Theistic finitism

Last updated

Theistic finitism, also known as finitistic theism or finite godism, is the belief in a deity that is limited. [1] [2] It has been proposed by some philosophers and theologians to solve the problem of evil. Most finitists accept the absolute goodness of God but reject omnipotence. [3]

Contents

Definition

Finitistic theism denies that God is omnipotent. [1] Ray Harbaugh Dotterer in his book The Argument for a Finitist Theology (1917) summarized the argument for theistic finitism:

God can not be thought to be at once omnipotent and perfectly good. If we say that he is omnipotent, that his sovereignty is complete, that all events that occur are willed by him; then it follows that he is responsible for the actual world, which is partly evil, and, accordingly, that he is not perfectly good. If we begin at the other end, and say God is perfectly good, then we must deny that he is omnipotent. [4]

The idea that God is and must be infinite has been a nearly universal belief amongst monotheists. Only a minority of thinkers have advanced the idea of a finite deity. [5]

History

William James (1842–1910) was a believer in a finite God which he used to solve the problem of evil. [6] [7] James rejected the divine authorship of the Bible and the idea of a perfect God. He defined God as a "combination of ideality and (final) efficacity" and preferred a finite God that is "cognizant and responsive in some way". [8] [9] James's finite God was not omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient or a creator of the universe. [6] [9] [10]

Theologian Clarence Beckwith (1849–1931) suggested that Horace Bushnell (1802–1876) was a finitist. According to Beckwith "one of the earliest attempts in America to show that God was finite was made by Horace Bushnell in his God in Christ (1849) [11] . [12]

A minority of historical freethinkers and rationalists advocated a finite god in opposition to the God in Abrahamic religions. H. G. Wells advocated a finite God in his book God the Invisible King (1917) .

Another advocate of theistic finitism was Peter Bertocci (1910–1989) who proposed that "God is all-good but not all-powerful". [1] Most finitists have held that God is personal, although a few such as Henry Nelson Wieman (1884–1975) have stated God is impersonal. [1]

Philosopher Edgar S. Brightman (1884–1953) defended theistic finitism in his book A Philosophy of Religion, published in 1940. Brightman stated that theistic finitism began with Plato and he traced the idea through history to Marcion, Mani and Manichaeism, Pierre Bayle, John Stuart Mill, H. G. Wells and others. [13] Brightman developed the concept of a finite God to solve the problem of evil. He held the view that God is an infinite personal spirit but his power is limited. [14] Brightman suggested that Wells was the "first modern writer to devote an entire book to the concept of God's finiteness." [13] Wells dissociated his God in any respect from the biblical God. [15]

Rufus Burrow, Jr. a professor of Christian thought, has argued (2012) that Brightman was different from most other finitists as he held the view that God remains infinite in many ways. [16] This was in opposition to Plato and H. G. Wells. Burrow noted that Brightman characterized God as a "finite-infinite God". [16]

Recent

Conservative rabbi Harold Kushner defended theistic finitism in his book When Bad Things Happen to Good People , published in 1981. [1] [17]

Philosopher Frank B. Dilley noted in 2000 that theistic finitism is rarely discussed in modern philosophical literature. [18]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Omnipotence</span> Quality of having unlimited power

Omnipotence is the quality of having unlimited power. Monotheistic religions generally attribute omnipotence only to the deity of their faith. In the monotheistic religious philosophy of Abrahamic religions, omnipotence is often listed as one of God's characteristics, along with omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence. The presence of all these properties in a single entity has given rise to considerable theological debate, prominently including the problem of evil, the question of why such a deity would permit the existence of evil. It is accepted in philosophy and science that omnipotence can never be effectively understood.

Process theology is a type of theology developed from Alfred North Whitehead's (1861–1947) process philosophy, but most notably by Charles Hartshorne (1897–2000), John B. Cobb, and Eugene H. Peters (1929-1983). Process theology and process philosophy are collectively referred to as "process thought".

The problem of evil is the philosophical question of how to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God. There are currently differing definitions of these concepts. The best known presentation of the problem is attributed to the Greek philosopher Epicurus. It was popularized by David Hume.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theodicy</span> Theological attempt to resolve the problem of evil

In the philosophy of religion, a theodicy is an argument that attempts to resolve the problem of evil that arises when all power and all goodness are simultaneously ascribed to God.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alvin Plantinga</span> American Christian philosopher

Alvin Carl Plantinga is an American analytic philosopher who works primarily in the fields of philosophy of religion, epistemology, and logic.

Finitism is a philosophy of mathematics that accepts the existence only of finite mathematical objects. It is best understood in comparison to the mainstream philosophy of mathematics where infinite mathematical objects are accepted as legitimate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Divine simplicity</span> View of God without parts or features

In classical theistic and monotheistic theology, the doctrine of Divine Simplicity says that God is simple.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Omnibenevolence</span> Unlimited or infinite benevolence

Omnibenevolence is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "unlimited or infinite benevolence". Some philosophers have argued that it is impossible, or at least improbable, for a deity to exhibit such a property alongside omniscience and omnipotence, as a result of the problem of evil. However, some philosophers, such as Alvin Plantinga, argue the plausibility of co-existence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paul Tillich</span> German-American theologian and philosopher (1886-1965)

Paul Johannes Tillich was a German-American Christian existentialist philosopher, Christian socialist, and Lutheran theologian who was one of the most influential theologians of the twentieth century. Tillich taught at German universities before immigrating to the United States in 1933, where he taught at Union Theological Seminary, Harvard University, and the University of Chicago.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Euthyphro dilemma</span> Ethical problem on the origin of morality posed by Socrates

The Euthyphro dilemma is found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro, "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" (10a)

The existence of God is a subject of debate in theology and the philosophy of religion. A wide variety of arguments for and against the existence of God can be categorized as logical, empirical, metaphysical, subjective or scientific. In philosophical terms, the question of the existence of God involves the disciplines of epistemology and ontology and the theory of value.

The standard problem of evil found in monotheistic religions does not apply to almost all traditions of Hinduism because it does not posit an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator.

Antitheism, also spelled anti-theism, is the philosophical position that theism should be opposed. The term has had a range of applications. In secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to the belief in any deity.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to atheism:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alvin Plantinga's free-will defense</span> Logical argument against the problem of evil

Alvin Plantinga's free-will defense is a logical argument developed by the American analytic philosopher Alvin Plantinga and published in its final version in his 1977 book God, Freedom, and Evil. Plantinga's argument is a defense against the logical problem of evil as formulated by the philosopher J. L. Mackie beginning in 1955. Mackie's formulation of the logical problem of evil argued that three attributes ascribed to God, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence are logically incompatible with the existence of evil.

Articles related to philosophy of religion include:

Nontheistic religions are traditions of thought within a religious context—some otherwise aligned with theism, others not—in which nontheism informs religious beliefs or practices. Nontheism has been applied and plays significant roles in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. While many approaches to religion exclude nontheism by definition, some inclusive definitions of religion show how religious practice and belief do not depend on the presence of a god or gods. For example, Paul James and Peter Mandaville distinguish between religion and spirituality, but provide a definition of the term that avoids the usual reduction to "religions of the book":

Religion can be defined as a relatively-bounded system of beliefs, symbols and practices that addresses the nature of existence, and in which communion with others and Otherness is lived as if it both takes in and spiritually transcends socially-grounded ontologies of time, space, embodiment and knowing.

Skeptical theism is the view that people should remain skeptical of their ability to discern whether their perceptions about evil can be considered good evidence against the existence of the orthodox Christian God. The central thesis of skeptical theism is that it would not be surprising for an infinitely intelligent and knowledgeable being's reasons for permitting evils to be beyond human comprehension. That is, what may seem like pointless evils may be necessary for a greater good or to prevent equal or even greater evils. This central thesis may be argued from a theistic perspective, but is also argued to defend positions of agnosticism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Augustinian theodicy</span> Type of Christian theodicy designed in response to the evidential problem of evil

The Augustinian theodicy, named for the 4th- and 5th-century theologian and philosopher Augustine of Hippo, is a type of Christian theodicy that developed in response to the evidential problem of evil. As such, it attempts to explain the probability of an omnipotent (all-powerful) and omnibenevolent (all-loving) God amid evidence of evil in the world. A number of variations of this kind of theodicy have been proposed throughout history; their similarities were first described by the 20th-century philosopher John Hick, who classified them as "Augustinian". They typically assert that God is perfectly (ideally) good, that he created the world out of nothing, and that evil is the result of humanity's original sin. The entry of evil into the world is generally explained as consequence of original sin and its continued presence due to humans' misuse of free will and concupiscence. God's goodness and benevolence, according to the Augustinian theodicy, remain perfect and without responsibility for evil or suffering.

Religious responses to the problem of evil are concerned with reconciling the existence of evil and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God. The problem of evil is acute for monotheistic religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism whose religion is based on such a God. But the question of "why does evil exist?" has also been studied in religions that are non-theistic or polytheistic, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Geisler, Norman; Watkins, William D. (1989). Finite Godism: A World with a Finite God. In Worlds Apart: A Handbook on World Views. Wipf and Stock Publishers. pp. 187-216. ISBN   1-59244-126-2
  2. McKim, Donald K. (1996). Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 278. ISBN   0-664-22089-4
  3. Sahakian, William S; Sahakian, Mabel Lewis. (1974). Realms of Philosophy. Schenkman Publishing Company. p. 319. "Theistic Finitism is meant the belief that God is limited in some capacity or quality, usually power or goodness; either he lacks absolute power or absolute goodness. The majority of Finitists accept the absolute goodness of God while relinquishing belief in his omnipotence".
  4. Dotterer, Ray Harbaugh. (1917). The Argument for a Finitist Theology. New Era Printing Company. p. 23
  5. Hudson, Yeager. Omnipotence: Must God Be Infinite?. In Creighton Peden, Larry E. Axel. (1989). God, Values, and Empiricism: Issues in Philosophical Theology. Mercer University Press. p. 92. ISBN   0-86554-360-7
  6. 1 2 Barnard, George William. (1997). Exploring Unseen Worlds: William James and the Philosophy of Mysticism. State University of New York Press. p. 251. ISBN   0-7914-3223-8 "James's theology answer to the problem of evil is strikingly simple, but theologically daring: God is not all-powerful, all-knowing, or all-pervasive, but rather, is finite."
  7. Weidenbaum, Jonathan. (2013) William James’s Argument for a Finite Theism. In Diller J., Kasher A. (eds) Models of God and Alternative Ultimate Realities. Springer. pp. 323-331. ISBN   978-94-007-5218-4
  8. Kamber, Richard. (2016). William James: Essays and Lectures. Routledge. p. 159. ISBN   978-1138457393
  9. 1 2 Pomerlaeau, Wayne P. (1998). Western Philosophies Religion. Ardsley House Publishers. p. 492. ISBN   978-1-880157-62-6
  10. Schwartz, Robert. (2015). Rethinking Pragmatism: From William James to Contemporary Philosophy. Wiley. p. 25. ISBN   978-0-470-67469-7
  11. Bushnell, Horace (2010) [1876]. God in Christ : three discourses, delivered at New Haven, Cambridge, and Andover : with a preliminary dissertation on language. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Scholarly Publishing Office, University of Michigan Library. ISBN   978-1-4255-3727-2. OCLC   678632613., includes a preliminary dissertation arguing that language is inadequate to express things of the spirit.
  12. Beckwith, Clarence Augustine. (1922). The Idea of God: Historical, Critical, Constructive. New York: Macmillan. p. 214
  13. 1 2 Brightman, Edgar S. (1940). Historical Sketch of Theistic Finitism. In A Philosophy of Religion. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc. pp. 286-301
  14. Erickson, Millard J. (1998). Finitism: Rejection of Omnipotence. In Christian Theology. Baker Books. pp. 439-442. ISBN   978-0-8010-2182-4
  15. Wagar, W. Warren. (2004). H. G. Wells: Traversing Time. Wesleyan University Press. p. 154. ISBN   978-0819567253
  16. 1 2 Burrow, Rufus Jr. (2012). The Finite-Infinite God. In God and Human Dignity: The Personalism, Theology, and Ethics of Martin Luther King, Jr. University of Notre Dame Press. ISBN   978-0-268-02194-8
  17. Michael, Martin. (1990). The Finite God Theodicy. In Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. Temple University Press. pp. 436-438. ISBN   0-87722-642-3
  18. Dilley, Frank B. (2000). "A Finite God Reconsidered". International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 47 (1): 29–41. doi:10.1023/A:1003838717365. JSTOR   40036433. S2CID   169766359.

Further reading