process studies articles @ religion online...
Volume 1 (1971)
- Number 1, Spring 1971
- A Rejoinder to Justus Buchler by Ivor Leclerc
- Could There Have Been Nothing? A Reply by Charles Hartshorne
- Dialectical vs. Di-Polar Theology by Thomas J.J. Altizer
- From Criticism to Mutual Transformation? The Dialogue Between Process and Evangelical Theologies by John Culp
- Non-Being and Hartshorne’s Concept of God by Houston Craighead
- Whitehead on the Metaphysical Employment of Language by Donald A. Crosby
Ivor Leclerc discusses his disagreement with Professor Justus Buchler’s criticism of Whitehead’s metaphysical position of "ontological priority" as well as "ontological parity."
That "there might have been nothing" is meaningless or contradictory. That we can conceive each particular thing not to exist implies that we can conceive nothing existing in its place. It assumes the falsity of how we make negative judgments.
The anthropocentrism to which the author is committed locates all reality in, and in relation to, consciousness and experience. Whitehead’s commitment refuses any reality whatsoever to that which is other than consciousness or experience. Altizer, a non-Whiteheadian theologian, entertains the supposition that Whitehead’s conception of the consequent nature of God has both a christological and an eschatological ground.
Dr. Culp describes several discussions between evangelical theologians and process thinkers. Wesleyan theology is neither exclusively liberal nor evangelical, thus this discussion revolved around the more specific relationship between Wesleyan theology and process theology.
Hartshorne’s argument, if valid, is valid only if Hartshorne’s God exists, but Hartshorne fails to prove the existence of his God.
The author appraises the metaphysical language of Whitehead and its effectiveness. He affirms that distinct criteria guided Whitehead in the derivation of his terminology, and he examines these criteria.
- Number 2, Summer 1971
- Number 3, Fall 1971
- Genetic and Coordinate Division Correlated by Lewis S. Ford
- Genetic Succession, Time, and Becoming by Robert Neville
- Metaphysics and Induction by Gary Gutting
- Metaphysics and Induction’: Reply and Rejoinder by James W. Felt
- Perception and Externality in Whitehead’s "Enquiry" by Fernando R. Molina
The author defends his position in terms of insights and criticisms of several process thinkers: Robert Neville, John Cobb, F.H. Bradley, William A. Christian.
This article attempts to clarify the problem of succession. One of the most important problems is whether the genetic process within an actual occasion from initial data to satisfaction involves some kind of real or temporal succession.
The author rejects causality and "atomism" as sufficient or necessary conditions for solving the problem of induction in metapphysics.
The author replies to Gary Gutting's article "Metaphysics and Induction," stating that Gutting’s criticisms do not quite succeed in making the case. In a rejoinder, Gutting claims (and Felt seems to agree) that metaphysical theories of causal efficacy and internal relations are neither necessary nor sufficient for a solution of the problem.
The author critiques various points of Whitehead’s Enquiry, yet adjudges Whitehead as contributing some of the most exciting contributions to epistemology.
- Number 4, Winter 1971