Theo-Fandom
Beyoncé, Harry Potter, and Process Philosophy
Is the God of Love more like Beyoncé—a real presence who evokes powerful, larger-than-life images and emotions in followers? Or more like Harry Potter, with devoted fans yet no existence outside their imagination? How does God exist?
Beyoncé and Harry Potter are both influential figures in people’s minds, serving as what process philosophers might describe as evocative ideas or "lures for feeling." These are virtual realities that exist within people's imaginations, creating a sense of connection that feels like a relationship. Through this imagined connection, people draw comfort, inspiration, and sometimes even a sense of purpose. Still, there is a difference. In the case of Beyoncé, there exists an actual person behind the virtual reality. However, the "star" her fans connect with, admire, and feel close to may differ significantly from the real person behind the persona. In the case of Harry Potter, by contrast, most people understand him to be fictional. There is only the powerful, vivid image of him in people’s minds—a fictional character whose qualities and story can still inspire profound feelings and life choices, even though he does not exist in a literal sense.
But this raises the question: What does it really mean to exist? Here, Whitehead’s philosophy can offer insight. In Process and Reality, Whitehead speaks of eight ways in which something can exist, or, as he puts it, eight "categories of existence." Things can exist:
In this framework, Beyoncé "exists" as an actual entity—a real person with agency—while the image of Beyoncé in people’s minds is a lure for feeling, an idea shaped by public perceptions and media portrayals. When people connect with the symbol of Beyoncé, they are engaging with an alluring idea, which, though curated by her publicists, is still assumed by fans to be connected to the real person.
Harry Potter, by contrast, exists solely as a lure for feeling and not as an actual entity. He is an alluring idea without an independent existence. Harry Potter "exists," too, but in a different way from Beyoncé—his existence is purely imaginative, yet still profoundly real to those who find meaning and inspiration in his story. Through Whitehead’s categories of existence, we see that "existence" can encompass both actualities with agency and powerful ideas that shape and influence human experience, each contributing to the texture of our inner lives.
Importantly, both Beyoncé and Harry Potter also exist in the emotions people feel about them—that is, the subjective forms (#6) they evoke in individuals’ inner lives. They also exist in the groups that form around them (#2), as fans gather in communities and societies bonded by shared admiration or identification with these figures. In fact, they manifest in assorted other ways within Whitehead’s categories of existence. Beyoncé and Harry Potter, for example, exist as contrasts (#8), bringing together diverse elements—personal traits, stories, and values—that coalesce into a unified, complex presence in people’s minds. Thus, both Beyoncé and Harry Potter illustrate how one figure can resonate across multiple forms of existence, contributing richly to people’s emotional and social worlds.
As an important aside, it should be noted that politicians, too, can "exist" in ways similar to how Beyoncé exists, functioning as both actual entities with agency and as powerful lures for feeling in people’s minds. Just as Beyoncé inspires admiration, politicians can evoke a range of strong emotions, yet these feelings are often more polarized. Politicians exist not only as actual entities (#1) making real decisions that impact people’s lives but also as symbols or lures for feeling (#7) that represent broader values, ideologies, and social forces. These lures can evoke both positive and negative emotions. For some, a politician may symbolize hope, change, or stability, while for others, the same politician might represent threats, frustrations, or anxieties. As these figures are continually portrayed and amplified by media and digital platforms, they come to exist as subjective forms (#6) in people’s emotions, triggering devotion or disdain, and as nexuses and societies (#2), gathering supporters and critics into communities around shared beliefs. Thus, like celebrities, politicians become emotionally charged presences that influence people's inner worlds and collective identities in both inspiring and divisive ways.
*
On then, to the question, how about God? Given these eight categories, how does God exist?
With God, the question of existence is not so simple. First we best acknowledge that there are some, mostly of a philosophical perspective, who believe the question makes a category mistake, because God is not an existent among existents but is instead Being itself: the ground of all existence manifest in all existing realities. Or, if influenced by Buddhism, the groundless ground. This perspective deserves serious and careful attention. But here I want to speak to the interests of those who, lie open and relational (process) theologians think of God as a being, albeit inclusive not located in particular region of space or a particular segment of time. They believe in God "literally."
When people refer to God as existing “literally,” they often mean something more than physical or tangible presence. For many, God’s literal existence implies a reality that transcends ordinary perception—a being who is both personal and relational, yet not confined by space and time. In Open and Relational theology, God’s presence is thought of as a relational influence, an evolving companionship with humanity, more akin to an inner guide or a deep presence felt within the heart and mind.
However, even this intimate, relational God might not fit neatly into the category of “literal” existence as we typically understand it. We don’t experience God in the same way we experience other people or physical objects. Instead, we might encounter God as a presence in our thoughts, feelings, or the shared experiences we have with others. This kind of presence can be incredibly real and transformative, yet remains fundamentally different from what we might call literal or material existence.
In many ways, whether God exists "literally" may depend on how we define existence itself. If existence requires physical form and presence in space and time, then God’s reality may not meet that definition. But if we broaden our understanding to include realities beyond the physical—realities that exist as deep inner experiences, relational influences, or even as persistent ideas that shape how we live—then God’s existence could be understood as “literal” in a more profound sense.
Ultimately, the question of what “literal” existence would mean for God may be less relevant than the experience and relationship that God provides. Whether God exists as an independent, tangible being or as a product of human imagination, the relationship's transformative power is undeniable. For many, this impact is the most compelling evidence of God’s “existence,” a presence that may be beyond literal but nonetheless profoundly real.
Perhaps Whitehead’s eight categories can help here, and we can put the question crudely. Is God more like Beyonce or Harry Potter?
*
If we apply Whitehead’s categories to explore God’s existence, we might discover that God encompasses multiple forms of existence, making the comparison both complex and illuminating. When considering the question, "Is God more like Beyoncé or Harry Potter?"—that is, whether God exists as an actual entity with agency or more as a lure for feeling—the answer may not lie neatly in one or the other.
Like Beyoncé, many religious traditions and philosophies conceive of God as an actual entity with agency (#1), an active presence engaging with the world. In Open and Relational theology, for instance, God is viewed as a being who experiences and responds to creation, providing possibilities and guiding humans through a loving, relational influence. This aligns with Whitehead’s view of God as an actual entity—one that has agency, feels, and participates in the unfolding of reality.
However, God also bears resemblance to Harry Potter in another sense: as an evocative idea or a "lure for feeling" (#7). Many people’s images of God are shaped by cultural, religious, and personal experiences, giving rise to a deeply inspiring, imaginative presence that provides meaning, comfort, and purpose. Just as Harry Potter exists vividly within the imagination, God, too, may exist within the shared and personal symbolic realms of human minds, eliciting strong emotional and spiritual responses.
Moreover, God exists as subjective forms (#6) in people’s feelings and inner experiences. Many describe encounters with God as profoundly personal, often felt in moments of love, awe, or even anguish. These subjective forms shape people’s values, actions, and sense of connection to something greater than themselves.
Additionally, God could be seen as a nexus (#2), a gathering of experiences, beliefs, and stories that form a cohesive entity recognized across different traditions. Religious communities come together around this shared idea of God, forming societies bonded by mutual reverence and worship. Like a collective or aggregate reality, God exists in the shared practices, rituals, and traditions of these communities, bringing people together through a sense of common purpose and belief.
In Whitehead’s philosophy, God is also described as embodying eternal objects (#4), serving as a source of infinite potentialities that invite creatures into new possibilities of becoming. God is seen as the lure toward beauty, love, and creativity, constantly inspiring new ways of being. This means that God is both an actual entity and a lure for feeling, suggesting a presence that permeates every level of existence, offering inspiration while existing relationally with the world.
*
Thus, the question of whether God is "more like Beyoncé or Harry Potter" might ultimately miss the nuance Whitehead offers. God exists in a unique way—simultaneously as a personal, relational presence and as an imaginative lure for feeling. For Whitehead, God combines agency with the power to inspire, comfort, and call us toward new ways of living, reflecting a depth that is not limited to physical or metaphorical existence. In this sense, God’s existence transcends the categories applied to Beyoncé or Harry Potter, embodying an intimate yet transcendent presence that continues to influence lives in ways both actual and imaginative.
*
Is it possible that God of open and relational theology, a God of love, exists as a lure for feeling but not as an actuality?
Yes, even if God were understood solely as an idea in people's minds, God's "existence" would still carry significant weight. As an idea, God would shape behaviors, values, and aspirations, influencing lives and communities profoundly. Ideas have a real, tangible impact, guiding actions, creating frameworks for meaning, and shaping how people respond to life's challenges and mysteries. In this sense, God would "exist" as a powerful organizing principle, an anchor for values like compassion, justice, and love, inspiring individuals and communities to embody these ideals in their lives.
However, for those who view God as an actuality, not only an idea, this belief adds another dimension: it implies a living presence that interacts with the world, offering companionship, guidance, and a source of hope beyond the self. A God who is actual, in this view, is not confined to human concepts but actively participates in the unfolding of reality, sharing in the joys and sorrows of existence, and inviting beings into a relationship of co-creation and mutual growth. This vision of God as an actuality affirms a deeper intimacy and relational depth that goes beyond the inspirational power of an idea—it suggests a divine presence that is real, responsive, and deeply engaged with the world.
But this raises the question: What does it really mean to exist? Here, Whitehead’s philosophy can offer insight. In Process and Reality, Whitehead speaks of eight ways in which something can exist, or, as he puts it, eight "categories of existence." Things can exist:
- As unified actualities with agency of their own, called actual entities.
- As aggregates of such actualities that share common properties, called nexuses and societies.
- As groups that share no common characteristics, called multiplicities.
- As highly abstract potentialities that may or may not be actual, called eternal objects.
- As forms of connection between actualities, called feelings or prehensions.
- As emotions, called subjective forms.
- As evocative or alluring ideas, called propositions or lures for feeling.
- As contrasts, which are integrations of diverse elements that, taken together, create a new, unified complexity.
In this framework, Beyoncé "exists" as an actual entity—a real person with agency—while the image of Beyoncé in people’s minds is a lure for feeling, an idea shaped by public perceptions and media portrayals. When people connect with the symbol of Beyoncé, they are engaging with an alluring idea, which, though curated by her publicists, is still assumed by fans to be connected to the real person.
Harry Potter, by contrast, exists solely as a lure for feeling and not as an actual entity. He is an alluring idea without an independent existence. Harry Potter "exists," too, but in a different way from Beyoncé—his existence is purely imaginative, yet still profoundly real to those who find meaning and inspiration in his story. Through Whitehead’s categories of existence, we see that "existence" can encompass both actualities with agency and powerful ideas that shape and influence human experience, each contributing to the texture of our inner lives.
Importantly, both Beyoncé and Harry Potter also exist in the emotions people feel about them—that is, the subjective forms (#6) they evoke in individuals’ inner lives. They also exist in the groups that form around them (#2), as fans gather in communities and societies bonded by shared admiration or identification with these figures. In fact, they manifest in assorted other ways within Whitehead’s categories of existence. Beyoncé and Harry Potter, for example, exist as contrasts (#8), bringing together diverse elements—personal traits, stories, and values—that coalesce into a unified, complex presence in people’s minds. Thus, both Beyoncé and Harry Potter illustrate how one figure can resonate across multiple forms of existence, contributing richly to people’s emotional and social worlds.
As an important aside, it should be noted that politicians, too, can "exist" in ways similar to how Beyoncé exists, functioning as both actual entities with agency and as powerful lures for feeling in people’s minds. Just as Beyoncé inspires admiration, politicians can evoke a range of strong emotions, yet these feelings are often more polarized. Politicians exist not only as actual entities (#1) making real decisions that impact people’s lives but also as symbols or lures for feeling (#7) that represent broader values, ideologies, and social forces. These lures can evoke both positive and negative emotions. For some, a politician may symbolize hope, change, or stability, while for others, the same politician might represent threats, frustrations, or anxieties. As these figures are continually portrayed and amplified by media and digital platforms, they come to exist as subjective forms (#6) in people’s emotions, triggering devotion or disdain, and as nexuses and societies (#2), gathering supporters and critics into communities around shared beliefs. Thus, like celebrities, politicians become emotionally charged presences that influence people's inner worlds and collective identities in both inspiring and divisive ways.
*
On then, to the question, how about God? Given these eight categories, how does God exist?
With God, the question of existence is not so simple. First we best acknowledge that there are some, mostly of a philosophical perspective, who believe the question makes a category mistake, because God is not an existent among existents but is instead Being itself: the ground of all existence manifest in all existing realities. Or, if influenced by Buddhism, the groundless ground. This perspective deserves serious and careful attention. But here I want to speak to the interests of those who, lie open and relational (process) theologians think of God as a being, albeit inclusive not located in particular region of space or a particular segment of time. They believe in God "literally."
When people refer to God as existing “literally,” they often mean something more than physical or tangible presence. For many, God’s literal existence implies a reality that transcends ordinary perception—a being who is both personal and relational, yet not confined by space and time. In Open and Relational theology, God’s presence is thought of as a relational influence, an evolving companionship with humanity, more akin to an inner guide or a deep presence felt within the heart and mind.
However, even this intimate, relational God might not fit neatly into the category of “literal” existence as we typically understand it. We don’t experience God in the same way we experience other people or physical objects. Instead, we might encounter God as a presence in our thoughts, feelings, or the shared experiences we have with others. This kind of presence can be incredibly real and transformative, yet remains fundamentally different from what we might call literal or material existence.
In many ways, whether God exists "literally" may depend on how we define existence itself. If existence requires physical form and presence in space and time, then God’s reality may not meet that definition. But if we broaden our understanding to include realities beyond the physical—realities that exist as deep inner experiences, relational influences, or even as persistent ideas that shape how we live—then God’s existence could be understood as “literal” in a more profound sense.
Ultimately, the question of what “literal” existence would mean for God may be less relevant than the experience and relationship that God provides. Whether God exists as an independent, tangible being or as a product of human imagination, the relationship's transformative power is undeniable. For many, this impact is the most compelling evidence of God’s “existence,” a presence that may be beyond literal but nonetheless profoundly real.
Perhaps Whitehead’s eight categories can help here, and we can put the question crudely. Is God more like Beyonce or Harry Potter?
*
If we apply Whitehead’s categories to explore God’s existence, we might discover that God encompasses multiple forms of existence, making the comparison both complex and illuminating. When considering the question, "Is God more like Beyoncé or Harry Potter?"—that is, whether God exists as an actual entity with agency or more as a lure for feeling—the answer may not lie neatly in one or the other.
Like Beyoncé, many religious traditions and philosophies conceive of God as an actual entity with agency (#1), an active presence engaging with the world. In Open and Relational theology, for instance, God is viewed as a being who experiences and responds to creation, providing possibilities and guiding humans through a loving, relational influence. This aligns with Whitehead’s view of God as an actual entity—one that has agency, feels, and participates in the unfolding of reality.
However, God also bears resemblance to Harry Potter in another sense: as an evocative idea or a "lure for feeling" (#7). Many people’s images of God are shaped by cultural, religious, and personal experiences, giving rise to a deeply inspiring, imaginative presence that provides meaning, comfort, and purpose. Just as Harry Potter exists vividly within the imagination, God, too, may exist within the shared and personal symbolic realms of human minds, eliciting strong emotional and spiritual responses.
Moreover, God exists as subjective forms (#6) in people’s feelings and inner experiences. Many describe encounters with God as profoundly personal, often felt in moments of love, awe, or even anguish. These subjective forms shape people’s values, actions, and sense of connection to something greater than themselves.
Additionally, God could be seen as a nexus (#2), a gathering of experiences, beliefs, and stories that form a cohesive entity recognized across different traditions. Religious communities come together around this shared idea of God, forming societies bonded by mutual reverence and worship. Like a collective or aggregate reality, God exists in the shared practices, rituals, and traditions of these communities, bringing people together through a sense of common purpose and belief.
In Whitehead’s philosophy, God is also described as embodying eternal objects (#4), serving as a source of infinite potentialities that invite creatures into new possibilities of becoming. God is seen as the lure toward beauty, love, and creativity, constantly inspiring new ways of being. This means that God is both an actual entity and a lure for feeling, suggesting a presence that permeates every level of existence, offering inspiration while existing relationally with the world.
*
Thus, the question of whether God is "more like Beyoncé or Harry Potter" might ultimately miss the nuance Whitehead offers. God exists in a unique way—simultaneously as a personal, relational presence and as an imaginative lure for feeling. For Whitehead, God combines agency with the power to inspire, comfort, and call us toward new ways of living, reflecting a depth that is not limited to physical or metaphorical existence. In this sense, God’s existence transcends the categories applied to Beyoncé or Harry Potter, embodying an intimate yet transcendent presence that continues to influence lives in ways both actual and imaginative.
*
Is it possible that God of open and relational theology, a God of love, exists as a lure for feeling but not as an actuality?
Yes, even if God were understood solely as an idea in people's minds, God's "existence" would still carry significant weight. As an idea, God would shape behaviors, values, and aspirations, influencing lives and communities profoundly. Ideas have a real, tangible impact, guiding actions, creating frameworks for meaning, and shaping how people respond to life's challenges and mysteries. In this sense, God would "exist" as a powerful organizing principle, an anchor for values like compassion, justice, and love, inspiring individuals and communities to embody these ideals in their lives.
However, for those who view God as an actuality, not only an idea, this belief adds another dimension: it implies a living presence that interacts with the world, offering companionship, guidance, and a source of hope beyond the self. A God who is actual, in this view, is not confined to human concepts but actively participates in the unfolding of reality, sharing in the joys and sorrows of existence, and inviting beings into a relationship of co-creation and mutual growth. This vision of God as an actuality affirms a deeper intimacy and relational depth that goes beyond the inspirational power of an idea—it suggests a divine presence that is real, responsive, and deeply engaged with the world.