![]() ![]() Sherburne, in contrast to other Whiteheadians and in agreement with the "existentialists," denies that the value of life depends upon a God who either provides men with a general confidence about the final worth of life (Ogden) or with a sense of the worthwhileness of the present moment whatever its final outcome (Cobb). Another aspect of Sherburne’s original thesis, on which he touches only briefly, also calls for serious discussion: namely, that the removal of God from Whitehead’s thought might make possible a rapprochement with the existentialists, especially Camus and Sartre. ![]() John Cobb, on the other hand, denies that "Whitehead without God" has coherency, at least as presented by Sherburne, and the two Whiteheadians carry out their debate in issues of this journal (PS 1:91-113, 2:277-95, 3:27-40). Sherburne sets out to demonstrate that a viable, coherent metaphysical system can be maintained by shifting the role assigned to God in Whitehead’s cosmology to other factors within that scheme. In a programmatic essay entitled "Whitehead Without God" (PPCT 305-28), Donald W. Goss is not concerned here with the validity of Whitehead’s conception of God, but rather to demonstrate that Camus’ writings leave open the possibility of God as understood by Whitehead, and that Camus’ thoughts on rebellion and its source in the beauty of nature are compatible with and made consistent by a process notion of God. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted and Winnie Brock. Process Studies is published quarterly by the Center for Process Studies, 1325 N. The following article appeared in Process Studies, pp. ![]() James Goss, whose area of interest is religion and literature, is Associate Professor of Religious Studies at California State University at Northridge, 18111 Nordhoff Street, Northridge, California 91324. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |