David Ray Griffin: IDist
by BilboI've been skimming through a pamphlet written by the process theologian David Ray Griffin, called, Evolution without Tears: A Third Way beyond Neo-Darwinism and Intelligent Design. I confess that I know very little about process theology, though I'm gathering that according to this view God is not transcendent to the Universe, but is somehow part of it, yet conscious of it and able to influence events in it. I think process theology is supposed to be equivalent to something called Panentheism.
Prof. Griffin agrees with many leaders of the ID movement (e.g., Dembski and Phillip Johnson) regarding "Neo-Darwinism's Religious-Moral Destructiveness" (p.20), and seems to agree that there are scientific inadequacies with Neo-Darwinism (p.19), but thinks science needs a naturalistic framework that a supernatural form of ID can't provide. But Griffin summarizes William Dembski's thoughts in Dembski's book, Design Revolution,
He [Dembski] even concludes by taking back his acknowledgment that process theology is compatible with ID, suggesting that only a God who creates ex nihilo can be a designer in the true sense of the term. (p.24)
From this Griffin concludes that process theology could never be included as a form of Intelligent Design theory, and classifies his explanation, which he calls "Whiteheadian evolution," as a third alternative to ID or Neo-Darwinism. According to such a view,
…there is divine influence in every event and the content of this influence can vary enormously….Given the idea that every event is subject to divine influence — an influence that Whitehead calls an "initial aim" — the Neo-Darwinian doctrine that evolution is entirely undirected is rejected, along with the claim that macroevolution is fully understandable in terms of random variations and natural selection. (p.27)
I think the problem here is that Prof. Griffin thinks that Prof. Dembski is the one and only gatekeeper of Intelligent Design theory. Should he ever visit our blog, he would soon realize that this isn't the case, and that Whiteheadian evolution would actually be one of the alternative special hypotheses within the broader general hypothesis we know as Intelligent Design. Let me quickly head off the usual attack of ID critics, who would say that I am only demonstrating that ID is just a big tent for all sorts of contradictory views. There is one common denominator to all of these views: All agree that teleology has played some sort of causal role in the history of biotic reality. As such, Prof. Griffin's Whiteheadian evolution would be included in this big tent, and opposed to that other big tent that I call "Non-Teleological explanations of biotic reality."
Let me head off another objection — that Neo-Darwinism leads to Moral-Religious Destructiveness. It's not clear to me that it does, or at least that it needs to. I think Ken Miller has argued rather persuasively that one can be a Theist and believe that God has used a Neo-Darwinian process to bring about all the different forms of life. So here I must part company with Prof. Griffin and some other leaders in the ID movement. I think the important question we should focus on is whether ID provides some sort of scientific explanation that is more complete than non-teleological explanations.
Nevertheless, it's clear that Whiteheadian evolution should be included in our big tent of ID. And so I say to Prof. Griffin, welcome to ID.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Bilbo,
From my understanding, panentheism != process theology. I don't doubt a process theologian could be a panentheist, but one could also be a more 'orthodox' christian and a panentheist. (In fact, it supposedly is a tenet of the eastern orthodox faith, from my past scattered reading.)
For reference: Orthodoxwiki's Panentheism entry.
And I'd agree that 'process theology' should and would reasonably fall under the ID big tent.
As an aside, the idea of God's immanence throughout creation (while also being distinct from it) is a large theme in Aristotilean and scholastic (particularly Aquinas') thought. Of course, the situation there is reversed: Dembski and others seem to insist that A-T theorists should rightly be in the big tent. Meanwhile the general A-T response (Edward Feser comes to mind here, along with I think Francis Beckwith) has been, "We're in agreement on much, but no, ID is not what we believe in."
Gotta love the complications of philosophy.
Comment by nullasalus — May 14, 2009 @ 10:00 pm
May 14th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
According to a book I have here ("Radical Nature" by Christian de Quincey), David Ray Griffin is a "panexperientialist" whatever that means. I myself, am a large, land dwelling hominid.. Oh yes and I am also an ID'er. As such I have always found the find "Whiteheadian" approach to be very interesting.
Comment by William Brookfield — May 14, 2009 @ 10:15 pm
May 14th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Panexperientialism is a kind of panpsychism. If that term is more familiar.
Galen Strawson is one of the more well-known modern advocates of it. Also, he calls it "real materialism". Just to make things more confusing.
Comment by nullasalus — May 14, 2009 @ 10:20 pm
May 14th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
BTW As far as I am concerned ID is not about the "supernatural." It is about the evidence and logic that shows materialism to be sub-natural.
Comment by William Brookfield — May 14, 2009 @ 10:23 pm
May 15th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
I don't think process theology means only that God is immanent, but not transcendent. One has to note that transcendence may not mean separated from the universe (as implied by Biblical creation), and so process theology is well beyond what might be called Panentheism; the better word in panpsychism.
The fact remains that transcendent and immanent are both part of One reality in the sense of Plotinus. To transcend in the sense of Kant, or Husserl, does not mean to hold one separate. Rather it means to center one self away from confusion, and to find a better perspective. The so-called "American transcendentalists" (e.g., Henry David Thoreau) were part of one simplified world.
See my Amazon book review of David Skrbina's "Panpsychism in the West" to understand the connection with intelligent design and panpsychism:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R3G04N7OB2VD8B/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
Comment by Stephen — May 15, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
May 15th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
What are A-T theorists?
So am I, though I'm trying to become a 20% smaller one.
I'm working on your review, Stephen.
Comment by Bilbo — May 15, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
May 15th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Interesting review, Stephen. The parts that especially caught my attention: St. Francis and Jesus both being panpsychists. I can see the case for St. Francis. The case for Jesus might be a little more tenuous.
And does panpsychism imply pantheism?
Comment by Bilbo — May 15, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
May 15th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Bilbo,
Sorry, just shorthand for 'aristotilean-thomist'. That's a pain to keep writing!
And you did not ask me, but, I think panpsychism at the very least is compatible with pantheism and panentheism. I'm not sure about 'implies', but arguments could probably be made along those lines.
Comment by nullasalus — May 15, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
May 15th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Yeah, if I remember, I think Stephen thought it implied pantheism. But I don't think it would. I think panpsychism could even be compatible with traditional supernatural theism.
Comment by Bilbo — May 15, 2009 @ 6:49 pm
May 15th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Bilbo, apart from the trinitarian tone in Christianity, one may look to the Gospel of Thomas:
http://users.misericordia.edu//davies/thomas/Trans.htm
We note in Jesus, a non-dual awareness (both immanent and transcendent). And so the One and the Many are united in one reality; enter pantheism, or better panpsychism that is resolved with pantheism).
Panpsychism says that consciousness is fundamental, and connected with matter. But as a property of matter, what is found fundamental is also a property of the universe. And whose consciousness may this be? What is found fundamental is also irreducibly complex as it is a boundary condition.
Comment by Stephen — May 15, 2009 @ 7:39 pm
May 16th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
I'm pretty sure most scholars would date the Gospel of Thomas as quite a bit later than the Gospels in the New Testament, and much less likely to be actual sayings of Jesus.
It's not clear from the Gospel of Thomas what sort of awareness Jesus had. From the New Testament Gospels, we have Jesus telling a storm, "Peace. Be still," and telling a fig tree, "May you never bear fruit again." I think that's about the extent of the evidence that Jesus thought inanimate things had consciousness. But that might be enough, I'm not sure. I'm willing to grant, for the sake of argument, that Jesus believe in panpsychism.
I've always had a problem with the logical consistency of pantheism. If I understand it, there is one universal mind, and we are fooled into thinking that we have separate consiousnesses. Yet, if we don't have separate consiousnesses, who is it that is being fooled? But I'm willing to assume that somehow pantheism makes sense.
However, it seems that panpsychism could also be explained either by panentheism or theism. In panentheism, since everything is part of God (the many different parts are not illusions, as in pantheism), it could make sense that the parts are separately conscious. And in theism, it seems possible that God created matter so that it had the additional property of being conscious. Whether this would apply to the universe as a whole, or only to each of its parts, would be a different question.
Comment by Bilbo — May 16, 2009 @ 12:40 pm
May 17th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Remember, Whitehead called his philosophy "The Philosophy of Organism." His followers apparently were put off by implications of vitalism, or something like that, and coined instead, "Process Philosophy." I have remained true to Whitehead's spirit in the formulation at http://www.starlarvae.org
After leaving the Center for Process Studies at the Claremont School of Theology, Griffin began a new career as a spokesperson for the 911 Truth movement. He has written several books on the peculiarities and coincidences surrounding the attacks of 911. (I try to remain agnostic, but there are so many uncanny coincidences surrounding 911 that it's hard not to believe that the official story is not the whole story.)
The philosopher Charles Hartshorne developed in deep detail the theological dimension of Whitehead's philosophy, and I highly recommend Hartshorne's writings to anyone interested in a rigorously logical theology. The Center for Process studies has audio files of Hartshorne lectures and interviews, downloadable at http://www.ctr4process.org/media/
Comment by heresiarch — May 17, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
May 17th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
[...] David Ray Griffin: IDist [...]
Pingback by Darwiniana » David Ray Griffin: IDist — May 17, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
May 19th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Thanks for the info, Hesiarch. Actually, I knew about Griffin's work on 9/11, but I promised not to bring up again at TelicThoughts after my thread on Unburnt Thermite. So I'm glad you mentioned it.
Since I'm the only IDist I know who sees 9/11 as a false flag event, I found it encouraging that Griffin finds merit in the arguments of Behe and others for design in biotic reality.
Comment by Bilbo — May 19, 2009 @ 3:14 pm
May 20th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
From http://tinyurl.com/o5eay2:
"Or, maybe the attack of 9/11 was an inside job. An awful lot of security systems had to fail coincidentally on that particular day to produce the effects of the 9/11 attack. If we’re going to teach intelligent design in science class, then why not teach conspiracy theories in other classes, too? After all, that’s what intelligent design theory is—a conspiracy theory. Things are not as they seem on the surface. Behind the scenes lurks a mastermind who pulls the strings, arranging events ('coincidences') according to a plan.
And yet.
And yet, even paranoids can have real enemies. And even conspiracy theories can predict events that come to pass."
Comment by heresiarch — May 20, 2009 @ 12:21 pm
May 21st, 2009 at 11:12 am
I recently bought a copy of Griffin's Religion and Scientific Naturalism. It displays the same thoroughness and clarity that I found in his 9/11 books. I think I'll finally get to understand what panentheism is, and why he rejects supernatural theism.
Comment by Bilbo — May 21, 2009 @ 11:12 am
May 21st, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Bilbo, interesting point. I haven't come across Griffin explicitly rejecting supernaturalism, but I can see why the concept would evaporate.
To even entertain the notion of the supernatural is to suppose that we already have a complete, comprehensive accounting of nature, because only then would we be in a position to determine what is outside of nature. But our understanding of nature is incomplete, so we have no way of knowing whether an odd event is supernatural or an expression of nature that happens to lie outside of our current understanding.
If you get seriously interested in panentheism, I recommend Charles Hartshorne's "Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes." It's a short book for the lay reader that lays out the basics of panentheism. CAUTION: If you're a scriptural literalist, you will be scandalized.
Comment by heresiarch — May 21, 2009 @ 5:28 pm
May 21st, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Apparently, I am now the optimum weight for my height for my age and hominid type (160). I used to be 30+lbs overweight but since I met my wife Penny she has put me on a different diet and usana nutritional supplements. Luckily I still get to eat as much as I like. I just have to "balance" things.
Comment by William Brookfield — May 21, 2009 @ 11:16 pm