Divine Simplicity and the Trinity

A bunch of you wrote about (and spoke about in class) an apparent problem with the doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS). The worry is basically this:

DDS: God is completely partless; there is absolutely no composition whatsoever in the being or nature of God

Trinity: the doctrine that God is three persons and one divine substance/essence

It can, perhaps easily, look as though DDS and Trinity are incompatible. That is, if DDS is true, then Trinity is false, and if Trinity is true, then DDS is false. 

First, let me commend you for (a) thinking deeply about this stuff, and (b) wanting to test DDS (and other ideas) against other beliefs/commitments you have. The attitude many of you seem to have is that if DDS does conflict with the doctrine of the Trinity, then DDS has got to go. I think that is the right attitude. Speaking personally, my commitment to the doctrine of the trinity is at or very near the center of my web of commitments. Thus, if some other claim, x, conflicts with Trinity, then I am disposed to reject x. 

Second, I do not think that there is a genuine conflict here. At the very least, I cannot, at present, see what such a conflict might look like. Here’s why. There is nothing in the orthodox doctrine of the trinity (the doctrine affirmed by nearly every Christian all over the world—protestant, roman catholic, and orthodox) that implies that God has parts, and, in particular, that the three persons are parts of God. 

Indeed, the orthodox doctrine of the trinity seems to rule out the claim that the three persons are parts of God. For suppose that the three persons are equal parts of God. If that were the case, then the Father would be 1/3 God, the Son would be 1/3 God, and the Holy Spirit would be 1/3 God. Adding them up would give us one whole God. But that, as you know, is not the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is incompatible with the claim that each person is a part of God because the doctrine states that each member is fully God, wholly God, completely God. Whatever attributes essentially belong to divinity, each member has fully and completely. Since there is, according to Christianity, one and only one God, that means that each members of the Trinity is the one and only one God, fully and completely. 

Indeed, Indeed, DDS seems to be well-suited for preserving the orthodox doctrine of the trinity. Put differently, if DDS is true, then one of the central tenets of the doctrine of the trinity must be true as well—the claim that there is one and only God and (assuming the doctrine of the trinity now) each member of the trinity is that one and only one God. That is not to say that DDS implies the Trinity. It does not. But DDS and Trinity are not, at least not obviously, incompatible. 

Here is another way to look at this. 
According to the doctrine of the trinity:

            1. There is one and only one God
            2. Each person of the trinity is fully God
            3. No person of the trinity is another person of the trinity

So, the Father is the one and only God, the Son is one and only God, the Holy Spirit is the one and only God. But, the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. 

Now, it should come as no surprise that the doctrine of the trinity is paradoxical. It is not easy to see how all of those claims can be true. I am not claiming that DDS can help us see the coherence of the doctrine of the trinity. But, I am claiming that DDS and Trinity do not conflict, or, at least do not obviously conflict. For DDS is perfectly compatible with 1. In fact, DDS entails 1. If 2 and 3 are compatible with 1 (I think they are), then it is, at the very least, likely that they are compatible with DDS as well. If Feser (and others) are right, 1 entails DDS. If 2 and 3 are compatible with 1, then they must be compatible with DDS as well (assuming that 1 entails DDS). 

Here is one more way to think about this:
According to the doctrine of the trinity, each person of the trinity is essentially God. That is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are essentially divine. Whatever is true of the essence of God is true of each member of the trinity. According to Christianity, there is and can only be one God (there cannot be more than one God). It is part of the nature or essence of God that there can be only one God. Hence, each member of the trinity is essentially God and it is essential to divinity (to being God) that there is one and only one God. Hence, each member of the trinity is essentially the one and only one God. From this it follows, that no member of the trinity is a part of God. If one member were a part of God, then another member would have to be a different (non-identical) part of God, and thus each member would be a part of God that the other members are not a part of. And this would mean that each member would have something essential to God that the other members do not have. So, no member would be essentially God. No member would be fully God. No member would be God. But that is contrary to the doctrine of the trinity. So, it is false that each member is a part of God. So, God’s having no parts whatsoever is compatible with the doctrine of the trinity. So, DDS is compatible with the trinity. 

Thoughts? Worries? Objections?
            
For those still interested, here is a portion of the ecumenical creed that states the orthodox doctrine of the trinity:

The Athanasian Creed 
Now this is the catholic faith:
    That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,
    neither blending their persons
    nor dividing their essence.
        For the person of the Father is a distinct person,
        the person of the Son is another,
        and that of the Holy Spirit still another.
        But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,
        their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.
    What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.
        The Father is uncreated,
        the Son is uncreated,
        the Holy Spirit is uncreated.
        The Father is immeasurable,
        the Son is immeasurable,
        the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.
        The Father is eternal,
        the Son is eternal,
        the Holy Spirit is eternal.
            And yet there are not three eternal beings;
            there is but one eternal being.
            So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
            there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.
    Similarly, the Father is almighty,
        the Son is almighty,
        the Holy Spirit is almighty.
            Yet there are not three almighty beings;
            there is but one almighty being.
        Thus the Father is God,
        the Son is God,
        the Holy Spirit is God.
            Yet there are not three gods;
            there is but one God.
        Thus the Father is Lord,
        the Son is Lord,
        the Holy Spirit is Lord.
            Yet there are not three lords;
            there is but one Lord.
    Just as Christian truth compels us
    to confess each person individually
    as both God and Lord,
    so catholic religion forbids us
    to say that there are three gods or lords.
    The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.
    The Son was neither made nor created;
    he was begotten from the Father alone.
    The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten;
    he proceeds from the Father and the Son.
    Accordingly there is one Father, not three fathers;
    there is one Son, not three sons;
    there is one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.
    Nothing in this trinity is before or after,
    nothing is greater or smaller;
    in their entirety the three persons
    are coeternal and coequal with each other.
    So in everything, as was said earlier,
    we must worship their trinity in their unity
    and their unity in their trinity.

Comments

  1. Peyton PitmanMarch 8, 2020 at 7:42 PM

    This is only a small comment, but you said the following in the blog post: "Now, it should come as no surprise that the doctrine of the trinity is paradoxical. It is not easy to see how all of those claims can be true. I am not claiming that DDS can help us see the coherence of the doctrine of the trinity. But, I am claiming that DDS and Trinity do not conflict, or, at least do not obviously conflict."

    This reminded me of a quote from our new author Joshua Rasmussen in 'How Reason Can Lead to God.' He says, "a paradox is something we do not see how to put together, whereas a contradiction is something we do see cannot go together." This is a very important distinction to be made; I never really thought about the difference. It's easy to confuse the two.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Arguing For God's Existence

Proving God’s Existence Throughout the modern period of philosophy and theology (beginning around the 18 th century until now) various thinkers have suggested that there is something problematic about giving arguments for God’s existence. They have given a variety of different reasons: faith requires the absence of proof, faith requires not relying on a proof, even if there are some, no argument for God’s existence is a good one, no argument gets us to God, no argument gets us to the God of the Bible (this is the worry that the God of the philosophers is different from the God of the Bible), arguments for God’s existence assume that our intellects have not been affected by the fall, God’s existence is obvious and a proof assumes that it is not, God’s existence is known by all because it is implanted in us so proofs are superfluous at best, denials of God’s existence are a sin problem, not a philosophy problem, etc. Rather than focus on the above reasons for not giving arguments f...
Read more

Possible Worlds and Covid-19

We are in the midst of a pandemic. As nations around the world respond to it, models of varying kinds are being generated to give policy-makers, practitioners, and others some kind of insight into the implications of all sorts of responses to the pandemic. Each model involves a bunch of assumptions—many of which are hidden in the mathematics—ranging from estimates about the number of actual infections, rate of infection, prevalence of co-morbidities, demographics of regions, infection death-rates, confirmed infection death-rates, duration of virus, etc. etc. etc.  Each model is representing a possible world! Did you notice that? Every model—and these are being relied upon by each and every country’s leaders in the world right now—is a prediction of what the world will look if x is true and we do y (to simplify quite a bit). Change x a bit and leave y alone and we get a new future; leave x alone and change y a bit and we get a new future; change both x and y a bit and we get ...
Read more

Concepts of Existence: An Intuitive Introduction

Concepts of Existence Consider the following: some dogs are brown. (In what follows, I use the phrases, property, first-order property, predicate, first-order predicate, as synonyms. They each mean roughly: a feature of some individual object. So a second-order property or second-order predicate is a property or predicate of an individual's first-order property. The considerations below suggest that 'existence' is best understood as a second-order property and not a first-order one. This will all be more understandable after you read below!) Given the truth of the above it seems to follow that some dogs exist. We do not need to add to the above claim: Some dogs are brown and they exist. Once we know that some dogs are brown, we already know that they exist. So, existence is not really a property of anything in the way that, say, being brown is a property of some dogs. So, it looks like thinking existence is a property is either unnecessary or incoherent. If x...
Read more