As surprising as it might seem, one of the reasons I am not an atheist is exactly the same as one of the reasons I am not a Mormon: neither atheism nor Mormon theology are compatible with the knowledge of God which is available through the use of reason. As it turns out, the philosophical defense of the knowledge of God’s existence from the criticisms of atheism also rules out the possibility of Mormon theology.
One of the most common retorts that the materialist atheist offers to Christian arguments for God is, “Well, then, where did God come from?” This is offered in response to the theistic argument that the material universe needs an explanation. “But if the universe needs an explanation, doesn’t God need an explanation too?” is the counterargument. However, the atheist retort misses the mark, at least when aimed at classical theists, because it misconceives the nature of God and the nature of the Christian claim that the universe needs an explanation.
In short, the universe needs an explanation not simply because it exists, but rather because it exists without the properties of a self-existent being. Although a full explication of the argument would take more than a blog post, briefly, the classical argument runs thus: the universe is not the kind of thing that can explain itself. We know this because it does not possess the properties that a necessary (self-existent) being must have. However, we know that there must be a necessary being, because reality does in fact exist around us. The universe is not a necessary being, so there must be a necessary being on which the universe depends. This being we call God.
God is a being whose essence and existence are identical, whereas for everything else existence and essence are distinct. That is to say, God does not depend on his existence, as we do and the universe does. Instead, God is existence. As the ultimate reality, God must be radically different than the universe. The universe is contingent, God is not. The universe is complex, God is simple. The universe changes, God is impassable. The universe depends on God in order to be; God depends on nothing. (Read more about this argument here and here. Also, apropos, note that this does not rule out God’s existence as Personal — or Trinitarian– being nor does it rule out the truth that He has a Fatherly relationship towards us, communicated through revelation.)
Mormon theology, however, has a radically different conception of God than that found in classical theism or traditional Christianity. Here’s what the LDS website has to say about God and creation, for instance:
Under the direction of Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ created the heavens and the earth (see Mosiah 3:8; Moses 2:1). From scripture revealed through the Prophet Joseph Smith, we know that in the work of the Creation, the Lord organized elements that had already existed (see Abraham 3:24). He did not create the world “out of nothing,” as some people believe.
Mormons do indeed identify God as the “Supreme Creator,” but they mean this differently than Catholics do. Where Catholics view God as the absolute Being Who creates both by calling and holding absolutely everything else in existence, the Mormon view holds that God is another existing thing himself, embedded, so to speak, in a higher reality on which he, like us, depends. Though he serves as the “Creator” in the sense that he shapes and forms reality around him, He is not the source of existence itself, as in classical theism.
Interestingly, while Mormonism rejects as “intrusion of Greek philosophical categories” the philosophical arguments that are natural to Catholic thought, Mormon doctrine is actually ontologically closer to ancient Greek polytheistic theology than it is to traditional Christian monotheistic theology. Rather than the radical monotheism and absolute transcendentalism of God as conceived in Judaism and historical Christianity, Mormons envision a God who is literally of the same order of being as man – indeed, a God who, like us, exists as flesh and bone within a larger reality, a universe both he and we are part of.
Likewise, there is an ontological affinity between Mormonism and materialist atheism when both are compared to classical theism. Classical theism insists that whatever the ultimate reality is, it must be ultimately simple in its essence, and not dependent or contingent upon anything else at all. Ultimate reality is thus God. Both Mormon theology and atheism, however, posit that a complex and contingent reality of space, matter, time, and living beings just exists as the ultimate reality. Where materialist atheism just accepts a universe composed of energy, matter, space, time, and the laws that govern them as given, Mormonism similarly just accepts a given reality composed of spirits, time, space, matter, and so forth.
In the end, then, both Mormon theology and atheism have this common element: both view ultimate reality as a complex of many things that just exist without explanation, whereas Catholicism views ultimate reality as being grounded in one simple, transcendent necessary being — God.
Atheists of course reject the classical reason-based arguments, often in favor of a philosophy of scientism. Mormons reject them as well, adopting a form of what Catholics would identify as fideism. Catholicism, on the other hand, recognizes reason as a proper gift of God, and believes that the ultimate truths of God’s revelation — even when they go beyond reason — are wholly compatible with reason, and do not contradict it.
(As I know there are Mormon readers of this blog, please feel welcome to comment if you feel so inclined — especially if you would like to clarify any LDS doctrines I have mentioned. This post is offered in a spirit of respectful recognition of real differences. I’m also interested in how Mormons respond to the atheist argument presented at the beginning of the post.)
Great post! It’s amazing that classical/Catholic theists are accused of abandoning intellect when this question is raised, whereas atheists stop short of making legitimately philosophical inquiry and Mormons seemingly regress to a polytheistic worldview. Even if an opponent of Catholic theology believes our reasoning to be unsound, he should at least credit the intellectual honesty of following the argument to its logical conclusion.
I’ve thought along the same lines, but not as well put as your post.
We can know something of God via natural theology without revelation. With apophatic and cataphatic theology we can know something of the attributes of God. This certainly does not lead you in the direction of Mormon theology with gods upon gods more akin as you referenced to the Pagan pantheon. More like an infinite regress of demigods and the idea of the simplicity of God being totally lost.
Thanks Jeff, now I have learned two new terms, apophatic and cataphatic.
The more we study God the more concepts we discover, which enable us to comprehend God better.
Pachomius
I liked the article. Would like to hear the LDS response.
Perhaps the most compelling evidence for God’s non-existence is the ease with arguments of devout believers are most easily defeated not by non-believers, but by the arguments of other devout believers. While you are dismantling the foundations of Mormonism any number of Jews or Muslims can easily show how the very concept of a trinity is polytheistic and not at all supported by scripture (otherwise it would not have taken centuries to finally settle the matter).
Does the term “bare assertion fallacy” mean anything to the readers of this article? Anything asserted without evidence is just as easily refuted without evidence. I am not defending the Mormons here, that is their job, but I am defending rational disquisition, and that was lacking in both the article and the comments thus far.
To simply assert that “God did it” is an amazing leap and in light of centuries of scientific advances, always at the expense of religious dogma, this is becoming more and more the purview of the “God of the Gaps”, as gaps are all that’s left in the wake of naturalism. Keep in mind this is the same Catholic Church that attempted to stifle Copernicus, silence Galileo and only recently came around to the fact of evolution. The Mormons can just as easily say that you are wrong about the true nature of God. The only thing you’ve got on your side as far as I can tell is a big head start.
While defending the cosmological argument you opine “However, the atheist retort misses the mark, at least when aimed at classical theists, because it misconceives the nature of God and the nature of the Christian claim that the universe needs an explanation.” An atheist such as myself can simply assert “oh no, you Catholics misunderstand the nature of the universe. It needs no cause because of its very nature.”
And for “breedinglilacs” to say “…atheists stop short of making legitimately philosophical inquiry..” is a comment of breathtaking inanity in light of the philosophical contributions of such atheists as Daniel C. Dennett, scientific contributions of men like Stephen Hawking, and a great many others.
Well, reading your article did make one decision easy for me. Now I know what my next article will be about. I’ve been putting off a treatment of the cosmological argument. Guess I’ll do that tomorrow.
VR,
Tony
Well, you mention evidence, but read up on direct evidence and indirect evidence from the people who really know what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and what is the mechanism by which evidence works to establish the target of evidence that the target exists.
You are into evidence as the only reason for accepting a proposition, but please read up on direct evidence and indirect evidence.
It is easy to say that God does not have evidence in His favor, but again do you have the proper mastery of what evidence is, what is its target, and how it operates namely its mechanism?
You will do yourself a great favor as also people interested in evidence for God’s existence, if you instead of working on the cosmological argument which s already exhaustively treated by minds greater than yours, just take up a new direction, evidence.
Don’t contribute another silly useless voice to those from others who do not know what the cosmological argument is all about except in the light of their rancid slogan that God is similar to a flying spaghetti monster.
No, you will not take up the study of evidence, you want to give another silly useless voice to those who already have given such silly useless voices because they don’t really know what is the cosmological argument?
And bring forth again silly useless reasons already debunked for the last 2,000 years?
Well, that is your silly useless choice when you have the opportunity and I hope the brain to do something different and profitable to mankind, and not another silly and useless.attempt at rebutting the cosmological argument.
Pachomius
Tony, thanks for the reply. I appreciate the effort to give a thoughtful response. Let us know when your article is done, I’d like to read it.
You’re right this post does not go into the depth of the cosmological argument (as I in fact note in the post), but that is because it is not about the cosmological argument as such, but rather about how it disqualifies equally both atheist and Mormon ideas.
The assertion that atheists misunderstand the nature of God is not a “bare assertion.”. The argument is that something must be a necessary being — that is, something must simply exist, be it the universe, God, whatever. I don’t see how any atheist can get around this assertion.
The question is whether the universe fulfills the criteria for this necessary being, and how we can know this. I suggest that we can know this not only through scientific, empirical evidence (which I champion), but primarily through logical reasoning. Whatever is the ultimate thing, it must be simple. This is because a complex thing would have to have something outside itself to be the source of its unity. The universe is complex. Therefore, it is not the ultimate thing.
Or, to put it another way, we can discover and describe the ultimate laws and equations of the universe, but, to quote Hawking, whom you invoke, what is it that “breathes fire into the equations”? What is it that brings this complex elementary reality into unity and being?
As a Mormon and a scientist, I found this post to be extremely thought provoking. In fact I have often meditated on what the calls the “ontological affinity between Mormonism and materialist atheism.” It is true that if one views it in a certain way that there are similarities. However, the nature of Mormonism makes it impossible to absolutely describe, or even prove these purported similarities. This is largely due to one important fact the author fails to consider about Mormon theology: namely that Mormonism generally makes no attempt to enforce anything like a standardized philosophical/reasoned view of the true meaning of “ultimate reality.” The idea that Mormonism posits a “complex and contingent reality of space, matter, time, and living beings” is only one of many possible explanations that one might reach as a believing Mormon based on core Mormon doctrine and scripture.
The “litmus test” for being a practicing Mormon has to do with faith in certain core beliefs and how one interacts with God and other people. A deeply philosophical view of life, the universe, and everything is neither necessary nor incompatible with Mormonism. Indeed, A very wide range of personal philosophies are espoused by different Mormons from the fairly materialistic system the author suggests that we believe, to include the apparently superior idea that “ultimate reality as being grounded in one simple, transcendent necessary being — God” (aka the sublime “God did it” philosophy). One could find support for both of these ideas based on the scriptures and beliefs of Mormons.
The author appears to use Mormon beliefs with regard to the mixture of Greek philosophy with primitive Christian beliefs, the Creation, and God’s body necessarily lead to his/her depiction of the presumably Mormon view of the universe. There are problems with this. Firstly, the Mormon rejection of purportedly Greek philosophy has to do with the nature of the relationship between God, Christ and the Holy Spirit (the Trinity), and to is not interpreted as necessarily relevant to the nature of the universe. Furthermore, while the Mormon concept of God does include a physical body, and belief that the matter used in the Creation may have already existed in some form, that does not preclude God as the basis of reality, or any number of other philosophical beliefs. To put it in Catholic terms, I suspect that most Catholics would suggest that God was indeed literally incarnated as a physical and mortal being as Christ. However, to take this belief and somehow suggest that mort Catholics believe that this physical incarnation somehow resulted in a temporary alteration of the nature of the universe would probably be inaccurate.
To summarize, while Mormonism is indeed defined by certain central beliefs, the philosophies described by the author and attributed to us are neither necessary, nor sufficient for being a “true Mormon.” I would also argue that this quasi-materialistic philosophy is only one of many conclusions one could draw when adequately addressing the breadth of the scriptures and revelations accepted by Mormons. Indeed, being a “true Mormon” has a lot to do with one’s lifestyle and a firm belief in certain certain central tenants, but very little to do with subtle or complex conclusions that any one person might derive from these central tenants.
Once one reaches the realms of physics and philosophy, the “true Mormon” belief is as creative, variable, and colorful as the Mormon you happen to be talking to. In fact, many Mormons actually have a word for these sorts of beliefs and discussions: “deep doctrine.” Speculating on “deep doctrine” is one of the favorite past-times of Mormons, but is absolutely understood to be completely ancillary to actually being a good, practicing Mormon.
I personally (and many other other scientifically-minded Mormons I know) find the more materialistic described here to actually be extremely satisfying and preferable. However, I know plenty of Mormons who would possible get rather upset with these views and would espouse a view extremely similar to the one the author attributes to Catholicism.
Well, you repeat the term “true Mormon,” it is crucial to a human being that he knows the true God, that also goes for Christians.
So, the genuine issue is what and Who is the true God.
Now, I will give credit to the Catholic philosophers and theologians because they have an uninterrupted examination of what is the true God and Who is the true God, going all the way back to the dawn of conscious human intelligence when man started to reflect on transcendental questions like why am I here and who brought me here.
Pachomius
A very interesting argument, and, so far as I understand LDS (Mormon) doctrine, an accurate representation of our faith’s understanding of the universe. (I would also add, parenthetically, that I appreciate your using current official LDS Church statements regarding its doctrine.) I do not pretend to represent the LDS Church officially, though I am a lifelong Mormon and a religious educator in its seminary program.
You seem to be employing circular reasoning here. You begin with a particular (Catholic) understanding of God:
“God is a being whose essence and existence are identical, whereas for everything else existence and essence are distinct. That is to say, God does not depend on his existence, as we do and the universe does. Instead, God is existence. As the ultimate reality, God must be radically different than the universe. The universe is contingent, God is not. . . .”
That is your baseline argument. And, since Mormon theology and concept of God differs, to a degree, from that concept of God, you link it with atheism. Or, in other words, “My idea of God is the correct one. Since your idea of God isn’t like mine, your idea is tantamount to atheism.” In reality I have no quibbles with this type of argument–it is in many respects the foundation of many, perhaps most, religious differences in the world. The trouble is that you are trying to distance yourself from this kind of inter-religious debate, and attempting to ground your argument in the very philosophical concept of God Himself (our friend and atheist Tony accurately perceived this in your post).
You make the Catholic concept of God or Godhood the baseline to which Mormon theology must match up (which is why Tony’s introduction of Islam and Judaism into the argument is particularly salient). As I said earlier, you are free to do this, but not in an argument in which you are trying to move beyond mere Mormon/Catholic theological differences and explore the very existence of God in a philosophical or even empirical context.
You state that “Both Mormon theology and atheism, however, posit that a complex and contingent reality of space, matter, time, and living beings just exists as the ultimate reality. Where materialist atheism just accepts a universe composed of energy, matter, space, time, and the laws that govern them as given, Mormonism similarly just accepts a given reality composed of spirits, time, space, matter, and so forth.”
Here you make two significant ill-advised leaps. First, you seem to assert that Mormon theology offers no explanation for existence itself. Your representation of Mormon thought goes more or less like this: “It all just exists, and God right along with it.” If this were true, it would in fact be tantamount to atheism. But of course Mormonism believes that all existence has meaning and purpose and in that sense cannot be in any meaningful way separated from the existence of God, who gives all existence its meaning and purpose.
Additionally, the fact that God organized THIS universe (Mormon theology asserts that there are “worlds without number,” and that God’s creations never end) out of pre-existing material does not mean that God is somehow “contained” within it. Quite the opposite. It is true that we believe in a corporeal and personal God (which you, quite rightly, say is not precluded by a belief in a self-existing deity). But if, as Catholic theology asserts, God is “personal,” then it must follow that he exists “somewhere.”
By “contingent” you seem to mean “existing without the necessity of God.” However, Mormon scripture quite explicitly affirms otherwise. One Book of Mormon prophet declared that God “is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another.” In the Doctrine and Covenants we find this statement regarding the universe as created by Jesus Christ:
“He that aascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he ccomprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth;
“Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made.
“As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made;
“As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made;
“And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand.
“And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;
“Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—
“The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things” (Doctrine & Covenants 88:6-13). This is hardly a universe that exists “independent” of God or Christ or that “contains” him.
I realize that you are not stating that Mormons believe that our universe exists independent of God or that He didn’t create it. You are arguing that the fact that Mormons don’t believe in creation ex nihilo means that they believe in a co-dependent God. But I use this example to illustrate that God is in and through everything through the power of His creation. What was the “unorganized material” of which God fashioned the universe? We don’t know. But the idea of ex nihilo creation seems to fly much further in the face of reason than the idea that God is co-existent with all matter.
It is also true that Mormon theology believes in a God who works according to pre-existing laws. This should be no more strange to a Catholic than the idea that goodness is based on absolute truth rather than arbitrary caprice. If we are discussing the philosophical foundation of God’s very existence, we must address the issue of whether goodness is goodness “because God says it’s so” or because it is, in fact, inherently good. If the latter, than God is Himself following a law of which He has complete understanding (though we do not).
Anyway, I realize that my thoughts may be somewhat disjointed, for which I apologize. I just wanted to make sure a Mormon voice was heard in the discussion.
I would like to give a less intellectual Mormon response to Michael’s article. On the whole we are a practical people arising from pioneer stock, who probably have a natural affinity for materialism. We have some members like the previous two able respondents who have a philosophical bent, but most of us unapologetically do not have much interest in theological gymnastics. We often teach that God is revealed or he remains concealed. So for instance, when an unlearned 14 year old farmer sees God the Father along side his Son Jesus Christ, and both have bodies which look like ours, that ends a great deal of theological debate for us. (How you can know if Joseph Smith’s first vision is true is another matter).
I understand that there are theological ripples, deductions, theories, and deep doctrines (as Mark reports) emanating from this great theophany, but most of these things seem of little import to us compared to the soul-satisfying understanding that our Heavenly Father is a being we can relate to literally as his children.
I am a well educated man, but my mind boggles at the notion that God created everything from nothing. As a youth I appreciated 19th century atheist Robert Ingersoll’s challenge to a God who sat bored for endless eternities until finally he decided to create a universe including beings to worship him. I was not much relieved to read a Catholic answer to Ingersoll, that God was not sitting for eternity pre-creation because he also created time and space out of nothing. So he could not have been doing anything before creation because there was no before. Nor could he have been sitting because there was no place to sit. I cannot comprehend such sophisticated thinking.
I think Mormons are materialistic in the philosophical sense in part because of Joseph Smith’s teachings (“there is no such thing as immaterial matter,” “matter and intelligence are coeternal/coexistent with God,” etc) but they are also impatient with theological speculation because of the idea that if we “Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know more than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject” (TPJS, p. 324) I fear I am like many Mormons who become a bit self-righteous toward ideas which we cannot comprehend, and which seem to us as fanciful. I appreciate Michael’s (and the other commenters) respectful dialogue, and I apologize if my intemperance or ignorance has given offense.
I think the three of us probably have made an important point with our very different answers. Since there is no single Mormon philosophical view of the nature of “ultimate reality” – or indeed even a mandate to have one in the first place – the Mormon worldview you have found to be “[in]compatible with the knowledge of God which is available through the use of reason” is more a reflection of your own supposition about similarities in Mormon and atheist ideas than it is a real comparison.
If you’d like to compare Mormon theology about the nature of God and reality with the ideas of atheists, you’ll have to pick something where a firm theology clearly exists.
Thanks for the comments from the LDS perspective, gentlemen. I appreciate the effort to explain your position.
A couple of clarifications:
First, the idea of God as a transcendent, absolute being comes not from Catholic doctrine alone, but from philosophy. It can be found at least as far back as the Greeks, centuries before Christ. My problem with atheism and LDS doctrine is not that they do not comport with Catholicism, my problem is that they do not comport with what the human mind can figure out on its own even without revelation. Though Mark implies Mormon doctrine on this is not “firm”, the readings from the LDS website seem to me to clearly state that the LDS do believe God and matter to be co-eternal.
Second, Terrol Williams brings up the classic Euthyphro problem: “… we must address the issue of whether goodness is goodness “because God says it’s so” or because it is, in fact, inherently good. If the latter, than God is Himself following a law of which He has complete understanding (though we do not).”
The Catholic response would be that goodness is neither an arbitrary decree from God nor an external law to which he is subject, but is rather something that comes from the very nature of God himself. In Thomistic philosophy, it would be classified as a transcendental.
Finally, I’ve thought of something else that might shed some light on the differences in thought — namely, G.K. Chesterton’s theology of gratitude. I am thankful to my parents for giving me life, but I do not worship them the way I worship God as the ultimate source and end of all things. But in the Mormon view, at least as I understand it, God is more like a super-parent than he is like the God of classical theism. He made me, but only in a way similar to the way my parents made me. He is not the ultimate source and the ultimate end of my being. If I do not worship my parents, then, why would I worship him? The Mormon idea of God may be worthy of love and devotion, but he is not worthy of worship.
Or to put it another way: I am dependent, and therefore thankful to something outside me for my being. If God is dependent, too, then to whom or what is he thankful for his own existence? And if there’s something out there which is so great that even God must do it homage, shouldn’t we be worshiping that thing as God instead of him?
This is not a problem in the Catholic view, because there simply isn’t anything outside of or greater than God.
In any case, thanks to all for offering your thoughts.
Another (unofficial) LDS viewpoint here.
First off, I am an engineer, so rather predisposed favorably to what humans are capable of through logic and reasoning. However, I don’t agree with your premise that we can necessarily logic anything out regarding the nature of God with our minds. Let me use an example of the creation of life on this world. I think we’re all agreed that God is omnipotent. That being the case, there’s no way for me to deduce whether God literally created the earth in 6 24-hour days and just made it look millions of years old, or whether the biblical account is more symbolic and the earth is really millions of years old. If logic can’t figure out something that simple, what hope have we of reasoning out whether God encompasses matter, is matter, or is simply the consciousness that actually determines the outcome of quantum-mechanical observations?
On that line, I don’t understand the argument that God has to be somehow fundamentally simple either. We thought we had things nailed with simple Newtonian physics until we realized it was actually more complicated than that with relativity and quantum physics. Likewise, an atom seemed pretty simple with electrons, protons, and neutrons, until we discovered we can’t even theorize the exact number of subatomic particles there might be (yet). Why shouldn’t God somehow be like a fractal, infinitely complex?
That said, I’d be interested in your answer to a different question, which is “why are we here?” “Why” questions at that level really can’t be tackled by science or reason. But that question is the one where I think Mormon doctrine gives a highly satisfying answer. We are here to learn, to progress, to demonstrate our willingness to be obedient, and thus to become more like our Heavenly parents. We’re in the “solo phase” of our flight training; only radio contact is available to our Traffic Controller and our performance truly has life or death consequences. Fortunately, we were provided with a parachute (the Atonement) if only we learn how to use it properly and pull the ripcord (repent) as needed!
The good news is (I’m assuming we all agree) that at some point we *will* know the answers to these questions and all the others we didn’t even know to ask.
Wurzel, good questions.
Reason and logic can tell us some things, but of course not everything. For instance, geometry cannot tell me whether God created the world in six days or not, but it can tell me that the sum of the interior angles of any plane triangles that exist in God’s creation equal 180 degrees. Moreover, I can know this about any triangle, even if I’ve never seen it. Of course, I can’t logically reason from geometry whether a given triangle is blue or red, but I can be certain about its angles. If someone came to me claiming to have a plane triangle with interior angles that did not equal 180 degrees, I would know he was mistaken.
Similarly, reason can reveal certain limited truths about being as such, and therefore about God. Why does reason show that God must be simple? Here’s what philosopher Ed Feser says:
“For anything which is in any way composed of parts would be metaphysically less fundamental than those parts themselves, and would depend on some external principle to account for the parts being combined in the way they are. In that case, either the external principle itself (or perhaps some yet further principle) would have to be simple, and thus ultimate, and thus the truly divine reality; or there is no simple or non-composite first principle, and thus no metaphysically ultimate reality, and thus nothing strictly divine. In short, to deny divine simplicity is, for the classical theist, implicitly to deny the existence of God.”
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/09/classical-theism.html
Or as I said earlier, if God is dependent and therefore subordinate to something greater than himself, we ought to worship that greater thing as God instead.
As for why we are here, I largely agree with your answer — We are here to love God, which entails knowing Him and serving Him in this life in order to be in union with Him in the next.
I should add, by the way, that I think divine simplicity is less important than contingency in my main argument about the similarity between LDS theology and atheism, although simplicity and contingency are related. I think the more important point is contingency or dependence on an external principle, which is implied in the LDS doctrine on the the co-eternality of God and matter. There are Protestants who disagree with Catholics and classical philosophers about divine simplicity, but who would agree with my point about contingency.
I simply don’t see how what you call “contingency” diminishes, as you state, God in any way. Mormons do not believe that God is, in any way, “dependent,” as you said:
“Or to put it another way: I am dependent, and therefore thankful to something outside me for my being. If God is dependent, too, then to whom or what is he thankful for his own existence?”
God being co-eternal with “matter,” whatever that may mean, does not reduce His role in Creation as we live it, nor make him “dependent” on the other “unorganized matter,” any more than a Da Vinci, who takes paint and and a wall and creates “The Last Supper” is diminished by the fact that that he used pre-existing paint.
Now of course you might argue that “someone had to create the paint, didn’t they?” And so the final question seems to boil down, in part at least, to this:
Catholics (and possibly some of the philosophers you have mentioned) assert that there had to have been “nothing” at some point. If there was always “something” than that precludes the necessity for God. Therefore a theology that allows for an eternity of matter must necessarily be at its heart atheistic.
Sadly, this argument plays neatly into the hands of atheists like Tony, who correctly identifies this argument as the final refuge of the “God of the gaps” theology. Since physics has demonstrated the permanence of matter (see Einstein, et al), what is left of this God? Not much.
Mormons believe in a God who is co-eternal with matter, who organized the universe from unorganized matter, is one who survives the glare of science’s bright light, fully intact and fully powerful and fully eternal.
If we wish to reconnect this to “reason,” I see no argument that makes the non-existence of anything more compelling than the eternal existence of something.
When you distill away the garrulous, what remains is a two-line play:
—
Atheist/Mormonist (being functionally the same, only one player needed): If the universe needs an explanation, doesn’t God? (Runs off stage to conjure complex explanations.)
Catholicist: No! God is a necessary being who needs no explanation. (Sits slowly at stage center, contemplatively cross-legged, contentedly marveling at the simplicity.)
—
For someone who claims to champion empiricism and embrace reason, your argument curiously avoids both.
It’s interesting to the the author (seemingly) bristle at what he calls “the intrusion of Greek philosophical categories,” then throw out terms like “necessary being” – which could have come from ‘Platonism for Dummies’ (if such a tome existed).
Whether we can articulate it or not, most Mormons have rejected the idea of a First Cause or Prime Mover, along with the whole “ex nihilo” concept, and embraced the idea that there exist objects and ideas which are co-eternal with God.
Good and evil, as examples.
The great benefit to this approach is that rather deftly solves the problem of why evil exists despite God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. It also explains how it is that Christ could be co-eternal with God (his essence, or “intelligence” anyway) and at the same time be the “firstborn of every creature” (Col.1:15) and God’s only begotten son (with a tip o’ the hat to Arius).
Guy, I don’t bristle at Greek philosophical categories — I’m fine with them. The “rejection of of Greek philosophical categories” is identified as a Mormon position, and I linked the phrase in the post to the online Mormon Encyclopedia hosted by BYU.
The problem that I see with stating that good and evil exist alongside God, rather than having their source in Him as Catholic would say, is that you thus make evil more powerful than God, and at least equal to good.
In Catholic thought, evil is essentially a deprivation of good. We think evil is to good as darkness is to light — it is not a thing in itself, but rather the absence of a thing.
I apologize for reading something into your “Mormons think we are guilty of X when it is actually they who are guilty of X” structure if it wasn’t there.
The thinking which started with Aristotle and Plato (and had become NeoPlatonism during the time of the Early Church Fathers) is arguably the most successful school of philosophy of all time – so it with all due respect that I say that it has become a little threadbare here in the 21st century.
I understand the thinking behind darkness being the absence of light. That said, however, the first words attributed to God, in the Bible, are “Let there be light.” That strongly implies an absence of light up to that point, no? Which, in turn, would imply – at least according to your definition – that darkness was co-eternal with God.
Next verse tells us that God saw the light, that it was good – which tells us that “good” also existed before light.
To Mormons, it does not diminish God to say that there are other co-eternal things, any more than it does not diminish the US Senate to say that there are 99 other senators beside mine. If you have accepted the thinking that there can only be one First Mover or Prime Cause, I can understand how it would seem that way.
Mr. Baruzzini,
Thank you, excellent demonstration of the issue and a very interesting conversation. I appreciate your intellectual discipline in examining the truth of the knowledge of God which is available to us through the use of our rightly trained reason. While my Catholic grammar school, high school and college education took place during a tumultuous time, I got enough of logic and formal Greek, Medieval and Thomistic philosophy to be able to follow and appreciate your rationale, at least a little bit!
I loved the quote from Chesterton, which so pithily summarizes the human mind’s search for God Himself so we can worship Him.
Forgive me if I mention two other common “attributes” of God which might help explain the classical philosophical and also Catholic understanding of God: He is Eternal, and Omnipresent. We infer that there can be only one necessary being who is simple in His essence, and that He is without beginning or end, that is, eternal. He is also omnipresent, (but we are not pantheists, because as you demonstrated, we are created, contingent beings) and so. logically, there can only be one of Him (though in Three Divine Persons).
One way of summarizing the issue logically, is that this is where the buck stops. We do not ask, “Where did this uncreated Creator, this necessary Being, this God, come from?” This is the scary precipice, the land’s end, of our logical vision into the “deeps of time”. (I heard that somewhere)
But then, from the power of our (God-given) gift of reason, we are then able to freely receive the gift, the grace, of Faith in the God who has created us and revealed Himself to us. He who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Happy Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes! As Chesterton said somewhere, and I’m paraphrasing wildly, Only the realist believes in miracles. Love your site.
Another way to describe the distinction between the LDS understanding of God and the classical Christian understanding is that the “LDS God” can create other Gods while the “CC God” cannot. He couldn’t create another God even if he wanted to. As Jesus said, quoting the Father from Genesis, “I AM WHO AM”. Please correct me if I have it wrong.
I don’t know whether the LDS believe God can create other gods, but your statement of the Catholic idea of God is a fair way of putting one of the differences. Also, when Catholics use “create” in a theological sense, it means creation ex nihilo. It seems to me that in the Mormon view, God cannot create (ex nihilo) anything at all, gods or otherwise.
Note, however, that this is not to say that the Catholic view denies God’s omnipotence, or to imply that he is somehow limited by something external which constrains him. He is constrained not by a lack of power, but rather in the sense that the very idea of “another God” is incoherent.
Another God would have to be a necessary, uncreated, independent being — but if it was contingent, and dependent on God creating it, it would not be necessary, independent or uncreated. God cannot create an uncreated thing anymore than he can make a square circle. The idea is intrinsically meaningless.
I do realize I’m very “late to the party”, as your post was written over a year ago as I write this response, but I just came to this post in connection with a Google search I just did.
You wrote, “the universe needs an explanation not simply because it exists, but rather because it exists without the properties of a self-existent being”, which seems to be the crux of your argument. Of course, what this means is that your argument is a “begging the question” type of argument. How do you know the universe does not have the property of “self-existence”? What is that supposed to mean? The point is that no matter what definition you try to come up with to try to merely define a god into existence, mere words cannot do this. It can only be determined through scientific examination of reality, and if we don’t have/can’t come up with scientific evidence to support it, then we simply don’t know the answer. This is exactly why atheism is the position based on reason, and why belief in God is called “faith”. It’s also why saying “God did it” is a god-of-the-gaps type of argument.
As someone else who is a little bit late to the party, maybe I can help to answer the questions “How do you know the universe does not have the property of ‘self-existence’?” and “What is that supposed to mean?” Please pardon this longish answer.
As for what the property of self-existence means, I suggest that a self-existent being may be defined as one that has no cause for its existence outside of itself. As for whether the universe is a self-existent being, I suggest that the question is best approached in stages.
In the first stage, we might hone our definition of the term “universe.” Can we apply the term “being” to it? We can probably agree that the universe is a being in the sense that it exists, but it is not a being in the sense that it is only one thing. Rather, the term “universe” is a collective noun that connotes a collection of many things or beings.
This is indicated not just by common sense observation, but by our mutual acceptance of the scientific method. Since the scientific method studies the interactions of different beings, we cannot accept it without first accepting that more than one being exists. Since these multiple beings are all part of the universe, we can conclude that the universe is many beings rather than one being.
The next stage in answering the question of self-existence is to identify the range of possible answers. There are three: Either 1) all beings in the universe are self-existent; or 2) no beings in the universe are self-existent; or 3) some being or beings in the universe are self-existent, while others are not. As for the first of these possibilities, the axioms underlying the scientific method require us to accept that not all beings are self-existent. If they were, then one being could not change another being through interaction. This, in turn, is true because the process of change, by definition, involves some property coming into existence. If interaction does not result in some change, then interaction cannot be said to meaningfully occur. If it does not occur, it cannot be studied. If it cannot be studied, then the scientific method is illusory.
The second possibility is even easier to dismiss: If no beings in the universe are self-existent, then either they don’t really exist at all and therefore don’t fit the definition of “being,” or all beings exist as parts of an infinite linear regress of causes. But even if we admit the possibility of an infinite linear regress of causes, we cannot imagine what might cause such a regression itself to exist. Our conclusion must be that consideration of this possibility leads only to nonsense.
It must therefore be true that one or some beings are self-existent, while others are not. (This is where things get a little abstruse.) There are several arguments for why there must be only one self-existent being, but here’s a short one: If there can be more than one self-existent being, then we must infer that there are probably many such beings because we have no empirical or rational basis to conclude that there are only, say, two or three. Even if there were only two or three, we must infer that some interaction between such beings is possible, and that they can therefore change one another. But if they can change one another, then they are not self-existent, and we are left with a contradiction. The contradiction compounds itself if we infer that there are four, five, or a much higher number of self-existent beings.
One final, general comment: You seem to equate reason with the scientific method, i.e., your implication that “if we don’t have/can’t come up with scientific evidence to support it, then we simply don’t know the answer” to any given question. This incorrectly assumes that in order to merit acceptance, all statements of fact are or should be subject to scientific verification.
What about statements such as “I love my wife” or “that painting is beautiful” or “there seems to be some transcendent meaning to life and to humanity”? Most people would not dismiss such statements as meaningless or inconsequential because they are not subject to scientific testing. There are a lot of important things that are simply beyond the scope of science. As for theology, what possible scientific approach could be used to determine whether God exists?
I can’t imagine one. Can you? I suppose we could ask for some great demonstration of power. But how impressive would it have to be for us to conclude that it is beyond the power of, say, advanced beings from another planet?
The bottom line is this: Reason is a process of thought that can and should be applied within science, but also can and should be applied in theology and other disciplines that are outside of science. To say that atheism is based on reason because atheism accepts only science, or because atheism holds that reason is only meaningfully applied within science, is to argue for limiting the application of reason. This is tantamount to saying that there should be limits placed on human thought — an accusation that atheists sometimes level against theists.
As an ex-Mormon and now an atheist, I found your thoughts to be very interesting. You are absolutely right. I cannot get my head around the idea of a God for that very reason. If you’re going to believe in a God, then to me, you must then explain where God came from in the first place.
If everything else is created, then why does He get a pass? He doesn’t have to have been created? He was just always there? How? It just doesn’t make any sense to me.
A very large number of the ex-Mormon community do go on towards atheism. I suppose one reason for that is that we were taught not to believe in the Trinity. So if you leave Mormonism, where is there to go within Christianity, if you don’t believe in the Trinity?
Many of us turn towards science and come to believe that all religion is man-made. God didn’t create us in His own image, but we created God in our own image.