God is dipolar god has two dimensions. This idea mainly developed by process philosophy.
Why dipolar concept of God? And what is it?
A.N Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne born in 1861 and 1897 respectively. Whitehead is a British mathematician, logician and philosopher. His intellectual carrier divided into three periods
1884-1910 interested in Mathemaths and logic; 1910- 1924 dwelt with philosophy of science and education, 1924-47 began to develop a metaphysical system known as process philosophy. He applied metaphysical system into god
Charles Hartshorne is considered many as one of the most important philosophers of religion. Though he criticizes the metaphysics of substance; a substance is that which stands in itself, which needs no other things for its existence. He also like as medieval thinkers developed a theoretical philosophy. Throughout his philosophy e defended the rationalityb of theism. His most influential contribution cionsists in not formulating the arguments for god’s existence , rather in developing a theory of the actuality of god that is how god exist?
In thye traditional classical theism god was seen as the supreme unchanging beingbut according to Hartshorne god always becomes, changing. How can we understanding the changing aspect of god? He brings, for this , the dipolar conception. In god theres are two natures; change –abstracts and change concreate.
Law of polarity
We try tom underastand law of polarityin relation with our body. My body can be seen both from the inside and outside. Eg.. I feel pain in my body. But doctor didn’t feel pain which I feel from inside. But doctor feels from outside so our body abstracts inside and concrete in outside. In inside we affect , but in outside we aren’t affected.
I can be both good and bad at same time . Hartshorne dipolar concept is that god is both absolute and relative, abstract nad concrete. This he says in opposition with the traditional theism which considers god as a pure absolute spirit.
St. Thomas
God 8is simple means , if god is complex it becomes divided. In complex it adds something , if it divided it will perish, if it is perishing god will not exist, that is to say god is simple.
How simple and complex are related? How god and man related?
According to st. Thomas, I sat on a chair so I connected with chair but chair doesn’t connect wuth me . it will stand there without my presence, even I am not there it exists. Iam an unimportant entity . but I need a cahair to sit. Likewise I need a necessary being to exist that is god.
Monopolar theism
Monopolar is a way of thinking about god where in we take from the pair of ultimate contraries. Such as many or one abstracts and concrete, permenat that change. We take one and we consider what we take as thje ultimate and admirable and we attribute itto god . botgh this methods we find classical thism and pantheism. I
In classical thism the concepts of god are passions on the principel trhat the superior diamension or poles as the best and we characterize god accordingly. So we consider god as the one. God as abstract. But if god as concrete, concretes contains matter and form. In that ,matter will destroy or perish . so god is not concrete.
God as permanent , if god is changing, change means movements, not perfection to perfect, if movements happen body also must exists. If body exists that is a growth from potentiality to actuality but in god ther is only actuality. That is to say in god there is no change he is permenant.
Classical tyheism says god as perfect and donot deney the reality of polar elements, but it considers the another elements as inferior or negative. That Is potentiality, change, becoming are inferior. These are outside of god. God created everything as good,, so everything included god. If something is outside of god means that those things are not good (evil). But these things can be seen in the world, so the world is bad from this point of view theology begins.
Classical metaphysics or theism
In classical theism we find the exemplification of monopolar thyeiosm . in classical theism god is considered as the absolute, independent of external to the world. St. Anselm though he experiences god as compassion and mercy. He attribute to god the quality of unchangeable unmovedmover. To be compassionate means to be moved by 5the suffering of others. To move means an aspect of change. But Anselmm does not want to god the attribute of change. Rather he considers god as an un moved mover. If god has no compassion , has he got any relation to the world? Creature are related to god . but god stands outside of the order of creatures. The creatures are ordered to Him. But he is not ordered to them. Being related to god is a reality in god. Here we find a paradox. God is both all- knowing and all loving, and He is the object of our loving. But his relation to us is not real.. the god of classical theism is presened as if he wills the good of creatures. But without any sympathy for their suffering.. he is the unmoved mover not moved by the suffering of His creatures. God is the independed being. If god is dependent being , He depends on others. In His case that is not correct. So god stands by Himself.
Problem of evil and suffering
The problem of evil is nothing other than a problem that arises when the classical metaphysucs is followed strictly. According to classical metaphysics god is all powerful and all- knowing. If god is all- knowing, He knows that I am suffering. If god is all powerfull he can remove my suffering. If He is not doing that we can assume that ethier He doesn’t want to remove my suffering or He doesn’t have the capacity to remove my suffering. Then we have to make a conclusion that ethier god is cruel or he is not powerful.. this the simple formulation of the problem of evil .
Epicurus( b.c- 341-270 bc) formulated the problem of evil
Traditional approaches to the problem of evil
1. punishment for human sins: the word pain derived from the latin word “poene” means punishment. We see in the Bible god is punshing, Adam and eve because of their disobedience. In the book of Job we also find this thinking. Job’s friends defends this theory. They said that Job is suffering because he commoitted some sins, Israel failure in war, their sickness, the suffering are seen as the punishment for the sins they have committed. But in the book of Job chapter42: 7-17, god corrects the wrong understanding of the Job’s friends.
2. suffering for others: insipered the book of Issiah 40-45 suffering has seen as the part of god’s work to do some greter for the other people. In a picture we see the background. The purpose of the background is to highlight the object in the picture. So evil is considered as a background against which the good highlight itself.
3. measure of freedom: the human pain due to mis guided choices committed sin, for this god punished them. We see the st. paul in his letters defends on this explanation. But it is serpent that tempted them(in eden). We find a faint notion of freedom here. But the responsibility for evil can’t be placed on human shoulders alone. The serpents also partially responsible. The serpents are also created by god because god created everything. The serpents which tempts the human being to sin. So this points the evil that is already “out there”. Call riceour calls it as enigmatic aspect of evil . his famous book is “sympolosism of evil”. Man is fully responsible for evil but he falls in to it.
4. freewill theodicy: this is the theodicy developed by st. Thomas and st. Augustine. In st. Augustine evil is the privation. Whatever is crested by god and whatever god has createcd is good . evil takes place when beings which are intricially good become corrupted. Corruption takes place through the acts of will. The will turns away from higher to lower goods. Thus the evil takesplace , e.g, I am a good singer every day I want to become a good singer again, but I didn’t improve, I am going down. Likewise god wants to see man is doing good , but man is going against his will. That 8is why st. Augustine explains evil as the corruption of freee will.
St. Thomas evil is the privation or a negation of a good which a thing ought to have. For eg, man must have two eyes but if he is born with one eye, he suffers. That is an evill for st. Thomas. Because he lacks one eye for him evil is the absence, lack, privation o0r negation of something.
St. Thomas-evil is the corruption of free will or disorder
st. Augustine- evil is the negation of good or absence
5 soul making theodicy: this [osition held by John Hick. According to him, human beings are not created ton fully virtuous or perfect. Their must be struggle with evil in order ton become good. And this process of becoming good by fighting with evil it cause it as soul making Theodicy . according to him, st. Erenus speaks about “ man is created in the image and likeness of god”. Human being is made as a person with the image of god. But he hass not yet reach the likeness of god . human beings become the likeness of god through personal relationship with god. Through this human being become a perfect beig. The process of growth or becoming culminates or reaches its final stage , when the finite being attatins the likeness of god . ( god created us with his image. Through personal relationship with god , man improve to become the likeness of god.)
according to John Hick, there are two stages of creation . the first stage of creation is ‘Homo’ ‘ Sapiens’. That is intelligent ethical and religious animal . from this I pass on to the second stage. In the second stage through my responses I become intelligent, ethical and religious being. So according to him, human being is still in thye process of creation .
6 love : love ois a complex reality. It is not easy to define in the face of evil, we expect a god of love for god , who understands our sufferings. How do we understand god’s love. In oreder to study about what is god’s love , we take humanlove namely love that exists between human beings. In other words we can’t know the love of god directly but we know human love directly.
The Hebrew word for ----------is “ahab” or ‘ahabah’. It signifiwes
1. physical love or sensuous love, 2 . family affection( love of the parent , love of the spouses). 3. natural friendship 4. highest spiritual passion ( Yahweh loves for Israel or Israel loves for yaheh). But for some authors god’d loves or human beings is rarely experessed bby the term ahab. The term often used is ‘hesed’, Which means loyalty or mercy but in this terminology or this word emphasized the aspect of reciprocity or spirituality. ‘Hesed’ is always a gift from god.
In greek language we have four words to express love they are ‘eros, philia, storgia, agape’.
1.eros means sexual love or passion. but for plato, it is a ectasy which takes one beyond rationality.
2&3 strojia and philia means a natural affection or friendship or social love
5. agape means the love of god to human being and human love to god . it gives the meaning of to esteem or to prefer something more higher than rhe other.
Eros is characterized by an indefinites impulsion covers it objects, whereas “agape” is pre and decisive act determined by the subject
Definition and description of love
Love is a participation in the lives of others, both humble and noble. It involves atoatal commitment and total reaction. Love regfers to a benevolence and affection. God’s love means, god’s benevolence and affection covers His children. Love is not a mere feeling . it is a relationship which involves pre- commitment to each other. In love relationship, four thinhs are involved
1. individuality , 2. freedom, 3. mutuality, 4. activiy& passivity.
Individuality: love implies the relationship between individuals who are unique. So love means accepting each other in their unique individuality. The distinctive character of as person is in communicablis and ‘ultima solitudo’ . it means known transferable and unique un repeatable thay which makes love authentic is lioving the other through his own individuality. In love two beings undergo a trasfermation through what gives and receives. But this transformation is without the destruction of the individuality. genuine love exhibits concern for other. But this concern doesn’t negate the being of the self or destroy the uniquess and freedom of the other.
2. freedom : to love is to involves----------------in the history of the other affirming and accepting his freedom. There is an ‘not yet’ element in everyone’s life. This ‘ not yet’ dimension is a siginificant element in the dynamics of love. It may involve the risks. Freedom consists in the way we managed those risks. There is also risk in the way the other takes decision about the future.
3. mutuality: the love between persons is always a mutual relationship. It is a I –thou relationship. The ‘I’ posees its own identity or its own world. The root from ‘I’ to the other happens through commitment. Love to be complete the root from Y to Z and the from Z to Y must intrupt ( it is not a one side love. Both love equally.) love is always bilateral and dialogical.
4. activity& passivity: love as mutual relationship is a dynamic iteraction. Love on the one hand implies an activity. It involves a movement, that is fellings, emotions, etc. the power to act pre-supposes the capacity to be acted upon, to be moved by the other. There can be no love without passivity. Passivityb in the wider sence means the capacity to be acted upon, to be change , to be transform by tha action or in relation to the another (potentiality to activity[a change], passivity. According to st. Thomas, this passivity is lack. In this I become an object. In this I receives something .I become in active. But in activity we give in to others. God is active so according to st. Thomas, acivity is good).
Love is always in- action. It is either growing or dying. At each moment the persons life either love makes development or love slowly decreases. It can’t stand at perpendicular level.. from the above description we conclude love is personal relationship between (at least two) persons who commit themselves responding creatively to the changing situations with the freedom and integrity.
From the above mentioned discussions, how shall we understand god’s love ? can god’s love be merely external? (between the god and the pillar) what do mean by god is love? And god- world relationship.
In OT and NT god is pictured as the one, who is actively involved in the world, in the history. In OT a picture god one who works or acts or listen or judge- one who loved. These are emotions, passions and fellings it clearly involves a commitment, a mutuality, an acativity and passivity.
God as the one who is involved
The bible provides us an account of the personal involvement of god with his people. He is the god of issach, Jacob, Abraham. He is not an impersonal god. But the personal god who communicates with the people of Israel in apersional manner. He is presented pre-eminently as god of love related to His choosen people. Some authors criticizing thr philosiopghers tells that it is thr philosophers who changed a personal god in to an impersonal deity- an un moved mover. But in bible, is the oersonal god or a god of love. Love in the bible is always a mutaual relationship between god and human being . in the book -------- the image is of conjugal love ( love between man and woman) Yahwea’s love for his people is poetically expresied by words like “darling, beloved”.here the initative comes from god. Another imagery is parental love. In Jermiahh, yahwea was a god who took care of His people with parental love. Here love is not a uni lateral thing. But it is bi-lateral it is not merely external but internal. Yahwea feels ‘ when His love is rejected’ in the bible love is always a reciprocal affection between god an dhis people.
God is the one who is related to the people ( externally and internally) and the world. God’s relation to the world can be understood with an analogy of body and mind relation . in plato, god is considered as the mind of the world. And world is the body of god . human body and its activities are directed by the mind . the mind can’t exist apart from the body. Body with out the mind becomes a body without prioper movements. But body and mind are separate entites. At the same time they are one. One can’t exisrt without the other.
God acts as the mind of the world and world as the body of god. God is not the world and world is not god. But god includes the world and the world includes god. There is no world apart from god. And there is god apart from some world. No world can exist without god , god can exist without this world. Hartshorne says it as eminent relativitry . we are related only to few people but god is related to all.
