Process Cosmotheology and the Biological Universe, Part 3 - Steven Dick's Naturalistic Cosmology

 Process Cosmotheology and the Biological Universe

Part 1 - Why a Process-based Universe is Essential

Part 2 - A New Philosophic-Theology

Part 3 - Steven Dick's Naturalistic Cosmology

Part 4 - Andrew Davis' Response to Steven Dick's Naturalistic Cosmology

* * * * * * *

Astrobiology, Cosmotheology, and the Biological Universe:

Implications for Religion and Theology

by Steven Dick

October 4, 2022

An Abstract Presented to the Process Group of "Cobb & Friends"

Recent discoveries in astronomy and astrobiology strongly indicate the need for a transformation of established theologies and suggest possibilities for new cosmically-oriented theologies such as cosmotheology.

• As concerning the Biological Universe, the idea that intelligent life in the universe is common necessitates a reconciliation of this new universe with dogmas of the Abrahamic religions in the same way that Thomas Aquinas tried to reconcile natural philosophy and Christianity in 13th century Europe. [Seemingly,] other religions and their associated theologies will be less affected but still need to incorporate the cosmic perspective.

• In particular, discoveries in astronomy and astrobiology resonate with the dynamism of process theology in the sense that all theologies must take into account cosmic evolution and the possibilities of a biological universe in which life may be part of the very fabric of the universe.

• [Assumption] These discoveries also strongly suggest a denial of supernaturalism, a critical eye toward the epistemological status of revelation, and a rethinking of the nature of God and the sacred in the tradition of religious naturalism. In contrast to traditional theologies, human destiny is most universally couched in cosmic terms.

• The endeavor of transforming current theologies and creating new cosmic theologies is broadly characterized as astrotheology, a new and increasingly robust discipline that embraces the possibility of a more universal theology common to all intelligence in the cosmos.

• Astrotheology and its various flavors such as cosmotheology are part of a restructuring of our worldviews, a necessary endeavor as we internalize the realities of the new universe.

Biography

Steven J. Dick served as the NASA Chief Historian and Director of the NASA History Office from 2003 to 2009. Prior to that he was an astronomer and historian of science at the U.S. Naval Observatory for more than two decades. He was the 2014 Baruch S. Blumberg NASA/Library of Congress Chair in Astrobiology at the Library of Congress’s John W. Kluge Center. In 2013, he testified before the United States Congress on the subject of astrobiology. From 2011 to 2012 he held the Charles A. Lindbergh Chair in Aerospace History at the National Air and Space Museum.

Dicks is the author or editor of 25 books, including most recently Astrobiology, Discovery, and Societal Impact (Cambridge, 2018), Classifying the Cosmos: How We Can Make Sense of the Celestial Landscape (Springer, 2019), and Space, Time, and Aliens: Collected Works on Cosmos and Culture (Springer, 2020).

In 2006, Dick received the LeRoy E. Doggett Prize from the American Astronomical Society for a career that has significantly influenced the field of the history of astronomy. He is the recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Medal, the Navy Meritorious Civilian Service Medal, and the NASA Group Achievement Award for his work on astrobiology. He has served as President of the History of Astronomy Commission of the International Astronomical Union and as Chair of the Historical Astronomy Division of the American Astronomical Society. He has been elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and a Fellow of the American Astronomical Society. Minor planet 6544 Steven Dick was named in his honor.

More information at http://www.stevenjdick.com/index.html

* * * * * * *

Publications by Steven J. Dick

 

Stephen J. Dick Cosmotheology

Presented to "Cobb & Friends"

by Steven J. Dick

October 4, 2022

https://cobb.institute/john-cobb-friends/

Cobb & Friends YouTube channel

A Few Notes by RE Slater

*Steven's presentation consisted of reading from his Power Point slides even as Andrew Davis would later do himself the following week. Notes were mostly unneeded because of the thoroughness of each presenter's slides.

*metaphysics = met·a·phys·ics (noun) - the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

Question:

Would you regard metaphysics as a discipline of a Naturalistic Cosmology?

Response:

Cosmologists would regard the question of the initial conditions for the universe as belonging to the realm of metaphysics or religion and not to the proper study of cosmology. Metaphysics would be considered an abstract theory with no basis in reality.

Question:

What is metaphysics in simple words?

Response:

It is derived from the Greek word meta ta physika ("after the things of nature"); referring to an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception.

In modern philosophical terminology, metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality. It is beyond the physics of the observer.

Steven Dick

Oct 3, 2021

This interview is featured as part of a course

available at https://www.arewealone.us/

Video Contents

Are We Alone, 2:05

The Ancient Greeks, 4:03

Aristotle, 5:42

The Condemnation of 1277, 11:56

Would You Baptize an Extraterrestrial, 15:04

The Cartesian Tradition, 20:30

Discovery of a World in the Moon, 21:19

Defining Life Does Not Help Us Understand the Origin of Life, 36:28

Has the Concept of Alone Changed over Time, 37:46

The Origin of Life, 38:29

Have You Ever Seen a UFO, 39:27

The Fermi Paradox, 44:17

Objective Knowledge, 46:16

The Astrobiology Debate, 48:28

Altruism, 55:43

Xin Liu on the Three Body Problem, 57:53

What Is the Impact of Finding Life beyond Earth, 1:01:09

Would You Invest in Microscopes to Look for Nano Alien Spacecraft, 1:03:25

The Definition of Life, 1:04:30

How Do You Determine the Artificiality, 1:05:24

Are We Alone in the Universe, 1:12:16

Wikipedia - Astrotheology

Astrotheology, astral mysticism, astral religion, astral or stellar theology (also referred to as astral or star worship) is the worship of the stars (individually or together as the night sky), the planets, and other heavenly bodies as deities, or the association of deities with heavenly bodies. In anthropological literature these systems of practice may be referred to as astral cults.

In the 21st century the term astrotheology is used by Jan Irvin, Jordan Maxwell and Andrew Rutajit (2006) in reference to "the earliest known forms of religion and nature worship," advocating the entheogen (drug-induced) theory of the origin of religion:

The evolutionary origin of religions and religious behavior is a field of study related to evolutionary psychology, the origin of language and mythology, and cross-cultural comparison of the anthropology of religion. Some subjects of interest include Neolithic religion, evidence for spirituality or cultic behavior in the Upper Paleolithic, and similarities in great ape behavior.

Books on Astrotheology

As Science developed Astrotheologies gave way

as explanations for the origin of life...

What we know now of our Galaxy

Wikipedia - Astrobiology

Astrobiology, and the related field of exobiology, is an interdisciplinary scientific field that studies the origins, early evolution, distribution, and future of life in the universe. Astrobiology is the multidisciplinary field that investigates the deterministic conditions and contingent events with which life arises, distributes, and evolves in the universe. It considers the question of whether extraterrestrial life exists, and if it does, how humans can detect it.

Astrobiology makes use of molecular biology, biophysics, biochemistry, chemistry, astronomy, physical cosmology, exoplanetology, geology, paleontology, and ichnology to investigate the possibility of life on other worlds and help recognize biospheres that might be different from that on Earth. The origin and early evolution of life is an inseparable part of the discipline of astrobiology. Astrobiology concerns itself with interpretation of existing scientific data, and although speculation is entertained to give context, astrobiology concerns itself primarily with hypotheses that fit firmly into existing scientific theories.

This interdisciplinary field encompasses research on the origin of planetary systems, origins of organic compounds in space, rock-water-carbon interactions, abiogenesis on Earth, planetary habitability, research on biosignatures for life detection, and studies on the potential for life to adapt to challenges on Earth and in outer space.

Biochemistry may have begun shortly after the Big Bang, 13.8 billion years ago, during a habitable epoch when the Universe was only 10–17 million years old. According to the panspermia hypothesis, microscopic life—distributed by meteoroids, asteroids and other small Solar System bodies—may exist throughout the universe. According to research published in August 2015, very large galaxies may be more favorable to the creation and development of habitable planets than such smaller galaxies as the Milky Way. Nonetheless, Earth is the only place in the universe known to harbor life at this time. Estimates of habitable zones around other stars, sometimes referred to as "Goldilocks zones", along with the discovery of thousands of extrasolar planets and new insights into extreme habitats here on Earth, suggest that there may be many more habitable places in the universe than considered possible until very recently.

Current studies on the planet Mars by the Curiosity and Perseverance rovers are searching for evidence of ancient life as well as plains related to ancient rivers or lakes that may have been habitable. The search for evidence of habitability, taphonomy (related to fossils), and organic molecules on the planet Mars is now a primary NASA and ESA objective.

Even if extraterrestrial life is never discovered, the interdisciplinary nature of astrobiology, and the cosmic and evolutionary perspectives engendered by it, may still result in a range of benefits here on Earth.

Toward a Constructive Naturalistic Cosmotheology

by Steven J. Dick

Excerpt - https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-41614-0_13

Cosmotheology is a theology that takes into account what we know about the universe based on science. It is therefore a naturalistic theology in the tradition of religious naturalism.

This [excerpted] chapter takes as its foundational assumption the concept that the supernatural does not exist.

Following this concept, we present six principles of cosmotheology, including the idea that:

• we are not physically, biologically, cognitively, or morally central in the universe;

• that any [unnecessary] concept of God must be grounded in naturalistic cosmic evolution;

• that it must have an expansive moral dimension, an astroethics extending to all life in the universe;

• and that while a human destiny linked to cosmic evolution rather than supernaturalism is a radical departure from the past, it is in the end beneficial and liberating.

Such a worldview resolves many ancient theological problems:

• Bad things happen to good people because the universe is hostile rather than loving.

• Yet the prospect of contact with life beyond Earth leaves open the possibility of interacting with that life, and the idea of a loving and compassionate God can be expressed naturally in the way we treat our fellow humans and other creatures in the universe without resorting to supernaturalism.

Stripped of supernaturalism and other accoutrements, compassion is at the core of all religions, even if the ideal is not always met, and universal compassion is at the core of cosmotheology.

Steven Dicks, Cosmotheologist

Steven Dicks' Seminars, Publications, Forum Discussions, and more...

------------------------------------------------

SELECT WEEK 1 COMMENTS

------------------------------------------------

From RE Slater to everyone 01:57 PM [edited]

From what I understand of Whiteheadian Process Philosophy is that:

• It already inhabits Steven Dick's questions... 

• That Whitehead is deeply centered in the cosmo-metaphysical (sic, cosmo-ecological)...

• And by extending any ancient religion's identity of themselves (including the Judeo-Christian faith) that a faith metaphysic is naturally located in the God of the meta-verse et al...

• Further, for many non-processual theologies, such statements will require better responses than they have now.

• By implication I think of all natural theologies of the earth including all sciences and socio-politico categories as inherently and naturally processual (whether admitted or not) as reflecting a naturally processual creation...

• Examples would be the studies of processual evolution, processual quantum sciences, processual Jungian Arche-types, etc and etc. Hence, all creation may very adequately be described in terms of processual Whiteheadian process philosophy and its later development of process theology.

• Finally, the questions being asked are all easily and quite naturally being answered in process philosophy and theology's metaphysics.

From Jay McDaniel to Everyone 02:02 PM

I really appreciate this talk. It seems to me that there are many connections with the process tradition:

• the notion that wherever there is actuality there is something like experience

• the idea that God is a lure within the whole of the cosmos, not the earth alone

• the idea that we humans are part of, not apart from, a larger web of becomings, including galactic becomings

Here's an essay I wrote called "A New Sense of Transcendences: Expanding religious horizons."

* * * * * * * *

Steven Dicks, Cosmotheologist

Cosmotheology: Steven J. Dick

article link

by Ted Peters

May 13, 2022

Some books stimulate kairos excitement. Like watching your favorite player hit a home run, I cheered when I first read Steven J. Dick’s Plurality of Worlds: The Extraterrestrial Life Debate from Democritus to Kant (Dick, 1982). Since its publication in 1982, others such as Michael J. Crowe have similarly documented the story of our terrestrial ancestors thinking about our extraterrestrial neighbors (Crowe, 1988).

Dick’s Plurality of Worlds first substantiated for me how speculations about sharing our universe with off-Earth civilizations has been with us since the birth of our own civilization. Neither the Greco-Roman worldview nor the medieval Christian worldview would find sharing our universe with ET anathema. Dire tabloid predictions that alien contact would allegedly destroy our fragile inherited religious traditions go limp in the face of the kind of knowledge Dick makes available.

That’s history. What about the present?

Steven Dick along with colleagues indefatigably produces the kind of scholarship that prepares us for the societal impact of astrobiology and its dramatic discoveries. His fine volume, Astrobiology, Discovery, and Societal Impact, is a vivid case in point (Dick, 2018).

Dick is also a constructive thinker. For the last two decades he has been constructing a cosmic centered ethics along with his version of cosmotheology. [1] You can find a cosmotheology manifesto in the book we published at CTNS (Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences) in 2018, Astrotheology: Science and Theology Meet Extraterrestrial Life. (Peters, 2018, Chapter 14)

Astrotheology, Process Theology, and Cosmic Consciousness

The first week of May found me and some of my favorite colleagues conferencing at Willamette University on “Astrotheology, Exo-Philosophy, and Cosmic Religion.”

This dialogue between astrobiologists and process philosophers was sponsored by the Center for Process Studies, headed by Andrew M. Davis.

The Smithsonian’s Constance Bertka opened with an overview of Astrotheology. She was followed by NASA historian Steven Dick, developing his [naturalistic] Cosmotheology. The process philosophers responded, critiqued, and integrated. Look in the future for a published volume of the proceedings.

Astrotheology as Public Theology

Astrotheology is one form of public theology.

Public theology may be conceived in the church and critically refined in the academy, but public theology's chief feature is that it is offered to the wider public for the sake of the common good.

Steve Dick’s cosmotheology is offered to the wider public for the sake of the common good:

“In a nutshell, public theology (theologica publica) is concerned with the public affairs or institutions of society (res publica) to promote the common good in society” avers Lutheran public theologian Paul S. Chung (Chung 2022, 11).

Or, in the words of South African leader, John deGruchy, “Christian witness in secular democratic society means promoting the common good by witnessing to core values rather than seeking privilege for the Christian religion” (DeGruchy, 2007).

With the common good in mind, I observe that Dick’s cosmotheology is offered to the wider public rather than the church. And, it is offered for the common good of all Earth’s residents.

Process Cosmotheology and the Biological Universe, Part 2 - A New Philosophic-Theology

 Process Cosmotheology and the Biological Universe

Part 1 - Why a Process-based Universe is Essential

Part 2 - A New Philosophic-Theology

Part 3 - Steven Dick's Naturalistic Cosmology

Part 4 - Andrew Davis' Response to Steven Dick's Naturalistic Cosmology

* * * * * * *

What is the definition of Cosmogeny?

• Cosmogony / Cosmogeny / Cosmology (nouns; synonyms)

• That branch of astrophysics which studies the origin, evolution, and structure of the universe

What is the difference between cosmology and cosmogony?

• Cosmology is the study of the structure and changes in the present universe,

• while the scientific field of cosmogony is concerned with the origin of the universe.

A New Philosophic-Theology

I Give Unto You

Part 2

by R.E. Slater

In the last post I introduced a type of thinking by scientific naturalists which is every bit as true for any religious thinker. Essentially, both science and religion may neglect to regard any philosophical underpinnings to their projected schemata or theologies. Statedly, whatever we study, or however we behave, ourselves towards one another or the world at large, there will always be found underneath all such activities a corresponding individual or societal philosophy within all social arrangements projecting outwards from ourselves upon other social arrangements being regarded.

Such projections (sic, unobserved conjections, hypotheticals, speculations, theories) are more than existential (sic, experiential, empirical, factual, observational, observed, pragmatic) or phenomenological (sic, intentionality, lived experience, world experience, meaning-making) or even phonological (sic, re regard to linguistics, semantics, things "acceptable, allowable, or correct"; morphological, syntactical, or well-formed traditional beliefs). Any scientist or theologian must consider the underlying philosophy (or, eclectically, philosophies) guiding their projections - whether personal, social, cultural, religious, or specific to their discipline such as the acclaimed tropes of bias towards or away from religion.

• So, the very first, and best thing any scientist or scientific theory might do; or the very first, and best thing any theologian, preacher, congregationalist or their own creeds and theologies might do; is to both admit and discover the kind of philosophies influencing and guiding their thoughts, activities, and projected constructions of people, societies, nature, world, and universe.

• Secondly, philosophy NEVER follows a construction... whether it is scientific or theologic. Philosophy is always the lowest base layer to whatever comes after it. Generally speaking, science may recognize this within itself even though it doesn't seem to recognize this as thoroughly as one might like when claiming "scientific objectivity". In answer to this, and as illustration, process philosophy's quantum-like disposition roundly criticizes scientific theory leaning into platonic forms of reductionism, mechanism, and syncretism.

• Thirdly, church theologies produce this same error when always claiming their creeds and dogmas must underlie-and-guide any present day philosophies... including that of science. And yet, however-much a religion would exempt - or extract - itself from any forms of "worldly" philosophies, it cannot. All religious creeds and beliefs result from some form (or forms) of eclectic philosophies as well. The better thing to do is to recognize what that philosophy is and how any-or-all corresponding creedal statements and dogmas have been similarly affected by... and might be rectified or corrected... in light of this introspective knowledge. Again, process theology (as a subdiscipline of process philosophy) looks at the subject of God and resulting beliefs of God and similarly criticize those same traditional theologies claiming correctness when their only real claim can be that of conformity to previous philosophical beliefs.

Which is also why this website has become more focused on not only defining what a progressive theology may look like in Jesus, but also how it may behave in light of a given integral philosophy such as that of process philosophy.

Too, do not make the mistake that progressive evangelical theology is the same thing as progressive process-based theology. My background and training rests in the former but my present day direction occupies the latter. They are not one-and-the same thing. 

Certainly conservative evangelicalism can be shown to be inherently filled with processual qualities in it's theologies - including its natural theologies. However, today's WESTERN-based philosophies do more pronouncely inform conservative evangelicalism which has blended syncretized forms of Hellenistic, Platonic, Enlightened, and Modernistic projections (among others) upon it's current "traditional" theologies of God, society, and the world we live in.

And though we live in a process-world, and can read of that process world in the bible in its narratives and stories of processual events, one cannot really say that any of evangelical's preferred forms of Wesleyanism, Calvinism, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, or Catholic projections (aka, theologies) are purely processual. They are not. However, any one of those projections can be examined and better spoken through a processual philosophy such as Whitehead's whose ideations reflected, gathered, and more thoroughly surmised, similar processual philosophies from ancient times until today.

One Other Observation

Here at Relevancy22, I, and others, are attempting to rectify our past religious training in light process philosophy as informed by process-versions of science, theology, ecology, psychology (sic, Jungian Archetypes) plus all other disciplines as they become better reflected by process thought.

Into this mold we have chosen to reflect more contemporary academia regarding knowledge of God, bible, society, culture, and religion.

So if the theology here seems more "liberal" it is NOT because of process thought but because of process theology's contemporary rapport with other disciplines. In it's own right it is how the world works. It does not claim to be a ready-formed epistemology per se, but can-and-will lead to forms of processual epistemologies.

Conclusion

Matthew Segall and Bruce Damer in their abstract gave a summation of the need for science to recognize and specify it's scientific presuppositions and metaphysics even as I am saying here that the church-and-its-theology must do the same and be honest in the process of doing it's own inquiries:

The Cosmological Context of the Origin of Life:  Process Philosophy and the Hot Spring Hypothesis, by Matthew David Segall and Bruce Damer, pp 78-79

3. Conclusion

"As was affirmed in our Introduction, natural science must be granted autonomy to pursue hypotheses concerning the modes of operation of the empirical world independent of the speculative postulates of philosophers and the sacred doctrines of theologians. And yet, in a time of paradigmatic upheaval, if the special sciences are to avoid degenerating into a medley of ad hoc hypotheses then they must themselves become philosophical by engaging in a thorough examination of their metaphysical presuppositions. 236 Without a ground-up re-imagination of entrenched materialistic assumptions, progress on questions like the origin of life (not to mention the origin of matter and mind) will remain stunted. Further, amidst an intensifying planetary emergency, philosophy and religion have an essential role to play in the translation of scientific findings into a meaningful and motivating worldview for an increasingly precarious civilization. In large part due to the truly unprecedented scope of our scientific knowledge and the technological power it affords, our species now finds itself on the verge of initiating a major evolutionary transition. The Anthropocene 237 is not the work of a god, but merely that of a conscious animal. Indeed, as we have seen, perhaps humanity’s vast endogenous and even vaster technologically augmented information processing capacities are dramatic amplifications of the social networks established by our progenitor ancestors. Whether the present anthropogenic metamorphosis in the Gaian system brings near-term extinction or creative advance for human beings remains to be seen. 238 The coauthors of this paper hope that their transdisciplinary collaboration has contributed some theoretical insight into the origin of life on Earth. As for the destiny of human life on this planet, there remains an urgent practical need to integrate science with philosophy and religion in pursuit of a viable pathway for our species through the great transformation in Earth history that is already underway."

In summary,

i) process philosophy is how to see the world for what it is; and, ii) contemporary theological study is to reflect that process world in as accurately a way as possible without being beholden to past traditional creedal beliefs and folklores.

As example, when process theology meets science, it is because process thought is reforming contemporary science around a much broader processual world than science's own reductionistic, mechanical, law-based projections. Thus this series of posts stated interaction with Steven Dick's scientific naturalism.

At the last, it is imperative to discover religious bias, then next  to deconstruct it in order to rebuild a theology's correspondent tenets and beliefs. This might be done as I have done over the years by first attending to all theology requiring attention, and then, at a later date - when realizing it wasn't the "biblical" hermeneutic which required attention but the underlying philosophy which had to be dismantled and rebuilt from it's inhibitive, inorganic, disjointed, nonrelational, and overly constructed sense of self to better comport with the philosophical-theologies at hand. Which, in this case, was process philosophy and not others forms such as Western or Continental philosphies per se.

By and by, it is mine own testimony that I had to wade my way across very deep and threatening waters of social conservatisms and non-progressive religious fundamentalisms / evangelicalisms. And then also do the same when analyzing Western thought (Platonic, Enlightened, Modernistic) as versus European Continental thought, before finally discovering Whiteheadian process philosophy with its antecedent forms of process theology. In sum, I chose to let process thought begin to reflect upon my Western-based evangelical Christianity.

Further, I am neither Catholic, Orthodox, nor some wanna-be form of religious enlightenment (sic, Buddhism et al; or New Ageisn et al). I simply wish to speak to my own experience and history in all its limitations as I know and understand it to be. Thus and thus, my interest in surmounting and solidifying my Western (Protestant-based) Christian cultural beliefs that they may be more helpful and instructive to others wandering the same lost roads I had once journeyed.

To the Lord's credit, He began my journey with the twin fellowships of doubt and uncertainty against the beliefs I was told never to doubt. And in so doing I learned to become teachable again and able to relearn new things which were anathema to my traditional faith.

Here then, at this website, post-evangelical and progressive forms of process Christianity will be spoken as it reflects, and rebuilds, upon a more loving, more immanent Godhead to us today and the world at large.

Conclusion

To conclude, I will next present in part 3 Steven Dick's expansive proposition for a Naturalistic Universe based in science and stripped of God. I do not wish to speak ill of him but to show a thankfulness to him for doing the hard work of presenting a credible, but non-theistic cosmology.

Dick's cosmology uses evolution in the non-God sense. One that is atheistic. However, it should be observed that Darwin himself, as a Christian scientist, developed his understanding of a rudimentary, processual-form of evolution with God in mind. A God-based evolution which came about through its processes because of God's creative and divine involvement.

Hence, as a new-thinking Christian, I had to admit evolution as both a God-filled activity as well as one which is fully, and thoroughly, processual in all of its components and inner-workings. The first action denies the traditional Christian perspective. The second action informs atheistic evolution of its need for God based upon a Christian-led processual philosophy. Thus and thus, both philosophy and theology were redeveloped and redirected towards a more palatable form of process-based Christianity.

And finally, we must remember to regard Dick's presentation as useful naturalistic presentation of cosmogeny. Though atheistic and without any form of "metaphysic" per se (sic, any metaphysic is a projection into a cosmogeny of value, ethics, purpose, identity, and so forth). In sum, Dick's study of the universe as a naturalized cosmogeny seems to be sufficiently broad and well thought out as a proposition which will be of help when re-orientating it towards a God-filled processual universe as Andrew Davis will be shown to have done in Part 4.

Peace,

R.E. Slater

October 16, 2022

One form of Process Theology can be summed up here when seeing God as all-loving instead of the all-too-common image of a God who sometimes loves us and oftentimes judges us:

Process Cosmotheology and the Biological Universe, Part 1 - Why a Process-based Universe is Essential

Process Cosmotheology and the Biological Universe

Part 1 - Why a Process-based Universe is Essential

Part 2 - A New Philosophic-Theology

Part 3 - Steven Dick's Naturalistic Cosmology

Part 4 - Andrew Davis' Response to Steven Dick's Naturalistic Cosmology

* * * * * * *

A Universe By Any Other Name...

Why a Process-based Universe is Essential

Part 1

by R.E. Slater

An Introduction

Two weeks ago I listened to a presentation by Steven Dick re a "Naturalistic Cosmology" in which he described a non-God (non-theistic) universe leaning into more explainable, terrestrial phenomenology while rejecting any supernatural phenomenology contrary to how a religiously-informed perspective would do.

On the obverse side of Dick's lecture Andrew Davis spoke to a Christian Theistic Cosmology (one with God in it as the lead player) also using naturalistic interpretation underlaid by a Creator-God through-and-through while using process language in both its i) Whiteheadian metaphysics and, ii) its derivatives of process theology ala Hartshorne, Cobb, and Cobb's process students over the generations.

Of note, I look upon Andrew Davis as the inheritor of John Cobb's mantel. To date, he is filling Cobb's role well but it waits to be seen how well. Which is where the rest of us come in as we push forward Whiteheadian thought in an many directions as John Cobb had i) scientifically (as we see here in these two articles by Dick's and Davis); ii) secularly in the arts, economy, politics, ecology, etc.; and, iii)  religiously (such as Christianity, for myself, while knowing the many commonalities a process Christianity can share with other global religious and panpsychic beliefs).

Which also explains my attraction to process thought. In my mind it is reflecting a truer metaphysic, cosmology, and constructed worldview back to me as inherent in the universe's very bones - or DNA - of its phenomenology, than has any previous worldview such as platonism, scientific mechanism, human enlightenment, confucianism, buddhism, and such like.

Westernism, on which Western Christianity as been built, has limited the Christian faith to speculate on i) the nature of God, ii) God's activities in creation, and iii) how humanity is to comport itself with each, both nature and God. When basing Christianity upon a processual foundation rather than its many previous other philosophical structures, many of these non-processual irregularities go away when attempting to address contemporary scientific observations... along with the many non-processual ethical irregularities Western Christianity has had with civil democracy (v Christian dominionism), Christian racisms (v White Christian Nationalism), and community organization (v Christianity's fake artificial walls between itself and the "secular" world it inhabits by placing its own fake ethical structures of "secular" exclusionisms, asceticisms, and such like). More simply, traditional Christianity has attempted to "re-Christianize" a processual world away from its truer identity.

Moreover, a process form of Christianity helps to expand Western (and Eastern) forms of Christianity to more truly embrace a humanitarian form of community, cooperation, coordination, renewal, redemption, reclamation, and the very rebirth of humanity's instrumentality as a healing, positive presence within an ecological cosmology struggling within itself to find greater generative value than it presently presents. Which indeed, is the very struggle humanity has within itself.

• Hence, traditional Christianity would call it's struggle as one trapped between "creational freewill" as versus creation's own "opposing nature" which would naturally bind itself in non-freeing ways.

• It would further describe this struggle as one between good and evil, sin and oppression... leading to the very death of soul, spirit, mind, heart, and love.

• Thus and thus, God being a God of love (as opposed to the Christian belief that God is both good AND evil), process Christian theology will take the metaphysic of process philosophy and apply God's love evenly across all its traditional church creeds, beliefs, and theologies.

• When doing so, this application will disrupt traditional Christian beliefs mucked-down into their own variable theodicies as each attempts to explain good and evil events in life;

• And, their variable visions of a divinely-ruled theocracy (how it might go about constructing a church structure alongside civil government).

Why these beliefs and endeavors? Because traditional Christianity has not addressed its own non-processual core structures demanding it live apart and not within God's processual creation.

In affect, Process Christianity states God is love centrally and congruently across all metaphysical, ontological, and ethical structures in the universe. That a processual universe will demand process living between ourselves and with itself.

Thus the warrant to build in-as-many-ways-as-possible - from societal to religious structures cosmo-ecological societies. That is, to finding ways to processual live with one another and nature itself (more properly, learning to live with an eco-universe at-large). When done, faiths will find less competition, a more loving God theology shed of wrath, judgment, and hell, and many reasons to comport with one another.

Conclusion

In conclusion, one last traditional Christian belief must be addressed: that of a God who is divine possessor and giver of wrath, judgment and hell. A God of love is not this. Cannot be this. Cannot do these things EVER! Does neither have ontological agency to disrupt the freewill God has given to creation (an agency based on God's love and not by God's divine decree or fiat).

Love says we are to living responsibly with one another and nature. When harmed we are to reconcile and restore one another as loving justice can allow. To exercise healing and reclamation into all areas of business, politics, and cooperate living. And to live for the present moments of every day rather than cashing-out-of-life by separating ourselves from the world to await a heaven which cannot come without our participation towards its rebirth.

Causalities and Necessities of Processual Living

• In a cosmology struggling with using freewill effectively, we must regard that evil is NOT accounted to its Loving Creator but to a creation endowed with the Creator's loving freewill.

• Rather, that the sin, evil, and hell experienced in this life is but a reflection of our own inability to love or to utilize our freewill redemptively rather than for sin and evil.

• That Christianity and other religions have, and can, address these differences within their own traditional structures by tweaking their separate cultural structures with processual difference and informed processual living.

• Especially within that culture's ability to be tweaked whereby a better relationally processual world may be developed with one another and creation itself.

Redemption From the Soil of Terrestrial Being

Finally, as a process Christian, I find the very idea of atoning redemption inherent abundantly everywhere in creational spaces. That the Cross of Christ, the Gospel of Christ, the Promises of God, the Covenants of God, and the expect Futurisms / Eschatologies of experiencing a God walking amongst us is...

all derivative from the very ground we walk upon, and live, and move, and have, our being. The stories of redemption are everywhere about us. They are not ever UNcommon but synchronistically - or universally, and terresterially, - common everyday experiences of redeeming-creational living! If fact, redemption is an ontologically cosmological constant!

Which is why so many religions and moral insights come back to the same common ground of redemption with one another. Which is another way of saying that love-and-reclamation are the universal glues to living terrestrial life fully!

It is because of these imbued creational elements that creation's God is fully imbued and invested of God's love and redemption into the very soils of our souls and being - humanly, corporately with all creation, terrestrially, and cosmologically. 

The Story of Jesus is the continuing story of God rectifying a continually freewilled and indeterminant creation by unloving and unreclaming elements of sin and evil. The Story of Jesus comes back to metaphysically defeat errant freewills gone bad. 

But to effect Jesus' healing of divine love back into the original intention of the Creator-God now become Redeemer... creation must be willing to use Christ's victory over sin and evil.

The Christian church may call this godly process as sin and repentance unto salvation. Islam may use similar terms within it's faith for types of reclamation and renewing redemption. Even as other religions may describe their gospels and efforts as latent human conscious behavior towards redemptive activity as arising from their own experiential observations.

But it is ultimately within the idea of process theology which flatly states God has not left us alone to survive ourselves and our worlds. That the far-away God has come near to His creation to renew, rebirth, reclaim, and revive all that creation and humanity is. This then is a story of God and God's redeeming love.

Peace,

R.E. Slater

October 16, 2022