Skip to main content

Process Theology and Open Theism

The concept of God profiled in the ontological argument of Saint Anselm is that of a distant and impassible God: incapable of experimenting surprise, incapable of feeling any kind of emotion she can’t risk anything.

Pascal was right in his rejections of this cold philosophical god, choosing instead a more biblical faith.

This philosophical theism is not compatible with practical theism that is lived in Christian religion.

The simple act of prayer seeks to influence God, but trying to influence God is pointless when she is conceived as the Absolute.

It’s no wonder many believers of orthodox piety are trying to make a reformulation of their faith in order to make it more open and existential than metaphysical.

A relational approach to theology drives us to reject the concept of a distant and cold god, locked in his infinitude.


Process Theology


Whitehead
and Harshorne were the ones to provide a philosophical frame for a more biblical and practical theism. (Whitehead was co-author with Bertrand Russell of the book Principia Mathematica).

According to these authors, God is not transcending time, as it is understood in classical theism. At least since creation, she is part of the universal becoming. And since future is not determined, she lacks complete knowledge of what is going to happen. God may have knowledge of different possible outcomes, but she can’t be sure of which one of them is going to actualize.

This would not diminish at all the concept of supreme divine knowledge, since it is not reasonable to expect from God a knowledge that is unavailable by principle.


Open Theism

A similar approach, but less philosophical is that of Open Theism, that has been accepted by evangelical authors.

In this conception, God doesn’t have an intrinsic limitation in his inability to know the future, but she has limited her own power in order to have a better relationship with human beings.

Open Theism answer paradoxes of the classical theism as the problem of evil and the coexistence of free will with omniscience. Its principle benefit is that it makes sense of prayer.

Some critics of Process Theology and Open Theism denounce that this conceptions steal glory from God. But I believe that choosing between more humane forms of theism and classical theism is a subject of personal value judgments.

Some people give more value to power as a supreme attribute, and some other people give more value to a more humane and relational approach.

A moving example of the last is the article A Friend's Love: Why Process Theology Matters.

From an evangelical and open theism point of view is remarkable the book Disappointment with God by Philip Yancey. (I recommend this Calvinistic critique of the open theism of Yancey).


Read also:

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Abiogenesis and the atheist's faith

Taken from this forum . Everyone has some faith in an ultimate something that cannot be substantiated solely by physical evidence. Atheists have faith in naturalism alone - their faith is nakedly exposed in topics such as the origin of life or, as they term it, abiogeneis. Abiogenesis is the idea that life originated from non-living matter in the sense that it arose naturalistically. The naturalistic (and therefore “scientific”) concept is that life ("bio") must have originated ("genesis") without ("a-") any outside help. Life, ALL BIOLOGICAL LIFE anywhere in the universe, ultimately either arose naturally or supernaturally. So, ultimately, there are really only two alternatives. With abiogenesis, atheists must ulimately rely upon the "unknown process" of the gaps in contrast to the theists' so called "God of the gaps" argument (a criticism of ID). The reason this explanation is not any better than their own sarcastic carature of Go

Dawkins and the Jews

These are old news, but still interesting: Dawkins: Jews Control US Policy (IsraelNN.com) Professor Richard Dawkins, a senior British evolutionary scientist and outspoken atheist, drew fire on Monday for saying that Jews “more or less monopolize American foreign policy.” Religious Jews are a small group, Dawkins said, but are “fantastically successful” in lobbying the US government. Dawkins, who is currently in the US in an attempt to promote atheism and fight religious influence, expressed hope that atheists would be similarly successful in determining government policy. A number of Jewish leaders responded immediately, with ADL head Abe Foxman calling Dawkin’s remarks “classic anti-Semitism.” Malcom Hoenlein, a senior official in the Conference of Presidents of Major American Organizations, was quoted by Yediot Acharonot as saying the statements represented “the poisoning of the elite.” Even top scientists can “demonstrate ignorance and fall victim to misinformation,” said Hoenlein,

Ten reasons why God is different than Santa Claus

Santa is an intentional fiction. God is seriously believed to exist. Santa's existence is irrelevant for the universe's existence, but if God exists she is the foundation of all existence. Santa is a contingent being, he could or not exist. If God exists, she is necessary, she could not not exist. Santa's existence is falsifiable. God's existence is not. God's existence is an issue of serious reflection for unbelievers. Santa's is not. Many famous people of high intellectual caliber believe in God. There's no serious intellectual known for her belief in Santa. There are different kind of arguments that seriously pretend to support the case for God's existence. No such arguments exist for Santa. God's invisible and inmaterial. Santa is not. Belief in God is a basic tenet of many religious organizations. There is no organization known to defend belief in Santa. There is no philosophical basis for belief in Santa, but there is for God. See also: The inv