Alfredo, our very own blogger, has recently received a reply from William Lane Craig on the doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS) here! He has literally become a thomistic rock star overnight. Next meal is on him guys! Really though, I think he provided a death blow argument for DDS that could not be avoided unless you wanted to embrace intellectual suicide. Unfortunately, that’s precisely what WLC did in his response here. He may be closer to a view of DDS, but metaphysically, his rejection of proper parts is radically problematic. A denial of proper parts entails the denial of the essence/existence distinction, therefore giving us the proposal that everything is God (i.e, pantheism). How in the world could we linguistically refer to parts if no parts could be observed? According to him, it’s really just a “figment of our imagination”. Philosophy can be such a despairing discipline if we pit the intellect against reality like this. This is no different than Parmenides who denied the existence of change, but we all know how that was historically crushed by none other than Aristotle.
I just do not understand how philosophers can be forced to accept such ridiculous notions. If anything, I would much rather concede to agnosticism than be anywhere near such views. Fortunately, this is what makes A-T stick out from the rest. It attempts to provide rational defenses for common sense positions, but it goes beyond this and gives us powerful tools for understanding complex issues. I think it’s interesting that WLC is readily able to accept extremely counter-intuitive propositions, yet his very own arguments for the existence of God make direct appeals to intuition. Does anyone else not find this selectively ad hoc? And his concession that philosophy is at its deepest level counter-intuitive dribble is a very sad conclusion. What’s to stop the atheist from making this same claim about all of his arguments for theism? The universe needed a cause? Well, philosophy has counter-intuitive consequences so maybe it just popped into existence out of nothing!
Well that’s enough of my rant. Go read it.
4 Responses to WLC Replies to Alfredo
Matthew Su September 11, 2012
That’s not quite fair to WLC- the DDS is pretty unintuitive, and he’s absolutely right about that. Either way, we’re going to have to stretch our intuitions.
WLC seems to think that we shouldn’t multiply tropes and parts everywhere we can draw a linguistic distinction, and here the Thomist again would agree- we draw distinctions between God’s various qualities, but in fact there are no such distinctions in reality. There are indeed principled ways to access and describe real essences of course, and I do think that Craig goes too far, but this doesn’t necessarily leave him up a metaphysical creek without a paddle.
Craig’s thought, though he considers himself metaphysically “simple” in a certain sense, does not entail, in his mind, that everything is God; he says, remember, that the denial of proper parthood does not support a “robust doctrine of actus purus.” By this, I think, he means that the real distinctions between things should not be expressed in terms of parts, which are linguistic constructions and lead to the giving of metaphysical heft where it’s not warranted, eg, Dottie*. Craig, though he rejects metaphysical reification of “parts,” does hold that there are real differences between beings, and differentiation within beings, that are expressible in terms of linguistic constructions like that of parts. So, rather than God’s necessity and aseity being grounded in his lack of a distinction between existence and essence, God simply is necessary and existent a se without anything further needed to be said, and Craig himself simply is contingent, physical, and mortal, and so on.
As an Aquinas enthusiast who is also a Craig fan, I would say that this is yet another instance of the linguistic barrier between classical Thomism and modern analytic philosophy. Thomists simply aren’t talking about linguistic constructions. They speak of principles in things- whatever-it-is-in-reality that grounds a linguistic construction, and so on. So Thomists and Craig would agree that, in the sense of “part” in which one’s left side, which is not a distinct functional unity with its own Form, is not a real part. If there are such things as parts, they would have to be differentiated according to real metaphysical principles. Craig’s “simplicity” seems to me to be basically an unwillingness to assert any distinctions of ontological principles unless he absolutely has to. He will recognize real differences without positing that these real differences are due to distinct ontological principles within a thing- prima facie, I’m not sure that this is logically contradictory. The task of the Thomist is to show that real differences require real principles to ground them, and though I think we’re up to the challenge, particularly when it comes to proper parts in beings like us with distinctive teleologies, that doesn’t make Craig irrational for holding the opposite view.
Gil Sanders September 11, 2012
Matt,
That’s not quite fair to WLC- the DDS is pretty unintuitive, and he’s absolutely right about that. Either way, we’re going to have to stretch our intuitions.
Right, but it’s not unintuitive in the same sense or in the same degree. A-T builds up to DDS for Actus Purus, but WLC’s view is a denial of proper parts altogether. DDS is at least grounded in metaphysically sound principles, but WLC’s version (W-DDS) is applied to all of being and therefore is grounded by unsound principles. Furthermore, DDS is not counter-intuitive in the same sense because our intuitions refer to parts in their univocal sense, which DDS does not necessarily contradict because it refers to them in their analogical sense. This is contrary to W-DDS because it applies simplicity to all being in the exact same sense.
Craig, though he rejects metaphysical reification of “parts,” does hold that there are real differences between beings, and differentiation within beings, that are expressible in terms of linguistic constructions like that of parts. So, rather than God’s necessity and aseity being grounded in his lack of a distinction between existence and essence, God simply is necessary and existent a se without anything further needed to be said, and Craig himself simply is contingent, physical, and mortal, and so on.
That’s the problem, though. Anything that is contingent, physical, and mortal just IS composed of parts. Contingency has its ground in the essence-existence distinction, physical matter has its ground in the form-matter distinction, and being mortal just is a being that has the potential to die (act-potency distinction). Take all these parts away and you have actus purus. It’s not as if you can ascribe properties to something without grounding it in its being. In order for there to be real differences between being, there need to be real differences in being.
Justin September 11, 2012
I’m genuinely curious, but how has he become a “rock star”. Is it being discussed all over the internet (at least within philosophy circles)? WLC’s response was interesting, and I didn’t see much of you engaging it here other than calling it ridiculous. I’m not being rude or anything, however, I’d like to read some other discussion on Alfredo’s question!
Gil Sanders September 11, 2012
Justin,
I’m genuinely curious, but how has he become a “rock star”
No, it’s not being discussed “all over” the internet as far as I know… XD It’s a playful exaggeration of the fact that Alfredo has received special attention on WLC’s site! So in a sense, his name can receive wider recognition.
WLC’s response was interesting, and I didn’t see much of you engaging it here other than calling it ridiculous
Not at all. I responded by noting how it entails pantheism, the epistemological problem of how we come to know these parts if they do no exist, and how his approach is counter with his appeals to intuition elsewhere. Taken together, I do think it is absurd. Alfredo has made a similar response to me on FB comments, but he plans to make a fuller response in a blog post soon!