David F Siemens wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 09:20:45 -0400 george murphy <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > >
> > > but that does not mean that he has come to grips with the
> > problems
> > > that Whitehead sloughed over. I contend that process theology is
> > in
> > > the same shape as Whitehead's anti-Einsteinian theory of
> > relativity.
> > Dave -
> > Could you expand on this comment a bit? I don't know if by "is
> > in
> > the same shape as" you mean
> > a) ANW's process theology has the same type of logical
> > structure as his relativity theory, or
> > b) they're both in bad condition in terms of testing of
> > their
> > implications &c.
> I meant the latter. As I recall, Eddington showed that Einstein's and
> Whitehead's theories gave the same predictions on the four matters
> considered relevant at the time. So Whitehead was then pla.lusible. But
> more mature considerations showed his theory faulty.
Whitehead's theory of gravitation passes the 3 "classic" tests of
gravitational theories but seems to predict an effect in terrestrial tides
due to the galaxy well above obervational limits, as was first realized in
1971. It is probably the best of the competitors of Einstein's theory.
> Whitehead's theory was an interpreted Euclidean geometry, but I recall no
> math in his theology/philosophy. .IMO he should have stuck to
> mathematics, where he did incredible work.
Whitehead's work had the merit of cling attention to the need to
consider divine temporality
(which I realize you won't think meritorious!) But the difficulty of
understanding the trinitarian character of God in terms of process theism
means that divine temporality is not going to be expressed adequately in
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Dialogue"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 08 2001 - 09:49:31 EDT