Charles Hartshorne's considerable writings have been influential in contem 1 porary religious and philosophical thought. Not only is he regarded as the leading living representative of process thought as well as a much respected interpreter of Whitehead, but he has also established himself as an original 2 and creative thinker in his own right. The literature on his philosophy has been rapidly increasing. His thought and influence have also been the subject 3 of a number of conferences and gatherings of scholars. One of Hartshorne's most notable contributions to contemporary philoso 4 phy and theology is his concept of God. In his writings he has set out "to formulate the idea of deity so as to preserve, perhaps increase, its religious value, while yet avoiding the contradictions which seem inseparable from the 5 idea as customarily defined." The result of his efforts has been the develop ment of the concept of a "dipolar God" (insofar as contrasting metaphysical predicates, e.g. relative/absolute, contingent/necessary, finite/infinite and so on, are affirmed as applicable to God although always in an eminent way). Inasmuch as he has elaborated this concept in close dialogue with classical theism, he also refers to it as "neo-classical." Because of the emphasis he places on the reality of change and becoming in his metaphysics (which regards God as the chief exemplification of metaphysical principles), the term 6 "process" has likewise been used to describe his notion of God."

One of the controversial issQes which have recently come into prominence among philosophers and theologians is how one should understand the term l God. It seems that, despite the fact that a certain idea of God is assumed by not most, people, there is a degree of disagreement over the meaning many, if of the term. "God" is generally taken to refer to a supreme Being, the Creator, who is perfect and self-existent, holy, personal and loving. This understanding of "God" corresponds to what many have either been brought up to believe in or have come to accept as the meaning of this word. Neverthe less, theists appear to be defending a particular idea of God and to be accusing atheists of attacking another, one which does not tie in with the theistic interpretation. Cardinal Maximos IV, for instance, is quoted as saying, "The God the atheists don't believe in is a God I don't believe in either. "2 On the other hand, atheists have been challenging believers to explain clearly what they mean by "God" because these critics cannot see how that idea can have any acceptable meaning. Furthermore, theists them selves seem to be divided over the issue. H. P. Owen in his book Concepts of Deity shows quite convincingly that there is "a bewildering variety of concepts of God" among theists. ' One has only to ask around for confirma tion of this observation."

Charles Hartshorne's considerable writings have been influential in contem 1 porary religious and philosophical thought. Not only is he regarded as the leading living representative of process thought as well as a much respected interpreter of Whitehead, but he has also established himself as an original 2 and creative thinker in his own right. The literature on his philosophy has been rapidly increasing. His thought and influence have also been the subject 3 of a number of conferences and gatherings of scholars. One of Hartshorne's most notable contributions to contemporary philoso 4 phy and theology is his concept of God. In his writings he has set out "to formulate the idea of deity so as to preserve, perhaps increase, its religious value, while yet avoiding the contradictions which seem inseparable from the 5 idea as customarily defined." The result of his efforts has been the develop ment of the concept of a "dipolar God" (insofar as contrasting metaphysical predicates, e.g. relative/absolute, contingent/necessary, finite/infinite and so on, are affirmed as applicable to God although always in an eminent way). Inasmuch as he has elaborated this concept in close dialogue with classical theism, he also refers to it as "neo-classical." Because of the emphasis he places on the reality of change and becoming in his metaphysics (which regards God as the chief exemplification of metaphysical principles), the term 6 "process" has likewise been used to describe his notion of God."

One of the controversial issQes which have recently come into prominence among philosophers and theologians is how one should understand the term l God. It seems that, despite the fact that a certain idea of God is assumed by not most, people, there is a degree of disagreement over the meaning many, if of the term. "God" is generally taken to refer to a supreme Being, the Creator, who is perfect and self-existent, holy, personal and loving. This understanding of "God" corresponds to what many have either been brought up to believe in or have come to accept as the meaning of this word. Neverthe less, theists appear to be defending a particular idea of God and to be accusing atheists of attacking another, one which does not tie in with the theistic interpretation. Cardinal Maximos IV, for instance, is quoted as saying, "The God the atheists don't believe in is a God I don't believe in either. "2 On the other hand, atheists have been challenging believers to explain clearly what they mean by "God" because these critics cannot see how that idea can have any acceptable meaning. Furthermore, theists them selves seem to be divided over the issue. H. P. Owen in his book Concepts of Deity shows quite convincingly that there is "a bewildering variety of concepts of God" among theists. ' One has only to ask around for confirma tion of this observation."