This analysis examines the theme of divine activity as found in the literature of religion and science over the past quarter century. After a brief historical chapter, reflections on divine action from authors in the philosophy of religion are considered. In chapters 2 and 3, concepts such as intervention, deism, master act and subacts, primary and secondary causation, double agency and the causal joint are outlined. Following this, chapters 4 and 5 concentrate on the work of Whitehead. The amount of space devoted to the treatment of process thought in this investigation reflects the attention it has given to the topic of divine activity. / The focus then turns to scientific subjects and how they may inform the question of divine action. Some of the themes highlighted in the case of the large-scale world (chapter 6) include natural laws, evolution, the anthropic principle and the implicate order. Those concepts more appropriate for the small-scale world (chapter 7) involve quantum mechanics, thermodynamics and chaos theory. The positioning of process thought between the two fields of science and the philosophy of religion is strategic in the sense that process thinking claims to have built a bridge between science and religion, physics and metaphysics. / In the concluding chapter, the various positions are plotted on three graphs. This approach illumines their relation to the others as well as the facet each can be expected to bring to the overall discussion of divine activity. A resolution to the issue, if any, will likely exhibit Whiteheadian and/or Bohmian contours.

The thesis seeks to set the question "Can God act in history" in a Whiteheadian perspective, but first seeks to clarify the question itself. The first chapter examines the concept of action in general terms, and goes on to explore Whitehead's understanding of it, before applying the 'findings' to talk of God's action. The second chapter similarly addresses the notion of history, asking what procedures the historian follows in giving his account of the past, and whether God could be properly used as a referent within such constraints. Again Whitehead's view on the subject is examined. Chapter Three examines more overtly theological issues necessary for consideration of divine action, such as the concepts of violation, intervention, and 'willing' and 'permitting', before reviewing the work of Farmer, Farrer and Peacocke. The fourth and fifth chapters serve to direct our attention to Whitehead's cosmological system. The briefest biographical outline is followed by a selective exposition of his mature doctrines, and then an attempt to discern any movement or development in his thought through his corpus of writings. The whole of Chapter Five is then given over to an examination of particularly relevant interpretive problems in the system. In order to see what use has been made of Whiteheadian resources in answering our question we next examine a pair of Process Theologians in each of Chapters Six and Seven. Firstly, Ogden and Williams are found to give too passive an impression of God's activity which struggles to accommodate the findings of our earlier chapters. Cobb and Griffin are, however, found to give more satisfactory accounts. In the final chapter we pursue our own position, first by discussing the suitable components of a definition of miracle, then by considering the problem of theodicy in dialogue with Griffin. A brief conclusion follows.

No description available.

Thesis (M. Div.)--St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary, 1986. / Includes bibliographical references (leaf 64).

No description available.

Jacques Derrida's lecture entitled "How to Avoid Speaking: Denials", given in Jerusalem in 1986, responds both to those who subsume his project within negative theology and to those that ignore their interrelation. The former fail to see that while negative theology is oriented towards ineffable union with the divine, deconstruction radically denies the possibility of this union. The latter, however, read negative theology solely in the context of this ineffable union, ignoring the possibility of a second apophatic language whose critique of language is itself so radical that it engages in a paradoxcical self-critique that denies, if not union itself, at least the possibility of speaking about union. This second, concurrent language has a distinct family resemblance to Derrida's own deconstructive project, for it embraces the radically negative denials of differance. This study will first present a critique of those who offer either an affirmative or negative answer to the question "Is deconstruction a form of negative theology?", arguing instead that Derrida denies all answers. Its final step will analyze the similarities between negative theology's escape from the silence of pure denial--prayer--and Derrida's own means of escaping the silence summoned when he asks: "How to avoid speaking?"

No description available.

Diss. Universität Düsseldorf. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 168-176) and indexes.

Thesis (Th. M.)--Dallas Theological Seminary, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 45-46 ).

Thesis (Th. M.)--Dallas Theological Seminary, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 45-46 ).