Process Theology - My overview and interpretation

This is a very different take on 'The Problem of Evil' to the two main theodicies I have studied previously. Whilst taking two opposing approaches to resolving the issue of the inconsistent triad, neither Augustine nor Ireneaus made the decision to abandon their classical concept of God (i.e. as the omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator of the universe ex nihilo). It seems that a step away from this rigid and abstract concept of God would give theologians more wiggle room when trying to justify Him in the face of apparently pointless suffering, and could possibly be more consistent with the dynamic God depicted in the Bible.

 

Leading thinkers in process theology include Alfred North Whitehead, a British mathematician, and Charles Hartshorne, an American philosopher. 

The first distinction is that the process God is not creator of the universe ex nihilo nor the ultimate source of power in the universe. This immediately contradicts previous academic theological thought, such as that of Aquinas with God as the first unmoved mover and first uncaused cause, and Anselm with God as "That than which nothing greater can be conceived", because there has been a limit set on God as he is not omnipotent. The process God is co-creative (i.e. he was present from the beginning of creation and continues to be involved in the universe, but is not the absolute source of creation). This means that there is no 'bias' towards God in human nature, as suggested by Irenaeus, because it has not been programmed into humans to ultimately reach the perfection of God.

Through their creativity, both God and humankind are linked to a source of power. This is unusual, as traditionally it is believed that God created the potential for creativity in humans and all creation in the universe is ultimately linked back to God, but in process thought humans have a capacity to create independent of God, because the process God is not their ultimate creator. This has implications for the problem of evil, because the evil that comes into the world is not drawn from God, and it is due to the limited, distinct point of power of God that evil cannot be prevented.

The creation account in Genesis 1 suggests that the creation of the universe was not out of nothing:

Now the earth was formless and empty,darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

- Genesis 1:2

This is not inconsistent with the process God, as God is clearly shown to be present at the beginning, but he is not working with a blank canvas. It is possible that God was there for the chaotic creation for the universe and that is why He is now trapped within it, and subject to all the natural laws of the universe. 

So far, process theologians have parted with the idea that God is the ultimate source of creation and that He is truly unlimited in power, but there's more... 

I will now discuss another limitation of the process God contrary to the traditional philosophical concept of God: knowledge. Whilst the process God is omniscient (i.e. all-knowing), he is not omniprescient (i.e. knows the future before it happens in reality). This means that God does not have a divine 'all-seeing' mind that knows in advance what will happen, which is comforting for those who dislike the idea that everything has been set and determined by God and that whatever happens is inevitable because God chose it to be that way (!). Humans have genuine freedom to behave as autonomous agents and live alongside the process God who is too confined to the natural limitations of time and space, and therefore cannot change our lives before we have lived them. 

As the process God is subject to time, he is not a constant, immutable being (as implied in Malcolm's Ontological argument) but has a dipolar nature: an element of God is unchanging, known as the "consequent nature"; however, there is also a dynamic and changing element, known as the "primordial nature". This means that as the universe changes and adapts, God can also adapt to the new conditions, and there is an idea that everyone grows together with new experiences of the world.

I think this view of God is important because he can interact with the world and humankind, which supports the Christian belief in a loving God, with whom they can have a personal relationship. Relationships are two-sided; so it is necessary that the other half, even if they are divine, can change and be vulnerable in order to have a strong and meaningful relationship.

To conclude - how does this concept of God resolve the problem of evil, and is it truly successful?

The consequence of the inconsistent triad and problem of evil is a question of the nature of God, can we believe God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent when suffering exists. Process theology attempts to prove that these attributes do not belong to God, and that he is in fact as intertwined in our universe as we are. God cannot be culpable for the evil present in the universe, and not trying to prevent it, simply because it is not within his power to do so. 

I think that many may find this image of God uncomfortable because it is not generally characteristic of God to be limited by anything, and He is thought to be boundless, separate, other. If we accept that God is not omnipotent, it appears to anthropomorphise God because he is subject to all the same limitations of the universe that every finite being is. I think that whilst this is an interesting concept, to say that God is limited is too great a sacrifice, because for me that is not a being worthy of worship and love.

Alvin Platinga's Ontological Argument

Platinga criticized Malcolm's argument because although it showed the necessary existence of the greatest possible being in some possible words, it did not successfully demonstrate that the greatest possible being exists in this actual world.

Platinga's response is in the form of a modal argument - modality refers to the necessity or contingency and possibility or impossibility of a statement. This can be analyzed in terms of possible worlds, which does not refer to another world  but a complete description of how things could be. For example, a necessary truth is one that is true in every possible world and an impossible truth is one that is false in every possible world.

His argument distinguishes between excellence (i.e. dependent on properties that are true in some possible worlds) and greatness (i.e. dependent on properties that are true in every possible world).

Platinga's Ontological Argument can be summarized as:
1 - There is possible world W which contains a being of maximal greatness.
2 - A being of maximal greatness would have maximal excellence in all possible worlds.
3 - A being is only of maximal excellence if it is omniscient, omnipotent and morally perfect.
4 - [According to Premise 3] An omniscient, omnipotent and morally perfect being exists in W.
5 - [According to Premise 4] In W the statement "There is no omniscient omnipotent and morally perfect being" is impossible.
6 - An impossible truth is one that is false in every possible world.
7 - Therefore, the statement "There is no omniscient omnipotent and morally perfect being" is impossible in every possible world, including the actual world.
8 - Therefore, it is necessarily true (true in every possible world) that an omniscient, omnipotent and morally perfect being exists.

The main criticism of this argument is that it is reversible, which means that the same logic can be used to demonstrate rationally that a being of 'no maximality' rather than 'maximal greatness' exists. This suggests the argument is not valid because the opposite conclusion can be reached using the same sound argument.
Additionally, there is the question of whether the Judeo-Christian God is truly demonstrated.

Norman Malcolm - A modern revival of The Ontological Argument

Malcolm's argument revived Anselm's 2nd Ontological Argument found in Proslogion 3, which posits that God exists necessarily. He believed that only a necessary being is worthy of religious devotion because a being that is limited in any way would not be consistent with the theistic idea of an omnipotent God or That Than Which Nothing Greater Can Be Conceived (TTWNGCBC).

He outlines four possibilities concerning the statement "God exists":
1) It is necessarily false (i.e. God cannot exist).
2) It is contingently false (i.e. God could exist but doesn't).
3) It is contingently true (i.e. God could exist and does).
4) It is necessarily true (i.e. God has to exist).

However, Malcolm implicitly defines God as immutable (i.e. he is unchangeable; he cannot and will not change), which means that God cannot come into existence nor cease to exist. As God is not limited or dependent on anything, he cannot change from the state of non-existence to existence or vice versa, and so his existence is either necessarily false or necessarily true. This translates that if God does not exist, his existence is impossible and if He does exist, his existence is necessary.

For Malcolm, regardless of how God is defined, the statement "God exists" cannot be impossible because it is not self-contradictory. A self-contradictory statement is not logically coherent, for example 'The square is round'. However, this does not apply in the same way to God because it is possible to imagine that God exists.

'The square is round' is a necessarily false statement because it is self-contradictory of the definition of a square.

Therefore, God's existence is not impossible and God necessarily exists.