https://ebookmass.com/product/in-our-own-imageanthropomorphism-apophaticism-and-ultimacy-wesley-j-wildman/
Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you
Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...
Left to Our Own Devices: Coping with Insecure Work in a Digital Age Julia. Ticona
https://ebookmass.com/product/left-to-our-own-devices-coping-withinsecure-work-in-a-digital-age-julia-ticona/
ebookmass.com
The Limitations of Social Media Feminism: No Space of Our Own Jessica Megarry
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-limitations-of-social-mediafeminism-no-space-of-our-own-jessica-megarry/
ebookmass.com
The works of the Rev. John Wesley, Volume 06 (of 32) John Wesley
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-works-of-the-rev-john-wesleyvolume-06-of-32-john-wesley/
ebookmass.com
Una decisión difícil Melanie Pearson
https://ebookmass.com/product/una-decision-dificil-melanie-pearson-2/
ebookmass.com
https://ebookmass.com/product/make-me-burn-marie-harte-2/
ebookmass.com
The Nexus Knight: A lit Thriller Adventure (The Nexus Games Book 2) 1st Edition Shami Stovall
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-nexus-knight-a-lit-thrilleradventure-the-nexus-games-book-2-1st-edition-shami-stovall/
ebookmass.com
The First Captain: The Story of John Paul Jones Gerald W. Johnson
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-first-captain-the-story-of-johnpaul-jones-gerald-w-johnson/
ebookmass.com
Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention 4th Edition Michael J. Thun
https://ebookmass.com/product/cancer-epidemiology-and-prevention-4thedition-michael-j-thun/
ebookmass.com
Career Development and Counseling: Theory and Practice in a Multicultural World (Counseling and Professional Identity) 1st Edition, (Ebook PDF)
https://ebookmass.com/product/career-development-and-counselingtheory-and-practice-in-a-multicultural-world-counseling-andprofessional-identity-1st-edition-ebook-pdf/
ebookmass.com
English
Geraldine Woods
https://ebookmass.com/product/english-grammar-all-in-one-fordummies-1st-edition-geraldine-woods/
ebookmass.com
InOurOwnImage
InOurOwnImage
Anthropomorphism,Apophaticism, andUltimacy
WesleyJ.Wildman
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP, UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries ©WesleyJ.Wildman2017
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin2017
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress 198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2017945151
ISBN978–0–19–881599–0
Printedandboundby CPIGroup(UK)Ltd,Croydon,CR04YY
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
For
RodDungan
LynnetteDungan
BruceMcKenzie
BrianGepp
ArthurJackson
AndrewDutney
RonSparks
SamLindamood
JoanFleming
mentorsontheway
Preface
“Godsaid, ‘Letusmakemaninourownimage,inthelikenessof ourselves.’”
(Genesis1:26,NewJerusalemBible)
Thenineteenth-centuryMastersofSuspicion Feuerbach,Marx, Nietzsche,Freud saidit.Thetwenty-firstcenturyFourHorsemenof NewAtheism Dawkins,Dennett,Harris,andHitchens saidit.Every villageatheistwhostoodonasoapboxinthetownsquaresaidit:wemake Godinourownimage.Weareinstinctivelyanthropomorphicinourways ofthinkingaboutultimatereality.Itishumanlycontouredstoriesthat clingtoourmemories,bringingcomfortunderpressure,andhopefor somethingbetter.ItisthenarrativesofGodasanawareandactivebeing thatgrabourattention,createpotent socialglue,andenhanceourability todefineourgroupoveragainstoutsiders.Anthropomorphismworksfor ourspecies.Thesciencesofcognitionandculturehaveestablishedthis beyondreasonabledoubt.
Thestaggeringhostofstoriesaboutultimaterealityonlyconfirmsthe point:wemakeGod(Godsandotherinvisibleagents)inourownimage. Oursisanextravagant,evenprofligateanthropomorphism.Apparently theworldimposesfewconstraintsonmodelsofultimatereality:like unbelievablyluckychefs,wejustgrabwhateverisreadytohandwhen wecookupourstoriesaboutthe finalpurposeoflifeandtheultimate realityinwhichweliveandmoveandhaveourbeing,andeverything justcomesouttastinggreat.
Aslongasthehumanlyshapedstorieswork,we findourselvesspirituallyorientedtothechallengesofourexistence,thankstothespecial magicthatweavesexistentiallypotentrainbowsfromthestrawofconfidenceinanthropomorphicultimacyimages.Whenthosestoriesstop working,thedeitiestheyconjuredareabandonedtoburythemselvesin theoverpopulatedgraveyardofGods.MostofthoseGodsarenow completelyforgotten;onlyafewpossessliterarygravestonestoassist thearcheologicalexcavationsoflatertheologians.
Thepervasiverealityofanthropomorphisminhumanreligion inspiresintheinattentiveamateurthespecterofunbridledfantasy matedwithunconstrainedrelativism,theirdarkoffspringinducing despairwithinthesincere,andraucouslaughterwithinthecynical. What’sthepointoftryingtothinkourwaythroughthismorass? Theologicalargumentseemspointless,nothingmorethangrosssatisfactionoftheinstinctiveneedsofoneoranotherstory-tellingassemblageofwitlesshumanbeings.
Specialistphilosophicaltheologianswhoinvestinstudyingmultiple modelsofultimaterealitydemur.Therecanbebetterandworse inmodelsofultimatereality!Theologicalthinkingneednotbeamere slavetotheself-justifyingneedsofreligiousgroups!Whenweslow downandconsiderthemattercarefully,we findthattheuniversal territorialclaimsofanthropomorphismcanbe,andindeedhavebeen, contestedwithinphilosophicaltheology.Wediscoverthatwephilosophicaltheologianscanlearntoidentifyandholdincheckourown anthropomorphiccognitive-emotionaltendencies,whichdramatically changestheprospectsforevaluatingtherelativeplausibilityofultimacy models.Aproperlypreparedcomparativeapproachtophilosophical theologycanmakesenseof,andperhapseventame,therelativistic lunacyofanthropomorphicreligiousideas,framingthebestofthem asconceptualmodelsofanultimaterealitythatnecessarilysurpasses thecompletecognitivegraspofanypossiblebeing.
Thisisapophaticism:theacknowledgmentthatultimatereality necessarilysurpassesthecompletecognitivegraspofanypossible being,andthereforethatcognitivebreakdownwillbethefateofevery endeavortomodelultimatereality.Buttheapophaticismatworkinthis bookdoesnotleadmerelytopoeticgesturesonthewaytoturningaway fromlanguagealtogether.Onthecontrary,apophaticism,properly understood,isradicallypermissive,promotingprecisionandplay,and inspiringvigorousconceptualwranglinguntiltheverylastandbestof ourconceptsfractureintoshardsatourclayfeet.
Thisbookmountsareverentcomparativecompetitionamongthree classesofmodelsofultimatereality.Theentrantsare:agential-being models(e.g.classicaltheism,whereanot-less-than-personalGodisthe ultimatereality),subordinate-deitymodels(e.g.processtheism,wherea somewhatpersonalGodisacomponentwithinultimatereality),and ground-of-beingmodels(e.g.religiousnaturalism,whereultimaterealityisconceivedastheaxiologicaldepthsanddynamicsofnatureitself, andmightbegiventheisticornon-theisticformulations).Torender thiscomparativecompetitionoptimallyfruitful,Ibeginbydefining termsandlayingoutasystematicderivationofseveralclassesofmodels Preface viii
ofultimatereality(Chapter1).Ialsopresentananalysisofanthropomorphismasamultidimensionalconstructthatplaysamajorroleboth intheconstructionofmodelsofultimaterealityandintheevaluationof theirrelativeplausibility,alongwithadescriptionoftheroleofapophaticisminmodelingultimaterealities(Chapter2).
Preliminariesinplace,eachofthenextthreechaptersfocusesonone classofultimacymodels,describingandparsingthemodelswithin theclasssoastolocatetheirmostplausiblerepresentatives,andsubsequentlyidentifytheirstrengthsandweaknesses.Eachofthesechapters beginsbyintroducingakeyconsiderationinthecomparativecompetitionthatismostthreateningtotherelativeplausibilityoftheclassof modelsdiscussedinthatchapter:theCentralResultofthescientific studyofreligion(Chapter3),theproblemoftheOneandtheMany (Chapter4),andtheexistentialandsocialpotencyofultimacymodels (Chapter5).Eachofthesethreechaptersendsbyrelatingwhathasbeen discussedtothethreedimensionsofanthropomorphism.Chapter6 adjudicatesthecompetitionanddrawsrelevantconclusions.AnAfterwordoffersameditationontheprocessesbywhichphilosophical theologianscometo findthemselvescommittedtosomecriteriafor evaluatingtherelativeplausibilityofultimacymodelswhileequally committedtominimizingothersuchcriteria.
Itakethenaturalandsocialsciencestobeimportantfactorsinevaluatingtherelativeplausibilityofcompetingmodelsofultimatereality. Thesefactorsaretakenupinacompanionvolume(seebelowfor details).Bycomplementarycontrast,thepresentbookfocusesonthe metaphysical,moral,existential,spiritual,andcommunalconsiderationsinvolvedinassessingtherelativeplausibilityofultimacymodels.
Thisbookhasawidercontextthatmaybehelpfultodescribe.Thisis thesecondvolumeofmyReligiousPhilosophySeries,andthefourthto becompleted.Hereisthecompletelist.
• Volume1: ReligiousPhilosophyasMultidisciplinaryComparative Inquiry:EnvisioningaFutureforthePhilosophyofReligion (Albany, NY:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,2010).
• Volume2: InOurOwnImage:Anthropomorphism,Apophaticism,and Ultimacy (thisvolume).
• Volume3: ScienceandUltimateReality (thisisthecompanion volumeto InOurOwnImage,completingawide-rangingcomparative analysisofultimacymodels).
• Volume4: ScienceandReligiousAnthropology:ASpirituallyEvocative NaturalistInterpretationofHumanLife (Aldershot:Ashgate,2009).
• Volume5: ReligiousandSpiritualExperiences (Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress,2011).
• Volume6: EffingtheIneffable:ExistentialMumblingsattheLimitsof Language (Albany,NY:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,2018).
Thesevolumesconstitutemyphilosophicaltheology.Theconsistent pointofviewdepictedinthemmightbecalledground-of-beingtheism, religiousnaturalism,orapophaticmysticalphilosophy.Icouldlivewith anyofthosenames,solongastheyarenotconstruedinsuchawayasto excludetheothers.Volume1containsepistemologicalprolegomena, includingapost-foundationalist,pragmatictheoryofinquiryinformed bythebiologicalandsocialsciences.Volume2(thisbook)andvolume3 (itscompanion)considerultimaterealitythroughthedeviceofareverentcomparativecompetition.Volume4discussesthehumancondition initsbiologicalandsocialaspects,arguingthatweare homoreligiosus,in aquiteparticularsense.Volume5discussesthewellspringofhuman spirituality,religiousandspiritualexperiences,inbiological,neurological,evolutionary,psychological,andsocialperspectives.Volume6 isaboutreligiouslanguageandtriestoefftheineffable,piece-wise, throughaseriesofmeditativephilosophicalreflectionsonultimacy talk.Allofthevolumesarcacrosstheworld’sreligiousandphilosophical traditionsandengagewhateveracademicdisciplinesarenecessaryto makesenseoftheirtopics;thisisthetrans-religious scope ofreligious philosophy,asIunderstandit.Theyalsoemployall styles ofreligious philosophyatvariouspoints:phenomenological,comparative,historical,analytical,literary,theoretical,andevaluative.
Theattentivereaderwillnoticethatthethemesofthesevolumes collectivelycoverthemainlociofasystematictheologyasthathas beenunderstoodinavarietyofreligiousintellectualtraditions.My intentionistopresentsystematicallyanaturalistphilosophicaltheology,notonbehalfofanyreligiousheritageorinstitution,butina waythatbefits,andcouldonlyeverarisewithin,themodernsecular academy.Thiskindofdiscoursebelongsintheuniversitybecausethe questionsinvolvedareintellectuallyfascinatingandexistentially important andbecausethesequestionsperpetuallyarisewithin humanlife.Toavoidamateurishcoverage,theuniversitymustemploy expertswhospecializeinsuchquestionsinthesamewaythatuniversity expertsspecializeineveryotheraspectofhumaninquiry.Thesevolumesexpressthetopicalscope,theliterarystyles,thetrans-religious orientation,andtheinterdisciplinaryreachofreligiousphilosophy, includingphilosophicaltheologyandphilosophyofreligion.Here
again,Icouldlivewithanyofthesedisciplinarynames,solongasthey weren’tinterpretedsoastoruleoutothers.
Regardlessofnamingbattles,threepointshavebecomequiteclearto me.First,religiousphilosophyasmultidisciplinary,trans-religious inquiryisnotcurrentlyunderstoodandwillnotbeendorsedbyconcretereligioustraditionsorbythebulkoftheirtheologianintellectuals. Thecriticalimplicationsofreligiousphilosophyinevitablytendto dissolvethesocial-emotionalfabricnecessaryforrobusttraditional religiousparticipation,whichisdirectlycontrarytothefaith-seekingunderstandingorientationoftraditionaltheologians.Second,the institutionalhomeofreligiousphilosophyasmultidisciplinary,transreligiousinquirycanonlybethesecularacademy,andthecaseneedsto bemadewithintheuniversityfortheinclusionofreligiousphilosophy sounderstood.Thatisnotaneasycasetomakebecausetheveryideaof religiousphilosophyistaintedbyhistoricalassociationwithintellectual workonbehalfandforthebenefitofreligiousinstitutionsoperating with fides-quaerens-intellectum moralitiesofinquiryfromwhichthe modernsecularuniversityhasstruggledtofreeitself,withconsiderable success.Third,religiousphilosophyasmultidisciplinary,trans-religious inquiryiscapableofsupportinglivelyspiritualquests.Itdoestendto dissolvetraditionalreligiousauthoritiesandpatternsofparticipation butitisalsocapableofsupportingformsofspiritualitythatselfconsciouslyengagetheworldinallofitsreligiousdiversity,employing multipledisciplinarylenses.
Correspondingly,threequestionsremainunclear.Howwilltraditional religiousinstitutionsrespondtotheemergingreality,theimpressive plausibility,andultimatelytheculturalauthorityofreligiousphilosophy asmultidisciplinary,trans-religiousinquiry?Howwilluniversities respondtotheargumentthatreligiousphilosophyasmultidisciplinary, trans-religiousinquiryisproperlylocatedthere?Andwhatkindsof socialitymightemergetocomplementspiritualquestsinspiredand supportedbyreligiousphilosophyasmultidisciplinary,trans-religious inquiry?Iintendthisbook,andtheentireseriesofwhichitisapart,to helpanswerthesequestions.
Acknowledgments
Someofthematerialinthisbookisadaptedfromexistingpublications. Iacknowledgethepublishersofthosepriorpublications,asfollows. “IncongruousGoodness,PerilousBeauty,DisconcertingTruth:UltimateRealityandSufferinginNature,” inNanceyMurphy,Robert J.Russell,andWilliamR.Stoeger(eds), PhysicsandCosmology:Scienti fic PerspectivesontheProblemofNaturalEvil (VaticanCityState:Vatican Observatory;Berkeley,CA:CenterforTheologyandtheNatural Sciences,2007):267–94; “ReframingTranscendence:Conditionsfor theCompatibilityofGround-of-BeingTheismandReligiousNaturalism,” inNielsGregersenandMikaelStenmark(eds), Naturalismand Beyond:TheologyandtheVarietiesofNaturalism (Leuven:Peeters,2016): 124–50;and “ReligiousNaturalism:WhatItCanBe,andWhatItNeed NotBe,” Philosophy,Theology,andtheSciences 1/1(2014):36–58.
IwrotemuchofthisbookwhileamemberattheCenterofTheology InquiryinPrinceton,NewJersey.Igratefullyacknowledgethefellowshipthatmadepossiblemyengagementwiththatextraordinary collegiumofscholars.Myconversationswithfellowmembershelped meformulateanumberoftheargumentsinthesepages.Thearguments ofthisbookhavealsobenefittedfromdiscussionswithmanycolleagues,especiallyRobertNeville,PhilipClayton,andStevenKnapp, andtalenteddoctoralstudents,especiallyDavidRohrandAndrew Linscott.IamgratefultoJohnBalchforeditingassistance.
Ihavededicatedthisbooktoamotleycrewofmentors.Thesediverse andwonderfulpeoplehaveincommontheircompassionforme,their interestinmyintellectualandspiritualjourney,andtheirprodigious wisdom expressedintheirwordsandembodiedintheirlives.Iam gratefultoeachoneofyou.
1.Ultimacy1
2.AnthropomorphismandApophaticism38
3.Agential-BeingModelsofUltimateReality82
4.Subordinate-DeityModelsofUltimateReality151
5.Ground-of-BeingModelsofUltimateReality185
6.Conclusion215 Afterword220
ListofFigures
1.1.Classificationprocedurefortheultimacymodelsunder consideration.16
1.2.Combinationsofultimacymodelsandphilosophicalcosmologies, withrepresentativeultimacymodelslocatedineachclass(note: theserepresentativeinstancesarenotthenamesoftheclasses).26
2.1.Threestrategiesforresistinganthropomorphiccognitivedefaults correspondingtothethreedimensionsofanthropomorphism. Thesearemappedontoagriddepictingthevariouswaysof combiningclassesofultimacymodels(U1,U2,U3)with philosophicalcosmologies(C1,C2,C3).69
1 Ultimacy
1.1Introduction
§1.Thisstudyisaworkofphilosophicaltheologythatadopts themoralityofinquiryprevalentwithinthemodernresearch university.Thisrequiresseeki ngknowledgewithoutprivileging thespecialinterestsofreligious oranti-religiousindividualsor groups,doctrines,ortraditions.Theinquiryoperatescomparativelyandevaluatively;itispost -foundationalist,coherentist, andfallibilistinitsapproachtoargumentation,evidence,belief, andknowledge;anditisconductedwithinanapophaticframeof referencethatpromotesprecisionandplay.Philosophicaltheologyexhibitswidelyvariedattitudestowardtheprospectsfor comparativeinquiry.Theseattitudesincludethoseofthecomparinginquirer,themono-traditionalinvestor,themulti-traditional appreciator,theresponsibleworrier,andtheanalyticalascetic. Thepresentstudyisanaturalactivityonlyforthecomparing inquirer,forwhomtheplural,co nstructed,andapproximatecharacterofallmodelsofultimaterea lityisanintellectualpuzzletobe solvedaswellasajourneyofintellectual(andpossiblyalsospiritual)engagementtobeundertaken.
Thepurposeofthischapteristoprepareforthecomparativeanalysis pursuedinthisbookbyclarifyingbasicconceptsandmethods.Preparationisimportantforseveralreasons.
First,thisstudyhastheunfashionableidentityofphilosophicaltheologyinthesecularacademy,pursuedaccordingtothenormsofinquiry prevalentinthatvenue,andthatcallsforanexplanation.Most theologians evenphilosophicaltheologians,and(despitethesuggestionsofthename)manyphilosophersofreligionaswell usuallylabor onbehalfoftheinterests,accordingtothenormsofinquiry,andnot
toofarfromtheexpectations,ofparticularreligiousinstitutionsand traditions,evenwhenemployedinsecularacademicvenues.Manydo sowiththeutmostskillandcriticalawareness.Nevertheless,themorality ofinquirygoverningthisstudymaystrikeeventhemostcritically mindedofsuchtradition-orientedtheologiansaspeculiar.Ihavepursued thiskindofworkinmanypublicationsanddefendeditatlengthin ReligiousPhilosophyasMultidisciplinaryComparativeInquiry,soIwillnot repeatherethecaseforthatwayofenvisioningafutureforthephilosophyofreligionandphilosophicaltheology.Whereconfusionisotherwise likely,however,Iwillendeavorthroughoutthisvolumetoexplain howmyapproachtoinquirydiffersfromapproachesthataremore widespreadwithinphilosophicaltheologyandphilosophyofreligionat thepresenttime.
Second,thisstudyisthoroughlypost-foundationalist,coherentist, andfallibilistinitsapproachtoargumentation,evidence,belief,and knowledge,andthatrequiresexplanation.Manyphilosophicaltheologiansstillargueasifproofandknock-downargumentsweremeaningful aspirationsinregardtoultimatemattersoftheologicalinterest.Whateverproofmightmeaninmathematicsorformallogic anditisnot straightforwardeveninthosedomains itdoesnotapplyinanydirect waytotheevaluationofcompetingsystemsofthoughtaboutultimate reality.Fortunately,philosophersofreligionandphilosophicaltheologiansareincreasinglyembracingprobabilisticargumentation,rootedin theawarenessthatwearereallytalkingabouttherelativeplausibilityof entiresystemsofthoughtwhenassessingcompetingideasofultimate reality.Theexistenceofaprobabilisticapproachtoargumentationin otherphilosophical-theologicalliteraturewillhelpthereaderlocatethis studyinthewider fieldofepistemicpossibilities.
Third,thisstudyoperatescomparativelyandevaluatively,andthis alsoneedsexplaining.Thiscombinationismoreoftenseeninthe apologeticadventuresoftradition-orientedphilosophyofreligion thaninreligious-studies-awareformsofcomparativephilosophicaltheologysuchasthisone.YetIamarguingforthepossibilityofdeploying thecomparisonofmodelsofultimaterealitynotonlyforthedialogical goalofmutualunderstanding,butalsoforthepurposeofevaluating thosemodelsanddecidingontheirrelativestrengthsandweaknesses.
Finally,whateverultimaterealityis,inquiringintoitnecessarily involvesstretchingreasonandlanguagetothelimitsoftheircapacities. Aporiasareinevitable.Perspectivalshatteringmaybeunavoidable. Thesefailuresofrationalreachnecessitateartistryinthestatementof theoriesofultimaterealityandsupportavarietyofexpressivestrategies,
fromsystematicexpositiontoartisticevocation,andfromdeconstructiverefusaltopoeticindirection.Withtheseinevitabilities firmlyin mind,thisactofinquiryexplicitlytakesshapewithinabroadlyapophaticapproachtoultimatereality.Itisinquiryattheedgeofthesword offutility,butinsuchawayastoproducenotpanicordespairbutplay andprecision.Ifwearegoingtoplay,wemightaswellplayhard.
Somephilosophicaltheologiansarerelativelyoptimisticaboutthe prospectsforcomparativeinquiryintoultimatereality.These comparing inquirers arelikelytograntthatallormanyinterpretationsormodelsof ultimaterealityaremoreorlesscompelling theoreticallyaswellasin practicewithinmanyheartsandminds.Theywilltrytolearnabout ultimaterealitybycomparingthesemodels,seekingwaystomanagethe factofpluralconflictingmodels,perhapsrelyingonconceptsof perspective-takingorinclusion,superiorityorsublationtoexplain howTruthMightBeOneeventhoughModelsAreMany.
Otherphilosophicaltheologiansrejectinquiryintoultimatereality asfatuousandfutile.Theyarguethatinquiryexchangesexistentially vibrantengagementwithultimaterealityforanabsurdlyarrogant evaluationprocessinwhichphilosophersdecideonmattersthatnecessarilyliebeyondthepowersofhumanreason.Thisgrouphastwo subgroups.The mono-traditionalinvestors urgeustopickatradition andinvestinitanditsinternalintellectualdebates.Thesearethe go-deepspecialistswhonavigatetheworldfromtheperspective affordedbytheirprodigiousinvestmentinoneparticularwayofseeing it.Bycontrast,the multi-traditionalappreciators suggestthatwebuilda MuseumofModelsthat,likeanartgallery,permitsthecapacioussoul toappreciateeachoneasauniquetestimonytothedepthandwonderof life.WemightthinkofthisMuseuminmoredynamicandembodied termsasatroupeofgifteddancers, representingbothlivingspiritual insightsandideaspreservedinphilosophictraditionswhosemembers aredevotedtocommentaryanddebate,withallofthesesubtleties registeredindistinctivemovementsofwristor finger,thighortorso. Investinginasingletraditionandappreciatingmanytraditionscan bothbepracticalandhonorablewaystomanagetheproblemofplural models.Ineithercase,however,thecomparinginquirer’stheoreticaland existentialproblemof reconciling conflictingmodelsremainsunresolved. Stillotherphilosophicaltheologiansfeeldismayedbythemoralprioritiesofthecomparinginquirers,themono-traditionalinvestors, andthemulti-traditionalappreciators.These responsibleworriers seethe after-effectsandside-effectsofreligiousideasastheyareembodiedin institutionsandactivatedinsocialcontexts.Theydecryallimpractical
philosophy,andimpracticalphilosophicaltheologyaboveall,as wronglyputtingthephilosopher’spleasurablepastimebeforethe world’spain,asblindlysupportingthevestedinterestsofreligious institutionswhentrenchantcritiquewouldbemoreappropriate,oras distractingpeoplefrompursuingtheultimatepathsthatleadtoliberation.Andtheyparticularlyhatehavingtheirviewpointlabeled, framed,andhungintheMuseumofModelswheresteelyprophetic edgeyieldstotheinfinitenauseaofperpetuallegitimatecontrasts.
Finally,somephilosophicaltheologianstakeamaximallymodest road.Theyavoidinquiryandmorality,andscrupulouslyconfinethemselvestoanalysis.These analyticalascetics trynottoconstructanything. Theynurtureapowerfulaversiontodirectspeechaboutultimatereality underanydescription,forfearofthestupiduglinessofsuchBabel-like intellectualandspiritualambitions.Suchtraditionspreferjokingevasion,asinmanyformsofSufism.Ortheypolicetheconstructionsof others,lookingforsignsofstructuralweakness,turningtheirdiscoveries intoindirecttestimonies,asinmanyformsofpost-structuralistphilosophy.Othersmakedesignrefinements,operatingasmono-traditional investorsengagedinintricatelogicalanalysisanddefenseoftheirlocal tradition’sbeliefs commonactivitiesinthemainstreamofwhatis misleadinglycalled “philosophyofreligion” andmoreaccuratelycalled “analyticaltheology.” Stillothersarecomparativistsmovingaroundthe MuseumofModelslikeartcritics.Howevertheyoperate,theyremain faithfultotheirmodestcreedanddenythemselvesthedangerousthrills ofimaginativeconstructionandinquiryaimedatevaluation.
Mostphilosophicaltheologianscan’thelpthemselves.Eachjust tendstobeacomparinginquirer,amono-traditionalinvestor,amultitraditionalappreciator,aresponsibleworrier,orananalyticalascetic. Thebestofthemcanseevirtuesineveryway.Butmost haveaway, emergingfromtheexquisitetangleofnatureandnurturethatdefines preferenceinhumanbeings,evenphilosophers.Suchphilosophicpreferencesrundeepandrarelychangemorethanonceinalifetime,ifat all.Forbetterorworse,Iamdrawnmoststronglytothewayofthe comparinginquirer.Irecognizetheviabilityofotherways,appreciate theirvirtues,andevenpracticethem.ButIexperiencetheplural,constructed,andapproximatecharacterofallmodelsofultimatereality intellectuallyasapuzzletobesolved,andexistentiallyasaninvitation toengageultimaterealtythroughthinkingandfeelingandacting towardasolution.
Keepingthesepersonaldifferencesinmindcanhelptoavoidwasteful conflictsaboutultimacytalkwithinphilosophicaltheologythatarise duetostylisticvariations.Openlyacknowledgingourpreferencesas
suchhonorsthewisdomofotherwaysandpromptsustotakeseriously theircriticismsofus.Inmycase,Ineedtodealwithcriticismsof comparinginquiryasafutileandfatuousefforttocontroltheuncontrollable,atiresomeanduglyattempttocomprehendtheincomprehensible,andamorallyconfusedevasionofphilosophicresponsibility. Havingdealtwiththesemattersatlengthelsewhere,hereImerely acknowledgethepluralityofapproachesandassociatedcriticismsand proceed(seeWildman2010b).
Inwhatfollows,I firstdefineultimaterealityandidentifythethree classesofconceptualmodelsofultimaterealitythatwillconcernusin thisinquiry.Ithendefinephilosophicalcosmologyandintroducethree contrastingphilosophicalcosmologies.Finally,Idescribehowcombiningultimacymodelswithphilosophicalcosmologiesyieldsintelligible classesofultimacymodelsreadyforcomparison.
1.2UltimacyandUltimacyModels
§2.Ultimaterealityisrealityasitismosttruly,mostsimply,most comprehensively,mostsignificantly;itisthe finalwordonreality. Thepresentstudyinvolvesarticulating,comparing,andevaluating conceptualmodelsofultimatereality,whicharetobeunderstoodas relativelycoherentimaginativeconstructionsaimingtomakesense ofsuchinsightsintoultimaterealityasareavailable.TheGreat Modelsofultimaterealityaretime-testedmasterpieceswithapresenceinthehumanimaginationacrossculturalboundariesand religioustraditions.Tostrikeabalancebetweencomprehensiveness andpracticability,thiscomparativeinquiryengagesthreeclassesof modelsofultimatereality:agential-beingmodels,ground-of-being models,andsubordinate-deitymodels.Eachclassofultimacy modelsboastsalongheritage,impressiveexplanatorypower,significantcross-culturalvisibility,andconsiderableinternaldiversity. Collectivelytheycoveragoodpartoftheterritoryofmodelsof ultimatereality.
Ultimaterealityisrealityasitismosttruly,mostsimply,mostcomprehensively,mostsignificantly.Toofferatheoryofultimaterealityis tomountaninquirythatyieldstheprovisionallastwordaboutrealityin theseterms.Iwillcallsuchtheories “models” inthisworktodrivehome thepointthatweconstructtheminordertointerpretsomethingabout whichwesensewehavesomerelevantinformation,evenifourinformationisincomplete.
Itisvitaltokeepinmindtheapophaticframeworkfortheinquiry undertakenhere,becauseotherwisetheattempttospeakatentative lastword(onanything,letaloneultimatereality)provokesguffawsor gigglesinsteadofseriousinvestmentintheargument.Apophaticawarenessinvolvesnotonlyapressuretosilencebutalsoapressuretospeak whatcanbesaidaspreciselyandperspicaciouslyaspossible butwithoutvanityandpretention,asaformofplayfulnessinthefaceof ultimatefutility.Apophasisislessconstrainingthanitispermissive, liberatinginquirytoproceedseriouslywithouttakingitselftooseriously. Thatattitudeofreverentplayunderwritestheentireargument,even thoughtoavoidtediousrepetitionitonlysurfacesfromtimetotime,as itdoeshereattheoutset.
Thevalueofthecategory “ultimaterealities” forsupportingcomparisonofreligiousideasacrossculturesandreligionsderivesindirectly fromthecentralconclusionsoftheCrossculturalComparativeReligious IdeasProject(seethethreevolumesofresults TheHumanCondition (vol.1), UltimateRealities (vol.2),and ReligiousTruth (vol.3) inNeville 2001a,2001b,2001c).Thatprojectsoughttoidentify,througharigorousprocessofcomparisonandanalysisinacommunityofdiverse specialists,whichcategoriesworkbesttodescribewhatisimportant abouttheideasofthephilosophicallysuffused,old-literaturereligious traditions,minimizingdistortionandarbitrarinessandexposinghypotheticalcategoriestocorrectiveresourceswhereverpossible.Theproject conclusiontowhichIrefer,thoughforpracticalreasonsnotreflectedin thetitleofthesecondvolume,isthattheterm “ultimaterealities,” while farmoreadequatethantheterms “God” or “ultimatereality,” neverthelesstendstodistortreligioustraditionsthatfocusonthediscovery andlivingoutofultimatewaysorpathsandonfreeingpeoplefrom unhealthyobsessions(includingwithultimatereality).Avaguercategoryencompassingboth “ultimaterealities” and “ultimatepaths” is preferable thus “ultimacy” isthepreferredterm.Myinteresthere, however,isnotascomprehensive;infact,Iamfocusingonthecomparisonofmetaphysicalmodelsofultimacy.Thisiswhy “ultimate realities” istheappropriateterm.Myuseofthesingular “ultimate reality” combinesthepossibilitiesofpluralultimaterealitiesandthe ultimateincomprehensibilityofultimatereality.Thus,Iuse “ultimate reality” asthenameoftheencompassingcategoryforthisinquiry,and alwaysasaspecificationof “ultimacy”—aspecificationthatexplicitly registersultimatewaysorpathsasimportantbutbeyondthescopeof theinquiry.
Ultimaterealityisavagueplaceholderterm.Neitheritsmetaphysical noritsexistentialmeaningiscontainedinitsmereutterance,which
makesitwellsuitedtotolerateawidevarietyofspecifications.Forthis reason,thecorrespondenceofthetermtosomethingisnotin question indeed,thisisatrivialissue.Thenatureofthissomething is,however,deeplycontroverted.Isitacoherentsomething?Isthis somethingoneormany?Canthissomethingbesaidtoexist?Isita somethingthatdoesanything?Isit finallynothing?Isitmerelythe universeasawhole?Doesthissomethingchangeceaselesslyor fitfully ornotatall?Isitnotlessthanpersonal?Thepointofinquiryinto ultimaterealityistoanswersuchquestions,sofaraspossible.
Ultimatereality,underahostofdescriptions,seemstobelongnaturallytotheoverlappingterritoriesofreligionandphilosophy,where questionsaboutrealityassucharisefromdifferentangles.Thediversity oftheoriesorportraitsofultimaterealityamongtheworld’sreligious andphilosophicaltraditionsisextreme.Withoutavaguetermsuchas “ultimatereality” therewouldbenopossibilityofsayingwhatthese manyactsofphilosophicalorreligioustestimonyareabout.Thevaguenessof “ultimatereality” isextremelyuseful,asaresult.Solongas thetermremainsproperlyunderdetermined,itsuseallowsustorefer collectivelyandfairly whichistosaywithoutarbitrarinessorundue distortion tothemanyvisionsthatpurporttodescriberealityasitis mosttruly,mostsimply,mostcomprehensively,mostsignificantly.
Whynotusemorefamiliarterms?Thebestknownalternativesto “ultimatereality” interferewithachievingthevirtueoffairness. Forexample,theterm “God” oranyofitsvariantsisavaluablebut potentiallyparochialnameforultimatereality,andthusill-suitedto thetaskforwhichIpress “ultimatereality” intoservice.Sometimes Godistreatedmerelyasacomponentofultimatereality,asinAlfred NorthWhitehead’sthought,ratherthansynonymouswithit.Inmost traditions “God” bearsspecificenoughmeaningstoruleout śunyata (emptiness)or anomia (chaoticlawlessness)orfull-blownManichaean orZoroastriantheisticdualism(withtwoeternallyequallypowerfuland morallyopposeddeities),andthusprejudgesthenatureofultimate realityinawaythatisdecidedlyunhelpfulforourreverentcomparative competition.
Asanotherexample,consideranalternativedefinitionthatconstrues ultimaterealityas “thedeepestdimensionofbeing” (e.g.Haught 2007:88).Thisdefinitionofultimaterealitytakesbeingforgrantedas acontextforspeakingofultimatereality alreadynarrowingthe fieldof legitimateultimacymodels andfurthertypicallytreatsultimatereality asaHighestBeing narrowingthe fieldstillfurther.Wheneveritmakes sensetoaskaboutthelogicalconditionsofsomething,theontological dependenceofsomething,orthecontextforsomething,thatsomething
