PantaRhea

OK. I think I can agree... but I do so by thinking of hell as judgement in the form of regret for those lost opportunities to (in Process terms) "actualize God's Initial Aim". "What could have been" is lost for eternity. Which is what I think I hear you saying?

I read SES years ago -- I was in more of a scientific reductionist phase then, so my opinion of it was lower than it would be now, but I still think it's too damned long! I recently read A Theory of Everything, and I thought it was more the "right size" for the material being covered. I picked up A Sociable God today (breaking my Lenten fast on shopping!). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hey! I bought A Sociable God a couple weeks ago. Cool!

I just finished reading to the end of this topic and all I can say is... like wow... thanks

I continue to use the notion of Eternal Life and Eternity, to emphasize that we're not talking about any conventional notion of time -- that is, neither the fantasy of some future far-off never-ending time, nor the simple, mundane present. Eternal Life IS now, just as it has always been, and always will be; and yet in a deeper sense Eternal Life radically negates all time, and isn't captured by any of them. It's much like -- in fact, it is precisely -- the distinction between pantheism and panentheism (which is being quite adequately covered on two other boards, so I don't have to add to it here!). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes you DO have to cover it here!! 'Cause I'm not sure I understand what you mean (the difference between pantheism and panentheism), and... I'd like to. Please?

Communicating by this method has its advantages and disadvantages, as we all know. A major disadvantage is that we often "read between the lines" in trying to make up for the missing verbal and visual signals that we so often rely on in order to discern the intent of another. All this to say, as I read your message I read between the lines and detect some hurt and offense. And, reading my message I see some justification for it. I hope you understand that I had no intention of criticizing you personally and that my intention was to clarify, not condemn. Please forgive me for my lack of tact and insensitivity. As the Quakers say, I'll hold you to the Light in my thoughts and ask that your days become lighter. Don

That was Jesus saying "fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Hell." So I don't see anything unhealthy, mean, manipulative, abusive, etc. about sharing with others what my Lord said Himself. Certainly that message can be delivered with compassion, concern, etc. But for me, to not say it would be anything but love. Jesus is sounding a very serious warning in that verse. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There is a big difference between what we read that Jesus said in the Bible and our interpretation of what Jesus said. When some of Jesus sayings are interpreted in such a way that someone is led to believe that hell has a literal location in some kind of afterlife, and that there is going to be some kind of "rapture" as claimed by the Fundamentalists, I think there is all kinds of unhealthy, mean, manipulative, etc, results which can follow. Of course, there is also the backward step into the premodern world.

Ken Wilber? He's grrrreat! I just finished reading Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. I think Ken has a way of making Whitehead more understandable. His idea of a "Holon" is synonymous with Whitehead's "Actual Occasion". (See HOLONS)

Hopefully this will be understandable, but I think it is important to not be misled by analogies. I'm thinking particularly of the analogies AlethiaRiver provided of a little circle within a big circle, and a fish in the ocean. The problem for our understanding of panentheism, is just what is meant by the idea that the world is INCLUDED in God? We can put a round porous object in a round fishbowl so that the water "seeps" into the object, but is this the sense that is meant by the panentheist? In what way does the ocean "include" the fish? The reason these analogies can be misleading, in my opinion, is that they imply the idea of "substance". Yeah, I know, I know... now I'm getting into concepts that are too "difficult". But, unless this difference is grasped between the modern concept of reality, and panentheism, (a substance ontology and an event ontology) you'll never really understand how, for instance, prayer can be effectual, God/dess can act, how we can be co-creators, and science can be integrated with values. I'd like to suggest that, although all analogies can be misleading, that these two might provide a better understanding of what is meant by God "including" the universe: 1. The past is included in the present. 2. The teacher is included in the student. BTW, it is as true to say that the world is included in God, as to say that God is included in the world. And when you get to the point when you ask in what way is this true, rather than immediately thinking that there is no way for this to be true, you will be ready to learn. I'm still just trying to be helpful. Don

Do I get to participate in this topic or is everything I have to offer too intellectual, too filled with jargon, and way above the heads of "lay" people? This stuff doesn't seem near as difficult to me as, say, something like trigonomety!! BrotherRog, Excellent sites! Whereas these ideas were very isolated from the populace a few years back (was this due to some intellectual snobbery, or that the time for such ideas had not ripened?) I am amazed now at how abundant the sources have become!! I especially like this from the second listed site:

Soma, You didn't answer my question and I don't think it was all that difficult. In your worldview, how many values exist? If the question doesn't make sense, another way of putting it is, how many subjects exist? Only where there are subjects are there values, and if there is only one subject (God the Father as you suggest) there must be only one value. But the term value is meaningless if there is only a single instance of it, because a value, by definition, is a comparison among a plurality. It is a relational term. Your position as you've described it, is generally labeled "pantheism". I have some fairly strong objections to pantheism because I believe ultimately, if one follows the logical conclusions which must be drawn if pantheism provides an accurate picture of reality, one ends up with an ethic of "IS = OUGHT". Also, our subjective experiences are illusory and false, love has no meaning, life has no ultimate purpose FOR US, and all striving for excellence is futile.

In your reading did you run across the term "Initial Aim"? If you can get a grasp on this concept, you should be able to get through the vagueness of what God actually does - at least according to Process Theology and the authors you've read. No I didn't provide any more comment on prayer. As I mentioned in the message, I thought some general questions needed to be dealt with first before dealing with the question of prayer because it was obvious that there were many hidden assumptions in the answers given by others which needed, in my opinion, to be addressed. I'm kind'a pissed that nobody attempted to answer them. But then, maybe I'm just pissed because my cat died and the emotion spilled onto everything else. Hey! I understand! And I can't even use the PMS excuse!! Don

Yes, but you didn't answer my question - according to your understanding, are there more actual values in the universe than (1)? The answer to this question will reveal whether you are a pantheist, or a panentheist. If the universe has only one essence (consciousness) it must have only one value, but a single value is equal to zero values, because "value" is a relational term and relationships, by definition, must have an "other".

Jeep, While I agree with much of Spong's writings, I find him to be in the "De-constructive Postmodernist" camp and that is not where I'm at. Process Theology on the other hand is a "Constructive Postmodernism". Part of the difference, in practical terms, is this - Process Theology allows me to believe in a God I can really be related to and who I can really believe loves me without twisting the meaning of "love". Spong's use of the term "God" does not fit what David Griffin calls the generic idea of God: "According to this generic idea or definition, the word God refers to a personal, purposive [agent], perfect in goodness and supreme in power, who created the world, acts providentially in it, is sometimes [consciously] experienced by human beings, especially as the source of moral norms and religious experiences, is the ultimate ground of meaning and hope, and is thereby alone worthy of worship."

Aletheia, "Dipolar theism" may not be synonymous with process philosophy (since there are some process philosophers who are not theists) but it is a good synonym for Process Theology. Is this your understanding? You and WindDancer might also be interested in the latest issue of "Process Perspectives" (the Newsletter of the Center for Process Studies). At the first conference of the new program: "Dialogues Concerning Science and Natural Religion", Howard Van Till (Professor Emeritus of Physics and Astronomy at Calvin College spoke on "From Calvinism to Claremont, Now That's Evolution! One Scientists Evolution from Calvin's Supernaturalism to Griffin's Naturalism." Here's part of what was included in the Newsletter: Van Till described how, as a Reformed Christian scholar in the Academy, he "knew" that "Christians were up against a tough enemy out there in the larger North American world, especially in the secular academy. That enemy's name was 'Naturalism,' the contentious problem child of the Enlightenment." Caught between the demands of his faith and his scientific studies, Van Till struggled to reconcile doctrines of creation ex nihilo and God's intervention in the world with the scientific evidence to the contrary, eventually proposing that God was able to interfere with the natural order of the world, but chose not to do so [the "Open View" position] Invoking the "formational economy of the univese," which is the sum total of all resources, structural and functional potentialities, and formational capabilities that are to be found, Van Till argued the "Right Stuff Universe Principle," which posits that the universe, at the moment of creation, contained all the resources and raw material necessary for the development of any complexity we may find. Evangelical communities, however, criticized this theory as a variety of deism because (on their view) God does not do anything. Eventually, Van Till encountered David Griffin's writings, which encouraged him to dare to be consistent and reject supernaturalistic action. Embracing naturalistic theism instead, Van Till was able to describe God's action in the world as natural, enriched to include purposeful and effective, but non-coercive divine action. This way, naturalism and theism need not be enemies. Van Till suggested that he might reformulate his "Right Stuff" principle as follows: "The formational economy of the universe is sufficiently robust to make possible the actualizing, by wholly natural processes and events, of every type of physical structure and life form that has ever existed - with the understanding that natural processes and events, while they do preclude any form of coercive divine intervention, may nonetheless include non-coercive divine action as an effective factor."

WindDancer, You may or may not consider me to be knowledgeable about process theology, but regardless of what other people have told you, the beliefs you mention *ARE* compatible with process theolgy! I don't think you will find substantial disagreement between Clayton, Griffin, Harteshorne, Whitehead, Ford, Cobb, Suchocki, Epperly, Hamilton, Peters, Mesle, Jungerman, etc., and all of them would agree that God acts (in the sense described in the paper by Clayton you just read) and that God has *necessary* existence while the world has *contingent* existence. I am curious about your sources, other than Clayton, for Process Theology. Who are these people who would disagree with those I've mentioned?

Don't overlook this note in his paper, btw: As background for this paper I have in mind a form of process theism (in the 12 nontechnical sense of the term), which presupposes that there is a God who is responsive to the world, whether or not this God intervenes miraculously in the world. Of course this assumption also needs explaining and defending — just not here.

Des, I don't think it will be possible to understand Process Theology as long as you can think of "God" only in terms of the supernatural. God, as understood by Process Theology, is not the same as the universe (that would be pantheism), and does transcend the universe. But the universe can be transcended without resorting to supernaturalism. I think I may have exhausted my fair share of bytes in this forum for now, but at some point I would like to provide a list reasons why we should abandon supernaturalism if we desire an integrated worldview - or even a good approach to ethics.

WindDancer, I agree with Clayton's statement. Does that take me out of the process camp? What do you believe Clayton means by "God" and the "physical universe"?

I'm sorry, but I must be missing something in the quote. Process thought agrees with science that events (energy events - or quantum packets of energy) make up what we define as "entities". The trouble is, science continues to use terms which apply to the Newtonian concept of nature - which is a materialistic philosophy with a history going back to Democritus. According to Newton, "things" that we experience with our senses, are composed of tiny atoms which are "hard, massy, indivisible substances". In philosophical terms, these atoms would be described as separate "beings" with no internal relations. All change was described simply in terms of differences in the location of these atoms. This understanding of reality is no longer held by quantum physicists- but it still uses the same terms. For instance, "particle" - what is a "particle", really? Is it like a "particle of sand"? These "particles" are now understood by physicists to be certain forms in the field of movement. If two "particles" are brought together, they will begin to gradually influence one another and eventually become one. Think of it like this: often times in a river you find these whirlpools swirling around an obstruction. As you watch these whirlpools you occasionally see one whirlpool approach the other and as they do, you begin to see changes in the patterns of their respective flows. Finally, the whirlpools merge and there is just one whirlpool. The analogy is that the "particles" are not the water, or the water molecules, but the whirlpool itself - which doesn't seem to have a "real existence" in terms of a substance. I will admit that in much of the scientific community the "substance" understanding of reality still lingers on. The reason for this is probably that Newtonian physics still "works", most of the quantum field physicists only deal with it mathematically, and science has become so specialized that few can get an overall view to attempt to find out what it all means. And as a biologist friend of mine said a couple days ago, most scientists know almost nothing of philosophy or the humanities. The scientific method involves doing, seeing and reporting. It was thought only up until very recent times, that "feeling" was to be kept completely out of science - even to the point that it was denied that feelings even exist.

Soma, Yes, that does seem simple. What do you mean by "one" though? In your analogy of the iceberg to the ocean, what value does the iceberg have in relation to the ocean? In other words, by reducing everything down or up to one, are we also reducing all values to (1)?

I share your frustration (even though I am to you, partly responsible for it ). I keep thinking that if we can just focus on one or two concepts we can eventually find agreement - or at least know why we disagree. As it is, the tendency is to look at things superficially and sometimes all we do is throw aporisms at one another. But I'm not ready to quit "intellectualizing" yet - if that is the same thing as ending dialog. I think it is very, very important to rise to new levels of development - individually and culturally. By "levels of development" I mean the ability to include and integrate more and more "truth". Of course, more "truth" means greater complexity - but it should also lead us to greater harmony. If "truth" simply divides us, we haven't pursued it far enough. I also see the importance (if not the critical need) to include and integrate both contemplative (or mystical) knowlege and science in our development. Each approach to reality provides us with a different perspective. It's the same reality but one approach (science) views the exterior (objects), and the other views the interior of reality (subjects). The tendency is to make a "category mistake" and try to find the properties of one in the other -for instance, a scientist looking for a "mind" by examining the brain, or a mystic who looks for a neuron while meditating. Of course interpreting the experience of both the scientist and the mystic requires "intellectualizing", or the examination of concepts and ideas - and for this, I don't see how we can dispense with philosophy. Now, if we can just get a philosopher, a scientist, and a mystic in a room together and not let 'em out until they all understand each other....

One more thing before I have to quit... a quote from Paul Davies in his "The Mind of God": I belong to the group of scientists who do not subscribe to a conventional religion but nevertheless deny that the universe is a purposeless accident. Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact. There must, it seems to me, be a deeper level of explanation. Whether one wishes to call that deeper level "God" is a matter of taste and definition. Furthermore, I have come to the point of view that mind - i.e., conscious awareness of the world - is not a meaningless and incidental quirk of nature, but an absolutely fundamental facet of reality.

I not only don't agree with it, I think it is kind'a funny. Nothing in science attributes any sort of subjectivity to ANY entity - even the human individual! There has been a "taboo of subjectivity" in science for quite awhile. DesCartes thought he had protected spirituality from science (especially Newton's science) by splitting reality into two types of reality. But, as I've mentioned before I think, this left the problem of trying to understand how one kind of reality can have any influence whatsoever on the other kind. We move into the area of magic and away from science with that kind of supernaturalistic or dualistic view. Supernaturalism leaves us unable to rationally integrate science with values.

POWER & AUTHORITY AUTHORITY: legitimate power; the right to influence Types of authority: 1. Structural authority-- assent given because of person’s position 2. Authority of knowledge -- assent given because of person’s knowledge 3. Charismatic authority -- assent given because of person’s speaking or leadership gifts 4. Authority of Wisdom-- assent given because of person’s experience “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.” Luke 22:25-27 (Also see Mk 9:35, 10:42-45; Mt 18:4, 20:28) POWER: ability to affect the behavior of a group or another individual TYPES OF POWER: PERSUASIVE: The ability to influence and be influenced. a. Relational 1) The other is treated as a subject 2) The other retains freedom. 3) Is loving. b. Syncretistic (works with other power) c. Horizontal (is a power in or with the other). d. Reciprocal - active and receptive (works in two directions). e. The end is open, indeterminate. COERCIVE: The ability to control and dominate. a. Non-relational 1) The other is treated as an object. 2) Always removes freedom from the other. 3) Is violent. b. Monopolistic (power is not shared). c. Vertical (Is a power over the other). d. Is unilateral and non receptive. e. The end is determined. Every relationship of domination, of exploitation, of oppression, is by definition violent, whether or not the violence is expressed by drastic means. In such a relationship, dominator and dominated alike are reduced to things -- the former dehumanized by an excess of power, the latter by lack of it. And things cannot love. - Paolo Freire, Education for Critical Consciousness Footnote on pp. 10,11.

Core Doctrines of Process Theology (from Reenchantment without Supernaturlism) By David Ray Griffin 1) The integration of moral, aesthetic, and religious intuitions with the most general doctrines of the sciences into a self-consistent worldview as one of the central tasks of philosophy in our time. By understanding “religious intuitions” broadly to include intuitions of moral and aesthetic values, this purpose can be stated more succinctly as the integration of science and religion into a single worldview. 2) Hard-core commonsense notions as the ultimate test of the adequacy of a philosophical position. Although this doctrine is in part, like the first one, formal, it is also partly substantive, in that it says that there are some hard-core commonsense notions, meaning notions that are inevitably presupposed in practice by all human beings. Insofar as they are inevitably presupposed, any philosophy that denies one or more of them violates the law of noncontradiction because it is guilty of explicitly denying what it implicitly affirms. This doctrine provides the primary means by which process philosophy avoids the complete relativism that is affirmed, whether explicitly or only implicitly, by much modern and postmodern philosophy. 3) Whitehead’s nonsensationist doctrine of perception, according to which sensory perception is a secondary mode of perception, being derivative from a more fundamental, nonsensory “prehension”. This epistemological doctrine, which involves the development of a central feature of William James’s “radical empiricism,” allows for genuine religious experience in the sense of a direct perception of a holy reality, moral norms, and also allows for the direct perception of some other things (such as causality, the past, and the external world) that could not be perceived if the sensationist theory of perception were true. 4) Panexperientialism with organizational duality, according to which all true individuals – as distinct from aggregational societies – have at least some iota of experience and spontaneity (self-determination). The affirmation of panexperientialism involves the rejection of the early modern dualism between two kinds of actual entities: physical actualities devoid of experience and mental actualities (minds) with experience. The addition of “organizational duality” provides the basis for avoiding the counterintuitive suggestion, which some versions of panexperientialism make, that self-determination and a unified experience are enjoyed by literally everything in the actual world, including sticks and stones. This doctrine is central to discussion of the mind-body relation and freedom. 5) The doctrine that all enduring individuals are serially ordered societies of momentary “occasions of experience”. [Things that endure are things which occur.] This doctrine, according to which enduring individuals, such as molecules and minds, are analyzable into momentary events, is fundamental to process philosophy’s reconciliation of final and efficient causation and, therefore, of freedom and determinism. The salient point is that each enduring individual, such as a living cell or a human mind, oscillates between two modes of existence: the subjective mode, in which it exerts final causation or self-determination, and the objective mode, in which it exerts efficient causation upon subsequent events. This unique doctrine is also central to the discussion of the mind-body relation, especially the issue of human freedom. 6) The doctrine that all actual entities have internal as well as external relations. This doctrine, according to which all actual entities are fundamentally relational – in the sense of first being internally (constitutively) related to prior actual entities, then externally related to (constitutive of) subsequent actual entities – has led some advocates of this position to call it “process-relational philosophy”. This relational doctrine of actuality is central to the doctrine of God/dess’s activity and immanence in the world and to the discussion of the relation between the individual and society. 7) The Whiteheadian version of naturalistic theism, according to which a Divine Actuality acts variably but never supernaturally in the world. This doctrine says that although there is a divine actuality that influences human experience and, in fact, all finite beings, this divine influence never involves an interruption of the normal pattern of causal relations, being instead a natural dimension of this normal pattern. The reason for this absence of divine interruptions, furthermore, is metaphysical, not merely moral, being based on the fact that the fundamental God-World relation is fully natural, grounded in the very nature of things, not in a contingent divine decision. 8) Doubly Dipolar Theism. Better known than process philosophy’s naturalistic theism is its dipolar theism, according to which the divine reality has two aspects, or “poles”. 9) The provision of cosmological support for the ideals needed by contemporary civilization as one of the chief purposes of philosophy in our time. Like the first core doctrine, which refers to the task of integrating science and religion, this one is purely formal. It complements the first one, however, by bringing out the fact that the overall purposes of process philosophy are practical as well as theoretical. 10) A distinction between verbal statements (sentences) and propositions and between both of these and propositional feelings. This doctrine is central to the discussion of language, knowledge, and truth.