Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:02:32.956Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

William James, John Dewey, and the ‘Death-of-God’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2008

John K. Roth
John K. Roth
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Claremont Men's College, California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Basic issues in the recent ‘death-of-God’ movement can be illuminated by comparison and contrast with the relevant ideas of two American philosophers, John Dewey and William James. Dewey is an earlier spokesman for ideas that are central to the ‘radical theology’ of Thomas J. J. Altizer, William Hamilton, and Paul Van Buren. His reasons for rejecting theism closely resemble propositions maintained by these ‘death-of-God’ theologians. James, on the other hand, points toward a theological alternative. He takes cognizance of ideas similar to those in the ‘radical theology’, but he does not opt for either a metaphorical or real elimination of God. Thus, the contentions of this paper are (1) that there has been a version of the ‘death-of-God’ perspective in American thought before, and (2) that there are resources in the American tradition that suggest a viable option to this perspective.

Type
Research Article
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , March 1971 , pp. 53 - 61
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 53 note 1 Altizer, Thomas J. J., ‘The Sacred and the Profane: A Dialectical Understanding of Christianity’, Radical Theology and the Death of God (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966), pp. 140–55.Google Scholar Cf. Altizer, Thomas J. J., The Gospel of Christian Atheism (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966), p. 10Google Scholar; Hamilton, William, ‘The Death of God Theologies Today’, Radical Theology and the Death of God, pp. 23–50Google Scholar; Paul Van, Buren, The Secular Meaning of the Gospel (New York: Macmillan, 1963), pp. 2 ff.Google Scholar, 20, 157 ff.

page 54 note 1 Van Buren's work reflects the older conflict more openly than that of Altizer or Hamilton, as is indicated by the attention given to logical positivism and principles of verification. For example, see The Secular Meaning of the Gospel, pp. 1–20.

page 54 note 2 Cf. Hamilton, , ‘The Death of God Theologies Today’, Radical Theology and the Death of God, p. 40.Google Scholar Altizer's emphasis on immanence as opposed to transcendence is also relevant here. This emphasis is present throughout The Gospel of Christian Atheism. Van Buren's attempts to translate statements about God into statements about man also fit here.

page 56 note 1 Hamilton, William, The New Essence of Christianity (New York: Association Press, 1961), pp. 44 ffGoogle Scholar

page 56 note 2 Dewey, John, A Common Faith (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964), p. 33.Google Scholar

page 57 note 1 Dewey, John, A Common Faith (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964), p. 31.Google Scholar

page 58 note 1 James, William, ‘The Sentiment of Rationality’, The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy (New York: Dover, 1956), p. 110.Google Scholar

page 59 note 1 James, William, ‘The Moral Philosopher and the Moral Life’, The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy, p. 212.Google Scholar

page 60 note 1 James, William, A Pluralistic Universe (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1909), p. 311.Google Scholar

page 61 note 1 The philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead represents one way of developing these insights from James's thought.