William James and omnipotence

Blogger pulled this post and placed it in 'Draft' for alleged copyright infringement. So I pulled the images and added the bibliography which I had overlooked the first time and I normally do present a bibliography.

I would have wished that those that made the complaint would have contacted me personally before contacting Blogger. 

In a similar case, I previously tried to discuss my separate issue first with the person that copied my satire and theology blog before I went to Blogger only when the person did not respond. 

In this case I would have responded to a complaint and made right. I make zero money from my blogs.

Such is the state of the world now...such lack of trust so often.

This is a portion from my PhD work on James and omnipotence. James held to pragmatism and the view that God was finite (limited).

William James (1842-1910)[1] is a well-known American philosopher,[2] psychologist [3] and a founder of the philosophy of pragmatism.[4] John K. Roth (1892-1907)(1969) explains within the Introduction to The Moral Philosophy of William James that James’ pragmatism emphasizes the human ability to choose an individual lifestyle from several actual and authentic possibilities.[5] Pragmatism emphasized the need for a community of free thought that was open to inquiry and testing.[6] Concepts are to be considered without ‘initial prejudice.’[7] A pragmatic approach should analyze and clarify forms of human experience and action in order to bring harmony to human community.[8] David Paulsen (1999) within The Journal of Speculative Philosophy[9] explains that James rejected some of the traditional philosophical views concerning the nature of God, which would include concepts of God as infinite and unchangeable.[10] James reasoned there was a very distinct difference between the God of classic philosophy, orthodox theology, and what the Bible actually taught.[11] James in his 1902 text, Varieties of Religious Experience[12] writes that since philosophy could do little to legitimately demonstrate God’s existence,[13] it would not fare better in accurately describing God’s divine attributes.[14] Most importantly, James rejected the God of orthodox theology because this being lacked significant practical meaning.[15] When applying pragmatism to theories of ‘God’s metaphysical attributes’[16] they are ‘destitute of all intelligible significance’.[17] James examines many of God’s supposed attributes as distinguished from his moral qualities,[18] and seriously questions how ‘such qualities as these make any definite connection with our life?’[19] He reasons there is not even the smallest consequence religiously whether any of the philosophical deductions concerning God’s attributes were true.[20] In contrast, James’ views concepts of God’s moral attributes as beneficial and they ‘positively determine fear and hope and expectation, and are foundations for the saintly life.’[21] Religion can provide for James, metaphysical support for moral efforts of human beings.[22] Pragmatically God’s moral attributes are on a stronger intellectual footing.[23] James reasons the existence of a personal God is ‘an ultimate brute fact.’[24] This personal God is inconceivable[25] and the human mind can only know its own thoughts and yet a ‘moral imperative exists’[26] and ‘spiritual principle in every one.’[27]

James desired to make room for religious belief if it was pragmatic, even if the entire worldview expressed by a religion was not verifiable.[28] Religion had its practical emotional benefits.[29] As a result of James’ pragmatic philosophy, Paulsen explains that God’s omnipotence is rejected in a traditional sense,[30] but rather God’s omnipotence[31] provides the power to secure the triumph of good,[32] and not the power to bring about any logical state of affairs.[33] Within this view, God’s knowledge of the future[34] is finite and therefore not much different than that of human beings.[35] God would only have knowledge of facts and possibilities.[36] Therefore, a classic view of divine omnipotence would need to be abandoned and God would only be able to bring about a logical state of affairs that would be under constraints based on the actions of other agencies.[37] God is a morally perfect being that is working out history within time.[38] The environment God is working in includes significantly free human beings that have choices that cannot be controlled or absolutely foreknown.[39] For James, human beings and not God alone shape the future of the world.[40] He held to a view that the future was open-ended for both God and humanity. [41] God’s knowledge of the future would be incomplete as far as with what actually will occur.[42]

James’ view on omnipotence, can be considered to be somewhat subjectively based.[43] Roth does raise this legitimate criticism[44] which I do not think is completely answered by James, or by Roth of his behalf.[45] A significantly subjective view of God that assumes he is omnipotent in some way[46] and claims that this view can lead to some power to overcome evil for good for humanity[47] seems on somewhat shaky philosophical ground.[48] A critic[49] can state that there is no objective reason to believe that God, if there is one, has the actual power to rid the world of evil, as James’ view could just be a figment of the imagination and misplaced optimism based in emotionalism and a desire for a God based morally as James desired.[50]

[1] McDermott (1996: 385). [2] John K. Roth writes that James was a dominant philosopher within James’ time. [3] McDermott (1996: 385). [4] McDermott (1996: 385). [5] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 3-4). [6] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 14). [7] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 14). [8] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 14). [9] The article is entitled: ‘The God of Abraham, Isaac, and (William) James.’ [10] Paulsen (1999: 1). The concept that God cannot change is one of immutability. God cannot change in ‘attributes, consciousness, and will’. [11] Paulsen (1999: 1). [12] Within the text Writings 1902 – 1910. [13] I strongly doubt that God as a spiritual being, could ever be proven empirically and physically to exist. Philosophical attempts, in general terms, at proving God’s existence will be discussed briefly in Chapter Four. [14] James (1902-1910)(1987: 394). [15] Paulsen (1999: 1). This makes sense since James was one of the founders of pragmatism. McDermott (1996: 385). According to Norman Geisler, James doubted that rational proofs for God’s existence were psychologically convincing as human beings had needs that went beyond the rational. Geisler (1975: 88). [16] James (1902-1910)(1987: 400). [17] James (1902-1910)(1987: 400). They have no relevance to any vital human concern. Paulsen (1999: 4). James tested the ‘fruits of religious life’ by examining how they contributed to the development of ideal human communities. Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 3-4). [18] James (1902-1910)(1987: 400). [19] James (1902-1910)(1987: 400). Philosophy at times obscures God’s nature and the divine relationship with humanity. Paulsen (1999: 4). [20] James (1902-1910)(1987: 400). For James the source of religious experience is not important, but rather the fruits that are produced by religious experience are important. Geisler (1975: 60). Therefore, understanding God’s attributes, and in theory God, is not vital for James as are the results within persons that have religious belief. [21] James (1902-1910)(1987: 401). [22] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 12). [23] Paulsen (1999: 6). [24] James provides this view within The Will to Believe (1897), which is within a textual compilation of his work entitled The Moral Philosophy of William James. James (1892-1907)(1969: 202). [25] As would be God’s traditional theories of omnipotence to James. [26] James (1892-1907)(1969: 202). [27] James (1892-1907)(1969: 202). Roth admits that James’ theory may seem to reduce truth to subjective opinion. Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 15). James deals with this criticism by noting truth must be pragmatic as in being expedient, useful and workable over the long haul and in overall terms. Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 15). [28] Blackburn (1996: 201). [29] Blackburn (1996: 201). [30] Paulsen (1999: 6). [31] More so the human idea of God’s omnipotence is meant here. [32] James (1902-1910)(1987: 401). [33] Paulsen (1999: 6). [34] Foreknowledge which will discussed throughout the thesis, including by Augustine in Chapter Two. [35] Paulsen (1999: 9). [36] Paulsen (1999: 9). I would suggest even if God was finite, his knowledge based on intelligence and years of existence would provide him with better understanding of possible situations in comparison to his creations. [37] Paulsen (1999: 9). [38] Paulsen (1999: 9). God works through time and completes his plans, including a plan of salvation. [39] Paulsen (1999: 9). [40] Paulsen (1999: 9). Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 12). [41] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 12). [42] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 12). Within The Will to Believe, James explain that there was an ‘endless chain of causes’ in reality but God was the ‘absolute first cause’. James (1892-1907)(1969: 203). For James, there would be many causes within the endless chain not in God’s absolute control. [43] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 15). [44] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 15). [45] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 15-16). [46] James (1902-1910)(1987: 401). [47] James (1902-1910)(1987: 401). [48] I am not stating that there are not human subjective aspects to understanding God’s omnipotence, but that the objective understanding of this concept is still important. [49] Atheistic or theistic. [50] James (1902-1910)(1987: 401).

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1975) Philosophy of Religion, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1978) The Roots of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1996) ‘Freedom, Free Will, and Determinism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.),Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

GEISLER, NORMAN, L (1999) ‘The Problem of Evil’, in Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

JAMES, WILLIAM (1892-1907)(1969) The Moral Philosophy of William James, John K. Roth (ed.), Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.

JAMES, WILLIAM (1893)(2004) William James and a Science of Religions, Wayne Proudfoot (ed.), Columbia University Press, New York.

JAMES, WILLIAM (1902-1910)(1987) Writings 1902 – 1910, The Library of America, New York.

JAMES, WILLIAM (1902)(2002) The Varieties of Religious Experience, Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York.

JAMES, WILLIAM (1904) ‘Does ‘Consciousness’ Exist?’, in Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods, Volume 1, pages 477-491. New York, Columbia University.

JAMES, WILLIAM (1907) Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking, Longman and Green Company, New York.

MCDERMOTT, JOHN J. (1996) ‘James, William’ in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

PAULSON, DAVID (1999) ‘The God of Abraham, Isaac, and (William) James’, in The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 13.2, University Park, Pennsylvania, Penn State University Press.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

ROTH, JOHN K. ‘Introduction’ (1892-1907)(1969) in The Moral Philosophy of William James, John K. Roth (ed.), Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.

ROTH, JOHN K. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.

Friedrich Schleiermacher and omnipotence

Drina Gorge, Serbia (trekearth.com)

A portion of my PhD revisions:

Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834)[1] according to W.A. Hoffecker (1996), is considered to be a very influential theologian of the nineteenth century,[2] and the father of liberal Protestant theology.[3] Schleiermacher’s views on omnipotence can be contrasted with traditional view discussed.[4] Editors H.R. Mackintosh and J.S. Stewart (1821)(1928)(1976) within the Editors Preface of Schleiermacher’s 1821 text The Christian Faith provide the opinion that besides John Calvin’s Institutes[5], The Christian Faith is the most important work covering Christian theology and doctrine within Protestantism.[6] George Cross within his 1913 text, The Theology of Schleiermacher explains that in Schleiermacher’s theology human religious consciousness[7] expresses a relation between God and the world,[8] and therefore the consciousness of a dependence on God only arises in connection with the world.[9] God-consciousness[10] is connected with every human experience[11] and this is a demand upon human nature.[12] and this means every ‘world-impression’ must be able to connect with religious feeling.[13] God-consciousness is not only a contingent aspect of human experience,[14] as this would not allow God omnipotence to be an obtained expression in this world.[15] God’s omnipotence can only be referred to as finite human beings are affected by it through our God consciousness.[16] Divine omnipotence will be conceived by persons as eternal and omnipresent[17] as everything in reality is already ‘posited through finite causes in time and space.’[18] Everything that exists by natural order still takes places through divine omnipotence and therefore through One, that being God.[19] W.B. Selbie (1911)(2009) explains that for Schleiermacher, the almighty nature of God is ‘grounded in the infinite causality’ of the divine God.[20] Persons understand the manifested causality of God through human dependence on everything that comes from this divine being.[21] There is little difference for Schleiermacher between what can do and what God will do.[22] God’s omnipotence is energy everywhere in action and equates to all possible things.[23] God can do what he wills, and ‘whichever is greater than the other, the will or the ability, there is always a limitation.’[24] This limitation is only done away with for Schleiermacher when what God can do and will do, are equal in range.[25] The inner power of God to do something and his will do it cannot be separated.[26] God’s almighty power is not the power to do anything, but instead anything God pleases.[27] The divine power of the Almighty is subject to self-limitations which are connected to both God’s moral nature and the freedom of his human creatures.[28] The one all-embracing divine will is identical with eternal omnipotence.[29]

Schleiermacher’s approach redefines Christian religion as a unique element of human experience, not located in the intellectual and moral aspects of persons as these produce indirect knowledge concerning God only.[30] God is instead experienced through feeling.[31] The infinite God is experienced through human experience with the finite world[32] and not primarily from rational and doctrinal concepts.[33] Therefore, Schleiermacher, unlike many traditional and Reformed approaches with the omnipotence of God[34] is not primarily concerned with a dogma and doctrine[35] concerning the omnipotence of God, but is instead focused on how God is experienced by persons[36], and this would include God’s attribute of omnipotence. I personally still favour a doctrinal approach[37] but also grant that an understanding of God, which can include both intellectual and emotional[38] aspects can be reasonably theologically considered. Also, there is at least minimally, some truth to the notion that the omnipotence of God with the approach of Schleiermacher, can be experienced by persons through the finite world.[39] God’s almighty power and will[40] can be somewhat deduced through his creation that human beings experience daily.[41]

[1] Grenz and Olson (1992: 40). Hoffecker (1996: 983).
[2] Hoffecker (1996: 981). Stephen Neill and Tom Wright explain that Schleiermacher’s influence upon theology was notable by the end of the eighteenth century. Neill and Wright (1964)(1988: 3).
[3] Hoffecker (1996: 981). Stanley J. Grenz and Roger E. Olson reason Schleiermacher is a pioneer in theology. Grenz and Olson (1992: 40). His influence on contemporary theology ‘can hardly be over estimated.’ Grenz and Olson (1992: 39).
[4] Traditional and Reformed.
[5] Calvin, John (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion.
[6] Mackintosh and Stewart (1821)(1928)(1976: v).
[7] As discussed and referenced from Schleiermacher’s text The Christian Faith. See also Selbie (1911)(2009: 68-70).
[8] Cross (1913)(2009: 1). Selbie (1911)(2009: 68-70).
[9] Cross (1913)(2009: 1). Selbie (1911)(2009: 68-70). Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212-213).
[10] This will be further discussed in Chapter Four, as Schleiermacher’s views have influenced John Hick.
[11] Cross (1913)(2009: 1). Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212-213).
[12] Cross (1913)(2009: 1). Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212-213).
[13] Cross (1913)(2009: 1).
[14] Cross (1913)(2009: 1).
[15] Cross (1913)(2009: 1).
[16] Cross (1913)(2009: 1).
[17] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212).
[18] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212).
[19] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212).
[20] Selbie (1911)(2009: 68). Within natural order every effect has been ordained by divine causality. Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212).
[21] Selbie (1911)(2009: 68). Persons understand omnipotence also based on a feeling of ‘absolute dependence’ on God. Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212-213).
[22] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 214). Selbie (1911)(2009: 68).
[23] Selbie (1911)(2009: 68). Selbie further explains that omnipotence for Schleiermacher is the ‘infinity of divine productivity.’ Selbie (1911)(2009: 70).
[24] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 214).
[25] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 214).
[26] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 214). Selbie (1911)(2009: 68).
[27] Selbie (1911)(2009: 68).
[28] Selbie (1911)(2009: 68-69).
[29] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 214).
[30] Hoffecker (1996: 982).
[31] Hoffecker (1996: 982). Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212-213).
[32] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212-213).
[33] Hoffecker (1996: 982).
[34] Such as Erickson and Frame.
[35] Hoffecker (1996: 982). Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212-213).
[36] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212-213).
[37] In particular a Reformed perspective.
[38] Including feelings. Hoffecker (1996: 982). Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212-213).
[39] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212-213).
[40] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 214-215).
[41] Romans, Chapter 1 indicates this idea and C.E.B. Cranfield explains that since creation persons have viewed within that creation God’s eternal power and his divine nature. Cranfield (1992: 32). Robert H. Mounce reasons God is explained within this Chapter as being understandable to persons as powerful and existing beyond natural order. Mounce (1995: 78). The Bible of course does not deal with the philosophical term ‘omnipotence’ but implies in Romans 1 that God is almighty and beyond the visible physical realm.

SCHLEIERMACHER, FRIEDRICH (1799)(1961) On Religion, in Elie Kedourie, Nationalism, New York, Praeger University Series.

SCHLEIERMACHER, FRIEDRICH (1821)(1928)(1976) The Christian Faith, Edited by H.R. Mackintosh and J.S. Stewart, Philadelphia, Fortress Press. My MPhil and PhD theses topics are the problem of evil, and the problem of evil and theodicy have been discussed on my blogs.

Propaganda posters related to the problem of evil have generated some traffic for me and I present some more posters.

I am trying to learn and educate through history and my aim is not to offend.

From

http://www.oddee.com/item_66536.aspx


World War Two: United States


World War Two: Germany

From site:

'This poster makes a direct Christological comparison of Hitler. Just as a dove descended on Christ when he was baptised by John the Baptist, so what looks to be an eagle hovers against the light of heaven over an idealized Hitler.'

Christ obeyed the Father and his Kingdom was not of this world. John 18: 36.

Hilter sought to establish a Kingdom (Third Reich) in this fallen present realm.

Christ's Kingdom is within different realm with a new heaven and new earth. Revelation 21-22.

Hilter was no Christ.

From

http://abduzeedo.com/47-soviet-propaganda-posters


Giant Stalin, World War Two: The Soviet Union

From

http://www.iisg.nl/landsberger/


Giant Mao, 1969: The People's Republic of China