OCR training programme
2010-2011
Get Ahead - improving delivery and
assessment of Units G581:
Boethius Question
‘Boethius was successful in his argument that God
rewards and punishes justly.’ Discuss.
The nature of God’s omniscience has been
greatly debated by theologians over the years
because, depending on the concept accepted,
whether we have free will or not can be
contested . If one comes to the conclusion that
humans do not have free will, then God can be
seen as malevolent:
‘Boethius was successful in his argument that God
rewards and punishes justly.’ Discuss.
If He rewards and punishes unfree (?) people ,
how is he just? Boethius recognised this and
so reasoned out a concept of God’s nature that
he felt allowed Him to maintain full
omniscience and still reward and punish justly.
A very clear and concise explanation of what
Boethius was trying to do. Placing the
argument within the attributes of God.
‘Boethius was successful in his argument that God
rewards and punishes justly.’ Discuss.
• This, however, was not fully successful.
• A interesting statement this early in the essay
– the end of the first paragraph - the candidate
has nailed his/her position to the mast from the
outset. No problem with this as long as they go
onto show they can justify their view.
‘Boethius was successful in his argument that God
rewards and punishes justly.’ Discuss.
• Boethius’ concept of God is fairly Platonic: God
is not part of the spatio-temporal world and
thus, time does not pass for Him as it does for
us. There is no succession of events as we
experience them, rather, God experiences all
in “one unchanging present”.
‘Boethius was successful in his argument that God
rewards and punishes justly.’ Discuss.
• This is a traditional concept of God for the
church; wholly simple, immutable and perfect.
Time infers change and as Anselm pointed
out, being open to change would mean that
God was not perfect as change makes beings
lose what they once had.
‘Boethius was successful in his argument that God
rewards and punishes justly.’ Discuss.
• There is no past and no future for this timeless God and
this is the key, Boethius claimed, to God being able to be
fully omniscient and yet not cause our actions – and
therefore able to retain his status as a just Lord. Boethius
recognised that if God’s omniscience was “simultaneous
possession of boundless life” then in some way, our
actions must be necessary, but he did not come to the
conclusion that God must cause these actions.
• Excellent description.
‘Boethius was successful in his argument that God
rewards and punishes justly.’ Discuss.
• He solved the paradox in two ways; firstly, he maintained
that due to the nature of God’s eternity, with no past or
future, actions are as if they have already been decided on
and thus, God does not influence them by seeing them.
Secondly he distinguished between two types of necessity
– our actions are necessary because God sees them and
God’s omniscience is perfect and cannot be wrong, but
they are conditionally necessary – they have the condition
of free will: we could have chosen otherwise.
‘Boethius was successful in his argument that God
rewards and punishes justly.’ Discuss.
• What God sees is the result of our free will. In this way,
Boethius concludes that God is wholly simple, perfect,
absolutely omniscient and still benevolent as his
omniscience does not cause our actions. He judges those
who have sinned of their own accord, not those who have
no other choice. This is his argument that God rewards
and punishes justly.
• Clearly a very clever candidate; very comfortable with the
terminology and the essence of Boethius’ position.
‘Boethius was successful in his argument that God
rewards and punishes justly.’ Discuss.
• Aquinas, however, pointed out that Boethius’ concept of
God was not philosophically sound. He also maintained
that God is wholly simple, perfect and immutable.
However he maintained that a wholly simple God’s
omniscience must necessarily be causal; or else God is
not wholly simple.
• A interesting approach not only criticising Boethius but
demonstrating an understanding of Aquinas.
‘Boethius was successful in his argument that God
rewards and punishes justly.’ Discuss.
• Aquinas recognised that Boethius had tried to
escape God’s causal omniscience (God knows
x and so x happens) by saying that in reality “x
happens and so God knows x” but Aquinas
says this is not possible if one holds a belief in
a wholly simple God because God is now
dependent on the actions of creation in order
to be omniscient.
‘Boethius was successful in his argument that God
rewards and punishes justly.’ Discuss.
• For example, I am going to study Japanese at university.
Boethius says that God knows this and my action is
conditionally necessary, but that what God knows is a result of
free choice and if I had chosen to study Greek God would know
that instead. Aquinas points out that God’s omniscience, if it is
dependent on my choice, is subordinate to his other attributes
(omnipotence, for example) that are not dependent on anything!
• So not only using Aquinas as a critique of Boethius but using
examples from his own life to unpack these quite complex
concepts.
‘Boethius was successful in his argument that God
rewards and punishes justly.’ Discuss.
• Thus, God cannot be simple because the definition of
simplicity is that all God’s attributes are in perfect balance.
A wholly simple God must not be dependent on anything,
and if this omniscience is not dependent, it must be to
some extent causal. In this case a God who punished or
rewarded could not be just as we would not be morally
responsible for our actions.
• This is a level of critique of Boethius, through Thomistic
philosophy which I would not expect from the average A grade
candidate.
‘Boethius was successful in his argument that God
rewards and punishes justly.’ Discuss.
• If we have no free will and God judges and punishes
unjustly, Christianity breaks down! That one chooses to
believe, even against evidence or reason, is true faith. O,
if a wholly simple God results in causal omniscience, we
could consider if a God who is not wholly simple could
appear more theologically sound than that one proposed
by Boethius. Everlasting God is another concept of God
put forward by philosophers who do not hold that a God
outside time could possibly be theologically sound.
‘Boethius was successful in his argument that God
rewards and punishes justly.’ Discuss.
• Hughes tries to redeem a benevolent God who is
just by suggesting that God is wholly simple but
has dependent omniscience but Vardy, amongst
other philosophers has pointed out that this is
nonsense as then God would not be simple at all.
• Introducing another couple of philosophers ‘en
passant’ to develop another critique.
‘Boethius was successful in his argument that God
rewards and punishes justly.’ Discuss.
• We are left with the conclusion that either; God
is wholly simple and Boethius has been
unsuccessful in his attempt to prove that God
justly rewards and punishes, or that God is not
wholly simple at all, in which case Boethius
must change his concept of God’s nature.
‘Boethius was successful in his argument that God
rewards and punishes justly.’ Discuss.
• It is imperative that God is benevolent and rewards and
punishes justly because, as many theodicies have pointed
out, it s hugely important that we can maintain that we
have free will. Without it, reason would be rendered
irrelevant, as would love. (Vardy gives the example of a
slave girl forced to love a king – would her love not be far
more valuable if she had the choice to love him?)
• A good move back to the centre of the problem – the issues
raised by the different things we want to hold God to be.
‘Boethius was successful in his argument that God
rewards and punishes justly.’ Discuss.
• Swinburne for example, asks how a timeless
God interacts and MacQuarrie claims that a
timeless God who could not respond
temporarily to prayer would not be worth
praying to! The concept of everlasting God
seems to be more successful that that of
Boethius’ timeless God when considering
justice.
‘Boethius was successful in his argument that God
rewards and punishes justly.’ Discuss.
• Everlasting God is within time, but never has,
and will never cease to, exist. Thus, there is a
past and future for Him. This could mean two
things for his omniscience. Firstly, as Ward
holds, God cannot know the future, because it
does not yet exist. This is not a limit on God’s
omniscience because God knows all that is
logically possible for God to know.
‘Boethius was successful in his argument that God
rewards and punishes justly.’ Discuss.
• Swinburne holds a different view with a similar conclusion: God
could know the future , but He limits Himself out of love for us,
so that we may have free will and be able to choose out actions,
and therefore, God can remain just. Swinburne adds that free
will must necessarily involve the freedom to damn ourselves or
God is not fully just. Swinburne’s conclusion is pleasing
because it is very coherent – do we not have other examples of
God limiting himself out of benevolence?
• Interesting use of pleasing here – but a good sign of the
candidate being really ‘engaged’ with the question.
‘Boethius was successful in his argument that God
rewards and punishes justly.’ Discuss.
• Jesus, surely, is the ultimate example, God limited every
attribute he had to the furthest extend – he became human
out of love for us and desire for our salvation? The only
problem with Swinburne’s, which suggests that Boethius’
timeless God presents a more successful argument is that
it is a concept from the traditional ideas of the Church and
scripture.
‘Boethius was successful in his argument that God
rewards and punishes justly.’ Discuss.
• The Church holds that this concept of God’s
omniscience is too restricted to be applied to
an almighty Lord. If we are traditional
Christians then, we might refute Swinburne’s
ideas and return to the paradox of timeless
God and whether he can be timeless and not
wholly simple as Boethius suggests.
‘Boethius was successful in his argument that God
rewards and punishes justly.’ Discuss.
• We can see then, the problems raised by the fact that the
Church places so much seemingly illogical emphasis on
tradition. If we could move from the concept of a wholly
simple God, which as we have seen is problematic, to a
concept that has been reached through the use of reason,
a God given faculty, the we could argue that there was a
concept far more successful than Boethius’ which allows
God to be omniscient, in a way, and yet still reward and
punish justly.
• I might ask ‘illogical’ to whom?
‘Boethius was successful in his argument that God
rewards and punishes justly.’ Discuss.
•
As God is not even claimed to be wholly simple by
Swinburne and Ward, we avoid Aquinas’ paradox. I will
conclude then with a quote by Maurice Wiles that sums up
my opinion of the philosophical debate.
‘Boethius was successful in his argument that God
rewards and punishes justly.’ Discuss.
• He perceptively said, “true faithfulness to the age of the
fathers goes beyond repeating and building on their
doctrinal conclusions to consciously continuing their
doctrinal aims.” Swinburne presents a better argument
than Boethius, who was unsuccessful in his argument that
God rewards and punishes justly.
‘Boethius was successful in his argument that God
rewards and punishes justly.’ Discuss.
• What ever problems one might have here and
there with this essay, overall it is an excellent
account of one particular way of responding to
this difficult question. The candidate ‘justly was
rewarded’ with full marks.