NATURE, GOD, AND CREATION: A NECESSITARIAN CASE Yasin Ramazan Basaran Submitted to the faculty of the University Graduate School in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in the School of Global and International Studies, Indiana University June 2018 Accepted by the Graduate Faculty, Indiana University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Doctoral Committee _____________________________________ John Walbridge, Ph.D. (Chair) _____________________________________ R. Kevin Jaques, Ph.D. _____________________________________ Timothy O'Connor, Ph.D. _____________________________________ I. Kaya Sahin, Ph.D. May 10, 2018 ii Copyright © 2018 Yasin Ramazan Basaran iii To my love Sümeyye, Without whose never-ending energy and inspiration, this dissertation would have never existed. She refreshed my mind and soul every day even though I was very often absent from home to complete this. If this dissertation makes any significant contribution to academy, my fellows should be thankful to her. As I always will be. iv Acknowledgments This dissertation has been produced after long years of confusion, determination, and curiosity. I started as a student of classical Islamic theology whose mind used to wander around the problems of modern philosophy of religion. It was my advisor John Walbridge who helped me reborn academically to see things from different angles. His patience for my untrained academic mind and my English has always encouraged me to study harder. I also appreciate incredibly illuminating discussions with Kevin Jaques, who sincerely addressed my oversights of scholarly approach, and well-designed classes of Tim O’Connor, who introduced me to new seas in philosophy. I also benefited greatly Kaya Sahin’s outlook, which widened my prospect. With their help, I was able to keep the fire which had been kindled by my mentor, my friend Gurbuz Deniz of Ankara University. I could never adequately express my gratitude for his inspiration and diligence during our reading sessions and private conversations. My brother Abdullah Basaran’s phenomenological insights were always helpful in clarifying my concepts. I will never forget our long phone conversations. Also, I should mention my fellow Ph.D. student Huseyin Arslan for his enjoyable company during which this dissertation has been started and finished. Kadir Cakmak and Ferhat Taskin were always there when I needed their discerning judgment. And Sibel Cekic, for always having faith in me. I also thank my sons Taha and Seha for bringing indeterminable joy to my life even though I had to miss a sizable portion of their early years. Finally, I must acknowledge the sympathy and understanding of my parents; Fazli, Zeynep, Mesut, and Azime. v Yasin R. Basaran GOD, NATURE, AND CREATION: A NECESSITARIAN CASE The theistic doctrine of creation highlights the significance of the world's dependence on God. For this doctrine, a variety of justifications have been offered based on the ontological and epistemological commitments of a philosopher or theologian. In this dissertation, I defend the thesis that the theistic doctrine of creation is strongly justified when on the one hand the integrity of nature is established by affirming causal necessity while on the other hand the sovereignty of God is maintained by affirming divine simplicity, eternity, and immutability. To construct my argument, in the first chapter, I examine the Aristotelian roots of causal necessity and its development by Avicenna. I also consider objections to causal necessity raised by Hume and al-G and some contemporary objections by David Lewis. In the second chapter, I identifyhazālī three competing theses to explain the integrity of nature, namely, the regularism, the extrinsic necessitarianism, and the intrinsic necessitarianism. I conclude that the intrinsic necessitarianism is the strongest among them. In the third chapter, I make a case for the sovereignty of God by exploring the limits of the concept of the theistic God and claim that sovereignty is conditional on immutability, simplicity, and eternity, which qualify the divine attributes of knowledge, power, and goodness. In the last chapter, after analyzing strengths and weaknesses of theistic accounts of creation, I propose an account of ontological dependence by extending Avicenna's account of creation, which consists in God's conferral of existence, to His sustaining activity at all times during which an object endures. ___________________ John Walbridge, Ph.D. (Chair) ___________________ R. Kevin Jaques, Ph.D. ___________________ Timothy O’Connor, Ph.D. ___________________ I. Kaya Sahin, Ph.D. vi Table of Contents Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1: The Integrity of Nature ................................................................................. 7 A. A Conceptual Analysis of Nature .............................................................................................7 I. Nature and Natures...................................................................................................................7 II. Is necessity exclusive to logic? ......................................................................................... 15 III. What counts as a law?........................................................................................................... 17 B. Aristotelian Roots of Causal Necessity .............................................................................. 21 C. Avicennan Development of Causal Necessity................................................................. 32 D. The Ghazalian Attack on Causal Necessity ...................................................................... 45 I. The logic of causal necessity .............................................................................................. 52 II. Al- .......................................................... 55 E. Humean Objections to Causal Necessity ........................................................................... 63 Ghazālī’s Reevaluation of Causal Necessity F. Modern Approaches to Causation........................................................................................ 83 G. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 88 Chapter 2: The Case for Causal Necessity ................................................................... 91 A. Regularism ...................................................................................................................................... 91 B. Extrinsic Necessitarianism ................................................................................................... 100 C. Intrinsic Necessitarianism .................................................................................................... 103 D. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 114 Chapter 3: The Case for the Sovereign God ............................................................. 116 A. Theistic Paradigm ..................................................................................................................... 116 B. Aseity .............................................................................................................................................. 118 I. Incorporeality ........................................................................................................................ 120 II. Simplicity ................................................................................................................................. 123 III. Eternity ..................................................................................................................................... 127 IV. Immutability ........................................................................................................................... 131 C. Sovereignty .................................................................................................................................. 136 vii I. Alternative Ontologies: States of Affairs vs Things ............................................. 139 II. Omnipotence .......................................................................................................................... 141 III. Omniscience ........................................................................................................................... 152 IV. Omnibenevolence ................................................................................................................ 160 D. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 166 Chapter 4: A Critical Analysis of the Concept of Creation .................................... 168 A. Non-theistic Approaches to God-World Relationship ............................................. 171 I. Plato............................................................................................................................................ 171 II. Aristotle .................................................................................................................................... 175 B. Theistic Approaches to God-World Relationship