What do you think?
Rate this book
A Christian Natural Theology: Based on the Thought of Alfred North Whitehead
When the first edition of A Christian Natural Theology appeared in 1965, it was a groundbreaking work that incorporated Alfred North Whitehead's metaphysical philosophy as a framework for developing a Christian natural theology. The work was so significant it helped to launch process theology as a leading alternative to neo-orthodox theology and has since become a classic in the literature of process theology. This new edition by one of America's preeminent theologians is an essential work for all those interested in process theology.
224 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1965
7 people are currently reading
98 people want to read
About the author
John B. Cobb Jr.
102 books27 followersJohn Boswell Cobb Jr. was an American theologian, philosopher, and environmentalist. Cobb was regarded as a preeminent scholar in the field of process philosophy and process theology, the school of thought associated with the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead. He was the author of more than fifty books. In 2014, Cobb was elected to the prestigious American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
November 14, 2025
THE “PROCESS THEOLOGIAN” INTERPRETS THE RELIGIOUS IMPLICATIONS OF WHITEHEAD’S PHILOSOPHY
John B. Cobb, Jr. (born 1925) is an American theologian, philosopher, and environmentalist, best known for his work in Process Theology.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1965 book, “This book is a Whiteheadean natural theology… It must be stressed at the outset that serious concern with natural theology does not militate against serious concern for the other tasks of Christian theology. My original intention had been to include attention to some of these tasks in this volume, but this proved impractical. Hence this book deals almost exclusively with natural theology. If I postpone for some years publication of equally serious study on such topics as Christology and soteriology, I hope that will not give the impression that I view these topics as of less importance.” (Pg. 11-12)
He continues, “a cosmology lacking the destructive implications of much modern cosmological thought is not only possible but also more adequate to the modern situation than its competitors. The philosophy by which I am myself grasped, and on which basis I propose to develop a Christian natural theology, is that of Alfred North Whitehead. In his work there is a fully developed alternative to the nihilistic tendencies of most modern thought.” (Pg. 15) He adds, “The book as a whole can make no sense apart from a basic understanding of some main features of Whitehead’s position.” (Pg. 18)
He says, “When we ask specifically what distinguishes man from the other animals, the single clear answer is language. According to Whitehead, language and the human mind are correlative. We may say either that the human mind has created language or that language has created the human mind. It is language that makes possible thought of any degree of complexity as well as the progressive cumulation of the fruits of thought. In addition… Whitehead notes that morality and religion are distinctive of man. But… he believes that something like morality can be observed among the higher animals.” (Pg. 59)
He states, “My sense of personal identity with my past seems to me to depend upon memory… Likewise, I find it very difficult to identify myself as the subject of experiences of which I have no memory whatsoever, such as experiences I am told I had while under the ether… I incline to view those experiences as belonging to my body but not to me… My understanding of my future self-identity with my present runs along the same lines. If I could suppose a future condition, in this life or another, in which the occasions then occurring had no peculiar mode of inheritance from those I now am, I would not identify myself with them in imagination... Only memory can serve in my self-understanding to determine self-identity through time.” (Pg. 75-76)
He explains, “Whitehead uses the term ‘beauty’ to refer to that which gives value to actual occasions of experience… That means that they have the potentiality of contributing a particular character to actual occasions of experience that are affected by them. This character is ‘beauty’ which is then a property of the experience and not as such, directly, of the things experienced. It is this character that Whitehead generalizes.” (Pg. 101)
He provides some suggested moral principles, such as: “Every morally developed person ought always to act as he inescapably sees he ought to act on full disinterested consideration of all available knowledge and experience which appear to him to be relevant… In a morally developed person, the sense of obligation is inescapably included in the subjective form of the imaginative feeling of himself acting as he inescapably sees he ought to act on full disinterested consideration of all available knowledge and experience which appear to him to be relevant.” (Pg. 121)
He explains. “Whitehead… went on to call the principle of limitation or concretion ‘God,’ and to declare that, in fact, it has been the object of man’s worship in all religions. This means… that the God of religion is not the metaphysical ultimate or absolute… For… this consequence of his doctrine, Whitehead has never been forgiven by those who believe that sophisticated thought has once and for all learned to do without God. For the second half, he has earned the rejection of most theologians… he is convinced that the object of authentic religious concern is characterized more decisively by goodness than by metaphysical ultimacy.” (Pg. 142-143)
He proposed, “The easiest way to understand this would be to regard God, like human persons, as a living person. A living person is a succession of moments of experience with special continuity… God, then, at any moment would be an actual entity, but viewed retrospectively and prospectively he would be an infinite succession of divine occasions of experience. It is clear that Whitehead himself thought of God as AN actual entity rather than as a living person … despite this fact, the doctrines he formulated about God compel us to assimilate God more closely to the conception of a living person than to that of an actual entity.” (Pg. 188) He adds, “this view makes the doctrine of God more coherent, and … no serious new difficulties are raised.” (Pg. 192)
Later, he goes on, “Whitehead vehemently rejected the notion of a transcendent creator God who by an act of will called all things into being out of nothing and continues to govern omnipotently from outside his creation. Supernaturalist piety, in many of its connotations, is ruled out. But… Whitehead affirmed that that of which he wrote was that which had inspired the worship of the ages. In Whitehead’s view, not all of God’s functions in relation to the world have relevance to this evocation of the religious response. He wrote also of the secular function of God, and he affirmed that the tendency to neglect this dimension of God’s work in the world has been damaging for both philosophy and theology.” (Pg. 215)
Cobb concludes, “a passionately theocentric faith may follow from the Whiteheadean vision just as appropriately as Whitehead’s urbanely humanistic faith. Nothing in the cosmology itself determines such a question. The difference lies in the dimension of sensibility and especially religious sensibility. There are God-intoxicated men and there are others for whom the reality of God provides the context within which they can express their concern for their fellowmen. Somewhere between these two poles most religious men find themselves.” (Pg. 225)
He suggests, “The relation to experience of God of the belief that God knows us, loves us, and preserves our achievements is much the same as … the belief that God is the ground of our being, our purpose, and the order that sustains us … Yet primarily it must be acknowledged as an interpretation. In the same way, it may be that our self-experience is dimly tinged by an awareness of its openness to another… When one does understand his experience in this way, not only does the realization of valued satisfaction gain importance, but aspects of experience take on added importance for the experience itself… our motivation gains in our own eyes an urgency otherwise lacking… Hence, this belief that we are known by God has the profoundest influence upon experience even though it may not be viewed as itself a direct expression of that experience.” (Pg. 245)
In the final chapter, he states, “By theology in the broadest sense I mean any coherent statement about matters of ultimate concern that recognizes that the perspective by which it is governed is received from a community of faith.” (Pg. 252) He continues, “defining theology as I have… makes possible the recognition of the close parallel between the efforts to articulate Christian faith and similar efforts in such movements as Buddhism.” (Pg. 255)
He ends the book, “where ultimately can man’s final need be met? When that question is asked with utter honesty, none of the great religious communities of the world can provide the answer. Each has identified itself with doctrinal and cultural elements too specialized to speak to the condition of man as men… The Buddha’s vision of reality is not that of the Christ, and both differ profoundly from that of Socrates. Nevertheless, it may be that all are not in the end on the same plane. It may be that man’s FINAL need finds its answer only in one… the Christian … may yet claim for Jesus Christ… that there is the universal answer to be found. The task of vindicating such a claim lies before us as Christians, both in the challenge of personal witness and in the demand for theological reflection.” (Pg. 283-284)
This book will be of great interest to anyone seriously studying Whitehead’s philosophy (particularly in its religious implications), Process Philosophy, Open Theism, or contemporary Christian theology.
John B. Cobb, Jr. (born 1925) is an American theologian, philosopher, and environmentalist, best known for his work in Process Theology.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1965 book, “This book is a Whiteheadean natural theology… It must be stressed at the outset that serious concern with natural theology does not militate against serious concern for the other tasks of Christian theology. My original intention had been to include attention to some of these tasks in this volume, but this proved impractical. Hence this book deals almost exclusively with natural theology. If I postpone for some years publication of equally serious study on such topics as Christology and soteriology, I hope that will not give the impression that I view these topics as of less importance.” (Pg. 11-12)
He continues, “a cosmology lacking the destructive implications of much modern cosmological thought is not only possible but also more adequate to the modern situation than its competitors. The philosophy by which I am myself grasped, and on which basis I propose to develop a Christian natural theology, is that of Alfred North Whitehead. In his work there is a fully developed alternative to the nihilistic tendencies of most modern thought.” (Pg. 15) He adds, “The book as a whole can make no sense apart from a basic understanding of some main features of Whitehead’s position.” (Pg. 18)
He says, “When we ask specifically what distinguishes man from the other animals, the single clear answer is language. According to Whitehead, language and the human mind are correlative. We may say either that the human mind has created language or that language has created the human mind. It is language that makes possible thought of any degree of complexity as well as the progressive cumulation of the fruits of thought. In addition… Whitehead notes that morality and religion are distinctive of man. But… he believes that something like morality can be observed among the higher animals.” (Pg. 59)
He states, “My sense of personal identity with my past seems to me to depend upon memory… Likewise, I find it very difficult to identify myself as the subject of experiences of which I have no memory whatsoever, such as experiences I am told I had while under the ether… I incline to view those experiences as belonging to my body but not to me… My understanding of my future self-identity with my present runs along the same lines. If I could suppose a future condition, in this life or another, in which the occasions then occurring had no peculiar mode of inheritance from those I now am, I would not identify myself with them in imagination... Only memory can serve in my self-understanding to determine self-identity through time.” (Pg. 75-76)
He explains, “Whitehead uses the term ‘beauty’ to refer to that which gives value to actual occasions of experience… That means that they have the potentiality of contributing a particular character to actual occasions of experience that are affected by them. This character is ‘beauty’ which is then a property of the experience and not as such, directly, of the things experienced. It is this character that Whitehead generalizes.” (Pg. 101)
He provides some suggested moral principles, such as: “Every morally developed person ought always to act as he inescapably sees he ought to act on full disinterested consideration of all available knowledge and experience which appear to him to be relevant… In a morally developed person, the sense of obligation is inescapably included in the subjective form of the imaginative feeling of himself acting as he inescapably sees he ought to act on full disinterested consideration of all available knowledge and experience which appear to him to be relevant.” (Pg. 121)
He explains. “Whitehead… went on to call the principle of limitation or concretion ‘God,’ and to declare that, in fact, it has been the object of man’s worship in all religions. This means… that the God of religion is not the metaphysical ultimate or absolute… For… this consequence of his doctrine, Whitehead has never been forgiven by those who believe that sophisticated thought has once and for all learned to do without God. For the second half, he has earned the rejection of most theologians… he is convinced that the object of authentic religious concern is characterized more decisively by goodness than by metaphysical ultimacy.” (Pg. 142-143)
He proposed, “The easiest way to understand this would be to regard God, like human persons, as a living person. A living person is a succession of moments of experience with special continuity… God, then, at any moment would be an actual entity, but viewed retrospectively and prospectively he would be an infinite succession of divine occasions of experience. It is clear that Whitehead himself thought of God as AN actual entity rather than as a living person … despite this fact, the doctrines he formulated about God compel us to assimilate God more closely to the conception of a living person than to that of an actual entity.” (Pg. 188) He adds, “this view makes the doctrine of God more coherent, and … no serious new difficulties are raised.” (Pg. 192)
Later, he goes on, “Whitehead vehemently rejected the notion of a transcendent creator God who by an act of will called all things into being out of nothing and continues to govern omnipotently from outside his creation. Supernaturalist piety, in many of its connotations, is ruled out. But… Whitehead affirmed that that of which he wrote was that which had inspired the worship of the ages. In Whitehead’s view, not all of God’s functions in relation to the world have relevance to this evocation of the religious response. He wrote also of the secular function of God, and he affirmed that the tendency to neglect this dimension of God’s work in the world has been damaging for both philosophy and theology.” (Pg. 215)
Cobb concludes, “a passionately theocentric faith may follow from the Whiteheadean vision just as appropriately as Whitehead’s urbanely humanistic faith. Nothing in the cosmology itself determines such a question. The difference lies in the dimension of sensibility and especially religious sensibility. There are God-intoxicated men and there are others for whom the reality of God provides the context within which they can express their concern for their fellowmen. Somewhere between these two poles most religious men find themselves.” (Pg. 225)
He suggests, “The relation to experience of God of the belief that God knows us, loves us, and preserves our achievements is much the same as … the belief that God is the ground of our being, our purpose, and the order that sustains us … Yet primarily it must be acknowledged as an interpretation. In the same way, it may be that our self-experience is dimly tinged by an awareness of its openness to another… When one does understand his experience in this way, not only does the realization of valued satisfaction gain importance, but aspects of experience take on added importance for the experience itself… our motivation gains in our own eyes an urgency otherwise lacking… Hence, this belief that we are known by God has the profoundest influence upon experience even though it may not be viewed as itself a direct expression of that experience.” (Pg. 245)
In the final chapter, he states, “By theology in the broadest sense I mean any coherent statement about matters of ultimate concern that recognizes that the perspective by which it is governed is received from a community of faith.” (Pg. 252) He continues, “defining theology as I have… makes possible the recognition of the close parallel between the efforts to articulate Christian faith and similar efforts in such movements as Buddhism.” (Pg. 255)
He ends the book, “where ultimately can man’s final need be met? When that question is asked with utter honesty, none of the great religious communities of the world can provide the answer. Each has identified itself with doctrinal and cultural elements too specialized to speak to the condition of man as men… The Buddha’s vision of reality is not that of the Christ, and both differ profoundly from that of Socrates. Nevertheless, it may be that all are not in the end on the same plane. It may be that man’s FINAL need finds its answer only in one… the Christian … may yet claim for Jesus Christ… that there is the universal answer to be found. The task of vindicating such a claim lies before us as Christians, both in the challenge of personal witness and in the demand for theological reflection.” (Pg. 283-284)
This book will be of great interest to anyone seriously studying Whitehead’s philosophy (particularly in its religious implications), Process Philosophy, Open Theism, or contemporary Christian theology.
October 25, 2024
A punishing but rewarding read. Systematic natural theology should be consumed in moderation.
February 18, 2020
Reading a second time - makes a lot more sense :)
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews