From: Steve Petermann (steve@spetermann.org)
Date: Thu Sep 04 2003 - 09:30:38 EDT
Ted,
> Or something like that. His picture of the Demiurgos is, IMO, a precursor
> of the modern process God, who can't exert absolute power of nature
> either--that is, IMO the process God can't determine the nature of nature.
> Rather the nature of nature is a given, the God must simply do his best
with
> what he's got. This is why I think of process theology as Platonistic,
> though one can also see it as deeply Aristotelian also (an eternal
universe
> eternally in the process of becoming).
I think you're exactly right on the parallels. What has always bothered me
about process theology is its use of the term "God". Unlike Plato, process
thought doesn't seem to understand that the term "God" springs from the
notion of ultimacy. Plato certainly recognized it by having God be
transcendent even if his idea of perfection might cause problems. When
process theology leaves out a transcendent ultimate it, in effect, makes
their god a Demiurgos. Since in their view God is constrained by something,
then logically whatever constrains God is really God.
Regards,
Steve Petermann
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>
To: <deborahjmann@insightbb.com>; <asa@lists.calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 3:43 PM
Subject: RE: mathematical concepts=="irrational numbers," processtheology,
Plato
> "Irrational" numbers, or "surds" (yes, that's a noun related to the
> adjective "absurd," look it up for an interesting moment), were thus named
> b/c they did not meet the Greek standard of "rational" mathematics--ie,
they
> could not be written as the quotients of whole numbers. They were not
> thereby related to the harmonic ratios in music (recall that music was
once
> a branch of mathematics). And, of course, by Euclid's time it was
possible
> to prove by deduction (using a reductio ad absurdum) that the SQRT(2) is
> "irrational" by this definition.
>
> Plato realized that, as a consequence of his geometrical atomism (which
used
> 45-45-90 triangles to make up the square sides of the cubical atoms of
earth
> and used 30-60-90 triangles to make up the triangular sides of the
> tetrahedral, icosahedral, and octagonal atoms of the other three
terrestrial
> elements), some degree of "irrationality" was built into nature. He
> interpreted that thusly: the creative power of the divine craftsman (the
> "Demiurgos," a word also found in the book of Hebrews) was limited by the
> "recalcitrance" of the matter he had not created. Thus, perfect form was
> imposed only imperfectly on matter. Thus, we cannot have a "science" (ie,
> genuine demonstrable knowledge) of nature, only a "likely story" or
opinion.
> We could have a "science" only of the perfect forms themselves.
>
> Or something like that. His picture of the Demiurgos is, IMO, a precursor
> of the modern process God, who can't exert absolute power of nature
> either--that is, IMO the process God can't determine the nature of nature.
> Rather the nature of nature is a given, the God must simply do his best
with
> what he's got. This is why I think of process theology as Platonistic,
> though one can also see it as deeply Aristotelian also (an eternal
universe
> eternally in the process of becoming).
>
> I hope this isn't all too confusing, and that I haven't misstated
something
> in the midst of this.
>
> ted
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Sep 04 2003 - 09:35:19 EDT