Replies

The same can be said for Christianity. Many Christians to whom I suggest the non-omnipotence of God as a possibility see this is not part of their faith or even possible to be part of their faith.

Thanks, Leslie, for pointing that out. I meant non-omnipotence. I should have proofread more carefully. The eye opener to me was that in a religion such as Judaism, where God is seen to be all powerful, the idea of the non-omnipotence of God is able to be embraced, as it has been by Susan. I meant completely the opposite to what I wrote. Mea culpa.

I have now discovered that I accidentally entered this topic in Session 2 rather than Session 1 !!!!

Thanks, Richard. It is there now and I will play it this evening.

It is so satifying to learn that others are finding difficulties with the terms used by Whitehead. It took me a long time to really understand what he meant by “prehension”, for instance, and that concept is vital to process thought. I wonder whether it would have been better to use more easily understood terms, and not terms that have other meanings. But, process thought is based on Whitehead’s writing and we just have to cope with any difficulties.

I will do my best to answer those two questions from my own of view, Scott.

As far as the first questions is concerned, I do find more rational answers to theological questions in Process Theology. Its answer to the problem of evil particularly impressed me. Those who tried to explain how an omnipotent and beneficent God could permit evil failed to convince me. Answers such as because we have freedom evil can exist, or it is punishment for misdeeds, or that our going through hard times is a way to make us stronger, are unconvincing. The simplest and most logical answer is to admit that God is not all-powerful, and that it the stance taken by Process Theology. That is but one example as to where Process Theology gives a more logical explanation.

My being lured to an interest in Process Theology started when, as a member of the Evangelical Union (EU) of Sydney University, I attended a debate organised by them between one of their heroes, an Anglican (Episcapalian) evangelian priest, against Charles Birch, a Professor of Biology at Sydney University and a Process Theologian. This was in 1970. My “celll group” thought that the priest won the debate whereas I am sure that Charles Birch did. I was not really evagelical and was a member in revolt against the hypocritical rector of what was considered a high church parish by Sydney standards. I soon left EU and gradually learnt more about Process Theology.

Correction: at that Christian-Jewish Dialogue Group, I advocated the non-omnipotence of God, not the omnipotence of God.

Thank you, Jay. I look forward to reading up on David Ray Griffin’s Parapsychology.

I am part way through reading Donna Bowman’s “God for us: A Process View of the Devine-Human Relationship”, the first paper in the book Handbook of Process Theology, of which you, Jay, and she were editors. The taking away of God’s omnipotence was one of the first things that attracted me to Process Theology. It was a better solution to the problem of evil (how come there is evil if God is both omnipotent and beneficent) than that given by others, such as there needs to be evil if there is to be good and evil should be seen as a learning process for our own good, to name just a few. If God is not omnipotent, but tries to persuade us to do what will bring about the greatest happiness, which I see, as mentioned today, as a lure to get the best results, as a better solution. Charles Hartshorne, of course, wrote a book titled Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes.

The Wiradyuri, an Australia indigenous group, have a great respect for trees. When collecting leaves for their smoking ceremony (which they see as a cleansing ceremony). they ask the trees whether they can take their leaves and, if they are hard to pull off, they leave that tree and try others. I shudder to think what they thought when the invading caucasian settlers felled so many trees so that their sheep and cattle could graze. There are many other similarities that the Australian indigenous people share with process thought and I note that indigenous thoughts is included in the course on religion. I am thinking of this, the comparison of Australian and indigenous thought, as a possibility for my project although, at this stage, it will be based on secondary sources. Perhaps I can obtain some primary sources in the future.

Thank you for your introduction Zhenbao Jin. I too have read Scott Peck’s “The Road Less Travelled”, a good read. My attempts at meditation have not been successful as I am to easily distracted. I enjoyed reading your introduction. You have had an interesting and varied life and I suspect that this will continue for the rest of your life.

Living in Australia, it is good to have someone who is viewing the sessions at a time closer to mine. Even though Canberra is three hours ahead of China it is better than being 16 to 19 hours ahead (as I am for the USA).

I am probably not a person with more understanding of process thought than you, Kevin, but I would have thought that panentheism is important to process theology but not to process thought as a whole because God is innate to panentheism but not to process thought as a whole. I find it a satisfying concept with God being in everything yet being more.

As an aside (really off the point), when I was researching John Browne’s ciphered masonic texts of the turn of the 19th century, I found that Karl Christian Friedrich Krause was the first, as far as we know, to publish some of Browne’s deciphered texts in his book ‘Die drei ältesten Kunsterkunden der Freimaurerbrüderschaft’ (‘The Three Oldest Articles of the Masonic Fraternity’). His translations were not very accurate. I was intrigued to find out that it was Krause who coined the word Panentheism, in 1828. By the way, I found Krause’s biography fascinating to read.