1. Distinguishing Cosmology from Theology, and Classical from Neoclassical

In "The Infinite Universe vs the Myth of the Big Bang" Joseph (2010) calls critical attention to the fusion of big bang cosmology with creationist theology. He laments "faith" in the "creationist theory of the Big Bang … proposed by a Catholic Priest" (Monsignor Georges Lemaître) that "implies the existence of a creator," and he objects to "Big Bang religion" and "Big Bang theology" (Joseph, 2010). His point is well taken. We should avoid such fusion. When we distinguish between cosmology and theology, and add an important qualifier—"classical," we may rightly say that Joseph rejects classical big bang cosmology and classical creationist theology because he favors conceiving of an "infinite universe," a universe not created in a mythological absolute beginning from nothing.

"Classical" is an appropriate qualifier because classical big bang cosmology and classical creationist theology share a classical Greco-Latin conception of "creatio ex nihilo" (creation from nothing). And they share a classical commitment to conceiving of an absolute beginning or first moment of all creative activity (when nothing became all), and a possible absolute end to all creative activity (when all shall become nothing or nothing creative). Moreover, the qualifier—"classical"—helps with distinguishing classical cosmology and classical creationist theology from neoclassical cosmology and neoclassical theology.

These distinctions are appropriate and important because, unlike classical cosmology and classical theology, neoclassical cosmology and neoclassical theology require the same cosmological conclusion reached by Joseph—that the universe is a "living universe" with no beginning and no end (Joseph, 2010), and a different theological conclusion. Given a classical conception of God, Joseph is correct in concluding that a living universe without beginning or end indicates "there is no God" (Joseph, 2010). However, given a neoclassical conception of God, Joseph's theological conclusion is not indicated.

2. "Creation from Nothing" Distinguished from "Creative Synthesis"

In contrast to big-bang-from-nothing classical cosmology and divine-creation-from-nothing classical theology, neoclassical philosopher-theologian Charles Hartshorne argues against any affirmation of creation from nothing. There is no creating from nothing. In Creative Synthesis and Philosophic Method Hartshorne (1970) holds that every creation derives from a "creative synthesis" of many previous creations. Moreover, creativity and reality are inseparable. Hartshorne says, "To be is to create" (Ibid., p. 1), meaning "to be real is to create." Accordingly, the absolute zero of creativity is sheer non-reality. Reality is an eternal creative-synthetic "social process," says Hartshorne in Reality as Social Process (1953). And in Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology Alfred North Whitehead (1978 [originally 1927]), holds that each real event is the outcome of a creative-synthetic process by which "[t]he many become one, and are increased by one" (p. 21).

According to the Whiteheadian process cosmology here classified as a neoclassical cosmology, creativity as such is about creatively synthesizing many previous creations, not about creating from nothing. And, according to neoclassical theology, divine creativity is about creatively synthesizing all previous creations, not about creating all things from nothing.

3. "God Who Became Creator" Distinguished from "God the Eternal Creator"

Neoclassical theologians argue that the authentic religious conception of "God the Creator" is not the classical conception rightly rejected by Joseph—that "god the creator became god the creator at the [first] moment of creation" (Joseph, 2010). Instead of conceiving that God became the creator at the first moment of creation (classical theology); neoclassical theologians conceive that God is eternally creative. Furthermore, they hold that conceiving of God as "the eternal Creator" is more faithful to religious monotheism than the classical conception.

Authentic religious monotheism requires understanding that "God is great" means God is unsurpassably great—"that than which none greater can be conceived" (St. Anselm). And logic requires understanding that the only conceivable reality that is so great that no greater can be conceived is the all-inclusive whole of reality. And since to be real is to create, the all-inclusive whole of reality is universally and eternally creatively synthesizing all that is real—all creations. All that is real is embraced by the pre-classical (pre-Greco-Roman-Latin) religious categories of Creator, creatures, and creations: one universal-eternal Creator, many creatures, and many creations. The religious affirmations of eternal-universal divine creativity witness against an absolute first or last moment of creative activity.

4. Nonliving Universe Distinguished from "Living Universe"

Joseph's cosmological idea of a "living universe" is fully consistent with the neoclassical cosmological idea of an eternal creative "process" (Whitehead). To be real is to create (Hartshorne). To create is to live. A creative universe is a living universe. Neoclassical cosmology holds that there has never been, nor can there ever be, a nonliving universe, a noncreative creative process.

5. Conclusion: Joseph's Cosmology and Neoclassical Cosmology

In addition to distinguishing cosmology from theology, attention to these other distinctions (distinguishing classical from neoclassical, "creatio ex nihilo" from "creative synthesis," "god who became creator" from "God the eternal Creator," and nonliving from "living universe") reveals that Joseph's cosmology agrees with neoclassical cosmology against classical cosmology and against classical theology while disagreeing with nothing affirmed by neoclassical theology. With so much agreement, and no disagreement, it is tempting to classify Joseph's cosmology as a non-Whiteheadian-non-Hartshornean neoclassical cosmology. However, not disagreeing is distinct from affirming, and neoclassical cosmology is fully committed to affirming a corresponding neoclassical theology.

Neoclassical cosmology and neoclassical theology require each other. It has been said that Whitehead started out doing cosmology for Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology (1978 [originally 1927]) and discovered that theological content was necessary for an adequate cosmology. Hence, Whitehead's "essay in cosmology" came to have substantial theological content.

Neoclassical cosmology and neoclassical theology require distinguishing between whole and parts of reality, between "the one all-inclusive whole of reality" (Schubert M. Ogden, 1984, p. 21) and the set of all variously inclusive parts of reality. Given this explicit distinction between whole and parts of reality, if Joseph were to find that it is necessary to affirm that the all-inclusive cosmic whole is greater than the sum of its parts, that the whole interacts creatively with all that is real, that to be real is to create—to creatively synthesis previous creations, that the whole is a "conscious" whole (Kafatos, 2009; also Kafatos and Robert Nadeau, 2000), and that "Creator" and "God" are authentic religious names for the eternally-universally creative conscious whole; then Joseph's anti-classical cosmology would be more nearly, perhaps fully, neoclassical.