Hi Netti-Netti —
Thomas Aquinas, who genuinely sought to balance both, was hobbled by his Aristotelian theory of knowledge and by a metaphysics of perfection that identified goodness with immutability.
But change suggests the movement of an object towards it's end, which is it's good, and it's perfection. Once it has reached its perfection, it suffers no further need of change, or movement. Hence the idea of rest.
Anything that moves is metaphysically not perfect in itself, and/or not perfect in its place and time ...
As a result, he allowed God to know the world only through the forms of worldly things located in the mind of G-d, rather than knowing material things through their ever-changing “accidental” qualities.
Here the author misunderstands the philosophical meaning of the word 'accident' - which by any definition do not effect the essential nature of the object ... in modern philosophy, accidents are the union of property and contingency, but again, as any essence is not effected by contingency, then what the author seems to be saying is that the superficial and ephemeral appearance of this is as 'real' as their essential natures ... which is easily disproved.
A G-d who directly responded to the world at some point would be different after that point than before, hence changing, hence imperfect. (U)nfortunately, a G-d who cannot respond to the world cannot show genuine compassion toward it either.
Well if one posits God as transcending the spatiotemporal continuum, that's wrong, too.
At the same time, however, it’s true that our actions do affect the responsive nature of G-d: that “part” of G-d that emerges out of G-d’s response to the universe and to humanity. This process insight — that a responsive God is greater, is more fully G-d, than a dispassionate G-d-above-history — beautifully summarizes a deep underlying motivation of panentheism.
Only if one makes the fundamental mistake of assuming that humans don't change, and God does ... I rather suggest that it's not God's understanding that changes, but the human understanding of God.
G-d is the all embracing presence; we live and move and have our being within that Presence;
But we are not that Presence ...
G-d continually responds to our thoughts and actions with all the perfection of G-d’s character; and that interweaving of our action and G-d’s response of grace yields an overall whole that is richer than either would have been on its own.
Well as God foreknew the outcome, then God cannot be richer.
This argument brings God into 'this' side of space and time, and renders God subject to events that occur in space and time. The God of the philosophers, and the God of Christianity, stands above space and time.
So a workable panentheist process, I suppose, but not at a Christian one.
And by the way, Aquinas wasn't hobbled by Aristotle, he just used Aristotelian methodology, he didn't hold with Aristotelian metaphysics without question, else he wouldn't have been a Christian.
And if you look at the sources he draws from, the two most mentioned are Denys the Areopagite and Augustine, who were both Platonists (although both knew Aristotle).
Thomas
