Replies

If I remember correctly, God’s Primordial nature isn’t itself an ultimate reality. I could be wrong here but I think there’s a strong tendency in Process Theology to resist the claim to a fixed, a priori ultimate since it can be devastating to religious plurality.

Thank you for the reply Charles. I think the political views are warranted. Unfortunately, academics get poorly translated into the general population and I agree that pro-lifers aren’t really pro-life. I find that when I engage those people they feel uncomfortable with the right to birth control, childcare and anything else which would actually aid in the life and thriving of a child after it’s born.

I’d like to offer the other side of the debate on abortion. I come from a Fundamentalist background and dated a devout Catholic for 2 years so in some respects you could say I’ve had lengthy, intense relationships with anti-abortion groups/people which I am aware of.

I’m not a philosopher and I have doubts about my own argument structure so perhaps I’ll be put right in this discussion board. The essential contention I have is this: what makes a fetus a life or non-life?

“it’s entirely dependent on its mother.” This counter reply assumes that humans live independent of others and further, life is only lived through independence. If one were to take their stance then what happens to those in nursing homes? Those born with crippling disabilities? Life can’t be reduced to independence and autonomy.
“It’s just a clump of cells.” This argument is a non-sequitur. We are all clumps of cells by definition so separating a fetus from a baby by this definition is also not tenable.
“What if it turns into a genius/murderer.” I have never heard that reply before from pro-life people but I agree that calculating the odds of a fetus becoming a genius or a genocidal maniac is impossible. That’s not the real question though, saying it might be a genius is as irrelevant as saying it might be a murdered the question is: does it deserve life and a chance to grow into Beauty? From a process perspective, I would say yes.
“Imagine what kind of life it will be born into.” This one is always the hardest and I think reveals the tension in an absolutely pro-life stance. The one thing I will say is that there are a couple of choices. One is the fetus is aborted in which case there is a 0% chance of enjoying growing into a person. Two is the fetus is born into hardship and dies which is again a 0% chance of enjoying growing into a person. The third is the fetus is born and survives a harsh upbringing and grows into a person. It seems abortion as a solution to being born into hard times is never the best option because you essentially miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.

These aren’t all the scenarios that present themselves in terms of abortion but hopefully they highlight my main issue with abortion which is that: any line we draw between a fetus and a life creates situations in which we can justify murder of a living person.

As someone in the Presbyterian tradition, I can say that there is room for process thought. I am PCUSA which is a very theologically liberal denomination and as such what makes us distinct is our book of order, not our theology. The PCUSA website even affords that different people have different views on scripture and interpretation. I don’t know if the same holds for other conservative Presbyterian denominations. Also John Calvin has some very beautiful writings that I would love to appropriate into a process worldview if I ever became an official Presbyterian minister.

Okay, so Casual Efficacy is how Whitehead qualifies his version of empiricism(which is not reducible to just the senses)to include our awareness of things like our past and time?

This may sound very Nietzsche like but even if one does not like tradition, it is in ones best interest to learn about it and use it as a lot of compelling arguments are made by re-framing arguments to fit the opponents argument structure(which for conservatives is generally conserving values).

I agree with your opening critiques of Mesle, he seems too optimistic for my tastes however I would push back a little on your remarks regarding Christianity. Depending on the congregation you’re from, the future is just as the way he described it. This is especially true in the Reformed tradition(i.e Calvin)evangelicalism and some of Aquinas’s stuff is pretty deterministic as well. So I don’t feel the Mesle is overstepping there. I’m curious, how would you defend the existence of the future? I’m not formaly trained in philosophy and it sounds like you have more knowledge on the subject than me so I would appreciate if you could set me straight or point me towards resources for me to explore.