Ed Cook

Global Warming

Global Climate Change

Think the recent frigid weather in the Midwest proves there is no global warming?  Think again. The vast majority of climate scientists now agree that global warming is occurring and, since the Industrial Revolution, is mainly due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.  The most important greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and water vapor. Carbon dioxide is the largest component, with the atmospheric content having increased from the pre-industrial concentration of 280 ppm to the present 380 ppm.  This increase is primarily attributed to burning of fossil fuels.

The average global temperature has increased 1.26 degrees Fahrenheit from 1880 to 2000, and has increased over the past three decades by 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.  This occurs from the trapping of infrared (heat) energy by the atmospheric greenhouse gases.  If the trend continues, we will have global warming of at least 5 degrees Fahrenheit by year 2100.  By comparison, the last ice age was 9 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than today.

New scientific evidence is being released, subject to peer review, almost every few days.  The only lack of consensus among the scientist is how much warming will occur and when, as well as the possible future effects.

In the absence of prompt action to reduce carbon emissions, double carbon dioxide forcing will be reached by year 2050.  The probable results for this global warming will be:  an increase in the frequency and length of heat waves which can be deadly, drier weather in arid and semi-arid regions, increased precipitation with flooding in moderate and humid regions, a rise in sea level due to ice melt and thermal expansion, an increase in mosquito-borne disease (malaria, dengue fever, West Nile virus, etc.), and species extinction.  In the U.S., the Gulf Coast, the entire Florida peninsula and eastern seaboard will be threatened by flooding. Globally, India, Bangladesh, and island nations will be at risk.

We could be leaving our grandchildren an entirely different planet.  Although this is a global problem, simple personal steps can be taken to avert the catastrophe.  For example, if every household in the U.S. exchanged a single incandescent light bulb with a compact fluorescent bulb, we would prevent enough greenhouse gas emission equal to removing one million cars from the road.

As with other catastrophes, the rich will probably accommodate while the poor suffer the most.  I believe we have a scientific, sociological, ethical and theological responsibility to attempt to avert this global catastrophe and act accordingly.

On Justice

The general meaning of justice (Gk. dikaosune) in the ethical sense is treating others fairly and impartially.  This applies both on a personal and organization level.  Interestingly, the same Greek word is often translated "righteousness" in the New Testament.

Both Plato and Aristotle included justice in their lists of cardinal virtues.  Plato (Republic) describes justice as the dominant virtue of both individuals and societies.  This means that any ethical matter comes under the realm of justice.

As a virtue, justice is an internal state of a person or organization and does not rely on social, political, or economic norms and is not determined by good consequences (utilitarianism).  Virtue is defined as excellence of character by the ancient Greeks, with the opposite of virtue being vice.

According to Aristotle, there are two aspects of justice:

       1.  Outward -- treating others fairly and impartially.

       2.  Inward -- People should receive benefits according to their merits.  One should seek their fair share and no more or no less.  The opposing pole of justice here is greediness.

Lawrence Kohlberg describes 6 stages of human moral development.  The highest stage is a concern for justice and human rights.

In a report published by the National Organization for Women (www.now.org), there was a substantial differential in men/women earnings in 2004.  The median women's earnings were 76% of that of men.  In the case of African American women, this dropped to 69%, while with Latino women the differential was 58%.  Women were found to be paid less in every occupational category for which sufficient data is available.  If the compensation was equitable, women's annual income would increase by $4000.

A Gender Equity Study has been in process within the Kansas West Conference of the United Methodist Church for several years.  Each year during the past ten years, the base compensation of male pastors exceeded that of women when adjusted for experience.  This differential has increased almost each year of the study and is thought to be based solely on gender.

I find it disturbing that injustice (vice) is overtly being practiced within a mainline Protestant denomination.  The public image of organized religion has been damaged considerably for several years.  Practicing acts of injustice withing the church certainly does not help the image.

God and The World

          Mortimer Adler once said that the purpose of philosophy is to better understand the things we already know.  I believe the purpose of theology is to better understand God, which helps us develop a stronger relationship with God.  Theologians often develop various “models” of God to help them and others progress toward this goal.  A model is used in various situations to observe and study something when direct observation is impossible or impractical.  Even the theologians who develop these models of God generally realize that their models most likely are not totally accurate and are certainly incomplete.  This is not their intent.

          One of those models I find very helpful was originally described by Alfred North Whitehead.  Whitehead was a British mathematician and philosopher who wrote his most complete description of process philosophy and theology Process and Reality in 1929.  The final chapter in the book, God in the World, describes his theological component most completely.  This book is lengthy and not an easy read.  Several other process thinkers have simplified the concepts to make them more readable and understandable.  Keep in mind that Whitehead considered his world view to be a tentative hypothesis, always to be open to revision.

          The word process implies change, dynamics and becoming.  It involves a series of changes that usually led to a result.  Process thought is a paradigm (worldview) that sees reality as dynamic, relational, and creative.  The paradigm is generally compatible with the findings and views of modern science.

          Whitehead considered the basic building blocks of the universe to be energy events or becoming occasions. Energy implies a dynamic process, not a static entity. Everything, even the smallest particle yet to be discovered, is composed of these energy events.  Everything we experience, even though it may appear that it is completely material, is composed of energy events.  Also, process thinking is a relational vision.  The nature of these energy events is determined by their interrationships with each other.  Therefore, we directly observe and experience not only individual events, but the interactions between these things.

          To simplify the process model, I will describe the basics as they apply to us in everyday life.  We are continually influenced by four players during our ordinary daily activities:  the present situation, our personal past, the historical past, and God.  Every thought and action coming from us is an energy event, a becoming occasion.  It is the result of feeling many influences from the above four sources as well as our own creativity.

          For example, consider the process of making a simple decision.  You are in a bookstore deciding which of several books to buy on “integrity.”  In the present situation, you look at the front cover, read the comments on the back cover, check the table of contents, publication date, etc.  You might even read a few random passages in each book while thumbing through them.  Here, the present situation influences you.  Maybe you have read other books by one of the authors or publishers.  This is the influence of the personal past.  Historical events such as past court decisions, results of previous wars, the lives and teachings of Gandhi or Jesus, actions by past politicians, etc. might influence your decision as the historical past even though you were not yet born.  Finally, God, through gentle persuasive luring (enticing), might influence your final decision.  Hopefully, you decided to buy the book you are now reading.

          After considering or rejecting those possible influences, you make a decision and buy the book.  This process of integrating the influences and decision making is what Whitehead calls concrescence, or making concrete.  Creativity is involved, because your decision is influenced but not determined, by the present, the past, and God.  Also, your decision is now available for others to prehend (grasp).  This prehension could be one of the personal past, even possibly historical past, influences on others.  In process thought, this is called objective immortality.

          The divine component of the process model is very intriguing.  First, God is imaged as having a twofold nature – with a primordial nature and a consequent nature.  The primordial nature of God is transcendent, eternal, infinite, absolute, and unchangeable.  However, the consequent nature is immanent, temporal, finite, relative, and changeable.

          God “feels” the world through the consequent nature.  This is constantly changing.  This is the personal and interactive nature of God.  Metaphorically, this could be thought of as God’s body.

          God’s primordial nature is an infinite range of possibilities.  This is the source of God’s wisdom, and could be thought of as the mind of God.

          During God’s feeling of the world through His consequent nature, He is influenced by the continual changes happening in the universe.  However, His suggestion for every becoming occasion comes from the primordial nature, the mind of God.

          Second, God is continually active in the universe.  God acts, not with coercive force, but by persuasive luring (a phrase commonly used in process theology literature).  This persuasive luring might be thought of as similar to a weak magnetic force, gently tugging us but not strong enough that we can’t resist the force.  God makes a suggestion for every occasion.  Humans, with freedom of will, can choose to accept this suggestion completely, partly, or totally reject it.

          Third, this suggestion from God is not concerned with the distant future.  It is for the present and immediate future.  God’s suggestion is such that it represents a persuasive luring toward harmony, peace, good, happiness, enjoyment, strong relationships, and creativity. What this means is that God’s suggestion, if accepted, would result in the very best for the individual and those interacting with the individual. Again, this is all for the present situation and immediate future.

          Finally, notice that process theology is a relational vision.  God is concerned not only with the personal good of the individual, but the best for our relationships with others, the world in which we live, and between each of us and God.

          In so-called classical theism, God is thought to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving.  Some have a problem with this image of God when considering the existence of evil in the world.  If God is all-knowing, He obviously is aware of the presence of evil.  If God is all-loving, He would desire to eradicate evil.  If God is all-powerful, He would have the ability to do something about it.  Yet, evil does exist.

          One of the frequent answers to this question is:  God gave us humans freedom of will.  To act in opposition to evil would violate our freedom of will.

          Another answer often presented is:  Evil does not really exist.  All situations eventually turn out for the best, given enough time.  God, being all-knowing, realizes this but we humans, with finite wisdom, don’t realize it until much later (if at all).  Try offering this explanation to the families and friends of the September 11 victims.

          The reconciliation of the problem of evil has been a major problem for many.  Consequently, some have deserted their religion and denounced God.  How can this happen to me, my family, or the world with a God, who could and should have prevented it, in control?

          In order to better understand the problem, we need to understand what actually constitutes evil.  There are natural disasters:  earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, etc. that claim lives and cause suffering.  I don’t believe this represents evil.  These natural events are not caused by humans motivated by a desire to do harm.

          Consider the scenario of a transatlantic flight at cruising altitude suddenly disappearing from radar.  The plane disintegrated at 34,000 feet and the wreckage was found with no survivors.  Immediately, there would be speculation regarding the cause of the tragedy.  Was it weather related, such as clear-air turbulence not visible on the aircraft radar?  Was it a mechanical problem with the aircraft?  Was it human error?  Was it a bomb, or was the plane intentionally shot down by a missile?  Where was God during this event?

          In my opinion, only a human-induced cause with the motive of harming or killing others constitutes an act of evil.  All other causes would be secondary to natural events, human error, or mechanical/structural malfunction.  It is certainly a tragedy, but not necessarily secondary to an act of evil.

          A simple question was frequently asked following the September 11 terrorist attacks.  Where was God during these events?  This was followed by more specific questions such as:  Why didn’t God prevent these tragedies?  Various answers have been offered by theologians, biblical scholars, clergy, and others.

          Where was God?  God was present with all involved in these tragedies before, during, and after the disasters.  God was offering His suggestions to the hijackers, even before they boarded the planes.  God’s suggestions, remember, are directed toward peace, love, harmony, good, happiness and creativity for the present and immediate future.  Obviously, the intentional killing of thousands of people does not correlate.  Therefore, God would have been gently urging the hijackers to abandon their missions.

          God was also with the airline passengers, comforting them and urging them to be proactive during the situations.  I believe this is the reason Todd Beamer and other passengers on United Flight 93 acted as they did, attempting to abort the impending tragedy.

          God was with the victims in the Pentagon and World Trade Center Towers, offering both comfort and suggestion for their survival.  He was with each policeman and firefighter, offering suggestions which would lead to the best possible outcome of these disasters.

          God was there.  He was with everyone concerned.  He was with the nation.  He was with the world.  God was with each Christian, Jew, Muslim, member of other religions, the nonreligious, the agnostic, and the atheist.  He was gently persuading each of us toward the maximum good.  The God of process theology works through people, co-creating a better world.

          The reason I find process theology appealing is because it is a practical theology.  The model is useful in describing how an infinite, eternal, creator God can interact with us on a personal everyday basis.  The continual and infinite pulses of grace representing God’s suggestions for every occasion represent the ultimate basis for personal wisdom and integrity.

          An analogy I often use compares God with an excellent conductor of a symphony orchestra.  The conductor knows how the music should ideally sound.  He cannot force each orchestra member to play optimally. However, he gently persuades each orchestra member to play in a manner that the entire orchestra produces the desired result.  This is the way God works with us.  God does not use coercive force, but gentle persuasive luring, aimed at the very best possible outcome.  What else would you expect from a God of grace and peace?

On Reverence

Reverence was a very important virtue among the ancients in both the western and eastern cultures.  However, it seems to have lost its value in the current western world.  The importance of reverence is detailed in Paul Woodruff's excellent book Reverence -- Renewing a Forgotten Virtue.  Woodruff is a philosophy and humanities professor at the University of Texas in Austin.  He is an expert on the ancient Greek philosophers and their writings.

Of high importance with reverence is a realization of human limitations.  Associated with this is the ability to be in awe of all that lies beyond our control.  To the ancient Greeks, reverence was the virtue that prevents people from acting like gods.  Human arrogance (hubris) is the opposite of reverence.  Such a person is unable to have feelings of awe regarding things higher than himself or feel respect for those things lower than himself. These two feelings, of course, result in a very limited personal microparadigm.

Reverence, being a virtue, is a component of a virtuous person's excellence of character.  A virtuous person has a much higher strength of character than a non-virtuous person.  Virtues are central to good thinking and action.  A virtuous person does the right thing because it "feels" good to do so.  Paul Woodruff believes the importance of reverence should qualify it as a cardinal virtue, along with practical wisdom, courage, justice, and moderation.  People of different religions may disagree about matters of belief and faith, but reverence is non-debatable and admired by all religions.  As long as those of other religions demonstrate reverence, it is not important that they share anther person's beliefs.

Reverence is a capacity for certain feelings.  The ancient Greeks and Chinese thought that everyone has a natural capacity for virtue, but virtue is not inherent.  It must be developed through teaching or emulation of a highly virtuous exemplar.  Virtue must be cultivated.  All of this, of course, applies to reverence.

Associated with the capacity for a range of feelings with reverence is the continual realization that there is something larger than the person.  This results in feelings of awe, shame, and respect.  Often these feelings are expressed by some sort of ceremony or ritual.  Reverence reminds us of our human limitations.  This "something larger" might include God, nature, the universe, value systems, etc.  It is something one feels, not a particular feeling in itself.Reverence is not limited to theists.  Atheists and agnostics can also be reverent.

As I said, reverence is an ancient virtue and was highly important to the ancients.  However, it seems to have become forgotten (as a virtue) over the years.  This does not mean there are no reverent people living today.  As a virtue, it is simply not cultivated by many.  This is somewhat ironic, as it is essential for any highly functional society or organization.

I have only scratched the tip of the iceberg regarding reverence.  In his excellent book, Paul Woodruff goes into detail with many examples and much interesting documentation.  Highly recommended.

On Integrity - The Basics

What does integrity really mean?  It is a word used rather frequently now, during a period of corporate fraud and manipulation, scandal within the church, and the global reaction to terrorism.  I conducted a small survey of various groups, asking each person what integrity means to them.  The most frequent responses included honesty, truthfulness, honor, etc.  They chose a particular virtue which they thought to be synonymous with integrity.  Others were more broad, such as high moral and ethical standards, etc.  Most of the responses implied action rather than a passive state of mind.

I believe the integrity concept includes a more basic element than the above qualities.  The word comes from the Latin integritas, translated wholeness, completeness, entireness, purity, undividedness.  The words integer and integrate come from the same Latin word.  It means that two or more parts are brought together as unity.  Our physical, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual components are brought together to function as a whole system.  This involves a union of the human spirit with the divine spirit.  In addition, the wholeness involves our interrelationships with others and the world, just as morality implies interaction with others.  In the human domain, this is what wholeness or undividedness means.  After this process begins, our outward signs (virtues) of integrity begin to be noticed by others.  We are perceived to be honest, thought to own a desirable value system, perceived as a person who "does the right things."  Integrity becomes our paradigm of life.

Integrity is not a state of being.  It is not simply something one either has or does not have.  However, some people are so low on integrity that one could deduce that they have none at all.  Others seem to be filled with integrity.  For most of us, it is a continual spectrum ranging from no detectable signs of integrity at all to those overflowing with the signs.  It appears that integrity is a process.  People of high integrity usually build this up gradually.  Some, depending on their moral development, spiritual growth, etc. seem to progress more rapidly.  Those who begin the process in early childhood might develop the qualities of integrity earlier.

Integrity, at its most foundational level, involves a fusion of the human mind with the mind of God.  The spirit of God supersedes the human spirit and the two become a unity.  In Mat. 16.21-23, Peter was thinking and speaking according to the human spirit.  When Jesus said "get behind me, Satan," he was symbolizing the priority of the spirit of God.  A similar example occurs in the story of the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness.  The three temptations (tests) presented by the devil represent an attempt to entice Jesus to think and act according to the human spirit (Lk. 4.1-13).  When Luke writes that the devil departed "until an opportune time," he emphasizes the perpetual struggle between the human and divine spirits.  The development of integrity is a lifelong process and struggle, with recurring testing as the human spirit attempts to overcome the divine.

Integrity is a relational concept.  It involves intrapersonal relationships between our four human aspects as well as our interrelationships with other people, the world, and God.  As we become more whole and less fragmented, our signs of integrity become more apparent.  One valuable effect is enhanced relationships among all involved,  This is a self-perpetuating cycle.  Our integrity is enhanced even more by our enhanced relationships.  The idea of relationships is a fundamental and recurring message of the entirety of both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament.

Now, a question arises:  There are those who deny the existence of the spiritual aspect of humanity.  To them, the mind is the highest of the planes of existence.  This includes atheists and some agnostics.  Does this paradigm exclude them from developing integrity?  Not completely.  The reason is based on the concept of God's grace.

Grace (Gk. charis) involves the idea of free giving.  It is a gift which the recipient does not deserve.  The grace of God implies a perpetual gift of love (Gk. agape) for the world.  Its goal (telos) is the very best for the world.  This includes all people, regardless of their opinion regarding the existence or characteristics of God.  Grace is universal.

One of John Wesley's brilliant theological ideas was that of the four phases of grace.  The initial phase is what he called prevenient grace.  This is grace which is active before we give any conscious thought to God or have any kind of relationship with God.

In the realm of process theology, God is thought to offer a possibility for every thought or action of which we engage.  This possibility is the best regarding the outcome of the thought or action.  These suggested possibilities might be thought of as "pulses of grace."  We have the ability to accept or reject these pulses either consciously or subconsciously. 

Due to the presence of God's grace, unbelievers may benefit from God's presence and not realize it.  This in effect, provides some degree of the spiritual element within the person.  Therefore, they may have some degree of integrity.  I suspect that, everything else being equal, their integrity would be higher if they had a more developed spirituality.

On Happiness

Happiness, in a casual sense, generally refers to a somewhat fleeting emotional state.  People exhibit various states of happiness (or unhappiness) on a daily basis.  In many instances, this comes from stimuli from external sources.  Included would be other people, events, the weather, etc.  Although some people are "generally happy," in many cases it is a short-term personal paradigm.  It might even be called an emotion.

The Hebrew concept of "shalom" is associated with happiness on a more grand scale.  This word is usually translated "peace."  However, the meaning is much richer than this simple translation.  It's meaning includes harmony, good health, totality, success, wholesomeness, and completeness of living in a wholesome environment.  Anyone with these qualities would normally be living in a state of peacefulness and happiness.  Shalom is used as a greeting among the Jews.  Interestingly, the Greek equivalent of the word is eirene, which means the absence of conflict or war.  This is lack of the negative, rather than a positive meaning.

Aristotle, as well as being a great philosopher, was also a biologist (zoologist, mainly).  The concept of telos was very important to his biology and philosophy.  Telos refers to an end or goal.  He was goal oriented.  The telos is the final (ultimate) goal to which all other goals point.  He believed that every plant and animal (including humans) had a telos.  In humans, this is the goal which should be desired by every normal and healthy person.  It is what everyone desires in life.  It involves a purposeful life that amounts to something.  The telos represents the person, not what other people think of the person.

Regarding humanity, Aristotle called this telos eudaimonia (pronounced u-dime-a-nee-a).  This Greek word is generally translated happiness or flourishing.  All people ultimately desire eudaimonia.  I prefer the translation "flourishing."  I believe this has much richer implications than "happiness."

Aristotle discussed eudaimonia extensively in his major ethical work Nicomachean Ethics.  a highly virtuous person will be much more likely to flourish than a non-virtuous person.  However, he considered eudaimonia to be a target, never actually 100% reached in this life. 

Eudaimonia, being a final end, has 6 formal constraints according to Aristotle:

1.  It is not bestowed by others,  We must take responsibility for our happiness (flourishing).

2.  There is nothing of value that is more final.

3.  It consists of activity.  It is not a passive state.

4.  It is not an instrumental good.  That is, it cannot be valued for the sake of something else.

5.  It is self-sufficient.  Nothing is missing and nothing else is needed.

6.  It is perfect.  The Greek for "perfect" is teleion.  This means final, complete.

Eudaimonia is a process rather than a static state of being.  This is the reason it is never fully realized in this life. 

It seems to me that shalom and eudaimonia are very similar concepts.  This is another of many cases in which the Hebrew and Greek ideas correlate.

Finally, Paul Tillich, the great 20th century theologian, had a major theological concept of "ultimate concern."  This represents the major (ultimate) concern of an individual.  This could be wealth, honor, popularity, golf, or any such concern.  These are usually somewhat fleeting and can change during a person's lifetime.  However, what Tillich is really teaching is Ultimate Concern (note the caps) being God.  This is a personal paradigm in which a person is devoted to God in all ways.  There is nothing more important.

Now for the question -- is eudaimonia (or shalom) related to Ultimate Concern?  Are they two entirely different concepts?  Or, do they work synergetically together?

--Ed

Faith and Reason

Included in my post-retirement (emancipated living) activities have been auditing classes at WSU.  At this point, I have taken six philosophy courses.  Although all of these were in the specialty of moral philosophy, I have renewed my interest in philosophy in general.  For the past 15-20 years, I have also been interested in theology and biblical studies.

While theology is based on faith, philosophy is based on reason.  Theological faith implies faith in a divine entity whose existence cannot be proved to the satisfaction of philosophers.  This is the primary reason many philosophers are agnostic or atheistic.  God cannot be directly observed and any effects attributed to God cannot be proven.  Pascal's wager does not seem to influence many modern philosophers.  For these reasons, many think theology and philosophy are incompatible.

The question -- are the two paradigms incompatible, or are they complementary?  Should a person base his life on one or the other?  Apparently, this is what many theologians and philosophers do.  I believe this represents a limited micro-paradigm.  Engaging in philosophical theology is a third alternative.

Philosophy, based on reason, involves the mind intellect).  A question debated by philosophers for centuries:  is the mind material (the brain), non-material, or both.  This question is particularly important in the discipline of philosophy of mind.  Theology, based on faith, involves the spiritual component.  Those who accept the existence of spirituality generally agree that the spiritual supercedes, but interacts with, the intellect.

Integrity, at it's basic level, means completeness or undividedness.  This is a process that involves unification of the physical, emotional, mental and spiritual components with a synergetic result.  When one or more components are deficient, the p;person would not be of high integrity.  John Wesley apparently had no problem with integration of the spiritual/intellect.  Reason and experience make up 50% of his quadrilateral.  High integrity results when all  aspects of a person are working in a highly functional system, interrelating with the world and God.

Within Christianity, such a person is often called a "thinking Christian."  John Cobb, Jr. wrote an entire book on this subject.  I have found, through personal experience as well as observation of others, that relating rationality to faith generally increases ones faith.  For this reason, I strongly believe that Christian education (for adults) should be based on this approach.