AS Philosophy (1171) UNIT 1 Theme B: The Idea of God

Booklet 1 The Divine Attributes

AQA specification for this theme in Unit 1

Specification blurb on this theme: Reflecting on the nature of a supreme being has generated a constellation of divine attributes. Can we make sense of them? The idea that a maximally perfect being exists necessarily is expressed in the distinctive ontological argument for the existence of God. Is the argument successful and how should we treat it? But is the idea of God really an idea that reaches out to something beyond, and distinct from, the familiar? Perhaps God is merely the product of mundane social and psychological processes. Students will be introduced to three related discussions that centre around the idea of God. The chosen topics will not only introduce candidates to issues developed in A2 philosophy of religion, but also relate to issues addressed in the texts: Humes An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Descartes Meditations, Nietzsches Beyond Good and Evil and other themes; in particular, the genesis of ideas and the parameters of concept application Specification content for this theme (bold text indicates material covered in this booklet): The divine attributes The ontological argument The origins of God

God has been described as possessing omnipotence, omniscience and supreme goodness. He is said to be transcendent and immanent and His existence has no beginning or end, being either eternal or everlasting. What are we to understand by these attributes and how do they apply? Are these divine attributes singularly or mutually coherent?

Attempts to demonstrate a priori that if Gods existence is conceivable then God must exist Gods being is necessary. Strengths and weaknesses of ontological arguments for Gods existence.

The claim that the idea of God is innate within all of us and the difficulties surrounding that claim. Attempts to explain how the idea of God is merely a human construction and projection that emerges from mundane social or psychological processes.

Theme content at a glance (bold text indicates material covered in this booklet):

The divine attributes: section overview

After completing this section you should be able to...... Been taught this? Can do this? Have revised this?

Explain and illustrate what is meant when we say that God is omnipotent Explain 3 examples that show that omnipotence is impossible Explain how all three of these examples could be responded to Explain the difference between being able to do EVERYTHING and being able to do everything that is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE (everything that is non-contradictory) Explain how this attribute clashes with at least 2 of Gods other attributes (mutual incoherence of the concept) Explain how these clashes could be responded to Make a judgement of your own on whether it makes sense to say God is omnipotent Explain and illustrate what is meant when we say that God is omniscient Explain how Gods omniscience clashes with humans free will Explain how this problem could be responded to Explain the problem of indexicals (singular incoherence of the concept) Explain how this problem could be responded to Explain how this attribute clashes with 2 of Gods other attributes (mutual incoherence of the concept) Explain how these clashes could be responded to Make a judgement of your own on whether it makes sense to say God is omniscient Explain and illustrate what is meant when we say that God is supremely good Explain the Euthyphro dilemma and how it shows that God cannot be the source of moral goodness (singular incoherence of the concept Explain how the Euthyphro dilemma could be responded to Explain how this attribute clashes with omnipotence (i.e. the problem of evil) (mutual incoherence of the concept)

Explain how this problem could be responded to using the Augustinian and Irenaean theodicies Make a judgement of your own on whether it makes sense to say God is supremely good Explain and illustrate what is meant when we say that God is eternal Explain 2 ways in which this attribute clashs with omnipotence (mutual incoherence of the concept) Explain how these problems could be responded to Make a judgement of your own on whether it makes sense to say God is eternal/transcendent Explain and illustrate the difference between claiming that God is everlasting and claiming that God is eternal Explain how both of these attributes clash with the other attributes (mutual incoherence of the concept) Explain how these problems could be responded to Make a judgement of your own on whether it makes sense to say God is everlasting or eternal Make your own concluding judgement on whether the idea of God is coherent overall Explain and illustrate what it means to say that God is both transcendent and immanent Explain how the possession of both transcendence and immanence might be said to lead to a contradiction Make judgments about whether it makes sense to claim that God is both transcendent and immanent.

The divine attributes vocabulary/philosophers

Omnipotent

Mackie

Omniscient

Singularly coherent Mutually coherent Paradox

Supreme goodness Transcendent

Immanent

Dilemma

No beginning or end: eternal No beginning or end: everlasting Plato

Indexical statement

Aquinas

St Augustine

Irenaeus

Divine command theory

The divine attributes exam questions on this section

DESCRIPTIVE QUESTIONS explaining an idea and/or a criticism (15 marks) Explain and illustrate two difficulties with the claim that God is omniscient. (June 2012) Outline the view that God is eternal and explain one difficulty with this view. (Jan 2012) Briefly explain how, if God is immanent, this may conflict with three of his divine attributes. (June 2011) Explain two criticisms of the view that God is supremely good, the source of moral laws and moral goodness. (Jan 2011) Outline and illustrate how Gods transcendence might conflict with one of His other attributes. (Jan 2010) Explain and illustrate the claim that if God is eternal then He cannot be omniscient. Explain and illustrate the claim that God cannot be transcendent and immanent Explain and illustrate the view that the notion of omnipotence is a paradoxical one Explain and illustrate five of the divine attributes Explain two problems with the mutual coherence of the divine attributes. Explain two problems with the singular coherence of the divine attributes.

EVALUATIVE QUESTIONS explaining AND evaluating an idea or a claim (30 marks) It is difficult to make sense of the idea of God. Discuss. [January 2013] The concept of God is incoherent. Discuss. (Specimen paper) Consider the view that philosophically speaking God cannot possess all the properties that are ascribed to him.

The divine attributes - diagram

The first question is: What is the idea of God and does it make sense? The diagram below shows the structure of this first question.

The divine attributes - introduction

Watch the clip from Bruce Almighty. What attributes of God are demonstrated in the clip (add them below)? Are there any other attributes that people claim God has that are not really present in the clip?

Theism: the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe,
We will be concentrating on the theist conception of God and whether it makes sense. Theism needs to be distinguished from other beliefs about the nature of God or gods. It needs to be distinguished from polytheism and pantheism. What might be problematic with the idea of polytheism?

What might be problematic with the idea of pantheism?

In this booklet we are going to examine the following key divine attributes that the theist God is said to possess: omnipotence, omniscience, supreme goodness (benevolence), existence with no beginning or end (including eternal and everlasting) and the distinction between Gods transcendence and immanence. Using the following readings (and any extra reading that you may want to do) you are going to examine some philosophical issues that arise from Gods attributes. You will be required to think about how the issues could be responded to, and what conclusions you would draw.

1) Problems with God being omnipotent (paradoxes of omnipotence) For with God nothing is impossible. (Luke 1:37)
Definition of omnipotence: The God of Abraham was able to do anything; this was the message behind the countless examples in the Bible of what God could and did do: He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom. He gives strength to the weary and increases the power of the weak (Isaiah 40:2830); With God all things are possible (Matthew 19:26); For with God nothing is impossible (Luke 1:37). The power of God to do anything was termed OMNIPOTENCE by philosophers (from the Latin omni = all and potens = power) and it takes a central position in Gods perfection. Some philosophers have argued that the very notion of omnipotence doesnt make any logical sense. There are things that God could not possibly do. Problem (paradox of omnipotence) Impossible only for God or for anyone/anything?

A first example is called the paradox of the stone:

Either God can create a stone which He cannot lift, or He cannot create a stone which He cannot lift. 2. If God can create a stone which He cannot lift, then He is not omnipotent (since He cannot lift the stone in question). 3. If God cannot create a stone which He cannot lift, then He is not omnipotent (since He cannot create the stone in question). Therefore God is not omnipotent (because the very notion of omnipotence itself entails a contradiction). 1.

A second example that is often given is the inability of God to change mathematical and geometrical truths. He cannot make 2 + 2 = 5 true, and he cannot make a square circle!

A third example, is the question of whether can perform an action. For example, could God run the 200 metres (and maybe beat Usain Bolts record)?

Possible reply: Extract from Some Puzzles Concerning Omnipotence by George I. Mavrodes
Responding to objections of this type, St Thomas Aquinas pointed out that anything should be here construed to refer only to objects, actions, or states of affairs whose descriptions are not self-contradictory... My failure to draw a circle on the exam might indicate my lack of geometrical skill, but my failure to draw a square circle does not indicate any such 9

lack. Therefore, the fact that it is false (or perhaps meaningless) to say that God could draw one does no damage to the doctrine of His omnipotence... The dilemma fails because it consists of asking whether God can do a self-contradictory thing. And the reply that He cannot does no damage to the doctrine of omnipotence.

Specifically in relation to the paradox of the stone, Aquinas argues that creating a stone so heavy it cannot be lifted is not a self-contradictory thing for a human (we could make something so heavy we cant lift it), but IS a self contradictory thing for God (given that he is defined as a being that can do anything and so can lift anything). Therefore Gods omnipotence is NOT limited. This response could also be applied to the other two examples.

How could it be claimed that it is self-contradictory to make 2 + 2 = 5 true?

How could it be claimed that it is self-contradictory for God to run the 200 metres?

What do you think of this issue overall? Can God be omnipotent?

10

2a) Problem with God being omniscient (the indexical I) nothing in all creation is hidden from Gods sight (Hebrews 4:13)
Definition of omniscience: By the nature of their profession, philosophers place a high value on knowledge, and we shouldnt be surprised to find that religious philosophers consider perfect knowledge to be an aspect of Gods perfection. As with omnipotence, Gods OMNISCIENCE (Latin omni = all, scientia = knowing) is illustrated in the Bible by examples, rather than stated explicitly. Psalm 139:4 tells us that even before a word is on my tongue, 0 Lord, thou knowest it altogether Some have argued that God cannot possibly know EXACTLY what Dave knows when Dave thinks to himself I am in college (and nor can any of us aside from Dave himself). This is because you have to be Dave to have that knowledge. This is because the word I is an indexical its meaning alters depending on so here its meaning alters depending on who says it. The moment you say it, it you. Two speakers who utter a single sentence that contains an indexical different things. For instance, Fred and Wilma say different things when they sentence I am female. Possible response: However, some have argued that we can deal with this issue by claiming that there can be two ways of knowing the same statement. So, God doesnt lack knowledge, God just knows it in a different way. For example, I am in college and Dave is in college are two different ways of expressing the same statement / proposition. Hence, lack of access to the former does not entail lack of access to truths involved. The response therefore is that God can know the same truth as a person who is located in a particular place or time but that God simply knows it in a different way. Commenting on the general problem of indexicals Sudduth concludes: God doesnt need to be who I am to know what I know, to be where I am to what is happening in the place I am, nor to exist when I exist to know what is happening at any time when I exist. What do you think of this issue overall? Can God be omniscient? circumstances: becomes about may say utter the

11

2b) Problem with God being omniscient (prevents free will) nothing in all creation is hidden from Gods sight (Hebrews 4:13)
A second major issue with omniscience is this omniscience means that God knows everything. So, if it is true that I will have toast for breakfast tomorrow then God knows this. However since God cant be wrong there is no way that I can avoid having toast for breakfast tomorrow because there is no way I take away Gods omniscience. We often think an action as being free IF you could have NOT done it (you could have done otherwise). For example, it is true that Colin freely chose to eat the ice-cream IF Colin had the genuine option not to eat it (he could have chosen not to eat it). The conclusion therefore seems to be that if God is omniscient then I do not have genuine free will. Responses to this issue vary depending on what we mean when we say that God exists without beginning or end (AQA spec). There are two ways in which we can understand the idea that God exists with no beginning or end. To describe God as eternal means to treat God as timeless, that is to say that God exists outside of time. God does not on this view exist today, tomorrow or yesterday God just exists. To describe God as everlasting means to say that God has existed at each moment of past time, exists now, and will exist at each moment of future time.

Possible response 1: The everlasting God response. William Lane Craig argues that God only knows what it is possible to know. If God is everlasting (and hence within time) God will know everything that is presently happening and everything that has happened but will not be able to know for sure what I will do tomorrow because there simply is no way of knowing this. The future hasnt happened yet and so there is no truth about it that God could know. BUT: Other philosophers have however objected that the idea of God as everlasting robs God of true and complete omniscience because God doesnt know the future. What do you think of this response?

12

Taking it further: watch this YouTube clip where William Lane Craig discusses God and time http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3N_RAvksP4

Possible response 2: The eternal God response (God sees rather than foresees) This is the response to the problem that was suggested by the Roman Christian philosopher Boethius. Basically if I happen to see you eating a sandwich this does not mean that you are not freely choosing to do so. The problem only comes if I foresee what you are going to do tomorrow and tell you that there is nothing you can do to prevent this coming true. Boethiuss solution is that because God isnt located in time (i.e. is eternal) God is never foreseeing what I am going to do tomorrow. Instead God is able to simultaneously see all of my actions (past, present and future) at once. God just knows what Im like and what I do, God doesnt make me do anything. Thus, St. Augustine compares Gods knowledge of the world from outside of time to someone looking down upon a road from above who therefore has a different perspective on things to a traveller on the road who can only experience each part of the journey one stage at a time. BUT: There are two problems that arise from this: Firstly, this seems to rob God of true and complete omniscience. Even though God can know that I am sitting here at 1.45pm from Gods eternal standpoint, God still cannot know that I am sitting here now because there is no now for God. That is, God cannot know nowness. Secondly, the solution of Boethius and Augustine raises its own problem. If God isnt making me perform a ctions then God only knows has knowledge concerning me eating toast because I have chosen to do so. This would mean that my choices have an effect on God and that Gods knowledge depends on me. However many theists have stressed that God is unchanging and so cannot be changed or caused to have knowledge because of something that I have done. The philosophical tradition coming down from ancient Greece argues that if God is perfect then God has no need to change.

13

What do you think? Does either response to the issue of free will and omniscience work?

3) Problem with God being transcendent and immanent.

The claim that God is both transcendent and immanent is very important for theists as Michael Lacewing explains: The idea of transcendence marks the way God is very different from creation. First, God is outside or goes beyond the universe. Since God is self-sufficient and the creator of the universe, clearly God is not reducible to the universe. Second, God is nor spatial as the universe is and many [but not all] philosophers argue that God also transcends time in the sense that God is timeless, rather than existing in time. Third, while God is personal, he has intellect and will in quite a different way from persons. However, emphasising Gods transcendence can make it seem that God is very remote from us, no part of our lives. The claim that God is immanent marks the close connection between Gods existence and the existence of everything else. For example, it is said that God is omnipresent, that is, that he exists everywhere in everything that exists. God is there. In being everywhere. God knows everything from the inside. Some thinkers also argue that God is immanent in time and so in human history, giving a sense that we work alongside God in producing what is morally good. Immanence without transcendence, the view that God is wholly immanent, would lead to pantheism that God and the universe are the same thing. It would also lead to a denial of God being personal since the universe isnt. So transcendence is necessary for the traditional conception of God; immanence is necessary to prevent that God being impossibly remote from us. However, trying to combine transcendence and immanence leads to a major problem essentially how can God be beyond the universe if God can be present in it? These two notions have been seen by many to be contradictory or inconsistent. Possible response 1: re-interpret the meanings Some philosophers have claimed that we just need to understand the relationship between transcendence and immanence in the right way. For example Atherton et al suggest that: We might begin to see a way to resolve the tension between immanence and transcendence if we accept that God is quite separate from His creation but through his omnipotence and omniscience He is, in a sense, present everywhere within the world, i.e. omnipresent. Aquinas uses the analogy of a king and his kingdom. Thus there is a sense in which a king, through his power, is present in the whole of his kingdom. Possible response 2: limits of human language

14

Others, such as Moses Maimonides, have suggested instead that we address this point by claiming that there is only a problem because of the weakness of human language when it comes to trying to talk about God. Its a problem with us, not a problem with God. What do you think? Can this apparent issue be resolved?

4a) Problem with God being supremely good (the Euthyphro dilemma) O give thanks to the Lord, for he is good, for his steadfast love endures for ever. (Psalm 106:1)
Gods goodness has been understood in two different ways: 1. Goodness means that God is the source of all moral goodness, and is supremely loving and just 2. Goodness means that God is complete and perfect, and contains all those attributes that are necessary for perfection The first issue for Gods supreme goodness is found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro: "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" The suggestion is that there is an internal flaw in the notion that God is good. Extract from http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/?page_id=88 [PTO]

15

The name divine command theory can be any one of a family of related ethical theories. theories have in common is that they take the foundation of ethics. According to divine things are morally good or bad, or morally permissible, or prohibited, solely because of commands. Divine command theory is often refuted by an argument known as the dilemma. The Euthyphro dilemma begins by posing a morally good acts willed by God because they good, or are they morally good because they God? Whichever way the theist answers this problems are thought to follow. If the theist gives the first answer to the dilemma, holding that morally good acts are because they are morally good, then he faces independence problem; if morally good acts God because they are morally good, then they good prior to and so independently of Gods This is clearly inconsistent with divine the divine command theorist must give the the Euthyphro dilemma.

used to refer to What these Gods will to be command theory, obligatory, Gods will or thought to be Euthyphro question: Are are morally are willed by question, Euthyphro willed by God the are willed by must be morally willing them. command theory; second answer to

If the theist gives the second answer to the Euthyphro dilemma, holding that morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God, then he faces the arbitrariness problem, the emptiness problem, and the problem of abhorrent commands. The arbitrariness is the problem that divine command theory appears to base morality on mere whims of God. If divine command theory is true, it seems, then Gods commands can neither be informed nor sanctioned by morality. How, though, can such morally arbitrary commands be the foundation of morality? The emptiness problem is that on the divine command analysis of moral goodness , statements like God is good and Gods commands are good are rendered empty tautologies: God acts in accordance with his commands and Gods commands are in accordance with his commands. The problem of abhorrent commands is that divine command theory appears to entail that if God were to command abhorrent actsmalicious deception, wanton cruelty, etc. those acts would become morally good. Divine command theory is by no means the only ethical theory in the Christian tradition, so the theist need not be overly concerned even if these objections were thought to be successful. There are, however, theological reasons why the theist might be attracted to divine command theory and so want to defend it. God is claimed to be the creator of all things, and therefore the creator of our moral obligations. God is claimed to be sovereign, to have the authority to tell us how we are to live our lives. There are also a number of biblical examples of God commanding acts that would otherwise be thought to be morally wrong, acts such as plundering the Egyptians [Exodus 11:2] or preparing to sacrifice ones son [Genesis 22:2], thus rendering them morally good. These considerations can most easily, though not only, be accommodated within a divine command theory of ethics.

Possible response: Read the following response to the Euthyphro dilemma. Extract from Koukl: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5236
The general strategy used to defeat a dilemma is to show that it's a false one. There are not two options, but three. The Christian rejects the first option, that morality is an arbitrary function of God's power. And he rejects the second option, that God is responsible to a higher law. There is no Law over God. The third option is that an objective standard exists (this avoids the first horn of the dilemma). However, the standard is not external to God, but internal (avoiding the second horn). Morality is grounded in the immutable character of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but rooted in His holiness. Could God simply decree that torturing babies was moral? "No," the Christian answers, "God would never do that." It's not a matter of command. It's a matter of character. 16

So the Christian answer avoids the dilemma entirely. Morality is not anterior to God -logically prior to Him - as Bertrand Russell suggests, but rooted in His nature. As Scott Rae puts it, "Morality is not grounded ultimately in God's commands, but in His character, which then expresses itself in His commands." In other words, whatever a good God commands will always be good.

What do you think? Does this response avoid the original issue (think about the underlined sentence)?

4b) Problem with God being supremely good (the problem of evil)
The second issue is this: If God is omnibenevolent/supremely good, AND God is omnipotent, then why doesnt God stop or prevent the evil in the world? Either God cannot abolish evil or he will not: if he cannot then he is not all -powerful; if he will not, then he is not all good. The problem of evil is often pictured as an inconsistent triad. It is argued that, given the fact of evil, it doesnt make sense to say that God is omnipotent and all loving. This is known as the logical problem of evil. The idea is that it is not logical to argue that a good, all-powerful God exists when there is so much evil in the world. If evil exists and God is good he would want to do something about it. If evil exists and God is all-powerful he would be able to do something about it. The trouble is, says the sceptic, evil continues to exist. Therefore, it is argued that either God is not omnipotent or God is not benevolent, or he doesnt exist.

17

Possible responses: You will now need to research the two most famous responses to the problem of evil: 1. the Augustinian theodicy 2. the Irenaean theodicy

A theodicy is a defence of God in relation to the issue of evil. Watch the documentary clip about the problem of evil and the responses to it.

Augustine

Irenaeus
. has responsibility for the creation.

God originally created a ......... humanity

Humans were created with moral perfection and ...........................

Humans are created not as .......................................................................... who fall into sin but as

Genuine freewill means the possibility of .

capable of growing into the persons God intends.

Humans disobeyed God and the consequences of this were .

In a paradise with no suffering it would not be possible to ...........

People fell from grace and later generations inherit .. Evil is the cost of the eventual creation of ..

18

in a world full of suffering.

Perfection may not be reached in this life, therefore it is essential that it continues

The responsibility for evil is with the .. not the .......................

..

Evaluating the two theodicies.

19

Problem of evil summary diagram

20

Extra readings for the problems with the two theodicies

21

22

Singular versus mutual incoherence: the difference

You have been looking at two types of problem with the attributes of God: 1. Singular incoherence if an attribute of God makes no sense by itself, it can be said to be singularly incoherent. 2. Mutual incoherence if an attribute of God clashes with the other attributes He is said to have then it can be said to be mutually incoherent. This distinction is one that AQA make, so you need to be aware of what it means and how it applies to what we have done. TASK: Go through the problems we have looked at and decide which are a singular incoherence with one attribute and which are a mutual incoherence between two or more of Gods attributes.

Overall conclusions about the divine attributes:

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER IN CONCLUSION:

Is the theist conception of God coherent in your opinion? Do you think that we just need to be very careful in our definition? Do you think that the whole idea of God has been shown to be incoherent? Do you think that this discussion has any implications for Gods existence? Is it possible to talk about God using human language i.e. it is our issue rather than Gods issue?)

23

24

25