Photo is Lampeter, Wales, Pinterest, 2020
Preface
This section from my PhD was originally published on Blogger, 20100618. Slight revisions with additions for an entry on academia.edu, 20240804.
Process Theism: Alfred North Whitehead
Process theism refers to a general group of theological concepts attributed to Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947)[1] and Charles Hartshorne (1897-2000).[2] Whitehead is the more preeminent exemplar and within Process and Reality (1927-1929)(1957) explains he desired to complete an account of humanity and its experience in relation to philosophical problems.[3] In Religion In The Making (1926) Whitehead explains it is legitimate to attempt with a more definite knowledge of metaphysics, to interpret human experience, but these general principles must be amplified and adapted into one general system of truth.[4] Whitehead disagreed with a traditional view of a ‘transcendent creator, at whose fiat the world came into being, and whose imposed will it obeys.’[5] The nature of God needed to be philosophically constructed anew.[6] A balance is sought between God’s immanence[7] and transcendence,[8] and a concept of static transcendence is rejected as instead God is understood to have a evolutionary transcendence.[9] God and the physical realm are immanent with each other and God’s transcendence means their realities are not identical and not always determined by each other.[10] God is fully reasoned to be involved and influenced by temporal events and processes.[11] These processes unfold as sequences of events over time.[12] God, contrary to classic and traditional Christian theism is finite, temporal, changeable[13] and experiences intense emotion, pain and sadness.[14] Whitehead explains that ‘It is not true that God is on all respects infinite.’[15] Process theology is a philosophical approach that does not rely on any kind of divine revelation.[16] Instead it relies on a process of change over time as a theory of metaphysics.[17] God’s actual concrete nature is responsive and influenced by the processes that take in the world, and therefore God is limited.[18] Some things are unknowable for God, that he only can realize as they happen,[19] and as these new things develop God’s knowledge processes over time.[20] Divine sovereignty is questionable and certainly no longer absolute within this system.[21]
Whitehead, a mathematician and philosopher,[22] established a speculative philosophy of metaphysics within a scientific non-metaphysical reality.[23] This system is an attempt to adequately explain all individual beings in existence, including God.[24] Basically a system of metaphysics needed to be developed that would work with modern scientific theories and reality, and therefore God was not a ‘static essence’ but a process.[25] The ‘actual entities’[26] that make up this process are non-permanent and transient and each action and activity is dipolar having a physical pole of the past and a mental pole which is a possibility that can be achieved.[27] The physical pole feels the physical reality of actual entity, while the mental pole feels or prehends as Whitehead calls it, the eternal objects by which actual entities have conceptual definiteness.[28] These physical and mental poles are an aspect of every real being/actual entities although they are not real things themselves.[29] Prehends is the feeling of grasping the physical and conceptual information concerning actual entities.[30] This will occur within a stream and series of occasions.[31] All occurrences take place within the process of these actual entities.[32] Each event is partially self-created and partially influenced by other occasions and entities.[33] God is also dipolar[34] and his nontemporal pole is where God conceives the infinite variety of external objects and sees the possibilities and provides the opportunity for the process of becoming.[35] God is an actual entity and being.[36] God has a primordial nature and consequent nature, with the primordial being conceptual, while the consequent nature is God as conscious.[37] Whitehead explains that the ‘consequent nature is the weaving of God’s physical feelings upon his primordial concepts.’[38] God’s primordial conceptual nature is infinite and does not have negative prehension/feelings, and is eternal and unconscious.[39] This nature is permanent as God works out endless possibilities.[40] God in his vision can determine every possibility and adjust details where needed.[41] The consequent nature of God originates with physical experience with the material temporal world and it is integrated with the primordial conceptual nature.[42] The consequent nature as conscious is determined, finite and incomplete.[43] These two aspects of God’s deity can be distinguished but are inseparable.[44] This consequent conscious nature had God constantly acquiring new experiences.[45] A problem arises that if God’s primordial nature is eternal and unconscious[46] it precedes the consequent nature that is temporal[47] and has consciousness. I question whether an unconscious deity would in any way proceed to a conscious temporal reality. Where did God’s consciousness come from? I reason consciousness would have to exist eternally to lead to a finite reality of consciousness.[48]
[1] Viney (2008: 1).
[2] Viney (2008: 1).
[3] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: vi).
[4] Whitehead (1926: 149).
[5] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 404).
[6] Whitehead (1926: 150).
[7] God is actively present within reality and creation. Erickson (1994: 302).
[8] God by nature is beyond and separate from his material creation. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 115).
[9] A balance needed to be sought as there were extreme views concerning God as impersonal force behind the universe as in deism and also the view that God has absolute sovereignty as the sole creator of matter. Whitehead (1926: 150).
[10] Viney (2008: 10).
[11] Viney (2008: 1). Diehl (1996: 880).
[12] Blackburn (1996: 305). The process is not according to a motion of changeless matter. Diehl (1996: 881).
[13] God is not immutable as is classically defined.
[14] God is not impassible according to this view.
[15] Whitehead (1926: 153). Whitehead claims that if God was infinite in all ways this would make him as infinitely evil as he is good. I doubt logically and reasonably that an infinitely holy and good God could at the same time be infinitely evil and so I can grant Whitehead half a point here. I definitely agree with Whitehead that an infinitely good and evil God would be a God of nothingness. Whitehead (1926: 153). I doubt this being could logically exist.
[16] Viney (2008: 1). Diehl (1996: 881).
[17] Viney (2008: 1).
[18] Erickson (1994: 280).
[19] Erickson (1994: 280).
[20] Erickson (1994: 280).
[21] Erickson (1994: 280).
[22] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 135). Diehl (1996: 881).
[23] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 135).
[24] Diehl (1996: 881).
[25] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 135).
[26] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 135). Diehl (1996: 881).
[27] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 136). Diehl (1996: 881).
[28] Diehl (1996: 881). Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).
[29] Viney (2008: 8).
[30] Diehl (1996: 881). Viney (2008: 9).
[31] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 136).
[32] Diehl (1996: 881).
[33] Diehl (1996: 881).
[34] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407). Viney (2008: 8).
[35] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 137).
[36] Viney (2008: 9).
[37] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).
[38] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).
[39] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).
[40] Viney (2008: 9).
[41] Whitehead (1926: 153-154).
[42] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).
[43] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).
[44] Viney (2008: 9).
[45] Viney (2008: 9).
[46] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).
[47] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).
[48] An eternal reality of unconsciousness should lead to a finite reality of unconsciousness.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
DIEHL, DAVID W. (1996) ‘Process Theology’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.
GRENZ, STANLEY J. AND ROGER E. OLSON (1992) Twentieth Century Theology, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.
VINEY, DAVID (2008) ‘Process Theism’, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Palo Alto, California, Stanford University.
WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH (1926) Religion in the Making, New York, The MacMillan Company.
WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH (1927-1929)(1957) Process and Reality, New York, The Free Press/MacMillan Publishing Company, Incorporated.
WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH (1967)(1986) ‘Adventures of Ideas’, in Forest Wood JR., Whiteheadian Thought as a Basis for a Philosophy of Religion, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, University Press of America, Inc.
John Frame explains that God cannot perform logically contradictory actions, Frame (2002: 518). Erickson (1994: 277). Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 359-360 Volume 1). God cannot make a square circle, Frame (2002: 518). Thiessen (1956: 126). God cannot commit that which is immoral and sinful, Frame (2002: 518). Thiessen (1956: 126). Weber (1955)(1981: 440). Interestingly, God cannot commit actions ‘appropriate only to finite creatures.’ Frame (2002: 520).
God cannot logically have finite attributes. All of God's attributes and nature are infinite.
In the incarnation, God the Son takes a finite human nature, as Jesus Christ, while remaining the eternal, infinite God. But the infinite and finite natures do not mix. God the Son, as infinite, within the Trinity, did (does) take a finite, human nature in the incarnation. Correctly, and classically, the natures do not mix. Jesus Christ is both finite man and infinite God. There is an aspect of mystery in the incarnation, but the Triune nature of God which is infinite and eternal is not altered by Christ taking on additional finite human nature. According to the Pocket Dictionary, the hypostatic union is the theological term which describes the bringing together of the divine and human natures of Jesus Christ is one person. (62). God the Son, Jesus Christ, being both fully human and fully divine. (62). Hypostasis (ὑπόστασις) from the Greek in this context, is the essential nature and essence of a person/entity.
Cited
'Strong's Concordance
hupostasis: a support, substance, steadiness, hence assurance
Original
Word: ὑπόστασις, εως, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: hupostasis
Phonetic Spelling: (hoop-os'-tas-is)
Definition: a support, substance, steadiness, assurance
Usage: (lit: an underlying), (a) confidence, assurance, (b) a giving substance (or reality) to, or a guaranteeing, (c) substance, reality.'
Cited
'Englishman's Concordance'
'Hebrews 1:3 N-GFS (Nominative, Genitive, Feminine, Singular my add)
GRK: χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ φέρων
NAS: and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds
KJV: of his person, and
INT: [the] exact expression of the substance of him upholding'
ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
FRAME, JOHN M. (1999) ‘The Bible on the Problem of Evil: Insights from Romans 3:1-8,21-26; 5:1-5; 8:28-39’, IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 1, Number 33, October 11 to October 17, Fern Park, Florida, Third Millennium.
FRAME, JOHN M. (2002) The Doctrine of God, P and R Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey.
GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI and CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.
SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.
SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.
THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
WEBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics, Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
I read Anselm not too long ago with his descriptions of God. Whitehead and Anselm seem to be polar opposites, but what especially interests me about what you are writing is this: although Anselm wasn't a mathematician, his analysis is straight out of mathematics, whereas Whitehead who is a mathematician seems to be proceeding in a purely subjective manner.
ReplyDelete'whereas Whitehead who is a mathematician seems to be proceeding in a purely subjective manner.'
ReplyDeleteExcellent point, thank you.
Love the Moses 'toon! Very funny!
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Looney about the pure subjectiveness of Whitehead's philosophical approach. I have not read much of Whitehead, but he doesn't seem to establish an adequet (in my opinion) epistemological framework to sufficiently direct his philosophical musings. "Process Theism" must proceed out of a thorough epistemology to be taken seriously.
"God is an actual entity and being.[36] God has a primordial nature and consequent nature, with the primordial being conceptual, while the consequent nature is God as conscious"
Really? Prove it! :-)
If someone asks me about the reality and nature of God, I can show him the Scripture. Of course, he may not accept the Scripture; but at least I have a legitimate "source" and epistemological framework that can be substantiated in some way (whether believed or not). Whitehead's theories seem to be pure speculation.
"Whitehead disagreed with a traditional view of a ‘transcendent creator, at whose fiat the world came into being, and whose imposed will it obeys.’"
This, of course, is his underlying presupposition and the reason why he must re-conceptualize "god" in his own image and imagination. Whatever philosophical dress they want to put on it, the "god" of "Process Theism" is and will ever be a god created in the image and likeness of man.
Thanks for the provocation, Russ! ;-)
I'll try not to be a stranger.
'I also agree with Looney about the pure subjectiveness of Whitehead's philosophical approach. I have not read much of Whitehead, but he doesn't seem to establish an adequet (in my opinion) epistemological framework to sufficiently direct his philosophical musings. "Process Theism" must proceed out of a thorough epistemology to be taken seriously.'
ReplyDeleteWhitehead is hyper-speculative.
I suppose some critics would insist he knows better than an orthodox Christian theologian, because he is a mathematician, but I do not reason that being a mathematician makes one a good philosopher or theologian.
I realize he is historically a legitimate philosopher, but just dealing with point above, let us consider. He is not a theologian, or what I would consider a particularly good philosopher of religion. Since my PhD is as much philosophy of religion (secular) and theology, I have a professional opinion.
Would one want Pele in his prime playing for the Montreal Canadiens? Bobby Orr in his prime playing for Real Madrid?
So an argument could be:
Whitehead was a mathematician.
Whitehead was a philosopher.
Whitehead was not a theologian.
He did not reasonably understand the nature of God.
'"God is an actual entity and being.[36] God has a primordial nature and consequent nature, with the primordial being conceptual, while the consequent nature is God as conscious"
Really? Prove it! :-)'
Not Biblical of course, and not even what I would consider good philosophical speculation.
'If someone asks me about the reality and nature of God, I can show him the Scripture. Of course, he may not accept the Scripture; but at least I have a legitimate "source" and epistemological framework that can be substantiated in some way (whether believed or not). Whitehead's theories seem to be pure speculation.'
Yes.
'Whatever philosophical dress they want to put on it, the "god" of "Process Theism" is and will ever be a god created in the image and likeness of man.'
Agreed.
'Thanks for the provocation, Russ! ;-)
I'll try not to be a stranger.'
Welcome and thanks. Stranger Danger!
Agreed, for a mathematician, Whitehead's theology seems pretty inconsistent logically. How does an impersonal infinite "deist" god "direct" events with no guiding morality? And how would a finite morality succeed from an infinite amorality?
ReplyDeleteThe 'Reverend Fun' cartoon is cute. That last cartoon makes me think of 'easy-believism,' where some Christians try to push people to just 'pray a salvation prayer' before the person really even understands what repentance, sin, etc. really are.
ReplyDeleteand Charles Hartshorne (1897-2000).
Wow, so he lived to be 103!
[8] and a concept of static transcendence is rejected as instead God is understood to have a evolutionary transcendence.
This reminds me of what Mormons believe about the nature of God.
God is fully reasoned to be involved and influenced by temporal events and processes.[11] These processes unfold as sequences of events over time.[12] God, contrary to classic and traditional Christian theism is finite, temporal, changeable[13] and experiences intense emotion, pain and sadness.
This reminds me of the ancient Greek and Roman gods, who had very human-like emotions and qualities, and were prone to many human weaknesses. It also reminds me that man constantly tries to drag God down to man's level, and raise man to God's level. And of course, the first sin was Satan wanting to take God's place. And the first sin of Man was to be more like God.
As I read the article, Russ, my first thought was, "Man, I would not want to study this garbage," because of all the false teachings about God. But then the thought came to my mind that I study Islam and the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses/the Watchtower, and in the past have studied Evolution and the beliefs of Mormons, and I have had family members tell me a number of times that it is not good that I study all of that stuff (and it is true that you need to, at the same time, be spending quality and quantity time in God's Word, to 'balance it out,' so that false teachings are not your only intake). So their advice to me would be basically the same thing: that I should not study all that "garbage" so much. The reason I do it, of course, is for the sake of evangelism, because I believe that you need to 'know your enemy.' Said more positively, I think you need to start with some sort of common ground with the person you are talking with, because if he/she starts saying things, and you have no idea what they are talking about, then it makes it hard to have a conversation. And you can't address their misunderstandings or false beliefs if you have no idea what their misunderstandings or false beliefs are.
'Agreed, for a mathematician, Whitehead's theology seems pretty inconsistent logically. How does an impersonal infinite "deist" god "direct" events with no guiding morality? And how would a finite morality succeed from an infinite amorality?'
ReplyDeleteWell stated.
An eternal impersonal being cannot at some point gain personality. The impersonal nature goes back in infinitude.
A first cause would need personality and the use of reason to bring about creation.
Whitehead's view of God is false.
'The 'Reverend Fun' cartoon is cute. That last cartoon makes me think of 'easy-believism,' where some Christians try to push people to just 'pray a salvation prayer' before the person really even understands what repentance, sin, etc. really are.'
ReplyDeleteI had the LDS and Watchtower in mind, more so, but good point.
'As I read the article, Russ, my first thought was, "Man, I would not want to study this garbage," because of all the false teachings about God.'
Yes, but we agree that one needs to know countering views for serious and deeper intellectual understanding of topics.
Plus, I needed to study that type of material for my MPhil thesis degree and especially my PhD thesis degree.
Thanks.
Plus, I needed to study that type of material for my MPhil thesis degree and especially my PhD thesis degree.
ReplyDeleteYes, I know you have had to put up with a lot, in the process of earning those degrees. You have certainly had to work hard for them.
Thanks very much, Jeff, for the supportive attitude.
ReplyDeleteThe problem of evil is as much a secular philosophy of religion issue, as it is a Christian theological and Biblical issue.
Theodicy is as much as secular philosophy of religion issue, as it is a Christian theological and Biblical issue.
Free will and determinism are both philosophical and religious issues.
I have, with my MPhil thesis degree, and especially with my PhD thesis degree revisions, really had to embrace Philosophy of Religion as an academic discipline, and my finalized PhD in my view is as much Philosophy of Religion as Theology. There is some Biblical Studies as I added more Biblical content post viva, including a little Greek exegesis in the final revisions, as my reviewers did not have the problems with me using the Bible that my advisors did. In fact, they wanted more Bible!
So, this research allows me to potentially teach philosophy of religion in a philosophy department as well as teaching in a religion department.
http://www.cactusclubcafe.com/locations/bc/burnaby/byrne-road
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cactusclubcafe.com/locations/bc/burnaby/byrne-road
ReplyDeleteYes, I should be taken there for my birthday.
One step at a time Steve Austin,
ReplyDelete"We Can Rebuild Him" first the eyes,
"We have the technology!"
Happy that you are fixing your eyes.
-Dr. Sight Unseen-
'One step at a time Steve Austin,
ReplyDelete"We Can Rebuild Him" first the eyes,
"We have the technology!"
Happy that you are fixing your eyes.
-Dr. Sight Unseen-'
Yes, thanks.
A surgeon/opthamologist at UBC stated previously there was a 5 to 15% chance of significant complications with a vitrectomy. Thankfully, things went well. With a future lens replacement there will be some improvement with my vision in that eye. The other eye is normal.
Did you hear that Rifqa Bary, the 17-year-old ex-Muslim girl who ran away from her family because
ReplyDeleteher dad said he is going to kill her since she became a Christian, and who is still going through ongoing court cases, now has ovarian cancer? It seems likely that all the stress she has been going through has led to this (not being allowed to talk to anyone, being under house arrest in the foster home she is staying in, her family wanting to kill her, CAIR working against her, her lawyer failing at every turn because he is basically ignorant of what Islam is all about, etc.). Another ex-Muslim, Mosab (author of the book, "Son of Hamas"), who is a Facebook Friend, they are trying to deport out of the U.S. (if they deport him, he will likely be killed, similar to what will likely happen if they deport Rifqa Bary when she turns 18), even though he is now a born-again Christian, simply because of what he used to be.
Oh, and also, Joni Earekson Tada, the quadraplegic who is a born-again Christian and who has a radio
ministry, TV ministry, had her own movie many years ago, has written books, has sold drawings and paintings that she has done with her mouth, etc., now has breast cancer. She needs prayer as well.
Anyway, Rifqa Bary is basically facing the same Apostasy problem that a missionary to Muslims that grew up as a Muslim in Pakistan faced in Pakistan (he's the one who I took classes in Islam from, over a period of 3 weeks). His own father tried to cut off his head for being an Apostate. God miraculously saved him by using the
donkey he was tied to, to run away from his father's sword; and although University students buried him alive, God saved him by sending monsoon rains to wash him out of that grave; and, although others threw acid on him; strapped a bomb under his car; and shot at him; as well as many other attempts by Satan to kill him; God saved him each time.
'Did you hear that Rifqa Bary, the 17-year-old ex-Muslim girl who ran away from her family because
ReplyDeleteher dad said he is going to kill her since she became a Christian, and who is still going through ongoing court cases, now has ovarian cancer? It seems likely that all the stress she has been going through has led to this...'
Sad.
'Joni Earekson Tada'
I have heard her show and listened to her on other shows.
Jeff, that is quite the story. Islam produces some crazy related happenings.
Puppet Head Jeff
It's too bad that Islam is enforced with such a heavy hand.
ReplyDeleteAlmost like the Ultra Conservatives
have taken the ball and ran with it.
Ronald McDonald
'It's too bad that Islam is enforced with such a heavy hand.
ReplyDeleteAlmost like the Ultra Conservatives
have taken the ball and ran with it.
Ronald McDonald'
Dear Ronnie,
A take on your comment.
There are Biblical essentials.
There are secondary issues.
Ultra conservatives often make secondary issues essentials.
P.S. Do you go to the same hairdresser as the late Bob Ross or local sportscaster Neil Macrae?
Thank you so very kindly.
the late Bob Ross- the "Mormon" guy? heh...
ReplyDeleteYes- same barber. They all love my
fine dining establishment.
Who doesn't? It's the tops!
Ronnie
I prefer Dairy Queen.
ReplyDeleteMcworkout
“The existence of the Bible, as a book for the people, is the greatest benefit the human race has ever experienced. Every attempt to belittle it is a crime against humanity.”
ReplyDelete- Immanuel Kant
For anyone interested:
ReplyDeleteThe Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World
By Alister McGrath
Frequently Asked Questions About Islam
ReplyDelete'“The existence of the Bible, as a book for the people, is the greatest benefit the human race has ever experienced. Every attempt to belittle it is a crime against humanity.”
ReplyDelete- Immanuel Kant'
Interesting, thanks, Jeff.
From:
ReplyDeleteMcGrath
'Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
Oxford University's McGrath has distinguished himself not just as an historical theologian, but as a generous and witty writer who brings life to topics that would turn to dust in others' hands. Here he explores the history of atheism in Western culture, observing that atheism seems to be succumbing to the very fate—irrelevance and dissolution—that atheists once predicted would overtake traditional religion. How did atheism ("a principled and informed decision to reject belief in God") become so rare by the turn of the 21st century? McGrath leaves no stone unturned, nor any important source unconsulted, in tracing atheism's rise and fall. Beyond the usual suspects of Marx, Freud and Darwin, McGrath surveys literature (George Eliot, Algernon Swinburne), science (Jacques Monod, Richard Dawkins) and philosophy (Ludwig Feuerbach, Michel Foucault), managing to make such intellectual heavy lifting look effortless. As a lapsed atheist himself, McGrath is a sympathetic interpreter, but he also relentlessly documents what he contends are the philosophical inconsistency and moral failures of atheism, especially when it has acquired political power. Yet believers will find no warrant here for complacency, as McGrath shows how religion's "failures of imagination" and complicity with oppression often fostered the very environment in which atheism could thrive. Indeed, he warns, "Believers need to realize that, strange as it may seem, it is they who will have the greatest impact on atheism's future." Readable and memorable, this is intellectual history at its best.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
From Booklist
Secular intellectuals have been announcing God's funeral since the eighteenth century. But as McGrath surveys today's world, he finds faith in the deity alive and vigorous. Why did the apostles of atheism fail so spectacularly? With insights gleaned during his own years of religious unbelief, McGrath takes the measure of the titans of modern godlessness--including Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx--showing how these powerful thinkers convinced their followers that social and personal progress would accelerate once humanity surrendered its repressive beliefs in an illusory God. In acknowledging the remarkable success of political, psychotherapeutic, and scientific atheism, McGrath surprisingly traces part of that success to Protestant creeds that divorced sacred from secular, so rendering faith more vulnerable. But in the very triumph of atheism, McGrath discerns the causes of its collapse. For once in power, atheism delivered not enlightenment in utopia but rather barbarism in the gulag. Politically discredited and imaginatively exhausted, atheism has been forced into an astonishing retreat before advancing Pentecostal preachers and Christian fabulists. For readers trying to understand this unexpected reversal in cultural fortunes. Bryce Christensen
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.'
I stated on Jeff's Puppet Head blog in comments:
ReplyDeletePuppet Head
'Hey, do you want to reciprocally link? Like before. But don’t link with that satire and theology guy. He lacks the intellectual ability to write an actual academic theology blog and just about has his PhD in Theology from Jim Jones University (I would skip the PhD grad dinner, btw).'
The Twilight of Atheism sounds like a good read.
ReplyDeleteIt reads familiar to McGrath material I reviewed for my MPhil:
ReplyDeleteMcGRATH, A. (1986) Iustitia Dei, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
McGRATH, A. (1992) Bridge-Building, Leicester, Inter-Varsity Press.
McGRATH, A. (1992) Suffering, London, Hodder and Stoughton Limited.
Looney, I hope your Sunday is a blessing. Cheers.
'Hey, do you want to reciprocally link? Like before. But don’t link with that satire and theology guy. He lacks the intellectual ability to write an actual academic theology blog and just about has his PhD in Theology from Jim Jones University (I would skip the PhD grad dinner, btw).'
ReplyDeleteFunny.
I know it is black humour, but with you having attended Bob Jones University, the idea came to mind and I started laughing.
ReplyDeleteI wanted to share it.
Cheers.
Certainly my Sunday is blessed, but I am suffering from a stomach flu that has shut down much of my activities. Hopefully yours is going better!
ReplyDeletePlease get well.
ReplyDeleteMy eye, post vitrectomy, is looking better, and the soreness is less.
There are still more floaters than I would like, but probably 90 something percent are gone.
This guy is a Facebook Friend of mine.
ReplyDeletePlease pray for him, and please sign the petition. A few of his recent posts:
"Court date June 30, 2010. Time: 8:00 AM. Location DETENTION FACILITY, Right on the Mexican border. Address: 446 Alta Road, San Diego. Court is OPEN to public! 45 minutes from downtown San Diego!!"
"Thank God I am in DC. And thank United airlines because my luggage on its way to Dubai!!! Will wear my shorts for my speech at Capital Hill tomorrow night!! Probably they will kick me out. I will keep you posted. LOL"
"My Shin Bet handler just arrived to the USA to testify in my court on June 30, today we have interviews with Foxnews that will be aired in few days!! Captain "Luai" is a TRUE friend, he is not allowed to reveal his identity by the Shin Bet yet, but he is putting his life at risk AGAIN for his friends. I pray the Lord will protect him and bless him. Tonight we will share EMET award on Capital Hill."
"Please to pray for our interviews with Foxnews' EXCELLENT correspondent Jonathan Hunt. He also will be covering the court LIVE from San Diego on June 30th."
"It is getting hot on Capitol Hill. Is the situation with DHS an honest misunderstanding or somebody is pulling the strings in DC. Soon we will know. I rather to think that this is an honest bureaucratic problem. If it is not I tell whoever is pulling the strings, ESPECIALLY if they are Muslims, God is in control."
"SURPRISE!!! the person who is pulling the strings against me in DC is a Muslim. Name to be published if needed. all depends on how the fool behaves after June 30"
Will the Obama Administration Deport Mosab Hassan Yousef to Certain Death in the Middle East
War on Terror Hero, Christian Convert May Be Expelled from the United States
*PLEASE* sign the 'Save Mosab Hassan Yousef' Petition!
YouTube video: Mosab Hassan Yousef The Truth
"Mosab Hassan Yousef is a Palestinian and son of a Hamas founder and leader who spied for Israel from 1997 to 2007. Israel's internal security service, Shin Bet, considered Yousef the most valuable source within the Hamas leadership.
The information Yousef supplied prevented dozens of suicide attacks, the assassination of Israelis, and exposed numerous terrorist groups. Yousef has since converted to Christianity and moved to California, in the United States. In March 2010, he published his autobiography, "Son of Hamas: A Gripping Account of Terror, Betrayal, Political Intrigue, and Unthinkable Choices."
He applied for political asylum in the United States but his request was denied in 2009 and he is currently scheduled for deportation."
Read the rest on Wikipedia
'They Need to Be Liberated From Their God'
The 'Son of Hamas' author on his conversion to Christianity, spying for Israel, and shaming his family.
From:
ReplyDeleteLiberated
Mosab Hassan Yousef
'I converted to Christianity because I was convinced by Jesus Christ as a character, as a personality. I loved him, his wisdom, his love, his unconditional love. I didn't leave [the Islamic] religion to put myself in another box of religion. At the same time it's a beautiful thing to see my God exist in my life and see the change in my life. I see that when he does exist in other Middle Easterners there will be a change.
I'm not trying to convert the entire nation of Israel and the entire nation of Palestine to Christianity. But at least if you can educate them about the ideology of love, the ideology of forgiveness, the ideology of grace. Those principles are great regardless, but we can't deny they came from Christianity as well.'
Russ, may that eye heal up quickly! It must be quite an annoyance to have that going on with your studies.
ReplyDeleteThanks again, Looney.
ReplyDeleteOnce this heals I also will pursue a lens replacement for better vision.
Also with VGH/UBC.
At least betterment is taking place.