John W Burgeson wrote:
> Earlier trhis month, George posted:
>
> > " Independent natural theology (i.e., that which is developed without
> reference to revelation) is 1) biblically marginal, and 2)
> dangerous....."
>
> and I replied:
>
> > That seems pretty obvious. Do you understand Whitehead/Griffin to have
> done this? From my studying of them so far I think Whitehead may be so
> accused, but not Griffin. But I may be wrong.
>
> George answered:
>
> "I don't know that it's obvious, since developments and uses of such
> natural theologies have been a thriving industry, especially since the
> 17th century. But Whitehead doesn't make this error - his mistake, I
> think, is farther down the line. Toward the end of _Process and Reality_
> he says:
>
> "The history of theistic philosophy exhibits various stages of
> combination of these three diverse ways of entertaining the
> problem. There is, however, in the Galilean origin of
> Christianity yet another suggestion which does not fit
> very well with any of the three main strands of thought.
> It does not emphasize the ruling Caesar, or the ruthless
> moralist, or the unmoved mover. It dwells upon the tender
> elements in the world, which slowly and in quietness operate
> by love; and it finds purpose in the present immediacy of a
> kingdom not of this world. Love neither rules nor is it
> unmoved; also it is a little oblivious as to morals. It
> does not look to the future; for it finds its own reward in
> the immediate present."
>
> And a little later he refers to God as "the great
> companion - the fellow sufferer who understands."
>
> The influence of the story of Jesus, and of a type of theology of
> the
> cross, on the development of Whitehead's picture of God is, I think,
> fairly
> clear from this. So he isn't pursuing a natural theology entirely
> independent
> of revelation. & I think to some extent that's true of many process
> theologians.
>
> Where the problem comes, however, is in then seeing this picture
> of
> God as a general truth, of which Jesus is one example - a very important
> example perhaps but not a unique and indispensable revelation of God."
>
> George -- I could not find that Whitehead quote. Could you give me a
> citation? I understand your comments here, and tentatively, at least,
> must agree with them.
Burgy -
The longer quote is from _Process and Reality_ (The Free Press, New
York, 1978), p.343. The 2d & shorter one is from the same book, p.351.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Dialogue"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 29 2001 - 20:24:39 EDT