Is the Process Theology Version of God Impersonal?

Schubert M, Ogden, I took two
classes with him at Perkins (SMU). 



Process Theology is the most popular  God concept alternative that is an alternative to classical theism. I have always rejected process theology because I was under the impression that the God of process is impersonal. I should have realized that is a too easy dismissal. One day after class spoke Dr, Schubert Ogden  (a  major process theologian) he dismissed that criticism  as "that's just jargon for the journals." We did not really have tie to go into so now I am taking time.

Process theology came into currency as a label in the 1950s. It was first used in relation to certain theologies at University of Chicago. These theologies had been influenced by Alfred North Whitehead. The phrase can also be used specifically of theology based upon the works of Whitehead and Hartshorne, (Schubert M. Ogden was at Chicago but he is really more into Hartshorne). It is not generally known but the term can  also apply to a boarder scene, John Cobb,a major figures in process the guy who coined the term in relation  to the Chicago school "Process theology may refer to all forms of theology that emphasize event, occurrence, or becoming over against substance. In this sense theology influenced by Hegel is process theology just as much as that influenced by Whitehead. This use of the term calls attention to affinities between these otherwise quite different traditions." [1] In this context I've seen Tailard de Chardin called a process theologian but this is a  sense mot people don't think of or use,In this paper I will be largely speaking of the other two senses as though they are one, I will ignore broader sense.

In a nutshell process theology says that God is bipolar, the one poll being "potential" the other being "concrete." In the potential poll God is unchanging. In the consequent or concrete poll God is in process and changes with creation. This is going to be a very simplistic account because it can get really complex fast. In process theology God is not omnipotent God is not "impassable" bit changes with and can be affected by the world. Process theology views the world  not as enduring permanence but reality itself is made of serially ordered experiences or experiential  events.[2]

Process theology makes such a big thing of  God's "passability" (God feels the pain can be affected by the world) it's hard to see why they would see God as impersonal. [3] Criticisms of process as having an impersonal view of God are often made by  evangelicals and are not backed up. Here is an example of a Dallas theological Seminary student who now teaches mathematics,  Josh Wilkerson:

Pre-existence: Process theology regards the Logos as an impersonal principle. It is what gives the appearance of stability in a world that remains in constant state of flux, or constant state of becoming. Logos is defined as the totality of the divine aims. Since this Whiteheadian Logos is not a discrete person within the Godhead, it hardly can be reconciled with the historic Christian explication of the eternal pre-existence of the second person of the Trinity (Isa 9:6; John 1:1-2; Rev 21:6).[4]

He extends the same criticism to incarnatiomn:

Incarnation: The process understanding of the incarnation is also unacceptable. Process theology views the Logos being immanent as the Christ in the whole of creation. The incarnation connotes that the impersonal Logos (also defined as the power for creative transformation – what that means exactly I am not entirely sure) was simply maximally immanent (not uniquely immanent) and operative in the man Jesus of Nazareth. This denies that the incarnation involves the eternal second person of the Godhead entering space and time and becoming man for us and for our salvation (John 1:1, 14; 2 Cor 8:9; Phil 2:6-8; 1 Tim 3:16).....

Two Natures: The process claim that two natures cannot relate except by displacement prompts Whiteheadians to insist that the orthodox belief in Jesus’ deity necessarily vitiates his authentic humanity.... [5]

The problem here is this is just an ideological response. First of all Neither Whitehead nor Hartshorne were Christian. Whitehead was a do-it-you-selfer and Hartshorne was a Unitarian. No reason to expect either of them to have been orthodox on the Trinity. That is not news, one is not obligated to follow them on that path just to be a process theologian, since Ogden was a Methodist,(they are Trainitarian) and major process theologians such as Norman Pittinger and John.Cobb belonged to Trinitarian affiliations.. Pittinger (1905-1997) was Anglican priest and the major popularizer of process in Christian circles.Cobb was protestant but has led the way in Christian pluralism seeking dialogue with  other faiths. These theologians as individual thinkers are not  necessarily  Triamitarin, even through they have affiliations that are Trinitariamn and their theologies don't rule that out. There are expressly Trinitarian theologies.[6][7][8]

Secondly, being non Trinitariamn does not equate to God being impersonal. One could fail to be Trainitarian and still hold to a personal view of God. Notice that Wilkerson's criticisms were based upon Whithead,I think there is a dichotomy between Whitehead and Hartshorne in this regard. The former is said to see God as impersonal and the  latter aw God as a person,thus "personal." For one thing  "human selfhood is better understood in Whitehead’s system as a continuously developing series of events or actual occasions, rather than in terms of a substantive soul."[9] Even on this score I wold not say that his view reduces God to impersonal force.He just recognized that God is so  far beyond us. The clue is the dipolar nature of God. In the potential Pol God is unchanging but that; not actual. Cob descries his view in ways that imply both,

God is a society of occasion but to understand that one must understand Whithead's ontology,

The consciousness which is individual in us, is universal in him: the love which is partial in us is all-embracing in him. Apart from him there could be no world, because there could be no adjustment of individuality. His purpose is always embodied in the particular ideals relevant to the actual state of the world. Thus all attainment is immortal in that it fashions the actual ideals which are God in the world as it is now. Every act leaves the world with a deeper or a fainter impress of God. He then passes into his next relation to the world with enlarged, or diminished, presentation of ideal values.[10][11]

"Whitehead explicitly sets aside the personalist perspective in Religion in the Making, considering its
claims beyond the possibility of being established."[12]. Whitehead's occasionalism is too complex to go into at this point. Hartshorne, minus Trinity, does accept God as a person. Thus, one would think,as personal in some sense. "It has been noted from time to time in the literature that the thought of Charles Hartshorne has a number of affinities with personalism, and this is a special case of the relationship between process and personalist thought."[13] "Hartshome’s solution ascribes to God personality and transcendence, which is contrary to pantheism. Contrary to Thomism, Hartshome acknowledges that God does depend on the world because the world is his body. Hartshome also says that we have positive insight into what God is. In this aspect Hartshome is more optimistic than Aquinas."[14]


Sources

[1] John Cobb, "Process Theology as Political Theology," Religion Online [no date listed]
https://www.religion-online.org/book-chapter/chapter-2-process-theology-in-view-of-the-challenge-of-political-theology/
(access 7/7/18)

[2]Philip A. Pecorino, "6. Process Theology and Philosophy," 6. problem of Evil. Philosophy of religion. Online Textbook, class notes, copyright Philip A. Pecorino,  2001
http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/PHIL_of_RELIGION_TEXT/CHAPTER_6_PROBLEM_of_EVIL/Process_Theology.htm
(access 7/7/18)
Philip A. Pecorino: prof Philosophy, Queensborough Community College, CUNY.

[3] Ibid

[4]Josh Wilkerson
https://godandmath.com/2011/03/14/math-in-process-critiquing-the-process-person-and-work-of-christ/  (access 7/7/18)
Josh Wilkerson, Th.M. high honors, Historical Theology, Dallas Theological Seminary, May 2010 Ph.D. Mathematics Education, Texas State University, May 2017 (San Marcos)

Orthodox Christians cannot accept such a heretical, docetic Christology (that is the belief that Jesus only appeared to be human). The full humanity of Christ must be maintained (Matt 13:55; John 1:14, 19:5; 1 Tim 2:5; Heb 2:14).The process belief that Jesus was simply the supreme example of responding to God’s calling moves in the other direction and seems to deny his complete deity. At best the process view can be considered on par with the heresies of Adoptionism (the spirit or christ comes upon the human Jesus and adopts him as a carrier vessel) and Arianism (Jesus the Son was the first thing created).,,,

In a 1977 paper entitled, “The Historical Shaping of the Foundations of Mathematics,” Dr. Robert Brabenec (professor of mathematics at Wheaton College) introduced the beginnings of the Association of Christians in the Mathematical Sciences and the motivation behind their conferences. He outlined the major areas of mathematical study in which Christian thought simply must have an influence 

[5] Ibid

[6] Joseph A. Bracken "Trinitarian Theology from a Process Perspective," Homebrew Christianity (Nov 3, 2009)
https://homebrewedchristianity.com/2009/11/03/process-trinitarian-perspectives-with-joseph-bracken/
(access 7/7/18)
"Dr. Joseph A. Bracken, S.J. is a retired Xavier University professor of theology, and author of many books on philosophical theology, including God: Three Who are One, which we discuss this week. I got a chance to read it for the Transforming Theology Theo-Blogger Consortium last spring."

[7] Joseph A. Bracken, "Process Philosophy and Trinitarian Theology," Religion Online, no date listed
https://www.religion-online.org/article/process-philosophy-and-trinitarian-theology/
(access 7/7/18)


[8] TJ Humphrey,"Relational Personhood, Process Theology and The Trinitarian Monarchia," Conciliar Post:Meaningful Dialogue Access Christian Traditins, (July, 2016)
https://conciliarpost.com/theology-spirituality/church-history/relational-personhood-process-theology-the-trinitarian-monarchia/
(access 7/7/18)

[9] Amos Young, "Personal Selfhood(?) and Human Experience imn Whithead's Philosophy of Organism," Paideia. no date.
https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/PPer/PPerYong.htm  (access 7/7/18) 
Young is at Bethany College.
[10]Alfred North Whitehead, "Preface," Religion in the Making,Lowell Lectrues1926, Corner Stone Books, profit site, Original Publisher Cambridge University press 1926.
http://alfrednorthwhitehead.wwwhubs.com/ritm1.htm  
(access 7/7/18) 

Corner Stone non profit "dedicated to providing free access to some of the very best inspirational/self-improvement books ever written. Featuring the full texts of over 100 complete books available to read free online!"


[11] Mathew T. Segall, "Occasionalism in Whitehead and Harman," Footnote2Plato (Nov 28,2011)
https://footnotes2plato.com/2011/11/28/occasionalism-in-whitehead-and-harman/
(access 7/7/18) 

Adjunct Lecturer in the Philosophy, Cosmology, and Consciousness program at the California Institute of Integral Studies


[12]Randall E. Auxier
https://www.religion-online.org/article/god-process-and-persons-charles-hartshorne-and-personalism/

(access 7/7/18) 

Auxier is Associate Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Institute of Liberal Arts at Oklahoma City University in Oklahoma City, 

[13]Ibid  

[14] Ibid[14] RAFAt S. NIZIŃSKI PDF
https://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/bitstream/10593/8288/1/18_Rafa%C5%82_S_Nizi%C5%84ski_The%20God%20of%20Charles%20Hartshorne_295-307.pdf

(access 7/7/18) 

How many lives will Trump Cost us?

factually quantifiable harms already accrued as result of Trump's attack on civilization

*13 million lose health care due to Tax scam


* 13 thousand /year die from air pollution due to roll back of regs on coal fired plants
(Trump's war on breathing: Resistance is not Futile)


*50,000 lives / year lost due to roll back auto emission stadards
(Ibid, see also "Trump  has started the roll back" the Guardian)

* Roll backs on regs that protect drinking water for 117 million
("Trump wrecks nation's clean water," Resistance...)


*cut food and formula for nearly 390,000 participating women, children and infants.()

21. Proposed slashing the WIC program. President Trump’s proposal to slash funding for the WIC program puts basic food security at risk for thousands of families. At an annual food cost of about $513 per person, the $200 million cut could help pay for a year’s worth of food and formula for nearly 390,000 participating women, children and infants. (100 ways 100 days; center for American Progress)

* 600 lives and prevent more than 900 new cases of silicosis each year.
After more than four decades of development, this rule would protect construction and manufacturing workers from inhaling silica, which can lead to lung cancer, silicosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and kidney disease. It was projected to save more than 600 lives and prevent more than 900 new cases of silicosis each year.
(Ibid)

*Tried to cut his own taxes by millions of dollars while taking health insurance from tens of millions of Americans. Based on President Trump’s leaked 2005 Tax Return Form 1040, repealing the ACA could give Trump a personal tax cut of more than $2 million. At the same time, the House legislation to repeal the ACA would have taken health insurance from 24 million Americans.


* ended Amnesty for 800,000 immigrants ("dreamers") who have been in country since childhood will lead to mass deportations (NBC News)


* sets precedent for destruction of civil rights

After barely eight months in office, President Trump has secured his legacy: If left unchecked, he will undermine civil rights progress in this country more than any president in modern history.
This week has shown previews of this dangerous agenda. And not for the reasons you’re thinking.
While Trump’s back and forth on whether he would condemn the white supremacist groups behind the deadly tragedy in Charlottesville lent the weight of the United States presidency to a racist worldview, we must also focus on the series of actions that prove those remarks are already being translated into an equally oppressive policy agenda.Since beginning his campaign, Trump has fanned the flames of racism, bigotry, and xenophobia – from calling Mexicans rapists, making a border wall one of his central campaign promises, implementing a Muslim travel ban, and using dog-whistle politics to talk in veiled terms about black communities. (The Hill)

* Potential loss of all life on Earthy due to global warming since Trup callsit ahoax and took us outof Paris accords, (see my research on Metacorck's blog)

see the full list of the Center for American progress, 100 ways in 100 days Trump has hurt America,

* Trump DOJ (Sessions) return ti debeter's prisions,Itps illegal to be poor! (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/opinion/sessions-says-to-courts-go-ahead-jail-people-because-theyre-poor.html?mtrref=l.facebook.com&assetType=opinion

There are debter's prisons. Deters prsions! that;s eighth century! Trump DOJ supports it1 It's acrime to be poor)

Last week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions retracted an Obama-era guidanceto state courts that was meant to end debtors’ prisons, where people who are too poor to pay fines are sent. This practice is blatantly unconstitutional, and the guidance had helped jump-start reform around the country. Its withdrawal is the latest sign that the federal government is retreating from protecting civil rights for the most vulnerable among us....Ferguson [Mo.] used its criminal justice system as a for-profit enterprise, extracting millions from its poorest citizens. Internal emails revealed the head of finance directing policing strategy to maximize revenue rather than ensure public safety. Officers told us they were pressured to issue as many tickets as possible.Even the local judge was in on it, imposing penalties of $302 for jaywalking and $531 for allowing weeds to grow in one’s yard. He issued arrest warrants for residents who fell behind on payments — including a 67-year-old woman who had been fined for a trash-removal violation — without inquiring whether they even had the ability to pay the exorbitant amounts. The arrests resulted in new charges, more fees and the suspension of driver’s licenses. These burdens fell disproportionately on African-Americans.

*12-15000 yr die  from asbestos and Trump's EPA will can restrictions
Sokolove law
https://www.sokolovelaw.com/blog/donald-trump-asbestos/

ps


"Trump Administration ends clear air policy Opposed by fossil fuel companies," CBS News
(Jan, 26, 2018)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epa-clean-air-policy-trump-administration-fossil-fuel-companies/

The Trump administration announced Thursday it is doing away with a decades-old air emissions policy opposed by fossil fuel companies, a move that environmental groups say will result in more pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said it was withdrawing the "once-in always-in" policy under the Clean Air Act, which dictated how major sources of hazardous air pollutants are regulated. [more, see link above]

Brad Plumer,"Kennedy Retirement could clear path for Trump's environmental Roll  backs."New York Times (June 28,2018)

In his 30 years on the court, Justice Kennedy was frequently a crucial swing vote on major environmental questions. While he tended to be skeptical of expansive federal regulations that intruded on private property rights, he was also willing to break with the court’s conservative wing in favor of more aggressive government action to limit air and water pollution. [see more here]

More NYT stories on Trump and Enironment

https://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/clean-air-act

,

Heidegger and Phenomenology

Martian Heidegger 1889-1976




Heidegger was the next evolutionary step beyond Husserl in the development of phenomenology. Husserl dealt with objects in much the way that Descartes did; we are conscious of them, they are intentionally conscious of them. In this version of phenomenology we understand the essential structures apart form the reality of objects.[1] He regarded them as objects and his version of phenomenology is about how we regard objects as actors on stage in the Cartesian theater. This approach of Husserl is known as “transcendental phenomenology.” Heidegger takes a different approach, known as “hermeneutic phenomenology.”[2] Heidegger deals with objects, aspects of our perceptions in being as we live our lives, in the way that fish regard water, as something so close to us, so all pervasive, so fundamental to existence that we don’t even notice it. Perhaps one of the best examples of this is his concept of “ready-to-hand.” Or an even better example would be the carpenter who is so use to his tools the use of them is second nature. He doesn’t have to be careful with the hammer he just hammers. He doesn’t think about what he’s doing because it’s so much a part of his being he doesn’t need to think about it. Such is our encounter with being and with most things in being. This is misleading because the subject is extremely complex. There is a multiplicity of opinions as to what Heidegger was really saying, and the philosopher himself doesn’t help by clarifying.[3] Heidegger distinguishes first between a general sense of being for anything or everything, being itself, and the being of human beings that is aware of itself, what Sartre calls “being por soi,” being for itself. The being of inanimate objects Sartre calls “being en soi,” or “being in itself.” To distinguish between being in general or apart form any particular thing (being itself) and that of an individual, the use of the term “a being” is employed by translators, while Heidegger himself uses the German terms “Sein” (being) and das Seiende for the latter. Human being in particular Heidegger speaks of as Dasein, which is by its nature vested with an implied social dimension.

For Heidegger the Western tradition has erred with Aristotle in assuming humans are rational. We develop theories of rule keeping and decision making that assumes humans are rational; this turns out to be superficial. We are also irrational, we have depths and we are complex creatures, we don’t understand ourselves.[4] The Western tradition erred with Plato in assuming that we can understand the world in a detached way by taking a step back and developing a theory of theory, “discovering the principles that underlie the profusion of phenomena.”[5] The mistake is in thinking we can have a theory of everything. Heidegger opposes the idea of a theory of everything. We cannot have a theory of what makes theory possible. This calls into question the foundations of Western thought.[6]

Since Descartes philosophers have been struck with the epistemological problem of explaining how the ideas in our mind can be true of the external world. Heidegger shows that this subject/object epistemology presupposes a background of everyday practices into which we are socialized but that we do not represent in our minds. Since he calls this more fundamental way of making sense of things our understanding of being, he claims that he is doing ontology that is, asking about the nature of this understanding of being that we do not know--that is not a representation in the mind corresponding to the world—but that we simply are. [7]

Heidegger sides with Kierkegaard rather than with Descartes. Cartesian doubt is phony, the Cartesian theatre of the mind is contrived and thought and awareness flow out of being rather than standing as a conclusion to a philosophical premise, “I think, therefore, I am.” As Dreyfus points out, refereeing to SK’s view “I am, therefore, I think.”[8] Heidegger questions the concept that we gain control of our lives by clarifying the principles which govern our action. It may not be possible or even desirable to do so. These principles work best for us when they remain in the background. “What is important and meaningful in our lives is not and should not be accessible to critical reflection.”[9] There are many ways to put the reason, because our actions “lack seriousness” or because we can’t generalize properly, but probably the best reason for this is because when we try to clearly all the principles we construct pre conceived categories that are of necessity incomplete or wrong simply because we can’t know the principles and work by them at the same time.

This is an un-Heideggerian reason, its my reason but I think it applies to what he is saying: clarified categories are pre conceived and that contradicts the way we work in categories that are hidden. The success of the way we work with the principles is that we don’t know them, or don’t know all about them, we couldn’t use them properly if we were trying to figure them out all the time. Thus the answer is to allow the sense data to suggest the categories to us. Otherwise we try to group or herd sense data into the pre conceived categories. Heidegger calls this inexplicable background (the undisclosed principles) that enables us to understand, the understanding of being. These hidden functions, the principles, operate for all aspects of our lives. They are in the meeting of every person we encounter and in every confrontation with life we endure. Heidegger’s approach to working with these hidden principles without trying to explicate them is the source of such slogans as “back to the things in themsevles.” He’s trying to get under the formalized understanding of principles and encounter the actual principles themselves as they work from within. This is what he means by doing hermeneutics form within a hermeneutical circle. [10] Heidegger’s notion of being is very important to this work, as the concept of God as being itself (or the ground of being) is the central point, and Heidegger was a major influence upon Tillich, who is the central figure carrying the ball for he notion of God as being itself. Yet Heidegger’s notion of being is extremely complex. To really do it justice would require a book in itself. Therefore, the important part for my purpose is to understand what Tillich took away form Heidegger’s understanding of being itself. One thing Tillich didn’t get from Heidegger was the notion that God is being itself. So Tillich’s admiration for Heidegger had limits. Tillich’s view that God is being itself is rejected by Heidegger, also by Bautlmann , Barth, and Reinhold Neibuhr.[11] Nevertheless it will be important to understand some basic ideas relating to Heidegger’s concept.

The one thing that stands out about Hediegger’s notion of being, and Tillich’s, I’m sure it will be the first major criticism made of this work, that there seems to be no there “there.” There’s no clear simple obvious sense in wich one can actually define Heidegger’s notion of being. It is clearly much more involved than just saying “being is a from of the verb “to be” and refers to the existence of things. This is primarily because Hediegger didn’t really seem to want to say “this is being, walk therein.” His view turns upon the hidden nature of being. It’s almost in his interest, one could say, not to define being too sharply. He argued that the question of being was the most important and fundamental question for philosophy, yet one that could never be answered.[12] When we get into unraveling Tillich’s position we see that the complexity is of major importance. In regard to Tillich this comes under the heading of “depth of being.” For Heidegger we can’t just blurt out an answer because being is hidden and is something transparent to us but something we work in and is to close to us to really understand, like water for the fish. For Tillich there’s more to being than the bits we can see or experience, so it’s not just hidden but has depths, it’s deep and complex. Philipse Surveys the ground of American commentary on this point and finds an array of differing views. Dreyfus says Heidegger’s notion of being is “an intelligibility correlative with our everyday practices.”[13] According to Sheehan being itself refers to the “analogically unified meaning of being”[14] For Michael Zimmerman it’s “the history shaping ways in which entities reveal themselves.”[15] Philipse argue that these are all aspects but don’t tally with all of Heidegger’s texts. It’s clear they all deal with the human experience of our own being rather than the fundamental fact of existence apart forms any specifics. That is crucial to understanding Hdiegger’s meaning, because he’s talking about Dasin, human being, what means to engage in our own human form of being; that does have a social dimension.

Heidegger’s interest in being as a philosophical question, and the notion that it is the most fundamental question, come from his reading of the dissertation by the nineteenth century philosopher Franz Brentano, who dealt with Aristotle’s interpretation of being; the notion of the fundamental nature of the quesiotn goes all the way back to the Greek philosopher.[16] Aristotle recognizes distinctions in the many ways being is used, Brentano reflected the diversity.[17] Aristotle has four ways of understanding being: (1) (V7 Metaphysics, 1026a:33) Kata Sumbebekos, what something is said to be identically; (2) “being” in the sense of being true; (3) “being” in the sense of being potentially or actually; (4) Being as it is in the 10 categories. Heidegger analyses each of these aspects[18], but they are still only aspects of a reality that continually recedes the more one chases it. As Philipse puts it, “although Aristotle did analyze did analyze different meanings of being, he did not discover the one leading and fundamental sense from which the other meanings somehow derived.”[19] Heidegger never does get to the answer, the upshot of all of his ferment is that toward the end of his life he intimated that being receded and was more hidden.[20]


end segment. see sources below my comments.



sourcesn Heidegger

[1] Paul Gorner, “Heidegger, Phenomenology, and the essence of Technology.” Online Journal, Philosophy: University of Aberdeen. Websties URL: http://www.abdn.ac.uk/philosophy/end...1/gorner.shtml visted 6/31/10

Paul Gorner is Lecturer in philosophy at the University of Aberdeen

[2] Hubert L. Dreyfus, Being in the World: A Commentary on Heidegger’s Being and Time. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, quotations from Being and Time by John Macquarrie, 1991, 2.

[3] Herman Philipse, Heidegger’s Philosophy of Being: A Critical Interpretation Princeton New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1998, 3. Online page number URL: http://books.google.com/books?id=D9y...gbs_navlinks_s visited 10/4/10. online page numbers apply

[4] Dreyfus, Ibid, 1

[5] Ibid, 1

[6] Ibid

[7] Ibid, 3

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid, 4

[10] Ibid

[11] Walter Leibrecht, “The Life and Mind of Paul Tillich,” Religion and Culture: Essays in Honor of Paul Tillich, Walter Leibrecht ed. New York: Harper and Row, 1972 (originally 1959). Notes, 355 FN 2

[12] Philipse, 8

[13] Hubert Dreyfus, in Ibid, 3

[14] Thomas Sheehan, in Ibid

[15] Michael Zimmerman, in Ibid.

[16] Ibid, 5

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid, 6

[2] Ibid, 8-9

Ethical naturalism and Value Systems: Euthyphro Dilemma (final 3 of 3)

Joseph Fletcher: Situation 
Ethics,Episcopal priest,
 pioneer in bio ethics.

The Euthyphro Dilemma

            Christian values have been assailed by modernity since the enlightenment. One of the major forms that attack takes is through the “Euthyphro dilemma.” This dilemma is aimed at the assumption that the only form of Christian ethics is divine command theory,[1] that God makes something good just because he says it, and his saying is an arbitrary whim. According to Baggett and Walls account of Louise Antony version is “are morally good actions morally Good simply in virtue of the gods favoring them or does God favor them because they are—independently of his favoring them—morally good?[2] Antony replaces “the gods” with “God” indicating that the God of monotheism is her intended target of rhetorical analysis, as Baggett and Walls point out. Yet the dilemma was orinally cast with Greek gods in mind. Bagget and Walls’s take on the dilemma is very detailed and complex, it’s one of the best in recent years. I won’t be going into it with that kind of complexity. The basic upshot of the dilemma is that either God is subject to an independent standard outside himself, and thus he is not God and secular thought might find that standard so we don’t need religion, or morality is just an arbitrary whim on God’s part. Yet the dilemma is based upon the Greek gods not the Christian, and as noted, Antony shifts form the Greek to the God of the Christian tradition with no justification. The Greek gods were continent beings, they had parents they were not eternal they were not the creators. The dilemma really doesn’t apply to the God of the Christian tradition who is eternal and the basis of all that is. That means there’s a closer relationship between the good God than just God’s commands. That connection  closer than divine command theory would have it; it’s not just a matter of “good is what God says it is,” although it is dependent upon God, but not just on his commands.[3]

            The relationship between God and the good is not merely based upon voluntarism, that God demans X therefore is good. Rather, it is that God is the basis of the good. Goodness is God’s character and without God there would be no concept of the good. Good depends upon God but not just upon his commands. It’s not merely that there would be no big bully on the block to tell us what is good, but that there would be no good itself because God is the good itself. The good is derived form God’s character and God’s character is love, love is the background of the moral universe (Augustine) and thus goodness is derived form love. That brings up several problems. For example, J.L. Mackie argues that once one affirms the existence of unchangeable moral good then God becomes unnecessary and secular thinkers might find those principles without God.[4] The concept of unchangeable moral good that is detachable form God is an impossibly. It might be that thinkers could come to conclusions that coincide with truths implicit upon God’s character and not know it. That’s hardly the same as saying God is “unnecessary.” If there’s any relation between what’s good and what’s true and if good is based upon God’s character there’s no true ontological separation between those two. In discussions with atheists when I say that morality is based upon love and love is God’s character they usually balk at both aspects of that statement: they figure love is a reaction of chemicals in the brain that just produces little sentimental or romantic feelings, and moral good is derived from behavior not from love. Usually they don’t observe the implicit value that would make a behavior good or bad. There’s more to it than just saying good is based upon God’s character. It’s also a matter of God’s judgment. God’s power, knowledge and goodness underwrite his moral authority.[5]God not only creates all that is, including planning its purpose, but also knows the truth and is the only mind that can figure the complexities of all existing relationships between moral concepts and human behavior, and the only truly objective judge who knows the subjects of moral behavior better than they know themselves, and in addition to all that has the forthrightness and loving concern to explicate moral judgments fairly. When I say “love” is behind the good I don’t mean romantic love or sentimentality but the Greek term agape.  The idea that love is the basis of he good may be a problem for some Christians because there is a concept in the Christian tradition that love and moral goodness (justice for example) are two counterpoising forces that have to keep each other in balance. I suggest that is nonsense if we are talking about Gods’ love, the love that is the basis of God’s character. “Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love.” (1 John 4:8).

What is the good?

            Agape is used of God’s love throughout the New Testament. It is translated as “charity” at times.[6] The word is linked with good will and benevolence. The King James translation renders it “charity” (1 Corinthians 13:1). There’s more to it than that. It’s also linked to “preference” to prefer the other. The word is used for the love of God for man and man for God, the love of humans for each other, and the love of God for Christ.[7] Agape is the basis of the good. What is good evaluated as what is agapic (loving). Other moral precepts and axioms such as justice, fairness and reciprocity would all be meaningful only in relation to agape. In fact one major theological ethicist came to that conclusion back in the 1960s, that was Joseph Fletcher. A lot of Christians were outraged by his view of “situation ethics,” and his book by the same title.[8] It was controversial and it drew lots of fire including the charge of “new morality.” Nevertheless he was a top notch ethicist. Fletcher argues that love and justice are the same. Justice is the distributive aspect of love.[9] He calls upon Augustine and argues that love must be prudent. He argues that this view forces us to pull back from the notion that love is sentimental and “mushy” and non intellectual. This is the intellectual side of love. Literally the argument is how do we manage to supply the beneficiaries of love when there are so many? The answer is by turning the problem into a question of justice. We make sure that justice is done at the same time making sure that love is distributed and doing it in such a way that we exclude one for he sake of the other.[10] Thus we can see how the other aspects of moral axioms indeed stem form love. Love is the background of the moral universe.

            Christian ethics certainly revolve around love. The value system that we use to inform that choice is the one through which Augustine re-valued the values of the Roman Empire. That value system plays out upon the eternal scale of values. We love the eternal we use the temporal. Human beings are eternal, created in the image of God, thus each human being is an end in himself/herself. Temporal things are means to ends. Thus temporal things are to be used and put aside but human beings matter. If science was the basis of ethics, nature never tells us that humans are valuable, there would be no basis for valuing humans except the cultural, and that is relative and can be discarded. Ethical naturalists might kid themselves about the alleged “objective basis” for ethics, they sound like persupositionalist Christian apologists trying to explain what that means. Without the arbitrary assumption already built in regarding the value of human worth, without appeal to a transcendent value system such as Christian agape there is no basis that science could ever give us for not using humans and valuing things. One finds scientistic thinkers such as atheists, especially on the popular level, expressing the sentiments that “humans are not so special.” We don’t have souls, there’s no God, we are just bags of chemicals or jumped up apes so why should we think we are special? Steve Paulson is an example from the popular level. Although he has an advanced science degree and works in science, obliquely. He’s a producer for public radio and an author. He expresses the idea that humans are just “cosmopolitan apes.” Again the idea is not to find fault with evolution. We can accept evolution as scientific fact and accept ethics as philosophical fact and accept The Bible as spiritual fact all at the same time and value humanity. Paulson says:

Most assume that humans are fundamentally different form the rest of the animal world…many people believe that but to biologists we are animals. It’s hard to believe that we are fundamentally different because there is no part of the human brain that is not present in the monkey’s brain. Our brains are bigger and we certainly have more powerful computer than any other animal, but the computer is not fundamentally different. So there’s no fundamental divide between humans and Chimpanzees? no…if you were to ask what the big difference is I would probably say it’s language but like all capacities once you break them down you are going to find some of these part sin other species.[11]

He argues that chimps have morality, “they have a sense of fairness.” Is it really a concept of fairness or just behavior would be fair if they really understood it, but perhaps they don’t? He finds that chimps respond to the needs of others, they seem to share food with those who don’t have enough. Is this really ethical thinking or just a instinctive sense of love that might pervade all creatures? He’s talking about cooperation in hunting. That’s not proof that they value each other. It could just be a practical matter that helps them all. It is evidence of outcome oriented thinking that doesn’t necessarily recognize a moral dimension but a practical survival dimension. Isn’t that what Harris and Churchland and Wilson are reducing ethics to?

            More examination of how this thinking plays out at the popular level, even though this is not scientific, we find bloggers expressed some odd sentiments. The blog “Think Atheist” urges that we should be “ridding ourselves of humanities self centrality: The Importance of Inclusively.”[12]

Humanity thought the universe spun around the Earth as if it were the purpose of the universe. Likewise, the sun.

Another way we think we are special is amongst the rest of the life forms on the planet. We like to believe that there are animals... and there are humans. We seem to have a hard time admitting to ourselves that we are animals. But we are. I'd like to take this idea one step further though. We are all LIFE. We are all BIOLOGY. And the separations between us that seem so important, identifiable and distinctive. Are actually not all that different in the end. All life on this planet evolved IS RELATED. FAMILY. By quantifiable amounts. 99% of our DNA is that of a chimpanzees and 50% of our DNA is that of a banana. ALL LIFE is CLOSELY related. We all come from the same place and we're all going in the same direction. We are procreating and spreading the seed of life, adapting to new environments by all means necessary, even if we must evolve.[13]

If we are animals and we are life and we are no better than any other animals or life would it really matter if we don’t get the quinine to the children dying of malaria? After all there’s lots more life where that life comes from and no one is special. Or that we have to allow dying or even killing off some group so the rest will have more to go around? After all a good outcome is all that matters, we are not special so we can be a means to an end. How are they going to decide this in the clash of such values? Neither the nature from which they take their ethical axioms, nor the science they prize so highly tells us to value humanity or to make humans ends in themselves. How will they resolve such conflicts?            

            These ideas can be put into a positive version. Yet if we assume that we are now coasting on Christian memories and the culture has lots of ideas left over from a time when we valued humanity, what’s going to happen in a couple of generations when those ideas are all gone and we are just seen as “some examples of life among other life,” no better than any other animal and not more than a means to an end; the end being an outcome considered “moral” by those who don’t see a difference in marmoset values and human values. Out come is not totally divorced from deontology. Just because a deontologist doesn’t use outcome as the basis for ethical “ought” doesn’t mean we don’t care about having good outcomes. It seems that if there is no ethical deliberation along the lines of basic value system there is no ethical thought. If there is no ethical thought there is no ethical action. Reducing meta ethical theory (the theory of what makes a thing good or not) to behavior is not the answer. Valuing human individuals as ends in themselves and worthy of preserving rights and ends seems like a good place to start thinking about the sorts of outcomes we desire.

---

[1] David Baggett and Jerry L. Walls, Good God: The Theistic Foundations of Morality. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2011, 32.

[2] Ibid., 32.

[3] Ibid., 84.

[4] Ibid., 85.

[5] Ibid., 123.

[6] Bible Hub website, Thayers Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database. Bible soft, 2002, 2011.  http://biblesuite.com/greek/26.htm  accessed 5/30/13.

[7] Ibid.

[8] James F. Childress, “Introduction,” Joseph Fletcher, Situation Ethics: the New Morality. Louisville Kentucky: Westminster, John Knox Press, originally published 1966. 1.

[9] Ibid., 87. Not only did Fletcher receive a lot of criticism, “situation ethics” was the title of the book and the name of the ethical theory, the subtitle was “the new morality.” Both became dirty words, so the actual title of the book was like a charge leveled against him. I am not supporting situation ethics but I do support Fletcher’s reading of love and justice.

[10] Ibid.,  88.

[11] Steve Paulson, The Cosmopolitan Ape: primatology, empathy, morality, community, culture.” Website: http://nautil.us/issue/1/what-makes-you-so-special/the-cosmopolitan-ape  accessed 6/3/13.

[12] Dragontorn, Think Atheist, “Ridding ourselves of Humanities Self Centrality: the Importance of Inclusively.” Blog: http://www.thinkatheist.com/profiles/blogs/ridding-ourselves-of-humanity-s-self-centrality-the-importance-of  accessed 6/3/13.

[13] Ibid.