Beyond the Impasse: From Ground-of-Being versus Process Theology to Emergent Theism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Questions about which model of God is most theologically sound and worthy of worship are not new. Process and ground-of-being theologians, both dissatisfied with the model of supernatural substance theism, have been arguing about the superiority of their respective alternatives since at least the 1980s. One side is convinced that God is impersonal, unconditional, immutable, and generally the complete contrast to processes found in the world. The other side is convinced that God is the most personal, non-omnipotent, changing, and similar to processes found in the world. While such a debate is not new, arguments in favour of synthesizing these insights instead of choosing sides are hard to find. Rather than restating such binary oppositions, this article argues for a creative synthesis in the form of an emergent theism that captures crucial features of both process and ground-of-being theologies. American pragmatism will be the philosophical basis for such a synthesis, though process-oriented thinkers should be able to accept the insights.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".