Simply providential: a Thomistic response to Schmid’s providential collapse argument against classical theism

International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 95 (1):77-91 (2024)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Classical theism is often said to suffer from the problem of modal collapse: if God is necessary and simple then all of his effects (creatures) are also necessary. Many classical theists have turned to extrinsic predication in response: God’s simple and necessary act is compatible with any number of possible effects or no effects, and is only said to be an act of creating in virtue of the existence of the universe itself. Leftow and Schmid criticize this solution for leading to “providential collapse”: God would not have control over which creation obtains if all his intrinsic features are compatible with any possible universe. Thomistic classical theism avoids both modal collapse and providential collapse by utilizing the metaphysics of relations. With no differences within his simple essence/act, God can relate himself differently to his possible effects, willing some and not willing others. These relations determine whether or not the effects will exist. Thomistic classical theism’s version of divine simplicity is not incompatible with God having a multiplicity of relations, for the three divine persons are distinct relations within God. Divine simplicity is only incompatible with a multiplicity of absolute items within God. Furthermore, not all differences of relation are grounded in the different absolute characteristics of their relata. Rather, sometimes differences of relation themselves ground differences in the absolute characteristics of their relata. God’s divine act is thus said to be an act of willing this creation rather than that in virtue of his chosen, contingent relation to possible creatures, rather than in virtue of the creatures themselves.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,937

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Another Look at the Modal Collapse Argument.Omar Fakhri - 2021 - European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 13 (1):1-23.
Divine Atemporal-Temporal Relations: Does Open Theism Have a Better Option?A. S. Antombikums - 2023 - PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION: ANALYTIC RESEARCHES 7 (2):80–97.
Simplicity and Creation.Timothy O’Connor - 1999 - Faith and Philosophy 16 (3):405-412.
Aquinas, Divine Simplicity, and Divine Freedom.W. Matthews Grant - 2003 - Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 77:129-144.
Divine Ideas.Thomas M. Ward - 2020 - Cambridge University Press.
Modal Collapse and Modal Fallacies: No Easy Defense of Simplicity.John William Waldrop - 2022 - American Philosophical Quarterly 59 (2):161-179.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-10-21

Downloads
134 (#165,000)

6 months
44 (#105,787)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Daniel Shields
Pontifical College Josephinum

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

On the Plurality of Worlds.David Lewis - 1986 - Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 178 (3):388-390.
Real Essentialism.David S. Oderberg - 2007 - New York: Routledge.
The fruitful death of modal collapse arguments.Joseph C. Schmid - 2021 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 91 (1):3-22.
On Two Problems of Divine Simplicity.Alexander Pruss - 2008 - Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion 1:150-167.

View all 12 references / Add more references