David Bentley Hart - Theistic Personalism vs. Classical Theism
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 มี.ค. 2016
- Hart outlines the differences between contemporary analytic styles of theistic thought and classical theism.
For those interested, I invite you to join the "Fans of David Bentley Hart" Facebook group, where you can post/discuss DBH material. Feel free to join here: / 552331154934653
![[LIVE] ใครคุยเรื่องบอล "พ่องตาย" #คุยให้เด็กมันฟัง EP.43 (13/7/67)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8bHYL8RuBqs/mqdefault.jpg)
Very interesting.
Edward Feser has spoken the most clear-headedly on this subject.
What did he say?
ObjectiveBob, is this you reading this passage? Is this your voice?
This is an excerpt from the audio version of Hart's book "The Experience of God" narrated by Tom Pile.
Does anyone know if there is a lecture where David Hart talks about the Hindu and Chinese philosophies regarding the concept of "God" as the source of reality? I've heard him mention a few times how he will discuss different traditions on understanding God, but I've never heard him actually go into detail about the Hindu or Chinese metaphysical conceptions of God.
In the book of which this video is an excerpt, The Experience of God, he frequently quotes Eastern philosophers in support of his points. But I don't know if he has ever dealt with them in any sort of critical way.
This is good! This is from Dr. Hart's book, right? Is there a good book on Theistic Personalism? Is there a good book on Classical Theism? Thank you!
Yup, this is from "The Experience of God."
I'm not aware of any books specifically on the topic of theistic personalism (though, of course, you can always read theistic personalists like WL Craig, Swinburne, Plantinga, etc to get their perspective).
As far as books on classical theism, Hart recommends a few in his bibliography which are quite good: "He Who Is" and "Exsitence and Analogy" by E.L. Mascall (though they're hard to find), and W. Norris Clarke's "The One and the Many" (which I think is still in print). Those are good introductions to classical theistic metaphysics.
+ObjectiveBob Thank you very much for responding! Are you on Twitter by chance? I have enjoyed the videos that you have posted of Hart, although I am not even a novice to understanding theology and philosophy.
ObjectiveBob Thank you ObjectiveBob for suggesting "The one and the many". The first metaphysics book I actually made sense of. God bless you.
@acarouselofantics
You could look into Eastern orthodox writers who emphasise the fundamentality of the "person" of God.
For example you could check out Staniloe, and "Being as Communion"
From which book is this from?
I question the term "theistic personalism" given Balthasar, Zizioulas and the patristic/neo-patristic developments of the divine personal ontology in the Holy Trinity. Monopolytheism is a much better term, yes.
@@kirin347except the point is that, in Hart’s perspective, trinitarianism isn’t the same as monopolytheism
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns Sorry. deleted mean comment.
@@kirin347 no need to.
modified divine simplicity is what I like best. I feel like if you go all in on divine simplicity you risk modal collapse.
At last it makes sense. In essence, I lack all potency to grasp classical theism.
One way to start is to see God as the ultimate reality from which everything draws its being.
I wonder if the Apostles would have understood any of this... sounds very distant from their writings.
Actually, Paul--being trained in Greek philosophy--would have probably understood it if he took the time to study it.
@Clark Harney One is Greek metaphysics the other is biblical theology. Totally different realms...
How did John begin his gospel? “In the beginning was the Logos...” How did Paul appeal to the Athenians? By apealing to that which their philosophy already told them of God. Since the very beginning the apostles have been linking the faith to the truths which exists in Greek philosophy
@@kylejacobson9587 it must be providential that the incarnation occurred at that juncture of greco philosophy and jewish revelation. To think otherwise is to diminish the multifaceted brilliance of the incarnation.
@@koffeeblack5717 I wouldn't say otherwise, my point was that the apostles, or at least some of them, wouldn't be unaware of Greek Philosophy, nor abhorred by stating Christian truths in those terms.
This is why the unbiblical doctrine of the Trinity is a gift to atheist critics.
I always wonder how Jesus could possibly be God when you say God can't have distinct parts or properties. Divine simplicity is antithetical to Christianity's claim that Jesus is god.
MrSpectralfire
Jesus as God is simple and non-composite, but Jesus as Man is composite just like us.
th-cam.com/video/Jcafuc_zoQU/w-d-xo.html
I literally didn't understand a word he said. My finger stopped leafing the pages of my dictionary when I heard a sentence of which not a single word I understood. Speak more simply, make more easily accessible your ideas. Why shroud them in such a needless intellectually flowery vail?
I actually don't even understand his objections. Is he really stating that the Dawkins argument against theism is really a good argument? (I know Dawkins wasn't the first to think of it, but he seems to be the present day popularizer). I simply do not understand why he says that God cannot have attributes. I find myself agreeing more with "the western American thinkers" than with Hart.
Is it because the attributes would need to be explained and would not be allowed to just be a given in God's nature? I mean, has he read the Bible? God is full of attributes (although obviously none of them physical). God hates sin, God loves persons, God is merciful, God is omniscient, etc. These all seem like attributes to me.
Joel Falla Think of it this way. God is existence. He is the foundation, and stopping point, for where things get their existence from. If God's essence was not existence, then He Himself would require an explanation for His existence. The conception of God by the likes of Swineburne, Craig, and Plantinga are susceptible to the argument "well, who or what caused God?" Under classical theism, God is the very reason there is a principle of causality, He is the source and grounding for all causes. He is the reason there is a principle of sufficient reason, since He is the Final Explanation. If you don't believe God's essence is existence, then God would violate the principle of sufficient reason and causality, and therefore atheists could ask us legitimately "who caused God?" Under Hart's perspective, God requires no explanation, since He Himself is the explanation for everything else's existence. God is not "a being" but rather "being itself."
Kenneth Dobbs how does God's not having any limiting essence restrict Him from having any attributes? Because I can think of one: that He exists. Is existence an attribute or are all attributes considered limiting and therefore not justly applied to God? It seems to me that there is a way in which God acts: he favors some and not others, speaks to some and not others, revealed Himself in human for and not in the form of a beetle, etc. God DOES, it seems like, have a nature (composed of attributes). How can one have a nature and not also have attributes? He decides things for some reason, so what other place to originate his desire to choose something than His own NATURE?
I totally agree with what you said about the Principal of Sufficient Reason. Because God has no limiting essence and is simply existence itself, it seems to me that that would put Him in the place of the necessary postulate for all other causes to be possible. Only those with essences require explanations for their existence, but since God's essence IS existence, He therefore requires no explanation.
I'm quite hesitant to accept this Thomistic idea of God though. I need to do more research on it, but I think it commits one to the whole idea of "negative" theology: defining God in negations. But I think God has plenty of positive attributes such as loving.
I have not met anyone else in person who has been struck by this "thereness" of things and the realization that the whole of reality is being actively sustained by this ineffable "God". Looking out into space and then drawing my gaze ever-closer into myself until I realize that every thought and moment of self-awareness must be held in being by God's word of power is the most exciting thing I have ever done in my life. It's an incredible realization that things exist at all and in the way they do. David Bentley Hart and Martin Heidegger have made my life infinitely more enriched.
I often thank God for having stumbled across David's books (although I can't stand the way he talks). I owe him a lot. He even pointed me towards this one book called The One and the Many. Now THAT was a good read. Most people think I'm letting life pass me by when I spend hours in my room reading these books, but it seems to me that they will die not having experienced what makes life worth living.
Joel Falla God having no essence except existence is due to the reality of act and potency. God has no potential in Him. He just Is who He is. That's why when Moses asked for his name in the Bible, God said His name was "I am Who I am" or "I am who Is." potentiality belongs to beings whose essence is distinct from their existence. In classical metaphysics, existence is not an attribute you can attribute to something, but rather its foundational. Without substance (mixture of potency and act) there could be no material beings. Without a Pure Actuality, on who the existence of all causality depends upon, then the metaphysical system of reality would be incoherent. I think there are things we can know about God that are positive, but which are still analogous due to God's overwhelming perfection. For instance, we know that God must be Good. This is a metaphysical necessity, given that evil is merely a lack of something which should be there instead, and God has no potentiality. But when we speak of God's goodness, it's not even in the same category as human goodness. That's why Jesus constantly taught in parables. He could only describe the Kingdom of Heaven, The Trinity, and Creation through analogies. But these analogies still give us plenty of "positive" ideas about what the Divine Nature entails. When we learn something about God, it's not an attribute, but rather something totally indistinguishable from His existence. He is perfect Being. I hope that made sense. I can direct you to a few books which may help. I spend my days reading books on metaphysics and epistemology after I get home from work, and people think I'm weird for that. But keep following your passion!
Kenneth Dobbs One question I could never answer was why God wouldn't create an infinite number of things that He saw as good. Since God is not limited by any resources, and since He is the perfect actuality (with no potency), then it makes sense to think that God would have no choice whether or not to create an infinite number of "good" things (since there is no limitation on His creation). Why stop with one universe when you can have an infinite number of them? This is partly why I believe in the multiverse prior to any scientific evidence for it (thus answers the question of why God didn't create an infinite number of good things: HE DID!).
Although, saying that God has "no choice" to create seems to put a limitation on His "freedom". BUT that's not the way I see it at all. God's inability to do evil is precisely what makes Him perfectly free (heard that from David too and it made infinitely more sense of the concept of freedom in the Bible).
Epistemology you say? That's so funny. I'm reading A Contemporary Introduction to The Theory of Knowledge by Robert Audi.
What are you reading?
Kenneth Dobbs God has no attributes, but simply IS what He IS. And when we hear of his "attributes" these are only analogous so we can understand what He is like.
Is that right? That whole "analogy of proper proportionality" thing? Seems right to me. Is that the doctrine of divine simplicity? That God doesn't have moving parts or even attributes? It would make sense.
I am not sure why this gentleman is so popular among some Christians. He has the reputation of a philosopher but, to me, he comes across as a rhetorician. I hear either conclusions without arguments, or arguments without conclusions. Thomas Aquinas is clear and lucid in comparison with this man.
I find religion endlessly interesting. However, if people consider themselves distinguished from the rest of "creation" because they are intelligent, and if we believe that that the universe is part of a God who is superhumanly intelligent, it seems that we may just be indulging in anthropomorphism. People are intelligent and capable of rationality, however, does that imply that some other aspect of the universe or God -- which ever is larger -- must also be intelligent?
I realize that faith would answer yes, but I don't understand any reason to believe that is so.
It seems to me that our mind -- our reason and our intuition -- can see patterns around us and that we can use that information to benefit ourselves. But, does that mean that the world around us is also intelligent?
William S. You are just not educated
John Stewart Doesn't tell us shit about the rest of the world
Perhaps the natural laws that apply to us here also apply to the rest of the universe -- everywhere.
John Stewart are we biological vassals only though?
"In the Garden" was a cancerous hymn.
This is copyrighted content posted without permission. I’m reporting it to TH-cam.