Dependence, Transcendence, and Creaturely Freedom: On the Incompatibility of Three Theistic Doctrines.
In this paper I argue for the incompatibility of three claims, each of them quite attractive to a theist. First, the doctrine of deep dependence: the universe depends for its existence, in a non-causal way, on God. Second, the doctrine of true transcendence: the universe is wholly distinct from God;...
| Published in: | Mind (0026-4423) Vol. 130; no. 520; pp. 1099 - 1128 |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
Oxford University Press / USA
Oct2021
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | View this record in EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=153717163&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 153717163 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00264423 MND jtl: Mind (0026-4423) issn: 00264423 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Oct2021 vid: 130 iid: 520 pid: 622 pub: Oxford University Press / USA artinfo: ui: 153717163 10.1093/mind/fzz082 ppf: 1099 ppct: 29 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 215KB tig: atl: Dependence, Transcendence, and Creaturely Freedom: On the Incompatibility of Three Theistic Doctrines. aug: au: Segal, Aaron affil: Hebrew University of Jerusalem su: Maimonides, Moses, 1135-1204 Whole & parts (Philosophy) sug: subj: Maimonides, Moses, 1135-1204 Whole & parts (Philosophy) ab: In this paper I argue for the incompatibility of three claims, each of them quite attractive to a theist. First, the doctrine of deep dependence: the universe depends for its existence, in a non-causal way, on God. Second, the doctrine of true transcendence: the universe is wholly distinct from God; God is separate and apart from the universe in respect of mereology, modes, and mentality. Third, the doctrine of robust creaturely freedom: some creature performs some act such that he could have done other than he in fact did. After laying out the claims, I show that their conjunction has its adherents—most clearly, the medieval Jewish philosopher, Maimonides. I then argue in detail that the claims are in fact incompatible. I conclude with a discussion of which of the claims is best jettisoned, drawing in part on the work of the Absolute Idealist, Mary Calkins. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: © 2019 Mind Association. item: Mind (0026-4423) holder: Oxford University Press / USA dt: @attributes: year: 2021 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|