Posted by:
G. Salviati
(
)
Date: February 27, 2021 12:07PM
Well, from my perspective you have offered a lot by just bringing up the contrast between traditional theology and Mormonism in these two threads, and I am disappointed that there has not been more substantive interest.
Moreover, when people venture into theology they necessarily are driven deeply into metaphysics, where there really is no place for dogmatic insistence of one view over another. (Unless one leaves the realm of rationality altogether) After all, an argument could be made that it is all nonsense; at least from a scientific or philosophical point of view.
________________________________________
Although I also do not consider myself to be an expert on these matters, here are a few very brief thoughts on your two issues:
> 1. I have been looking into the problem of
> infinite regression. The LDS church gives an
> unsatisfying half answer, basically stating that
> We know Jesus has gone through the process of
> becoming a God, and Heavenly Father has as well,
> but that doesn't necessarily mean that this goes
> back indefinitely. They essentially push the
> problem down the line into the realm of mystery
> where Mormon cosmology has failed to investigate.
Exactly! Whenever the term "infinite" is invoked in any subject (except pure mathematics) as an explanation or finality for some aspect of reality one is already in deep metaphysical trouble. Here is how theoretical physicist Frank Close put it:
"[I]nfinity is transcendent, beyond measure, signifying a failure of understanding rather than a real answer. To put this into context, the probability of chance can range from zero . . . to an absolute certainty at 100 percent. "Infinity," by contrast, is boundless and immeasurable; it has no quantifiable meaning. In the context of the questions that the scientists were posing, the answer was nonsense, . . . For physicists, *infinity* is a code word for disaster, the proof that you are trying to apply a theory beyond its realm of applicability."
In short, postulating infinity, or the infinite, (or "the absolute") as part of a definition or explanation of God takes one from the meaningful to the mystical. It is giving up on rational, naturalistic, theology. One might ask at this point, "What more is there to investigate?" How does one investigate 'infinity?' What does it even mean?
You will notice that as you read traditional theology--ancient or modern versions--you find all sorts of attempts to make sense out of the infinite, leaving you (at least me) scratching my head. So, if theology is to make sense, either Mormon theology or traditional theology, it has got to find a way to define God without appealing to the infinite. Few traditional theologians are willing to go down that road, but it is a quite natural path for Mormon theology because of its finite, materialist foundations. That said, the infinite regress problem associated with Mormon theology must come to an end short of a fall back position that just embraces the traditional infinite and absolute God that was first rejected. And, of course, this doesn't address the problems associated with finitism; much less the anthropomorphic version of traditional Mormonism, where God looks just like us humans.
______________________________________
> 2. The divinity of Jesus. Was he God when he came
> to earth? Was it really necessary for him to be
> 100% God to pay for the sins of mankind, or just
> perfect? I learned that the trinity really only
> gained major acceptance in the 3rd century. I
> don't know what the understanding was before then,
> really. I am not sure of the question myself as to
> whether a trinity is a necessary part of the whole
> atonement process or if that is just some pet
> belief of Aquinas.
The concept of the trinity is incoherent, and it reflects an attempt to reconcile (1) the finite Jesus; with (2) the absolute version of God born of Greek philosophy, particularly Neoplatonism.
Suppose one takes the position that God (the Father) is a finite personage, and Jesus is a separate finite personage, neither of whom are infinite, absolute, omnipotent, etc. They are just highly intelligence beings. With that starting point, it is at least conceivable that human life is part of some "divine" plan, orchestrated by God and Jesus; and that Jesus' incarnation was somehow part of such a plan. Building upon that, it is, I suppose, conceivable that the Mormon "plan of salvation" is at least minimally logically possible--even if there is no evidence for it; and notwithstanding all sorts of questions as why such "redemption" was even necessary in the first place. But at least we have something to talk about (and to rationally discuss and dismiss). With the trinity, we are starting out with a notion of God that doesn't make any sense to begin with. What is perhaps most fundamentally lost is the notion of God as a single, unified, personage, where at least it would make sense to talk about God's will, desires, motivations, decisions, morality, love, etc. etc.
Anyway, thanks for your post. I would think that those people here on RfM that have left Mormonism only to embrace some alternative traditional view of God, would have a comment about all of this. For reasons explained, leaving Mormonism on the basis of critical thinking, and then jumping into either a traditional Catholic or Protestant faith is NOT a step up in either critical thinking or rationality.