Louisville Process Theology Network

Who is God, II

Nov 04, 2005

The Consequent nature of God was envisioned as the physical outcomes of all the choices made in the universe. Theologian Charles Hartshorne reasoned that the total of all human experiences are unified into a cosmic experience that is God.

By analogy, we already know that the experiences of the countless living cells within a human body are taken into the human person. Human experience is not just made up of cellular experiences added together, however. It integrates the many cellular experiences into a coherent whole with memories and anticipations. We've all heard Aristotle's famous saying "the whole is more than the sum of its parts"

Hartshorne believed that traditionally we had gotten carried away with our notions of absolutes in our perception of God. We make out God to be omnipotent (all powerful), omniscience (all knowing), and immutable (unchangeable). But, these characteristics do not appear to be functionally necessary to our universe and in many cases they are inconsistent with our life experiences.

Hartshore believed that God's real power is the appeal of unsurpassable love. God's power is the worship he or she inspires. God leads the universe by majesty and divine wisdom, not fear of thunderbolts.

One problem with omnipotence is its inconsistency with free will. Hartsthorne summed it up this way. Omnipotence means Gods decides everything. You, your friends, and your enemies do what God determines you will do. Thus, your decisions are God's decisions. However, our actual experiences seem to indicate that life is a process of making choices between good and evil. Risk is inherent. Life with these risks is inconceivable to us.

Some theologians say that God grants freedom to us for our personal use. This implies that the universe outside this special grant is deterministic. The obvious question is this, said Hartshorne. It's assumed in this case that only people have freedom. Yet, uncertainty and the risk that come with the freedom to make choices seem to exist in the universe for all forms of existence. Why wouldn't all living things have the ability to make choices?

Hartshorne thought the traditional view of omnipotence was too materialistic. "Aren't we giving God properties that belong to Caesar?" he asked.

As for omniscience, Hartshorne notes that it is important to remember that there is a difference between knowing everything in the past, which is definite, and everything in the future, which is indefinite. If we have free will, omniscience is by definition knowing all the past and understanding the possiblities for the future based on that memory.