A Study of the Relationship between Deity and Personality

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D. Student of Philosophy of Religion, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

2 Associate Professor, Department of Islamic Philosophy and Theology, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy of Religion, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

All popular concepts of deity (Theism, Pantheism, and Panentheism) believe in divinity. In Theism, “God” has attributes such as consciousness, will, goodness, and so forth, which can be seen in humans. On the contrary, pantheists argue that: a) the person is equal to the human being; b) embodiment is a prominent feature of the human being; c) having attributes such as consciousness, will, and so forth, requires a body and equates to anthropomorphism. In other words, these attributes are inevitably associated with embodiment and the resulting limitations. Thereby, the pantheistic deity is impersonal. There is a duality of the “personality” and “impersonality” of the deity. The crucial question of this article is, “what is the relationship between divinity and personality?” The relationship of embodiment to personality and the relationship of perfection to the impersonal deity, constitute the sub-questions of it.
We show that there is a significant relationship between personality and divinity. In the first section, the term divinity is examined; firstly, it is assumed that, contrary to pantheism, divinity is definable. Otto’s attempting to trace the origins of the “holy” and the historical studying of pantheistic approaches confirms this assumption. Secondly, “Infinity, ” “influence, ” and “transcendence” are three critical terms in defining divinity. Pantheistic argument showed that all critiques of personality are summed up in the fact that personality is a limiting factor.
That is, it is inconceivable that the transcendent, infinite, and influential deity can be a person. Therefore, in the second part, the concept of person is examined, and we conclude that: 1) there is a relation between the practical terms in person’s meaning and the terms of divinity; 2) Although the main critique of the deity’s personality is the embodiment, it is not a crucial term in defining the person. That is why Michael Levin is in contradiction when he believes that divine unity doesn’t need to be a person or conscious, it is sufficient to be perfect. The question arises as to what perfection means without consciousness, power, and will? Isn’t a human being more complete due to the pantheistic divine unity? Accordingly, an analysis of perfection without addressing personal attributes puts pantheists in an apparent contradiction. Besides, impersonality faces a severe dilemma; if they do not take the personal attributes, according to Kant, the deity is reduced to an object. Instead, there could be some responses to anthropomorphism; firstly, the basis of the Pantheistic mistake is to generalize the meaning of finite consciousness or will to an infinite being, whereas temporality is an attribute of the deity’s knowledge or will’s objects, not of the deity’s knowledge and will. Secondly, the study shows where personality is interpreted to anthropomorphism, it focuses on the late idea in Christian thought about Jesus, while the history of attributing the deity to consciousness, will, and so forth, is much older. Finally, it is indicated that the critiques of the personality are not strong enough to challenge it. So, according to the “Principle of Simplicity”, believers in the personality of the deity have a more justified view.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Qoran
New Testament
 
Barua, A. (2010). God’s Body at Work: Rāmānuja and Panentheism. International Journal of Hindu Studies. 14(1), 1–30. https://doi. org/10. 1007/s11407-010-9086-z
Coburn, R. C. (1990). The Idea of Transcendence. Philosophical Investigations. 13(4), 322–337. https://doi. org/10. 1111/j. 1467-9205. 1990. tb00089. x
Copleston, F. C. (1380 AP/2001-2). Tarikh-i Falsafe: Yunan va Room [A History of Philosophy: Greece and Rome]. (Mujtabavi, J. D., Trans.). Tehran: Ilmi va Farhangi Publication Center. [In Persian].
Davies, B. (2004). An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (3rd edition). New York: Oxford University Press.
Galloway, G. (1921). The Problem of the Personality of God. The Journal of Religion. 1(3), 296–306. https://doi. org/10. 1086/480205
Geach, p (2000). God and the Soul. St. Augustine's Press.
Jahangiri, M. (1367 AP/1988-9). Muhyuddin Ibn ʿArabi: Chehreye Barjaste-ye ʿIrfan-i Islami [Mhyuddin b. Arabi: the prominent figure of Islamic mysticism]. Tehran: University of Tehran Press.
Kim, C. T. (1987). Transcendence and Immanence. Journal of the American Academy of Religion. 55 (3), 537–549. https://doi. org/10. 1093/jaarel/LV. 3. 537
Legenhausen, M. (1396 AP/2017-8). Is God a Person? Sophia Perennis (Jāvīdān Khirad). 32, 195-226.
Levine, M. P. (1994). Pantheism: a Non-Theistic Concept of Deity. London: Routledge.
Mesbah Yazdi, M. T. (1384 AP/2005-6). Amuzesh-i ʿAqaid (3-in-1 vol.) [Lessons in Beliefs]. Tehran: Sherkat-i Chap va Nashr-i Beynolmelal-i Sazman-i Tablighat-i Islami
Otto, R. (1936). The Idea of the Holy (2nd ed.). (Harvey, J. W., Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Owen, H. P. (1971). Concepts of Deity. London: Macmillan.
Puligandla, R., & Puhakka, K. (1972). Holiness in Indian and Western Traditions. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 3(3), 161–175. https://doi. org/10. 1007/BF00139629
Qaysari Rumi, M. D. (1375 AP/1996-7). Sharh-i Fusus al-Hikam [a commentary on Bezels of Wisdom]. Tehran: Ilmi va Farhangi Publication Center.
Ragheb Isfahani, H. (1416 AH). Mufradat-i Alfaz-i Qoran [a dictionary of Qoranic terms]. Damascus: Dar al-Qalam.
Sardella, F. (2016). The Concept of ‘Transcendence’ in Modern Western Philosophy and in Twentieth Century Hindu Thought. Argument: Biannual Philosophical Journal. 6(1), 93–106.
Shayegan, D. (1389 AP/2010-1). Adyan va Maktabha-yi Falsafi-yi Hind [Indian philosophy and religion]. Tehran: Amir Kabir.
Shirazi, S. D. (Mulla Sadra). (1981). Al-Hikmat al-Mutaʿaliyah fi al-Asfar al-ʿAqliyyat al-Arbaʿ (The Transcendent Theosophy in the Four Journeys of the Intellect), vol. 6. Beirut: Dar Ihya Turath al-Arabi.
Spinoza, B. (1376 AP/1997-8). Akhlaq [Ethics]. (Jahangiri, M., Trans.). Tehran: Markaz-i Nashr-i Daneshgahi. [In Persian].
Stace, W. T. (1375 AP/1996-7). ʿIrfan va Falsafe [Mysticism and Philosophy]. (Khorramshahi, B., Trans.). Tehran: Soroush Publications. [In Persian].
Stenmark, M. (2019). Panentheism and its neighbors. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 85(1), 23–41. https://doi. org/10. 1007/s11153-018-9687-9
Stewart, M. B. (1923). The Definition of God. Harvard Theological Review. 16(3), 259–265. https://doi. org/10. 1017/S0017816000013730
Tabatabai, M. H. (Allama Tabatabai). (1370 AP/1991-2). Rasaʾil-i Towhidi [monotheistic treatises]. (Shirwani, A., Trans.). Tehran: Al-Zahra Publications. [In Persian].
Tabatabai, M. H. (Allama Tabatabai). (1387 AP/2008-9). Majmuʿa-yi Rasaʾil-i ʿAllama Tabatabai [a collection of Allama Tabatabai’s treatises]. Qom: Bustan-i Kitab.
Trendelenburg, A. (1910). A Contribution to the History of the Word Person: A Postumous Treatise by Adolf Trendelenburg. The Monist. 20(3), 336–363. https://doi. org/monist191020348
Webb, C. Ch. J. (1920). God and Personality: Being the Gifford Lectures delivered in the University of Aberdeen in the years 1918 & 1919. London; New York: Routledge
Webb, M. O. (1989). Natural Theology and the Concept of Perfection in Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz. Religious Studies. 25(4), 459–475. https://doi. org/10. 1017/S0034412500020047
Wolf, H. C. (1964). An Introduction to the Idea of God as Person. Journal of Bible and Religion. 32(1), 26–33. doi: 10. 1007/s11153-014-9500-3
Wynn, M. (1997). Simplicity, Personhood, and Divinity. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 41(2), 91–103.
Send comment about this article
CAPTCHA Image

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics