Perfect Being Theology (Reason and Religion)

175 Pages·2000·21.419 MB·English

by  Katherin A Rogers

R IS R E A S O N AND RELIGION T
o
B P
y
a N S
l
:
O 9 (
2
7
c
t 8 3
a 0
4
v 7
i 4 m
o
8
m
( 6
2
1
3 x
0
4 1
1
m
2 5
m 9
6
m
x
1 m
5
)
6
m
m
)
(
2
1
0
)
Katherin A. Rogers
Perfect Being Theology
Other titles in the Reason and Religion series:
Peter Byrne: The Moral Interpretation of Religion
ISBN 0 7486 0784 6
Stephen T. Davis: God, Reason and Theistic Proofs
ISBN 0 7486 0799 4
C. Stephen Evans: Faith Beyond Reason
ISBN 0 7 486 0794 3
Paul Helm: Faith and Understanding
ISBN 0 7 486 0922 9
Perfect Being Theology
Katherin A. Rogers
Edinburgh University Press
© Katherin A. Rogers, 2000
Edinburgh University Press Ltd
22 George Square, Edinburgh
Transferred to digital print 2006
Typeset in 11 on 13 pt Sabon
by Hewer Text Ltd, Edinburgh
Printed and bound in Great Britain by
CPI Antony Rowe, Eastbourne
A CIP record for this book is
available from the British Library
ISBN-JO 0-7486 1012 X (paperback)
ISBN-13 978 O 7486 1012 9 (paperback)
The right of Katherin A. Rogers
to be identified as author of this work
has been asserted in accordance with
the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988).
Contents
Introduction Vll
1. Why Perfect Being Theology? 1
2. Perfection and Its Problems 11
3. Divine Simplicity 24
4. Necessity, Immutability and Impassivity 40
5. Eternity 54
6. Omniscience 71
7. Omnipotence 92
8. Creation 107
9. Divine Goodness 120
10. Evil 136
Bibliography 155
Index 163

Introduction
'Should I believe in God?' is perhaps the most practical question one can
ask. But there is a question which must precede it: 'What does "God"
mean?' Before one can reasonably judge that something exists, one needs to
have some idea of what it is. Perfect being theology represents one method
for answering the question, What is God? The starting assumption, shared
by the vast majority of Westerners past and present, whether theist or
atheist, is that a being who is the source of all and a worthy object of
worship must be the most perfect being possible. A second assumption,
confined to a considerably narrower segment of humanity, is the view that
human reason can and should apply the tools of philosophy to unpacking
the concept of a most perfect being possible.
A philosophically adequate analysis of the nature of God is the opti
mistic aim of this work. Our questions will include: What are the attributes
of a perfect being? For example, must God be absolutely simple? Are these
attributes inherently coherent? Does timelessness, for instance, make sense
conceptually? Are these attributes consistent with one another? For ex
ample, if God exists outside of time, can He be omniscient and know what
time it is now? Can a perfect being possess any limitations? Do the logically
impossible? Sin? What would be the relationship between this perfect being
and the world which it produces? What role does human freedom play in
the system authored by this being? Why would a perfect being allow evil?
These are just a few of the issues to be addressed in this attempt at perfect
being theology.
I contend that this enterprise is not as wildly foolhardy as it might
appear at first. True, the diminutive philosopher faces the task of exploring
This content downloaded from
Vlll Perfect Being Theology
a subject infinite by definition ... and we are not talking about some
abstract mathematical infinity, but an infinite person, a person possessing
power and knowledge and goodness without limit. A daunting object of
inquiry! But fortunately we can follow a path that has already been carved
out ... and by giants. In this work I shall take the Middle Ages to be the
Golden Age of perfect being theology, and Augustine of Hippo (354-430),
Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109), and Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) as the
most successful proponents of the method.
This is not an exercise in intellectual history, though. My approach will
be to bring the medievals into the present debate, arguing that their work
provides the most adequate answers to the puzzles of perfect being
theology. Many contemporary philosophers of religion will find this
conclusion woefully wrongheaded. (If we were all in agreement there
wouldn't be any point in making the case, would there?) I have consistently
ended by defending the medieval position, but with respect to each of the
issues in question I have tried to present the main arguments for the various
opposing sides so that the reader can appreciate what the debate is about.
And I have tried to cite the most important contemporary sources to
provide the reader with a starting point for further investigation. Some
times (only rarely!) I have felt forced to conclude that the medieval system
has left some problems outstanding. This conclusion, though, may more
often be a result of lapses in my own scholarship and analysis than of some
lacuna in the thought of Augustine or Anselm or Aquinas.
I am very grateful to Paul Helm for asking me to write this book for his
series, Reason and Religion, and especially thankful for his willingness to
permit me to defend my own (medieval) approach. I thank him, too, for his
painstaking, thoughtful and extremely helpful editorial advice. There are
views in the book which he thinks are wrong, or at best extremely
implausible, but thanks to his help I hope I have at least managed to
express them more clearly. And thanks, too, to my colleagues Jeff Jordan
and Michael Rea, whose work on my behalf far exceeded the call of
collegial duty. Their analytic expertise in reading and commenting on the
entire first draft of the manuscript has saved me from numerous philo
sophical gaffes. If blunders and unclarity remain the fault is mine. My
gratitude also goes to Mary Imperatore and Gail Ross who have helped in
innumerable ways with the preparation of the manuscript. Finally, thanks
to the editors at Edinburgh University Press for their understanding in
extending my deadline when illness and death in the family prevented me
from following my original work schedule.
This content downloaded from
1
Why Perfect Being Theology?
Nine hundred years ago St. Anselm of Canterbury, then a monk in the
monastery at Bee, prayed for a single, short argument by which to prove
almost everything about God. He became so wrapped up in his search that
he began to lose sleep and have trouble paying attention at divine services.
He had just about resolved to give up the search, fearing it might be a
temptation of the devil when, 'suddenly one night during matins the grace
of God illuminated his heart, the whole matter became clear to his mind,
and a great joy and exultation filled his inmost being'. 1 What he had
received was the 'ontological' proof which he records in the second chapter
of his Proslogion, and which is arguably the single most discussed argu
ment in the history of the philosophy of the last thousand years. Anselm
begins by defining God as 'that than which a greater cannot be conceived,'
proceeds to prove that such a being must exist in reality, and then goes on,
in the rest of the Proslogion, to a lucid and systematic analysis of the
concept 'that than which a greater cannot be conceived'. Thus he began the
method which today is called perfect being theology. In this first chapter I
shall address the questions of why and how one might engage in continuing
Anselm's work.
If one were not convinced of the divine sanction for this way of going
about things, one might wonder if the analytic unpacking of a definition is
really a fruitful way to approach and address the living God of the Judeo
Christian worldview. (I will be working within the Christian tradition,
though as much of the discussion of the divine nature will be sufficiently
general it could apply to Judaism and Islam.) Even if worship involves
some intellectual grasp of the being worshipped, why start with the
This content downloaded from