AKC 1 General – Spring Term 2009 – Dead or Alive: the search for God inside and outside the Church
19/01/09
AKC 1 - 19 JANUARY 2009
PHILOSOPHICAL DIMENSIONS OF THE NOTION OF ‘GOD’
PROF PETER BYRNE, DEPT OF THEOLOGY AND RELIGIOUS STUDIES, KCL
1. God and gods
Simplest view: belief in divinity takes form of either monotheism or polytheism – either belief in God
or in many gods.
Monotheism and polytheism are related: share a generic concept of the divine. A divine being is
a human like agent who controls at least part of the cosmos but who is disembodied and invested with
superhuman powers. Might plausibly think monotheism grew out of polytheism. First people came to
believe in many gods or spirits. Then these many gods coalesced into one God with unlimited powers
and who controlled and created entire cosmos.
2. Tendency to think that above – the theistic conception of god – is only concept of god in western
thought. Deity = the personal god of monotheism. This deity arises from what in West taken to be
revelation. Hebrew Bible/Old Testament a common source. God is a creator – made the world once
upon a time. He is everlasting; the world is not. This God is personal reality. Has knowledge, power,
wisdom, acts in history, speaks to and inspires human beings [prophets]. Even has emotions [anger,
love etc].
3. Judaism, Christianity, Islam subscribe to Monotheism: they believe in a single creator. Standard
in (mono-) theism to give this being personal perfections: supreme in power, goodness, mercy,
knowledge etc. So: to believe in god is to believe in creator who is ….
4. But are two sources conceptions of deity in western thought. Philosophical tradition stemming
from Greeks. Testimony of what taken to be revelation: Bible and Qu’ran. Philosophy as source of
concepts of divinity: Greek search for first cause/principle [the archē]. Pursuit by means of argument &
deduction, of answers to questions such as: What is source of order in cosmos? What is the source of
change? On what do all things depend? Produces conceptions of divinity, i.e. of ultimate, perfect,
transcendent reality on which all things depend, from which all goodness flows, that is perfect and
eternal, in contrast to things in the world. Not inevitably a personal being. [Greek philosophers broke
away from the popular polytheism of their day.]
5. Tension: in West C.E. assumed that is body of revealed knowledge of theistic ultimate.
Philosophers in major traditions assumed any correct account of ultimate had to cohere with revelation.
But: also assumed that this same god is reality described as first cause/principle [archē] by Greek
philosophy. God of revelation = the god of the philosophers. But latter has many facets which contra
notion that god is a person.
6. A problem emerges over how human-like is the god of theism. Logic of worship leads to god’s
transcendence,-— the ‘otherness of his mode of being’. Does not exist like any creature, is utterly
unlike any creature. This to guarantee that worship is not idolatry. Anthropomorphism out. But if god
transcendent in this general way how can god be like a person? Cannot have person-like qualities to a
different degree to us. Must be qualitatively different from any creature.
So get move to think god of theism thro’ categories of classical metaphysics
7. Metaphysical attributes:- A-Seity – wholly independent of all else. God is absolutely the first
being. He exists before there is anything else for him to depend on. So he must need or depend on
nothing [in any way] other than himself. God is not ‘part of the causal nexus’. Affects other things but
is not affected by them. Simplicity – completely without parts. Whatever has parts depends on them
staying united for its existence and nature. So a god with a seity has no parts. Incorporeality –
whatever is made of matter has parts, for the matter of which it is made has parts. So a partless god
cannot be made of matter, or include anything material. Is not in space at all. Without accidents –
lacking non-relational contingent attributes. If god has attributes distinct from himself, he depends on
them for his nature and existence. So if he is entirely a se and absolutely simple. he has no such
attributes: god’s attributes = god. a necessary being – god cannot come into or go out of existence; it
is a necessary truth that god exists. Any truth about god’s nature [e.g. That god is good] is nec. true.
Follows from a-seity and simplicity. So it follows that god is immutable – or unable to undergo real,
intrinsic change. For real, intrinsic change is change in accident and implies contingency. From which
eternity as timelessness is implied. A being not in time – having no temporal location or duration –
would be incapable of change. A being in time – even if it endured for ever – would have its existence
‘spread out’ and thus not be absolutely simple.
N.b. These metaphysical attributes give sense to ‘omni’ in omnipotence, omniscience etc. Not just
what we know of as power to infinite degree. ‘omni’ modifies attribute in qualitative way.
8. Aquinas’s [1225-74] theism exemplifies classical theism. Aq. interprets god’s infinity and
perfection in such a way that they entail divine simplicity. Limited and imperfect being is complex;
god’s being is not. Aq. states that this means no distinction potentiality-actuality in god & no
composition of any kind.
9. Classical theism has to modify god’s personal attributes. Want to say that god in some sense
personal and that language used of god in revelation and worship in some way appropriate to god. But
obviously are problems here. E.g. God is impassible, so emotion terms do not literally apply to him.
Divine action is one and timeless. It is only its effects which are multiple. God does not know in way
we know things. God has will and intellect for aquinas but can’t be willing and knowing being in way
we are.
10. How can god be spoken of at all? When say that god is wise or good cannot be truly aq.: no
names used of god & creatures can be synonymous. Naming god radically different enterprise to
naming creatures.
Maimonides [1135-1204, in bk I chs 50-60, guide of the perplexed): to say that god is wise = that god
is not foolish, ignorant. Positive predications do not apply to god. Aq. does not go so far. Says that
predicates apply to god ‘analogically’, = with altered, thinned down sense. But agrees with maim. That
can know what god is not, rather than what god is. ‘for the divine substance … transcends every form
that our intellect can realise; & thus we cannot apprehend it by knowing what it is, but we have some
sort of knowledge of it by knowing what it is not.’
Further Reading
Articles in Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy [www.rep.routledge.com] [athens log in needed if
off-campus]: god, concepts of’
 monotheism’
 Aquinas, st thomas
 medieval philosophy
 maimonidies
 plato
 plotinus
Full details about the AKC course, copies of the handouts, and the Discussion Board can be found on
the AKC website: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/akc. If you have any queries please contact the AKC Course
Administrator (ext 2333 or email dean@kcl.ac.uk).
You must register for the course, using the form on the website, before registering for the exam.
EXAM REGISTRATION has opened. Please reply to the email you have received giving your full
name and student ID number to indicate you want to take the exam BY FRIDAY 27 FEBRUARY.
Please note the AKC Exam is on Friday 27 March 2009 between 14.30 and 16.30.