George, couldn't agree more. But I want to make this largely an extension
of Ted's analysis ("Nature of Nature," Apr. 2, 2002, 09:37:17 -5:00),
though I won't copy it here. I appreciate it's cogency, yet want to come
at the problem from a different angle. With panentheism, while the deity
is "greater" than universe (not equated with it as in pantheism), deity
and universe are necessarily interacting. This brings up all the problems
both of you mention. But there is more that is independent of Christian
theology. If God and "creation" are so intertwined, exhaustive
alternatives are: (1) both are eternal in the sense of existing in
infinite past time; (2) the deity existed eternally before "creating";
(3) both deity and universe sprang into existence simultaneously.
If (1), we have a pagan outlook, akin to that of the Ionians, Plato,
Aristotle, etc. Plato's demiurge, with perfect plans hampered by
recalcitrant stuff, and Aristotle's eternally existing Pure Reason and
absolute unreason (Prime Matter), are not compatible with Hebrews 11:3.
However, the modern view can be consistent with Genesis 1:1, which does
not necessarily involve creatio ex nihilo, but where it is clear
throughout the chapter that nothing in matter hamper's Elohim's work.
Still, there is a major problem incorporating the Big Bang. Can anyone
come up with a justified claim that it didn't happen?
If (2), we have the problem of what the deity was doing earlier, what
kind of "finger-twiddling" engaged it in eternity past. More difficult a
problem, what triggered the sudden initiation of matter? How could it
take an eternity of discursive reasoning by this deity to come up with a
desire to "create"? Alternatively, we have a variant of (3), with a deity
produced at a finite time before deciding to "create," with all the
problems of (3) entailed.
If (3), what is the origin of the combination? Plotinian emanationism
fits, but is the view in any way compelling? Or one can argue that the
two sprang into existence simultaneously, as some cosmologies provide for
matter alone. But there is nothing like the quantum vacuum to account for
this dual "creation."
To summarize, in addition to all the problems process theology has with
orthodox theology, I think it falls apart from purely philosophical
problems. I see it as at root irrational.
Dave
On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 12:38:44 -0500 george murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
writes:
"Howard J. Van Till" wrote:
Not necessarily a problem. _This_ particular universe -- this particular
manifestation of a World -- remains, I believe, open to my description
(perhaps slightly modified by the absence of any need to root it in
creatio ex nihilo). _This_ universe still has an "outset" and particular
features chosen by God.
Howard -
This doesn't get at the heart of the problem. Your earlier
statement was that God had gifted creation with _all_ it's form-producing
capacities. With a process approach you'd have to say "some" of its
capacities or "God _contributed_ to all its form-producing capacities" or
something of the sort.
I largely agree with Ted Davis's post on this topic. However,
while he empasizes difficulties of process thought with classical
monotheism, I would point out that it's hard to formulate an adequate
trinitarian understanding of God in process terms.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 02 2002 - 14:58:13 EST