970. have

scanned pdf

According to Hartshornef the "ideas which we must have ... are all summed UPf focusedf unitedf made sense out of by the idea of God. What is 'added' is only the more complete intelligibility. God is not ... a fact among factsf but any fact as differing from nothing only through a love which sways and registers all occurrences" (AD: 108).
It seems clear from this that what Hartshorne means by "the idea of God" is precisely the idea of "a love which sways and registers all existence." Butf thenf it is arguable that what "the idea of God" provides is not moref but rather lessfintelligibilitYf the idea of such a love being an unintelligible (because self-contradictorYf incoherent) idea. This it iSf at any ratef unless it is
~
understood simply as a symbolic way of talking about "the inclusive re]ality/
--'
or "the universal individual."
Elsewhere Hartshorne reasons similarly: ""[T]he analysis of this sense [sc. of being coordinate tOf or coexistent with others] reveals God as its intelligible content; for only within a common impartial unity can such coordination obtain; and this impartial inclusiveness is precisely the omniscience and all-appreciativeness of God" ("The Formal Validity and Real Significance of the Ontological Argument" : 235 f.).
To this one can only replYf "Nof 'this impartial inclusiveness' is not precisely 'the omniscience and all-appreciativeness of God;jwhich is only a symbolic way of thinking and speaking about it!"
18 April 1997