In Defense of Secularizing Whitehead

Process Studies 39 (2):319-333 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This essay responds to Lewis Ford’s “Allan’s Atheism,” in which he assesses a recent essay of mine that finds God an unnecessary and indeed coherence-destroying addition to Process and Reality. I clarify my position by showing how Whitehead’s notions of physical purpose and aesthetic determination adequately account for the novelty required for an actual occasion’s concrescence and for increases in achieved value. I then criticize Ford’s claim that genuine novelties must have a divine origin and that in Adventures of Ideas the Eros of the Universe refers to God

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,937

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Allan’s Atheism.Lewis S. Ford - 2010 - Process Studies 39 (2):307-318.
The Dynamic God.Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki - 2010 - Process Studies 39 (1):39-58.
Lewis S. Ford’s Theology.Robert C. Neville - 1998 - Process Studies 27 (1):18-33.
Lewis S. Ford’s Theology.Robert C. Neville - 1998 - Process Studies 27 (1):18-33.
Lewis S. Ford’s Theology.Robert C. Neville - 1998 - Process Studies 27 (1):18-33.
The Indispensability of Temporal Atomism.Lewis S. Ford - 2009 - Process Studies 38 (2):279-303.
Creativity and Causality.Lewis S. Ford - 2011 - Process Studies 40 (1):54-79.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-01

Downloads
96 (#219,477)

6 months
9 (#485,111)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references