God and Society

I have been working my way through We Have Never Been Modern by Bruno Latour.

Early on, I came across this quote:

“No one is truly modern who does not agree to keep God from interfering
with Natural Law as well as with the laws of the Republic. God becomes
the crossed-out God of metaphysics, as different from the premodern
God of the Christians as the Nature constructed in the laboratory is from
the ancient phusis or the Society invented by sociologists from the old
anthropological collective and its crowds of nonhumans.”

Hmmm…I have some thoughts here. First of all, I think it is quite a mistake to believe that all religious people have some sort of faith in a directly interfering God a priori. There have been exceptions, and although I believe such exceptions to be relatively rare, they have been influential. Deism provides such an example. Some have regarded the Tao as a potential example (see Buber’s “eternal You”). Both deism and Taoism are good theological as well as philsophical ideas. Do they necessarily work in a modern Western (whatever “Western” means) construct?

Science is observational with an associated search for the “why”. There are “small whys” such as an observation of a singular beetle species movement. There are “big whys” such as what occurred before the Big Bang. The big and the small are of equal importance with the exception that it takes much more processing power (such a computer power) and reliance of metaphysics to go after the “big whys”.

Image generated by Meta AI

As I have worked in the fields of process theology and open & relational theology (ORT), I have seen a potential solution here. It is a theological solution and not a scientific solution although it does have metaphisical potential to help religious people understand the importance of science. I do not think that process theology or ORT will become a branch of Christianity or of any other religion in a manner similar to a denomination. I do think, however, that their influence will change how many religions, especially Abrahamic religions, can view the world.

What do I mean by such statements? I think that the ideas expressed by process theology / ORT emphasize a two-way street or openess (communication?) between God and nature. In a way, God and nature learn from each other, especially if God is open ended in God’s understanding of the future. God would be open ended with no omniscience if God is present in real time and is part of time.

Both process theology and ORT would accept the terms of prehesion (God is in time as past events influence the future and in which the future is open since it is based on the panoply of past events), panentheism (nature is in God), and panentheism (all entities experience). The human use of science would be part of this eternal process of learning and experiencing. In the setting of process theology / ORT, our species learning about nature equals our learning about God’s love of novelty, and perhaps, creativity. ORT would suggest that this two-way street of interaction between God and nature / God and each human is personal.

Now on to “laws of the Republic.” In an open theism setting, God would not be able to or perhaps even want to directly influence human civilization, including a legal system. However, God desiring “the good” — whatever this good is — may passively influence outcomes. This is the “divine lure.” If one proposes that God “calls” for the good (defined as creativity) at every level of nature, then this call would include the human quest for law and governance. Every singular human and every civilization through time can accept, ignore, or go against such God’s divine and eternal lure through time.

The “laws of the Republic” responding to the lure would care for the poor, provide education for all, assist in healthcare, and would protect the environment. Broken systems such as facism or Marxism associated with oppressing others and putting the state as a lead priority instead of its people would be ignoring this divine lure.

Thus, I agree with Latour that humans are not modern if they feel that God directly interferes with the laws of nature and the laws of the land. In so many ways, omniscience and omnipotence are loaded with fallacies (see my recently published book). However, a God who loves novelty, loves creativity, and loves for love’s sake would desire for our species to continue to care for each other and for our planet.

Odds and Ends:

1. I enjoy reading the blog Discourses on Minerva. It had a recent lecture titled, “Understanding the World of Plato.” It is interesting.
2. The Theories of Everything Youtube channel had a recent discussion about the good and the bad of string theory. l liked it.