Andrew Davis
Kaeti,
Great reflections and questions here and I do hope you pursue them in your paper! Kuhn’s article is vast and he consulted me on some of the process parts. We did an interview a few years ago and it felt like a rapid-fire dissertation defense. He’s a smart guy and does great work with Closer to Truth:
I look forward to your paper,
Dr. D
Robert, great question. In short, yes, God struggles yes with evil to overcome its detriment to higher forms of value. Evil is in God’s experience, but not God’s essence or nature. “The instability of evil is the moral order” (paraphrasing from RM) and this moral order derives finally form God’s nature and activity in the world process.
Cheers,
DR. D
Friends,
Nice discuss here about the past and future of Christianity. Whitehead has given his various suggestions, and it is for us to take things further, implementing and adapting his suggestions so that the “tale of the Christina religion” might remain effective. As mentioned in class, Protestant process theologians (for the most part) initially took this torch, but it has spread widely into many other circles of Christian faith and practice.
Cheers,
DR. D
Greg, an excellent meditation here on an important question of Whitehead’s own personal experience/encounter with the divine character. I agree with your overall assessment and think we are left to read between the lines from Whitehead’s convictions philosophically to his experience personally. Give his radical empiricism, his doctrine of God was worked out in both head and heart, rationally and experientially.
Cheers,
Dr. D
Friends, great discussion here about a process ecclesiology! A must read for all is Joseph Bracken’s recent book (I think his last before his recent passing): Church as Dynamic Life-System: Shared Ministries and Common Responsibilities
Cheers,
DR. D
Bhavana, Cobb’s article is great and I’m glad you enjoy it. Robert, I LOVE this drawing! Much symbolism and he on the move too (process style!).
PS – maybe a fun book cover?
Cheers,
Dr. D
As do I, Roni! Thanks for your post. Are you familiar with the work of Tom Oord? He has drawn out these distinctions for lay audiences in a number of books. See, for example, The Uncontrolling Love of God.
Cheers,
DR. D
Lukas, Are you speaking of “fundamentalists” in the religious/theological sense? If so, this is not really a group that is open to the kind of scientific, philosophical, and theological vision Whitehead offers. Process theologians naturally critique fundamentalism, but do not engage in overt debates with them. They equally critique fundamentalists in science if based upon “modern” mechanism and materialism.
If your question is more about bridging a certain theological divide, see Hosinski’s other book: The Image of the Unseen God: Catholicity, Science, and Our Evolving Understanding of God.
Cheers,
Dr. D
Hi George,
Whether or not “God” is required remains a debate, certainly. God’s role is not only logical, however, but axiological and overall metaphysical to the extent that without God: “pure chaos.”
The analogy between a watch maker and the universe is far too old and too mechanical in nature. Whitehead is not arguing for any kind of design argument (akin to Paley!). As I playfully put it in my book: God doesn’t design the universe, God desires it as the “eros of the universe.” In any case, Whitehead wasn’t interested “proofs,” but in suggesting the kind of theological vision that would be fitting for his vision.
Can Whitehead without God people solve the metaphysical riddles that led him to affirm “God?” The debate continues, but I think the answer is finally “No” and usually motivated by personal psychological distaste for “God” as such. Too harsh? Maybe 🙂
Cheers,
DR. D
Dennis and George, more great insights from both of you! Historically, one of the most important texts on precisely the kinds of questions Hosinski raises as to the relationship between Christianity and Whitehead’s philosophy is John Cobb’s A Christian Natural Theology: Based on the Thought of ANW. Also, if you want a better sense of Hosinski’s own take, see his more recent book (published a few years before his recent death): The Image of the Unseen God: Catholicity, Science, and Our Evolving Understanding of God.
Cheers,
DR D.
George and Dennis,
Nice exchange here. George, I’d be happy to read the article when you finish it. I’d also be interested to hear Jay expound upon the claim that time doesn’t exist, but space does, because both are intimately related in Whitehead’s conceptuality. I suspect he means this in a highly abstract sense. Yes, time is not a substantial “thing” and AE’s don’t become in time (since they produce it). Yet neither do they become in space per say since space is a result of their becoming too!
Once recent book I enjoyed on the topic is Remy Lestienne’s Alfred North Whitehead: Philosopher of Time. I think you both would enjoy very much.
This distinction between process and substance is getting more and more attention today independent of Whitehead’s work (but acknowledging of him). See for example, James Filler’s growing work which is more indebted to Heidegger, and I think misunderstands Whitehead. Still, he’s been contributing to a deeper turn toward process conceptualities and generating important discussion.
Cheers Dr. D
Dennis, great question here surrounding the multiverse.
Process thinkers have argued in different ways based upon what they read of Whitehead. David Griffin argues that there are a linear series of universes, one at a time, each arising/collapsing in kind of big bang scenario, whereas Roland Faber argues for a multitude of concurrent cosmic epochs as multiverses. A recent discussion coming from Leeman McHenry is found in the optional readings of our third week.
You might also see some of the chapters in my recent edited volume Process Cosmology.
Best,
Dr. D
Lovely, Dennis! Thanks for sharing!
DR. D
Bill, fun questions!
Remember, God (in the primordial nature) is the context of eternal objects. They have a form of existence or realty in God,and are actualized in the process of the world. As Whitehead stress, eternal objects require God and God requires them. As for God’s color or geometrical or musical preferences, who can say! All show beauty in their own simple and complex forms (Even those colors, shapes, and sounds we’ve never heard before!). The mind boggles!
Cheers,
DR. D
Bill, good question.
A proposition for Whitehead is more than a logical statement, either true or false. Proposition may include this, but Whitehead argues that there is more to our engagements with propositions. In fact, he refers to them as “lures for feeling” that are aesthetically incorporated and contemplated in experience. They are potentials of a certain kind that we meet at an aesthetic and not just logical level. For a deeper treatment, see the edited volume below:
Best,
DR. Davis