Charles Hartshorne

1. Introduction

Charles Hartshorne (1897–2000) was an American philosopher of religion and metaphysician whose work helped define process theology and a distinctive form of panentheistic, or “neoclassical,” theism. Working at the intersection of analytic philosophy, American pragmatism, and Whiteheadian process thought, he argued that reality is fundamentally a web of interrelated processes of becoming and feeling, and that God is the supreme instance of this processive reality rather than an exception to it.

Hartshorne is widely associated with three linked claims: that all actual entities, including God, are temporally conditioned; that divine perfection is relational and dynamic rather than static; and that rigorous natural theology—arguments about God grounded in experience and logic—remains philosophically viable. He became especially known for a modal version of the ontological argument, for his reconstruction of divine attributes such as omnipotence and omniscience, and for a systematic defense of dipolar theism, according to which God has both immutable and mutable aspects.

Placed historically, Hartshorne belongs to 20th‑century Anglo‑American philosophy yet draws deeply on Peirce, Whitehead, and Continental phenomenology. His views have been influential in Protestant and Catholic theology, Jewish thought, environmental ethics, and debates within analytic philosophy of religion about the coherence of theism. At the same time, his process metaphysics and panentheism have remained controversial, provoking sustained criticism from both classical theists and religious naturalists.

This entry examines Hartshorne’s life and context, the formation of his ideas, his main works, and the central theses of his neoclassical theism, as well as the reception, criticisms, and historical significance of his philosophy.

2. Life and Historical Context

2.1 Biographical Overview

Hartshorne was born in 1897 in Kittanning, Pennsylvania, into an Episcopal clergy family. His upbringing combined regular liturgical practice with exposure to liberal Protestant theology, shaping his lifelong concern to reconcile traditional Christian language about God with philosophical rigor and scientific knowledge. After service as a medic in World War I, he studied at Harvard University, receiving his PhD in 1923 in philosophy under Henry Sheffer, with strong influence from Josiah Royce’s idealism and the emerging reception of Charles Sanders Peirce.

Postdoctoral study (1925–1928) took him to Europe, where he attended Edmund Husserl’s and Martin Heidegger’s lectures in Germany. This period situated him in the broader phenomenological and existential currents of interwar Continental philosophy.

2.2 Academic Appointments

Hartshorne held positions at the University of Chicago (notably in the Divinity School and philosophy department, 1948–1962) and later at Emory University and the University of Texas at Austin. Chicago provided the institutional context in which his early process theism became a systematic metaphysical theology debated across disciplines.

2.3 Historical-Intellectual Setting

Hartshorne’s career unfolded against major shifts in 20th‑century thought: the rise of logical positivism and analytic philosophy in the Anglophone world; the development of phenomenology and existentialism in Europe; and growing skepticism toward traditional metaphysics and natural theology. His vigorous defense of speculative metaphysics and arguments for God’s existence contrasted with the prevailing empiricist and verificationist currents.

At the same time, theological liberalism, neo‑orthodoxy, and later liberation and ecological theologies formed the religious backdrop. Hartshorne’s insistence that God is intimately related to a changing world resonated with some of these movements, while his confidence in rational argument for God’s existence distinguished him from more fideist or dialectical approaches.

3. Intellectual Development and Influences

3.1 Early Formation: Idealism and Pragmatism

At Harvard, Hartshorne encountered British and American idealism, as well as the legacy of Charles Sanders Peirce. Peirce’s emphasis on possibility, continuity, and evolutionary cosmology contributed to Hartshorne’s conviction that reality is processive and that metaphysics can be informed by logic and science. Royce’s personalist idealism and focus on community reinforced the notion of reality as essentially relational.

Proponents of this reading emphasize how Hartshorne adapted idealist themes—such as the priority of mind or experience—into a more empirically oriented, processive framework. Critics argue that he underplayed tensions between Peircean fallibilism and his own confidence in metaphysical system-building.

3.2 European Phenomenology and Existential Thought

During his studies with Husserl and exposure to Heidegger, Hartshorne engaged phenomenological analyses of consciousness and temporality. This experience is often cited as deepening his attention to lived experience, affect, and time. While he did not adopt Husserl’s method wholesale, he appropriated the idea that concrete experience is a primary datum for philosophy, later extending it to divine experience.

Some commentators see in Hartshorne’s emphasis on becoming and finitude an indirect response to Heidegger’s analysis of Dasein and temporality, though Hartshorne himself remained critical of existentialist anti-metaphysical tendencies.

3.3 Whitehead and Process Philosophy

Alfred North Whitehead’s Process and Reality provided Hartshorne with a systematic metaphysical framework of events or “occasions” of experience as the basic units of reality. Hartshorne appropriated Whitehead’s idea that God and world form a dipolar relationship but modified key points: he gave more centrality to theism, simplified some technical features, and argued for a more explicit modal logic of divine perfection.

3.4 Peirce Editing and Logical Interests

Co‑editing Peirce’s Collected Papers reinforced Hartshorne’s concern with modal notions (possibility, necessity), probabilistic reasoning, and the logical structure of hypotheses about God. He drew from Peirce’s categories and logic to formulate his own modal ontological argument and to defend metaphysical claims as testable, in principle, by experience.

3.5 Religious and Scientific Influences

Hartshorne’s Episcopal background and engagement with liberal Protestant theology encouraged a non-fundamentalist, philosophically open conception of doctrine. His lifelong interest in ornithology and biology also shaped his emphasis on value and feeling throughout nature, influencing his later environmental and aesthetic reflections.

4. Major Works and Central Themes

4.1 Overview of Key Works

4.2 The Divine Relativity and Neoclassical Theism

In The Divine Relativity, Hartshorne articulates a social conception of God. Central themes include the insistence that God is essentially related to all creatures, that divine knowledge grows with the world, and that God is both unsurpassably perfect and yet responsive. The book introduces his influential claim that God is “the chief exemplification” of metaphysical principles rather than an exception.

4.3 Logic of Theism and Modal Arguments

Man’s Vision of God and the Logic of Theism develops a systematic account of the logical structure of theistic claims, including a precursor to his modal ontological argument. It also presents his revisions of traditional divine attributes (omniscience, omnipotence, immutability) in light of process metaphysics.

4.4 Metaphysics of Social Process

In Reality as Social Process, Hartshorne generalizes the idea that all reality consists of interrelated experiences or “social” processes. This work highlights his commitment to a universe where relations, value, and feeling are metaphysically basic, and it situates God as the supreme social individual encompassing all others.

4.5 Natural Theology and Philosophical Method

A Natural Theology for Our Time updates classical arguments for God using contemporary logic and scientific awareness, while Creative Synthesis and Philosophic Method explores how metaphysical hypotheses integrate diverse data. Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes applies his technical views to popular debates, arguing that some traditional doctrines stem from conceptual confusions about perfection and power.

Across these works, recurring themes include processive reality, panentheism, dipolar theism, and the continued viability of rational reflection on God.

5. Core Ideas: Process, Panentheism, and Neoclassical Theism

5.1 Process Metaphysics

Hartshorne holds that the basic constituents of reality are occasions of experience—events characterized by feeling, reception of influences, and self‑constitution. On this view, all entities, from subatomic events to human persons and God, are temporally ordered processes rather than static substances. Each moment synthesizes past data and contributes something novel.

Supporters argue that this process ontology aligns with modern physics and evolutionary biology, emphasizing change and relationality. Critics contend that attributing experiential character to all events risks speculative overreach and blurs distinctions between conscious and non-conscious processes.

5.2 Panentheism

Hartshorne’s position is typically labeled panentheism: the world is “in” God, contributing to the divine life, yet God is more than the world.

"

“Panentheism holds that the world is in God as a constituent of the divine life, yet God is more than the world.”

— Charles Hartshorne, A Natural Theology for Our Time

In this view, every finite reality is internally related to God; divine experience includes all creaturely experiences. However, God also possesses an abstract, everlasting character not exhausted by any finite state of the world. Proponents see this as a middle path between classical theism (radical transcendence, no real dependence on the world) and pantheism (God identical with the world). Detractors argue that panentheism either collapses into pantheism or retains unresolved tensions with doctrines of divine transcendence.

5.3 Neoclassical Theism and Dipolarity

Hartshorne calls his position neoclassical theism to signal continuity with, yet revision of, classical conceptions of God. The key innovation is dipolar theism:

God is thus both unsurpassably perfect and yet genuinely responsive. Hartshorne maintains that perfection requires maximal openness to value and relationship, not immunity from change. Critics from classical traditions claim this compromises divine aseity and sovereignty, while process theologians sympathetic to Hartshorne view dipolarity as essential for a coherent, religiously meaningful concept of God.

6. Revising Divine Attributes and the Logic of Theism

6.1 Reinterpretation of Divine Attributes

Hartshorne systematically revises classical attributes, arguing they should be understood as relational maxima rather than absolute, non-relational extremes:

He argues that absolute omnipotence, immutability, and impassibility render God either incoherent or religiously irrelevant. Supporters claim his reinterpretation resolves paradoxes of evil, freedom, and petitionary prayer. Critics contend that these revisions yield a finite or dependent deity, or that they diverge from core theistic traditions.

6.2 The Logic of Theism

Hartshorne contends that theism can be analyzed as a set of logically interrelated claims about a maximally excellent being. In Man’s Vision of God and the Logic of Theism, he offers axioms and definitions intended to show how properties like necessary existence, unsurpassable value, and universal relatability hang together logically.

He insists that:

• Claims about God are subject to logical consistency tests.
• Theistic hypotheses should be compatible with, and informed by, empirical knowledge.
• Metaphysical reasoning, while not empirically verifiable in a narrow sense, can be indirectly tested by its explanatory power and coherence.

Some philosophers welcome this logical structuring as a precursor to contemporary analytic philosophy of religion. Others argue that Hartshorne underestimates the role of historical revelation, community practices, or linguistic limits on God-talk.

6.3 Modal Ontological Argument

Hartshorne develops a modal form of the ontological argument, drawing on Peircean and contemporary modal logic. In simplified form, he argues:

1. If a maximally perfect being (whose existence, if actual, is necessary) is possible, then it exists necessarily.
2. It is not possible that such a being be merely impossible (for that would be an absurd absolute impossibility).
3. Therefore, either God is necessary or impossible; if possible, then actual.

Proponents see this as clarifying the logical stakes of theism: the divine existence claim, if coherent, entails necessity. Critics challenge premises about the coherence of maximal perfection, the modal principles involved, or the move from conceptual to real possibility.

7. Methodology: Experience, Logic, and Natural Theology

7.1 Experience as Data

Hartshorne treats experience—human, nonhuman, and divine—as primary philosophical data. He extends this beyond introspective human experience to include aesthetic appreciation, moral awareness, and religious feelings of dependence and gratitude. Influenced by phenomenology and pragmatism, he claims that ignoring these data in metaphysics would be methodologically arbitrary.

Supporters see this as a broad empiricism that takes value and feeling seriously. Critics argue that such experiential “data” are too theory-laden or culturally conditioned to ground universal metaphysical claims.

7.2 Logic and Metaphysical Speculation

Hartshorne combines respect for formal logic with a willingness to engage in speculative metaphysics. In Creative Synthesis and Philosophic Method, he describes philosophical activity as creative integration of diverse insights into a coherent conceptual scheme. He emphasizes:

• Clarity about definitions and modal status (necessary, contingent, impossible).
• Systematic exploration of logical alternatives (e.g., classical theism, panentheism, atheism).
• Comparative evaluation of systems by criteria such as coherence, scope, and adequacy to experience.

Some analytic philosophers view this as a legitimate, if ambitious, form of rational inquiry. Others question the claim that metaphysical systems can be comparably “tested” or that logic can adjudicate between such comprehensive visions.

7.3 Natural Theology in a Modern Context

Hartshorne defends natural theology: philosophical reflection on God grounded in reason and experience rather than solely on special revelation. In A Natural Theology for Our Time, he argues that:

• Theism is a metaphysical hypothesis that should be assessed alongside alternatives.
• Arguments for God (cosmological, teleological, ontological) can be reformulated within process metaphysics and contemporary science.
• Religious belief is “the extension of reason to the widest possible field of data,” not its negation.

Advocates find in this a rational, publicly accessible approach to religious questions. Critics from fideist or Barthian perspectives maintain that such natural theology misconstrues the nature of faith and revelation, while some secular philosophers question whether Hartshorne’s arguments genuinely meet modern standards of evidence.

8. Impact on Philosophy of Religion and Metaphysics

8.1 Process Theism in Philosophy of Religion

Hartshorne helped establish process theism as a significant option in Anglo‑American philosophy of religion. His formulations of panentheism and dipolar theism were taken up by figures such as Schubert Ogden, John Cobb, and David Ray Griffin, and debated by analytic philosophers including Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne. His reconception of divine attributes influenced later discussions of divine foreknowledge, providence, and the problem of evil.

Supporters claim that his work broadened the range of theistic models beyond classical theism, encouraging more nuanced treatments of divine power and temporality. Critics suggest that process theism’s divergence from traditional doctrines limits its relevance to mainstream religious communities.

8.2 Revival of the Ontological Argument

Hartshorne’s modal version of the ontological argument contributed to renewed analytic interest in that argument. His formulations anticipated and influenced later developments by Norman Malcolm and Alvin Plantinga, who refined modal logics of necessary existence. Even philosophers rejecting theism often engage his argument as a key modern attempt to defend the a priori case for God.

8.3 Contributions to Metaphysics of Time and Becoming

In metaphysics, Hartshorne is cited as a major proponent of a dynamic view of time and creative becoming. He argued for the asymmetry of past and future, the open character of the future, and the primacy of process over substance. These views intersect with debates between A‑theorists and B‑theorists of time and with discussions of modal realism and possibility.

Some metaphysicians find his event‑centric ontology and emphasis on becoming philosophically fertile and congenial to scientific cosmology. Others regard his universal attribution of “feeling” or experience to all events as an unnecessary form of panpsychism or as metaphysically extravagant.

8.4 Influence on Pragmatism and American Philosophy

Through his editorial work on Peirce and his own writings, Hartshorne contributed to the mid‑20th‑century revival of American pragmatism. He helped foreground Peirce’s logic of possibility and continuity and linked pragmatist themes of fallibilism and experiential testing with systematic metaphysical speculation.

Assessments differ on the extent of this influence: some scholars see Hartshorne as an important bridge between classical pragmatism and later process and analytic thought; others argue that his metaphysical system diverges significantly from pragmatism’s more anti‑systematic tendencies.

9. Influence on Theology, Ethics, and Environmental Thought

9.1 Systematic and Practical Theology

Hartshorne’s concepts of divine relativity, dipolar theism, and panentheism have had enduring impact in Protestant and, to a lesser extent, Catholic and Jewish theologies. Process theologians adapted his ideas to doctrines of creation, providence, and eschatology, emphasizing God’s persuasive rather than coercive power and God’s suffering with the world.

Supporters argue that this framework offers resources for addressing evil, petitionary prayer, and interreligious dialogue. Critics within classical traditions contend that his God departs from creedal affirmations of omnipotence and immutability, raising questions about worship and trust.

9.2 Ethics and Value Theory

Hartshorne advanced a value-laden ontology, claiming that degrees of value correspond to degrees of experiential complexity. This underwrites an ethic that emphasizes respect for all sentient beings and sensitivity to the qualitative richness of experience. Some ethicists have drawn on his work to develop process‑based accounts of moral responsibility, emphasizing relationality and mutual influence.

Others question whether his metaphysical gradation of value risks justifying hierarchies among beings or whether it can be translated into concrete ethical norms without additional premises.

9.3 Environmental Philosophy and Animal Ethics

Hartshorne’s fascination with birds and his argument that even nonhuman animals enjoy intrinsic experiential value have influenced environmental ethics and animal theology. Process thinkers have used his panentheism to argue that ecosystems and species are not merely instrumentally valuable but participate in the divine life.

Advocates claim this provides a theologically grounded rationale for ecological concern and animal welfare. Critics caution that metaphysical claims about divine participation do not automatically yield specific policy guidance, and some environmental philosophers prefer non-theistic or deep ecological frameworks.

9.4 Interfaith and Cross‑Cultural Use

In some Jewish and Hindu theological contexts, Hartshorne’s panentheism has been seen as congenial to existing traditions that affirm both divine transcendence and immanence. Comparative theologians have employed his categories to articulate bridges between different religious metaphysics. Others argue that applying his system across traditions risks imposing Western conceptual schemes on diverse religious worldviews.

10. Criticisms and Ongoing Debates

10.1 Classical Theistic Critiques

From classical theism, major criticisms focus on Hartshorne’s denial of absolute omnipotence, immutability, and impassibility. Critics such as some Thomists and Reformed theologians argue that:

• His God depends on the world for experiential enrichment, compromising divine aseity and self-sufficiency.
• A changing God cannot guarantee ultimate faithfulness or secure promises.
• His reinterpretation of attributes is more a conceptual redefinition than an exposition of traditional doctrine.

Defenders of Hartshorne reply that classical attributes, as historically construed, lead to paradoxes (e.g., God as both cause of evil and wholly good) and that a relational God better fits religious experience.

10.2 Analytic and Metaphysical Objections

Analytic philosophers raise several concerns:

• Coherence of panentheism: Some argue it is unclear how the world can be “in” God without collapsing distinctions.
• Modal ontological argument: Critics challenge the key premise that divine existence is either necessary or impossible, or that maximal perfection is a coherent property.
• Process ontology: Skeptics question the attribution of experience to all events and whether this is required by physics or logic.

Ongoing debates explore whether Hartshorne’s system can be reconstructed in more contemporary logical frameworks or whether its commitments remain too speculative.

10.3 Theological and Practical Reservations

Process‑critical theologians argue that Hartshorne’s metaphysics gives insufficient weight to:

• Historical revelation and scriptural narratives.
• The communal and liturgical dimensions of faith.
• Apophatic (negative) theology, which stresses God’s incomprehensibility.

Some worry that a God lacking unilateral power may be pastorally problematic in contexts of suffering. Process theologians respond that persuasive, non-coercive power is more compatible with a God of love and human freedom, but debate continues.

10.4 Internal Process Debates

Within process circles, questions remain about:

• The exact nature of divine knowledge of the future (e.g., open but structured possibilities).
• The extent of divine dependence on the world for value.
• How Hartshorne’s views relate to alternative process models (e.g., different readings of Whitehead).

These ongoing discussions reflect attempts to refine or revise Hartshorne’s proposals in light of new philosophical and scientific developments.

11. Legacy and Historical Significance

11.1 Place in 20th‑Century Philosophy

Hartshorne occupies a distinctive position as a 20th‑century thinker who combined analytic rigor with comprehensive systematic metaphysics and a sustained defense of theism. While never fully mainstream within analytic philosophy, he helped secure the philosophy of religion as a serious subdiscipline, especially through his modal arguments and logical analyses of divine attributes.

Historians of philosophy increasingly view him as a bridge figure linking classical American pragmatism, Whiteheadian process thought, and later analytic discussions of God, time, and modality.

11.2 Institutional and Disciplinary Influence

Through his teaching at Chicago, Emory, and Texas, Hartshorne shaped several generations of philosophers and theologians. Process theology, in its various forms, remains a recognizable movement in North American seminaries and universities. His editorial work on Peirce’s Collected Papers is widely regarded as foundational for Peirce scholarship and contributed to the broader rehabilitation of American pragmatism.

11.3 Continuing Relevance

Hartshorne’s ideas continue to inform:

• Debates on divine temporality, relationality, and suffering.
• Discussions of environmental ethics and the intrinsic value of nature.
• Renewed interest in panentheism across Christian, Jewish, and interfaith contexts.
• Philosophical explorations of modal arguments and the structure of theistic hypotheses.

Some scholars see his work as anticipating contemporary interest in relational ontology, ecological consciousness, and non-classical conceptions of God. Others regard his comprehensive metaphysical system as emblematic of a style of philosophy less common in current practice but still valuable as a systematic alternative.

11.4 Assessment in Retrospect

Assessments of Hartshorne’s historical significance vary. Admirers highlight his originality, logical care, and willingness to rethink inherited doctrines in light of experience and science. Critics view his system as overly ambitious, speculative, or insufficiently attentive to historical and textual traditions. Nonetheless, his contributions have ensured that process theism and panentheism remain enduring options in contemporary debates about the nature of reality and God.