Distinguishing Classical Theism from Theistic Personalism

Dr. Edward Feser visited SES April 2018 to give a lecture on distinguishing Classical Theism from Theistic Personalism. This is a great lecture from Dr. Feser which we hope you will enjoy!

[@terraavis]

Very good lecture, aimed at a note-taking audience (0.001% of the population) who will later try to make sense of it. We need a rhetoritician fan of Dr. Feser to persuade the masses.

[@norbusganklepuss68]

I would recommend Bishop Robert Barron for that role. He uses many of the same concepts and arguments, in a much lower resolution than this, and he's much more entertaining, from a rhetorical perspective.

[@MBarberfan4life]

Rhetoric? Theistic personalists treat God like their boyfriend/girlfriend. Lol

[@REALGODJESUS]

Theistic Personalism starts at time 29:28

[@PrisonMike-_-]

I read Ed's book on the old testament canon and immediately knew we'd gained a titan on the theistic side

[@jackcrow1204]

What book is this?

[@IasonIsrael]

Excellent information. Glad he could distill Aquinas. He may have spoken too lightly of God at the end when he said he sensed God ceasing to concur with his desire to keep speaking.

[@norbusganklepuss68]

@1:00:00 This analogy is interesting. Plotinus uses a similar analogy to light, to describe the creation of individual souls, and their return to the divine oneness at death.

[@norbusganklepuss68]

@1:13:30 This is an analogy borrowed from Bishop Fulton Sheen's sermons.

[@Alkemisti]

How should we, in the light of this view, understand hell as separation from God? It cannot be literal (or even actual?) separation if nothing can exist in separation from God.

[@OneLine122]

Same way people hate existence. It's literal insofar that the soul at death stays with the body instead of going up in heavens and eventually get resurrected. Or maybe the souls go at the center of the Earth, and that is where hell is. But yes, God is there as well even if people hate him, he keeps them in existence, which is why they hate him.

[@cuck_assassin2648]

This is the Jewish argument for G-d. Excepting it is understood to be equivocal but analogical can work in the Judaism. Claiming that it is univocal is heretical in Judaism because it violates the Jewish doctrine of Divine Simplicity. Excellent explanation of the G-d of Judaism.

[@matthewmayuiers]

Cuk _Assassin He’s giving arguments from the scholastics such as Thomas Aquinas, Albertus Magnus, SCOTUS, Augustine, and countless other Christian philosophers, this is not heretical at all. Christianity should still embrace its Jewish roots in many ways, Jesus was still very Jewish, while acknowledging the severity of the new covenant.

[@cuck_assassin2648]

@@matthewmayuiers I did not say he was heretical, in fact he would be a good Orthodox Jew. His argument he is making is a Jewish argument. Your fellow American Christians on the other hand are not. When they associate attributes by univocativily they create for themselves a deity other than the One who created the universe.

[@MegaSemi]

Interesting! Do you have any sources where one can learn more about the Jewish doctrine of Devine simplicity?

[@cuck_assassin2648]

@@MegaSemi yes... the following is a link to RAMBAM's Guide for the Perplexed. Read chapters L - LVIII files.libertyfund.org/files/1256/0739_Bk.pdf It is also an sideways attack on the 99 names of Allah proving Allah is not G-d.

[@deusimperator]

@Geo P. Because Judaism is Catholicism and Catholicism is Judaism, one revealed faith which exists in two periods of time. Everything Catholicism received through Sacred Tradition is from Judaism. In fact, @cuck _assassin has much truth. This argument is an extension of Divine Simplicity of Maimonides and Aquinas. Ask Aquinas if he cares what the Jews think... you will not like the answer because Aquinas cared very much what the Jews believed and gives them much credit.

[@mikail4541]

When you realize Catholic and Islamic metaphysics has more in common with each other than they have with Protestantism..

[@clark8250]

No, lol. No, they don’t. Not even close lol.

[@mikail4541]

@@clark8250 They do. Islam and Catholicism subscribe to classical theism. Modern evangelicalism does not.

[@jacobcarne8316]

@@mikail4541 funniest part of that is modern evangelicalism does not reflect historic orthodox Protestantism 😬😬😬😬

[@MBarberfan4life]

Calvin and Luther both affirmed divine simplicity, etc.

[@guywholivesforart]

Only if you're including modern evangelism as a continuation of the theistic traditions of classical Protestantism. . .

[@doctorstrangiato3218]

Regarding the so-called "Principle of Proportionate Causality": Whatever is in the effect must be in the cause (14:35). Doesn't this principle present a problem for Feser's proof of the nature of the 'unactualized actualizer'? If the effect is change (whose existence is indisputable, or so the argument goes), and God is the cause of this change, then the effect (change) must also be in God (the cause). Therefore, God must change and hence cannot be immutable, thus conflicting with Feser's conclusion that the 'unactualized actualizer' (God) is immutable.

[@doctorstrangiato3218]

I see that no one has yet challenged me on this, so I'll assume you agree that this is indeed a problem for Feser's argument!

[@jakemackenzie795]

@@doctorstrangiato3218 The effect is the result of change. The actualization of a potential. Would you say steam as the effect of water being heated up is change? Is steam change?

[@arvinmalabanan8321]

Change is proportionate to God in the sense that change is not greater than God. After all, what undergoes change is imperfect, because to be perfect, it must be changed while God is absolutely perfect and immutable.

[@clark8250]

No, you have it misunderstood is all.. God does not change. God is pure existence , and thus has no potency for change. Recall, the principal of causality,, That a thing changes, does not equate to that thing is itself “change”. It’s not. It is a real and actual thing, just as God is as well. Change is simply an action of a thing going from potential to actual. Change itself is not an attribute of God. Just the opposite.

[@gfujigo]

Good question.

[@chrisray9653]

Conclusion: In the Garden needs to be removed from the hymn book.

[@doctorstrangiato3218]

It is beyond my capability to understand how a purely actual being with no potentialities can DO anything. Such a being has no potential to create or sustain a universe, answer prayers, perform miracles, etc. Such a being would be completely inert. Indeed, Feser argues that God is immutable. But how can an immutable (i.e., changeless) being be the cause (i.e., actualizer) of anything? I would be grateful if someone could help me comprehend this seemingly incomprehensible mystery.

[@ScarredRomeo]

God’s “substance”, i.e., the Divine Being, is immutable. He has no potential to change in such because He is pure actuality. God is not a material being that is composed of parts or potential and cannot go from being hot to cold or vice verse. He just is: “I am that I am.” This doesn’t preclude Him from effecting change outside of the Divine substance. God is one. There is nothing like Him. It is fruitless to conceptualize God’s essence in terms of material tangibility. His presence is known via the heart (intuition) and the intellect in participation of the principle of consciousness which is a mere reflection of the absolute consciousness that He is.

[@doctorstrangiato3218]

​@@ScarredRomeo Thanks for sharing your thoughts. To my mind, rather than clarifying the concept this only reinforces the idea that the God of Classical Theology- an immutable being with no parts or potentials whatsoever, but who nonetheless has the potential to create a universe ex nihilo, perform miracles, listen to and answer prayers, love us, judge and condemn the wicked to eternal damnation, etc. - is utterly beyond our understanding and logic. It's hard to imagine how anyone could relate to such an inscrutable entity.

[@ScarredRomeo]

@@doctorstrangiato3218 First of all, you’re conflating two different meanings of the term potential. Second, I never stated nor implied that God was inscrutable. I implied he was not understandable in His Divine substance nor as a material tangibility because there is nothing like Him.

[@yf1177]

@@Lavabernz Thanks for the reply. As someone who is not a scholar of Aquinas, could you please help me understand the distinction between 'active' and 'passive' potency and how this distinction would make intelligible the idea that an unchanging, absolutely simple being, with no parts or potentials whatsoever, can do things, like create a universe, perform miracles, listen to prayers, judge the wicked, intercede in worldly events, etc.

[@yf1177]

​@@Lavabernz Thanks for your thoughts. Here is what confuses me about all of this. You say that "in any causal interaction the cause can only give (formally) to its effect or produce as an effect what it has essentially." Though this may be a distinct concept, it reminds me of the so-called "Principle of Proportionate Causality": Whatever is in the effect must be in the cause. Doesn't this principle (which is endorsed by Feser) present a problem for Feser's proof of the nature of the 'purely actual actualizer'? If the effect is change (which we see all around us and is indisputable, or so the argument goes), and God is the ultimate cause of this change, then the effect (change) must also be in God (the cause). Therefore, God must also change and hence cannot be immutable, thus conflicting with Feser's conclusion that the 'purely actual actualizer' (God) is immutable.

[@Mrm1985100]

Funny how all this is completely foreign to how Scripture describes God or discusses doctrine.

[@whoami8434]

I really wonder how far that objection can go when we consider what many think the Bible is; that is, man’s perspective of God from man’s own perspective. As such, the Bible would be in no conflict from what Aquinas says about God, since the Bible describes God as known through his actions. When God is (for example)“angry”, it is not that God is literally feeling that same affection we feel when someone does wrong to us, it is that, in an anthropomorphic way, we describe God as being angry in order to explain what he is doing in terms amenable to human beings. In this way we preserve God’s impassability while maintaining that the language used in the Bible is analogical and not literal. If you disagree with that option, then, it seems to me, you need to put up a third option or abandon reason altogether. On the literal reading of the Bible, God is really no different than other ancient gods (and I do intentionally make that a lower case “g”) and his moral philosophy- at least so far as the New Testament is concerned- is no better than that of a Buddhist philosophy or a natural law ethics. Also, the Bible doesn’t really discuss “doctrine” because the Bible doesn’t really do theology. The closest it comes is in the letters Paul writes when he discusses what was accomplished by Jesus, but even this isn’t exactly theology. I would assume you would agree that God is a trinity- a pretty widely accepted “doctrine”- yet I would like to remind you that that doctrine never shows up in the Bible. God is never described as a trinity and it is only a later, after theological development, that we get that notion. As a note, it’s almost arbitrary what books are in your Bible. Catholics have books absent from those of Protestants, and even they have different books than the Orthodox, and these different still from the Coptics. They are all “Christian” and yet none of them have exactly the same “Bible”. Your Bible, whichever it is, was collected together and bound into one book by a group of people who had to make that decision by themselves. Obviously some of them got it wrong (which is a logical point)! And it would be quite interesting if you happen to be part of the group who was lucky enough to inherit the book which was bound together by the only group to have gotten it right. Regurgitating what other people tell you is the quickest way to look like a dummy and waste a lot of your own time pursuing something pointless. I should know, I was doing it for several years myself.

[@clark8250]

This is incorrect. This is totally and completely in line with holy scripture. God is immaterial, immutable, omnipotent, omniscient. In Scripture, we read when God is asked, who are you? How does God respond? He answers by saying “I AM”. Additionally , Dr. Feser is not preaching here, he is offering a lecture on how we (Aquinas etc.) reasoned to the Nature of God (God’s attributes). This is VITALLY important. Why? Because, over thousands of years, humans have worshipped the wrong god. And we must be very careful in how we describe God as it pertains to the Christian God. For example, how would you distinguish between the Christian God, and the Islamic God? If we make just one or two mistakes in regards to The one true and holy God of the heavens and earth, we are worshipping an idol. Don’t do that.. your soul depends on it. For example , what Dr. Feser is talking about here is exactly how God revealed His Trinitarian Nature to us. This was by virtue of revelation, yes, but God still left it up to us to utilize our capacity for reason to get us across the finish line. God is a mystery, for sure. However, we are so blessed to have been given these Truths by our Creator. God is one, all powerful, never changing, immaterial, timeless, personal, pure act, pure love, has no parts, is the first mover.

[@gfujigo]

The purpose of the Bible is to tell us about the gospel message of Christ, not to go into detail on the nature and being of God. The Bible is not a science book or book on metaphysics. The Bible excels at its goal. We are to use the Bible as the rule of faith and then use the Bible to help us understand reality as we explore nature - which is itself a revelation of God. So as we study nature we learn more about God and this leads us to Classical Theism.

[@dynamic9016]

I prefer science over philosophy and that's all I'll say.

[@clark8250]

Science relies on Philosophy… it is undergirded by Logic. Without presupposing logic, you have no science.

[@dynamic9016]

@@clark8250 I understand what you're saying n I can agree to it too, but I still prefer science over philosophy..Btw I love philosophy tremendously.

[@No_BS_policy]

And that, my friend, is a philosophical statement.🥱

[@dynamic9016]

@@No_BS_policy Kool

[@gfujigo]

@@dynamic9016 Science is philosophy. Also, the preference for science is not a statement of science. There is no physics experiment or result wherein the content of the result is the preference for science over philosophy. So, in effect, you are doing philosophy in making the claim you prefer science over philosophy. Your philosophy is to prefer one form of philosophy over another based on philosophical reasons. Cheers 😊

[@AntiCitizenX]

The overwhelming majority of this lecture is just Feser babbling a bunch of incoherent gibberish derived from antiquated Aristotelian metaphysics. It has no place in modern science or philosophy, and it is embarrassing to watch him pretend it has any respectable place in intellectual discussion.

[@justinsankar1164]

True. Youre so smart and well acquainted philosophy! Truly brilliant

[@clark8250]

Lol, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

[@314god-pispeaksjesusislord]

It's hard to say if he's actually on to something or not. I primarily hear that some things can be described with linear equations and others require differential equations. With respect to the physical world he appears to keep saying a thing is what it appears to be, OK, experiment can be done. I much prefer Feynman to Aristotle or Aquinas. Is Feser trying to make an argument or convince us that Aristotle and Aquinas talked about a lot of stuff?

[@ironymatt]

If you were honest you would've simply admitted that you didn't understand him.

[@AntiCitizenX]

@@ironymatt Please read the following sentences: 1) I don’t know what you’re saying. 2) The things you’re saying have objectively failed to cohere into a meaningful idea, and the overwhelming majority of the modern academic world has long-since abandoned this kind of rhetoric. do you think you can comprehend the difference? Or do I have to use smaller words for you?

[@bachmafia145]

Who agrees this is a very boring lecture style?

[@Joshuaandcalebsc]

I find Feser anything but boring.

[@carsonianthegreat4672]

No I find this very interesting

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Bach, go for a jog, meditate, then take addderall, meditate some more, and then watch this lecture again.

[@bakedutah8411]

Well it’s certainly no cat can hazzing a cheeseburger, I’ll give you that.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

BACH BACH 🖐

[@bachmafia145]

Who agrees this is a very boring lecture style?

[@bachmafia145]

@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns Okay, but I am right.

[@norbusganklepuss68]

@@bachmafia145 Not even remotely correct.

[@carsonianthegreat4672]

No this is a great lecture

[@tylerjourneaux4352]

It's boring in the way classical music is boring; harder to get into if you've never heard anything like it before, but richer than anything else you could be listening to instead.

[@williambuysse5459]

If you want entertainment seek out Dawkins on God. He is influential because he conceives of God in the usual modern and reductive manner which can be amusing.