School #79

Process Theology

Charles Hartshorne, John B. Cobb Jr., Marjorie Suchocki, David Ray Griffin

Process Theology is the Christian theological tradition that develops the process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead — articulated in 'Process and Reality' (1929) — into an explicitly theistic and personalist account of God, world, and salvation. Its founding figure within theology is Charles Hartshorne, whose 'The Divine Relativity' (1948) and 'Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes' (1984) systematically reconstructed classical theism around the claim that God is dipolar: God has a primordial nature, the eternal envisagement of all pure possibilities, and a consequent nature, the everlasting reception and integration of every actual occasion that comes to be in the world. John B. Cobb Jr. and David Ray Griffin's 'Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition' (1976) became the standard pedagogical statement of the tradition, and Marjorie Suchocki's 'God-Christ-Church: A Practical Guide to Process Theology' (1989) extended it into ecclesiology, soteriology, and spiritual practice. The decisive moves — each a departure from the classical theism that runs from Augustine through Aquinas to the magisterial Reformers — are these: God is genuinely affected by creatures ('the fellow sufferer who understands', in Whitehead's phrase); God acts on the world by persuasion, by luring each actual occasion toward its best possibility, rather than by coercive omnipotence; God's knowledge of the future is knowledge of genuine possibilities rather than already-settled facts, because the future is not yet actual; and creatures, once they have actualized themselves, enjoy objective immortality in God's consequent nature, everlastingly held in the divine remembering. Open theism (Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, Gregory Boyd) is a closely related evangelical cousin that adopts the temporal-relational view of God's knowledge without committing to the full Whiteheadian metaphysics. Process theology has been particularly influential in ecological theology, theodicy, religious pluralism, and feminist theology, where its account of a non-coercive, relational, suffering-with God has been welcomed as an alternative to the omnipotent monarch of classical theism.

Worldview

The process-theological adherent inhabits a cosmos that is becoming rather than being, relational rather than substantial, and accompanied at every point by a God who feels what creatures feel and lures them toward their best possibilities without compelling them. To hold this ontology is to take novelty, freedom, and tragedy seriously: the future is genuinely open, creatures genuinely matter, suffering genuinely affects God, and no moment is wasted because every moment is taken up into God's consequent nature. The fundamental orientation is one of cooperative becoming — the world is co-created moment by moment by creaturely decisions in response to divine persuasion. The framework reads this as Personal metaphysical agency: the dipolar God of process theology is a personal agent who feels, knows, and responds — 'the fellow sufferer who understands' — acting by persuasion rather than coercion, and remembering everlastingly what creatures actualize. The framework reads this as Tradition-grounded moral authority: Christian Scripture is read in dialogue with the Whiteheadian-Hartshornean theological Tradition and the broader liberal-process church; norms emerge from this textual-interpretive lineage, not from Scripture alone, abstract Reason, or unmediated Experience.

Moral Implications

Process theology's ethics is shaped by three convictions: that creatures genuinely affect God, that God's aim for each occasion is its richest possible experience, and that nothing that is actualized is ever lost. Moral action is therefore world-making in a strong sense — each decision contributes to the cumulative past that all future occasions will inherit and that God will everlastingly remember. Theodicy is reconceived: evil is not willed by God but is a real risk inherent in genuine creaturely freedom, and God's response to evil is not omnipotent intervention but suffering-with and creative transformation. Ecological ethics flows naturally from the relational ontology: every creature is internally related to every other, and harm to any part of the web is felt by God. Feminist theologians (Suchocki, Catherine Keller, Carol Christ) have developed the tradition's implications for non-hierarchical, relational accounts of power, embodiment, and divine love.

Practical Implications

Practically, process theology has shaped liberal Protestant and Catholic theology, the Claremont School of Theology, ecological and animal-rights theology, interreligious dialogue (especially Christian-Buddhist conversation through Cobb and Masao Abe), and feminist and womanist theologies. Its account of a non-coercive, relational God has provided pastoral resources for those for whom classical omnipotence has become incredible after the Shoah and other historical catastrophes. Open theism has carried analogous commitments into evangelical churches. In prayer and worship, process theology supports a model in which prayer is genuine communication with a God who is genuinely affected, rather than petition addressed to an already-determined will; in ethics, it supports a creative, responsive, situation-attentive style rather than rule-based deontology.

I. Time

Time is relational, one-dimensional, non-deterministic, discrete, and linear — Whitehead's most distinctive metaphysical claim is that becoming is atomic. Each actual occasion is a quantum of becoming: it concresces from prehension to satisfaction and then perishes, replaced by the next occasion. Between occasions there is no further becoming, so time has a grainy structure even though our perception of it is continuous. Time is relational because it is constituted by the succession of occasions rather than serving as a container within which they occur. Time freedom is genuinely non-deterministic — each occasion exercises real self-determination, novelty enters at every moment, and the future is therefore open even to God. Direction is uni-directional: the arrow runs from the settled past through the becoming present toward the indeterminate future, and is grounded in the asymmetry of prehension.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Relational Grain: Discrete Freedom: Non-Deterministic Traversability: Linear Dimensionality: One Direction: Uni-directional

II. Space

Space is infinite, relational, undefined in curvature within the metaphysical scheme (its empirical curvature being a matter for physics), three-dimensional, and non-local. Relational because space, like time, is constituted by the prehensive relations among actual occasions rather than being a pre-existing container. Non-local because every actual occasion prehends, to some degree, every other occasion in its causal past; the world is internally related through prehension all the way down. This non-locality is metaphysical rather than merely physical, and it grounds process theology's strong sense of cosmic interconnection.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Relational Curvature: Undefined Dimensionality: Three Locality: Non-local

III. Matter

Matter is infinite in extent, relational in ontological status, three-dimensional, conserved, and non-local. Relational because what we call matter is, on the Whiteheadian view, enduring patterns of actual occasions — societies of occasions with sufficient internal coherence to maintain a recognizable character over time. Atoms, molecules, organisms, and persons are all such societies, differing in complexity rather than in kind. Conservation in the physical sense holds, but the deeper claim is that matter is constituted by relations, not by self-subsistent particles; the relational character of matter is what allows the cosmos to be genuinely interconnected and what allows God to relate to every part of it.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Relational Conservation: Conserved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Non-local

IV. Observer

The process-theological observer is a society of actual occasions — a personally-ordered sequence of moments of experience, each prehending its predecessors and the wider world before achieving its own definite satisfaction and perishing into the past. Knowledge is immediate at the creaturely scale (each occasion grasps only what is given to it through prehension) but objectively total at the divine scale (God's consequent nature includes every actual occasion that has ever occurred). Retention is total because nothing that has actually happened is lost: the past is everlastingly held both in the chain of prehensions that constitute the present and, more decisively, in God's remembering. Physicality is both — every actual occasion has a physical pole (its prehension of the settled past) and a mental pole (its grasping of relevant possibilities) — and creatures are body-mind unities all the way down, with no Cartesian gap. Agency is genuinely both: each occasion exercises real self-determination in deciding how to integrate its prehensions, and God's persuasive lure is not coercive but offers the initial aim each occasion is free to accept, modify, or refuse. Observers are plural and span time through prehension, since each present occasion is constituted by its relations to past occasions and to the divine.

Attributes
Time Instance: Multiple Space Instance: Single Extent of Knowledge: Immediate Retainment of Knowledge: Total Physicality: Both Agency: Both Number: Plural Metaphysical Agency: Personal Moral Authority: Tradition Theological Method: Process-relational

V. Energy

Energy is infinite in extent and emergent in ontological status — it is a pattern that arises within the network of actual occasions rather than a substance underlying them. Conservation holds in the standard physical sense: process theology preserves rather than overturns the conservation laws of physics, since Whitehead was at pains to make his metaphysics continuous with relativistic and quantum physics. Dispersibility is irreversible in the ordinary physical sense — entropy increases, occasions perish — yet the perishing of an occasion is not annihilation but transition into objective immortality. The arrow of energy and the arrow of becoming run together: each actual occasion adds itself to the cumulative past and cannot be subtracted.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Emergent Conservation: Conserved Dispersibility: Irreversible

VI. Information

Information is relational, conserved, and discrete. Relational because, in Whitehead's scheme, information is constituted by the prehensive relations among actual occasions rather than residing in self-subsistent bearers. Discrete because each actual occasion is a quantum of becoming, an atomic unit of feeling and decision, so the informational fabric of the world is grainy rather than continuous. Conservation operates on two registers. At the cosmic scale, objective immortality in God's consequent nature preserves every moment that has ever been: nothing that has happened ceases to be in the divine remembering. At the personal-identity scale, every actual occasion of the person's life is everlastingly held by God — the person is conserved not as a continuing soul-substance but as an integrated pattern of occasions remembered in the divine mind. 'The fellow sufferer who understands' is also the fellow sufferer who remembers, and that remembering is what conservation of personal information amounts to.

Attributes
Ontological Status: Relational Cosmic Conservation: Conserved Personal Conservation: Conserved Granularity: Discrete

Films Reading Through This School (3)

← #78 Pure Land Buddhism All Schools #80 Spinozist Pantheism →

Works that name Process Theology in their embodiments

Foundational texts that draw on this school, with each work's declared weight.

35%
God-Christ-Church: A Practical Guide to Process Theology (Late)
Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki · 1989 (rev. ed.; orig. 1982)
35%
Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition (Mid)
John B. Cobb Jr. and David Ray Griffin · 1976
30%
Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes (Late)
Charles Hartshorne · 1984
30%
Christ in a Pluralistic Age (Mid)
John B. Cobb Jr. · 1975
30%
The Divine Relativity (Mid)
Charles Hartshorne · 1948 (Yale Terry Lectures 1947)
20%
Process and Reality (Late)
Alfred North Whitehead · 1929 (delivered as Gifford Lectures, Edinburgh, 1927–28)
20%
Adventures of Ideas (Late (Whitehead's last major book))
Alfred North Whitehead · 1933
20%
The Two Sources of Morality and Religion (Late (Bergson's last major book, written after a long convalescence))
Henri Bergson · 1932 (Les Deux Sources de la morale et de la religion, Paris: Alcan; English trans. R. Ashley Audra & Cloudesley Brereton 1935)
15%
Answer to Job (Late)
Carl Gustav Jung · 1952
15%
The Dream of the Earth (Late)
Thomas Berry · 1988
10%
On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers (Early)
Friedrich Schleiermacher · 1799 (anonymous first ed.); 1806, 1821, 1831 (revised eds with explanations)
10%
Theodicy (Late)
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz · 1710 (the only philosophical book Leibniz published in his lifetime)
10%
Science and the Modern World (Mid (the major statement of philosophical-cultural critique, preceding the technical metaphysics of Process and Reality))
Alfred North Whitehead · 1925 (the Lowell Lectures, Harvard; the proximate prelude to Process and Reality, 1929)
10%
Liber Divinorum Operum (Late (the culmination of her visionary trilogy))
Hildegard of Bingen · 1163-73 (composed in the last decade of Hildegard's life, after the Scivias and the Liber Vitae Meritorum)
10%
Modes of Thought (Late)
Alfred North Whitehead · 1938 (Wellesley & University of Chicago lectures, 1937-38)
10%
Theology of Hope (Early)
Jürgen Moltmann · 1964 (German; English 1967)
10%
Systematic Theology (Late)
Wolfhart Pannenberg · 1988-93 (3 vols; English 1991-98)
10%
Ambigua to John (Ambigua ad Iohannem) (Late)
St. Maximus the Confessor · c. 628-30
10%
The Bride of the Lamb (Late)
Sergei Bulgakov · composed 1939-42; published 1945 posthumously
5%
The Courage to Be
Paul Tillich · 1952 (Terry Lectures, Yale, 1950)
5%
Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion (Late (Berlin lectures))
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel · 1821-31 (delivered as lectures); 1832 (compiled and published posthumously)
5%
Systematic Theology (Mid)
Paul Tillich · 1951-63 (Vol I 1951, Vol II 1957, Vol III 1963)
5%
Church Dogmatics (Mid)
Karl Barth · 1932-67 (14 volumes, unfinished)
5%
Foundations of Christian Faith (Late)
Karl Rahner · 1976 (German; English 1978)
5%
The Politics of Jesus (Mid)
John Howard Yoder · 1972 (2nd edn 1994)
5%
On First Principles (Peri Archōn / De Principiis) (Early)
Origen of Alexandria · c. 230
5%
On the Holy Spirit (De Spiritu Sancto) (Late)
St. Basil of Caesarea (the Great) · c. 375
5%
Hymns of Divine Love (Hymnoi tōn Theiōn Erōtōn) (Late)
St. Symeon the New Theologian · c. 1020
5%
Triads (Triads in Defense of the Holy Hesychasts) (Late)
St. Gregory Palamas · 1338-41
5%
The Pillar and Ground of the Truth (Mid)
Pavel Florensky · 1914
5%
Creative Evolution (L'évolution créatrice) (Late)
Henri Bergson · 1907
5%
The Justification of the Good (Opravdanie dobra) (Late)
Vladimir Solovyov · 1897
5%
The Destiny of Man (O naznachenii cheloveka) (Mid)
Nikolai Berdyaev · 1931
5%
The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (Essai sur la théologie mystique de l'Église d'Orient) (Mid)
Vladimir Lossky · 1944
5%
An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (Mid)
John Henry Newman · 1845 (rev. 1878)
5%
A Theology for the Social Gospel (Late)
Walter Rauschenbusch · 1917
5%
Confucian Thought: Selfhood as Creative Transformation (Late)
Tu Weiming · 1985
5%
Laudato Si' (Late)
Pope Francis · 2015 (24 May)
5%
Church: Charism and Power (Igreja: carisma e poder) (Mid)
Leonardo Boff · 1981

Personas with Process Theology as a declared influence

30%  Alfred North Whitehead 10%  Martin Buber 10%  Karl Rahner 10%  Pope Francis (Jorge Mario Bergoglio)

How Process Theology resolves each dilemma

55 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 26 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way · 2 unaligned.

Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.

Time · 9 dilemmas · 3 distinctive

Persistence, the future, and the direction of becoming.

Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The heat death of the universe — entropy maxed out, no further work possible — is among the more sobering implications of mainstream physics. Whether it is structurally inescapable depends on what kind of finitude the cosmos has.
Both time and matter are unbounded; 'running out' is misframed.
On this view, the cosmos has neither a temporal horizon nor a material exhaustion point. The framing of running out presupposes bounds that the cosmos doesn't have. Energy gradients perpetuate; new configurations emerge; the categories that make heat-death scary don't apply at the cosmic scale.
Roads not taken Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing. (47%) · Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional. (26%) · The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon. (12%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Whether we can grow our way out of resource constraints — or whether the cosmos sets limits the economy ultimately must obey — depends on what kind of finitude matter has.
Resources are practically inexhaustible on cosmic scales; terrestrial limits are engineering.
On this view, matter and time are both unbounded at the largest scales. Terrestrial resource limits are real engineering and political constraints but not metaphysical ones; the cosmos can in principle support whatever expansion intelligence is capable of.
Roads not taken Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time. (47%) · The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us. (26%) · Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit. (12%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
If we owe future people a habitable planet and the material means to flourish, and the cosmos is bounded in ways that make those obligations impossible at some scale, the obligation and the possibility come apart. Where they come apart turns on what kind of finitude we live in.
Both time and matter are unbounded; we cannot in principle owe more than is possible.
On this view, the cosmos has the resources to support whatever flourishing future generations are capable of, given sufficient time and intelligence. The impossibility concern is misplaced; the real questions are about trajectories and choices, not about resource ceilings.
Roads not taken Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide. (47%) · The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on. (26%) · The cosmos is bounded; our obligations to future generations are bounded with it. (12%)
6 mainstream positions

Matter · 7 dilemmas · 5 distinctive

What stuff is — fundamental, relational, or appearance.

Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (30/202)
What is money?
The question of what money is — a measured store of real value, an agreed-on practice, a relational ledger of debts, or just a name we apply to many different things — sits behind every argument about inflation, cryptocurrency, debt, and the state.
Money is the ledger of obligations among real people.
On relational views, money is not a substance you have; it is a record of who owes whom what. Debts and credits are real because the relations they track are real — to kin, to community, to ancestors, to land. Money is the form this …
Roads not taken Money is a real institution with intrinsic features. (54%) · Money is a social practice — its content is what we make it. (16%) · “Money” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal. (8%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (30/202)
What is a nation?
Whether a nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character, a constructed legal-political artifact, a web of kinship and shared history, an imagined community, or a conventional partition of a deeper unity — these are real ontological positions with sharply different political downstream.
A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people.
On relational views, the nation is the relational fabric — extended kinship, ancestral inheritance, shared ecology, communal practice — that hosts a people across generations. Borders matter less than belonging; lineage and land carry the weight that political structures only ratify.
Roads not taken A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character. (54%) · A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery. (16%) · “Nation” names a family of practices imaginatively held together. (8%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (30/202)
What makes someone male or female?
Whether sex is a real biological kind, a constructed social category, a relational identity, a label applied to varied phenomena, or a conventional distinction within a deeper unity is the ontological question the contemporary dispute about gender is mostly about.
Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition.
On relational views, identity is not a property a person has alone; it is constituted by the web of recognition the person sits in. What makes someone a man or a woman in any thick sense is the relations of kinship, community, ritual, and recognition …
Roads not taken Sex is a real biological kind with given content. (54%) · Gender is constructed; what counts as male or female reflects practice. (16%) · “Male” and “female” are family-resemblance terms — no single essence. (8%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (30/202)
Should we edit the human germline?
Whether human nature is a given biological kind, a constructed category, a relational achievement, a family-resemblance cluster, or a conventional distinction within deeper unity is the ontological question the policy debate over heritable gene editing is mostly about.
Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric.
On relational views, what makes someone a person is the web of kinship, ancestry, and community they sit in — not a property the body carries alone. Heritable editing intervenes in exactly this fabric: the lineage that ancestors handed on, the descent that descendants will …
Roads not taken Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given. (54%) · The categories we count as 'human' are emergent from practice; germline editing is a practice-revision like any other. (16%) · 'Human nature' is a cluster term without a single essence; the editing question is empirical, not metaphysical. (8%)
Distinctive · only 16% of schools agree (33/202)
Is the world created from nothing?
Creatio ex nihilo is one of the most distinctive Western-theological claims. Whether matter was created from nothing, eternally exists, or is sustained moment-by-moment turns on what kind of thing matter is.
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance.
On this view, matter is not a stuff but a patterning — the standing relations among things, ancestors, processes, and places. The creatio-ex-nihilo question doesn't quite arise, because the ontology has no slot for a free-standing substance to be created or eternal. What persists is …
Roads not taken Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance. (55%) · Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing. (23%) · Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal. (4%)
2 mainstream positions

Observer · 37 dilemmas · 5 distinctive

Mind, agency, and the knower's relation to the known.

Distinctive · only 6% of schools agree (12/202)
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Pancomputationalism, Planck-scale quanta, simulation theory and Kabbalistic letter-mysticism all say yes — but for very different reasons. The rest of the atlas says no.
Yes — but divinely-discrete: divine letters, momentary cognitions, atomistic theism.
On this view, the world is at bottom discrete, but the units are not bare bits. They are divine names, momentary cognitions, karmic atoms, sacred letters — the elementary acts of a creating or ordering agency. Discreteness is real and fundamental, and so is the …
Roads not taken No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure. (44%) · No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure. (37%) · Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate. (13%)
Distinctive · only 6% of schools agree (12/202)
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Whiteheadian actual occasions, Buddhist moments of mind, Kabbalistic letter-cognitions, IIT phi-units — or the unbroken Jamesian stream? The atomism of experience cuts across naturalism and theism alike.
Yes, theistic atomism — actual occasions, divine letters, momentary cognitions.
On this view, the atoms of experience are not bare quanta but agent-laden moments: Whiteheadian actual occasions in which subjectivity and the divine lure meet, Kabbalistic letter-cognitions in which divine names act, Buddhist Abhidharma moments of mind, tantric ksana. The discreteness is real and so …
Roads not taken No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness. (44%) · No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time. (37%) · Yes — naturalist quanta of experience. (13%)
Distinctive · only 6% of schools agree (12/202)
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Engrams and traces — or continuous re-narration each time you remember? The cognitive-science debate has a theological cousin: divine memory holding each hair, or the ancestors' continuous remembering.
Stored — in divine memory's discrete particulars, or in karmic-record units.
On this view, memory is held in discrete particulars by an agency: the Lord who knows each hair, the karmic ledger that records each act, the angelic scribe who writes each deed, the Kabbalistic letters that spell each soul. Storage is real; the storer is …
Roads not taken Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed. (44%) · Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams. (37%) · Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights. (13%)
Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/202)
What makes someone the same person over time?
When dementia hollows out memory, when a coma resolves with no recall, when you imagine being uploaded — the question of whether the surviving person is still you turns on what kind of thing the 'you' was to begin with.
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
On this view, the observer is not bound to a single present. Identity is something that exists across moments — as a pattern, an ancestral line, a trans-temporal structure. Uploading, in this picture, is not a metaphysical impossibility but an engineering question; ancestors are real …
Roads not taken You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity. (36%) · You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect. (29%) · There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose. (14%)
Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/202)
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Loss of memory, of recognition, of the cognitive patterns that made the person — does this end the person, or merely the person you knew? The answer turns on what makes someone who they are.
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
On this view, the person is constituted by a pattern extending across moments — memory, narrative, characteristic ways of being. As dementia erodes the pattern, the person is correspondingly diminished. What remains is real but is less than what was; the marriage to the person …
Roads not taken Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed. (36%) · The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's. (29%) · There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here. (14%)
30 mainstream positions
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived? You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive. 9% Are the dead morally present to the living? Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way. 13% Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom? An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering. 13% Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless? Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach. 13% Does prayer change God's mind? Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode. 13% When does a person begin? Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation. 15% What is marriage? Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates. 15% What is our place in nature? Embedded in a web — partners with the more-than-human world. 15% Should we colonize space? Colonisation continues the work that ended the wisdom of seven-generation thinking. 15% Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination? Editing the genome cuts into the relational fabric; we should be very slow. 15% Does history have a direction or meaning? History is oriented toward a decisive consummation. 19% Could causation work backwards? Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural. 68% Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us? The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction. 68% Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it? The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description. 68% Is environmental damage ever truly permanent? Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation. 66% Can a civilization recover from collapse? Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial. 66% Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally? Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current. 66% Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed? Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all. 65% What happens to "you" when you die? A soul continues into another mode of being. 37% Can prayer for someone far away affect them? Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for. 37% Are coincidences ever more than coincidence? What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence. 37% Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally? Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos. 29% Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it? Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog. 28% Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge? Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge. 28% Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces? An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply. 28% Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species? The community of persons is the moral primary. 28% Could an AI have a mind that matters? An AI’s standing is constituted by the relations it enters. 15% How is knowledge of reality produced? Through careful description of lived experience. 12% Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans? An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric. 11% Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious? The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production. 11%
2 unaligned
Information · 4 dilemmas, all mainstream
Jump to school (202)
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15 #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 #21 #22 #23 #24 #25 #26 #27 #28 #29 #30 #31 #32 #33 #34 #35 #36 #37 #38 #39 #40 #41 #42 #43 #44 #45 #46 #47 #48 #49 #50 #51 #52 #53 #54 #55 #56 #57 #58 #59 #60 #61 #62 #63 #64 #65 #66 #67 #68 #69 #70 #71 #72 #73 #74 #75 #76 #77 #78 #79 #80 #81 #82 #83 #84 #85 #86 #87 #88 #89 #90 #91 #92 #93 #94 #95 #96 #97 #98 #99 #100 #101 #102 #103 #104 #105 #106 #107 #108 #109 #110 #111 #112 #113 #114 #115 #116 #117 #118 #119 #120 #121 #122 #123 #124 #125 #126 #127 #128 #129 #130 #131 #132 #133 #134 #135 #136 #137 #138 #139 #140 #141 #142 #143 #144 #145 #146 #147 #148 #149 #150 #151 #152 #153 #154 #155 #156 #157 #158 #159 #160 #161 #162 #163 #164 #165 #166 #167 #168 #169 #170 #171 #172 #173 #174 #175 #176 #177 #178 #179 #180 #181 #182 #183 #184 #185 #186 #187 #188 #189 #190 #191 #192 #193 #194 #195 #196 #197 #198 #199 #200 #201 #202