Not exact matches
John Cobb recently has given a fine account of these prehensions of the consequent nature.3 Without an adequate account of our consciousness of God, here achieved
by prehension of the consequent nature, these
intuitions would have no rational justification that they really came from the
divine.
The answer, he believes, is «that we know what «knowledge» is partly
by knowing God, and that though it is true that we form the idea of
divine knowledge
by analogical extension from our experience of human knowledge, this is not the whole truth, the other side of the matter being that we form our idea of human knowledge
by exploiting the
intuition... which we have of God» (155).
Such «religious
intuitions» are the «somewhat exceptional elements of our conscious experience» that Whitehead seeks to elucidate as evidence for God's consequent experience of the world.9 Only a living person experiencing a whole series of
divine aims, sensitive to the way in which these shift, grow, and develop in response to our changing circumstances can become aware of their source as dynamic and personal, meeting our needs and concerns.10 Jesus, full of the Spirit, knew God personally in this intimate way, until these aims were taken from him in the hour of his deepest need, when he experienced being forsaken
by God on the cross.
The entitative view of God disallows the kind of
divine freedom that is presupposed
by the religious
intuition of God's faithfulness.