Re: Ian Barbour's "When Science Meets Religion"

From: George Andrews Jr. (gandrews@as.wm.edu)
Date: Wed May 30 2001 - 17:35:48 EDT

  • Next message: George Hammond: "Functional Necessity as the Cross of Christianity"

    Hi John;

    Perhaps if you think of pantheism as nature containing God (in a set
    theoretic sense) and panentheism as God containing nature but not the
    converse. In other words, the former states that God and nature have equal
    cardinal number but card(God) > card(nature) in the latter.

    Panentheism, I believe, is consistent with classical categories of eminence
    and transcendence in that God is both. Pantheism is only consistent with the
    former (eminence).

    George A.

    John W Burgeson wrote:

    > >>
    > The way I understand it, pantheism says God is Nature; panentheism says
    > God
    > is fully in nature and encompasses it; i.e. transcendence is maintained
    > as
    > well>
    >
    > That's the definition OK. But a definition is incomplete unless one knows
    > how to understand it. It is this understanding that I am having
    > difficulty with.
    >
    > Burgy (John Burgeson)
    >
    > www.burgy.50megs.com 

    --
George A. Andrews Jr.
Physics/Applied Science
College of William & Mary
P.O. Box 8795
Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 30 2001 - 17:37:24 EDT