We now know the big bang theory is (probably) not how the universe began

We now know the big bang theory is

(probably) not how the universe began

https://www.freethink.com/science/big-bang-theory

by Ethan Siegel

October 30, 2021

The Big Bang still happened a very long time ago,

but it wasn’t the beginning we once supposed it to be.

Where did all this come from? In every direction we care to observe, we find stars, galaxies, clouds of gas and dust, tenuous plasmas, and radiation spanning the gamut of wavelengths: from radio to infrared to visible light to gamma rays. No matter where or how we look at the universe, it’s full of matter and energy absolutely everywhere and at all times. And yet, it’s only natural to assume that it all came from somewhere. If you want to know the answer to the biggest question of all — the question of our cosmic origins — you have to pose the question to the universe itself, and listen to what it tells you.

Today, the universe as we see it is expanding, rarifying (getting less dense), and cooling. Although it’s tempting to simply extrapolate forward in time, when things will be even larger, less dense, and cooler, the laws of physics allow us to extrapolate backward just as easily. Long ago, the universe was smaller, denser, and hotter. How far back can we take this extrapolation? Mathematically, it’s tempting to go as far as possible: all the way back to infinitesimal sizes and infinite densities and temperatures, or what we know as a singularity. This idea, of a singular beginning to space, time, and the universe, was long known as the Big Bang.

But physically, when we looked closely enough, we found that the universe told a different story. Here’s how we know the Big Bang isn’t the beginning of the universe anymore.

Theoretical roots of big bang

Like most stories in science, the origin of the Big Bang has its roots in both theoretical and experimental/observational realms. On the theory side, Einstein put forth his general theory of relativity in 1915: a novel theory of gravity that sought to overthrow Newton’s theory of universal gravitation. Although Einstein’s theory was far more intricate and complicated, it wasn’t long before the first exact solutions were found.

1 - In 1916, Karl Schwarzschild found the solution for a pointlike mass, which describes a nonrotating black hole.

2 - In 1917, Willem de Sitter found the solution for an empty universe with a cosmological constant, which describes an exponentially expanding universe.

3 - From 1916 to 1921, the Reissner-Nordström solution, found independently by four researchers, described the spacetime for a charged, spherically symmetric mass.

4 - In 1921, Edward Kasner found a solution that described a matter-and-radiation-free universe that’s anisotropic: different in different directions.

5 - In 1922, Alexander Friedmann discovered the solution for an isotropic (same in all directions) and homogeneous (same at all locations) universe, where any and all types of energy, including matter and radiation, were present.

That last one was very compelling for two reasons. One is that it appeared to describe our universe on the largest scales, where things appear similar, on average, everywhere and in all directions. And two, if you solved the governing equations for this solution — the Friedmann equations — you’d find that the universe it describes cannot be static, but must either expand or contract.

This idea, of a singular beginning to space, time, and the universe, was long known as the Big Bang. But physically, when we looked closely enough, we found that the universe told a different story.

This latter fact was recognized by many, including Einstein, but it wasn’t taken particularly seriously until the observational evidence began to support it. In the 1910s, astronomer Vesto Slipher started observing certain nebulae, which some argued might be galaxies outside of our Milky Way, and found that they were moving fast: far faster than any other objects within our galaxy. Moreover, the majority of them were moving away from us, with fainter, smaller nebulae generally appearing to move faster.

Then, in the 1920s, Edwin Hubble began measuring individual stars in these nebulae and eventually determined the distances to them. Not only were they much farther away than anything else in the galaxy, but the ones at the greater distances were moving away faster than the closer ones.

The universe was expanding.

An illustration of our cosmic history, from the Big Bang until the present, within the context of the expanding universe. The first Friedmann equation describes all of these epochs, from inflation to the Big Bang to the present and far into the future, perfectly accurately, even today. (Credit: NASA/WMAP science team)

Cornerstones of the big bang theory

Georges Lemaître was the first, in 1927, to recognize this. Upon discovering the expansion, he extrapolated backward, theorizing — as any competent mathematician might — that you could go as far back as you wanted: to what he called the primeval atom. In the beginning, he realized, the universe was a hot, dense, and rapidly expanding collection of matter and radiation, and everything around us emerged from this primordial state.

This idea was later developed by others to make a set of additional predictions:

1 - The universe, as we see it today, is more evolved than it was in the past. The farther back we look in space, the farther back we’re also looking in time. So, the objects we see back then should be younger, less gravitationally clumpy, less massive, with fewer heavy elements, and with less-evolved structure. There should even be a point beyond which no stars or galaxies were present.

2 - At some point, the radiation was so hot that neutral atoms couldn’t stably form, because radiation would reliably kick any electrons off of the nuclei they were attempting to bind to, and so there should be a leftover — now cold and sparse — bath of cosmic radiation from this time.

3 - At some extremely early time it would have been so hot that even atomic nuclei would be blasted apart, implying there was an early, pre-stellar phase where nuclear fusion would have occurred: Big Bang nucleosynthesis. From that, we expect there to have been at least a population of light elements and their isotopes spread throughout the universe before any stars formed.

In conjunction with the expanding universe, these four points would become the cornerstone of the Big Bang.

A dangerous game

The growth and evolution of the large-scale structure of the universe, of individual galaxies, and of the stellar populations found within those galaxies all validates the Big Bang’s predictions.

The discovery of a bath of radiation just ~3 K above absolute zero was the key evidence that validated the Big Bang and eliminated many of its most popular alternatives. And the discovery and measurement of the light elements and their ratios — including hydrogen, deuterium, helium-3, helium-4, and lithium-7 — revealed not only which type of nuclear fusion occurred prior to the formation of stars, but also the total amount of normal matter that exists in the universe.

But extrapolating beyond the limits of your measurable evidence is a dangerous, albeit tempting, game to play.

Extrapolating back to as far as your evidence can take you is a tremendous success for science. The physics that took place during the earliest stages of the hot Big Bang imprinted itself onto the universe, enabling us to test our models, theories, and understanding of the universe from that time. The earliest observable imprint, in fact, is the cosmic neutrino background, whose effects show up in both the cosmic microwave background (the Big Bang’s leftover radiation) and the universe’s large-scale structure. This neutrino background comes to us, remarkably, from just ~1 second into the hot Big Bang.

But extrapolating beyond the limits of your measurable evidence is a dangerous, albeit tempting, game to play. After all, if we can trace the hot Big Bang back some 13.8 billion years, all the way to when the universe was less than 1 second old, what’s the harm in going all the way back just one additional second: to the singularity predicted to exist when the universe was 0 seconds old?

The answer, surprisingly, is that there’s a tremendous amount of harm. The reason this is problematic is because beginning at a singularity — at arbitrarily high temperatures, arbitrarily high densities, and arbitrarily small volumes — will have consequences for our universe that aren’t necessarily supported by observations.

For example, if the universe began from a singularity, then it must have sprung into existence with exactly the right balance of “stuff” in it — matter and energy combined — to precisely balance the expansion rate. If there were just a tiny bit more matter, the initially expanding universe would have already recollapsed by now. And if there were a tiny bit less, things would have expanded so quickly that the universe would be much larger than it is today.

The reason this is problematic is because beginning at a singularity — at arbitrarily high temperatures, arbitrarily high densities, and arbitrarily small volumes — will have consequences for our universe that aren’t necessarily supported by observations.

And yet, instead, what we’re observing is that the universe’s initial expansion rate and the total amount of matter and energy within it balance as perfectly as we can measure.

Why?

If the Big Bang began from a singularity, we have no explanation; we simply have to assert “the universe was born this way,” or, as physicists ignorant of Lady Gaga call it, “initial conditions.”

Similarly, a universe that reached arbitrarily high temperatures would be expected to possess leftover high-energy relics, like magnetic monopoles, but we don’t observe any. The universe would also be expected to be different temperatures in regions that are causally disconnected from one another — i.e., are in opposite directions in space at our observational limits — and yet the universe is observed to have equal temperatures everywhere to 99.99%+ precision.

Cosmic inflation

We’re always free to appeal to initial conditions as the explanation for anything, and say, “well, the universe was born this way, and that’s that.” But we’re always far more interested, as scientists, if we can come up with an explanation for the properties we observe.

That’s precisely what cosmic inflation gives us, plus more. Inflation says, sure, extrapolate the hot Big Bang back to a very early, very hot, very dense, very uniform state, but stop yourself before you go all the way back to a singularity. If you want the universe to have the expansion rate and the total amount of matter and energy in it balance, you’ll need some way to set it up in that fashion. The same applies for a universe with the same temperatures everywhere. On a slightly different note, if you want to avoid high-energy relics, you need some way to both get rid of any preexisting ones, and then avoid creating new ones by forbidding your universe from getting too hot once again.

Inflation accomplishes this by postulating a period, prior to the hot Big Bang, where the universe was dominated by a large cosmological constant (or something that behaves similarly): the same solution found by de Sitter way back in 1917. This phase stretches the universe flat, gives it the same properties everywhere, gets rid of any pre-existing high-energy relics, and prevents us from generating new ones by capping the maximum temperature reached after inflation ends and the hot Big Bang ensues. Furthermore, by assuming there were quantum fluctuations generated and stretched across the universe during inflation, it makes new predictions for what types of imperfections the universe would begin with.

Since it was hypothesized back in the 1980s, inflation has been tested in a variety of ways against the alternative: a universe that began from a singularity. When we stack up the scorecard, we find the following:

1 - Inflation reproduces all of the successes of the hot Big Bang; there’s nothing that the hot Big Bang accounts for that inflation can’t also account for.

2 - Inflation offers successful explanations for the puzzles that we simply have to say “initial conditions” for in the hot Big Bang.

3 - Of the predictions where inflation and a hot Big Bang without inflation differ, four of them have been tested to sufficient precision to discriminate between the two. On those four fronts, inflation is 4-for-4, while the hot Big Bang is 0-for-4.

But things get really interesting if we look back at our idea of “the beginning.” Whereas a universe with matter and/or radiation — what we get with the hot Big Bang — can always be extrapolated back to a singularity, an inflationary universe cannot. Due to its exponential nature, even if you run the clock back an infinite amount of time, space will only approach infinitesimal sizes and infinite temperatures and densities; it will never reach it. This means, rather than inevitably leading to a singularity, inflation absolutely cannot get you to one by itself. The idea that “the universe began from a singularity, and that’s what the Big Bang was,” needed to be jettisoned the moment we recognized that an inflationary phase preceded the hot, dense, and matter-and-radiation-filled one we inhabit today.

The idea that “the universe began from a singularity, and that’s what the Big Bang was,” needed to be jettisoned the moment we recognized that an inflationary phase preceded the hot, dense, and matter-and-radiation-filled one we inhabit today.

This new picture gives us three important pieces of information about the beginning of the universe that run counter to the traditional story that most of us learned. First, the original notion of the hot Big Bang, where the universe emerged from an infinitely hot, dense, and small singularity — and has been expanding and cooling, full of matter and radiation ever since — is incorrect. The picture is still largely correct, but there’s a cutoff to how far back in time we can extrapolate it.

Second, observations have well established the state that occurred prior to the hot Big Bang: cosmic inflation. Before the hot Big Bang, the early universe underwent a phase of exponential growth, where any preexisting components to the universe were literally “inflated away.” When inflation ended, the universe reheated to a high, but not arbitrarily high, temperature, giving us the hot, dense, and expanding universe that grew into what we inhabit today.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, we can no longer speak with any sort of knowledge or confidence as to how — or even whether — the universe itself began. By the very nature of inflation, it wipes out any information that came before the final few moments: where it ended and gave rise to our hot Big Bang. Inflation could have gone on for an eternity, it could have been preceded by some other nonsingular phase, or it could have been preceded by a phase that did emerge from a singularity. Until the day comes where we discover how to extract more information from the universe than presently seems possible, we have no choice but to face our ignorance. The Big Bang still happened a very long time ago, but it wasn’t the beginning we once supposed it to be.

This article was originally published on our sister site, Big Think. Read the original article here.

What if the universe had no beginning?

What if the universe had no beginning?

https://www.livescience.com/universe-had-no-beginning-time

by Paul Sutter

October 11, 2021

In the beginning, there was … well, maybe there was no beginning. Perhaps our universe has always existed — and a new theory of quantum gravity reveals how that could work.

"Reality has so many things that most people would associate with sci-fi or even fantasy," said Bruno Bento, a physicist who studies the nature of time at the University of Liverpool in the U.K.

In his work, he employed a new theory of quantum gravity, called causal set theory, in which space and time are broken down into discrete chunks of space-time. At some level, there's a fundamental unit of space-time, according to this theory. 

Bento and his collaborators used this causal-set approach to explore the beginning of the universe. They found that it's possible that the universe had no beginning — that it has always existed into the infinite past and only recently evolved into what we call the Big Bang.

A quantum of gravity

Quantum gravity is perhaps the most frustrating problem facing modern physics. We have two extraordinarily effective theories of the universe: quantum physics and general relativity. Quantum physics has produced a successful description of three of the four fundamental forces of nature (electromagnetism, the weak force and the strong force) down to microscopic scales. General relativity, on the other hand, is the most powerful and complete description of gravity ever devised.

But for all its strengths, general relativity is incomplete. In at least two specific places in the universe, the math of general relativity simply breaks down, failing to produce reliable results: in the centers of black holes and at the beginning of the universe. These regions are called "singularities," which are spots in space-time where our current laws of physics crumble, and they are mathematical warning signs that the theory of general relativity is tripping over itself. Within both of these singularities, gravity becomes incredibly strong at very tiny length scales.

As such, to solve the mysteries of the singularities, physicists need a microscopic description of strong gravity, also called a quantum theory of gravity. There are lots of contenders out there, including string theory and loop quantum gravity.

And there's another approach that completely rewrites our understanding of space and time.

Causal set theory

In all current theories of physics, space and time are continuous. They form a smooth fabric that underlies all of reality. In such a continuous space-time, two points can be as close to each other in space as possible, and two events can occur as close in time to each other as possible.

"Reality has so many things that most people would associate with sci-fi or even fantasy." - Bruno Bento

But another approach, called causal set theory, reimagines space-time as a series of discrete chunks, or space-time "atoms." This theory would place strict limits on how close events can be in space and time, since they can't be any closer than the size of the "atom."

For instance, if you're looking at your screen reading this, everything seems smooth and continuous. But if you were to look at the same screen through a magnifying glass, you might see the pixels that divide up the space, and you'd find that it's impossible to bring two images on your screen closer than a single pixel.

This theory of physics excited Bento. "I was thrilled to find this theory, which not only tries to go as fundamental as possible — being an approach to quantum gravity and actually rethinking the notion of space-time itself — but which also gives a central role to time and what it physically means for time to pass, how physical your past really is and whether the future exists already or not," Bento told Live Science.

Space-time is made up of discrete chunks or space-time "atoms," similar to the pixels of a computer image. (Image credit: oxygen/Getty Images)

Beginning of time

Causal set theory has important implications for the nature of time. 

"A huge part of the causal set philosophy is that the passage of time is something physical, that it should not be attributed to some emergent sort of illusion or to something that happens inside our brains that makes us think time passes; this passing is, in itself, a manifestation of the physical theory," Bento said. "So, in causal set theory, a causal set will grow one 'atom' at a time and get bigger and bigger."

The causal set approach neatly removes the problem of the Big Bang singularity because, in the theory, singularities can't exist. It's impossible for matter to compress down to infinitely tiny points — they can get no smaller than the size of a space-time atom. 

So without a Big Bang singularity, what does the beginning of our universe look like? That's where Bento and his collaborator, Stav Zalel, a graduate student at Imperial College London, picked up the thread, exploring what causal set theory has to say about the initial moments of the universe. Their work appears in a paper published Sept. 24 to the preprint database arXiv. (The paper has yet to be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.) 

The paper examined "whether a beginning must exist in the causal set approach," Bento said. "In the original causal set formulation and dynamics, classically speaking, a causal set grows from nothing into the universe we see today. In our work instead, there would be no Big Bang as a beginning, as the causal set would be infinite to the past, and so there's always something before."

Their work implies that the universe may have had no beginning — that it has simply always existed. What we perceive as the Big Bang may have been just a particular moment in the evolution of this always-existing causal set, not a true beginning.

There's still a lot of work to be done, however. It's not clear yet if this no-beginning causal approach can allow for physical theories that we can work with to describe the complex evolution of the universe during the Big Bang.

"One can still ask whether this [causal set approach] can be interpreted in a 'reasonable' way, or what such dynamics physically means in a broader sense, but we showed that a framework is indeed possible," Bento said. "So at least mathematically, this can be done."

In other words, it's … a beginning.

Originally published on Live Science.

Paul Sutter, Astrophysicist

Paul M. Sutter is a research professor in astrophysics at the Institute for Advanced Computational Science at Stony Brook University and the Flatiron Institute in New York City. He is also the host of several shows, such as "How the Universe Works" on Science Channel, "Space Out" on Discovery, and his hit "Ask a Spaceman" podcast. He is the author of two books, "Your Place in the Universe" and "How to Die in Space," as well as a regular contributor to Space.com, LiveScience, and more. Paul received his PhD in Physics from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2011, and spent three years at the Paris Institute of Astrophysics, followed by a research fellowship in Trieste, Italy, 

Unedited Essays by John Cobb

 

Essays by John Cobb

https://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2021/07/john-b-cobb-jr-christian-process.html

https://www.openhorizons.org/john-b-cobb-jr.html

Essays by John B. Cobb, Jr.
​

Did God Create the World out of Nothing? Ask John Cobb
Two Questions for John Cobb about China
​Christian Process Theology: Its Early Phase
John Cobb on Patriotism
Process Theology and the Bible: How Science has changed our view of God
​John Cobb on Biblical Inspiration and Interpretation
​Revaluing the Values of Science, Religion, and Education: John B. Cobb, Jr.
A Critical View of Inherited Theology
​Should I Understand God Literally or Metaphorically?
Does Science Support Belief in God?
Which is More Important? The Historical Jesus or the Cosmic Christ? 
We Live in a Thoroughly Miraculous World
Whitehead's Theory of Value
Five Foundations for a New Civilization
Ten Ideas for Saving the Planet
Economic Justice and Process Philosophy
​What is My Vocation?
The Postmodern John Cobb: Deconstructive and Constructive
An Appreciation of David Korten
God as Abba: A Proposal from John Cobb
The Aesthetic and the Ethical: John Cobb
A Buddhist-Christian Critique  of Neo-Liberal Economics
​Wesley the Process Theologian: An Essay by John Cobb

Dr. John B. Cobb, Jr.

R.E. Slater - Essays with John Cobb: Processual Immortality

Essays with John Cobb:

Processual Immortality

https://processandfaith.org/ask-dr-cobb/immortality-june-1998/

by Dr. John B. Cobb, Jr.

June 1998

Is God Personal?

Publication Month: June 1998

Dr. Cobb’s Response

Editing of Content Structure by R.E. Slater

I.

Question

Dr. Cobb, I’ve just started reading C. Hartshorne’s Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes. The one response I find least satisfactory is his observation on immortality. What are your views?

Response by Dr. Cobb

Christians have varied ideas about “immortality” and tend to cover up their differences with vague rhetoric. Behind that rhetoric I encounter three general views with lots of diversity within them:

• Some reject any notion of a reality other than our actual experience here and now between birth and death:

They think that affirming anything of that sort is religiously damaging, because it encourages dualistic and otherworldly thinking.

They believe that it has disparaged and distorted the real values of life here and now. They also believe that there is no valid reason to suppose that any other reality exists.

If there is any “immortality” it lies in the reabsorption of our bodies [and works] into the ongoing processes of nature and the influence of our lives, however slight, upon the future.

• Some believe that the Christian faith holds out the promise that in the “end” all that has been still is in some fulfilled or perfected way. Tillich, Barth, and Pannenberg all seem to assert something like this. This belief is required to undergird the meaningfulness of our otherwise utterly transient existence individually and historically.

• Others hold to the belief in continuing life after death either immediately or after the end of history. To them simply preserving what has been is quite unsatisfactory. Christian hope is for new life, a fulfilled and transformed life.

Process theologians can be found in all three camps.

What may be thought of as “standard” process theology falls in the second one. This is Whitehead’s Consequent Nature of God and is the emphatic position of Hartshorne.

Of course, process theology has the distinctive note that it is each occasion of human experience that is retained in God (along with nonhuman occasions), and that this immortality is immediate. Marjorie Suchocki has developed this notion in such a way that it incorporates many of the values of the third camp as well.

Although Whitehead’s emphasis falls here, he also recognizes that his metaphysics allows for continuing existence of primarily mental occasions after the death of the body. This is unusual in the history of philosophy, since most metaphysical systems have either demonstrated the necessary truth of personal immortality or shown its impossibility. In Religion in the Making Whitehead states that continuation of the life of the soul is a question to be settled empirically rather than metaphysically. Some process theologians believe that empirical evidence is favorable to this belief.

II.

The question is also one of judgment as to the religious value of such beliefs. It is rare that those who do not see religious value in the hope for new life after physical death judge the evidence favorable or even examine it with much interest. Hence, in fact the judgments of positive value and of factual likelihood tend to go together, although there may be some who would like to believe is such [a] life but who think that to do so would be wishful thinking.

I count myself among those who think that belief in life after death can function positively today. I say this despite the extensive harm that it has done in the past, especially when salvation and damnation were defined in terms of such post-mortem existence. Today the danger to a proper valuation of human life here and now seems to arise more from the tendency to view people as simply what they appear to be, in terms of their social functions, or, even worse, reductionistically, as what they can be seen to be in the physical sciences. The doctrine of the soul, which once functioned to disparage the body may now be needed to preserve even the body from trivialization.

Because I think there is need for an understanding of the soul that indicates its partial transcendence of the body as scientifically understood, I am interested in the evidence for this transcendence including that of the soul’s continuation beyond physical death. But my attention to this matter has been sporadic. Anyone who is seriously concerned should read David Griffin. He has an excellent chapter on this topic in God and Religion in the Postmodern World.

As that chapter shows, there is a close connection among process thinkers between interest in parapsychological phenomena generally and concern about life after death. The former, if they occur, indicate a partial transcendence of the soul in relation to the physical body. It is this partial transcendence that makes the idea of the soul’s life apart from the present physical body conceivable. Griffin has written an entire book on parapsychology, the most thorough philosophical study of this topic in this generation.

III.

Strictly speaking, the soul’s survival of death need not amount to “immortality.” Indeed, for process thought the notion of any form of creaturely existence enduring forever seems inherently implausible. The only immortality would seem to be in God, as both Whitehead and Hartshorne have emphasized.

My own way of speculating about these matters is to stress that (i) personal identity is far from complete even in this life. Also, (ii) the Christian ideal is that we love others as we love ourselves. Really to do that would mean that our concern in each moment was for the whole future that we could influence, not focused on our personal future. One who has attained to that state will not be concerned about personal continuity beyond death. But others are, and God may give us that continuity as long we need or want it. But that will not be forever.

One feature of Whitehead’s conceptuality is highlighted in discussion of this topic. It accents empirical inquiry and the diversity of faith perspectives. On most questions, therefore, it leaves open a variety of answers. Those of us who adopt his views still have to work out our own beliefs. But those beliefs will nevertheless be deeply affected by the fact that we view reality in terms of process.

* * * * * *

My Process Observations on Immortality

by R.E. Slater

November 17, 2021

I.

Process theology is as much about a process-based philosophical view of life as it is theological. That is, however we come to know process philosophy is to that degree how it may better help to explain our ideas of God, life, living, duty, calling, work, church, and society among other things.

At once, process thought states that whatever is happening here in this life, in our mortal state of being and becoming is exactly what is happening everywhere else throughout creation and any other non-matter or spacetime form anywhere else. In Platonic terms, process is process whether here or in the next life. In non-Platonic terms, process is a constant whether here with us now or with God now or with God later when we are no longer living. Process is a constant throughout God's world both physical and spiritual.

That said, then immortality should be no different now in this life then it will be in the next life, whether we go on as bodiless souls or we simply cease to exist and become part of the process flow of the universe. Let me say that the Christian hope is that all souls continue onwards after death but process thought does allow for both this idea as well as the idea that our souls - like the cosmic soul - simply folds into the process flow of history and event no different then as it currently doing so now. In either sense, our lives and live's work continues in God in one manner or another. 

This does not particularly bother me as my trust is in God to do the right thing by the creation He breathed onto to make it as it is both now and forever. To be the created is to be finite, mortal, in some sense ending. But in God, all is made alive and its weight - or the weight of our existential mortal moment - will not be forgot or eclipsed in God. We are and will continue in some sense to be at death because God is.

For the literal Christian hoping for crowns, friends, mansions, and healing let's simply say "yes" this may be.... However, if these bible concepts are more figurative than literal the same will still apply. There will be a sense of gratitude and wellbeing, a society of some sort, an identity found in shelter and community, and the personal healing of one's psyche, soul, spirit, mind and heart. All things are because God is. God is the First Process which gives all other processes its energy, flow and future in becoming beyond any becoming we could realize in our lifetimes or in the lifetimes to come.

II.

In part II above Dr. Cobb wishes to convey that this life be product NOW. To useful NOW. To contribute to the meaningful flow of life's rhythms and harmonies against all that which is disruptive and harmful to the processual flow of life.

That a proper doctrine of the soul and of others is see our lives in the love and healing of God as it can be given the many times harsh localities we must live our lives. While also viewing the same of the lives of others as contributing souls to the wellbeing of mankind and this earth.

To the extent that our doctrinal views of the soul and of mankind becomes religiously harsh or cruel to the existence of ourselves or others is the extent to which we must repent and learn to lean into healthier practices of our spiritual worship life which allows God to unchain us from our guilts and sins.

Beating or denying one's body to please God is usually not what is meant by God who has granted us breath and health to positively contribute into this life be it ever so humble as that with a spouse, a family, a community or church. We are unable to do this if we have starved ourselves from unusefulness, become overly sensitive or crushed by guilt and shame, or harmed ourselves in ways that we are the ones needing ministry rather than giving ministry to both the harmed and the damaged as will as the whole and healed.

Repentance in Jesus starts with personal health. It does not condone harm to self or others. But it does request we submit to God and learn to love ourselves as God loves us and wishes us to be, as we can be, given the constraints of our circumstances.

III.

I like the idea that we are building into immortality the works of our mortal life. Simply, any work done which is loving and healing does now transfer immediately in this life and "the next" into meaningful flows of processual being and becoming. That our lives are never fully realized, nor can be, but in God, all things can be brought to fruition and multiplied over-and-over again by His Spirit.

To live our lives unconcernedly about either death or immortality and to live our lives concernedly as fully as we can, by God's good graces, now with our loved ones and to all we would meet. It is to God we live, and move, and have our being. All other concerns are light and passing in this life. Be who we are and do it as well as we can given our frailities and temptations and trust God to make up the difference which we cannot, in ourselves, make up.

This is the promise of life in God both now and everlastingly. That God can and will use all that we give Him and use it wisely, folding it into the everlasting flows of life both now and future as given to us by the Lord of Life and Saviour of our Souls.

R.E. Slater

November 17, 2021

click here for Cobb re "P&R"

click here for Cobb's Study Classes I-VI

Hegel and Whitehead - Divine Process Panentheism & Immanency

As introduction to Classic Theism, I submit Mtabaczek's article below. Unlike process theology's approach, classic theology sees God in very Platonic and neo-Platonic ways. Whereas process theology sees God, well, in very different ways, such as openness of future, experientialism, personalism, and relationalism, to mention a few. Below you will find the classic theistic portrayal of its God in positive ways as versus process' panentheistic approach seen by classicism in negative ways. In the blog piece before this I began a discursive which may serve as introduction to this piece here.

        - R.E. Slater, November 16, 2021

Hegel and Whitehead: Panentheism

https://mariopblog.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/hegel-whitehead-part-1-panentheism/

by MTABACZEK

February 2, 2014

I have just posted a new sub-page on my blog, which will contain abstracts and links to my official publications. I will try to explain the content of each one of them in several steps.

My first article in English was published in May 2013 in Theology and Science, a journal edited by the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences in Berkeley. It’s title is quite sophisticated: Hegel and Whitehead: In Search for Sources of Contemporary Versions of Panentheism in the Science–Theology Dialogue. You can read an abstract here.

First of all, what is panentheism about? It all goes back to one of the main concerns of our reflection about God, which has been the source of struggle for theologians over the centuries. On the one hand we acknowledge that God is totally different and unlike anything that we know by our sensual experience and intellectual reflection. God is totally and absolutely transcendent. He is omniscient (knows everything), omnipotent (can do everything), eternal, and above all – unchangeable. Therefore – according to St. Thomas Aquinas – while our relation to God is real and changes us, this same relation on the side of God is only a relation of thought (reason), because it cannot change God nor add anything to His essence which is pure act, without any hint of potentiality.

Comment: "Process Theology takes these same subjects and brings God near (immanent); learning experientially from creation as it recreates itself moment by moment as He had designed it; stresses all loving over power and control thus avoiding problems of theodicy and freewill; everlasting, which basically says the same thing as eternally but puts the stress on the presence of God's everlastingness into the here-and-now of His creation; and changeable in God's emotions towards His moment-by-moment immanent experience of creation even has God's character or attributes are unchanging re God's everlasting love, goodness, justness, forgiveness, mercifulness, and etc." - re slater

On the other hand we have to acknowledge that God is radically immanent, that is He is present in the world and all its aspects. Saint Thomas defines the very act of creation as a total dependence of every creature in its being on God. God is the source of the very existence of everything. Were he not present in contingent beings at every moment of their existence, they would perish at once. They actually exist because they participate in the infinite being of the Creator.

And here comes the question: how does one bring God’s transcendence and immanence together into one model of His divine action? One of the possible answers goes back to Pseudo-Dionysius (5-6th century), and was further developed by St. Thomas Aquinas. It names three ways of our speech about God:

1. The positive way enables us to formulate positive statements about the Creator. We may say for instance that God is good, and His goodness is revealed in creation (God’s immanence).
2. But at the same time we must acknowledge that He is not good in the way that we are good. In other words, God’s goodness is unlike our goodness. This is the way of negation. Following it we realize that it is more appropriate for us to say what God is not, rather than what God is (God’s transcendence). And yet the connection with our human categories is not totally rejected. 
3. The third way – the way of eminence – saves it, claiming that God is good, but in an eminent way, which goes beyond any kind of goodness known to us. God is the source of all goodness, as His goodness is identical with His essence. This way of speaking about God is based on the doctrine of analogy, which I hope to explain in a separate entry.

This way of bringing together transcendence and immanence of God saves both of them and supports the classical Thomistic model of God- world relationship which I describe on the left side of the diagram below.

click to enlarge; process theology uses the panentheism model

Aquinas’s view of God-world relation remained in a radical opposition to pantheism (the middle model on the diagram), which assumes that the world is God and God’s essence is exhausted in the world taken as a whole (an idea coming back today in the New Age and other “ecological” spiritual movements). However, commonly accepted and supported throughout the centuries, the classical model of Aquinas has been recently accused (beginning from the late 19th century) of overemphasizing God’s transcendence. God who does not have a real relationship towards His creation – says the main charge – is not the God of love. If creation cannot affect God [transcendence model], then God is not concerned with what is happening in the world. He is a [pantheist] God of the philosophers [classic theologians], but not of the Bible. [brackets are mine own - re slater]

As a remedy to this crisis, some theologians proposed a new model of God-world relationship – panentheism. It suggests that the world is in God (a link to pantheism), and yet God is more than the world (a link to classical theism of Aquinas). See the right-hand model on the diagram above. Proponents of this version of God-world relation suggest that because the world is in God, it has to affect God, therefore He is not unchangeable anymore, and His eternity is affected by time. Moreover, when creating the world God decides to limit his omniscience and omnipotence, in order to make a space for our freedom and contingent events in the world. He is not a detached ruler, but a fellow sufferer who understands. And yet – according to panentheism – God is still transcendent, because He is more than the world.

The panentheistic model has become very popular, and found many applications in contemporary theology, especially in the circles of theology and science debate, where it seems to be suitable in explaining theological implications of contingency and indeterminacy of natural events. However, at the same time, it raises some basic and crucial questions. (i) The first and the most important among them refers to God’s transcendence. If the world is in God and affects God, then it has to share God’s essence (God’s nature or substance), which challenges the truth about God’s transcendence. Moreover, (ii) if creation of the world changes God and limits some of the attributes which are substantial for His divinity (e.g. omnipotence, omniscience, eternity), it is hard to agree that He is still the [same classical] God we believe in. If this is the case, then the claim of panentheism’s proponents, who say that it gives right to both God’s transcendence and immanence, simply does not hold.

Comment: "Though I've not heard this said, still, to myself it makes more sense to say that ultimately God's "wholly Otherness" is "wholly meaningless" to creation. One may argue philosophically that its important to recognize as the "wholly Other" but ontologically it makes no sense at all as this "wholly Otherness" has no meaning to the world at large. Hence, process theology can acknowledge God's "wholly Otherness" but pragmatically God's "wholly immanence" is far, far more important, crucial, absolute, necessary, and needful in any depiction of a biblical theology." - re slater

Contemporary panentheism has many faces and versions. The truth is that it also has a long historical tradition, especially in the philosophical reflection on God and God-world relationship. It’s roots go back to ancient Egypt and Greece. In my article I concentrate on two philosophical versions of panentheism: the one which was proposed by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, and the other developed by Alfred North Whitehead. The former philosopher may be regarded as the father of the modern version of panentheism, while the latter has become very popular in the contemporary science-theology dialogue. I ask the question of the possible relation between their versions of panentheism and the nuances in their understanding of God’s transcendence and immanence.

That’s it for now. It is a prelude to the main body of the article which I hope to summarize in the next episodes under the same title: Hegel & Whitehead.

- MTABACZEK

ADDENDUM 

This took me a little time to locate as a free .PDF but here is the link below. I suspect it will be very helpful in locating the difference between Hegel and Whitehead when reading Whitehead's Process and Reality. - re slater 

Hegel and Whitehead: In Search of Sources ofthe Contemporary Versions of Panentheismin the Science/Theology Dialogue by Mariusz Tabaczek, O.P.

Index to Process Theology

R.E. Slater - Essays with John Cobb: A Processual Personal God

Essays with John Cobb:

A Processual Personal God

https://processandfaith.org/ask-dr-cobb/a-personal-god-may-1998/

by Dr. John B. Cobb, Jr.

May 1998

Is God Personal?

Publication Month: May 1998

Dr. Cobb’s Response

Editing of Content Structure by R.E. Slater

I.

The answer to this, as to so many questions is Yes and No, but on the whole Yes is a better answer than No. Of course, everything depends on what is meant by “personal”. For some people, the only way God can be personal is to be very much like a human being. In the extreme case this involves attributing a body to God that resembles a human body. Obviously, the answer must then be No. If we think of God having a body, that body is the universe as a whole.

More commonly, it is only the human mind or soul or spirit that God is understood to resemble. Then the answer depends on how the questioner understands the human spirit. Often it is understood substantialistically, with the relations among human spirits, and even between spirit and body, seen as quite external. When it is clear that the questioner is thinking in this way, it is still best to begin with the answer No. God is not like another human being, only greater, when one thinks of a human being in this way. But then, from a process perspective, other human beings are not like that either!

II.

In somewhat more sophisticated imagery, questioners sometimes are asking whether the I-Thou relationship exists between us and God. Addressing God as Thou has been so central to the Abrahamic traditions that to rule out such language would mean a serious rupture. Process theology allows and affirms its use.

But the language of I-Thou suggests an over-againstness or externality that is inadequate and misleading. In Tillich’s terminology it seems to imply that God is one being alongside other beings. We need to claim the language but free it from this externalistic interpretation. Paul himself helps us to do so. He says of human beings that we are members one of another and jointly members of the body of Christ. We are in Christ and Christ is in us. The Holy Spirit is also found within. Process thought interprets this to mean that we participate in constituting the very being of one another and that the divine reality participates in constituting our being as we participate in constituting the divine reality. We are quite literally in God, and God is quite literally in us.

I-Thou language by itself does not capture this. But this is not because the relationship process thinkers affirm is less personal. The mutual immanence of all things only makes the personal character of relationships deeper, more inextricable. Process thought in this way enables us to appreciate the meaning of some of the language of the New Testament that has previously been toned down because of the metaphysical assumptions of interpreters.

Even so, this emphasis on the immanence of God seems to some to count against the idea of God as a personal being. In human interpersonal relations, we transcend one another as well as participating in one another. Does God transcend us? Of course. But is the way that God transcends us similar to the way other human persons transcend us?

No, there are differences. Other people are spatially separated from us. The locus from which they experience the world is different from the one from which we experience the world. But God is equally everywhere. Where we are, God is there, too. Or else, God as transcending creatures is “nowhere” in the sense that spatial language may not apply to God. In this way God is very different from another human person.

III.

Nevertheless, God, like other human persons, is a subject who acts and is acted upon. In Whitehead’s terminology, God is an actual entity, distinct from all other actual entities. This does not make God any more like humans than like creatures in general. On the other hand, we suppose that some human characteristics, shared with some but by no means all other creatures, are shared by God. Consciousness is an important example.

As to how much further we should go in attributing human-like characteristics to God, process theologians divide. Charles Hartshorne encourages us to think of God as a closely unified succession of actual entities in which all the past ones are fully included in the present one. Since such a succession of actual entities is just what Whitehead defines as a “living person”, Hartshorne gives a clear positive answer to the question of whether God is a person. Whitehead, on the other hand, proposes that we think of God as a single everlasting actual entity. That is extremely different from any creature, including the human one. In his terminology, then, God is not a person. Yet much of what believers have in mind when they ask whether God is a person, is present in God for Whitehead as well.

* * * * * *

My Process Observations

on a Processual Personal God

by R.E. Slater

November 16, 2021

I.

Behind the subject of "Theology Proper" (e.g., the "Study of God") in systematic language comes process theology to add or take away important details. Classical language built on Platonism necessarily covers us what non-Platonic process language is speaking to.

In order, God is not a thing no more than we are. The divine soul, like the human soul - or even the "cosmic" soul - are (living and non-living) processes in motion with one another. In Platonic imagery God is a God-like entity and humans are our own kind of entity. Separate entities yet deeply connected as between Creator to Created or God, as the First Process, to creation (or us) as the successional orders of subtending processes.

Further, the divine/human emotion of love is not a thing but a resulting feeling between Creator to His creation, or between one person to another. Love is not a thing but a feeling. I believe neo-Platonism might circumscribe such secondary interactive processes as a kind of thing or substance as well (someone correct me on this if I've strayed too far). The point being, Platonism sees creation as a world of (external and secondary) objects even as it would see God as a divine object. Thus, in a literal bible, we read of God, angels, demons, humanity, heaven, hell, etc, in objectified ways rather than as interconnecting, if not metaphysical and ontological, (divine and creaturely organic) processes.

These first two paragraphs then get to what Dr. Cobb is referring to externalistic interpretation, that is, reading the bible Platonically rather than in its process sense. One leans on an older Greek philosophy, the latter on Alfred North Whitehead's more recent observations of the world we live in, known as process philosophy. Philosophy is a way for humans to explain the world around them. In the 21st Century, given the evolutionary and quantum sciences, we are beginning to see the world not in Newtonian terms of substances but in terms of processes. 

Whitehead had observed this early on as he interacted with Hegel and other earlier ideas contemporary with his own (including much earlier non-Platonic Greek ideas of process speculation) as well as at Einstein's work both on a personal level as well as on an academic level (ahead of the idea of Niels Bohr's quantum mechanics by some 20+ years).

Process thinking was a relatively new way of looking at the classical cosmology and viewing it as a living,  feeling, organic process highly interrelated between the whole to its parts and its parts to the whole. Whereas classical science had viewed creation as a clock-work mechanism reducible to its parts, contemporary (process) science was looking at the motion and movement of those process-driven EVENTS as forming the "cosmic organism" it was looking at more in terms of energy particles and quantum forces interacting with each other rather than in terms of external , "atomic" objects interacting with one another.

II.

Next, the I-thou relationship between God and creation or God and man takes on the more broader area of panentheism v classical theism. The former centers on the immanence or "nearness" of God with creation or mankind whereas the latter concentrates on the transcendence or "farness" of God away from creation or mankind.

One of the more discussed theological ideas on the topic of God's nearness with us can be found in the subject matter of open theology and relational theology. When I came to these subjects myself based upon my study of Arminian (Wesleyan, qua Methodist) theology over that of Calvinistic (Reformed) theology, I brought both ideas together without hesitation. Thus, Open AND Relational theology, as neither should stand alone without the other.

My reasoning stood along the lines that the future is unknown and therefore as open to us as it is to God. God does not know the future even as God is intimately (or immanently) involved in the future's future as both its image-maker as well as it's designer. What I've done is go over-and-beyond classical theism's imagery of God "directing" the future in a deterministic (or controlling way) to the imagery of God being "in" or "inside" the future which is unfolding in its own process way as given to it by its process Maker. Hence, the teleological edge of creation is imbued with God's own process Image which urges a freewill creation of forces, energies, and creational "souls" forward towards "becoming" in its being, and striving for its own "wellbeing" in its "becoming." Thus, the future is open because God is open in His Love and divine freewilled Soul. God IS the process (process theology qua Arminianism) more than just being its Determiner (Calvinism)

Secondly, relational theology speaks to the freewill "soul" of the cosmos, creation, and sentient creatures. God cannot "direct" or "control" or "determine" freewilled processes but God has IMBUED freewill processes to strive towards surviving, to living (or being), to becoming beyond what it is. There is this very mystical divine urge towards the struggle of becoming. It cannot be controlled but it is this (divine) urge which propels all energies, forces, and "souls" towards interactivity with one another is a processed way in finding wellbeing within its synthesis.

Thus, to speak of Open Theology and Relational Theology is to speak of both processes working together in an intimately (or better, immanently) panrelational, panexperiential - even panpsychic - kind of way. This then begins to describe the idea of an immanent world of God and creation in a divinely intimate process way of being and becoming together. It recognizes the "otherness" of God but states God's "otherness" has no meaning to us unless God is deeply - immanently - connected with us into the very fabric of our being as God is with all of the process-based order. Transcendence then becomes both an unnecessary idea as well as a very hollow, empty Platonic idea of classicism which can immediately be jettisoned from our bible-based theological categories.

III.

Here, Dr. Cobb wishes to further explain Whitehead in terms of process immanency. Let's leave this subject matter to another time. Just know the further you go into Whitehead, the further you will go into the obscuratus and arcane linguistic semantics of the process philosophical language (aka, Process & Reality). And to the degree I've read Whitehead and been involved in it's study with John Cobb is the degree that its finer detail makes process process.

Peace,

R.E. Slater

November 16, 2021

click here for Cobb re "P&R"

click here for Cobb's Study Classes I-VI