>I SEEK GOD, NOT BECAUSE
I FIND MYSELF ENTHRALLED TO
RELIGION, BUT BECAUSE I FEEL
MYSELF IN AWE OF REALITY.
WHAT IS IT ALL ABOUT?
GOD, IF THERE IS A GOD,
IS ONE PLACE I START.
BUT WHAT IS GOD?
I HEAR THE WORD, GOD, ALL
THE TIME.
BUT STRUGGLE WITH THE CONCEPT
OF GOD.
THEISTS AND ATHEISTS DEBATE
WHETHER GOD EXISTS.
BUT WHAT GOD ARE THEY BATTLING
OVER?
THERE IS SUCH ENORMOUS
VARIATION IN THE KINDS OF GODS
THAT POPULATE HUMAN RELIGIONS.
I SHIVER WITH ANXIETY.
WHAT IS GOD ABOUT?
I AM ROBERT LAWRENCE KUHN,
AND CLOSER TO TRUTH IS MY
JOURNEY TO FIND OUT.
WHAT KINDS OF GODS DO HUMAN
RELIGIONS HAVE ON OFFER?
TO BEGIN, I SCAN THE
LANDSCAPE, DISCOVER AND
DISSECT THE DIVINE VARIETIES.
I ASK A CHRISTIAN MINISTER
WITH A DOCTORATE IN PHYSICS,
KNOWN FOR DEFINING CAREFUL
CATEGORIES OF SPIRITUAL
CONCEPTS.
THE FOUNDER OF THE CENTER
FOR THEOLOGY AND THE NATURAL
SCIENCES, ROBERT JOHN RUSSELL.
BOB, GIVE ME A SENSE OF THE
LANDSCAPE, OF HOW THE BEST
THINKING TODAY CONCEPTUALIZED
GOD.
>>YOU CAN THINK OF GOD AS
ENTIRELY TRANSCENDENT TO
THE WORLD.
SORT OF SO DIVINE, SO HOLY,
SO OTHER, THAT THE ONLY
RELATION BETWEEN GOD
AND THE WORLD IS KIND OF
LIKE A TANGENT TO A CURVE.
OR YOU CAN BEGIN TO SEE GOD
AS BOTH STILL TRANSCENDENT --
THAT IS TOTAL MYSTERY,
GROUND OF BEING.
BUT YET, IN SOME WAYS, PRESENT
IN THE WORLD IN THE PROCESSES
OF NATURE AND HISTORY.
SO IMMINENT IN THE WORLD.
GOD BECOMES SO ENMESHED IN THE
WORLD, AND SO MUCH A PART OF
EVERYTHING THAT WE SEE, THAT
GOD AND THE WORLD, IN A SENSE,
BECOME THE SAME.
SO THE USE OF TRADITIONAL
TERMS, MOVING FROM SORT OF
CLASSICAL THEISM TO PANTHEISM.
NOW IN BETWEEN, THERE IS A THIRD
MOVEMENT THAT A LOT OF FOLKS
SUBSCRIBE TO.
>I WOULDN'T EXPECT OTHERWISE.
>>YOU'RE RIGHT.
PANENTHEISM.
WHICH ATTEMPTS TO SAY, LOOK,
GOD IS IN THE WORLD, BUT THE
GOD WHO IS IN THE WORLD IS
FULLY TRANSCENDENT TO THE
WORLD.
SO IN PANENTHEISM, YOU REALLY
EMPHASIZE BOTH GOD'S PRESENCE
IN THE WORLD, AND YET THE GOD
WHO'S PRESENT IS THE GOD WHO'S
TRANSCENDENT.
>WHAT ABOUT THE DEIST POINT OF
VIEW THAT GOD SORT OF CREATED
THE WORLD AND THEN IT WENT AWAY
AND THERE'S NO RELATIONSHIP.
>>YES, WE CAN BROADEN THE
SPECTRUM AND INCLUDE DEISM IN
THE VERY LIMITED SENSE OF A
GOD WHO CREATES THE WORLD AND
THEN THE WORLD IS ON ITS OWN.
NOW MOST CHRISTIANS AND JEWISH
THEOLOGIANS WON'T ACCEPT THAT,
BECAUSE HOW CAN THE WORLD
CONTINUE TO EXIST WITHOUT GOD
AS ITS CREATOR?
CREATION ISN'T THE GETTING
OF INDEPENDENT BEING TO
A CREATION.
THE NOTION OF CREATION IS
THE CONSTANT DEPENDENCE OF
THE WORLD ON GOD.
>WHY COULDN'T GOD BE CONFIDENT
IN HIS CREATION.
SO MUCH SO THAT HE COULD
CREATE IT AS SUCH WITHOUT HIS
CONTINUAL PARTICIPATION?
>>TO GIVE CREATION SO MUCH
SELF EXISTENCE, WOULD BE
IN A CERTAIN SENSE TO MAKE
IT DIVINE.
BECAUSE GOD IS THE ONLY
CONCEPTION WHICH IS
SELF EXISTENT.
DEISTS TODAY WOULD BE ONES WHO
WOULD SAY GOD SIMPLY MAINTAINS
THE WORLD AND EXISTENCE.
OR YOU MIGHT SAY THAT GOD
ENACTS THE WORLD, OR ENACTS
HISTORY.
HE DOESN'T ACT IN HISTORY.
TO BRING AN IMMINENCE MEANS
THAT IN SOME WAY, GOD IS
SOMEHOW RELATED TO TIME,
THAT WHEN I PRAY, THERE IS SOME
INTERACTION IN THAT MOMENT THAT
IS REALLY UNIQUE AND TEMPORAL,
AND GOD REALLY RELATES TO IT
AND GOD REALLY RESPONDS IN
SOME WAY TO IT.
SO THE TEMPORAL ACT OF GOD'S
RELATION TO THE WORLD GOES
ALONG WITH GOD'S IMMINENCE
TO THE WORLD.
AND SO GOD REALLY IS IN
THE PRESENT.
IN A CERTAIN SENSE,
GOD DOESN'T KNOW THE FUTURE.
AND YET IN GOD'S TRANSCENDENCE
OF THE WORLD BY ITS CREATOR,
GOD KNOWS THE WHOLE CREATION.
AND THE CHALLENGE IS, THEN,
CAN YOU HOLD THOSE TWO CONCEPTS
TOGETHER?
>DOES IT DISTURB YOU
OR EXHILARATE YOU TO SEE
AN OVERWHELMING VARIETY,
A BLIZZARD OF DIFFERENT
INTELLECTUAL TRADITIONS?
IS THIS A SIGN OF HUMAN
CREATIVITY AS OPPOSED TO
SOMETHING THATS REALLY
EXISTENT?
>>I THINK THAT MOST THEISTS
WOULD SAY THAT THE CONCEPT
OF GOD IS OF SUCH AN ABSENT
MYSTERY, THAT THE BEST WE CAN
GET OF IT IS A KIND OF PARTIAL
UNDERSTANDING.
AND EACH OF US IS GETTING
A DIFFERENT SORT OF PARTS.
YES THEY SEEM, IN SOME WAYS,
INCOHERENT TOGETHER.
BUT IN SOME WAYS, THAT'S THE
NATURE OF HUMAN UNDERSTANDING,
OF SOMETHING LIKE THE DIVINE.
SO I THINK THAT THE DEBATES
ARE HEALTHY, BUT I'M NOT
DISCOURAGED BY THE DIVERSITY
OF VIEWS.
BECAUSE IN THE END, I THINK IT
REFLECTS THE OVERWHELMING
MYSTERY OF GOD.
ON THE OTHER HAND, I DON'T
WANT TO SAY THAT ALL OF THE
DIFFERENCES ARE IMPORTANT,
BECAUSE THEY DO HAVE DIFFERENT
ENTAILING IN THE WAY THAT YOU
LIVE YOUR LIFE.
AND THEREFORE, SAY YOU NEED
TO TAKE THOSE DIFFERENCES
OF THEOLOGY SERIOUSLY.
>BOB LAYS OUT THE SPECTRUM
OF KINDS OF GODS.
FROM GOD THE TRANSCENDENT,
UNKNOWABLE, UNCHANGEABLE,
UNAPPROACHABLE, TO GOD THE
IMMINENT, INVOLVED, ACTIVE,
AFFECTED, TO GOD BEING
IDENTICAL TO THE WORLD,
PANTHEISM.
BUT WHAT WAS THAT LITTLE
SURPRISE IN THE MIDDLE,
BETWEEN TRANSCENDENCE
AND PANTHEISM?
PANENTHEISM?
THE WORLD BEING GOD, BUT GOD
BEING MORE THAN THE WORLD?
WHAT'S THIS?
A CHRISTIAN CURVEBALL?
I SQUINT A BIT, THEN DECIDE
TO FOLLOW THIS TRAIL.
I VISIT A LEADING PANENTHEIST,
PHILOSOPHER, THEOLOGIAN,
PHILIP CLAYTON.
>>PANENTHEISM, BRIEFLY
DEFINED, IS THE NOTION THAT
THE WORLD EXISTS WITHIN THE
DIVINE, THOUGH GOD IS ALSO
MORE THAN THE WORLD.
>PANTHEISM WOULD BE THAT GOD
IS THE DIVINE, THE WORLD IS
GOD, GOD IS THE WORLD, AND
THERE'S A 1 TO 1 RELATIONSHIP.
>>RIGHT, BUT PANENTHEISM HOLDS
THAT THERE IS A MOMENT OF
TRANSCENDENCE.
SOMETHING ABOUT THE DIVINE
IS MORE THAN THE WORLD.
>OKAY, SO LET'S NOW CONTRAST
PANENTHEISM AND TRADITIONAL
THEISM.
>>TRADITIONAL THEISM WAS BASED
ON A NOTION OF SUBSTANCE.
SO YOU AND I ARE INDIVIDUAL
SUBSTANCES, SO WE ARE
THE CHAIRS AND THE TABLES
AND TREES.
GOD IS THE HIGHEST SUBSTANCE.
GOD EXISTS OUTSIDE THE WORLD
AND CREATED THIS WORLD OUTSIDE
OF HIMSELF, IF I CAN USE THE
TRADITIONAL MALE PRONOUN,
FOR THIS OLD FASHIONED VIEW.
AND THEN GOD SORT OF CAME TO
THIS WORLD THAT HE HAD
CREATED, AND DID THINGS IN IT.
I THINK THAT THAT'S A HARD
VIEW TO HOLD, IN LIGHT OF
CONTEMPORARY SCIENCE.
WE'VE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE
WORLD HAS THESE SORTS OF LAWS,
AND IF THERE IS A GOD SORT OF
STEPPING IN FROM TIME TO TIME
TO REARRANGE THE PARTS,
THAT'S UNBEAUTIFUL.
>BUT HOW DOES PANENTHEISM
THEN SOLVE THAT PROBLEM?
>>IT MAKES THE RADICAL MOVE
OF SAYING THAT NATURAL
REGULARITIES AND NATURAL
FORCES ARE AN EXPRESSION
OF THE DIVINE.
>BUT WHY THEN DO YOU EVEN NEED
A THEISTIC PART OF THAT?
WHY DON'T YOU JUST HAVE
SCIENCE?
JUST HAVE THE NATURAL WORLD BE
ITS OWN THING, SELF EXISTENT
IN SOME WAY AND -
>>BUT LET'S THINK ABOUT WHAT
WE ARE, AS CONSCIOUS AGENTS.
WE ARE MORE THAN THE SUM
OF OUR PARTS.
WE FORM INTENTIONS AND THEN
WE CARRY OUT THOSE INTENTIONS.
WE HAVE MOTIVATIONS, DREAMS,
DESIRES, IMAGINATION, RATIONAL
VISIONS, RIGHT?
AND THEN WE USE THOSE TO CARRY
OUT ACTIONS IN THE WORLD.
WHY DO WE WANT TO UNDERSTAND
THAT GOD IS LESS THAN THAT?
SHOULDN'T THE DIVINE, THIS
WHOLE SUM SET OF EVERYTHING,
ALSO BE ABLE TO BE AWARE
OF THE WORLD AS A WHOLE?
AND IN THE MOMENT THAT GOD IS
AWARE OF THE WORLD AS A WHOLE,
GOD IS MORE THAN THE WORLD.
>HOW, THEN, CAN WE BEGIN TO
UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF GOD?
IN A PANENTHEISTIC WAY?
WHAT ARE SOME OF GOD'S
CHARACTERISTICS?
>>WE WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT GOD
IS POSSESSING SOME ETERNAL
PROPERTIES THAT MAKE GOD
DIVINE.
PROPERTIES OF THIS SAY,
NECESSARY BEING,
OF INFINITY, NOT FINITENESS,
PERHAPS OF MORAL PERFECTION.
THAT'S A HARD ONE FOR A
NATURAL THEOLOGY, ISN'T IT?
ON THE OTHER HAND, IF GOD IS
TO BE AT ALL ANALOGOUS AS TO
WHAT WE ARE AS PERSONS, GOD
HAS TO HAVE A RESPONSIVE PULL
OR SIDE OF GOD'S NATURE SO
THAT WHEN PEOPLE ACT IN A
CERTAIN WAY, THEN GOD CAN
RESPOND.
ALWAYS RESPONDING TO THE WORLD
AND ALWAYS LURING THE WORLD TO
ITS OWN HIGHER POTENTIAL.
NOW THAT'S A NOTION OF GOD
THAT ONE CAN GET BEHIND.
>WELL, I WANT TO TRY TO FIND
TRUTH, NOT WHAT MAKES YOU
COMFORTABLE.
>>I'M COMPLETELY SYMPATHETIC
WITH THAT CRITICISM.
>IT SOUNDS SILLY, BUT I REALLY
FEEL THAT WAY.
>>BUT ONCE WE ALLOW OURSELVES
TO ENGAGE IN THIS SORT OF
METAPHYSICAL REFLECTION,
WHAT DO WE THINK ABOUT ULTIMATE
REALITY, BASED ON THE BEST OF
WHAT WE KNOW FROM OUR SCIENCE
AND OUR OWN PERSONAL
EXPERIENCE.
I SUGGEST THAT THE MOST
COHERENT, LET'S CALL IT
A GUESS.
A HYPOTHESIS.
A POSSIBILITY.
THE MOST COHERENT POSSIBLE IS
THIS UNIFYING VIEW THAT WE
CALL PANENTHEISM.
>PANENTHEISM CHALLENGES
TRADITIONAL CHRISTIANITY,
WHICH REQUIRES THE ALL
POWERFUL CREATOR GOD TO BE
TOTALLY INDEPENDENT OF,
TO BE TOTALLY OUTSIDE OF GOD'S
CREATION.
PANENTHEISM MELDS THE WORLD
DIRECTLY IN TO GOD, YET
MAINTAINS SOMETHING OF GOD
EXTERNAL TO THE WORLD.
I LIKE FRESH THINKING ABOUT
GOD, THOUGH I'M HARDLY READY
TO BE BRANDED A PANENTHEIST.
I ALSO LIKE PHIL, BUT I DON'T
LET HIS RATIONAL, PLEASANT
DEMEANOR, MASK HIS RADICAL,
FASCINATING IDEAS.
ANOTHER CHALLENGE TO
TRADITIONAL CHRISTIANITY IS
PROCESS THEOLOGY, A NOVEL WAY
OF THINKING ABOUT GOD.
I HAVE NEVER UNDERSTOOD
PROCESSED THEOLOGY.
OKAY, I'VE NEVER REALLY TRIED.
PERHAPS I SHOULD.
SO I VISIT A PROCESS
THEOLOGIAN, THE PIONEER OF THE
INTEGRATION OF SCIENCE AND
RELIGION, IAN BARBER.
>>WELL, PROCESS PHILOSOPHY
DERIVES MOSTLY FROM ALFRED
NORTH WHITEHEAD, WHO WAS A
PHILOSOPHER AT HARVARD AND HAD
A GREAT DEAL OF INFLUENCE ON A
NUMBER OF THEOLOGIANS AND
PHILOSOPHERS.
AND HE, HE WANTS US TO LOOK
AT REALITY AS A SET OF
INTERDEPENDENT EVENTS,
NOT SUBSTANCES.
NOT LITTLE OBJECTS BUMPING IN
TO EACH OTHER, BUT PROCESSES
THAT ARE VERY DYNAMIC,
VERY INTERACTIVE.
HE SEES THIS IN PHYSICS, WHERE
YOU DON'T HAVE JUST PARTICLES,
BUT YOU HAVE FIELDS AND A VERY
FLUID AND DYNAMIC SITUATION.
AND HE ALSO STRESSES THAT
THESE PROCESSES CAN BE
ORGANIZED AT DIFFERENT LEVELS.
BUT PARTICULARLY HE STRESSES
THERE IS BOTH ORDER AND
NOVELTY.
EVENTS ARE NOT ALL DETERMINED,
WHETHER YOU GO DOWN TO THE
QUANTUM UNCERTAINTIES WAY BACK
AT THE BOTTOM OF THINGS OR
WHETHER YOU TALK ABOUT THE
EMERGENCE OF NEW THINGS IN
HISTORY.
IT'S A WAY OF LOOKING AT
REALITY THAT STRESSES
TEMPORALITY, BECOMING RATHER
THAN BEING, EVENTS RATHER THAN
SUBSTANCES, AND THEN EXTENDS
THIS TO THIS MORE GENERAL
ANALYSIS, TO INCLUDE AN
UNDERSTANDING OF GOD AS
RELATED TO THIS EMERGENCE
OF NOVELTY AND ORDER.
AND THE UNDERSTANDING OF GOD
THAT COMES OUT OF THIS IS A
GOD WHO IS MORE PERSUASIVE
THAN COERCIVE, THAT THIS ISN'T
A GOD WHO INTERVENES TO PUSH
THINGS AROUND.
THIS IS A GOD WHOSE POWER
IS SOMEWHAT LIMITED AND THAT,
OF COURSE, RUNS A LITTLE BIT
AGAINST THE TRADITION.
BUT I THINK THAT THERE ARE
ELEMENTS OF IT IN THE
TRADITION.
THIS IS A GOD WHO PERVADES THE
WORLD, RATHER THAN INTERVENING
FROM OUTSIDE.
THIS MAKES THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
A LITTLE BIT MORE ATTRACTABLE,
BECAUSE YOU ARE SAYING EVEN
GOD DOESN'T HAVE THE POWER TO
INTERVENE TO DISPEL THE EVIL.
EVEN GOD DOESN'T KNOW THE
FUTURE.
SO IT'S A GOD OF LOVE, A GOD
OF PERSUASION, MORE THAN A GOD
OF POWER.
>IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S A GOD WHO
IS LIKE THE SENIOR PARTNER
WITH HUMANITY IN CREATING
A FUTURE.
>>THIS IS RIGHT.
GOD NEVER IS THE ONLY CAUSE
OF AN EVENT.
IT'S ALWAYS WITH THE
COOPERATION OF THE CREATURES,
SO THAT THERE IS ALWAYS AN
INTERACTIVE ELEMENT, EVEN
BETWEEN GOD AND THE WORLD.
>SOME WOULD SAY THAT THAT KIND
OF GOD IS A WEAKER GOD,
IS AN IMPERFECT KIND OF GOD.
>>WELL, THIS IS A GOD WHO IS
INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS
AND WHO PERHAPS SUFFERS
WITH THE CREATION.
AND I THINK IN THE CHRISTIAN
TRADITION, THE IDEA OF THE
CROSS SYMBOLIZES A GOD WHO
PARTICIPATES IN THE WORLD'S
SUFFERING, FEELS THE WORLD'S
HURTS, AND EMPOWERS IT AND
GIVES IT COURAGE TO PERSEVERE,
BUT DOESN'T JUST IMMEDIATELY
CHANGE THE SITUATION TO DISPEL
ALL SUFFERING AND EVIL.
SO THAT IT'S NOT A HUMAN GOD,
BECAUSE THIS GOD IS FOREVER
AND THIS GOD DOES HAVE
RESOURCES BEYOND ANY FINITE
CREATURE.
BUT IT IS A GOD WHO IS MORE
ENMESHED IN THE PROCESS AND IS
MORE VULNERABLE.
>I APPRECIATE PROCESS THEOLOGY
BECAUSE IT FORCES ME TO
REASSESS MY METAPHYSICS
OF WHAT IS FUNDAMENTAL.
ARE ACTIONS AND EVENTS MORE
PRIMARY THAN THINGS AND STUFF?
IS BECOMING MORE PROFOUND THAN
BEING?
I FINALLY UNDERSTAND PROCESS
THEOLOGY, I THINK.
BUT I STILL DON'T BUY IT.
THE GOD OF PROCESS THEOLOGY
WOULD BE A SMALLER,
LIMITED GOD.
WOULD I LIKE THAT?
I CAN'T DECIDE.
I CRAVE A RADICAL ALTERNATIVE.
CAN I LEAP FROM ONE EXTREME
TO THE OTHER?
WHAT WOULD BE THE LARGEST
UNLIMITED GOD?
I ASK PHILOSOPHER, JOHN LESLIE,
CO-EDITOR OF THE PUZZLE
OF EXISTENCE: WHY IS THERE
ANYTHING AT ALL?
JOHN CLAIMS THAT HIS GOD IS
THE GREATEST POSSIBLE GOD.
>>I THINK A PHILOSOPHER'S DUTY
WOULD BE TO REALIZE THAT THE
WORD GOD HAS BEEN USED IN VAST
NUMBERS OF DIFFERENT WAYS.
I THINK THAT YOU SHOULD, FOR
EXAMPLE, REALIZE THAT THE
TRADITION OF THE WEST THAT GOD
IS GOOD, IS NOT NECESSARILY
HELD EVERYWHERE.
AND IN FACT THAT EVEN IN THE
WEST, THERE WERE PEOPLE WHO
THOUGHT THAT GOD HAD TWO SIDES:
THE GOOD SIDE
AND THE EVIL SIDE.
SO IT WOULD BE MODERN
CHRISTIANITY, WHICH IS FIRMLY
IN FAVOR OF THE VIEW THAT GOD
IS TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH
GOODNESS.
EVEN IF YOU TAKE THAT VIEW,
THERE COULD BE ALL SORTS OF
DIFFERENT WAYS OF CONCEIVING
GOD.
SOME PEOPLE WANTED GOD
CONCEIVED EXTREMELY
ABSTRACTLY.
AS A FORCE OF CREATIVE,
ETHICAL REQUIREMENT.
THE NOTION HERE IS THAT GOD IS
NOT A PERSON AT ALL, THAT
THERE IS AN ETHICAL NEED FOR
GOOD THINGS TO COME IN TO
EXISTENCE, AND GOD IS SIMPLY
THE FACT THAT THIS ETHICAL
NEED IS ITSELF ABLE TO BRING
ABOUT THE GOOD THINGS,
THAT THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION
IN THE IDEA THAT ETHICAL
REQUIREMENTS COULD PUT
THEMSELVES IN TO AFFECT.
I FIND THAT A FULLY DEFENSIBLE
VIEW.
I ALSO TEND TO THINK THAT THE
FIRST THING WHICH AN ETHICAL
REQUIREMENT WOULD BRING ABOUT,
WOULD BE THE EXISTENCE OF A
DIVINE MIND, WHICH KNEW
EVERYTHING WORTH KNOWING.
I MYSELF GO FOR THE VIEW THAT
THERE EXISTS AN INFINITE NUMBER
OF DIVINE MINDS, EACH OF WHICH
KNOWS EVERYTHING WORTH
KNOWING, BECAUSE IN THIS WAY
WE HAVE A SITUATION WHICH IS
THE BEST POSSIBLE SITUATION,
AND IT IS PRECISELY WHAT YOU
WOULD EXPECT A FORCE OF
CREATIVE ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS
TO CREATE.
SOME PEOPLE HAVE THOUGHT THAT
GOD IS NOT CONCERNED WITH
THE PHYSICAL WORLD AT ALL.
BUT GOD, NONETHELESS, ATTRACTS
THE WORLD TOWARDS HIMSELF
OR ITSELF.
A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO CALL
THEMSELVES DEISTS, THOUGHT
THAT GOD WAS VERY MUCH
CONCERNED WITH HOW THE
UNIVERSE WOULD DEVELOP, BUT HE
DID A REALLY GOOD JOB AT THE
START, SO IT WAS GOOD TO
DEVELOP IN GOOD WAYS.
AND HE HAD THE PRINCIPLE
OF NONINTERFERENCE.
BECAUSE INTERFERING WOULD BE
INTERFERING WITH THE LIBERTY
OF THE BEINGS HE CREATED.
THE GOD WHO WANTS PEOPLE TO DO
CERTAIN THINGS, BUT IN NO WAY
FORCES THEM TO DO THEM.
>SOME DEFINITIONS OF GOD HAVE
AN INTENTIONALITY,
AND SOME DON'T.
BUT IF WE, IF WE DON'T HAVE
THAT INTENTIONALITY, IF WE
HAVE AN A PRIORI, ETHICAL,
OR FORCE FOR GOODNESS,
WHY IS THEN GOODNESS SOME
MOST FUNDAMENTAL THING?
GOODNESS DOESN'T SEEM TO BE
WEIGHTY ENOUGH.
>>WELL OKAY, YOU COULD THINK
THAT GOODNESS DOESN'T WEIGH
ENOUGH BECAUSE IT SEEMS THAT
THERE ARE A LOT OF BAD THINGS
GOING ON IN THE UNIVERSE.
AND THERE IS A PROBLEM FOR
PEOPLE WHO HAVE THIS WAY
OF THINKING.
AND THEY WOULD TEND TO COME
BACK BY SAYING, WELL YOU CAN'T
HAVE ALL GOOD SIMULTANEOUSLY.
SOME OF THEM CONFLICT WITH
OTHERS.
AND THAT'S THE ULTIMATE REASON
WHY THERE IS A LOT OF BAD IN
THE UNIVERSE.
>BUT LET'S TAKE IT THE OTHER
WAY, THOUGH.
IS GOODNESS GOOD ENOUGH
TO CAUSE THE UNIVERSE?
>>THE NOTION OF GOODNESS HAS
THE NOTION OF REQUIREMENT
BUILT IN TO IT.
THE GOOD IS THAT OF WHICH THE
EXISTENCE IS REQUIRED IN A
PARTICULAR WAY.
SOME PEOPLE HAVE ARGUED THAT A
GOD WHO KNEW EVERYTHING AND
WHO WAS ALL POWERFUL WOULD BE,
IN SOME WAY, THE SIMPLEST
POSSIBLE SORT OF BEING.
BUT WHAT IS REALLY COMPLICATED
IS LIMITATION.
IT'S MUCH EASIER TO BELIEVE IN
AN INFINITE UNIVERSE, THAN TO
BELIEVE IN EXACTLY 573
UNIVERSES.
I, MYSELF, BELIEVE THAT THERE
EXISTS AN INFINITE NUMBER OF
MINDS, EACH OF WHICH KNOWS
EVERYTHING WORTH KNOWING.
WE ARE PART OF THE THINGS
KNOWN BY ONE OF THESE MINDS.
>AN INFINITE NUMBER OF
INFINITE MINDS, ONE OF WHICH
IS THE GOD OF OUR UNIVERSE?
JOHN, YOU BURST MY BRAIN.
I GIVE YOU THIS: NOTHING
CONCEIVABLE COULD BE BIGGER.
YOU DEFINE FOREVER THE MAXIMUM
POSSIBLE STATE OF REALITY.
BUT REALITY DOES NOT MARCH TO
OUR TUNE.
I TRY SCANNING ALL OF THE
DIVERSE CONCEPTS OF THE
DIVINE, HOLDING THEM ALL IN MY
HEAD AT THE SAME TIME.
DO ALL OF THESE BUZZING,
CONFUSING GODS HAVE ANYTHING
IN COMMON?
ARE THERE CORE CHARACTERISTICS
THAT UNITE THEM?
I ASK THE FORMER REGIS
PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY AT
OXFORD, KEITH WARD.
>>I THINK GREAT TRADITIONS IN
ISLAM, JUDAISM, AND
CHRISTIANITY GET TO GOD BY
THINKING, WHAT IS THE GRACE
CONCEIVABLE BEING,
BEING OF GREATEST VALUE?
NECESSITY AND VALUE.
I THINK THOSE ARE THE TWO
FOUNDATIONAL IDEALS.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT
EXPLANATIONS IN SCIENCE,
THERE ARE TWO BASIC SORTS
OF EXPLANATIONS.
AND ONE IS, WHAT?
SOME WHICH YOU WOULD CALL
NOMOLOGICAL EXPLANATION, WHICH
IS LAW LIKE, LAW LIKE
EXPLANATION.
AND THOSE LAWS ULTIMATELY MUST
TRACE BACK TO SOMETHING
NECESSARY, THAT YOU HAVE SOME
NECESSARY LAWS.
THINGS HAVE TO BE LIKE THAT.
SO THAT SORT OF EXPLANATION
COULD LEAD YOU TO NECESSITY.
IT IS POSSIBLE.
AND THE OTHER SORT OF
EXPLANATION IS WHAT YOU USE IN
PSYCHOLOGY AND THE SOCIAL
SCIENCES, WHICH ARE WHAT YOU
MIGHT CALL PERSONAL OR VALUE
EXPLANATION.
AND THAT IS YOU EXPLAIN WHY
SOMETHING IS THE WAY IT IS
BECAUSE IT EXISTS IN ORDER TO
PRODUCE SOMETHING OF VALUE.
SO ANY ULTIMATE EXPLANATION OF
WHAT THERE IS OF THE UNIVERSE
WOULD HAVE TO INCORPORATE BOTH
OF THOSE ELEMENTS: NECESSITY
FROM THE LAW LIKE EXPLANATION,
AND VALUE FROM THE PERSONAL
EXPLANATION.
SO YOU GET THE IDEA OR THE
HYPOTHETICAL IDEA OF THE
ULTIMATE EXPLANATION:
SOMETHING THAT NECESSARILY
EXISTS AND IS OF THE HIGHEST
VALUE, AND IS THEREFORE THE
GOAL OF EVERYTHING AND THE
SOURCE OF ALL VALUES OF THE
UNIVERSE.
>AND YOU DON'T NEED ANYTHING
ELSE, AT LEAST AT THAT INITIAL
FOUNDATION?
>>NO.
IF THIS WORKED, IT WOULD BE
THE ULTIMATELY ELEGANT AND
ECONOMICAL EXPLANATION
OF THE UNIVERSE.
>SO THIS COMBINATION OF
SELF EXISTENCE AND VALUE,
DOES THAT APPLY TO A THEISTIC,
A DEISTIC, A MONOTHEISTIC,
POLYTHEISTIC, IN OTHER WORDS
ALL OF THE DIFFERENT HUMAN
VARIETIES THAT HAVE IMAGINED
OR EXPERIENCED
A TRANSCENDENCE?
>>WELL IT'S GOING TO GET YOU
TO ONE REALITY.
AND, AND SINCE THAT REALITY IS
OF SUPREME VALUE, IT IS
PROBABLY GOING TO GET YOU TO A
REALITY WHICH IS, HAS THE
MAXIMUM POSSIBLE POWER,
FOR EXAMPLE.
SO IT IS GOING TO HAVE NO
COMPETITORS ALONG THE LINE.
BUT IT IS WHAT THEOLOGIANS,
IN ALL OF THE TRADITIONS,
HAVE COME UP WITH AS WHAT WOULD
BE THE ULTIMATE EXPLANATION,
AND THAT ITS GOD.
>WHAT IS THAT THING OR CONCEPT
THAT GOD NAMES?
>>IN THE DEFINITION, THERE ARE
TWO MAIN ELEMENTS.
ONE IS THAT GOD IS THE
CREATOR.
BUT THAT MEANS THAT GOD IS
OTHER THAN EVERYTHING THAT
EXISTS IN SPACE AND TIME.
GOD IS BEYOND SPACE AND TIME.
SO STRAIGHT AWAY, YOU ARE
SAYING GOD IS QUITE DIFFERENT
IN KIND FROM ANYTHING ELSE.
BUT THE OTHER ELEMENT WHICH IS
EQUALLY IMPORTANT, IS THAT GOD
IS THE MOST VALUABLE OR
PERFECT OR WORTHWHILE POSSIBLE
THING.
GOD IS THE GOOD AND THE
BEAUTIFUL.
AND I THINK THAT'S THE
TRADITIONAL CONCEPT OF GOD
AT ITS HEART.
THERE IS AN OBJECTIVELY
EXISTING GOOD AND BEAUTIFUL.
AND IT IS PERFECT GOODNESS,
PERFECT BEAUTY, AND IT IS THE
SOURCE OF EVERYTHING THAT
EXISTS.
GOD IS NECESSARILY WHAT
GOD IS.
AND THE ATTRACTION OF
NECESSITY IS THAT, WELL THAT
EXPLAINS WHY IT HAS TO BE.
BUT TO GET GOD IN THERE, YOU
HAVE TO SEE THAT NOT ONLY IS
IT NECESSARY, ITS MAXIMALLY
BEAUTIFUL.
AND THAT'S WHY IT EXISTS:
FOR THE SAKE OF ITS BEAUTY OR
FOR THE SAKE OF ITS GOODNESS.
>TO SPEAK THE WORD GOD IS TO
INVOKE A SPECTRUM OF MEANINGS,
RANGING FROM ETHEREAL
TRANSCENDENCE, GOD IS SO FAR
ABOVE HUMAN CONCEPTION
TO IMMINENT PANTHEISM, ALL
THE WORLD RIGHT HERE IS GOD.
IDEAS OF THE DIVINE ABOUND.
PANENTHEISM AND PROCESS
THEOLOGY ARE JUST TWO OF THE
MYRIAD WAYS THAT HUMANS TRY
TO IMAGINE THE CREATOR
OF THE COSMOS.
PANENTHEISM SEEKS TO COMBINE
THE BENEFITS OF GOD IS THIS
WORLD PANTHEISM, WHICH CAN
HARMONIZE GOD AND SCIENCE,
WITH THE SPIRITUAL NEED
FOR DIVINE TRANSCENDENCE.
PROCESS THEOLOGY SEES REALITY
IN TERMS OF ACTIONS,
NOT THINGS.
BECOMING, NOT BEING.
ON SOME DAYS I THINK, WHAT IS
PROBABLY TRUE OF GOD, IF THERE
IS A GOD, IS THAT ALL IDEAS
OF GOD ARE IN SOME WAYS TRUE.
ALL CONCEPTS MAY COUNT AS
DESCRIPTORS OF THE DIVINE.
ON OTHER DAYS, WELL,
THE DIVERSITY IS DISPIRITING.
CONSTRUCTS OF HUMAN STRIVINGS,
EXPRESSIONS OF HUMAN NEEDS.
NOTHING MORE.
WHICH DAY IS TODAY?
WHICH DAY IS CLOSER TO TRUTH?
