John Paul II, acknowledging that “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth”, has encouraged philosophers - “be they Christian or not – to trust in the power of human reason and not to set themselves goals that are too modest in their philosophising”. He points out that “it is necessary not to abandon the passion for ultimate truth, the eagerness to search for it or the audacity to forge new paths in the search”. (1998, 9&84) Referring to the fact that scientists do not abandon their search for truth in the face of setbacks, he points out that they do not regard their earlier intuitions as useless, but keep searching for the correct answer. He then argues that: “The same must be true of the search for truth when it comes to the ultimate questions.” (1998,49)

Meynell also notes the importance of following the evidence where it leads in our creative theorising about the world, while still recognising the value of the work of earlier thinkers. He draws attention to the need for mental creativity and for recognition of the ways our wishes, fears and prejudices can make us less attentive, intelligent and reasonable in our theorising. (2000,1-2)

The argument in “The Process of the Cosmos” is essentially a Natural Theology. Christology, which is concerned with the ontology of Christ, stands to be reconsidered in the light of this Natural Theology of Process. Christian Theology always relies on philosophical thought for the better understanding of Faith. The development of linear, progressive, process philosophies and theologies has been traced in my “Milestones in the Search for Meaning: Process Thought in Hegel to Baltazar and Beyond” (2001). It is my contention that the historical Christ-event could not be fully understood without the development of an appropriate process philosophy and theology.

While the Hebrews developed their theological understanding of the world, the strictly philosophical approach to the search for truth began in Classical Greece. Greek philosophy was based on common sense, as were the Ptolemaic and Euclidian views of physical reality. This explains their persistence and appeal. But as Baltazar points out, our commonsense time-frame of reference is so small that within that scale no great changes are perceived. However if we introduce time into the equation, we see that what appears to be static and permanent, in the two-dimensional setting of common sense observation, is really process in the three-dimensional frame of reference that results from the addition of the effects of time. (1965,136-7)

Classical philosophy, and hence theology, was static and two-dimensional because it left time out of the equation.  Baltazar argues that there has to be an adequate philosophy of process developed before theology can convert to the historical perspective. (1965, 134-7)  Modern sciences, such as geology, biology and cosmology, take time into account.  They take development over time into account.  These sciences reflect a dynamic perspective, a process perspective.  Taking time into account can give us a three dimensional, or process, perspective rather than a two dimensional, static perspective. (Baltazar 1965,137)

The idea of the world as a linear process was potential in Jewish thought. Cahill (1998) makes as his central point the fact that the Jews had introduced a radical new concept of reality.  They had rejected the ancient belief in reality’s static or cyclical nature, and they taught that the future is determined by man’s present actions.  This, Cahill maintains, had made human progress possible. Baltazar also recognises that for the Hebrew, time has always been the region of truth. He quotes from Galatians  “Time matured and ripened Israel, the spouse of Yahweh, so that she gave birth to Christ, the Fullness of Time. (Gal. 4:4)” (1965,147) This process of maturation appears to have begun in Israel with the promulgation of the Mosaic Law.

The static, two-dimensional world of classical philosophy and theology has been replaced by the perception that the world is in process.  This dynamic viewpoint is to be found in Cosmology, and in the work of Einstein and of Darwin.  It is seldom to be found in theology, except to some extent in the work of Teilhard de Chardin and his followers, and in followers of Whitehead. I have not dealt with Whitehead’s idea of process, as I do not find a need for the idea of a developing God.

The process of human moral-cultural self-creation shows how Rahner’s concept of human nature striving towards divinisation by virtue of its essence, might be realised. The cosmic process, involving self-organisation, evolution and self-creation, shows how the latent possibilities contained within matter itself can evolve to reveal Jesus, as Conclusion No. 16 proposes.  Those latent possibilities evolve through the processes of the self-organisation of matter at the physical level, biological evolution at the level of living matter, and moral-cultural self-creation at the human level.

Conclusion No. 16 includes a distinction between the evolution of Jesus, the mode in which material creation reveals God, and the way mankind reveals God by being God’s image. As the process of the cosmos is a continuum, such a distinction does not appear to be necessary.

Jesus clearly understood that he was the Messiah. He was also a man of his time. From the perspective of the prevailing world-view he initially expected to be dramatically revealed as Messiah. This was the understanding of the time, held also by his disciples. Rather than recognising the gradual process of human moral-cultural self-development that had in fact occurred, and of which he was a product, he anticipated a dramatic intrusion by God into the history of Israel. He could hold no other view, as his culture had not developed a Process perspective on the world. This was despite their understanding of the importance of time. They still understood God as both willing and able to intervene dramatically in the course of the world.

If the divinity of Christ consists in the perfection and elevation of his humanity, as Hulsbosch proposes, then it is more reasonable to understand Jesus becoming divine through the self-development of his individual human reality, within the context of the particular human moral culture that gave him birth. Jesus can be understood as the “first born” product of this process of human self-creation. As stated in my thesis, Jesus is the proleptic exemplar of the final Emergent stage.

Every emergent stage in the process of the cosmos, and all development or evolution within those stages, can be understood as originating from the initiation of more complex novelty by the synthesis of existing elements. This synthesis appears to be largely contingent at the material level, but to be internally initiated at the biological level. At the human moral-cultural level it is a function of the application of human attentiveness, intelligence, reasonableness and responsibility, within cultures.

The self-organisation at the material stage, and the self-creation at later stages, reminds us of Justin’s view of the Logos. Justin was influenced by Philo’s interpretation of the Stoic idea of the Logos. The Greek concept of logos could signify both the structure and order that is found in nature and also the source of that order. This concept was familiar to Judaism through the influence of Philo. Justin held that the Logos is communicated partially to all men, but totally to Christ. In Justin’s view the Logos assumed shape and became man in Jesus Christ. The function of the Logos was to be both the Father’s agent in creating and ordering the universe, and to reveal the truth to men. (J.N.D. Kelly 1960, 96-7) 

I posed the question earlier about the nature of the processes that could enable the latent possibilities within matter to be realised, and in particular, how humanity could arrive at the point towards which it strives by virtue of its essence. I have described the processes of physical, biological and cultural evolution, as I perceive them. Both physical and biological evolution depend upon the synthesis of pre-existing elements.  Both matter and life are initiated with the potential to freely develop and evolve. This developmental process reaches its fullest expression in human moral cultures. If human nature strives towards divinisation “by virtue of its essence” and if Jesus represents “an unfolding of possibilities which were somehow latent within matter itself”, we have to ask three questions. These questions and the answers that I have proposed are: 

(A)  How do the latent possibilities within matter come to be realised, and in     particular, what form of evolutionary process might realise these possibilities?

It appears that the latent possibilities within matter come to be realised initially by processes of self-organisation. These latent possibilities at the material level are recognised as those laws of nature that determine the formation of elements and the possibilities of their bonding with other elements. These laws are deterministic but their interaction gives rise to contingency, eventually producing a planet capable of supporting life.

Within living matter, determinism gives way to greater freedom. Life freely evolves to produce greater complexity. While the elements of what newly evolves have to be present in its precursors, it is not their presence, but their interaction and synthesis, which produce the more complex novelty. The evolution of the complex biological present can be understood as primarily the result of this involution and synthesis, rather than of chance.  Biological evolution is an undirected process of self-creation.

(B)Within that evolutionary process how might humanity achieve the divinisation that it pursues by virtue of its essence? What evolutionary process could humanity utilise in its striving towards divinisation?

The process is one of human moral-cultural self-creation, utilising the human qualities of attentiveness, intelligence, reasonableness and responsibility. This is essentially a free and not a determined process. It is a communal process but it depends upon the individual exercise of the human qualities identified by Lonergan in order to progress. It requires that moral action be accorded priority in cultures.

(C)As Jesus has achieved the divinisation that humanity pursues by virtue of its essence, what was the nature of the process that produced Jesus?

Jesus is the unique individual product of the communal Hebrew process of moral-cultural self-creation. The primary focus of this process was on seeking a better knowledge of God, and on acting morally. This understanding of Jesus resolves the problem of the combining of the human and the divine in the one person, referred to by North as “The basic problem” (1969,35) It also explains how Jesus comes to be “the human way of being God”. (Schillebeeckx in North, 1969,56)

When Mascall poses the question “How then can a creature be deified?” and North refers to “the basic problem of the combining of human and divine in one person”, they are really addressing the same problem. The answer to both questions is that humans can achieve divinity through the free process of human moral-cultural self-creation. But as this is a free, and not a determined process, there can be no guarantee of success. This process can only be free if there is no divine intervention.

The Problem of a Causally Inert Deity

An understanding of the process of the cosmos shifts responsibility for the world from God to mankind. It challenges the old understanding of God as Pantokrator, as it leaves God with nothing to do in our Cosmos after initiating the Big Bang, and also initiating life. This is an unfamiliar concept and some find it disturbing.

However the understanding of Jesus as a product of a process of human moral-cultural self-creation, resolves a number of problems in Christian Theology. One such problem is the apparent inability of God to intervene in the world. In a recent article, Denis Biefeldt argues that: “Judaism, Christianity, and Islam can avoid a causally inert deity only if they are willing to deny the current presumption of the causal closure of the physical.” (2001, 153)

Biefeldt applies Alexander’s dictum “To be is to have causal powers” to the assumption shared by Christianity, Judaism and Islam that God is a causally efficacious entity in the present world. He concludes that: “For traditional talk about God to be true, either there must be some information transfer or downward causation from the divine level to lower physical levels, or there must be some underlying natural events that would make these statements true. But (as his analysis of the problem shows) all of these ways are blocked.” He then asks: “How else might we avoid a causally inert Deity?” (2001,175) When Biefeldt speaks of a “causally inert Deity” he is addressing the idea that God intervenes in the world, not the initiation of the Cosmos by God or the initiation of life.

The natural theology of “The Process of the Cosmos” is not significantly affected by Biefeldt’s conclusion, indeed it argues for an understanding of God who does not intervene, or who intervenes minimally, and who certainly does not intervene in the normal life of the world. In “The Process of the Cosmos” I argued that God initiated each new Emergent stage. I now resile from all intervention by God in the process of the cosmos, once the process has been initiated, except for the initiation of life, which would seem to have been associated with a transfer of information and energy. The initiation of the cosmos, the first Emergent, is clearly associated with a transfer of information and energy. It is not affected by Biefeldt’s argument.

Biefeldt is “fearful that the reluctance of theology to deal honestly with God’s putative causal power has hastened the marginalisation of God-talk, for if God is not a causally efficacious entity, then what significance has God in our lives?’ (2001,155) This fear is not well-founded. Pre-scientific people could readily accept the constant intervention of God in the world. A more critical perspective rejects such intervention. But the move away from divine intervention directs more responsibility to ourselves, while the recognition of the nature of the cosmic process, as a process of self-creation, restores significance to God and purpose to our lives.

Bibliography

Baechler Jean               (1975) The Origins of Capitalism Oxford, Basil Blackwell

Biefeldt Dennis             (2001) “Can Western Monotheism avoid Substance Dualism”

                                                In Zygon, Vol.36, No. 1 (March)

Baltazar E.R.                (1965) “Teilhard de Chardin: A Philosophy of Procession”

                                                In New Theology No. 2, Macmillan.

Cahill Thomas               (1998) The Gifts of the Jews USA, Doubleday

Coffey David                  (1999) “The Theandric Nature of Christ” in

                                                 Theological Studies Vol 60  pp. 405-431

Dix G.                           (1967) Jew and Greek Westminister, Dacre Press

Doctorow E.                  (2000) City of God N.Y. Random House

Gray Donald P.              (1975) “The Phenomenon of Teilhard” in

                                                Theological Studies Vol. 36, pp. 19-51

John Paul II                   (1998) Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason)

                                                Strathfield, NSW,  St.Paul’s Publications.

Kelly A.B.                     (1999) The Process of the Cosmos: Philosophical Theology

                                                & Cosmology USA, Dissertation.com

Kelly A.B.                     (2000) “The Search for Meaning in Philosophy and Theology”

                                                In The Examined Life online Journal Vol. 1 Ed. 3

                                                http:// www.examinedlife journal.com

Kelly A.B.                    (2000) “Aristotle, Teilhard de Chardin and the Explanation

                                                Of the World” in Quodlibet Vol 2 No. 1 (Jan)

                                                http://www.Quodlibet.net

Kelly A.B.                     (2001) “A Natural Theology of Emergence” in

                                                The Examined Life online Journal Vol. II Issue 6

Kelly A.B.                     (2001) “Milestones in the Search for Meaning: Process

                                                Thought in Hegel to Baltazar and Beyond” in

                                                Quodlibet Vol 3 No 2, (Spring)

Kelly J.N.D.                  (1960) Early Christian Doctrines Edinburgh, R & R Clark           

Mascall E.L.                 (1966) Existence and Analogy London, Libra Books

Meynell Hugo                (2000) “Metaphysics, Culture and Authenticity” at:

http://topica.com.lists/RomeMetaphysicsForum/

Midgley Mary                (1978) Beast and Man Sussex, Harvester Press

North Robert                 (1969) “Soul-Body Unity and God-Man Unity” in

                                                 Theological Studies Vol 30. No. 1