{"id":42445,"date":"2020-05-25T15:55:00","date_gmt":"2020-05-25T20:55:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/?p=42445"},"modified":"2020-05-24T21:22:40","modified_gmt":"2020-05-25T02:22:40","slug":"some-clarifications-a-reply-to-mcmanus-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/some-clarifications-a-reply-to-mcmanus-part-2\/","title":{"rendered":"some clarifications: a reply to McManus – part 2"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

As I explained last time<\/a>, Skylar McManus in his previous post, and in the first portion of his second post, didn’t really go beyond asserting <\/strong>that my definitions are bad because they classify Branson’s “monarchical trinitarianism” as unitarian. But now he tries to show that my definitions suffer from some terrible problems. To wit, <\/p>\n\n\n\n

If Tuggy\u2019s definitions can allow M Ts to be\u00a0both\u00a0Trinitarian\u00a0and\u00a0unitarian, they don\u2019t \u201cdivide at the joints.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yes, that would be bad! But on the face of it, I’m not committed to such a thing<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

He then discusses my paper “On Counting Gods<\/a><\/strong>.” In my view, this is the most important piece of research that I’ve done. But although McManus has a few gripes, I don’t see how this really matters to the dispute at hand, about “monarchical trinitarianism” and whether it really should be thought of as a kind of trinitarianism, even though by definition it (arguably) implies that there is no triune God. So omitting a chunk of his discussion, let’s go to where he focuses on my analyses in that paper of the concepts god <\/em>and deity<\/em>:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

S just is a god if and only if<\/strong> (a) S is a deity and (b) S is an ultimate. <\/p>

three necessary and sufficient conditions for deity: (i) being a self, (ii) power much greater than ordinary humans, (iii) supernatural power. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

As Tuggy says in the paper, he conceives of God along \u201ctheistic personalist\u201d lines<\/strong>. (His friend Edward Feser has some good blog posts<\/a> on this.) When we consider Tuggy\u2019s numbered table, in the column under \u201cg = 1 (u = 0),\u201d #5 and #8 are types of monotheism if and only if they are theistic personalist views. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

. . .the M Ts I have in mind are\u00a0<\/em>not\u00a0theistic personalists. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Well, so what?<\/strong> It looks to me like M T as so minimally defined by Dr. Branson is silent on whether the so-called “classical theists” are right about God or the so-called “theistic personalists” are right about God (a.k.a. “the Father”). McManus says,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I take it the U C A isn\u2019t going to take a stand on this point, and therefore is going to allow some form of [what Tuggy’s paper classifies as] atheists, or \u201cUltimists,\u201d who are also M Ts into the fold. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In reply, outside of academia, among Bible-focused Protestants, “classical theism”<\/strong> (see here for a definition<\/a> and here and here for a deep, critical discussion<\/a> by two good philosophers) is basically non-existent. This is like McManus’s earlier criticisms that the Affirmation will open the gates to “deists” or to “Unitarian Universalist” types. But yes, I think the U C A is wise not to take a stand against (the polemically-named) “classical theism.” Some U C A members may in fact be sympathetic to elements of it. Could someone whom Tuggy considers to be an atheist manage to gain membership to the U C A? Yes! Most plausibly, it would be someone who has a highly rarified concept of “God” on which it is not a self, but rather an Inconceivable Something. But, who cares? The U C A is not Tuggy’s club. It’s a non-profit run by a Board, which is trying to serve a coalition of unitarian Christians. What Tuggy thinks, per se, is not relevant. When Tuggy is “asleep” and waiting for the resurrection, the U C A, it is hoped, will still be serving this movement. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next, McManus constructs an argument<\/strong>. Making a minor couple of corrections, it reads:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(1) S just is god if and only if (a) S is a deity and (b) S is an ultimate. 
(2) The Father is a deity.
(3) The Father is an ultimate. 
(4) Therefore, the Father is a deity and is an ultimate. (Conjunction: 2, 3)
(5) Therefore, the Father just is a god. (1, 4)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I think this is a sound argument. And since a god (in my analysis of the concept) is by definition unique, if the Father is a<\/em> god, he must be the<\/em> god, that is, God. But McManus here is trying to show that my definition of “unitarian” is too wide, that it lets in too much.<\/strong> This is indeed a fundamental failing in a definition, so if he shows this, I will have to go back to the drawing board. Thus, immediately after giving the above argument, he comments,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Since we\u2019re talking about Christian theology here,<\/em> if we reach the conclusion at (5), it follows that the conditions for Tuggy\u2019s definition of \u201cunitarian\u201d are met<\/em>.<\/strong>\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No! <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Do you see the mistake? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Check out my analysis of the concept of a unitarian theology, for example here<\/a>. Do you see how someone could agree with the claim that the Father just is the one God, and yet not <\/em>be a unitarian, and obviously so?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next time: the mistake explained, and the rest of McManus’s post. <\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Being a unitarian Christian requires a bit more than thinking the one God just is the Father.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":42465,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"off","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":[6,88,14,8,9,3,43],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-42445","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-complaints","category-eastern-orthodoxy","category-history","category-linkage","category-philosophy","category-theories","category-unitarianism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42445","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=42445"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42445\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":42471,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42445\/revisions\/42471"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/42465"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=42445"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=42445"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=42445"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}