[asa] Re: [asa] Immanent and Transcendent – As far as evolution goes

From: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Sat Oct 11 2008 - 05:13:59 EDT

Just a little problem about a vowel.

Murray was talking of the immInence of Christ's return not immAnence .

So Gregory seems to be muddled on imminence and immanence.

Anyway I thought God is both immanent and transcendent to be kept in tension - superbly by the likes of William Temple. The danger is to focus on the one as extreme Process Theology or the other

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Gregory Arago
  To: ASA
  Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 9:46 AM
  Subject: [asa] Immanent and Transcendent – As far as evolution goes

        Part of Murray’s recent message in the theology (immanent) thread got me thinking of how in any way TE differs from ID or is similar to it. Perhaps this is a case for Timaeus to weigh in on if he or she is still willing to participate at ASA (if not, then inviting ‘outside’ or 'inside' voices friendly to ID is welcome too!). It’s not so much a matter of being stuck on labels but of observing how certain concepts or ideas are deemed more suitable or convenient by one perspective than by another. Thus, I would like to ask a basic question:

        Would it be fair to say that TE and/or EC are more favourable to an immanence view of theology (e.g. accompaniment or guidance, invisible or hidden divine action) on the topic of evolution whereas ID is more favourable to a transcendence view of theology (e.g. intervention or ‘designing,’ visible or discernable divine action) on the topic of evolution?

        Murray wrote:

        â€œI take ‘imminent’ to mean something like ‘suddenly and without warning’ or…‘always potentially immediate’. This might imply, but doesn't necessarily entail, a return of Jesus ‘in our lifetime’."

        Let me simply add the definitions from wiktionary, noting that both immanence and transcendence have theological and non-theological (i.e. scientific or philosophical) meanings. Noteworthy for me is the idea of ‘countable transcendence’ and the absence of a distinction between countable and uncountable in the definitions of ‘immanence.’ Of course, other definitions are welcome too!

        immanence (plural immanences)

          1.. The state of being immanent; inherency.
          2.. The state of dwelling within and not extending beyond a given domain.
          3.. (philosophy, metaphysics, theology) The concept of the presence of deity in and throughout the real world; the idea that God is everywhere and in everything. Contrast transcendence. (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/immanence)
        transcendence (countable and uncountable; plural transcendences)

          1.. (countable) the act of surpassing usual limits
          2.. (uncountable) the state of being beyond the range of normal perception
          3.. (uncountable) the state of being free from the constraints of the material world, as in the case of a deity (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/transcendence)

  Get the name you've always wanted ! @ymail.com or @rocketmail.com.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Oct 11 05:14:37 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Oct 11 2008 - 05:14:37 EDT