Summary:
God is that one topic that never seems to settle down because as Kant would say
that He belongs to metaphysics and such discipline is a “battlefield of endless
controversies”. Like any other ideas or concepts in the whole length of the
history of philosophy, this is also subject to innovations. The idea of being
evolves through time but it was left completely stagnant before Heidegger came
to question it. Even the idea of “idea” itself has long been a contending issue
even during the ancient times (referring to Western civilization) whether it be
innate or learned. So, God also shares in this evolution of thought and still
remains irreconcilable because Kant was right to condemn metaphysics as vague.
Going back to the early systematic presentations and demonstrations of God, He
was considered to be the ultimate cause or that which contains in himself all
perfections. This line of thinking was called classical theology. In classical
theology, God is that “with an abstraction called the absolute or the unmoved
mover or the most real being” [1] moreover, He is the perfection above
perfection or the “chief exemplification of both static and dynamic
qualities”[2] if viewed radically. God here is viewed by classical tradition as
“monopolar” since it views the divine as the absolute and unchanging Being.
Later on this will be accounted as “natural theology” or also known as theodicy
(which was coined by Leibniz) and it is about the exercise of the utmost use of
reason in the evaluation of God. The problem here is that how can God who is
perfect relate to man who is a lesser being and ultimately why did He create
the world which is imperfect and He being already perfect in himself needs or
necessitates himself to the creation of the world? The development of that
thought was evident during the Reformation where the idea of God was slowly
shifting towards a more personal God to whom man can relate or worship rather
than a God who is untouchable. Reason here is belittled since it bears the
problem concerning to belief which according to Calvin is that “man must open
his heart to God rather than his head”. Kierkegaard too is a proponent for this
irrationality and according to him that “rational theism turns God into a mere
abstraction and undermines the existential significance of genuine faith. Faith
provides no guarantees.” [3] Later on, it is found out that there are limits
concerning rational proofs of God but with the rise of existentialism and
process philosophy, the limits tend to increase its value as rational proofs
were replaced for an experiential encounter with God. What was laid in
classical theology is also a justification that God too or theism as a whole is
not but “non-sense and shows that it has integral coherence and clarity”. [4] Even
with extensive and rigorous rationality has to be called upon into the
understanding of the divine, it is still gravely challenged by the new trends.
The predicate of “perfectness” in God is later on challenged because the
perfectness of God made Him non-relational. When God is perfect or radically
perfect, it made Him separate and distinct from His creation which is subject
to imperfections. The claim of classical theology was that there is “the
ontological distinction between the Creator God and the created world” [5] and
that God is perfect and the world as imperfect. Thus, God being perfect cannot
have interest of our “heartfelt creative valuations (which are man’s creations
and God being…) unable to receive any created value”.[6] God in classical
theology was given a whole lot of abstractions that leads to “philosophical
idolatry” and idolatry according to Whitehead is the “necessary product of
static dogmas”.[7] Static dogmas are those which enunciates the perfections of
God or we might call a reification. So the question remains whether God in his
perfection can relate to the world and in the first place why did He create the
world and why does He even need it for if He himself is already perfect?
There is also this theological theism which makes God subject to the “subject
and object relationship” wherein, God is a subject and sees man as an object
and man as subject sees God as an object. The consequence of this view is that,
God has a conception of man and because of such conception, He condemns man to
an absolute control under his authority. Therefore, man is not free because of
a God seeing man as an object and therefore has a conception of man already.
Man is already determined in God’s mind.
There is the formulation of new terms like ontolatry or “the worship of being”,
which emphasizes the worship to a certain entity. Another is etiolatry which is
a worship of cause, like worshipping to something as the primary cause. This is
the view of monarchic “theological theism” which “errs in regarding God as a
being alongside other beings, even if it is conceded that this God is a supreme
being”.[8] This view makes God a Being that is immersed in the world alongside
other beings even though there is the assertion of His superiority. On the
contrary, another perception of this kind of being can be that God is static
because He does not go beyond Himself since He is already perfect.
Nevertheless, the contrary is favored by the process philosophers and modern
theologians that God is a being which is dynamic and “implies the tendency of
everything to transcend itself and to create new forms”. [9]
Two philosophers by the names of Hartshorne and Tillich in the article are in
constant opposition. Tillich tends to remain to classical theology wherein God
is that perfection of perfections; God is referred to as that ultimate entity
and precisely the ultimate cause which is still in congruence to what we call
“abstractionism”. Tillich makes God the ultimate cause and this implies that
God cannot change, but for Hartshorne whatever is a cause is also an effect of
something prior. “For a cause in the ordinary sense is always an effect, and
God as a cause would be caught in the causal chain.” [10] Therefore, God is not
only a universal cause but also a universal effect and Hartshorne asserts
himself being an advocate of process philosophy. God is not static because a
God who is static is not relational because being perfect cannot likewise
relate with man who is lesser. So God must also be an effect and by doing so,
He is being both the God who changes and is changed by what the world also
wills Him to be. Whitehead would coin the term “nexus” which means that an
actual connection of every actual entity (and God is an actual entity). Things
are connected in some sort and as the saying goes “when a butterfly flaps its
wings, who knows that it is creating a tornado in the other part of the world”.
Everything is related therefore, each is a cause and an effect of something and
inevitably God is one.
Hartshorne proposes that, to make God ideal for worship is not to make Him
abstract, perfect and consequentially lifeless because it escapes the thought
of relationship also, He cannot be affected by anything. God is also subject to
the causal chain and that makes Him relational rather than what is espoused in
classical theology. In order to turn God into a proper “icon” of worship, He
must not be perfect in the sense that He is unmoved and unchanging but perfect
in the sense of the culmination of static and dynamic attributes within Himself.
Reflection and Conclusion:
As what I have learned from the article, theology is a subject self-unfolding
and is constantly revealing itself throughout time. At first, theology was so
sure that it claimed certitude however, throughout many years, it went into
self-contradiction up until now just to check whether it is still on the tight
path. The phenomenology of its Spirit is still in the process of unfolding. It
was at first very much influenced by Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics
especially on the idea of causality and how it prevented the infinite regress
of causal relations by positing God as that ultimate cause which is perfect
unmoved and unchanging. Through time, questions arose because “perfectness” has
its limits also, it is illogical to think that a perfect God creating a world
which is imperfect and changing. Moreso, a God who is a perfect being relating
with an imperfect one such as man. So with the aid of process philosophy, God
was made dynamic and changing therefore making Him a being in the world and not
beyond it. Therefore, I say that process philosophers gave us help and better
understanding of the lapses and limits of being perfect and that is to be a
failure in a relation with the lesser other.
The thought of a dynamic God makes the divine Being more of a proper “item” of
worship because our understanding of His dynamism gives us comfort and that is,
Him being capable to relate with man; not like worshipping to a God that does
not seem to move. A god that is changing makes God a missionary rather than the
previous popes who were at the comfort of their ivory towers. A social God is
the product of process philosophy. Therefore, let me end with a quotation from
Whitehead.
“It is as true to say that God is permanent and the world
fluent, as the world is permanent and God is fluent.”[1]
[1]Elwood, B.D. “The Limits of Infinity, Being, Process and
Mystery”. Sophia. Vol. 27. No. 1. p. 2
[2] Ibid. p.2
[3] Ibid. p. 3
[4] Ibid. p. 4
[5] Ibid. p. 4
[6] Ibid. p. 5
[7] Ibid. p.9.
[8] Ibid. p.8.
[9] Ibid. p.11
[10] Ibid. p.12.
[11] I forgot exactly from what book and I think it is
from Process and Reality, but I came to encounter this saying from Bro.
Abulad’s lecture on existentialism.
Comments
Post a Comment