Sentences with phrase «with classical theism»

, my critic, with a certain partial consistency, also holds (with classical theism) that God does not necessarily create at all and might have existed solus.

So they transferred the concept of infinity from matter to the divine, which laid the foundation for most of the philosophical moves that have come to be associated with classical theism.

Not exact matches

Classical theism, we believe, can affirm the genuineness of evil and reconcile this with God's omnipotence and omnibenevolence.

Process theism might be judged cognitively superior over the classical type kalam model, not because it involves no paradox, but because it involves the least paradox in comparison with the formally possible theological alternatives, when all issues are considered.

We may then begin this critical reflection upon Hartshorne's «neoclassical theism» or «process theology» with the observation that both black and neoclassical theologies are defined in large part by their opposition to or protest against certain features of classical Western theism.

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.»

I am encouraged by his acceptance of a substantial part of my criticism of classical theism as found in Aquinas; however, he sides with Aquinas and against me on some issues.

Process theologians can share with other critics in pointing out that classical theism developed its doctrines on assumptions derived from Greek rather that biblical thought.

Though Hartshorne has never given a great deal of attention in his writings to concrete religious phenomena, he has always been concerned about the religious significance of his work, He advocates the neoclassical conception of God partly because he believes it is more in keeping with religious experience than classical formulations of either theism or pantheism.

In this scheme the quantifiers «all,» «some,» and «none» are combined with the ideas of «absolute perfection,» «relative perfection,» and «imperfection'to produce seven different conceptions of deity which are conveniently grouped into three broad types of theism: classical theism, within which God is conceived as absolutely perfect in all respects and in no way surpassable; atheistic views, in which there is no being which is in any respect perfect or unsurpassable; and the «new theism,» in which God is in some respects perfect and unsurpassable by others but is surpassable by himself.

However, those who follow Hartshorne in much of his critique of classical theism often part ways with him on the World - Soul analogy.

Hence, the only theism taken very seriously was under the first column — God wholly necessary This group of views, related with conceptual ties stronger than what Wittgenstein called family resemblance, can without exaggeration be called «classical theism.»

By working out a neoclassical theory of nonliteral religious discourse consistent with his neoclassical theism generally, he has not only overcome the notorious contradictions involved in classical theism's use of analogy and other modes of nonliteral language, he has also given good reasons for thinking that our distinctively modern reflection about God results from two movements of thought, not simply from one.

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.

By this I mean that we already have before us a way of conceiving the reality of God, in comparison with which the theism of the classical tradition can be seen to be but a first and rather rough approximation.

Thus it is not accidental that classical theism insists on a concept of God with no real relation to the world, even when this is interpreted as an affirmation of divine transcendence.

Brock identified agape love with the wrong direction of classical (patriarchal) theism in championing «disinterested» love, «dispassionate» love that includes no dynamic interrelationship between Lover and beloved and leaves God utterly unaffected by the creaturely response to God's love.21 Erotic love, by contrast, «connotes intimacy through the subjective engagement of the whole self in a relationship.»

Consequently, I hold that if one is to continue to affirm with the Christian tradition that faith in God is both indispensable and reasonable, it is incumbent on him to show that such faith may be explicated in other terms than those of classical Christian theism.

As usually presented, then, even by its more sophisticated spokesmen, classical theism requires acceptance of statements about the world, about its origin or end or the happenings within it, which men today are willing to accept, if at all, only with the backing and warrants of science or history.

These words epitomize the unyielding difficulty confronting classical theism, for it can not seem to reconcile God's goodness with his power in the face of the stubborn reality of unexplained evil.

We may speak by analogy with Hartshorne's «neoclassical theism» of Whitehead's neoclassical empiricism» precisely because it is a self - conscious revision of the classical tradition on the one hand and can be seen to consist in an analysis of the formally possible doctrines regarding the character and content of experience on the other.

For Brightman, «the expansion of God into an omnipotent being» restricted God's benevolence, even though classical theism asserted both «with equal assurance.»

Hartshorne will have nothing to do with this abstractly negative God, and it is one of the achievements of his philosophy continually to have pointed out the implications of classical theism (even though, of course, classical theists would wish to resist the drawing of some of them).

Perhaps, however, it is more accurate to say that he will only deal with the negative abstractions if they are firmly subordinated to other conceptions; if the language of classical theism is turned firmly upon its head.

Classical theism is characterized by a mechanical universe with God outside it.

With respect to the question of divine power, as we saw in the last chapter, classical theism came to accept the model of efficient causation.

Like the other two, and with equal definiteness and eloquence, he rejected classical theism (without so naming it) 3 because of its failure to protect freedom in our relation to God.

It may sound like a strange idea, yet it resonates with a great many theologians who reject «classical theism,» the broadly Platonist....