Christianity 20 Years After 9/11 - Session 2

"Spiritual Awakenings begin with God's LOVE above all else.

This interiority speaks to an internal awakening of the soul first

before an exterior awakening of the Church second." - re slater

"Relationships are always first and foremost in a Christian revival.

If true, it will always affect our religious communal presence in politics.

It will place a strain upon our version of human justice with God's own

version of social justice. There will always arise a tension to do the right

for humanity over-and-above the church's own dogmas." - re slater

Christianity 20 Years After 9/11 - Session 2

8/09 - PREQUEL: What to Expect

8/15 - INTRODUCTION: Christianity 20 Years After 9/11

8/31 – SESSION ONE: 20 Years of Religious Decline

9/07 – SESSION TWO: The Rise of Authoritarianism

9/14 – SESSION THREE: Repentance & Resistance

9/21 – SESSION FOUR: Inter-religious Learning

9/28 – SESSION FIVE: Theology & Spirituality in Times of Rupture

10/5 – SESSION SIX: Christianity – Should I Stay or Should I Go?

* * * * * * *

Session 2

The Rise of Authoritarianism

Sep 7, 2021

Q&A - Session 2

with Brian McLaren & Tripp Fuller

Sep 8, 2021

The Problem of Biblicisim - "My God Does Not Kill"

 

My God Does Not Kill

by R.E. Slater

"Biblical literalism or biblicism is a term used of the manner of interpretation of the bible based on the subjectivity of the reader's beliefs and the religious views of the group(s) the reader participates and identifies." - res

 

"Redaction criticism is a critical method for the study of biblical texts. It regards the author of a text as a subjective editor to the source materials available to them at the time, such as oral legends, societal beliefs, cultural mores, attendant consequences, all of which may have shaped the theological narrative to the ideological goals of the author." - res 

My God is not this God...

God is not a God of wrath or violence. 

The problem the picture above points out is that Christiandom - as well as many other religions including Judaism and Islam - believe God is right-and-just in dispensing death, judgment, punishment, wrath, and cruelty.

This belief about God has ever been a problem. It has created many awful deeds in the name of religion.

A Couple of Things About Perspective...

Let's suppose for a moment that the biblical flood was what any other flood has been when experienced by humanity. A natural disaster....

Let's also suppose that from time immemorial mankind holds a general ignorance about climatic events... especially including those natural  events which occur far beyond the settled environs of a population.

As example, consider when ancient settlers of the Mesopotamia region beheld the large, green fertile valleys between the great rivers of the Tigris and Euphrates. Did they consider it as a natural flood plain? Probably not.

But this did not stop the area from having the potential for loss and destruction by once-in-a-century or millennia flooding.

Let's further consider that such disastrous rainfalls happen even now when the conditions are ripe for a natural disasters. Currents examples abound now as then: 1) Any of flood-prone low-lying areas as the swamps upon which the city of Houston, Texas, was built. Or, 2) the tidal lowlands surrounding the city of New Orleans.

Doe God bring these disasters or nature? Let me kindly suggest that, if anything, God was doing all that He could in trying to prevent such disasters through nature and through mankind. God is a God of love... not a God of judgment and wrath.

And in process terms, God cannot directly interfere with a freewill creation. Which is where divine partnership comes in re help from nature itself or through mankind. God does not rule over nature but works with nature. God's physical hands-and-feet must come creation and mankind if God's will is to be done.

Thus, process theism is exactly opposite of classic theism's divine interruption overruling creation according to God's will than through submitted natural process agencies. This means that in classic theism miracles happen occasionally whereas in process theism miracles per se are everyday natural occurrences.

In the past I would use the term "synchronicity" when describing the partnership between God and creation versus a classical theism's "forced unnatural interruption" of the natural, God-inhabiting flow, of creation, known as panentheism.

Does God Purposely Send Naturally Destructive Events?

In process theism the answer is NO. God does not bring the flood, the fire, the earthquake, or the wind upon mankind to punish, kill, or judge mankind.

These are naturally occurring events because creation bears the same freewill agency as mankind does. Agency is not evil. But agency can be evil and affect both environment and people.

Of course, many of my biblical brethren would say this is not true. The bible tells of God's judgment upon both the evil and the innocent on this earth and that we must accept all which happens in this life as from God's hand.

An attitude which is the very kind of Christian attitude I both challenge and disagree with.

Why?

Because a God of LOVE is not this kind of dipolar, schidzophrenic, monstrous God. God brings beauty, wellbeing, and healing into a world of sin and suffering. A world which brings consequences upon itself by its own acts when choosing to live in unloving ways to nature and mankind.

How Do We Know God is a God of Love and Not a God of Wrath?

I come from a dispensational, fundamentalist Christian tradition which thought of conservative evangelicalism as "liberal" in good-humored but serious surmise. Yet despite my early faith heritage I can no longer reconcile the passages of the bible which speak of God so terribly or so controllingly in a harming, determinative future. This would also include the belief of a future Armageddon or eternal hell.

Why?

Mostly because I realize these errant beliefs come from the Christian tradition of reading the bible "literally". A bible which I have exhaustively studied, dissected, and exegeted from cover to cover for most of my adult lifetime using the very helpful and enlightening covenant theology found in the Baptist and Reformed traditions.

And though I used to abide by the hermeneutical (interpretive) adage of reading the bible "literally, grammatically, historically, and later... contextually," I now have dropped the literal interpretation of the bible while keeping the latter three helpful tools of biblical interpretation. Literalism makes the bible say what it really isn't saying....

And so, as I was transitioning in bible college from fundamentalism to evangelicalism I knew the "literal" portion of interpreting the bible had to be dropped. While at the same time continuing to uphold my faith heritage's belief system until I couldn't....

The God of the Bible is the God of Today...

My Spirit-led change began when I started asking questions my church didn't wish to ask. Questions of doubt and uncertainty - not of my faith, but of my faith's traditionally held doctrines and beliefs. It rapidly became a series of questions I needed to answer. Which I did... beginning with the very first days of this website until now.

And it has proved to be a very long and arduous journey with very little outside help at first except that of the Spirit of God's daily revelation. In a very real sense you might say God was "inspiring me" to comprehend who He was and is. Which is not so unusual if we think of God's nature as one which quite naturally walks and talks with His creation. Communication, fellowship, and especially relationship, are all part-and-parcel of God's image set into creation including God's daily communion with us.

And if God "inspires" mankind today no less than God did in earlier bible eras, then God's Spirit will continue to enliven hearts, minds, and spirits even as He had done in ages past using the present day's contemporary pens, voices, and works of fellow Christians similarly pursuing God. Amen?

And once realizing this it was but a short walk over to reading the bible not literally... but redact-ively as I weighed out the pens, voices, and deeds of the church's present fay pastors, priests, prophets, and apostles. Spirit-inspiration is happening even now as it did then... but always with the knowledge that we discern the religious views of God's spokespeople both then as now....

A New Hermeneutic I Give unto You this Day...

I can hear Jesus speaking this phrase to my heart and ears even now... "A new hermeneutic I give unto you this day." A covenant founded upon Jesus' life, passion, ministries, atonement, and resurrection. A covenant of love.

Wow! A new covenant of LOVE... not just to God's remnant of Jesus followers but to all mankind. Wow! Which is also why I prefer an open communion to all willing receivers as versus a closed communion to only church members.

Which is why I cannot see the God I know at times in the Old Testament when it's biblical narratives speak of a God of judgment and wrath.... Or even in parts of the New Testament such as found in the eschatological prophecies of God-produced woes and travail.

When hearing of God "doing this or that" which is unloving and harming my mind switches to redacting man's words of God written in the bible. It doesn't take a God of wrath to reap harm and cruelty upon creation when knowing the immediacy of judgment through the very acts of sin and evil. Acts which are judgments in themselves without any need of God's further compounding of divine judgment.

No. God is not a God of wrath and judgment. This can be done quite easily on its own within a creation full of agency which is more than able to fulfill "God's" religiously invoked job by biblical passages read literally rather than redactively.

Which is how I now react to biblically conflicted passages... passages written by well-meaning "inspired" men and women of the bible who were no less filled with religious zeal than today's Christians preaching the same inaccurate things of a God of love.

And finally, where did all this divine wrath and judgment get us? I don't think very far when reading of history's religious crusades, insurrections, inquisitions, and forcible ills placed upon mankind and creation.

However, if churches were to bear dogmas of a loving God... would not such religious attitudes been far more preferable to those religious dogmas of man-made holiness crusades?? (Perhaps a "just" war concept from time to time might arise. A doctrine which I also have problems with but admit in my heart I may react similarly when seeking to protect family and community).

God is a God of LOVE through and through and through...

To wrap things up, my new Jesus hermeneutic is reading the bible through the eyes of God's love and not God's wrath. A divine wrath which I will strongly observe comes from the idolatrous hearts of men placing all their prideful, legalistic  sins upon the divine figure of the Creator-Father Himself. Such a punishing god cannot be the God I know and love.

Thus, I read the bible redactively, not literally. In it I read of a God of love beyond the wickedness of religious men's hearts.

The other helpful redactive aid I've added is a new philosophical theistic foundation. One that isn't some eclectic version of pagan Semiticism like Akkadian, Babylonia, or Persian dialectism; nor Platonic, Hellenistic, Scholastic, Thomistic, or even Modernistic construction. And even though I love postmodernism and embrace its many positives over modernistic culture, I realize even this isn't enough.

Neither Western philosophies nor Continental philosophies (which latter I vastly prefer over the West's usage of philosophy). No, the theistic foundation I am finding the most helpful is the one replacing all previous foundations with that of Process Philosophy and its correspondent Process Theology as they each morph in lockstep with the other in helpful guidance and reading of  Scripture.

In short, any faith, and especially the Christian faith, must be a faith of love, kindness, and acceptance of difference. A faith which will pulpiteer for the rights of the other. A faith of hope, beauty, and joy. One that sings and walks boldly into brokenness of this world.

Where an open future informs us of a God who would partner with freewill beings to remake this world into a place of paradise against the ills of sinful agency and the resultant evil it produces.

This is the God I will preach and the very One who tells me this world may become an Eden should we rid ourselves of the very unbiblical doctrines we hold of a God of wrath taught by much of the church because, well, its the way it has always been done and believed.

And Noah? The lesson here is not to ignore nature. Learn to co-habitat with it. Don't ignore climate change. Be wise in our decisions. Don't follow the masses should they not listen and ignore God's word placed upon the hearts of his prophets amongst us, like Noah. And to do all that we can to help and not hurt one another. That is my message from the Noahic Flood passages of the bible.

Peace my brothers and sisters,

Look to Jesus. Let Jesus be our God.

R.E. Slater

October 20, 2021

PS

To be clear, I hold to the evangelical tradition of

• one bible, not two;

• one covenant explained in four;

• one God not two;

• an open and relational theology

• etc

PROBLEMS BEING ASKED IN THIS ARTICLE

• philosophical theism

• philosophical consequentialism

• moral exactitude

• the principal of consequentialism

• natural laws v divine laws

• the role of punishment or love in morality

• metaethics v emotivism

• metaethics v religion

• utilitarianism v (social) justice

• the benefits v the effects of poorly constructed religious belief

• whether God, Church, man, or nature determine morality

• whether divine love is the ultimate determiner of everything

• whether love defines justice and all other divine attributes

• whether love is the ultimate prescription for human welfare

• the role of biblicism in misleading beliefs

• the positive role of religion in society (health, learning, well-being, self-control, self-esteem,  empathy)

• the negative role of religion in society (discriminiation, persecution, anxiety, depression, stress, victimization, physical violence, personal harm, societal exclusion, scapegoating, etc)

• whether religion is a blessing or a curse

• obligation to duty and role playing v the intrinsic worth of an act

• the place of principalism in religion (the locality of autonomy, benevolence, justice, etc)

• the role of religion in establishing personal identity and worth

• etc

God is love but -

it takes humans to show God's love...

America's Ruptured Christianity - Bass, McLaren, Fuller

https://www.ncronline.org/news/earthbeat/mutual-responsibility-between-humans-and-nature

 

1 John 4:7-21 (ESV) - God Is Love

7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. 10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.

This past summer Tripp Fuller with Diana Butler Bass and Brian McLaren presented a six week session on the rupturing of American Christianity over the past 20 years beginning with the 9/11/2001 attack on America by Al-Qaeda through to the 1/6/2021 attack on the Capital by President Trump and the Radical Right Republican Party.

For myself, this rupturing of Christianity had already begun back in the 1990s as Emergent Christianity (later known as Progressive Christianity) asked the deep and relevant questions of the church and its faith, of its people and its beliefs, which should have been asked a long time ago. (Quite honestly I didn't think Wikipedia could give such a clear explanation of Emergence until I looked it up and found it!):

Wikipedia - The emerging church is a Christian Protestant movement of the late 20th and early 21st centuries that crosses a number of theological boundaries: participants are variously described as Protestant, post-Protestant, evangelical, post-evangelical, liberal, post-liberal, progressive, socially liberal, anabaptist, reformed, charismatic, neocharismatic, and post-charismatic. Emerging churches can be found throughout the globe, predominantly in North America, Brazil, Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Africa.

Proponents believe the movement transcends the "modernist" labels of "conservative" and "liberal," calling the movement a "conversation" to emphasize its developing and decentralized nature, its vast range of standpoints, and its commitment to dialogue. Participants seek to live their faith in what they believe to be a "postmodern" society. What those involved in the conversation mostly agree on is their disillusionment with the organized and institutional church and their support for the deconstruction of modern Christian worship, modern evangelism, and the nature of modern Christian community. The movement has evolved into progressive Christianity.

With that progression I began writing of my disillusionment with my faith which had become something it hadn't been when I had become a Christian in my youth and later - through my time of service, seminary, and ministry - over the past 40 years. Accordingly, with Christianity's departure from Jesus, I found I must respond when looking around and not seeing anyone else troubled by the Church's present developments away from its root stock in Christ.

https://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2014/08/kintsukuroi-be-ye-jars-of-clay-repaired.html

Now, at this moment, in the aftermath of the Trumpian disaster which has polarized so many Christian brethren towards White Christian Nationalism, now is the Christian church's time to ask "What Would Jesus Do?" in this present day as radicalized Christians look to replace the "everyman society for democracy" for some devolved form of authoritarian anarchy?

For myself, I began a very bleak and hopeless journey ten years ago in the fall of 2011 when looking to deconstruct-and-reconstruct my old line faith back into the image of Jesus - and no longer in the image of the church. It has been a journey of healing and discovery and one which I think all Christians should be asking of themselves decade-by-decade as unChristlike behaviors and beliefs creep into the church like unbounded waters seeping into the cracks and crevices of Christian beliefs, institutions, organizations, socio-economic conditions, pandemics, ecological challenges, and on and on and on.

But by this I don't mean staying with the same old classic doctrines which had brought us to this point of torn secularity. But to the determination of how a spiritually informed faith can evolve like the sciences of our era to look at itself dispassionately. To poke, prod, and imagine, what the beauty of God's great love can mean to a world of religious faiths and beliefs - including that of Christianity. Especially when taking God's love seriously by not diluting it via ontological dipolarity (sic, a God of wrath), misinformation, or political extremism. Or of the denial of the rights and liberties of other human beings wishing to live peacefully and in fellowship with each other and with this good earth regardless of their demeanor.

Thus and thus Relevancy22 was born to wend it's way through the divisive doctrines of the church which have led to so many harms, deaths, cruelties, and whatnot, through the past 2000 years of church history. Borne by Jesus' ministry on this earth and by His atoning death and resurrection. It's time to take God's love more concretely then we have in the church's doctrines and missional outreach.

Which means any portion of Christian polity, doctrines, socio-political alliances, and resulting actions of inhumanity must be retracted and not taught  by the church. Especially it's belief in a God of wrath, judgment, and vengeance, upon a freewill creation God had birthed. Sin and evil are judgments enough. These fallen harms brought about by creation's agency do not require God jumping on with more invectives, damnations and promises of hell. A God of wrath and judgment as found in the bible are the imaginations of religious men and women proclaiming "inspiration" when simply they are proclaiming then, as now, of a God who is not anything but LOVE. I, for one, would like to take a different tack in my faith but fully realizing and living by a God who is love through and through and through. I believe the outcome is better for all who believe and wish to follow Jesus, and most certainly a far better outcome for the world torn by unlove and hate.

Peace,

R.E. Slater

October 20, 2021

https://reslater.blogspot.com/2011/10/re-slater-words.html

* * * * * * * *

Tripp Fuller Live Streaming W/ Diana Butler Bass

Jun 16, 2021

Invite to "Oh God, What Now?"

with Brian McLaren & Diana Butler Bass

Aug 25, 2021

Session 1

20 Years of Religious Decline

Aug 31, 2021

Session 2

The Rise of Authoritarianism

Sep 7, 2021

Q&A - Session 2

with Brian McLaren & Tripp Fuller

Sep 8, 2021

Session 3

Repentance and Resistance

Sep 14, 2021

Q&A - Session 3

with Diana Butler Bass & Tripp Fuller

Sep 16, 2021

Diana Butler Bass' Session 4 discussion | artwork by Steve Thomason

Session 4

Theology and Spirituality in a Time of Rupture

Sep 21, 2021

Q&A - Session 4

with Diana Butler Bass & Tripp Fuller

Sep 23, 2021

Session 5

Inter-Religious Learning w/ Brian McLaren

Sep 28, 2021

Q&A - Session 5

with Brian McLaren & Tripp Fuller

Sep 30, 2021

TheoCon Presentation by Brian McLaren

the Parable of the Kayakers

Jul 12, 2020

More TheoCon here - Https://Theologycon.Com

Session 6

Should I Stay or Should I Go?

with Diana Bass, Brian McLaren, and Tripp Fuller

Oct 5, 2021

Moral Injury & the War on Terror

with Army Chaplain Dr. Josh Morris

Sep 9, 2021

Unanswered Questions of the Big Bang

 

With the exception of the first four videos - two for fun and two re Time and General Relativity the remaining videos are not arranged in any order except how you, the viewer, chose to view them.

As always, my interest in the process-underpinnings of our cosmology necessitates first knowing about the universe we live in so that it may better inform the processes which live everywhere around us. For newbies, I'm referring to Alfred North Whitehead's process philosophy and theology.

R.E. Slater

October 19, 2021

REFERENCES

Index - Process Philosophy & Theology

Index - Process-Based Integral Philosophy

Index - Process Christianity

* * * * * * * *

https://scitechdaily.com/pillar-of-cosmology-elegant-solution-reveals-how-the-universe-got-its-structure/

BBC - How Big is Our Universe

November 11, 2021

How big is the universe ... compared with a grain of sand? 'You'll never get your head around how big the universe is,' warns astronomer Pete Edwards of the University of Durham in this film about measuring astronomical distances. 'There are as many stars in the universe as there are grains of sand on the Earth.' So how far is a light year? And supposing our galaxy were the size of a grain of sand, how big would the universe be?

What Triggered the Big Bang? | How the Universe Works

Mar 7, 2020

Science Channel

The Big Bang is one of science's most famous theories, but we now know it wasn't big and it wasn't a bang.

Stream Full Episodes of How the Universe Works:

https://www.sciencechannel.com/show/how-the-universe-works-science

Brian Greene Hosts: Reality Since Einstein

Jul 23, 2015

World Science Festival

In celebration of the 100th anniversary of Einstein's general theory of relativity, leaders from multiple fields of physics discuss its essential insights, its lingering questions, the latest work it has sparked, and the allied fields of research that have resulted.

Time Since Einstein

496,737 viewsSep 11, 2014

World Science Festival

Albert Einstein shattered previous ideas about time, but left many pivotal questions unanswered: Does time have a beginning? An end? Why does it move in only one direction? Is it real, or something our minds impose on reality? Journalist John Hockenberry leads a distinguished panel, including renowned physicist Sir Roger Penrose and prominent philosopher David Albert, as they explore the nature of time.

click to enlarge

Quantum Fields:

The Real Building Blocks of the Universe - with David Tong

Feb 15, 2017

The Royal Institution

According to our best theories of physics, the fundamental building blocks of matter are not particles, but continuous fluid-like substances known as 'quantum fields'. David Tong explains what we know about these fields, and how they fit into our understanding of the Universe.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/01/27/ask-ethan-whats-so-anti-about-antimatter/?sh=6587a22b17f0

https://www.lhc-closer.es/taking_a_closer_look_at_lhc/0.antimatter

The Matter Of Antimatter:

Answering The Cosmic Riddle Of Existence

Jun 6, 2018

World Science Festival

You exist. You shouldn’t. Stars and galaxies and planets exist. They shouldn’t. The nascent universe contained equal parts matter and antimatter that should have instantly obliterated each other, turning the Big Bang into the Big Fizzle. And yet, here we are: flesh, blood, stars, moons, sky. Why? Come join us as we dive deep down the rabbit hole of solving the mystery of the missing antimatter.

https://steemit.com/science/@etherealcreation/do-we-live-in-matrix-holographic-universe-theory

A Thin Sheet of Reality: The Universe as a Hologram

Dec 29, 2014

World Science Festival

What we touch. What we smell. What we feel. They’re all part of our reality. But what if life as we know it reflects only one side of the full story? Some of the world’s leading physicists think that this may be the case. They believe that our reality is a projection—sort of like a hologram—of laws and processes that exist on a thin surface surrounding us at the edge of the universe. Although the notion seems outlandish, it’s a long-standing theory that initially emerged years ago from scientists studying black holes; recently, a breakthrough in string theory propelled the idea into the mainstream of physics. What took place was an intriguing discussion on the cutting-edge results that may just change the way we view reality.

The Limits of Understanding

Dec 14, 2014

World Science Festival

This statement is false. Think about it, and it makes your head hurt. If it’s true, it’s false. If it’s false, it’s true. In 1931, Austrian logician Kurt Gödel shocked the worlds of mathematics and philosophy by establishing that such statements are far more than a quirky turn of language: he showed that there are mathematical truths which simply can’t be proven. In the decades since, thinkers have taken the brilliant Gödel’s result in a variety of directions–linking it to limits of human comprehension and the quest to recreate human thinking on a computer. This program explores Gödel’s discovery and examines the wider implications of his revolutionary finding. Participants include mathematician Gregory Chaitin, author Rebecca Goldstein, astrophysicist Mario Livio and artificial intelligence expert Marvin Minsky.

* * * * * * * *

PHILOSOPHY / PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE / THOUGHT OF THE DAY

Whitehead’s Anti-Substantivilism, or

Process & Reality as a Cosmology to-be.

Thought-of-the-Day 39.0

JUNE 13, 2017 ALT-EXPLOIT

whiteheads-process-philosophy

Treating “stuff” as some kind of metaphysical primitive is mere substantivilism – and fundamentally question-begging. One has replaced an extra-theoretic referent of the wave-function (unless one defers to some quasi-literalist reading of the nature of the stochastic amplitude function ζ[X(t)] as somehow characterizing something akin to being a “density of stuff”, and moreover the logic and probability (Born Rules) must ultimately be obtained from experimentally obtained scattering amplitudes) with something at least as equally mystifying, as the argument against decoherence goes on to show:

In other words, you have a state vector which gives rise to an outcome of a measurement and you cannot understand why this is so according to your theory.

As a response to Platonism, one can likewise read Process and Reality as essentially anti-substantivilist.

Consider, for instance:

Those elements of our experience which stand out clearly and distinctly [giving rise to our substantial intuitions] in our consciousness are not its basic facts, [but] they are . . . late derivatives in the concrescence of an experiencing subject. . . .Neglect of this law [implies that] . . . [e]xperience has been explained in a thoroughly topsy-turvy fashion, the wrong end first (161).

To function as an object is to be a determinant of the definiteness of an actual occurrence [occasion] (243).

The phenomenological ontology offered in Process and Reality is richly nuanced (including metaphysical primitives such as prehensions, occasions, and their respectively derivative notions such as causal efficacy, presentational immediacy, nexus, etc.). None of these suggest metaphysical notions of substance (i.e., independently existing subjects) as a primitive. The case can perhaps be made concerning the discussion of eternal objects, but such notions as discussed vis-à-vis the process of concrescence are obviously not metaphysically primitive notions. Certainly these metaphysical primitives conform in a more nuanced and articulated manner to aspects of process ontology. “Embedding” – as the notion of emergence is a crucial constituent in the information-theoretic, quantum-topological, and geometric accounts. Moreover, concerning the issue of relativistic covariance, it is to be regarded that Process and Reality is really a sketch of a cosmology-to-be . . . [in the spirit of ] Kant [who] built on the obsolete ideas of space, time, and matter of Euclid and Newton. Whitehead set out to suggest what a philosophical cosmology might be that builds beyond Newton [ala quantum physics].

Amazon Link

One of the major philosophical texts of the 20th century, Process and Reality is based on Alfred North Whitehead’s influential lectures that he delivered at the University of Edinburgh in the 1920s on process philosophy.

Whitehead’s master work in philsophy, Process and Reality propounds a system of speculative philosophy, known as process philosophy, in which the various elements of reality [are interwoven] into a consistent relation to each other. It is also an exploration of some of the preeminent thinkers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, such as Descartes, Newton, Locke, and Kant.

The ultimate edition of Whitehead’s magnum opus, Process and Reality is a standard reference for scholars of all backgrounds.