Process Theology

[Wayseer]

Well obviously if evolution is thought of without God then you can say that evolution is not yet "complete". I guess the important concept is what would make it "complete". Process theology (as opposed to process thought") gives some "value added" to the process by a force called God. God will make it "complete" or "more complete"? I am asking for evidence that nature via evolution is moving towards some concept of "completeness". In effect with this you are saying that "natural law" in nature is changing for the better. I see no evidence of that but I would think there would be visable evidence of that if the theory has any validiity.

 

P.S. What is comogenesis? Do you suppose I should have understood that before responding?

 

 

For me what Process Theolgy imparts is the idea that God is present in situations which Whitehead calls 'events'. This works somewhat similar to the Buddhist idea of karma. Good things follow good decisions. In these 'events' there is a feedback loop to God - I do this: God follows with doing that. There is a progress towards something - an Omega point perhaps like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's concept of the nooshere. Certainly there is some importance attached to 'nature' within PT. After all 'nature' is but another 'tag' for the universe which sustains us - which I think what is meant by comogenesis - a term I think first used by Blavatsky to decribe the unfolding universe.

 

Personally the idea of 'completness' sounds far to fatalistic to me and reflects a Creator God pushing us all towards some end game. What concepts such as de Chardin advocates seem to deny is the extent to which chaos or chance plays in the universe. Choice do matter. And it is in that moment of choice that God exists - for better or worst.

[minsocal]

That explanation does not help. If placing tags on things is irrational, which is what you seem to be advocating - how would the process change when the object is a human? Fail to understand your point here. Apparently that perception is suppose to change. I also not that you inserted the 'emotional' in the comment I made about tags. That's interesting. What are you trying to tell me by doing so? That all this 'tagging' is somehow innate?

 

Thank You for the explanation. But this 'blind emotion' sounds more like 'empathy' to me.

Not sure where this fits in. Are you suggesting that Whitehead treats emotions as 'irrational'? Emotions are rational - that's why we have been taught how to act emotional at certain times. It's a cultural thing.

 

Whitehead developed his theory step by step from the lowest level mental processes to the highest. Whitehead used the term 'sympathy' rather than 'empathy'. As I have stated elsewhere, Whitehead considers 'sympathy' as a basic emotion. At this point in the theory, Whitehead is very far from his theory of consciousness. The distinction here is between the innate substrate of our biological heritage (basic emotions) and the display of emotions that are culturally acceptable. That is, when and how to dispaly anger, etc.

 

Basic emotions are innate. When you were born, you immediately began to display basic emotions. Did you learn to cry? No chance for learning here. Your mother noted your emotional state and responded appropriately, etc. The human brain has a large section dedicated to generating emotions. If one section is damged by a stroke, the emotion disappers or is horribly altered. If a critical area is damaged (the cingulate gyrus) you loose the ability to make decisions. All of this is well established. You can also stimulate certain parts of the brain to generate emotions like an on-off switch. You can inject certain chemicals into your system and really alter your emotional states.

 

Whitehead had to accomodate the theory of evolution and, as defined by Darwin, basic emotions are innate. No way to get around this point. The theory of evolution states that innate basic emotions evolved for a purpose. Basic emotions have a survival value.

 

There is a great deal of difference between an object called a chair and a person. We have innate predispositions to treat people differently than chairs. That is also part of evolutionary theory.

 

minsocal

[minsocal]

In a more general sense, I have a concern about the issue of how does theology deal with science, and the other way around? A second concern is who or what purpose does theology serve? I am biased towards a theology that serves the building of better communities. I guess it is a matter of where the emphasis is placed. I catch some flack for this, but I think that it is a reciprocal process. For a long time science and theology remained separate. The barrier is now showing signs of breaking down. If science and theology can build a better "end state" so much the better.

[minsocal]

"... the mind is busy placing tags on these images" -- unconsciously, including emotional tags as in "good" and "bad". Nothing rational here. Now change the "object" to a fellow human being and see what happens.

 

From the Index "blind emotions": "... feeling the feeling in another and feeling conformally with another (Whitehead, 1929, p. 163)."

 

"Religion should connect the rational generality of philosophy with the emotions and purposes springing out of existence in a particular society ... Religion is the transmission of general ideas into particular thoughts, particular emotions, and particular purposes ... (Whitehead, 1929, p. 15)." (see thread in moral intuitions)

 

I forgot to add that prehensions are "positive" and "negative" physical feelings (Whitehead, 1929, p. 22). Sorry.

 

minsocal

[David]

For me what Process Theolgy imparts is the idea that God is present in situations which Whitehead calls 'events'. This works somewhat similar to the Buddhist idea of karma. Good things follow good decisions. In these 'events' there is a feedback loop to God - I do this: God follows with doing that. There is a progress towards something.

I'm not sure you are hearing what I am asking. How does this apply to evolution and nature? Who is making the "good decisions" in evolution/nature? Who is at the other end of the "loop" with God in evolution/nature? What is the "something" in evolution/nature that shows evidence of "progress"? Is there a difference between evolution/nature and the process that evidently only applies to humans as you have explained so far?

[David]

David,

 

Cosomogenisis is the term for the basic vision that the universe is evolving. It belongs with a series of related concepts. The next is the view that humans, like the universe are also not yet fully formed. According to the source I am using "the theological emphasis is The Adam, Christ, at the end of time." Humans are imperfect and struggle for for the fullness of creation. The focus is on re-creation and growth.

 

My own views tend towards naturalism, but I suspect we could well create our own "end of time". This is an area where I rely on intuition and have a difficult time forming rational explanations. The "value added" question is a valid and very difficult issue. I am with you on the points you have raised. Perhaps others in the thread can shed some light on this.

 

Somwhere in all of this the concept of an indwelling God makes a crucial difference. I go with the indwelling God view myself.

 

minsocal

So if cosmogenisis is the universe evolving why don't we just say "evolution"? What "value added" is given with the word that I can not spell?

OK, so evolution continues. Process theology says more than this. It says that the present has to be better than the past because in each "event" there is "value added". We have a lot of history to look at and I just don't see the "better". It is certainly "different" and I can certainly see the creativity in each "event", I just do not see the "progress". I do not agree that because humans are imperfect that we need to see perfection or the "fullness of creation" between now and then as some progressive progress. Growth happened in the world of Plato. Growth happened in the world of Jesus. Growth happens now. Growth will happen in the future. To me growth happens over and over and over. However, I do not see that this means that history shows us that there is "value added" with each generation.

I certainly agree with God being known "within" us. However, process theology is not the only theology to claim that.

[minsocal]

I'm not sure you are hearing what I am asking. How does this apply to evolution and nature? Who is making the "good decisions" in evolution/nature? Who is at the other end of the "loop" with God in evolution/nature? What is the "something" in evolution/nature that shows evidence of "progress"? Is there a difference between evolution/nature and the process that evidently only applies to humans as you have explained so far?

 

Whitehead's (1929, p. 73) definition of 'event' is "I shall use the term 'event' in the more general sense of a nexus of actual occasions, inter-related in some determinate fashion in one extensive quantum." Here he says "that meanings have to be found for the notions of 'motion' and and of 'moving bodies'. This is the concept that Jung abstracted to form his 'energic' model of the mind. Both are abstracting principles from physics.

 

I think Wayseer needs to explain the relevance to your questions.

 

minsocal

[David]

Whitehead's (1929, p. 73) definition of 'event' is "I shall use the term 'event' in the more general sense of a nexus of actual occasions, inter-related in some determinate fashion in one extensive quantum." Here he says "that meanings have to be found for the notions of 'motion' and and of 'moving bodies'. This is the concept that Jung abstracted to form his 'energic' model of the mind. Both are abstracting principles from physics.

 

minsocal

OK, I'm not "getting this". Did you just answer my questions? Where is the "better" in evolution/nature? Where is the "progress" in evolution/nature?

[minsocal]

OK, I'm not "getting this". Did you just answer my questions? Where is the "better" in evolution/nature? Where is the "progress" in evolution/nature?

 

Sorry, I just edited my reply. I agree with you that Wayseer has the burden to explain this.

 

minsocal

[minsocal]

So if cosmogenisis is the universe evolving why don't we just say "evolution"? What "value added" is given with the word that I can not spell?

OK, so evolution continues. Process theology says more than this. It says that the present has to be better than the past because in each "event" there is "value added". We have a lot of history to look at and I just don't see the "better". It is certainly "different" and I can certainly see the creativity in each "event", I just do not see the "progress". I do not agree that because humans are imperfect that we need to see perfection or the "fullness of creation" between now and then as some progressive progress. Growth happened in the world of Plato. Growth happened in the world of Jesus. Growth happens now. Growth will happen in the future. To me growth happens over and over and over. However, I do not see that this means that history shows us that there is "value added" with each generation.

I certainly agree with God being known "within" us. However, process theology is not the only theology to claim that.

 

Agreed, process theology is only one form of Type B theologies. I am only presenting a summary of related concepts that are not my own. I respect your views in relation to any of the concepts.

 

minsocal

[minsocal]

General note. It is often the case that I provide information in these forums that are requests for information or to clarify what a particular theory states. I will try to do a better job distinguishing between these and my own positions.

 

minsocal

[Wayseer]

I agree with you that Wayseer has the burden to explain this.

minsocal

 

How is that? Because, unlike David, my views are not so respected?

 

Basic emotions are innate. When you were born, you immediately began to display basic emotions.

No so. What infants display is 'reflex' - not emotions. An emotion involves the whole organism - physical arousal, expressive behaviours - and, wonder of wonders, conscious experience - that is, a 'learned' response. I'm just quoting basic psychology - not my field. So, to assume, as you do, that emotions are innate defies first year psychology.

 

David

 

Where is the "better" in evolution/nature? Where is the "progress" in evolution/nature?

 

Evolution is only better is your species survives - which is becoming increasingly questionable with respect to H. Sapien, Sapiens - reaching 6 billion and climbing. Maybe more is not necessaily 'better'.

 

'Progress' is a Western word loaded with polysemic meanings. As I understand PT any so-called 'progress' is bought about by making 'good' decisions - which can only be so described in hindsight. I don't subscribe to the end-point scenario - there are just too many variables.

 

OK, so evolution continues. Process theology says more than this. It says that the present has to be better than the past because in each "event" there is "value added".

Not as I understand PT. There is nothing to say the future has to be better than the past. The fact that what we now experience, at least in the West, is better than the past has to do with making good decisions - not bad ones. There is nothing inherent in a 'event' that says it has to be 'better'.

 

There is a great deal of difference between an object called a chair and a person. We have innate predispositions to treat people differently than chairs. That is also part of evolutionary theory.

 

minsocal

 

How so? They are both 'objects' perceived through the senses and 'tagged' according to what we have been taught. We 'learn' to identify the difference.

 

Postualting popularist theories is Ok but you have to explain the inconsistencies contained in those theories. Like a child chained to her bed in a darken room for the first seven years of her life. Her behaviour, when eventually discover, was no better than an animal. Learning is not innate - it is a participatory endeavour involving contact with others. We generally call this 'culture'.

 

But, I guess I am not respected for these view either so I'm sorry to burden you with them.

 

David

 

We have a lot of history to look at and I just don't see the "better"

 

I would like to take this up with you - but not here.

[David]

David

 

 

 

I would like to take this up with you - but not here.

I understand (?) You had the courage to start a theological topic that was important to you even though it would be impossible to do it justice on a message board. I do not have the same courage with Tillich. There is just too much to cover. It is very easy to criticize on a message board. I apologize for taking advantage of that. We need “safe places” where we can do justice to theological thinking. I loved my time in seminary and miss it. I wish the Church could be more of that “safe place”.

[minsocal]

How is that? Because, unlike David, my views are not so respected?

 

No so. What infants display is 'reflex' - not emotions. An emotion involves the whole organism - physical arousal, expressive behaviours - and, wonder of wonders, conscious experience - that is, a 'learned' response. I'm just quoting basic psychology - not my field. So, to assume, as you do, that emotions are innate defies first year psychology.

 

How so? They are both 'objects' perceived through the senses and 'tagged' according to what we have been taught. We 'learn' to identify the difference.

 

Postualting popularist theories is Ok but you have to explain the inconsistencies contained in those theories. Like a child chained to her bed in a darken room for the first seven years of her life. Her behaviour, when eventually discover, was no better than an animal. Learning is not innate - it is a participatory endeavour involving contact with others. We generally call this 'culture'.

 

But, I guess I am not respected for these view either so I'm sorry to burden you with them.

 

Wayseer,

 

The scientific evidence in psychology and cognitive neuroscience has well established that the human brain has a large section devoted entirely to emotions. It is called the Limbic System. Nueoscientists such as Antonio Damasio and Joseph LeDoux have spent their entire careers examining in precise detail exactly how these structures and circuits work. All of their research is easily available. Damasio works with patients who have traumatic brain injuries. Several of his patients suffered focal brain damage in critical areas if the Limbic System. These patients no longer have any emotional experiences at all. None. Their higher level cognitive abilities are fine and they have no memory loss. If you read their case histories, it is a sad story. They have difficulty getting along in life, even though you might think would be nice to be free of emotions. Only some theories in psychology agree with your statement. The theory you present from psychology is only a small part of the total number of theories that make up the discipline. In the field of attachment theory, one of the best know names is John Bowlby. He began his theory with the same assumption you make. However, his research with children forced him to rewrite his theory to accomodate complex innate processes beyond reflexes. This launched a whole new subdivision in psycholgy known as Attachment Theory. These are not "populist" theories, they are the very core of psycholgy today. Antonio Damasio is one of the most highly regarded researchers in his field. It was Damasio who developed the "emotional tagging" theory based on hard scientific evidence. The formal name for the theory is The Somatic Marker Hypothesis and other scientists are currently doing research in this area. He has mapped out the brain circuits from sensory inputs to various somatosensory circuits and then to the Limbic System (the emotional core of the brain). This is not just theoretical, it is based on examining the actual wiring of the brain. Pure objective science. If this is "populist" it would be very strange that the US government commissioned Damasio and Ledoux to do ten years of research into the neuroanatomy of emotions. They, and eight others finished their research in 2000 and a summary of their findings is available on the internet.

 

Psychologists struggle with the ethical considerations concerning the application of their theories on living human beings. In general, psycholgy began to declare a truce on the "nature - nurture" issue about twenty years ago. Today, their is still controversy, but between the most highly respected researchers from both perspectives there is at least a provisional agreement that the split is roughly 50-50, half nature and half nurture.

 

As to the 'child in the dark' room, there is ongoing research into several aspects you may not be aware of. It is known that the brain takes about 18 years to develop. A basic entry level text in child development demostrates the evidence for this. A key factor is that for the brain to fully finish "wiring" its nerual circuits, sensory stimulation is needed. No stimulation - no wiring. Our biological system triggers neuron growth in four bursts during development (same basic text). These bursts are parallel with key learning tasks such as acquiring language. Learning of language is optimum during this phase, and less so later. Again, hard science. The growth bursts have been measured. Ans so on ...

 

Not to be rude - these are highly charged issues that have plagued research forhundreds of years - but some of my collegues in the field of psychology call your theory "populist". That's how it goes I guess. Personlly, I'm an eclectic in the field, I try to draw from the best scientific evidence available rather than commit to one theory only.

 

 

 

minsocal

[minsocal]

I understand (?) You had the courage to start a theological topic that was important to you even though it would be impossible to do it justice on a message board. I do not have the same courage with Tillich. There is just too much to cover. It is very easy to criticize on a message board. I apologize for taking advantage of that. We need “safe places” where we can do justice to theological thinking. I loved my time in seminary and miss it. I wish the Church could be more of that “safe place”.

 

Having no formal theological training myself (my field being psycholgy), I have had a very fortnunate experience at my church. Here, we discuss all kinds of theologies, including Process Theology. It is a "safe place" for me and all who participate. Members often do their own research and present their views to groups who are interested. Sometimes members do the "teaching moment" during the worship service. I had the fun task of explaining the origins of the devil as "a social construction" during the early development of Christianity. Wish I could invite you come speak some time.

[minsocal]

Wayseer,

 

I would like very much for you to understand my perspective. I will give you an example from a different angle.

 

There is a horrible syndrome called SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome). Not much is known about it, but researchers investigating the neural basis of emotion now have important clues. A part of the emotional system works automatically. What researchers think is that the parasympathetic nervous system (part of the basic emotional system) "overcorrects" after a baby has experienced some sort of frightening experience. I cannot go into all of the technical details ... but my emotional issue on the subject is that if these researchers assumed all emotion is learned they would not have access to a possible way to solve this horrific problem.

 

I really hope this makes sense.

 

minsocal

[minsocal]

With my limited knowledge of Process Theology, I thought it began with Whitehead. According to John Cobb, jr. this is not really the case.

 

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1489

 

I was also surprised to learn that my suspected links between Whitehead and Jung are only partly correct. Whitehead found a major inspiration in the work of the psychologist William James and James was a major influence on Jung (for those following the thread in moral intuitions).

 

For those involved in the recent thread discussion, see part 2. The Doctrine of God.

 

Hope this helps all of you out.

 

Wayseer,

 

The James - Whitehead connection helps explain our dispute. Could we discuss somehow?

 

minsocal

[TheGreatWhiteBuffalo]

There is both inherent qualities that cure and heal and carry on...

 

There is degredation, a tearing down or breaking down that happens when negative emotions are constantly applied or like when we suffer the same wound in the same exact manner over a period of time there will be a breaking down of the healing process... Not with standing the sudden attack of a virus that can not be controlled or the introduction of external things that could block growth or repair.

 

How do you break the vicious cycle of genetic gifts? Why do some genetic characteristics remain dormant?

 

Can anyone keep these things at bay?

[Wayseer]

I had the fun task of explaining the origins of the devil as "a social construction" during the early development of Christianity.

 

And your reality is also a social construction - No?

 

I also note you carefully avoid areas which seem somewhat convenient to avoid.

 

You are, I'm afraid, sounding more like the physicists who can't balance the universe so give that which is unknown a name like dark energy or dark matter. So, if part of the emotional system acts automatically, which you somewhat conveniently fail to acknowledge is what I said, what is this other 'unamed' part? Could it, in fact, be learned?

 

I may not know muuch about psychology but I can see a fallacious argument when its presented.

 

Today, their is still controversy, but between the most highly respected researchers from both perspectives there is at least a provisional agreement that the split is roughly 50-50, half nature and half nurture.

 

So - what is the problem?

 

It seems I'm having to prove myself by jumping through your hoops - enough. I'm Outa here. Bye.

[McKenna]

Having no formal theological training myself (my field being psycholgy), I have had a very fortnunate experience at my church. Here, we discuss all kinds of theologies, including Process Theology. It is a "safe place" for me and all who participate. Members often do their own research and present their views to groups who are interested. Sometimes members do the "teaching moment" during the worship service. I had the fun task of explaining the origins of the devil as "a social construction" during the early development of Christianity. Wish I could invite you come speak some time.

 

Wow, that sounds incredible! I wish I could find a church like that.

 

What denomination is it, out of curiousity?

[minsocal]

Wow, that sounds incredible! I wish I could find a church like that.

 

What denomination is it, out of curiousity?

 

United Church of Christ (originally Congregational, we still use the Congregational name and are associated with the UCC). Not to be confused with the Church of Christ.

 

website

 

http://www.ucc.org

[David]

Wish I could invite you come speak some time.

what time should I be there?

[minsocal]

And your reality is also a social construction - No?

 

As to the 'social construction' comment, I was asked to read a book by E. Pagels and present a review of it to my congregation, which I enjoyed doing.

 

As to the nature - nurture issue, the ethical, moral, and even theological implications are enormous .... gasp!!!!!

 

This seems to be part of what Process Theology is trying to grapple with.

 

And you ask "what is the problem?"

[minsocal]

Hartshorne,

 

"The motif of empiricism in process thought refers to the theme that experience is the realm for defining meaning and verifying any theory of reality. Unlike classical empiricism, process thought takes the category of thinking beyond just the human senses of perception. Experiences are not confined to sense perception or consciousness, and there are pre-sensual, pre-conscious experiences from which consciousness and perception derive."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Harts...hy_and_theology

 

Found this quite interesting.

[minsocal]

First ...

 

I came across several references the fact that PT rejects mind-body dualism. Whitehead makes it clear in "Process and Reality" that his theory derives in large part from Spinoza, who also rejected mind-body dualism. Every human experience (see previous post) has, as Whitehead puts it, a 'mental-pole' and a 'physical pole'.

 

Second ...

 

There are many assumptions here that have been debated throught the ages. All of this is interesting, but what I am struggling with is how to move from Process Thought to Process Theology, and from PT to Scripture. Does anybody here know the stance PT takes towards interpreting the Bible? Or, how does Scripture fit into PT?