Nathaniel Brandens Case God and Omnipotence (3) by James Kiefer Unpublished dot-matrix printout dated [Editors notes are in blue.] |
Introduction
I promised at the beginning of this paper [Objectivism and Theism] that, after presenting the positive case for theism on Objectivist grounds, I would examine Dr. [Nathaniel] Brandens arguments and state where, in my judgement, he goes astray. To this task I now turn.
At this point, If you are prepared to grant that God cannot perform contradictions, well and good. But my point is that theists have believed for centuries that God can do anything, including the contradictory. They have smoothed over all difficulties, answered all charges of self-contradiction, silenced all questioners, and in general struck down Reason whenever she dared to raise her head, simply by appeals to the unsearchable wisdom and power of God. Your concession that contradictions are impossible even for God saves you personally from the charge of blatant irrationality (on this particular point), but it places you outside the whole theist tradition. To this I reply, in the first place, that the nature of the theist tradition is irrelevant to the present argument. If I am here putting forward a rational and consistent position and in the process showing But although the historical question is not central, it may nonetheless be worth looking at. When theists, past and present, have called God omnipotent, what have they meant by it? The question is not trivially answerable, for language like God can do all things! is equally appropriate from those who exclude contradictions, those who do not, and those who have never thought about the matter one way or the other. We begin with the dictionary. If we assume that people use words with their dictionary meanings unless they specify other meanings, shall we conclude that those who call God almighty or omnipotent mean that he can perform contradictions? Funk and Wagnalls The reader will observe that it would not be easy to prove from these definitions that English-speakers us the words omnipotent and almighty to denote being capable of performing contradictions. The reference to pantokrator gives us a clue to the history of the concept. The English word Almighty and (as far as I can tell) the Latin omnipotens were both coined as equivalents for the Greek word, which in turn was introduced into Jewish and Christian circles as a translation for the Hebrew Shaddai, used as a name of God. The Greek pantokrator, or All-Ruler, from pan, meaning all, as in Pan-American, and krat, meaning to rule, as in aristocrat, might mean having power to do all things. On the other hand, it might mean having power over all things, which is not quite the same, or possessing all things in excellence. (See under krateo in Liddell and Scott, or any other large dictionary of Classical Greek.) It does not, simply by itself, justify us in concluding that the user thinks God capable of performing contradictions. The origins of the word Shaddai are doubtful. Some linguists trace it to dai, meaning enough, and suppose it to mean the sufficient one, either in the sense of one who lacks nothing or in the sense of a generous provider for mankind. Other linguists connect it with a primitive root word for the female breast, which developed into a word for lady, mistress of the house, which then developed a masculine counterpart meaning lord or master, but still with overtones of nourishment, so that Shaddai is taken to mean the lord, the master, the ruler, but also the father, the head of the family, the provider, the nourisher, the sustainer, the giver of life. Still other linguists connect it with a word for mountain, and so with the idea of a god of the mountains, a god who inhabits the mountains, or a god who reminds us of a mountain, who is firm, solid, strong, dependable, or a god who is awe-inspiring, as the sight of a mountain is awe-inspiring for many people. A reader interested in how the Jewish and Christian scriptures refer to the power of God might begin by reading in context some of the passages indicated below, in a list intended to be representative, rather than complete: Ge 17:1 I am the Almighty (Shaddai) On the other side of the fence, we find the Christian scriptures asserting that God cannot.... Twice (Titus 1:2 and Hebrews 6:18) we are told that he cannot lie, and once (2 Timothy 2:13) we are told that he cannot contradict himself. [02] It seems most unlikely to me that, in any of these passages, the writers are at all concerned with On the other hand, when theists do face explicitly the question or whether God can bring about contradictions, the standard answer is a flat negative. Aristotle distinguishes relative and absolute impossibility, the former that which cannot be done by a given agent because of the limitations of that agent, the latter that which cannot be done at all. [03] Aquinas refers to this passage and identifies the absolutely impossible with the contradictory. He defines omnipotence as the ability to do everything that is absolutely possible (i.e., non-contradictory). He comments on the text, With God no thing shall be impossible, by saying, A contradiction in terms cannot be a thing, for no mind can conceive it. [04] Elsewhere he gives the example of creating a thing with the property of not having been created as an example of something God cannot do. [05] A century before Aquinas, St. Anselm wrote his Proslogion, chapter 7 of which is headed, How He (God) is omnipotent, although there are many things of which he is not capable. The point about contradiction is often worded in terms of altering the past. Aristotle approvingly quotes the poet Agathon as saying: For this alone is lacking een to God Eight centuries before Aquinas, St. Augustine wrote: Whoever says, If God is almighty, let Him make what has been done to be not-done, does not realize that he is saying, If God is almighty, let Him make true things to be true and St. Jerome, his contemporary, wrote: Though God can do everything, He cannot make the unspoilt from the spoilt. [08] Which Aquinas interprets as:
Still earlier, between AD 150 and AD250, we find Iranaeus, Tertullian, and Origen respectively writing as follows:
Jewish theologians also concur. Rabbi Moses Maimonides says:
I regret that my limited knowledge does not permit me to produce suitable quotations from Moslem sources. In summary, then, it is References [Editors notes are in blue.] * The title refers to Nathaniel Brandens lecture The Concept of God, from his lecture series The Basic Principles of Objectivism. That lecture is fully transcribed in his book The Vision of Ayn Rand: The Basic Principles of Objectivism (Gilbert, Ariz.: Cobden Press, 2009), chapter 4. Partial and perhaps complete audios seem to be available throughout the Internet, especially here. See also [01] For Luke 1:37 I have followed the New English Bible and some other translations. The King James and some other translations have, with God nothing shall be impossible. After looking at the Greek, I side with the NEBs, but those who prefer the King James wording can always fall back on Matthew and Mark. [02] The King James has cannot deny himself. The Greek has arneomai, which I take to mean repudiate himself, go against himself, say against himself, or the like in short, contradict himself. But however one deals with contradict, the cannot is unambiguous. [03] Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1019. [04] Aquinas, Summa Theologiæ, Part 1, Question 25, Articles 3 and 4 [05] Aquinas, Summa Theologiæ, Part 1, Question 7, Article 3 [Reply to Objection 1]. [06] Aristotle, Nichomachaean Ethics, 1139. [07] St. Augustine, Against Faustus, 25:5. [Correction: The passage occurs in |
HomeNNNNKiefer main pageNNNNNotes Table of Contents
E-mail Thornwalker at neff@thornwalker.com. Texts throughout this section are copyright 2008 by James E. Kiefer, printed by permission of his estate. Formatting, transcription, and other material (where noted) are copyright © 20012020 Ronald N. Neff, d/b/a Thornwalker.com Thornwalker.com is hosted by pair Networks. |