Essays in Philosophy of Religion (Jostarhaye Falsafeh Din)

A Critical Study of Nelson Pikes’ View on Contradiction between God’s Omnipotence and Omnibenevolence

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Narges Karimi Vaghef 1
Abdolrasoul Kashfi 2
MohammadReza Bayat 3

1 PhD student at philosophy of religion, Faculty of Theology and Islamic Studies. Tehran University.

2 Professor at department of philosophy of religion, faculty of theology and Islamic studies, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran

3 Assistant professor at at department of philosophy of religion, faculty of theology and Islamic studies, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran

10.22034/philor.2022.557781.1405
Abstract
The contradiction between divine “omnipotence” and “omnibenevolence” is a major debate in philosophy of religion studies. Based on divine omnibenevolence, it is said that “he cannot do immoral actions”.  On the surface, at least, this doctrine appears to be in conflict with the doctrine of divine omnipotence. An omnipotent being is one that can do all things possible; and, surely, it is possible to do immoral action. Nelson Pike discusses this matter in detail. He suggests as to how the various senses of “God cannot do moral actions” ought to be sorted out. Based on Pike’s suggestion, although the individual that is God has the ability to do immoral actions, His nature or character is such as to provide assurance that He will not act in this way. Joshua Hoffman maintains that Pike’s strategy for resolving the dilemma fails because it commits him to God’s being contingently omnibenevolent (not necessarily). In response, Pike accepts that God is not necessarily omnibenevolent and it’s the only way to resolve the dilemma. In Pike’s defense, the discrimination between “logical necessity” and “metaphysical necessity” should be noted. Further, we should distinguish between “the title of God” and “the individual of God”. “The title of God is benevolent” is metaphysically necessary while “The individual of God is contingently benevolent”. Therefore “God is necessarily benevolent” based on His title but this necessity doesn’t result in any limit for divine omnipotence.

Keywords

Omnibenevolence
Omnipotence
Nelson Pike
The contradiction problem
منابع
سعیدی مهر, محمد (139۳). ضرورت، دلالت و جهان‌های ممکن. تهران: علمی فرهنگی.
سعیدی مهر, محمد (1395). “رویکردی معناشناختی به ضرورت خدا.” دو فصلنامه پژوهش‌های عقلی نوین (علمی فرهنگی).
محمودی، سیدجواد؛ برنجکار، رضا (1374) “قدرت مطلق و گناه! ” معرفت، شماره ۱۵.
Aquinas, Thomas and Pegis, Anton C (1997). Basic Writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, Volume 2. Hackett Publishing.
Deane, Sidney Norton (1951). ST. ANSELM PROSLOGIUM; MONOLOGIUM; AN APPENDIX IN BEHALF OF THE FOOL BY GAUNILON; AND CUR DEUS HOMO. La Salle: The Open Court Publishing Company.
Hoffman, Joshua (1979). “Can God do evil?” The Southern Journal of Philosophy: 213-220.
Kment, Boris (2012). Varietie of modality. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/modality-varieties.
Loke, Andrew (2010). “Divine omnipotence and moral perfection.” Religious Studies: 525-538.
Martin, Charles Burton (1959). Religious belief. Cornell University Press.
McHugh (1913). “Omnipotence”  in Catholic Encyclopedia, by McHugh John Ambrose: volume 11.
Morris, Thomas V (2002). Our idea of God: An introduction to philosophical theology. Regent College Publishing.
Morris, Thomas V (1986). “Perfection and power.” International journal for philosophy of religion. 165-168.
Morris, Thomas V (2001). The logic of God incarnate. Wipf and Stock Publishers.
Morriston, Wes (2001). “Omnipotence and necessary moral perfection: are they compatible?” Religious Studies. 143-160.
Pike, Nelson (1969). “Omnipotence and God's ability to sin.” American Philosophical Quarterly . 208-216.
Wierenga, Edward R (2018). The Nature of God: An Inquiry into Divine Attributes. Cornell University Press.
 
 

Home

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Reviewers

Contact Us