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

• Previous message: John W Burgeson: "Re: Organizations"
• Maybe in reply to: John W Burgeson: "Ian Barbour's "When Science Meets Religion""
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

>
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).
>

I think it is my problem for not being able to encompass that thought
fairly in my own mind. But thanks.

Got to be gone a few days. Maybe I'll dream an answer.

Burgy (John Burgeson)

www.burgy.50megs.com

• Next message: bivalve: "Re: evolution undercutting faith (fwd)"
• Previous message: John W Burgeson: "Re: Organizations"
• Maybe in reply to: John W Burgeson: "Ian Barbour's "When Science Meets Religion""
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 31 2001 - 15:04:31 EDT