Friday, October 09, 2020

Change My Mind: Relation Is, and Is Is Relation

Continuing with the theme of the previous post, I have a question, and I won't accept a self-refuting answer, least of all from God, who should be above such sophistry:  if God knows what I am about to write, do I have a choice in writing it?  It feels to me like I do, but if the author of Reality is correct, then that can't be the case.  

Much as I like to think that God is the author of my omniscient posts, I have my doubts.  Of course, I want to be in alignment with the great What Is, and indeed, this goes to the ineradicable tension between finite and infinite.  I believe my philosophical approach respects this tension, while the traditional view -- perhaps unwittingly -- abolishes it by its overemphasis on the pole of infinitude and immutability.  But it takes two Tongans to tango.

I have other questions: Jesus, of course, is two natures in one person. How is the sacrifice offered by the human person worthy of merit if it is bound to occur anyway?  Another question:  does the principle of Trinity have any bearing on our conception of monotheism?   Which comes first, so to speak? Do we situate Trinity within a strict monotheism, or must we fundamentally reconceptualize the very meaning of monotheism?

For example, the author of Reality (the book, not the universe) claims that God "knows all future conditionals with absolute certainty by knowing himself."  And "from all eternity" God decrees "the actions of free creatures."  

I find this neither intelligible nor comforting, and more than a little narcissistic.  On the next page the author assures us that "Foreknown does not mean necessitated."  Oh. Okay.  We "are still making the choice. God just knows what [we] will choose."

Just?  No worries. It's just your real freedom.  

Is there a better way -- a way to reconcile God's wisdom with our stupidity?  And with it, a more sensible way to get God off the hook for human evil?  I just don't buy the traditional explanations.  

Hartshorne suggests that "there is a monopolar and a dipolar way of conceiving" of the problem before us.  I would go further and suggest there is a tripolar solution, but we'll leave that for later.  In fact, I have some other helpful suggestions of my own, but let's first lay a metacosmic foundation. 

As we know from our Thomism, God is the being whose essence is to exist: he doesn't merely have existence, rather, he is existence.  He is the only being who exists necessarily.  Moreover, his existence is necessary to the existence of human persons and all this entails.  

This is somewhat tangential to the point I'm trying to make, but if the human intellect isn't anchored in necessity, then knowledge of truth is impossible; you might say that in the absence of the Necessary Being, we are necessarily condemned to a closed world of appearances and our opinions about them.   Fake News would be the law of the universe and not just of the university.  

In short, the human person must have a sufficient principle, and this principle is God.  No principle short of this is adequate -- certainly nothing as meager as materialism, scientism, or evolutionism.  We'll come back around to this subject later.

There is and can be only one being whose essence it is to exist.  God is not a species of a larger genus; he is not a class. By definition there is only one, so we are fully on board with monotheism.  

But what sort of one? And what sort of existence?   For example, we know of two divergent and even opposite forms of oneness: there is the oneness of a brick and there is the oneness of an organism.  Is one of these "higher" or do we just flip a coin?  More to the point, is God a frozen and unfeeling block of eternity?  

If God is a FUBE, then, ironically, we humans have something he doesn't have.  But if we are in the image of God, shouldn't things that are truly essential to us be a distant reflection of something in God?  The question is, what is essential and what is accidental?  If, for example, I am a liar and a thief, it doesn't mean God must be.  

Hartshorne acknowledges that God is perfect.  Yes, but what is perfection?  Perfection means that God "has no possible rival (no equal or superior) among individuals. He could not be equalled or excelled by another. But could he be excelled by himself in another state?"

Maybe, but "how can one go beyond what is already the uttermost possible?"  We don't want to suggest that God somehow "improves." That would make no sense.  

Hmm. Let's consult the Trinity for some guidance.  First of all, there is the Father and the Son. Does it make sense to think of this as another FUBE situation, in which the Father "determines" everything in and about the Son?  If the Son is just a necessary extension of the Father, then what's the point?  

Yes, there is a "oneness" between them, but in my view it must be analogous (not identical!) to the distinction alluded to above between the rock and the organism.  Of course, a big difference is that the organism comes about in time, whereas the relation of Father and Son has nothing prior to it: the relation Is.  Or better, Is is Relation.

Now, if Relation Is, then this changes approximately everything, but we'll have to wait until the next post to find out exactly how. We'll conclude with a conundrum:

"When we are told that it is the world that has relation to God, rather than God to the world, we are in effect informed that, while X is known by God, God does not know X, which seems senseless" (ibid.).

And an aphorism:

If God were not a person, He would have died some time ago.

11 comments:

julie said...

Jesus, of course, is two natures in one person. How is the sacrifice offered by the human person worthy of merit if it is bound to occur anyway?

Much of the New Testament would be pointless, if Jesus is not wholly human and wholly able to choose what He does. The Temptation in the desert and the fast that went with it would be completely pointless - nothing but a big virtue signal, really - if it were impossible that Christ might have chosen what the devil had to offer.

Studying David and Bathsheba this week, the whole sordid affair began as a series of small but significant choices which started as simple temptation which he could have turned away from at any number of moments, and ended up with a number of men murdered, several others as accessories to the crime, and ultimately the corruption of David's lineage for generations. Yet it was this flawed man's line that God chose. Someone all-too-human, followed by generations of horrible offspring, and this was to bring us to God.

The idea that all things work to the good for those who love God means nothing if everything is ordained, and if God doesn't work with us.

Anonymous said...

Jesus is to God as we are to our spiritual selves. So maybe we can’t change water into wine in this world and can’t change natural laws in the spiritual realm. But it sure beats having to keep being reincarnated over and over into this place all the damned time.

The Holy Spirit is more like swiss cheese. Kidding. The Holy Spirit is that natural law which makes all that wholeness possible. And so we now have a Trinity which makes sense to most of us meek folks. Now all can be good. You’re welcome.

BTW, I was also the one who figured out that God is just bored with always being omnipotent and everywhere all the time with not a damned thing he can do about it, except to alleviate that incredible boredom by creating imperfect free will universes.

All the mysteries solved. So what shall we talk about now?

Nicolás said...

Mystery is less disturbing than the fatuous attempt to exclude it by stupid explanations.

Anonymous said...

The mystery of stupid explanations. Oh why God why? Can't you just lightening bolt the stupid ones so the rest of us can endlessly tour the mystery tours in peace?

Forget I said that. The aphorist has spoken. I now return you to your regularly scheduled mysteries.

Nicolás said...

A fool is he who thinks that what he knows is without mystery.

Anonymous said...

"Did you hear about the silk worms in a race? It ended in a tie." *Rim shot*

"My new girlfriend works at the zoo. I think she's a keeper." *Cymbal crash*

Great Post, Dr. Godwin. You are asking important and timeless questions and of course dishing out your usual witty style.

The wise ancients believed God was both "a frozen and unfeeling block of eternity" and a Person, and it was possible to interface with either aspect. They did this via contemplation.

I would say, you won't get answers to any of these questions from people. Julie offered an excellent Christian take on the matter of free will which you may want to accept as your endpoint for these considerations. You are a Christian, after all.

Unless you want to go farther, higher, deeper, in which case, welcome back Generalist Godwin! Notice your name, God -win, as Win God? You were born for this quest.

I have no doubt you are slated for transformation. Whether you can achieve it within your allotted span remains the question. But don't worry, there's always next time.

In the meantime I look forward to every wonderful post; take care and have a splendid day and I would say this too to the whole reading panel.

Anonymous 6:42, you are a restless soul but you have come to the right place. Stick with it, and you will never go hungry.

Now why the puns? Humor is clue as to the nature of God. Contemplate.

-Pink Starfish

Anonymous said...

Liberty is not an end, but a means. Whoever mistakes it for an end does not know what to do once he attains it.

Anonymous said...

Man’s freedom does not free him from necessity. But twists it into unforeseeable consequences.

Anonymous said...

"The Biblical prophet doesn't predict the future, but bears witness to the presense of God in history."

Anonymous said...

The “it’s no fun eating dinner alone” story of existence always struck me as inferior to the “overflowing/pouring forth of necessity” story.

Anonymous said...

If man’s freedom is strictly limited to “Yes” or “No,” is it not still total freedom? Could Christ have mounted the throne of this world? Does sharing the Nature of the Father necessitate that the Son could not rebel, as sons have a tendency to do? Such a choice is unimaginable on this side of the arc of history, but does His humanity not require it? Had Christ said “No,” or Caiphas or Pilate said “Yes,” might perhaps the Pentagram or Swastika have become an equally poetic, compelling and haunting instrument of salvation as the Cross? If the story is woven from the fabric of the characters choices, are not the paths to the epilogue infinite?

Theme Song

Theme Song