Copied from Religion And Philosophy:
In
Poul Anderson's "The Three-Cornered Wheel," Master Merchant Martin
Schuster, seeking to sabotage the Ivanhoan theocracy, begins to
introduce the Kabbalah to an intelligent and inquisitive Consecrate called Hertaskor but the latter is led by the nose far too easily.
Schuster argues:
God is unbounded in every way;
therefore, He must have eternally pre-existed the world;
He is above everything finite;
but thought and existence are finite.
Herkastor agrees with this last proposition, adding:
"'Thought and existence as we know them, anyhow.'"
-Poul Anderson, "The Three-Cornered Wheel" IN Anderson, The Van Rijn Method (Riverdale, NY, 2009), pp. 199-261 AT VI, p. 251.
However,
Schuster is not talking about thought and existence as we know them. He
is talking, to a fellow monotheist, about God. They have just agreed
that God's existence is unbounded and eternal, not finite, so it will
not do simply to state that all existence is finite, then to qualify
that by referring to existence as we know it, thus not to all existence.
Immediately, a distinction has to be made between the infinite
existence of God and the finitude of existence as we know it.
A
text-book on Hegelian philosophy presented the argument that to be is
to be one thing, not another, therefore that to be is to be limited.
However, there is no agreed terminology in these matters. I remember the
same text-book as applying the word "existence" to things which exist
only by virtue of their relationships to other things and the word
"being" to the absolute totality that is independent of any external
relationships. Such technical distinctions are helpful as long as they
are clearly defined and adhered to.
Schuster goes on to
argue that a pre-creation God Who was neither comprehended by thought
nor described in words would in some sense not exist. This is nonsense.
God, assuming the premise of monotheism, would exist in the fullest
sense, would comprehend Himself and would not need words.
The
Chief Consecrate might show from scripture, tradition or reasoning that
a new teaching contradicts the Word of God. So far, this is exactly the
position of Catholic Christians on Earth except, of course, that they
have different scriptures and traditions. Full-rank Consecrates may
dispute freely within doctrinal limits. Thus, unlike the Bishop of Rome,
the Chief Consecrate cannot define doctrines infallibly. Science
replaces scriptures and traditions with observations and thus has
immensely expanded knowledge of the universe.
3 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Nice blog piece! I would say, however, that the Catholic view of tradition and scripture is that those things are about matters related to the supernatural and the salvation of human beings. Not with what I would call the "material" sciences, the sciences dealing with this universe. Which, btw, helps to explain why Catholics don't believe revealed truths can contradict what may be discovered or hypothesized about by the sciences.
Sean
The two were talking, fundamentally, about why God created the universe and sentient beings. This is, in fact, in the terms they're coming from, a "good question".
Dear Mr. Stirling,
Trying to catch up with things on this blog. I'm reminded of how Dante answered the question of why God created the universe, when He did not need to do so. I'll quote from Dorothy L. Sawyers' translation of PARADISE XXIX.13-18 (Beatrice speaking):
Not to increase His good, which cannot be,
but that His splendour, shining back, might say:
'Behold, I am,' in His eternity,
Beyond the measurement of night and day,
Beyond all boundary, as He did please,
New loves Eternal Love shed from His ray.
That is, God did not need anything, but He desired that other beings capable of saying "I am" to exist.
Sean
Post a Comment