High vs. Low

Oughtist · October 10, 2009, 10:28pm

I just came back from an ID debate where passing reference was made to “Low Theology” (or Process Theology). The brief gist, as I take it, is that it has become the relative norm in at least academic Theology circles, and that it directs its discussions away from the traditional concept of God as the omnimax Perfect Being. I see Wikipedia relates it primarily to Whiteheadian thought, with connections to be made also to liberation theology, de Chardin, and pluralism, but dissociates it from the “Process Church” (whatever that is…)

Anyone have further perspective on Low Theology, or whether there is a High/Low debate raging?

Wonderer · October 10, 2009, 10:40pm

i would call it high or low commitment to the idea of gods perfection, if i am not misinterpreting…

i am wildly guessing that process church refers to one which takes science as true but at the same time it’s gods intention.

“sure we evolved randomly in all it’s complexity and by natural process, but it wasn’t random in the eyes of God, who initiated these processes”

I’ve said this once before, so long as there is an unexplained phenomenon and our knowledge is incomplete, theologists will find a home, right there in the unknown.

Sidhe · October 11, 2009, 1:09pm

I wonder who said that? Natural selection isn’t random, it’s governed by processes, which are governed by laws, albeit startlingly complicated ones. This is a common fallacy that creationists eschew in order to make conclusions that don’t follow, that they picked up from some creationist mud puddle of ill educated pseudo-intellectual babble. If natural selection was random then practically anything could evolve, instead evolution seems to be strictly limited by its environment or the process of natural selection.

Natural: originating from nature
selection: to make a choice that is not arbitrary or random.

I am indeed quite anal this week, I need to get out more.

Wonderer · October 11, 2009, 3:58pm

From our perspective, the tautology of complicated processes makes things seem random, like the shape of a falling chunk of ice from an iceberg.

Too much of the creationist perspective says complexity implies design, when in the real world our complexity has built up over a long time via chance events (or deterministic inevitabilities, whichever you prefer)

In my opinion saying someone has “low theology” is just another way of saying they haven’t dedicated their minds to finding whatever excuse and explanation they can to rebuke anyone and anything challenging their notion of a perfect loving savior god.

it’s a commitment issue. Personally if the christian God exists, i resent him for marooning us on the earth in the first place.

Oughtist · October 11, 2009, 4:28pm

I’ll have to reserve my judgement on that, I’m trying to get a grip on what the actual “process” is… it has to do with Whitehead’s “dipolar”.

mb-soft.com/believe/txn/process.htm

By philosophical or rational standards process theology has several commendable points. First, it emphasizes metaphysical coherence; i.e., it seeks to express a vision of God and the world by a coherent and clearly defined set of metaphysical concept. Second, it integrates science and theology, and vice versa; they are together in the same universal sphere of discourse, namely, process metaphysics. Consequently, and in the third place, process theology provides a tenable answer to the charge that theological language is meaningless.

the process theologian contends that if metaphysics describes those general concepts or principles by which all particulars are to be explained, and if God is the chief exemplification of those principles, then talk about God is eminently meaningful and basic to the meaningfulness of everything else. Fourth, process theology eloquently champions natural theology. Fifth, process theology gives clear and plausible form to a dynamic, personal view of God. Personal qualities such as self-consciousness, creativity, knowledge, and social relatedness are attributed to God in the most literal sense.

By rational standards process theoogy also has its weaknesses or questionable features. First, one may question whether the process model does justice to the self-identity of an individual person in process. Second, process theology has some problems concerning the finitude and temporality of God, e.g., the problem of relating God’s infinite, nontemporal, primordial nature of God’s finite, temporal, growing, and consequent nature, or the problem of seeing unity of experience in each moment of God’s omnipresent existence in view of the teaching of relativity physics that there is no simultaneous present throughout the universe. Third, there is the question of the religious adequacy of panentheism. Is the most worthy object of worship a God who needs the world in order to be a complete personal being or a God who is a complete personal being prior to the world?

Wonderer · October 11, 2009, 5:06pm

after reading a bit about process relational theology it seems that indeed the major qualm is that of defining god.

Process theology asserts that entities (or rel beings) have two “poles” (thus dipolar), a mental pole and a physical pole.

The physical pole applied to god represents gods interaction with the world as it is, and the mental pole represents gods perfect set of knowledge.

This implies not only that god is a way point toward which we strive, but also that God has mutable qualities and can be influenced by the universe.

I’m not positive about this last inference, but it implies that God exists within the universe and is a process of it.

This runs into friction with many other forms of theology, this might be why it is referred to as “low theology”.

Process theory is compatible with Darwinism, and seems to work off of it.