Philosophy: Is it necessary that God have a personality?

[cpayne]

Remember that it took us thousands of years, and considerable intellectual evolution to understand anything at all about electricity and gravity. I have argued elsewhere that our brains are too little evolved, and the multiverse (universe of universes) far too complex, to understand many of the things that we may come to understand in the future.

I would argue therefore, that we cannot know in any way at present - and certainly the scriptures do not help me in this regard - whether God Creator has rational self-awareness, intellect and will. We can understand that God created the multiverse, but the capacities with which He did that clearly outstrip any comprehension we might have at present. Beyond the Big Bang are many questions remaining to be answered, not all of them scientific.

I feel certain that God Creator is not a person: He could not have done what He did if He were limited to mere personhood. Right now, his core traits are beyond our comprehension. We can however begin to understand His nature - though not His personality if He has one - by His acts and through His creation.

In this sense it is not necessary, as you have put it, for God to have a personality. But right now it is impossible to know more than just the very outside limits of God Creator.

Finally, there seems to be a subtext here that suggests a bifurcation of our understanding of God’s nature as between God Creator, and *Abba *Father - God the Father.

I would agree that if you reject logical inference, on the one hand, and biblical revelation, on the other, that you cannot know anything now about God.

Is it okay if I don’t reject those two items?

 

[Carol_Coombe]

I would agree that if you reject logical inference, on the one hand, and biblical revelation, on the other, that you cannot know anything now about God.

Is it okay if I don’t reject those two items?

Sure - it’s your choice. Free will etc. Whatever. But comment on the substance of the question would be welcome too.

I did not reject logical inference: I noted that we know the nature of God from his creation. I did not reject scriptures except insofar as they tell me much about God’s personality. The do tell me something about his nature. Someone recently wrote:

This God is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misgynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

We can accept that, or we can create a more balanced picture, a snapshot of God’s nature (nature, not personality) during the period of His early relationship with the Semites, as they perceived it. On the other hand, we might feel that this does not do justice to the God Creator we see in the Hubble photos (go Google to the gallery). It’s a tough nut to crack.

Given Hubble’s images, the multiverse which we assume is God’s creation, and much more besides, do you think that our feeble brains are really capable of knowing now much more than the elementals of a God so mighty as this one? We know what we have received in the scriptures of 2,000+ years ago, as interpreted by the Magisterium. Many on the Forum argue neither CC doctrine nor its application have budged an inch since Christ’s resurrection. That must mean that our understanding has not moved either. And if that is true, then we are not making much headway - nor are we likely to do so - in understanding the Lord God Almighty.

 

[cpayne]

I did not reject logical inference: I noted that we know the nature of God from his creation. I did not reject scriptures except insofar as they tell me much about God’s personality. The do tell me something about his nature.

Given Hubble’s images, the multiverse which we assume is God’s creation, and much more besides, do you think that our feeble brains are really capable of knowing now much more than the elementals of a God so mighty as this one? We know what we have received in the scriptures of 2,000+ years ago, as interpreted by the Magisterium. Many on the Forum argue neither CC doctrine nor its application have budged an inch since Christ’s resurrection. That must mean that our understanding has not moved either. And if that is true, then we are not making much headway - nor are we likely to do so - in understanding the Lord God Almighty.

Regarding your first quoted sentence: Good; we agree on that.

Regarding scriptures talking about “God’s personality.” It’s been argued for centuries that scriptures regarding God’s personality are intended analogically. However, analogies are very revealing. In other words, this part I do disagree with. God reveals His personality through the scriptures. The quote from Dawkins (which I left out) reveals more about Dawkins than it does about God.

Regarding our feeble brains understanding the elementals of God: Well, that’s why they’re called “preambles” of faith. Rational inference gives us a “thin” sandwich of knowledge; revelation gives us a “thick” sandwich of knowledge, but it’s the same type of sandwich. Revelation goes beyond reason, but does not contradict it; or, as Aquinas puts it, “Grace goes beyond nature, but does not destroy it.”

Regarding the final quoted sentences: First, I think they are simply historically wrong. CC doctrine has expanded considerably since the time of the early church, as John Henry Newman’s “On the Development of Doctrine” essay points out. Secondly, you are right that CC doctrine on key doctrinal issues hasn’t changed–but why would we expect it to do so? Does every new biography of Lincoln change his birthdate? If the “Lord God Almighty” has revealed Himself to humanity in Christ, why should we expect something new and different?

Of course, if what you mean is that all of us require new understanding, fresh insight, fresh manna from heaven, every day, then I agree. I had the feeling, however, you were meaning something more than that. Yes/no/maybe?

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Scriptures re God’s personality are intended analogically. Analogies are revealing … God reveals His personality through the scriptures.

I make a distinction between the nature of the godhead, and any possible ‘personality’. ***Nature: The essential characteristics and qualities of a person or thing; the fundamental character or disposition of a person; habitual inclination. Personality: ***the quality or condition of being a person; the totality of qualities and traits, as of character or behavior, that are peculiar to a specific person; the pattern of collective character, behavioral, temperamental, emotional, and mental traits of a person.

We know God’s nature through exquisitely limited writings (relative to the scale of the task), scholarly analysis, oral history, archaeology, bits of religious philosophy, interpretation of science inter alia. Analysis is confined to God’s nature linked to creation myths and culture-bound value and belief systems which provide grounding for our institutionalised religions. At the end of the day, our understanding of God comes principally from the religious sector, and is Earth-bound. God Creator however is not Earth-bound, and is confined neither to time nor space.

Re the elementals of God: rational inference gives us a “thin” sandwich, revelation a “thick” sandwich of knowledge, but it’s the same type of sandwich. Revelation goes beyond reason, but does not contradict it.

I think I understand what you are saying, but how does it help us determine that God is a knowable personality through revelation to the faithful, or to concede that the nature of God Creator is currently unknowable?

That ‘revelation goes beyond reason’ is a principle I have not considered, and you might elaborate. It is tough for the too-pragmatic.

I think [your last lines] are historically wrong. CC doctrine has expanded considerably since the early church. … You are right that CC doctrine on key doctrinal issues hasn’t changed–but why would we expect it to do so?

Are you referring to the following lines?

From Carol Coombe: …do you think our feeble brains are capable right now of knowing much more than the elementals of a God so mighty as this one? We know what we have received in the scriptures of 2,000+ years ago, as interpreted by the Magisterium. Many on the Forum argue neither CC doctrine nor its application have budged an inch since Christ’s resurrection…

Despite objectors on the Forum, I observe CC doctrine has adjusted, if not in dramatically observable substance, then in application within the context of time and fresh understandings in terms of language, history and new knowledge, and in terms of its response to new challenges (heretical, schismatic, scientific or just plain human). Recent Vatican publications show clearly the seemingly simple but dramatic shift in perspective that can occur between one papacy and the next.

And yes, fresh manna daily, but also patience with evolution: we need bigger smarts to get where this post is trying to take us - towards knowledge of the ‘personality’ of God, which I have rejected in favour of his nature.

 

[cpayne]

I am coming to think that maybe our disagreement is more terminological than substantive? The more you explain, the less I disagree with. (It could be that lunch is putting me to sleep, too. God bless, bye for a while, everyone.)

 

[Carol_Coombe]

I am coming to think that maybe our disagreement is more terminological than substantive? The more you explain, the less I disagree with. (It could be that lunch is putting me to sleep, too. God bless, bye for a while, everyone.)

Or, it could be that it takes me a long long time to explain what I mean because I have to think it all out too. For me, it is now 1 am in a South African middle of the night - so lights out here.

Thank you for making me think! I am not sure where this is going, but it does lead to new possibilities, and a route outside the thinking box. And I am sure it is all heretical anyway, alas.

Jabulani!