Not exact matches
As traditional theology was a relatively well defined
system, the same in certain basic respects — despite all sorts
of philosophical and ecclesiastical differences — in Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Maimonides, Leibniz, Calvin, Immanuel Kant, and some schools
of Hindu
thought, so the new theology which many be contrasted with the old is found more or less fully and consistently represented in thinkers as far apart as William James,... Henri Bergson, F. R. Tennant,... A. N. Whitehead,... Nicholas Berdyaev,... and in numerous others
of every brand
of Protestantism, besides a few... Roman Catholics.
From the perspective
of theology as we understand it, all human divisions,
systems, social and political institutions, all
philosophical thoughts, find themselves on the same level, on the side
of the created world in its corruption and promise.
These may include not only broad
philosophical issues such as whether the universe has a purpose, but also questions we have become accustomed to
think of as empirical, such as bow life first began or bow complex biological
systems were put together.
This initially occurs in Descartes and Spinoza, but it becomes far more comprehensive in Schelling and Hegel, and so much so that the whole body
of dogmatic theology undergoes a metamorphosis into pure
philosophical thinking in Hegel's
system.
This is not to suggest that Jesus spelled out, in a
philosophical system, the
thought of a divine energy at work in the world.
«Spirit» occupies the central position in Hegel's
thought; it is that «ultimate principle» which, as Whitehead suggests (PR 10), is present in any
philosophical system and is actual by virtue
of its accidents.
So I
think that there is even textual evidence to show that on a purely
philosophical basis alone, Whitehead's
system does not require us to postulate the God
of religion.
Note, first, that all
of Whitehead's
philosophical books are intended to express one and the same
system of thought, one and the same way
of understanding the nature
of things.
The brute fact
of this inconsistency pinpoints how extremely dangerous Ford's hypothesis really is; for it leads to a basic interpretative strategy that is diametrically opposed to the one required by Whitehead's many statements to the effect that his books are intended to supplement one another's omissions and compressions and that, consequently, his
system of thought, including his basic metaphysical
system, must be carefully gleaned from all his
philosophical works.
But, uniquely, the rationalists (as we use the term) insist — albeit with the same tentativeness that is required by the fallibility
of all human reflection — that some
of the elements
of an adequate
philosophical system are properly speaking metaphysical, i.e., they make claims that are said to apply to any possible world because they are
thought to be universally and necessarily true.
While the impact
of these classical theories has remained strong, I would like to point to a specific contribution that, in my view, has served as a kind
of watershed in our
thinking about the cultural dimension
of religion: Clifford Geertz's essay «Religion as a Cultural
System,» published in 1966.1 Although Geertz, an anthropologist, was concerned in this essay with many issues that lay on the fringes
of sociologists» interests, his writing is clear and incisive, the essay displays exceptional erudition, and it provides not only a concise definition
of religion but also a strong epistemological and
philosophical defense
of the importance
of religion as a topic
of inquiry.
I find this way
of thinking as a much kinder one that can offer some relief to women grieving a miscarriage, especially if she is open to other religious or
philosophical systems.
playing amateur sociologist
of knowledge, I
think some
of this denial
of the global comes from their general
philosophical commitment to free markets, assumptions which tend to view only the individual as real, making larger institutions or «
systems» metaphysical (an illusory abstraction).