A Dilemma for Unitarianism

This is an excerpt from a project I’m currently working on. I thought I’d post it here.

We begin our investigation of non-Christian forms of theisms with the most popular variety—Unitarianism. Unitarianism posits that God is wholly one. That is, there is no essential diversity within God. Contrary to Trinitarianism which posits that God is both one and three, Unitarianism maintains an absolute divine unity. Unitarianism, as a form of theism, also maintains that God is personal. The Unitarian would want to maintain that his god is both self-sufficient and personal. However, we shall argue that he cannot consistently hold both these views. He has to forfeit one or the other, and as such his view is disqualified from meeting the condition for being personalistic. 


Because he wants to posit that his god is personal, the Unitarian must accept that his god possesses certain personal traits (such as lovingkindness) essentially. If the Unitarian god is neither loving nor kind, in what sense can he be said to be personal? The problem is that traits such as love and kindness are inherently social in nature. The same can be said for whatever personal trait one thinks of (charity, benevolence, forgiveness, malice, etc.). What this simply means is that to be personal is to be social. No personal trait can be made sense of in the absence of a network of interpersonal relations, or a social reality. Personal traits like love and kindness are inherently other-person directed. 


The problem for the Unitarian is that, on his view, there is no metaphysically ultimate social reality. His god, who is metaphysically ultimate, is uni-personal. Prior to this god’s creation of the universe, there was no social reality in place since this god was the only Person existing. But we have noted that to be personal is to be social; for X to be personal, X must exist within an interpersonal context. And since the Unitarian god does not essentially exist within an interpersonal context, the Unitarian god cannot be personal. 


The Unitarian may raise an objection at this point. He may point out that it is not necessary for a being to express personal traits in order for them to possess such traits. All that is required, the Unitarian would maintain, is that the being possess the potential to express those traits. That is, all that is needed is the mere metaphysical possibility that a being expresses certain personal traits. It is metaphysically impossible for an impersonal entity to express any personal traits; it is impossible for rocks for be loving or kind. However, there is always a metaphysical possibility that a personal being expresses personal traits even if they never actually do express those traits; it is always possible that a man stranded on an island, with no way of coming in contact with  any other persons, would express certain personal traits should he come in contact with another person. 


However, for the Unitarian, this would simply not do. If he is going to try to maintain the personality of his god by claiming that the mere potential for expression of personal traits is sufficient, then he would be forfeiting the self-sufficiency of his god. What the Unitarian is essentially positing is a potential within his god which is only actualized when his god creates. The Unitarian god can only express personal traits when he establishes a contingent social reality by creating the world. What this implies is that this god needs creation in order to fully be. The Unitarian god becomes influenced by something external to himself (creation). Creation creates god as much as god creates creation. Instead of being Pure Act—immutable and independent—the Unitarian god becomes a changing being that actualizes certain potentials. Such a god cannot be self-sufficient. Not only is he under the influence of something external to him, he is also subject to a more fundamental law which dictates under which conditions he expresses his personality. The Unitarian god is finite. 


From the above we see that there is a dilemma for Unitarianism. If the Unitarian maintains that his god is personal, he must forfeit the self-sufficiency of his god. However, if he wants to maintain the self-sufficiency of his god, he must forfeit the personality of his god. What this means is that, on Unitarianism, a self-sufficient Person cannot exist. Hence, Unitarianism is impersonalistic.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Failure of Classical Apologetics

Classical apologetics attempts to rationally defend the Christian faith by employing, in most cases, the traditional proofs for God's existence. Offering proofs such as the cosmological, teleological, ontological and moral are the first in a two-step approach to establishing Christianity. The second being offering arguments from fulfilled  prophecy, miracles, resurrection, etc. Classical apologists aim to first establish that this is a theistic universe and then appeal to the arguments mentioned in the second step to distinguish Christianity from other forms of theism. In my estimation, such an approach to apologetics proves inadequate and unsatisfactory for reasons I will spell out shortly. I will divide these reasons into two categories - theological and philosophical. Theological Since the conclusion of the classical approach is that Christianity is probably true or is the most probable amongst others, the unbeliever is always left with an excuse to reject the existence of Go...
Read more

Brute Facts Are Mute Facts: A Van Tilian Transcendental Argument

Recent discussions on the Internet have led me to believe that there is a need to write this post. Here I will be clarifying, formalizing, and defending an argument which I believe is central to Van Til’s thought. To my knowledge, there is no such clarification and formalization of the argument available and so in writing this article, I hope to bring something fresh to the Van Tilian’s arsenal of arguments. Van Til’s Doctrine of Analogy Central to Van Til’s thought is the doctrine of analogy. Van Til made a distinction between reasoning that is univocal and reasoning which is analogical . Greg Bahnsen describes univocal reasoning in this way: “ Univocal” reasoning does not honor the Creator-creature distinction, but assumes that God and man approach knowing in the same way and under essentially the same conditions. It refuses to “think God’s thoughts after Him” (cf. chap. 4.5 above) and asserts its intellectual autonomy. 1 However, for Van Til, human knowledge must be analogical. Tha...
Read more

Why Atheists Can’t Know That 2 Apples + 2 Apples = 4 Apples...

The title of this article may be a bit misleading. There are obviously very capable and very knowledgeable mathematicians who are atheists. Such people do not only know that two apples plus two apples equals four apples, they can also provide elaborate proofs of the various mathematical theorems that undergird such a truth. This post is not meant as an attack on the intellect of atheists but rather as an attack on atheism as a philosophical system . A more accurate title would be “ Why Atheists Can’t Know that 2 Apples + 2 Apples = 4 Apples If They Were Being Consistent With Their Philosophical System ”. I know, not very catchy! But what is it about atheism as a philosophical system that precludes knowledge of a truth so basic and fundamental that even children know it? The short answer is that atheism commits one to an autonomous epistemology—an epistemology that rejects the necessity of divine revelation. Believing that two apples plus two apples equals four apples is easy enough. Th...
Read more