Chapter 3

  • H. P. Owen
Part of the Philosophy of Religion Series book series (PHRES)


I have chosen Pringle-Pattison’s Gifford Lectures (1). as the first text to examine because it excellently illustrates the state of much philosophical theology in the first two decades of this century — just before the impact of Kierkegaard, Barth and neo-positivism. The two philosophers with whom Pringle-Pattison is chiefly concerned are Hegel and F. H. Bradley. His aim is to present a modified form of Hegelianism which will do justice to all aspects of both religious and non-religious experience. Whether he fulfils this aim is, as we shall see, doubtful.


Natural Theology Christian Doctrine Ultimate Concern Philosophical Theology Christian Theism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 11.
    I can only observe that his arguments for a teleological and metaphysical interpretation of evolution have recently been impressively corroborated by Errol Harris in his ‘The Foundations of Metaphysics in Science’ (Allen & Unwin, 1965).Google Scholar
  2. 40.
    This grading is common throughout the history of Hindu thought. For another modern example, see H. D. Bhattacharya’s essay in ‘Radhakrishnan: Comparitive Studies in Philosophy Presented in Honour of his Sixtieth Birthday’ (Allen & Unwin, 1951) pp. 211–15.Google Scholar
  3. 60.
    In an essay contributed to ‘The Theology of Paul Tillich’, ed. C. W. Kegley (New York: Collier-Macmillan, 1961), Hartshorne welcomes Tillich as an exponent of ‘dipolarism’, but criticises him for not affirming explicitly that God is Process-itself no less than Being-itself (pp. 166 and 194). In his reply Tillich says that he is ‘not disinclined to accept the process-character of being-itself’ (p. 339). He adds that he feels ‘a close affinity to the philosophy of religion represented by Hartshorne, perhaps because of common intellectual antecedents, for example Bergson, Schelling and Böhme’ (p. 340). Yet he still fails to see the metaphysical necessity of choosing decisively between monopolar and dipolar theism.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© H. P. Owen 1971

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. P. Owen
    • 1
  1. 1.King’s CollegeUniversity of LondonUK

Personalised recommendations