Notes

  1. . The classic histories of this conflict are John William Draper, History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1875); and Andrew Dickson White, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1896). Draper sees the conflict between science and religion, the former being dogmatic and static and the latter openminded and progressive (pp. vi–vii). White sees the battle not with religion as such but with theology, but he views the latter as having been reactionary and intolerant.
  2. . See John Baillie, The Idea of Revelation in Recent Thought (New York: Columbia University Press, 1956).
  3. . See John Dillenberger, Protestant Thought and Natural Science (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, 1960).
  4. . Genesis and Geology (New York: Harper & Bros. [Harper Torchbook], 1959). p. x.
  5. . Ibid., p. ix.
  6. . Ibid., pp. 223–24.
  7. . Ibid., p. viii.
  8. . Alexandre Koyré, From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe (New York: Harper & Bros. [Harper Torchbook], 1958), p. 3.
  9. . Science and the Modern World (New York: Macmillan Co., 1925). This work has been reissued in a Mentor book published by the New American Library of World Literature, Inc., first printing 1948. The references in this paper are to this reprint.
  10. . The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science (Garden City, N.Y.: Double‐day & Co., no date). Published originally in 1924 by the Humanities Press and reissued recently as a Doubleday Anchor book.
  11. . See n. 8.
  12. . Koyré, op. cit., p. 4.
  13. . Whitehead, op. cit., p. 18.
  14. . Ibid., p. 56.
  15. . Ibid., pp. 76–77.
  16. . W. T. Jones, A History of Western Philosophy (New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1952), pp. 527–31, 631–34. See also burtt, op. cit., pp. 15–35.
  17. . Christian Faith and Natural Science (New York: Harper & Bros. [Harper Torchbook], 1953), p. 11.
  18. . Cf. Whitehead, op. cit., chap. v.
  19. . For a comprehensive account of liberal theology in its leading American varieties, see Kenneth Cauthen, The Impact of American Religious Liberalism (New York: Harper & Row, 1962). The last four paragraphs are based on this analysis.
  20. . For a brief discussion of these recent trends, see Cauthen. ibid., chap. xii. Much of the material in the remainder of Section III of this paper is taken from that chapter, where full documentation will be found.
  21. . Hocking, Science and the Idea of God (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1944), p. 22.
  22. . For an important analysis of the Heilsgeschichte theme in contemporary theology and for documentation of the Kantian influence in both liberal and post‐liberal Protestant thought, see Richard R. Niebuhr, Resurrection and Historical Reason (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1957). especially chaps. iii and iv. Many of the issues discussed in this section of the present paper are illuminated by Niebuhr's presentation.
  23. . Cf. Dillenberger, op. cit., pp. 264–69.
  24. . Ibid., pp. 255–56, 292. See chaps. ix and x for a helpful discussion of recent directions in science and theology and of the present status and prospects of the continuing conversation between them.
  25. . This difficulty must not be overdone. H. Richard Niebuhr has been both clear and cogent in spelling this out. His radical monotheism makes it clear that it is just the history in which men live, struggle, suffer, and die that God rules and in which he accomplishes his sovereign purpose of redemption. Moreover, he makes it clear that the distinction between internal and external history involves a double way of viewing what is but one reality. Nevertheless, he also makes it clear that the affirmation of God's goodness and sovereignty is a testimony of the moral self in its practical search for meaning and not metaphysical statements by a detached mind engaged in a neutral description of reality. It is just at this point that I have my continuing difficulty with his profound, illuminating, and cogent presentation. Can the practical and theoretical, the existential and the metaphysical, facets of inquiry be distinguished in the way that he does? See The Meaning of Revelation (New York: Macmillan Co., 1941); Christ and Culture (New York: Harper & Bros., 1951); and Radical Monotheism and Western Culture (New York: Harper & Bros., 1960).
  26. . “Cosmology, Ontology, and the Travail of Biblical Language,” Journal of Religion  (July, 1961).
  27. . A number of men in recent years have made similar suggestions, including Nels Ferré, Daniel Day Williams, Bernard Loomer, Bernard Meland, John Hayward, Schubert Ogden, and John Cobb. Practically all of these men have had close associations with the University of Chicago. It remains to be seen how far process philosophy can attract interest beyond this particular center of graduate training in theology.
  28. . Kelvin Van Nuys, Science and Cosmic Purpose (New York: Harper & Bros., 1949), is an example of the approach that is being suggested.
  29. . I must confess, however, that I feel strongly the tension between those who argue that metaphysics is impossible and those who argue that metaphysics is necessary and inescapable. Thus, I am alternately convinced and unconvinced of the adequacy of a position like that of H. Richard Niebuhr and Rudolf Bultmann which focuses on the existential meaning of the biblical revelation and foregoes any attempts to establish a theoretical metaphysical framework for interpreting the Gospel for our age. At the moment, I lean toward the view that theology must take seriously both the subjective and the objective, the existential and the metaphysical, the practical and the theoretical, sides of the issues involving God's relationship to the world and man's quest for meaning and fulfilment.
  30. . Since this article was originally written, the influence of neo‐orthodoxy has increasingly declined under the impact of the later Bonhoeffer and with the rise to prominence of the “death of God” theology. As a result, the most crucial question for contemporary theology is the meaning of God for secular man. Therefore, were I writing this article now I would devote less attention to the weaknesses of neo‐orthodoxy and speak more to the problems raised by the Christian atheists—Van Buren, Hamilton, and Altizer. But this subject requires separate treatment beyond the scope of this essay.