Source: “GOD AND THE UNIVERSE OF FAITHS: Essays in the Philosophy of Religion”, By John Hick, Danforth Professor of the Philosophy of Religion, 1993.
5. God as Necessary Being - A Philosophical Journey.mp4
10. God As Necessary Being.mp3
This podcast explores the concept of "necessary being" in Christian theology, primarily distinguishing between two crucial interpretations: logical necessity and factual necessity. The author argues that God's existence should be understood through factual necessity, meaning God is an uncaused, ultimate, and independent reality without beginning or end, often termed aseity. This stands in contrast to logical necessity, which implies God's non-existence is a self-contradiction, a notion the author asserts is philosophically unsound and not reflective of biblical understanding. The text criticizes philosophical arguments, such as J.N. Findlay's, that disprove God based on the flawed premise of logical necessity, instead highlighting God's inherent freedom and self-sustaining life as central to the Christian concept of divine being.
Topic 1: The Fundamental Distinction Between God's Being and Man's Existence This topic introduces the concept of "necessary being" as a means by which Christian thought differentiates God from humanity. It emphasizes that this distinction isn't merely about the characteristics they possess, but rather about their fundamental "modes of being." Human beings and other created entities are said to "exist," while God is described as "Being-itself," signifying a deeper, more ultimate form of reality. This discrimination is considered essential to the Christian understanding of God, classically expressed as God's necessary being contrasted with the contingent being of humans and the created order. The implication is that God's existence is of a unique and unconditioned kind, different from anything else in creation.
Topic 2: Differentiating Logical and Factual Necessity A critical distinction is made between two concepts of necessity: logical necessity and factual necessity. Logical necessity, in a philosophical context, means that a being is such that its non-existence is logically impossible, implying that the proposition "this being exists" is a logical or a priori truth. Factual necessity, on the other hand, groups together non-logical concepts such as causal, empirical, and material necessity. This distinction, appearing in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, highlights that factual necessity can suggest a temporally unlimited being. The author's central argument is that the concept of factual necessity is crucial and valuable for Christian doctrine, while the notion of logical necessity in this theological context is philosophically unsound and religiously unproductive.
Topic 3: The Philosophical Rejection of Logically Necessary Existence This topic explains the philosophical reasons why the concept of logically necessary being is rejected, especially by modern empiricist philosophy influenced by Hume and Kant. A cornerstone of this philosophy is the separation between "relations between ideas" (where logical necessity applies, such as in definitions) and "matters of fact and existence." Existential propositions, which assert existence, fall under "matters of fact" and therefore cannot be logically necessary. The key principle is that "existence is not a predicate"; stating that something exists is not part of its definition but an assertion that a term refers to an actual object. Bertrand Russell's theory of descriptions further clarifies this, showing that propositions asserting existence cannot be true by definition or a priori. Consequently, the idea of a being whose non-existence is logically impossible is considered a self-contradictory concept, leading to the philosophical repudiation of God having logically necessary being.
Topic 4: Historical Interpretations of Necessary Being in Anselm and Aquinas This section delves into how the concept of necessary being was understood by prominent historical theologians like Anselm and Thomas Aquinas. While Anselm's ontological argument might seem to imply logically necessary existence (particularly in Descartes's formulation), a closer examination of Anselm's writings, specifically his reply to Gaunilo, reveals a different interpretation. For Anselm, a being that "cannot be conceived not to exist" is one without beginning, end, or composite parts, existing wholly and always. This aligns with the concept of factual necessity. Anselm also introduced the idea of aseity (existence "a se," from itself). Similarly, Thomas Aquinas, despite using the term "necessary being," associates it with eternity (not having a beginning or end in time) in contrast to contingency (temporal finitude). The text argues that both Anselm and Aquinas, in practice, used the idea of necessary existence in a factual, rather than a strictly logical, sense, emphasizing an unconditioned and eternal reality.
Topic 5: Components of Factual Necessity: Eternity, Indestructibility, and Incorruptibility This topic elaborates on the specific characteristics that constitute factual necessity for God, distinguishing them from mere eternal existence. Eternity alone is deemed insufficient, as something could exist eternally merely by never being destroyed, rather than by virtue of an intrinsic, positive power. Therefore, integral to the Christian concept of God as ultimate Lord is that He must be indestructible (incapable of being destroyed from without) and incorruptible (incapable of ceasing to exist or losing divine qualities due to internal decay). These attributes are seen as supplementing, not replacing, the notion of eternal being. Thomist theology further illustrates this by describing angels and human souls as indestructible and incorruptible once created, yet having a beginning, demonstrating that "necessary being" is a factual concept capable of degrees and qualifications, rather than an all-or-nothing logical one.
Topic 6: Misinterpretations of Necessary Existence by Contemporary Theologians The source points out that even contemporary Thomist theologians can mistakenly apply the concept of logical necessity when discussing God's existence, revealing a lack of clarity regarding the distinction between logical and factual necessity. An example is provided where a theologian, M. Maritain, accurately defines necessary existence as "a thing is absolutely necessary when nothing can prevent it from being," which describes factual necessity or aseity. However, he then incorrectly illustrates this with an example from mathematics—the properties of a sphere—which are examples of logical necessity arising from definition, not from an inability to be prevented. This highlights the persistent danger of ambiguity and confusion when the two notions of necessity are not explicitly separated.
Topic 7: Critique of Findlay's Ontological Disproof of God This topic examines J. N. Findlay's unique argument, which proposes an a priori disproof of God's existence. Findlay defines God as the "adequate object of religious attitudes," which he asserts must exist "necessarily" and possess His characteristics "necessarily," interpreting "necessary" as "logically necessary." He then argues that because modern empiricism finds the idea of logically necessary existence meaningless (as no existential statement can be a necessary truth), the concept of God is inherently self-contradictory, thus guaranteeing no object corresponds to it. The author accepts Findlay's philosophical premise that existential propositions cannot be necessary truths but rejects his theological premise that God must be conceived as logically necessary. The conclusion drawn is that if the idea of logically necessary existence is an absurdity, then a being defined by it cannot be an adequate object of religious worship.
Topic 8: The Biblical Perspective on God and the Absence of Logical Necessity This topic asserts that the biblical understanding of God was rooted in direct experience of God as an "awesome power" and "holy will," a "sheer given reality." God was perceived as an experienced reality, not an inferred entity. The biblical writers considered God unique, eternal, infinite, and the ultimate reality. However, the text explicitly states that the idea of logical necessity is entirely foreign to characteristic biblical thought and forms no part of its concept of God. While it was "psychologically inconceivable" for biblical figures that God might not exist or change, this psychological conviction does not equate to a belief in logical inconceivability or impossibility. The question of logically necessary existence is deemed a purely philosophical puzzle, not something derivable from first-hand religious experience, nor of religious significance to the biblical writers.
Topic 9: Findlay's Flawed "Merely Happens to Exist" Dichotomy A key criticism of Findlay's argument is his use of a false dichotomy: "either God exists necessarily, or he merely happens to exist." The author points out that Findlay himself, by arguing that "necessary existence" is meaningless from an empiricist standpoint, inadvertently renders this dichotomy inoperative. If one half of a dichotomy is deemed meaningless, the contrast it establishes collapses. From an empiricist perspective, there aren't two distinct ways of existing; something either exists or does not exist. Findlay's continued use of "merely happens to exist" as a term of reproach, after having dismissed its contrasting concept, is highlighted as a logical inconsistency, effectively allowing him to "have it both ways." This logical flaw is presented as undermining Findlay's attempt to disprove God's existence.