{"id":389,"date":"2008-07-14T10:01:11","date_gmt":"2008-07-14T10:01:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/?p=389"},"modified":"2014-01-27T11:52:33","modified_gmt":"2014-01-27T16:52:33","slug":"dealing-with-apparent-contradictions-part-11-one-last-problem-for-rational-reinterpretation-dale","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/dealing-with-apparent-contradictions-part-11-one-last-problem-for-rational-reinterpretation-dale\/","title":{"rendered":"Dealing with Apparent Contradictions: Part 11 – One last problem for Rational Reinterpretation"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/div>\n
Can’t we all just get along?<\/em><\/small><\/div>\n
One last problem<\/strong> for Resolution through Rational Reconstruction: the new-fangled theory (or if you like, way of understanding the Doctrine) is invariably controversial<\/strong>, in the following sense: it involves metaphysical claims such that some thinkers will consider them false and impossible, and others not.<\/div>\n

The more you think about hard stuff, the more opinions you get. I’ve taught philosophy of religion, modern philosophy, logic, and metaphysics courses, and so I have some fairly developed views. Based on theoretical (and non-theological considerations), here are some things I don’t believe in, because I think<\/em> they’re impossible<\/strong>:<\/p>\n

relative identity relations
\nconstitution relations
\ngroup minds
\ntime travel to the past
\nproperties (whether tropes or universals) – yes, I’m a nominalist<\/a>
\npersons\/selves which are or are “constituted by” relations or relationships
\nmultiple selves that count as one self because they’re so intimately aware of one another’s thoughts<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I’m not going to argue these points here. My point is simply that in light of the above metaphysical convictions, I can’t believe in various Rational Reconstructions of the Trinity doctrine<\/strong>. In order corresponding to the above list:<\/p>\n

Peter van Inwagen’s or Peter Geach’s relative identity trinitarianism (these we haven’t yet discussed here at trinities)
\nBrower’s and Rea’s constitution theory<\/a>
\ngroup mind Social Trinitarianism as discussed by Brian Leftow in his “Anti Social Trinitarianism”
\nLeftow’s version of Latin Trinitarianism
\n<\/a>ditto
\nmisc. medieval theories, such as Henry of Ghent’s<\/a>
\nsome recent versions of Social Trinitarianism<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

General rule: when any philosopher looks at a Rational Reconstruction of some Christian Doctrine, he finds that Reconstruction unsatisfactory for various reasons.<\/strong> Other than the Two Minds approach to the Incarnation, I can’t think of exceptions to this rule. Anyone? Note that this isn’t even bringing in considerations about the Bible or how the new-fangled theory fits with Tradition.<\/p>\n

In sum, one can’t help but admire the cleverness and ingenuity of Rational Reconstructors. Sadly, non-philosophers generally don’t understand such theories or the motivations for them, while other Christian philosophers mostly reject the Rational Reconstruction in question. This is disappointing and disturbing.<\/p>\n

Before I move on to Resistance<\/a>, though, I’d like to ask one more question<\/strong>:<\/p>\n

Next time: Why do contemporary theologians ignore all recent Rational Reconstructions?<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Can’t we all just get along? One last problem for Resolution through Rational Reconstruction: the new-fangled theory (or if you like, way of understanding the Doctrine) is invariably controversial, in the following sense: it involves metaphysical claims such that some thinkers will consider them false and impossible, and others not. The more you think about… Read More »Dealing with Apparent Contradictions: Part 11 – One last problem for Rational Reinterpretation<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":388,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-389","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-theories"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/389","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=389"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/389\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5891,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/389\/revisions\/5891"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/388"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=389"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=389"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=389"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}