Is the Trinity Logically Impossible?
One
of the various disagreements I had with IM Skeptical regarding my recent post,
"Should Philosophy of Religion Be Ended?", concerned whether there
are possible worlds in which the laws of logic do not hold. I maintain that the
laws of logic must hold at every possible world if the very concept of
"possible worlds" is to have any meaning whatsoever. Once it is
permitted that the rules of logic are not themselves necessary truths, we are
left with no means to distinguish possible truths from necessary truths, let
alone possible worlds from impossible worlds (e.g., worlds that both exist and
do not exist at the same time). Skeptical, in order to refute arguments for God
from logic – like the "Lord of Non-Contradiction" paper by Anderson and Welty – to the contrary contends that there may be possible worlds in which
rules of logic do not in fact hold.
Skeptical
then suggested that despite their appeals to logic theists make special
exceptions for theism, and asked me this: "Do you believe that the
doctrine of the trinity is true? If you do, then how does that square with the
rules of classical logic?" Now I believe that question is worthy of a
considered reply. For clarity's sake my own reply to the first part of the
question is simply "Yes" But of course what skeptics are more
interested in is the second part: why Christians like me believe in the
Trinity, especially when we claim to place such a high premium on the validity
of logic in understanding God and the world he created.
Theologians
have written volumes on the Trinity as a church dogma, as a description of
divine ontology drawn from biblical statements, and as a model of divinity that
lends itself to the activity of securing human redemption. Apologists, however,
are the most interested in whether or not the Trinity is actually, or least potentially, coherent. That
issue in turn concerns the logical relations among Father, Son and Spirit. According
to Wayne Grudem, the set of propositions underlying the doctrine of the Trinity can
be stated succinctly as
1.
God is three persons [hypostases].
2.
Each person is fully God.
3.
There is one God.
…the
problem being that these appear inconsistent. However, there are no explicit
contradictions here. Additional premises would be required to create an
explicit contradiction, such as
4.
God is not three persons. – or –
5.
Each person is less than fully God. – or –
6.
There are many Gods (gods). Etc.
Now
I have already mentioned Plantinga's free will defense in the context of my
ongoing discussion with Skeptical, but I believe it bears mentioning again. The
free will defense appears analogous to a defense of the Trinity, in that the one
who argues that the problem of evil renders God's existence impossible, like the one who charges
that the Trinity is illogical, bears the burden of proving that the initial set
in question is formally inconsistent and not merely counterintuitive.
Clearly
it would be logically problematic to say that the one God is actually three
separate beings. After all, that seems to be directly translatable to 1 = 3, which
is contradictory (in that something, God, is said to be both one and not-one at
the same time). At issue, though, is whether the relations among the members of
the godhead are absolute reflexive identity relations. To put it another way, we
need to ask ourselves: what exactly does it mean to say "God is Father,
Son and Spirit," and to also say, "Father, Son, and Spirit are
God"? If it's right to say that God is strictly equal to – nothing more and nothing less – all three members of the
godhead, and vice-versa, then we are saying that one equals three and
effectively speaking nonsense. But I don't think it's necessarily true that the
relations among the members of the godhead are absolute reflexive identity
relations.
Some
theologians, for example, have suggested these are "relative
identities," wherein identity relations are still logically valid but in
terms other than shared properties. Deutsch comments in the Stanford Encyclopedia: "It is possible for
objects x and y to be the same F and yet not the same G, (where F and G are
predicates representing kinds of things (apples, ships, passengers) rather than
merely properties of things (colors, shapes)). In such a case ‘same’ cannot
mean absolute identity. For example, the same person might be two different
passengers, since one person may be counted twice as a passenger." Now
this "passenger" analogy, like most other analogies, does not apply all
that well to the Trinity, but for present purposes the fact that relative
identities are possible is enough to
undercut the argument that the Trinity is explicitly illogical.
While analogies proposed for the Trinity are typically imperfect
(as analogies are generally), they do often serve to underscore that the
Trinity is a mystery in need of an explanation rather than an example of
explicit illogic. It should not surprise anyone that there are few, if any,
applicable worldly analogies for a spiritual reality. And skeptics, at least
those familiar with scientific theories, should know that on naturalism, nature
houses numerous mysteries of its own: How an entropic universe can come into
existence unaided; how quantum mechanics can be reconciled with general
relativity; how chemical evolution can take place apart from replicators that
only operate within living systems. Etc. Meanwhile there are some serious Trinitarian
models that purport to provide solutions – or at least potential solutions –
beyond merely pointing out that the Trinity is not formally contradictory. Those
will have to be addressed by someone else, or at least at some other time.
Comments
As far as the analogy, I always refer people to the blogpost that I wrote a few years ago entitled "A Simple Illustration of the Trinity" that provides two illustrations that actually meet the Biblical definition of the Trinity of being three yet one. Of course, as you point out, it isn't a perfect analogy (that would be an identity), but it does illustrate quite clearly how the concept is not logically impossible or inconsistent.
I haven't studied theology proper in a long time but felt challenged by Skeptical to explore the Trinity again. I was happy to get back into it, though, because it's not just a fascinating topic, but spiritually edifying.
Well yeah, that kind of thing would (and I think should) set off any careful person's bull$#1^ meter! -- just as much as a sceptic trying to avoid logical conclusions in favor of religious faith by appealing to imaginary realities where logic simply might be void! In my experience, dedicated anti-theists pull this once the implications of human reason itself start to point toward theism instead of atheism being true. A related move is to try to utterly denigrate human reason to the point of non-existence, although of course they themselves don't want to be treated as equivalent to spambots, furbees, or other illusions of conscious will. But then I've seen theists (including Christians) go that route, too, when implications of free will and/or logic go against what they currently prefer to believe.
Matters can get pretty embarrassing and crazy on any side. {g}
Anyway. The largest book I've ever posted to the Cadre (over 850 pages) was on a systematic logical progression to trinitarian theism (and thence to an expectation of historical Christianity). And the second largest section of chapters is the first section, on how I should be a logical sceptic (but not a sceptic about logic in principle!) http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2010/10/jrps-sword-to-heart-contents-page.html
JRP
I think BK's treaty analogy doesn't work, and here's why: There is one treaty. It is an agreement between nations. The treaty may be expressed in many different ways (spoken, written, digitized, in any number of languages), and each of those is a physical representation of the treaty itself, which is still an agreement. The physical expression, regardless of its form, still has the same content and the same meaning. It is a representation of the agreement. While it might be correct to say that a particular piece of paper is not identical to another piece of paper on which the treaty is written, it would not be correct to say that the agreement is different, just because it is expressed or represented in a different way.
Yet the trinity doesn't appear to be like that. The Trinity doctrine holds that the three persons are substantively different. They are not merely expressed in a different way - they are actually different things (while still being the same thing - namely, God).
Know why that is a silly opinion? Because the guys that say t can be understood are also Catholic or basing it on Catholics. They are the same guys as those who say it is a mystery.Because it's a mystery in other ways than the one's that can be explained. Some aspects of it are explained and some are mysterious.
I think BK's treaty analogy doesn't work, and here's why: There is one treaty. It is an agreement between nations. The treaty may be expressed in many different ways (spoken, written, digitized, in any number of languages), and each of those is a physical representation of the treaty itself, which is still an agreement. The physical expression, regardless of its form, still has the same content and the same meaning. It is a representation of the agreement. While it might be correct to say that a particular piece of paper is not identical to another piece of paper on which the treaty is written, it would not be correct to say that the agreement is different, just because it is expressed or represented in a different way.
Yet the trinity doesn't appear to be like that. The Trinity doctrine holds that the three persons are substantively different. They are not merely expressed in a different way - they are actually different things (while still being the same thing - namely, God).
they share one essence that what unifies them as one, Essence is that which makes a thing what it isl So sharing one essence means they are the same thing, but they don't share tyhe same persona.
I
I do not speak for Bill.I respect his intelligence he can answer for himself and I really don't know how he sees it. I know some don't like dealing with Platonic essence for waht ever reason but that's what the doctrine is based upon.
1/12/2017 12:42:00 PM Delete
Yes. That's what I said. It is one treaty.
Not sure I said that, but since you bring it up, yes. I'd _rather_ they were trinitarian, because I think that's both true and importantly true, but I'm not going to spit on someone who is trusting Jesus Christ as Lord of their lives, much moreso trusting Jesus as the authority to save them from their sins. Moreover, if Jesus says some people are faithful members of His flock and servants of His, whom He accepts and rewards as such, even though they're surprised to learn they've been serving Him at all, _I'm_ not going to complain! (My business is to make sure I'm not one of the baby goats He's sending to the eonian fire prepared for the devil and his angels!) This is probably worth a detailed post in itself.
{{...or are you saying that you prefer to work with a skeptic who honestly believes the Trinity to be illogical (even though it isn't) than a Christian who won't permit attempts to understand the Trinity...}}
If I _had_ to choose between one or the other, I'd choose the former. I can work with both, but obviously there are some large difficulties either way. (The latter is a main stumbling block for me ever joining the Eastern Orthodox communion, for example -- although a Calvinist apologist whose ministry I support was who I had in mind. Obviously I think he still does good work in other regards, but srsly?? {smh})
JRP
Nope, personally distinct, but same unique substance: the one and only self-existent reality upon which all reality depends for existence. Not different things (one Person being this and other Persons being creatures for example); and not different instances of the same thing (three independently existent facts, much less three IFs grounding all reality).
I know it's a complicated and difficult doctrinal set, but getting the details right is important if you're going to critique it. Critique unitarian Christologies (where the 2nd Person is a super-angel or a human hero, and the Spirit either also is a super-angel or is only a mode of one of the other persons fully divine or otherwise), or critique Tri-theism (three distinct Gods Most High), as much as you like, but we aren't either of those. Even if you decide we don't even make as much sense as they do (proponents of those positions would themselves agree with that {wry g}), it's still worth aiming at the intended target.
JRP
OK, Joe. Try to understand this. If I write the treaty on a new piece of paper (in Greek), does that become a fourth "identity"? Has it become a Quaternity? No. It's just paper with the treaty written on it. The paper is not the treaty. The treaty is still the treaty, and it hasn't changed, no matter how many times I write it down, or even if I destroy all the paper copies of it. It is an agreement between nations.
getting the details right is important if you're going to critique it
The question at hand is How do we make logical sense of this doctrine? Do all Christians agree about it? No, they don't. And that's precisely because it is not logically possible to interpret the doctrine in a coherent way. Look at the picture at the top of the post. You see "est" and "non est" linking all the elements. It would not be unreasonable for someone to think that the outer elements are different in some substantial way, if they are related by "non est". To say that they are three different persons is a confirmation of that. But at the same time, they are all the same thing.
You can try to rationalize it in your own mind, but there is no guarantee that other reasonable Christians will agree with you. So how exactly do we get the details right?
do you have any idea what the hell you are talking about? no you do not. identity is not an essence, Identities can share in essence with one another. the original word, persona, meant the masks worn by an actor. But has to do with the need to reflect the Hebrew concept through Greek terms, There was a Hebrew idea thyat was barrowed, That is more complex
Trinity pages
Actually, that's not accurate. He is right that a treaty is an agreement between nations, but legally speaking, once the treaty is put into written form the writing becomes the treaty. You cannot go behind the treaty and say, "Here's what we agreed to...." because the treaty replaces all prior negotiations and parol agreements. So, the treaty is not merely the physical expression of the agreement -- it becomes the treaty itself. So, when you have three treaties in three different languages, they are all different treaties, but still one treaty. So, im-skeptical's criticism fails.
To illustrate how this is wrong, let me go back to your original example, where the treaty is written in three different languages. Let's say the translation was faulty, and nobody recognized the problem before they were signed. Now we have three papers that don't all agree with one another. What should we think of that? Does it mean that all three versions are the official treaty? And if so, what have the nations agreed to? There are different ideas expressed on paper, but clearly, the nations involved didn't agree to three different things. When the mistake is recognized, the proper course of action would be to correct the mistakes so that the words on the paper conform to the idea that was agreed upon. It's that agreement that is that essence of the treaty, as Joe puts it.
I am certainly not arguing against international law. I understand that a treaty or a contract, as written on paper and duly signed, is legally enforceable. The paper holds a record of the agreement, and the signatures are proof that the parties assent to making the agreement legally binding. The paper is merely a medium that holds that record. What is enforceable is the agreement that is recorded on the paper. I don't think this is so hard to understand.
Joe, theological issues are not mustard seeds either, but it can be used to make a point by analogy.
;-)
It's interesting that you make this comment. If something is described in words written on paper, those words are a representation of that thing. They are not the thing itself. If what you claim is true, then I can write down a description of my dog, and then the piece of paper with those words on it would become my dog. And if I made another written description like that, I'd have a Trinity. There would be three things, all sharing the same "essence", as Joe says.
But one of them is different from the others. One of them is the actual thing, and the others are only representations of the real thing.
A legal document is the same thing. It is a description of an agreement. It has to be written down, because without the document, there would be no proof of what that agreement was. Nevertheless, the document is not the agreement - it is a description of the agreement.
Now, using this as an analogy for the Trinity only serves to illustrate the opposite point from what you intended (at least to people who have a modicum of logical sense). The three things are not one and the same, despite your ill-conceived efforts to make something illogical appear to be meaningful. What you have done is to show how absurd it is.