Panentheism: The Other God of the Philosophers, From Plato to the Present, by John W Cooper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pascal's warning against the God of the philosophers has taken on a new meaning in recent times.This admonition is typically directed, not against the God of bygone Enlightenment deism radicals, but now rather against classical theism, with all of its purportedly archaic trappings of divine transcendence, immutability, impassivity, and so forth.In contrast, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and Jesus-i.e., the God of the Bible-is seen by many theologians today as best represented by panentheism.This God-stance claims greater explanatory clarity of divine-world relationality, and increased accord with the latest and best scientific thinking on the cosmos and evolution, among other benefits.Nonetheless, John W Cooper takes issue with this ancient theological alternative.In his view, the deity of panentheism is the "other God of the philosophers"-not a closer depiction of the God of the Bible.John W Cooper is a professor of philosophical theology at Calvin Theological Seminary.His latest book, Panentheism: The Other God of the Philosophers, From Plato to the Present has two intended aims: an historical survey of panentheism, and a critical and apologetic response.The first aim begins with a preliminary overview, situating panentheism in its various historical contexts.Cooper then elucidates some basic terms, such as the word "panentheism" itself and its various manifestations: personal/impersonal, voluntary/natural, classical/modern, etc.The survey of the historical development of panentheism proceeds from Plato to neo-platonism (Plotinus, Proclus), to Christian neo-platonism (Pseudo-Dionysus, Eriugena, Bohme, etc.), and on into the Renaissance and Romanticism (Bruno, Spinoza, Edwards, Schleiermacher, etc.).The step into modernity is marked with a particularly helpful chapter on Schelling and Hegel, "the godfathers of modem panentheism," along with a chapter on the many nineteenth-century thinkers under their influence (Troeltsch, Coleridge, Emerson, James, Bergson, etc.).Cooper also offers a good overview of twentieth-century panentheistic thinkers, such as Heidegger, Berdyaev, Macquarrie, and Rahner, as well as brief descriptions of some non-Christian panentheistic thinkers: Buber, Iqbal, Radhakrishnan, Abe, and Starhawk.Another fine feature of this book is its devotion of whole chapters to
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".