Transcendence vs. Immanence - A Little Help?

[Lokabrenna]

I mentioned on the old board that I had decided to engage in dialogue with Catholics. I've been trying to clear up as many misconceptions surrounding Paganisms as I can (based on my experiences on this board and elsewhere) but I think I've reached a bit of an impasse regarding the concept of deity as either immanent or transcendent.

I won't get into the specifics, but in a nutshell, I argued that it was possible to believe that deities could be both immanent ("in here") and transcendent ("out there"). However, I also mentioned that for many Pagan faiths (being orthopraxic) the question of whether a deity is "in there" or "out there" is secondary to what one does.



Now I wonder if I'm somehow misrepresenting Pagan views of deity. (In my defense, there are a LOT of different Pagan faiths, and I can only speak about my own experiences). Perhaps I'm looking at this issue the wrong way? I think part of the problem is that for most monotheisms, God is either completely separate from nature or He is not, that is not to say that polytheistic systems don't recognize divine transcendence, but my point was that it's not the only way of looking at things.

Is there a way I could explain this concept better? Am I going about it the wrong way? I've tried saying: "You know, I'm not sure this issue is that important to many Pagans, actions are key, not belief," but they seem determined to get a satisfactory answer out of me. It really doesn't help matters that Paganism is an umbrella term for many different traditions that all believe different things. I think diversity's great, but as far as ease of explanation to others goes, it sucks. :P

Anyways, I hope I haven't confused anyone. I know there's a lot to cover, and I think I'm starting to confuse myself!

And to think, this all stemmed from the question: "What is a god?"

[treekisser]

Anyways, I hope I haven't confused anyone. I know there's a lot to cover, and I think I'm starting to confuse myself!

What are you trying to explain? The concept of immanence? Of panentheism? Of orthopraxy? All of these appear in your post.

[RandallS]

I won't get into the specifics, but in a nutshell, I argued that it was possible to believe that deities could be both immanent ("in here") and transcendent ("out there").

A trascendent deity is one who exists completely outside of and beyond the the universe. An Immanent deity is one who exists completely within the universe. The two don't mix very well, although Christianity tries to do so. Sure, you can have a deity that exists both outside and inside the universe (or one who can move between the the two states), but you can't really have one that exists completely outside the universe and completely inside the universe at the same time.

[EJay]

I mentioned on the old board that I had decided to engage in dialogue with Catholics. I've been trying to clear up as many misconceptions surrounding Paganisms as I can (based on my experiences on this board and elsewhere) but I think I've reached a bit of an impasse regarding the concept of deity as either immanent or transcendent.

I won't get into the specifics, but in a nutshell, I argued that it was possible to believe that deities could be both immanent ("in here") and transcendent ("out there"). However, I also mentioned that for many Pagan faiths (being orthopraxic) the question of whether a deity is "in there" or "out there" is secondary to what one does.

Now I wonder if I'm somehow misrepresenting Pagan views of deity. (In my defense, there are a LOT of different Pagan faiths, and I can only speak about my own experiences). Perhaps I'm looking at this issue the wrong way? I think part of the problem is that for most monotheisms, God is either completely separate from nature or He is not, that is not to say that polytheistic systems don't recognize divine transcendence, but my point was that it's not the only way of looking at things.

Is there a way I could explain this concept better? Am I going about it the wrong way? I've tried saying: "You know, I'm not sure this issue is that important to many Pagans, actions are key, not belief," but they seem determined to get a satisfactory answer out of me. It really doesn't help matters that Paganism is an umbrella term for many different traditions that all believe different things. I think diversity's great, but as far as ease of explanation to others goes, it sucks. :P

Anyways, I hope I haven't confused anyone. I know there's a lot to cover, and I think I'm starting to confuse myself!

And to think, this all stemmed from the question: "What is a god?"

There's no easy way to sum up pagans' views on God. There's no easy way to define "paganism." We run the gamut.

For me, as a panentheist, God is both immanent and transcendent. There. You have your answer.

(However, know that I'm a panentheist and a polytheist. I like to hedge my bets!)

Best~
EJay

[Lokabrenna]

There's no easy way to sum up pagans' views on God. There's no easy way to define "paganism." We run the gamut.

This is exactly what I'm trying to say. I think what this debate is, at its heart, is an illustration of how orthopraxic traditions seem so utterly alien to traditions that rely on orthodoxy.

They say: "What are gods? Are they here or there? What is Truth?" I say: "Does it matter?" and they're like: "Of course it matters! Why wouldn't it matter?"

I guess I just don't get all choked up about it. :D

[treekisser]

I think what this debate is, at its heart, is an illustration of how orthopraxic traditions seem so utterly alien to traditions that rely on orthodoxy.

Chapter 5 of Malory Nye's Religion: the basics discusses how the focus on pinning down what you believe into words is an especially Protestant Christian hangover. Orthopraxic religions aren't any less 'religions' except from an orthodoxic standpoint.

[Lokabrenna]

Chapter 5 of Malory Nye's Religion: the basics discusses how the focus on pinning down what you believe into words is an especially Protestant Christian hangover. Orthopraxic religions aren't any less 'religions' except from an orthodoxic standpoint.

I actually read that book for a first year university course! (I took religious studies, which is distinct from theology). I seem to recall that it was very academic in tone mixed with moments of: "Oh, so THAT'S what Nye is talking about!" :P

It also could be because I have problems explaining myself in general. I'm working on it, but it's like my abuse of the common comma, it's hard to kick the habit once it's there.

[Caroline]

... but you can't really have one that exists completely outside the universe and completely inside the universe at the same time.

Ah, the paradox of Mystery; to quote one friend, 'it's like Light is both a wave AND a particle'. (Not sure the analogy works, exactly, but it usually gets a chuckle.)

Personally, the contradictions don't bother me , but I'm more mystic than philosopher.