The quest for certainty is futile, and yet fruitful life requires convictions.
“Henry Nelson Wieman’s greatest contribution, in my opinion, is his empirical demonstration that the process of creative transformation is one that can be empirically described and that this description shows that, although it can be facilitated and served, it cannot be managed or controlled by human beings. On the other hand, I concluded that Wieman’s thinking is not quite as free of dependence on speculative thought as he hoped. It is possible to describe reality in ways that do not allow a place for what he has done. To follow Wieman requires rejection of these alternative views of reality. I agree with Wieman in this rejection, but among equally intelligent and careful thinkers there will be disagreements. One cannot escape this diversity of opinion by the appeal to the strictly experiential.
I also concluded that as a doctrine of God, his position does not quite work. Since in later writings he became less interested in whether the word “God” was used, this may not seem important. However, to me the question of whether life can be lived in relation to a reality that can be trusted is important, and it was Wieman’s claim to demonstrate this possibility that so appealed to me. If one is not allowed to speculate as to what is going on in creative transformation ontologically speaking, then the occasions in which it occurs have abstract similarities but no deeper unity. It is unclear just what one is called to trust.
The fact that elements of speculation seem to be inescapable, on the one hand, and the fact that Wieman’s limitation of speculation has negative consequences, on the other, confirmed me in my conviction that the intense and widespread rejection of speculation was misdirected. The quest for certainty is futile, and yet fruitful life requires convictions. Accordingly the goal should be to work toward the most probable conclusions, extensively guided, in my pragmatically oriented mind, by their implications for action. This judgment has led me to follow Whitehead.”
The above passage comes from an essay by John Cobb. In the essay Cobb reflects on some of the differences between the Chicago School of Process Theology, which included great thinkers like Henry Nelsen Weiman, Bernard Loomer and Daniel Day Williams, and the Claremont School of Process Theology. Lately I’ve been really interested in learning more about the differences between the two schools of process theology who were influenced by Whitehead.
From what I understand, there is a tendency among people to distinguish between two Whitehead’s: a rational Whitehead, and an empirical Whitehead, and then categorize the two schools of theology accordingly. Generally, as far as I know, the Chicago School has mainly been associated with the empirical aspect of Whitehead’s thought, while the Claremont school, and thinkers like Cobb, Griffin, Lewis Ford et al., have been associated with the rational aspect. However, as Cobb describes in his essay, I think associating him, Griffin and others from the Claremont school with emphasizing the rational/speculative aspect of Whitehead’s thought over the empirical aspect is disingenuous.
Alternatively, I would put it this way: folks like Cobb emphasize both aspects of Whiteheads thought, while folks like Weiman and Loomer de-emphaize a certain aspect; namely, the speculative, rational aspect. And it’s certainly fine to emphasize or de-emphacize what one whishes, but framing things this way is more accurate, I’d say. I think Bernard Lee might be right in that those who read Whitehead through the lens of Charles Harshorne might be more inclined toward the rational elements of Whitehead’s thought, while those who read Whitehead through the lens of Weiman and William James might lean toward the empirical elements. However, I think John Cobb in particular embraces both categories by taking into account the entirety of Whitehead’s thought. Cobb writes:
I was one of those who judged that Whitehead’s philosophy gave space for much of what both Wieman and Hartshorne affirmed and explored, but was in fact more inclusive and incisive than either. I do not rescind or apologize for that judgment. I recommend the study and use of Whitehead’s conceptuality not only in theology but also in the sciences. I do not do this in opposition to Wieman and Hartshorne, who represent for me the extremes of radical empiricism and rationalism within the process camp. But for me, Whitehead’s thought relativizes both by giving adequate space to the other.
As far as Whitehead’s thought being speculative and metaphysical, this has never been a problem for me. Upon learning that Whitehead did not venture into metaphysics and speculative philosophy to protect any notion of God/gods/god or religious conviction he might or might not have had, but to help elucidate what science/physics was showing us about the natural world, Whitehead then won a gold star in my book (more on this here).
…
Illustration above by Grahm Yarrington
0 Comments