Foundations of Theology ed. by Philip McShane, S. J. (review)

BOOK REVIEWS 535 finds metaphor to be essential because it is a means whereby spiritual realities may be represented to the senses, and it also serves to remind us that we do not have literal description of divine truths. In his introductory essay, Professor Shibles argues that metaphor is a form of knowledge, as well as an art form that may be taught as one of the arts, rather than as an aspect of them. In his view, metaphor is likewise properly viewed as a philosophical method that enables one to see the basic metaphor in each system of knowledge and to create a variety of types of metaphorical systems. He would argue that no definition can be taken literally; all definitions are seen as meaphorical ways of organizing facts. Rejecting traditional concepts of " mind " and " imagination," he does not see the construction of metaphors or metaphorical systems as evidence of the operation of "mind" or "imagination." Consequently, all attempts to treat metaphor in this way he regards as based upon the illusion of " the traditional mindbody , inner-outer dualism." His work is professedly meant in part as a movement towards a new rhetoric, and he sees philosophy, poetry, rhetoric, and science as, to a large extent, attempts to " learn " our language. Metaphor, he seems not to deny, produces a world of "as-if." It is not a method for the building of metaphysics. But that clearly is not Professor Shibles' concern either, and he has provided students of several disciplines, at the very least, with a useful reference work. PAUL VAN K. THOMSON Providence College Providence, Rhode Island Foundations of Theology. Ed. by PHILIP McSHANE, S. J. Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1972. Pp. 257. $10.00. This is the first volume of a projected three-volume series containing all of the papers which were delivered at the International Lonergan Congress held in Florida in 1970. Although one might initially be tempted to view a symposium of this sort as merely providing an opportunity for the devoted disciples of the master to extol his accomplishments, judging from the contents of this volume it seems clear that a serious effort was made to solicit the opinions of those who would examine Lonergan's thought in a truly critical manner with a view to determining its real significance for contemporary theology. Even a cursory glance at the list of contributors reveals a rather broad spectrum of philosophical and theological perspectives, and while it is true that all show themselves to be basically sympathetic to Lonergan's attempt to develop a truly viable foundational theology, many nevertheless remain sharply critical of certain aspects of his thought. 536 BOOK REVIEWS Despite the fact that this set of papers covers an extremely broad range of topics, all of the participants restrict themselves to a common theme. Each attempts to focus attention upon one or more facets of Lonergan's efforts to establish a foundational theology through a detailed examination of the method employed in the various fields of theological concentration. Among some of the more interesting and provocative theses in this collection are those advanced by Charles Curran, Charles Davis, Langdon Gilkey, George Lindbeck, Quentin Quesnell, and David Tracy. Curran offers a number of critical observations on Lonergan's reflections upon the nature of religious conversion, a notion which in recent years has assumed a central importance in his thought. Davis, for his part, readily admits that Lonergan's writings exerted considerable influence upon his own intellectual development, but this does not prevent him from criticizing strongly certain aspects of his system. In his opinion Lonergan's philosophical theology contains a number of unquestioned assumptions concerning the validity of traditional metaphysics and the relationship between divine revelation and an infallible magisterium. Gilkey argues that it is possible to detect an underlying tension in Lonergan's thought between the general epistemological perspective which he adopts and the particular theological conclusions reached through an application of the principles which undergird this perspective. Lonergan, he charges, is unwilling to accept completely the relativistic implications of his own empiricism. Lindbeck raises the question of whether the theory of doctrinal development as advanced by Lonergan is sufficiently neutral...