Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:43:50.526Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analyzing Aseity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2019

Sarah Adams  and
Jon Robson
Sarah Adams
Affiliation:
Independent scholar, Oxford
Jon Robson*
Affiliation:
Department of philosophy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham
*
*Corresponding author. Email: jonathan.robson@nottingham.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The doctrine of divine aseity has played a significant role in the development of classical theism. However, very little attention has been paid in recent years to the question of how precisely aseity should be characterized. We argue that this neglect is unwarranted since extant characterizations of this central divine attribute quickly encounter difficulties. In particular, we present a new argument to show that the most widely accepted contemporary account of aseity is inconsistent. We then consider the prospects for developing a new account of aseity which avoids the pitfalls we have highlighted.

Keywords

Aseitydivine independencedivine attributesAnselmian theismmetaphysicsreligion
Type
Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , February 2020 , pp. 251 - 267
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Canadian Journal of Philosophy

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

Adams, R. M. 1979. “Divine Command Metaethics Modified Again.” The Journal of Religious Ethics 7: 66–79.Google Scholar
Adams, S. 2015. “A New Paradox of Omnipotence.” Philosophia 43: 759–85.Google Scholar
Anselm, . 1998. Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works, edited by Davies, B. and Evans, G. R.. UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aquinas, T. (1264) 2014. The Summa Contra Gentiles, the Fathers of the English Dominican Province (tr. 1924), London: Aeterna Press.Google Scholar
Aquinas, T. (1273) 2006. Summa Theologica, the Fathers of the English Dominican Province (tr. 1912), North Carolina: Hays Barton Press.Google Scholar
Beilby, J. 2004. “Divine Aseity, Divine Freedom: A Conceptual Problem for Edwardsian-Calvinism.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 47: 647–58.Google Scholar
Bennett, J. 1994. “Descartes’s Theory of Modality.” The Philosophical Review 103: 639–67.Google Scholar
Bergmann, M., and Brower, J.. 2006. “A Theistic Argument against Platonism (and in Support of Truthmakers and Divine Simplicity).” In Oxford Studies in Metaphysics Vol. 2, edited by Kvanvig, J., 357–86. UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brower, J. E. 2009. “Simplicity and Aseity.” In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology, edited by Flint, T. P. and Rea, M. C., 105–28. UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R. F. 1991. “Divine Omniscience, Immutability, Aseity and Human Free Will.” Religious Studies 27: 285–95.Google Scholar
Clark, M. J., and Liggins, D.. 2012. “Recent Work on Grounding.” Analysis 72: 812–23.Google Scholar
Clarke, S. (1705) 1998. A Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God and Other Writings, edited by Vailati, E.. UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Craig, W. L. 2012. “Nominalism and Divine Aseity.” In Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion Vol. 4, edited by Kvanvig, J., 43–64. UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Craig, W. L. 2014. “Anti-Platonism.” In Beyond the Control of God: Six Views on the Problem of God and Abstract Objects, edited by Gould, P. M., 113–26. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Craig, W. L. 2016. God Over All: Divine Aseity and the Challenge of Platonism. UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dasgupta, S. 2014. “On the Plurality of Frounds.” Philosophers’ Imprint 14: 1–28.Google Scholar
Descartes, R. 2003. Meditations and Other Metaphysical Writings. Translated by Clarke, D. M.. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Everitt, N. 2010. “The Divine Attributes.” Philosophy Compass 5: 78–90.Google Scholar
Fine, K. 1994. “Essence and Modality.” Philosophical Perspectives 8: 1–6.Google Scholar
Fine, K. 2001. “The Question of Realism.” Philosophers’ Imprint 1: 1–30.Google Scholar
Flint, T., and Freddoso, A.. 1983. “Maximal Power.” In The Existence and Nature of God, edited by Freddoso, A., 81–113. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Fowler, G. 2015. “Simplicity or Priority?” In Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion Vol. 6, edited by Kvanvig, J., 114–138. UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Freedman, D. N. 1960. “The Name of the God of Moses.” Journal of Biblical Literature 79: 151–56.Google Scholar
Funkenstein, A. 1975. “Descartes, Eternal Truths, and the Divine Omnipotence.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 6: 185–99.Google Scholar
Geach, P. T. 1973. “Omnipotence.” Philosophy 48: 7–20.Google Scholar
Grim, P. 1991. The Incomplete Universe. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gould, P. M. 2014. “Introduction to the Problem of God and Abstract Objects.” In Beyond the Control of God: Six Views on the Problem of God and Abstract Objects, edited by Gould, P. M., 1–20. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Grant, W. M. 2012. “Divine Simplicity, Contingent Truths, and Extrinsic Models of Divine Knowing.” Faith and Philosophy 29: 254–74.Google Scholar
Grant, W. M. 2015. “Aseity.” Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Craig, E.(online version), https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/aseity/v-1.Google Scholar
Griffin, D. R. 1976. God, Power, and Evil: A Process Theodicy. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.Google Scholar
Hasker, W. 1989. God, Time, and Knowledge. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Helm, P. 1988. Eternal God, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Helm, P. 2014. “Eternity.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Zalta, E., https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/sum2010/entries/eternity.Google Scholar
Hoffman, J., and Rosenkrantz, G. S.. 2002. The Divine Attributes. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jago, M. 2014. The Impossible: An Essay on Hyperintensionality. UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Joyce, R. 2002. “Theistic Ethics and the Euthyphro Dilemma.” Journal of Religious Ethics 30: 49–75.Google Scholar
Kim, J. 1982. “Psychophysical Supervenience.” Philosophical Studies 41: 51–70.Google Scholar
La Croix, R. R. 1977. “The Impossibility of Defining ‘Omnipotence’.” Philosophical Studies 32: 181–90.Google Scholar
Langton, R., and Lewis, D.. 1998. “Defining ‘Intrinsic’.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58: 333–45.Google Scholar
Leftow, B. 1990. “Is God an Abstract Object?’ Noûs 24: 581–98.Google Scholar
Leftow, B. 2003. “On a Principle of Sufficient Reason.” Religious Studies 39: 269–86.Google Scholar
Leftow, B. 2014. “Immutability.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Zalta, E., https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/immutability.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1983. “Extrinsic Properties.” Philosophical Studies 44: 197–200.Google Scholar
Livingstone-Banks, J. 2017. “In Defence of Modal Essentialism.” Inquiry 60: 816–38.Google Scholar
Mann, W. E. 1983. “Simplicity and Immutability in God.” International Philosophical Quarterly 23: 267–76.Google Scholar
Martin, C. B. 1976. “God, the Null Set and Divine Simplicity.” In The Challenge of Religion Today edited by King-Farlow, J., 138–43. New York: Science History Publications.Google Scholar
Morris, T. V. 1988. “Dependence and Divine Simplicity.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 23: 161–74.Google Scholar
Morris, T. V., and Menzel, C.. 1986. “Absolute Creation.” American Philosophical Quarterly 23: 353–62.Google Scholar
Mullins, R. T. 2016. The End of the Timeless God, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Murray, M. J., and Rea, M.. 2008. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nagasawa, Y. 2008. God and Phenomenal Consciousness: A Novel Approach to Knowledge Arguments. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nagasawa, Y. 2017. Maximal God. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nolan, D. 1997. “Impossible Worlds: a Modest Approach.” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 38: 535–72.Google Scholar
Padgett, A. G. 1989. “God and Time: Toward a New Doctrine of Divine Timeless Eternity.” Religious Studies 25: 209–15.Google Scholar
Pasnau, R. 2011. Metaphysical Themes 1274–1671. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Plantinga, A. 1967. God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Plantinga, A. 1980. Does God Have a Nature? Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.Google Scholar
Pratt, D. 1989. “Aseity as Relational Problematic.” Sophia 28: 13–25.Google Scholar
Pruss, A. R. 2008. “On Two Problems of Divine Simplicity.” In Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion Vol. 1, edited by Kvanvig, J., 157–66. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rogers, K.A. 1996. “The Traditional Doctrine of Divine Simplicity.” Religious Studies 32: 165–86.Google Scholar
Schaffer, J. 2010. “Monism: The Priority of the Whole.” Philosophical Review 119: 31–79.Google Scholar
Scotus, D. 1987. Philosophical Writings: A Selection, Walter, A. (trans.). London: Hackett.Google Scholar
Scrutton, A. 2013. “Divine Passibility: God and emotion.” Philosophy Compass 8: 866–74.Google Scholar
Shalkowski, S. 2014. “God with or without Abstract Objects.” In Beyond the Control of God: Six Views on the Problem of God and Abstract Objects, edited by Gould, P. M., 143–54. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Smith, Q. (1988). “An Analysis of Holiness.” Religious Studies 24: 511–27.Google Scholar
Sorensen, R. 2001. Vagueness and Contradiction. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Stump, E. and Kretzmann, N.. 1981. “Eternity.” The Journal of Philosophy 78: 429–58.Google Scholar
Vallicella, W.F. 2006. “Divine Simplicity.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited Zalta, E.. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-simplicity.Google Scholar
Vander Laan, D. 2004. “Counterpossibles and Similarity.” In Lewisian Themes, edited by Jackson, F. and Priest, G., 258–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Inwagen, P. 2009. “God and Other Uncreated Things.” In Metaphysics and God: Essays in Honor of Eleonore Stump, edited by Timpe, K., 3–20. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Weilenberg, E.J. 2000. “Omnipotence Again.” Faith and Philosophy 17: 26–47.Google Scholar
Welty, G. 2014. “Theistic Conceptual Realism.” In Beyond the Control of God: Six Views on the Problem of God and Abstract Objects, edited by Gould, P. M., 81–96. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Wierenga, E. 1983. “Omnipotence Defined.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 43: 363–75.Google Scholar
Witmer, D.G., Butchard, W., and Trogden, K. 2005. “Intrinsicality without Naturalness.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 70: 326–50.Google Scholar