Hartshorne on god : A defense

Abstract

All theists share a common belief that for a God to be God he must be both supreme and worthy of worship. Hartshorne adopts this principle and points out that two traditional alternatives, namely, classical theism and pantheism, could not accomplish the requirements of this principle. On the one hand, Hartshorne argues, if we follow classical theism, we would face the problem that God is not supreme since if God is totally independent of the world then there must be something superior to God and the world-something which includes both of them. On the other hand, if we decide to follow pantheism, we would have to face the problem that God is not worthy of worship since if God is identical to the world and the world contains a great deal of evil then God contains a great deal of evil. Both of the two schools face difficulties because their God is monopolar. Hartshorne creates a compromise between classical theism and pantheism in his panentheism. The panentheistic God is dipolar, i.e., he is both abstract and concrete. The world is in his concrete aspect. Hartshorne's panentheism helps solve all difficulties that the classical theists and the pantheists face. Thus the panentheistic God is both supreme and worthy of worship. The panentheistic God is not totally independent of the world, but, simultaneously, he is not identical to the world. In panentheism the concrete aspect of God is immanent in and includes the world, so we can meet him in the actual world. According to Hartshorne, God is still omnibenevolent in the traditional sense, but omnipotent and omiscient in different senses. This means that even though God's power is immutable he can not do whatever he wills as the classical theists understand. As for his omniscience, God knows potentials or possibities as possibilities and actualities as actualities. For Hartshorne divine omniscience is not absolute fore-knowledge as in the case of classical theism