W.L. Craig on the Impassibility of
God.
Why he made up a rule as
he went along.
W.L. Craig says that God isn’t impassive, isn't emotionless. Craig, without explaining why, rules that an emotional being is better than a non-emotional being.
Therefore, God has emotions.
W.L. Craig says that God isn’t impassive, isn't emotionless. Craig, without explaining why, rules that an emotional being is better than a non-emotional being.
Therefore, God has emotions.
"[I]t
is a weakness for a person to be unmoved by human suffering and a strength to feel
emotions, including pain, indignation, compassion, etc. In fact, think of the etymology of the word
“compassion”: to suffer along with. As the greatest conceivable being, God must
be compassionate and share our sorrows and joys. Impassibility is
actually a weakness, whereas compassion redounds to God’s greatness."
Thus W.L. Craig says that God has emotions like us.
A different theological view, however, says that God doesn't have emotions like us. Moreover, it says that it's necessary that God doesn't--
"The doctrine of God's impassibility
states that God does not experience emotions (as humans understand them). That
is, God is 'impassive' in the face of events. God is not surprised, alarmed,
chagrined, amused, charmed, angered, happy, frustrated or saddened by events
the way we humans are. God isn't, like us, affected by events. If
God were affected by things
then God isn't Transcendent and omnipotent. You can't
'touch'--physically, causally, or emotionally--God. This doctrine is simply the
logical outcome of God's omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence. If
God knows all things from the beginning of time then he can't properly be
surprised by the outcome of events. True, the Bible does suggest that God
experiences emotions, even strong and violent emotions. And God even seems to
regret some of his choices. But according to the adherents of divine
impassibility all this is just metaphor and anthropomorphism."
It's one thing to take a side. But it's another thing to show it's true.
W.L. Craig takes a whimsical rule and tries to pass it off as reliable.
But it simply doesn't go the distance.
It's one thing to take a side. But it's another thing to show it's true.
W.L. Craig takes a whimsical rule and tries to pass it off as reliable.
But it simply doesn't go the distance.
No comments:
Post a Comment