For the first time in church history, when a magisterial document referred to Islam in an appreciative manner, it did so by placing a particular emphasis on the divine attributes. The groundbreaking declaration of the Second Vatican Council entitled Nostra Aetate highlights various elements of the Islamic faith shared by Christians and Muslims: “They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men […]”. After addressing the veneration of Jesus and his mother as well as the respected forms of piety, the text continues: “In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead.” (NA 3)
This God is the one, the just and the merciful, and the omnipotent who has acted in creation and may be viewed throughout history as a common ground for the majority of monotheistic believers. However, describing God can also be regarded as a common challenge, that is, shared across religious boundaries. While the attributes of omnipotence and omniscience, justice and mercy, and simplicity and divine action are part of our constitutive traditions, their reconciliation with philosophical systems and the scriptural witness has never been uncontested. Jews, Christian and Muslim thinkers were drawing on Aristotelian and Neoplatonic thoughts to articulate their theologies and to bridge the gap between God’s transcendence and action as the creator. Throughout history, they wrestled with the same problem of how the human language relates to the realm of the divine. Even during the formative time of scholastic theological systems, these debates were not confined to religious belongings. A well-known case in point is the influence by Ibn Sīnā on Thomas Aquinas.1 Both thinkers continue to appear as prominent interlocutors in current approaches, as reflected in this volume.
In a sense, approaching the divine attributes today is seemingly particularly challenging due to the plurality of contemporary philosophical language games. For this matter, whether certain attributes should be upheld or if they need to be modified for the sake of the God witnessed in the foundational scriptures is not even uncontested. In this regard, the attribute of divine simplicity has been contested, because it is seemingly in tension with a God who is actively engaged in seeking a living relationship with creation. Similarly, omnipotence and omniscience have been questioned for a long time in terms of their compatibility with human free will. This debate has gained further momentum in the context of approaches to the problem of evil that is perceived as irreconcilable with the idea of an all-controlling being. This very problem also puts the attributes of justice and mercy into question. In addition, a long-standing Christian polemic exists that portrays grace and love as opposed to the notion of law, which is closely linked to the idea of justice. Traces of these apologetic moves can still be found although Christian political theologies have reemphasized the practical relevance of justice in recent decades. Alternatively, Muslim thinkers have raised the suspicion that Christianity pays scant attention to concrete justice and its application.2 This history of polemics makes the question of how both attributes are understood in contemporary discourse a particularly pressing issue.
As particularly emphasized by philosophically informed theologies, staying loyal to the transcendence of God occasionally seems to be at odds with the scriptural witness and religious practice. When believers pray to God, they envision a living and personal relationship with God whom they hope may answer their prayer. If justice and mercy are not experienced realities, then the question must be raised if the divine attributes remain unconnected to the everyday use of the terms and are equivocally predicated of God.
A striking aspect is that these questions of how to perceive the divine attributes seem not so much to divide Christians and Muslims, as they lead us to revisit debates that are deeply rooted in both traditions. Instead of along denominational lines, a divide can be observed in various encounters between philosophical schools that shape utterances about the divine. Typically, contrasts are drawn between analytical and continental philosophers or defenders of classical as opposed to personal theism. In the footsteps of Greek thought, classical theists place a particular emphasis on the transcendence, immutability, and impassibility of God, while personal theists may employ a modern understanding of the term person when referring to God. This leads to the reconfiguration of God’s relationship to time and history and prioritizes God’s responsiveness to creation over the doctrine of impassibility. The same is true for versions of free will theism or relational theism that consider God’s freedom and love as an axiomatic starting point that shapes the understanding of divine engagement with creation and the conception of divine attributes.
While such contrasting pairs provide a helpful overview of the current theological landscape, they introduce the risk of leading to oversimplification and suggesting a priori incompatibility between them.3 They also tend to underrate the diversity of approaches subsumed under one label. However, it frequently seems to be the philosophical framework instead of the religious belonging that leads to a varied understanding of God as the one, the just, or the merciful. This observation motivated the project documented in this volume. Following the method of comparative theology, Christian and Muslim theologians and philosophers discussed their and the approaches of others to the divine attributes. Thereby, a specific focus was placed on the potential role of analytical philosophy in this regard. The question that arose was whether or not analytical philosophy can provide a shared language that can help in communicating and translating between religious traditions? If such a communication were impossible, then a meaningful dialogue between faiths would be severely complex. The chances and limitations of this endeavor will be examined in the following contributions.
The first goal of the project was to reach a coherent manner of speaking about the divine that pays attention to tradition as well as the contemporary challenges in philosophy. What happens to a set of beliefs that is seemingly closely linked to the Neoplatonic heritage if the philosophical framework changes? The authors endeavor to explore the possibilities and limitations of bringing analytical philosophy into conversations with the classics of both religious traditions. This effort aims to build bridges in a twofold sense: namely, across philosophical approaches and religious faiths. Although the conceptualization and current relevance of divine attributes lie at the center of the following articles, they simultaneously address the underlying question: How is mutual understanding across cultures and faiths possible? Using analytical philosophy as a means of encounter across theologies does not intend to privilege one philosophical approach over the other. In fact, not all contributions gathered in this volume exclusively draw on analytical philosophy, and its limitations are explored as well. The project simply responded to the fact that analytical approaches are currently used in the theologies of both religions to reformulate traditional tenets in terms of contemporary philosophy. This aspect makes it worth exploring whether or not these attempts may help in facilitating a comparative approach to the common challenge of speaking about the divine attributes across religious traditions. This study employs the term analytical philosophy in a broad sense that does not equate it with claims to exclusivity or a certain stance on the question of metaphysical realism.4 Instead, we understand it as a style that places a particular emphasis on the characteristics summarized by Michael Rea as, inter alia, focusing on formalized sentences, “precision, clarity, and logical coherence,”5 and an avoidance of metaphorical speech. Despite differences, the authors of both traditions may follow (or reject) similar hermeneutical rules that could enable the fruition of such an encounter. Similarly, varying philosophical approaches may point out one another’s blind spots.6 Philosophical plurality will then not function as an obstacle to be overcome but as a potential enrichment in the quest of faith seeking understanding. The principle of charity that plays an important role in comparative theology is equally applicable to the encounter across philosophical frameworks.
The drafts of the papers gathered in this volume were presented during a summer school at the University of Paderborn in 2019 and an online workshop in 2021. As such, they are the result of an international encounter and engaged discussions of emerging scholars as well as experts from Protestant, Catholic, Shiʿite and Sunnite backgrounds. Throughout the workshop, Jewish colleagues joined and tremendously enriched the debates.
The first part of the book focuses on divine omniscience and its relationship with the other attributes, in particular, the omnipotence and transcendence of God.
Rahim Acar examines Ibn Sīnā’s approach to the question how the divine attributes can be upheld and maintain awareness of God’s transcendence at the same time. He points to the fundamental difference between human and divine knowledge when addressing the contested topic of whether or not particulars can be known by God who is characterized by the attribute of divine simplicity. Acar places a particular emphasis on the role of creation in this regard: in contrast to humans, God does not know things as existing independently; instead, God’s knowledge makes everything exist in the first place.
Ebrahim Azadegan then confronts the teachings of divine knowledge and immutability with the Biblical and Qur’anic notions of an interactive God who is engaged in history and even repents previous actions. He discusses various philosophical attempts to make sense of the manner in which prayers can be considered efficacious. Azadegan argues for a concept he coined as the “argument from the efficacy of prayer,” which leads to the view that God is not impassible, because God is active in responding to the needs of creation.
By asking the question, “Does God know what time it is?”, Brian Leftow addresses the problem of the compatibility between the omniscience and atemporality of God. He also refers to Ibn Sīnā’s thought to claim that, according to him, God cannot know what time it is just as an incorporeal God cannot possess sensual knowledge. While Leftow follows the argument by Avicenna, he points out that this is not equal to saying that God does not know a certain fact, because the now in question is dependent on one’s standpoint in time.
Muhammad Legenhausen provides an instructive overview of the development of the Shiʿite discussions on divine knowledge and focuses on its compatibility with divine unity. He then proceeds to discuss the possibility of knowledge of particulars with reference to Ibn Sīnā’s thought. Adding to the contribution of Acar, Legenhausen argues that the category of knowledge by presence is adequate for the description of God’s knowledge of particulars that guarantees their existence at the same time. Finally, Legenhausen also addresses the question of whether or not God can know the present time as present. He points out that, in a certain sense, God does know what time it is, that is, what time it is for humans.
As exemplified by the contribution of Azadegan, the question of how God’s knowledge relates to us can be of great importance to religious believers. In prayer, believers hope for a God who acts justly and merciful, as portrayed in the Hebrew Bible, Christ, and the Qur’an. Thus, the second part of the book addresses these two attributes.
By examining these attributes in the thought of Friedrich Schleiermacher and Paul Ricœur, Maureen Junker-Kenny critically engages the question posed by the project: To which extent can analytical philosophy be used as a common ground for dialogue between the monotheistic faiths? The author argues that the theological method applied should not neglect an understanding of religion in the context of the “practical options of life.” Furthermore, she recommends that theology should engage in dialogue with other sciences and opts for a thought form that enables doing so. Finally, Junker-Kenny highlights the central importance of history – and God’s actions in it – for the monotheistic faiths.
In his contribution, Georg Gasser introduces scripture and philosophy into the dialogue to approach the problem of suffering. By closely examining the suffering of Job and God’s answer to him, he explores the difference between personal and classical theism. Gasser argues that, according to the latter, God cannot be perceived as a moral agent in the manner of human beings. He then poses the question of how this view is related to the Biblical portrayal of God. In this regard, Gasser discusses a reading of the Book of Job that sheds light on God as the creator of human beings, who are longing for a moral order, and the natural realm that is not subject to such an order.
Similarly, Saida Mirsadri addresses the question of divine justice in the face of suffering. She criticizes the speculative attempts to solve the problem of evil in a theoretical manner; instead, she suggests an approach that focuses on practical reason. Inspired by the work of Navid Kermani as well as by modern Jewish and Christian responses to the question, she proposes an “Islamic theodicy of protest.” For doing so, she engages with Islamic poetry, that is, in the works of Faridoddin Attar, Muhammad Iqbal, and Mehmet Âkif Ersoy.
One of the central attributes that is seemingly at odds with the view of God as responsive to creation is the attribute of divine simplicity. The third part of the book focuses on this doctrine and its relationship with divine action as well as the other attributes that were previously addressed.
Mehmet Sait Reçber explores al-Ghazālī’s critique of the doctrine of divine simplicity as perceived by philosophers. He firstly presents the arguments put forward by Ibn Sīnā and al-Fārābī in its defense. Among the consequences of the tenet is the impossibility of providing a definition of God or to state that God has quiddity. He then illustrates how al-Ghazālī challenges this view, who, in turn, argues that denying quiddity is tantamount to denying reality. Furthermore, in his view, the position of philosophers would lead to the collapse of all divine attributes into one. Reçber explores the question about which ontologies operate in the background of the views proposed and highlights the remaining relevance of the critique by al-Ghazālī for current debates.
In his contribution “Divine Simplicity and Divine Action,” Thomas Schärtl thoroughly discusses the strengths and weaknesses as well as the implications and potential metaphysical presuppositions of the doctrine of divine simplicity. He points out that it enables the articulation of God’s transcendence and aseity in a clear manner and that it is closely linked to the theological use of analogical speech. He also provides a nuanced discussion of the implication of the doctrine for a consistent view of divine action.
Alan J. Torrance examines Christian resources for addressing God’s perfection. He critically examines the classical doctrine of “mixed relations,” which is closely linked to divine simplicity. According to this doctrine, creation holds a real relation to God, while God, in turn, has no real relation to creation. However, how does this view, as exemplarily held by Thomas Aquinas, relate to the Biblical witness and to the event of the incarnation, which is witnessed as God’s self-disclosure in history? Torrance discusses this question throughout his contribution.
Reza Akbari presents the different types of arguments by Mullā Ṣadrā for divine simplicity that describe God as the necessary being without any components. Toward this end, he addresses two philosophical frameworks, namely, quiddity- and existence-centered arguments, before his focus on the relationship between the attributes and essence of God in the thought of Mullā Ṣadrā. In this regard, the principality of existence plays a decisive role. Akbari claims that this core thought by Mullā Ṣadrā lacks philosophical justification; instead, it relies on metaphorical speech.
In his concluding remarks, Klaus von Stosch reflects on the comparative encounter documented in this volume and places it within the wide context of the debates on classical theism and free will theism. By pointing out disagreements and commonalities across authors, he demonstrates possible means of intensifying an interreligious learning process on the divine attributes that this volume attempts to initiate.
The John Templeton Foundation generously funded the project called “Building Bridges Between Traditional Thought and Analytical Philosophy – Rethinking Divine Attributes in Islam and Christianity.” The publication of the results would have been impossible without the support of Leonhard Banowski, Julian Heise, and Katharina Holtmann, whom we thank for their efforts. We also thank the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable remarks. This project led to a fruitful exchange between students and emerging scholars from various countries and motivated a few of them to pursue further research on the divine attributes. We hope that the texts that generated these stimulating debates during the workshops will be equally thought-provoking for the readers of this volume.
Bonn in October 2024 Lukas Wiesenhütter
Cf. David Burrell, Knowing the Unknowable God. Ibn Sina, Maimonides, Aquinas (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1986).
For example, Ibn Taymiyya raised such a critique, cf. Joshua Ralston, Law and the Rule of God: A Christian Engagement with Sharī‘a (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2020), 108–115.
For example, consider the attempt to illustrate the compatibility of the “classical” divine attributes and the Biblical portrayal of God in Eleonore Stump, The God of the Bible and the God of the Philosophers (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press 2016). Such an attempt adds complexity to a strict opposition of contrasting pairs.
For this topic, cf. Michael C. Rea, Essays in Analytic Theology: Volume I. (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2020), 4.
Ibid., 3.
Such an encounter can involve a fruitful critique, too; cf. for the German-speaking debate Hans-Joachim Höhn et al. (eds.), Analytische und Kontinentale Theologie im Dialog. Quaestiones disputatae 314 (Freiburg: Herder, 2021).