[This blog post is an edited essay of mine from my first year at University of Birmingham©]
To evaluate an
anti-theistic argument, one must first look at the classical theistic
definition of God. “Classical theism is the notion of God as that which is
absolutely metaphysically ultimate – a notion that encompasses both Anselm’s
conception of God and the God-as-cause-of-the-world approach of Aquinas,
Maimonides…and which accounts for the centrality of divine simplicity to
classical theism.” (Feser 2010, paragraph 5). This definition encompasses divine
attributes such as changelessness, omnibenevolence, omniscience, omnipotence,
incorporeality and so on. It is the idea that God is perfect and so has no
negative attributes. This would therefore mean He cannot sin, as this would be
contrary to this definition. There are three main arguments against the
theistic claims about God but my focus is on His inability to sin. I will
evaluate how this argument works in undercutting God as an idea in itself.
The argument from
God’s apparent inability to sin requires an evaluation of God’s own moral
capability and so criticizes His very nature and power. God’s divine attributes
are inconsistent as His omnipotence contradicts His incapability to sin, therefore
He is limited, as “God is not only free from sin, He is incapable of moral
deviation. God not only does not sin, He cannot sin. This is generally held to
be part of what is communicated in the claim that God is perfectly good.” (Pike
1969, p208). This part of His being causes a major logical problem as it poses the
question, how can God be both omnipotent and limited? This is a strong
anti-theistic argument as it emphasizes the logical contradiction behind God’s
very concept unless His definition were to change. However, in response to
this, some would argue that God can be both omnipotent and able to sin as
despite the fact we see this as a logical contradiction, God is beyond our
understanding (as He is transcendent) and thus we cannot expect our
understanding of logic, and therefore logical contradictions, to apply to him.
This then allows for the fact that God is omnipotent and able to sin thus
retaining his original definition. Arguably, this is allowing God to become
reduced to a “death by a thousand qualifications” (Bolden quoting Flew 2012,
p4) as theists continue to alter God in any way in order to coincide with their
individual beliefs making it impossible to falsify (in theory). This argument
comes from the ‘Parable of the Invisible Gardener’ by John Wisdom, in which God
is comparable to the Gardener. It shows how theists will always give excuses to
justify their beliefs and do not actually engage with the criticisms argued by
anti-theists. This subjective modification does not allow anything to counter
God and so reduces God to a meaningless concept, thus not providing an adequate
solution to God’s inability to sin. Nevertheless, there are many other
responses to this argument which counter anti-theistic reasoning.
As Anselm and
Aquinas both argue, “to sin is to fall short of a perfect action."
(Aquinas 1997, page unknown). This would mean that it is impossible for Him to
sin as that would be an imperfection on His part. Sin is a human imperfection
that can only affect them and not Him as He is the only perfect being. Sin is a
deficient act, and as Aquinas puts it, the ability to sin is ‘falling short’ or
lacking in perfection. Arguably, God cannot sin as He cannot be deficient in
anything as He is perfect. However, part of His omnipotence is being able to do
anything (even if it seems contrary to His concept). This would therefore mean
He is limited and so an imperfect being as He cannot do something. However,
part of being perfect is to have ultimate power (omnipotence) and so in theory
He should be able to sin. The theistic counter argument falls short as it only
proves that He still remains a logical contradiction and so can be called both
perfect and imperfect as well as omnipotent and limited. Pike also argues that
Aquinas and Anselm’s argument fails. He says
“Let us agree that to the extent that an
individual is such that "adversity and perversity" can prevail against
him, to that extent is he…morally weak. He is then capable of "falling
short in action," i.e., of doing "what he ought not to do." So
far as I can see, an individual that is able to bring about any consistently
describable state of affairs might well be morally weak. I can find no
conceptual difficulty in the idea of a diabolical omnipotent being.” (Pike
1969, p210).
God is thus not
‘perfectly good’ and so can be corrupted or already is, which would then also
mean He may not be omnibenevolent. This fallibility allows for an ability to
sin and destroys His classical theistic definition whilst also
anthropomorphizing Him, further taking away from His divinity.
Others argue that
challenging God on such a basis is ridiculous as “an individual would not
qualify as perfectly good if he were to act in a morally reprehensible way.
Thus, the statement "God acts in a morally reprehensible way" is
logically incoherent. This is to say that "God sins" is a logical
contradiction.”(Pike 1969, p209) Furthermore, He does not have to be able to do
anything that is as absurd as this. Some maintain that sinning is something
that is not within God’s nature and so makes no logical sense to argue that He
cannot do it. To say ‘God sins’ is a nonsensical statement as if one were to
say a ‘round square’. Arguably, this takes away from His transcendence. God is
something that does not need to abide by our thinking and logic. Just because
it does not make any logical sense to us, does not mean He cannot do it. If He
is all powerful, He can do anything, even if it seems illogical to us. In this
way He would be able to sin but therefore would not be perfect. We are not
meant to be able to fully understand God and His ways so if there is a way that
God can be all things, even a contradiction, this would then require a new
definition of Him.
It is not possible
to have all these divine properties be mutually consistent with each other and
so the theistic definition and nature of God would be false. Anything said to
falsify theistic statements are futile as God is constantly amended to not
allow anything against Him, however this does not diminish the anti-theistic
arguments itself; it rather reduces the impact of theistic arguments. Overall,
this argument still offers major logical problems with God as a concept and
could lead many people to a belief in a different kind of God and so not the
one of classical theism.
xx
Bibliography
Edward Feser, Classical Theism, published in
Blogspot, posted on September 30th (2010), paragraph 5, http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/classical-theism.html.
Nelson Pike, American Philosophical Quarterly-Omnipotence and God’s Ability to Sin,
published by University of Illinois Press on behalf of North American
Philosophical Publications (1969), p208, p210, p209.
Micah-Sage Bolden (quoting
Anthony Flew,) The Meaningfulness of
Religious Language: Addressing the Challenges of Falsification and
Verification, for King University, uploaded onto academia.edu (2012), p4.
St Thomas Aquinas, The Basic Writings of St. Thomas Aquinas,
edited by Anton C. Pegis, published by Hackett Publishing Company (1997), page
unknown.