77 Comments
founding

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."

Expand full comment

Would love to hear you and John Behr in conversation.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment
founding
Apr 18, 2023Liked by David Bentley Hart

Thanks, David.

Expand full comment
founding

david — may i suggest a conversation between you & jordan daniel wood?

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Very much looking forward to your discussion with Iain McGilchrist!

Expand full comment
founding

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment
Apr 19, 2023·edited Apr 19, 2023

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.

Expand full comment

If Dan Dennett is out of the question, I would love for you to invite Ted Chiang or Kazuo Ishiguro for a conversation.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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!).

Expand full comment

DBH and IM, woot! McG’s books are very interesting.

Expand full comment