Charles Hartshorne, demonstrates that most scholars ignored the superior argument of Anselm's Proslogium 3. Indeed, many philosophers and critics never even read the actual text, but only heard it second hand. A student in religion or metaphysics would reap incredible benefits by studying this text, for if anything, it teaches that God is a possibility, regardless of theology or skepticism. Hartshorne, though dense in his language at times, leaves the reader with a richer understanding of life

Don Viney's work shows complete understanding of his subject and presents it in a manner that is clear and straightforward. It is organized and comes from many points of view. His arguments are effective and proves Hartshorne's belief that only one argument for God is inconclusive but rather made up of many different pieces that fit together like a puzzle.

I would like to hear from anyone else who has read the book or who is a fan of Viney's work. His related work is also a good book: The life and thought of Charles Hartshorne.

Charles Hartshorne is one of the modern founders of process theology. A protege of Alfred North Whitehead, who plays a pivotal role in the foundation of process thought with his book Process and Reality. The particular subject here, Philosophers Speak of God, developed in partnership with William Reese, professor of philosophy at SUNY-Albany, is an anthology of philosophical writings from Western and Eastern sources. They span the almost the full span of human intellectual history. Hartshorne and Reese analyse and categorise the various writings, looking at underlying principles and commonalities, and overall patterns or systems. From the preface, the authors state: 'this work aims to present -- by selections from some fifty writers ranging in time and space from Lao-tse, Plato, and Sankara to Whitehead, Berdyaev, and Radhakrishnan -- the chief philosophical conceptions of deity. It also aims to aid readers in estimating the validity of these conceptions. The work is thus two things: (1) a book of readings in philosophical theology -- the first of its kind -- and (2) a systematic analysis and evaluation of theistic (and atheistic) idea.'

One of the real values of this book comes in the introduction, in the classification system Hartshorne and Reese set up for identifying the philosophical attributes of the worlds religious and theological systems of thought. This classification system shows both historical and systematic significance in the frameworks investigated. The system rests on five key elements:

E is for Eternal
Is God seen as eternal in some or all aspects of God's own reality, unchanging?

T is for Temporal
Does God change in some or all aspects? Is God capable of change?

C is for Consciousness
Is God conscious and self-aware?

K is for Knowing
Is God aware of the world? Does God know all there is?

W is for World-inclusive
Do all things have their being in God? Are all things God?

These are not all-for-once questions in the framework of this book. Rather, each will participate in different ways in looking at the theological texts provided. There are certain rules -- for instance, every combination will begin with E or T or ET, where the eternal and the temporal apply toward different aspects of God.

Panentheism, where Hartshorne places Whitehead (and hence, himself) involves all five elements. Placing different theologies becomes an interesting exercise: Aquinas belongs in a framework of ECK, for instance -- Aquinas doesn't allow for change or inclusion of the world in God, which is heavily influenced by Aristotle, whose classification is as EC. For those interested in philosophy of religion, this classification system alone would make the book worthwhile.

However, the substance of the book rests in the anthology section. Divided into three sections -- Classical views, Modern Views, and Skeptical or Atheistic Views -- the book covers theologians and theological families using the classification system set up.

One of the positive elements of this book is that each item is introduced by a sympathetic description and analysis from which criticism is largely absent. Critical commentary follows the selections. Another positive element is that items are grouped together for easy cross-reference -- for the religion scholar, to know such a wide range of similar viewpoints and the commonalities between them can be an invaluable aid; likewise, to know the dissimilarities between different schools of thought can be enlightening and useful for study, research, writing and reflection.

Certainly Whitehead's maxim -- 'Seek simplicity, and mistrust it' -- is not the operative feature here in the formation of the text. However, it is useful in the practical use of the text -- whenever there are simple connections, beware. Whenever there are simple solutions, beware.

Hartshorne and Reese's bias pokes through, nonetheless. When writing on Whitehead (who, while not having the longest section in the book, certainly has a generous number of pages), they make their bias clear: 'It is impossible to avoid a feeling of impertinence in attempting to comment on thinking so great as this.'

The preference of Hartshorne and Reese for panentheistic ways of thinking are present from the essays at the beginning and the end of the texts. In the introduction, the law of polarity is introduced as a standpoint of panentheism; the epilogue to the text is on the logic of panentheism. Taking a cue from mathematics, striving for precision in definition and method, Hartshorne and Reese argue for a modern panentheism in a process reality. Setting up yet another framework for consideration, the authors conclude the most likely case for God being in a process system.

To the extent that this preference influences the critical commentary and analysis of each of the texts presented here, some may find this a difficult text. However, every theological or philosophical analysis for critical commentary must begin somewhere. Objectivity at this level is a fiction -- the very act of choosing to do critical scholarship implies much. The framework selected here works well, admittedly better for those process theologians and philosophers than for those who aren't.

But regardless of this, the questions raised are valuable questions to be asked, no matter the underlying system of thought. For example, under the entry on Augustine, the authors identify the problem of how can an unchanging God, particularly one who is non-temporal, have been responsible for creation, which is a mutable and temporal reality.

Questions such as this one abound in each section, and with each text selection, key questions for consideration and critical reflection are raised, and an answer is attempted.

In all, Hartshorne and Reese have produced an invaluable volume and classification system for the consideration of religions, philosophies and theological frameworks. A must for any serious scholar of religion, philosophy or theology, it will also be appreciated by educated laypersons.

Lucid, comprehensive and inexorable in its logic, "Philosophers Speak of God" remains one of the best summations of the philosophy of Charles Hartshorne and Alfred North Whitehead. I first read it in Dr. Hartshorne's last official university class, more than two decades ago, and it is still the one I turn to for a clear and concise explanation of Hartshorne's take on the classical philosophers. Hartshorne and Reese cover most of the major Western and a good number of the major Eastern philosophers in this wide-ranging analysis of the primary tenets of theology. I recommend this for anyone who is first reading about process philosophy, and wishes to understand the differences between classical thought and the panentheist approach.

What can I say about an obscure American philosopher/theologian whose books keep going out of print? He really shouldn't be so obscure, because his ideas are worth some rigorous analysis. But I dare say that Hartshorne may not be as tuned into popular culture as say C.S. Lewis was. I haven't yet read all of this dense book that I'm reviewing. But I will. Omnipotence and other theological mistakes is a much easier read if one wants to be introduced to Hartshorne. Hartshorne has some pretty strange and interesting ideas. He was an authority on Bird Song, and he reasoned that birds sing lovely songs because they evolved that way. So he came up with the idea that the goal of evolution was aesthetics. Now this is interesting, and maybe if he was using the internet today, he would reason that as time passed and the internet evolved, the conversation of chat rooms would become more pleasing to one's sense of aesthetics. We, as members of cyberspace can only hope that it will e! volve from the meaningless drivel that it is right now.

Here's a sample: personal immortality after bodily death is a "fairy tale." REAL immortality according to Hartshorne is that even when the agent (you or I) is no more, God is eternally recollecting the life that was lived. What pathetic nonsense! This is offered us instead of the resurrection of the dead, because anything that contradicts human reason is ipso facto a "fairy tale"? This is the self-destruction of faith in its most brutal form. I tried to read it with sympathy and openness, and perhaps you should too... but if you actually have faith, and you doubt whether it can withstand the assault of this kind of devastatingly articulated unbelief, I say steer clear. On the other hand, if like me you've been toying with liberal and postmodern theology, perhaps you need a good dose of the real thing, to remind you why the Gospel is foolishness to human wisdom.

For many of us who are 'professional Christians' known as clergy coming to terms with the fact that Classic Christian theology is neither Biblical nor is it believable in a scientific age can be traumatic indeed. Gods that hurl lightening and run around dressed in smoke and fire and appear on earth as human beings are simply not credible any longer.
The churches which are mostly run by men (almost all of them) cling with great tenacity to these patristic, domination/submission antiquities because it bolsters the male ego to know that he and he alone is made in the image of one of these gods, Allah, Yaweh or whoever.
Process theology and process thought allow us to have religion without this primative god stuff to make us decide that we have either to check our brain at the door of the church or avoid the church altogether. The fact is that more and more people make exactly one of those two choices. Those who are willing to check their brains at the door are fundamentalists of various sorts and persuasions. Those who are unwilling to give up the scientific, rational worldview of today check out of the church altogether.

If you read theology for fun, this is the book for you! Hartshorne is often convincing but always interesting. He knows his subject and presents it well. His writing style is clear and does not require that the reader have a strong background. I have only two reservations. The first is that his arguments are occasionally summaries of points he makes in greater detail elsewhere, and so he is a little less convincing here, and that no one should read this book at night if they have to get up early the next day. Insomniacs beware!
On the other hand, if you want a book to wake someone up, this is an excellent gift.
I enjoyed the way his vision makes some of the more pecular things Jesus said sound perfectly reasonable. How often has anyone addressed why you should love your neighbor as yourself? Why should you give to everyone who asks of you and not just the deserving? What does it mean to love God with your whole heart.

To really understand why Greg Boyd believes/writes the curious notions that thread through all his books (Letters to a Skeptic,
God of the Possible, God at War, Satan & Problem of Evil, Across Evang. Spectrum, 4 Views/Divine Foreknowledge), it is necessary to read this book.
Its primary source is Charles Hartshorne's philosophy which Boyd integrates into his personal theology, sort of a quasi-processistic presupposition that permeates his non-historic thinking. It demonstrates as others have done that Boyd fails to grasp not only Historical Evangelical Theology (not some ultra-Calvinistic strain he seems to be recoiling from and setting up as straw-antagonist), but also the implications of tampering with several of the Attributes of God. Tweaking one or two (Omnipotence to Boyd is more Multipotence, Principotence, not unqualifiedly OMNI; Omniscience is only what Boyd can grasp of that portion of the future said to exist presently based on current factors, NOT what free-agents may or may not decide), tweaks all (Omnipresence, Infinity, Eternality, Holiness, Goodness, Aseity,
Transcendence-Immanence, Sovereignty, Perfection, Omnisapience, etc.)

Thank you D.A. Carson, Norm Geisler, Hank Hanegraaff, John MacArthur, Millard Erickson for politely, yet almost embarrassingly showing Boyd's aberrations for what they are:
UNBIBLICAL, Quasi-Bi-Polar Processistic Philosophizing while in graduate school.

May Greg Boyd be 'open' to plenary Scriptural witness about the Real Jesus and true Trinitarian Divine Attributes. Nothing a good dose of Luther or Arminius or Wesley couldn't cure!

This is Dr.Greg Boyd's doctoral dissertation for his PhD that launched him into the forefront as a main proponent of the Open
Theory of Biblical Interpretation, also called Free-Will Theism.
It is essentially his attempt at synthesizing traditional,
classical theology with selective concepts of Process Thought to create a hybrid, a blend of the 'best of both'. In this book, he actually gives a tribute to Charles Hartshorne, a Process Theist,
saying his view of a Process model of reality/theology is essentially correct, after a bit of a critical re-evaluation, like adding the Trinity, Creation ex nihilo, retaining many of
Classical Attributes of God such as non-dependence on creation,
Supreme Power (not quite Omnipotent/Almighty),exhaustive hindsight/recollection of the past and knowledge of all present
reality (but stopping short on free-will future agency which Boyd
considers 'unrealized possibility, non-existent even to God').

Boyd succeeds in stretching the Biblical interpretive envelope
only to have it tear in so many places that it no longer is able
to contain the Word of God and the God of the Word. With each passing page, he leaves the Bible farther and farther behind.
One of his major sources is Process & Reality by Alfred Whitehead
another philosopher he highly admires. The other major source is
Hartshorne's 'Omnipotence & Other Mistakes', which caused a whole
generation of well-intentioned Bible students in the 60's- 80's
to call into question, challenge then revise Historical
Evangelical Christian beliefs, among them Clark Pinnock, John
Sanders and others.
This book shows the development of Boyd's new hermeneutic or
interpretive grid for evaluating Bible texts and the paradigm of
processistic(quasi-classical/process synthesis)wholesale revision of the Historic,Orthodox,Classical,Evangelical understanding of Scripture interpretation. These presuppositions
are paramount in Open Theorist systemization of theology:

1)Libertarian Free Will, where free agents have no interference
from the outside (Divine or otherwise) in freely choosing between
real alternatives
2)Anthropomorphism/Metaphors are out and Literalism is in for
evaluating texts showing God 'repenting','rueing','regretting',
'changing the divine mind','revising plans/prophecies due to
unforeseen free-agent choices unbeknownst in advance
3)Extensive Temporal Forecasting, eliminating the historic
Omniscience of Exhaustive Divine/Definite Foreknowledge of future free-agency; much of the future is unforeknown by God's
choice thus unsettled/'open', while some of what God chooses to foreknow(what He intends to do) is settled. God can't know it all
because all of it isn't yet there for anyone, even God, to know
4)God is in-process, Di-Polar to some extent (similar to Process,
with some differences): changing or not changing depending on if
it is beneficial to do so; learning,growing,developing,
progressing,discovering,being surprised,experiencing newness,etc.
5)God is temporal to some extent, meaning He must also be spatial
and material (implicitly, by extension) since He created a
space/time/material continuum of reality and must meaningfully
relate to it with genuine relationship in space/time/matter
6)Star Trek's 'prime directive of non-interference' to let agents
freely determine their own destinies without coercion/pre-
determination (although different from Process in that God can on occasion intervene and override agency to keep His overall
purposes on track - open theorists differ here), reducing God's
Sovereignty/Omnipotence/Omnipresence as well as over-emphasizing
God's immanence at the expense of His transcendence
7)Quotes Scripture extensively to support the Open Theory.While
quoting the Bible is perceived as a strength, the rub is which
Scriptures, favorable or unfavorable, selective or plenary,
handling the most texts with the least legerdemain,literal or figurative,which Control
Beliefs,which metaphysical worldview and how Biblical,which
presuppositions, how valid, consistent or inconsistent, etc.
This actually is the most problematic since many Open Theorists
disagree among themselves as to the extent of departing from
Classical interpretations and embracing more Processistic views
(50-50 or 75-25 or 25-75 proportions, etc.)

Overall, not convincing to jettison 100%Classical-0%Processistic
approach to Scripture. Yet, this distorted lens of Classical/
Process Synthesis is carried forward into all
Boyd's subsequent volumes with little pause for reflection as to why Classical views held for millennia by Protestant,Roman Catholic,Eastern
Orthodox,etc. had gotten things so off track it took Socinians
in the 16th Century, some obscure theologians in the late 19th
Century and Boyd,Pinnock,Sanders &Co. in these latter days to set Christendom straight!