Religion and Reality: An Exploration of Contemporary Metaphysical Systems, Theologies, and Religious Pluralism

Religion and Reality

An Exploration of Contemporary Metaphysical Systems, Theologies, and Religious Pluralism

Darren Iammarino

Religion and Reality

An Exploration of Contemporary Metaphysical Systems, Theologies, and Religious Pluralism

Copyright © 2013 Darren Iammarino. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.

Pickwick Publications

An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3

Eugene, OR 97401

www.wipfandstock.com

isbn 13: 978-1-62032-244-4

eisbn 13: 978-1-62189-860-3

Cataloguing-in-Publication data:

Iammarino, Darren.

Religion and reality : an exploration of contemporary metaphysical systems, theologies, and religious pluralism / Darren Iammarino.

xx + 268 pp. ; 23 cm. Includes bibliographical references.

isbn 13: 978-1-62032-244-4

1. Religious pluralism. 2. Religion—Philosophy. 3. Religions. 4. Globalization—Religious aspects. 5. Metaphysics. 6. Whitehead, Alfred North, 1861–1947. 7. Cobb, John B. 8. Griffin, David Ray, 1939–. I. Title.

BL65 G55 I26 2013

Manufactured in the U.S.A.

To all who are seeking truth . . .

in need of hope . . .

striving to flourish . . .

longing for love . . .

and pursuing creativity and novelty

Illustrations

Figure 01 Different Paths, One Summit | 15

Figure 02 Different Ultimates, One Global Ethic | 16

Figure 03 The Chain of Being | 19

Figure 04 Daoist Emanation | 25

Figure 05 Hermetic Cosmology | 28

Figure 06 Sethian Myth | 32

Figure 07 Plotinus’ Emanation/Ontological Dependence | 36

Figure 08 3 Story Universe vs. Emanation | 39

Figure 09 Key Emergent Levels | 52

Figure 10 Cosmosyntheism’s 5 Mutually Grounding Ultimates | 67

Figure 11 Plato’s Divided Line | 73

Figure 12 Cosmosyntheism’s 5 Mutually Grounding Ultimates

and the Religions | 177

Acknowledgments

There have been two formative periods in my academic life, which can be defined as initiation and cultivation. In each of these two stages, three figures stand out for the impact they have had over my interests and creative expression. I will however, acknowledge them in a reverse order, beginning with the three most recent individuals and concluding with those whom I have had the great fortune of knowing even longer.

This current work would truly not have come to fruition without the expert guidance of my mentor and friend Dr. Philip Clayton. I am indebted to Dr. Clayton not only for his principal role in steering this project, but even more so for introducing me to emergent theism in its various forms. I find myself inclined towards this novel philosophy and I view it as one of the primary contenders for a new paradigm going into the twenty-first century. Dr. Clayton has functioned as a paradigmatic figure for what the ideal scholar should look like for this new millennium, mainly: interdisciplinary. Not only do I wish to acknowledge his assistance and leadership within my life and career thus far, but I also look forward to a lengthy future relationship in the hope that he will continue to expand my horizons and inspire me to always remain creative yet respectful.

Dr. Anselm Min has opened my eyes to hidden levels of depth and philosophical insight that lie within the realm of classical theism. I now realize that earlier in my life, I was too quick and eager to discount or write-off many of the beliefs expressed in the Catholic faith. Dr. Min has helped to illuminate the true meaning of some of the central dogma and principles within Catholicism. Now that I have looked again with a fresh pair of eyes on this traditional material and grappled with it on a deeper level, I have gained a growing respect for the men of genius that articulated this extremely well thought out system.

I have only had the pleasure of knowing Dr. Monica Coleman for one year; however, in this brief time she has highlighted the importance of the practical domain for any successful constructive theology. Far too often philosophers set up a complex and abstract system that ends up having little or no bearing on the everyday lives of most people.

Concerning the current book, I must also recognize the key intellectual influences that have served as dialogue partners. John Cobb Jr., whose work on Alfred Whitehead and interreligious dialogue played a major formative role in this work, was gracious enough to look over my original outline and to offer his help with further consultation. David Ray Griffin, another Whiteheadian and process theology scholar, posits a process-relational framework that is the most similar to my own. Due to the similarities between Griffin and myself, his work has served to help me frame my own thoughts and to lend clarification on certain highly complex points of Whiteheadian philosophy.

In regards to my earlier initiation into the fields of religion and philosophy, three names rise far above the rest. The first name is Dr. Mark Wheeler with whom I have maintained a very close friendship. Dr. Wheeler was the first major influence I had within the field of philosophy and he taught me how to think and write in a succinct, clear and logical way. Over the years and after many discussions, we both came to the conclusion that it was time to start a collaborative project on religion within the limits of hope alone. Working on religion and hope has not only been academically rewarding, but spiritually in a way that I imagine neither one of us would have anticipated when the project began.

When it comes to overall guidance and tireless assistance, no one stands out like Dr. Rebecca Moore. Dr. Moore has been the quintessential mentor and has guided me through more tough and uncertain situations than I care to even try and remember. On a professional level, she has always pointed me in the right direction and always at the perfect time; she has an uncanny ability to intuitively grasp when and how to divulge information.

Last, but certainly not least among academic influences is my good friend Dr. Howard Mueller. Way back as a sophomore in college, Dr. Mueller introduced me to what would over time become my profession and obsession: religious studies. It was because of his moving lectures that I first decided to pursue religious studies full-time. For twelve years he has been there for me and I can always count on the fact that whatever problem I am having he will not only have the best solution, but he will be able to articulate it in his typically poetic yet clear fashion.

In addition to the above-mentioned academic influences, I would be remiss to leave out the many family members and friends without whom I could not have completed this present work. Therefore, I wish to thank my family for the continued support both financial and motivational. I also must mention the key role that my fiancé Erica Stark has had on this project. Erica has been forced to endure hearing all of the miniscule details of this project a thousand times and thus, she probably knows it almost as well as I do. Finally, I thank, as always, my inner circle of friends whom I have known for almost thirty years now; their loyalty and friendship is one of the greatest gifts I have ever and will ever know.

Introduction

No peace among the nations

without peace among the religions.

No peace among the religions

without dialogue between the religions

No dialogue between the religions

without investigation of the foundation of the religions.

—Hans Küng, Christianity: Essence, History, and Future

Our world is changing . . . shrinking, expanding, pulsating. A global age has already dawned. Yet the world holds its breath, waiting to see if the faint and delicate rays of this new light will attain to the full clarity and radiance that will only arrive at the zenith of midday. With each passing year, the earth’s pulse seems to beat more rapidly. Will this pivotal age make it past the crowning of the dawn or will it quickly become eclipsed, only to fade back below the horizon? One thing is for certain: if we can achieve peace between the religions, we can at least give this new day a fighting chance to break through the uncertainty and obscurity of the early morning fog. However, peace between the religions is no small task. This is a work that is nonetheless, grounded in that hope. There will be an investigation of the foundation of the religions. The religions will be placed into a dialogue. There can be peace . . . let us hope that there will be peace.

Hans Küng has defined the problem of conflicting religious truth claims as plainly as it can be presented.¹ It is not merely my problem. It is not simply your problem. It is our problem. The haunting issue of religious conflict continually creeps up into the forefront of our everyday lives. It seems the more one tries to repress, evade, or avoid dealing with the problem, the more violently it rears its head again. In short, it will not be ignored and it will not just go away. It bears down upon the atheist just as much as it does on the religious believer.

The reason for its persistence should be obvious—the problem is as ubiquitous as it is multifarious. Religion is so finely interwoven into the fabric of human life and society to the degree that if you try to pull on any other string that constitutes human culture, the thread of religion will tighten up and provide resistance. Given this apparent fact, the solution to the problem is never going to be solely theoretical, to be provided by philosophers or theologians. The sociologist, anthropologist, biologist, and political scientist all have their respective roles to play in approaching a solution. Nevertheless, the task should fall to the philosophers of religion and theologians to suggest frameworks that can facilitate a peaceful exchange of religious ideas. This book provides one such theoretical approach to dealing with religious pluralism that simultaneously results in a broad range of philosophical and practical advantages over prior solutions.

One major goal of this work is to unravel the modern day Gordian knot that is religious pluralism. This knot was initially created by exclusivist approaches to dealing with pluralism. Exclusivists have little interest in interreligious dialogue or acknowledging religious pluralism, because they believe that their view contains the ultimate truth and this excludes other ways. Exclusivism has led to wars between the faiths and so it happened that the knot began to take shape. In our current age, inclusivist approaches have attempted to incorporate other religious views into their paradigm and in so doing, to untangle the knot. Unfortunately, inclusivist attempts have frequently integrated other faiths by ranking the religions as Hegel did, or by unintentionally subjugating one religion to another religion or to a philosophical abstraction as John Hick’s conception of the Real did. Inclusivism sometimes bordered on convolutionism and so the knot only grew larger.

Finally, some new-agers and perennialists like Fritjhof Schuon and Huston Smith have taken this large loose knot and attempted to show that all the religions are the same at the esoteric level and so in reality, there is no knot. By assuming that all the religions lead to the same summit (religious object), the perennialists actually just took the knot and attempted to tighten it so taut that it would just flatten away at the infinite point of the summit of the mountain. Sadly, this seems to have only put the proverbial nail in the coffin for dealing with religious pluralism, making it an unimaginable mess.

With so many seemingly conflicting religious truth claims out there, it is not shocking that some scientists and secularists would just have us cut the knot entirely with the sword of science and technology. However, as was mentioned above, religion is a crucial part of the fabric of society and even if one could completely eradicate religion, it is unlikely that this would represent an improvement for humanity. The over zealous application of Occam’s razor is not without its dangers. As with any blade, literal or metaphorical, the risk of causing scarring or disfigurement is always present.

Cutting through the Gordian knot may have been an ideal solution for Alexander the Great, but it is not a viable option for us now given the deep embeddedness of religion within culture. Religion often deals with the future, hope, and salvation. Science is frequently concerned with truth and the present or past. Hope—being one of the quintessential human virtues—is imperative for the continued well-being of humanity. Due to the fact that religions are sciences of hope, it only makes sense to address and incorporate these systems of hope and salvation, as they provide us with purpose, values, and meaning. Therefore, religion, in its own way, is equally as valuable as science.

Dissolving the Knot

What is intriguing is that all the former attempts to solve the problems posed by religious pluralism have had the same built in assumption: there is only one ultimate, whether religious or secular. Therefore, the debate has been over which ultimate is truly ultimate. Is the ultimate a personal God; an impersonal force, such as the Dao, Nirguna Brahman, Sunyata, or the Real; or is the ultimate simply the world or nature? With all these contenders for religious ultimacy having solid arguments on their side, perhaps a deeper truth is beginning to unveil itself; what if they all had an equally valid claim to ultimacy? This book pursues an alternative and novel possibility: there might be multiple religious ultimates.

Before taking even one more step forward, the word ultimate must be defined. I will be using this term to mean: that which is constitutive of all there is; the terminal point(s) of a chain of regression, the necessary elements that allow for there to be a universe the likes of which we find ourselves presently in, the primordial ingredients. Given this somewhat prolix definition of the term ultimate, any reality constituted by multiple religious ultimates would necessitate an intricate balance of mutually grounding, co-necessary and co-equal basic elements or components. If this claim can at least be accepted as possible, then a new approach to dissolving or untying the Gordian Knot can be pursued. Upon closer examination, it may be discovered that the hypothesis of multiple religious ultimates is not the most probable solution, but it certainly appears possible to me and this possibility opens up entirely new vistas for religious studies.

One thing I am convinced of is that the idea of multiple religious ultimates can yield systems of tremendous explanatory and pragmatic power. For example, the concept of multiple religious ultimates may be able to shake loose this seemingly intractable knot once-and-for-all. What if that knot that for so long appeared to be unbreakable is not really a knot at all? What if the appearance of knotting and incompatibility was simply due to the fact that all these different religions or threads were going off in various directions and it merely seemed to be a knot because from our single vantage point in space and time all the threads appeared to cross paths at one precise location? In other words, if one could take a 360-degree virtual tour around the threads, one would see there is no knot; instead, there are just strings crisscrossing each other’s paths.

If this is at least feasible and all the threads lead to different ultimate destinations and have unique valuable insights, then the next question becomes, what if one were to twist some of the end points of the threads in a clockwise motion and the other end points in a counter-clockwise motion so that rather than a knot, a cable of increasing strength began to emerge? In this analogy, the end-points do not vanish into a singularity, as in the perennial philosophy, but they do become much closer together and they serve to strengthen one another into a greater whole. The concept of multiple religious ends and ultimates may be a difficult pill to swallow for many philosophers of religion and theologians, but the implication that these multiple religious ultimates may be mutually grounding could border on unpalatable. I understand; it is challenging to envision—let alone accept—but the demands of the twenty-first century and the reality of increasing globalization should at a minimum warrant us in examining this new approach to handling the issue of religious pluralism.

I call the paradigm that emerges from spinning the multiple ultimates into a unified cable: Cosmosyntheism. The word Cosmosyntheism literally means a world or (cosmos) with (syn) God (theos). I will argue throughout this work that Cosmosyntheism has numerous theoretical and practical advantages over prior systems, not only in its solution to the problem posed by religious pluralism, but also in the areas of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, salvation and theodicy.

Three Objectives, Four Assumptions, and Four Arguments

There are three main objectives for this book. (1) To completely elucidate the importance of the idea of multiple religious ultimates, specifically as laid out in the system of Cosmosyntheism; (2) to prove that Cosmosyntheism has numerous advantages over prior models, even previous systems that posit multiple, complementary religious ultimates; and (3) to demonstrate how Cosmosyntheism can incorporate key insights from all the religions without denigrating or subjugating any one of them to any other.

In order to further justify the importance of this work, I propose four assumptions and four arguments that the remainder of my work is based upon. I imagine that the four subsequent assumptions would hold true for peoples of most—if not all cultures—at least among those who have a progressive and realistic mindset about the current status of world affairs and the anticipated trends for human advancement. It must be stated explicitly here that the audience for this book are individuals with a forward-thinking outlook, as none of the novel concepts introduced here will likely persuade a staunch fundamentalist from any of the religious traditions.

Although I seek a global audience, I realize that some of the assumptions betray a Western emphasis or bias. For example, assumption two below proposes that modern science should be taken into account and many would disagree with this point. Again, in assumption three, I suggest that ideally we should seek to overcome prior paradoxes; however, many forms of Western mysticism and Eastern religions, such as Zen, thrive on paradoxes. Nevertheless, when dialogue and mutual transformation are required, there must be give and take, so I still feel these assumptions to be both fair and useful for constructing contemporary theologies. Therefore, the following four assumptions act as the minimal criteria for any successful constructive theology of the twenty-first century.

The Four Assumptions

Assumption: As we enter an era of complete globalization, we must seek peaceful resolutions to the reality of religious pluralism if we are to continue moving upward and forward as a civilization. (Criterion: Deal with Religious Pluralism)

Assumption: Any new theologies, metaphysical systems or religions proposed, should try their best to present the most complete version of the truth about Ultimate Reality. This should entail taking into account the achievements of modern science, contemporary work within the humanities, and especially the advancements made in current religious studies and philosophy. (Criterion: Interdisciplinary Approach)

Assumption: In its attempt to elucidate truth, any new system should seek to overcome as many paradoxes and problems that have been pointed out in prior religions, philosophies, or paradigms. (Criterion: Logical Consistency)

Assumption: Only by incorporating the wisdom and traditions of the past with the insights of the present along with forecasts of the future can one present a novel system with a holistic appeal: emotional, intellectual and spiritual. (Criterion: Multidimensional)

Before proceeding, it seems prudent to provide a brief argument for these four assumptions to bolster the claim that they are the minimal criteria for a successful constructive, global theology. The first criterion of dealing with religious pluralism is an unavoidable issue for all peoples of faith in a globalized society. One can deal with pluralism in a variety of ways ranging from war, to exclusivism, to a denial of essential differences, to dialogue and tolerance, to dialogue that seeks mutual transformation. However, my assumption is that we cannot move forward and upward as a society unless we adopt one of the peaceful routes. At a minimum, a sort of neutral cease-fire and uneasy tolerance is required. Ideally, I feel that the best route is dialogue seeking mutual transformation. I do not believe that a person of any religious persuasion would be troubled by my first assumption, as it seems self-evident that seeking peaceful solutions to the problem is a more civilized approach.

The second criterion of employing an interdisciplinary approach is likely to be far more contentious. Regardless, the fact remains that if one is seeking a broad acceptance of a new system or solution to religious pluralism and interreligious strife, then it must reach beyond the field of religion. If it does not, then it can never go further than the sphere of religion. Since most humans’ lives, personalities and decisions are interrelated with other fields of interest and commitments, it is necessary to be interdisciplinary. Any new constructive theology must be capable of articulating why religion is still relevant and necessary in a globalized society. This second assumption is especially important for reaching an audience that is progressive, because they are often positively inclined towards the insights and the benefits science and technology have bestowed upon us.²

The third criterion of logical consistency may be even more controversial than the second criterion of the necessity for an interdisciplinary approach. It is not that paradox should be avoided or eliminated. My point is that any system, as it is elucidated for the general audience, must have straightforward assertions and ideas that can be articulated through everyday language. I am personally a huge proponent of symbolism and paradox and their power to convey large amounts of data instantly, to awaken creativity and to breakthrough the, at times constricting, concrete wall or box of reason and logical thinking.

Perhaps it is more productive to relegate ambiguity, paradox, and symbolism to the realm of techniques, methods and exercises and to abstain from employing them in the domain of discourse. Dialogue is already difficult enough without the added obscurity that paradoxical statements and equivocal claims bring to the table. Two problems can result from using paradox in either dialogue or a written system: (1) decrease in the probability of accurate information transfer and (2) disinterest and a reduction of credibility beyond the field of religion. So it appears that criterion three is interrelated with the second criterion as well. Any new system should represent a real improvement that can be disseminated to a large group of individuals. Successful dissemination and acceptance appear to require at least the attempt to overcome prior philosophical and religious problems and the minimizing of the use of riddles, encryptions, and intentional paradox. If no one can understand how or why this is an improvement, then they will stop listening to you and will not accept any of your claims.

The fourth and final criterion of multidimensionality is essential for a successful global theology because humans are themselves emotional, intellectual and spiritual beings by nature. The three previous criteria are primarily concerned with satisfying the intellect, but this last criterion is crucial because it is the only way to truly reach a global audience. Any global theology or philosophical system must be logical, but it must also incorporate tradition, which appeals to our emotional and sentimental side, as well as provide a comprehensive or perhaps syncretistic form of worship to appease our spiritual side. If the system only satisfies the intellect, it will fail. I will be arguing that Cosmosyntheism represents one such global theology that incorporates all of the above four criteria.

Cosmosyntheism meets all Four Criteria:

Four Arguments Sustained throughout the Book

Argument: The novel paradigm that I call Cosmosyntheism can integrate the main concepts of all the world’s religions due to its pluralistic metaphysics, combined with its unique epistemology and corresponding ethics and soteriologies. I argue that Cosmosyntheism follows a metaphysical primary objective: Constructive or Balanced Creativity. However, I show that Ultimate Reality is actually composed of five mutually grounding Ultimates, of which, Creativity is only one aspect of this overall Ultimate Reality. This framework of five mutually grounding Ultimates helps to eliminate the apparent conflicting truth claims among the pre-existing religions. If different religions are focusing on diverse elements of Ultimate Reality, which presumably lead to varying ethical systems and soteriologies, then the door is opened for true dialogue and enrichment between the many faiths. I call this type of dialogue both multi-perspectival rationalism and differential non-hierarchical pluralism.

Argument: Cosmosyntheism is compatible with many cutting-edge scientific theories in cosmology and physics, such as, string theories, the inflationary big bang scenario and the multiverse or many worlds hypotheses. In addition, Cosmosyntheism is not only in agreement with biological theories like evolution and emergent complexity, it can go further by refining and elucidating some current problems with the various forms of evolutionary theory.

Argument: The third argument I will uphold and defend is that the major atheistic arguments brought to bear against classical theism (problems of evil, freedom and conflicting religious truth claims), do not apply to Cosmosyntheism. Also, Cosmosyntheism avoids the critiques of many philosophers and ethicists, that all process-based ethics are incomplete, overly aesthetic and elitist.

Argument: The final argument is that Cosmosyntheism has a stronger explanatory power of Ultimate Reality and the aim of life than other contemporary theologies, because it is multidimensional. It is grounded in multiple religious traditions, pluralism and interdisciplinary studies. Due to this fact, Cosmosyntheism is capable of appealing to a global audience that values harmony and progress. As one example, prior attempts at positing a World Ethos have been deemed problematic because they have glossed over real differences in ethical views. It is true that there are many similarities between ethical systems within the world religions: don’t kill, don’t steal, the golden rule. However, there are still disagreements and previous systems have failed to provide a way of arbitration between these differences since all the religions are viewed as equally valid. Cosmosyntheism manages to go beyond former attempts at providing a World Ethos—like that of Hans Küng—by advocating that a balanced Creativity and forward progress provide a way of resolving any lingering ethical disputes between the religions. If a proposed law or axiom goes against the metaphysical or cosmic objective/aim, then it is misguided and should be eliminated. Furthermore, Cosmosyntheism suggests a complete bottom-up system for self-cultivation and extension that could appeal to an individual’s emotional, intuitive, rational, and spiritual nature.

A Brief Outline

I argue in this book that there are solutions to the problems posed to religion and religious pluralism by globalization, science, and secularism. However, in my pursuit for the best answer, the book will first cover in part I, chapter 1, two current answers that are based on the work of the philosopher Alfred Whitehead. These contemporary solutions both employ the idea of multiple, complementary religious ultimates. These first two positions are those of John Cobb Jr. and David Ray Griffin, both of whom seek a new paradigm for understanding reality; for ameliorating the problems posed by religious pluralism in a globalized age; and a system that can overcome some long-standing philosophical problems, such as, the problem of evil. Concerning the practical implications and applications of Whitehead’s theories, I have chosen Cobb and Griffin as models and allies because I am highly indebted to their prior work and Cosmosyntheism most closely resembles their positions. Put briefly, I align myself with Cobb and Griffin’s advances, which can be identified as a distinct school of thought because the three of us all share the belief in the importance for multiple religious ultimates.

The central concepts of four other rival contenders for a global metaphysical system will be outlined and explained in chapter 2: the perennial philosophy, emanationism, classical theism, and emergent theism. The reason for including four rival options is for the sake of fairness and consistency. Too often one position is argued for and is contrasted with only one other system, which likely lies on the far opposite extreme of a continuum of possibilities. However, I must state explicitly here that my goal is not to falsify these other schools of thought, but rather to use them as examples, which help highlight and orient the differences between Cosmosyntheism and the other pre-existing systems. Chapters 1 and 2 comprise Part I.

The main goal of part II is to present my new solution, which I call Cosmosyntheism. As I will show, one reason why this paradigm is valuable is because it is sufficiently interdisciplinary: religiously, scientifically, and philosophically. Due to limitations of space, the science content will be kept to a minimum, whereas religion and philosophy will act as the primary focus. Throughout the second part, I will address some of the technical ways in which my system differs from those of Whitehead, Cobb and Griffin. However, the full import of these key advances to the work of Whitehead, Cobb and Griffin will be delineated thematically throughout Part III.

The third part brings the philosophical systems outlined in the preceding two parts together in order to assess their strengths and weaknesses when confronted with three major problems within the field of philosophy of religion: the problem of free will; the problem of conflicting religious truth claims and the problem of evil. Part III contains four chapters, one for each of the above problems, but two full chapters are needed to cover the problem of conflicting religious truth claims.

1. For an interesting treatment of conflicting religious truth claims, see Küng, Christianity: Essence, History and Future.

2. Some religions, like the Baha’i faith, advocate dialogue between science and religion as a central tenet.

Part I

Five Possible Global Metaphysical Systems for the Twenty-First Century

Chapter 1

Cobb and Griffin’s Conception of Three Religious Ultimates

Reflection on these matters has led me to speak of three ultimates. Perhaps there are others, although at present I have no idea what they might be. Thinking of these three has helped me to understand the diversity of religious traditions more deeply.

—John B. Cobb Jr., Transforming Christianity and the World

The idea of multiple religious ultimates is not entirely without precedent in both the West and the East.¹ This initial chapter provides an overview of the pioneering work done by John B. Cobb Jr. and David Ray Griffin in the field of religious pluralism. The chapter is divided into three parts. The first part highlights how John Cobb and David Griffin’s insights on multiple religious ultimates are indebted to Alfred Whitehead’s pluralistic metaphysics. My discussion of Whitehead’s philosophy in this chapter will be limited to how his ideas can support a system of multiple religious ultimates and pave the way for a novel solution to dealing with the problems posed by religious pluralism. The second part addresses how John Cobb’s position has incorporated and elaborated upon Whitehead’s philosophy. The final part examines Griffin’s philosophy on pluralism known as deep religious pluralism. Throughout the second and third parts, I will cover the ideas of complementarity, mutual transformation, deep religious pluralism, enrichment and purification, which taken together constitute the core message of the Cobbian/Griffian school of thought on the issue of dealing with religious pluralism.

Whitehead and Multiple Ultimates

The philosopher Alfred North Whitehead is perhaps the most underappreciated thinker of the twentieth century. Whitehead, originally a prominent mathematician, made the shift to systematic metaphysician late in life while he was teaching at Harvard. His philosophical goal is clearly enunciated at the outset of his magnum opus, Process and Reality: Speculative philosophy is the endeavor to frame a coherent, logical, necessary system of general ideas in terms of which every element of our experience can be interpreted.² Whitehead’s desire to include every element of our experience within his system led him to argue for a pluralistic metaphysics. This pluralistic metaphysics includes three elements, which are interrelated and when combined, constitute what could be called Ultimate Reality. The three ultimates are: Creativity, God, and a World. It should be mentioned that his metaphysical scheme can be interpreted in various ways, but no matter which route one pursues, the idea of multiple ultimates is unavoidable in the interpretation. The question becomes how many ultimates?

As far as Process and Reality is concerned, a picture of three ultimates appears to be the dominant interpretation. The key passages to bolster this view are as follows, Creativity, many, one are the ultimate notions involved in the meaning of the synonymous terms, thing, being and entity. These three notions complete the Category of the Ultimate and are presupposed in all the more special categories.³ Towards the end of Process and Reality, one encounters what is known as the six antitheses, which clearly show the interrelated nature of the ultimates, God and the World.

It is as true to say that God is permanent and the World fluent, as that the World is permanent and God is fluent. It is as true to say that God is one and the World many, as that the World is one and God many. It is as true to say that, in comparison with the World, God is actual eminently, as that, in comparison with God, the World is actual eminently. It is as true to say that the World is immanent in God, as that God is immanent in the World. It is as true to say that God transcends the World as that the World transcends God. It is as true to say that God creates the World, as that the World creates God.

⁴

One final example follows shortly after the above quote: Neither God, nor the World reaches static completion. Both are in the grip of the ultimate metaphysical ground, the creative advance into novelty. Either of them, God and the World, is the instrument of novelty for the other.⁵

I must briefly explain the main functions of these three ultimates as Whitehead conceives them because John Cobb and David Griffin find strong parallels between these three ultimates and the insights of the religious faiths of the world. God is understood as dipolar meaning that God’s nature consists of both a mental pole and a physical pole. The mental pole envisages all the eternal objects, Whitehead’s term for the Platonic Forms, and provides relevant possibilities to the multiplicity of other entities that comprise the World. God’s physical pole is known as his consequent nature. This aspect of God is the receptive side that takes in the physical enjoyment of each moment of every creature and stores it everlastingly in God’s overall nature.

The World is a multiplicity of what Whitehead calls actual occasions of experience. The function of the World is to actualize the novel possibilities that are provided by God in each moment. This actualization brings experiential knowledge and physical enjoyment or satisfaction to the creatures and back into God where it is forever retained, objectively immortalized. The final piece of the puzzle is Creativity, or the creative advance into novelty. Creativity is akin to the power of Being; it is an ultimate principle that brings God and the World together again-and-again for the sake of issuing in novel forms of value from a state of potentiality into full-blown actuality. In his later work, Adventures of Ideas, Whitehead adds another element to his system: the Khora or place. This concept is nearly identical to Plato’s Receptacle as expounded in the Timaeus. However, I will address that later when I reach my own system, as both John Cobb and David Griffin focus their attention on the parallels between sacred Scriptures and the accounts of religious experiences, and the three ultimates delineated by Whitehead in Process and Reality. It is to John Cobb and his portrayal of three ultimates that I now turn.

The Three Complementary Religious Ultimates

John Cobb follows Jack Hutchison in identifying three religious ultimates: theistic, cosmic and acosmic. Cobb’s definition of