Immanent Providence vs. Transcendental Paranoia

Exploring Theological Paradigms and Their Impact on Human Psychology and Society

Dedicated to Carl Sagan

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Immanent Pronoia: Integration with the Divine
3. Transcendental Paranoia: Separation from the Divine
4. Comparative Analysis: Immanence vs. Transcendence
5. The Shift in Early Christianity
6. Transcendental Theology: Divinity Beyond the Cosmos
7. The Devaluation of the Material World in Transcendental Theological Models
8. Stoic Providence or Cosmic Pronoia
9. Immanent Time and Changism in Contrast with Transcendental Models
10. Immanent Science and Cosmology: Rejecting Transcendence
11. Immanent vs. Transcendental Epistemologies — From Parmenides to IAWR
12. Modern Implications and Applications
13. Immanence’s Eminence
14. Appendix A: From Inmanent to Transcendental Freedom
15. Appendix B: Stoic Freedom: Integration into the Divine Rational Order
16. Appendix C: Carl Sagan and the Call for an Immanent Spirituality

The way humanity conceptualizes the divine profoundly influences our relationships with ourselves, others, and the natural world. Broadly speaking, theological models can be categorized into two primary paradigms: immanent and transcendental. Immanent theologies posit that the divine is inherent in all things, intimately woven into the fabric of existence. Traditions such as Stoicism, certain schools of Buddhism, and Advaita Vedānta exemplify this view, asserting that the sacred permeates the cosmos and is accessible through direct engagement with reality.

In contrast, transcendental theologies portray the divine as existing outside and above the material world, separate from humanity and nature. Dominant interpretations of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam often reflect this perspective, emphasizing a God who is wholly other — transcendent and accessible primarily through revelation or divine intervention.

This distinction shapes not only theological discourse but also psychological and ethical orientations toward the universe. Immanent models tend to foster pronoia — a belief that the universe is intrinsically ordered, benevolent, and supportive of human flourishing. Conversely, transcendental models can inadvertently promote paranoia — a sense that the universe is indifferent or even hostile, with humanity estranged from divine grace and subject to unpredictable divine will.

This article explores the ethical, psychological, and societal ramifications of these theological paradigms. Drawing on Stoic ideas of providence (pronoia), psychoanalytic theories of object relations, and modern ecological consciousness, we examine how immanent theologies encourage integration, trust, and alignment with the cosmos. In contrast, transcendental models, by emphasizing separation and external authority, may foster anxiety, alienation, and ethical rigidity.

By comparing these paradigms, we aim to illuminate the benefits of embracing immanent theology as a framework for psychological well-being, ethical responsibility, and ecological harmony. Understanding these dynamics is crucial in an era where environmental crises and existential anxieties challenge humanity’s relationship with the natural world and the cosmos at large.

2. Immanent Pronoia: Integration with the Divine

Immanent theology reveals a cosmos alive with purpose, coherence, and divine presence. Unlike transcendental frameworks that place the divine above and apart, immanence invites us to see the sacred within the very fabric of existence. This chapter explores how the Stoic vision of logos and pneuma — the rational order and integrative life force — illuminates our connection to the universe, shaping our psychology, ethics, and relationship with nature. Through the lens of immanence, we find not just understanding but trust in the benevolence of the cosmos, a trust the Stoics called pronoia.

2.1 The Logos: Rational Order in the Cosmos

Central to Stoic philosophy is the concept of logos, the divine rational principle that permeates and governs the cosmos (Long & Sedley 1987). The logos is not merely an abstract force but the intrinsic rationality that organizes the universe into a unified, living organism. It embodies both the forces of integration and disintegration, essential for the dynamic balance of the universe. Through logos, all aspects of existence — from the stars above to the thoughts within — are woven together into a purposeful, interconnected system.

Integration and Disintegration within Logos

The Stoics recognized that the cosmos operates through opposing forces that are both manifestations of logos. While pneuma symbolizes the self-organizing, unifying force that brings order and coherence, there is also a natural tendency toward disorder and disintegration, analogous to the modern concept of entropy.

• Dynamic Balance: The interplay between integration (pneuma) and disintegration (entropy) ensures that the universe remains in constant flux, balancing creation and destruction (Long & Sedley 1987).
• Unity of Opposites: This duality reflects the Stoic principle of sympatheia, where all things are interconnected, and opposites coexist within the rational order (Cleanthes, Hymn to Zeus).

Zeno of Citium captured this integration: “All things are parts of one single system, which is called nature; the individual life is good when it is in harmony with nature” (Diogenes Laërtius VII.87). In this vision, we are not passive spectators but active participants in a cosmos where everything, even adversity, plays a role in the greater harmony.

Pronoia, or providence, embodies a deep trust in the cosmos as fundamentally benevolent and purposeful. Marcus Aurelius expressed this faith when he wrote, “Everything harmonizes with me, which is harmonious to thee, O Universe” (Meditations V.23). To live in accordance with logos is to align one’s will with this greater order, cultivating virtues like wisdom and justice while embracing life’s trials as pathways to growth.

2.2 Pneuma: The Breath of Connection

An essential aspect of logos is pneuma (πνεῦμα), meaning “breath” or “spirit,” which the Stoics described as the animating force that binds all things (Sambursky 1959). Pneuma is the active, life-giving principle that organizes matter into coherent forms, ensuring that all entities — from the smallest particles to the largest celestial bodies — function harmoniously within the cosmic order.

• Cohesion and Structure: Pneuma is responsible for the cohesion of objects and organisms, integrating parts into wholes and enabling the emergence of complex structures (Reydams-Schils 2005).
• Levels of Pneuma: The Stoics identified different levels of pneuma, including the hegemonikon (ruling principle) in humans, which governs reason and consciousness (Long 2006). In humans, pneuma manifests as the rational soul, bridging individual thoughts and emotions with the universal rationality of logos.
• Self-Organization: Pneuma accounts for the self-organizing properties observed in nature, where systems develop order and complexity without external guidance (Frede 1999).

Through pneuma, humanity participates not as isolated fragments but as integral parts of a unified reality. It exemplifies the immanent divine, dissolving barriers between the sacred and the mundane.

While the Stoics did not have the modern concept of entropy, their understanding of the natural tendency toward change, decay, and eventual dissolution aligns with it.

• Natural Decay: The Stoics recognized that all material things are subject to change and eventual dissolution, reflecting a universal process governed by logos (Marcus Aurelius, Meditations IV.3).
• Cycle of Creation and Destruction: They believed in a cyclical cosmos, where periodic conflagrations (ekpyrosis) dissolve the universe back into its primordial state, followed by regeneration (Diogenes Laërtius VII.137).
• Disintegration as Orderly Process: Disintegration was seen not as chaotic but as an integral part of the rational order, necessary for renewal and the continuation of cosmic cycles (Sedley 2002).

While pneuma and entropy represent opposing forces — integration and disintegration — they are both essential aspects of logos that together sustain the dynamic equilibrium of the cosmos.

• Dynamic Balance: The interplay ensures that the universe remains in a state of constant flux, balancing creation and destruction (Long & Sedley 1987).
• Necessity of Change: Change, driven by both integrative and disintegrative forces, is essential for the unfolding of logos and the emergence of new forms and possibilities (Epictetus, Discourses III.24).

2.3 Psychological and Ethical Dimensions

Immanent theology fosters emotional resilience by reframing challenges as necessary parts of a larger cosmic order. Adversity becomes an opportunity for growth, cultivating virtues like patience and courage. As Epictetus wrote, “Men are disturbed not by things, but by the views they take of them” (Enchiridion VIII). This perspective mirrors psychological theories, such as object relations, which emphasize the integration of opposing forces into a cohesive self (Klein 1946; Winnicott 1965).

Living in accordance with logos places moral responsibility within the individual. Rather than acting out of fear of external punishment, ethical behavior arises from an internal alignment with the rational order. This fosters authenticity, self-discipline, and compassion. Marcus Aurelius observed, “We were born to work together, like feet, hands, and eyes” (Meditations IX.1). Recognizing the interconnectedness of all beings inspires actions that serve both personal and collective well-being.

2.4 Immanence and Ecological Harmony

Immanent theology naturally aligns with ecological consciousness, emphasizing humanity’s integration within the natural world.

Traditions like Stoicism, Taoism, and pantheism regard nature as a direct manifestation of the divine. This contrasts sharply with transcendental theologies that often subordinate nature to an external Creator (White 1967). The Stoic imperative to “live in accordance with nature” calls for a profound respect for ecosystems, advocating sustainability and reverence for the planet’s interconnected systems (Epictetus, Discourses I.4).

Immanent theology dissolves the alienation between humanity and the environment, fostering a sense of ecological belonging and accountability. Practices like regenerative agriculture and conservation reflect this ethos, promoting harmony between human activity and the earth’s natural rhythms (Abram 1996).

2.5 A Vision of Integration

The Stoic framework of logos and pneuma offers a timeless vision of integration, where humanity’s psychological, ethical, and ecological well-being converge within a rational, self-organizing cosmos. Immanent theology invites us to trust in the coherence of the universe, to align our lives with its principles, and to see ourselves not as isolated individuals but as vital threads in a vast, interconnected tapestry.

As we face modern challenges, from ecological degradation to existential disconnection, the principles of immanence offer a profound remedy. By cultivating trust in the cosmos, embracing ethical autonomy, and living in harmony with nature, we rediscover our place in the grand, unbroken order of existence. In doing so, we awaken not just to the divine around us but also to the divine within.

• Annas, J. (1993). The Morality of Happiness. Oxford University Press.
• Deutsch, E. (1969). Advaita Vedānta: A Philosophical Reconstruction. University of Hawaii Press.
• Diogenes Laërtius. (1925). Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Translated by R. D. Hicks. Loeb Classical Library.
• Epictetus. (1995). The Discourses. Translated by R. Hard. Everyman’s Library.
• Epictetus. (2008). The Handbook (Enchiridion). Translated by N. P. White. Hackett Publishing.
• Hadot, P. (1998). The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. Translated by M. Chase. Harvard University Press.
• Klein, M. (1946). ‘Notes on Some Schizoid Mechanisms’. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, vol. 27, pp. 99–110.
• Long, A. A. (2002). Epictetus: A Stoic and Socratic Guide to Life. Oxford University Press.
• Long, A. A., & Sedley, D. N. (1987). The Hellenistic Philosophers. Cambridge University Press.
• Loy, D. (1988). Nonduality: A Study in Comparative Philosophy. Yale University Press.
• Marcus Aurelius. (2006). Meditations. Translated by M. Hammond. Penguin Classics.
• Nietzsche, F. (1961). Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Translated by R. J. Hollingdale. Penguin Classics. (Original work published 1883–1885)
• Pelikan, J. (1971). The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Volume 1. University of Chicago Press.
• Reydams-Schils, G. (2005). The Roman Stoics: Self, Responsibility, and Affection. University of Chicago Press.
• Tillich, P. (1952). The Courage to Be. Yale University Press.
• Winnicott, D. W. (1965). The Maturational Processes and the Facilitating Environment. International Universities Press.

3. Transcendental Paranoia: Separation from the Divine

Transcendental theologies envision the divine as external and wholly separate from the material world, establishing a hierarchical relationship between humanity and a transcendent Creator. While these frameworks often aim to provide moral order and existential meaning, their emphasis on separation has significant psychological and societal consequences. By fostering paranoia — a pervasive sense of fear, alienation, and distrust — transcendental paradigms create fragmentation that undermines personal integration and social harmony. This chapter explores these effects, contrasting them with the integrative nature of immanent theological models.

3.1 The Dynamics of Separation

In transcendental theologies, the sacred is segregated from the profane, presenting the divine as an unattainable ideal and relegating humanity and the material world to an inferior status. This dichotomy fosters a reliance on external authorities to mediate the relationship between humans and the divine.

In religions like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, transcendence often devalues the material world, portraying it as fallen or unworthy. In Christianity, the doctrine of Original Sin establishes humanity’s inherent separation from God, necessitating divine intervention for salvation (Romans 3:23). Similarly, Islamic theology underscores Allah’s transcendence, with divine will revealed but never fully comprehensible (Qur’an 42:11). Judaism, through its portrayal of God as a lawgiver, emphasizes humanity’s obligation to adhere to commandments delivered from above (Exodus 20:1–17).

This framing fosters a dependence on intermediaries — clergy, texts, and institutional hierarchies — to interpret and enforce divine will. Ethical directives are externalized as strict commands, prioritizing obedience over personal moral reasoning.

3.2 Psychological Fragmentation and Fear

The separation at the heart of transcendental theology mirrors the psychological process of splitting, where entities are perceived in binary terms — wholly good or entirely bad. This leads to emotional fragmentation and a profound sense of alienation.

Transcendental frameworks idealize the divine as omnipotent and perfect while portraying humanity as inherently flawed. For example, Augustine described humanity’s need for salvation as stemming from its fundamental depravity (City of God XI.10). This duality creates an unattainable standard, fostering guilt and unworthiness.

Negative emotions — fear, guilt, and anger — are often projected outward, targeting perceived enemies or threats. Historical examples include the witch hunts of early modern Europe, where societal anxieties were channeled into persecution, often of marginalized women (Levack 1987). This projection cultivates an atmosphere of suspicion and hostility, justifying exclusion and punishment.

The externalization of moral authority stifles psychological growth, leaving individuals reliant on hierarchical systems for moral and existential guidance. This dynamic paves the way for authoritarian structures, where rigid control replaces personal ethical autonomy (Fromm 1941). Such systems thrive on fear of divine retribution, perpetuating insecurity and submission.

3.3 Ethical Rigidity and Social Consequences

The ethical systems derived from transcendental paradigms often emphasize strict conformity over compassion or adaptability.

Transcendental ethics present morality as fixed and unyielding, grounded in divine command rather than contextual understanding. This rigidity fosters an “us versus them” mentality, separating adherents from outsiders and fueling conflict. The Crusades, which depicted non-Christians as existential threats to the faith, epitomize this divisiveness (Riley-Smith 2005).

Justice within these frameworks is frequently punitive. Apostasy or blasphemy is met with harsh penalties, reflecting a preference for retribution over rehabilitation. This approach inhibits dialogue and suppresses alternative perspectives, stifling cultural and intellectual growth. The condemnation of Galileo for supporting heliocentrism exemplifies how doctrinal rigidity can obstruct scientific advancement (Finocchiaro 1989).

3.4 Historical Legacies of Transcendental Theology

The societal impacts of transcendental paradigms are vividly illustrated in historical episodes of conflict, oppression, and environmental neglect.

The Spanish Inquisition institutionalized violence to enforce orthodoxy, justifying torture and execution as means of preserving religious purity (Peters 1988). This fear-driven system eroded trust and perpetuated paranoia within communities.

The projection of societal anxieties onto marginalized individuals, particularly women, culminated in widespread witch hunts. These episodes not only reflected fear of the “other” but also revealed underlying misogyny within patriarchal structures (Levack 1987).

The transcendental alienation of humanity from nature has contributed to ecological harm. Interpreting religious texts as granting humans dominion over the Earth encouraged exploitation rather than stewardship. This legacy persists in practices that prioritize short-term gain over sustainability (White 1967).

3.5 Immanence: A Path to Integration

Immanent theological models offer an antidote to the fragmentation of transcendental systems. By emphasizing the divine presence within the cosmos, immanence fosters trust, compassion, and ethical flexibility.

Buddhism, with its focus on interconnectedness and mindfulness, reduces fear and cultivates resilience (Dalai Lama 2001). Taoism’s emphasis on harmony with the Tao inspires adaptability and balance (Laozi, Tao Te Ching). Advaita Vedānta’s non-dualistic vision dissolves the illusion of separation, promoting inner and outer unity (Deutsch 1969).

These perspectives nurture personal growth and ethical responsibility, offering frameworks that harmonize individual well-being with collective flourishing.

The separation inherent in transcendental theology fosters alienation, fear, and ethical rigidity, hindering psychological integration and societal harmony. Historical legacies of conflict, persecution, and environmental degradation highlight its limitations in addressing humanity’s need for connection and balance.

By contrast, immanent theological models provide pathways to integration, resilience, and ethical autonomy. They invite us to see ourselves as integral parts of a dynamic, interconnected cosmos. In the chapters that follow, we will explore how immanent paradigms offer cohesive frameworks for addressing the psychological, ethical, and ecological challenges of the modern world..

Arendt, H. (1951). The Origins of Totalitarianism. Harcourt Brace & Company.

Augustine. (1998). City of God. Translated by H. Bettenson. Penguin Classics.

Dalai Lama. (2001). An Open Heart: Practicing Compassion in Everyday Life. Little, Brown and Company.

Deutsch, E. (1969). Advaita Vedānta: A Philosophical Reconstruction. University of Hawaii Press.

Ephesians 2:8–9. The Holy Bible, New International Version.

Exodus 20:1–17. The Holy Bible, New International Version.

Finocchiaro, M. A. (1989). The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History. University of California Press.

Fromm, E. (1941). Escape from Freedom. Farrar & Rinehart.

Freud, S. (1927). The Future of an Illusion. Hogarth Press.

Galilei, G. (1633). Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. (Original work published 1632).

Klein, M. (1946). ‘Notes on Some Schizoid Mechanisms’. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, vol. 27, pp. 99–110.

Laozi. (1963). Tao Te Ching. Translated by D. C. Lau. Penguin Classics.

Levack, B. P. (1987). The Witch-Hunt in Early Modern Europe. Longman.

Nasr, S. H. (2002). The Heart of Islam: Enduring Values for Humanity. HarperSanFrancisco.

Otto, R. (1958). The Idea of the Holy. Translated by J. W. Harvey. Oxford University Press.

Pelikan, J. (1971). The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Volume 1. University of Chicago Press.

Peters, E. (1988). Inquisition. University of California Press.

Qur’an 4:28, 4:56, 42:11. The Holy Qur’an.

Riley-Smith, J. (2005). The Crusades: A History. Yale University Press.

Romans 3:23. The Holy Bible, New International Version.

Tillich, P. (1952). The Courage to Be. Yale University Press.

White, L. (1967). ‘The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis’. Science, vol. 155, no. 3767, pp. 1203–1207.

Winnicott, D. W. (1965). The Maturational Processes and the Facilitating Environment. International Universities Press.

4. Comparative Analysis: Immanence vs. Transcendence

The tension between immanent and transcendental theological paradigms extends beyond abstract ideas, shaping how we relate to others, structure societies, and pursue fulfillment. Immanence, which emphasizes integration with the divine present in all aspects of existence, fosters harmony, diversity, and psychological resilience. Transcendence, with its focus on separation and external authority, often leads to rigidity, alienation, and conflict. This chapter explores these contrasts, showing how these paradigms influence family life, societal structures, and human well-being.

4.1 Family Dynamics: Unity vs. Fragmentation

Families shaped by immanent principles encourage mutual respect, autonomy, and collective harmony. In Stoicism, family members are seen as unique contributors to a shared purpose, cultivating virtues like wisdom and courage to foster emotional resilience and resolve conflicts (Epictetus, Discourses I.1). Similarly, Buddhist mindfulness promotes compassionate communication, creating supportive environments where interdependence is honored (Nhat Hanh 1998). Families practicing immanence prioritize growth and adaptability, reflecting the broader harmony of logos.

In contrast, families influenced by transcendental paradigms often mirror their hierarchical and authoritarian theological roots. Patriarchal control and rigid adherence to external rules suppress individuality and foster fear-based relationships (Pelikan 1971). Members are idealized or devalued based on compliance, creating emotional instability and stunting psychological growth (Klein 1946). These dynamics reflect the fragmentation inherent in transcendence, undermining the possibility of integrated and nurturing relationships.

4.2 Societal Structures: Integration vs. Centralization

Societies reflecting immanent principles prioritize inclusion, decentralization, and collaboration. Scandinavian countries exemplify this approach with their emphasis on egalitarian governance, social welfare, and environmental stewardship (Andersen 2012). Similarly, the African philosophy of Ubuntu — “I am because we are” — emphasizes interconnectedness and collective well-being, fostering empathy and responsibility (Broodryk 2002). These structures mirror ecosystems, where diversity and interdependence enhance resilience and adaptability (Capra 1996).

Transcendental paradigms, by contrast, often favor centralized control and rigid hierarchies. Authoritarian regimes like North Korea or historical theocracies such as Calvin’s Geneva impose strict conformity, suppressing individuality and stifling innovation (McGrath 1990; Armstrong 2013). By prioritizing obedience over participation, these systems foster alienation and inefficiency, making them brittle in the face of change.

4.3 Thriving Through Diversity vs. Uniformity

Immanent systems celebrate diversity as essential for growth and adaptation. In ecosystems, biodiversity enhances resilience, enabling systems to self-organize and respond to challenges (Camazine et al. 2001). Religiously, Hinduism exemplifies this principle by accommodating a wide range of beliefs and practices, reflecting immanence’s inclusive ethos (Radhakrishnan & Moore 1957). Conflict and contradiction are viewed as opportunities for integration and innovation, leading to emergent order and systemic growth.

In contrast, transcendental systems often suppress diversity in favor of uniformity. Historical examples include the Spanish Inquisition, which enforced religious orthodoxy at the expense of intellectual and cultural progress (Peters 1988), and the Soviet Union, where centralized planning stifled creativity and adaptability (Fitzpatrick 1999). By devaluing complexity, these systems inhibit resilience and adaptability, making them vulnerable to external shocks.

4.4 Human Fulfillment: Integration vs. Alienation

Immanence fosters fulfillment by aligning individuals with the rational structure of the cosmos. Practices like Stoic meditation or Buddhist mindfulness enhance self-awareness, resilience, and ethical integrity, helping individuals embrace life’s dualities and find harmony within themselves and their communities (Hadot 1998; Kabat-Zinn 1990). Advaita Vedānta deepens this alignment, teaching the unity of self and ultimate reality as the foundation for inner peace and purpose (Deutsch 1969).

Transcendental paradigms, however, often perpetuate alienation and conflict. By emphasizing humanity’s inherent unworthiness and separation from the divine, they instill guilt and existential anxiety (Tillich 1952). Strict moral codes imposed from without suppress personal growth, replacing ethical autonomy with compliance. This dynamic fosters inner fragmentation, as individuals struggle to reconcile opposing aspects of their nature (Klein 1946).

Immanent paradigms, with their emphasis on diversity, integration, and alignment with natural principles, offer pathways to personal and collective flourishing. They nurture resilience, creativity, and interconnectedness, enabling families, societies, and individuals to thrive. Transcendental paradigms, by focusing on separation and external control, often lead to rigidity, alienation, and dysfunction.

• Andersen, J. G. (2012). The Scandinavian Welfare Model. Routledge.
• Armstrong, C. K. (2013). The North Korean Revolution, 1945–1950. Cornell University Press.
• Annas, J. (1993). The Morality of Happiness. Oxford University Press.
• Broodryk, J. (2002). Ubuntu: Life Lessons from Africa. Ubuntu School of Philosophy.
• Capra, F. (1996). The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems. Anchor Books.
• Camazine, S., et al. (2001). Self-Organization in Biological Systems. Princeton University Press.
• Deutsch, E. (1969). Advaita Vedānta: A Philosophical Reconstruction. University of Hawaii Press.
• Epictetus. (1995). The Discourses. Translated by R. Hard. Everyman’s Library.
• Fitzpatrick, S. (1999). Everyday Stalinism: Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times: Soviet Russia in the 1930s. Oxford University Press.
• Hadot, P. (1998). The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. Translated by M. Chase. Harvard University Press.
• Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full Catastrophe Living. Delacorte Press.
• Klein, M. (1946). ‘Notes on Some Schizoid Mechanisms’. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, vol. 27, pp. 99–110.
• McGrath, A. E. (1990). A Life of John Calvin. Basil Blackwell.
• Peters, E. (1988). Inquisition. University of California Press.
• Radhakrishnan, S., & Moore, C. A. (1957). A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy. Princeton University Press.
• Tillich, P. (1952). The Courage to Be. Yale University Press.

5. The Shift in Early Christianity: From Immanence to Transcendence

The theological evolution of Christianity represents a profound transition from an early emphasis on immanence — where the divine is intimately woven into creation and human experience — to a transcendental framework that elevates God as separate and external. This shift reflects the growing influence of institutional authority, yet it leaves a countercurrent: mystical Christianity, which continues to affirm the immanent divine. This chapter explores this dynamic transformation and its implications for theology, spirituality, and ethics.

5.1 Immanence in Early Christianity: The Divine Within

Early Christian theology was deeply rooted in immanence, presenting the divine as accessible within the natural world and the human soul.

The Gospel of John opens with a profound affirmation of the immanent divine: “In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1, NIV). This Logos, much like the Stoic concept of rational cosmic order, serves as the principle through which all creation unfolds (Long 2002). The Incarnation — God becoming flesh in Jesus Christ (John 1:14) — makes this immanence tangible, uniting the divine and human in a single entity.

• Integration of the Human and Divine: The Incarnation highlights a theology where the sacred and the material converge, illustrating a divine presence deeply embedded in the fabric of existence (McGinn 2006).
• Accessible Divinity: Through Jesus, the divine becomes approachable, underscoring a theology of integration rather than separation.

Jesus proclaimed, “The kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:21, NIV), a radical assertion of immanence. This teaching emphasizes personal transformation and inner alignment as pathways to divine connection. For early Christians, the divine was not a distant deity but a reality accessible through reflection, virtue, and spiritual discipline (Pagels 1979).

Early Christian ethics flowed naturally from this immanent vision:

• Love and Compassion as Divine Expressions: Virtues such as love, humility, and empathy were seen as reflections of the divine order (1 Corinthians 13:4–7).
• Communal Harmony: Early Christian communities practiced collective care, sharing resources and prioritizing the common good (Acts 2:44–45).
• Alignment with Logos: The teachings of Jesus were not mere moral prescriptions but calls to align with the divine rationality inherent in creation.

5.2 Institutionalization and the Rise of Transcendence

The institutionalization of Christianity, particularly after Constantine’s conversion and the religion’s adoption as the Roman Empire’s official faith, marked a decisive shift toward transcendence. This transition elevated hierarchical structures and externalized the divine.

The Council of Nicaea (325 CE) formalized Christian belief through the Nicene Creed, emphasizing the transcendence and omnipotence of God (González 2010).

• Centralization of Authority: Bishops and the emerging papacy positioned themselves as mediators between humanity and God, distancing individuals from direct divine access (Pelikan 1971).
• Hierarchical Mediation: The Church’s authority solidified as the arbiter of divine will, creating dependency on institutional structures for salvation (Duffy 1997).

The doctrine of creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing) deepened the separation between Creator and creation, mirroring Platonic dualisms that opposed spirit to matter (May 1994; Russell 1945).

• Material World as Flawed: This theological framework increasingly viewed the physical realm as inherently imperfect, contrasting it with divine perfection.

Transcendental theology introduced a framework of fear and dependence:

• Original Sin: Augustine’s doctrine of original sin emphasized human depravity, framing individuals as estranged from God and reliant on divine grace for redemption (Confessions).
• Eternal Judgment: Teachings on Hell and divine punishment heightened anxiety about moral failure (Matthew 25:46).
• Institutional Mediation: The Church positioned itself as the essential intermediary, fostering a sense of moral rigidity and existential insecurity (Tillich 1951).

5.3 Mystical Christianity: The Persistence of Immanence

Amid the dominance of transcendental theology, mystical Christianity preserved and expanded immanent principles, offering a vision of direct union with the divine.

Mystical Christianity emphasized personal spiritual transformation and intimate connection with God.

• Meister Eckhart: Taught that God is born within the soul, reflecting the potential for divine presence in human experience (McGinn 2001).
• Julian of Norwich: In her Revelations of Divine Love, she described visions of God’s intimate care, proclaiming, “All shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.”
• St. Teresa of Ávila: Her work The Interior Castle mapped the inward journey to divine union, highlighting the transformative power of introspection and prayer (Teresa of Ávila 2004).

Mystics often described creation as suffused with divine presence.

• Julian of Norwich: Her vision of the world as “a little thing, the size of a hazelnut, held in God’s hand” captured the interconnectedness of creation and the divine.
• Eckhart: Claimed, “The eye with which I see God is the same eye with which God sees me,” underscoring a profound unity (McGinn 2001).

Tensions with Institutional Authority

Mystics frequently clashed with the Church’s emphasis on hierarchy:

• Persecution: Figures like Eckhart faced charges of heresy, while mystical movements such as the Beguines were often suppressed (Hollywood 1995).
• Autonomy vs. Mediation: Mystical teachings, emphasizing direct divine engagement, challenged the Church’s role as a necessary intermediary.

5.4 Theological Practices: Immanence and Transcendence in Tension

Christian practices illustrate the coexistence and tension between these paradigms:

• Immanent Practices: Contemplative prayer and the Eastern Orthodox practice of theosis (participation in divine nature) embody direct engagement with the divine (Keating 2002; Ware 1997).
• Transcendental Practices: Sacramental rituals and penitential systems, like indulgences, reinforce reliance on institutional mediation (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994; Lea 1896).

The shift in early Christianity from immanence to transcendence reflects broader cultural and institutional dynamics:

• Early Integration: Early Christian theology celebrated the divine within creation, emphasizing personal transformation, communal harmony, and ethical alignment with the Logos.
• Institutionalization and Separation: The Church’s consolidation of power introduced hierarchical mediation, externalized divinity, and fear-based practices.
• Mystical Countercurrents: Mystical Christianity preserved the immanent vision, affirming direct engagement with the divine and the sacredness of the cosmos.

This enduring tension underscores the psychological and spiritual significance of integrating the divine into human experience, offering a foundation for personal growth and collective well-being.

• Augustine. (1991). Confessions. Translated by H. Chadwick. Oxford University Press.
• Catechism of the Catholic Church. (1994). Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
• Chadwick, H. (1993). The Early Church. Penguin Books.
• Duffy, E. (1997). Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes. Yale University Press.
• González, J. L. (2010). The Story of Christianity, Volume 1. HarperOne.
• Julian of Norwich. (1998). Revelations of Divine Love. Translated by E. Spearing. Penguin Classics.
• Keating, T. (2002). Open Mind, Open Heart. Continuum.
• McGinn, B. (2001). The Mystical Thought of Meister Eckhart. Crossroad Publishing.
• Teresa of Ávila. (2004). The Interior Castle. Image Books.

6. Transcendental Theology: Divinity Beyond the Cosmos

Transcendental theological frameworks present divinity as existing in a separate, higher realm. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, God is described as dwelling in heaven, ruling from a vantage point beyond the physical universe. Scriptural passages such as “The Lord has established His throne in the heavens” (Psalm 103:19, NIV) and “Our citizenship is in heaven” (Philippians 3:20, NIV) illustrate this separation. Similarly, Islamic theology emphasizes Allah’s transcendence, asserting that He exists beyond human comprehension (Nasr 2002). This perspective aligns with Platonic dualism, where the physical world is seen as an imperfect shadow of an immutable, ideal realm (Plato, Republic 507b–509c).

Modern science occasionally offers metaphors that parallel transcendental concepts. For instance, multiverse theories propose the existence of multiple universes, distinct yet potentially interactive, resembling the notion of a God influencing creation from a separate dimension (Greene 2011). String theory’s higher-dimensional spaces provide further parallels, suggesting realms beyond our perception (Kaku 1994).

While transcendental theology emphasizes divine majesty and otherness, it risks devaluing the material world by prioritizing a higher, perfect realm. Biblical passages such as “Do not love the world or anything in the world” (1 John 2:15, NIV) and Augustine’s depiction of matter as corrupted in City of God reinforce this dualism. This devaluation has ethical implications, including a diminished sense of responsibility for the environment and material well-being, as focus shifts to the afterlife (White 1967).

6.2 Immanent Theology: Divinity Within the Cosmos

In contrast, immanent theological frameworks affirm that divinity resides within the cosmos itself. Stoicism, for example, envisions logos as the rational principle permeating and organizing all things. Zeno of Citium described nature as a unified system where the individual life finds meaning in harmony with the whole (Diogenes Laërtius VII.87). Taoism similarly speaks of the Tao as the ultimate reality, inherent in all existence, while Advaita Vedānta identifies the self (Atman) with the ultimate reality (Brahman), rejecting dualism (Laozi, Tao Te Ching; Deutsch 1969).

Immanent theology presents the cosmos as self-sustaining and eternal, requiring no external creator. The Stoics saw the universe as a cycle of creation and transformation, with logos ensuring its coherence (Hadot 1998). The physical world, far from being a flawed or transient domain, is viewed as sacred, embodying the divine. This perspective fosters a deep respect for the material world, encouraging environmental stewardship and reverence for nature (Naess 1973).

6.3 Theological and Psychological Implications

Transcendental theology’s emphasis on divine separation often results in dependency and alienation. By situating meaning and authority outside the cosmos, it fosters a reliance on external guidance and risks creating existential anxiety. Paul Tillich observed that separation from the divine leads to feelings of insignificance and estrangement (Tillich 1951). Furthermore, transcendental models may justify neglect of worldly concerns, focusing instead on the afterlife (White 1967).

In contrast, immanent theology promotes a sense of unity and empowerment. By recognizing the divine within the cosmos, individuals experience a profound connection to existence. Stoic philosophy emphasizes autonomy, encouraging individuals to align with nature and take responsibility for their place within the whole (Epictetus, Discourses I.1). This alignment enhances psychological well-being, fostering self-acceptance and reducing feelings of isolation (Maslow 1968). Immanent theology also supports ethical living, emphasizing environmental responsibility and social harmony (Capra 1996).

6.4 Reframing the Material World

Transcendental theology has historically portrayed the material world as flawed, a “valley of tears” to be endured rather than cherished. Biblical passages like “Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things” (Colossians 3:2, NIV) and Platonic metaphysics reinforce this devaluation, which can lead to asceticism and environmental neglect (Plato, Phaedo 74–76). By contrast, immanent theology celebrates the material world as sacred, emphasizing the integration of spirit and matter. This perspective encourages ecological mindfulness, treating nature as a vital expression of the divine (Naess 1973).

6.5 Choosing Between Transcendence and Immanence

The choice between transcendental and immanent theological models profoundly shapes our understanding of the cosmos and our place within it. Transcendental theology’s emphasis on separation risks fostering alienation and a disregard for the material world. Immanent theology, by contrast, offers a holistic vision, affirming the sacredness of the cosmos and encouraging unity, empowerment, and reverence for existence. By embracing immanence, we align with a perspective that integrates ancient wisdom with modern scientific insights, fostering psychological well-being, ethical responsibility, and environmental stewardship. This shift invites us to celebrate the cosmos as a dynamic, interconnected whole, where divinity and materiality coexist in harmony.

• Augustine. (1998). City of God. Translated by H. Bettenson. Penguin Classics.
• Capra, F. (1996). The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems. Anchor Books.
• Deutsch, E. (1969). Advaita Vedānta: A Philosophical Reconstruction. University of Hawaii Press.
• Diogenes Laërtius. (1925). Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Translated by R. D. Hicks. Loeb Classical Library.
• Fromm, E. (1941). Escape from Freedom. Farrar & Rinehart.
• Frankl, V. E. (1963). Man’s Search for Meaning. Beacon Press.
• Greene, B. (2011). The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos. Alfred A. Knopf.
• Hadot, P. (1998). The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. Translated by M. Chase. Harvard University Press.
• Jung, C. G. (1938). Psychology and Religion. Yale University Press.
• Kaku, M. (1994). Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the Tenth Dimension. Oxford University Press.
• Laozi. (1963). Tao Te Ching. Translated by D. C. Lau. Penguin Classics.
• Long, A. A. (2002). Epictetus: A Stoic and Socratic Guide to Life. Oxford University Press.
• Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a Psychology of Being. Van Nostrand Reinhold.
• Naess, A. (1973). ‘The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement. A Summary’. Inquiry, vol. 16, pp. 95–100.
• Nasr, S. H. (2002). The Heart of Islam: Enduring Values for Humanity. HarperSanFrancisco.
• Plato. (1997). Complete Works. Edited by J. M. Cooper. Hackett Publishing.
• Simplicius. (2001). On Aristotle’s Physics 1.5–9. Translated by C. Hagen. Cornell University Press.
• Tillich, P. (1951). Systematic Theology, Volume 1. University of Chicago Press.
• White, L. (1967). ‘The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis’. Science, vol. 155, no. 3767, pp. 1203–1207.

7. The Devaluation of the Material World in Transcendental Theological Models

Transcendental theological frameworks situate divinity outside and above the cosmos, emphasizing the superiority of a transcendent realm over material existence. Influenced by religious doctrines and Platonic philosophy, these perspectives often regard the physical world as temporary, flawed, or illusory. By contrast, immanent theological models, such as Stoicism, Taoism, and Advaita Vedānta, celebrate the cosmos as inherently divine, eternal, and meaningful. This chapter examines the ethical, psychological, and social consequences of transcendental theology’s devaluation of the material world and contrasts them with the integrative perspectives of immanent frameworks.

7.2 The Transcendental View: A Devalued Cosmos

The transcendental perspective often presents the world as inferior and transient. Biblical narratives emphasize this view, as seen in Paul’s statement in Romans 8:22: “For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.” This verse portrays the cosmos as incomplete, awaiting divine redemption. Similarly, Colossians 3:2 urges believers to “Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things,” reinforcing the idea that earthly life is of lesser value compared to the transcendent realm.

Plato’s Theory of Forms also contributes to this devaluation by describing the material world as an imperfect reflection of a higher, immutable reality. As outlined in the Republic (507b–509c), Plato’s dualism deeply influenced early Christian theology, further entrenching the idea that earthly existence is secondary to spiritual realities.

Transcendental frameworks frequently associate the physical body and material desires with sin and corruption. This perspective is evident in 1 John 2:16: “For all that is in the world — the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life — is not from the Father but is from the world.” Such dualistic interpretations foster an antagonistic view of the material world, treating it as an obstacle to spiritual progress. Augustine’s theology reinforces this perspective, situating humanity’s fallenness within the material realm. In City of God (XIV), Augustine emphasizes the corrupting influence of earthly existence, underscoring the need for spiritual transcendence.

7.3 Ethical, Psychological, and Social Implications of Devaluation

The devaluation of the material world carries significant ethical consequences. Viewing nature as temporary or corrupt diminishes the urgency of environmental stewardship. Lynn White Jr., in his seminal essay The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis (1967), argues that certain interpretations of Genesis 1:28, which commands humanity to “subdue” the earth, have justified ecological exploitation. Additionally, moral absolutism rooted in transcendental frameworks prioritizes obedience to divine commands over contextual ethical reasoning, a tendency that fosters rigid, black-and-white moral frameworks, as Paul Tillich discusses in Systematic Theology (1951).

Socially, transcendental theology legitimizes hierarchical structures by positioning spiritual leaders as intermediaries between humanity and a distant God. Michel Foucault’s analysis in Discipline and Punish (1977) highlights how such dynamics reinforce authoritarian systems, suppress dissent, and restrict diversity. The fear of divine judgment often serves as a tool of social control, creating environments where obedience is enforced at the expense of individuality and creativity.

Psychologically, transcendental theology perpetuates fear, guilt, and alienation. The unattainable ideal of divine perfection fosters feelings of inadequacy and existential despair. As Ernest Becker observes in The Denial of Death (1973), these dynamics contribute to a pervasive sense of failure and self-condemnation. Viktor Frankl’s work in Man’s Search for Meaning (1963) underscores how such alienation undermines individuals’ ability to find purpose in their lives. The psychological fragmentation described in Melanie Klein’s object relations theory mirrors this experience, as the idealization of divinity and devaluation of humanity create a split that hinders emotional integration.

7.4 The Immanent Alternative: A Sacred Cosmos

Immanent theological models reject the dualism of transcendence, embracing the material world as inherently divine and meaningful. In Stoicism, the rational principle of logos organizes the cosmos, affirming the unity of spirit and matter. Zeno of Citium emphasizes this harmony, stating: “All things are parts of one single system, which is called nature; the individual life is good when it is in harmony with nature” (quoted in Diogenes Laërtius VII.87). Similarly, Taoism’s Tao represents the immanent way of existence, uniting heaven, earth, and humanity, as Laozi asserts in the Tao Te Ching (25): “The Tao is great; heaven is great; earth is great; and man is also great.”

Advaita Vedānta further exemplifies this integrative perspective by identifying Atman (self) with Brahman (ultimate reality), dissolving the dualities that separate spirit and matter. As Eliot Deutsch argues in Advaita Vedānta: A Philosophical Reconstruction (1969), this unity fosters a holistic understanding of existence, presenting the cosmos as a sacred and interconnected whole.

Immanent frameworks inspire reverence for the natural world, aligning with deep ecology principles articulated by Arne Naess. This perspective encourages environmental stewardship by recognizing the intrinsic value of nature. Ethical autonomy also emerges from these models, as morality arises from alignment with the rational order of the cosmos, fostering internalized responsibility rather than fear-driven obedience. Epictetus encapsulates this ethos in Discourses (I.1): “No man is free who is not master of himself.”

Psychologically, immanent theologies promote wholeness and resilience by reconciling opposites. Seneca viewed adversity as an opportunity for growth, emphasizing its role in strengthening the soul (On Providence II). Taoism’s yin-yang principle similarly highlights the interdependence of opposites, fostering balance and harmony (Laozi, Tao Te Ching, 42). These perspectives align with Klein’s description of the depressive position in object relations theory, where the integration of good and bad aspects of existence leads to emotional maturity.

7.5 The Cosmic Drama: Tragedy Within Pronoia

A critique often directed at immanent theologies is their ability to account for suffering and tragedy within a sacred cosmos. If the universe is divine, how can its indifference to human suffering be reconciled?

As we’ll see in the next chapter, the Stoics address this paradox by reframing adversity as an opportunity for growth. Epictetus taught that suffering does not negate the rational order of the cosmos but challenges individuals to align their will with it: “It’s not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters” (Enchiridion V). Similarly, Seneca viewed hardship as a chance to cultivate virtues like courage, resilience, and wisdom (On Providence II).

• Becker, E. (1973). The Denial of Death. Free Press.
• Capra, F. (1996). The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems. Anchor Books.
• Diogenes Laërtius. (1925). Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Translated by R. D. Hicks. Loeb Classical Library.
• Frankl, V. E. (1963). Man’s Search for Meaning. Beacon Press.
• Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translated by A. Sheridan. Pantheon Books.
• Hadot, P. (1998). The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. Translated by M. Chase. Harvard University Press.
• Laozi. (1963). Tao Te Ching. Translated by D. C. Lau. Penguin Classics.
• Naess, A. (1973). ‘The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement. A Summary’. Inquiry, vol. 16, pp. 95–100.
• Plato. (1997). Complete Works. Edited by J. M. Cooper. Hackett Publishing.
• Seneca. (1969). Moral Essays, Volume I. Translated by J. W. Basore. Harvard University Press.
• Stockdale, J. B. (1995). Thoughts of a Philosophical Fighter Pilot. Hoover Institution Press.
• Tillich, P. (1951). Systematic Theology, Volume 1. University of Chicago Press.
• Turner, V. (1969). The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Aldine Publishing.
• White, L. (1967). ‘The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis’. Science, vol. 155, no. 3767, pp. 1203–1207.

8. Stoic Providence: Cosmic Pronoia

The Stoic concept of pronoia, or providence, embodies the belief that the universe operates with rationality and inherent benevolence (Long 2002). This perspective, far from being simplistic optimism, reflects a deep trust in the coherence and meaningfulness of existence, drawn from a systematic understanding of the cosmos. This chapter delves into the reasons why the universe can be seen as fundamentally supportive and explores the role of suffering as a vital element within this framework, affirming the Stoic vision of a purposeful and interconnected reality.

8.1 Rational Order and the Self-Organizing Cosmos

The Stoics identified logos, the rational principle pervading all existence, as the source of coherence and purpose in the cosmos. This intrinsic rationality ensures that the universe is predictable and intelligible, allowing life to flourish within its ordered framework (Diogenes Laërtius VII.88–89; Sedley 2002). Modern science parallels this understanding through theories of self-organization, showing how complexity arises naturally, from galaxies forming under gravity to the intricate interdependence of ecosystems (Prigogine & Stengers 1984; Capra 1996).

The self-sustaining nature of the cosmos further reflects its rational structure. Cyclical processes such as the water cycle and carbon cycle demonstrate how life and matter are perpetually transformed and recycled, maintaining the equilibrium necessary for survival (Schlesinger & Bernhardt 2013). This dynamic balance aligns with the Stoic idea of a cosmos where all things unfold according to rational principles, as Marcus Aurelius observed: “All things are woven together and the common bond is sacred” (Meditations IV.23).

The cosmos fosters an interconnected web of relationships where all entities contribute to and derive benefit from one another. Biological mutualism, such as the relationship between bees and flowering plants, exemplifies the Stoic concept of sympatheia — the universal sympathy that unites all things (Long & Sedley 1987). Ecosystems, enriched by biodiversity, demonstrate how variety ensures resilience and adaptability, allowing life to thrive despite challenges. The Stoics recognized this harmony, seeing every element of the whole as vital to its function, as Epictetus noted: “Everything has its own place within the universal order” (Discourses I.12).

The fine-tuned nature of the universe reveals a cosmos that supports and nurtures life. The anthropic principle highlights how physical constants — such as gravitational force and the strength of the electromagnetic interaction — are precisely balanced to allow for the existence of stars, planets, and life itself (Barrow & Tipler 1986). Earth’s habitable conditions, including its distance from the Sun and protective magnetic field, further underscore the cosmos’s provision for life (Kasting et al. 1993; Ward & Brownlee 2000). To the Stoics, such evidence affirmed a universe governed by rationality and benevolence, as expressed in Cleanthes’s Hymn to Zeus: “Yours is the universal law that unites all things.”

8.2 Human Flourishing and the Gift of Reason

Human reason, which the Stoics regarded as a fragment of cosmic logos, empowers individuals to comprehend and align with the rational order of the universe (Long 2002). This capacity for understanding natural laws enables humans to navigate challenges and improve their circumstances, fulfilling their role within the cosmic whole. Seneca, in his Letters (LXIV), celebrated reason as a divine gift, calling it humanity’s guide to virtue and harmony with nature.

Ethically, the rational order of the cosmos provides a foundation for living virtuously. By understanding their place within the whole, individuals cultivate wisdom, courage, and compassion, aligning their actions with the greater good (Annas 1993). Marcus Aurelius captured this integration: “What is good for the hive is good for the bee” (Meditations IX.1), emphasizing the unity of personal flourishing and collective well-being.

The Stoics acknowledged suffering as an inescapable part of life but saw it as integral to the cosmos’s rational order. Adversity, they argued, reveals the strength of the human spirit and provides opportunities for growth. Epictetus advised: “Difficulties are things that show a person what they are” (Discourses I.24), framing hardship as a test of character and a chance to align with the rational cosmos.

Contrasts, such as joy and sorrow, deepen appreciation for life’s complexity and balance, mirroring Heraclitus’s insight that opposites define and enrich each other (Kahn 1979). This dynamic interplay ensures that life’s challenges, far from undermining its value, enhance its richness and meaning.

Epicuru’s Trilemma: If God is willing but unable to prevent evil, He is not omnipotent; if able but unwilling, He is malevolent; if both able and willing, whence evil? (Hume 1779).

The Epicurean critique of providence, articulated through the problem of evil, questions how a benevolent and omnipotent deity can coexist with suffering. Stoicism, however, circumvents this dilemma by viewing divinity as inherent in the cosmos itself, rather than as a separate, interventionist force. Events are not inherently good or bad; rather, it is human judgment that imposes these labels (Epictetus, Enchiridion V). Suffering, in the Stoic view, serves as an opportunity to exercise virtue and deepen one’s alignment with logos (Seneca, On Providence II).

Admiral James Stockdale, drawing on Stoic philosophy during his years as a prisoner of war, exemplified this resilience. By reframing his suffering as an opportunity to practice courage and integrity, Stockdale demonstrated the transformative power of Stoic pronoia (Stockdale 1995).

Contemporary systems theory aligns with Stoic principles, showing how self-organizing processes lead to resilience and adaptability (Capra 1996). Neuroscience further validates Stoicism’s emphasis on growth through adversity, as neuroplasticity reveals the brain’s capacity to adapt and flourish in response to challenges (Doidge 2007). Ecological science, through models such as the Gaia Hypothesis, underscores the interdependence of life, supporting the Stoic belief in a cosmos sustained by mutual support (Lovelock 1979).

The Stoic belief in pronoia reflects a profound trust in the cosmos’s rational, interconnected, and benevolent nature. By aligning with logos, individuals embrace the challenges of life as opportunities for growth and recognize their integral role within a dynamic, supportive universe.

Suffering, far from refuting cosmic benevolence, deepens understanding and cultivates virtue. This perspective invites us to see life as a harmonious interplay of forces, where each element contributes to the whole. The affirmation of pronoia inspires resilience, gratitude, and a commitment to ethical living, fostering both personal and collective flourishing.

• Annas, J. (1993). The Morality of Happiness. Oxford University Press.
• Barrow, J. D., & Tipler, F. J. (1986). The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford University Press.
• Bronstein, J. L. (2015). Mutualism. Oxford University Press.
• Capra, F. (1996). The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems. Anchor Books.
• Cleanthes. (Early 3rd century BCE). Hymn to Zeus. (Fragments).
• Diogenes Laërtius. (1925). Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Translated by R. D. Hicks. Loeb Classical Library.
• Doidge, N. (2007). The Brain That Changes Itself. Viking.
• Epictetus. (1995). The Discourses. Translated by R. Hard. Everyman’s Library.
• Epictetus. (2008). The Handbook (Enchiridion). Translated by N. P. White. Hackett Publishing.
• Hume, D. (1779). Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. (Posthumously published).
• Kahn, C. H. (1979). The Art and Thought of Heraclitus. Cambridge University Press.
• Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full Catastrophe Living. Delacorte Press.
• Kasting, J. F., Whitmire, D. P., & Reynolds, R. T. (1993). ‘Habitable Zones around Main Sequence Stars’. Icarus, vol. 101, pp. 108–128.
• Long, A. A. (2002). Epictetus: A Stoic and Socratic Guide to Life. Oxford University Press.
• Long, A. A., & Sedley, D. N. (1987). The Hellenistic Philosophers. Cambridge University Press.
• Lovelock, J. E. (1979). Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. Oxford University Press.
• Marcus Aurelius. (2006). Meditations. Translated by M. Hammond. Penguin Classics.
• Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in Systems: A Primer. Chelsea Green Publishing.
• Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press.
• Nussbaum, M. C. (1997). Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defense of Reform in Liberal Education. Harvard University Press.
• Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order Out of Chaos: Man’s New Dialogue with Nature. Bantam Books.
• Schlesinger, W. H., & Bernhardt, E. S. (2013). Biogeochemistry: An Analysis of Global Change. Academic Press.
• Sedley, D. (2002). The Cambridge Companion to Greek and Roman Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
• Seneca. (1969). Moral Essays, Volume I. Translated by J. W. Basore. Harvard University Press.
• Stockdale, J. B. (1995). Thoughts of a Philosophical Fighter Pilot. Hoover Institution Press.
• Ward, P. D., & Brownlee, D. (2000). Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe. Springer-Verlag.

Below is a revised and expanded chapter that incorporates historical instances of scientists and physicists expressing views that align with immanent theologies. It places Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan at the center, discusses other influential figures, and highlights the natural affinity between science — especially cosmology — and immanent religious perspectives.

9: Immanent Time and Changism in Contrast with Transcendental Models

A central difference between transcendental and immanent models of time concerns their grounding of change. Transcendental models ground change on time, treating time as a pre-existing, independent dimension within which change unfolds, much like events arranged along a timeline.

Immanent models, by contrast, ground time in change, regarding time as a conceptual tool derived from the continuous flow of changes occurring in the present. Changism exemplifies this immanent stance by positing that time is not an external entity but rather an emergent measure of the rate at which reality updates itself in the here and now.

9.1 Immanent Time: Changism and the Primacy of the Present

Immanent models, including Stoicism, certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, and the changist approach, assert that only the present exists in actuality, with past and future understood as conceptual constructs.² Changism, in particular, builds on this principle:

• Time as a Measure of Change: Changism views time as akin to a metric for describing how states of the world transform, rather than as a container for events.³ Reality is a dynamic tapestry in constant flux, and what we call “time” emerges from observing and quantifying these changes.
• Causality Within the Present: Potentialities are actualized not through progression along a temporal dimension, but through real transformations unfolding in the present. For example, a seed growing into a tree is not moving “through time” but changing states according to internal and external factors current at each moment.

This approach resonates with Aristotelian notions that time measures motion and change, rather than existing independently (Aristotle 1984), as well as contemporary relational views of time where temporal succession arises from interactions and correlations (Rovelli 2018).

9.2 Transcendental Models: Time as an Independent Dimension

Transcendental interpretations, often found in Newtonian mechanics and block universe conceptions, propose that time exists as a dimension similar to space — equally real in past, present, and future.⁴ Here:

• Time Precedes Change: Events are “located” in an external temporal dimension. The present loses its unique status, reducing the significance of immediate causality.
• Potential Determinism: Such frameworks can suggest a predetermined cosmos, diminishing the role of agency and rendering the unfolding of events less about genuine change and more about “traversing” a static timeline (Barbour 1999).

In contrast to changism’s flexible present-focus, transcendental time can introduce metaphysical complexity without adding explanatory power.

9.3 Implications of Grounding Time in Change

Immanent Models (Including Changism):

1. Unified Present: Reality is a seamless flow of ongoing transformations. Phenomena like wavefunction collapse or gravitational time dilation become differences in rates of change, not motion along an external temporal axis (Bohm 1980; Rovelli 2018).
2. Philosophical Simplicity: Avoiding independent temporal dimensions adheres to principles like Occam’s Razor, reducing metaphysical commitments and focusing on empirically accessible changes.
3. Alignment with Experience: Humans perceive and act within a dynamic present. This immediate, experiential grounding avoids alienation and resonates with how we actually engage with the world.

Transcendental Models:

1. Alienation from the Present: Treating all moments as equally real risks making the present feel less meaningful as the locus of experience and action.
2. Static Temporality: Concepts like the block universe raise difficulties for understanding agency and genuine change, often requiring additional metaphysical layers to interpret causality and evolution.

9.4 Revisiting Relativity Through an Immanent Lens

While Einstein’s relativity is often cast in transcendental terms, suggesting a block universe, changism and immanent interpretations read relativity differently. Instead of a static spacetime, relativity can be understood as describing how the rate of change varies under different conditions of motion and gravity.⁵

• Dynamic Rate of Change: Observed time dilation need not imply an extra dimension. Instead, physical clocks slow because their internal processes (changes) unfold at different rates.
• Unified Present Reaffirmed: The relativity of simultaneity and other relativistic effects align more naturally with an immanent view in which change is always rooted in the present configuration of the universe.

Carl Sagan’s reflections on the cosmos resonate with this perspective, encouraging awe and reverence for a universe continuously unfolding in the now, rather than venerating a transcendent temporal dimension (Sagan 1980; Sagan 1994).

9.5 Immanence, Science, and Simplicity

From a changist and immanent standpoint, introducing a transcendental time dimension to explain observable variations in rates of change is unnecessary.⁶ This move parallels the theological tendency to posit an external divine authority to explain order, meaning, and morality when such phenomena may emerge naturally from within the system (Hadot 1998).

Immanent Principles:

• No Extra Layers: Just as stoic and ecological frameworks find rationality and ethics within the world itself, changism finds temporal structure in ongoing change, not an external time dimension.
• Consistency with Science: Emphasizing direct observation and minimal assumptions aligns with the scientific method’s preference for testable theories. By remaining grounded in what can be measured — changes in states rather than hypothetical timelines — immanent interpretations uphold empirical rigor.

By grounding time in change, changism exemplifies the immanent model, contrasting with transcendental frameworks that reify time as a separate dimension. This immanent perspective harmonizes with both ancient philosophical traditions and modern scientific insights, including Carlo Rovelli’s relational time and David Bohm’s holistic view of reality (Rovelli 2018; Bohm 1980). Carl Sagan’s call for revering the cosmos as it is — immanent, evolving, and interconnected — further supports this interpretation (Sagan 1980; Sagan 1994).

In embracing immanence, we gain a simpler, more coherent conceptual apparatus. By doing so, we adhere to Occam’s Razor, reduce metaphysical complexity, and maintain fidelity to both lived experience and scientific observation. Changism’s emphasis on present-driven change, free from extraneous temporal dimensions, thus stands as a compelling testament to the philosophical and scientific virtues of an immanent model of time.

• Aristotle, 1984, Physics, trans. R.P. Hardie and R.K. Gaye, in The Complete Works of Aristotle, ed. J. Barnes, Princeton University Press.
• Barbour, J., 1999, The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics, Oxford University Press.
• Bohm, D., 1980, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, Routledge.
• Hadot, P., 1998, The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, trans. M. Chase, Harvard University Press.
• Rovelli, C., 2018, The Order of Time, Penguin Books.
• Sagan, C., 1980, Cosmos, Random House.
• Sagan, C., 1994, Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space, Random House.
• Montes, S., 2024, Changism: Change and Time in a Presentist Universe, https://sergio-montes-navarro.medium.com/changism-2-the-bewitchment-of-language-in-physics-79acaf69757f

10. Immanence in Science and Cosmology: The Rejection of Transcendence

From the earliest philosophical inquiries to modern cosmology, a recurring theme emerges: the universe can be understood and explained through principles residing within it rather than decrees imposed from beyond. While many Western religious traditions posit a transcendent Creator, numerous thinkers — ancient philosophers, modern scientists, and intermediaries like the Stoics — have gravitated toward a view that is more immanent. In such frameworks, divinity, rationality, and ultimate meaning are embedded in the cosmos, reflecting a shift away from anthropomorphic gods and external authorities, and toward intrinsic order and self-regulating processes.

10.1 The Milesian Revolution: Rooting Explanation in Nature

In 6th-century BCE Ionia, the Milesian philosophers — Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes — rejected mythical explanations governed by gods who intervened arbitrarily in human affairs. Instead, they sought arche (origin-principles) within the cosmos itself (Graham 2006; Barnes 1982). Their approach replaced transcendent deities with natural forces and rational structures that could be observed, analyzed, and understood.

• Thales (c. 624–546 BCE): Identified water as the fundamental substance (arche). His claim that “all things are full of gods” did not invoke personified deities but suggested a universe pervaded by a divine rationality immanent in nature (Kahn 1960).
• Anaximenes (c. 586–526 BCE): Proposed air as the arche. Through processes of rarefaction and condensation, air transformed into all other forms — fire, wind, water, and earth — without requiring any external, supernatural agent (Barnes 1982).

By grounding explanation in natural elements and processes, the Milesians established a precedent for understanding the universe as self-sustaining, dynamic, and orderly, prefiguring modern scientific inquiry.

10.2 Anaximander and the Apeiron: Infinite, Immanent Order

Anaximander (c. 610–546 BCE) took the Milesian approach a step further by introducing the apeiron, a boundless, indefinite principle from which all things emerge and eventually return (Kirk, Raven & Schofield 1983). Unlike water or air, the apeiron had no specific material qualities, representing a universal source of balance and transformation.

• Immanent Divinity and Balance: The apeiron required no external deity to maintain order. Hot and cold, wet and dry, and all opposites find equilibrium within it. This internal cosmic justice (dike) arises naturally, not through divine fiat (Kirk et al. 1983).
• A Precursor to Pandeism: Anaximander’s apeiron embodied a divine rationality inherent in the cosmos, echoing what later would be recognized as a pandeistic perspective, where the divine is identical with the universe’s creative and sustaining forces (Deutsch 1969; Hadot 1998).

10.3 Pandeism and the Milesian Worldview

The Milesians’ immanent cosmology laid intellectual groundwork that resonates with pandeism, the idea that the divine and the universe are one. Rather than gods imposing order from above, the divine is manifest in the inherent rationality and generative power of the cosmos itself.

This holistic vision, free of transcendent intervention, integrates seamlessly with the interconnected outlook emphasized throughout this article — encompassing theology, ecology, psychology, politics, ethics, and epistemology. By rooting meaning and morality in the natural order, knowledge and virtue become accessible through observation, reason, and participation in the cosmic web rather than dependence on external revelations.

10.4 Decentralizing Knowledge: Observation Over Revelation

The Milesians’ emphasis on natural explanations democratized knowledge. Truth no longer belonged exclusively to those claiming divine intermediaries; it became available to anyone capable of rational observation and analysis. This intellectual decentralization mirrored evolving political structures in Greek city-states, which began to embrace more participatory forms of governance (Loy 1988; Pelikan 1971).

Such an approach anticipated the scientific method’s reliance on empirical evidence. By freeing knowledge from the chains of dogma, the Milesians paved the way for science to become a self-correcting, open-ended pursuit — an endeavor that thrives on questioning, testing, and refining ideas, much like immanent spiritual frameworks thrive on inner coherence and adaptability.

10.5 The Apeiron and Contemporary Science

Although separated by millennia, Anaximander’s apeiron finds conceptual kinship in modern physics. Contemporary science describes reality through fields, forces, and emergent patterns — concepts that, like the apeiron, suggest a cosmos governed by intrinsic principles of order and change (Rovelli 2018; Capra 1996). The natural laws uncovered by physics, chemistry, and biology reveal a universe that requires no external lawgiver, aligning with the Milesian legacy of intrinsic rationality.

10.6 From Stoicism to Spinoza

The notion that the divine might be immanent and accessible through rational understanding of the universe has deep historical roots in philosophical and religious traditions preceding modern science. The Stoics (3rd century BCE onwards) viewed the cosmos as permeated by logos (rational order), an early prototype of immanent theology that would later influence thinkers inclined toward rational inquiry (Long & Sedley 1987). In the 17th century, Baruch Spinoza developed a pantheistic philosophy, identifying God with Nature itself (Deus sive Natura), thereby rejecting the idea of a separate divine artificer (Deutsch 1969).

Such philosophical currents provided fertile ground for later scientists to conceive of the cosmos as rational and self-organizing, integrating the sacred and the material. This shift from an externalized, commanding deity to an intrinsic order, knowable through reason, set the stage for modern scientists to find spiritual significance in the pursuit of knowledge rather than obedience to divine commands.

10.7 Einstein’s Non-Anthropomorphic Divinity and Cosmic Awe

Albert Einstein’s views are among the most prominent examples of a scientist gravitating toward an immanent concept of God. While publicly dismissive of a personal, anthropomorphic deity — calling such notions “childlike” — Einstein held a profound reverence for the orderly structure of the universe. He claimed not to be an atheist but also resisted the pantheist label as too narrow, suggesting instead that the “problem is too vast for our limited minds” (Einstein 1954a).

Einstein admired Spinoza’s God, an impersonal, all-encompassing principle manifest in the laws of nature (Einstein 1947). Rather than praying to a creator external to existence, he envisioned God as the mysterious order underlying all phenomena. He compared humanity’s intellectual efforts to a child in a grand library, aware that someone must have written the “books” but unable to comprehend the “languages” or the authors. Here, God is not a transcendent architect but the rational structure dimly perceived by human minds. Einstein’s stance exemplifies how scientific engagement with reality can lead to a “religious feeling of a special sort,” rooted in wonder and rational admiration rather than transcendent worship (Einstein 1954b).

10.8 Carl Sagan’s Cosmic Immanence and Ethical Implications

Carl Sagan, a 20th-century astrophysicist and science communicator, carried Einstein’s torch forward into an era of heightened environmental awareness and cosmic exploration. Rejecting any notion of a God outside the universe, Sagan emphasized the sacredness of the cosmos itself (Sagan 1980; Sagan 1994). For Sagan, the universe — ancient, vast, and self-organizing — constituted a source of awe and meaning that did not depend on supernatural intervention.

By framing humanity as “star-stuff,” Sagan underscored the immanent connectedness of all life with cosmic processes. This perspective naturally engenders ethical responsibility: realizing our cosmic origins and the delicate balance of planetary ecosystems prompts a moral imperative to care for each other and the environment. Sagan’s approach aligns with Stoic and Taoist principles, where virtuous action and wise living arise from recognizing one’s place in an interdependent cosmos (Hadot 1998; Loy 1988).

10.9 Other Influential Figures and Movements

While Einstein and Sagan stand at the forefront, they were not alone in gravitating toward an immanent spirituality. Physicists like Niels Bohr and Erwin Schrödinger, influenced by Eastern philosophies, sometimes implied a unity of knower and known that dissolves the dualism between humanity and a transcendent creator. Schrödinger’s engagement with Vedānta, for instance, showed a sympathy toward non-dualism, where Atman and Brahman are one, resonating with immanent religious thinking (Deutsch 1969).

James Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis, though not explicitly theological, presents Earth as a self-regulating system. This ecological model can be read as resonating with immanent religious perspectives that view nature as infused with an organizing principle (Capra 1996). Such scientific concepts, while remaining strictly empirical, open doorways to spiritual interpretations that celebrate interconnectedness and the reverence due to life’s complexity.

10.10 The Natural Syntony of Science — Especially Cosmology — with Immanence

Modern cosmology, which studies the universe’s origins, structure, and evolution, inherently pushes human thought toward concepts that resemble immanent theology. As the Hubble Space Telescope and other observational technologies reveal a cosmos teeming with galaxies and dark matter, guided by gravitational laws and physical constants, it becomes increasingly plausible to frame these principles as intrinsic to reality rather than imposed from without.

From the Big Bang to cosmic inflation, science paints a picture of a universe whose properties emerge from within, governed by laws that scientists strive to understand. Such inquiry does not require a transcendent being acting as a first cause; instead, it often suggests a principle of self-organization, complexity, and rationality inherent in the universe’s very fabric. This viewpoint mirrors the immanent stance: the divine or ultimate reality is not an external presence but is embedded in the cosmic tapestry itself.

10.11 Immanence Versus Transcendence: Revisited in Light of Science

Transcendental theology posits an external Creator who fashioned the universe from nothing and remains fundamentally distinct from it (Pelikan 1971). Immanent theologies, by contrast, consider the universe eternal or self-organizing, rendering the divine an internal principle rather than an external agent. In transcendental frameworks, morality and meaning are often dictated by top-down authority; immanent frameworks see ethics and purpose as emerging from understanding and aligning with the cosmos’s inherent order (Loy 1988; Long & Sedley 1987).

As Einstein’s rejection of anthropomorphic deities and Sagan’s cosmic reverence show, scientists often find transcendental assumptions unnecessary or restrictive. Instead of obedience to external commands, these thinkers cultivate an ethos grounded in curiosity, humility, and ecological responsibility. As humanity grapples with climate change, resource scarcity, and global tensions, the integrative ethic of immanent spirituality — where meaning and morality arise from recognizing our place in a vast, coherent universe — offers guidance sorely needed in contemporary times.

10.12 A Convergence of Tradition and Innovation

The modern scientists’ turn toward immanence can be seen as both a revival and a reinvention of ancient wisdom. Philosophical traditions like Stoicism, Taoism, and Advaita Vedānta long emphasized the divine as immanent, perceiving unity beneath apparent multiplicity (Deutsch 1969; Loy 1988). Today’s physicists, with unprecedented tools and theories, rediscover a cosmos that, while described in the language of mathematics and empirical testing, can still inspire wonder and a quasi-spiritual reverence akin to immanent religiosity.

Carl Sagan’s call to see the Earth as “a single organism” and Einstein’s insistence that even the most brilliant minds cannot fully comprehend the “mysterious force” directing the constellations (Einstein 1930) together outline a landscape in which science, in its purest form, resonates with immanent religious ideas. The “God” that Planck mentioned as the “goal of every thought process” in science need not be a transcendent figure; it can be the rational structure of the universe, the cosmic order that scientists continuously strive to understand (Planck 1931).

10.13 Science as a Pathway to Immanent Spirituality

Over centuries, scientists and physicists have gravitated toward perspectives that can be interpreted as favoring immanent religion. This tendency is not accidental. Scientific inquiry, especially in cosmology, naturally reveals a universe governed by principles that emerge from within rather than decrees handed down from beyond. This vision aligns with immanent theological models, which see the divine as inseparable from the cosmos.

Einstein’s reverence for Spinoza’s God and Sagan’s cosmic piety exemplify how scientific minds find spiritual depth in understanding, not obedience; in the cosmos’ inherent order rather than an external Creator’s pronouncements. Together, they and others have shown that the boundary between rational inquiry and spiritual insight can be porous. Immanent religiosity becomes a bridge between knowledge and meaning, drawing from ancient philosophical traditions and fulfilling modern ethical and existential needs.

As we look to the future, where scientific discovery will only deepen and our understanding of the universe broaden, the natural compatibility of science with immanent spirituality may become even more apparent. In this synergy lies a hopeful vision: that by understanding the laws of nature, we can also discover principles to guide ethical action and compassionate stewardship, forging a spirituality that is both grounded in reality and ennobling to the human spirit.

• Barnes, J., The Presocratic Philosophers, Routledge, 1982.
• Capra, F., The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems, Anchor Books, 1996.
• Deutsch, E., Advaita Vedānta: A Philosophical Reconstruction, University of Hawaii Press, 1969.
• Graham, D.W., Explaining the Cosmos: The Ionian Tradition of Scientific Philosophy, Princeton University Press, 2006.
• Hadot, P., The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, trans. M. Chase, Harvard University Press, 1998.
• Kahn, C.H., Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmology, Hackett Publishing, 1960.
  Kirk, G.S., Raven, J.E., & Schofield, M., The Presocratic Philosophers, 2nd edn, Cambridge University Press, 1983.
• Loy, D., Nonduality: A Study in Comparative Philosophy, Yale University Press, 1988.
• Pelikan, J., The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Volume 1, University of Chicago Press, 1971.
• Rovelli, C., The Order of Time, Penguin Books, 2018.
• Barnes, J., The Presocratic Philosophers, Routledge, 1982.
• Capra, F., The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems, Anchor Books, 1996.
• Changism Document, 2024, ‘Changism: Change and Time in Presentist Thought’, <URL> [accessed date].
• Deutsch, E., Advaita Vedānta: A Philosophical Reconstruction, University of Hawaii Press, 1969.
• Graham, D.W., Explaining the Cosmos: The Ionian Tradition of Scientific Philosophy, Princeton University Press, 2006.
• Hadot, P., The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, trans. M. Chase, Harvard University Press, 1998.
• Kahn, C.H., Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmology, Hackett Publishing, 1960.
• Kirk, G.S., Raven, J.E., & Schofield, M., The Presocratic Philosophers, 2nd edn, Cambridge University Press, 1983.
• Loy, D., Nonduality: A Study in Comparative Philosophy, Yale University Press, 1988.
• Pelikan, J., The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Volume 1, University of Chicago Press, 1971.
• Rovelli, C., The Order of Time, Penguin Books, 2018.
• Varela, F.J., Thompson, E. & Rosch, E., The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience, MIT Press, 1991.
• Capra, F., 1996. The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems. New York: Anchor Books.
• Deutsch, E., 1969. Advaita Vedānta: A Philosophical Reconstruction. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
• Einstein, A., 1930. ‘Religion and Science’, New York Times Magazine, November 9.
• Einstein, A., 1947. Letter to Beatrice Frohlich, December 17.
• Einstein, A., 1954a. Letter to Eric Gutkind, January 3.
• Einstein, A., 1954b. Ideas and Opinions. New York: Crown Publishers.
• Hadot, P., 1998. The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. Translated by M. Chase. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Long, A.A. & Sedley, D.N., 1987. The Hellenistic Philosophers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Loy, D., 1988. Nonduality: A Study in Comparative Philosophy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Pelikan, J., 1971. The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Volume 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Planck, M., 1931. Religion and Natural Science. Lectures at Yale University, March-April 1931.
• Sagan, C., 1980. Cosmos. New York: Random House.
• Sagan, C., 1994. Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space. New York: Random House.

11. Immanent vs. Transcendental Epistemologies — From Parmenides to IAWR

The tension between transcendental (dualistic) and immanent (monistic) epistemologies parallels the distinction drawn between transcendental and immanent models of time and theology explored in previous chapters. Whereas transcendental frameworks posit an ontological and epistemic separation — between the knower and the known, the subject and the object — immanent frameworks emphasize integration and unity. In transcendental models, knowledge is often mediated by external entities: forms, noumena, divine revelation, or abstract principles independent of the empirical world. In contrast, immanent epistemologies hold that understanding emerges from direct engagement with reality, without the need for transcendental intermediaries.

This contrast, evident in the ancient debate between Parmenides and Heraclitus, extends through the lineage of Western philosophy and into contemporary theories of mind and consciousness. It finds modern expression in frameworks like the IAWR (Integrated Awareness) hypothesis, which positions consciousness as an embodied, embedded, and intrinsically integrated phenomenon rather than a detached observer of an external world.

11.1 Parmenides: The Foundation of Transcendental Dualism

Parmenides (5th century BCE) sets a precedent for transcendental epistemology by asserting a fundamental dualism between true being and the deceptive world of sensory experience. In his poem On Nature, he distinguishes the “Way of Truth” from the “Way of Opinion.”¹

• Dualism of Being and Perception: For Parmenides, true reality (being) is immutable, eternal, and accessible only through reason. Sensory perception, bound up with change and multiplicity, leads to falsehood and uncertainty.²
• Transcendental Framework: Knowledge requires transcending the illusory flux of appearances to grasp the unchanging essence of being. This early stance sets the stage for subsequent transcendental epistemologies, notably influencing Plato’s theory of forms and later rationalist traditions.

Parmenides thus inaugurates the idea that genuine knowledge must detach itself from the dynamic, immanent world of experience, positing a stable, transcendent realm of truth beyond the reach of ordinary perception.

11.2 Heraclitus: Immanent Monistic Epistemology

In direct contrast, Heraclitus (late 6th–5th century BCE) offers an epistemology of immanence. Rather than seeking truth in a static, transcendent realm, Heraclitus finds understanding in the dynamic flux of becoming and the immanent rational order he calls logos.³

• Unity of Being and Becoming: Heraclitus views reality as a continuous process of change where opposites coexist and transform into one another. This flux is not a barrier to knowledge but the very condition that makes understanding possible.
• Logos as Direct Knowing: Knowledge arises through direct engagement with the cosmos. There is no need for intermediaries or transcendent abstractions; the logos is immanent in all processes, accessible through careful observation and rational reflection.

Heraclitus’ perspective anticipates traditions like Stoicism, which similarly regard reason (logos) as an intrinsic principle pervading the cosmos. Stoic epistemology holds that human cognition can align with this immanent rational structure, yielding reliable knowledge without invoking external forms or noumena.⁴

11.3 The Legacy of Transcendental Dualism: Plato to Kant

Parmenides’ transcendental orientation echoes through subsequent philosophies that maintain a subject-object dichotomy, positing intermediaries between the human mind and reality.

• Plato’s Forms: Plato transforms Parmenides’ static being into the realm of eternal, unchanging forms accessible only through intellectual apprehension, not sensory experience. This reaffirms dualism by placing real knowledge in a metaphysical realm distinct from the empirical world.⁵
• Cartesian Dualism and Kant’s Noumenon: Descartes splits res cogitans (thinking substance) from res extensa (extended substance), making knowledge contingent on bridging a fundamental gap.⁶ Kant refines this approach, proposing that we know only phenomena shaped by our cognitive faculties, while the noumenal realm (things-in-themselves) remains forever inaccessible.⁷

These transcendental frameworks reinforce the notion that genuine knowledge requires transcending the empirical domain, thereby introducing skepticism and persistent questions about whether we can truly know reality itself.

11.4 Modern Immanent Epistemologies: From Embodiment to Systems Integration

Contrary to the transcendental tradition, modern epistemologies drawing on Heraclitus’ legacy reclaim immanence. These include ecological psychology, embodied cognition, and systems theories of mind, all of which emphasize direct interaction and integration between organisms and their environments.

• Embodied Cognition: Rejecting Cartesian dualism, embodied cognition posits that perception, thought, and knowledge emerge from the organism’s dynamic coupling with its surroundings. Rather than representing an external world through abstract categories, the mind enacts a world through bodily engagement.⁸
• Ecological Psychology: James Gibson’s theory of affordances shows that agents perceive actionable possibilities directly, without requiring internal representations that stand apart from the environment.⁹ This integrated approach is inherently immanent: knowledge arises not from mediating entities but from direct relational structures.

These approaches resonate with Heraclitus and Stoicism by grounding knowledge in the lived, changing world. Rather than scaling a metaphysical ladder to reach truth, we immerse ourselves in ongoing processes that yield understanding.

11.5 The IAWR Hypothesis: Integrated Awareness and Immanent Cognition

The IAWR (Integrated Awareness) hypothesis builds on the principles of immanence in contemporary cognitive science. IAWR posits that consciousness and cognition emerge from the integrated activity of awareness, attention, and embodied interaction within a unified system.¹⁰

• Direct Interaction with Reality: IAWR rejects the idea of consciousness as a detached spectator. Instead, awareness is a property of systems that are continuously interacting with their environments. This conception resonates with Heraclitus’ logos: cognition unfolds within the very processes it seeks to understand.
• Unity of Subject and Object: By dismantling dualistic mental constructs, IAWR aligns with an immanent epistemology. The knower is not separate from the known; they form a single, integrated reality. This approach stands in stark contrast to Kantian noumena or Platonic forms, offering a more parsimonious, empirically testable framework.
• Neuroscientific and Ecological Support: Modern neuroscience and psychology provide evidence for IAWR’s claim that cognition cannot be cleanly isolated from the body or environment.¹¹ Neuroplasticity, sensorimotor integration, and adaptive resonance with ecological niches illustrate how knowledge is enacted, not represented at a distance.

By merging theoretical and empirical insights, IAWR exemplifies how immanent epistemology can inform a robust understanding of consciousness and cognition — one that sidesteps transcendental intermediaries in favor of direct, dynamic participation in a richly interconnected world.

11.6 Contrasting Immanent and Transcendental Epistemologies

Aspect Transcendental Epistemology Immanent Epistemology Subject-Object Relation Radical separation, mediated by forms or categories Unified field of interaction; no external mediation Source of Knowledge Abstract or metaphysical intermediaries (forms, noumena) Direct engagement with ongoing processes (logos) Philosophical Heritage Parmenides, Plato, Descartes, Kant Heraclitus, Stoicism, ecological cognition, IAWR Cognitive Models Internal representations, detached reasoning Embodied, enactive, integrated awareness Practical Implications Tendency toward skepticism, hierarchical authority Alignment with nature, ecological harmony, adaptability

From Parmenides’ transcendental dualism to the IAWR hypothesis, the evolution of epistemological thought reveals the enduring tension between separation and integration, mediation and directness. While transcendental frameworks uphold a gulf between the knower and the known, immanent approaches affirm that understanding arises within the very flow of existence.

The IAWR hypothesis, resonating with Heraclitus, Stoicism, and modern cognitive science, embodies the immanent paradigm. By treating consciousness and cognition as emergent properties of integrated systems, it offers a coherent, empirically grounded alternative to dualist epistemologies. This immanent stance not only simplifies theoretical constructs but also harmonizes with the principles of ecology, embodiment, and lived experience. As science continues to unravel the mysteries of mind and matter, the immanent model — rooted in direct interaction and holistic integration — may guide us toward a more unified understanding of knowledge and reality.

¹ Parmenides, On Nature, trans. M. Taran, Princeton University Press, 1965.
^2 Heidegger, M., Parmenides, trans. A. Schuwer, Indiana University Press, 1992.
^3 Heraclitus, Fragments, trans. T.M. Robinson, University of Toronto Press, 1987.
^4 Long, A.A. & Sedley, D.N., The Hellenistic Philosophers, Cambridge University Press, 1987.
^5 Plato, Republic, trans. P. Shorey, Harvard University Press, 1930.
^6 Descartes, R., Meditations on First Philosophy, trans. J. Cottingham, Cambridge University Press, 1996.
^7 Kant, I., Critique of Pure Reason, trans. N. Kemp Smith, Macmillan, 1929.
^8 Varela, F.J., Thompson, E. & Rosch, E., The Embodied Mind, MIT Press, 1991.
^9 Gibson, J.J., The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, Houghton Mifflin, 1979.
^10 Montes Navarro, S., ‘Consciousness: The IAWR Integrated Awareness Hypothesis’, 2024, https://sergiomontesnavarro.blogspot.com/2024/12/consciousness-im-aware-iawr-integrated.html [accessed date].
^11 Damasio, A., The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness, Harcourt Brace, 1999; Clark, A., Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again, MIT Press, 1997.

12. Modern Implications and Applications: Immanent Principles in Action

The distinction between immanent and transcendental theologies is not merely theoretical but has profound implications for addressing the challenges of modern life. By emphasizing interconnectedness, unity, and the sacredness of existence, immanent perspectives provide transformative pathways for ecological consciousness, mental health, and social justice. This chapter explores how these frameworks are revitalized today, offering solutions that resonate with contemporary needs.

12.1 Ecological Awareness: A Sacred Relationship with Nature

Immanent theological models like Stoicism, Taoism, and pantheism affirm the sacredness of nature, inspiring a worldview where humanity is an integral part of the cosmos rather than its master.

The Sacredness of Nature

• Stoicism: The universe is viewed as a living organism, governed by logos, with every part contributing to the whole (Marcus Aurelius, Meditations IV.40).
• Taoism: Living in harmony with the Tao fosters alignment with the fundamental unity of existence (Laozi, Tao Te Ching).
• Pantheism: Identifies God with the universe, encouraging reverence for nature as a divine manifestation (Spinoza 1677).

These perspectives align seamlessly with ecological science, which underscores interdependence and sustainability (Capra 1996).

Recognizing nature’s intrinsic value fosters an ethical imperative to protect and preserve ecosystems:

• Environmental Movements: Aldo Leopold’s Land Ethic urges humans to act as responsible members of the ecological community (Leopold 1949).
• Deep Ecology: Advocates biocentric equality, emphasizing the intrinsic worth of all living beings (Naess 1973).
• Indigenous Spiritualities: Indigenous traditions often treat the Earth as a living entity deserving respect, blending spiritual and ecological consciousness (Cajete 2000).

Modern practices such as permaculture and regenerative agriculture exemplify humanity’s role as stewards of nature, embodying immanent values through sustainable living (Mollison 1988).

12.2 Mindfulness and Mental Health: Inner Harmony through Immanence

Immanent traditions like Buddhism provide practical tools for cultivating mental health through mindfulness, emphasizing presence and alignment with life’s natural flow.

Healing through Awareness:

• Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR): Developed by Jon Kabat-Zinn, MBSR integrates mindfulness meditation to reduce stress and foster resilience (Kabat-Zinn 1990).
• Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT): Encourages psychological flexibility by aligning thoughts and actions with one’s values, rooted in mindfulness principles (Hayes et al. 2006).

By cultivating awareness and acceptance, mindfulness practices reduce anxiety, enhance emotional balance, and foster a sense of connection to the present moment.

12.3 Social Justice and Interconnectedness: Acting for the Common Good

Immanent frameworks emphasize the intrinsic value of all beings, fostering empathy, solidarity, and a commitment to collective well-being.

Social Movements Inspired by Immanence:

• Human Rights and Dignity: The inherent worth of every individual aligns with immanent principles of equality and interconnectedness (Nussbaum 1997).
• Ecofeminism: Links the exploitation of nature with the oppression of women, advocating for holistic and inclusive approaches to justice (King 1989).
• Community-Based Initiatives: Cooperative economics and grassroots activism decentralize power, promoting shared responsibility and collective flourishing (Schumacher 1973).

These movements embody the immanent belief in shared humanity and the interconnectedness of all life.

12.4 The Relevance of Immanence Today

Immanent theological perspectives offer transformative insights for contemporary challenges, emphasizing unity, sustainability, and psychological well-being.

• Ecological Consciousness: Reverence for nature as sacred inspires environmental responsibility and sustainable practices.
• Mental Health and Mindfulness: Practices rooted in immanence foster inner harmony, resilience, and connection to the present.
• Social Justice: Immanent frameworks support inclusivity, empathy, and collective action to address systemic inequalities.

By weaving together spirituality, science, and ethics, immanent perspectives provide a cohesive and actionable philosophy for navigating the complexities of modern life. In a fragmented world, they illuminate pathways to individual fulfillment and collective harmony, offering hope for a future grounded in interconnectedness and reverence for all existence.

• Berry, T. (1999). The Great Work: Our Way into the Future. Bell Tower.
• Cajete, G. (2000). Native Science: Natural Laws of Interdependence. Clear Light Publishers.
• Capra, F. (1996). The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems. Anchor Books.
• Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (2006). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: An Experiential Approach to Behavior Change. Guilford Press.
• Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full Catastrophe Living: Using the Wisdom of Your Body and Mind to Face Stress, Pain, and Illness. Delacorte Press.
• King, Y. (1989). ‘The Ecology of Feminism and the Feminism of Ecology’. In J. Plant (Ed.), Healing the Wounds: The Promise of Ecofeminism. New Society Publishers.
• Leopold, A. (1949). A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press.
• Mollison, B. (1988). Permaculture: A Designer’s Manual. Tagari Publications.
• Nussbaum, M. C. (1997). Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defense of Reform in Liberal Education. Harvard University Press.
• Sagan, C. (1980). Cosmos. Random House.
• Sagan, C. (1996). The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. Random House.
• Schumacher, E. F. (1973). Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered. Blond & Briggs.
• Spinoza, B. (1677). Ethics. Translated by E. Curley. Penguin Classics, 1996.

13. Immanence‘s Eminence

Below is a revised and expanded version of a proposed Chapter 13, “Immanence’s Eminence,” designed to strongly emphasize the advantages of immanent frameworks across multiple dimensions — religion, ecology, mental health, family life, politics, society, conceptions of change and time, science, and epistemology. This chapter integrates core ideas from previous discussions, highlighting immanence’s capacity to foster coherence, resilience, cooperation, and meaningful engagement with reality. Citations are provided using an Oxford referencing system and a bibliography at the end.

13. Immanence’s Eminence

Throughout this work, we have contrasted transcendental and immanent frameworks in theology, ecology, mental health, family life, politics, society, understandings of change and time, the practice of science, and the structures of knowledge. It has become increasingly clear that immanence — a view that perceives the sacred, the rational order, and the principles of existence as inherently woven into the fabric of reality — offers a compelling alternative to models that project meaning, morality, and explanation onto distant, external realms. Immanence places value in the here and now, in the very processes that animate our lives, fostering an approach that is at once integrative, adaptive, and life-affirming.

13.1 Theological Brilliance: Divinity Woven into Existence

Immanent theology dissolves the sharp divides that transcendental doctrines impose between the sacred and the profane. Instead of situating divinity in a distant heaven or an aloof Creator, immanent views understand the divine principle — whether conceived as logos, Brahman, Tao, or an emergent cosmic rationality — as intimately present within the cosmos itself (Hadot 1998; Deutsch 1969). This internalization of the divine lends spiritual practice an immediacy and accessibility, freeing believers from relying on external mediators or hierarchical institutions. Spirituality, in immanent theology, becomes a process of cultivating awareness, compassion, and wisdom grounded in direct participation in the unfolding drama of existence.

13.2 Ecological Harmony: Stewardship from Within

Modern ecological crises highlight the urgent need for a worldview that regards nature as integral to our own being rather than a resource to be exploited. Immanent models encourage recognizing humanity as part of a dynamic, interconnected whole, rather than masters or tenants overseen by a transcendent authority (Capra 1996; Naess 1973). By framing ecological responsibility as intrinsic — embedded in the very structures that sustain life — immanence inspires not obligation to an external rulemaker, but a sense of empathy, stewardship, and care. This ecological ethos aligns with principles of sustainability, restoration, and mutual flourishing, forging a moral bond that arises naturally rather than requiring imposed commandments.

13.3 Mental Health and Wholeness: Integration Instead of Alienation

Transcendental perspectives often engender alienation, guilt, or a feeling of inadequacy by holding up unattainable external ideals. In contrast, immanent frameworks promote psychological resilience by affirming that meaning and morality emerge from within the self and community, not dictated from beyond (Damasio 1999; Varela, Thompson & Rosch 1991). By celebrating life’s dualities — suffering and joy, challenge and growth — as integral parts of the human condition, immanence encourages acceptance, self-compassion, and emotional maturity. Mental well-being thrives in a worldview that situates healing and wisdom in lived experience and relational processes, not in distant absolutes.

13.4 Familial Flourishing: Mutuality and Presence

Families shaped by immanent values prioritize open communication, emotional attunement, and respect for each member’s individuality. Rather than enforcing rigid roles anchored in external authorities or transcendental commands, immanent perspectives treat the family as an evolving system where members adapt, cooperate, and support one another’s growth (Winnicott 1965; Montes Navarro 2024). The guiding principle is not blind obedience but mutual understanding, empathy, and co-creation of a nurturing environment. This relational ethos, grounded in the present moment and responsive to changing circumstances, reinforces bonds, resilience, and moral development from within.

13.5 Politics and Society: Participatory Governance and Egalitarianism

In political and social spheres, transcendental models often align with hierarchical structures and external authorities who claim exclusive access to divine or ultimate truths. By contrast, an immanent stance favors democratic participation, local autonomy, and pluralistic dialogue (Loy 1988; Pelikan 1971). With no absolute lawgivers perched above, citizens become co-creators of ethical norms and social policies. Societies influenced by immanence value transparency, inclusivity, and adaptability — qualities that foster peaceful coexistence, social justice, and responsiveness to emerging challenges. This participatory ethic discourages dogmatism, instead championing flexible solutions that arise organically from the interplay of diverse perspectives.

13.6 Change and Time: Embracing the Eternal Now

Where transcendental conceptions of time often postulate an external temporal dimension or fixed destiny, immanent views affirm that time is a measure of continuous change, emergent from processes rather than imposed from beyond (Rovelli 2018; Barbour 1999; Changism Document 2024). By rooting time in the present and understanding it as an aspect of ceaseless transformation, individuals and societies learn to adapt, innovate, and remain open to novelty. This orientation toward becoming rather than static being encourages resilience, creativity, and the capacity to navigate uncertainty. It aligns human aspirations with the dynamic rhythms of nature, rather than confining them to predetermined scripts.

13.7 Scientific Inquiry: Grounded in Empiricism and Integration

Immanent epistemology encourages science to remain faithful to empirical evidence and testable hypotheses, eschewing metaphysical baggage or transcendental constructs that lie beyond observation (Clark 1997; Gibson 1979). By recognizing that knowledge emerges from embodied interactions and integrated systems, science becomes a humble yet potent endeavor: it observes, models, and refines understanding in direct engagement with the world. Such an approach avoids the pitfalls of theoretical extravagances that lack empirical grounding and fosters a spirit of inquiry that values openness, revision, and continuous learning. Immanence thus harmonizes with the scientific method’s preference for parsimony, coherence, and evidence-based reasoning.

13.8 Epistemic Clarity: Directness and Participation

From Parmenides to the IAWR hypothesis, we have traced how transcendental epistemologies struggle with dualisms that separate knower from known, subject from object. Immanence resolves these tensions by positing that cognition emerges from the integrated activity of embodied agents within their environments (Varela et al. 1991; Montes Navarro 2024). Knowledge arises not from bridging metaphysical chasms but from participating in relational webs of meaning. This yields epistemic frameworks that are both philosophically elegant and practically meaningful: understanding grows from engagement with reality, enhancing both intellectual clarity and existential relevance.

13.9 Immanence’s All-Encompassing Advantages

Immanence stands out not just in one sphere but across the full spectrum of human concerns. It reimagines religion as accessible spirituality, integrates ecological stewardship into our very sense of self, supports mental health and thriving families, encourages democratic and adaptive political structures, enables coherent understandings of time and change, and refines scientific and epistemological pursuits with grounded simplicity. Rather than appealing to external authorities or mysterious dimensions, immanence finds order, meaning, and value emerging from the intricate networks and processes that define our shared world.

This holistic compatibility is more than theoretical elegance — it resonates with lived experience, cultural pluralism, and the urgent challenges of a rapidly changing planet. In an era beset by environmental crises, socio-political tensions, mental health struggles, and epistemic confusion, the eminence of immanence shines as a unifying and restorative paradigm.

The eminence of immanence lies in its capacity to unify what transcendental models keep apart. By dissolving needless divisions — between sacred and profane, mind and body, humanity and nature, knower and known — immanence cultivates a worldview that is both principled and pragmatic, both visionary and down-to-earth. It encourages us to find spirituality in the ordinary, moral guidance in interdependence, purpose in transformation, and knowledge in direct participation with the world’s ongoing processes.

As we stand at the crossroads of ecological, social, and philosophical challenges, embracing immanence means choosing clarity over confusion, integration over fragmentation, and engagement over detachment. In doing so, we affirm that the tapestry of existence need not be anchored to distant abstractions or external commands. Instead, it unfolds through the rational, relational, and evolving patterns of reality itself — always immanent, always present, and always ready to guide us toward more harmonious and fulfilling ways of living.

• Aristotle, Physics, trans. R.P. Hardie and R.K. Gaye, in The Complete Works of Aristotle, ed. J. Barnes, Princeton University Press, 1984.
• Barbour, J., The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics, Oxford University Press, 1999.
• Bohm, D., Wholeness and the Implicate Order, Routledge, 1980.
• Capra, F., The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems, Anchor Books, 1996.
• Changism Document, 2024, ‘Changism: Change and Time in Presentist Thought’, [accessed date].
• Clark, A., Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again, MIT Press, 1997.
• Damasio, A., The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness, Harcourt Brace, 1999.
• Deutsch, E., Advaita Vedānta: A Philosophical Reconstruction, University of Hawaii Press, 1969.
• Gibson, J.J., The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, Houghton Mifflin, 1979.
• Hadot, P., The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, trans. M. Chase, Harvard University Press, 1998.
• Loy, D., Nonduality: A Study in Comparative Philosophy, Yale University Press, 1988.
• Montes Navarro, S., ‘Consciousness: The IAWR Integrated Awareness Hypothesis’, 2024, https://sergiomontesnavarro.blogspot.com/2024/12/consciousness-im-aware-iawr-integrated.html [accessed date].
• Naess, A., ‘The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement: A Summary’, Inquiry, 16(1), 1973, pp.95–100.
• Pelikan, J., The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Volume 1, University of Chicago Press, 1971.
• Rovelli, C., The Order of Time, Penguin Books, 2018.
• Varela, F.J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E., The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience, MIT Press, 1991.
• Winnicott, D.W., The Maturational Processes and the Facilitating Environment, International Universities Press, 1965.

Apendix A. From Inmanent to Transcendental Freedom

1. The Paradigm Shift in Freedom

Throughout Western intellectual history, the concept of freedom has undergone profound transformations. The transition from Stoic immanent freedom to Judeo-Christian transcendental freedom marks a pivotal moment in this evolution, reflecting broader shifts in metaphysical, ethical, and epistemological thought. These two frameworks represent fundamentally different visions of human agency, responsibility, and the relationship between individuals and the cosmos.

Stoicism, rooted in ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, conceives of freedom as immanent and relational. For the Stoics, the cosmos is a unified, self-organizing whole governed by logos — a rational principle that permeates all existence (Diogenes Laërtius VII.88–89). Freedom is not about independence from causality but about aligning one’s rational will with the rational order of the cosmos. It is a participatory phenomenon, emphasizing the integration of individuals within a self-determined and coherent universe (Annas 1993).

In contrast, the rise of the Judeo-Christian tradition introduced a transcendental notion of freedom, reframing it as an autonomous and uncaused capacity of the human soul (Augustine, On Free Choice of the Will). This shift was motivated by theological concerns, particularly the need to justify divine judgment and moral accountability (Pelikan 1971). Freedom became synonymous with libertarian free will — a faculty to choose independently of antecedent causes, granted by a transcendent Creator. This redefinition detached human agency from the deterministic natural order, emphasizing individual autonomy and moral responsibility within a divinely orchestrated framework.

The Stoic and Judeo-Christian conceptions of freedom diverge sharply in their metaphysical, ethical, and epistemological foundations:

Stoic Freedom:

• Relational: Freedom is rooted in the interconnectedness of individuals and the cosmos.
• Grounded in Logos: The cosmos is rational, self-determined, and uncreated; human rationality reflects this universal order.
• Participatory: Freedom emerges through dynamic alignment of individual rational agents with the rational structure of the whole.

Judeo-Christian Freedom:

• Autonomous: Freedom is conceived as an independent, uncaused capacity to make choices.
• Transcendent: Human freedom depends on a Creator external to the cosmos who grants this capacity.
• Isolated: Freedom is detached from the deterministic natural order, emphasizing the soul’s independence from causality.

This appendix aims to compare these two paradigms of freedom, exploring their implications for ethics, ontology, and epistemology. By juxtaposing Stoic immanent freedom with Judeo-Christian transcendental freedom, we will:

• Ethically: Examine how each framework defines the relationship between human agency, virtue, and responsibility.
• Ontologically: Analyze how their metaphysical foundations — priority monism versus divine transcendence — shape their conceptions of freedom.
• Epistemologically: Investigate how knowledge and truth are understood, whether through direct participation in logos or divine revelation.

Ultimately, this comparison seeks to illuminate the philosophical depth and modern relevance of Stoic freedom, revealing it as a coherent and relational framework that aligns with contemporary scientific and philosophical insights. Understanding these contrasting visions of freedom provides a deeper appreciation of their enduring influence on Western thought.

2. Stoic Freedom: Immanence and Rational Participation

The Stoic conception of freedom is deeply rooted in the metaphysical structure of the cosmos, understood as a rational and self-organizing whole governed by logos (Long & Sedley 1987). Freedom, for the Stoics, is not an isolated or autonomous capacity but a relational and participatory phenomenon. It arises through the alignment of individual rational agents with the universal rationality of the cosmos, integrating ethical living with cosmic harmony.

Priority Monism

• Unified Cosmos: The Stoic cosmos is a unified, eternal, and uncreated whole, governed by logos, the rational principle that imbues all existence with order and coherence (Diogenes Laërtius VII.137).
• Ontological Priority: This framework of priority monism holds that the whole is ontologically prior to its parts. Individual beings, including humans, are rational fragments of the cosmos, deriving their nature and capacities from participation in the universal rational order (Reydams-Schils 2005).
• Derivative Rationality: Human rationality is not a self-contained property but a reflection of the rationality of the cosmos. Freedom is not an independent or emergent phenomenon but a derivative quality grounded in one’s integration with the whole.

Rationality as Top-Down

• Cosmic Rationality: The rationality of the cosmos defines the coherence, purpose, and capacities of its parts. It is a top-down structure in which the rational order of the whole shapes and governs the actions of its individual components (Sambursky 1959).
• Individual Alignment: Individual freedom reflects this rational structure, emerging as individuals harmonize their thoughts, judgments, and actions with the overarching logos. Freedom, in this sense, is not a break from causality but an expression of the cosmos’s self-determined and coherent rationality (Annas 1993).

Alignment with Logos

• Exercise of Prohairesis: Stoic freedom arises from aligning the individual will with the rational order of the cosmos. This alignment is achieved through the exercise of prohairesis — the faculty of rational choice that allows individuals to evaluate impressions (phantasiai), assent to true judgments, and reject false ones (Epictetus, Discourses II.23).
• Acting in Accordance with Nature: Freedom is not the ability to act independently of causality but the capacity to act in accordance with nature, recognizing one’s role within the cosmic system and embracing it willingly (Marcus Aurelius, Meditations V.10).

Dynamic Process

• Continuous Engagement: Stoic freedom is a dynamic and participatory phenomenon. It is enacted through the continuous process of engaging with impressions, applying reason to evaluate their truth or falsehood, and choosing virtuous actions (Annas 1992).
• Active Participation: This participatory freedom reflects the self-determined actualization of the individual’s role within the cosmic order. By exercising reason, individuals become active participants in the universal rationality of logos, expressing their freedom through ethical engagement.

Virtue as Freedom in Action

• Inseparability of Freedom and Virtue: For the Stoics, freedom is inseparable from virtue. Virtue — including wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance — is the practical expression of freedom as alignment with logos (Annas 1993).
• Ethical Living: Ethical living is both the means and the goal of Stoic freedom, as virtuous actions reflect one’s participation in the rational harmony of the cosmos. To act virtuously is to live freely, fully embodying one’s nature as a rational agent (Epictetus, Discourses I.4).

Resilience and Tranquility

• Inner Peace through Understanding: Recognizing the relational nature of freedom fosters inner peace and acceptance of the deterministic order of the cosmos (Hadot 1998). By understanding that external events are beyond their control, individuals focus on aligning their internal judgments and actions with logos.
• Cultivation of Tranquility: This perspective cultivates resilience against life’s adversities and promotes tranquility, as individuals find meaning and coherence in their participation in the greater rational order (Marcus Aurelius, Meditations IV.3).

In the Stoic framework, freedom is not an escape from causality but an embrace of it. It is the capacity to live in harmony with the rational order of the cosmos, expressing one’s true nature through reason, virtue, and active participation. This conception of freedom, grounded in ontological coherence and ethical alignment, challenges modern notions of autonomy by emphasizing the interconnectedness of individuals and the universal whole.

• Annas, J. (1992). Hellenistic Philosophy of Mind. University of California Press.
• Annas, J. (1993). The Morality of Happiness. Oxford University Press.
• Augustine. (1993). On Free Choice of the Will. Translated by T. Williams. Hackett Publishing.
• Diogenes Laërtius. (1925). Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Translated by R. D. Hicks. Loeb Classical Library.
• Epictetus. (1995). The Discourses. Translated by R. Hard. Everyman’s Library.
• Hadot, P. (1998). The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. Translated by M. Chase. Harvard University Press.
• Long, A. A., & Sedley, D. N. (1987). The Hellenistic Philosophers. Cambridge University Press.
• Marcus Aurelius. (2006). Meditations. Translated by M. Hammond. Penguin Classics.
• Pelikan, J. (1971). The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Volume 1. University of Chicago Press.
• Reydams-Schils, G. (2005). The Roman Stoics: Self, Responsibility, and Affection. University of Chicago Press.
• Sambursky, S. (1959). Physics of the Stoics. Routledge & Kegan Paul.

3. Judeo-Christian Freedom: Transcendence and Autonomous Will

The Judeo-Christian conception of freedom represents a significant departure from the Stoic framework, introducing notions of divine transcendence and libertarian free will. This paradigm emphasizes the autonomy of the human soul, endowed with the capacity for uncaused choice by a Creator who exists outside the cosmos (Pelikan 1971; Augustine, On Free Choice of the Will). This shift redefines freedom, morality, and knowledge within a dualistic framework that separates individuals from the natural world.

In the Judeo-Christian tradition, freedom is framed as a gift bestowed by a transcendent God who exists outside and above creation (Genesis 1:1). This stands in stark contrast to the Stoic cosmos, which is self-determined and immanent (Long & Sedley 1987).

• Contingent Cosmos: The cosmos is not eternal or self-organizing but contingent upon divine will. Its order reflects the intentions of a Creator who is the ultimate source of moral and existential authority (Pelikan 1971).
• Human Dependency: Human beings are positioned as recipients of freedom, dependent on divine grace. Freedom is granted by God and is not an inherent aspect of human nature as it is in Stoicism.

Freedom in the Judeo-Christian model is defined as libertarian free will — the uncaused capacity to make choices independently of antecedent causes or deterministic constraints (Augustine, On Free Choice of the Will).

• Autonomy of the Soul: This autonomy centers on the soul, which transcends the physical, deterministic natural order. Unlike the Stoic view, where freedom arises within the rational structure of the cosmos, Judeo-Christian freedom emphasizes the soul’s ability to act independently of natural laws or causal sequences (Taylor 1989).
• Independence from Nature: The soul is considered immaterial and immortal, capable of making choices that are not determined by physical causality. This positions human beings as fundamentally separate from the natural world.

The concept of libertarian free will serves a theological purpose: it provides the foundation for moral accountability and divine judgment.

• Uncaused Agents: Because individuals are perceived as uncaused agents, they are held entirely responsible for their choices (Augustine, On Free Choice of the Will III.3).
• Divine Judgment: This framework justifies eternal rewards and punishments, such as heaven and hell, by framing freedom as the capacity to choose obedience or disobedience to divine commandments (Pelikan 1971).
• Ethical Focus: Ethical behavior is no longer a matter of aligning with a rational cosmic order but of adhering to divine authority. Moral responsibility is individualized and based on personal choices relative to God’s will.

The dualism inherent in this framework divides the soul and body, emphasizing the soul’s spiritual autonomy over the body’s material determinism.

• Mind-Body Dualism: This separation undermines the holistic unity of individuals and the cosmos found in Stoic thought (Descartes 1641).
• Hierarchy of Being: Freedom is fragmented, with the body relegated to a passive vessel and the soul elevated as the true agent of free will. This division distances human beings from the natural world, creating a hierarchy where spiritual autonomy is prioritized over physical integration (Taylor 1989).

In the Judeo-Christian framework, knowledge is mediated through religious authorities rather than direct engagement with an inherent rational order like logos.

• Divine Revelation: Truth is presented as originating from God and is often accessible only through sacred texts, prophecy, or divine inspiration (Pelikan 1971).
• External Authority: This reliance on revelation shifts the source of knowledge from an internal rational capacity to an external, transcendent authority, contrasting sharply with the Stoic emphasis on rational participation in the cosmos (Annas 1992).

The moral framework of the Judeo-Christian tradition centers on divine commandments.

• Obedience to Divine Law: Ethical responsibility is individualized, as each person is judged based on their choices relative to God’s will (Augustine, On Free Choice of the Will II.19).
• Salvation and Damnation: The relational and participatory ethics of Stoicism, where virtue contributes to personal and universal harmony, is replaced by a system where individual salvation or damnation is paramount (Pelikan 1971).
• External Moral Authority: Ethical action is detached from cosmic integration, focusing instead on obedience to an external moral authority.

The Judeo-Christian concept of freedom reshapes human agency as autonomous and unbound by causality, emphasizing transcendence and divine authority. While this framework underpins a theology of moral responsibility and judgment, it also introduces dualisms that fragment the unity of body, soul, and cosmos. In doing so, it departs from the Stoic vision of freedom as rational participation in an immanent, self-determined universe, creating a radically different philosophical and ethical paradigm.

4. Key Contrasts Between Stoic and Judeo-Christian Freedom

The Stoic and Judeo-Christian frameworks present fundamentally divergent understandings of freedom, rooted in their differing metaphysical, ethical, and epistemological assumptions. While the Stoics ground freedom in immanence, rational participation, and cosmic determinism, the Judeo-Christian tradition emphasizes transcendence, autonomous will, and obedience to divine authority. These differences shape their respective approaches to human agency, moral responsibility, and the relationship between individuals and the cosmos.

Stoic Immanence: For the Stoics, freedom emerges from the rational structure of the cosmos, which is eternal, uncreated, and self-determined (Diogenes Laërtius VII.137). The cosmos operates as a unified, living organism governed by logos, the rational principle that orders all existence.

• Human Rationality: Human rationality is a localized expression of this universal rationality. Individuals participate in the cosmos’s coherence, and their freedom derives from aligning their will with the logos (Epictetus, Discourses II.8).
• Interconnectedness: This relational framework emphasizes interconnectedness and unity between individuals and the cosmos (Reydams-Schils 2005).

Christian Transcendence: In the Judeo-Christian tradition, freedom is conceived as a gift from a transcendent Creator who exists outside and above the cosmos (Genesis 1:1).

• Separation from Nature: The natural world is not self-determined but contingent on divine will. Human beings are seen as separate from the natural order, endowed with an autonomous soul that transcends physical determinism (Augustine, City of God XII.9).
• Locus of Free Will: This separation emphasizes the individual’s independence from causality and positions the soul as the locus of free will.

While Stoic freedom is rooted in the immanent rationality of the cosmos, Judeo-Christian freedom relies on the transcendent authority of a Creator. The focus shifts from integration within the natural order to separation and autonomy from it.

The Stoics embrace a deterministic cosmos where every event unfolds according to a rational sequence of causes governed by logos (Sambursky 1959).

• Freedom within Determinism: This determinism does not negate freedom but provides its framework. Freedom is the ability to act rationally and virtuously within this causal structure (Annas 1993).
• Harmony with Nature: True freedom lies in understanding and accepting one’s place within the deterministic flow of the universe, aligning oneself with the rational order (Marcus Aurelius, Meditations V.10).

The Judeo-Christian concept of libertarian free will rejects determinism, positing that human beings possess an autonomous will unbound by causality (Pelikan 1971).

• Uncaused Choices: This indeterminism allows for choices that are not determined by prior causes, positioning the soul as an independent agent capable of transcending the constraints of nature (Augustine, On Free Choice of the Will III.3).
• Independent Agency: Freedom emphasizes the independence of individual agency from the natural or cosmic order.

Stoic freedom operates within a deterministic framework that emphasizes coherence and participation, while Judeo-Christian freedom asserts an indeterministic autonomy that overrides causal necessity.

For the Stoics, freedom is inseparable from virtue and ethical living.

• Living in Accordance with Logos: To be free is to live in accordance with logos, aligning one’s thoughts, actions, and judgments with the rational order of the cosmos (Epictetus, Discourses I.4).
• Virtue as Goal: Virtue — including wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance — is both the means and the goal of freedom, reflecting one’s integration into the harmonious whole (Annas 1993).
• Participatory Ethics: Ethical behavior is participatory and relational, contributing to personal and cosmic harmony.

In the Judeo-Christian framework, freedom is the ability to choose between good and evil, emphasizing moral accountability before God.

• Obedience to Divine Commands: Ethical behavior centers on obedience to divine commands, as articulated through revelation and sacred texts (Exodus 20:1–17).
• Individual Salvation: Moral responsibility is individualized, with each person judged based on their autonomous choices. The emphasis on obedience shifts the focus from cosmic integration to personal salvation and accountability to a transcendent authority (Pelikan 1971).

Stoic ethics emphasizes freedom as participation in the rational order of the cosmos, fostering harmony and virtue. In contrast, Christian ethics focuses on the individual’s ability to choose good or evil, prioritizing obedience to divine authority and moral accountability.

Summary of Differences:

• Immanence vs. Transcendence: Stoic freedom is embedded within the cosmos, reflecting its rational coherence. Judeo-Christian freedom is rooted in the transcendent autonomy of the soul, bestowed by a Creator.
• Determinism vs. Indeterminism: Stoic freedom operates within a deterministic universe, emphasizing rational participation. Judeo-Christian freedom asserts independence from causality, highlighting uncaused choice.
• Participation vs. Obedience: Stoic freedom is realized through ethical participation in the cosmic order. Judeo-Christian freedom is defined by the capacity for moral choice and obedience to divine law.

• Annas, J. (1992). Hellenistic Philosophy of Mind. University of California Press.
• Annas, J. (1993). The Morality of Happiness. Oxford University Press.
• Augustine. (1993). On Free Choice of the Will. Translated by T. Williams. Hackett Publishing.
• Augustine. (1998). City of God. Translated by H. Bettenson. Penguin Classics.
• Descartes, R. (1641). Meditations on First Philosophy. Translated by J. Cottingham. Cambridge University Press, 1996.
• Diogenes Laërtius. (1925). Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Translated by R. D. Hicks. Loeb Classical Library.
• Epictetus. (1995). The Discourses. Translated by R. Hard. Everyman’s Library.
• Exodus 20:1–17. The Holy Bible, New International Version.
• Genesis 1:1. The Holy Bible, New International Version.
• Long, A. A., & Sedley, D. N. (1987). The Hellenistic Philosophers. Cambridge University Press.
• Marcus Aurelius. (2006). Meditations. Translated by M. Hammond. Penguin Classics.
• Pelikan, J. (1971). The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Volume 1. University of Chicago Press.
• Reydams-Schils, G. (2005). The Roman Stoics: Self, Responsibility, and Affection. University of Chicago Press.
• Sambursky, S. (1959). Physics of the Stoics. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. Harvard University Press.

Appendix B. Stoic Freedom: Integration into the Divine Rational Order

1. Embracing the Divine Rationality

In Stoicism, freedom fundamentally involves integrating one’s judgments and choices into logos, the rational principle that governs the cosmos (Long & Sedley 1987). This integration is not merely intellectual but constitutes a profound ethical and existential transformation, leading to harmony with the universal rational order. Living in accordance with logos means embracing the divine rationality permeating all things (Marcus Aurelius, Meditations V.27). This alignment fosters a sense of unity with the cosmos, transcending the illusion of separateness. By understanding that pain, loss, and struggle are parts of the rational order, individuals achieve resilience and inner peace (Epictetus, Enchiridion VIII). Integrating these experiences into one’s comprehension of logos allows for acceptance and tranquility (Annas 1993).

2. Freedom Through Integration and Unity

The Stoic sage recognizes that freedom lies not in escaping the cosmic order but in consciously participating in it (Epictetus, Discourses I.17). This freedom liberates individuals from irrational passions (pathē) and aligns the self with the eternal, rational flow of the universe (Long 2002). Through rational assent (sunkatathesis), one harmonizes judgments with logos, achieving inner freedom (Frede 1999).

Stoic freedom resonates with certain mystical traditions emphasizing oneness with the divine. Advaita Vedānta, a Hindu philosophical tradition, teaches non-dualism by asserting that the individual self (ātman) and ultimate reality (Brahman) are one (Deutsch 1969). This realization dissolves the illusion of separateness. Similarly, the Eleusinian Mysteries of ancient Greece offered initiates profound experiences of unity with the divine, symbolizing life’s cyclical nature (Mylonas 1961). Participants sought a deeper understanding of their place within the cosmic order. These traditions often involve a revelation or awakening where individuals remember their inherent unity with the divine — a realization that struggles, joys, and moments of alienation are threads in a greater tapestry.

Stoic philosophy teaches that everything, including apparent misfortunes, is an expression of logos — the divine rationality holding all things together (Marcus Aurelius, Meditations IV.23). By acknowledging one’s role in the eternal cycle of life and cosmic order, individuals find meaning in all experiences, integrating them into a coherent whole (Reydams-Schils 2005).

3. Transcendental Freedom and the Emphasis on Separation

In contrast, the Judeo-Christian tradition introduces a different notion of freedom, grounded in transcendence and dualism (Pelikan 1971). Here, freedom is framed as a choice between obedience to God or rejection of divine will. The relationship between individuals and the divine is hierarchical, mediated by external laws or commandments (Exodus 20:1–17). Even in obedience, individuals do not merge with the divine but remain servants; rejection results in alienation — eternal separation or damnation (Matthew 25:46).

This transcendental tradition emphasizes a Creator-God wholly separate from creation, introducing a permanent gulf between humanity and the divine. Freedom becomes the capacity to navigate this distance (Augustine, City of God XII.1). Unlike Stoic freedom, which seeks integration, transcendental freedom often reinforces the divide between the individual and the divine. It allows for choice but not necessarily unity with the divine (Pelikan 1971). Focusing on divine commandments externalizes morality and freedom, basing them on adherence to divine laws rather than internal rational alignment (Romans 13:1–2). This framework may reduce the possibility of integrating personal struggles into a unified vision of connection with the divine, contrasting sharply with the Stoic embrace of all experiences as expressions of logos (Annas 1993).

4. Ethical and Spiritual Implications

Stoic freedom invites individuals to perceive themselves as integral parts of a coherent, divine whole, where even challenges contribute to the order of logos (Epictetus, Discourses I.6). Aligning with the divine order helps individuals find meaning in pain and transcend the ego’s desire for control (Hadot 1998). This path to wholeness fosters an ethically and spiritually fulfilling life, emphasizing unity and integration.

In contrast, transcendental freedom often emphasizes separation — through concepts like sin or the inherent distance between humanity and God (Isaiah 59:2). It can feel fragmented, relying on external rules and the tension between obedience and disobedience, potentially leading to existential uncertainty or guilt (Pelikan 1971). While Stoic freedom promotes internal harmony and self-realization through alignment with the rational cosmos, transcendental freedom may result in a sense of disconnection from the divine, as the relationship is mediated by adherence to external commandments rather than internal rationality.

Stoic freedom represents profound integration into the divine rational order, echoing mystical traditions that emphasize unity and wholeness. It liberates individuals from irrational passions and aligns them with the eternal principles of logos (Long 2002). This stands in stark contrast to the transcendental tradition’s conception of freedom, which reinforces separation and frames the divine as an external authority to obey or reject. In this light, Stoicism offers a model of freedom that is both epistemologically coherent and ethically and spiritually fulfilling — a reminder that we are inherently part of the divine, even when it feels most distant. By embracing this freedom, we align with the golden thread of logos, weaving pain, struggle, and joy into a harmonious whole.

Annas, J. (1993). The Morality of Happiness. Oxford University Press.

Augustine. (1998). City of God. Translated by H. Bettenson. Penguin Classics.

Deutsch, E. (1969). Advaita Vedānta: A Philosophical Reconstruction. University of Hawaii Press.

Epictetus. (1995). The Discourses. Translated by R. Hard. Everyman’s Library.

Epictetus. (2008). The Handbook (Enchiridion). Translated by N. P. White. Hackett Publishing.

Frede, M. (1999). ‘Stoic Epistemology’, in The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics, ed. B. Inwood, Cambridge University Press, pp. 295–322.

Hadot, P. (1998). The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. Translated by M. Chase. Harvard University Press.

Long, A. A. (2002). Epictetus: A Stoic and Socratic Guide to Life. Oxford University Press.

Long, A. A., & Sedley, D. N. (1987). The Hellenistic Philosophers. Cambridge University Press.

Marcus Aurelius. (2006). Meditations. Translated by M. Hammond. Penguin Classics.

Mylonas, G. E. (1961). Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries. Princeton University Press.

Pelikan, J. (1971). The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Volume 1. University of Chicago Press.

Reydams-Schils, G. (2005). The Roman Stoics: Self, Responsibility, and Affection. University of Chicago Press.

Scripture references are from The Holy Bible, New International Version.

Appendix C: Carl Sagan and the Call for an Immanent Spirituality

Carl Sagan, the celebrated astrophysicist, cosmologist, and science communicator, consistently expressed a profound reverence for the universe. His works, particularly Cosmos (1980) and Pale Blue Dot (1994), reveal a vision that resonates deeply with the principles of immanent theology. Sagan’s arguments for an immanent understanding of the divine — while avoiding overt religious language — emphasize unity, interconnectedness, and the self-organizing nature of existence. This appendix explores Sagan’s implicit call for an immanent spirituality, examines his main arguments, addresses potential critiques, and evaluates the merits of his perspective in contemporary contexts.

Sagan described the cosmos as a “profoundly beautiful” and awe-inspiring entity, urging humanity to find meaning and transcendence within the natural order itself. He saw no need for a divine Creator separate from the universe; instead, he believed that the universe itself embodies qualities worthy of reverence.

“The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself.”
— Cosmos

This statement encapsulates Sagan’s immanent view: humans are not apart from the universe but intrinsic participants in its unfolding story. This perspective aligns with the Stoic concept of logos, the Taoist understanding of the Tao, and the Advaita Vedānta notion of Brahman — all of which view the divine as inherent within the cosmos and accessible through direct experience and understanding.

Emphasizing the interconnected nature of all life and matter — a hallmark of immanent theology — Sagan viewed humanity as part of a vast cosmic web, bound by the same physical and biological laws that govern the universe.

“The surface of the Earth is the shore of the cosmic ocean. On this shore, we’ve learned most of what we know. Recently, we’ve waded a little way out, maybe ankle-deep, and the water seems inviting.”
— Cosmos

This metaphor suggests that exploration and understanding of the cosmos — not external worship — are pathways to meaning and spiritual fulfillment. It reflects the immanent theological principle that the divine or ultimate reality is intimately woven into the fabric of the universe, inviting us to engage with it directly.

Sagan was critical of transcendental theological models that posited a deity separate from the universe. He viewed such beliefs as unnecessary and often detrimental to scientific inquiry and ethical progress.

“If by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying… it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.”
— Conversations with Carl Sagan

By rejecting supernaturalism, Sagan aligns with immanent perspectives where reverence is directed toward the cosmos itself, not an external deity. His emphasis on understanding and appreciating the universe as it is parallels the immanent focus on direct experience and internal alignment with the rational order of existence.

Sagan’s Main Arguments for an Immanent Spirituality

Sagan argued that the universe’s vastness and complexity provide a sufficient source of awe, inspiration, and ethical grounding. By understanding our place in the cosmos, we can develop a profound sense of belonging and purpose.

The iconic Pale Blue Dot photograph, showing Earth as a tiny speck in the vastness of space, was used by Sagan to inspire humility and a recognition of our shared humanity.

“Look again at that dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us… To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known.”
— Pale Blue Dot

This perspective encourages an immanent spirituality that finds meaning within the interconnectedness of all things, emphasizing that our significance arises from our participation in the cosmos.

Sagan believed that curiosity and the pursuit of knowledge are inherently spiritual activities. He called for a reverence for the scientific process as a means of uncovering the underlying principles of the universe.

“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.”
— The Demon-Haunted World

This view reflects the immanent theological emphasis on direct engagement with reality as a path to understanding the divine. By advocating for evidence-based inquiry and openness to revision, Sagan promotes a spirituality grounded in exploration and continual growth.

Recognizing the interconnectedness of all life fosters ethical responsibility in Sagan’s view. Understanding our shared origins and common destiny in the cosmos can inspire compassion, ecological stewardship, and efforts to prevent conflict.

“A new consciousness is developing which sees the Earth as a single organism and recognizes that an organism at war with itself is doomed. We are one planet.”
— Cosmos

This ethical universalism aligns with immanent theological principles that emphasize the unity of existence and the moral imperative to act in ways that support the well-being of the whole.

Some critics argue that Sagan’s cosmic vision lacks the personal and emotional dimensions of traditional religions, such as a personal relationship with a deity or the comfort provided by religious rituals and communities. They suggest that his perspective might not fulfill the human desire for relational intimacy and emotional support.

However, Sagan’s emphasis on interconnectedness offers a relational depth that transcends anthropocentric limitations. By viewing humanity as an integral part of the cosmos, he provides a sense of belonging and purpose that can satisfy the yearning for connection. The awe and wonder inspired by the cosmos can evoke profound emotional responses, fostering a spirituality that is both intellectually and emotionally fulfilling.

Moreover, his approach does not preclude the formation of communities or shared rituals; instead, it invites the creation of new forms of communal engagement centered around the exploration and appreciation of the universe. Planetariums, science festivals, and environmental movements often serve as modern congregations where people gather to celebrate and learn about the cosmos, fostering a sense of community and shared purpose.

Sagan’s vision aligns seamlessly with contemporary scientific discoveries in cosmology, ecology, and systems theory, which reveal the universe as a self-organizing, interconnected system. His emphasis on immanence reflects the Stoic understanding of logos and modern insights into emergent order in natural systems.

By integrating scientific knowledge with a sense of reverence, Sagan bridges the gap between empirical understanding and spiritual experience. This approach validates the emotional and ethical significance of scientific exploration, encouraging a worldview that harmonizes reason and wonder.

By emphasizing our shared origins in “star-stuff” and the fragility of Earth, Sagan’s immanent approach fosters a sense of global responsibility. His call for ecological consciousness and mutual respect transcends cultural and religious boundaries, encouraging collaborative efforts to address global challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and socio-economic inequality.

Recognizing that all humans share the same cosmic heritage can inspire solidarity and compassion, reducing divisions based on nationality, race, or creed. This ethical universalism is vital in an interconnected world where collective action is necessary to solve complex problems.

Sagan’s ability to convey the majesty of the cosmos inspires a sense of awe akin to religious reverence. This emotional resonance makes his perspective accessible and transformative, offering a spiritual alternative grounded in reality.

The Pale Blue Dot photograph, for example, catalyzed public awareness of Earth’s fragility, inspiring environmental movements and initiatives like Earth Day and international climate agreements. Sagan’s narratives encourage individuals to engage with the universe emotionally and intellectually, fostering a lifelong commitment to learning and exploration.

Sagan’s emphasis on planetary stewardship aligns with global sustainability goals, urging humanity to act as caretakers of Earth. His vision has inspired environmental activism, emphasizing the importance of preserving our planet for future generations.

Movements such as the Paris Climate Agreement reflect the global consciousness Sagan advocated, recognizing that protecting our shared home requires international cooperation and a sense of collective responsibility.

The call to find meaning within the cosmos echoes in contemporary mindfulness practices, which encourage presence, interconnectedness, and appreciation of the present moment. By fostering awareness of our place in the universe, individuals can cultivate inner peace and a deeper connection to the world around them.

Mindfulness-based stress reduction programs and the increasing popularity of meditation reflect a societal shift toward practices that resonate with immanent spirituality, emphasizing internal alignment and holistic well-being.

Sagan advocated for responsible exploration of space, emphasizing that our ventures into the cosmos should be conducted with humility and respect for potential extraterrestrial life and ecosystems. This perspective reflects an immanent ethic that values all forms of existence.

Discussions around planetary protection policies and the ethical implications of colonizing other planets are informed by the principles Sagan championed, highlighting the need for ethical frameworks that extend beyond Earth.

In an era defined by environmental degradation and social fragmentation, Carl Sagan’s implicit call for an immanent spirituality offers both a grounding force and a call to action. By rooting meaning and reverence in the cosmos itself, he provides a framework for spirituality compatible with scientific inquiry and ethical progress.

Sagan’s vision of humanity as conscious participants in a self-organizing, interconnected universe aligns with the principles of immanent theology found in Stoicism, Taoism, and other traditions. His insistence that “we are a way for the universe to know itself” reflects the immanent theology that views human consciousness as an integral expression of universal rationality.

By embracing our role within the cosmos and finding transcendence within it, we can foster a more compassionate, unified, and sustainable future. Sagan’s work challenges us to develop a “new consciousness” grounded in the unity of life, inspiring practical actions such as environmental stewardship, cross-cultural collaboration, and the pursuit of knowledge.

Refuting Transcendental Phsyics

Laws of nature are not eternal, transcendent entities waiting to be discovered, but rather emergent patterns inseparable from the actual material and energetic configurations of the cosmos. The rational order of the cosmos is not an external blueprint but as arising from and expressed within the fabric of reality itself.

There is no such a thing as a “separate realm”, and not evidence at all of it either (fantastic claims are not evidence). The notion of disembodied, eternal laws floating in a metaphysical ether contradicts the principle that meaning and order must be grounded in actual, material phenomena (Hadot 1998; Lloyd 1978).

Laws do not “exist” beyond the universe but are conceptual tools humans derive by observing stable patterns. Without matter-energy configurations, no pattern can arise, and thus no “law” can even be formulated.

Imagining a law like conservation of energy “existing” in a universe empty of matter and energy is tantamount to positing patterns without anything to pattern. Instead, laws are descriptive constructs that emerge from observing material interactions (Capra 1996). Without matter or energy, no process or interaction can occur, and thus no pattern can be identified. “Laws” that supposedly remain “waiting” in void are human abstractions mistakenly reified as independent entities.

Newton’s gravitational law is not a metaphysical “entity” but a descriptive model summarizing observed relationships between masses. Without masses, the concept of gravitational attraction is empty. From an immanent lens, laws arise from and are meaningful only within contexts where their conditions are met. They do not “define relationships” in a vacuum; rather, they capture regularities we extrapolate from actual gravitational interactions. Without actual gravitational phenomena, speaking of a gravitational law “existing” is as nonsensical as discussing the flight patterns of birds in a universe without birds. Immanent approaches tie the existence of any such regularity to material instantiation (Maturana & Varela 1980; Kauffman 1995).

Refuting the View of Laws as Discovered Abstract Truths

Furthermore, scientists do not uncover pre-existing laws hidden in a metaphysical realm; rather, they formulate conceptual frameworks that approximate observed patterns in nature (Long & Sedley 1987). We invent models that fit the empirical data, and these models remain valid only insofar as they correlate with observable phenomena. Rationality and purpose arise from within the universe’s dynamic processes. Laws are emergent properties or conceptual instruments rather than eternal facts waiting for discovery (Lloyd 1978; Hadot 1998).

Order, rationality, and meaning are integrally part of the universe’s actual processes. By locating significance within the cosmos rather than beyond it, immanent models circumvent the philosophical problems posed by transcendental arguments. Instead of positing disembodied laws that govern a hypothetical void, immanence grounds patterns in matter-energy configurations themselves. The cosmos is not a machine operated by external instructions; it is a living, self-sustaining whole, from which intelligible patterns (what we call “laws”) emerge.

This approach better reflects contemporary understandings of complexity and self-organization, where stable patterns result from interactions, feedback loops, and the inherent properties of systems (Kauffman 1995; Capra 1996). By acknowledging that laws arise from and depend on phenomena, immanence aligns philosophy with empirical evidence, dispensing with unnecessary metaphysical realms that transcend observable reality.

In other words, transcendent models ask us to accept metaphysical blueprints existing in a disembodied realm, while immanent perspectives show that it is the cosmos’ tangible reality that gives rise to structure, order, and meaning. Laws, therefore, are not discovered cosmic blueprints, but conceptual frameworks we create to describe the self-organizing rationality inherent in nature.

Capra, F. (1996). The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems. Anchor Books.

Deutsch, E. (1969). Advaita Vedānta: A Philosophical Reconstruction. University of Hawaii Press.

Hadot, P. (1998). The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. Translated by M. Chase. Harvard University Press.

Kauffman, S. A. (1995). At Home in the Universe: The Search for Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity. Oxford University Press.

Laozi. (1963). Tao Te Ching. Translated by D. C. Lau. Penguin Classics.

Lloyd, G. E. R. (1978). Magic, Reason and Experience: Studies in the Origin and Development of Greek Science. Cambridge University Press.

Long, A. A., & Sedley, D. N. (1987). The Hellenistic Philosophers. Cambridge University Press.

Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. D. Reidel Publishing.

Otto, R. (1923). The Idea of the Holy. Translated by J. W. Harvey. Oxford University Press.

Plato. (1997). Complete Works. Edited by J. M. Cooper. Hackett Publishing.

Tillich, P. (1951). Systematic Theology, Volume 1. University of Chicago Press.

White, L. (1967). ‘The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis’. Science, vol. 155, no. 3767, pp. 1203–1207.

Maths

The fact that mathematical truths (such as the ratio π) remain consistent even without a physical circle does not require a transcendent realm. Mathematics is a rational construct that arises from the capacities of rational beings embedded in a rational universe (*logos*). From an immanent perspective, mathematics reflects patterns observed or conceivable within the cosmos, rather than serving as evidence of an external blueprint (Hamming, 1980; Rucker, 1982). It is a language of relationships and structures that rational minds formulate to describe or model reality, not a set of disembodied truths floating in a metaphysical domain.

Claiming that a mathematical truth, such as π, “exists” in the absence of a physical universe confuses the difference between conceptual possibility and ontological reality. π is defined through the concept of a circle — an idealized geometric form. Without any cosmos, the notion of π as a measure does not instantiate anything. Its “existence” is purely hypothetical and conceptual, akin to a stored instruction in rational thought.

Rather, what we observe is that order and meaning emerge from the interplay of matter, energy, and the rational principles that govern them (Capra, 1996; Tegmark, 2014). Stripping away the cosmos leaves you with an abstract concept devoid of any material grounding or purpose.

We, rational beings, discover and use mathematics because we participate in the rational order (*logos*) of the universe (Long & Sedley, 1987; Hadot, 1998). This does not mean mathematics is “out there” in a separate realm, any more than the language of poetry exists outside of poets and readers. Rather, mathematics emerges from the interplay of rational minds with a universe that exhibits consistent, intelligible patterns. The reliability and applicability of mathematics come from its congruence with the cosmos’s underlying rationality, not from a transcendent metaphysical domain (Wigner, 1960).

The idea that a perfect circle and its ratio π persist “somewhere” beyond the cosmos is unnecessary. We do not need an external, immaterial “storage” of these truths. Mathematical structures arise because the cosmos allows rational beings to conceive stable relationships (Aristotle, Metaphysics). Recognizing π as a stable ratio in geometry stems from human reason interacting with or conceptualizing spatial relationships. This does not prove a Platonic realm of ideal forms; it merely shows that rationality and pattern-recognition are intrinsic to how we, as part of the cosmos, comprehend reality (Kline, 1980; Maddy, 1997).

The “universality” of mathematical truths — like the constancy of π — represents consistent rational relationships rather than metaphysical existents. These concepts are universal in the sense that any rational being, observing or theorizing about certain symmetrical relationships, would arrive at the same conclusions. This universality, however, does not make them transcendent entities. Instead, it highlights the consistent rational structure (*logos*) inherent in the cosmos. Thus, immanence is preserved: mathematics is a powerful reflection of the cosmos’s rational order, not evidence of a separate metaphysical realm (Penrose, 2004; Lakoff & Núñez, 2000).

Arguing that mathematical truths exist outside of the physical universe fails to undermine immanence because it confuses abstract conceptualization with ontological independence. From an immanent standpoint, mathematics is an expression of the rational structure pervading the cosmos, discovered by rational beings who are themselves part of this rational order. The existence of mathematical truths in the absence of a universe is purely conceptual, not an indication of transcendent metaphysical laws. Consequently, this line of reasoning does not support a transcendental or idealistic model and does not refute the eminence of immanence.

Time in Relativity and the Changist Immanent Model: From Transcendental Conceptions to Immanent Rationality

1. Introduction

The nature of time has long posed fundamental questions for both physics and philosophy. Traditional readings of Einstein’s theory of relativity often treat time as a fully-fledged dimension, woven seamlessly into the fabric of spacetime (Einstein 1916; Minkowski 1908). This approach, while mathematically robust and empirically successful, can be seen as introducing a “transcendental” notion of time — one that exists as an independent structure beyond direct sensory or experimental apprehension. Just as transcendental theological concepts posit divinity as external and beyond human reach, this interpretation posits a temporal dimension not directly observed, only inferred.

In contrast, the changist model challenges this transcendental reading by proposing an “immanent” understanding of time. Rather than treating time as a hidden dimension, changism views it as a conceptual system derived from the rates and patterns of change observed in nature. By focusing on observable cycles (e.g., atomic oscillations defining the second) and transformations, changism aligns more closely with rational immanent models found in ancient philosophies, such as the Stoic emphasis on logos, an intrinsic rational order pervading the cosmos (Long & Sedley 1987; Rovelli 2018).

This chapter examines how interpreting time as transcendental or immanent affects our understanding of relativity, rationality, and the broader coherence of our worldview. Applying Occam’s razor, it becomes clear that positing an unobservable time dimension is an unnecessary complexity. Instead, grounding time in observed processes and rational structures provides a simpler, more philosophically and scientifically coherent model that resonates with both modern physics and ancient wisdom traditions.

2. Transcendental Time in Relativity: A Metaphysical Extension

Einstein’s theory of relativity revolutionized our understanding of motion, gravity, and light. The standard geometric interpretation treats time as a fourth dimension, forming a unified spacetime manifold (Einstein 1916; Minkowski 1908). This framework, while empirically accurate in predictions, introduces a “block universe” perspective where all events — past, present, and future — exist equally. The human experience of “now” is seen as subjective, not fundamental, leading to metaphysical puzzles akin to transcendental theological constructs: a dimension assumed real and essential, yet never directly encountered as a tangible entity.

By elevating time to a quasi-spatial dimension, this approach can breed conceptual tensions:

• Ontological Complexity: Time as a dimension demands metaphysical commitments similar to transcendental theological principles, existing independent of direct observation.
• Determinism and Alienation: The block universe model suggests a static, unchanging set of events, undermining notions of agency, novelty, and purpose. Such alienation can mirror the existential void felt when divinity is remote and inscrutable.

3. Changism’s Immanent Interpretation: Time as Emergent from Change

Changism proposes a contrasting viewpoint, dispensing with the idea of time as an autonomous dimension. Instead, time is conceptualized as a tool developed by observers to measure and compare rates of change (Rovelli 2018; Barbour 1999). This perspective resonates with rational immanent philosophies: just as Stoic logos pervades nature, making it rational and intelligible (Long & Sedley 1987), so too does the changist model embed time within the observable patterns of the cosmos.

Central to this immanent view is the notion that:

• Cycle-Based Measurement: Units of time emerge from counting periodic events, such as the defined second from cesium-133 atom oscillations (BIPM 2019) or the day from Earth’s rotation.
• No Unseen Dimensions: Instead of positing a hidden time dimension, changism treats time dilation and relativistic effects as variations in process rates under different conditions (Einstein 1916; Hafele & Keating 1972). Clocks tick differently not because they move along a temporal axis, but because their internal dynamics unfold at different rates relative to other systems.

4. Transcendental vs. Immanent Views: Philosophical and Rational Implications

By reinterpreting relativistic phenomena without invoking an independent time dimension, changism reduces metaphysical burden. Occam’s razor, a core principle advocating minimal assumptions when explaining phenomena, supports the changist model. If empirical data can be equally explained by emergent concepts of time rooted in change, then positing a separate time dimension is superfluous.

From a rational standpoint:

• Transcendental Time: Leads to conceptual puzzles, determinism, and existential alienation. The world becomes static and human experience secondary, complicating rational coherence.
• Immanent Time (Changism): Reinforces rational intelligibility and dynamic engagement. By seeing time as woven into observable processes, coherence and comprehensibility increase, supporting human meaning-making and aligning with Stoic rational order.

5. Consequences for Coherence, Ethics, and Psychology

Embracing an immanent conception of time fosters a worldview where rationality and change are harmonious. Instead of a detached timeline fixed beyond human reach, we live in a cosmos where change is central and time is a convenient parameter. This:

• Enhances Logical Consistency: Without a superfluous dimension, logical coherence improves, providing a stable foundation for scientific inquiry.
• Encourages Ethical Agency: In a fluid, ever-emerging cosmos, personal responsibility and ethical choices gain significance. The absence of a rigid temporal dimension opens space for creativity, virtue, and moral growth aligned with Stoic principles (Long & Sedley 1987).
• Supports Psychological Well-Being: A more integrated view of time as emerging from change can reduce feelings of meaninglessness. Recognizing that human experience directly engages with the rational structure of reality aids psychological resilience, mitigating existential distress.

6. Conclusion: A Parsimonious and Immanent Understanding of Time

The changist model of time as emergent from observable processes provides a coherent, scientifically consistent, and philosophically elegant alternative to viewing time as a transcendental dimension. By applying Occam’s razor and privileging immanent over transcendental explanations, one can align modern physics with a deeply rational worldview that resonates with both ancient philosophical insights and contemporary empirical findings.

In doing so, changism liberates us from metaphysical complexities and paradoxes. Time need not be an elusive, external dimension; it can be understood as the relational metric of change. This reframing bridges the gap between the complexities of relativistic physics, the ethical guidance of Stoicism, and the psychological need for coherence, culminating in a model that integrates logic, well-being, and meaning.

• Barbour, J. (1999) The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics. Oxford University Press.
• BIPM (2019) The International System of Units (SI), 9th edn. Bureau International des Poids et Mesures.
• Einstein, A. (1916) Relativity: The Special and the General Theory. Methuen & Co.
• Hafele, J. C. and Keating, R. E. (1972) ‘Around-the-world atomic clocks: predicted relativistic time gains’, Science, 177(4044), pp. 166–168.
• Long, A. A. and Sedley, D. (1987) The Hellenistic Philosophers. 2 vols. Cambridge University Press.
• Minkowski, H. (1908) ‘Space and time’, Jahresberichte der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung, English translation in: The Principle of Relativity, Dover Publications.
• Newton, I. (1687) Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. London.
• Rovelli, C. (2018) The Order of Time. Allen Lane.