Relational Thinking Becomes Symmetrical Thinking

I am working on a new book with all sorts of new ideas.  One of them is adding the idea if symmetry to the mix.  Symmetry is a basic mathematical and scientific concept which adds depth and specificy to relational thinking. 

The book should be ready soon.  Keep an eye on this website and order my books to prepare for the good news of an earthshaking publication.   

What is Relational Theology?

There seems to be some confusion as to what Relational Theology is all about.  This particularly true since Process theologians now want to use the name Relational.  Process Theology is still Process Theology.

Relational Theology is unique and distinct because it is not based on traditional Greek philosophical concepts or ideas, but on ideas based on the Biblical ideas, and common experience, reinforced by modern scientific research..  This is important because traditional Greek philosophical concepts have become outmoded by modern science, which has caused great confusion in modern thought.

The problem with Relational Theology is that it does not lend itself to sound bites, because it requires a rethinking of how we think and what is truly real.  All thinking, all theology, all science is relational, because thinking is the discovering of relationships.  Relational Theology is unique because it is clear that we are relational creatures living in a relational universe created by a relational God.

I invite you become a part of the Relational revolution by buying and reading one or both of my books, The God Who RELATES, and The Complex ONE and The Simple ONE.

You are also invited to read the article below on the new Relational View of Reality.

Yours,

Roger A. Sawtelle

The Relational View of Reality

The Newtonian model of cosmology was matter and energy in the absolute [that is, independent, non-relational] context of space and time. The Einsteinian model grouped matter/energy as closely related entities in the relational context of space/time. I propose to offer a third pair to the cosmological model and that is intellectual/meaning aspect of reality.

This would give reality three aspects or dimensions, matter/energy, space/time, and intellectual/meaning which work together to create reality and the universe as humans know it. What is the basis for saying that there is an intellectual aspect of reality? The basic reason for this is because most Westerners accept that reality operates based on scientific, natural law.

Since these laws are the product of science and reason, then it follows that they are intellectual. If reality is based on intellectual laws, then reality must have an intellectual aspect. A counter argument to this view is that the universe cannot think and therefore it cannot have an intellectual aspect.

The response to that is not that the universe can think, but that it has an intellectual component. Humans who are a part of the universe can think, so at least one part of the universe can think. If human scientific thought is strictly subjective, that is, if it in no way represents the universe as it is, then it would seem true that reality has no intellectual aspect. How many Westerners really think that this is true?

The problem with the intellectual aspect of reality is that it supports the view that God created the universe. Since both sides agree that the universe cannot think, then this rationality must come from a source other than nature itself. Some maintain that humans are (as far as we can tell) the sole source of the rationality of the universe.

As indicated above this view denies the possibility of objective intellectual knowledge of reality, which is counter to all Western scientific experience. On the other hand if the universe is intelligible and rational, then it would appear that its Source must be intelligible and rational, and this is consonant with the Judeo-Christian understanding of God. Islam in my opinion does not share this view.

Some might complain that this view must be wrong because it appears to base a scientific view on religious convictions. My point of view is that, while my cosmological views are consonant with my religious convictions, they are more importantly consistent with what appears to me and to many others a logical, objective, reasonable view of the nature of reality.

I would point out that it was the Greek philosophers who first maintained that the universe was a cosmos rationally ordered by the Logos of Being. Thus this view originated primarily in the basic Western philosophic tradition, as well as by the Biblical tradition. On the other hand some would reject this view because they reject a priori the existence of God. The second aspect of the third pair of this model of reality, meaning, is defended and rejected for reasons similar to the debate about the intellectual aspect of reality.

Many thinkers seem to reject the concept that life, the universe, reality, has purpose or meaning. They maintain that purpose or meaning is something that only humans can have, and even though humans are a part of the universe, they are an insignificant part, so whatever purpose that they might have is purely personal, subjective, and arbitrary.

To be sure liberal thinkers have been traumatized to a large extent by ideologies gone wrong this past century. Nazi ideology received support from the Darwinian theory found in eugenics, which has since been discredited. Racism received support from Social Darwinism, which has also been discredited. Marxism-Leninism claimed to be “atheistic scientific socialism.” One of the primary reasons for non-believers to reject Christianity and attack extremist Islam is their use in the past and present to justify intolerance and persecution.

One method to solve the problem of oppressing others who reject the “Right Meaning of Life” is to reject the idea that there is any real substantive meaning or purpose of life. The only problem with this is the possibility of tossing the proverbial baby out with the bath water. The other question would be, just because a problem is difficult to solve, does not mean it is insolvable or unimportant.

Great issues require great efforts and great sacrifices to obtain great results. Humans did not get where they are by playing it safe. Is life worth living or not? Most if not all people would seem to say yes. If so the meaning of life must be real and profound, not pretend and superficial. Other animals do not need a reason for living, but humans do. Religion according to my observation is about finding the Meaning of Life or God Who is the Source of life and all that is.

Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and other critics of religion do not seem to have the slightest concept as to what it is about. In large part because they think that life has no inherent meaning or purpose so religion has no reason for existence, even though they concede that it must have had some evolutionary purpose. If religion is the search for the meaning of life and reality, then Theology is the systematic study or search for the meaning of life and reality.

Science is the search for the intellectual structure of life and reality. Philosophy is the search for the understanding (wisdom) of life and reality. These three disciplines are essential to human existence as we know it and must be real if human existence is real. Those who deny that reality has an intellectual/meaning dimension are denying the human accomplishments in these three areas, Science, Philosophy, and Theology and are threatening the advances made by humanity in these areas.