"...one could see atheism (in the modern sense) as the transition to a new, and more exciting development of God. If we look back at history, we will see that when people were called 'atheists', this usually usually marked a religious transition. One of those quantum leaps to an entirely new era of religiousity and spirituality. Thus, in the early stages of their history, Jews, Christians, and Muslims were all called atheists by their pagan contemporaries..."
Nice read. I agree that scientific discoveries can solve the zero-sum conflicts of beliefs by purifying them in light of a metapattern of process. This even helps characterize why certain beliefs can be true yet parts of the greater whole; someone committed to a worldview that radical change is necessary for a better world could be seen within a paradigm of frustrated states/turbulent chaos/battling the dragon, while someone advocating for maintenance of the status quo holds to the virtues of order, with its risks of rigidity and dogmatism. Folk beliefs may capture part of the Logos and miss that existence is a process, and each part of the process has its virtues and vices, its time and place.
This all reflects a transcendental concept of God; the pattern can be traced through world change, but is beyond it and can only be abstracted out. But there is also the immanent conception of God within perennialism, that it is the formless ground from which endless creative possibilities emerge. It inspires faith that change and renewal is necessary and inevitable.
Articulating the phases of complex emergence revitalizes polytheism without the personification, which I see as necessary to handle competing beliefs as well, the various aspects of God that allow for complexity to arise. Your writing on the evolution of morality points to this.
Question: if existence is complexity and complexity is the relationship between integration and differentiation, then it would seem that this points to an ontology of relationality (existence comes to be only insofar as it is instantiated through the relationship between integration and differentiation and that relationship is called „complexity“). Does that make sense or am I missing the something? Thank you.
You’re not missing anything. Yes, existence is relational in my view. I see this view of things as supporting a process-relational ontology in the same vein as Alfred North Whitehead… not that I actually understood Process and Reality.
Speaking about God and Whitehead: a little book combining theology and Whitehead‘s process ontology and then comparing it to other religious traditions that I found insightful was Prof. Joseph A. Bracken‘s „The Divine Matrix: Creativity as a Link between East and West“.
A great read, thank you, Brett. I don't know if you've encountered Tim Freke recently, but he's come away with a very, very similar conclusion to you, but from a slightly different direction. He's a great dude. https://newsletter.theleading-edge.org/p/at-the-leading-edge-of-a-new-worldview?r=2613wg
"...one could see atheism (in the modern sense) as the transition to a new, and more exciting development of God. If we look back at history, we will see that when people were called 'atheists', this usually usually marked a religious transition. One of those quantum leaps to an entirely new era of religiousity and spirituality. Thus, in the early stages of their history, Jews, Christians, and Muslims were all called atheists by their pagan contemporaries..."
- Karen Armstrong, 'The Future of God'
I’ve read a couple of her other books, I guess I should read that one too 👍
Nice read. I agree that scientific discoveries can solve the zero-sum conflicts of beliefs by purifying them in light of a metapattern of process. This even helps characterize why certain beliefs can be true yet parts of the greater whole; someone committed to a worldview that radical change is necessary for a better world could be seen within a paradigm of frustrated states/turbulent chaos/battling the dragon, while someone advocating for maintenance of the status quo holds to the virtues of order, with its risks of rigidity and dogmatism. Folk beliefs may capture part of the Logos and miss that existence is a process, and each part of the process has its virtues and vices, its time and place.
This all reflects a transcendental concept of God; the pattern can be traced through world change, but is beyond it and can only be abstracted out. But there is also the immanent conception of God within perennialism, that it is the formless ground from which endless creative possibilities emerge. It inspires faith that change and renewal is necessary and inevitable.
Articulating the phases of complex emergence revitalizes polytheism without the personification, which I see as necessary to handle competing beliefs as well, the various aspects of God that allow for complexity to arise. Your writing on the evolution of morality points to this.
Great read. Thank you.
Question: if existence is complexity and complexity is the relationship between integration and differentiation, then it would seem that this points to an ontology of relationality (existence comes to be only insofar as it is instantiated through the relationship between integration and differentiation and that relationship is called „complexity“). Does that make sense or am I missing the something? Thank you.
You’re not missing anything. Yes, existence is relational in my view. I see this view of things as supporting a process-relational ontology in the same vein as Alfred North Whitehead… not that I actually understood Process and Reality.
Speaking about God and Whitehead: a little book combining theology and Whitehead‘s process ontology and then comparing it to other religious traditions that I found insightful was Prof. Joseph A. Bracken‘s „The Divine Matrix: Creativity as a Link between East and West“.
Great read. Just recently wrote about this from a psychological perspective. https://substack.com/@christianjcharette/note/p-212369682?r=aoea8&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
A belief is like a MacGuffin.
You might want to check out Brandon Graham Dempsey's recent work on complexification and meaning
It seems to me “God” is simply the entirety of what is (and isn’t) and god’s activity is evolving. Why and to what end is another question.