{"id":8197,"date":"2014-01-16T16:46:01","date_gmt":"2014-01-16T16:46:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2014\/01\/16\/a-misunderstanding-of-divine-simplicity\/"},"modified":"2014-01-16T16:46:01","modified_gmt":"2014-01-16T16:46:01","slug":"a-misunderstanding-of-divine-simplicity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2014\/01\/16\/a-misunderstanding-of-divine-simplicity\/","title":{"rendered":"A Misunderstanding Of Divine Simplicity"},"content":{"rendered":"

London Karl refers me to this piece<\/a> by Stephen H. Webb in which we read (emphases added):<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

I recently reviewed<\/a> Hart\u2019s new book, The Experience of God<\/em>, at First Things<\/em>. Hart defends three basic points: First, there was a consensus among ancient philosophers and theologians regarding the simplicity of God. Divine simplicity can be stated in many ways, but it basically means that God has no parts. Or you could just say that God is immaterial (since anything material can be divided).<\/strong> Second, this consensus was shared by nearly all the world\u2019s oldest religions. Third, this consensus is crucial for the Christian faith. It is, in fact, the only way to make sense of God, and thus it is fundamental for everything that Christians believe and say about the divine.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The first bolded passage is inaccurate.  On traditional theism God is of course immaterial, and is maintained to be such by all traditional theists.  But the doctrine of divine simplicity is not identical to the claim that God is immaterial, a claim rejected by many traditional theists.  The simplicity doctrine entails the immateriality doctrine, but not vice versa.  Thus the simplicity doctrine says more than the immateriality doctrine.  If God is simple, then God has and can have no (proper) parts, hence has and can have no material parts; a simple God is therefore an immaterial God given that every material thing is partite, actually or potentially.  But an immaterial God needn't be simple.  The simplicity doctrine implies that there are no real distinctions among:<\/span><\/p>\n