I argue that, while Hume’s approach to Newton is sometimes critical and sometimes not, Hume’s position with regard to newtonian method is coherent overall. Rather than speaking of two Humes (one a newtonian, the other not), from an humean perspective we should rather speak of two Newtons: the positivist and the theologian.

The principal goal of this essay is to examine the manner and extent to which one actual occasion can have value for others according to Whitehead. This question divides into two, depending upon whether we are considering the relation of an entity to its past or to its future. The essay closes with a defense of the monistic interpretation of creativity in Whitehead.

In this study of Marshall’s Christology in Conflict, the author deals with three questions and issues which can be raised regarding Marshall’s argument: his account of the historical shape of the problem, his critique of Rahner, and his use of Barth’s christology.

Questions concerning issues in Christology in Conflict are addressed. James Buckley’s attention to Barth’s metaphysical account and Rahner’s notion of Jesus as Realsysmbol are highlighted and clarified. Criticisms by Robert Krieg are briefly discussed and answered. Finally, though Rahner’s transcendental account of the person of Jesus is shown to lead to certain logical inconsistencies, it is argued, nevertheless, that his christology, though internally incoherent, is valuable.

This paper is a study of Kierkegaard’s concept of despair. The Danish etymology of fortvivleslse is examined in order to argue that, for Kierkegaard, despair is not simply a feeling, but is more fundamentally a willed misrelation in the self.

In its own contemporary context, Kant’s views on the relationship between reason and religion played a crucial role in debates about the nature of the Enlightenment. The terms of that debate, as they were most sharply formulated by F. H. Jacobi, posed an either/or choice of reason or faith, between which Kant offered a third option that would synthesize reason and faith. A newly published collection of essays, Kant’s Philosophy of Religion Reconsidered, not only echoes this debate in current terms but also suggests that the unfinished business of the Enlightenment in regard to morality, religion, and the historicity of reason is still with us.

Two models of person are discussed, and while it is noted that Rahner’s christology emphasizes person as subject and Barth’s person as self-agent, both christologies include the two models. Rather than view the two models as an either/or choice or as in conflict with one another as Bruce Marshall seems to do, they should be thought of as paradoxical, and as such, valuable for leading to new insights in christology.

The emphasis on analytical reason may be insufficient to explain all of life’s enigmatic experiences. Imaginative myth can play an important role in the expression and explanation of an enigmatic occurrence. Symbols, developed from myth and the imagination, may also be useful in accepting and successfully coping with enigmas.

Postmodern understandings of the god concept, based upon sociological and anthropological insights, support the ontological reality of the god concept. AII such god constructs can be understood as real but human products which come out of a situated Drama of the Holy. The reality quotient of any god concept can be seen as a function of solidarity activities within a society. Social justice concerns are, thus, the best indicators of that reality quotient while divisive, exploitative and oppressive practices in the world tend to desanctify both society and nature thus justify Death of God analyses. Two interrelated solidarity activities are discussed for their efficacy in sanctification of nature and society: 1) situated Dramas of the Holy and, 2) social policies in the political economy. A variety of grand narratives are mentioned, each with differing foundational concepts, with which to institute social justice as we move into the 21st century.

This study calls for a re-evaluation of Schleiermacher’s relevance and contemporaneity, with special emphasis on his account of consciousness and his theory of religion. Through a critical examination of Hegel’s critique of Schleiermacher, the author argues that Schleiermacher suceeeded in overcoming the paradigm of subjectivity in some ways, and failed in others.

There are two ways in which Ghazali contributes to the discussion of whether God exists: by arguing for the existence of God, and by arguing against certain views which, in his opinion, stand in the way of truly believing that God exists. In this paper I examine Ghazali’s argument from creation and his refutation or the philosophers’ second proof for the eternity or the world. My purpose will be to argue that: firstly, Ghazali’s argument and his refutation are based on incompatible views of time, and cannot, therefore, both be maintained. Secondly, Ghazali fails to establish the one interesting premiss which he employs in his argument from creation.

Evil is a noticeably absent concept in modern and contemporary literature. The author protrays Scheler’s approach to the question of evil as that which has existence only in or on the substrate of person. Furthermore, this “dis-value” of evil, like the person, is a phenomeon of temporality.

I address a simple question: How are the notions or “discourse” and “text” to be understood, and what does it mean that they “create” their own object? A historical reconstruction seems to be required, if we are to make some sense of the provocative postmodern statements. In order to understand how a discourse can create its own object, three features need to be examined: (1) the inheritance of F. de Saussures’s structuralism, (2) the influence of the Freneh NouvelIe Critique, and (3) Heidegger’s radicalization of hermeneutics. A brief overview is provided of the first two topics, and l will then focus upon the third: an attempt to reconstruct Heidegger’s understanding of ‘discourse’, ‘Ianguage’, and ‘category’ in a course he gave on Aristotle in Freiburg University in 1931.

Religious phenomena in a technological society are increasingly technicized. The technicizing of religion folIows technological development in the broader socicty and vices arise associated with this process. With Berger I analyze the significance of introducing burcaucratic structures into religious organizations, and with Ellul the influence of modern mass media in the religious sphere.

The ontological proof is wrong because it can be used to prove not only the existence of God, but also of imaginary entities such as spirits of stones and trees. etc. It is faulty because it proves too much; it can be used to prove not only the existence of God, but also the existence of a vast number of imaginary entities to the existence of which theists would not like to commit themselves.

This paper examines the theistic interpretation of Plotinus’s conception of unity as presented in the work of John Rist. Three types of unity are identified: unity-with-difference, unity-without-difference, and unity-and-difference. I argue that the theistic interpretation encounters significant difficulties and cannot respond to the distinctions that Plotinus himself observes in his analysis of unity.

A critique of Whitehead’s conccpt of God from the standpoint of absolute idealism in general and of Hegel and Whitehead’s relation to Hegel in particular.