A Response to a Plethora of Problems with Classical Theism

10 Responses

  1. Michael says:

    Definitely lots to think about–the authors could all get together and write an edited volume with a chapter on each issue. Also nice to hear from some bright students instead of the usual philosophy faculty. But I am curious what Feser, Koons, Oppy, Pruss and the like would say about these issues–I imagine most of the arguments are not new, but are just being presented in a fresh way.

  2. john konnor says:

    …good work…

  3. Brendan says:

    Hey John. Joe made a response to this. Do his responses work?

    • John DeRosa says:

      Hi Brendan,

      Thanks for your comment. The tricky thing about this is I asked the contributors to this to adhere to a concise word count, yet, Joe’ responses are clearly vastly more developed and technical than the contributors’ responses above. So, I don’t think some of the replies here are adequate or developed enough to handle Joe’s more detailed proposals and objections. But, personally, I do not find the arguments proposed here against classical theism to work.

      I also like to categorize the objections into undercutting and rebutting defeaters. For example, the arguments from changing knowledge, the difference principle, Incarnation, and Trinity are proposed as rebutting defeaters which purport to show classical theism is false. I don’t think any of those work for reasons we’ve gone through on various podcast episodes (there will be an upcoming one specifically on the Incarnation).

      One topic deserving of more attention is divine conceptualism, propositions, and how these things are to be understood vis a vis divine simplicity. That is something I look to explore more this year. The episode with Dr. Gregory T. Doolan is a good start http://www.classicaltheism.com/doolan , but I’d like to go deeper in responding to worries that people like Joe and Omar Fahkri have raised.

      Finally, I’d point out that for Catholics, we have warrant for classical theism and divine simplicity through trusting in Christ and His Church, so even if we do not have ready answers to all of the difficulties, we can hold fast to the teaching based on the promises of Christ.

      Hope this helps,
      John

  4. A simple refutation of Schmid on the Trinity vs Divine Simplicity is IMHO merely technical. The divine simplicity means in the divine essence there are no real physical or real metaphysical distinctions in God God is immaterial ergo by definition He can contain no real physical distinctions. God is Pure Act so in God there is no passive potency that can be made act by something already in act. In order for Schmid to succeed he has to show the real distinctions between the subsisting divine relations are either physical or metaphysical in nature then the doctrines would contradict each other. But divine revelation tells us the real distinctions of the subsisting divine relations are mysterious in nature and neither physical nor metaphysical. Ergo in principle no argument Schmid makes can succeed. Without redefining the doctrine as understood by Catholics and other Classic Theists .

    I notice he uses some ambiguous terms “absolute simplicity”. Which I would normally take to mean an absence of real physical and or real metaphysical distinctions. But I think he is ad hoc re-defining it to mean “no real distinctions at all.” Which is not the doctrine as understood historically by the Church.

    https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm#IC

    Schmid needs to drop this argument since in principle it cannot succeed.

    • John DeRosa says:

      So, you should know this post is a bit outdated and we have all developed some of these positions more significantly since then. For some of Schmid’s more recent arguments against the Trinity, I would check out the document linked in this Youtube discussion:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX6di0Au5Kg

      Regarding your point here: “But divine revelation tells us the real distinctions of the subsisting divine relations are mysterious in nature and neither physical nor metaphysical.”

      I think this is right on track and close to my view, but I would make a distinction. I wouldn’t say flat out the distinctions are not metaphysical. If metaphysics is broadly understood to mean the study of being, then the Trinitarian distinctions can said to be “metaphysical” since they are about real being. Nonetheless, I would say that they are not metaphysical distinctions of the sort that we can pick up through natural reasoning. Dr. Gaven Kerr walks through the metaphysical distinctions that we can pick up with our intellect in this episode: http://www.classicaltheism.com/kerr2

      Anyway, thanks for the comment!
      Peace,
      John

      • Jim the Scott says:

        A metaphysical real distinction is basically real change in something as shown by the Act/potency distinction. God contains metaphysical distinctions that are logical and notional no question. But none that are real. God is Being Itself (or Beyond Being if one prefers the Eastern Church formulations which I think is merely a different side to the same coin). The only real distinctions in God are the mysterious ones of the subsisting divine relations. I would say this since the Trinity is not something we can ever know by natural reason alone apart from divine revelation then I submit all philosophical critiques of it are non-starters. There is no philosophical argument that can take us to God being a Trinity. We can only know it if God tells us(in which case Atheists should stop wasting our time & concentrate on polemics against the viability of divine revelation or the validity of the NT). Thus I submit in principle making a philosophical case against God being a Trinity makes about as much sense as trying to “refute” Evolution using a particle accelerator. Or trying to dig up a Higgs Boson in a fossil record. It is a category mistake.

        The doctrine of the Trinity as formulated Traditionally by the Holy Church contains no logical contradictions and in principle no provable formal contradictions. Ergo Atheists are wasting their time with these arguments. They should change their tactics IMHO.

        Cheers.

  5. James the Scot says:

    Feser has answered on of Schmid’s articles. Enjoy.

    https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2021/07/schmid-on-aristotelian-proof.html#more

  6. Jim the Scott/Son of Yachov says:

    Here is a response to Schmid from Dr. Edward Feser. It looks very good.

    https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2021/07/schmid-on-aristotelian-proof.html#more

  7. The accommodations are immaculate and private. The staff are
    caring and courteous. All of your needs will be met.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *