No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 October 2008
Knowledge of God, in the sense of acquaintance with him, is an unavoidable part of our experience as human beings. God is presented to us along with the other data of our experience. That is the heart of the understanding of the knowledge of God according to the doctrines of the two Process theologians who are the subjects of this paper. Quite how it is so will, I hope, follow from an exposition of the views of Schubert M. Ogden and Charles Hartshorne, who represent different aspects of the situation. Hartshorne is the philosopher, who has devoted all his intellectual life to preaching and refining his metaphysical system, while Ogden has taken up Hartshorne's discoveries for apologetic and theological reasons. A brief look at Ogden's intellectual history will set the scene.
Page 87 note 1 London, Collins.
Page 87 note 2 CWM, p. 31.Google Scholar
Page 88 note 1 CWM, p. 38.Google Scholar
Page 88 note 2 Ibid., p. 164.
Page 88 note 3 Ibid., p. 139.
Page 88 note 4 Ibid., p. 170 f.
Page 89 note 1 Ogden, S. M., The Reality of God (London. SCM Press, 1967), p. 67.Google Scholar
Page 89 note 2 CWM, p. 153, RG, pp. 3 ff.Google Scholar
Page 89 note 3 Ibid., p. 161, cf. RG, pp. 120 ff.
Page 89 note 4 Ibid., p. 166.
Page 89 note 5 See also Cobburn, R. C., ‘A Budget of Theological Puzzles’, journal of Religion 43 (1963), pp. 83–92, for some of the many logical problems raised by Ogden's proposals.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page 89 note 6 RG, p. 21.Google Scholar
Page 89 note 7 Ibid., p. 23.
Page 89 note 8 Ibid., p. 23.
Page 90 note 1 RG, p. 25.Google Scholar
Page 90 note 2 Ibid., p. 41.
Page 90 note 3 Ibid., p. 42.
Page 90 note 4 Ibid., p. 127 f.
Page 90 note 5 Ibid., p. 129.
Page 90 note 6 Ibid., p. 132 f.
Page 90 note 7 Ibid., p. 134.
Page 90 note 8 Ibid., p. 42.
Page 91 note 1 RG, p. 17.Google Scholar
Page 91 note 2 Ibid., p. 18.
Page 91 note 3 Ibid., p. 47 f.
Page 91 note 4 Ibid., p. 56 f.
Page 92 note 1 Hartshorne, , Man's Vision of God and the Logic of Theism (Hampden, Conneticut, Archon Books, 1964. First published 1941), pp. 174–211: ‘The Theological Analogies and the Cosmic Organism’.Google Scholar
Page 93 note 1 Man's Vision, op. cit., p. 230 f.Google Scholar
Page 93 note 2 Hartshorne, , Creative Synthesis and Philosophic Method (London, S.C.M. Press, 1970), p. 75.Google Scholar
Page 94 note 1 Hartshorne, , A Natural Theology for our Time (La Salle, Illinois, Open Court Publishing Co., 1967), P. 88.Google Scholar
Page 94 note 2 Creative Synthesis, op. cit., p. 131.Google Scholar
Page 94 note 3 The Logic of Perfection and Other Essays in Neoclassical Metaphysics (LaSalle, Illinois, 1962), p. 152. My italics.Google Scholar
Page 95 note 1 Hartshorne, , ‘Tillich's Doctrine of God,’ The Theology of Paul Tillich, edd. Kegley, C. and Bretall, R. (New York, Macmillan, 1952), p. 190 f.Google Scholar
Page 95 note 2 Jenson, R. W., God After God: The God of the Past and the God of the Future, Seen in the Work of Karl Barth (Indianopolis and New York, Bobbs-Merrill, 1969), p. 149.Google Scholar Jenson adds that this would not be a fair critique of Ogden. But the tendency is there.