Ep. #25 – A Divine Simplicity Primer with Paul Chutikorn
Summary
Paul Chutikorn provides a primer on the doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS). Along the way, he explains the meaning of the terms essence and existence as well as discussing univocal vs. analogical predication. Lastly, he answers two big objections to the doctrine of divine simplicity.
Guest Bio
Paul Chutikorn holds a Bachelor’s degree in both Theology and Philosophy and is pursuing his Master’s degree in Thomistic Studies out of Holy Apostles College & Seminary. He serves as Director of Faith Formation at Sacred Heart Catholic Church in Klamath Falls, Oregon, and Vice-President of the Theological Institute of St. Thomas Aquinas. He writes on various theological and philosophical topics with an emphasis on the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas. He has published articles on Ignatius Press’ Homiletic and Pastoral Review and the blog
Episode Outline
In this episode, Paul Chutikorn begins with his own religious and philosophical background as a convert to Catholicism. Next, he defines the terms essence and existence and provides examples to explain more clearly what Aquinas means by the terms.
In the second section, Paul explains how the doctrine of divine simplicity is a part of negative theology in that it denies any composition whatsover in God. Moreover, he notes how this doctrine follows from what Aquinas has previously shown about God in the Five Ways (see here for a primer on the First Way and here for a defense of the First Way against objections).
In the final segment, Paul answers two objections to divine simplicity:
- Doesn’t the doctrine make God a property? If God is goodness and goodness is a property, then it seems God is a property!
- Isn’t the doctrine incoherent? What sense does it make to say God’s goodness is his power which is his wisdom? Wisdom, goodness, and power are distinct.
Important Quote
In the Third Way, Aquinas says that all things are either possible or
necessary. We can know that things are possible by the very fact that they are generated and corruptible, and therefore possible not to be – it does not have to exist. But there must be something that is necessary insofar as it is impossible for it not to exist. As mentioned previously, there must be some first efficient cause of all things. Without a first cause, there would have been no effect to begin with. Thus, it is necessary for a first cause, and this first cause would be necessary for the existence of anything at all.Based on the necessity of the first cause, we can know that it must be of itself uncaused since if it was caused, it would not be the first cause, but rather some intermediate cause. If God is not caused by anything, then he must be necessary. Being the first cause of all existing things, one cannot claim that God participates in existence since participating in existence would indicate some potency in God to have his existence actualized by another, and this is in large part why Aquinas refers to God as existence itself, and that which is Pure Act (Actus Purus).11 This is also why we would say that God does not have existence like contingent beings do, but that he is existence by which all contingent beings participate in some limited fashion.
Chutikorn 2018, On Divine Simplicity (download the paper below)
Resources Mentioned
The One and the Many: A Contemporary Thomistic Metaphysics by Fr. W. Norris Clarke S.J.
