>
> In short, I would prefer classical theism, more compatible with Aristotle,
> than
> process theism, based on the metaphysics of Whitehead. Neither of them have
> exhausted the truth, and, as always, Scripture has veto power. Nevertheless,
> one
> seems closer to the God of Scripture than the other. Therefore, some measure
> of
> metaphysical commitment is both inevitable and necessary.
>
> Jeff
Dear Jeff:
One of the questions I always want to ask about modern philosophy is this:
"What was wrong with the old view, that your new view is attempting to solve?"
Philosophy is not a matter of preference, it's a matter of trying to solve all
the problems. Aristotle didn't solve all the problems. Sometimes his solutions
were wrong. Maybe the modern philosophers can't solve them either, but I at
least give them credit for a) realizing that not all the problems are solved; b)
trying to offer some creative solutions.
I know next to nothing about Whitehead, but I believe he was trying to deal with
problems of time; the kind of problems that Augustine pondered and philosophers
have studied ever since. I even saw a paper on concepts of time at the recent
meeting of the AAAS in Baltimore. These problems have not been solved yet.
This is not "chronological snobbery" or modernist arrogance. On the contrary,
it is simply respect for education and the cumulative progress of knowledge --
any field of knowledge, not just philosophy. Don't all college professors
believe this way? ;-)
Paul Arveson, Research Physicist
73367.1236@compuserve.com arveson@oasys.dt.navy.mil
(301) 227-3831 (W) (301) 227-1914 (FAX) (301) 816-9459 (H)
Code 724, NSWC, Bethesda, MD 20084