"Classical" Theism

[Kevin12]

I have been recently looking up some articles on the Problem of Evil and have come across some of the writings of Edward Feser, who discusses the concept of “Classical” Theism, which he takes to be the view of the Fathers and Aquinas. As it relates to the Problem of Evil, Feser seems to follow Fr. Brian Davies in claiming that God is not a moral agent in any way similar to the way we are, and that to say he is good is simply to say that he is purely actual. You can read more on it here and a follow-up here. He contrasts this to what he called theistic personalism, which he says, “conceives of God essentially as a person comparable to human persons, only without the limitations we have. The idea is to begin with what we know about human beings and then to abstract away first the body, then our temporal limitations, then our epistemological and volitional confinement to knowing about and having control over only a particular point of space and time, then our moral defects, and to keep going until we arrive at the notion of a being who has power, knowledge, and goodness like ours but to an unlimited degree.” He refers to Alvin Plantagina or as a prominent example of so-called theistic personalism. According to his view, the various attempts at theodicy put forth by thinkers like Richard Swinburne or John Hick are meaningless, because God is good simply because he exists.

The first thing I am not sure of is whether or not Feser and Davies is accurately representing the Fathers and Aquinas. Indeed, I found one review of Davies book that claims Davies seems to ignore Aquinas when he contradicts him. I think it is probably true that the Fathers state that, for example, God owes us nothing, but I think that it is a big leap from there to say He is not a moral agent.

The second thing is, I am not sure of the orthodoxy of at least Davis position, because in rejecting all theodicies (i.e. theories about why a wholly good God permits exists), he seems to reject the theodicy inherent in the doctrine of Original Sin - that, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “suffering is the penal consequence of willful disobedience to the law of God.”

I am particularly troubled by Feser and Davies approach, because one of the criticisms I recently read levied against Christianity is that the Fathers took the vibrant, living God of the Bible and fashioned Him into a neutered Platonic ideal - that the God of the Bible and the God of the Philosophers originally had nothing to do with each other. I still don’t believe those charges, but I feel that if Davies at least is correct and “classical theism” is was the view of the Fathers, that criticism seems much more potent.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I have been recently looking up some articles on the Problem of Evil and have come across some of the writings of Edward Feser, who discusses the concept of “Classical” Theism, which he takes to be the view of the Fathers and Aquinas. As it relates to the Problem of Evil, Feser seems to follow Fr. Brian Davies in claiming that God is not a moral agent in any way similar to the way we are, and that to say he is good is simply to say that he is purely actual. You can read more on it here and a follow-up here. He contrasts this to what he called theistic personalism, which he says, “conceives of God essentially as a person comparable to human persons, only without the limitations we have. The idea is to begin with what we know about human beings and then to abstract away first the body, then our temporal limitations, then our epistemological and volitional confinement to knowing about and having control over only a particular point of space and time, then our moral defects, and to keep going until we arrive at the notion of a being who has power, knowledge, and goodness like ours but to an unlimited degree.” He refers to Alvin Plantagina or as a prominent example of so-called theistic personalism. According to his view, the various attempts at theodicy put forth by thinkers like Richard Swinburne or John Hick are meaningless, because God is good simply because he exists.

The first thing I am not sure of is whether or not Feser and Davies is accurately representing the Fathers and Aquinas. Indeed, I found one review of Davies book that claims Davies seems to ignore Aquinas when he contradicts him. I think it is probably true that the Fathers state that, for example, God owes us nothing, but I think that it is a big leap from there to say He is not a moral agent.

The second thing is, I am not sure of the orthodoxy of at least Davis position, because in rejecting all theodicies (i.e. theories about why a wholly good God permits exists), he seems to reject the theodicy inherent in the doctrine of Original Sin - that, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “suffering is the penal consequence of willful disobedience to the law of God.”

I am particularly troubled by Feser and Davies approach, because one of the criticisms I recently read levied against Christianity is that the Fathers took the vibrant, living God of the Bible and fashioned Him into a neutered Platonic ideal - that the God of the Bible and the God of the Philosophers originally had nothing to do with each other. I still don’t believe those charges, but I feel that if Davies at least is correct and “classical theism” is was the view of the Fathers, that criticism seems much more potent.

Feser can be relied upon to reflect the teaching of the Catholic Church precisely because he is a faithful student of St. Thomas. I don’t always know if his criticism of other other authors is valid since I usually have not read the other authors and don’t see any need to since I am not an academic. I take it for granted that Feser’s views on such things accurately reflect the views of the Fathers of the Church, since the Church usually follows the views of the Fathers. Aquinas BTW was not a " Father " of the Church. Augustine was but I don’t know who would be in the complete list.

God Bless
Linus2nd

 

[Kevin12]

Feser calls Davies book The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil “probably the best book on the problem of evil now in print.”

Yet, the book is basically an attempt to deny that God’s goodness is in any way analogous to human moral goodness - God is “good” because he is perfectly actual, and apparently in no other sense. God cannot be thought of as morally good because:

“For even if we accept his basic argument, there is plenty to blame God for if we are assuming that God is a moral agent. Moral agents do not, for example permit the rape of children to occur. In so far as they can, they prevent this. God, however, clearly does not do so. Schlesinger’s might say that this does not prove God to be badly behaved given God’s omnipotence and the impossible demand that he should create a world in which things enjoy a state of being than which no greater can be conceived for them. Once again, however, moral agents do not, for example permit the rape of children to occur, while God clearly does”

So really, he actually agrees with those who believe that evil proves God does not exist, but in order to save himself he makes God into something like the Hindu Brahman, about whom absolutely nothing meaningful can be said other than that he is purely actual, and all the other things you can say about him - He is just, merciful, etc. - are just euphemisms for “He is perfectly actual”. What’s particularly insane to me is that he almost completely ignores scripture, saying that God is rarely described as “good” and even then, it means as ever just that he is perfectly actual. But Jesus constantly uses parables with human actors to illustrate God’s relation to man - like in Luke 11:11-13: What father among you, if his son asked for a fish, would hand him a snake? Or if he asked for an egg, hand him a scorpion? If you then, evil as you are, know how to give your children what is good, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!" So if God is not a moral agent like a human, why does He explicitly compare himself to one?

Now, I agree that in some cases, maybe even many, God’s actions have different moral standards than our own, but this doesn’t hold in all cases.

Then there are bits like this from Davies book where he explicitly denies Original Sin:

“It is one thing to say that the suffering of innocent people might be explicable in terms of justly inflicted punishment on someone other than them. It is another thing to say that the sufferings of the innocent can be thought of as justly inflicted on them. Some defenders of this belief in original sin (St. Augustine for instance) have said that the sufferings of all people are justly inflicted on them since they actually sinned when the first sin was committed. I have to say that I can make absolutely no sense of this suggestion. If anything is self-evident, it is that people cannot do wrong before they are born”

This is something that Aquinas definitely rejects, for example, in the Summa, I-2, 85, 5:

“In this way the sin of our first parent is the cause of death and all such like defects in human nature, in so far as by the sin of our first parent original justice was taken away, whereby not only were the lower powers of the soul held together under the control of reason, without any disorder whatever, but also the whole body was held together in subjection to the soul, without any defect, as stated in the I, 97, 1. Wherefore, original justice being forfeited through the sin of our first parent; just as human nature was stricken in the soul by the disorder among the powers, as stated above (3; 82, 3), so also it became subject to corruption, by reason of disorder in the body.”

So Feser thinks Davies book is the best in print on the Problem of Evil from the perspective of “classical theism” and yet it seems to contain all sorts of heterodox positions, which makes me question Feser as well.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Then there are bits like this from Davies book where he explicitly denies Original Sin:

“It is one thing to say that the suffering of innocent people might be explicable in terms of justly inflicted punishment on someone other than them. It is another thing to say that the sufferings of the innocent can be thought of as justly inflicted on them. Some defenders of this belief in original sin (St. Augustine for instance) have said that the sufferings of all people are justly inflicted on them since they actually sinned when the first sin was committed. I have to say that I can make absolutely no sense of this suggestion. If anything is self-evident, it is that people cannot do wrong before they are born”

This is something that Aquinas definitely rejects, for example, in the Summa, I-2, 85, 5:

“In this way the sin of our first parent is the cause of death and all such like defects in human nature, in so far as by the sin of our first parent original justice was taken away, whereby not only were the lower powers of the soul held together under the control of reason, without any disorder whatever, but also the whole body was held together in subjection to the soul, without any defect, as stated in the I, 97, 1. Wherefore, original justice being forfeited through the sin of our first parent; just as human nature was stricken in the soul by the disorder among the powers, as stated above (3; 82, 3), so also it became subject to corruption, by reason of disorder in the body.”

So Feser thinks Davies book is the best in print on the Problem of Evil from the perspective of “classical theism” and yet it seems to contain all sorts of heterodox positions, which makes me question Feser as well.

It is not clear to me that Davies does “explicitly deny original sin.” What he is saying is that original sin is not one that has been personally committed. He is correct that “…people cannot do wrong before they are born.” That agrees fully with Church teaching, by the way.

From the CCC…

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”. Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”. By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

 

[Kevin12]

the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.

Even though the sin is remitted, the “penalty” of losing original justice remains. I think the issue of infants and Original Sin is messy, but the fact is, Original Sin is an essential Christian doctrine and is, in fact, a theodicy, which Davies rejects out of hand. Even if Davies claimed he didn’t reject Original Sin, I wouldn’t believe him, as he rejects theodicies that imply God permits evil because more good will come of it than by not allowing it, which is something inherent to the doctrine of original sin.

I have attached a review of Davis book that I think sums up pretty well what is wrong with it - Davies’ God is incompatible with view of God we find in the Bible, and the God we speak of in Mass and prayer.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.

If you think Feser is wrong why not post on his site. The argument about who is right or wrong doesn’t matter to me because I know that God is all good and is not the cause of evil. Our own disordered nature is the cause of all evil. And our disordered nature has been inherited from our first parents. Now we strive to remedy things the best we can, but with the help of God’s grace.

God Bless
Linus2nd

 

[grannymh]

It is not clear to me that Davies does “explicitly deny original sin.” What he is saying is that original sin is not one that has been personally committed. He is correct that “…people cannot do wrong before they are born.” That agrees fully with Church teaching, by the way.

From the CCC…

As I attempt to sort out what is being said in previous posts, I find that a simple basic truth needs to be repeated.

According to the extensive protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth, not every word or thought of the Church Fathers, the Doctors of the Church, Saints, liturgical celebrations, etc., automatically become Catholic teachings. Therefore, it is most valuable from an academic position, to refer to the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, exemplified in post 4. Thank you.

This Catechism’s “Index of Citations” is a very helpful tool when we seek the (name removed by moderator)ut of the Church Fathers, etc. We humans at best can provide (name removed by moderator)ut from what we learn by reason and faith. It is the wisdom of the Holy Spirit which guides the Catholic Ecumenical Councils, also listed in the Catechism’s “Index of Citations.”

Regarding the question whether or not Davies explicitly denies original sin. There are a number of obvious truths derived from the bare bones of Adam’s active and free choice of disobeying God. In my humble observation, denying any one of the surrounding truths of Original Sin would explicitly deny Original Sin, even when some original basic truths are accepted.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Regarding the question whether or not Davies explicitly denies original sin. There are a number of obvious truths derived from the bare bones of Adam’s active and free choice of disobeying God. In my humble observation, denying any one of the surrounding truths of Original Sin would explicitly deny Original Sin, even when some original basic truths are accepted.

And this is why I find Kevin12’s “accusations” about Paul Davies a little vacuous. He doesn’t really address those finer points or “basic truths” but comes away with a general impression about Mr. Davies.

I would suggest that Kevin12 is, if not mistaken, then certainly unjustified in his claims. Now he may have reasons that he cannot properly explicate, but that, to me, seems insufficient to justify making public claims about others being “heretical.”

I am not clear what Kevin’s philosophical background is, but I suspect Mr. Davies’ points should be understood within a broader and deeper context than a limited theological understanding would permit.

After reading the review of Davies and Van Inwagen provided by Kevin, it seems to me that Davies may have a point, if indeed the review accurately depicts Davies’ view. Evil may, indeed, be properly irrational and if that is the case, how could something that is the antithesis of reasonable be the ground for a theodicy that rationally attempts to explain why evil does exist?

 

[grannymh]

After reading the review of Davies and Van Inwagen provided by Kevin, it seems to me that Davies may have a point, if indeed the review accurately depicts Davies’ view. Evil may, indeed, be properly irrational and if that is the case, how could something that is the antithesis of reasonable be the ground for a theodicy that rationally attempts to explain why evil does exist?

My apology. I am having a fun visit with some of my children and some of my grannykids. So guess which comes first, a real look at “Classical” Theism or …?

The only tiny thought at present is that if I am understanding CCC 1730-1732, then the possibility of evil is rational because the “theism” classical or whatever" includes the supernatural freedom to originate a species also having a portion of freedom.

 

[CrossofChrist]

I am particularly troubled by Feser and Davies approach, because one of the criticisms I recently read levied against Christianity is that the Fathers took the vibrant, living God of the Bible and fashioned Him into a neutered Platonic ideal - that the God of the Bible and the God of the Philosophers originally had nothing to do with each other. I still don’t believe those charges, but I feel that if Davies at least is correct and “classical theism” is was the view of the Fathers, that criticism seems much more potent.

The God of the Bible and the God of the Philosophers originally didn’t have anything to do with the other. Same God, yes (“I AM who AM” vs. “Pure Act”), but the Jews rightly viewed God as a God who reveals himself and tells humanity his Name. The Greeks approached God strictly from the viewpoint of natural reason, hence more detached.

The Fathers of the Church showed how the God of the Philosophers is the same God, but fully revealed himself by becoming man. To do so, they adopted some of the same language as Greek philosophy.

 

[Peter_Plato]

My apology. I am having a fun visit with some of my children and some of my grannykids. So guess which comes first, a real look at “Classical” Theism or …?

Luke 10:42

You have chosen the better part

 

[Kevin12]

The more I look into Fesers positions, the more horrified I am. It seems that I was entirely wrong about Aquinas. I was under the impression that he set forward to show, for example, that God could both be unchangeable, and love us in a way at least analogous to how we love. But that is not true. God does not really love us the way we love, he is pure mind, he “wills us good”.

This post on Feser’s blog fairly well encapsulates it.

I think at this point, if Feser is right and this is what Aquinas says and what the Church means when it says that God is both eternal and unchanging and we must affirm that, then I think I am going to have to leave the Church.

 

[CrossofChrist]

The more I look into Fesers positions, the more horrified I am. It seems that I was entirely wrong about Aquinas. I was under the impression that he set forward to show, for example, that God could both be unchangeable, and love us in a way at least analogous to how we love. But that is not true. God does not really love us the way we love, he is pure mind, he “wills us good”.

This post on Feser’s blog fairly well encapsulates it.

I think at this point, if Feser is right and this is what Aquinas says and what the Church means when it says that God is both eternal and unchanging and we must affirm that, then I think I am going to have to leave the Church.

I think you are misunderstanding. Aquinas’ whole understanding of being is based on the classic “analogy of being”. What Feser et al are probably denying is an understanding that God loves humans in an univocal way, not analogous.

 

[CrossofChrist]

The more I look into Fesers positions, the more horrified I am. It seems that I was entirely wrong about Aquinas. I was under the impression that he set forward to show, for example, that God could both be unchangeable, and love us in a way at least analogous to how we love. But that is not true. God does not really love us the way we love, he is pure mind, he “wills us good”.

You seem to be confusing “analogous” and “univocal”. God doesn’t love us in a way that we love; he loves us infinitely more than that. So much so that we can’t even begin to describe it, because the love is wholly “Other”. At best we can say it is like our own love.

See also 1 John 4:9, Ephesians 3:17-19 and Romans 5:8.

 

[Kevin12]

I think you are misunderstanding. Aquinas’ whole understanding of being is based on the classic “analogy of being”. What Feser et al are probably denying is an understanding that God loves humans in an univocal way, not analogous.

This may be true, but it seems to me that they tacitly deny even the analogous way. Or at least, they seem to de-emphasize it so as to undercut “theistic personalism”. This all goes back to the problem of evil - it seems they are trying to exonerate God of any wrongdoing by positing God is in fact a robot, which even though they deny it, is implied in everything they say about him.

 

[Kevin12]

You seem to be confusing “analogous” and “univocal”. God doesn’t love us in a way that we love; he loves us infinitely more than that. So much so that we can’t even begin to describe it, because the love is wholly “Other”. At best we can say it is like our own love.

See also 1 John 4:9, Ephesians 3:17-19 and Romans 5:8.

The problem is of degree and kind. If it is a love that is wholly other, it is not simply a matter of degree but of kind, and we cannot really say it is love like our own.

But I think what Aquinas himself has to say of it makes more sense.

 

[CrossofChrist]

The problem is of degree and kind. If it is a love that is wholly other, it is not simply a matter of degree but of kind, and we cannot really say it is love like our own.

There’s no reason to say why it’s not “like” our love, just not that it’s the same as our love.

But I think what Aquinas himself has to say of it makes more sense.

He’s probably making more sense than me, huh?

If Feser is distorting your understanding of Aquinas, don’t read him. But I think its a matter of language, not substance that is the cause of confusion.

 

[Kevin12]

There’s no reason to say why it’s not “like” our love, just not that it’s the same as our love.

He’s probably making more sense than me, huh?

If Feser is distorting your understanding of Aquinas, don’t read him. But I think its a matter of language, not substance that is the cause of confusion.

I have no idea at this point. I am very concerned that it isn’t simply a confusion of words.

 

[Kevin12]

And this is why I find Kevin12’s “accusations” about Paul Davies a little vacuous. He doesn’t really address those finer points or “basic truths” but comes away with a general impression about Mr. Davies.

I would suggest that Kevin12 is, if not mistaken, then certainly unjustified in his claims. Now he may have reasons that he cannot properly explicate, but that, to me, seems insufficient to justify making public claims about others being “heretical.”

I am not clear what Kevin’s philosophical background is, but I suspect Mr. Davies’ points should be understood within a broader and deeper context than a limited theological understanding would permit.

After reading the review of Davies and Van Inwagen provided by Kevin, it seems to me that Davies may have a point, if indeed the review accurately depicts Davies’ view. Evil may, indeed, be properly irrational and if that is the case, how could something that is the antithesis of reasonable be the ground for a theodicy that rationally attempts to explain why evil does exist?

I think if you look at page 151 - 155 of Davies book you will find a fuller context of the quote I gave. I am not completely sure Davies is lapsing into heterodoxy here (though I do think he is), but I can at least be sure that he is not representing the views of Aquinas and the Fathers, and thus “Classical Theism”.

 

[CrossofChrist]

I have no idea at this point. I am very concerned that it isn’t simply a confusion of words.

Don’t stress over this. A few things to consider:

A. As long as you stick to what the Church believes, all is well.

B. You should trust what you are reading of Aquinas. Many people have this idea that God is just a big human, so Feser et al are trying to counter that. They have a different audience.