> ......................................................................................True,
> but that does not mean that he has come to grips with the problems
> that Whitehead sloughed over. I contend that process theology is in
> the same shape as Whitehead's anti-Einsteinian theory of relativity.
Dave -
Could you expand on this comment a bit? I don't know if by "is in
the same shape as" you mean
a) ANW's process theology has the same type of logical
structure as his relativity theory, or
b) they're both in bad condition in terms of testing of their
implications &c.
(Note on terminology: I think it would be more accurate to speak of
ANW's process _philosophy_, a philosophy which of course has theological
implications which he worked out to some extent. Others - e.g., Cobb -
have then worked out process _theologies_ using his philosophy. & I
think it's an overstatement to speak about ANW's "anti-Einsteinian
theory of relativity." Where he parted company with Einstein wasn't on
special relativity or even the use of non-Euclidean geometry, though he
wouldn't accept Einstein's idea of _variable_ space-time curvature. It
would be better to speak simply of "Whitehead's theory of gravitation."
[Which is, _en passant_, one of the better competitors of general
relativity in terms of agreement with observations.])
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Dialogue"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 07 2001 - 09:20:57 EDT