Divine Attributes, Misc

Right after Philo’s about-face in Part 12 of the Dialogues, he gives an argument that the dispute between the theist and the atheist is merely verbal. Since everything is at least a little like everything else, the atheist must concede that the source of order is at least remotely like a human intellect, even if this source is something like a rotting turnip. This passage provides a major argument for dismissing Hume’s apparent avowals of theism in the Dialogues and elsewhere, (...) since Philo’s assertions are so loose as to let in a rotting turnip. The right reading of the passage is more interesting. The paragraph was written in 1776, right before Hume’s death. It’s thus one of the few philosophical texts written late enough to reflect his encounter with the French philosophes in the 1760s. We have good biographical evidence that Hume was criticized for being too much of a theist in France. The turnip is rotting not in order to make fun of the argument from design, but in order to make fun of d’Holbach's and Diderot's account of the origin of life, accounts that generalized dramatically from John Needham’s observations of nematodes in rotting wheat. In the rotting turnip paragraph, Hume is attempting to establish that the dispute between the theist and the atheist isn’t empirically tractable, that atheists will never outflank the apophatic theologian on the question of whether human minds are unlike God, and that if atheists are consistent with their analogical methods, they ought to be more open to the argument from design. (shrink)

If the transcendence tree to which our world belongs has a root, and that root is a mind, then what can be known about that mind? It seems there are two sources of knowledge, theology (that mind may have revealed itself to us) and philosophy (we may be able to reason about it from first principles). Here we shall look into that latter aspect.

My conviction has been that the early Church fathers adhered to Miaphysitism, Monothelitism, and were advocates of Monoenergism and Theopaschitism.

This paper asks whether Thomism supplies a genuine route beyond the Aseity Fork. A serious test of the Fork must grant the central Thomist commitments: God is not a being within a genus, not spatially outside the created order, not a composite deliberator, not a member of a larger set, and not subject to a Platonic framework standing over against him. The question is whether those commitments alter the Fork or only change the idiom in which one of its horns (...) is occupied. Once Thomism is asked to explain determinate creation—this order rather than another or none—its own machinery generates the same specificity pressure the Fork tracks. Pure act excludes passive potency in God, but does not by itself explain why this determinate created order obtains. Participation invokes a structured order of source, reception, limitation, and difference. Existential causality avoids crude efficient-causal pictures, but not the burden of explaining this creaturely order rather than merely “that something exists.” Analogy regulates predication, but does not erase extensional differences between creating and not creating, this world and another, answered and unanswered prayer. Divine simplicity and timeless decree remove temporal sequence and internal composition, but not the question of determinate content. Extrinsic denomination preserves divine immutability only by shifting specificity to the effect-side. The result is a Thomism-specific closure: if the whole contrast-fixing order is identical with God, the Identity horn follows; if it is non-identical with God, dependence follows. Attempts to avoid both horns leave specificity brute or surrender determinate doctrinal content. Thomism changes the idiom in which the Fork is occupied; it does not escape it. (shrink)

The issue of God's Attributes has always been one of the most important topics in theological discussions in the history of Islamic thought. In fact, Muslim theologians and philosophers have dealt with this issue from different angles, including the division of His Attributes into essential and actual ones and exploring whether such attributes are identical with His Essence or are added to it. However, one of the basic questions in this regard is: 'How do we know about these attributes and (...) how do we define them when attributing them to the Truth?'. (shrink)

As with most medieval philosophers, Avicenna advocated for Divine Simplicity Thesis (henceforth DST), according to which God is absolutely simple, lacking any composition within Him. However, DST raises a puzzling question about the ontological status of divine attributes. According to DST, these attributes cannot be distinct positive intrinsic properties of God, as such properties would bring about a composition within Him. Consequently, proponents of DST must propose alternative accounts of their ontological status. In this paper, I identify and delineate three (...) distinct accounts in Avicenna. According to the first account, divine attributes are positive intrinsic properties of God that exist in a non-composite, unified manner. On the second account, these attributes are either extrinsic or negative properties, which are not real features within God. In the third account, divine attributes are concomitants (_al-lawāzim_) of God, namely, distinct entities proceeding from His essence (_dhāt_). As these concomitants are ontologically posterior to God, their plurality would not constitute a composition within God. I argue that although all three views are suggested by Avicenna’s corpus, his official stance was the negative-extrinsic account. Subsequently, I explore the major philosophical challenges the negative-extrinsic account encounters and examine how Avicenna would meet them. (shrink)

Anthony Collins’s 1710 pamphlet _A Vindication of the Divine Attributes_ is not a vindication of the divine attributes. But what precisely is it? I argue that Collins’s _Vindication_ is best interpreted as a kind of prelude to his later _Discourse of Free-Thinking_ (1713). The Vindication aims to show that our beliefs about the existence and nature of God cannot rest on the authority of the clergy. Instead we must, as Collins puts it, ‘impartially examine every thing (how Sacred soever it (...) may appear … before [being] examin’d)’. Freethinking, Collins argues, must extend even so far as questioning the foundational principles of natural religion. (shrink)

J. L. Schellenberg’s divine hiddenness argument contends that, necessarily, the existence of non-resistant non-belief is incompatible with the existence of a perfectly loving God. I will argue, contra Schellenberg, that it is epistemically possible that non-resistant non-belief is compatible with the existence of a perfectly loving God. As I will argue, were God to fully reveal himself, God would be irresistible, and that presents a problem for humans freely (in a libertarian sense) entering into a relationship with God. Given that (...) it is epistemically possible that libertarian free will is required in order for a personal divine-human relationship to be inaugurated, it is epistemically possible that God has justifiable reason to partially hide himself, even if the result of such hiddenness is the occurrence of non-resistant non-belief. I will conclude by demonstrating why Schellenberg’s previous rejection of this conclusion as not epistemically possible is unwarranted. (shrink)

My titular question is cheeky enough. And there’s more where that came from. For God is a curious fellow. Even if we know what God is — absolute perfection, say — we don’t know much about what makes the Almighty tick. It is hard to say who God really is. In this article, I develop a guiding hypothesis by which to think about issues in this neighborhood. In four words: God has a personality. -/- In some recent co-authored work, I (...) have argued that the hypothesis of divine personality makes good sense and that it coheres well with perfect being theology and other apt theological constraints.[1] In this article, I’ll describe a specification of that hypothesis and show what work it can do. My goal is not so much to convince the reader that the hypothesis is true, but rather to inspire deeper reflection on the matter. But let’s start by saying more about what it means to claim that God has a personality. (shrink)

Perfect Being Theism is the idea that God is the greatest metaphysically possible being. Most theists argue that God’s greatness entails that God must be ontologically distinct from the cosmos. Otherwise, God would be dependent in some respect, and so imperfect. This constitutes a formidable challenge to pantheism, the view that God is identical with the cosmos. If pantheism is inconsistent with Perfect Being Theism, then pantheists’ concept of God is deficient. I respond by arguing that Perfect Being Theism doesn’t (...) entail God’s distinctness from the cosmos. I then argue that Perfect Being Theism is not a neutral methodological constraint on our theorizing about the divine nature. As a result, pantheists are entitled to develop an alternative conception of God’s perfection that is congenial to their view of the divine. (shrink)

Theologians have described Sergius Bulgakov as one of the greatest theologians of the 20th century. Bulgakov is an ‘optimistic panentheist,’ someone who embraces a combination of panentheist metaphysics and an optimistic attitude that God’s eschatological will (an essential desire of God) will necessarily be accomplished in the future, when all evil will be eliminated. This paper fleshes out a practical problem affecting ‘optimistic’ versions of panentheism like Bulgakov’s, using Bulgakov’s own views as an example. Not only is there no good (...) way for panentheists to infer that God’s essentially good nature or desires (such as an essentially good will) will ultimately ‘win out’ over the bad consequences of His nature or desires, but their view implies that God only allows evil because its possibility is a metaphysically necessary consequence of God’s essence or desires. As God’s essence is eternally the same, it cannot then be that evil ceases to be so necessary at any point in God’s life. In sum, we will defend the conclusion that ‘pessimism’ is the only coherent position for panentheists to take, given their metaphysical commitments. And we will conclude by generalizing these insights to panentheism generally and Christian panentheism particularly. (shrink)

In his innovative and creative attempt to reconcile empiricism and religion, William James made the case for finite theism and a pluralistic conception of the cosmos involving overlapping minds of several scales. In doing so, James also cautioned against abandoning functional psychology in favor of what he called entitative points of view. In his work, Ralph Barton Perry critiqued James for understating the role of embodiment in cognition. In Perry’s view, the central role the body plays in cognition suggests that (...) so-called social or composite minds lack integration and are thus cognitively inferior to embodied minds. However, Perry also believed that the emergent character of embodied cognition provides grounds for an alternative, humanistic spirituality. In this article, I compare James and Perry on theology, and I argue that Perry’s concerns about the importance of embodiment in cognitive integration help illuminate a tripartite distinction between what I call impersonal, subpersonal, and personal theologies that scholars looking for more embodied approaches to theology would do well to consider. (shrink)

Timothy Pawl has claimed that various conciliar and patristic texts attribute thinking, willing, suffering, and other human mental states to Christ’s human nature. This article challenges this claim, focusing in particular on the writings of Saints Cyril and Athanasius of Alexandria. I argue that Cyril and Athanasius do not in fact attribute thinking, willing, or any other mental states to Christ’s human nature. Rather, they imply that there is only one individual who thinks Christ’s human thoughts, feels his human pain, (...) speaks his human words, etc. This one individual is not Christ’s human nature but Christ himself, the incarnate divine person. I conclude by highlighting the significance of this historical point for contemporary discussions of the Incarnation in analytic theology and philosophy of religion. (shrink)

Linda Zagzebski argues that omnisubjectivity is compatible with a classical theistic model of God. In this paper I argue that omnisubjectivity is not possibly compatible with classical theism. In particular, omnisubjectivity is in conflict with timelessness, immutability, simplicity, and impassibility.

A conviction had by many Christians over many centuries is that natural language is inadequate for describing God. This is the doctrine of divine ineffability. Apophaticism understands divine ineffability as it being justified or proper to negate statements that describe God. This paper develops and defends a version of apophaticism in which the negation involved is metalinguistic. The interest of this metalinguistic apophaticism is two-fold. First, it provides a philosophical model of historical apophaticisms that shows their rational coherence. Second, metalinguistic (...) apophaticism enables a minimal understanding of ineffability that is independently plausible given its minor commitments. (shrink)

Skeptical theism attempts to address the problem of evil by appealing to human cognitive limitations. The causal structure of the world is opaque to us. We cannot tell, and should not expect to be able to tell, if there is gratuitous evil, that is, evil which isn’t necessary for achieving some greater good or for precluding some greater evil. At first, it seems tempting to think that the rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies might change this fact. Our cognitive (...) limitations may no longer be a fixed point in responding to the problem of evil. But I argue that this won’t ultimately matter. The workings of any AI capable of rendering the problem of evil tractable will likely be just as opaque to us as the causal structure of the world God created. Interestingly, then, both God and a sufficiently advanced AI are alien intelligences to us. This reveals what is truly difficult, and perhaps intractable, about the problem of evil. For the evils to be defeated, we would need a relational understanding of why God permitted them. Yet such an understanding of an inscrutable God seems forever beyond our, and even our post-human descendants, ken. (shrink)

The main question of this study is whether God has a personality. We show what the question means, why it matters, and that good sense can be made of an affirmative answer to it. A God with personality — complete with particular, sometimes peculiar, and even seemingly unexplainable druthers — is not at war with maximal perfection, nor is the idea irredeemably anthropomorphic. And the hypothesis of divine personality is fruitful, with substantive consequences that span philosophical theology. But problems arise (...) here too, and new perspectives on inquiry itself. Our cosmos is blessed with weirdness aplenty. To come to know it is nothing less than to encounter a strange and untamed God. (shrink)

This article aims to provide a philosophical elucidation of the concept of divine atemporality (i.e. divine timelessness and immutability), found within the theological trajectory of Classical Theism, and a philosophical model – termed Aspectival Pluralism – that demonstrates its compatibility with the further notion of Divine Preservation. To achieve this end, an original interpretation of the concept is formulated within the Aspectival Account and the thesis of Theistic Ontological Pluralism, as extended by the temporal ontology of Priority Presentism, introduced by (...) Sam Baron, and the Exdurantist view of persistence, introduced by Theodore Sider, which will ultimately enable the notion to be elucidated in a clear and consistent manner and help to answer an important conceptual question concerning it. (shrink)

Defenders and critics of divine simplicity rightly look to Thomas Aquinas’s important contributions to this pillar of classical theism (=CT). But few contemporary discussions notice the way Aquinas employs pseudo-Dionysius’s triplex via as a principled heuristic that governs and organizes his theological enquiries concerning divine simplicity. This oversight has led to misinterpretations of Aquinas’s doctrine of divine simplicity (=DDS), which must be situated within his triplex via theology (=TVT). In this chapter I show that, like Aquinas’s DDS, the value of (...) Thomist TVT extends beyond historical exegesis and provides exponents of CT with a fertile alternative to the more well-known Anselmian inspired heuristic of perfect being theology (=PBT). In the first part I introduce two problems for CT that cannot be resolved by PBT and Thomistic accounts of DDS that omit Aquinas’s TVT. In the second part, I explain what Thomistic TVT is and why its integrated threefold way of understanding God via causality, negation, and super-eminence can overcome these problems for CT. (shrink)

Libertarian free will and divine foreknowledge at first seem incompatible. Are humans in charge of their own destiny if God knows human agents’ free choices? We also have the related issue of God’s agency concerning foreknowledge of human events. Can God escape divine fatalism and interact with us meaningfully if he knows how humans will act in the future? There are ways to reconcile the three, but one proposal is to utilize the concept of separate divine persons. What if there (...) are two persons, with their difference that one is in time and one outside it? Through an exploration of this potential model one can see how foreknowledge, free will, and agency might fit together. (shrink)

This chapter aims to draw on the critical threads of those vibrant theological conversations within the formative years of Islamic thought in considering the different theological models of the Divine within the broader Islamic tradition under the purview of classical theism as it is understood today in the contemporary philosophy of religion. In doing so, it makes reference to the major strands within the theological (‘ilm al- kalām & atharī scripturalism) and philosophical (falsafa) schools of the Islamic tradition. It aims (...) to consider how these different trends, schools, and thinkers construct a model of God in light of the classical and neo-classical theistic model of God. (shrink)

This Element focuses on some core conceptual and ontological issues related to pantheistic conceptions of God by engaging with recent work in analytic philosophy of religion on this topic. The conceptual and ontological commitments of pantheism are contrasted with those of other conceptions of God. The concept of God assumed by pantheism is clarified and the question about what type of unity the universe must exhibit in order to be identical with God receives the most attention. It is argued that (...) the sort of unity the universe must display is the sort of unity characteristic of conscious cognitive systems. Some alternative ontological frameworks for grounding such cognitive unity are considered. Further, the question of whether God can be understood as personal on pantheism is explored. (shrink)

Discovering laws of nature was a way to worship a law-giving God, during the Scientific Revolution. So why should we consider it worthwhile now, in our own more secularized science? For historical perspective, I examine two competing early modern theological traditions that related laws of nature to different divine attributes, and their secular legacy in views ranging from Kant and Nietzsche to Humean and ‘governing’ accounts in recent analytic metaphysics. Tracing these branching offshoots of ethically charged God-concepts sheds light on (...) how our ethical ideals and ideas of natural order can still be valuably integrated. Early modern intellectualists valued the law-governed order of nature as a sign of divine Reason. In turn, Reason traditionally ascribed to God has now been partly reclaimed for humans, reframing the value of natural order anthropocentrically, in terms of the value of our own intelligence. Alternatively, Reason may be reclaimed for nature itself, as in an ‘objective’ idealism or metaphysical rationalism. However, beyond divine Reason, an influential voluntarist tradition in theology stressed a connection between laws of nature and God’s Power or free Will. Tracking how divine Power has been reinvested in human beings provides a broader context for instrumentalism and related lineages of empiricism. But secularization can also transfer Power from God to the impersonal natural world. In this light, current scientific interest in lawlike order may also reflect the inherent value of brute necessity or inhuman causal power in nature: this is a deeper way to reject anthropocentrism and to show our respect for the environment. (shrink)

Realization of God is very important aspect and indeed the building blocks of Islamic religion, many Islamic realization of God was Scholars likes; Maulana Sheikh been discussed by Ibrahim Niasse (RTA) , and indeed taught by many others prominent Islamic scholars like; Maulana Wahidudd in Khan (RTA) in all their tireless efforts to call in to the way of ALLAH. As been ordered in a sound Hadith 1 , The prophet (SAW) Said: Allah (SWT) said "Know Me before you worship (...) Me, if you do not know Me, how would you worship Me?". From this p articular quoted Hadith we can easily come to the conclusion of the fact that Realization of God is the first and foundation of Islam, for it’s only by Realizing him (SWT) you can come to the answers of the following questions;. (shrink)

I critically examine the claim that modal collapse arguments against the traditional doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS) are in general fallacious. In a recent paper, Christopher Tomaszewski alleges that modal collapse arguments against DDS are invalid, owing to illicit substitutions of nonrigid singular terms into intensional contexts. I show that this is not, in general, the case. I show, further, that where existing modal collapse arguments are vulnerable to this charge the arguments can be repaired without any apparent dialectical impropriety. (...) I conclude that the genuine debate over modal collapse and divine simplicity and modal collapse is substantially a controversy over the metaphysics of divine action, and that this constitutes a fruitful direction in which to take future discussions of the subject. (shrink)

Discuto la tesi di Micheletti secondo la quale ogni spiegazione fattuale presuppone premesse di ordine superiore rispetto alla spiegazione (M.Micheletti, “Radical Divine Alterity and the God-World Relationship”). Nella prima sezione del testo introdurrò la tesi, muovendo dalla analisi di alcuni esempi di spiegazione, ed elencherò le ragioni che (apparentemente) richiedono la postulazione di higher-degree propositions per rendere conto di factual propositions. Nella seconda sezione regimenterò logicamente la tesi di Micheletti. Nella terza sezione discuterò la validità della logica della spiegazione così (...) introdotta, con un’attenzione particolare alla analisi semantica della nozione di spiegazione, allo statuto modale delle ragioni che costituiscono una spiegazione, e all’approccio grammaticale alle higher order propositions. Nella quarta e ultima sezione avanzerò brevissime considerazioni conclusive. (shrink)

This chapter aims to explore the intersection of Christian theism, a neo-Aristotelian gloss on metaphysical grounding, and creaturely participation in God. In section one, I aim to de- velop several core tenets at the heart of a theistic participatory ontology as it is found in the Christian tradition, what I call minimal participatory ontology. In section two, I examine the contemporary notion of metaphysical grounding, namely the formal and structure features of the grounding relation, and offer a grounding-theoretic framework for (...) understanding a mini- mal participatory ontology. Finally, in section three, I put forward a neo-Aristotelian account of metaphysical grounding in particular, one that is uniquely suited to capture the central tenets of minimal participatory ontology. (shrink)

This book is the first systematic treatment of the strengths and limitations of personal and a-personal conceptions of the divine. It features contributions from Jewish, Islamic, Chinese, Indian and naturalistic backgrounds in addition to those working within a decidedly Christian framework. This book discusses whether the concept of God in classical theism is coherent at all and whether the traditional understanding of some of the divine attributes need to be modified. The contributors explore what the proposed spiritual and practical merits (...) and demerits of personal and a-personal conceptions of God might be. Additionally, their diverse perspectives reflect a broader trend within the analytic philosophy of religion to incorporate various non-Western religious traditions. Tackling these issues carefully is needed to do justice to the strengths and limitations of personal and a-personal accounts to the divine. The Divine Nature: Personal and A-Personal Perspectives will be of interest to scholars and advanced students working in philosophy of religion and philosophical theology. (shrink)

Patrick Grim advances arguments meant to show that the doctrine of divine omniscience—the classical doctrine according to which God knows all truths—is false. In particular, we here have in mind to focus on two such arguments: the set theoretic argument and the semantic argument. These arguments due to Grim run parallel to, respectively, familiar paradoxes in set theory and naive truth theory. It is beyond the purview of this article to adjudicate whether or not these are successful arguments against the (...) classical doctrine of omniscience. What we are here interested in is a way in which these arguments can be generalized. In particular, we show how generalizations of those arguments can target, explicitly, alternatives to the classical doctrine of omniscience, including what we here call 'restricted omniscience' and 'open future open theism'. As a corollary, considerations of Grim-style arguments do not support these alternatives to the classical doctrine of omniscience over the classical doctrine. We conclude that what is paradoxical is not the classical doctrine of omniscience just as such; rather, what is paradoxical is a core commitment shared by the classical doctrine and its more modest alternatives, namely, the thesis that God is a perfectly logical reasoner. (shrink)

Richard Swinburne is one of the best-known names in the international philosophical scene. His apologetic project is considered one of the largest and most impactful and profound of the last century. The interview conducted here explores many biographical and theoretical issues (Omniscience, Eternity, God’s existence, Free will, Analogy, Relational ontology and Powers ontology, Soul-Body relation, Trinity, Evil) and it aims to trace a broad (albeit necessarily partial) path through his numerous works. The interview took place in 2016, in Oxford, at (...) Swinburne’s home. Today, Swinburne’s thought is discussed in monographs and doctoral theses, witnessing to an influence that will undoubtedly be lasting. (shrink)

On my view, every bone, every fossil, and every putrid whiff of carrion that one smells on a hike in the country is just as good evidence for a divine intervention as it is for the suffering of an animal.

According to classical theism, the universe depends on God in a way that goes beyond mere (efficient) causation. I have previously argued that this ‘deep dependence’ of the universe on God is best understood as a type of grounding. In a recent paper in this journal, Aaron Segal argues that this doctrine of deep dependence causes problems for creaturely free will: if our choices are grounded in facts about God, and we have no control over these facts, then we do (...) not control our choices and are therefore not free. This amounts to a grounding analogue of the Consequence Argument for the incompatibility of free will and determinism. If successful, it would have application beyond classical theism: similar concerns would apply to any view that takes our choices to be grounded in a deeper reality which is beyond our control. However, I show that the argument is not successful. Segal’s Grounding Consequence Argument is so closely analogous to the Causal Consequence Argument that any response to the one provides a response to the other. As a result, if you don’t think that prior causes (whether deterministic or indeterministic) undermine free will, you shouldn’t think that prior grounds undermine free will. (shrink)

The paper refers to the argument from hiddenness as presented in John Schellenberg’s book The Hiddenness Argument and the philosophical views expressed there, making this argument understandable. It is argued that conditionals (1) and (2) are not adequately grounded. Schellenberg has not shown that we have the knowledge necessary to accept the premises as true. His justifications referring to relations between people raise doubts. The paper includes an argument that Schellenberg should substantiate its key claim that God has the resources (...) to accommodate the possible consequences of openness to a relationship with finite persons, making them compatible with the flourishing of all concerned and of any relationship that may come to exist between them. At the end of the text, I propose to treat the argument as a rejection of an anthropomorphic God. (shrink)

On propose ici de clarifier ce qu’Anaximandre entendait par « le divin » et ce qu’il appelait des « dieux ». À partir d’une réévaluation des sources anciennes, on soutient que cette enquête peut aider à comprendre son modèle cosmologique et le problème des cataclysmes dans son système. Trois hypothèses sont avancées à cette fin : [i] que dans Physique, III, 4, 203b3 15, le syntagme τὸ ἄπειρον renvoie à une notion concrète de substrat infini ; [ii] que dans ce (...) même passage, Aristote n’a probablement pas attribué aux philosophes de la nature – y compris Anaximandre – la thèse selon laquelle τὸ ἄπειρον est divin, mais plutôt la thèse selon laquelle ils comprennent le divin comme étant immortel et impérissable ; [iii] qu’Anaximandre, en supposant que « les astres célestes » sont des dieux, admettrait qu’ils naissent mais ne se détruisent pas – ce qui réfuterait l’idée d’un cataclysme universel chez lui. En conclusion, l’étude discute en quoi consisterait la gouvernance cosmique de τὸ ἄπειρον dans un univers divisé en trois niveaux et propose que cette gouvernance viendrait du fait que τὸ ἄπειρον possède un mouvement éternel. (shrink)

In this paper I argue for the incompatibility of three claims, each of them quite attractive to a theist. First, the doctrine of deep dependence: the universe depends for its existence, in a non-causal way, on God. Second, the doctrine of true transcendence: the universe is wholly distinct from God; God is separate and apart from the universe in respect of mereology, modes, and mentality. Third, the doctrine of robust creaturely freedom: some creature performs some act such that he could (...) have done other than he in fact did. After laying out the claims, I show that their conjunction has its adherents—most clearly, the medieval Jewish philosopher, Maimonides. I then argue in detail that the claims are in fact incompatible. I conclude with a discussion of which of the claims is best jettisoned, drawing in part on the work of the Absolute Idealist, Mary Calkins. (shrink)

Against the historically widespread view that divine conservation is a continuation of the act of creation, William Lane Craig argues that conservation is a different kind of act since, unlike creation ex nihilo, it is diachronic and it acts on a patient. Timothy Miller poses a timing objection against Craig's view, arguing that on such a view either the existence of a conserved entity is discontinuous, or the conserving activity overdetermines its effect, or the conserving activity is not continuous. The (...) present paper explores the options that remain for a diachronic, agent-patient account of conservation. It includes several models of conservation on which divine activity is continuous but not overdetermined since its effect at each time is something less specific than the existence of a created being at a time. (shrink)

Hume’s criticisms of divine causation are insufficient because he does not respond to important philosophical positions that are defended by those whom he closely read. Hume’s arguments might work against the background of a Cartesian definition of body, or a Malebranchian conception of causation, or some defenses of occasionalism. At least, I will not here argue that they succeed or fail against those targets. Instead, I will lay out two major deficiencies in his arguments against divine causation. I call these (...) “deficiencies” because Hume does not adequately address live positions. This does not mean, of course, that there are not problems with these views or that Hume could not have given strong arguments against them. Rather, Hume’s arguments, which can seem comprehensive to the twenty-first century reader, are in fact not so. For the deficiencies discussed in this essay, I point to writers from Hume’s near context (many of whom we know he read carefully) who held the views not discussed, and I provide reasons why Hume seems not to have entertained these possibilities. I won’t distinguish between accidentally overlooking and actively ignoring. By drawing attention to these three deficiencies, I have two goals. The first is to demonstrate the diversity of seventeenth and early eighteenth century views on divine causation, especially among philosophers in England, Scotland, and Ireland, who are often ignored by philosophers today who, like Hume, focus on continental Cartesians while ignoring British dualists and vitalists. The second goal is to make today’s readers aware of shortcomings in Hume’s arguments to encourage productively contextual readings of Hume and his contemporaries. (shrink)

Anne Conway (1631–1679) was one of the most intellectually adventurous and well-read philosophers of religion in the seventeenth century. Her unfinished systematic treatise, posthumously published as The Principles of the Most Ancient and Modern Philosophy, moves from the divine attributes through a theodicy based on universal salvation to a rejection of substance dualism. Her approach demonstrates a syncretist approach to religion that blends multiple intellectual traditions, including Cambridge Platonism, Quakerism, and the Kabbalah. Her admirers included Henry More, Francis von Helmont, (...) and G.W. Leibniz. (shrink)

In this article I explore the relation between God's absolute governance of the world and ecclesial dominion over other communities in a shared political forum that seeks the greatest good of all. On this question I compare the positions of Colin Gunton, Robert Jenson, and Edward Schillebeeckx as representatives of three distinct political theologies. Whereas Gunton's reservation regarding the participation of the church's politics in divine governance shows excessive deference to human sinfulness, Jenson on the contrary tends to absorb God's (...) Rule into ecclesial politics. Drawing upon Schillebeeckx's Christology, I argue that God's absolute Rule is compatible with ecclesial sovereignty; however, this does not allow for unilateral ecclesial dominion over others, inasmuch as God's Rule is disclosed as forgiveness. (shrink)

A number of theologians and philosophers have found theodical value in the theme of divine solidarity with human suffering. To further develop this theme, I examine what it would mean to assert that Christ on the cross participated in a representative sample of human suffering. Particular attention is paid to Christ’s cry of dereliction. I argue that if God through Christ identified with the very worst kinds of human suffering on the cross, then the cry of dereliction should be interpreted (...) as indicating an epistemic break between God and Christ, and not merely an attentional disruption. According to this account, Christ’s death cry expressed his temporary inability to grasp the significance of his passion and death. In this way, Christ on the cross suffered the full effects of divine hiddenness, thus sharing with horror-sufferers the experience of meaning-negating suffering. (shrink)

This paper seeks to demonstrate why the existence of suboptimal design in biology does not offer a reason for Christians to reject the biological case for Intelligent Design. In it, I argue that Christians who critique ID based upon alleged deficiencies within biology fail to imagine the various ways in which a divine designer might bring about certain biological effects. That is, such critics presumably envision a simplistic notion of divine causation—where God either directly brings about every biological effect, or (...) is not involved in any biological effect. Such either or thinking, I maintain, is theologically unnecessary. (shrink)

Recent decades have witnessed a growing interest in narrative both in certain areas of philosophy and in the study of religion. The philosophy of religion has not itself been at the forefront of this narrative turn, but exceptions exist—most notably Eleonore Stump’s work on biblical stories and the problem of suffering. Characterizing Stump’s approach as an apologetic orientation, this article contrasts it with pluralistic orientations that, rather than seeking to defend religious faith, are concerned with doing conceptual justice to the (...) range of possible human perspectives, both religious and nonreligious. By discussing various examples, the article makes a case for narrative philosophy of religion, especially in its pluralistic form. (shrink)

Lewisian theism is the view that both traditional theism and Lewis’s modal realism are true. On Lewisian theism, God must exist in worlds in one of the following ways: God can be said to have a counterpart in each world; God can be said to exist in each world in the way that a universal can be said to exist in worlds, i.e. through transworld identity; God can be said to be a scattered individual, with a part of God existing (...) in each world; and, God can be said to exist in each world, through His existing from the standpoint of each world. In the literature, – have been rejected as viable options. I grant that and are not viable. However, I believe that and have been too hastily rejected. Herein, I develop ways to respond to objections to and, and conclude that is a viable option for Lewisian theists. (shrink)

Edward Nieznański developed two logical systems in order to deal with a version of the problem of evil associated with two formulations of religious determinism. The aim of this research was to revisit these systems, providing them with a more appropriate formalization. The new resulting systems, namely, N1 and N2, were reformulated in first-order modal logic; they retain much of their original basic structures, but some additional results were obtained. Furthermore, our research found that an underlying minimal set of axioms (...) is enough to settle the questions proposed. Thus, we developed a minimal system, called N3, that solves the same issues tackled by N1 and N2, but with less assumptions than these systems. All of the systems developed here are proposed as solutions to the logical problem of evil through the refutation of two versions of religious determinism, showing that the attributes of God in Classical Theism, namely, those of omniscience, omnipotence, infallibility, and omnibenevolence, when formalized, are consistent with the existence of evil, providing one more response to this traditional issue. (shrink)