Gd as ordering force in the Universe

[Fusgeyer]

This subject came up during my introduction and it was suggested I start a thread on the subject. 2 months later and I finally got around to it, haha. I was introduced to thinking of Gd as force rather than as entity as articulated by Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan in various corners of the web. I suppose I latched onto the idea in an attempt to rectify the problem (as I see it) that evil poses for an omnipotent Gd, as a way of combatting my own propensity to anthropomorphize Gd (meaning, to me, to create Gd in my own image), and as a way to allow room for scientific discovery.

I suppose it needs to be said that I am no theologian, so bear with my clumsy ramblings

Here is an essay and an article for everyone's reading pleasure. I've pulled out a few useful quotes just in case you're short on time. Hopefully these are enough to get the conversation started, but for a fuller context please read the complete pieces:

Mordecai M. Kaplan and Process Theology: Metaphysical and Pragmatic Perspectives​

https://www.religion-online.org/art...logy-metaphysical-and-pragmatic-perspectives/

There is only one universe within which both man and God exist. The so-called laws of nature represent the manner of God’s immanent functioning. The element of creativity, which is not accounted for by the so-called laws of nature, and which points to the organic character of the universe or its life as a whole, gives us a clue to God’s transcendent functioning. God is not an identifiable being who stands outside the universe. God is the life of the universe, immanent insofar as each part acts upon every other, and transcendent insofar as the whole acts upon each part. (JC 316)

In strictly philosophical thought, the very notion of a personal being, especially when not associated with a physical body, is paradoxical. Nothing would, therefore, be lost if we substituted for that notion the one of process, which, at least with the aid of science, most of us find quite understandable. (FAJ 183)

God as Ordering Force of the Universe​

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/god-as-ordering-force-of_b_1850510

A magnetic needle, hung on a thread or placed on a pivot, assumes of its own accord a position in which one end of the needle points north and the other south. So long as it is free to move about, all attempts to deflect it will not get away from its normal direction. Likewise, man normally veers in the direction of that which makes for the fulfillment of his destiny as a human being. That fact indicates the functioning of a cosmic Power which influences his behavior. What magnetism is to the magnetic needle, Godhood or God is to man.

So, how does everyone here conceive of 'Gd'? More as entity? More as force? More as a concept?

Curious to hear from diverse religious (and non-religious) beliefs.

 

[Cino]

Fascinating topic! Thanks for starting it.

My own perspective is one of no God or gods. I'm also a mystic by virtue of a couple of revelatory shifts in my relating to my experience of living on this planet as a human being - but that is another story.

Reading the quotes you posted, I am wondering how Kaplan's views, in this respect, differ from mine. There must be more to it than just calling the physical and emergent processes divine? Wouldn't that be basically wordplay?

Another interesting point you raised is that of transcendence. Is Kaplan basically "immanentizing the transcendent"? If so that would be a wonderful paradox, which the mystic in me would eat up whole - but then Kaplan was not mystically inclined, I believe?

 

[Fusgeyer]

Fascinating topic! Thanks for starting it.

My own perspective is one of no God or gods. I'm also a mystic by virtue of a couple of revelatory shifts in my relating to my experience of living on this planet as a human being - but that is another story.

Reading the quotes you posted, I am wondering how Kaplan's views, in this respect, differ from mine. There must be more to it than just calling the physical and emergent processes divine? Wouldn't that be basically wordplay?

Another interesting point you raised is that of transcendence. Is Kaplan basically "immanentizing the transcendent"? If so that would be a wonderful paradox, which the mystic in me would eat up whole - but then Kaplan was not mystically inclined, I believe?

I believe you are correct that Mordecai Kaplan was no mystic. I see most of his work as being dedicated to “rethinking” Judaism to make it relevant in the modern world.

I’ll be the first to admit that I often have a hard time understanding what Kaplan means. But the way I understand it, Kaplan understands Gd as the force that creates order from chaos. The universe, according to its basic laws, should trend towards chaos. It doesn’t, and the mysterious force that causes it to be orderly is what Kaplan would call “Gd”. But, I believe Kaplan understands “Gd” to be subject to the laws of the universe that “Gd” is very much a part of, just like us. In this respect, I guess Gd very much becomes something immanent that we experience every day as we observe, and are subject to the universe’s whims.

You raise a very good point about wordplay. Isn’t all theology/spiritual discourse essentially just wordplay? Reframing spiritual concepts using words that make sense to me is my jam.

 

[wil]

I font believe in G!d as force, but as principle....the underlying principle that allows science, physics, chemistry, electricity, biology to co-exist in balance...

Is it the same thing or the thing that allows the force Kaplan speaks of?

 

[RJM]

Entropy (decay) seems to be the process where the universe eventually exhausts its heat and dies.

"... the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of isolated systems left to spontaneous evolution cannot decrease with time, as they always arrive at a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, where the entropy is highest"

Entropy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I've never understood how life cannot be recognized as anti-entropic. Why should things form? The anthropic principle which is used to explain the order of the universe says essentially that we are alive in this universe because this is the universe which allows us to exist. It's hard to argue with reasoning like that: it is because it is -- lol

Science isn't really concerned with 'why' but 'how'. But, to me, the fact the universe exists is anti-entropic. There's no reason the universe should have coalesced -- the odds are just too high. The tiniest difference and it all would not have happened. However it's not possible to deduce probability from the fact of a singular event.

The fact is however that a single cell of a single blade of grass is a miracle of impossible probabilities, stacked one upon the other.

Ramakrishna accepts both knowledge and love: the impersonal truth and the personal God. He says that through the cooling influence of bhakti (devotion) a part of the Reality takes the form of the personal God; and with the rise of the sun of jnana (knowledge) the ice of form melts again into the formless water of the Absolute.

In other words God with form realized through bhakti (love) and the formless Absolute through jnana (knowledge).

The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna

(edited)

 

[RJM]

I've never understood how life cannot be recognized as anti-entropic.

Ok, scientifically I understand how the term entropy applies to life, as a closed system, that eventually loses heat and decays. So I suppose I mean that the origin of life is anti-entropic. It's so unlikely. The fact it did happen proves of course that it could happen. But to me its far easier to imagine some sort of intention, than pure incredible coincidences, each beyond the number of particles in the universe -- and stacked one on top of another.

But its just my own thoughts

EDIT: The Fine Structure Constant

 

[Fusgeyer]

I font believe in G!d as force, but as principle....the underlying principle that allows science, physics, chemistry, electricity, biology to co-exist in balance...

Is it the same thing or the thing that allows the force Kaplan speaks of?

I think it’s at least very similar. I think force implies action and interaction, whereas a principle seems more conceptual in nature.

 

[Fusgeyer]

Ok, scientifically I understand how the term entropy applies to life, as a closed system, that eventually loses heat and decays. So I suppose I mean that the origin of life is anti-entropic. It's so unlikely. The fact it did happen proves of course that it could happen. But to me its far easier to imagine some sort of intention, than pure incredible coincidences, each beyond the number of particles in the universe -- and stacked one on top of another.

But its just my own thoughts

EDIT: The Fine Structure Constant

Entropy has always been a big one for me as well. Everything just seems too perfect.

 

[RJM]

Everything just seems too perfect.

In comparison to what -- obviously?

But what the 'chance' of the only universe we will ever be able to perceive forming such complexity, when it could just as easily have gone to nothing? 'Just because' is the best answer we get ...

 

[wil]

In comparison to what -- obviously?

But what the 'chance' of the only universe we will ever be able to perceive forming such complexity, when it could just as easily have gone to nothing? 'Just because' is the best answer we get ...

Same as the chance of 4094 people getting together as couples and birthing every one of us (that is the number of ancestors you have in the past 400 years)

The reality is, impossible (rather highly unlikely improbable) happens every day. (Ask any poker player)

Believers put intelligent design as probable or fact while nonbelievers put it as improbable.

 

[Fusgeyer]

In comparison to what -- obviously?

But what the 'chance' of the only universe we will ever be able to perceive forming such complexity, when it could just as easily have gone to nothing? 'Just because' is the best answer we get ...

That is definitely the question. I suppose in comparison to the rest of the universe. By observation - at least from what we can tell so far - the universe is empty of life. Earth is not. What’s more, not only is there life, but this life is conscious (humans) and can ponder its own existence and purpose.

I really have nothing more than my gut to go on, but my gut says that there’s something significant or unique about that.

 

[RJM]

Same as the chance of 4094 people getting together as couples and birthing every one of us (that is the number of ancestors you have in the past 400 years)

The reality is, impossible (rather highly unlikely improbable) happens every day. (Ask any poker player)

Believers put intelligent design as probable or fact while nonbelievers put it as improbable.

Ok. But the probability of the universe going to zero is infinitely greater than going to the complexity that exists in even one cell of one blade of grass. The fact is that there can be no probability derivation from a single event -- but the complexity cannot be waved away, imo

 

[wil]

Oh the complexity is not, but the number of tries and attempts towards this end over how billion years? That time in itself make iniftessimal odds or our existence.....err...likely!

Thank G!d, lol

 

[RJM]

Oh the complexity is not, but the number of tries and attempts towards this end over how billion years? That time in itself make iniftessimal odds or our existence.....err...likely!

Thank G!d, lol

It is far more likely the universe would not order itself. The complexity of a single living cell is beyond any probability calculation. Except that it came to be. It's not that it could have happened by chance, but that it did.

It can't be waved away, imo

 

[Thomas]

I font believe in G!d as force, but as principle....the underlying principle that allows science, physics, chemistry, electricity, biology to co-exist in balance...

Er ... what we call Logos!

 

[wil]

Er ... what we call Logos!

And that is principle expressing...Christ...a physical expression, I still stay in the natural world...no supernatural force, in my mind we align...

 

[RJM]

@Aupmanyav
There's no concrete reality beyond our sensory perception of the world and the universe. If an atomic nucleus was the size of a golf ball, the electron would be about a mile and a half away, smaller than a pinhead -- and both the nucleons and electrons are really just probability waves that fill all space until we 'observe' them. All our scientific microscopes and telescopes etc, are really just ingenious extensions of our human animal senses of hearing, sight and so on.

Who's to say the universe limits itself to what our own animal physical senses can detect and perceive? I think it's a ridiculous idea. Antitheists have no call to be smug in their certainty that there's no 'God' imo

From: https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/20201/#post-371119

 

[Thomas]

There is only one universe within which both man and God exist. The so-called laws of nature represent the manner of God’s immanent functioning. The element of creativity, which is not accounted for by the so-called laws of nature, and which points to the organic character of the universe or its life as a whole, gives us a clue to God’s transcendent functioning. God is not an identifiable being who stands outside the universe. God is the life of the universe, immanent insofar as each part acts upon every other, and transcendent insofar as the whole acts upon each part. (JC 316)

That is arguably an acceptable Catholic viewpoint ... if one allows that God is 'unidentifiable' outside the universe – that is outside our range of consciousness and conceptuality.

I'm not countering the views expressed, they're profound and it'll take me a while to come to terms with them. There's much I can say yes to ...

In strictly philosophical thought, the very notion of a personal being, especially when not associated with a physical body, is paradoxical. Nothing would, therefore, be lost if we substituted for that notion the one of process, which, at least with the aid of science, most of us find quite understandable. (FAJ 183)

I don't understand why personal being must necessarily be bodied ... But I do rather regard the whole creation thing as dynamic, rather than static.

So, how does everyone here conceive of 'Gd'? More as entity? More as force? More as a concept?

LOL, I wonder if the terms are a bit like the wave/particle debate in physics? Why have we not come up with a term (we probably have) for something that can manifest the characteristics of a wave, and a particle, and yet be other than, and thus transcend, both?

Re the omnipotence of God, I suppose I somewhat naively hold the view that because God is All-Powerful does not mean He is necessarily coercive, there seems to be a view that he must assert His will all all times – whereas I believe He has endowed creatures with will, and will respect their choices, even if those choice go against His will?

And in process theology, there surely must be a dialogue regarding Love ...

+++

Around the First Christian Millenia, there was a change regarding the view of the Eucharist. Up until around that time, it was believed that Christ was 'at the table' – there was a greater focus on the union of those attending the Liturgy, and this shifted over time to a focus of Christ present in the Eucharist, 'on the table'.

It's perhaps a discreet theological point – that Christ was present generally, then a more pinpointed focus as Christ present in the Eucharistic bread-and-wine – but this does seem to allude to the idea of a dynamic element in the early church which became a more entity-based view later on, if that makes sense ...

... this is probably all a bit too historical/esoteric, but I'm thinking about the principle of process theology being very active in the church up to about the first millennium?

+++

As I said ... random thoughts ...

 

[RJM]

LOL, I wonder if the terms are a bit like the wave/particle debate in physics? Why have we not come up with a term (we probably have) for something that can manifest the characteristics of a wave, and a particle, and yet be other than, and thus transcend, both?

Bingo!
Nice

 

[Fusgeyer]

That is arguably an acceptable Catholic viewpoint ... if one allows that God is 'unidentifiable' outside the universe – that is outside our range of consciousness and conceptuality.

Right. I guess I’d agree that, while G-d could exist outside of the observable universe, we can only make observations of what is perceivable so we only experience G-d as a part of the universe?