Divine Simplicity and the Grammar of God-talk: Comments on Hughes, Tapp, and Schärtl

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 89-104
Author(s):  
Otto Muck SJ
Keyword(s):  
Thomas Aquinas ◽  
Divine Simplicity ◽  
Divine Attributes ◽  
Adequate Understanding ◽  
First Cause ◽  
Different Parts ◽  
Simplicity Of God

Different opinions about the simplicity of God may be connected with different understandings of how abstract terms are used to name the properties which are affirmed of a being. If these terms are taken to signify parts of that being, this being is not a simple one. Thomas Aquinas, who attributes essence, existence and perfections to God, nevertheless thinks that these are not different parts of God. When essence, existence and perfections are attributed to God, they all denominate the same, the Being of the first cause. For Aquinas, this is a consequence of his way of introducing the language about God by basing it upon the philosophical ways leading to God as first cause. Awareness of this connection between Divine attributes and the arguments for God’s existence is crucial for an adequate understanding of Aquinas’ position.

scholarly journals Sobre la simplicidad divina y la predicación de múltiples atributos en Avicena y Tomás de Aquino / On Divine Simplicity and the Predication of Multiple Attributes in Avicenna and Thomas Aquinas

2016 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. 147
Author(s):  
Luis Xavier LÓPEZ-FARJEAT
Keyword(s):  
Thomas Aquinas ◽  
Divine Simplicity ◽  
Summa Theologiae ◽  
Divine Attributes ◽  
Multiple Attributes ◽  
The Way

In In I Sent., d. 2, q. 1, aa. 1-3 Thomas Aquinas deals with divine simplicity and the predication of the divine attributes. There, he seems to take some distance from Avicenna, specifically when Avicenna avers that God lacks a quiddity. However, in the Summa theologiae Aquinas assumes, as he previously does both in In I Sent., d. 8, q. 1, a. 1 and in De ente et essentia, that there is an identity between the essentia/quiddity and the esse in God, while this statement would also be held by Avicenna. I will show how back to the Commentary on the Sentences Aquinas has detected the existing tension between the two thesis held by Avicenna, and I will also analyze the way in which he addresses both these theses.

A Metafísica de Copleston e o Debate com Russell

2021 ◽  
Vol 76 (4) ◽  
pp. 1331-1362
Author(s):  
Alexander Maar
Keyword(s):  
Thomas Aquinas ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
History Of Philosophy ◽  
Bertrand Russell ◽  
Ultimate Cause ◽  
History Of ◽  
First Cause ◽  
The Way

Father Frederick Copleston is best known for his carefully crafted works History of Philosophy and Thomas Aquinas. Copleston’s most notable metaphysical thesis is his interpretation of the argument from contingency, which he sees as the superior choice for theists. He draws on Aquinas and distinguishes between causa fieri and causa esse to argue that God is a higher order (vertical) cause of contingent causal series (horizontal). Copleston presents God not as a temporal first cause, but an ontologically ultimate cause necessary to explain a contingent universe. His contribution changed the way we read Aquinas. Copleston’s willingness to debate his thesis with different philosophical perspectives is illustrated by his acceptance to discuss God’s existence with Bertrand Russell, in 1948. This BBC radio debate epitomises the dispute between theists and atheists from the 1940s onwards. I undertake to expound and comment Copleston’s contribution to metaphysics, present relevant parts of the debate and provide criticism.

The Traditional Doctrine of Divine Simplicity

1996 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 165-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherin Rogers
Keyword(s):  
Human Experience ◽  
Divine Simplicity ◽  
Divine Attributes ◽  
Contemporary Debate ◽  
Traditional Doctrine

Traditionally God has been considered absolutely simple. Some contemporary philosophers argue that this means that God is His attributes and hence is mere quality, and that all the divine attributes name exactly the same quality, which is incoherent. However, the contemporary debate misunderstands the tradition. God is not quality, He is act. Analogies from human experience can minimize the initial implausibility. There are worrisome corollaries to this doctrine, the most troubling being that God's nature is somehow dependent on the choices of His free creatures. This conclusion, though radical, is not as shocking as it appears.

Thomas Aquinas’ Divine Simplicity as Biblical Hermeneutic

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 496-507
Author(s):  
D. Stephen Long
Keyword(s):  
Thomas Aquinas ◽  
Divine Simplicity

Necessarily Dissimilar

Unsaying God ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 73-128
Author(s):  
Aydogan Kars
Keyword(s):  
Philosophical Hermeneutics ◽  
Negative Theology ◽  
Divine Attributes ◽  
Divine Nature ◽  
Divine Essence ◽  
Discursive Thought ◽  
First Cause

In the centuries following al-Kindī, Muslim philosophers developed a coherent family of apophatic theological positions on the divine essence and its accessibility. The recurring aspects of this philosophical apophaticism were (1) a negative theology of divine attributes that reads them as negations, (2) the unknowability of the divine essence, closely connected with an Aristotelian version of the Neoplatonic distinction between discursive thought [dianoia] and non-discursive intellection [noēsis], (3) the necessary dissimilarity of God as the first cause of everything else, and (4) a philosophical hermeneutics that protects divine oneness and dissimilarity. Most of these aspects were established in conversation with the Muʿtazilites. As early as al-Kindī, Muslim philosophers adopted such a philosophical apophaticism of the divine nature, which later would take diverse forms, while preserving strategic resemblances.

The ‘Compatibilism’ of Human Freedom and Divine Omnipotence

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 257-266
Author(s):  
Wyatt Harris
Keyword(s):  
Martin Luther ◽  
Human Freedom ◽  
Theological Method ◽  
Divine Simplicity ◽  
Divine Attributes ◽  
Doctrine Of God ◽  
Divine Omnipotence

Abstract Katherine Sonderegger’s doctrine of God, constructed on the basis of a meditation on the incommunicable divine attributes, is here elucidated. I detail Sonderegger’s commitment to divine simplicity and explain her preferred theological method: metaphysical compatibilism. I show how Sonderegger’s unique understanding of compatibilism allows her the freedom to bypass or displace most normative metaphysical arguments proffered by the tradition that attempt to elucidate divine and human freedom. Granting divine simplicity, thus that omnipotence is a moral doctrine, in other words, that omnipotence is good, I present Sonderegger’s notion of compatibilism in her account of Moses’ encounter with God at the burning bush in Exodus 3 and examine pertinent issues. A novel account of the nature of God is given that presents human freedom in a new light. By way of conclusion, Martin Luther is brought in to shed critical light on Sonderegger’s doctrine of God.

scholarly journals PROBLEM FILOZOFICZNEGO UJĘCIA ISTOTY BOGA W SUMMA THEOLOGIAE ŚW. TOMASZA Z AKWINU. PERSPEKTYWA EGZYSTENCJALNA

2018 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 53
Author(s):  
Artur Andrzejuk
Keyword(s):  
Thomas Aquinas ◽  
Summa Theologiae ◽  
Existence Of God ◽  
Cause And Effect ◽  
Personal Nature ◽  
Attributes Of God ◽  
First Cause ◽  
Existential Perspective

The „second way” in the famous third article of Summa theologiae most closelycorresponds to all of Thomas’s own investigation into the existence of God. Onseveral occasions, when referring to its conclusion („there is a first effective cause”),Aquinas adds that the first cause is its own esse. The attributes of God are the consequencesof His structure as the esse itself. The first is that God is a one-elementbeing, in which existence is the only ontic material, and it has the nature of an act.It follows that existence is identified with an essence of God, His nature, life andall that God can be predicted („divinity” – deitas). God is understood to be thecause of all other beings, and He is not caused. This is what we call „subsistence”(ipsum subsistens). God’s immutability and eternity are simple consequences of Hissubsistent existence. God’s infinity and omnipresence are the derivative attributesof His existence. The whole group of such attributes can be recognized as theconsequences of his structure of the subsistent act of existence.The second group of attributes of God is the attributes which manifest theexistence of being. As such, they concern every being. However, the existence ofGod has absolute character as well as its attributes which manifest the existence.In relation to God, Thomas mentions here such attributes as the good, the truth, theunity, but there is no doubt that we can attribute to God the rest of transcendentals:reality, distinctiveness and beauty. Aquinas – basing here on metaphysical principleof proportionality of cause and effect – sees the source of perfection in God. Fromthis perspective we can talk about the personal nature of God, that is, His reasoning,freedom and love. Also, Thomas does not reject the existential perspective. Withinits framework, he solved the paradox of the omnipotence of God (can God createsomething more perfect than Himself?). Aquinas associates the concept of God’somnipotence with existence and states that it consists in the possibility of creatingevery being that can exist. This means that God does not contribute contradictoryontological internal structures.Thus, we can say that Thomas Aquinas in Summa theologiae outlines a coherentand quite complete conception of the essence of God, which is built within hisexistential theory of existence.

scholarly journals An Anselmian Approach to Divine Simplicity

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 308-322
Author(s):  
Katherin A. Rogers
Keyword(s):  
Free Will ◽  
Thomas Aquinas ◽  
Difficult Problem ◽  
Divine Simplicity ◽  
Classical Theism ◽  
Libertarian Free Will

The doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS) is an important aspect of the classical theism of philosophers like Augustine, Anselm, and Thomas Aquinas. Recently the doctrine has been defended in a Thomist mode using the intrinsic/extrinsic distinction. I argue that this approach entails problems which can be avoided by taking Anselm’s more Neoplatonic line. This does involve accepting some controversial claims: for example, that time is isotemporal and that God inevitably does the best. The most difficult problem involves trying to reconcile created libertarian free will with the Anselmian DDS. But for those attracted to DDS the Anselmian approach is worth considering.

scholarly journals “I AM has sent me to you:” How Thomas Aquinas’ understanding of the divine names illuminates the way in which he reconciles impassibility and compassion in God

Lumen et Vita ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Bigelow Reynolds
Keyword(s):  
Thomas Aquinas ◽  
The Other ◽  
Human Knowledge ◽  
Summa Theologiae ◽  
Divine Attributes ◽  
Knowledge Of God ◽  
God's Love ◽  
Hebrew Scripture ◽  
The One ◽  
The Way

Contemporary debates on divine impassibility generally offer two options: either affirm a suffering God who loves and cares, or uphold an impassible God who turns a blind eye to the cries of his people. For Thomas Aquinas, divine impassibility (along with the other divine attributes: simplicity, infinity, immutability, etc.) is not inconsonant with divine compassion. God’s unchangeable nature affirms, not undermines, God’s ability to love. This paper, acknowledging the inadequacy of these two incomplete and dichotomous categorizations, will argue that Thomas’ understanding of the divine names in the Summa Theologiae, 1a, q. 13 illuminates the way in which he reconciles impassibility and compassion in God.It is not the goal of this paper to defend either the idea that God does or does not suffer, nor to affirm or deny the doctrine of divine impassibility on a scale any larger than the work of Thomas and selected contemporary scholars who assist in the project of unpacking and analyzing his thought. It is the goal of this paper to examine in as close a way as possible how Thomas’ defense of divine impassibility can be placed in dialogue with his understanding of the way that humans know and name God, ultimately revealing the inadequacy in the polarizing assumption that an immutable God cannot love.I will begin by analyzing the structure and implications of Thomas’ defense of divine impassibility in Question 9. This will be followed by an analysis of how, in Thomas’ understanding, human knowledge of God, including God’s attribute of impassibility, affects human capacity to name God, here drawing heavily on the insights David Burrell. I will then explore the theological and scriptural implications of Thomas’ assertion that “The One Who Is” is the most appropriate name for God, ultimately arguing that an understanding of the Hebrew scripture from which this name is drawn reveals that God’s love and compassion on behalf of his suffering people is not opposed to but rather relies upon his unchanging nature.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document