Dale Tuggy (PhD Brown 2000) was Professor of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Fredonia from 2000-2018. He now works outside of academia in Middle Tennessee but continues to learn and podcast.
Respected Catholic philosopher Alfred J. Freddoso corrects some pervasive baloney about persons which theologians are still repeating, these 22 years later! The asterisk marks his footnote – this whole passage is an aside in a very rich paper of his. Out of politeness, I omit the author of the wrongheaded passage, and I’ve added some bold highlighting to the whole thing. We’ve been over some… Read More »a quote every theology student working on the Trinity or Incarnation should memorize
Congrats to trinities contributor Scott Williams on his new blog, aptly named Henry of Ghent, aka “The Solemn Doctor”. This is real scholarly stuff here, people – original translations and all. Check it out, and send the link to all your friends working in medieval theology and philosophy! Yet more linkage: trinities posts on Henry. And a fun time-waster.
Perhaps, dear reader, you’re a Christian considering New Years resolutions. Let me suggest a resolution to reflect more on theology to which you are committed. Trinity theories (they are many) are attempts to reconcile an apparently inconsistent set of four claims many readers find in the Bible: There is only one God, the one Jesus calls Father is God, Jesus is God, and Jesus is not his Father. From any three of these, it seems to logically follow that the fourth is false. (Go ahead – try out all the combinations.)
Philosophical theology in a small-town newspaper. Yes, really!
My other blog gig is as the Theist on Objectivist v. Constructivist v. Theist. This blog was begun to post the newspaper columns (in our local paper) in which my collegues Bruce Simon (liberal, aka “Constructivist”) and Steve Kershnar(libertarian, aka “Objectivist”) debated points of politics and morality. When Bruce no longer had the time, I stepped in as the Theist, and debated Steve mostly on moral and religious questions in a series of sort of debate style opinion columns. Steve is a good friend and colleague, and we’ve frequently butted heads on all sorts of things since I was hired at Fredonia in 2000. He’s sharp, well-read, funny, and has a winning personality. To say he’s well-published would be an understatement – see his whopper c.v. He’s written on many questions of justice, public policy, ethics, and philosophy of religion. His work is original, rigorous, and informed by relevant empirical research. In addition his his philosophy PhD (he’s a proud, proud Cornhusker) he holds a law degree from Penn. In his inimitable trouble-making style, he decided to write a column on the Trinity leading up to Christmas, which we’re please to cross-post from here. – Dale
10 parts in the series so far… but how many points?
Time to wrap up this long in the tooth series with a summary, and a few extra thoughts along the way. In parts one and two, we laid out simple arguments that Christ is divine, or that he is the one God. Careful examination of these raised the question: What does it mean to call something “a god” or “divine”? Christian philosophers tend to merrily assume an Anselm-inspired definition, so that to be divine is to be the greatest possible being. But in ancient times, no one used the word “God” (etc.) to express that concept.Read More »Jesus and “god” – part 11 – Review and Conclusion
It may depend on what is meant by the term “worship”. It seems to me that many contemporary Christian philosophers and theologians understand “worship” in a way that makes 1 true by definition. Read More »Jesus and “God” – Part 10 – What is worship? (Dale)
What is monotheism, anyway? This may seem like a stupid question, one with a trivial answer: belief in one god, or in one divine being. But we’ve seen in this series that it is by no means obvious what the concept of a god / divine being is. I hazarded an analysis of the concept of a divine being / god, an analysis which is… Read More »Jesus and “God” – Part 9 – What is monotheism?
Last time we looked carefully at the verse normally translated as “Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.” We saw, surprisingly, that on any credible translation, it is not itself an assertion of monotheism – although it’ll probably be consistent with monotheism – depending on what is understood by “monotheism”! And that is a tougher problem that must be faced, for… Read More »Jesus and “God” – Part 8 – Some recent Jewish scholars on the biblical Shema
I was reading Murray’s and Rea’s new An Introduction to Philosophy of Religion – the Trinity section, of course – and I was struck by this sentence: “… we cannot say that Jesus is the Father, nor can we say that they are two Gods (Deuteronomy 6:4).” (p. 74) I realized some time ago that there are problems in using that famous text as a… Read More »Jesus and “God” – Part 7 – What did the Shema originally mean?
As reported in Christianity Today, and in other places, the Catholic hierarchy is forbidding the liturgical use of “Yahweh” (YHWH, Yahveh, Jehovah). Why? Because Jews consider it improper, and we ought not offend needlessly. On the face of it, this is an oddly politically correct move. Yes, Jews believe the word “Yahweh” is too holy to pronounce or write, but should we agree? Must we… Read More »2 Holy 2 Say?
Is Jesus addressed or described as “god” or “God” (Greek: theos) in the New Testament? Yes. But quite a bit less often than you might think. Theologian Murray Harris wrote a whole book about this, pictured here. I don’t endorse this as a particularly good book – Harris, like many a theologian, mixes linguistic sophistication and wide theological erudition with philosophical unclarity, argumentative ineptitude, and… Read More »Jesus and “god” – part 6 – Jesus as “god” in the New Testament
Hello boys and girls. I am “the god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4)
Last time, you traveled back in time, meeting what you thought were a couple of idiotically confused pagans. These people, you think, have the confusing habit of labeling things “god” or “divine” which are not also the unique and perfect creator of the cosmos. You decide to wash all this polytheistic confusion out of your mind, so you pick up your Bible. In it, you read some interesting things about gods.
I am Yahweh your god, who brought you out of the land of Egypt… Do not have other gods besides Me. (Exodus 20:2-3)
In this post, I’ll look at some non-Christian and non-Jewish examples. Let’s imagine that you brush up on your Latin, jump into your time-machine, and travel back to 65 CE. You wander into the imperial palace in Rome, and encounter the above grafitti portrait.
“Who is that?” you ask a nearby soldier.
“Why, that’s Nero.”
“Who’s he?” you continue. (You slept through Ancient History 101.)
What does it mean to say that this dude is a god (or is divine)?
In this series, we first set out an important argument from Christian theology and apologetics about Jesus. In the second installment, we simplified the argument in two ways, and pointed out that to have valid argument, we need to avoid equivocal terms.
It is important now that we push the “pause” button on our christological interests and theological agendas, and think carefully about the terms “god” and “divine”.
I’ve tried to analyze the meaning of “god” and related terms in western languages. (I’m not sure how this compares, e.g. to the Japanese term kami.) What I’ve come up with is this: “X is a god” (or “X is divine”) means “X is a provident being which must be honored”.Read More »Jesus and “god” – part 3 – analyzing “X is a god” (Dale)
Last time we looked at a famous argument about Jesus. (If you’ve never had a course in logic, or if it’s been a while, you should review the linked definitions there of “valid”, “invalid”, and “sound” before proceeding – this discussion presupposes that you understand their meanings.)
Consider this argument:
1. Michael Jackson is bad.
2. All bad people should be in jail.
3. Therefore, Michael Jackson should be in jail.
“This is some writing about that which nothing can be written about. Pretty cool, huh?”
I’ve been reading Gregory of Nazianzus lately, his famous Theological Orations (c. 380 CE), wherein he expounds and defends what scholars call the pro-Nicene consensus about the Trinity – a viewpoint which developed in the latter half of the 4th c. by bishops rallying around the new homoousios term.
In the second oration, he hits this theme hard: God’s essence (the divine nature, the Godhead/deity) is unknowable. What does he mean by this? Only that it isn’t completely knowable (by us, in this life)? He does think that, but he’s saying more than that.Read More »Question about Gregory of Nazianzus on Divinity, the Son and the Spirit
When it comes to apparently contradictory claims in theology, there’s more than one way to Resolve the apparent inconsistency. The more popular way nowadays among Christian philosophers is what I called Rational Reinterpretation. The other way to Resolve? Revision. We’re faced with P, Q, and if P then not-Q. Solution? Simply deny either P or Q (or both). Problem solved.
Unlike Redirectors, Revisers don’t change the subject. Unlike Resisters, they don’t claim we should just “live with the tension”. Unlike practitioners of Restraint, they don’t think we can put off the issue. Like Resolvers through Rational Reinterpretation, they have a solution. But they don’t think tricky, new, more careful formulations are what is called for. Rather, something must go out on the rubbish heap. Revisers are usually accused of arrogance, lack of respect for tradition, biblical ignorance, idolatry of human reason, not being Christians at all, and of hating babies and cute little puppies.
Open theists are RevisersRead More »Dealing with Apparent Contradictions: Part 20 – Resolution by Revision
Maria Rosa Antognazza teaches at King’s College London, where she also directs the Centre for the History of Philosophical Theology. She has written a highly praised forthcoming intellectual biography of the great Leibniz. Below is my review of her book pictured here. The review is forthcoming in Religious Studies. Bottom line: Leibniz employs positive and negative mysterian moves, as well as rational reconstruction of the… Read More »Dealing with Apparent Contradictions: Part 19 – Review of Antognazza on Leibniz
Enthusiastic positive mysterians tend to be complacent traditionalists about Bible interpretation – that is, people who are pretty sure that their Christian group (e.g. Catholicism, Reformed Christianity, or maybe simply small-c catholicism) has got the Bible (generally) right. There is a reason for this.
The reason is that if you’re trying to reason your way towards the correct interpretation of some passage, rather than rest on the laurels of hoary precedent, then it looks like a show-stopper if your proposed interpretation seems self-contradictory (positive mysterianism), or unintelligible (negative mysterianism).Read More »Dealing with Apparent Contradictions: Part 18 – Mysteries and the Bible (Dale)
