Cosmogony and Ethical Order: New Studies in Comparative Ethics ed. by Robin W. Lovin and Frank E. Reynolds (review)

BOOK REVIEWS 717 essarily mean the elimination of the enemy, either, since just-war theory holds that actions must be proportionate. One must also take issue with Hauerwas's eschatology and ecclesiology. His eschatology is a realized one, not in the godless history of the nationstate but in the history found through the Church. Yet Hauerwas insists that there are not " two histories " but " only one true history-the history of God's peaceable kingdom. Christians admit no ultimate dualism be~ tween God's history and the world's history" (p. 54). Despite this statement , dualism between the church and world permeates Hauerwas's work. His church remains a sectarian. one which bears witness to God's true peace. The world undoubtedly needs such a communal witness, but Hauerwas must realize that, given his eschatology and ecclesiology, it will be exceedingly difficult for the Christian of his model of church to be " in the world " and enter into "the complex world of deterrence and disarmament strategy" (p. 57) when such a world is so wrought with ambiguity. The strength of Hauerwas's " Christ against culture" model of church would appear to be in "bearing witness" and not in attempting to transform, through dialogue, superpower deterrent strategies. Hauerwas's essay does point to a real need to articulate more fully how just-war theory and pacifism "complement" one another, how the two remain genuine options for individuals within the Christian community . Should War Be Eliminated~, however, fails to prove that justwar theory and pacifism are based on different eschatological assumption1:1 and are, therefore, mutually exclusive in terms of the Christian faith. Weston School of Theology Cambridge, Massachusetts JUDITH A. DWYER, S.S.J. Cosmogony and Ethical Order: New Studies in Comparative Ethics. Edited by ROBIN W. Lovrn and :FRANK E. REYNOLDS. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985. Pp. 437. $19.95 paper; $55.00 cloth. What the reader of Cosmogony and Ethical Order gets and what he expects might not be altogether in agreement. For me and other philosophers , the terms " cosmogony " and " cosmology" have standardized meanings. Cosmology is the study of the origin and structure of the universe , or, as Milton K. Munitz had defined it in his Theories of the Universe , " the study of the astronomical or physical universe as a whole" (this would include origins). Cosmogony, a narrower term, refers to cosmological accounts which are conveyed mythologically. The terms 718 BOOK REVIEWS serve to distinguish mythological efforts from later philosophical and scientific endeavors, the latter of which were attempts to release cosmological speculation from the imagery of myth regarded as too anthropomorphic. This liberation is first seen in the writings of the pre-Socratics where physical notions were substituted for myths. Inasmuch as the work seems intended for a scholarly audience, perhaps sharing a similar notion of cosmogony, the full extent of what is treated in the volume is not conveyed by the title. The contributors, whose particular traditions do not contain myths recounting the actual creation of the universe, wrestle with the problem of vindicating their usage of the term cosmogony for what they are relating to the ethical order. Burkhalter in her study of the Islamic tradition redefines cosmogony, extending it to eternal creative process almost as a convenience to include Islam here where " cosmogony " is being used as a category of comparison. Reynolds also broadens his definition of cosmogony to allow for the inclusion of Theravada Buddhism. Defining cosmogony as "theories about the origin of the world,'' Sturm, using the term " origin " synonymously with " beginning," distinguishes three types of beginnings (hence cosmogonies) in terms of their function(s) primitive (" in the beginning" . . .)-legitimization of myths; modern (" we the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union" ...)a calculus of rational control; and the third (unnamed)-multi-functional: explanatory, productive, critical, and directive. Marxism as representative of this last consequently becomes a cosmogony. What is indicated is not that the contributors to the volume do not have a category of comparison for doing comparative descriptive ethics, but simply that the comparative category is not cosmogony. Rather the category is " perspectives on reality " or " metaphysical views," given the notable absence of...