Friday, November 10, 2017

God, Negative Emotions Or the Lack Thereof (Divine impassibility)

(1) According to Greek Philosophical Terms: A Historical Lexicon by F.E. Peters, the abstract nominal APAQEIA when used by ancient Greek philosophers usually means "unaffected, without pathe." This same source (under the entry PAQOS) also points out that PAQOS "is beclouded by a multiplicity of connotations." The term possibly denotes: event, suffering, emotion, experience, or attribute. While context must function as a determinative factor in this matter, I believe that the ancient church Fathers often used PAQOS or equivalent terms to reference emotions simpliciter. I do not think they were simply claiming that God does not have emotions in a negative manner or that He does not exemplify merely so-called negative emotions.

Augustine of Hippo and Gregory of Nyssa as well as Clement of Alexandria indicate that (metaphysically speaking) God does possess or have emotions at all. But it is the medievals such as Thomas Aquinas and Anselm of Canterbury who formulate this teaching in the strongest possible terms . In the Summa Contra Gentiles, Thomas is quite emphatic in saying that God has no emotions whatsoever from a metaphysical standpoint. For, says Thomas, if God is immutable and simple, then there can be no movement in God. He is strictly and solely impassible. Furthermore, if God is simple, then He does not have attributes but is His attributes or objective properties. Thomas thus reasons that a simple (uncompounded) or immutable deity cannot have emotions.

(2) Is it important to ascertain whether God has emotions or not? I think so. For one reason, the Bible often speaks of God as a being who has emotions. How are we to understand these passages? As metaphors, analogies or can we interpret or understand some of them as univocal utterances, so that there is a one-to-one correspondence (qualitatively speaking) between our AGAPH and God's AGAPH, even if there is a difference with respect to the degree of love that God has or is. Additionally, is it not much easier to draw close to a God who has emotions over against developing a relationship with a God who does not? See James 4:8. Finally, only a God with authentic emotions can suffer. I submit that a suffering deity is the only type of God that can help us to make sense of all the cosmic suffering and evil that has and now obtains.

(3) If God transcends emotion, then I don't understand how He can still have negative emotions. He may have something better, but that "something better" would certainly not be what we call "passion" or emotion.

10 comments:

Duncan said...

What is an emotion? Is it not something that moves one to action regardless of how it is perceived? A person beyond emotional response is defined as being numb. Someone who is numb or in shock does not respond or act.

God is love therefore god is attachment, god is dependence, & god is spirit which is motivation and action.

God seems to display https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteresis

Psalm 85:3

The ancient terms for emotions are related to the way they were felt as an involuntary action.

https://youtu.be/qy02bgZBAas

So I suppose I am saying that the term "emotion" has to be qualified?

Edgar Foster said...

From Scientific American:

"But during the past 30 years, Antonio R. Damasio has strived to show that feelings are what arise as the brain interprets emotions, which are themselves purely physical signals of the body reacting to external stimuli."

So Damasio argues that emotions are corporeal signals of the physical body responding to "external stimuli."

Thomas Aquinas writes: "Moreover, every passion of the appetite takes place through some bodily change, for example, the contraction or distension of the heart, or something of the sort. Now, none of this can take place in God, since He is not a body or a power in a body, as was shown above. There is, therefore, no passion of the appetite in Him" (Summa Contra Gentiles I.89.3).

Latin: Praeterea. Omnis affectiva passio secundum aliquam transmutationem corporalem fit: puta secundum constrictionem vel dilatationem cordis, aut secundum aliquid huiusmodi. Quorum nullum in Deo possibile est accidere: eo quod non sit corpus nec virtus in corpore, ut supra ostensum est. Non est igitur in ipso affectiva passio.

Passion (passio) is another word for emotion.

Emotion has been defined in various ways even in the ancient world. I believe that emotion has often been tied to the body somehow, but the early fathers thought God does not have a body. For this reason and others--including his eternality (timelessness), God cannot have emotions or his emotions are not our emotions.

I ultimately agree with you that "emotion" needs to be defined both within its ancient and contemporary setting.

Edgar Foster said...

I do not believe God is strongly immutable (completely unchangeable), but god is attachment [okay], but then you claim that god is dependence. I am not sure how God is dependence, especially if God is a se esse. And it's debatable whether spirit is motivation and action. I'm not trying to revisit old ground or be overly picky, but spirit is many things to me. However, when I think of God or angels as spirit beings, more than motivation or action come to mind. They are spirits, but we are not. We too have action and motivation while we're not spirits. Humans are parcels of matter; angels are not. One class is spirit while the other is not.

Philip Fletcher said...

Yes, I agree. Even the book of Daniel says the person of Jehovah, Angels are person, though not people. Person expression rules out this impersonal force that some want to say God is. They just don't see the connection between we humans and God, because they are fleshly as Paul says. Hey Edgar does Hal Fleming have a blog like you or is his work only found at academia.edu?

Edgar Foster said...

Philip, to my knowledge, Hal does not have a blog. He might, but I am not sure: he is one busy brother, but I sometimes lean on him for Hebrew questions.

Philip Fletcher said...

Ok thanks on that for Hal. He could be to busy for a blog for sure.

Duncan said...

"We too have action and motivation while we're not spirits. Humans are parcels of matter; angels are not. One class is spirit while the other is not." - but we do have breath. The ancient language has this as it's focus in the term nephesh. The body in all its parts and the breath that enables it. Breath is a wind that follows a prescribed path. We may not be spirit but we do have spirit.

Edgar Foster said...

Maybe this discussion illustrates our different approaches to words, but I think actual meaning is determined by context as to whether a word means breath, wind, attitude, spirit, life force, etc. Ruach/pneuma may/may not denote breath, depending on the context. Yes, we have spirit, but that too has to be contextualized.

Edgar Foster said...

Louw-Nida on PNEUMA Listed by Semantic Domains

(12.18) The Holy Spirit.

(12.33) Spirit, in general (a supernatural being). Cf. John 4:24

(12.37) Evil spirit.

(12.42) A ghost (Luke 24:37). But read this information carefully.

(26.9) Inner being.

Duncan said...

I find it interesting to look at translation into languages that do not have all the theological baggage that English does.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tPtRAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA242&lpg=PA242&dq=ephesians+6:12+wicked+wind&source=bl&ots=t8sgPljfJv&sig=m1yfV4RcLEtNIxJkp8XLpT3W1eE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin6tzZvr3XAhXBAMAKHTW5Ck84ChDoAQglMAA#v=onepage&q=ephesians%206%3A12%20wicked%20wind&f=false

One has to wonder how exactly the terms for the contextual footnote on Pg 243 would actually be translated into Tonga.