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