Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Two process views of God

  • Published:
International Journal for Philosophy of Religion Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. Charles Hartshorne,Creative Synthesis and Philosophic Method (LaSalle: Open Court, 1970), p. xv. I have focused on this work of Hartshorne's since he has said that he considers it his more mature philosophic work.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Delwin Brown, ‘Freedom and Faithfulness in Whitehead's God’,Process Studies 2 (Summer 1972), p. 137.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hartshorne,op. cit., p. xv.

  4. I have argued this in Bowman L. Clarke, ‘Hartshorne on God and Physical Prehensions’,Tulane Studies in Philosophy 34 (1986). This paper was read at a symposium with Hartshorne and I took him to agree that he did use ‘prehension’ in a narrower sense than Whitehead.

  5. A. N. Whitehead,Process and Reality (New York: Macmillan, 1929), p. 32. All references toProcess and Reality will be to this edition and cited in the text as above.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hartshorne,op. cit., p. 64. Berkeley would, no doubt, have applauded this statement.

  7. SeePR, p. 375. This is an excellent summary of positive physical prehensions, or physical feelings.

  8. Hartshorne,op. cit., p. 92.

  9. A. N. Whitehead,The Principle of Relativity (Cambridge: University Press, 1922).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hartshorne,op. cit., p. 219.

  11. A. N. Whitehead,Symbolism: It's Meaning and Effect (New York: Macmillian, 1927).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lewis Ford, ‘The Divine Activity of the Future’,Process Studies II (Fall 1981), p. 171.

    Google Scholar 

  13. William Christian,An Interpretation of Whitehead's Metaphysics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959), pp. 298 and 299. In all fairness to Prof. Christian, I should say here that I received a very gracious letter from him some time ago, saying he no longer held the view cited here and that he was closer to my own view. I mentioned this work now only because it has been so important in the history of Whiteheadian scholarship.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ford,op. cit., ad passim.

  15. John T. Wilcox, ‘A Question from Physics for Certain Theists’,Journal of Religion 41 (1961), pp. 293–300. Wilcox wrote his M. A. thesis, entitledRelativity, Simularity, and Divine Omniscience, under Hartshorne at Emory University in 1960.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of Georgia, 455 Somerset Drive, 30606, Athens, GZ, USA

    Bowman L. Clarke

Authors
  1. Bowman L. Clarke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Clarke, B.L. Two process views of God. Int J Philos Relig 38, 61–74 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01322948

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01322948

Keywords

Search

Navigation