This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
and Dynamic Views of God My paper begins with the summary of the classical causation and creation theory of Aristotle’s Metaphysics1. In the second part of my paper I shall concentrate on the contemporary answers to this issue of process theology. The last part I shall critically investigate the five proofs for the existence of God by Thomas Aquinas from a process theological point of view. In this section I will try to shed light on the main differences between the static and the dynamic views of God advising the latter. Thomas Aquinas refused the ontological proof of God2, which proves God’s existence from his essence and offered five different proofs of God’s existence the so-called five ways.3 These proofs, and in general the whole philosophical thinking method of Thomas, rely on Aristotle’s Metaphysics accepting his concept of time, space, causation and motion. These categories are by their essence interconnected. Through this lineage Thomas Aquinas deals with a static and transcendental view of God in the name of the First Unmoved Mover, what Catholic Church picks and takes as the philosophical and theological principle of the Church itself and of the Christian faith till now. The process theology is a contemporary philosophical stream based mostly on the works of Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne, main followers are for example Lewis S. Ford, John B. Cobb Jr, David Griffin. The process theological thinking often uses the philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas as an opposite starting point – and so do I in this paper, I shall concentrate more on the differences. With this method I will try to explain and enlighten the brand new position of the process theology itself. From a process theological point of view Aristotle’s theology is important, because it can be seen as a kind of response to it. On the other hand we shall not forget how important role Aristotle’s Metaphysics played in the whole Whiteheadian system, for example in his book Process and Reality4 Whitehead deals with ’potencialities’ and ’actualities’ and a similar creation theory like Aristotle .In his other book, Adventures of ideas5 Whitehead is using the terms ’Eros’, ’eternal order’, Beauty, Love and a special teleological cosmic view. What Whitehead draws has more from Aristotle, than from anything else. Beside knowing these similarities we shall concentrate on the differences and as Whitehead we will try to reach a more ’creative advance’ and another type of God and 'God -World' or 'God - Creation relation'. This critique begins with the critique of the classical God - picture. Aristotle in the Metaphysics researches the ’Being’ and treats it as a statically limitated, ended, ’atemporally everlasting endurance’, like the ’One’ of
1 Aristotle: The Metaphysics (Penguin Books, 1998) 2St. Tomas Aquinas: The Summa Theologica (Benziger Bros. Edition, 1947): First part, Treatise on the One God, The existence of God(Three artickles) Question 2, Artickle 1 and 2.Thomas criticises the 'ontological proof of God' 3St. Thomas Aquinas: The Summa Theologica (Benziger Bros. Edition, 1947) Question 2.Artickle 3: Whether God exists? Objection 1. and 2. Reply to objection 1. and 2. Thomas is expressing the 'five ways' to proove God's existence. 4 A.N.Whitehead: Process and Reality (Cambridge University Press, 1928) 5 A.N.Whitehead: Adventures of ideas ( Cambridge University Press, 1933)
Parmenides, Who endures, exists always by Himself, by His own nature. This ’First Being’ is the ’Unmoved’- or ’Unmoveable Mover’: God. Part I treats of God, who is the "first cause, himself uncaused" (primum movens immobile) and as such existent only in act (actu), that is pure actuality without potentiality and, therefore, without corporeality. His essence is actus purus et perfectos. This follows from the fivefold proof for the existence of God; namely, there must be a first mover, unmoved, a first cause in the chain of causes, an absolutely necessary being, an absolutely perfect being, and a rational designer. Since motion is everlasting in the World and in the time as well, there must be something or someone who started that process and itself everlasting, exists outside the changing time and space, exists outside from the Process, as the final cause, with pure spiritual qualities, a pure actuality, a clear Form, an everlastingly self-identified unity, the so-called: God. In Plato’s philosophy and from the eastern spiritual dualisms the world of the Forms or ideas and the world of actualities are distinctly separated, but according to Plato, God and the creation can have a kind of ’body’or worldsoul, let’s say: it has a 'matter' from which the Demiurgos had created the creation – we will discuss it later. For Aristotle, because of the inside logic of his system, God must be ’atemporally everlasting’ as He is the 'aim of the World', the ’thinking which thinks itself’, and ’the object of desire’. The World tries to be resemble to Him, to follow the pattern of perfection and desire. Until that point this could be adopted in the whiteheadian system. In Aristotle’s philosophy the entity through this self-creative process transforms itself towards an ideal pattern, but God is wholly and identically Transcendent to the World in that nexus. He is outside the’creative process', but insofar He is – in this way- outside of the whole relationship! In Aristotle’s philosophy God is the ’eternal order’ in the World, but He is not immanent inside this order. He moves the World as the object of Love, but does not exist as immanent in this love or aim. He attracks the World towards a goal through a desire to resemble to Him, but there remain a strict ontological hierarchy, a gap between God and the creation, and the immanence of the Transcendence is not possible from afar. I will advise other possible answers to this problem according to process theology and process philosophy. These anwers can be correct theologically as well, as I suggest. Back to Aristotle: for him it is unacceptable that everything is in motion and changes everlastingly, but the opposite is unacceptable as well, since the definition of life is ’to be in motion’6.The cathegories of motion and change can’t be separated from a living thing. That’s why we suggest to expand this cathegory on God as well - if we keep God in complete isolation from the process itself, and outside the 'cathegories of changing and motion' we deny that God is a living entity! The word: ’e-motion’ comes from the root ’to be in motion’, because the 'object' of the emotion and of the thinking moves the living beings, the subjects from inside as a pattern and from outside as a target and keep them stay alive, stay in motion and stay in a changing process, taking part in a continous self-developing process what means 'life' in general. Aristotle recognised the problem and designed the cathegory of ’potenciality’. This is a transient factor to the understanding of creation, because he – as most of the greek and latin philosophers – rejects the creation from nothing, according to the principle: ex nihilo nihil fit. Let me take a little walk around another question, which is somehow
6 Aristotle: The Metaphysics (Penguin Books, 1998)
connected to this problem. Along this way I shall seek the ’matter of creation’7. Seeking this notion I founded similarities wordwide. The ’matter’ or with a greek term: ’hyle’ of creation is rather interesting, because it is less material, it is not physical in any sence at all, ontologically it stands in a step before, it is a slightly mental, astral sphere, a field of energy, a power of emotion, direction, faith, a morfological field on which the creation arises. In my book ProcessTheology-Transformation I collected terms from different religions and from different philosophical systems to define this unique quality. In this research I found ’akasha’ in hindu tradition, which means a black sky full with stars, or ’shyam’: a deep blue underconsiousness, before the light arises. I also associated it with the ’vacuum’ and the ’heart-openness’, ’aeter’ or ’aer’ in early greek philosophy, they all mean a kind of hot air or fiery Pneuma which is fiery, a living quality, what is full with shine or fire, a feminin term, closer to the aspect of ’Gaia’or between Gaia and Uranous. We find similar qualities in the purusa-prakriti terms in indian philosophy, where prakriti is the feminin, chaotical phase or matter of creation where purusa, the masculin form or idea can appear. This pneuma can be associated with the breathing in and out of Brahman, through the creation of men in the Bible8 or the aer of Anaximenes. This pneuma is a potentially living, spiritual, unvisible quality which embraces every living thing. This sphere is ’Brahm’, but not identical with the first name of the hindu holy trinity: Brahman, the masculin Godhead. On the contrary: Brahm is a former kind, a neutral, a rather feminin phase and without a personality. I found the term ’Li’ in chinese philosophy, which is a 'pattern', a starbounded black sky, a 'pattern' in heaven after which everything is designed in the wordly kingdom. ’Khore’ is a greek term again, Plato uses it often, for example in Timaeus9 and elsewhere. This is the 'space of creation', a space where something can appear, the space of creation. It is empty and not empty, the ground of every creation. It can be associated with the ’substratum’ or ’substance’ in a former level. I associated it with the ’wind’, with the water, the ’holy water’, the ’breath of Brahman’, ’fiery air’, of the stoic worldsoul, a ’collective underconsciousness’ or ’superconsciousness’. ’extensive continuum’ of Whitehead and ’dürée’ of Bergson. It is the ’time-space duration’ of the united theory, and a still closer quality to the greek ’chaos’, which gets a new meaning in quantum theory, a new and positive meaning. A ’matrix’, a rather feminin ’uterus’ bounded with blood arteries, pulsing and shining, a space, but a living space which is designed to create something new. A space where all the beings (with the whiteheadian terms: ’becomings’) can appear or arise, multiply and live on. As a background or foreground for all of our activities. A vibration, a sound or frequency which as an unvisible and silent tone is pulsing behind every creation harmonising it with the whole big organism, as a part of it. An indian creation theory uses four terms describing the creation. First is AUM, a sound or vibration, second is Kal: time, third is Des: space and fourth is Anu: atomicity, molecules, electrons, DNS, etc.. So the pattern and order of creation is that: the first active factor of the creation is the Word, (Logos) after which everything is designed, a perfect information, perfect pattern, a pattern of transformation. Then comes the space and the time, where it can appear, and at the end the ultimate material elements from which the material body can be builded up. The sound or vibration, energy is the first phase, the creativity is a sound, it reveals space and time, and every other level. This
7 As I did in the book: Process – Theology - Transformation 8 Gen.:2:6-7 9 see: Plato: Timaeus in: Platonis Opera (Oxford Classical Texts, Oxford University Press, 1962)
sounds mystical but could be harmonised with the united theory of relativity and quantum theory. We deal with a level, where time and space isn’t differ from each other, where time and space are united, inside each other in this ’time-space duration’. We deal with the ’creative process’ itself, trying to enlighten the sphere where creativity itself is creative. That quality was the ’materia prima’ ontologically between existence and non-existence, changing, pulsing continously, as an active field of Creativity. Aristotle’s Metaphysics needs this, because it is impossible to create from nothing. This universe is a Cosmos: an ordered nature and a living organism, full with desire, changing, developing, aiming something good towards an ideal. We discussed potenciality in the level of creation, but we should read on Aristotle’s Metaphysics. The pair of ’actuality’ and ’potenciality’ is a dinamic opposite pair, in a mutual relation with each other. The origination of a thing is a stepping from potenciality to actuality. The matter, or with a greek term: ’hülé’, latin: ’potencia’, greek: ’dünamis’ is something which is given as a potenciality for the creation, and the ’form’ or the ’eidos morphé’ or ’energeia’, latin: ’actus’ is the actualisation. In Aristotle’s hands the platonic forms had lost their complete isolation from the actual beings, ontologically they are not apart from, but two banks of one river. The actualised beings contain their essence, called ’ousia’, and this touches the form of a thing from inside, and through the matter it is actualising itself. This creative process is called ’entelekheia’. Whitehead called it ’concrescence’, the self-creative process through which something, a potential form could be gradually actualised. The Form is the eternal essence of all beings as in Plato’s philosophy, but through it’s selfdeveloping the matter changed to be a form, get’s actualised, incarnating for the shake of expressing itself. In Aristotle’s Metaphysics we found three factors active in the creative process, not just the actus-potencia dinamic opposite pair, the third factor, the ’ousia’ is a transient one, somehow mediating the first two. Why the creation theory has an effect on God’s nature? What is the relation between a so-understanded creation and God? Beings are partly potentialities, partly actualities, they are changing and developing. God is simple, He is without matter, a pure spirituality, a pure Form, ’actus purus’, pure actuality, which is not in changing and not in motion, who is outside the process, the process of origination and creation, He can’t perish as well, He stays as He is. God is the aim of the World on one hand (a ’subjective aim’ as Whitehead calles, active from the very beginning of every actual entity, and as a goal –both personal and cosmic- an aim for the World: active from the direction of the future. This cosmic and personal desire towards an aim, symbolising the a platonic Eros, in renessaince and other heliocentrical mystics, like sufis. On the other hand the World can be taken as the matter or Body of God , a ’sense organ’– in the level of potenciality. Aristotle would reject this and Saint Thomas as well. This kind of panentheism is often misunderstood anyway, but we hold that: it still can be correct theologically. Aristotle needs to safe God in complete Transcendence, fully abstracted from the cathegories of change and motion of the world. Their relation is guided through strict ontological hierarchy and caustaion lines. The origination is motivated by four cathegories, namely: the material, the formal, the efficient, and the final cause. If we take now the God-World relationship God is the formal and the final cause of the World, He is at the beginning and at the end of every creation.
If we accept this interpretation of Aristotle’s Metaphysics we can easily recognise platonic tendencies inside, moreover sources for process philosophy and process theology. A.N. Whitehead is rather neoplatonic, but takes this picture of God from Aristotle, using the efficient and the final causation and taking God as the object of desire and as the aim giver. In Process and Reality10 Whitehead states that God gives a ’subjective aim’ to every actual entity, which is a bounch of ’eternal objects’ in a special ’nexus’ . In this way God is effective from the direction of the past, He stands at the birth of a new becoming, and as an inprint, as a pattern or life-program inside the entity He is effective from the direction of the future as well, because it contains an ideal pattern towards which the ’actual entity' can expand itself, can constitute it’s present and personal self-creative action towards it's future. God as Eros11 (see more in Adventures of ideas) through the power of Love and Beauty God attracks the World towards Him. Love and Beauty means a harmonised order in this case. Whitehead uses two phases according to Plato and Aristotle as two natures of God12. The first phase is the ’primordial nature of God’ full with potencialities, platonic forms or ideas, universals, ’eternal objects’ as Whitehead calles them. It is like a ’mental pole’, a ’pure consciousness’ at the level of the ’underconsious’. It is like ’his head full with this ideas’, ’sky’ or ’heaven’ full with thoughts, desires and ’objective immortal’ information. Whitehead calles this field: potenciality. This radically differs from Aristotle, who calles the Word of Forms or God, pure actuality, ’actus purus’. We could open a debate on this question later. The second nature of God is the ’consequent nature’, filled with wordly actual entities, drops of experiences and feelings. This is His ’body’, the Earth. This is a living organism, which mutually feels every cell and function as a ’sence organ’ of God. In this way God feels the World and the wordly actual entities experience God’s presence in the intensity of their feelings.They share feelings, information and experiences, like the cells are communicating with each other, with the surroundings form where they are emerging from, and with the whole big organism inside a body of a living entity. The third or the zero phase is the ’superject nature’ of God, this is developing, by the relationship and communication of the first and the second nature. This is called: ’Creativity’ or ’creative advance’ , which starts, leads and ends the ongoing process. At the end the actualised entity resurrects as information and takes part in Heaven, in the first nature of God, in the ’primordial nature’ as an ’objective immortal’ information. This can be associated with the incarnation of the Logos and can be understood by the hegelian triads and the heraclitos-typed process thinking, where the third phase, the synthesis does not stops but overwheling, as in Plotin: Enneades. As an owerwhelming synthesis flows back and fertilise the first phase, to form a base of a new emerging creation.. In the dualism of the two world Whitehead is a follower of Plato, but to take it organical and somehow dynamic he relys more on Aristotle and combines it with a heracleitos-typed process thinking. If this whiteheadian interpretation is correct the classical Aristotle-picture
10 A.N.Whitehead: Process and Reality (Cambridge University Press, 1928) 11 See more in: A.N.Whitehead: Adventures of ideas (Cambridge University Press, 1933) 12 A.N.Whitehead: Process and Reality (Cambridge University Press, 1928) Chapter 11: God and the World section pp. 382-392
would fail and most of it’s medieval interpretations. Aristotle has more from Plato than it is recognised till now. The Unmoved God13 is not so unmoved: because He loves and the emotion moves Him from inside and towards a goal. Just a moving thing can move other things. And moving and changing are the cathegories of a living entity and we must take God like this – as a living and as a personal being. The Infinite itself must be a self-moved one, a cyclical-dinamical-self-developing and transforming process, that makes the Infinite infinite. We easily can imagine an expanding infinite, we deal with this problem in natural sciences, especially in astronomy, moreover this infinity is ’bigger’ or ’more infinite’ than the statical one would ever be. God is 'the thinking, which is thinking on himself' as the Weltgeist of Hegel and according to Aristotle it is moving, developing, changing, living and open. The relationship between God and the World goes on different communication- and responding channels. God moves the World through love and desire, feels and loves and saves the World and every actual entity inside, as a big organism feels each and every cell, and as a response the World feels, desires and transcends itself towards Him, towards a goal, aiming something perfect pattern, actual form to be actualised. God himself is immanent inside the ideal pattern in process theology, and He is immanent inside the love and desire. The process of creation could be responded, because the relationship is mutual, bipolar, interconnected and is in balance. God has an impact on the World, but also the World has an impact on God’s nature: they share feelings, experiences, information - they are in dialog with each other. Aristotle takes the form of Plato as a formal cause and deals with a potenciality-actuality, body-mind, God and the World, Form and matter-typed dualism. Process philosophy and process theology would use a heracleitos-typed dinamism or hegelian dialectic inside to solve this dualism-problem. This type of thinking constitutes the third or the zero phase through the relationship between the first and the second, like in the hegelian triads or in the holy trinity on the incarnation of the Logos. The Form is the past, something already actualised, objectivated information, it causes, effects from the past, creates, starts a motion as a 'moved mover', but it is at the same time a goal, and a leading inside pattern, so it is effective from the direction of the future – present in the feeling and past in the forming. The static and transcendent view of God has it’s origin at Aristotle’s Metaphysics, and acording to Whitehead, especially in his earlier books, like Modes of Thought14, Concept of Nature15, Essays in Science and Philosophy16 Whitehead concentrates more on the natural sciences, and states that since Aristotle this type of thinking is a ghost is philosophy, theology and sciences. In process philosophy there is no subject-object relation, no subject-object - typed experience, no subject-predicate- typed logical thinking, and there is no An Sich abstraction from the Process itself because it deals with another notion of the self, space and time. Therefore it leads to an organic and ecological view of the Planet, and to a dynamic and open religion, to an open society and to a
13God himself is uncaused (primum movens immobile) 14A.N. Whitehead: Modes of Thought (Cambridge University Press, 1946) 15A.N. Whitehead: Concept of Nature (Cambridge University Press, 1986) 16A.N. Whitehead: Essays in Science and Philosophy (Philosophical Library, 1947)
more tolerant ethic. Thomas Aquinas plays an important role, because most of the principles of the Catholic Church are based on his philosophy and theology. He - as an Aristotle interpretator - tries to reconcile christian faith with philosophy, establishing a new 'philosophical theology'. He tries to combine Aristotle’s God picture with a christian faith. I am not in a position to make a crtitique over his efforts, but i can hide behind another tradition. Charles Hartshorne, the ’father’ of process theology, follower of Whitehead established a process theological system, called: ’neoclassical or bipolar theism’17. Most of the process theological thinkers are religious of a kind, and so process theology and catholicism also can be combined in a way. Hartshorne himself accepted Saint Thomas’s view of God. I would say that in this contemporary stream it is still a pulsing around the God picture, everyone handle it somehow a very personal and new way. In 'my' process theology I would use Saint Thomas’s thinking as an opposite starting point and concentrating on the differences. In this paper in the following I will try to open his ’five ways18’ to a direction of a new interpretation. These five proofs of God’s existence rely on the aristotelian notion of time, space, causation and motion. Through this lineage –in my opinionAquinas still has a statical and Transcendent view of God, using the terms: the First, Unmoveable Mover, the First Cause, Actus purus etc..what – or in this case: who – sustain by himself, uncaused, unchanging, without potenciality. The Highest leader, Aimgiver, and the pattern of the highest perfection. He is transcendently outside the process, so he starts to run statically linear lines as the first member of these lines, or as the patter or idealised form of them. The proofs are starting like this: there must be a first cause, a first mover, a selfsustaining one…etc, and ending up with the summarising of the principle: because the explaining or causation line 'can’t go to the infinite'. With a process theological question we could ask, firstly: why not? Why we are not allowed to go to the infinite? With other words: Why we are not allowed at least mentally to go to the infinite, to the personality of the Infinite? And why we are not allowed to use a dynamic notion of the Infinite instead of a static notion? A personal one, who can interact, response and feel, instead of a statical, wholly transcendent one, who is a nonliving abstraction, can’t hear and listen, unable to every reaction, and rules from outside. Especially in the case of the Infinite other alternatives could arise. An infinite is rather a cyclical and dinamical, growing, expanding, developing infinite, then to be just a first number in a line. The difference is here as elsewhere hiding behind the eastern and western thinking about motion, space and time, which influences our thinking about our personality, our life, death, immortality and so on. I revealed - firstly it was just an instinct then I found a text to proove -, where hides the origin of this statical God picture? Whitehead in his book Science and The Modern World19 chapter called
17 Charles Hartshorne:Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes. (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984) 18St. Thomas Aquinas: The Summa Theologica (Benziger Bros. Edition, 1947) Question 2.Artickle 3: Whether God exists? Objection 1. and 2. Reply to objection 1. and 2. Thomas is expressing the 'five ways' to proove God's existence. 19A.N. Whitehead: Science and the Modern World (The Maxmillan Company, 1926)
Mathematics and the Good writes that the notion of the Good of Plato, what he also associated with the Sun, the king of the world of the ideas, the symbol of the philosopher king, and with God himself, this entity was taken from the mathematics! We all know how important role mathematics played in Plato’s works, because of a possible püthagorean influence, which was a vivid but hidden tradition behind early greek philosophy since the age of Anaximander and before, from the age of Thales, who carried the magic of mathematics from Egypt. Whitehead states that the notion of the Good or God or the Sun in the platonic system was derived from maths, the origin was the first One number! The püthagorean sect adored numbers and the One number was associated with God. It is still a question if we take the number One as a summarising, a uniting factor or we take it as the ideal pattern of all numbers, it is not a 'number' at all, but a model of all numbers, not the first in the line, but the ideal form of it. The geometry of Euclid deals with static notions of space and time on an abstract geometrical field. According to Whitehead it is inadequat to project it on the nature of God, because this geometry nevermind how sacred it is, it is nonliving. Thomas Aquinas researched the Being in a mathematical way – at least in the five proofs, and in terms of logic. The first member of the line is a number. The staticality of this thinking method based on the statical theory of the moving, space and time, what he adopted from Aristotle’s Metaphysics and from the maths. Of course it is easier to count with numbers, static space and time points then to count with fields of possibilities, expanding infinities, but this more describes life. As a rival cosmology I would suggest to imagine different lines, paralel or not, diverging and converging with each other as a whole complexity of possibilities. A pulsing, living 'matrix' surrounding us, a 'time-space duration' called: 'heaven', a 'God- presence' on earth and as well in the same time, on the other hand our personal presence, and taking part in heaven in the forms of the intensity of our emotions. We can describe this interconnection between God and creation with these terms: 'relativity', 'intersubjectivity', 'mutuality', 'tolerance' and 'opennes' to the Other. Around that time christianity had been in a historical situation to choose between two thinking methods: to be rather neoplatonic or to be neoaristotelian – christianity chose Aristotle through Thomas and for hundreds of years lived and still lives, a ’false’ God-picture, on this principle based a closed society theory, a very discriminative ethic and an intolerant religion. Thanks to the relativity theory of Einstein and the Quantumtheory a new space-time notion i arose, a more 'brahman' quality, according to the vedanta. If we would like to follow and fulfill Thomas Aquinas’s basic effort to reconcile christian faith with science and scientific knowledge20 I advice to take my dynamic version at least as a rival possibility.
20Lewis S. Ford: Thomas Aquinas and Contemporary Philosophical Options (Theological Studies, 1995)
List of the books used or referred to in the text Aristotle: Metaphysics (Penguin Books, 1998) Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologica(Benziger Bros. Edition, 1947) Lewis S. Ford: Thomas Aquinas and Contemporary Philosophical Options (1979, abstract of a conference) James W. Felt: Thomas and Whitehead: Perspectives of convergence Lewis S. Ford: Transforming Process Theism (SUNY, 2000) Haught, John F: Stubborn Fact and Creative Advance: An Introduction to Whitehead ( Theological. Studies, 1995) A.N. Whitehead: Process and Reality(Cambridge university Press, 1928) A.N.Whitehead: Modes of Thought (Cambridge University Press, 1946) A.N. Whitehead:Adventures of ideas (Cambridge University Press, 1933) A.N. Whitehead: Essays in Science and Philosophy (Philosophical Library, 1947) A.N. Whitehead: Science and The Modern World (The Maxmillan Company, 1926) A.N. Whitehead: Concept of Nature (Cambridge University Press, 1986) A.N. Whitehead: Religion in the Making(The Maxmillan Company, 1929) A.N. Whitehead: Folyamat és valóság (Typotex, 2001) A.H. Johnson: Whitehead's Theory of Reality Charles Hartshorne: Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes(Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984) John B. Cobb Jr: A Christian Natural Theology Based on the Philosophy of A.N. Whitehead (Westminster Press, 1965) Árik Zsófia: Folyamat – Teológia - Transzfomáció
Árik Zsófia (Eötvös Lóránd Tudományegyetem, Antik filozófia doktori oktatási program) Aquinói Szent Tamás és a folyamatteológia: a statikus és a dinamikus Istenkép
"Nem volt semminek nemléte sem léte nem volt levegő és fölötte kék ég. Hol volt a világ, mi takarta, védte? Hol volt a magasság és hol a mélység? Az élet még nem vált el a haláltól, egymásban pihent a nap és az éjjel lélegzés nélkül lélegzett magától az Egy és magányát dobogta széjjel. Fekete volt minden, mint mikor éj van az idő csak készülő óceán volt ekkor az Egy, mely ott aludt a héjban áttüzesedett, s burkából kilángolt.." Rig-Véda: X, 129.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?