Tweet
I've been reading process theology for some time now, and have swerved into the likes of Whitehead, Hartshorne, Griffin, and the edited volume by Musser and Paulsen. In doing this, I'm finding a renewed ability to articulate my faith. In an effort to articulate how faith and reason work for me these days, and to help the more orthodox believers on CUF from unreasonably leaping so quickly to metaphysical mysteries (to be honest, the speed and frequency with which some orthodox believers dissemble makes me want to sympathize with their critics), I am going to occasionally post about my journey.
As a first post, I'm going to introduce the concept of "hard-core common sense." It is one of the backbones of process theology, which itself is becoming more and more important to my thinking and faith. In doing so, I will draw on Griffin's (2007) article in Musser and Paulsen (2007) and on some quotes from Hartshorne.
So....proceed at your own risk!
Premise--Hard-Core Common Sense: There are some concepts that we all unavoidably assume, even if our mouths betray them, and these concepts should be accepted as the definitive standard for all systematic thinking--science, philosophy, theology, whatever. As an example, every person unavoidably assumes existence in a world of other things and persons as real as s/he is.
Discrimination--I discriminate between soft-core common sense beliefs, which later discoveries can nullify, and hard-core common sense beliefs, which later discoveries cannot nullify because they are inevitably presupposed by all people in all their activities, including scientific, philosophical, and theological activities.
Rejection--On these grounds, I reject determinism—whether by molecules, God, the economy, or anything else—because some measure of freedom is pre-supposed in human practice. The philosopher, scientist, or theologian who professes determinism is “busily engaged in trying to decide what the future is to be as though it were not yet wholly fixed” (Hartshorne, 1937, p. 137). My rejection of determinism is not capricious because determinism violates the logical principle of noncontradiction: Affirming explicitly a doctrine that one is denying implicitly is to affirm self-contradictory doctrines.
Rejection--Therefore, I also refuse materialistic determinism—the concept that all present events are determined by precursive events—and nihilistic relativism—the concept that no standards exist by which to pronounce some outcomes as better or worse than others. As Hartshorne says, no one can live in terms of such doctrines, so no one really believes them (1962, p. 12).
Conclusion--If you accept my premise (which you may not, although I will argue that it is a reasonable one), determinism and relativism are out, and room for what I call "faith" is in.
As a first post, I'm going to introduce the concept of "hard-core common sense." It is one of the backbones of process theology, which itself is becoming more and more important to my thinking and faith. In doing so, I will draw on Griffin's (2007) article in Musser and Paulsen (2007) and on some quotes from Hartshorne.
So....proceed at your own risk!
Premise--Hard-Core Common Sense: There are some concepts that we all unavoidably assume, even if our mouths betray them, and these concepts should be accepted as the definitive standard for all systematic thinking--science, philosophy, theology, whatever. As an example, every person unavoidably assumes existence in a world of other things and persons as real as s/he is.
Discrimination--I discriminate between soft-core common sense beliefs, which later discoveries can nullify, and hard-core common sense beliefs, which later discoveries cannot nullify because they are inevitably presupposed by all people in all their activities, including scientific, philosophical, and theological activities.
Rejection--On these grounds, I reject determinism—whether by molecules, God, the economy, or anything else—because some measure of freedom is pre-supposed in human practice. The philosopher, scientist, or theologian who professes determinism is “busily engaged in trying to decide what the future is to be as though it were not yet wholly fixed” (Hartshorne, 1937, p. 137). My rejection of determinism is not capricious because determinism violates the logical principle of noncontradiction: Affirming explicitly a doctrine that one is denying implicitly is to affirm self-contradictory doctrines.
Rejection--Therefore, I also refuse materialistic determinism—the concept that all present events are determined by precursive events—and nihilistic relativism—the concept that no standards exist by which to pronounce some outcomes as better or worse than others. As Hartshorne says, no one can live in terms of such doctrines, so no one really believes them (1962, p. 12).
Conclusion--If you accept my premise (which you may not, although I will argue that it is a reasonable one), determinism and relativism are out, and room for what I call "faith" is in.
Comment