Reading: Review Session 3

I think at this point in our proceedings, it's a good idea to have a review on what we've covered. Let's try to hit some of the high spots, starting with the two views of God, the doctrines of God. On one side, we have the view that arose with thinkers such as Augustine, Anselm, and St. Thomas Aquinas. On the other side, we have the view held by the Eastern Church, the Orthodox theologians known as the "capitation fathers", and figures like St. Gregory Palamas, with the Protestant reformers following in their footsteps.

So let's contrast these two views. Here we have the view held by Anselm, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas, abbreviated as "AAA". On the other side, I use the term "Orthodox and Reformational" to cover both Luther and Calvin's views, and later figures in that tradition, such as Karl Barth.

According to the AAA tradition, God is defined as the being with all and only perfections. Apologies for my poor handwriting, especially when I'm trying to write on this board. This definition implies that each perfection is a self-existent reality. Because these perfections are identical with the very being of God, He doesn't just possess them, He is them. They're all unified and identical in Him.

Contrastingly, on the Orthodox and Reformational point of view, God's attributes are not simply "perfections". We don't have a solid reason to believe in the existence of such perfections. Why must there be a highest possible degree of goodness or justice? This view also holds that the truths we deem necessary, like math and logic, are created by God. Just as scriptures tell us God created wisdom – one of His attributes – we believe these characteristics too are creations of God. God is fatherly, a judge, a shepherd who cares, and possesses many such attributes, not because they're intrinsic to Him, but because He chose to create and take them on, much like He took on the human form in Jesus Christ during the incarnation.

The AAA tradition suggests that God's perfections are shared with creatures, especially humans. In this view, God has perfect rationality, while humans have an imperfect version. God is perfect goodness, while humans display goodness intermittently. Such perfections can be shared. On the Orthodox and Reformational side, God does share attributes with creatures, especially humans. However, these attributes are creations of God. One of the troubling implications of the AAA view is that when God shares attributes with humans, He's sharing His uncreated being, leading to a kind of partial pantheism. The Orthodox and Reformational stance doesn't have this issue since the attributes God shares are His creations.

Furthermore, in the AAA tradition, the perfections evident in creatures are more real than other types of properties. This perspective can mislead individuals into explaining creation and formulating theories of reality similarly to pagan ideologies. In pagan beliefs, some part of the universe is deemed divine, and the rest depends on it. Christians rightfully reject such a notion, as no part of the universe is divine. However, if they adopt the idea that some parts of creation are "more real" and everything else depends on these, then they're essentially borrowing from pagan ontologies, just modified slightly by suggesting that these "more real" parts depend on God. This allows for the incorporation of any theory from the history of ontology into Christianity by adapting it to this modified scheme.

What I argued for is fundamentally different: there's nothing in creation that is either divine or more real than any other part of creation.

So, to understand and interpret creation, and I mean in theories, beginning with the theory of reality, we shouldn't collapse everything else to just form and matter. We should look at the natures of things as we find them and try to give an account that doesn't reduce everything to just one or two principles in the world. That's why those arguments that attempt this are called "reductionist." If you remember that peculiar term, it's what is used in philosophy. I didn’t invent the language; I’m just reporting it.

From the Orthodox reformational view, we receive encouragement to pursue a non-reductionist path. In contrast, the AAA View virtually requires a reductionist stance. If something is located that, while it depends on God, everything else depends on it, it's a sort of semi-divinity. You explain the world based on what you’ve deemed as semi-divine, then merely add that God created that. Subsequently, that creation depends on God, and you assume this is suitable for Christians. But I argue that this is a misconception.

Now, there were a few arguments in favor of this perspective. The main one was that Scripture informs us that God has created everything, whether visible or invisible. This means that absolutely everything is either visible or it's not. Hence, there are no exceptions. However, as for having something semi-divine in creation that everything else depends on, it ties everything together and explains the relationships between all the various properties and laws. But in Colossians chapter one, we learn that it is only through God and the divine nature of Jesus Christ that all things are created, be it visible or invisible. And it further states that "in Him, all things hold together." This implies that it's Christ in His divine nature that provides coherence, not some semi-divine characteristic of creation.

Returning to the non-reductionist viewpoint for a moment, I laid out my case, supported by arguments. The Colossians passage rules out the AAA thinkers’ approach of making something in creation a foundational entity. It rejects any claim of an aspect of creation possessing an independent existence from the rest of creation. If it's even inconceivable as existing autonomously, how can it be argued for? For instance, what would a purely physical object look like if stripped of all its other attributes like quantity, space, or logic? The answer is – it would be nothing.

Every attempt at boiling down the complexity of creation to one or two selected aspects fails. Historically, every theory of reality proposed by philosophers has been reductionist. From the earliest philosophers to Plato and Aristotle, the trend has been to explain all of reality by either equating it with or attributing its cause to a singular aspect or a couple of aspects. Over the centuries, many candidates, from matter to logic, have been proposed.

So, what would a non-reductionist theory of reality look like? Considering the longevity of philosophy and its deep history, starting with ancient thinkers around 500-600 BCE, the challenge is significant. Yet, I attempted to outline such a theory, and I presented it to you in some detail.

That's a long time ago, but a long history. So, what would it look like? I sketched something, which I presented to you in some detail.

One such theory observes that there are various different aspects to reality. For instance, there's an aspect of quantity. Additionally, there are spatial properties, which are governed by spatial laws. Then there are properties of motion, and of physics, which are interrelated by physical laws. Moreover, there's biology, and psycho-sensory properties that are interconnected by certain laws. Following David's meticulously developed theory of reality, I term these as aspects of reality. These are kinds of properties which are interconnected by laws of a similar nature. Therefore, there are quantitative laws, spatial laws, kinetic physical laws, biological laws, psychological laws, and so forth. To give a clearer image, I previously provided a comprehensive list.

Our aim then is to delve into the very nature of different objects by examining how they embody these properties and how they present themselves to our experiences. I highlighted that a rock possesses active properties: it embodies quantity, occupies space, is capable of motion, and has physical properties such as weight, mass, and solidity. Yet, for other aspects, like biology, its properties are passive. A rock can play a role in the life processes of a living organism, even though it isn't alive. For instance, birds swallow tiny stones to aid in the digestion of their food. In this way, rocks can passively possess biological properties. Likewise, they might possess psychological properties or even social properties in a passive manner.

To illustrate further, consider a plant. Contrasting it with a rock, a plant has the added active property of being alive in the biological aspect. Yet, when it comes to psychological or social significance, it remains passive. Moving on to animals, say a clam, they possess another layer of active functions in the psychological aspect, as they can sense their environment. Humans, however, stand out in that they actively function across every aspect.

This overview is merely a succinct recap of a more detailed chart I've shared previously. One primary way to understand the nature of an object is to identify the highest aspect in which it actively functions. This is what we term its "qualifying function." For instance, a rock, being non-living, is physically qualified. This approach correlates roughly with our everyday categorization of entities as animal, vegetable, or mineral. An animal, having more than just life, is qualified psychologically. This qualifying function offers a glimpse into the true nature of an object as the laws governing this function dictate its internal organization. This is just an initial step towards understanding the object's nature.

Furthermore, another crucial component of this theory is the existence of "type laws." These are laws that extend across various aspects. It's essential to clarify a point that I might not have emphasized enough earlier. We recognize that causal laws certainly exist in the world. When a brick is thrown at a window, causing it to break, it's a clear cause-and-effect relationship. Such causal laws are multi-aspectual, covering all the aspects of the entities involved.

To provide a more tangible example, consider a concert violinist preparing dinner before a performance. If she accidentally cuts her finger while opening a can, the cut has a physical aspect. The sharp edge of the can, with its physical properties, pierces her skin, leading to a cut. She might bandage it and proceed with her concert. However, because of this injury, she might make a mistake during her performance, affecting the music. Consequently, she could be dismissed from her role. This series of events showcases the myriad of consequences, ranging from physical to biological.

Then, there are what we call mechanical consequences in the actual playing of the violin — fingering of the violin that spoils the piece aesthetically and causes her juridically to be fired. This might even provoke some very unethical swearing. The consequences, you see, can span various aspects. Causal relations encompass all these aspects, just as the participants in a causal relation do when one thing causes another due to a certain event.

Causal laws are not the same as special laws. Special laws hold within and among the properties of a particular time. Causal laws include all the aspects, while type laws hold across the aspects. What a type law does is make possible the combination of properties that amounts to this type of thing. These are properties from every different aspect in which it functions actively. So here, we distinguish three kinds of laws. If you think about this, you'll see that this takes the place of what Aristotle wanted to call "form". This determines all the sorts of properties that a thing of a certain type has.

Instead of saying that there's something purely rational impacting what's not rational, bringing about consequences, there are two connections to understand. First, we can't conceptualize anything as purely rational. If we try to say it's purely rational, then suggest it causes something that's not, we can't conceive any cause like that. There are great, vast gaps that can't be filled. On this view, that function is taken care of by a law that runs across aspects, making it possible for properties of different aspects to be combined into a thing. And that's what a thing is — a concrete individual entity that we experience is a certain law-ordered combination of all its properties. The kinds of properties that make up that type of thing. And when we ask what binds them together and sustains the thing, the answer is the power of God. It's not a part of creation that does that, it's God. Theories of reality that put something of creation in that place are replacing God where God should be acknowledged as the Creator and Sustainer. They substitute something else, which is why it's not an acceptable theory for a Christian.

Let's see, what else have I covered? Oh, yes, there's more. I mentioned that on this view, humans have an active function in every kind of aspect. They adhere to the laws of these aspects, the causal laws in the world, and the type laws in the world. To clarify, humans are subjected to these laws but are not determined by them. This implies that humans possess genuine freedom, encompassing freedom of judgment and choice. While we can't violate these laws, they don't compel us to think and act in certain ways. We have genuine freedom and, as a result, real responsibility. We treat each other as accountable for our actions. Moreover, we are accountable to God, which carries even greater gravity.

In this framework, there's a key point to address: humans are never just parts of a thing. You might recall Aristotle's classic definition of what it means to be a part of something. By his definition, X is a part of Y if X cannot come into existence or function without Y, and X cannot be understood without Y. Under this definition, Aristotle argued that humans are components of the state because they rely on the broader community for existence, function, and comprehension. However, this non-reductionist theory contends that while Aristotle's notion is accurate, it lacks depth. An additional criteria is that X should have the same qualifying function as Y.

People can form communities, but they can also exist apart from them, be understood apart from them, and function independently. More crucially, humans possess what I'd term a "self", an inner identity. This identity endures through changes and circumstances, persisting as the same self. Even though our physical bodies undergo change — with every atom in our body being replaced over a span of a few years — something about us remains constant. This unchanging element, the inner identity, aligns with what Scripture refers to as the human heart. Common parlance often uses the term "soul", but scripturally, the soul the spirit and the body. The heart or sprit survives death and will be resurrected during the final resurrection when Christ returns and a new spiritual body is made alive 

We have to clarify these terms. While I'm not negating the existence of souls, popular usage often conflates the soul and heart. In Biblical terms, "heart" more closely matches our general understanding of the soul, the entity that persists beyond death.

This leads to another crucial point. The heart, as described in Scripture, is the source of our dispositions, our personality, and our capabilities. It's what orients us towards either God or a false deity. Right from birth, our self-evidence includes a belief in divinity. Yet, our inherent nature often inclines us towards an incorrect belief. Our instruments for gathering self-evidence, therefore, might operate perfectly in other spheres but falter when it comes to divinity due to our heart's misalignment. It requires repair and realignment. Once fixed, we can truly experience God.

To briefly touch upon the implications for epistemology, the orientation of the heart is paramount. When restored and oriented towards God, it facilitates a clearer understanding of life in service to God. And this doesn't strictly mean a religious profession; every vocation can be a testament to God's creation. John Calvin emphasized that every profession, no matter how humble, can glorify God.

Ultimately, belief in God is rooted in the experience of God. It's not merely a theory or a hypothesis. It's a genuine encounter. This might be a lengthy review, but it's essential to understand the nuances. I think it's time to conclude for now.