Provisionism (Traditionalism) rejects the concept of Divine Simplicity, at least as formulated by Augustine. I highly recommend a book entitled The Hexagon Of Heresy, by James Gifford. It’s a deep dive, to be sure, but it explains how Augustine's incorporation of Plato's view of God impacted Western Christianity. Heads up: you need to like philosophy to appreciate this post.
At some point, I will post a synopsis of The Hexagon of Heresy. Meanwhile, this next part is from “A Few Arguments Against Divine Simplicity,” by Shannon Byrd.
“R. T. Mullins argues: “On divine simplicity God’s essence is identical to his existence. Also, God’s one simple act is identical to his essence/existence. God’s act of creation is identical to this one simple act, and so identical to God’s essence/existence. God exists of absolute necessity. So his act of creation is of absolute necessity since it is identical to his essence/existence. [In this], God’s act of creation cannot be hypothetically or even suppositionally necessary; his act of creation is absolutely necessary. This renders Aquinas’s notion of freedom via alternative possibilities dead on arrival. Human choices are necessary and could not have been otherwise (emphasis mine).[1]
This is an important aspect of Divine Simplicity: for God, to be is to act. There is no distinction between potential and actuality. So, for example, if God is a Creator (potentially), God must have always been, through eternity past, a Creator (actually). This not only implies an eternal universe (a Creator must always have created), but a co-dependent relationship between God and God's creation. Here’s Ryan Mullins to explain this a bit better.
“In order for God to be who He is—pure act—He necessarily must create this world. This makes God’s essential nature dependent upon creation… From God’s perspective, if His essence is His eternal and immutable act in this the actual and only really possible world then He could not fail to have any of His attributes and still be Himself. They are equally necessary. That means that we are forced to conclude that creatures do have some effect on God’s very essence…And now we have apparently arrived at the conclusion that He is dependent on creatures…God must necessarily exist with creation in order to be who He is.” (“Simply Impossible: A Case against Divine Simplicity.” R. T. Mullins. University of Notre Dame)
Back to Shannon Byrd’s article.
Let’s craft a related argument:
1. If God’s essence is identical with his one act, then this world is absolutely necessary.
2. If this world is absolutely necessary, then my actions are absolutely necessary.
3. If my actions are absolutely necessary, then my choices leading to those actions are absolutely necessary.
4. If my choices leading to those actions are absolutely necessary, then I have no libertarian free will.
5. If I have no libertarian free will, then I cannot reason.
6. I have no libertarian free will.
Therefore, I cannot reason.
This argument deductively shows that if creation is necessary… then no one has libertarian free will… Let’s construct another argument using premises 1-5 of the above followed with a denial of the consequent of premise 5 and see what occurs.
1. If God’s essence is identical with his one act, then this world is absolutely necessary.
2. If this world is absolutely necessary, then my actions are absolutely necessary.
3. If my actions are absolutely necessary, then my choices leading to those actions are absolutely necessary.
4. If my choices leading to those actions are absolutely necessary, then I have no free will.
5. If I have no free will, then I cannot reason.
6. I can reason. [contradiction of consequent of premise 5]
Therefore,
I have free will. [from 6 & 5 ]
My choices leading to those actions aren’t absolutely necessary.[from 4&7 ]
My actions aren’t absolutely necessary. [from 3 & 8]
This world isn’t absolutely necessary. [from 2 & 9]
God’s essence isn’t identical with his one act. [from 10 & 1]
Thus, the denial of Divine Simplicity on logical terms. This is in addition to a presentation of God in the Bible that is sharply at odds with what Divine Simplicity demands. Once again, to really dive into this, read The Hexagon Of Heresy.
[1] R. T. Mullins, The End of the Timeless God. More from Mullins: “Could God have created a different universe instead of this one? The answer seems to be ‘yes,’ if God is free. If God did not create a different universe, He has unactualized potential. Divine simplicity should push one to say that God did create another universe. In fact, simplicity should push one to say that God created an infinite number of universes. Otherwise God would not be pure act. Of course, it should be noted that God cannot create any universe that is on the whole more evil than good for that would conflict with who God is. Creating a universe where evil has the ultimate say is not compossible with a perfectly good God. There is a deeper problem. Could God have refrained from creating the universe? If God is free then it seems that the answer is obviously ‘yes.’ He could have existed alone. Yet, God did create the universe. If there is a possible world in which God exists alone, God is not simple. He eternally has unactualized potential for He cannot undo His act of creation...” (“Simply Impossible: A Case against Divine Simplicity.” R. T. Mullins)
No comments:
Post a Comment