Reply:

It sounds to me as though Chris M. thinks anything that can stand in any relations to other things (such as a subject-object relationship) must be finite. Why suppose that THAT's the right definition of "finite" (it's new to me)? To be finite with respect to some positive characteristic is to have less of it than some absolute, infinitely great amount. In any case, I'd think that anything that absolutely can't stand in relations to anything else could only exist in a universe that contained nothing beside itself. God can't be related to anything may either lead to pantheism (God is everything type of pantheist) or atheism.

Now I realize that Aristotle's God is supposed to not stand in subject-object relations to us; and that Aquinas followed Aristotle, I guess, in saying that God isn't "really related" to creatures, knows about us indirectly, as it were, by contemplating His own essence that somehow mirrors everything else (without this essence itself being related to these other things??!! Wow! Does it just "happen" to reflect them?). But I can't make anything of this. It sounds like an attempt to get Christian theology into line with Aristotelian orthodoxy. I don't know why one would feel obliged to stick by this, unless one were Catholic and took very seriously the papal injunctions to follow Thomas on everything...but I have plenty of serious Catholic colleagues, fans of St. Thomas, who have to admit that at some points the reconciliation of Aristotle that Thomas tried to carry off just doesn't work (and, post-Vatican II, I don't think Catholic theologians are required to stick this close to St. Thomas on every point; but I could be wrong). This looks to me to be one of the places where the synthesis just doesn't work.

Dean W. Zimmerman
Department of Philosophy
336 O'Shaughnessy Hall
University of Notre Dame

Reply:

On the subject-object distinction.

The discussion of a subject-object relationship has a long history. It seems that we are placing limits on things when we see ourselves as subjects and other entities as objects. Quite a number of thinkers have sought to overcome this "limitation"-especially when it comes to speaking about ultimate reality or God. The concept of Nirvana in Theravada Buddhism and Brahman in jnana-yoga Hinduism both seek to overcome the subject-object distinction. In the West, Plotinus and many others have sought to do the same. Paul Tillich, for example, claimed that we should not think of God as a personal being as that would make God finite. Instead, he called ultimate reality, "Being-Itself." Consequently, we cannot have a personal relationship with Being-Itself as that "is an insult to the divine holiness to treat God as a partner with whom one collaborates." Several things may be said about the assertion that we are limiting God if we think of God as "a being" in relation to other beings.

To begin, the doctrine of creation ex nihilo implies that God is ontologically distinct from the creation and not identical with it. So, we may say that God is different from the world since God is not a creature. But, I would add, the creation is no more different from the creator than God intended it to be. "The distinction," as Robert Sokolowski calls it, afforded by the Christian doctrine of creation allows us to affirm that God is the unique, self-sufficient, ontologically distinct, free creator of all that is. In saying that God is creator and not a creature we are making a subject-object distinction-God and creatures. If God is not all that is, but is a distinct other than creation, then we are stuck with making distinctions. Sokolowski properly criticizes the Greek philosophical conceptions of the divine according to which God is incapable of being without the world. This makes God necessarily dependent upon the world. We don't want to say that, but does this mean that we can't think of God as a personal being with whom we have a relationship?

Some think so. They argue that God is absolutely infinite and thinking of God as personal in a literal way overlooks the fact that the concept "personal" when used for God is actually a finite symbol for the infinite which lies beyond the personal. Depicting God in personal symbols, as in the Bible, limits God. J. N. Findlay charges that it is "wholly anomalous to worship anything limited in any thinkable manner . This means that "God" is beyond the subject-object distinction; beyond all human language and thought. None of our words or thoughts apply in the least to the infinite reality which is "wholly other" (completely different). Hence, when we say, "God loves you," we are actually saying nothing about the ultimate reality.

There are, however, some major problems with claiming God is absolutely infinite and wholly other in this strict sense. To begin, why should we think that predicating love of God, actually limits God? Does language have the capacity to limit the object or is it merely our understanding that is limited? I see no reason to believe that my thoughts about God actually limit God any more than my conceptions of an ant limit the ant. It is true that my concepts about God will be limited, but so what? This is only a claim about our creaturliness, not the creator. Moreover, the assertion that God is unlike anything in the world may be understood in at least two different senses: (A) God is not completely like anything in the world, or (B) God is completely unlike everything in the world. It is one thing to assert that God does not share all characteristics with anything else, but it is quite another matter to say God does not share any properties with anything else. I (and the bulk of the Christian tradition) reject this latter notion. For Christians have generally held that though God is more than we can ever comprehend (exhaustively know), God is not totally beyond our knowing or ability to be in relationship.

Those in agreement with Findlay's claim that we should not worship something "limited in any thinkable manner" will likely find the trinitarian God of the Bible disappointing since the God of scripture is not an idealized universal principle (idea) but a personal being who interacts with us in history. This means that if we truly have a personal relationship with God we shall never get beyond the subject-object distinction.

Dr. John Sanders

Reply:

As Chris recognizes, this question challenges not only open theism but all varieties of the standard Christian understanding of God. It was popular among the Absolute Idealists early in this century, and re-surfaces in the writings of Paul Tillich. First of all, it is not true that "for God to know 'something,' there must already be "something" "other than God" for God to know." God has a fully satisfying life in the relationships of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit within the Trinity; God is not lonely or empty apart from creatures.

It's true, however, that God has created beings other than himself. So if that means there are real beings "other" than God, and if that is what you mean by saying God is "finite," then so be it -- though I think that is a misuse of the word "finite." Would it be better if God were "unable" to create real beings that are distinct from himself? In any case, the Bible unquestionably "does" view God as co-existing with other real beings -- beings, however, that he has created, sustains in existence from moment to moment, and endows with whatever powers they possess. If anyone sees this as a "limitation" of God, I have to say that this is a strange concept of "limitation," and one that fits badly with the biblical witness to God's greatness.

William Hasker

Reply to Zimmerman:

Hello Dr. Zimmerman,

My name is Christopher Minor (Chris M.), the one who wrote the question regarding Open Theism and finitism. Thank you very much for responding. The reason I am emailing you is to get a fuller, clearer definition of your concept of finitude. The definition you gave does not seem to embrace the total notion of finitude which leads me to believe that you were not seeking to give a comprehensive definition. Any response you give would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Chris

Reply to Chris:

Hi, Chris!

Hmmm, yes, what is my concept of finitude...or infinitude for that matter. I think that to call a thing (as opposed to a characteristic or attribute) infinite or finite is to say something that's underspecified. What can be infinite or finite, in the first instance, are qualities, characteristics, attributes, things that come in ranges on some scale with finite quantities at one end, and infinity as the greatest amount of the quality at the other. Something is always finite/infinite with respect to...some characteristic or other (size, duration in time, mass, goodness, what-have-you - anything that comes in a range of greater and lesser values). So to say that I'm finite is shorthand for saying that my values for some characteristics or other are on the finite end of the scale - probably, in my mouth anyway, this statement would be shorthand for saying that EVERY characteristic I have that comes in various degrees is on the finite end of the scale.

Saying God is infinite...well, that's underspecified, too. I suppose some people, when they say God is infinite, might mean (in part) that he is literally infinite in SIZE; he's the biggest thing around, he's everywhere and everywhere is infinitely large (they might think), so he's infinite with respect to size while we are finite. But that's probably (hopefully) not a part of what you are I mean when we say God is infinite. Some might mean that he's infinite in duration (I think he is). Or infinite with respect to knowledge, power, goodness, and other perfections that you might think come in degrees. And that's what I'd mean by calling God infinite.

Of course there are probably theological uses (not, I'm willing to bet, scriptural uses!) of the word "infinite" in which it's applied to God and doesn't mean what I'm saying it means. I don't know anything about these, though (disingenuous: I've heard them, just don't understand them yet). I only know what the word "infinite" ordinarily means, and how this meaning can pretty naturally be extended to talk about the attributes of God - he is everlasting, all-knowing, all-powerful, etc. There are no doubt interesting theological theories about God's infinity that are quite different (my training is entirely in philosophy, and I seldom venture forth into the dangerous territory of philosophical theology; but sometimes I do). But that's what I had in mind, anyway.

Does that help?

From an expatriate Minnesotan to a resident of our glorious state,

Dean

Dean W. Zimmerman
Department of Philosophy
336 O'Shaughnessy Hall
University of Notre Dame