I'm way behind in my reading of Ostler. That was partially because a few people wanted to purchase the book and partially because I got involved on trying to come somewhat up to speed on the libertarian free will issue that is so core to the book. This next section is the last half of the second chapter and delves into how Ostler conceives of perfection, in contrast to the Greek "absolutism" of the first half. Probably the biggest concept is that Ostler reads into LDS scripture, especially D&C 88, the concept of panentheism. Strictly speaking panentheism is the theory that God is in all things and all things are in God, but that God is not identical with the universe. As normally conceived in process thought, it seems like panentheism is an odd mix with Mormonism. The analogy typically made is that the universe is to God, what our body is to us. i.e. we are more than just our body, and God is more than just the universe. The problem is that it is hard to see the Mormon God who is either an embodied individual or community of individuals in this way.
Just as a human body presents the experience of its cells to be unified into a synthesis of conscious experience in the cerebral cortext, so by analogy God experiences the experiences of all other realities to be synthesized into a high harmony of appreciation.
Because God is literally "in" all things in the sense that God's creative energy and experience are part of each actual occasion's concrete experience, process theology is sometimes referred to as panentheism as opposed ot pantheism or theism. Pantheism is the doctrine that God is identical with whatever is real. Theism is the doctrine that God creates all things but they are not identical with him. In contrast, panentheism is the doctrine that God participates in all things and all things participate in but are not identical with God.
I quote this just to keep Ostler's treatment clear. The requirements of Mormon theology will require a recasting of process theology in a fashion unlike what I read of in Hartshorne or Whitehead. The point is that for Ostler all things participate with God and God participates with all things. This, Ostler feels, gives God "direct" knowledge and power. I'm not sure that is necessarily so. Consider, for instance, any person within the universe. Via the laws and forces of physics, each person participates in every other entity within the universe. Their behavior, within a naturalistic conception, are tied to the behavior and existence of every other entity. Indeed this is the point of holism within quantum mechanics. But even just via gravity, I affect, however small, every other entity. Ostler wants to make this more significant, in keeping with process thought. Entities behave, according to the laws of physics, because they creatively take in all other entities and reform a new entity, their new self. As I understand the Whitehead strain of process thought, this is done in a free sense with a kind of proto-awareness. What Ostler wants to do is do this with God. However can the omniscience and omnipotence of this way of thinking really explain God? I'm not sure it can. Put an other way, without a careful analysis of this creativity and freedom and most importantly prehension (a Whitehead term), I'm not sure we have anything more profound than a kind of holism all too common in physics.
The other problem I have with the appeal to process thought is that it tends to describe God in terms of what is necessary for us to worship him. However, this seems somewhat problematic. It ties what God must be to our rather subjective and limited perspective of how we want him to be. This is something that affects the line of argument in the Lectures on Faith somewhat as well. Why should we assume that what humans want to worship is what God is? Consider someone in ancient Mesopotamia. If they felt that divine beings were only worth worshipping if they demanded the first born child, would we say that this entails that God must, to be perfect, demand the death of all first born sons? Of course not. So this subjectivist approach to God's perfections is deeply problematic. The Lectures on Faith avoids this somewhat by asking what is logically necessary to have faith to salvation. The problem, of course, is that many, if not most people don't act logically. Any argument to what God must be like that is hinged upon human desire, seems doomed to failure because of the subjective and irrational basis for human desire.
This isn't to criticize many of the excellent points Ostler makes in the chapter. For instance the contrast between an "absolute" being which has no internal relations to beings with external relations is quite apt. I think, however, that even an absolutist theologian could respond that God the ousia or absolute is different from his emmanations as a person. Thus God can love through his manifestation as Jesus Christ. So many of the arguments of the process theologian might fail, depending upon what the nature of the persons is.
For those familiar with Continental thought this is important. After all the transcendent or "thing-in-itself" might well be an absolute being of some sort. Yet it is important to distinguish this being from its "face" or manifestations. Indeed what is unique in Continental thought of some stripes is that not only is this true of God, it is true of every rational creature. So I, just as much as God, have some transcendent unrelated "part." (I put part in quotes since it isn't a part at all)
In other words, I think that in a very real sense the whole approach of process thought, while attractive, ends up avoiding the question of transcendence that is asked within the absolutist view. Of course one can run into problems when one conflates aspects of manifestation with aspects of transcendence. This is what I feel the common flaw within theology is. Thus the common criticism within Continental thought that philosophy has an error of a logo-centrism or a kind of theology of presence. The transcendent or absolute is made a presence to thought.
Don't be discouraged, br. Goble. I'm not contributing a whole lot, but I certainly am following what you say with interest.
I've closed comments in order to avoid spam since I don't check this older blog as much anymore.
and Theology
Number of unique visitors:
Blogged by Clark Goble