UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE IN HIM WE LIVE AND MOVE AND HAVE OUR BEING: PHILOSOPHICAL THEOLOGY IN NICOLAS MALEBRANCHE AND GEORGE BERKELEY A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY By JASON BENJAMIN OAKES Norman, Oklahoma 2009 IN HIM WE LIVE AND MOVE AND HAVE OUR BEING: PHILOSOPHICAL THEOLOGY IN NICOLAS MALEBRANCHE AND GEORGE BERKELEY A DISSERTATION APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY BY Dr. Monte Cook, Chair Dr. Kerry Magruder Dr. Hugh Benson Dr. Reinaldo Elugardo Dr. Linda Zagzebski © Copyright by JASON BENJAMIN OAKES 2009 All Rights Reserved. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I cannot list everyone that I would like to thank, but I would like to acknowledge some that played a significant role in helping me to accomplish this task. First, I would like to thank the pastors, staff, and elders at Wildwood Community Church. They graciously allowed me to focus on my writing, even as this took me away from my responsibilities as a member of the pastoral team at times. I also want to thank my friend and fellow philosopher/theologian, Josh Spears, for reading my entire dissertation and making corrections, suggestions, and comments. His careful eye caught many errors that would have not been noticed otherwise. I would also like to thank the Maverick Hotel in Tecumseh, Oklahoma where I spent three weeks away from distractions working in the lap of luxury. I was well cared for by the warm and gracious proprietors, Bob and Cherie Trousdale, who also allowed me to marry their oldest daughter. I also spent over a month writing in a cabin perched on top of a beautiful valley in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains of northern New Mexico. I want to thank the owners and my parents, Jim and Cheryl Oakes, for allowing me to transform their mountain home into dissertation central on two separate occasions. I look forward to completing future projects while sitting on that deck. I must also thank Damaris and Stella for allowing me leave of some of my parental duties during this project. I have heard them both ask, “Daddy, when will you finish your dissertation?” Most importantly, I want to thank Amanda, my bride of nearly 12 years. This dissertation is as much the result of her hard work and patience as my own. I could not begin to list the ways that she supported me and our entire family. There is not a day that passes that I am not deeply thankful that she is my wife. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . 1 CHAPTER 1: Malebranche, Berkeley, and Philosophical Theology . 10 1.1 Philosophical Theology . 11 1.2 Background . 27 1.3 Malebranche and Berkeley’s Philosophical Relationship . 40 1.4 Movements, Debates, and Disagreements in the Secondary Literature 49 CHAPTER 2: Divine Revelation in the Epistemology of Malebranche and Berkeley 76 2.1 Introduction to Revelation . 77 2.2 Malebranche, Revelation, and Knowledge. 88 2.3 Berkeley, Revelation, and Knowledge . 110 2.4 Conclusions and Application in the Secondary Literature . 133 CHAPTER 3: The Trinity in the Metaphysics of Malebranche and Berkeley . 142 3.1 Introduction to the Doctrine of the Trinity . 143 3.2 Malebranche and the Trinity . 160 3.3 Berkeley and the Trinity . 173 3.4 Conclusions and Application in the Secondary Literature . 181 CHAPTER 4: An Example: The Trinity in Malebranche . 188 4.1 Puzzle 1: The Ontological Status of Ideas . 189 4.2 Puzzle 2: Efficacious Ideas in Malebranche . 198 CONCLUSION . 214 BIBLIOGRAPHY . 221 APPENDIX: Abbreviations . 230 v INTRODUCTION “In Him We Live and Move and Have Our Being” Acts 17:28 “… let us believe with Saint Paul, that He is not far from any of us, and that in Him we live and move and have our being.” Nicolas Malebranche1 “I entirely agree with what the Holy Scripture saith, that in God we live, and move, and have our being.” George Berkeley2 Nicolas Malebranche and George Berkeley cite this passage from the New Testament multiple times.3 As philosophers who held Christian doctrines, these philosophers were likely drawn to this text because it is one of the few places in the Bible that mentions the philosophical systems of the day. This passage is from a sermon preached by St. Paul on Mars Hill to the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers in Athens. I have taken this passage as the title of this project because it summarizes the philosophical theology of both philosophers: we are dependent upon God for all things. The philosophical theology of Nicolas Malebranche and George Berkeley has been largely neglected. This neglect is not due to a lack of textual evidence that these philosophers held doctrines of philosophical theology. We shall see that such textual evidence is plentiful. It is also not due to the lack of importance these doctrines play in the thought of these philosophers. We will see that these doctrines are important in their 1 Search (LO 230). See “Appendix: Abbreviations”, page 230. Unless otherwise noted, I will use this translation for all citations from The Search after Truth. 2 Dialogues (DHP 214). 3 Malebranche quotes this passage at least twice in the Search (LO 235 & 629) and once in the Dialogues (DM 131). Berkeley quotes from Acts 17 at least four times in his published works; three times in the Principles (PHK 66, 149, & 150) once in the Dialogues (DHP 214) and once in Alciphron (4.14). Daniel says that Berkeley cites this passage “On at least nine occasions”. Stephen H. Daniel, “Berkeley's Pantheistic Discourse,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 49 (2001): 179-80. Bracken suggests that Berkeley’s citing of this passages shows that he was following Malebranche as “a reservoir of suggestiveness”. Harry M. Bracken, “Berkeley and Malebranche on Ideas,” The Modern Schoolman 41 (1963). 1 overall philosophical and theological systems. Nonetheless commentators have not paid much attention to the doctrines of philosophical theology held by both philosophers. The philosophical theology of Malebranche and Berkeley can be seen by their shared acceptance of the doctrines of divine revelation and the Trinity. Recovering this aspect of their thought allows interpreters to appreciate the richness of their overall philosophical systems. Likewise, ignoring their philosophical theology robs interpreters of a deeper understanding of some of their more important philosophical doctrines. My chief argument is that Malebranche and Berkeley hold similar theories of philosophical theology and that in each case understanding their philosophical theology helps us to understand their philosophical system. Both accept the traditional doctrines of divine revelation and the Trinity from Christian theology. Not only do they accept these doctrines, but the doctrines are philosophically relevant to the philosophical systems of both philosophers. In other words, some of the philosophical similarities between the two philosophers can be explained in light of their similar theories of philosophical theology. Since the modern period, interpreters have noticed that these philosophers hold similar philosophical positions. Commentators have argued that these two philosophers hold similar views across many different branches of philosophy: philosophical method, theories of knowledge and perception, theories of causation, and philosophical motivation.4 The similarities most often pointed out fall into the categories of epistemology and metaphysics. This literature has established that there are epistemological and metaphysical similarities in the philosophical systems of Malebranche and Berkeley. 4 All of these suggested similarities are pointed out in section 1.4. 2 However, the fact that they hold similar theories of philosophical theology has not been mentioned in the secondary literature. Commentators have missed obvious similarities concerning doctrines from Christian theology that both philosophers embrace. They accept the doctrines of divine revelation and the Trinity. They merge these doctrines into their overall philosophical systems and generate their own theories from these doctrines. As I will show, these theories are remarkably similar. Malebranche’s theory of divine revelation is similar to Berkeley’s. The same is true of their theories of the Trinity. Malebranche and Berkeley’s philosophical theology consists in their embracing these doctrines from Christian theology and applying them to their philosophical projects in similar ways. Not only do they hold similar theories of divine revelation and the Trinity, these theories are philosophically relevant for understanding their similar positions of metaphysics and epistemology.5 That is to say that Malebranche and Berkeley construct their positions in metaphysics and epistemology to be held consistently alongside their commitments to philosophical theology. Since this is the case, we can look at one set of doctrines for help understanding the other. Some of their similarities can be explained by a proper appreciation of their similar theories of philosophical theology. Neglecting the philosophical theology of Malebranche and Berkeley has consequences. A proper understanding of their commitments in philosophical theology sheds light into various puzzles and disputes concerning their metaphysics and epistemology. In many cases, interpretive puzzles discussed in the secondary literature concerning the philosophical relationship between the two philosophers can be resolved when considered in light of their similar views of philosophical theology. For example, 5I explain what I mean by ‘philosophically