This is the final religious studies class I will being taking in college as it fulfills my last major requirement. Over the past four years I have seen religion explained, justified, and debunked in a multitude of ways; from fundamentalist Christian arguments of objective truth to Freud’s theories of the primordial horde. Overall, it seems to me, those who are trying to justify and explain faith do it in two ways; 1) by appealing through the tradition, basing everything out of the faith itself (explaining and justifying a faith by and through the faith, a rather circular argument perhaps), or  2) through an appeal to reason and experience (a “ground up” kind of theology). Now, process thought seems to take aspects from both of these ways of understanding. On the one hand it does base itself in a tradition and understand experience and existence through (in some cases, perhaps on the individual level?) the (super)natural, But it also makes great use of reason and experience. Thus, while appealing to some objectivity process thought also makes a great deal of subjectivity, the subjective experience of the individual. I think the power and potential of process thought lies in this “middle way.”

Originally I saw process thought as this overly complicated understanding of religion, existence, experience, and creation. But now, realizing that indeed it is a deep and complicated framework, I see that there is also a certain simplicity and humility about it that is very refreshing.

Really, I can honestly say that it never has registered as a conflict for me personally. It seems that faith and science only come into conflict when one holds a literalistic interpretation of scripture. Seeing as I never held such an interpretation I was never bothered by scientific findings negating biblical statements. Now, some may argue “well, if that is the case, what do you think of events that are deemed “supernatural? events such as the Resurrection?” attempting to get me an the ultimate “gotcha!” In former days I may have tried to argue my way into an understanding, but now, it seems that often an understanding cannot be reached because the two viewpoints (religious and non-religious) are coming from two completely different bases, two completely different starting points.  Now, I say understanding to mean an agreed upon end, it is quite possible for a religious person and a nonreligious person to come to understand that they both believe different things and even to realize that their two bases of understanding, while coming in at different angles, may still come together at a certain point, providing common ground. But back to the example…what would I say to such questions. After years of discussing religion with others, most of them nonreligious, I seem to have come to a point where I can identify how I interpret an event, but leave room for other interpretations. I guess what I mean is that I find truth in one understanding, but that does not mean it is the objective understanding and if you have another understanding I would love to hear it. I think that is how we become more full in our beliefs and understandings as  individuals, both as religious and nonreligious individuals. It is in dialogue between points that seem opposite and polar that we may find the more objective truth. Thus, for me, it seems that science and religion should not have a tension filled relationship but instead a very harmonious one where religion instead of trying to cling to scriptural statements about that which has been scientifically negated should take in scientific findings and incorporate them as more examples of God’s workings throughout all of creation. It is through science that religion can become more whole.

Now, I’ve wondered what the roles of these two viewpoints are for individuals, what they provide the believer with. It seems that science often works just as religion does and that it would be very possible to identify a kind of religion of science. Like religion, it seems that many hold scientific fact as closely and dearly as others hold doctrine and creeds. So it would seem that both hold the same cultural function; each provides a way for the believer to organize and understand the world around them, and if one can hold both in dialogue all the more full and whole the understanding. In ending, I would argue that the conflict between the two is avoidable if those on both sides can appreciate each others position so that in dialogue a more holistic understanding may be reached. Now, this doesn’t mean that both should come to believe the same thing, indeed it may be in our differences that we may come to find the most truth.

Ever since I was a kid I have felt a great amount of love for both animals and plants alike so, naturally it seems, my religious views and interpretations have always reflected this. Now, coming from a Christian perspective I can find multiple places throughout my experience as a Christian and scripture (however, the use of scripture can also seemingly lead one down a quite different road in respect to an ecological attitude, but let us look at personal interpretation) in which to base such a view. The easiest and most obvious and accessible being the passage where Jesus, speaking about himself says, “‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ Now, many would argue that this is simply meant as a guide to how we treat our fellow human beings, and indeed many have, but to me it means much more. Earlier in the chapter Jesus, once more talking of himself, says “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ Now, if one holds a panentheistic understanding of God, as I do, it could be argued that the use of the “I” can be taken to mean all of creation in respect to God’s immanence. Thus, as one treats their surroundings, be it the natural world or their fellow human being, so to they treat God because in acting upon that entity they are also acting upon God.

Now, a much less religious argument that I also agree with is that of necessity, although I don’t enjoy it as much as it sees the natural world and those entities within it, both animate and inanimate, as more of means to an ends. Such a view, it seems to me, may lend itself to exploitation much more readily, but exploitation within a sustainable system. Thus, one can hold such a sustainable view while denying intrinsic value; and it is here that I find a problem with the argument. But let’s press on. In such a holding one may argue that we must treat the natural world well because without it we are all doomed. All we have we receive from the natural world in some way; truly, it is all we have to work with in respect to attaining those things we need to live. Now, even those things that are not found in nature, such as plastic, are derived from natural materials. Thus, without taking care of our natural world we would be left even without our, albeit not as needed I may argue, synthetic products. So, with this idea in mind, it is easy to see that we must treat our environment as well as possible to ensure it’s continued ability to produce in order that we may thrive. But like I said, I find this view much less aesthetically or otherwise pleasing.

Now, let me be honest, my notebooks are really more of jumbled messes and phrases than the well organized compendium of knowledge they should be, and with that in mind I am really working from memory of what McDaniel said. So, bear with me. In everything he said I found a similarity between our two views. I also identify the spirit that the natural world has, and in holding a panentheistic outlook see this spirit as ultimately the spirit of God that runs throughout all things, be they pebbles or people. Thus, such entities appear to have intrinsic value aside from their value as means to an ends. With this in mind I feel that the process outlook described by McDaniel complements my own holdings.

So what does process thought really have to offer us for a practical guide to living? Much, I would argue. Lets take a look at a possible process informed view of consumption of both food and other things. Now, I went into detail in my last post about a possible process-informed view of meat consumption, but in that I focused more on the impact such action had for other less affluent people. Now, we must also consider the effect of meat consumption on the animal. Now, it may be the case that a process-informed viewpoint may lead one to the conclusion that it would be best not to eat any meat or really any animal by-product that would have some negative affect on the positive possibility of life for that being. Now, one may argue, “well what about the unfertilized eggs of a chicken? how will that affect that chicken negatively if it would not have hatched any way.” In such a case it isn’t so much how the direct action would affect the animal but how the action would enable the negative situation the chicken finds herself in. In the US and many larger countries where the process of food production has become largely mechanized and more of a science than a skill we have seen a shift from small family operated farms to large industrial, corporate owned factory farms. In such situations the animals are often kept caged in terrible conditions, leaving them to a life of misery in service of humankind. Thus, the possibility for a happy, content life of pecking at the ground is traded for ease and greed on our part. In such situations we lose sight of the animal as a being in itself with its own right to a certain level of quality of life and begin seeing it as an object for food production. Thus, by financially supporting an institution (such as a corporation, company, etc.) we are enabling them to further treat a subject as an object. So, it would seem, by buying eggs and such from companies that we know keep there animals such we may not be directly harming the animal (by this I mean we are not directly purchasing the body of the subject) but by supporting the system financially we are ensuring their further misery, thus choosing the negative possibility. Now, I realize that the prompt says the guide must be responsible as well as practical and I fully recognize that many people cannot be vegans for many reasons, be they physical or whatever. But veganism, although it may seem like it, is not the only of the logical outcomes of such an argument. Indeed, one may circumvent such terrible treatment of animals by supporting those entities, such as family farms, which they know take care of their animals and treat them more as subjects than objects.

Truly, it seems that what process thought is calling for is not so much a life of zero consumption (indeed there is no way it could because all those who would argue such would die of starvation, ensuring the end of that line of thought) but a life of responsible consumption. What process thought is asking of us, I think, is that we pay attention to the details and are thorough and deliberate in our actions. In other words, process thought wants us to think through our actions, looking at all the possibilities, positive and negative, of our actions. So what would this mean in relation to the above illustration? It may mean that , for those who opt not to take up a vegan lifestyle, we should look a bit deeper into our consumption patterns to see the true possible outcomes of our buying purchases and choose options which affirm the intrinsic value of all things. It may lead us to a number of questions such as how are the animals treated? what are their living conditions like? are they treated merely as objects or also as subjects?  And the questions go further into the ecology of the food system. How are these vegetables grown? is the way they are grown hurting the environment, thus taking away certain possibilities? How are the field workers treated? Are they paid adequately? And this outlook goes much further, even into the consumption of luxury goods and non-needed items. Once more, what are the workers conditions? what does the company do with the money they make? is it reinvested into the community? What does the company do to curb their emissions? etc. etc. etc. The list may truly be never ending.

Now, obviously, this infinite list of questions cannot be taken into account in all situations of consumption, and I don’t think process thought would ask for it to be so because doing such may bog down the individual to a point of being trivial and the intensity of the experience could be lost. Thus, it may be that a process-informed practical guide for living responsibly simply calls for us to be thorough in every decision we make, knowing what we are doing (to the extent that this is possible) in every action, thus providing us with a life worth living but at the same time ensuring that our “life worth living” is not at the expense of others, both humans and otherwise.

In chapter 4 of Process Theology, Cobb and Griffin note two kinds of evil; Discord and Triviality. Discord, they argue, is always evil and can be defined as “physical or mental suffering.” This kind of evil seems the most obvious with examples throughout history; the Holocaust, torture, etc. Triviality, on the other hand, is a different kind of evil. Now, unlike discord, triviality is not always evil. Cobb and Griffin explain that trivial enjoyment is not itself an evil thing. Really, because it is an enjoyment, it is “intrinsically good.” Triviality leads to evil when the trivial outweighs the possible intensity of a situation. Thus, triviality becomes evil when the intensity of feeling and enjoyment which could have been is diminished by the trivial nature of the experience. In such situations the result is most often discord. Thus many times it is triviality, which is not by definition evil, which may lead to discord, which is always evil.

Now, although triviality which outweighs possible intensity is an evil, that does not mean individuals do not often desire it. By focusing on the trivial it seems that one may possibly avoid the intensity of more grave situations. Thus, triviality may be used by individuals as an escape of sorts, as a way of not having to deal with that around them, thus diminishing the possible intense experience which is life, often leading to discord. This is the kind of triviality which thwarts God’s aim of a more perfect enjoyment and experience.

Let us look at an example, that of world hunger. Currently in the world there are many people who go without much needed food.Now, others of us (such as the United States) have an over abundance of food.  We play with food, have competitions to see who can eat the most food, throw out perfectly good food, feed food to livestock which otherwise could have been used for human consumption, we even make food into a not very practical fuel source. Thus, in our experience, because we have such an ample supply of sustenance we often look on it quite trivially.

 Now, let us look at the use of grains and such to feed livestock. Oftentimes grains are set aside to feed livestock. Now, these grains have the potential to feed lets say one hundred people. However, in using them for livestock feed we are losing about 90 percent of that potential. Thus what could have fed one hundred people can now only feed ten. And lets be logical, the meat from these animals will only be consumed by those who live in this country which has an ample supply of food or by those with the ability to pay premium prices for it to be shipped elsewhere.

 Now, in many areas such as the United States the average meat consumption of an individual is above that which is “needed” for healthy body functions. In fact, many people over-indulge in meat to the point where it becomes a factor in their bad health and they are told that it would be healthier to lay off the meat a bit.  But, some knowing the health risks and the food potential they are taking from others in overindulgence in meat refuse to lower their consumption because it is so personally pleasing. Now it would seem that in this situation although the experience is enjoyable, the overall enjoyment (being trivial) does not outweigh the possibility for others to know a life free of starvation. Thus one’s consumption appears to be directly corollary to another’s strife which may illustrate the idea of triviality (a possible evil)  leading to discord (a definite evil).

1. Panentheism: This deals with God’s relation to the world. The basic idea is that all of reality with all it entails is contained within God. This is different from pantheism which says that God and reality are the same thing.

2. The Five Rejections: Cobb and Griffin note five concepts that are often associated with traditional conceptions of God which process thought rejects. These rejected concepts are God as cosmic moralist, God as the unchanging and passionless absolute, God as controlling power, God as sanctioner of the status quo, and God as male. Short discussions of these rejections can be found in the forward of Cobb and Griffin’s Process Theology.

3. To this list should also be added God as omniscient. In process thought God, because God is relative, cannot in fact know what will happen in the future since it is contingent on human action and choices. However, God can know future possibilities.

4. Past and Future in process thought:  In the first chapter of Process Theology, Cobb and Griffin, under the section heading “Incarnation” give a basic explanation of “past” and “future” in process thought. They say that the past “is the totality of that which influences the present” and the future “is the totality of that which will be influenced by the present.” Thus, they say, our influence will be “objectively immortal.”

Some important terms Cobb and Griffin bring up in chapter 4 of Process Theology:

Two types of evil:

5. Discord: physical or mental suffering; absolutely evil

6. Triviality: although not always evil, triviality is evil when the triviality outweighs the possible intensity. Thus, if a situation loses intensity in triviality it is evil; comparatively evil

Both of these are evil in that they inhibit the “maximization of enjoyment.”

7. Process thought asserts that the fundamental nature of reality is Becoming. This is in contrast to the more common assumption of reality as Being. Thus reality is dynamic instead of static.

8. The soul, according to Griffin, is an overall, overarching unity of the society of moments.

9. Theodicy: the problem of evil and attempt at finding its solution. Process thought has done this, it seems, by arguing that God is not omnipotent and is instead relative. Thus, evil in the world is not God’s fault but the result of the risk God took in giving humanity free will.

10. In process thought, instead of being omnipotent and controlling, God is seen as persuasive. Thus God can persuade a being to choose the path that will lead to the best end, but ultimately the being may choose another path. This goes back to the problem of evil discussed above.

This stands in contrast to the process understanding of God. In process thought human beings are given a certain measure of power to which God responds. Thus, in process thought, God and God’s actions are relative to human power and choices.

It is difficult to tackle the task of determining what kind of God I think is worthy of worship. I must also say that in these discussions I am coming from a Christian base, albeit not a traditional Christian base but a Christian base nonetheless. So many thoughts go through my head when thinking about this. At first, it is tempting to make a knee jerk reaction and just list off characteristics; however, I’ll try and keep myself from doing that. One of the first things I think about is whether or not it is within my capacity to determine such things as worship worthiness. This may be a result of my being brought up in the US and constantly hearing things like “God controls all situations, so if something bad happens it is all within His plan.” So if that is the case and any action of God’s (likewise because God is often seen as all-powerful) is therefore Good (or Divinely Good) is there really any way I could even come to begin to say what I think makes God worthy of worship. Indeed, if one holds a more traditional view, wouldn’t naming those characteristics which make a deity worthy of worship be tantamount to designing one’s own deity? Perhaps so or maybe not.

I had an interesting conversation about just this subject a few weeks ago. I was talking to a friend of mine and he argued that if God determines all things, with all the atrocities of life in mind, then God must not be a very loving character. I agreed and said that a different conception of God was needed in light of the circumstances which seemed to prove that the traditional ideas about God are flawed. I began to name off a few characteristics such as all loving, affectible, completely nonviolent, responsive, and the ability to suffer with humanity. He then told me that indeed all I had done was design my own conception of deity around the ideals I hold highest. I thought about this for awhile and responded that this may be true, but asked the question of how he thought these became my highest ideals. In other words, what made me hold these ideals so highly? Had they simply been instilled in me by my culture? Surely not, as the basis of many human interactions is selfishness.  Had I constructed these and decided that they were the best through experience? Once more I would argue no because it is obvious that following such precepts will not bring one any measure of worldly success. Then, were these somehow innately felt? And this is what seemed, for me, the most likely of the different reasons. However, he could not concede this, instead saying that they must have been a result of the different experiences I had and the way I had been raised. Surely this is part of it, but I also feel that it is likely the persuasion of Divinity as we have talked about in process thought that informs one’s conceptions of a God who is worthy of worship.

This being said, I do believe that it is important for humankind to try and realize what of religious tradition, doctrine, and lay belief appears truly founded on divinity and revelation and what is simply cultural or personal aspects imbued into religion and concepts of God. However, I realize that it would be tough if not impossible for one to truly determine the difference between the two precisely because many ideas come as such “revelation” and are therefore filtered through the individual and thus affected not only by that individual but by the medium (vernacular speech, religious treatise, the writings of a college student in an online blog, etc.) and setting in which they are presented. By truly I mean that, personal belief and experience not withstanding, one cannot empirically know what of doctrine and belief is objectively true.

Now, with all of this in mind, I do believe that in the search for this objective, unadulterated conception of God established religious traditions are of great help. It seems to me that by looking across the board at each and every set of doctrine one may come to see common threads. It is by identifying these threads and making them the basis for a conception of God that we may hope to somehow come to an objective God uninhibited by the past. However, even this process would likely be tainted because it may simply leave us with a set of common doctrines, a checklist if you will, of what God is. Likewise, what would be done with those contradicting doctrines and ideas? Would they simply be thrown out?

In closing, while I fully agree with Hartshorne that we must attempt to come to know and worship this objective God free of past baggage I feel that religion is such a personal experience and communion with and worship of God, being so personal, can never truly be objective. And maybe this should be the case because it is in this personal aspect that religion finds it power, for both good and evil. Thus, to take away the personal would, I think, leave but a shell of the former.

Another major difference comes to light  when looking at the individual. The popular conception is that the individual, though in different situations through the course of a lifetime, remains the same person throughout. Such a model sets up time in somewhat of a straight line and sees the individual as already complete. Process thought, however, appears to see the individual as constantly changing based on the different events of life. Thus, a process based conception would set up time as more of a dashed line. Such a line, or life of a person as it were, would still have a definite direction and overall “lineness” but would constantly be in the process of becoming.

I think process thought offers many advantages over other more popular conceptions. Such a focus on the interdependance of all things would possibly make it easier for humanity to interact more peacefully, both within humankind as well as with the environment. Likewise, such a conception may help individuals deal with change because all things are in the process of becoming. This idea has many social applications, from influx of different ethnic groups to changes in social norms.  From my limited knowledge thus far, I am beginning to see many applications and advantages of process thought over other popular forms and conceptions.