Friday, January 15, 2010

Transcendence vs. Nothing




Transcendence equals nothing?


The Athenean Stranger says: “A true God is transcendent! do you agree?  God is all knowing, all perfect, unchanging, omnipotent and transcendent. Transcendent in the sense that we cannot know him, he is "aside" from us, we cannot comprehend him (if we could we wouldn't be talking).  This being the case, such a God would not require worship. Why? Worship would have no affect on such a God. Why? God is all knowing, Omnipotent, Transcendent etc etc. And to be clear, this does in no way mean that respect, acknowledgement, humility, kindness (all the good stuff associated with worship) are abandoned.  On the contrary, such an understanding would be good for humanity.


So from a philosophical point of view, agree with me for a second. If worship (of any kind) is not required, then, as I said before ... religion does not matter .... but Life does ... enjoy!”



The Vendéen Response: First I must point out that what you have just said does not respond directly to my reply on your last statements. You jumped to another subject. What you have said above has more fuel for argumentation which is good. But you have ignored the last points we have discussed in which I asked for your demonstration of how being the same nullifies religion, and how you know that to God Religion does not matter. Your statement “to my God religion doesn't matter” contradicts your new statement above when you said “we cannot comprehend him”. Your affirmation that to God religion does not matter presupposes that you have some knowledge of him, but yet you negate yourself by saying “we cannot comprehend him” in your new statements.

Nevertheless I will respond to your statements above, but if you can respond also to the my last reply that would be good.

You said:
“A true God is transcendent! Do you agree?”

Of course.

You mentioned:
“Transcendent in the sense that we cannot know him, he is "aside" from us, we cannot comprehend him (if we could we wouldn't be talking)”.

We cannot admit of the incomprehensibility of God in the absolute sense on account of his transcendent nature, but rather it is proper to admit that our comprehension of God is limited. If we are to admit that He cannot be comprehended (in the absolute sense) you would have to admit with the atheists and agnostics that we cannot prove God Exists, for proofs depend on certain knowledge. You need to be careful in equating transcendence to absolute nullity or negation. The term Transcendence in itself in relation to the nature of God is complex and does not exhaustively signify a negation. Infinity which subsists in the transcendent, does not equate to nothing but something. Infinity is a BEING, and BEING is understood to be anything that can be said to be or a something. Infinity excludes bounds which is itself a negation. Infinity is undefined but it does not equate to nothing. Transcendence does not exclude knowledge (comprehension) of Him but rather it presupposes some knowledge of Him (limited) since it is not a negation.

Having established that Transcendence does not equate to nullity, the proposition “we cannot comprehend Him (God)” is defunct. This in turn eliminates your premise for supporting the conclusion that such a God would not require worship. In fact I find no relation to your conclusion and premise. How does God's transcendence prove that God does not require our worship? Transcendence deals with the question of our capacity to comprehend God, our similitude and dissimilitude in relation to God, and not whether God does or does not require our worship.

You stated:
This being the case, such a God would not require worship. Why? Worship would have no affect on such a God. Why? God is all knowing, Omnipotent, Transcendent etc etc.

On the account that “God is all knowing, all perfect, interchanging, omnipotent and transcendent” as you have said, he does not need our worship. In this I agree with you only in the sense of dependence. If God needed or depended on our worship it would make Him as a being who is lacking something. Something that lacks nothing is said to be universally perfect according to St. Thomas1.

All created perfections are in God, and Justice which is a “habit that perfects the will and inclines it to render to each and to all what belongs to them”2 exists in God in its perfect state, namely in actuality and not a habit. That being the case, God in being perfect justice requires our Worship which is due to Him alone on account of our immanence from him. We would not exist without Him. We owe our being to Him. It is within the realm of worship that acknowledgement is put into act. Since we do not worship or acknowledge God by means of thinking only privately, we also acknowledge and worship by means of external actions. Man is composed of Body and Soul, and to exclude the external part or acts denies our very being. If we deny God this external act (worship) we commit injustice which offends God directly on account of injustice, which he in turn cannot tolerate without restitution. Therefore worship is necessary not on account of God's transcendence, but rather on account of Justice which is perfect in God.

You mentioned:
So from a philosophical point of view, agree with me for a second. If worship (of any kind) is not required, then, as I said before ... religion does not matter .... but Life does ... enjoy!”

From the philosophical point of view as I have considered and demonstrated above, I cannot agree with you for a second. Your proposition “worship (of any kind) is not required...religion does not matter” has no qualification since your premise (we cannot comprehend him) for supporting the nullity of worship is defunct. I would suggest that you broaden your understanding of worship and religion, for they are used in your premises in the incomplete sense.






1St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I,4,2.
2 Slater, Thomas. "Justice." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 8. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 15 Jan. 2010.


1 comment:

Please keep comments Civil.