On A Complex Theory Of A Simple God

Hughes discusses Aquinus' work regarding the apparently irreconcilable theses of natural and revealed theology, and he argues that Aquinas fails in his attempt to reconcile absolute simplicity with the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation. Hughes also offers a provocative account of divine simplicity and explores its implications for the Thomistic doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation.

That YHWH is numerically one is foundational to the theology of the Hebrew Bible. Christian theologians historically have affirmed that there is a more fundamental type of oneness attributable to God. God is one not merely in the sense of being the only God, but also in the sense of being simple or non-composite, having no parts of any kind. In this way, God is said to be an absolute unity. After a consideration of all the evidence, Barry D. Smith reaches the conclusion that there is no basis for ascribing simplicity to God. The simplicity doctrine is not found in Scripture and the traditional arguments used to establish it are unconvincing. In addition, the recent defenses of the simplicity doctrine prompted by Alvin Plantinga's work Does God Have a Nature? are unsuccessful. It should not be thought, however, that the rejection of divine simplicity means that by default God must be conceived as composite, not even as a perfect composite with maximally great, God-making properties. Rather, there is a third option: God should not be conceived as either simple or composite. The question of in which mode God has attributes or exemplifies properties should be set aside.

Steven J. Duby examines the doctrine of divine simplicity. This discussion is centered around the three distinguishing features: grounding in biblical exegesis, use of Thomas Aquinas and the Reformed Orthodox; and the writings of modern systematic and philosophical theologians. Duby outlines the general history of the Christian doctrine of divine simplicity and discusses the methodological traits and essential contents of the dogmatic account. He substantiates the claims of the doctrine of divine simplicity by demonstrating that they are implied and required by the scriptural account of God. Duby considers how simplicity is inferred from God's singularity and aseity, as well as how it is inferred from God's immutability and infinity, and the Christian doctrine of creation. The discussion ends with the response to major objections to simplicity, namely that the doctrine does not pay heed to the plurality of the divine attributes, that it eradicates God's freedom in creating the world and acting toward us; and that it does not cohere with the personal distinctions to be made in the doctrine of the Trinity.

That being than which a greater cannot be conceived.' This was the way in which the living God of biblical tradition was described by the great Medieval philosophers such as Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas.Contemporary philosophers find much to question, criticise and reject in the traditional analysis of that description. Some hold that the attributes traditionally ascribed to God - simplicity, necessity, immutability, eternity, omniscience, omnipotence, creativity and goodness - are inherently incoherent individually, or mutually inconsistent. Others argue that the divinity described by philosophers cannot be the same as the providential God of revelation.In Perfect Being Theology Katherin A. Rogers defends the traditional approach, considering contemporary criticisms but concluding that the most adequate account of the nature of God should build upon the foundation laid by the Medieval philosophers.Written in a lively and accessible style and offering an important historical perspective, this book covers key areas of contention and many of the major ideas and thinkers from all sides of the debate are included.

A particularly nettlesome question is that around the relationship of the confession of God as a simple yet threefold being—the treatises of the one God and the Trinity. Although God as simple and Triune was widely accepted for over a millennium, simplicity has been widely critiqued and rejected by modern theology. The purported error is in conceiving God’s unity prior to the Triune persons, an error begun by Augustine and crystallized in Aquinas. The Perfectly Simple Triune God challenges this critique and reading of Aquinas as a misunderstanding of his doctrine of God. By refusing to begin theology with God’s oneness, who God is collapses into who God is for us, a loss of the biblical and dramatic character of God for us. D. Stephen Long posits that the two treatises were never independent, but inextricably related and entailing one another. Long provides a constructive rereading of Thomas Aquinas, tracing antecedents to Aquinas in the patristic tradition, and readings of him through to the Reformers, taking into account challenges to the classical tradition posed by modern and contemporary theology and philosophy to offer a robust articulation of divine Trinitarian agency for a contemporary age that adheres to broadly considered orthodox and ecumenical parameters.

This volume collects 38 essays on the life, work, and influence of Thomas Aquinas, undoubtedly the greatest Christian theologian-philosopher in the medieval tradition. The two editors have divided their work into eight parts, each focusing on a major area or theme. In addition to the expected chapters on Thomas's metaphysics, natural theology, epistemology, and ethics, readers will find sections devoted to Thomas's theory of language, the historical background to his thought (Greek philosophy; Augustinian theology; Jewish and Islamic sources), and a consideration of the influence of his writings on later philosophical and theological traditions.

The doctrine of divine simplicity has long played a crucial role in Western Christianity's understanding of God. It claimed that by denying that God is composed of parts Christians are able to account for his absolute self-sufficiency and his ultimate sufficiency as the absolute Creator of the world. If God were a composite being then something other than the Godhead itself would be required to explain or account for God. If this were the case then God would not be most absolute and would not be able to adequately know or account for himself without reference to something other than himself. This book develops these arguments by examining the implications of divine simplicity for God's existence, attributes, knowledge, and will. Along the way there is extensive interaction with older writers, such as Thomas Aquinas and the Reformed scholastics, as well as more recent philosophers and theologians. An attempt is made to answer some of the currently popular criticisms of divine simplicity and to reassert the vital importance of continuing to confess that God is without parts, even in the modern philosophical-theological milieu.

Bertrand Russell famously quipped that he didn’t believe in God for the same reason that he didn’t believe in a teapot in orbit between the earth and Mars: it is a bizarre assertion for which no evidence can be provided. Is belief in God really like belief in Russell’s teapot? Kenneth L. Pearce argues that God is no teapot. God is a real answer to the deepest question of all: why is there something rather than nothing? Graham Oppy argues that we should believe that there are none but natural causal entities with none but natural causal properties—and hence should believe that there are no gods. Beginning from this basic disagreement, the authors proceed to discuss and debate a wide range of philosophical questions, including questions about explanation, necessity, rationality, religious experience, mathematical objects, the foundations of ethics, and the methodology of philosophy. Each author first presents his own side, and then they interact through two rounds of objections and replies. Pedagogical features include standard form arguments, section summaries, bolded key terms and principles, a glossary, and annotated reading lists. In the volume foreword, Helen De Cruz calls the debate "both edifying and a joy," and sums up what’s at stake: "Here you have two carefully formulated positive proposals for worldviews that explain all that is: classical theism, or naturalistic atheism. You can follow along with the authors and deliberate: which one do you find more plausible?" Though written with beginning students in mind, this debate will be of interest to philosophers at all levels and to anyone who values careful, rational thought about the nature of reality and our place in it.