Two highly significant things happened to me as things were shut down for the COVID pandemic, and I think they are significantly connected to one another. The first of these was that, while I eventually did get COVID, during this same time frame I was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. That was quite a difficult reality for me to assimilate, because at that point, at age 60, I had already lived six decades with cerebral palsy. The best data I have found says maybe 2500 people in the United States have BOTH CP and PD.
The second was, while I was working from home, I took an online course with the famous process theologian, John B. Cobb, on Alfred North Whitehead's Process and Reality.
I knew a little about Dr. Cobb from my seminary studies at both Earlham School of Religion and The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. I also know that my mentor, D. Elton Trueblood, had been a student of Whitehead's at Harvard. I had heard that Whitehead was difficult to understand, but Dr. Cobb guided us through the book and I think I absorbed most of the material well. I have since read five more Whitehead books,
From this course I developed some online friendships in the process or open and relational theology community. These are scholars whose literary output has far exceeded mine, but they have welcomed me into the community with open arms even though I feel like a duffer in the midst of top flight golfers. It has been one of the biggest blessings of my life to find an intellectual home like this. The fact for the most part this community rejects the idea that God is omnipotent has been a real positive for me as I have struggled for my entire life with where God is as I battled one, and now two, disabilities. I have received more affirmation from this group than from any group I have ever been associated with. For this I give thanks to God.
But there is one area where I am kind of an outlier in the community, although this community is broad and informal and really has no rules one must adhere to. There is no real demand or pressure for people to agree with one another in this group and that is something I like.
I am kind of an outlier though, because some of my colleagues in the group, as a foundation for their rejection of divine omnipotence, also reject the idea of creatio ex nihilo, the idea that God created out of nothing. For some in the community, as I understand them, God created out of matter which already existed, which I take to mean physical matter has always existed.
Now, let me say, I understand why my friends and colleagues believe this, and this essay is by no means intended as a condemnation of them or their ideas. They have very good reasons to believe what they believe. I just think there are other ways to get to the same destination.
What we share is a rejection of the idea that God is all-powerful. This is really important to me, because a God who willed for me to struggle with the disabilities I deal with is a God I do not want to know. That God is a God I would gladly damn to hell! Thank God that God is not God.
The reasoning behind rejecting creatio ex nihilo, as I understand it, is that a God who created out of nothing could have created any kind of world God wanted, and we could have had a world free of suffering, pain, and evil. I do not think any of us can claim that we know what God made the world out of, whether it was from already existent matter or out of nothing. None of us were there. I want to approach this issue with the acknowledgment that I am by no means certain I am right here. But I do want to offer a couple of reasons why I think it is at least plausible that creatio ex nihilo is true, and God is still not omnipotent.
I taught philosophy at a community college for nearly 20 years before my recent retirement. I think that God cannot be omnipotent because some things just are not logically possible, even for God. I have given my students the following two examples almost every semester.
God cannot make a square circle because the nature of reality is such that a square cannot be a circle and a circle cannot be a square. (I imagine many of you will remember that if you took introductory philosophy.) In a similar way, I insist, God cannot give people free will and then force them to do things, because free will and forced behavior are incompatible.
I think it is possible to affirm creatio ex nihilo and still reject divine omnipotence for the following two reasons.
1. Because God's nature is love, and love is generative, God had to create. Some who reject creatio ex nihilo do so with wonderful motives, as I said above. One of those is the idea that if God had the choice to create or not create, then creating this world is not necessarily the best or most loving way to do it. I will get to that in my second point, but I do not think it makes sense to say God could have chosen not to create, for the simple fact that love is generative. If God had not created at all, God would not be love.
In all fairness, I realize too, that I am open to a criticism at this point because one could ask whether God BECAME love at the point of creation and was not love before. These are not easy issues and this discussion is not for the faint of heart. I just think metaphysically rejecting creatio ex nihilo is weaker than affirming it, as I will explain below.
2. Because God's nature is love, God cannot control even what God creates.
I am Roman Catholic, I use the daily devotional for Catholics Living with Christ. This morning it had a quote from St. Angela Merici. "God has given each person freedom, and forces no one, but only indicates, calls and persuades." I believe God is never going to attempt to accomplish by force that which God cannot do by love.
My good friend in this community, Dr. Thomas Jay Oord, has written a good deal about how God's nature is love and therefore God cannot prevent evil and suffering, because doing things by force is contrary to love. Dr. Oord and I agree on this point even though we disagree on creatio ex nihilo. I believe that because God is love, there are certain things God cannot do, (as does Dr. Oord. Check out his wonderful book God Can't.)
One thing I believe God cannot do, for example, is create a world where hate is good and love is bad, because that would be impossible, since God is love.
Now, like I said, my friends and colleagues who reject creatio ex nihilo have good reasons for doing so, reasons I respect even though I disagree with them. For me the problem is metaphysical. I do not see how you can have matter without their being some beginning to the existence of matter. I think the problem of an endless regression here is a bigger problem than the problems posed by creatio ex nihilo. For me, this is sufficient reason not to reject creatio ex nihilo. My friends do not agree. That is OK.
What I hope I have done is at least given voice to a framework whereby one can reject divine omnipotence and still affirm creatio ex nihilo. Others will have to decide how successful I have been.
No comments:
Post a Comment