A Christian Natural Theology?

A Christian Natural Theology is an inappropriate and deceptive title for John B. Cobb Jr.'s on the applicability of Whiteheadean philosophy and natural theology. Natural theology is a portion of this particular book and becomes the emphasis in the final twenty pages. However, he spends the lion's share of this book describing Whitehead's philosophy and his own process worldview. In this post I will provide a brief overview of Cobb's book, including detailed description of a few of his arguments, followed by my own critique of this particular work.

As I mentioned earlier, the majority of the book is Cobb's presentation of Whitehead's thought. The first piece of Whiteheadian philosophy that is essential to the book is his understanding of time and reality (actual occasions).  For Whitehead, reality is not comprised of individual events that are able to be dissected and analyzed, but is a continual flow of undefinable occasions.  "The sense of there being a reality other than our experience given to us in the experience is absolutely primitive" (Cobb Jr. pg. 6).  Once Cobb has explained Whitehead's conception of reality, he turns his focus to humanity.  The human soul is built on top of Whitehead's view of experience.  For Whithead, and Cobb, the soul is immaterial and thus immeasurable.  "It is nothing but the sequence of the experience that constitute it" (Cobb Jr. pg. 19)  From this, Whitehead coined the phrase, "living person," which is a soul.  Since humans are "living persons" there is not life after death for Whitehead, but Cobb does not believe that natural theology needs to be concerned about such issues.

Whitehead's doctrine of God is as equally as complex as his anthropology and complicates the relationship between humanity and nature even further.  Science is one of the main areas of Whitehead's experience, therefore, his doctrine of God is highly influenced by science and at times stereotypes orthodox Christianity as only believing in a "God of the gaps" approach to science.  Whitehead is against a personal conception of God and, "He even denies that religious experience provides adequate warrant for affirming the actuality of God" (Cobb Jr. pg. 90).  He goes on to argue that humanity shares in God and God's desire is to see the increase of all creatures.

Cobb concludes this book with his definition of theology and how natural theology fits into the larger realm of theology and in the even larger system that is the cosmos.  He throws some bold accusations at conservative evangelicals definition of theology and in particular, biblical theology before transitioning into what is supposed to be the focus of the book.  Cobb seeks to provide a philosophically robust natural theology that is not dependent on a community of conviction or theological foundation.  Instead, his natural theology focuses on "the findings of science, or the widespread experience of humankind" (Cobb Jr. pg. 176).  Since he knows that many of his critics will try to label his natural theology as relativistic, Cobb attempts to rebut them in the final pages of the book rather than through further publications.  However, he seems to do the exact opposite of what he is trying to do by making statements like the following, "There is no human value that is eternally sanctioned for all times and places" (Cobb Jr. pg 181).  The book ends with Cobb's final argument for why Whitehead's philosophy is the best option for a Christian natural theology, and is anything but inadequate or heretical. 

Although many orthodox Christian theologians have a great disdain for Cobb and his work, I think that his perspective can be a rejuvenating breath of fresh air for our understanding of natural theology. Cobb is not afraid to take on the monumental challenges that rationalism and the Enlightenment have created for theology and Christianity and I am grateful for that. Also, I agree with Cobb when he says, "the partly legitimate rejection of natural theology has led much of Protestant theology to fail to come effectively to grips with this kind of responsible thinking" (Cobb Jr. pg. 173). The scientific revolution has forced Christian theology and doctrine to adapt long held beliefs because they have been proven to be suspect at best and false at worst. Since Cobb has a high view of science and the empirical verification that science operates on to confirm the veracity of claims, we must be open to the advice that he contributes to the conversation. 

The first problem that must be addressed in Cobb’s presentation is that of relativism. He attempts to counter this claim in the final chapter of the book by claiming to not be relativistic; however, he contradicts his claim by arguing for a confessional form of theology that transforms truth claims into plastic assertions that are only valid within particular groups and contexts. In addition, he contends that we must be open to the truth claims of all faiths, and not be exclusivistic in our understanding of truth. This is yet another example of the need to accept Cobb’s worldview in order to by into his thinking. As a radical pluralist, Cobb will not allow for Christianity, or any religion for that matter, to claim to have ultimate absolute truth that trumps competing truth claims.  Furthermore, he exhorts Christians to "set aside all their particular belief about Jesus Christ, God, miracles, salvation, and eternal life that they recognize as peculiar to that tradition" (Cobb Jr. pg. 176).  This idea is preposterous.  How can he argue in the first portion of the book that humans are so tightly bound that we are unable to separate key events in our lives and then urge people to bifurcate their core theology from the rest of their thinking?  Theology is a tight web that is affected by all other components of the web.  One cannot simply section off portions of their theology for modification and believe that the rest of their theology will not be affected.

The second problem I have with Cobb’s thought is his description of theology. “One’s work is theology even if one ignores all earlier statements and begins only with the way things appear to one from that perspective which one acknowledges as given to one in some community of shared life conviction” (Cobb Jr. pg. 166).  How is one able to do theology from the present without any understanding of the past?  Again, if reality is comprised of linked events that build on one another, how is one able to secure a vacuum like setting to construct a theology devoid of past influence?  I find Cobb's description of theology to be unacceptable, therefore, Cobb's natural theology is inchoate.  

As you can see from my brief analysis of Cobb's, A Christian Natural Theology: Based on the Thought of Alfred North Whitehead, the book does not fulfill its purposed aim in the title, nor does it provide a robust natural theology that is able to function in any realm, let alone an orthodox Christian one.  I do find some value in Cobb's work for those both inside and outside the theology of the church.  Science is a key component of our world, and needs to be taken seriously.  Christians can no longer act like ostriches and bury their heads in the sand in hopes that science will go away.  On the same token, Christian theology, if it is to affect the masses must not cloister itself from the secular world and must engage with folks like Cobb and Whitehead so that we are able to articulate our findings not only to those operating with a similar worldview, but with those who disagree with us.