Voluntarism and panentheism: the sensorium of God and Isaac Newton’s theology

Henry, John; McGuire, J. E.

doi:10.1080/0268117x.2017.1340188

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As Oakes notes: 23 The following argument is worked out in detail in Oakes (2006). 24 See Henry and McGuire (2018) for a helpful and clear discussion about the intimate relationship between God and space in Newton. 25 Newton (1962, 137).…”

Section: God's Immanence In the Cosmos: Space As Divine Attributementioning

confidence: 99%

God’s omnipresence in the world: on possible meanings of ‘en’ in panentheism

Gasser

2018

Int J Philos Relig

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Panenetheism is the claim that God and the cosmos are intimately interrelated , with the cosmos being in God and God being in the cosmos. What does this exactly mean? The aim of this paper is to address this question by sheding light on four possible models of God-world-inter-relatedness. Being critical of those models, which understand maximal immanence in a literal, spatial sense, the paper argues in favor of a model, which cashes out immanence in terms of divine activity. God is, where God acts. Since God acts upon all of creation everywhere and anytime, God is omnipresent to it at all times. Thus, the proposal is to read the 'en' in 'panetheism' in an 'agential sense': God is in the cosmos by creating and sustaining it and the cosmos is in God by constantly being within the sphere of divine activity.

show abstract

Section: God's Immanence In the Cosmos: Space As Divine Attributementioning

confidence: 99%

God’s omnipresence in the world: on possible meanings of ‘en’ in panentheism

Gasser

2018

Int J Philos Relig

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Harrison's claims soon led to a debate between him and John Henry (a defender of the voluntarism thesis). This debate is still ongoing, with recent contributions by Henry, Mcguire, Oakley and Sangiacomo (Oakley 2019;Henry and McGuire 2018;Sangiacomo 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Was Clarke a Voluntarist?

Wolf

2022

Journal of Modern Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The distinction between voluntarism and intellectualism has recently been criticized for inaccurately characterising early modern theories of divine freedom. In response, defenders of the distinction have argued that these labels are needed in order to account for the famous correspondence between Leibniz (intellectualist) and Clarke (voluntarist). In this paper, I argue that the voluntarism/intellectualism distinction is unable to account for the opposition between Leibniz and Clarke. In the first part, I provide an analysis of Clarke's theory of divine freedom, and show how he employs the distinction between activity and passivity in order to account for the separation between God's will and intellect, which ultimately safeguards God's freedom. I also analyse Clarke's correspondence with Leibniz, and show how Clarke deals with choice among equals, the principle of sufficient reason, and the principle of the best. In the second part, I argue on the basis of this analysis that Clarke is not a voluntarist, but should instead be interpreted as an intellectualist (if one wants to keep the labels). Therefore, the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence cannot be explained as a clash between voluntarism and intellectualism.

show abstract

“…Moreover, Newton was a voluntarist in his theology and consequently did not believe that God's creative power was restricted by foreordained essences or natures of things. While Clarke insisted that the nature of bodies was such that not even divine omnipotence could make bodies active, for Newton, if God wished to superadd activity to passive matter, he just could (Henry and McGuire 2018;. Accordingly, we can discern what is effectively another explanation for gravity in Quaestio 23 and Query 31-that is to say, an explanation for gravity that does not refer to the direct intervention of God.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…It is the contention of this paper that Newton introduced his brief speculations about the sensorium of God into the Opticks as a way of answering objections from Continental philosophers that he had failed to provide a causal account of gravity. 4 Newton did not introduce the two brief mentions of God's sensorium merely in order to reveal to his readers his beliefs about the relationship between God and his Creation (but on this, see Connolly 2014, andMcGuire 2018). Although these comments do indicate Newton's views on Providence, he introduced them into the Queries with a natural philosophical purpose.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The two mentions of the sensorium of God in the Queries, although very brief and seemingly included in almost a throw-away fashion, were evidently more important than might appear from a superficial reading. Although it is impossible to say to what extent Newton saw infinite space as somehow representing the sensorium of God, he seems to have felt that this "similitude" provided a valuable insight into the relationship between God and his Creation (see Kassler 2018, 104-25;and Henry and McGuire 2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Newton, the sensorium of God, and the cause of gravity

Henry

2020

Sci Context

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ArgumentIt is argued that the sensorium of God was introduced into the Quaestiones added to the end of Newton’s Optice (1706) as a way of answering objections that Newton had failed to provide a causal account of gravity in the Principia. The discussion of God’s sensorium indicated that gravity must be caused by God’s will. Newton did not leave it there, however, but went on to show how God’s will created active principles as secondary causes of gravity. There was nothing unusual in assuming that God, acting as the First Cause, operated in nature by means of secondary causes; but it was unusual to devote as much time to discussing God’s precise role as to discussing the secondary causes themselves. It is contended that Newton felt the need to do this to persuade readers that what might seem like a second cause that could not possibly work could be made to work by the omnipotent God.

show abstract

Voluntarism and panentheism: the sensorium of God and Isaac Newton’s theology

Cited by 6 publications

References 44 publications

God’s omnipresence in the world: on possible meanings of ‘en’ in panentheism

God’s omnipresence in the world: on possible meanings of ‘en’ in panentheism

Was Clarke a Voluntarist?

Newton, the sensorium of God, and the cause of gravity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About