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.

Augustine, evil and eternal damnation (oh so cheery)

First, I want to discuss Manichaeism, the dualistic theology that maintains that there are two opposing forces in the world of good and evil, with two ultimate creators. All that is good is created by God which manifests in the human spirit, while all that is evil is created by the Devil and gives the human body. Throughout life, there is a constant struggle between these forces, however ultimately the good is triumphant because the human body is finite and inferior to the spirit. As evil is the creation of the devil and not the product of free will, humans are not responsible for any evil they commit.

St Augustine was a believer in Manchaeism but rejected the religion after converting to Christianity and creating his Doctrine of Original Sin. He believed that God's creation was perfect and the existence of evil is as a result of the fall of Adam. For Augustine, evil is not an entity in of itself, but a privation, or lack, of the good (e.g. sight is good, therefore blindness/lack of sight is a privation of the good). When man was created they were given free will and it is the abuse of this free will that caused all of humanity to be enslaved by sin. 

According to Genesis, all moral evil is punishment for the disobedience of Adam and Eve:

To the woman he said,

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;

with painful labor you will give birth to children.

Your desire will be for your husband,

and he will rule over you.”

-Genesis 3:16

This reveals the introduction of pain and suffering to a previously untarnished paradise that will be passed down to the whole of humankind. The rest of humanity is said to be deserving of this punishment because we were seminally present in Adam, therefore we inherit his sin and are born even as children as wicked. 

This punishment for sin is never-ending because only a select few receive the virtue of the undeserved Grace of God and enter the kingdom of Heaven. The inescapable fate of eternal damnation is not constructive for theologians who wish to resolve the problem of evil, as Hell is eternally filled with evil and becomes in built into the structure of the Universe. God is seen to arbitrarily give Grace and allows the majority of humanity to suffer. It seems that an omniscient God who created the world with absolute power would have foreseen the Fall and prevented the introduction of suffering into the world. In addition, an omnibenevolent God should be understanding of the human condition (i.e. finitely imperfect) and forgive our sins. 

Descartes' Ontological Argument

Descartes' argument follows a similar format to Anselm's, and begins by defining God as 'The supremely perfect being' (or SPB). He goes on to analyse the concept of a SPB and states that this being would contain every supreme perfection, for example omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience and so on. For Descartes, existence is also a perfection so it follows that the SPB must exist. Therefore, he concludes that in order for God to fulfill his role as the SPB he exists.

In addition, not only does Descartes argue that God exists, but that he exists necessarily. To strengthen this point he asks us to consider a triangle, because by definition it is impossible to conceive of a triangle with three interior angles that do not add up to the sum of two right angles. Further, it is impossible to conceive of a mountain without a valley because it is innate to the definition of a mountain. However this does not necessarily mean that a mountain or valley exist or not, but that the two are inseparable from each other as they are crucial to the essence of a mountain or valley.

Although it is impossible to conceive of a mountain without a valley that follows, that does not mean any necessarily exists.

This is the distinction that Descartes makes with God, that God must exist because existence is inseparable from his essence as a mountain is from a valley.

"therefore that he really exists: not that this is brought about by my thought, or that it imposes any necessity on things, but, on the contrary, the necessity which lies in the thing itself, that is, the necessity of the existence of God, determines me to think in this way: for it is not in my power to conceive a God without existence"
- Meditation V

Due to the definition of God as SPB, it is impossible to think of him without necessarily concluding that he must contain the perfection of existence.
Therefore, Descartes concludes a priori that God exists necessarily.

Faith and Reason

I have been thinking about what we can really arrive at through our reason alone or a priori. The Ontological Argument is seen as Natural Theology, even though it draws on no experiences of God because Anselm believed that through reason alone we are able to "convince, to a large extent, of the truth of these beliefs [existence of God and knowledge of His attributes], simply by reason alone" (Monologion).

Søren Kierkegaard rejected this position in "Philosophical Fragments" and argued that it is a fallacy to prove God's existence from His attributes (i.e. that he is eternal, perfect, necessary) as you must state that something exists before assigning them characteristics. 

He argues that rational arguments do not sufficiently convince you of God's existence because faith is required to bridge the gap between doubt and certainty.

As long as I keep my hold on the proof, i.e., continue to demonstrate, the existence does not come out, if for no other reason than that I am engaged in proving it; but when I let the proof go, the existence is there. 

[Chapter 3: The Absolute Paradox: A Metaphysical Crotchet]

He believed that logical deduction requires justification in the form of faith, because faith goes beyond reason. This quote reveals that once you recognize the limits of reason and take the 'leap of faith' you will truly believe in God. It is important to have faith in the first place, in order to interpret experiences. 

For Kierkegaard, the limits of what reason can explain is faced in Christian Theology with 'The Absolute Paradox':

• Jesus Christ as entirely man and entirely divine, entirely creator and entirely creature, infinitely perfect and finitely imperfect.

Which are all contradictory and opposing statements!

The believer has two choices when they encounter this problem with reason:

1. Offense - where the reason does not come to a mutual understanding with the paradox and rejects the paradox. 
2. Faith - the leap is taken and the believer realises that the paradox transcends the limits of reason.

This is not to say that faith is irrational (i.e. it doesn't go against reason) but non-rational (i.e. beyond reason).

I think that for true belief in God the leap is essential because the logical arguments are restrictive and eventually there must be a time where a choice is made to have real faith. 

Ontological Argument no. 2

The flaws in Anselm's first ontological argument are exposed in Gaunilo's reductio ad absurdum argument found in "On Behalf of the Fool" arguing the existence of 'the perfect island'. He stated that the fact that the greatest conceivable being can be defined does not mean it exists. This is because intentional existence (i.e. having an idea of a perfect island) does not imply formal existence (i.e. that the island really exists in reality).

Can you prove that anything exists simply by defining them as the 'greatest'?

Gaunilo's criticisms led to Anselm refining his original argument by defining the nature of God's existence. He dismissed the analogy of the perfect island because no example taken from the world is comparable to God as they have contingent existence (i.e. they can be thought to exist or not). Whereas, God cannot have contingent existence or he would not be TTWNGCBC, and therefore he has necessary existence (i.e. cannot be thought to not exist). He concludes that not only the fact that God exists, but that he exists necessarily.

The ontological argument is frustrating because it was not designed to convince non-believers of God's existence and therefore you have to believe in God in order to understand and agree that the argument is valid. This leaves many criticisms of the argument meaningless because it never intended to satisfy those who did not love and have faith in God.
Hmmm..