View source for Philosophy:Theistic finitism

{{Short description|Belief in a deity that is not omnipotent}}
'''Theistic finitism''', also known as '''finitistic theism''' or '''finite godism''', is the belief in a [[Religion:Deity|deity]] that is limited.<ref name="Geisler 1989">Geisler, Norman;  Watkins, William D. (1989). ''Finite Godism: A World with a Finite God''. In ''Worlds Apart: A Handbook on World Views''. Wipf and Stock Publishers. pp. 187-216. {{ISBN|1-59244-126-2}}</ref><ref>McKim, Donald K. (1996). ''Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms''. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 278. {{ISBN|0-664-22089-4}}</ref> It has been proposed by some philosophers and theologians to solve the [[Philosophy:Problem of evil|problem of evil]]. Most finitists accept the [[Philosophy:Omnibenevolence|absolute goodness]] of God but reject [[Philosophy:Omnipotence|omnipotence]].<ref>Sahakian, William S; Sahakian, Mabel Lewis. (1974). ''Realms of Philosophy''. Schenkman Publishing Company. p. 319. "Theistic Finitism is meant the belief that God is limited in some capacity or quality, usually power or goodness; either he lacks absolute power or absolute goodness. The majority of Finitists accept the absolute goodness of God while relinquishing belief in his omnipotence".</ref>

==Definition==

Finitistic theism denies that God is omnipotent.<ref name="Geisler 1989"/> Ray Harbaugh Dotterer in his book ''The Argument for a Finitist Theology'' (1917) summarized the argument for theistic finitism:
{{quote|God can not be thought to be at once omnipotent and perfectly good. If we say that he is omnipotent, that his sovereignty is complete, that all events that occur are willed by him; then it follows that he is responsible for the actual world, which is partly evil, and, accordingly, that he is not perfectly good. If we begin at the other end, and say God is perfectly good, then we must deny that he is omnipotent.<ref>Dotterer, Ray Harbaugh. (1917). [https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015070470268&view=1up&seq=29 ''The Argument for a Finitist Theology'']. New Era Printing Company. p. 23</ref>}}

The idea that God is and must be infinite has been a nearly universal belief amongst monotheists. Only a minority of thinkers have advanced the idea of a finite deity.<ref>Hudson, Yeager. ''Omnipotence: Must God Be Infinite?''. In Creighton Peden, Larry E. Axel. (1989). ''God, Values, and Empiricism: Issues in Philosophical Theology''. Mercer University Press. p. 92. {{ISBN|0-86554-360-7}}</ref>

==History==

[[Biography:William James|William James]] (1842–1910) was a believer in a finite God which he used to solve the [[Philosophy:Problem of evil|problem of evil]].<ref name="Barnard">Barnard, George William. (1997). ''Exploring Unseen Worlds: William James and the Philosophy of Mysticism''. State University of New York Press. p. 251. {{ISBN|0-7914-3223-8}} "James's theology answer to the problem of evil is strikingly simple, but theologically daring: God is ''not'' all-powerful, all-knowing, or all-pervasive, but rather, is finite."</ref><ref>Weidenbaum, Jonathan. (2013) ''William James’s Argument for a Finite Theism''. In Diller J., Kasher A. (eds) ''Models of God and Alternative Ultimate Realities''. Springer. pp. 323-331. {{ISBN|978-94-007-5218-4}}</ref> James rejected the [[Religion:Biblical inspiration|divine authorship]] of the Bible and the idea of a perfect God. He defined God as a "combination of ideality and (final) efficacity" and preferred a finite God that is "cognizant and responsive in some way".<ref>Kamber, Richard. (2016). ''William James: Essays and Lectures''. Routledge. p. 159. {{ISBN|978-1138457393}}</ref><ref name="Pomerlaeau">Pomerlaeau, Wayne P. (1998). ''Western Philosophies Religion''. Ardsley House Publishers. p. 492. {{ISBN|978-1-880157-62-6}}</ref> James's finite God was not omnipotent, [[Philosophy:Omnipresence|omnipresent]], [[Philosophy:Omniscience|omniscient]] or a creator of the universe.<ref name="Barnard"/><ref name="Pomerlaeau"/><ref>Schwartz, Robert. (2015). ''Rethinking Pragmatism: From William James to Contemporary Philosophy''. Wiley. p. 25. {{ISBN|978-0-470-67469-7}}</ref>

Theologian Clarence Beckwith (1849–1931) suggested that Horace Bushnell (1802–1876) was a finitist. According to Beckwith "one of the earliest attempts in America to show that God was finite was made by Horace Bushnell in his ''God in Christ (1849)'' <ref>{{cite book | last=Bushnell | first=Horace | title=God in Christ : three discourses, delivered at New Haven, Cambridge, and Andover : with a preliminary dissertation on language | publisher=Scholarly Publishing Office, University of Michigan Library | publication-place=Ann Arbor, Mich. | date=2010 | isbn=978-1-4255-3727-2 | oclc=678632613 | orig-date = 1876}}, includes a preliminary dissertation arguing that language is inadequate to express things of the spirit.</ref>.<ref>Beckwith, Clarence Augustine. (1922). [https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=yale.39002085400290&view=1up&seq=236 ''The Idea of God: Historical, Critical, Constructive'']. New York: Macmillan. p. 214</ref> 

A minority of historical [[Philosophy:Freethought|freethinker]]s and rationalists advocated a finite god in opposition to the [[Religion:God in Abrahamic religions|God in Abrahamic religions]]. [[Biography:H. G. Wells|H. G. Wells]] advocated a finite God in his book ''God the Invisible King'' (1917) . 

Another advocate of theistic finitism was Peter Bertocci (1910-1989) who proposed that "God is all-good but not all-powerful".<ref name="Geisler 1989" /> Most finitists have held that God is [[Religion:Personal god|personal]], although a few such as Henry Nelson Wieman (1884–1975) have stated God is impersonal.<ref name="Geisler 1989" />

Philosopher Edgar S. Brightman (1884–1953) defended theistic finitism in his book ''A Philosophy of Religion'', published in 1940. Brightman stated that theistic finitism began with [[Biography:Plato|Plato]] and he traced the idea through history to Marcion, [[Biography:Mani (prophet)|Mani]] and [[Unsolved:Manichaeism|Manichaeism]], [[Biography:Pierre Bayle|Pierre Bayle]], [[Biography:John Stuart Mill|John Stuart Mill]], H. G. Wells and others.<ref name="Brightman">Brightman, Edgar S. (1940). [https://archive.org/details/philosophyofreli00brig/page/286/mode/2up ''Historical Sketch of Theistic Finitism'']. In ''A Philosophy of Religion''. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc. pp. 286-301</ref> Brightman developed the concept of a finite God to solve the problem of evil. He held the view that God is an infinite personal spirit but his power is limited.<ref>Erickson, Millard J. (1998). ''Finitism: Rejection of Omnipotence''. In ''Christian Theology''. Baker Books. pp. 439-442. {{ISBN|978-0-8010-2182-4}}</ref> Brightman suggested that Wells was the "first modern writer to devote an entire book to the concept of God's finiteness."<ref name="Brightman" /> Wells dissociated his God in any respect from the biblical God.<ref>Wagar, W. Warren. (2004). ''H. G. Wells: Traversing Time''. Wesleyan University Press. p. 154. {{ISBN|978-0819567253}}</ref>

Rufus Burrow, Jr. a professor of Christian thought, has argued (2012) that Brightman was different from most other finitists as he held the view that God remains infinite in many ways.<ref name="Burrow">Burrow, Rufus Jr. (2012). ''The Finite-Infinite God''. In ''God and Human Dignity: The Personalism, Theology, and Ethics of Martin Luther King, Jr''. University of Notre Dame Press. {{ISBN|978-0-268-02194-8}}</ref> This was in opposition to Plato and H. G. Wells. Burrow noted that Brightman characterized God as a "finite-infinite God".<ref name="Burrow" />

==Recent==

Conservative rabbi Harold Kushner defended theistic finitism in his book ''[[Philosophy:When Bad Things Happen to Good People|When Bad Things Happen to Good People]]'', published in 1981.<ref name="Geisler 1989"/><ref>Michael, Martin. (1990). ''The Finite God Theodicy''. In ''Atheism: A Philosophical Justification''. Temple University Press. pp. 436-438. {{ISBN|0-87722-642-3}}</ref>

Philosopher Frank B. Dilley noted in 2000 that theistic finitism is rarely discussed in modern philosophical literature.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Dilley, Frank B.|year=2000|title=A Finite God Reconsidered|journal=International Journal for Philosophy of Religion|volume=47|issue=1|pages=29–41|doi=10.1023/A:1003838717365|jstor=40036433|s2cid=169766359}}</ref>

==See also==

*[[Religion:Process theology|Process theology]]
*[[Philosophy:Theodicy|Theodicy]]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==Further reading==

*[[Biography:H. J. McCloskey|H. J. McCloskey]]. (1974). [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-94-015-0655-7_5 ''God as Finite and Imperfect: Worshipworthiness'']. In ''God and Evil''. Springer. pp. 65-69. {{ISBN|978-94-015-0162-0}}
*{{cite journal|author=P. J. McGrath|year=1986|title=Evil and the existence of a finite god|journal=Analysis|url=https://academic.oup.com/analysis/article-abstract/46/1/63/160286|volume=46|issue=1|pages=63–64|doi=10.1093/analys/46.1.63}}
*{{cite journal|author=R. Dennis Potter|year=2000|title=Finitism and the Problem of Evil|journal=Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought|url=https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V33N04_93.pdf|volume=33|issue=4|pages=83–95|doi=10.2307/45226740 |jstor=45226740 |s2cid=254320149 }}
*[[Biography:Clement Charles Julian Webb|Clement Charles Julian Webb]]. (1920). [https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.222950/page/n133/mode/2up ''The Doctrine of a Finite God'']. In ''God And Personality''. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd. pp. 134-155

{{Philosophy of religion}}
{{Theism}}

[[Category:Conceptions of God]]
[[Category:Philosophy of religion]]
[[Category:Theism]]
[[Category:Theodicy]]

{{Sourceattribution|Theistic finitism}}