No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

This thesis examines the controversy surrounding the doctrine of atonement among transatlantic Methodist during the Victorian and Progressive Eras. Beginning in the eighteenth century, it establishes the dominant theories of the atonement present among English and American Methodists and the cultural-philosophical worldview Methodists used to support these theories. It then explores the extent to which ordinary and influential Methodists throughout the nineteenth century carried forward traditional opinions on the doctrine before examining in closer detail the controversies surrounding the doctrine at the opening of the twentieth century. It finds that from the 1750s to the 1830s transatlantic Methodists supported a range of substitutionary views of the atonement, from the satisfaction and Christus Victor theories to a vicarious atonement with penal emphases. Beginning in the 1830s and continuing through the 1870s, transatlantic Methodists embraced features of the moral government theory, with varying degrees, while retaining an emphasis on traditional substitutionary theories. Methodists during this period were indebted to an Enlightenment worldview. Between 1880 and 1914 transatlantic Methodists gradually accepted a Romantic philosophical outlook with the result that they began altering their conceptions of the atonement. Methodists during this period tended to move in three directions. Progressive Methodists jettisoned prevailing views of the atonement preferring to embrace the moral influence theory. Mediating Methodists challenged traditionally constructed theories for similar reasons but tended to support a theory in which God was viewed as a friendlier deity while retaining substitutionary conceptions of the atonement. Conservatives took a custodial approach whereby traditional conceptions of the atonement were vehemently defended. Furthermore, that transatlantic Methodists were involved in significant discussions surrounding the revision of their theology of atonement in light of modernism in the years surrounding 1900 contributed to their remaining on the periphery of the Fundamentalist-Modernist in subsequent decades.

Over the past thirty years, academic dialogues on the relationships between the sciences and religions have flourished, albeit primarily within Judeo-Christian historical, theological and philosophical contexts. Can a Hindu tradition be brought into this dialogue? The Bhagavata Purana is one of the most well-known sacred texts of India, and biology, Darwinism in particular, has become one of the most spirited areas of the science and religion dialogue in academia, as well as in the popular media. This thesis examines the possibility, scope and foundational topics involved in a dialogue between Vaisnava-Hindu theology as found in the Bhāgavata, and the theoretical, philosophical and theological issues surrounding contemporary biology. To examine the possibility and scope of a Bhāgavata-science dialogue, I focus on the theological, ontological, epistemological and teleological presuppositions that each tradition bring to the study of nature, outlining the similarities and differences in their approaches. I establish the grounds for further discussion through a comparative analysis of terms such as "consciousness," "knowledge" and "goal of knowledge" as they appear in the Bhagavata and noteworthy Darwinian texts. My argument is that although prima facie the two traditions appear different in their philosophical, scientific and theological approaches, there are a number of areas of common interest and parallels, especially in their epistemologies and teleologies. In the case of genuine differences, such as their views on the ontology of consciousness, I demonstrate the possibility of reconciliation. Clarifying the conceptual differences, establishing parallels and demonstrating areas of common interests opens the possibility and widens the scope for further dialogue.

Vers la fin du 19ème siècle, le moine et réformateur hindou Swami Vivekananda affirma que la science moderne convergeait vers l'Advaita Vedanta, un important courant philosophique et religieux de l'hindouisme. Au cours des décennies suivantes, suite aux apports scientifiques révolutionnaires de la théorie de la relativité d'Einstein et de la physique quantique, un nombre croissant d'auteurs soutenaient que d'importants "parallèles" pouvaient être tracés entre l'Advaita Vedanta et la physique moderne. Encore aujourd'hui, de tels rapprochements sont faits, particulièrement en relation avec la physique quantique. Cette thèse examine de manière critique ces rapprochements à travers l'étude comparative détaillée de deux concepts: le concept d'akasa dans l'Advaita Vedanta et celui de vide en physique quantique. L'énoncé examiné est celui selon lequel ces deux concepts pointeraient vers une même réalité: un substratum omniprésent et subtil duquel émergent et auquel retournent ultimement les divers constituants de l'univers. Sur la base de cette étude comparative, la thèse argumente que des comparaisons de nature conceptuelle favorisent rarement la mise en place d'un véritable dialogue entre l'Advaita Vedanta et la physique moderne. Une autre voie d'approche serait de prendre en considération les limites épistémologiques respectivement rencontrées par ces disciplines dans leur approche du "réel-en-soi" ou de la "réalité ultime." Une attention particulière sera portée sur l'épistémologie et le problème de la nature de la réalité dans l'Advaita Vedanta, ainsi que sur le réalisme scientifique et les implications philosophiques de la non-séparabilité en physique quantique. / Toward the end of the 19th century, the Hindu monk and reformer Swami Vivekananda claimed that modern science was inevitably converging towards Advaita Vedanta, an important philosophico-religious system in Hinduism. In the decades that followed, in the midst of the revolution occasioned by the emergence of Einstein's relativity and quantum physics, a growing number of authors claimed to discover striking "parallels" between Advaita Vedanta and modern physics. Such claims of convergence have continued to the present day, especially in relation to quantum physics. In this dissertation, an attempt is made to critically examine such claims by engaging a detailed comparative analysis of two concepts: akasa in Advaita Vedanta and vacuum in quantum physics. What is examined is the claim that both concepts would refer to the same reality — an enduring, subtle and all-pervading physical substratum out of which the constituents of the world come into existence and to which they ultimately return. Based on this study, the dissertation argues that comparisons relying on conceptual affinities alone generally fall short of establishing a productive dialogue between Advaita Vedanta and modern physics. Another approach is to bring into focus the epistemological limits respectively encountered by these systems when attempting to define the content of "reality-in-itself" or "ultimate reality." Emphasis is given to epistemology and the problem of reality in Advaita Vedanta, and scientific realism and philosophical implications of nonseparability in quantum physics.

Henry Corbin a écrit qu’« un Maître Eckhart et un Jacob Boehme eussent parfaitement compris Ibn ʿArabî, et réciproquement. » Mais comment assurer ce dialogue et cette compréhension réciproque pressentie par Henry Corbin? Cette recherche porte essentiellement sur les conditions de possibilités de ce dialogue, puisque la comparaison entre Ibn al-ʿArabī et Böhme n’est encore qu’à ses balbutiements. En choisissant le prisme de l’imagination, le but est double : pouvoir traiter de manière non réductrice les phénomènes spirituels en parcourant et analysant la logique spécifique de l’imagination ; et, sous l’égide de la hiérohistoire, explorer le rôle de l’imagination dans la métaphysique et l’éthique d’Ibn al-ʿArabī et de Böhme. Il s’agit donc d’essayer de lire Ibn al-ʿArabī et Böhme comme ils lisaient eux-mêmes le Livre révélé de leur tradition respective. Au final, il appert que le théophanisme caractéristique tant de la métaphysique d’Ibn al-ʿArabī que de celle de Böhme est une riche terre d’accueil de l’imagination et de l’imaginal. Et que, si la comparaison strictu sensu entre Ibn al-ʿArabī et Böhme est impossible, l’esprit comparatif et transdisciplinaire de cette recherche, ainsi que la méthode phénoménologico-herméneutique, offrent de nouvelles avenues de réappropriation pour l’ensemble des phénomènes spirituels. / Henry Corbin wrote that a “Meister Eckhart and Jacob Boehme would fully understand Ibn ʿArabî, and vice versa.” But how can we ensure this dialogue and mutual understanding anticipated by Henry Corbin? This research is essentially on the conditions of possibilities of this dialogue, especially because the comparison between Ibn al-ʿArabī and Böhme is still in its infancy. By choosing the prism of the imagination, the goal is twofold: approach spiritual phenomena in a non-reductive way by browsing and analyzing the specific logic of imagination; and, under the auspices of the concept of hierohistory, explore the role of imagination in the metaphysics and ethics of Ibn al-ʿArabī and Böhme. It is therefore an effort to read Ibn al-ʿArabī and Böhme as they read themselves the revealed book of their respective tradition. Finally, it appears that the theophanism characteristic of the metaphysics of both Ibn al-ʿArabī and Böhme is a rich haven for imagination and imaginal. If the comparison between Ibn al-ʿArabī and Böhme is stricto sensu impossible, the comparative and transdisciplinary spirit of this research, as well as its the phenomenological-hermeneutic method, opens up new avenues of re-appropriation for all spirituals phenomena.

Vers la fin du 19ème siècle, le moine et réformateur hindou Swami Vivekananda affirma que la science moderne convergeait vers l'Advaita Vedanta, un important courant philosophique et religieux de l'hindouisme. Au cours des décennies suivantes, suite aux apports scientifiques révolutionnaires de la théorie de la relativité d'Einstein et de la physique quantique, un nombre croissant d'auteurs soutenaient que d'importants "parallèles" pouvaient être tracés entre l'Advaita Vedanta et la physique moderne. Encore aujourd'hui, de tels rapprochements sont faits, particulièrement en relation avec la physique quantique. Cette thèse examine de manière critique ces rapprochements à travers l'étude comparative détaillée de deux concepts: le concept d'akasa dans l'Advaita Vedanta et celui de vide en physique quantique. L'énoncé examiné est celui selon lequel ces deux concepts pointeraient vers une même réalité: un substratum omniprésent et subtil duquel émergent et auquel retournent ultimement les divers constituants de l'univers. Sur la base de cette étude comparative, la thèse argumente que des comparaisons de nature conceptuelle favorisent rarement la mise en place d'un véritable dialogue entre l'Advaita Vedanta et la physique moderne. Une autre voie d'approche serait de prendre en considération les limites épistémologiques respectivement rencontrées par ces disciplines dans leur approche du "réel-en-soi" ou de la "réalité ultime." Une attention particulière sera portée sur l'épistémologie et le problème de la nature de la réalité dans l'Advaita Vedanta, ainsi que sur le réalisme scientifique et les implications philosophiques de la non-séparabilité en physique quantique. / Toward the end of the 19th century, the Hindu monk and reformer Swami Vivekananda claimed that modern science was inevitably converging towards Advaita Vedanta, an important philosophico-religious system in Hinduism. In the decades that followed, in the midst of the revolution occasioned by the emergence of Einstein's relativity and quantum physics, a growing number of authors claimed to discover striking "parallels" between Advaita Vedanta and modern physics. Such claims of convergence have continued to the present day, especially in relation to quantum physics. In this dissertation, an attempt is made to critically examine such claims by engaging a detailed comparative analysis of two concepts: akasa in Advaita Vedanta and vacuum in quantum physics. What is examined is the claim that both concepts would refer to the same reality — an enduring, subtle and all-pervading physical substratum out of which the constituents of the world come into existence and to which they ultimately return. Based on this study, the dissertation argues that comparisons relying on conceptual affinities alone generally fall short of establishing a productive dialogue between Advaita Vedanta and modern physics. Another approach is to bring into focus the epistemological limits respectively encountered by these systems when attempting to define the content of "reality-in-itself" or "ultimate reality." Emphasis is given to epistemology and the problem of reality in Advaita Vedanta, and scientific realism and philosophical implications of nonseparability in quantum physics.

Henry Corbin a écrit qu’« un Maître Eckhart et un Jacob Boehme eussent parfaitement compris Ibn ʿArabî, et réciproquement. » Mais comment assurer ce dialogue et cette compréhension réciproque pressentie par Henry Corbin? Cette recherche porte essentiellement sur les conditions de possibilités de ce dialogue, puisque la comparaison entre Ibn al-ʿArabī et Böhme n’est encore qu’à ses balbutiements. En choisissant le prisme de l’imagination, le but est double : pouvoir traiter de manière non réductrice les phénomènes spirituels en parcourant et analysant la logique spécifique de l’imagination ; et, sous l’égide de la hiérohistoire, explorer le rôle de l’imagination dans la métaphysique et l’éthique d’Ibn al-ʿArabī et de Böhme. Il s’agit donc d’essayer de lire Ibn al-ʿArabī et Böhme comme ils lisaient eux-mêmes le Livre révélé de leur tradition respective. Au final, il appert que le théophanisme caractéristique tant de la métaphysique d’Ibn al-ʿArabī que de celle de Böhme est une riche terre d’accueil de l’imagination et de l’imaginal. Et que, si la comparaison strictu sensu entre Ibn al-ʿArabī et Böhme est impossible, l’esprit comparatif et transdisciplinaire de cette recherche, ainsi que la méthode phénoménologico-herméneutique, offrent de nouvelles avenues de réappropriation pour l’ensemble des phénomènes spirituels. / Henry Corbin wrote that a “Meister Eckhart and Jacob Boehme would fully understand Ibn ʿArabî, and vice versa.” But how can we ensure this dialogue and mutual understanding anticipated by Henry Corbin? This research is essentially on the conditions of possibilities of this dialogue, especially because the comparison between Ibn al-ʿArabī and Böhme is still in its infancy. By choosing the prism of the imagination, the goal is twofold: approach spiritual phenomena in a non-reductive way by browsing and analyzing the specific logic of imagination; and, under the auspices of the concept of hierohistory, explore the role of imagination in the metaphysics and ethics of Ibn al-ʿArabī and Böhme. It is therefore an effort to read Ibn al-ʿArabī and Böhme as they read themselves the revealed book of their respective tradition. Finally, it appears that the theophanism characteristic of the metaphysics of both Ibn al-ʿArabī and Böhme is a rich haven for imagination and imaginal. If the comparison between Ibn al-ʿArabī and Böhme is stricto sensu impossible, the comparative and transdisciplinary spirit of this research, as well as its the phenomenological-hermeneutic method, opens up new avenues of re-appropriation for all spirituals phenomena.

My dissertation gives the first analysis of misery in the thought of Aquinas and Teresa of Ávila, providing new insight into their ideas of happiness through means of contrast. I use the terms “misery” and “happiness” in a traditional sense to indicate life lived poorly or well, respectively, and I investigate these notions in Aquinas’ and Teresa’s principal texts, especially the Summa Theologiae and The Interior Castle. Both thinkers identify misery as a privation of God: a lack of the share in God’s goodness that one ought to have. Both see the escape from misery as a process of perfecting the soul’s faculties of intellect and will to unite one to God. For Aquinas, happiness is essentially an intellectual perfection: knowledge of God. Conversely, misery is an intellectual defect: lack of the knowledge of God that one ought to have. Moreover, Aquinas so analyzes “ought” that misery is a lack of what is naturally desired. Perfect happiness comes with the full understanding of God that one can only attain in heaven, but a middle ground exists between perfect happiness and misery. Even in this life, one can attain “imperfect happiness,” and the analysis of misery helps to clarify this obscure notion. The imperfectly happy have not acquired their consummate perfection, but understand as much about God as nature presently compels them to desire to know. A right will is both necessary and sufficient for escaping misery and obtaining happiness. The will depends on the intellect in such a way that it cannot desire correctly unless the intellect understands correctly. Moreover, sin colors one’s perception of reality, so that evil desire in the will causes error and ignorance in the intellect. Thus, one escapes misery if and only if one chooses to love God as one’s ultimate end. For Teresa, happiness is the union with God through knowledge and love for which the soul was made, and misery is the lack of this union. The soul escapes misery by developing a relationship with God in contemplative prayer, and Teresa illustrates happiness and misery through the titular metaphor of The Interior Castle. Notably, happiness requires that one’s union with God become perfectly secure, and I identify an intellectualist strain in Teresa that implies that the will cannot become perfectly committed to God unless the intellect can become perfectly firm in its certainty that God is the sole good. The quest for certainty is difficult, since like Descartes who will follow her, Teresa posits the existence of a deceiving demon with considerable influence over all the soul’s powers. Against that threat, Teresa claims to find certainty through mystical experience. God is Truth, containing and grounding all other truths. In the “spiritual marriage,” the soul sees God’s Triune nature as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, really three distinct persons yet one substance. The directness of this vision provides a certainty which no deception can overcome.