Anselmian adversities

Abstract

Two competing metatheologies – approaches that propose a certain starting point for generating a proper account of the nature of God – are Perfect Being Theology (PBT), the approach to theology originating with Anselm in his efforts to find a way of demonstrating that such a perfect being exists, and Creator Theology (CT). This article argues that CT has significant advantages over PBT. The adversities that afflict PBT, to which CT is immune, are these: the first concerns parsimony in the ontology of divinity, and the second concerns the explanation of contingency itself. CT generates a simpler defence of monotheism and an account of contingency, whereas PBT struggles to defend monotheism and has no resources for generating an account of contingency, an account needed in order to defend the central claims of the ontological argument.

Fluctuating maximal God, the problem of inconsistent evil, and spacetime changes

“…The first response to this worry is simply to argue that this problem only exists for theists who adopt a particular metatheology, one that the FMG theist rejects. Jon Kvanvig (2020; 2021) recently proposed a helpful way to classify different approaches to exploring the concept of God. Metatheologies are ‘approaches that propose a certain starting point for generating a proper account of the nature of God’ (Kvanvig (2020), 318) and ‘ask fundamental questions about the nature of the divinity and hence about how any approach to theological inquiry is to be grounded’ (Kvanvig (2021), xi).…”

“…Jon Kvanvig (2020; 2021) recently proposed a helpful way to classify different approaches to exploring the concept of God. Metatheologies are ‘approaches that propose a certain starting point for generating a proper account of the nature of God’ (Kvanvig (2020), 318) and ‘ask fundamental questions about the nature of the divinity and hence about how any approach to theological inquiry is to be grounded’ (Kvanvig (2021), xi). According to Kvanvig, there are (at least) three major strategic positions to take when exploring the concept of God.…”

Wherein lies the debate? Concerning whether God is a person

“…I make no suggestion here about whether they are right to do so.29 Some who hold to (PNP) might think PBT is a mistaken way to think about God, perhaps instead opting for what might be called creator theology(Kvanvig 2018). Nevertheless, even if they do opt for this methodology note that some advocates of creator theology still think there is a need and a way to argue that God is a person(Kvanvig 2018(Kvanvig , 12-13, 2019.…”

“…I make no suggestion here about whether they are right to do so.29 Some who hold to (PNP) might think PBT is a mistaken way to think about God, perhaps instead opting for what might be called creator theology(Kvanvig 2018). Nevertheless, even if they do opt for this methodology note that some advocates of creator theology still think there is a need and a way to argue that God is a person(Kvanvig 2018(Kvanvig , 12-13, 2019. That is, (PNP) doesn't follow automatically from creator theology.25 For instance,Leftow (1999) has deep concerns about what ST will produce and as such opts for LT. 26 I use the term 'personal' in this section, although I have no doubt that most defenders of (PP) would claim that to be personal one must be a person.…”