Process Theism: Alfred North Whitehead (PhD edit)

Process Theism: Alfred North Whitehead (PhD edit)

Photo is Lampeter, Wales, Pinterest, 2020

Preface

This section from my PhD was originally published on Blogger, 20100618. Slight revisions with additions for an entry on academia.edu, 20240804.

Process Theism: Alfred North Whitehead

Process theism refers to a general group of theological concepts attributed to Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947)[1] and Charles Hartshorne (1897-2000).[2] Whitehead is the more preeminent exemplar and within Process and Reality (1927-1929)(1957) explains he desired to complete an account of humanity and its experience in relation to philosophical problems.[3] In Religion In The Making (1926) Whitehead explains it is legitimate to attempt with a more definite knowledge of metaphysics, to interpret human experience, but these general principles must be amplified and adapted into one general system of truth.[4] Whitehead disagreed with a traditional view of a ‘transcendent creator, at whose fiat the world came into being, and whose imposed will it obeys.’[5] The nature of God needed to be philosophically constructed anew.[6] A balance is sought between God’s immanence[7] and transcendence,[8] and a concept of static transcendence is rejected as instead God is understood to have a evolutionary transcendence.[9] God and the physical realm are immanent with each other and God’s transcendence means their realities are not identical and not always determined by each other.[10] God is fully reasoned to be involved and influenced by temporal events and processes.[11] These processes unfold as sequences of events over time.[12] God, contrary to classic and traditional Christian theism is finite, temporal, changeable[13] and experiences intense emotion, pain and sadness.[14] Whitehead explains that ‘It is not true that God is on all respects infinite.’[15] Process theology is a philosophical approach that does not rely on any kind of divine revelation.[16] Instead it relies on a process of change over time as a theory of metaphysics.[17] God’s actual concrete nature is responsive and influenced by the processes that take in the world, and therefore God is limited.[18] Some things are unknowable for God, that he only can realize as they happen,[19] and as these new things develop God’s knowledge processes over time.[20] Divine sovereignty is questionable and certainly no longer absolute within this system.[21]

Whitehead, a mathematician and philosopher,[22] established a speculative philosophy of metaphysics within a scientific non-metaphysical reality.[23] This system is an attempt to adequately explain all individual beings in existence, including God.[24] Basically a system of metaphysics needed to be developed that would work with modern scientific theories and reality, and therefore God was not a ‘static essence’ but a process.[25] The ‘actual entities’[26] that make up this process are non-permanent and transient and each action and activity is dipolar having a physical pole of the past and a mental pole which is a possibility that can be achieved.[27] The physical pole feels the physical reality of actual entity, while the mental pole feels or prehends as Whitehead calls it, the eternal objects by which actual entities have conceptual definiteness.[28] These physical and mental poles are an aspect of every real being/actual entities although they are not real things themselves.[29] Prehends is the feeling of grasping the physical and conceptual information concerning actual entities.[30] This will occur within a stream and series of occasions.[31] All occurrences take place within the process of these actual entities.[32] Each event is partially self-created and partially influenced by other occasions and entities.[33] God is also dipolar[34] and his nontemporal pole is where God conceives the infinite variety of external objects and sees the possibilities and provides the opportunity for the process of becoming.[35] God is an actual entity and being.[36] God has a primordial nature and consequent nature, with the primordial being conceptual, while the consequent nature is God as conscious.[37] Whitehead explains that the ‘consequent nature is the weaving of God’s physical feelings upon his primordial concepts.’[38] God’s primordial conceptual nature is infinite and does not have negative prehension/feelings, and is eternal and unconscious.[39] This nature is permanent as God works out endless possibilities.[40] God in his vision can determine every possibility and adjust details where needed.[41] The consequent nature of God originates with physical experience with the material temporal world and it is integrated with the primordial conceptual nature.[42] The consequent nature as conscious is determined, finite and incomplete.[43] These two aspects of God’s deity can be distinguished but are inseparable.[44] This consequent conscious nature had God constantly acquiring new experiences.[45] A problem arises that if God’s primordial nature is eternal and unconscious[46] it precedes the consequent nature that is temporal[47] and has consciousness. I question whether an unconscious deity would in any way proceed to a conscious temporal reality. Where did God’s consciousness come from? I reason consciousness would have to exist eternally to lead to a finite reality of consciousness.[48]

[1] Viney (2008: 1).

[2] Viney (2008: 1).

[3] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: vi).

[4] Whitehead (1926: 149).

[5] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 404).

[6] Whitehead (1926: 150).

[7] God is actively present within reality and creation. Erickson (1994: 302).

[8] God by nature is beyond and separate from his material creation. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 115).

[9] A balance needed to be sought as there were extreme views concerning God as impersonal force behind the universe as in deism and also the view that God has absolute sovereignty as the sole creator of matter. Whitehead (1926: 150).

[10] Viney (2008: 10).

[11] Viney (2008: 1). Diehl (1996: 880).

[12] Blackburn (1996: 305). The process is not according to a motion of changeless matter. Diehl (1996: 881).

[13] God is not immutable as is classically defined.

[14] God is not impassible according to this view.

[15] Whitehead (1926: 153). Whitehead claims that if God was infinite in all ways this would make him as infinitely evil as he is good. I doubt logically and reasonably that an infinitely holy and good God could at the same time be infinitely evil and so I can grant Whitehead half a point here. I definitely agree with Whitehead that an infinitely good and evil God would be a God of nothingness. Whitehead (1926: 153). I doubt this being could logically exist.

[16] Viney (2008: 1). Diehl (1996: 881).

[17] Viney (2008: 1).

[18] Erickson (1994: 280).

[19] Erickson (1994: 280).

[20] Erickson (1994: 280).

[21] Erickson (1994: 280).

[22] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 135). Diehl (1996: 881).

[23] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 135).

[24] Diehl (1996: 881).

[25] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 135).

[26] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 135). Diehl (1996: 881).

[27] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 136). Diehl (1996: 881).

[28] Diehl (1996: 881). Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[29] Viney (2008: 8).

[30] Diehl (1996: 881). Viney (2008: 9).

[31] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 136).

[32] Diehl (1996: 881).

[33] Diehl (1996: 881).

[34] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407). Viney (2008: 8).

[35] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 137).

[36] Viney (2008: 9).

[37] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[38] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[39] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[40] Viney (2008: 9).

[41] Whitehead (1926: 153-154).

[42] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[43] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[44] Viney (2008: 9).

[45] Viney (2008: 9).

[46] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[47] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[48] An eternal reality of unconsciousness should lead to a finite reality of unconsciousness.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

DIEHL, DAVID W. (1996) ‘Process Theology’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

GRENZ, STANLEY J. AND ROGER E. OLSON (1992) Twentieth Century Theology, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

VINEY, DAVID (2008) ‘Process Theism’, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Palo Alto, California, Stanford University.

WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH (1926) Religion in the Making, New York, The MacMillan Company.

WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH (1927-1929)(1957) Process and Reality, New York, The Free Press/MacMillan Publishing Company, Incorporated.

WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH (1967)(1986) ‘Adventures of Ideas’, in Forest Wood JR., Whiteheadian Thought as a Basis for a Philosophy of Religion, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, University Press of America, Inc.

Referencing my PhD and website work

John Frame explains that God cannot perform logically contradictory actions, Frame (2002: 518). Erickson (1994: 277). Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 359-360 Volume 1). God cannot make a square circle, Frame (2002: 518). Thiessen (1956: 126). God cannot commit that which is immoral and sinful, Frame (2002: 518). Thiessen (1956: 126). Weber (1955)(1981: 440). Interestingly, God cannot commit actions ‘appropriate only to finite creatures.’ Frame (2002: 520). God cannot logically have finite attributes. All of God's attributes and nature are infinite.

In the incarnation, God the Son takes a finite human nature, as Jesus Christ, while remaining the eternal, infinite God. But the infinite and finite natures do not mix. God the Son, as infinite, within the Trinity, did (does) take a finite, human nature in the incarnation. Correctly, and classically, the natures do not mix. Jesus Christ is both finite man and infinite God. There is an aspect of mystery in the incarnation, but the Triune nature of God which is infinite and eternal is not altered by Christ taking on additional finite human nature. According to the Pocket Dictionary, the hypostatic union is the theological term which describes the bringing together of the divine and human natures of Jesus Christ is one person. (62). God the Son, Jesus Christ, being both fully human and fully divine. (62). Hypostasis (ὑπόστασις) from the Greek in this context, is the essential nature and essence of a person/entity.

Bible Hub 

Cited 

'Strong's Concordance hupostasis: a support, substance, steadiness, hence assurance Original 

Word: ὑπόστασις, εως, ἡ 

Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine 

Transliteration: hupostasis 

Phonetic Spelling: (hoop-os'-tas-is) 

Definition: a support, substance, steadiness, assurance 

Usage: (lit: an underlying), (a) confidence, assurance, (b) a giving substance (or reality) to, or a guaranteeing, (c) substance, reality.' 

Cited

'Englishman's Concordance'

'Hebrews 1:3 N-GFS (Nominative, Genitive, Feminine, Singular my add)

GRK: χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ φέρων 

NAS: and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds 

KJV: of his person, and INT: [the] exact expression of the substance of him upholding' 

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

FRAME, JOHN M. (1999) ‘The Bible on the Problem of Evil: Insights from Romans 3:1-8,21-26; 5:1-5; 8:28-39’, IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 1, Number 33, October 11 to October 17, Fern Park, Florida, Third Millennium. 

FRAME, JOHN M. (2002) The Doctrine of God, P and R Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey.

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI and CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers. 

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers. 

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

WEBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics, Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Why rebellion?

A shot from 'my estate' purchased with money from my 'Blogging empire'. I should teach theology, philosophy of religion and Biblical studies classes in that field out there. 

My Dad has told me on more than one occasion that I should become a televangelist to make good money. But I just cannot ethically do the fake healing thing. Edited work from my 

PhD. Preface 

Within a sovereignty approach and theodicy as opposed to related but somewhat different incompatibilistic free will theodicy, I deduce a theoretical, possible and suitable reason why God created a good world and allowed human beings to rebel against him. 

Certain persons will experience evil and atonement 

 Certain persons will have experienced their own sin, death, and the atoning work of Christ and his resurrection applied to them. These would be citizens of the culminated Kingdom of God. 

Persons cannot be created with experience 

Very importantly, persons cannot be created with experience, even if made with a level of initial maturity. God can create a perfect person, but God cannot logically create a perfect person with experience as such. The act of creating implies newness and inexperience. Admittedly, God could hypothetically create a being with false memories of a perfect life, but this would not be the same as having experience. I deduce the results would not be the same. 

Through problem of evil certain persons will become Christ-like

It is reasonable to deduce that the problem of evil is possibly God’s means of developing certain individuals to eventual Christ-like stature, not sharing Christ’s divinity in nature but becoming like Christ in a mature and moral manner, combined with an unbreakable devotion to God. This would be finite moral perfection and goodness but not infinite, God-like moral perfection and goodness. Isaiah 43 makes it clear there was no God formed before God and there will be no God formed after. Isaiah 44-46 make similar statements.

Conclusion Those within culminated Kingdom will have greater spiritual maturity than initial persons

A reason for God to willfully allow human rebellion 

My theory and conclusion is that human beings in Christ with the use of compatibilism will eventually have greater spiritual maturity than Adam and Eve did prior to a fall from God. It would also appear that God ultimately prefers persons (human ones at least) as they will be in the culminated Kingdom, over persons in a different scenario that would have never freely chosen to disobey God. Perhaps in that case as well the former group would have greater spiritual maturity.

Further Explanation 

It is believed that Christ will be God’s lieutenant in this godless world and bring about, through his crucifixion and resurrection, the promise of a better future, which includes hope. Moltmann (1993: 256). The Kingdom of God was present in Christ and this has been defined in history. Moltmann (1993: 263). God would not have to go through such a process as he is infinitely good and human beings are finitely good and capable of falling. That being stated, some angels apparently never did fall and yet had finite goodness. I reason God could create significantly free finite beings that would fall, and significantly free finite beings that would not.

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall. 

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

FLEW, ANTONY (1955) ‘Divine Omnipotence and Human Freedom’, in Antony Flew and A. MacIntrye (eds), New Essays in Philosophical Theology, London, SCM. HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library. 

LEIBNIZ, G.W. (1710)(1998) Theodicy, Translated by E.M. Huggard Chicago, Open Court Classics. 

MACKIE, J.L. (1955)(1996) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’ in Mind, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press .

MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1993) The Crucified God, Minneapolis, Fortress Press. 

PLANTINGA, ALVIN.C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B.  Eerdmans .Publishing Company.

   

Another shot from 'my estate'. Public road included.