If we were to conveive of the word 'God' as referring to a set of conditions, qualities or attributes, there would cease to be a problem with understanding the doctrine of the trinity. I have thought of several analogies that could work on this basis. For example, there can be many instances of the English alphabet (in a school textbook, a poster on a classroom wall, a children's song etc). Each of them is a true instance of the English alphabet yet there is only one English alphabet.
There could be several versions of the National Anthem, yet there would still be only one National Anthem.
The play I am watching at the theatre in London is 'Hamlet'. The play you are watching in New York is also 'Hamlet'. Yet there is only one play called 'Hamlet'.
What these things have in common is that they are sets of symbols, sounds or words that can be arranged or reproduced in various ways so that each arrangement is a distinct version of the one set.
On this basis, one could resolve the problem of the apparent incoherence of the doctrine of the Trinity by conceiving of God as a set of divine qualities (say, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and omnibenevolence) and then positing each of the three Persons as a distinct, personalised instance (or personification) of that set of qualities, each one comprising a different 'arrangement' of the entire set.
I do not believe, however, that this would be a viable approach, since Christians have always conveived of the one God as a concrete Being, not an abstract set of qualities or attributes. A set of qualities cannot be personal (or 'superpersonal') even if 'personality' or 'personalness' is one of the qualities in the set. I know of no instance in the English language where a set of qualities or attributes could be described as 'him' or 'her', no matter how many people it is personified by.
Wednesday, 24 August 2016
Tuesday, 23 August 2016
Embracing paradox
Recently, I was reading about the existentialist philospher Kierkegaard's view that ultimate truth is impossible for human beings to grasp because we do not have the necessary conceptual framework. This is not the same as when people say that 'God is beyond logic'. Rather, it is to say that the truth about God is perfectly logical within the context of the infinite and eternal realm that God inhabits but that, being finite creatures bound by space and time, what we are able to grasp of the truth about God appears to us to be paradoxical.
Imagine living in a two dimensional world like that described by C.S. Lewis in the passage from Mere Christianity that I quoted in my second post on this blog. Now imagine looking at two squares, the first measuring 2" x 2", the second measuring 6" x 6". The idea that the first of these shapes could be larger than the second would seem totally illogical and against all the rules of mathematics. This is because, as someone only capable of thinking in two dimensions, I am aware of the size in terms of area, but not in terms of volume, which would be totally beyond my experience or even ability to conceptualise. In actual fact it is perfectly possible for the first shape to be larger than the second if, for example, as well as its length and width of 2" x 2", it had a height of, say, 10" while the second shape had a height of only 1". In that case, the volume of the first shape (which is in actuality a cube rather than a square) would be 40" (2" x 2" x 10") while that of the second shape would be only 36" (6" x 6" x 1").
Ultimately, however, I do not think Kierkegaard's idea that eternal truth appears to finite minds as paradox can be used as a way of justifying belief in the doctrine of the Trinity. It doesn't make any difference how much we fail to understand about the nature of the Father or of the Son (or simply of the Being called God) or how impossible it is to grasp who or what they are in themselves as opposed to how they appear to our limited finite minds. The relevant issue is the idea that neither the Father nor the Son is the other, yet each of them is the same Being, namely God. The assertion that a=/=b yet a=x and b=x is just as illogical, no matter what a,b and x represent. Of course, if the word 'is' had some special meaning in the infinite or eternal dimension which was incapable of being grasped by our finite minds then it would be possible to say that the doctrine of the Trinity is true in some sense that it is beyond our capacity as finite beings to grasp. But the word 'is' was invented by us finite, time/space-bound creatures to serve a particular linguistic role, to convey the idea of identity as understood by us finite, time/space-bound creatures. It's meaning is defined by us and us alone. Defenders of the doctrine of the Trinity cannot, therefore, appeal to the infinite, eternal realm as an escape route from the incoherence and internally contradictory nature of that doctrine.
Imagine living in a two dimensional world like that described by C.S. Lewis in the passage from Mere Christianity that I quoted in my second post on this blog. Now imagine looking at two squares, the first measuring 2" x 2", the second measuring 6" x 6". The idea that the first of these shapes could be larger than the second would seem totally illogical and against all the rules of mathematics. This is because, as someone only capable of thinking in two dimensions, I am aware of the size in terms of area, but not in terms of volume, which would be totally beyond my experience or even ability to conceptualise. In actual fact it is perfectly possible for the first shape to be larger than the second if, for example, as well as its length and width of 2" x 2", it had a height of, say, 10" while the second shape had a height of only 1". In that case, the volume of the first shape (which is in actuality a cube rather than a square) would be 40" (2" x 2" x 10") while that of the second shape would be only 36" (6" x 6" x 1").
Ultimately, however, I do not think Kierkegaard's idea that eternal truth appears to finite minds as paradox can be used as a way of justifying belief in the doctrine of the Trinity. It doesn't make any difference how much we fail to understand about the nature of the Father or of the Son (or simply of the Being called God) or how impossible it is to grasp who or what they are in themselves as opposed to how they appear to our limited finite minds. The relevant issue is the idea that neither the Father nor the Son is the other, yet each of them is the same Being, namely God. The assertion that a=/=b yet a=x and b=x is just as illogical, no matter what a,b and x represent. Of course, if the word 'is' had some special meaning in the infinite or eternal dimension which was incapable of being grasped by our finite minds then it would be possible to say that the doctrine of the Trinity is true in some sense that it is beyond our capacity as finite beings to grasp. But the word 'is' was invented by us finite, time/space-bound creatures to serve a particular linguistic role, to convey the idea of identity as understood by us finite, time/space-bound creatures. It's meaning is defined by us and us alone. Defenders of the doctrine of the Trinity cannot, therefore, appeal to the infinite, eternal realm as an escape route from the incoherence and internally contradictory nature of that doctrine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)