Tuesday, June 2, 2009

William Lane Craig and Me Dialogue on Divine Simplicity

So I'm proud to announce that this weeks question of the week at reasonable faith,i.e William Lane Craig's website, is mine.I mailed in the question a couple of weeks ago.For those who do not know,William Lane Craig is a leading Christian Philosopher and Biblical Scholar.He has written many books and articles and held many debates and conferences with Atheists all over the world.

This was my question:

Hello Dr. Craig.

Thank you very much for your enlightening work in Philosophy of religion. I am writing all the way from Malaysia! so you know your work has touched a lot of people globally.

I am a student in Computer science just reading up on Christian Apologetics. My question regards the doctrine of Divine Simplicity. I have not yet read any articles that you have written about Divine simplicity so i am not aware of your stand on this doctrine.

Someone however does quote you and JP Moreland as basically being opposed to the doctrine:

The doctrine [divine simplicity] is open, moreover, to powerful objections. For example, to say that God does not have distinct properties seems patently false: omnipotence is not the same property as goodness, for a being may have one and not the other.

My questions therefore are:

1. Are you for or against DS?

2. Would it be correct to assert that your understanding of the doctrine of divine simplicity as characterized by the above given quote (if indeed its yours) is wrong given that Nicholas Wolterstorff Noah Porter Professor Emeritus of Philosophical Theology, and Fellow of Berkeley College at Yale University, thinks that medieval Christian thinkers like St. Aquinas conceive of predication in terms of subjects possessing constituents. Whereas contemporary philosophers think of predication in terms of subjects exemplifying properties.

This makes all the difference on someone's view of DS.

Instead of God merely exemplifying eg Omnipotence, we can say that Omnipotence is a metaphysical constituent of God. And therefore it is not distinct from God. The same applies to Omnibenevolence. Instead of God just simply exemplifying goodness, we can say that goodness is part of God's nature, and thus not distinct from him.

Can't we then be charged with reducing God to an abstract property? I believe not. Since we have clearly indicated that we are talking of God's-goodness, which is a metaphysical constituent of God. If God's goodness is part of god's nature, then god's nature is surely identical or equal to God, God's-nature is just the same as God.

An objection can be raised that, We do know that there is a conceptual difference between God's nature and eg God's justice. Since God's nature is that which makes him God, and God's justice is that which makes him just. Therefore this seems to refute the doctrine of DS.

To me, this does not seem to defeat DS since DS does not claim that God's properties are conceptually similar, rather they are metaphysically similar.i.e the claim that God is identical with His nature becomes that God is identical with that constituent which makes him divine, i.e with his divine-making constituent. And the claim that God is identical with his Justice will amount to the claim that God is identical with that constituent that makes him just (just-making constituent).

I know this topic can get rather long, and i apologise for writing such a long post. I would love to hear your view on the issues i have raised.

Ernest

Dr.Craig's Response:


Dr. Craig responds:

Thank you, Ernest, for such a stimulating and profound question concerning divine simplicity! I've addressed this doctrine briefly in my second chapter on "The Coherence of Theism" in my and J. P. Moreland's book Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (IVP, 2003). The passage you cite appears on p. 524.

As I explain there, the classic doctrine of divine simplicity holds that God is an absolutely undifferentiated unity Who has no distinct attributes, stands in no real relations, Whose essence is not distinct from His existence, and Who just is the pure act of being subsisting. As such, the doctrine of divine simplicity is one that has no biblical support at all and, in my opinion, has no good philosophical arguments in its favor. Moreover, it faces very formidable objections. So in answer to your first question, I do reject the traditional doctrine that God is absolutely simple.

Now as for your second question, I assume that you're referring to Nicholas Wolterstorff's very interesting article "Divine Simplicity," in Philosophical Perspectives 5: Philosophy of Religion (Atascadero, Calif.: Ridgeview Publishing, 1991), pp. 531-52. There Wolterstorff argues that the doctrine of divine simplicity has been misconstrued by moderns because we fail to understand the medieval metaphysical framework of that doctrine. The problem, he argues, is that we moderns work with a "relation ontology," according to which a thing's nature or essence is a sort of abstract object to which the thing stands in a relation of exemplification. For example, a cat is thought to exemplify the property being feline, which is an abstract entity to which the cat is related. But medieval thinkers were working with a "constituent ontology," according to which natures were actual constituents of things. In fact, an individual nature was more like a concrete object than an abstract object. Thus, Plato's humanity was not, in this sense, the same as Aristotle's humanity; each had his own individual human nature which was individuated by the matter out of which each man was composed. (I think Wolterstorff seriously downplays the extent to which the medievals also recognized a common nature shared by all things of a certain kind, but let that pass.) Now for entities which are immaterial, like angels, for example, there is no matter to individuate their natures. So each one just is its nature. Each angel is therefore literally one of a kind! Moreover, created things have in addition to their natures certain additional properties, which are called accidents, for example, being brown, being intelligent, being good, and so on.

Now in the case of God, God is immaterial, so He just is His nature. Moreover, the claim of the doctrine of divine simplicity is that God has no accidents; He has only His essence. Finally, in the case of God alone, His nature involves existence. He exists by His very nature. So understood, the doctrine of divine simplicity does not commit one to the absurd notion that God is a property and, hence, an abstract object, as modern critics of the doctrine have sometimes alleged.

Wolterstorff's corrective of the modern reading of divine simplicity is welcome. Certainly medievals would not have thought of God's identity with His nature as His being an abtract object. But this mistaken critique is not the one I offer in Philosophical Foundations.

Rather Wolterstorff has really watered down the classic doctrine of divine simplicity. On his explication God could have a very complex nature and yet count as a simple being. The traditional doctrine is much more radical. It makes four identity claims:

i. God is not distinct from His nature.
ii. God's properties are not distinct from one another.
iii. God's nature is not distinct from His existence.
iv. God has no properties distinct from His nature.

Claim (i) is not unique to God. Angels, too, are identical with their natures. So this claim is not problematic when understood in the medieval metaphysical framework.

Claim (ii) remains problematic, however. Existence is part of God's nature. But existence is not the same property as, say, omnipotence, for plenty of things have existence but not omnipotence. It remains very obscure, therefore, how God's nature or essence can be simple and all His properties identical.

Claim (iii) is misrepresented by Wolterstorff, I believe. His is what Thomistic scholars call an "essentialist" reading of Thomas Aquinas' doctrine: Existence is a property that is included in the divine essence. But many Thomists insist that the correct reading of Thomas is an "existentialist" one: existence is not a property at all, but is the act of being which instantiates an essence. Everything other than God is composed of an essence to which an act of being is conjoined to make it exist as a concrete particular thing. But in a sense, God has no essence on this view, rather He just is the pure act of being unconstrained by any essence. He is, as Thomas says, the pure act of being subsisting. The problem is, this doctrine is just unintelligible.

Finally, claim (iv) runs into the severe problem that God does seem to have accidental properties in addition to His essential ones. For example, in the actual world, He knows, loves, and wills certain things which He would not know, will, or love had He decided to create a different universe or no universe at all. On the doctrine of divine simplicity God is absolutely similar in all possible worlds; but then it becomes inexplicable why those worlds vary if in every one God knows, loves, and wills the same things.

This is not to say that the doctrine of divine simplicity is wholly bereft of value. On the contrary, I have elsewhere defended the view that God's cognition is simple. But I do think that the full-blown doctrine in all its glory is philosophically and theologically unacceptable.




49 comments:

Anonymous said...

Divine Simplicity to me is just too complex!My knowledge of the philosophy of properties and entities is abysmal.

But great question Ernest.

Lindah said...

DS is simply an incoherent doctrine that makes little sense.And i think Dr.Craig gives a satisfactory answer to your question.

My question to you Ernest is,are you still of the opinion that DS is coherent given the objections that Craig has made to your question.

Ernest said...

Lindah,I have since rejected the full Divine simplicity as proposed by ancient thinkers.But i still think that the watered down version can be coherent.
I am reading up on more material on the subject matter,and i will make a post soon.

Peter said...

Ernest,
I have a couple of questions concerning Dr. Craig's response to the fourth claim.
It seems that Dr. Craig's response is thus:

1. Claim IV says that God has no accidental properties
2. God knows and loves objects in this universe.
3. This particular universe does not exist necessarily.
4. Therefore, God loves particular contingent/accidental objects. (from 2 and 3)
5. Therefore, claim IV is false

However, there is an implied premise that a contingent object of God's love equals a contingent property in God. This doesn't seem true. This is probably a very poor analogy, but I'll give it a shot anyway. Consider the rays of the sun. Let us call this the property of illumination. Now, my plant outside is being illuminated by it. But my plant is only contingent, and there is a possible universe where this plant is not illuminated by the sun. Does the contingency of the plant, in this case, change the property "illumination" of the sun?

I think, therefore, that Dr. Craig's implied premise is false. What do you think?

モバゲー said...

モバゲータウンでいろんな異性と交流を深めあいませんか。異性に対して経験がない方でも簡単にお楽しみいただける、シンプルかつ効率的に優れているサイトとなっています

ツイッター said...

全世界で大ブームを巻き起こしているツイッター!!それを利用して今まで経験したことがないような恋を経験してみませんか

モテる度チェッカー said...

モテる度チェッカーが今回リニューアルしました!!今迄と違い診断内容にモテない人と診断された方を救済する、速攻効果が出るモテる為のアドバイスが付きます、またモテる診断された人には、より一層のモテ・テクニックを手に入れませんか

安田記念 said...

第60回 安田記念 2010 予想 オッズ 出走馬 枠順で万馬券をズバリ的中!絶対なるデータが確実に当てるための秘訣

ツイッター said...

今話題のツイッターで理想の関係を築きませんか。ツイッターで自分の出来事をリアルタイムで表現して相手にその想いを伝えましょう

安田記念 said...

第60回 安田記念 2010 予想 オッズから展開と結果をズバリ当てる!出走馬、枠順など全てを考慮にいれた緻密なデータをもとに検証

友達 said...

気楽に遊べる人募集です♪まずはお友達からヨロシクね!! freedum@docomo.ne.jp

スタービーチ said...

スタービーチで素敵な愛を掴みませんか?愛に対する理想や想いを現実にしていきましょう

モバゲー said...

モバゲータウンでは今までとは一味違う出逢いを体験する事ができるのです。これまで良い出逢いがなかった人にはもってこいの無料登録型の掲示板です

ゲーマーチェッカー said...

ゲーマー達のステイタス、ゲーマーチェッカーであなたのゲーマー度数を測定!!測定結果を元に自分と同レベルのオンライン対戦も出来ます。ゲームが得意な人もそうでない人もどちらも楽しめますよ

スタービーチ said...

日本最大級のであいコミュニティ「スタービーチ」で恋人を探しませんか。素敵なであいを経験して理想の人と楽しい思い出を作りましょう

スタービーチ said...

スタービーチが完全リニューアルして復活しました!!あの伝説級のであい系サイトが満を持して再降臨。煌めくような今この瞬間にあなたの胸にもときめきをお届けします

スタービーチ said...

であい系の元祖はやっぱりスタービーチ!初めてであい系にチャレンジする娘も多いここならゲット率は最強

モバゲー said...

モバゲータウンでであいを楽しみませんか。気軽に誰でも楽しめるであいサイトとなっています。こんな事をしてみたいなど希望の事が実現できる、そんなであいコミュニティサイトです

gree said...

greeで楽しめちゃうであい掲示板実現!ここで楽しみませんか?いろんなであいをここで見ていきましょう

Hチェッカー said...

簡単な設問に答えるだけで、自分の隠されたH度数がわかっちゃうHチェッカー!まさかの結果が待ってるかも。気になる人に上手く使えば、即美味しい展開に持ち込めるかも

ツイッター said...

誰もが知ってるツイッターがあなたにであいを!?ツイッター利用者増加=であえる確立急増中!!相性ぴったりの方とお付き合いしてみてはいかがでしょうか

不倫 said...

あなたの人生が大きく変わります!薔薇色の不倫であなたの望む不倫体験ができる!割り切り~契約型など、あなたの理想を現実に変える!当サイト独自システムだから誰にもばれずに、安心してご利用頂けます

宝塚記念 said...

第51回 宝塚記念 2010 予想データを完全攻略!出走馬 枠順などからはじきだすデータは文句なし!これで平成22年の宝塚記念はもらったも同然!波乱の展開もあり

スタビ said...

スタビでの出合いは最高の思い出になる事は間違いありません。運命の人に出逢うまで完全サポートいたしますのでどなたでも気軽に利用する事ができます

SM度チェッカー said...

お酒の席には必須のSM度チェッカー、実は真面目な娘程、間逆なドS女王様、遊んでそうな娘はドMな奴隷願望が有るとか。お手軽SM度診断結果を元に隠れた性癖を暴いて楽しもう

宝塚記念 2010 said...

宝塚記念 2010 予想データから完全攻略!出走馬 枠順などからはじきだすデータは最強!これで平成22年の宝塚記念はもらったも同然!波乱の展開もあり

ツイッター said...

ツイッターから始まる人間関係!今話題のツイッターなら新しい出逢いがすぐに見つかります

メル友 said...

全国からメル友募集中の女の子達が、あなたとのであいを待ってるよ!無料エントリーで自由な恋愛を楽しんじゃお

スタービーチ said...

スタービーチがどこのサイトよりも遊べる確率は高いんです。登録無料で新しい恋をGETしてみませんか

出会い said...

出会い系サイトで逆援助生活をしよう!エッチなセレブ女性たちが集まっています

モバゲー said...

モバゲーを使ってご近所さんと知り合えちゃう!新感覚のコミュニティサービスを利用してみよう

玉の輿度チェッカー said...

今の時代簡単に金持ちになる方法は中々無いけど、可能性は誰しも秘めてます!!そう一番手っ取り早いのは玉の輿です。この玉の輿度チェッカーをキッカケに金持ちになった方が、意外と多いのです。是非あなたも一段高みを目指しませんか

出会い said...

一流セレブたちが出会いを求めて集まっています。彼女たちからの逆援助でリッチな生活を楽しみましょう

流出画像 said...

芸能人のプライベートな流出画像など、色々なヤバい写真も見れる。無料登録で思う存分楽しんで下さい

出会い系 said...

セレブの為の出会い系、セレブの雫では女性会員数も増え、男性会員様が不足するという状態となっております。そこで先着順に、男性会員様を募集しております

スタービーチ said...

日本で一番会員数が多いのはやっぱりスタービーチ!若い娘から熟女まで好みのご近所さんがすぐに見つかる☆無料期間中に試してみませんか

出会い said...

お金持ちの女性と出会い、彼女たちとHするだけで謝礼がもらえるサイトをご存じですか?高収入の女性ほど、お金を使っていろいろな男性と遊んでいます

モバゲー said...

流行のモバゲーで友達たくさん!運命の出会いがあるかも!?まだ初めていない人も無料ゲームで遊ぼう

Hチェッカー said...

みんなでワイワイやるならHチェッカー!!これ一つ有れば偶然を装いつつ、気になる人の隠れエッチ度も分ちゃいます。お近づきアドバイスも付いてるから、これを機会に親密になろう

モニター said...

副業 在宅 でも出来る モニターアルバイト 募集!数ある副業の中、馬券モニター程稼げる副業はない!初心者の方でも簡単にできるのが最大の特権です

逆援助 said...

女の子に逆援助してほしい、女の子と真剣にお付き合いしたい、複数プレイをやってみたい、童貞・処女を卒業したいのなら新感覚コミュニティ・ラブフリーでメル友を探そう

モバゲー said...

大人気モバゲーが遂に出合いの場所に!モバゲーだから気軽に出会える!出合いに縁がなかった方も是非ご利用くださいませ

スタービーチ said...

スタービーチは誰にでも出逢いという奇跡をもたらしてくれる。スタビで理想の関係作りしてみませんか

井の中のカ○ズ君 said...

流行りの検索ワードの番組、井の中のカ○ズ君で紹介された在宅ホスト倶楽部っていうワードで簡単にお金稼ぎました。携帯からgoogle検索にアクセスして在宅ホスト倶楽部って検索してみてください☆男性の方なら家でいるだけで1日2万円ぐらい稼げちゃうから本当に楽ちんだよ。誰か一緒にこの仕事で盛り上がろう

モバゲー said...

モバゲーでは友達から恋愛まで、様々な出 会いを探せる無料のコミュニティサイトです。常時サポートスタッフが掲示板をチェック、サクラや業者を排除しておりますので安心してご利用いただけます

スタービーチ said...

日本最大級の出会いコミュニティ「スタービーチ」で探しませんか。素敵な出会いを経験して理想の人と楽しい思い出を作りましょう

スタービーチ said...

スタービーチなら好みの女性がきっと見つかる!会員数ナンバーワンのスタビでご近所さんを探そう

スタービーチ said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
スタービーチ said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.