Process Theology

[Akita Suggagaki]

Anyone else have interest in such groundbreakers as Teilhard de Chadin? Newer voices, David Tracy? Catherine Keller? Alfred North Whitehead, Charles Hartshorne, John Cobb, and David Ray Griffin?

 

[John Bauer]

No.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Anyone else have interest in such groundbreakers as Teilhard de Chadin? Newer voices, David Tracy? Catherine Keller? Alfred North Whitehead, Charles Hartshorne, John Cobb, and David Ray Griffin?

I don't really get into Process Theology per say, but yes, I"m familiar with some of the names on this list and have read bits and pieces of Teilhard de Chardin and Alfred North Whitehead, and maybe some Charles Hartshorne in the distant past. I have de Chardin's book, The Phenomenon of Man.

Feel free to tell me what you think about these guys.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I like that they at least make an effort to reconcile science with religion. Such an effort involves rejection by the status quo. The classical concept of God as unchanging, static as well as totally other than the “created” universe never made much sense to me. So I am glad that the process people are at least open to an alternate view an try to thrash it out.

 

[John Bauer]

I like that they at least make an effort to reconcile science with religion.

They at least make an effort? No one else does?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

They at least make an effort? No one else does?

It is true that since the enlightenment efforts have been made. But I don’t think anyone dared to challenge the classical understanding of God, unchanging and completely other.
Language always leaves us lacking in communication. Is God immanent as well as transcendent? If so, how? What does that mean?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It is true that since the enlightenment efforts have been made. But I don’t think anyone dared to challenge the classical understanding of God, unchanging and completely other.
Language always leaves us lacking in communication. Is God immanent as well as transcendent? If so, how? What does that mean?

Don't we need to parse out the human questions that seem to have a tangible answer? As it is, I think speculative philosophy ends up taking up everyone's time when we could be focusing more on the historical, scriptural fragments that we do know and working out hermeneutical problems instead. This is why I lean into a more existential, Pascalian view of things rather than the sort of theologiziing which comes from someone like Teilhard de Chardin. I like to leave well enough alone those questions of mystery that God didn't see fit to provide answers for.

This isn't to say it's a complete waste of time to read de Chardin or Whitehead, but we have to be willing at some point to settle for the blanks in our knowledge we'd like to see God fill in.

But what are your thoughts on this?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Don't we need to parse out the human questions that seem to have a tangible answer? As it is, I think speculative philosophy ends up taking up everyone's time when we could be focusing more on the historical, scriptural fragments that we do know and working out hermeneutical problems instead. This is why I lean into a more existential, Pascalian view of things rather than the sort of theologiziing which comes from someone like Teilhard de Chardin. I like to leave well enough alone those questions of mystery that God didn't see fit to provide answers for.

This isn't to say it's a complete waste of time to read de Chardin or Whitehead, but we have to be willing at some point to settle for the blanks in our knowledge we'd like to see God fill in.

But what are your thoughts on this?

I am actually a pretty pragmatic guy. What helps me make it through the day? What gives juice to my spiritual journey? I have to have some sense of meaning, purpose and how it all works. I always seek some understanding of the bigger picture no matter how flawed or incomplete that makes some sense to me.

For some folks a literal interpretation of the Bible is all they need. Other, traditional doctrines or creeds. But I always seem to ask what any of that actually means and do I really believe it.

So I am among those who look for answers I can’t even understand. But as long as I have some sort of theory that makes at least some sense to me, it helps me to live.

So, the nature of God and humans, how we relate and where we are going, while remaining enmeshed in sacred mystery, still are important to me. So the human questions are intertwined with the God questions.

Can you say more about a Pascalian view?

 

[John Bauer]

I don’t think anyone dared to challenge the classical understanding of God: unchanging and completely other.

Okay, but what does that have to do with reconciling science with religion?

Language always leaves us lacking in communication. Is God immanent as well as transcendent? If so, how? What does that mean?

As to his mode of existence, he is transcendent. As to his activities in redemptive history, he is immanent. So he is transcendent and immanent at the same time but in different respects.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am actually a pretty pragmatic guy. What helps me make it through the day? What gives juice to my spiritual journey? I have to have some sense of meaning, purpose and how it all works. I always seek some understanding of the bigger picture no matter how flawed or incomplete that makes some sense to me.

I also look for what can help me make it through the day along with motivators by which to continue the journey we have in Christ. Purpose and meaning are especially central in my view of the world as well, and if possible, a larger, more incorporated, integral understanding of our lives in this vast universe is something I'd prefer to have too, if at all possible. The difference here in my thought from what you seem to be expressing is that I tend to prefer to only have 'the truth' about reality that I can actually gain, however uncomfortable or discordant it might be. I know that my saying this probably isn't wholly accurate because you too want some reality, but you're seeking more reconciliation of ideas where I attempt to be willing to settle for having less than what I'd prefer to have.

For some folks a literal interpretation of the Bible is all they need. Other, traditional doctrines or creeds. But I always seem to ask what any of that actually means and do I really believe it.

None of that serves me as a central core of concern. Not a literal interpretation, not creeds, not extraneous and extrapolated doctrines. Just existence as it is and as it might possibly be known on a human level, to whatever degree.

So I am among those who look for answers I can’t even understand. But as long as I have some sort of theory that makes at least some sense to me, it helps me to live.

I'm a little different than you perhaps; I only want to entertain theories that have some substantive evidence supporting the explanation we try to assert. Otherwise, in my estimation, it's just speculation and speculation doesn't bake any bread for me. It might for other people. I get that. But for me, it doesn't. That's why I identify as both an existentialist and an evidentialist. But everyone's different, and I understand all too well that we are not clones and can't expect everyone to be on the same, identical epistemic page.

So, the nature of God and humans, how we relate and where we are going, while remaining enmeshed in sacred mystery, still are important to me. So the human questions are intertwined with the God questions.

As they are for me as well. I think they are for many or most of us who identify as Christian in some form or another.

Can you say more about a Pascalian view?

The first thing I'd say is that by a "Pascalian View," I don't mean some sort of Pascalian-ism, most especially a view that is truncated and despoiled of all additional contexts by a hyper-fixation upon the one bit of Pascal's thought that has become identified all too often as his main contribution to apologetics: his Wager.

No, in this case, Pascal, like so many of the theologians I read, serves as but one influence among many and allows me to affirm our common existential plight in this life without being cited for moral deficiencies due to a false application of Pauline theology or a lack of rational justification via a Cartesian conclusion. And that's the starting point: that we exist and will continue to exist in this life with Uncertainty.

So, I've said "more" and there'll I'll stop because I don't want to derail this thread and push it onto another tangent. We can continue to talk about Teilhard de Chardin or Whitehead, or whomever you're intending to focus on.

One thing I will say about Teilhard de Chardin is that, even though I may disagree with his overall project, I appreciate the fact that as a scientist (paleontologist) and a theologian, he attempted to take the bull of Evolution by the horns and reconcile it with the Christian Faith. It's not the way I'd handle the topic of Evolution, but I appreciate his philosophical effort to do so.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Okay, but what does that have to do with reconciling science with religion?



As to his mode of existence, he is transcendent. As to his activities in redemptive history, he is immanent. So he is transcendent and immanent at the same time but in different respects.

How can he be active in redemption history if he is transcendent? Unless his existence connects with our own world. This is where I think panentheism might be a helpful consideration.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

The difference here in my thought from what you seem to be expressing is that I tend to prefer to only have 'the truth' about reality that I can actually gain, however uncomfortable or discordant it might be. I know that my saying this probably isn't wholly accurate because you too want some reality, but you're seeking more reconciliation of ideas where I attempt to be willing to settle for having less than what I'd prefer to have.

It seems to me that “truth we can actually gain” is what I try to reconcile. And these days even that truth seems questionable.

It seems to be an ongoing negotiation between settling and seeking. And when it comes to process I wonder what guys like Heraclitus, Hegel and Aurobindo can add to our Christian world view. How fringe is that when even de chardin had orthodoxy problems

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It seems to me that “truth we can actually gain” is what I try to reconcile. And these days even that truth seems questionable.

Sifting the presentation and quality of various truth claims is problematic these days, isn't it? However, I think a robust application of Critical Thinking (which is a part of Philosophy, after all) can help with separating out some of the dross.

It seems to be an ongoing negotiation between settling and seeking. And when it comes to process I wonder what guys like Heraclitus, Hegel and Aurobindo can add to our Christian world view. How fringe is that when even de chardin had orthodoxy problems

Oh, I don't know about that. I think settling and seeking may have different meaning for different people. When I refer to settling, I'm not also making it synonymous with ceasing altogether from further exploration. What I mean by it is a willingness to abide in the Christian Faith despite the fact that we may not get all of the answers we want or the answers we'd like to have in the way we'd want to have them in the ongoing act of seeking.

As for synthesis of thought via Hegelian like dialectical processing, I like to be careful and not assume that theoretical syntheses always or necessarily either bring more truth or always adulterate it. Fringe can still be within the "pail of Orthodoxy," even if the leading authorities cite otherwise. Pascal was considered unorthodox by some, but in a little different way than is either Teihard de Chardin, Whitehead, or those like them. Moreover, reality and truth are what they are despite what is authorized by some leaders as official hermeneutical methods and choices.

I think it is interesting that in the case of Teilhard de Chardin, and despite the seeming pantheism he veers toward in his synthesis of evolution and Christian worldview, he nevertheless says,

"In any domain--whether it be the cells of a body the members of society or the elements of a spiritual synthesis--union differentiates. In every organized whole, the parts perfect themselves and fulfil themselves. Through [our] neglect of this universal rule many a system of pantheism has led us astray to the cult of the great All in which individuals were supposed to be merged like a drop in the ocean or like a dissolving grain of salt. Applied to the case of the summation of consciousnesses, the law of union rids us of this perilous and recurrent illusion... ... (p. 262, The Phenomenon of Man).​

​

From this, it doesn't seem like he was aiming for a sheer pantheism and he wanted to give his synthesis the dressing of orthodox intent. Whether or not he succeeded is another issue.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

What I mean by it is a willingness to abide in the Christian Faith despite the fact that we may not get all of the answers we want or the answers we'd like to have in the way we'd want to have them in the ongoing act of seeking.

Well the question I often ask myself is what faith am I abiding in exactly. What difference does it make in the way I live my life and who I am? Do I live as if I have faith? Does God live and grow in me?

I know I have some fundamentals. Those fundamentals have more to do with fullness of life here and now rather than life in heaven or Omega Point.

I am realizing that I really don’t know that much about Process thought other than Aurobindo. David Tracy helped in Christian context.

We usually hold that God created from nothing. It seems to me that at least the energy and power of his will are something?? Does God dwell in is or not? Wouldn’t we have to be manifestations of God? As if God casts relatively independent units of consciousness to be us evolving to that realization.

Enough. I wore myself out working on the bathroom sink. Too old for that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well the question I often ask myself is what faith am I abiding in exactly. What difference does it make in the way I live my life and who I am? Do I live as if I have faith? Does God live and grow in me?

Those are all good questions, ones we all should be thinking about fairly frequently, I think.

I know I have some fundamentals. Those fundamentals have more to do with fullness of life here and now rather than life in heaven or Omega Point.

I am realizing that I really don’t know that much about Process thought other than Aurobindo. David Tracy helped in Christian context.

Well, these Process theologians can give you something to think about, and I'm sure David Tracy can be helpful.

We usually hold that God created from nothing. It seems to me that at least the energy and power of his will are something?? Does God dwell in is or not? Wouldn’t we have to be manifestations of God? As if God casts relatively independent units of consciousness to be us evolving to that realization.

Your guess is as good as mine on these points.

Enough. I wore myself out working on the bathroom sink. Too old for that.

There's nothing quite like DIY plumbing. Not so fun but it saves money.

 

[John Bauer]

How can he be active in redemption history if he is transcendent?

What makes you think these are incompatible? Do you suppose transcendent means “spatially absent” or “causally disconnected” from the world? (It means neither of those things.)

Unless his existence connects with our own world.

It does. That is what “immanent” means. But you know that—don’t you?

God is ontologically transcendent while actively immanent.

This is where I think panentheism might be a helpful consideration.

I don’t see how. In classical Christian theology, creation neither participates in God’s own being nor exists as part of God.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

What makes you think these are incompatible? Do you suppose transcendent means “spatially absent” or “causally disconnected” from the world? (It means neither of those things.)
It does. That is what “immanent” means. But you know that—don’t you?

God is ontologically transcendent while actively immanent.

I don’t see how. In classical Christian theology, creation neither participates in God’s own being nor exists as part of God.

This is the question: if creation neither participates in God's own being nor exists as part of God, as God is ontologically transcendent, how can he be causally connected and actively immanent? I am not saying he isn't. But how does it logically make sense without fudging the meanings of "transcendent". And "immanent"? How does "spatially " present align with transcendent? How do you understand those words in this context.

It seems to me that we can only participate in God's being with no independent being of our own. In God we "live and move and have our being" whether we realize it or not.

 

[John Bauer]

This is the question: If creation neither participates in God's own being nor exists as part of God—[because] God is ontologically transcendent—then how can he be causally connected and actively immanent? I am not saying he isn't. But how [can you make sense of that] without fudging the meanings of transcendent and immanent?

The term causally “connected” can create a problem because that can suggest two separate entities linked by some tertium quid, some shared ontological space or field.

It is better to say that God is “actively immanent” by his immediate “causal presence” to creation as its Creator, sustainer, and governor. Creation subsists, persists, moves, acts, and is governed only by his immediate will, power, knowledge, and sovereign agency—not by spatial proximity, contact, or participation in a shared ontological field, but by total ontological dependence. Creation is really distinct from God, but it is never independent of God in any way or at any moment.

How does "spatially" present align with transcendent? How do you understand those words in this context?

There is a difference between spatial presence and causal presence (and the latter doesn’t require the former). God is not spatially present as we understand it, for God has no spatial location or extension.

But he is immediately present to all creation—whether that is causal, or covenantal, or revelatory, etc.—because all creation exists by his immediate will, power, knowledge, and sovereign agency. Creation is contingent and dependent; it is not autonomous in any way. It exists because of him and is sustained and governed by him at every moment.

It seems to me that we can only participate in God's being with no independent being of our own. In God we "live and move and have our being," whether we realize it or not.

Acts 17:28, which is what you quoted there, does not say or suggest that we “participate in God’s being” as though our existence were a portion or mode of divine existence. It means our existence is radically dependent upon God, that creatures have their being from God, in dependence upon God, and exist ever before God. Paul is not teaching panentheism or mutual participation in one being. He is teaching divine self-existence and creaturely dependence.

 

[Leviathan-at-play]

Paul is not teaching panentheism or mutual participation in one being. He is teaching divine self-existence and creaturely dependence.

Divine self-existence and creaturely dependence are both properties of panentheism.

It’d be a stretch to say that Paul’s “teaching Panentheism” but on the other hand I have no sense that Paul believed any differently than “All things in God, God in all things, God also transcendent.” Am happy to be corrected if my understanding of panentheism (and/or Paul) is wrong here brother.

 

[John Bauer]

Divine self-existence and creaturely dependence are both properties of panentheism.

True.

Nevertheless, when I said Paul is not teaching mutual participation in one being, I meant that he is not affirming that all things are in God as parts, modes, or internal differentiations of the divine being. He is teaching that all things are from God, through God, and unto God.

Panentheism affirms more than “God is transcendent” or “all creatures depend on God,” both of which classical theism obviously affirms. Panentheism adds the idea that the world is somehow inside God or included in God’s own life or being, which is a lot more than mere dependence upon God. And classical theism rejects it because it compromises the Creator-creature distinction (v. 24) and contradicts divine simplicity.

Paul says that “in him we live and move about and exist” (v. 28) because “he himself gives life and breath and everything to everyone” (v. 25). This is about total creaturely dependence upon God’s sustaining agency, not ontological inclusion within his being.

I have no sense that Paul believed any differently than “All things in God, God in all things, God also transcendent.” Am happy to be corrected if my understanding of panentheism (and/or Paul) is wrong here brother.

That word “in” appears to be a pack horse carrying some hidden assumptions. I would not summarize Paul as saying “all things in God, God in all things,” unless those phrases are heavily qualified. Paul also speaks of believers being “in Christ,” but that doesn’t mean they are spatially inside Christ’s body or ontologically included as parts of Christ’s divine being. So the preposition “in” cannot bear the weight of a panentheistic ontology by itself.

Yes, Paul teaches divine transcendence and divine immanence, but not in a panentheistic framework. For Paul, the world is not somehow included within God’s own life or being; that ontological claim is not what Paul argues in Acts 17, nor is it required by his language of creaturely dependence.

If panentheism means “God is transcendent and immanent, and all creatures exist in total dependence upon God,” then the term is being used so broadly that classical Christian theism would count as panentheism—which makes the term practically useless.

But if panentheism means what it usually means, that the world is somehow “in” God—not merely dependent upon God, but included within the divine life or divine being—then Paul is not teaching it.