Process Philosophy and Theology

I recently wrote a brief summary and critique of process thought for an independent study I did last semester, specifically addressing the thought of A. Whitehead, Charles Hartshorne, and John Cobb. Here it is if anyone happens to be interested. 

Whitehead suggests that Western Philosophy has been mistaken with its metaphysical view that the world is made up of concrete beings. Instead, he suggests that everything in the world ("entities") is in a constant state of change, of becoming. Each actual entity exists only during that in which it is experiencing (other entities) and being experienced. God is the entity that functions as the fountain of all possibilities for every other entity's unwritten future, and provides a sense of coercion, keeping the world in some sort of order. The world has a sense of connectivity, as each entity feels/experiences others. 

The philosophy of Whitehead is novel and profoundly creative (no pun intended with either word). His thought is a helpful reminder that the world is not just merely a cold collection of static objects. Reading it brought afresh Bonhoeffer's distinction between Being-Towards-Adam and Being-Towards-Christ (which could easily be restated Becoming-Adam / Becoming-Christ, both in a federal sense), although Whitehead certainly saw the world differently than Bonhoeffer did. I also enjoyed considering the ontological (or, anti-ontological; perhaps metaphysical is more appropriate here) connectivity between people. Here I contemplated Saint Paul (and Pascal) on the body of Christ. 

However, there are a number of problems that emerge from his philosophy. First, the underlying notion of evolutionary progress is uncritical (also consider Bergson here). Even with the acknowledgment of biological evolution, there is no reason to believe that this can be applied outside the sphere of biological sciences. A brief look at history--or a person's unkept back yard--will reveal a picture quite contrary to progress evolution. Second, in all of Whitehead's metaphysics, he ignores the "elephant in the room." If everything is becoming, it had to initially (be)come. So here, Whitehead faces the same problem as agnostic/atheist naturalist scientists, but  \has all the more reason to discuss such issues by writing a metaphysics. Whitehead's "God" is, like Decartes', a logical necessity. Yet, it is not a God who could bring the world into existence. Instead, we are faced with absurd questions: e.g., who/what caused God? a bigger God? If so, is that God merely becoming as well? if so, who/what caused THAT God?, et cetera. Third, it is still unclear to me how conscious organisms have one unified experience. If every electron in our body is prehending, there seems to lack any clear explanation for "meta-prehension" for the entire organism.

Hartshorne was an interesting read in that he writes very clearly and has many suggestive arguments. I appreciated his focus on relativity in the sense that God is indeed relational. His thought is similar to Whitehead's (and thus the same critiques mostly apply), but with a much greater emphasis on the religious aspect in who God is. Here I would first question his notion that an orthodox, traditional view of God is a tyrant. As illustrated by Plato in his Republic, it is not necessarily the case that an authoritarian ruler is bad. Rather, the only truly perfect ruler would be one who held absolute power and was absolutely good and perfect. Classical Christian theism portrays a God who rules justly and perfectly with love and holiness--that is a "tyrant" that ought to be welcomed! To acknowledge God's relational qualities (that Hartshorne argues for), "God showed His love for us in this, that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."  If God is a tyrant, meant in the worst sense of the word, it would be absurd for Him to send His son to die for those he ruled over, those who rebelled against His authority.

I would also question Hartshorne's critique of the classical properties attributed to God, most specifically his immutability. First, God is triune, and therefore has always been relational. So, creation was not adding a new dimension (relativity) to God. Secondly, as we have briefly discussed, the suggestion that God is immutable by creating the universe is a misunderstanding based on time and eternity. If God were operating within a temporal structure, then the process critique would be sound. However, God is the author of time. If God is a timeless totality (not to detract from His personal attributes), then it does not seem an uncritical jump to attribute "all that was, and is, and is to come" to God's being. If the process philosopher or theologian were to here offer critique that God's eternity makes God impersonal or non-relational, the response must be a resounding reminder that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. This is the very tension that lay on the Word's lips in the Lord's prayer--our Father (personal) in Heaven (transcendent other).

Cobb's process theology attempts to take the God as suggested by the process philosophers (most notably, the two discussed above) and reconcile it with the bible. Yet, however much he attempts to do so, this is hardly a Christian theology in any broad traditional sense. In his doctrine of God, I would appeal to arguments made above, such as that in Christ's humiliation and exaltation, God is proven not to be passionless. Not only is sending Christ incomprehensibly loving, but during his ministry, Christ showed this love. When Jesus the man wept, the second person of the trinity was actually weeping in and through the man. Cobb also misunderstands time and eternity, which results in building much of his theology around the problem of evil. While it is naive to not take time to provide adequate answers to the problem of evil, if we understand God is eternal, and that real judgment is coming (for the righteous and unrighteous), we begin to see a different picture emerge. Rather than being a God who is concerned with "extrinsic rewards and punishments" (Process Theology, p. 54), he is the God who made loving covenant with humanity---e.g., he brought Israel out of slavery before giving them the law. God's ultimate plan, then, is redemption, not enjoyment of His creatures. This does not mean that God does not want us to have enjoyment, but rather that we will only find enjoyment in Him alone.

Finally, Cobb vastly misunderstands the person of Jesus. Most importantly, He does not accept his divinity. Instead, he believes Jesus to be the Christ in that he is the ultimate source of creative transformation. However, the notion of creative transformation seems to be nothing more than Hegelian synthesis. It is somewhat perplexing how the idea of creative transformation as Christ can be considered Biblical, in that the authors of the four Gospels make repeated reference to his divinity (especially in light of the Son of Man in the book of Daniel, etc). To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, Jesus must be either a liar, as crazy as the man who believes he is a poached egg, or God--he does not leave any other alternative open to us. As a result of Cobb's misunderstanding of who Jesus was, he also fails to understand his ministry, calling his teaching "irrelevant and impractical" (p 96) to the Roman empire. However, Jesus was talking about a much different Kingdom, that of His Father. For broader arguments on Cobb, such as his doctrine of God, the arguments discussed for Whitehead and Hartshorne are largely applicable to Cobb as well.

Epitaph for Dead Horses OR Why I'm Slightly Emergent and So Tired of Conversations About It

1. 9 out of 10 "Emergent Churches" have couches instead of pews (or perhaps cafe style tables) and candles. I still haven't found what makes that any different or "post-modern."

2. "Post-Modern." Can any of those above 9 out of 10 churches really define what postmodernism is? Derrida, Foucault, Rorty, Heidegger? Or is just cool to be pop-culture "postmodern"?

3. Academically, postmodernism is dead. Right now it's a chicken running around with its head cut off. 

4. During the modern era, there were certainly modern churches. However, none of them were marketing themselves as the "Modern Church." It's funny that so many emerging churches are calling themselves Postmodern.

5. I'm so, so tired of hearing people--especially reformed people--critique the emergent church. Nearly all of their critiques are superficial and "major on the minors." If they don't like it, don't worry... postmodernism is dead, and being emergent (especially in the sense mentioned in points #1-2) will go away. Why not take time writing something positive instead of something critical?

6. The previous paragraph was quite funny because I myself am writing something critical. However, it's meta-criticism. Is that different some how?

7. In conclusion, there's some intelligent, God loving guys out there (even if they are writing for a popular audience) such as Mark Driscoll, Rob Bell, and Donald Miller. Just like any theology/philosophy, we should accept what is true, reject what is not. And most of all, let's learn what we can, embrace fellow Christians (even if there is non-heretical doctrinal disagreement) and please, please move on.

Phenomenology

I was asked to discuss phenomenology a bit more. 

Phenomenology is sort of an extreme empiricism and the logical conclusions of Kant's theory of knowledge--all we can know is what we perceive. So, there is no universal certainty. Truth is a construct within the self based on both these experiences and our perception/understanding of them based on our past and beliefs. The Self (an individual) is composed of these experiences and perceptions, and thus said, we determine our view of reality. The world is not as much a collection of cold objects, but of objects that we view as useful in various ways. Thus being said, e.g., there is no clear distinction between the world and the self--the line between your hand typing and the keyboard are blurred because to the phenomenologist, both are tools being used. In a sense, the world IS an extension of oneself. The perceptions create an internal construct of reality that is "your reality." Merleau-Ponty is a pretty clear example of a phenomonological thinker, and later Heidegger became less pure existentialist and more phenomenological... the line between the two aren't always 100% clear though.



In a brief Christian response, it is a naturalist position (embraces that all we are is material "stuff," not spiritual beings in anyway) and also (due to its denial of certain knowledge and truth as a construct) seems to leave no room for God, at least in any orthodox sense of Him. I would largely object to these as I would in many philosophies that reject certainty (deconstructionism, etc). It is easy to deny that there are any standards until those standards are violated. Punch someone in the face, and their moral relativity will be disregarded quite quickly. It's easy to say that there are no universal standards from the desk at a university... it's not so easy to say if you're a Jew at Auschwitz or a woman who was just raped. 



Like all philosophies, we can learn from it, however. Like many postmodern philosophies, its focus on the world as more than cold objects is very important. Everything in the world has meaning, whether it's a hammer whose use is meaningful to us, or other people as meaningful, created in God's image (and not objects to be exploited, etc).  



A book that might be worth reading is Pascal's Penses, or to make it a bit easier to understand, also reading "Blaise Pascal: Apologist to the Skeptic" by Charles S. MacKenzie. Pascal is a philosopher often decontextualized then torn apart in philosophy classes. However, Pascal is one of the few philosophers to speak both to modernism and absolute skepticism (which is essentially postmodernism).



Pascal breaks his theory of knowledge into different orders--an order of body, mind, and charity. The first is almost an empiricist order, the second is almost a rationalist order, and the third is an order of first principles. Each order (i.e., type of knowledge) has a different type of knowing required for it. For order of body, we use our senses and experimentation. For the order of mind, we use reason, math, logic, and the scientific method. For the order of charity, we know by faith. Ultimately, ALL first principles are accepted by faith, whether it is faith that our senses lead to knowledge, that science gives all truth, that reason can lead us to all knowledge, or that there is a triune God who has revealed Himself.



Most philosophy errors because it tries to pick one view as supreme to the others. However, many times many people have only part of the puzzle correct. Pascal sees this, and realizes that different types of knowledge must have different types of knowing. Imagine the absurdity of when we use the wrong type of knowing: Can you use faith to prove scientific laws? This was tried, mixed with Aristotle's thought, and people believed in a geocentric universe. Can we use our senses to taste how sound an argument is, or hear how correct a math equation is? Why would we try to PROVE faith when reason, when reason is what flows from the fount of faith? (not saying that faith isn't reasonable, but it can't be apodictically proved either) So, I think a Pascalian epistemology might help clarify many questions. In the phenomenological conversation, many phenomenological ideas could probably be "Baptised" (as Augustine did with Plato) and translated into a mixture of Pascal's orders of body and charity. You may want to read some stuff by Plantinga, too. His views on Foundationalism are different from traditional views and therefore will dialogue better with phenomenology.

Nuclear Weapons Don't Kill People, People Kill People

So recently an 8 year old girl was killed here in St. Petersburg through a gang related drive by shooting. Today in the paper I read the perspective of "an influential republican and NRA spokesperson" commenting on the AR-15s found in suspects' homes, one of which is quite likely the murder weapon. His thoughts: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." 

Am I the only one whose brain hurts thinking of this statement?

While this is technically true in a sense, I can't help but find this line of thinking absurd. What possible need is there for people to own a weapon whose only purpose is to drastically slaughter (not kill) people? That's far beyond any realm of gaming/hunting, or self defense. Perhaps I should look into assembling a nuclear weapon for my back yard, just in case of thermo-nuclear war. You know, self defense. If NSA or Homeland Security comes by, I'll just throw them my own rendition of Mr. NRA's line--"Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people." 

Anglican Mission in the US

I have a special place in my heart for the Anglican community, especially those who are associated with the Rwanda leadership. It has just been announced that a new Anglican branch is splitting from ECUS and Anglican Church of Canada to form the Anglican Mission, an official denomination under Rwandan authority (versus individual church relationships prior). This means a higher probability of finding good Anglican churches here in the US (and knowing which ones those are initially).

For more info : http://www.acn-us.org/archive/2008/12/celebrates-prepares.html

Words of wisdom.

"If Hegel had written the whole of his Logic and then said ... that it was merely an experiment in thought, then he could certainly have been the greatest thinker who ever lived. As it is, he is merely comic." - Kierkegaard

Constitutional Amendments

Well, in Florida you pretty much have to be able to write in order to get an amendment voted on. This General Election's Amendment #2 is as follows:

NO. 2
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
ARTICLE I, NEW SECTION

Florida Marriage Protection Amendment
This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.The direct financial impact this amendment will have on state and local government revenues and expenditures cannot be determined, but is expected to be minor.


Truth is complex. I like to often describe truth as a painting, perhaps "Starry Night" by Van Gogh since that's a favorite of mine. One could describe it as a painting of stars shining over a city. It could be described as an oil painting on canvas. We could describe it by its use of color, Van Gogh's intentions / meaning, its historical context as an impressionist painting, etc. All of these are true, there are just different ways that truth can be talked about since it is, afterall, so complex.

Similarly, if I have one barista prone to be too loud, I'll ask them to be quieter. If there is one that is shy, I encourage them to be more loud and outgoing. Both are true, because I'm trying to accomplish the same goal, just by two different approaches.

Yes, scripture does tell us that homosexuality is not how the world was created. People have all kinds of desires and lusts (heterosexual, too!) that exist because of the fall that are genuine desires, but still condemned by God. Romans 8:: Nature is groaning for redemption! In Christ, there can be that redemption, perhaps slowly over time, but it can be there... not just with lusts (homosexual and heterosexual), but with all sins.

Yet, the homosexual population feels extremely ostracized from Christianity, and unfortunately, understandably so. When I see things like Amendment #2, it makes me wonder what exactly people are trying to accomplish. It seems very self-righteous...do the people who wrote this amendment actually know a gay person? have they stopped to love a homosexual person, as a person? I'm not so sure--it seems to be making judgments from a distance. It's easier to do that than get our hands dirty in real human relationships, I guess. Our primary goal is not to bring about a moral society, but to lead people to Christ. If we do the latter, there should be a natural overflow of our love of God onto those around us. Yes, homosexuality is wrong. But right now, what most homosexuals need to hear is that God loves them, and show this by OUR loving them. Voting YES for #2 seems to be just sitting back, pointing the finger and condemning.

Please, vote NO on #2 if you're in FL, then take the time to get to know a gay person so you can show them God's love.

More in irony

I subscribe to several online dictionary's "Word of the Day" emails to help prepare me for the GRE Vocabulary section. I couldn't help but be amused by the following word...

sesquipedalian \ses-kwuh-puh-DAYL-yuhn\, adjective:

1. Given to or characterized by the use of long words.