The distinction allows Hartshorne to preserve the best insights of
classical theism while remedying its greatest oversights.
Not exact matches
Hartshorne attributes this consistent violation of the principle of dual transcendence to the fact that
classical theism has placed too much faith in Greek philosophy, and to a Western prejudice according to which absolute independence along with the power to the cause of events is regarded as a superior attribute
while relativity and the capacity to be an effect is mistakenly regarded as an inferior attribute.»
Hartshorne's contention is that
classical forms of both
theism and pantheism violate this «law,» since they characteristically attribute one side of the basic polarities to God
while wholly denying him the contrasting term.
Whereas
classical theism had described God as wholly other than the world and
classical pantheism had identified God and the world, in Hartshorne's view God includes the world
while transcending it.
I portrayed them, correctly I think, as remaining obsessed — albeit negatively — with the
classical god of metaphysical
theism,
while I was talking about Someone Else, the mysterious and elusive Other of the prophets and Jesus, who — like Jacques Brel — was very much alive although living in unexpected quarters.
While it may handle the problem of evil, does not process
theism's critique of
classical omnipotence open up a Pandora's box of its own?