process studies articles @ religion online...
Volume 11 (1981)
- Number 1, Spring 1981
- Concerning Creativity and God: A Response by Robert Neville
- Divine Omnipotence: Plantinga vs. Griffin by David and Randall Basinger
- Kraus’s Boethian Interpretation of Whitehead’s God by Rem B. Edwards
- On Applying Whitehead’s First Category of Existence by Joseph E. Earley
- Reply to the Basingers on Divine Omnipotence by Alvin Plantinga
Dr. Neville discusses criticisms of his thoughts by Hartshorne, Cobb and Ford. Freedom, Biblicism and dialogue are the main topics in which there is disagreement.
The classical theist indicts the process theist for "solving" the problem of evil by forfeiting a meaningful notion of divine omnipotence while the process theist indicts the classical theist for proposing a view of divine omnipotence that makes the problem of evil unsolvable. The authors attempt to show that neither indictment holds.
Dr. Edwards declares the position of Elizabeth M.. Kraus’s The Metaphysics of Experience is impossible.. He holds that it is irreconcilable with the many texts in which Whitehead suggests that there is real succession and process in God himself.
Dr. Earley is concerned about issues raised by Felt against Wallack’s confounding "ontological" and "epistemological" aspects of actual entities.. "He has failed to clarify how satisfaction of subjective aim is connected with being perceived as a unitary whole."
The author discusses some of the criticism put forth by David & Randall Basinger. He discusses I-omnipotence, free will and evil.
- Number 2, Summer 1981
- Number 3, Fall 1981
- Experience, Dialectic, and God by Herbert J. Nelson
- Philosophy and Classical Determinism by Milic Capec and Brenton Stearns
- The Divine Activity of the Future by Lewis S. Ford
The author argues that the view that the process account rests on experiences in some sense while other metaphysical and theological accounts do not, is at the very least thoroughly misleading, and at the very worst quite false.
In two separate sections, Drs. Capek and Stearns agree and critique each other on their views of determinism as held by contemporary process philosophy. Is time as understood by process thought incompatible with causal determinism?
It is difficult to speak of God as a actual entity, for God cannot be objectified, yet God does not transcend the categories. Whitehead transforms the categories of being into categories of becoming.
- Number 4, Winter 1981
- Complementarity, Bell’s Theorem, and the Framework of Process Metaphysics by Henry J. Folse, Jr.
- Organization and Process: Systems Philosophy and Whiteheadian Metaphysics by James E. Huchingson
- Psychological Physiology From the Standpoint of a Physiological Psychologist by George Wolf
- Self-Organization and Agency: In Chemistry and In Process Philosophy by Joseph E. Earley
Realism and quantum mechanics can both be retained once the ontology of classical materialism is fully relinquished. Process metaphysics has injected into the career of philosophy crucial ontological conceptions, both critical and constructive, which may well serve as seeds from which a fuller understanding of the nature of the physical world, in both science and philosophy, may grow.
The author explores the philosophical visions of Whitehead and Ervin Laszlo, finding similarities and some serious differences. However, they both seem to agree on a pattern of meaningful organization.
The author’s concern is how mind and body are related and how research in neurobehavior is influenced by process cosmology.
Dr. Earley compares process philosophy with the science of chemistry -- both open-system structures which exist in an antecedent world.