Kristor at the Orthosphere has written a post in response to mine of yesterday and others by Francis Berger - that asks several questions. These seem to require and deserve a more extensive elucidation than can be done in comments, including an expansion of underlying metaphysical assumptions; so here it is.
This procedure distorts my metaphysical views, because they are being expressed in response to Kristor's framework of ultimate assumptions - so that, even when I try to elucidate - means that my account is fragmentary and seen from an alien angle. But maybe this is the best that can be managed in the circumstances.
(Obviously, I usually and by preference express my metaphysical ideas in their own terms, trying to make a model or paint a picture of how reality is structured and proceeds.)
From Kristor is in italics - edited by me; my responses follow BC:
BC: That is a correct description of my views
who relate to and influence each other (so that they can love, or not), all more or less ordered to a good, which apparently they can all more or less recognize, and to which they are more or less attracted.
BC: No. Before creation there is no such interaction or harmonization.
They are from eternity past together in a temporal – and so, presumably also spatial – milieu, in which they have and prosecute lives, but only messily.
BC: Sort of... but before creation there is no comparison by which their autonomous lives can be called messy.
Thus they can apprehend each other, and God, and his creative plan; they can find it attractive, can want to participate in it, and can then actually do so.
BC: No. I regard the above description as happening after creation has been initiated.
The question then arises, what is the reason of this world that was running along from eternity past, all on its own, before one of its constituents got started on his creative project – or after, for that matter?
If we answer that there is no prior reason it is what it is, that its eternal existence is a brute fact, we have admitted that it is fundamentally unintelligible; for, what has no sufficient reason to be what it is cannot be reasonable, either in whole or in part: for, brute facts are utterly inscrutable, in principle, thus even to themselves.
BC: Correct. Before creation there can be no reasons, except internally - "privately", within beings. Things Just Are.
What is not reasonable cannot be a world, or for that matter any such thing as the items we find all around us, and in us. It can be rather only just stuff happening for no reason: the chaos of Democritean atomism, but with the atoms all sentient, solipsistically.
BC: Yes, pretty much a correct summary- except that having sentient beings/ "atoms" makes all the difference. Divine creation is (pretty much) the transformation from solipsistic to ongoing-creation - insofar as creation has happened (which changes through time, because creation is linear and sequential).
If we say that this world prior to creation has no cause because it is necessarily what it is, then every detail of it must be necessary; in which case there is in it no freedom, for it is a spatiotemporally extended block, in which nothing really moves or acts, or therefore is.
BC: No, this is wrong. "Necessity" does not come into it when things Just Are. Things really "move" but only within beings, not between beings.
What we end up with then is either the pure chaos of brute unintelligible fact, and no world, or else the wholly determined motionlessness of universal necessity.
BC: No, neither of these alternatives; because they are regarding the primordial beings as if unalive. Starting with beings rather than "things" makes all the difference.
There is of course a third option: the classical metaphysics of Nicene Christianity, in which God as uniquely eternal and necessary is the sufficient reason for all being, including his own: not a brute fact, but on the contrary the perfectly intelligent and thus intelligible fact, in whose light all other things are intelligible, at least in principle, so that knowledge is possible; and in which creatures are not eternal, but rather contingent upon God, so that as contingent they can change, act, suffer, move, love, learn, grow, understand and be understood, and so forth.
BC from now onwards:
This leads on to consider God's motivation for creation.
If God is a unity, there can be no motive for anything. Such a God Just Is.
But my understanding is that God is a dyad of Heavenly Parents - Heavenly Father and Mother. My understanding is that it is the love between our Heavenly Parents that is the motivation for creation - in a way closely analogous to the spiritually-understood way that love between two (ideal) loving human beings may lead to the choice of initiating pro-creation - that is having children who are loved; and beginning what may be an extended family.
(Of course, mortal human parents are born as already part of an extended and (ideally) loving family. But I am here talking about how this all began.)
Creation is therefore a concept that arises from love, and includes procreation as well as all the other many ways in which loving relationships between beings of all kinds may become.
To put matters very simply: there is a Timeline for creation. The primordial situation of autonomous and not-relating beings becomes creation as a consequence of our Heavenly Parents meeting, becoming mutually aware, and committing themselves to eternal love.
Our Heavenly Parents thus became God, and creation began by God's "interventions" on primordial reality; and to the extent that primordial beings opt-in to live by love.
This was not the original situation of reality, there was a time when it happened, and it might not have happened.
Furthermore, beings are usually only partly capable of love; and presumably some beings are incapable of love (and therefore do not participate in creation).
Thus God's primary creation is a mixed state of love, and not-love.
And it is this deficit in primary creation that led to the need for Jesus Christ and the Second Creation, "needed" because Jesus completes the work of creation by enabling Heaven which is the eternal situation of beings living by love; leaving-behind other and evil motivations at resurrection.
**
By Contrast: Orthodox-traditional "Nicene" Christianity perhaps needs to posit a motive for creation - a motive for God creating rather than not; and therefore (sometimes) posits an analogous impetus for creation in the love of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost - each for the other.
It is the differences-between the Trinity that enable the love that leads to creation...
However this explanation is made confusing/ incoherent by also insisting that the Trinity are not only different from each other, but also simultaneously the same as each other (because there is only one God).
(This is required by the insistence on a monotheistic Omni-God creating ex nihilo - such a God cannot be internally subdivided.)
And furthermore; ortho-trad theology has it that that the "process" of creation (and of love among the Trinity) happens outside of time - so creation always-was-and-is; so there is no "Timeline" of creation. All that is now, ever was and shall be.
And this is the point at which orthodox Christianity reaches its particular It Just Is assumption - explanations stop at this point.
All metaphysics must reach this point, sooner or later - the point at which we must make assumptions regarding the ultimate nature of reality.
The goal (as I see it) is to become aware of where this point is reached, to acknowledge this; and to know that here we are indeed making assumptions...
Which activity is (I suggest) properly called "metaphysics"
3 comments:
'It just is' has a silent companion, 'What do you want'. Even before I read you and Francis, I thought that my free will had to be mine, because otherwise I'm just a slave to whoever 'made' my freedom, and personally I don't want to be a slave. And as a Christian, it doesn't make sense for my ability to choose to love God to be determined by that same God. It has to be mine, in the same way that my wife's love is only worth having because it's hers to give to me, and not mine to command. If I could command it it would not be worth it to give that command.
But I think a lot of people want to be slaves, and want obedience to be the highest virtue not love.
Good comment, Lucas! The "what do you want" silent companion part is very memorable.
wrt slave versus free. The longer I reflect and experience, the smaller the proportion of people that seem to want to choose what Christianity offers.
As well as those who prefer to be obedient to freedom, there seem to be Many people who most want to be unconscious - in various degrees, including permanent annihilation of all awareness. That is, they want Not-to-be.
Post a Comment