I do think Stump's article added one thing I hadn't quite heard before: the breathtakingly clear affirmation that not only is the distinction between God's antecedent and consequent will logically coherent (it isn't), but that it is so much the deepest truth of God's being that the division it introduces produces precise contradictories: antecedently He'd be struck by the pangs of disappointment at poor Jerome's making of himself a Nazi, but consequently He'd be more or less undisturbed at the same prospect. And then there's the added confusion that there lurks in Jerome a power so invincible that it can make Jerome's "true self," whom God knows infallibly, into a "mere figment" for God himself. Apparently God must contend with preexistent matter after all. Only here it's called "free will."
One potential guest to consider during your hiatus: Terry Eagleton (if at all possible). Given the eclectic nature of his work, it would be delightful to hear a free-ranging conversation on everything from political theory to literature to theology.
Any plans to talk to Mark Vernon and/or Rupert Sheldrake? I quite enjoyed your conversation with Sheldrake a while back. Seems like there could be a lot of fruitful dialogue with both.
In regards to potential topics, I am selfishly interested in your thoughts on preterism and how Jesus and the letters seem to claim the eschatological kingdom is coming very soon in their generation/lifetime. After leaving fundentalism/biblical literalism and being convinced of your defense of universalism (loved your book), I'm feeling a bit lost in the process of reconsidering everything. Apologies if this is not the place for this.
I think it clear that most of the "eschatological" material in the synoptic gospels concerns the events of first-century Judaea, in the form of (quite precisely) Jeremiads and Second Temple imagery.
You've tought me a new word: Jeremiads. I'll have to dig into this, because many biblical scholars online are claiming Jesus is a failed prophet. Thanks for your input. I'm devouring all of your books, but it's a slow, painful, and exciting liberation.
It’s also notable that, quite generally, prophecy is contingent on the responses of the hearers. Deuteronomy’s criteria for true prophets has to be read in light of how prophecy functions in the Judeo-Christian context. If a people on whom judgment has been pronounced relent unto God, God relents unto them—and vice versa. In Acts 3:19-21, the very immanent onset of the Golden Age is predicated on the response of the Judaeans.
Thanks for the heads-up about Jennifer Banks book on childbirth. I find if you are not actively involved in gender studies or feminist studies, these topics tend to be scarce in certain spheres of theology or philosophy. Perhaps this is due to which sex tends to pontificate on human nature, but surely also becoming a mother and experiencing childbirth (which not all women will) sets often practical limitations on one's time and focus. There is something about pregnancy, birth and nursing which speaks to both humanity's complete interdependence and is also incredibly individualistic; I alone am my child's mother-even in the case of tragedy.
To suggest a conversation partner in the same vein, perhaps Mary Harrington, a feminist writer interested in competing feminist interests of care vs. freedom.
I have a few suggestions for fruitful conversations. One would be another talk with a scientist or mathematician like Rupert Sheldrake as I've seen others mention. A few names come to mind: Simon Conway Morris, Roger Penrose (maybe we can find out what microtubules are and what they do), Michael Denton, Alexei Nesteruk, Andreas Wagner, Stephen Barr, or Denis Noble.
I would love to see a conversation between Stephen RL Clark and yourself, although I have heard he doesn't like interviews. But what you've been doing are more like informal conversations and not interviews, maybe he would be willing. Maybe John Milbank? Or perhaps Eugene McCarraher?
The last suggestion would be Fr. Martin Laird. I've benefitted greatly from his trilogy on the christian contemplative tradition as well as his book on Gregory of Nyssa. I'm not sure if you're familiar with him or his work.
Apologies for the myriad suggestions. Ask and you shall receive.
Roger Penrose enthusiastically seconded. Perhaps Salley can help...
Lloyd Gerson would be interesting. The sole philosophy course I ever took was Metaphysics with him at U of T, 30-odd years ago. It did not go well... And that was totally on me. I feel like it might go better now. Maybe.
Yeah I've learned a great deal from his trilogy on the platonic tradition. I saw that he sees some truth in Christianity insofar as it's Platonic but he doesn't understand how prayer would work and some other things, from what I gather. It would be a delight for me to see two intellectual giants who have, broadly, the same metaphysics but much different religious sentiments engage on that.
I enthusiastically support the suggestion to invite Kazuo Ishiguro. It will result in a wonderful conversation not only about literature but also about classical music and jazz. And if they are not acquaintances already, DBH knows quite a few British writers who can introduce them.
Good morning, Dr. Hart. I’ve been trying to wrap my mind around the Trinity’s compatibility with divine simplicity—the Beauty of the Infinite, You Are Gods, and the recent Bulgakov essay here have considerably assisted me, but do you have or know of any other resources that explain how it all fits together? Thank you.
Generally speaking I'm in favor of keeping the conversation series tended toward writers and artists and others not working in theology, or not per se primarily about theology.
My favorites were Vickers and Goddard.
Suggestion: Paul McCartney on the ontology of the muse.
I like the Paul McCartney suggestion. I’ll have my people reach out to his people. First, of course, I have to get some people. (Where does one do that?) Then I have to arrange for the whole shape of reality to be altered.
I'd love to see a discussion with Sebastian Brock on the Syriac tradition. He does a fair amount of interviews, so I think there's a good chance he'd be up for it. (He's also mentioned that he finds universalism appealing!).
I do think Stump's article added one thing I hadn't quite heard before: the breathtakingly clear affirmation that not only is the distinction between God's antecedent and consequent will logically coherent (it isn't), but that it is so much the deepest truth of God's being that the division it introduces produces precise contradictories: antecedently He'd be struck by the pangs of disappointment at poor Jerome's making of himself a Nazi, but consequently He'd be more or less undisturbed at the same prospect. And then there's the added confusion that there lurks in Jerome a power so invincible that it can make Jerome's "true self," whom God knows infallibly, into a "mere figment" for God himself. Apparently God must contend with preexistent matter after all. Only here it's called "free will."
That's probably the best analogy I've heard to the absolute libertarian freedom she describes.
Would love to hear you and John Behr in conversation.
I’ve heard it often, and it can be entertaining.
One potential guest to consider during your hiatus: Terry Eagleton (if at all possible). Given the eclectic nature of his work, it would be delightful to hear a free-ranging conversation on everything from political theory to literature to theology.
Strongly seconded.
Thanks, David.
david — may i suggest a conversation between you & jordan daniel wood?
Hmm. Could be unpredictable. But it might work. Just so long as he doesn't wear his "Hegel Fangirl" t-shirt.
"Hegel Fangirl" t-shirts? You have a merch section now?
Any plans to talk to Mark Vernon and/or Rupert Sheldrake? I quite enjoyed your conversation with Sheldrake a while back. Seems like there could be a lot of fruitful dialogue with both.
Not a bad thought.
Very much looking forward to your discussion with Iain McGilchrist!
In regards to potential topics, I am selfishly interested in your thoughts on preterism and how Jesus and the letters seem to claim the eschatological kingdom is coming very soon in their generation/lifetime. After leaving fundentalism/biblical literalism and being convinced of your defense of universalism (loved your book), I'm feeling a bit lost in the process of reconsidering everything. Apologies if this is not the place for this.
I think it clear that most of the "eschatological" material in the synoptic gospels concerns the events of first-century Judaea, in the form of (quite precisely) Jeremiads and Second Temple imagery.
You've tought me a new word: Jeremiads. I'll have to dig into this, because many biblical scholars online are claiming Jesus is a failed prophet. Thanks for your input. I'm devouring all of your books, but it's a slow, painful, and exciting liberation.
I’d say preterism is correct regarding the temple and “Christ coming into His kingdom,” but the resurrection is future.
It’s also notable that, quite generally, prophecy is contingent on the responses of the hearers. Deuteronomy’s criteria for true prophets has to be read in light of how prophecy functions in the Judeo-Christian context. If a people on whom judgment has been pronounced relent unto God, God relents unto them—and vice versa. In Acts 3:19-21, the very immanent onset of the Golden Age is predicated on the response of the Judaeans.
Marilynne Robinson; I believe you have a great deal of respect for her. Matthew Levering--likewise; as I see a great deal of overlap between you two.
Thanks for the heads-up about Jennifer Banks book on childbirth. I find if you are not actively involved in gender studies or feminist studies, these topics tend to be scarce in certain spheres of theology or philosophy. Perhaps this is due to which sex tends to pontificate on human nature, but surely also becoming a mother and experiencing childbirth (which not all women will) sets often practical limitations on one's time and focus. There is something about pregnancy, birth and nursing which speaks to both humanity's complete interdependence and is also incredibly individualistic; I alone am my child's mother-even in the case of tragedy.
To suggest a conversation partner in the same vein, perhaps Mary Harrington, a feminist writer interested in competing feminist interests of care vs. freedom.
I have a few suggestions for fruitful conversations. One would be another talk with a scientist or mathematician like Rupert Sheldrake as I've seen others mention. A few names come to mind: Simon Conway Morris, Roger Penrose (maybe we can find out what microtubules are and what they do), Michael Denton, Alexei Nesteruk, Andreas Wagner, Stephen Barr, or Denis Noble.
I would love to see a conversation between Stephen RL Clark and yourself, although I have heard he doesn't like interviews. But what you've been doing are more like informal conversations and not interviews, maybe he would be willing. Maybe John Milbank? Or perhaps Eugene McCarraher?
The last suggestion would be Fr. Martin Laird. I've benefitted greatly from his trilogy on the christian contemplative tradition as well as his book on Gregory of Nyssa. I'm not sure if you're familiar with him or his work.
Apologies for the myriad suggestions. Ask and you shall receive.
Roger Penrose enthusiastically seconded. Perhaps Salley can help...
Lloyd Gerson would be interesting. The sole philosophy course I ever took was Metaphysics with him at U of T, 30-odd years ago. It did not go well... And that was totally on me. I feel like it might go better now. Maybe.
Yeah I've learned a great deal from his trilogy on the platonic tradition. I saw that he sees some truth in Christianity insofar as it's Platonic but he doesn't understand how prayer would work and some other things, from what I gather. It would be a delight for me to see two intellectual giants who have, broadly, the same metaphysics but much different religious sentiments engage on that.
Lloyd Gerson also comes to mind. New names keep popping into my head.
If Dan Dennett is out of the question, I would love for you to invite Ted Chiang or Kazuo Ishiguro for a conversation.
I enthusiastically support the suggestion to invite Kazuo Ishiguro. It will result in a wonderful conversation not only about literature but also about classical music and jazz. And if they are not acquaintances already, DBH knows quite a few British writers who can introduce them.
David and Dennet would be a lot of philsophical beard-stroking for one interview.
Good morning, Dr. Hart. I’ve been trying to wrap my mind around the Trinity’s compatibility with divine simplicity—the Beauty of the Infinite, You Are Gods, and the recent Bulgakov essay here have considerably assisted me, but do you have or know of any other resources that explain how it all fits together? Thank you.
Generally speaking I'm in favor of keeping the conversation series tended toward writers and artists and others not working in theology, or not per se primarily about theology.
My favorites were Vickers and Goddard.
Suggestion: Paul McCartney on the ontology of the muse.
Roger Scruton might've been fun, but alas.
I like the Paul McCartney suggestion. I’ll have my people reach out to his people. First, of course, I have to get some people. (Where does one do that?) Then I have to arrange for the whole shape of reality to be altered.
I know Paul Muldoon—he was more or less responsible for launching my poetic career—who knows McCartney (see https://www.princeton.edu/news/2021/11/02/paul-muldoon-has-collaborated-paul-mccartney-one-seasons-big-books). We were having coffee while he was working on the book, & the Beatles came on the sound system. He pointed upwards at the speakers, cocked his head to listen, & said, “They really were pretty good, you know.”
Ah, so only three degrees of separation between me and Paul. And only two between me and the other Paul.
And just one between you & Admiral Halsey.
So I guess you’re my people now. Set it all up, will you, and get back to me.
"Get Back," you say?
I have faith in you sir.
I'd love to see a discussion with Sebastian Brock on the Syriac tradition. He does a fair amount of interviews, so I think there's a good chance he'd be up for it. (He's also mentioned that he finds universalism appealing!).
DBH and IM, woot! McG’s books are very interesting.