Philosophy of Religion

Barry Miller on Theistic Personalism and Classical Theism

Thus understood, God’s properties are merely human ones, albeit extended to the maximum degree possible. As conceived of by perfect-being theologians, therefore, God turns out to be simply the greatest thing around, some kind of super-being that would be quite capable of evoking admiration and wonder, but who could scarcely be described as being absolutely transcendent, or as being worthy of worship. [...] The Anselmians’ God is therefore anything but ineffable, for not only can we talk about him, we can do so in precisely the same terms as those we use in talking about humans. Such a view succeeds in presenting God in terms that are comfortingly familiar, but only at the price of being discomfortingly anthropomorphic. [...] Negative theologians and Anselmians have now presented us with two radically opposed notions of God and his attributes. On the one hand, there is a God so lacking in plurality as to be marked by no internal distinctions whatever; on the other hand, a God so riven with distinctions, so characterized by plurality, as not to be identical with all his attributes, nor they with each other. On the one hand, a God so far from being anthropomorphic as to be shrouded in the negations of human properties; on the other hand, a God so anthropomorphic as to be describable by predicates which remain basically human ones, even when qualified by the likes of ‘maximally’ as in ‘maximally wise’ or ‘omni) as in ‘omniscient’ or ‘unsurpassably’ as in ‘unsurpassably generous.’- Barry Miller in A Most Unlikely God: A Philosophical Enquiry Into the Nature of God

 

I think Barry Miller’s remarks accurately portray the contrasting views of God (personalistic vs classic) today. Aside from my studies on ethics, I’ve been picking up my studies on philosophy of religion, with a particular look at the doctrine of divine simplicity and the two big contrasting views of God that I mentioned earlier: theistic personalism and classical theism. What turns me away from Theistic personalism is how anthropomorphic God is made out to be and how similar he is to us. Also, proponents of the DDS argue that theistic personalist’s denial of the DDS forces them to accept that God must be dependent on his attributes for his existence. What attracts me at the moment about DDS is how much of a rich understanding it gives to the fact that God is an uncaused first cause. That, and the fact that anthropomorphism is avoided entirely (some see this as a weakness in that God seems to be this distant abstract object).

A Defense of Natural Theology: A Response to Tony Arsenal

Tony Arsenal wrote a very interesting and thought-provoking article over at the Theological Arsenal (I love the pun in his blog name). Basically he argues that natural theology fails mainly because of the fact that the fall affected our reasoning capabilities.

Tony points out that many of those who hold to two books of revelation–that is, that God has revealed himself through nature and His creation and through Scripture–cite Romans 1:20 as a proof text of general revelation. Romans 1:18-25 reads:

“18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but theybecame futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.”

Tony notes three problems:

(1) Nature (creation) is fallen.

(2) Human reasoning is fallen.

(3) Sola Scriptura is knocked off its rightful throne.

I am symphathetic to Tony’s view since we both do share a common belief in original sin and the fall (I would hope all Christians share that belief!). One could read Tony’s article to get his full argumentation. I’m merely going to respond to his points and show that they simply do not work against natural theology.

I. Nature is fallen

The points made in this section work mainly against the Fine Tuning Argument, which is an argument I personally don’t like too much (it’s just me). There are plenty more sophisticated arguments, and even better versions of the fine-tuning argument. So, I think it’s wrongheaded to disqualify Natural theology on the grounds of arguing that nature is fallen, thus because the Fine Tuning argument doesn’t work, all of natural theology must fail too. But Tony did give reasons in his comments as to why he chose this argument and its form. I still think that should have been noted in the section itself. As someone who is for natural theology, that doesn’t mean I agree with every argument used in the enterprise. I think some arguments even fail and are bad, given my own metaphysical assumptions. I don’t have much else to say here.

II. Human Reasoning is Fallen

Now, this is where it really takes the cake. Tony writes, “ Even if Nature were able to accurately and conclusively reveal details about God, we are so screwed up that we couldn’t get to those truths.” He then proceeds to quote a number of Scriptures that highlight the fact that we are indeed fallen, wicked people. He concludes, “If there is never a point in our lives in which our hearts and thoughts do not deceive us, and there is no one who is exempt from this estate… then how could we ever trust our fallen reasoning to approach a fallen creation to tell us about a transcendent and wholly other God?” Where to begin….Ok, here goes. This is extremely problematic. I mean if we can never trust reason, why should I trust your argument? Why should you trust mine? So let’s lay out a charitable argument for Tony’s case.

1. The fall affected our reasoning capabilities to the point that we cannot apprehend the truths of nature (Even if Nature were able to accurately and conclusively reveal details about God, we are so screwed up that we couldn’t get to those truths)

Ok, so far so good. Now suppose this is true. Suppose that our minds are such that they’re affected to the point of not apprehend the truths of nature. Wouldn’t this apply to reality as well? Sure. Our minds are so affected by the fall that we cannot trust our reason to apprehend reality. 2+2 could equal five for all we know. This all sounds very Kantian to me (the fact that we cannot know reality in-itself) I would hope Tony Arsenal is not a Kantian.

But why stop at natural theology? Why not apply Tony’s analysis to theology too? If we cannot rely on reason, which is corrupted, to approach a corrupted book of nature, how is it that our corrupted minds can approach the holy book and study it? Our minds are so screwed up that we cannot apprehend the truths of scripture with our own minds. Now, one could just appeal to God and say God makes it so we can apprehend His truths. But, then why can’t we say that God makes it so that people are able to apprehend the truths of nature? Doesn’t this fit in with the fact the scripture itself teaches that men are without excuse since “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them”? It seems like Tony’s own argument undercuts his own enterprise of theology. No surprise there. So, let me formalize my argument using Tony’s own premise.

1. The fall affected our reasoning capabilities to the point that we cannot apprehend the truths of nature (Even if Nature were able to accurately and conclusively reveal details about God, we are so screwed up that we couldn’t get to those truths)

2. If the fall affected our reasoning capabilities to the point that we cannot apprehend the truths of nature, then it seems that we cannot trust our reasoning capabilities for anything.

3. Thus, we cannot trust our reasoning capabilities for anything. [1, 2 modus ponens]

4. If we cannot trust our reasoning capabilities, then we cannot trust this argument or any argument.

5. But we can trust this argument or any argument for that matter.

6. So, it is false that we cannot trust our reasoning capabilities. [4, 5 modus tollens]

7.  Therefore it is false that the fall affected our reasoning capabilities to the point that we cannot apprehend the truths of nature. [2, 6 modus tollens]

QED.

Note that my conclusion isn’t that the fall hasn’t affected our reasoning capabilities at all. It’s that it hasn’t affected it to the point of not apprehending any truths of nature. Surely, people apprehend moral truths, and this is based on a natural law conception. Surely, people apprehend mathematical truths. Unless you want to go as far as deny those. So, Tony’s second reason just utterly fails on all grounds. I mean I could go further and talk about moral truths and responsibility. But I think quoting Maverick Philosopher will suffice. He writes,

“Objection: ’You are ignoring the deleterious noetic consequences of original sin. Because our faculties have been corrupted by it, we fail to find evident what is in itself evident, namely, that the world is a divine artifact.  And it is because of this original sin that unbelief is inexcusable.’

This response raises its own difficulties.  First, how can one be morally responsible for a sin that one has not oneself committed but has somehow inherited? Second, if our faculties have been so corrupted by original sin that we can no longer reliably distinguish between the evident and the non-evident, then this corruption will extend to all our cognitive operations including Paul’s theological reasoning, which we therefore should not trust either.”

He brilliantly sums up the argument I just made in this entire section. If Tony wants to say that our reasoning faculties are that bad, then be my guest. If so, he just undermined theology and everything else with it.

III. Natural Theology usurps Sola Scriptura 

Now, I spotted something that bugs me a little. Perhaps I’m reading into it or not. You be the judge. Tony writes, “For example, philosopher William Lane Craig holds to a so-called Molinist understanding of God’s foreknowledge. Without getting into a lot of details, this means that God has exhaustive knowledge of not only what is, but also what could logically be. However, this system requires God to be bound by what is logically possible” (emphasis mine). So, is Tony implying that God is not bound by logic? So, then, God is not bound by the fact that something cannot be and not be at the same time in the same sense? So, if God is not bound by what is logically possible, then I guess God can exist and not exist at the same time in the same sense. I mean, why can’t God create himself too? Like I said, perhaps this is not what Tony was getting at, but it’s there and it stuck out to me.

Tony also comments on Craig’s remarks of molinism saying, “All of this, based on a philosophical system constructed by fallen creatures, with fallen logic, observing a fallen creation.” See my critique of his argument about reason. Now, am I implying that reasoning is somehow infallible and that we are infallible interpreters and reasoners? Of course not! That’s nonsense. We’re human, we’re finite, we’re limited, and fallible. I think we can trust reason as far as it goes. But to throw reason completely out the window is just, well, nonsense! To what degree our minds are affected by the fall is another question which I don’t look to answer here.

Tony goes on to say that “God has given us the Scriptures as a sufficient revelation for all things concerning faith and salvation. This includes all of Theology. To affirm Natural Theology is to say that God has also given us another source of revelation that is sufficient concerning faith and salvation, and often times is to say that there are aspects of God’s very nature or salvation that he has not revealed to us in scripture.”

I beg to differ with regard to the point that affirming natural theology means God has given us another source of revelation concerning faith and salvation. I don’t think that’s the case. I think God has given us tools to think deeply and evaluate these issues, i.e., reasoning and logic, but I in no way think that it serves as another piece of revelation. God tells us things in scripture but he doesn’t break it down in the nitty gritty. Philosophy comes in and assists with theology in this, e.g., looking at issues of freewill and sovereignty. In no way is natural theology elevated above scripture, or even general revelation for that matter. I see general revelation as complimentary and a little below special revelation. I don’t think anyone would affirm the claim that “To affirm Natural Theology is to say that God has also given us another source of revelation that is sufficient concerning faith and salvation.” I don’t think natural theology is sufficient. It gives us a starting point and gets us far, but it doesn’t get us the whole enchilada.

But I mean there’s a lot that isn’t really in scripture but is assumed in scripture. Such as language, the fact that we can understand language, logic, reasoning capabilities, and the fact that we can approach scripture and reason about it, unless, of course, you think we cannot trust our reasoning. Then we have a problem. But all these assumptions are used to approach scripture and theology to try and understand God. As I said before, I don’t think we’re infallible and I don’t think our reason is impeccable. I do think our will and intellects have been disordered by the fall and they need to be restored by God’s grace. How fallen they are and how much help we need is another question that I am not going to look at right now.

I hope this post didn’t come off as brash. I was just alarmed at some of the points raised in Tony’s post and I wanted to shed out some arguments as to why I think his reasons do not work.

Fun With Mr. Diety

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwf6QD-REMY

Someone in the philosophy club at my university posted this on the club’s Facebook page for all to see. Of course, 80% of the members are either atheists or some sort of pantheist following in the shoes of Spinoza (Why Spinoza? I have no clue. Especially when I think most of his stuff was garbage. But that’s another topic).

Anyways, I found this satirical video somewhat entertaining, although I disagree with the amount of force behind the euthyphro dilemma. I think the video is persuasive if and only if the person watching the video was your average village atheist who doesn’t keep up with the literature in philosophy of religion.

Nonetheless, the video is satirical and is aiming to make a point. What is that point? For one, Mr. Diety (who is obviously representing God)  is just some babbling, ignorant, unintelligent fool who cowers away from the questions and responds mediocrely. I won’t lie, the visual rhetoric is effective. Here you have this calm, collected, and articulate philosopher making Mr.Deity squirm in his chair as he struggles, with a confused look on his face, to give a sufficient answer to the philosopher’s questions.

The philosopher presents Mr. Deity with the classic Euthyphro Dilemma: Is something good because it has the characteristics of being good and therefore [God] declares it good or is something good simply because [God] declares it good?

Mr. Deity essentially responds that goodness is whatever he says is good because the goodness is the “essentiality of [him]“. The Philosophy then retorts, “how do we know?” Mr. Deity  claims that goodness is one of his characteristics to which the philosopher shoots back and asks, “according to whom?” According to Mr. Deity, that would be Thomas Aquinas. This doesn’t really sit well with the Philosopher. He responds, “Sir, you can’t really define as one of your essential characteristics the very thing you’re attempting to establish.”

So, how is the dilemma escaped? Many theists appeal to the fact that the dilemma is a false one and God is good by nature.

The philosopher in Mr. Diety asks why must God be good? Or in his words, “according to whom?” Why can’t God be evil? Why must we pick this definition instead of that one? Of course, I think this misses the point of who God is, and God is, by definition, the greatest conceivable being. But doesn’t that beg the question? That is, the philosopher asks “according to whom?” and we can reformulate that question to, “Why must that be the definition and not this? According to whom is that the definition of God?” I think this objection fails though since an argument from definition is being offered, a stipulative definition, and this type of argument is completely valid and the definition cannot be true or false. Many atheists would say this begs the question and this is what the philosopher tries to point out–namely, that one cannot define one of the things that is trying to be established, i.e., goodness.

If we start with the definition of God as the greatest conceivable being, we can easily say that Being X that has goodness is greater than being Y that has evil or less goodness, and being Z that has the greatest level of goodness is obviously greater than X and Y. Given this definition, we have a being that is the greatest in every way and the euthyphro dilemma crumbles as a false one.

But then again, many don’t seem to understand what stipulative definitions are and what an argument from definition is. Hence, why so many village atheists get hung up on these satirical videos and chuckle, “Derp, derp, why is God good, eh? Why is it part of His nature? See, you beg duh question, and thus God doesn’t exist.” So, as always, the village atheist goes away with the idea that theism is completely untenable and idiotic while his video is so intellectually rigorous. (As a side note, I love how pro-atheistic videos have 242842894829342 likes and 3 dislikes, then we head on over to the theist videos and see 3 likes and 242842894829342 dislikes. It’s just always amusing how theists are hated on)

 Scroll to top