet, you still believe in It, and that is, essentially, just what I am expressing when I say the word 'God'. I am not 'invoking' something extreneous, I am just naming the Uncaused.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Straggler, posted 07-15-2007 9:51 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Grizz, posted 07-15-2007 10:26 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 34 of 88 (410566)
07-15-2007 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Grizz
07-15-2007 12:13 PM


Re: Layers of Causality
Grizz writes:
I do not state a God cannot or does not exist. I simply state we see nothing that would currently lead us to believe Nature is not fundamental. If it's not broke, why fix it.
Don't you see that is the point of the topic?
If nature and God are both fundamental, how do we know they are not one and the same?
I would not deify nature, but I might conclude that God is more natural than we believe. Hypothetically of course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Grizz, posted 07-15-2007 12:13 PM Grizz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Grizz, posted 07-15-2007 10:12 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024