While reading "God after Darwin" last might I was struck by two things I had read: one was idea that rather than being "up there in heaven," God, in a process theology, might be considered to be "up ahead." In that view God would not be so much an all-powerful entity, but could be seen as a persuasive and inviting entity, calling all of creation foward to become whatever it is capable of becoming. And that view encompasses not just humans, but all of creation - the "stuff" of which we are all made, the living things that inhabit the cosmos, as well as "advanced" life, however one would like to understand that.

The other thing that hit me was a comment by Hought to the effect that materialistic thought envisions the physical cosmos as "all there is" and, since the end of it now seems to be one of thermodynamic death billions of years in the future. Hence, according to this line of thought, there is neither room for God nor hope to discover any "point to it all." What I thought as I read that was that it is more an indicator of the limitations of physical science than it is a prediction of what ultimate reality is all about. Science can see no purpose behind the material reality of the universe, but that does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that there is no purpose, only that science cannot be used to determine if there is purpose. And, then, what the parameters of that purpose might be. But then, see the previous paragraph about seeing God as calling all creation to its own completion - whenever and whatever that may entail.

And, there, I think, might be some significant room for dialogue between science and religion, if both sides will simply agree that neither side posesses "all truth."

Well, all right!! That actually worked for me. My intent on this blog is to bring up books and other items of interest to me. If they interest you and you want to say something about them, please do. Be civil and respectful. I am interested in your point of view but please don't come on as 1) holier than thou, 2) judgemental, 3) disrespectful.

For the first taste of this, I bring the book I am currently reading: "God After Darwin," by John Haught. Haught is a professor of Theology at Georgetown and, from what I can see so far, something of a "Process Theologian," a subject about which I know very little. Does anyone have anything to say about process theology?

This is my first shot at trying this blog stuff. We'll see how it works before doing anything significant. I'd hate to spend dt working on it only to have it disappear into etherland where I can never find it again - something that some apps have done to me.