Why Do We Trust Ancient Texts as Accurate?

[shunyadragon]

Would you elaborate on this statement? Are you referring to religious truths, which I kinda infer from the context. Or are you referring to all forms of truth, including scientific truth.

I am referring to all forms of claims of 'Truth,' in particular religious claims of 'Truth.'

As far as science goes, science is a form of progressive evolving knowledge based on 'Methodological Naturalism.' Nothing is consider 'True' or proven in science. The knowledge of science is based on the the progressive falsification of theories and hypothesis based on objective observations of the nature of our physical existence. Every theory and hypothesis is subject to change and falsification based on new knowledge and objective observations.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm afraid I have to disagree on both counts. I think the metaphysical systems of the Great Traditions speak for themselves in that regard. They don't need me to champion them.

The great diversity of the claims world wide systems of Great traditions do in fact speak for themselves in great diversity and contradictions.

As I said, I regard the essence of religion as transcending time and place, although obviously are expressed in time and place ... the art is to see through the veils.

The problem is the 'art to see through the veils' remains to variable with a huge diversity of claims and anecdotal, to stand the more objective unbiased claims of the huge diversity and contradictory claims.

There you go then.

Here I go again 'Yes, love and compassion as well as the Golden Rule are universal, and remain at the heart of the spiritual human nature.'

Oh, they are. I could direct you to ancient texts that do just that. Indeed, Paul Ricoeur offers a commentary on man – his Time and Narrative – that is founded in and on Aristotle and Augustine. I'm sure the same insights are there in the commentaries of the Great Traditions.

I agree that there are 'some' insights in the commentaries of the Great Traditions of ALL the religions of the world, but I could not take the views of Aristotle and Augustine as remotely definitive and exceptional above the diverse others in the different traditions of ALL the religions.

Where there is fault, it's man, not the religion. Faced with the current migrant crisis in Europe, I see precious little evidence of a humanity becoming one. I think this stands to be a chimera of the late 20thC. The leading nations have shown no inclination to regard the world as one ...

The unfortunate fallible human view of the rejection of the inherent unity of humanity is indeed a human view, and not the spiritual teaching from God. Humans are the ones that make up religions.

What the 20thC demonstrates is a propensity to violence that has nothing to do with religious affiliation, therefore religion in itself is not the source of the problem.

The evidence is clear that much of the violence in history and today is due to religion. The current violence and wars in the Middle East is definitely a religious conflict going back thousands of years.


I do put them in their cultural context, but I can also see their universal aspects. Also that there is nothing 'new' that cannot be found to be in the Great Traditions' texts and commentaries.

(I tend to think the 'spiritual evolution of humanity' is a 20th century invention, largely syncretic, largely artificial, and fundamentally political – it's a linear reading of history which is increasingly being shown by science to be not quite accurate.)

I can't think of any spiritual doctrine that is not present in the ancient traditions. Rather, most if not all contemporary spiritual teachings take from the ancient traditions.

It is anecdotal to claim 'most' or even 'some' if not all contemporary spiritual teachings take from ancient traditions is inadequate to define what is true and what is not. Again considering the religions of the world as a whole it remains that the claims are too diverse, anecdotal and contradictory to make definitive judgments to claim the validity of one religon or belief system over another.

Can you prove that?

Illusive anecdotal theist claims are not subject to proofs that are not circular.

To clarify:
My use of the word 'scientism' refers to those who erroneously believe that science will explain away religion. The contrary is those who evidence the worst cases of religious intolerance, bigotry etc,. as if that invalidates religion. This is a nonsense, but it's one of the most-often deployed arguments by atheists today. I get it all the time.

What you 'claim to get all the time,' and the philosophical claims of atheists, is not science. It is the philosophical assertions and claims of some scientists, and popular media. Your rant does not make it clear you understand the difference between real 'Methodological Naturalism,' which are the methods of all scientists, including atheists, and their philosophical views. It would be difficult for you to falsify or find fault with the actual peer reviewed published scientific work of the most radical atheists, like Dawkins nor other atheist/agnostic scientists like Einstein, who make anecdotal philosophical claims of atheism/agnosticism.

Good science of course does no such thing. It stays within its stated axioms. My 'unfortunate view' is not at all related to ancient world views, but to the ill-informed or assumptive arguments I hear on a regular basis. They're as evident today as ever they were. I am not against science, as long as it recognises its sphere of activity. Indeed, as there are some outstanding scientists who hold religious beliefs, so the whole science v religion thing is a nonsense. 'Scientism' is equivalent to religious fundamentalism.

You have failed to define nor adequately describe what you consider as 'good science,' since your claims of 'Scientism,' is not really science at all, but philosophical claims by some scientists. You use of 'scientism' remains a vague anecdotal concept, and your real objection is to the philosophical beliefs of Ontological Naturalism and not science at all.

Please be more specific as to how you define and/or describe good science.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Shunya, I do not disagree with your definition of science. It is an especially good definition as a matter of fact. If you will permit me, I'm going to go on a kind of stream of consciousness journey for a bit. None of the following is set in stone; I'm trying to work through this as I go along. I may end up rejecting this entire post; I am curious to see where it leads me.

I see the definition of science as the foundation of truth, not the entire structure. Which seems contradictory perhaps, but hang in there with me for a few. It seems to me that the majority of our species would not be able to function through life if all they had of truth was the foundation. Most need the structure itself as well. The structure is what I think of as observational truth, which is, yes, a contradiction in terms. Again though I don't think most people could function without it. Observational truth, to function at its best must be based on the foundational truth. Does the sun rise in the east and set in the west. Observationally that is correct, even though it is an illusion. During the day the sky is blue. Is it? Well, yes as that is how our sensory organs called eyes see it.

The pitfalls of observational truth are immense as well though, particularly when we ignore the foundation. Which happens all the time mostly through ignorance, but just as often through willful resistance. Is climate change real? And is mankind the primary culprit. We have a plurality of science to say this is so. Yet we have a Congress full of people who refuse to accept it, because it is not in the best interests of the deep pockets that own our members of Congress.

Observational truth really gets into trouble when we start looking at idealogical truths as opposed to physical ones. For I do not think idealogical truths are capable of being based on the foundation. Idealogical truths are based purely on opinion, and the lack of accepting that is the cause of much grief in our world. Yet again, bad as they are, can people function without their personal idealogical truths?

 

[shunyadragon]

Shunya, I do not disagree with your definition of science. It is an especially good definition as a matter of fact. If you will permit me, I'm going to go on a kind of stream of consciousness journey for a bit. None of the following is set in stone; I'm trying to work through this as I go along. I may end up rejecting this entire post; I am curious to see where it leads me.

I see the definition of science as the foundation of truth, not the entire structure. Which seems contradictory perhaps, but hang in there with me for a few. It seems to me that the majority of our species would not be able to function through life if all they had of truth was the foundation. Most need the structure itself as well. The structure is what I think of as observational truth, which is, yes, a contradiction in terms. Again though I don't think most people could function without it. Observational truth, to function at its best must be based on the foundational truth. Does the sun rise in the east and set in the west. Observationally that is correct, even though it is an illusion. During the day the sky is blue. Is it? Well, yes as that is how our sensory organs called eyes see it.

The pitfalls of observational truth are immense as well though, particularly when we ignore the foundation. Which happens all the time mostly through ignorance, but just as often through willful resistance. Is climate change real? And is mankind the primary culprit. We have a plurality of science to say this is so. Yet we have a Congress full of people who refuse to accept it, because it is not in the best interests of the deep pockets that own our members of Congress.

Observational truth really gets into trouble when we start looking at ideological truths as opposed to physical ones. For I do not think ideological truths are capable of being based on the foundation. Ideological truths are based purely on opinion, and the lack of accepting that is the cause of much grief in our world. Yet again, bad as they are, can people function without their personal ideological truths?

My problem is your use of 'truth.' which any discipline, scientific, philosophical, ideological or theological gets into trouble with this word. It is better to describe science in terms of knowledge and objective observed facts. It is a given that at present you reject ideological and theological claims of knowledge or 'truth.' I do not want to debate this problem at present, but focus on the nature of scientific knowledge.

Truth has its roots in the word 'true,' which as defined is ok for layman's use in the general public use, but is questionable in science.
True as defined as "in accordance with fact or reality." or "accurate and exact" are ok for layman's descriptions of worldly occurence and observations, but in science it can cause trouble. Adjectives such as accurate, exact, or facts do not deal with the conclusions, theories and hypothesis that are falsified in science. In science these terms are a part of criteria of making objective observations for with research is based on. The theories and hypothesis are not described as necessarily "accurate nor exact," because they can be modified, or in some cases rejected based on new knowledge and observations.

This not the only issue in the problem between layman language and science. The word 'proof' and 'proved' often misused in reference to science. It is common for some people who reject scientific conclusions and explanations to say things like, "Evolution has not been 'proven' by science." or "The human influence on climate change has not been 'proven.' Science in turn some times uses layman language, which is weak, to argue their perspective such as, "Evolution is a fact of science."

In reality, nothing is 'proven' in science, and 'facts' are the stuff of objective observations that support theories and hypothesis, and not the falsified conclusions that support theories and hypothesis.

Methodological Naturalism is inherently skeptical, and to certain degree must remain static as the conclusions, theories, and hypothesis, which are all subject to change in the evolving knowledge of science..

 

[hoghead1]

Actually, Devils';Advocate, we are "theologians," not "thelogists." Christianity represents a wide range or spectrum of beliefs, from conservative to liberal. Conservatives may well stress the inerrancy of Scripture. Liberals, such as myself, do not. My liberal agenda, for example, is a healthy skepticism for tradition, emphasis on personal experience as ultimate authority, creativity, and a healthy respect for other faiths.

 

[Stevegp]

One issue that might be relevant to how one approaches the truth value of the ancient metaphysical texts or, for that matter, any metaphysical system is the level of tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty. Over the centuries up to the current day there have been many strains of thought addressing the deepest questions of reality both physical and metaphysical. How ever the epistemic source of those that contain religious content has been characterized (i.e. special revelation, philosophical speculation, mystical insight, etc.) they reach beyond what might be considered the normal lines of inquiry. Thus the "meta" in metaphysical.

As such, this presents challenges for verisimilitude. The sciences have an advantage in this respect because there is a more straightforward process: formulate a theory, collect data, test it, replicated it, falsify it, and get peer review. The process for metaphysics is more tortuous and uncertain. Analytically metaphysical systems can be examined for completeness, consistency, logical congruence, etc. but that alone wouldn't seem adequate to provide enough weight for their truth value. Then when it comes to the ancient religious systems, it's a messy business. They were formulated over centuries if not millennia with lots of documents, with variations, inconsistencies, divergences of thought, metaphysical variations, different sects, and on and on. Even today, those that somehow survived the ages have all sorts of strains emanating from a putative core. Now unlike science, validation of metaphysical systems is not straightforward. Firstly, they can be examined for their "friendliness" to empirical studies but beyond that things get pretty fuzzy and complicated. If it is posited that there is some sort of access to ultimate reality (i.e. religious experience something like Calvin's sensus divinitatus, or Tillich's mystical a priori) then there can be a fuzzy, ambiguous test for congruence but since that is so subjective, nothing objectively definitive can be claimed. Then there may be other messy "tests" applied perhaps to see how well a system addresses existential issues (i.e. meaning, morality, the problem of evil, prayer, the afterlife, justice, etc.) Nothing straightforward here either.

However, there are people who, for whatever reason, do feel/believe there is some intentional ultimate basis for reality. Most probably grew up within a religious tradition and just stick with it without much thought or critical examination. A smaller number may be very skeptical of religious claims but have some nagging sense that there is, as William James put it "something more" to reality. Others may not have had a religious background or are dissatisfied with their current one and decide to venture into uncharted territory to find something else that meets their needs and religious sensibilities. This is where the tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty comes in. Since uncertainty and ambiguity seem to be inherent in all metaphysical systems, the question is how to navigate it? Some may not be all that concerned about certainty and gravitate to what "feels" the best and meets their needs. Others may be more stringent in their examinations and embark on a long, difficult journey to find something that fits their cognitive and religious sensibilities. And has an acceptable level of uncertainty and ambiguity. For those, there are all sorts of resources available to be evaluated, including the ancient texts.

 

[hoghead1]

Good point, Steveqp. Compared to science, metaphysics is a "messy" business. However, it must be remembered that science rests on metaphysical foundations. Many scientists, I think, forget that. They think they are avoiding any and all philosophical, metaphysical speculations. Big mistake. For example, there is no way to scientifically verify the verification principle. There is no scientific way to validate causality Actually, there is also much speculation in science. We have only a very limited window into the past, especially the distant past, and the cosmos. So, much of what science says it is matter of speculation with a certain probability of being true. There is no absolute certainty.

 

[shunyadragon]

Good point, Steveqp. Compared to science, metaphysics is a "messy" business. However, it must be remembered that science rests on metaphysical foundations. Many scientists, I think, forget that. They think they are avoiding any and all philosophical, metaphysical speculations. Big mistake. For example, there is no way to scientifically verify the verification principle. There is no scientific way to validate causality Actually, there is also much speculation in science. We have only a very limited window into the past, especially the distant past, and the cosmos. So, much of what science says it is matter of speculation with a certain probability of being true. There is no absolute certainty.

I disagree, of course, there is no absolute certainty, that is actually at the foundation of scientific skepticism, and the view that all theories and hypothesis are open to further research and falsification as new knowledge and facts become known.

The philosophy of science does make assumptions that our physical universe, in particular our little corner of the greater cosmos is uniform and predictable. These predictions are constantly being tested with each proposed prediction in the theories and hypothesis tested and falsified by scientific methods. The classic contemporary predictions involve the basic particles of matter. They have all been predicted long before they were confirmed. These successful methods of prediction began long ago with the prediction of the missing elements and their properties using the periodic table. The theories of evolution has also undergone a long history of successful predictions of missing links, and properties and environments of the predicted species that were later discovered.

Methodological Naturalism and fractal chaos rules

 

[hoghead1]

I'm not sure what you disagree with. That metaphysics is a "messy" business? Yes, the philosophy of science does assume uniformity and predictability, but not all behavior is lawful and fully predictable. That was a point Hume stressed, pointing out there is loads of chaos in nature. What was it he said? The womb of nature spews forth all sorts of abominations. Modern science recognizes there is also chance and randomness involved. I consider that testimony to the fact mind and matter are one, that even atoms have tiny minds and can make choices, have a free will, limited as it may be.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm not sure what you disagree with. That metaphysics is a "messy" business? Yes, the philosophy of science does assume uniformity and predictability, but not all behavior is lawful and fully predictable. That was a point Hume stressed, pointing out there is loads of chaos in nature. What was it he said? The womb of nature spews forth all sorts of abominations. Modern science recognizes there is also chance and randomness involved. I consider that testimony to the fact mind and matter are one, that even atoms have tiny minds and can make choices, have a free will, limited as it may be.

I disagree with the degree you may propose that 'not all behavior is lawful and fully predictable.' and most definitely disagree with 'I consider that testimony to the fact mind and matter are one, that even atoms have tiny minds and can make choices,. . .'

Fractal chaos is actually a predictable and observable property of our physical existence.

Our difference is likely a matter of degree, but I do not believe your description reflects actual science.

 

[hoghead1]

I'm interested in metaphysics, Shuny, and therefore yes, have moved beyond actual science. However, it is true a few scientists have spoken openly about atoms having a mind.
I'm not sure what you men by "fractal" chaos and prediction. Could you give me an example of how behavior, all behavior, is fully predictable?

 

[Stevegp]

I'm interested in metaphysics, Shuny, and therefore yes, have moved beyond actual science. However, it is true a few scientists have spoken openly about atoms having a mind.

Panpsychism (everything has a mind) is sometimes offered as an explanatory avenue in various fields to address some scientific problems. Most notably the "hard problem" of consciousness (i.e. conscious experience). Leading consciousness philosopher David Chalmers is open to this because physicalism doesn't seem, to him, very promising in explaining it.

Also, a couple of other things come to mind that have been mostly a given in scientific circles that may be questioned today. These might have metaphysical overtones because it may be hard to resolve within a physicalist perspective. First there is the characterization of what makes up reality. Around 600 BCE the Charvakan philosophers in what is now known as India claimed that everything was made up of "little things" that had what they called svabhava or intrinsic properties that combined and interacted to make up what we see. This idea seems to have caught on in Greece about 100 years later and was espoused by the atomists. While there were detractors from this view, it caught on and became the dominant view in the sciences all the way up to today. However, with the advent of quantum mechanics this view seems to break down. Here's a quote from physicist Henry Stapp:

An important characteristic of this quantum conceptualization is that the substantive matter-like aspects, have dropped out. The theory is about: (1) abrupt events, each of which is tied to an experiential increment in knowledge; and (2) potentialities for such events to occur. Events are not substances, which, by definition, endure. And the potentialities have an “idea-like” character because they are like an “imagined” idea of what the future events might be, and they change abruptly when a new event occurs. Thus neither the events nor the potentialities have the ontological character the substantive matter of classical physics. Yet the predictions of quantum mechanics encompass all of the known successes of classical mechanics.

Then there is the observer issue in quantum mechanics where it appears that the choices the observer makes determine how events are constituted. Taking all this together it's not too far a leap to entertain some idea that reality is constituted by mind (an idealism system). If this might have some feasibility then it's not too far a step to question the very notion of mindless laws. If everything is mind, then the regularities we see could be merely the habits of mind and not some fixed, intransigent, mindless forces. Now within this position it's probably not absolutely necessary to invoke God (the Mind constituting reality) but here's a quote from another physicist, Purdue physicist F. J. Belinfante, who includes God in the picture:

If elementary systems do not “possess” quantitatively determinate properties, apparently God determines these properties as we measure them. We also observe the fact, unexplanable but experimentally well established, that God in His decisions about the outcomes of our experiments shows habits so regular that we can express them in the form of statistical laws of nature….this apparent determinism in macroscopic nature has hidden God and His personal influence on the universe from the eyes of many outstanding scientists.

What I find appealing about this view is that it offers a teleological view of reality. It supports things like meaning, morality and free will.

 

[hoghead1]

Good points, Stevegp. From where I sit, substance metaphysics is out the window. I believe God is essential, however, to explain creativity, complex structure, and guarantee the meaningfulness of life, among other things. I didn't know whether you wanted me to go into detail here or not. So I'm just going to stop. I like Stapp, because he is open to the instantaneous transmission of information throughout the universe. I am into the metaphysics of AN Whitehead, where every entity is taken to be an item in the real internal constitution of every other.

 

[Stevegp]

I didn't know whether you wanted me to go into detail here or not.

It's not my thread but I'd love to hear what you have to say.

I am into the metaphysics of AN Whitehead, where every entity is taken to be an item in the real internal constitution of every other.

I find process thought interesting but it's ontology is too dualistic for my taste. Also it has a real problem with prayer.

 

[hoghead1]

I'm puzzled here, Steveqp. I don't follow why you feel it is dualistic and presents problems for prayer. Please explain.

Here is a brief synopsis of some of my proofs for God:

According to Whitehead's principle of relativity, to exist to be prehended. So who prehends the entire, the whole of the universe? Certainly none of us can, so there must be a transcendental Cosmic Observer, i.e., God.
According to the same principle, the many ultimately become one. So who feels all the feelings in the universe and arises from this experience as one entity? The logical answer is God.

In order for there to be actuality, there must fist be potentiality. Anything that exists dos so because a previous potential was actualized. So, before the universe, there must have been abstract potentials for the universe. But potentials can do nothing, they do not actualize themselves, they really don't exist, except in some actuality. I mean, imaginative ideas just don't exist, they exist in an imagination. So before, creation there must have been a transcendental imagination, i.e., God.
We all seek meaning and value. But his is difficult in an ever-changing world. We acquire a value or satisfaction, only to soon loose it. What is the point of doing anything if it is all going to go up in smoke soon enough anyway? Here, I see God as the guarantor of meaningfulness. All creaturely feelings are directly and immediately empathically felt by God. They then become part of God's eternal memory and there fore continue to have a lasting effect far beyond our world.

All our concepts, no matter how imaginary they may be, go back to some reality. If there was no God, then we could have no experience of God, and we would not have such a concept.

I'm running through these pretty fast here, I know. Let me know if they make any sense.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm interested in metaphysics, Shuny, and therefore yes, have moved beyond actual science. However, it is true a few scientists have spoken openly about atoms having a mind.

Considering how 'mind' is normally defined. You would have to cite 'scientists' who have spoken openly about atoms having a mind.

Methodological Naturalism defines contemporary science as the objective knowledge of theories and hypothesis that may be falsified. If you move beyond science, you are beyond Methodological Naturalism, and no longer science. The only way science is involved with the mind is falsifying theories and hypothesis concerning the relationship of the brain and the mind. At present the only falsifiable objective evidence indicates that the mind is a product of the brain.

I'm not sure what you men by "fractal" chaos and prediction.

Read Chaos by James Gleick.

Fractal math is the non-linear math that predicts chaos relationships in situations where there are many variables predicting the weather. Modern weather prediction models rely on fractal math to enhance weather predictions because of the many variable.

The old concept was randomness, which natural events today are no longer considered random. These events are no described in terms of fractal math and chaos theory. The only observed randomness at present is in Quantum situations, and this is observed, and may not be truly random.

Could you give me an example of how behavior, all behavior, is fully predictable?

Need clarification concerning the statement '. . . all behavior, is fully predictable.' What behavior would you consider as not fully predictable? At present the use of scientific methods has been fully predictable and falsifiable concerning what may be objectively observed. Except not all behavior at the Quantum level at present is fully observable, but predictions have been successfully made concerning the nature of observed randomness in the Quantum world.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm puzzled here, Steveqp. I don't follow why you feel it is dualistic and presents problems for prayer. Please explain.

Here is a brief synopsis of some of my proofs for God:

According to Whitehead's principle of relativity, to exist to be prehended. So who prehends the entire, the whole of the universe? Certainly none of us can, so there must be a transcendental Cosmic Observer, i.e., God.
According to the same principle, the many ultimately become one. So who feels all the feelings in the universe and arises from this experience as one entity? The logical answer is God.

Tis far too circular to be real. You would have to assume there exists something or someone who may observe the whole of the universe, for there to be a logical conclusion that there is someone or something. It is not necessary that this someone nor something exists. It is very likely that Natural Laws may explain the nature of our existence without a necessary observer.

In order for there to be actuality, there must first be potentiality. Anything that exists dos so because a previous potential was actualized. So, before the universe, there must have been abstract potentials for the universe. But potentials can do nothing, they do not actualize themselves, they really don't exist, except in some actuality. I mean, imaginative ideas just don't exist, they exist in an imagination. So before, creation there must have been a transcendental imagination, i.e., God.

Again this is explainable by the existence of eternal Natural Law for which there is no objectively observable cause.

We all seek meaning and value. But his is difficult in an ever-changing world. We acquire a value or satisfaction, only to soon loose it. What is the point of doing anything if it is all going to go up in smoke soon enough anyway? Here, I see God as the guarantor of meaningfulness. All creaturely feelings are directly and immediately empathically felt by God. They then become part of God's eternal memory and there fore continue to have a lasting effect far beyond our world.

All our concepts, no matter how imaginary they may be, go back to some reality. If there was no God, then we could have no experience of God, and we would not have such a concept.

Again this reality may be explained by the existence of objectively observable Natural Laws.

I'm running through these pretty fast here, I know. Let me know if they make any sense.

I do not believe there are logical proofs for the existence of God(s) without making some assumptions a priori that a Source some call God(s) exists.

Could a cause and effect sequence of Gods explain the existence of God?

 

[hoghead1]

I guess I don't fully agree, Shuny. One problem is why the brain generates a mind. How can zillions of mindless entities all assembled constitute a mind? It makes no sense. Another problem is exactly what do you want to call a brain. Cells have feelings, are alive. I can easily say they have a brain, some centralized control within them. Another No matter how hared we try and predict the future, it is still up for grabs. That's why no one problem has to do with evolution. We have been very busy extending mechanical principles up the scale, to explain things, and so we have forgotten it is only fair to extend psychological ones down the scale, to explain things. What's the case at the top of the scale is generally the case at the bottom, though to a significantly lesser extent. Also, as I said, I am interested in stepping beyond science.
I still don't follow you on predictability. All the weather predictions give are probabilities, not definite facts. I just went through one where the likelihood of a major snow storm was very high. However, it didn't happen. I challenge anyone who says the future is fully predictable to go to Los Vegas and win every time at gambling. Also, when it comes to "laws" of nature, it often seems there are more exceptions than laws. Again, when you look at evolution, at the continual creativity going on in the universe, what is striking is the continual rise of the improbable.

 

[hoghead1]

OK, Shuny, turning to the proofs for God. I think you are overlooking a major point of Whitehead's principle of relativity, which is that if something exists, then it is perceived of or prehended (to use Whitehead's term). Now, since I hold with this principle, it is therefore logical to posit a cosmic observer. Of course, you could argue that you don't hold with the principle of relativity and so my argument was bogus. But you would then need to do that: attack the principle of relativity, which you didn't...yet.
I don't follow you at all when you say some sort of eternal natural law could do the same job. Could you explain more here, please? I await your responses.

 

[Stevegp]

According to Whitehead's principle of relativity, to exist to be prehended. So who prehends the entire, the whole of the universe? Certainly none of us can, so there must be a transcendental Cosmic Observer, i.e., God.

This is similar to Berkeley's "to be is to be perceived". Whereas Berkeley started out with a subjective idealism, I think he shifted more to an objective idealism like this when he ran into the problem of the contiguous whole.

In order for there to be actuality, there must fist be potentiality. Anything that exists dos so because a previous potential was actualized. So, before the universe, there must have been abstract potentials for the universe. But potentials can do nothing, they do not actualize themselves, they really don't exist, except in some actuality. I mean, imaginative ideas just don't exist, they exist in an imagination. So before, creation there must have been a transcendental imagination, i.e., God.
We all seek meaning and value. But his is difficult in an ever-changing world. We acquire a value or satisfaction, only to soon loose it. What is the point of doing anything if it is all going to go up in smoke soon enough anyway? Here, I see God as the guarantor of meaningfulness. All creaturely feelings are directly and immediately empathically felt by God.

They then become part of God's eternal memory and there fore continue to have a lasting effect far beyond our world.

What's interesting about the "eternal memory" you mentioned is that from what I've read Whitehead didn't have God in his earlier systems but added God later because he felt there was a need for this eternal repository of all occasions of experience.

I'm puzzled here, Steveqp. I don't follow why you feel it is dualistic and presents problems for prayer. Please explain.

Theistic systems tend to draw some sorts of distinctions between God and the world. At the extremes are dualism and monism. But there are many shades of gray between the two and have to be explicated to be understandable. A strict dualistic theism might be a deism where God created the world but then has nothing to do with it. A strict monistic system might be some form of pantheism where there is an identity of God and the world. In between are forms like panentheism where "all is in God" but God is not identical with the world. Or a monistic ontology that I subscribe to is what I call an "aspect monism" where all is God but everything in the world are aspects of God. In the East something like this was espoused by Ramanuja of the Vishishtadvaita school. In an aspect monism or Ramanuja's system the distinctions are more qualifications instead of ontological distinctions.

Now it's been years since I studied process thought so if I get something wrong please correct me. So ontologically, at least for me, the question is how sharp a distinction is drawn between God and the world. I would say that process theology is fairly dualistic because God is ontologically distinct from the world and only prehends and influences what goes on. So I would say the distinction is pretty strong. This brings me to the problem of prayer for process theology. Specifically what should one make of petitionary or prayers of supplication in process theology. Let me offer an example. Say there is an addict who really wants to change but is having a terrible time doing so. If she is a process adherent her prayer would have to go something like "please God, influence me stronger so I can change". To me that doesn't make any sense. After one of his presentations, I remember a person asking Hartshorne about petitionary prayer. He just kind of shrugged the question off apparently because it didn't make sense in process thought. Prayers of supplication are so important to many people that I think it would be cruel and also unnecessary not to have them in a theological system. However, I also think that prayers of supplication must be framed within a view of divine action that does honor to God's self imposed constraints in how God works within the world.