What problem does “Lure” solve?
The process thinkers seem to think that characterizing divine action as “lure” solves some problems for theology and science. But what does it solve? Most seem to think it solves the problem of supernaturalism without losing divine action. But does it? I don’t see how. After all an influence must “touch” that which is to be influenced. You don’t influence someone without talking to them or showing some action. But all types of influences that current science would accept are the result of physical interaction. Words interact with structures in the ear or eye which creates neuro-dynamic processes that end up in the brain and so on.
So the question for process thinkers from a scientific perspective (which seems to drive this issue) is how God can influence someone without somehow diddling in the physical world, just as supernaturalists suggest. Even if the diddling is described as “pulling” a quantum superposition (standard QM model) in some way or another towards some suggestion, that’s still a causal intervention isn’t it? After all if the influence wasn’t there, the processes would be different, i.e. unbiased from the outside. Process divine action just pushes the problem of divine action to some other level, but it is still an intervention. It seems to me that the only problem where “lure” might provide some relief is freedom. If divine action is only influential then freedom of the individual (the person or the quark(?)) is maintained. In the case of non-sentient individuals (atoms, molecules, etc.) they apparently have some level of freedom where they could, in principal, but probably wouldn’t resist God’s influence. In the case of sentient beings any “pull” of a superposition by God can be even more forcefully resisted. It would seem then that the process thinkers are really not that far off from the supernaturalists. Both posit some type of divine intervention. Both proclaim the freedom of the individual to resist God. The process thinker’s attempt just appears to be a slight-of-hand with the term “lure” as a solution to divine action. All they really do is make reality *more* free than the supernaturalists.
The problem with both lines of thinking (process and supernaturalism) is that they both are stuck in a classic theism that strikes a strong ontological distinction between this reality and God. Within this framework God’s divine action comes from the outside. It therefore must be some sort of intervention. If, however, a strong panentheistic framework is employed with an aspect monism, (i.e. differentiated or qualified monism) then divine action is not coming from the outside but is instead a seamless flow of internal activities. There is nothing intervening. Instead there is a complex, dynamic interplay of each aspect of God, the manifest reality we know and the unmanifest reality of God’s depth. Each aspect’s freedom is internal within the unity and differentiation of the many. I realize this can be hard to understand or picture, but every theology or metaphysic must have a hard problem. The trick in theology is to pick the spot wisely. I think the best place to put the hard problem is where it has always been in perennial thought, the unity and differentiation of the One and the many.
Steve,
I think a Process Theologian, after reading your post, would ask you to read a little more about Process Thought before you criticize it.
A Process Theist would not, of course, agree with the physicalism assumed in your first paragraph - specifically that an “influence must ‘touch’ that which is to be influenced.” If it is true, beyond debate, that physical interactions are the only influences, then divine action, as a Process Theist understands it, can never occur. Divine action occurs because there is a more fundamental “cause” in the universe than “physical” action. A Process Theist does not accept a “substance” ontology, accepting instead, the priority of “becoming” over “being” (and if by “ontology” we mean the search for an understanding of what “is”, then a Process Theist really has no ontology - because there is no “isness”, no “things” or substance in reality). Your first paragraph seems to assume that reality consists only of “stuff” which is only externally related and seems to deny the possibility that reality consists of events which are internally related.
What was especially surprising to me, was that you seem to have no knowledge that Process Theology has always been understood as panentheistic. Charles Harshorne might have been the first to coin the term. Recently, because of some claims about what the term means (specifically the claim that it means that rocks and other aggregates of “individuals” are conscious), panentheism has been replaced with “panexperientialism”.
I would suggest that you do a little more research into Process ideas - like: the theory of prehensions, internal relations, pre-sensory perceptions, actual occasions, concrescence, and the “fallacy of misplaced concreteness”. I would also recommend David Griffin’s Book,
Comment by Don Vande Krol —
Hi Don,
You seem to be falsely inferring some things from what I said. If you’ll read carefully you’ll see I’m not attributing a substance model to process thought. If you’ll notice I quoted “touch”.
You said:
I said something very similar:
Also, I’m a big fan of the event model where mind is paramount. I argued for it -> http://theology3m.blogsome.com/2006/07/17/what-constitutes-reality/
You said:
Yes I’m aware of process’s claim to be panentheistic. But I question using that term. If the only “commonality” between God and the world is through their prehension of each other then the common usage of the term doesn’t seem to fit well.
I wrote http://theology3m.blogsome.com/2006/07/27/the-en-in-panentheism/
You wrote:
I really hate this presumptuous, condescending sort of thing. I think one should attack the argument and not the person (whether explicity or by implication).
Comment by Steve Petermann —
Steve,
I was presumptuous and condescending, wasn’t I? I should have followed my own advice and read a little more of your views before I assumed that you were, like many others, making a critique from ignorance. I hope you’ll forgive me.
I did notice that you put quotes around “touch”, but then you also claimed that
That strikes me as a denial of what may be called “intersubjectivity” or the existence of internal relatedness and Whitehead’s theory of prehensions.
As I understand Process Thought, I would say that you are correct, the “en” in panentheism is not a matter of one “substance” being in another “substance”. Doesn’t Process Thought deny that “substance” exists?
In light of the above quote, I don’t understand why you claim that God and the world are ontologically distinct.
Comment by Don Vande Krol —
Don,
No problem.
One of the fundamental issues that theology must deal with is the relationship of God to the world. This ultimately leads to the most fundamental of philosophical concepts: ontology. But what does that mean?
From a web dictionary:
From Wikipedia (not necessarily a definitive source but) on Process Philosophy:
So ontology could be an exploration of the nature of being or the nature of becoming. However, in both approaches there is a state of actuality (as in your quote from Whitehead). The question, in my mind, is how to describe this actuality in theology. In both classic theism and process thought both God and the world have their own distinct actuality. As Griffin says God has God’s own life and we have ours. In classic theism God acts within our lives based on God’s plan and in response to prayers. This activity is in the form of interventions into the fabric of reality, thus supernaturalism. In process thought God doesn’t overtly diddle in the processes of reality but rather lures or influences those events based on God’s plan and prehensions of the world.
Now Griffin’s claim (that he says is common among process thinkers) that God and the world have their own separate lives (though they influence each other) says to me they are ontologically distinct. However, as with many terms in theology and philosophy that term “ontologically distinct” has to be unpacked. One could claim that since there is a sort of interdependence (through prehension and influence) in the process model, God and the world are not ontologically distinct. Fair enough. But at least in theology terms and phrases are not just for themselves but inevitably end up characterizing the existential relationship of God to the world and how people can understand and incorporate that understanding into their daily lives. In process thought people are radically free. God only lures or influences them so they may feel helplessly trapped by their own freedom. Take a drug addict for instance. What would a drug addict’s prayer of supplication be like to God to overcome their addiction in process theology? “Please God, lure me stronger”?
However, there are other ontologies available where our lives are actually God’s life as well. In Eastern thought this is found in Vishishtadvaita Vedanta where there is a qualified monism. In the West there are strains of panentheism where our lives are intrinsically part of God’s life. In all these we are what I call an “aspect” of God’s life. God is a living God and our lives are an aspect of God’s life.
Here’s a post where I talk about this:
http://theology3m.blogsome.com/2006/10/21/aspect-monism/
In my view, the real questions from a theological perspective are the verisimilitude of metaphysical system and particularly how it translates into the way people perceive their lives and relate in both thought and action to ultimate reality.
Prayer from an aspect monism point of view is not a prayer across some divide where one expects intervention or increased influence but rather a prayer to one’s own depth in the divine where there is great power for change. To me, the Divine Life is a communion of all things.
Comment by Steve Petermann —
Steve,
OK, I’m beginning to understand our differences and your objections to Process. The central reason why I prefer Process to Aspect Monism (and isn’t it good to be able to make choices?) is because I believe that God is Love. That is, love is the essence of God. Process is a relational philosophy. Love is the inclusion of the other in one’s “self”. What I think you are missing is the PROCESS - “The Many become One and are increased by one”. As I understand your theology, there is no process, no events, no creativity, no relationships. There is just the One.
In Process, God is the All-Inclusive-Whole. There are absolutely no actualities outside of God. The relation of the Many to the One, is the relation of parts to the Whole. In your theology, God has “aspects”, but no members. In Process Theology, we are members of God’s “Body”, members of one another, and as wholes ourselves (holons), we include God as a member of our “self”.
In Process Theology, God has the kind of power which can transform our lives. The addict can find hope in God.
Don
Comment by Don Vande Krol —
Hey Don,
Actually I don’t think we are that far apart as far as the relational characterization of God and us.
I also believe God is love. However, my understanding of process theology is quite a bit different than yours. I’ve read quite a bit of it from Whitehead and Griffin but maybe I’ve missed something.
To the contrary, in what I call the Divine Life Communion, there is no exclusion of process, events, creativity, and relationships. These all occur within the internal relations of the One with the many within the One. However, as I understand process thought the inclusion of the other within God’s self is only through prehension and influence. In a aspect monism, our lives are *actually* part of God’s life. The metaphor I use often is Author/Story. When an author (God) creates a story the author has a relationship with the characters in the story. The story is part of the author’s life of the mind. The characters share the mind of God and are part of it. And as any author will tell you sometimes the characters surprise the author in what they do. They have their own lives and their own freedom but that life is also the author’s life.
This is not my reading of process philosophy. If you have any references or quotes to this I would like to read them. In my reading of Whitehead he says that there are three “things” uncreated. Creativity, God, and the World. An important tenet of process thought is that the world was not created “ex nihilo”. So when you say that God is the All-Inclusive-Whole that doesn’t seem to coincide with my understanding of process ontology. I’ll repeat as Griffin says God has God’s life and we have ours.
The aspects *are* members of the One. Here again your reference to members as God’s “Body” sounds similar to the metaphor often used for panentheism but how are we God’s body when God has a separate life to ours?
Ok, what would an addict’s prayer be like? I remember an interview with Harteshorne where someone asked him about prayer and he had misgivings about prayers of supplication. It was in this interview at about 1:10 minutes:
“God as Composer-Director, Enjoyer, and, in a Sense, Player of the Cosmic Drama
http://www.ctr4process.org/media/page2.shtml
I find this a troubling admission since a conversation with God including prayers of supplication and intercession are such an important part of religious life. His notion that these types of prayers are for us and not God is troubling to me.
Comment by Steve Petermann —
Steve,
Somehow, it seems to me, you’ve read some scatterings of Process Thought, but missed the core - the metaphysics - where and why Process Thought differs from a “substance” ontology.
The “perpetual perishing” that Whitehead refers to is why no thinker thinks twice and why no subject experiences twice. There simply are no ‘thinkers’ or ‘experiencers’ - although there are thoughts and experiences. Subjects do not endure. They become self-realized and then “perish” as subjects, now as superjects - potentials in the process of a series of becoming subjects. It’s no wonder that you might have missed this, or misunderstood. Our language is based on a substance metaphysics so that it is almost impossible to describe Process Thought without using forms of “to be”.
In short, I think you might be confused about what an “actuality” is (and in Process Thought, an “actuality” never “is”.
Again, this is fundamental to Process Thought.
I’ll try to answer your other questions later. Let me know if what I’ve written above makes any sense.
Comment by Don Vande Krol —
I might also mention that I fail to see how God (or any other entity) can be in relationship with an “aspect” (appearance?) of itself. We generally think of relationships as between “I and Thou” (Buber, of course). What I’m not sure you understand in Process Thought, is the process - how the “Thou” becomes incorporated into the “I”. When I write that I believe that “God is Love”, I am defining “love” as the inclusion of others into one’s self. God, of course, is all-inclusive.
Comment by Don Vande Krol —
Unless you worship the greek god Narcissus? ;>)
Comment by Don Vande Krol —
Don,
Yes, we’ve already gone over this. I’m aware of this argument and understand it. Process thought does not have a substance ontology. However, I fail to see what you are rebutting in what I’ve said. So please specify.
You didn’t rebut my statement that both God and the world are uncreated. Do you agree with this? If so how is it that there are no actualities outside of God?
Also you failed to respond to my question about the addict’s prayer. What would the content of that prayer be like from a process perspective?
An aspect is not an appearance. Is your leg an appearance. No. It is an aspect. Do you not have a relationship to the parts of your body? Since the process system is panpsychic, do you not have a relationship to an atom? After all don’t you prehend what happens in all elements of reality?
So how do you characterize inclusion. Is it merely prehension or knowledge of?
Comment by Steve Petermann —
Steve,
Hmmmm…. it still seems to me that you are stuck in substance thinking. It seems that way to me because you continue to question why there can be no actualities outside of God. It’s of course, very possible that the lack of understanding is on my side. As we both know, I’m sure, language is simply not adequate to express these ideas. For instance, when you use the term “aspect”, I think of the popular meaning. I definitely don’t consider my leg to be an aspect of my body, but from certain aspects, my legs are visible. In others (for instance from a top view) they may not be.
All actualities are included in God. What might help is for you to think a little more about the process of reality: “The Many become One and are increased by One.” The Many are not outside of God. Just as we, as individuals, can be thought of as the creative integration of all our experiences (in one sense we ARE our experiences), so also is God. Remember, all “actualities” are “drops of experience”. Remember also that an “actuality” is the determination of a potentiality. God is the source of all potentialities (similar to the idea of “emptiness” in eastern thought - Whitehead referred to this as God’s “primordial nature”) and in God’s actuality, God includes the actual universe (God’s “consequent nature”). Every morning, in my time of prayer and meditation, I invoke God’s Spirit as the “Source, Guide and Goal of all that is” (Romans 11:36).
I suspect that your question concerning the uncreatedness of the world and God stems from a lack of understanding of something that Hartshorne explains in his book, Anselm’s Discovery. I’m not sure I’m competent enough to explain it, but it has to do with modal logic. As Hartshorne explains:
… there are four forms of modal status: contingent nonexistence, contingent existence, necessary nonexistence, necessary existance.
God has necessary existence, but God includes the world which has contingent existence. The process of reality does not have a beginning or an end. Therefore, the existence of the Many is necessary. Think of the Many as a set. The set of contingently existing events has necessary existence. If God is the One that includes the Many, we can say that God, in her actuality, is co-created, and so also is the world.
I’ll get to your question about prayer when I can steal some more time.
Comment by Don Vande Krol —
Steve,
Looking back over prior messages I read this again:
I didn’t mention it before, but I don’t see ANY conflict between what you wrote and Process Thought. I wonder though, when you write that the inclusion of the other within God’s self is only through prehension and influence, what else you think there might be? All change, according to Process Thought, is an internal change. All “external changes” (a change in velocity and location) is in appearance only, similar to the appearance of movement caused by changes of individual pixels on a screen. Every event in the universe produces an effect - an influence that changes the universe when antecedent events are prehended (to “prehend” means roughly, to “receive the influence of another as material - an object - to be used in the construction of one’s self”). Every event becomes a potential in the self-construction of succeeding events. Every actuality is a selection among potentials. But actualities do not endure because, in the process of reality, they become potentials and potentials are not actual.
And I know that you continue to claim that you understand, but the statement above leads me to believe that you haven’t quite prehended the concept of “prehension”. Unless, or until you do, anything I could write about God’s transforming power (influence) that can make prayer effective, won’t make much sense.
Comment by Don Vande Krol —
Wish I could make an explanation of Process as understandable as this Rabbi does!
Comment by Don Vande Krol —
Don,
Occasions of experience.
Comment by Steve Petermann —
I intended to provide a link above, but apparently it didn’t happen. So… another attempt:
Comment by Don Vande Krol —
http://web.mac.com/aaaron12/Aaron_Alexander/Process_Theology_/Process_Theology_.html
Comment by Don Vande Krol —
Steve,
I came across a recent blog written as a primer on process-relational theory that I thought might interest you. I clipped the section below because, when I read it, I thought of your “Aspect Monism”.
http://aivakhiv.blog.uvm.edu/2010/11/theory_primer.html
Comment by Don Vande Krol —