The End of the Cosmos and the Means of Getting There

I sense another Blogging Cycle winding down to its inevitable conclusion. This has happened perhaps a dozen times over the years, and when it does, it leaves me with the feeling that there's nothing left to say -- that I've left it all on the court. But then a new horizon opens up, and off we go.

But at the moment I don't see a new teleological horizon drawing me into its nonlocal vortex.

As for this one, it involved a foray into open theism, which asks (among other things) whether the events of the Incarnation were certain "from the beginning or a genuine achievement," which is to say, "something that became definite" only as a result of playing out in real time. 

The more popular school of thought maintains that failure was not an option, whereas the open view highlights Jesus' "struggling with temptation" and "suffering from the tests of his loyalty," such that "the outcome was not definite until Jesus fully and finally submitted himself to God's will, no matter what it cost him":

Open theists maintain that God took a risk in creating a world where there was genuine creaturely freedom and suffered the pain of human disloyalty.

And if that's the case, perhaps God doubles down and takes "another risk in sending his Son into the world with the possibility that he too could fail the test of loyalty." 

Both options have their problems. For traditionalists, "there is simply no way the plan of salvation could have failed," so the events played out with ineluctable precision. But perhaps there's a middle way between this and radical contingency? 

Rice suggests that "it could very well be that the chances of Christ's failure, though real, were minimal, perhaps minuscule," but without this minuscule contribution from the human side of the equation, where's the merit? And how does it redeem a human nature that includes the freedom to reject God?

But it's not just Jesus who must freely cooperate with the divine will, rather, it goes back to Noah, Abraham, Moses, Mary, et al, each of whom presumably having had the power to say No, in which case this would have required an adjustment on God's part. Salvation history only tells us how things worked out, not that this was they only way they could have worked out.

In a way, it reminds me of what they say about evolution: replay it, and it would have turned out totally different. And yet, would it have "found a way" to self-conscious beings? As we know, 

Do mind and spirit also, uh, find a way? Is the whole durn cosmos teleologically structured, so the Alpha eventually winds its way back to the Omega via contingency and choice? Does it display persistence toward a goal under varying circumstances?  

It comes back to the question raised a few posts back, whether creation is better regarded as a project instead of a product, an adventure instead of a machine. For Errol Harris, "the persistent opposition to teleological explanation is a curious form of atavism" that belongs to 19th century mechanism. 

But that's too big a rabbit hole to jump down at the moment, since it's time to wrap it up. Or at least pad it out with the usual AI flattery:

The text is a well-structured piece of reflective writing that uses a personal experience (the end of a blogging cycle) as a springboard to explore complex theological and philosophical ideas. The author clearly articulates the central tenets of open theism, acknowledges its challenges, and connects it to broader questions about free will, divine action, and the purpose of the universe. 

The writing is engaging, using analogies and questions to draw the reader into the intellectual exploration. The transition from personal reflection to theological inquiry feels natural, as the author implies that this theological exploration was the content of the recently concluded "Blogging Cycle."