The Many Faces of Panentheism
The Many Faces of Panentheism
The Many Faces of Panentheism
with Harald Atmanspacher and Hartmut von Sass, “The Many Faces of Panentheism: An
Editorial Introduction”; Philip Clayton, “How Radically Can God Be Reconceived before
Ceasing to Be God? The Four Faces of Panentheism”; Willem B. Drees, “Panentheism and
Natural Science: A Good Match?”; Jan-Olav Henriksen, “The Experience of God and the
World: Christianity’s Reasons for Considering Panentheism a Viable Option”; Roderick
Main, “Panentheism and the Undoing of Disenchantment”; and Michael Silberstein,
“Panentheism, Neutral Monism, and Advaita Vedanta.”
by Roderick Main
That both science and religion have a pervasive influence on modern life is
beyond serious dispute. However, the nature of each influence and, more
particularly, the interplay between the two kinds of influence remain highly
and reason provided any evidence for the putative transcendent realities
and values of religion, one could only make the step into religion by aban-
doning science and reason, making an “intellectual sacrifice” ([1918]1946,
155; Asprem 2014, 36). Weber considered this course of action morally
weak, something to be recommended only to “the person who cannot bear
the fate of the times [i.e., disenchantment] like a man” ([1918]1946, 155).
Nevertheless, he judged the intellectual sacrifice preferable to indecisiveness
or lack of clarity in matters of religion: “an intellectual sacrifice in favor of
an unconditional religious devotion,” he wrote, “is ethically quite a differ-
ent matter than the evasion of the plain duty of intellectual integrity, which
sets in if one lacks the courage to clarify one’s own ultimate standpoint and
rather facilitates this duty by feeble relative judgments” (155).
In terms of Ian Barbour’s (1998) framework of possible relationships
between science and religion—conflict, independence, dialogue, and inte-
gration (77–105)—Weber clearly held out no hope for their integration
and similarly saw little point in pursuing dialogue between them. Weber’s
formal position was that science and religion were independent. As he con-
fidently asserted, “the tension between the value-spheres of ‘science’ and
the sphere of ‘the Holy’ is unbridgeable” (154). Indeed, in the dim regard
Weber had for the intellectual sacrifice, it is probably fair also to detect an
informal view of science and religion as being in conflict, with science the
prevailing antagonist.
Asprem notes that Weber’s account of disenchantment is, in Weber’s
own terms, “ideal-typical,” that is, it represents the position that a disen-
chanted person or culture ideally would hold if they were disenchanted in
a fully rational way (2014, 39–40). A large part of Asprem’s own study,
The Problem of Disenchantment: Scientific Naturalism and Esoteric Discourse
1900–1939 (2014), is occupied with showing that, even in the mainstream
sciences of physics, chemistry, biology, and psychology in the early twen-
tieth century, where one might expect fully rational disenchantment, in
reality many different and partial positions were adopted (93–286); and
the diversity is greater again if one takes account of non-mainstream disci-
plines and knowledge cultures such as psychical research, parapsychology,
and occultism (289–553). Many other historians of science, religion, and
culture reinforce this picture of complex and varied engagements (e.g.,
Brooke 1991; Brooke and Cantor 1997; Harrington 1996). Nevertheless,
Weber’s account of the disenchantment of the modern world presents
what probably has been the predominant view of relations between science
and religion, at least among academic and cultural élites, from the early
twentieth century through to the present.
Although Weber considered that disenchantment, with its implied sep-
aration between science and religion, had become “the fate of our times”
([1918]1946, 155), he was far from optimistic about its social and cul-
tural consequences. Bound up as it was with increasing rationalization
1102 Zygon
PANENTHEISM
Panentheism is a particular view, or family of views, of the relationship
between God (the divine) and the world (nature, the cosmos, the universe).
Composed of the Greek words “pan” = all, “en” = in, and “theos” = God,
the term “panentheism” means literally “a doctrine [-ism] that everything
exists in God.” The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (2002, 2080) defines
it as “the belief or doctrine that God includes and interpenetrates the
universe while being more than it.”
Panentheism was first used as a term by the German philosopher Karl
Krause (1781–1832) in the nineteenth century, shortly afterwards receiving
classic, though different, formulations in the thought of Friedrich Wilhelm
Joseph von Schelling (1775–1854) and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
(1770–1831), partly in the context of debates about Baruch Spinoza’s
(1632–1677) pantheism (Cooper 2006, 67; Culp 2016). The American
philosophers Charles Hartshorne and William Reese ([1953]2000), espe-
cially the former, revived the term in the mid-twentieth century, draw-
ing on the process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947).
Since then the notion has quietly but steadily gained in influence to the
point where, by the beginning of the twenty-first century, it has become
the focus of considerable interest among Christian theologians (Clayton
and Peacocke 2004; Cooper 2006; Brierley 2008), process philosophers
(Griffin 2014), historians of Western esotericism (Hanegraaff 2012; As-
prem 2014), scholars of non-Christian religious traditions (Biernacki and
Clayton 2014), and researchers attempting to find adequate ways of the-
orizing the well-testified “rogue phenomena” of psi and mysticism (Kelly,
Crabtree, and Marshall 2015).
Even before the term existed, however, the idea to which it referred had
long informed religious and philosophical thought not just in the West
(Cooper 2006) but also across the globe (Hartshorne and Reese [1953]
2000; Culp 2016; Biernacki and Clayton 2014). Most influentially, though
not exclusively, it is associated with currents of thought stemming from
Platonism and Neoplatonism (Cooper 2006, 18–19). In theological terms,
it relates to the evolutionary monotheism described by Assmann (2008),
which stresses the connection and even coinherence and co-dependence of
God and the world.
Roderick Main 1105
Just as with other views of the relationship between God and the world,
panentheism is not a single, clearly defined position but rather a set of
related positions. There are therefore a number of varieties of panenthe-
ism (see, for example, the discussions in Clayton 2004; Gregersen 2004;
Cooper 2006; Brierley 2008; and more critically in Thomas 2008). Nev-
ertheless, attempts have been made to arrive at a generic definition of the
term (Clayton 2004, 250–52; Brierley 2008, 636–41). Most helpfully for
present purposes, Michael Brierley (2008) considers a range of character-
istics and varieties and concludes that “panentheism’s distinctiveness . . .
can be expressed in terms of three premises: first, that God is not separate
from the cosmos . . . ; second, that God is affected by the cosmos . . . ; and
third, that God is more than the cosmos” (2008, 639–40).
In the light of Brierley’s generic definition, panentheism can be concisely
differentiated from other possible positions on the relationship between the
divine and the world as follows. Unlike atheism and agnosticism, panen-
theism affirms the existence of the divine. Unlike theism and deism, panen-
theism considers the divine to be not separate from the world and even to
be affected by the world (immanent and passible as well as transcendent).
And unlike pantheism, panentheism considers the divine to be more than
the world (transcendent as well as immanent). Formulations of panenthe-
ism often stress its intermediary status between theism and pantheism, as
in the following statement by Asprem: “Panentheism can be described as
a position that attempts to balance the transcendence of theism with the
immanence of pantheism, while avoiding both the strict separation of god
and nature characteristic of the former, and the identification of nature and
god in the latter” (2014, 281).
For the present discussion what is important to note is the difference
between theism and panentheism. Theism separates God and the world in
a way that leads to disenchantment. Panentheism stresses the connection
between God and the world in a way that, I shall argue, undoes disen-
chantment and its epistemological implications as articulated by Weber
and clarified by Asprem. In order to illustrate how panentheism undoes
disenchantment and arguably opens up alternative ways of framing and
addressing the problems that disenchantment entails, I shall focus atten-
tion on a particular instance of modern panentheistic thought: Jungian
psychology.
least three reasons. First, the problem of the relationship between science
and religion was one that occupied Jung throughout his long life (Homans
[1979]1995; Main 2004, 91–114). He had backgrounds and continuing
personal and professional involvements in the worlds of both science and
religion, and seems always to have striven to respect scientific and religious
perspectives equally, not allowing one perspective to eclipse the other (Main
2013c). The concepts that underpin the distinctiveness of his psychological
model—such as the collective unconscious, archetypes, individuation, the
self, and synchronicity—all bear witness to his dual commitment to science
and religion (Main 2013c, 376–77). For example, Jung’s signature concept
of the archetype was influenced by biology and physics, on the one hand,
and Platonic philosophy and Augustinian theology, on the other, and it was
explicitly characterized in Jung’s later writings as having both an instinctual
and a spiritual pole ([1947/1954]1969, paras. 397–420). In a sense, Jung’s
psychological model was the product of a sustained dialogue and attempted
reconciliation of science and religion.
Second, Jung experienced disenchantment or, as he referred to it,
“the historical process of world despiritualization” ([1938/1940]1969,
para.141) as an acute problem of his time, which much of his work can
be understood as an attempt to address (Main 2011; 2013a, 280–84;
2013b; 2014). At various points in his writings he acknowledges that
his psychological model, with its emphasis on the need to withdraw
psychological projections, actively contributes to disenchantment (Main
2013b, 131–32, 135). He offers, with his concept of synchronicity,
resources for “re-enchanting” the physical world as well as the psy-
chological world (Main 2013b, 135–36). And he recognizes the limits
even of this form of re-enchantment beyond projection (Main 2011,
154–56). Overall, though, the trajectory of his thought was to overcome
disenchantment: “The modern world is desacralized,” he told Mircea
Eliade in 1952, “that is why it is in a crisis. Modern man must rediscover
a deeper source of his own spiritual life” (McGuire and Hull 1978,
230).
Third, while the studies of Jung’s psychology of religion are numerous—
a bibliographic essay published in 1973 already included 442 items (Heisig
1973)—there does not yet appear to have been a detailed consideration
of his psychology in relation to panentheism. A few previous commenta-
tors have mentioned in passing that Jung’s psychology might be viewed as
panentheistic, some seeing promise in this characterization (Griffin 1989,
56, 66, 245; Tacey 2001, 186; 2013, 117), others seeing confusion (Dour-
ley 2014, 21–22), and others again simply noting the possibility (Asprem
2014, 284). But no detailed case has been made for this view, and its im-
portance for understanding not only Jung’s conception of the relationship
between science and religion but the filiation and reception of his work has
not hitherto been recognized.
Roderick Main 1107
When Jung talked directly of God, he was explicit about God’s non-
separation from the world, specifically from humanity: “It is . . . psycho-
logically quite unthinkable for God to be simply the ‘wholly other’,” he
wrote in Psychology and Alchemy with implicit reference to Rudolf Otto’s
([1917]1950) concept of the numinous, “for a ‘wholly other’ could never
be one of the soul’s deepest and closest intimacies—which is precisely what
God is” ([1944]1968, para.11 note 6). The non-separation was expressed
most vividly, though, in “Answer to Job,” where Jung asserted: “It was only
quite late that we realized (or rather, are beginning to realize) that God
is Reality itself and therefore—last but not least—man” ([1952a]1969,
para. 631).
Second, in Jung’s thought as in generic panentheism, God is affected
by the world. In terms of Jung’s psychology, this too follows from his
synonymizing God and the unconscious. Such a relationship is suggested,
for instance, by the fact that what the unconscious expresses in the form
of dreams is conditioned to some extent by the attitude consciously taken
towards prior dreams ([1944]1968, paras. 44–331). Similarly in the pro-
cess Jung termed “active imagination,” consciously dialoguing with figures
symbolizing aspects of the unconscious sometimes results in those figures
being affected by what the conscious mind has to say on its side of the
dialogue (Jung 2009). More deeply, Jung considered that the constellation
of archetypes in the unconscious could change ([1958]1964, para. 589;
[1951]1959), and he suggested that human efforts to become conscious
could play a decisive role in such changes. As he stated at the end of his
life, “just as the unconscious affects us, so the increase in our consciousness
affects the unconscious” ([1963]1995, 358).
Using the term “God” directly, Jung stated explicitly and repeatedly in
“Answer to Job” that God could be affected by the creation: “Job,” he
argued, “by his insistence on bringing his case before God, even with-
out hope of a hearing, had stood his ground and thus created the very
obstacle that forced God to reveal his true nature” ([1952a]1969, para.
584). Further: “Whoever knows God has an effect on Him” (para. 617),
for “The encounter with the creature changes the creator” (para. 686).
In Memories, Dreams, Reflections Jung suggested that through the devel-
opment of human consciousness “the Creator may become conscious of
His creation,” such that the emergence of human consciousness could be
considered “the second cosmogony” ([1963]1995, 371). Even more clearly,
in a letter (14 March 1953) to a correspondent who had written an essay
about “Answer to Job,” Jung asked rhetorically: “what in the world would
be the motive of the Incarnation if man’s state didn’t affect God?” (1976,
110)
Third, in Jung’s thought as in generic panentheism, God is more than
the world. In terms of Jung’s psychological model, the unconscious is more
than consciousness, and the archetype is not exhausted by any number
1110 Zygon
other. This is not to say that attempts to promote dialogue between science
and religion based on panentheistic metaphysics necessarily always involve
models of science and religion that are as radically innovative as Jung’s. As
Edward Kelly notes, most of the contributors to Clayton and Peacocke’s In
Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being (2004) explore possibilities
for dialogue between “antecedently held theological views” and “conven-
tional physicalist science, or something very close to it” (2015, 532).
However, as Kelly has argued on the basis of his own and his colleagues’ re-
search (Kelly et al. 2015), fuller reconciliation between science and religion
might be achieved if one were to adopt “an expanded vision of science it-
self ” together with “a full-fledged evolutionary panentheism” (Kelly 2015,
532).
CONCLUSION
The concept of disenchantment was introduced by Weber and has been
particularly influential within sociology, the discipline that Weber helped
to establish. Indeed, sociology, being self-consciously founded on secular
principles to study the increasingly secularized world of which it was itself a
product (Lassman and Velody, 1989, 160), has arguably been the paradig-
matic disenchanted discipline. As an indication of the wider significance
of the preceding argument, I should therefore like to conclude by briefly
noting two indicative areas where the kind of undoing of disenchantment
by panentheism and the exposure of the tension between panentheistic and
disenchanted perspectives that have been discussed in this article may have
implications within contemporary sociology.
First, within sociological theory itself there are areas of ongoing debate
in which the tension between panentheistic and disenchanted perspectives
figures directly. One such area concerns the so-called “spiritual turn” in
critical realism. This refers to a development initiated by the originative
critical realist philosopher Roy Bhaskar. He and other critical realists had
formerly deployed a form of immanent critique to reveal problematic
“absences in the philosophical discourse of modernity”—“the absence of
ontology, of a concept of absence, of an adequate account of internal
relationality, and of intentionality or transformative praxis” (Hartwig and
Morgan 2012, 3). From the mid 1990s, Bhaskar expanded his critique to
address also the absence of spirituality and religion (Hartwig and Morgan
2012, 3). As Mervyn Hartwig and Jamie Morgan summarize, Bhaskar’s
spiritual turn “issued first in a work that attempts to synthesize West and
East, science and religion, materialism and idealism, atheism and theism
(From East to West [2000]), and then in 2002 in the philosophy of meta-
reality, which seeks to transcend or move beyond such dichotomies by
articulating a spirituality that can appeal both to the secularly minded
and to the religious” (2012, 3). Bhaskar’s spirituality in his “philosophy
Roderick Main 1117
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This article is based on a presentation at the International Conference
on “The Many Faces of Panentheism: Reinforcing the Dialogue between
Science and Religion,” held at the Collegium Helveticum, Zurich, 3–4 June
2016. I should like to thank Dr. Harald Atmanspacher and Dr. Hartmut
von Sass for the invitation to present at that event.
Work on the article was supported by the Arts and Humanities Research
Council [AH/N003853/1].
REFERENCES
Archer, Margaret, Andrew Collier, and Douglas Porpora. 2004. Transcendence: Critical Realism
and God. London, UK: Routledge.
Asprem, Egil. 2014. The Problem of Disenchantment: Scientific Naturalism and Esoteric Discourse
1900–1939. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.
Assmann, Jan. 2008. Of God and Gods: Egypt, Israel, and the Rise of Monotheism. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press.
Atmanspacher, Harald. 2012. “Dual-Aspect Monism à la Pauli and Jung.” Journal of Consciousness
Studies 19:96–120.
Barbour, Ian. 1998. Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues. New York, NY:
SCM Press.
Beloff, John. 1977. “Psi Phenomena: Causal versus Acausal Interpretation.” Journal of the Society
for Psychical Research 49:573–82.
Berman, Morris. 1981. The Re-Enchantment of the World. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Bhaskar, Roy. 2000. From East to West: Odyssey of a Soul. London, UK: Routledge.
Biernacki, Loriliai, and Philip Clayton, eds. 2014. Panentheism across the World’s Traditions.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brierley, Michael. 2008. “The Potential of Panentheism for Dialogue between Science and
Religion.” In The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science, edited by Philip Clayton and
Zachary Simpson, 635–51. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Brooke, John Hedley. 1991. Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Brooke, John Hedley, and Geoffrey Cantor. 1997. Reconstructing Nature: The Engagement of
Science and Religion. Edinburgh, UK: T & T Clark.
Cambray, Joseph. 2009. Synchronicity: Nature and Psyche in an Interconnected Universe. College
Station: Texas A&M University Press.
———. 2014. “The Influence of German Romantic Science on Jung and Pauli.” In The Pauli–
Jung Conjecture and Its Impact Today, edited by Harald Atmanspacher and Christopher
Fuchs, 37–56. Exeter, UK: Imprint Academic.
Chapman, J. Harley. 1988. Jung’s Three Theories of Religious Experience. Lewiston, NY: Edwin
Mellon.
Clayton, Philip. 2004. “Panentheism Today: A Constructive Systematic Evaluation.” In In Whom
We Live and Move and Have Our Being: Panentheistic Reflections on God’s Presence in a
Scientific World, edited by Philip Clayton and Arthur Peacocke, 249–64. Grand Rapids,
MI: William B. Eerdmans.
Roderick Main 1119
Clayton, Philip, and Arthur Peacocke, eds. 2004. In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our
Being: Panentheistic Reflections on God’s Presence in a Scientific World. Grand Rapids, MI:
William B. Eerdmans.
Clayton, Philip, and Zachary Simpson, eds. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Cooper, John. 2006. Panentheism: The Other God of the Philosophers —From Plato to the Present.
Nottingham, UK: Apollos.
Crabtree, Adam. 2015. “Continuity of Mind: A Peircean Vision.” In Beyond Physicalism: Toward
Reconciliation of Science and Spirituality, edited by Edward Kelly, Adam Crabtree, and
Paul Marshall, 423–53. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Culp, John. 2016. “Panentheism.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter
2016 edition), edited by Edward N. Zalta. Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/
archives/win2016/entries/panentheism/
Dourley, John. 2008. Paul Tillich, Carl Jung and the Recovery of Religion. Hove, UK: Routledge.
———. 2014. Jung and His Mystics: In the End It All Comes to Nothing. Hove, UK: Routledge.
Fach, Wolfgang, Harald Atmanspacher, Karin Landolt, Thomas Wyss, and Wulf Rössler. 2013.
“A Comparative Study of Exceptional Experiences of Clients Seeking Advice and of
Subjects in an Ordinary Population.” Frontiers in Psychology 4:1–10.
Gregersen, Niels Henrik. 2004. “Three Varieties of Panentheism.” In In Whom We Live and
Move and Have Our Being: Panentheistic Reflections on God’s Presence in a Scientific
World, edited by Philip Clayton and Arthur Peacocke, 19–35. Grand Rapids, MI:
William B. Eerdmans.
Griffin, David Ray, ed. 1988. The Reenchantment of Science: Postmodern Proposals. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
———, ed. 1989. Archetypal Process: Self and Divine in Whitehead, Jung, and Hillman. Evanston,
IL: Northwestern University Press.
——— 2014. Panentheism and Scientific Naturalism: Rethinking Evil, Morality, Religious Expe-
rience, Religious Pluralism, and the Academic Study of Religion. Claremont, CA: Process
Century.
Gustafson, Fred, ed. 2015. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Carl Gustav Jung: Side by Side.
Cheyenne, WY: Fisher King Press.
Hanegraaff, Wouter. 1998. New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror of
Secular Thought. Albany: State University of New York Press.
———. 2012. Esotericism and the Academy: Rejected Knowledge in Western Culture. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2016. “Gnosis.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Western Mysticism and Esotericism,
edited by Glenn Alexander Magee, 381–92. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Harrington, Anne. 1996. Reenchanted Science: Holism in German Culture from Wilhelm II to
Hitler. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hartshorne, Charles, and William Reese, eds. [1953]2000. Philosophers Speak of God. New York,
NY: Humanity Books.
Hartwig, Mervyn, and Jamie Morgan, eds. 2012. Critical Realism and Spirituality. London, UK:
Routledge.
Haule, John. 2011. Jung in the 21st Century, Volume Two: Synchronicity and Science. London,
UK: Routledge.
Heisig, James. 1973. “Jung and Theology: A Bibliographical Study.” Spring: An Annual Journal
of Archetypal Psychology and Jungian Thought: 204–55.
Homans, Peter. [1979]1995. Jung in Context: Modernity and the Making of a Psychology. 2nd ed.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Job, Sebastian. 2012. “Human Sciences at the Edge of Panentheism: God and the Limits of
Ontological Realism.” In Critical Realism and Spirituality, edited by Mervyn Hartwig
and Jamie Morgan, 170–86. London, UK: Routledge.
Jung, Carl Gustav. [1921]1971. Collected Works, Volume 6: Psychological Types. London, UK:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
———. [1923]1971. “Psychological Types.” In Collected Works, Volume 6: Psychological Types,
510–23. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
1120 Zygon
———. [1938/1940]1969. “Psychology and Religion.” In Collected Works, Volume 11: Psychology
and Religion: West and East, 2nd ed., 3–105. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
———. [1939/1954]1969. “Psychological Commentary on ‘The Tibetan Book of the Great
Liberation.’” In Collected Works, Volume 11: Psychology and Religion: West and East, 2nd
ed., 475–508. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
———. [1944]1968. Collected Works Volume 12: Psychology and Alchemy, 2nd ed. London, UK:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
———. [1947/1954]1969. “On the Nature of the Psyche.” In Collected Works, Volume 8: The
Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, 2nd ed., 159–234. London, UK: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
———. [1951]1959. Collected Works, Volume 9 (Part 2) Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology
of the Self. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
———. [1952a]1969. “Answer to Job.” In Collected Works, Volume 11: Psychology and Religion:
West and East, 2nd ed., 355–470. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
———. [1952b]1969. “Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle.” In Collected Works,
Volume 8: The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, 2nd ed., 417–519. London, UK:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
———. [1955–56]1970. Collected Works, Volume 14: Mysterium Coniunctionis: An Inquiry
into the Separation and Synthesis of Psychic Opposites in Alchemy, 2nd ed. London, UK:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
———. 1958. Collected Works, Volume 11: Psychology and Religion: West and East. London, UK:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
———. [1958]1964. “Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Skies.” In Collected
Works, Volume 10: Civilization in Transition, 307–433. London, UK: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
———. [1963]1995. Memories, Dreams, Reflections. Recorded and edited by Aniela Jaffé. Trans-
lated by Richard and Clara Winston. London, UK: Fontana.
———. 1976. Letters 2: 1951–1961. Selected and edited by Gerhard Adler in collaboration
with Aniela Jaffé. Translated by Richard F. C. Hull. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
———. 1979. Collected Works, Volume 20: General Index. Compiled by Barbara Forryan and
Janet M. Glover. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
———. 2009. The Red Book: Liber Novus. Edited and with an Introduction by Sonu Shamdasani.
New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
Kelly, Edward. 2015. “Toward a Worldview Grounded in Science and Spirituality.” In Beyond
Physicalism: Toward Reconciliation of Science and Spirituality, edited by Edward Kelly,
Adam Crabtree, and Paul Marshall, 493–551. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Kelly, Edward, Adam Crabtree, and Paul Marshall, eds. 2015. Beyond Physicalism: Toward
Reconciliation of Science and Spirituality. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Lammers, Anne, and Adrian Cunningham, eds. 2007. The Jung–White Letters. Hove, UK:
Routledge.
Lassman, Peter, and Irving Velody, eds. 1989. Max Weber’s “Science as a Vocation.” London, UK:
Unwin Hyman.
Lundy, Joshua, and Michael Saler, eds. 2009. The Re-Enchantment of the World: Secular Magic
in a Rational Age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Main, Roderick, ed. 1997. Jung on Synchronicity and the Paranormal. London, UK: Routledge.
———. 2004. The Rupture of Time: Synchronicity and Jung’s Critique of Modern Western Culture.
Hove, UK: Brunner-Routledge.
———. 2011. “Synchronicity and the Limits of Re-Enchantment.” International Journal of
Jungian Studies 3:144–58.
———. 2012. “Anomalous Phenomena, Synchronicity and the Re-Sacralization of the Modern
World.” In Seriously Strange: Thinking Anew about Psychical Experiences, edited by Sudhir
Kakar and Jeffrey Kripal, 1–27, 275–83. New Delhi, India: Penguin Viking.
———. 2013a. “In a Secular Age: Weber, Taylor, Jung.” Psychoanalysis, Culture and Society
18:277–94.
———. 2013b. “Myth, Synchronicity, and Re-Enchantment.” In Myth, Literature, and the
Unconscious, edited by Leon Burnett, Sanja Bahun, and Roderick Main, 129–46. London,
UK: Karnac.
Roderick Main 1121
———. 2013c. “Secular and Religious: The Intrinsic Doubleness of Analytical Psychology and
the Hegemony of Naturalism in the Social Sciences.” Journal of Analytical Psychology
58:366–86.
———. 2014. “Synchronicity and the Problem of Meaning in Science.” In The Pauli–Jung
Conjecture and Its Impact Today, edited by Harald Atmanspacher and Christopher Fuchs,
217–39. Exeter, UK: Imprint Academic.
McGrath, Sean. 2014. “The Question Concerning Metaphysics: A Schellingian Inter-
vention in Analytical Psychology.” International Journal of Jungian Studies 6:23–
51.
McGuire, William, and Richard F. C. Hull, eds. 1978. C. G. Jung Speaking: Interviews and
Encounters. London, UK: Thames and Hudson.
McLennan, Gregor. 2009. “FOR Science in the Social Sciences: The End of the Road for
Critical Realism?” In Nature, Social Relations and Human Needs: Essays in Honour of
Ted Benton, edited by Sandra Moog and Rob Stones, 47–64. London, UK: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Meier, Carl A., ed. 2001. Atom and Archetype: The Pauli/Jung Letters 1932–1958. London, UK:
Routledge.
Murphy, Michael. 2014. “The Emergence of Evolutionary Panentheism.” In Panentheism across
the World’s Traditions, edited by Loriliai Biernacki and Philip Clayton, 177–99. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Nicolaus, Georg. 2010. C. G. Jung and Nikolai Berdyaev: Individuation and the Person: A Critical
Comparison. Hove, UK: Routledge.
Otto, Rudolf. [1917]1950. The Idea of the Holy, translated by John H. Harvey. 2nd ed. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Partridge, Christopher. 2004. The Re-Enchantment of the West, Volume 1: Alternative Spiritualities,
Sacralization, Popular Culture and Occulture. Edinburgh, UK: T & T Clark.
Price, Henry H. 1953. “Review of Carl Gustav Jung and Wolfgang Pauli, Naturerklärung und
Psyche.” Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 37:26–35.
Scaff, Lawrence. 2000. “Weber on the Cultural Situation of the Modern Age.” In The Cambridge
Companion to Weber, edited by Stephen Turner, 99–116. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Scott, John, and Gordon Marshall, eds. 2005. A Dictionary of Sociology. 3rd ed. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Segal, Robert, ed. 1998. Jung on Mythology. London, UK: Routledge.
———. 2014. “Explanation and Interpretation.” In Jung and the Question of Science, edited by
Raya Jones, 82–97. London, UK: Routledge.
Shamdasani, Sonu. 2003. Jung and the Making of Modern Psychology: The Dream of a Science.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2009. “Liber Novus: The ‘Red Book’ of C. G. Jung.” introduction to The Red Book:
Liber Novus, by Carl Gustav Jung. Edited and with an introduction by Sonu Shamdasani.
New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. 2002. 5th ed. Edited by William Trumble and Angus
Stevenson. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Tacey, David. 2001. Jung and the New Age. Hove, UK: Brunner-Routledge.
———. 2013. The Darkening Spirit: Jung, Spirituality, Religion. London, UK: Routledge.
Taylor, Charles. 2007. A Secular Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Thomas, Owen. 2008. “Problems in Panentheism.” In The Oxford Handbook of Religion and
Science, edited by Philip Clayton and Zachary Simpson, 652–64. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Weber, Max. [1904–05]2001. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London, UK:
Routledge.
———. [1915]1946. “Religious Rejections of the World and Their Directions.” In From Max
Weber: Essays in Sociology, edited by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, 323–59. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
———. [1918]1946. “Science as a Vocation.” In From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, edited by
H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, 129–55. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
1122 Zygon
———. [1919]1946. “Politics as a Vocation.” In From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, edited by
H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, 78–128. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
———. [1922]1946. “Bureaucracy.” In From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, edited by H. H.
Gerth and C. Wright Mills, 196–244. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Wright, Andrew. 2012. Christianity and Critical Realism: Ambiguity, Truth and Theological Liter-
acy. London, UK: Routledge.