{"id":41750,"date":"2019-10-15T21:05:09","date_gmt":"2019-10-16T02:05:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/?p=41750"},"modified":"2019-11-06T21:33:17","modified_gmt":"2019-11-07T03:33:17","slug":"new-co-authored-paper-dormant-dispositions-agent-value-and-the-trinity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/new-co-authored-paper-dormant-dispositions-agent-value-and-the-trinity\/","title":{"rendered":"new co-authored paper: “Dormant Dispositions, Agent Value, and the Trinity”"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

I had the pleasure of meeting Jewish analytic theologian and philosopher of religion and rabbi <\/strong>Dr. Samuel Lebens<\/strong><\/a> (University of Haifa) at a summer seminar on faith in beautiful Bellingham, Washington in 2016. (This is where I presented this<\/a>, a version of which was later published<\/a>.) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

One thing led to another, and our conversations resulted in this new paper, now published in the <\/strong>Journal of Analytic Theology<\/strong><\/em>: <\/strong>Lebens & Tuggy, “Dormant Dispositions, Agent Value, and the Trinity.”<\/strong><\/a> (Click on “pdf” below where it says “Full text” to get the actual article.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dr. Lebens’s name truly belongs first, as he contributed more<\/strong> of the writing and more of the ideas. It was a real pleasure to work through this with him. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here’s the abstract: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this paper we argue that the moral value of an agent is determined solely by their dispositions to act intentionally and freely. We then put this conclusion to work. It resolves a putative moral paradox first posed by Saul Smilansky, and it undermines a prominent line of argument for a variety of Trinitarian theology. Finally, we derive our conclusion about the moral worth of agents not only from our initial series of thought experiments, but also from Abrahamic theism itself. This means that Smilansky\u2019s paradox can only possibly be rehabilitated by an atheist, and that the aforementioned line of argumentation for the Trinity is radically self-undermining, since it relies upon the denial of a corollary of Abrahamic theism.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

In part, we show why no one ought to buy into arguments like this, which purport to show that that God couldn’t be unipersonal<\/strong> (i.e. be numerically the same as a certain self):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. Necessarily, God is perfect, and perfect in love.<\/li>
  2. Necessarily, if God does not experience love of another, God is imperfect.<\/strong><\/li>
  3. Therefore, necessarily, God experiences love of another. [1, 2]<\/li>
  4. Necessarily, it is possible that only God exists (i.e. that God does not create). [Given the orthodox doctrine that God\u2019s creation was free]<\/li>
  5. Necessarily, if unitarianism is true, there is no \u201cother\u201d in the godhead.<\/li>
  6. Necessarily, if God alone exists and unitarianism is true, then God does not
    experience love of another, and thus is not perfect. [2, 4, 5]<\/li>
  7. Therefore, necessarily unitarianism is false. [1, 6]<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n
    \"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

    We argue that anyone, even a trinitarian, ought to reject premise 2<\/strong>. Check out the paper and see if you agree!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Along the way, in constructing a thought experiment, we mention the interesting fellow pictured here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Be sure to check out Dr. Lebens’s <\/strong>many<\/strong><\/a><\/em> other interesting publications<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    God can’t be “perfect in love” unless he is multipersonal?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":41755,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"default","neve_meta_container":"default","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"off","neve_meta_content_width":70,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"off","neve_meta_disable_footer":"off","neve_meta_disable_title":"off","footnotes":""},"categories":[37,6,87,8,9,43],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-41750","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-apologetics","category-complaints","category-judaism","category-linkage","category-philosophy","category-unitarianism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41750","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=41750"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41750\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":41764,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41750\/revisions\/41764"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/41755"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41750"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41750"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41750"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}