"If even the omnipotent God cannot act to change the past, it does not seem any more conceivable that the omniscient God can know with certainty the unformed future. He may well be able to make highly informed conjectures about its possible shape, he may have prepared his plans for any eventuality, but in his actual experience and knowledge he must be open to the consequences of the exercise of human free will and...the evolution of cosmic free process." (Science and Providence p.90)
Dr.Polkinghorne's attempt to update theology and religious tradition via modern science and the "Open Theism" project may deserve some respect, yet we should keep in mind the slightly subversive implications of Polkinghorne's G*d modifications. Traditional theologians generally have insisted upon G*d's omnipotence and omniscience--and that holds both for orthodox and catholic thinkers, going back before Calvin to St. Augustine, if not scripture. To deny either of those attributes was considered heresy (Pelagianism, which insisted believers could earn their way into Heaven by good works, was one type of heresy--the orthodox (in those days papists) wanted to make sure that Deus always had an override right via grace---otherwise, isn't G*d limited by human concepts of morality?? Thus the dogmatist generally affirms the second part of the Euthyphro dilemma (google), which is to say, the King-G*d's not limited by our conceptions of the Good, or Just--really, that becomes a type of occasionalism...which works for christian, muslim, or jewish zealots).
Contemporary believers such as Polkinghorne ("P.") and the "open theists" now routinely modify the definition of G*d, however. P. does make mention of the theological chestnuts--including Leibniz's grand assertion of the Principle of Sufficient reason (why..somethin', rather than nada)--yet goes on to question G*d's supposed omniscience. For an agnostic, or ..atheist, that seems allowable. The bright-boy agnostic might wonder, however, whether he should grant the believer's theological modifications. Various sects now have decided define G*d as they wish, and yet still call themselves Christians (or jew, muslim, etc).
By denying the supposed G*d His omnipotence, hasn't Polkinghorne denied....His existence? Wouldn't a G*d know what will happen tomorrow, if not a year, or 20 centuries from now? And He would know by definition what His creations, humanity (and all of nature) will do, like, forever (one rather fantastic implication of omniscience), as a sinister hacker knows what his viruses will do (a believer probably doesn't care to claim G*d's a script kitty, with no understanding of the code he spits out...). P. says G*d has some idea of the future, but is not able to really know, or alter future events substantially (to what degree, Dr. P??), anymore than He can change the past. In effect those who deny foreknowledge deny his Godliness, if not grant some possible manichean, or polydeistic alternative (does some other ...Deity have some knowledge, power or part to play in reality as well??) as well. Of course, divine foreknowledge, like any species of determinism, is problematic, even absurd, as many skeptics have pointed out (tho' it may not be as problematic as...indeterminism). Bertrand Russell for one never tired of satirizing the bizarre implications of predestination, whether read as Calvinist or catholic, and the fundies never relented in their attacks on Russell. Yet Polkinghorne more or less concedes the game, and really has NO grounds to define himself as a theist.>
Non serviam.
9 comments:
J,
It seems to me that the consensus omni's represent human attempts to explain and understand God. But these explanations are not God, they are human constructs. We can in good faith look for other ways to explain and understand God, and see if they suit our purposes better.
From my perspective (allow me to describe that as
"rational Christian apologist"), I need some room to maneuver. It seems to me that you're trying to establish an anti-theist position by getting me (and any other Christian apologist, rational or not) to commit to every explanation of the divine the Church has ever assented to, and thereby forcing us to defend an impossible large (and probably inconsistent) frontier.
Whereas my perspective is that our insight into the capabilities of the divine is limited, not only by the relative paucity of scriptural material, but also by our intrinsic incapacity to understand a being who is so different from us in thought and capability. The distance between us and God seems to me to be much greater than the distance between ants and us. Perhaps ants have a theory of humanity, and human action. But could any such theory have any meaningful completeness to it? I think not.
I think we need to consider and respect the theories of earlier ant-men who were trying to explain and understand God. But the issues in the relationship between God and man that their theories were intended to shed light on are not necessarily our issues. Other ways of thinking about God, just like other forms of worship, may serve us better today, only to be superseded by our successors' forms in due course.
That seems to be an anti-rationalist position; ie. you suggest G*d's far beyond our human (or ant-like) understanding.. Then any claims whatsoever seem rather meaningless, including even Polkinghorne's ideas of G*d's limited knowledge (which are not orthodoxy, as far I understand them...thus he seems to concede a great deal to skeptics...).
Then what are monotheists discussing in the theological business schools across the world, sir?? (whether chr., jew, or muslim).
For that matter, a claim of monotheism seems no better than polydeism--why not hinduism, instead of chr.?
I also find it puzzling that the fine-tuning types (common among religious scientists) are ok with indeterminism--that seems nearly contradictory. (While I don't agree to the fine-tuning hypothesis, I grant it has a certain force, though anthropomorphic. And also implies a ...Plaguemaster).
But it seems odd to say at once as Polkinghorne does, why man, it was all Designed, AND then claim the Designer doesn't know how it works (ie, over millenia), or turns out.
Polk. may be a renowned physicist, but he's not such a profound theologian...or philosopher.
J,
Now you're exaggerating.
My point about a hypothetical ant's theory of man is that it is necessarily incomplete. This does not mean that it is useless to ants. Indeed, we're both well aware that Peano arithmetic is incomplete, yet I hope you'd acknowledge that PA is useful. Likewise, ants might entirely lack the ability to conceive of human aesthetics or politics, and yet still have theories about human behavior that are useful to them, e.g., "if we're visible on a hard surface, they will stomp on us." Likewise, our theologies may or may not be correct, and even if they are correct, they are certainly incomplete. But this is hardly grounds for throwing them out. The figure of merit is whether or not they help us in relating to God. Now I happen to prefer that my theories be true, but that is a secondary consideration in this case.
Part of my take on all of this is that you're willing to grant to Aquinas, who was a man just like you and me, the retrospective license to develop a theology about the nature of God that is not a conservative extension of scriptural revelation (which is to say, you're allowing him to add stuff), but you're denying the same philosophical/theological privilege to Polkinghorne and to me. Why the asymmetry? Why do you tacitly accept that Aquinas's God is the same as Jesus's (despite Aquinas's additions), but deny that Polkinghorne's God (and mine) are the same as Jesus's (because of our reservations w.r.t. Aquinas's additions)?
Indeed, contrary to what you might expect, Polkinghorne himself noted that while each of the world's major religions is spiritually rich, if you try to create a least-common-denominator faith by intersecting their beliefs, there's not much left, and what's left isn't particularly interesting. So he is not interested in a least-common-denominator faith, and neither am I.
Your argument is a funny thing, like Republican arguments that the Democrats ought to give up on health care reform, lest they be punished at the polls. You're taking an anti-theist position, and then arguing with your Christian opponents that their positions aren't Christian enough to suit you. Huh? I'll defend the ground I choose, in the belief that it is the ground the Lord Jesus has assigned me to defend, but fully cognizant that my own beliefs and failings may be reflected in that choice too.
J,
But it seems odd to say at once as Polkinghorne does, why man, it was all Designed, AND then claim the Designer doesn't know how it works (ie, over millenia), or turns out.
Not at all. The design contains within it freedom, chance, and dare I say contingency? If the desire for authentic relationships initiated God's creation of the Universe, then it seems that authentic freedom within creation was part of the intended design. So how is it that I'm limiting the creator's power via my claim that he did what he set out to do?
Indeed, it is an old philosophical puzzle, can God create a stone so heavy that he can't lift it? It seems that no matter how you answer the question, you end up denying omnipotence in some sense, and that simply saying "he wouldn't" is a cop-out. So I ask you, if God is all powerful, can he create a Universe that retains the power to surprise him?
It seems to me that the answer is yes, and we're in it. I acknowledge that this is a powerful hypothesis.
Likewise, our theologies may or may not be correct, and even if they are correct, they are certainly incomplete. But this is hardly grounds for throwing them out. The figure of merit is whether or not they help us in relating to God. Now I happen to prefer that my theories be true, but that is a secondary consideration in this case.
Well, what does it mean to have a "true" theology? For one, we have no axiomatic theology--that holds for the catholics as well--Aquinas' Five Ways are not axiomatic or mathematical (no logical identities), but--excepting the ontological arg.-- really crypto-empirical, or synthetic a posteriori in AP speak. So, as empirical claims about reality, they require verification or confirmation of some sort. The truth of any theory generally hangs on facts, data, evidence, not merely conceptual definitions-- as with...the Resurrection. I won't bore you with the usual Humean evidentialism chitchat, but ... the Founding Fathers were not convinced of biblical miracles, or inerrancy. I suspect Easter itself as now known by the evangelical churches arose after the Civil war...but it's your right to witness the Dry Ice...Jee-zuss...
Believers don't like to be reminded of verification, or evidentialism of any sort, but that remains relevant.
I think you tend to introduce a certain dualistic element to the religious discussion based on your Realist readings of logic/mathematics....slightly Cartesian. Fine, but even a Cartesian makes a claim of sorts---about Mind, the a priori, if not immaterialism (though they aren't the same--we have to separate the ontology from the epistemology, really. Realism doesn't necessarily imply...souls exist, at least to Contingencies--though that seems to be a common gambit (see Victor Reppert's site--; humans can do weird, unique things like balance their checkbooks or play chess; therefore ...G*d exists!).
So, since I don't generally agree to your cartesian/platonic ideas re. math/logic, I probably don't agree to your theology (I suggest most cartesians hold to realism for pragmatic reasons...ultimately, like in an evolutionary sense, Quine's radical empiricism is probably correct--tho' doesn't mean I agree to all QuineCo).
And nominally speaking, even the holy a priori and realist readings of the identities of math/logic might be called into quesiton ( I'm not up to my nominalist critique of Goedel right now--but for one, how we define infinity an issue...even with theological implications. Believers, like traditional math/logic people, ie Cantor, make the mistake of thinking numerical infinities exist, somewhere...).
See my recent post on Wesley, btw. Though I am agnostic and don't agree to rational theology, I acknowledge that some christians "did the right thing". That to me that seems more worthy of praise than theological ability. Wesley seems more praiseworthy than an Aquinas, or usual philosopher for that matter.
...The design contains within it freedom, chance, and dare I say contingency? If the desire for authentic relationships initiated God's creation of the Universe, then it seems that authentic freedom within creation was part of the intended design. So how is it that I'm limiting the creator's power via my claim that he did what he set out to do?
He decides to limit himself, or is limited? If the first, He can change his mind at will, even contradict himself (another reason I claim monotheism turns out to be...an amoral King-God, aka Occasionalism, I believe). If the second's, He's not really G*d.
So if Polk. means to suggest G*d limits Himself, volutarily, then OK, that's traditional monotheism--not to say correct; indeed, I say it's absurd. But traditional absurdity.
Freedom doesn't change anything: that was one of Russell's subtle points (overlooked by believers and non-believers). Free will only seems free to humans--that holds, arguably, even from a secular determinist view; we imagine we are making decisions, but really reacting to stimuli, neurology, bio-chem causes. On that Hume still relevant as well...and Wm James. What's the alternative? A ghost, presumably ...
Assuming He existed, G*d by definition would not be limited: he's like the Ueber-scientist, in principle. When he creates Humanity (hypothetically), he would know how it will end, what humans will do. He sets the parameters, by definition; he in effect determines the outcome. Ergo, if He existed, He would be a mad sinister genocidal programmer. So, the converse must be considered--such a Being does not likely exist, since we don't like the idea of worshipping a super Stalin-on-high...(or at least most sane people don't)...
The second alternative--ie G*d's limited, ie he can't lift the stone he created to be unliftable, nor does he know the future, or doesn't know what humans will do--is ..Polkinghorne-ism, not really judeo-christian tradition. Under that view he may be a powerful Deity--a Prince--but not a King. I think that's sort of ad hoc, if not vaguely pagan, or pantheist (who does know? Kali?)
It's a free country, but once Polk. claims omniscience doesn't hold he in effect denies the hypothetical G*d his godliness. Or something like that.
Polkinghorne is a twit.
As are all Christians who try to reconcile science with their meat-body based reductionist religion.
He is thus also entirely convicted of the mortal vision.
The religion that he proposes lies entirely within the parameters found in the set of essay on this site.
www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-religion.aspx
www.dabase.org/broken.htm
www.dabase.org/dht7.htm
Plus a remarkable essay on Reality & The Middle which can be found here:
www.dabase.org/s-atruth.htm
Anny-sattva
I mistook you for Spam...
Now, having checked yr links....
we await stories about the dhammas of Avatar Adi Da.
Serio, I haven't made up my mind on Polkinghorne (tho' tending to the...thumbs down), but he's reputed to be a genius of sorts, at least the british sort.
Post a Comment