{"id":4266,"date":"2018-09-03T16:55:56","date_gmt":"2018-09-03T16:55:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2018\/09\/03\/divine-simplicity-modal-collapse-and-a-powers-theory-of-modality\/"},"modified":"2018-09-03T16:55:56","modified_gmt":"2018-09-03T16:55:56","slug":"divine-simplicity-modal-collapse-and-a-powers-theory-of-modality","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2018\/09\/03\/divine-simplicity-modal-collapse-and-a-powers-theory-of-modality\/","title":{"rendered":"Divine Simplicity, Modal Collapse, and a Powers Theory of Modality"},"content":{"rendered":"

This is the third in a series on whether the doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS) entails modal collapse (MC). #1 is here<\/a> and #2 here<\/a>. Most of us hold that not everything possible is actual, and that not everything actual is necessary. I will assume that most of us are right. A doctrine entails modal collapse if it entails that, for every x, x is possible iff x is actual iff x is necessary.  <\/span><\/p>\n

In God's Powers and Modality: A Response to Mullins on Modal Collapse<\/a> (no bibliographical information provided, date, or author's name, but presumably by someone named 'Lenow') we read:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Our problem is not with the notion that God has created the world; it is with the fear that we will be forced by divine simplicity to say that God has created the world necessarily. <\/span><\/p>\n

[. . .]<\/span><\/p>\n

I believe that the recent work of Barbara Vetter offers an account of potentiality and modal grounding capable not only of resisting modal collapse, but of doing so along the traditional Thomist lines Mullins rejects as incoherent. Vetter presents us with the theoretical resources needed to affirm divine simplicity without forcing a breakdown in our modal language, and thus allows us to avoid being cornered into asserting that God creates necessarily or that all creaturely events occur necessarily.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

We shall see.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

What Vetter calls the \u201cstandard conception\u201d of a dispositionalist account of modality runs roughly as follows. Objects possess dispositional properties: a vase, for example, possesses the property of fragility; an electron possesses the property of repelling other particles with a negative charge; I have the ability to learn how to play the violin. (3)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I am well-disposed (pun intended) toward this sort of view. <\/span><\/p>\n

I am seated now, but I might not have been. I might have been standing now or in some other bodily posture. What makes this true? What is the ontological ground of the (real, non-epistemic) possibility of my not being seated now?  As useful as possible worlds talk is for rendering modal concepts and relations graphic, it is of no use for the answering of this question if we take an abstractist line on possible worlds as sanity requires that we do. On the other hand, David Lewis' concretist approach is, if I may be blunt, just crazy. <\/span><\/p>\n

The best answer invokes my presently unexercised ability to adopt a physical posture other than that of the seated posture, to stand up for example.  Ultimately, the ground of real modality is in the powers, abilities, capacities, dispositions, potencies, tendencies, and the like of the things the modal statements are about.<\/span><\/p>\n

The typical wine glass is fragile: it is disposed to shatter if struck with moderate force. Fragility is a stock example of a dispositional property.  But fragility comes in degrees.  Think of a spectrum of breakability from the most easily breakable items all the way up to items that are breakable only with great difficulty such as rocks and metal bolts and steel beams. We do not apply 'fragile' to things like steel beams, but they too are breakable. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Yet Vetter is most interested in the property that characterizes all the objects on<\/span>
this spectrum: the possibility of being broken, the manifestation that she takes to<\/span>
individuate this property. This modal property that extends from one end of this spectrum<\/span>
to the other she calls a potentiality\u2014in this case, the potentiality of a thing\u2019s being<\/span>
breakable.(4)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Now let's see if Vetter's power theory of modality solves our problem.  The problem can be put as follows without possible worlds jargon. There is a tension between divine simplicity and divine freedom.  <\/span><\/p>\n

\n

1) If God is simple, then he is pure act (actus purus<\/em>) and thus devoid of unexercised powers and unrealized potentials. He is<\/em>, from all eternity, all that he can<\/em> be.  Given that God is simple, there can be no real distinction in him between potency and act. This is necessarily true  because God exists of metaphysical necessity and is essentially pure act.<\/span><\/p>\n

2) As it is, God freely created our universe from nothing; but he might have created a  different universe, or no universe at all. Had he created no universe, then his power to create would have gone unexercised.  In that case he would not be pure act: he would harbor an unactualized potential.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The dyad is logically inconsistent. What I called a tension looks to be a contradiction. If (1) is true, then it is impossible that God have unexercised powers such as the never-exercised power to create.  But if (2) is true, it is possible that God have unexercised powers. So if God is both simple and (libertarianly) free, then we get a logical contradiction.<\/span><\/p>\n

If we hold to (1), then we must reject (2). The upshot is modal collapse. For given that God willed our universe with a will that is automatically efficacious, both the willing and the willed are necessary. And so the existence of Socrates is necessary and the same goes for his being  married to Xanthippe and his being the teacher of Plato, etc.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

To what work can we put Vetter\u2019s theory in forestalling the threat of modal collapse? Consider God\u2019s will, using Vetter\u2019s language, as an intrinsic maximal first-order potentiality to will God\u2019s own infinite goodness as the ultimate and perfect end of the divine nature. Let me take each descriptor in turn. First, this potentiality is intrinsic, because it does not depend upon any external circumstances for its manifestation and is not possessed jointly. Second, it is maximal, because God cannot fail to manifest this potentiality. As Vetter argued, something is maximally breakable if it is not possible for it not to break\u2014it will break under any circumstances. Similarly, the willing of God\u2019s goodness as end is a potentiality that can be possessed in degrees: rocks do not seem to possess it at all, demons possess it only to the extent that their wills remain a corrupted version of their original unvitiated creation, humans possess it to a greater extent in that the possibility of redemption remains open to them, angels possess it in the highest created degree as a gift from God; yet God \u201cpossesses\u201d this potentiality in qualitatively different fashion, possessing it maximally because it is identical with God\u2019s nature\u2014God cannot fail to will God\u2019s goodness. Third, this is a potentiality simpliciter\u2014that is, a first order iterated potentiality, rather than as a potentiality to acquire some other potentiality; the doctrine of divine simplicity removes the possibility of any such composition. Finally, to avoid the threat of modal collapse, this must be a multi-track potentiality, multiply realizable (as are most potentialities); in effect, this means that God is capable of willing God\u2019s goodness in multiple ways, but that no one instance of such willing is any more or any fuller a manifestation of this potentiality than any other such willing. Defenders of divine simplicity typically hold that God\u2019s life is itself full and infinite goodness, lacking nothing.[ . . .] Consequently, had God willed to exist without creation, God would not have willed a lesser goodness than God has willed in creating the world; similarly, had God willed the creation of a different world, God would not have willed a lesser (or greater) goodness than God has willed in creating this one. Each of these acts of willing would have produced different effects, to be sure\u2014but in each case, the potentiality manifested is the same, the potentiality to will God\u2019s infinite goodness as ultimate end.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

What is the argument here? It is none too clear.  But one key notion is that of a maximal potentiality. A maximal potentiality is one that cannot fail to be manifested.  An example of a non-maximal potentiality is that of a wine glass to break into discrete pieces when dropped onto a hard surface or struck. That disposition need never be manifested. (Imagine that the glass ceases to exist by being melted down, or maybe God simply annihilates it.) Or think of all the abilities that people have but never develop.<\/span><\/p>\n

Breakability looks to be a candidate for the office of maximal potentiality. It cannot fail to be manifested. "As Vetter argued, something is maximally breakable if it is not possible for it not to break\u2014it will break under any circumstances." This is a strange formulation. It is true that some things are such that they must eventually break down. But this is not to say that they will break under any<\/em> circumstances. But let that pass.<\/span><\/p>\n

Consider now God's power to will his own goodness. We may grant that this is a power that cannot fail to be exercised or manifested. Since it is not possible for God not to exercise this power, it is no threat at all to the divine simplicity. There is no real distinction between God and his willing his own goodness. God's willing his own goodness just is his power to will his own goodness.  This power is plainly compatible with God's being pure act.<\/span><\/p>\n

But how does this avoid modal collapse?  <\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Finally, to avoid the threat of modal collapse, this must be a multi-track potentiality, multiply realizable (as are most potentialities); in effect, this means that God is capable of willing God\u2019s goodness in multiple ways, but that no one instance of such willing is any more or any fuller a manifestation of this potentiality than any other such willing.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The second key idea, then, is that of the multiple realizability of liabilities and potentialities and such. I am not now actually sick, but I am liable to get sick, or I have the potential to get sick, in many different ways.  I can get sick from bad food, or polluted water, or a virus can attack me, etc.  My liability to get sick is multiply realizable. The same goes for active powers and abilities.  My power to express myself is realizable in different ways, in writing, in speech, in different languages, using sign language etc. <\/span><\/p>\n

God's power to will his own goodness is realizable by creating our universe, some other universe, or no universe at all. So it too is multiply realizable. Fine, but how does this solve the problem? <\/span><\/p>\n

Suppose I will to buy whisky. I go to the liquor story and say, "I want whisky!"  The proprietor says, "Very well, sir, would you like bourbon or scotch or rye or Irish?"  If I insist that I just want whisky, I will learn that whisky is not to be had. One cannot buy or drink whisky without buying or drinking either bourbon or scotch or rye or Irish or . . . .<\/span><\/p>\n

It is the same with God. He cannot will his own goodness 'in general'; he must will it in some specific way, by willing to create this universe or that universe or no universe.<\/span><\/p>\n

But then we are back to our problem. For whatever he does, whether he creates or not, is necessary and we have modal collapse.  The modal collapse that we all agree is in the simple God spreads to everything else.<\/span><\/p>\n

As far as I can see, Lenow's response to Mullins fails.<\/span><\/p>\n

UPDATE (9\/4). Joe Lenow writes,<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
Hi Bill\u2014I am Spartacus. Thanks for engaging the paper. <\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
This is a version of the argument from a conference presentation a couple of years ago; hadn't realized that the conference papers were public view. I've got a much more carefully worked-out version of the argument presently under review; please find it attached. I'd appreciate any thoughts you have on it!<\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Best wishes,<\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Joe Lenow<\/a><\/span><\/div>\n
Resident Assistant Professor of Theology<\/span><\/div>\n
Creighton University<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
I will have to study Professor Lenow's latest version. It cannot be reproduced or discussed here, of course, since it is under review.<\/span><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This is the third in a series on whether the doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS) entails modal collapse (MC). #1 is here and #2 here. Most of us hold that not everything possible is actual, and that not everything actual is necessary. I will assume that most of us are right. A doctrine entails modal … Continue reading “Divine Simplicity, Modal Collapse, and a Powers Theory of Modality”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[259,141,143,235],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4266","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-dispositions","category-divine-simplicity","category-god","category-modal-matters"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4266","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4266"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4266\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4266"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4266"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4266"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}