Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T03:42:55.395Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The simplicity of divine ideas: theistic conceptual realism and the doctrine of divine simplicity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2019

MICHELLE PANCHUK
MICHELLE PANCHUK*
Affiliation:
Department of English and Philosophy, Murray State University, 102 Curris Center Drive, Murray, KY42071, USA
*
e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There has been little discussion of the compatibility of Theistic Conceptual Realism (TCR) with the doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS). On the one hand, if a plurality of universals is necessary to explain the character of particular things, there is reason to think this commits the proponent of TCR to the existence of a plurality of divine concepts. So the proponent of the DDS has a prima facie reason to reject TCR (and vice versa). On the other hand, many mediaeval philosophers accept both the existence of divine ideas and the DDS. In this article I draw on mediaeval and contemporary accounts of properties and divine simplicity to argue that the two theories are not logically incompatible.

Type
Original Article
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , September 2021 , pp. 385 - 402
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abelard, Peter (1994) ‘Glosses on Porphyry’, in Spade, Paul Vincent (ed.) Five Texts on the Medieval Problem of Universals (Indianapolis IN: Hackett), 26–55.Google Scholar
Alston, William (1986) ‘Does God have beliefs?’, Religious Studies, 22, 287–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, A. M. (1989) Universals: An Opinionated Introduction (Boulder CO: Westview Press).Google Scholar
Augustine, Saint (1981) ‘On the ideas’, in Mosher, David L. (tr.) Eight-Three Different Questions (Washington: Catholic University Press), 79–81.Google Scholar
Bergmann, Michael & Brower, Jeffery (2006) ‘A theistic argument against Platonism (and in support of truthmakers and divine simplicity)’, in Zimmerman, Dean W. (ed.) Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, II (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 357–386.Google Scholar
Brewer, Bill (2005) ‘Perceptual experience has conceptual content’, in Steup, Matthias & Sosa, Ernest (eds) Contemporary Debates in Epistemology (Malden MA: Blackwell), 217–230.Google Scholar
Byrne, Alex (2005) ‘Perception and conceptual content’, in Steup, Matthias & Sosa, Ernest (eds) Contemporary Debates in Epistemology (Malden MA: Blackwell), 231–250.Google Scholar
Doolan, Gregory (2008) Aquinas on the Divine Ideas as Exemplar Causes (Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press).Google Scholar
Gehring, Allen (2014) ‘Truthmaking, truthbearers, and divine simplicity’, Philosophia Christi, 16, 297–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, Paul (2011a) ‘The problem of God and abstract objects: a prolegomenon’, Philosophia Christi 13, 255–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, Paul (2011b) ‘Theistic activism: a new problem and solution’, Philosophia Christi, 13, 127–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, Paul & Davis, Richard Brian (2017) ‘Where the bootstrapping really lies’, International Philosophical Quarterly 57, 415–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, Matthews W. (2012) ‘Divine simplicity, contingent truths, and extrinsic models of divine knowing’, Faith and Philosophy, 29, 254–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, Jasper (1985) Nicholas of Cusa on Learned Ignorance: A Translation and an Appraisal of ‘De Docta Ignorantia’ (Minneapolis MI: Arthur J. Banning Press).Google Scholar
Jackson, Frank (1986) ‘What Mary didn't know’, The Journal of Philosophy, 83, 291–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koslicki, Kathrin (2012) ‘Varieties of ontological dependence’, in Correia, Fabrice & Schnieder, Benjamin (eds) Metaphysical Grounding: Understanding the Structure of Reality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 186–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leftow, Brian (2015) ‘Divine simplicity and divine freedom’, Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association, 89, 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loux, Michael (2007) ‘Perspectives on the problem of universals’, Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale, 18, 601–521.Google Scholar
Lowe, E. J. (2013) ‘Some varieties of metaphysical dependence’, in Hoeltje, Miguel, Schnieder, Benjamin, & Steinberg, Alex (eds) Varieties of Dependence: Ontological Dependence, Grounding, Supervenience, Response-Dependence (Munich: Philosophia), 193–210.Google Scholar
Mann, William (1982) ‘Divine simplicity’, Religious Studies, 18, 451–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menzel, Christopher (2016) ‘Problems with the bootstrapping objection to theistic activism’, American Philosophical Quarterly, 53, 55–68.Google Scholar
Morris, Thomas (1985) ‘On God and Mann: a view of divine simplicity’, Religious Studies, 21, 299–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, Thomas & Menzel, Christopher (1986) ‘Absolute creation’, American Philosophical Quarterly, 23, 353–362.Google Scholar
Panchuk, Michelle (2016) ‘Created and uncreated things: a neo-augustinian solution to the bootstrapping problem’, International Philosophical Quarterly, 56, 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plantinga, Alvin (1980) Does God Have a Nature? (Milwaukee WI: Marquette University Press).Google Scholar
Pruss, Alexander (2008) ‘On two problems of divine simplicity’, in Kvanvig, Jonathan L. (ed.) Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion, I (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 150–167.Google Scholar
Rea, Michael (2018) The Hiddenness of God (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, James (1986) ‘God, creator of kinds and possibilities’, in Wainwright, William & Audi, Robert (eds) Rationality, Religious Belief, and Moral Commitment: New Essays in the Philosophy of Religion (Ithaca: Cornell University Press), 315–334.Google Scholar
Schaffer, Jonathan (2013) ‘Grounding, transitivity, and contrastivity’, in Hoeltje, Miguel, Schnieder, Benjamin, & Steinberg, Alex (eds) Varieties of Dependence: Ontological Dependence, Grounding, Supervenience, Response-Dependence (Munich: Philosophia), 122–138.Google Scholar
Sullivan, Thomas (1991) ‘Omniscience, immutability, and the divine mode of knowing’, Faith and Philosophy, 8, 30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welty, Greg (2004) ‘Truth as divine ideas: a theistic theory of the property “truth”’, Southwestern Journal of Theology, 47, 55–69.Google Scholar
Zagzebski, Linda (2011) ‘First person and third person reasons and religious epistemology’, European Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 3, 285–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar