Perfect Being Theology and Pro-Attitude Theology
Western philosophical theology has been dominated by so-called "perfect being theology". According to many, perfect being theology traces back to St. Anselm of Canterbury and his conception of God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". However, I do not wish to join the debate over the historical origins of perfect being theology here. Rather, I will present a (probably overly simplistic) version of perfect being theology to serve as a foil for what I will call "pro-attitude theology".
The central concept of perfect being theology is that of a great-making property, where a great-making property is a property such that all things being equal, something is greater if it has that property than if it lacks it. (Great-making properties can be thought of by analogy to intrinsically good-making properties. However, I do not give the details of the analogy here.) Give the concept of a great-making property, a proponent of perfect being theology then defines divinity as follows: Something is divine just in case it has every great-making property to the highest degree. (Notice that this is consistent with the claim that some great-making properties do not come in degrees. In those cases, a divine being must simply have those properties.) Finally, a perfect being theologian asserts the existence of a divine being: There is something that is divine.
Perfect being theologians are divided on the question of exactly what properties a being must have in order to be divine. They commonly think that the property of having power is a great-making property, so that all things being equal, something is greater if it has power than if it lacks power. So, they claim that one property a divine being must have is omnipotence, the property of having power to the highest degree. Similarly, it is thought that the properties of having knowledge and being morally good are great-making properties, so that in order to be divine a being must be omniscient (that is, it must have the property of being knowledgeable to the highest degree) and omnibenevolent (that is, it must have the property of being morally good to the highest degree). Other properties that perfect being theologians often claim a being must have to be divine include necessary existence and incorporeality.
Hopefully the basic idea behind perfect being theology is relatively clear at this point. I now want to introduce at this point a different approach to theology, which I call "pro-attitude theology". The central concept of pro-attitude theology is not that of a great-making property. Rather, it is that of a pro-attitude worthy property. Before explaining what a pro-attitude worthy property is, however, let me first explain what a pro-attitude is. It is clear that among the attitudes we can take towards something, some are positive in some sense (desiring, loving, admiring, being in awe of, and so forth) whereas others are negative (despising, hating, feeling disgust towards, and so forth). The pro-attitudes are all and only those attitudes that are positive in some sense.
Now the central concept of pro-attitude theology is that of a pro-attitude worthy property. A pro-attitude worthy property is a property such that there is some pro-attitude such that all things being equal, something is more deserving of having someone bear that pro-attitude towards it if it has that property than if it lacks that property. (One could think of pro-attitude worthy properties in terms of reasons; that is, having a pro-attitude worthy property is a reason to have a pro-attitude towards that thing.) Given the concept of a pro-attitude worthy property, a pro-attitude theologian can now offer a competing definition of divinity, as follows: Something is divine just in case it has every pro-attitude worthy property such a degree that it deserves having someone bear each pro-attitude towards it to the highest degree. In other words, according to pro-attitude theology, something is divine just in case it is deserving of having everyone bear each and every pro-attitude to it to the highest degree. (Note that it is clear that many pro-attitudes come in degrees. For instance, we can desire one thing more than another, admire one thing more than another, etc. One important assumption made by pro-attitude theology is that each and every pro-attitude is such that there is a highest degree to which it can be had towards something. Whether or not this is true will partially determine to what extent pro-attitude theology is a plausible alternative to perfect being theology.) And, of course, a pro-attitude theologian affirms the existence of a divine being: There is something that is divine.
We can now consider what properties something must have in order to be divine, given pro-attitude theology. First consider being powerful. Presumably, this is a pro-attitude worthy property; that is, there is some pro-attitude such that having the property of being powerful makes something more worthy of having someone bear that pro-attitude towards it if it powerful than if it isn't. However, to what degree must a divine being have the property of being powerful? Only to whatever degree is necessary to make it worthy of having someone bear that pro-attitude towards it to the highest degree. Perhaps this will require omnipotence, perhaps not. Similarly for omniscience and omnibenevolence.
Are there any properties that a divine being must have given pro-attitude theology that most perfect being theologians would deny it must have? It seems so. Consider the property of being large. This property seems to be a pro-attitude worthy property, since it seems that all things being equal, something is more worthy of being in awe of if it is large than if it is not. So, in order to be divine, something must have the property being large to whatever degree is necessary to be deserving of having something be in awe of it to the highest degree. These sorts of considerations, I think would lead the perfect being theologian at least towards thinking that a divine being must be omnipresent, if not towards thinking that pantheism is true.
Pro-attitude theology might also lead its proponents to endorse a version of the doctrine of the incarnation. After all, it seems that the property of being courageous in the face of danger is a pro-attitude worthy property. So, a divine being must have that property to whatever degree is required to be worthy of someone bearing the corresponding pro-attitude towards it to the highest degree. But to have that property something must actually face danger. So perhaps this suggests that a divine being would, on pro-attitude theology, temporarily renounce its power so that it could be in danger like a mere mortal.
Other properties that a divine being would likely be required to have to some degree or other on pro-attitude theology include being loving, being forgiving, being beautiful, being complex, and so forth.
I would now like to conclude my discussion by noting some points of intersection between this blog post and my last post. In the last post I argued that there are a wide range of questions with which the philosopher of religion should be concerned. To that list, I add two others:
Is there a divine being, in the perfect being theologian's sense?
Is there a divine being, in the pro-attitude theologian's sense?
Notice that the answers to these two questions might differ from one another and from the answers to the questions I mentioned in that other post.
The central concept of perfect being theology is that of a great-making property, where a great-making property is a property such that all things being equal, something is greater if it has that property than if it lacks it. (Great-making properties can be thought of by analogy to intrinsically good-making properties. However, I do not give the details of the analogy here.) Give the concept of a great-making property, a proponent of perfect being theology then defines divinity as follows: Something is divine just in case it has every great-making property to the highest degree. (Notice that this is consistent with the claim that some great-making properties do not come in degrees. In those cases, a divine being must simply have those properties.) Finally, a perfect being theologian asserts the existence of a divine being: There is something that is divine.
Perfect being theologians are divided on the question of exactly what properties a being must have in order to be divine. They commonly think that the property of having power is a great-making property, so that all things being equal, something is greater if it has power than if it lacks power. So, they claim that one property a divine being must have is omnipotence, the property of having power to the highest degree. Similarly, it is thought that the properties of having knowledge and being morally good are great-making properties, so that in order to be divine a being must be omniscient (that is, it must have the property of being knowledgeable to the highest degree) and omnibenevolent (that is, it must have the property of being morally good to the highest degree). Other properties that perfect being theologians often claim a being must have to be divine include necessary existence and incorporeality.
Hopefully the basic idea behind perfect being theology is relatively clear at this point. I now want to introduce at this point a different approach to theology, which I call "pro-attitude theology". The central concept of pro-attitude theology is not that of a great-making property. Rather, it is that of a pro-attitude worthy property. Before explaining what a pro-attitude worthy property is, however, let me first explain what a pro-attitude is. It is clear that among the attitudes we can take towards something, some are positive in some sense (desiring, loving, admiring, being in awe of, and so forth) whereas others are negative (despising, hating, feeling disgust towards, and so forth). The pro-attitudes are all and only those attitudes that are positive in some sense.
Now the central concept of pro-attitude theology is that of a pro-attitude worthy property. A pro-attitude worthy property is a property such that there is some pro-attitude such that all things being equal, something is more deserving of having someone bear that pro-attitude towards it if it has that property than if it lacks that property. (One could think of pro-attitude worthy properties in terms of reasons; that is, having a pro-attitude worthy property is a reason to have a pro-attitude towards that thing.) Given the concept of a pro-attitude worthy property, a pro-attitude theologian can now offer a competing definition of divinity, as follows: Something is divine just in case it has every pro-attitude worthy property such a degree that it deserves having someone bear each pro-attitude towards it to the highest degree. In other words, according to pro-attitude theology, something is divine just in case it is deserving of having everyone bear each and every pro-attitude to it to the highest degree. (Note that it is clear that many pro-attitudes come in degrees. For instance, we can desire one thing more than another, admire one thing more than another, etc. One important assumption made by pro-attitude theology is that each and every pro-attitude is such that there is a highest degree to which it can be had towards something. Whether or not this is true will partially determine to what extent pro-attitude theology is a plausible alternative to perfect being theology.) And, of course, a pro-attitude theologian affirms the existence of a divine being: There is something that is divine.
We can now consider what properties something must have in order to be divine, given pro-attitude theology. First consider being powerful. Presumably, this is a pro-attitude worthy property; that is, there is some pro-attitude such that having the property of being powerful makes something more worthy of having someone bear that pro-attitude towards it if it powerful than if it isn't. However, to what degree must a divine being have the property of being powerful? Only to whatever degree is necessary to make it worthy of having someone bear that pro-attitude towards it to the highest degree. Perhaps this will require omnipotence, perhaps not. Similarly for omniscience and omnibenevolence.
Are there any properties that a divine being must have given pro-attitude theology that most perfect being theologians would deny it must have? It seems so. Consider the property of being large. This property seems to be a pro-attitude worthy property, since it seems that all things being equal, something is more worthy of being in awe of if it is large than if it is not. So, in order to be divine, something must have the property being large to whatever degree is necessary to be deserving of having something be in awe of it to the highest degree. These sorts of considerations, I think would lead the perfect being theologian at least towards thinking that a divine being must be omnipresent, if not towards thinking that pantheism is true.
Pro-attitude theology might also lead its proponents to endorse a version of the doctrine of the incarnation. After all, it seems that the property of being courageous in the face of danger is a pro-attitude worthy property. So, a divine being must have that property to whatever degree is required to be worthy of someone bearing the corresponding pro-attitude towards it to the highest degree. But to have that property something must actually face danger. So perhaps this suggests that a divine being would, on pro-attitude theology, temporarily renounce its power so that it could be in danger like a mere mortal.
Other properties that a divine being would likely be required to have to some degree or other on pro-attitude theology include being loving, being forgiving, being beautiful, being complex, and so forth.
I would now like to conclude my discussion by noting some points of intersection between this blog post and my last post. In the last post I argued that there are a wide range of questions with which the philosopher of religion should be concerned. To that list, I add two others:
Is there a divine being, in the perfect being theologian's sense?
Is there a divine being, in the pro-attitude theologian's sense?
Notice that the answers to these two questions might differ from one another and from the answers to the questions I mentioned in that other post.
posted by Greg at 12:33 PM
1 Comments:
What defines a great making property?,What determines whether a thing is better to have or not? Is it better to be tangible or intangible? Is it better to be known or unknown?, I don't clearly understand the concept and I will apreciate it if you help me with this, thank you.
Post a Comment
<< Home