UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE ESSAYS ON DISCOURSE BY AND ABOUT THE DIVINE A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY By STEPHANIE NICOLE NORDBY Norman, Oklahoma 2016 ESSAYS ON DISCOURSE BY AND ABOUT THE DIVINE A DISSERTATION APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY BY ______________________________ Dr. Linda Zagzebski, Chair ______________________________ Dr. Hugh Benson ______________________________ Dr. Heather Demarest ______________________________ Dr. Neal Judisch ______________________________ Dr. David Vishanoff © Copyright by STEPHANIE NICOLE NORDBY 2016 All Rights Reserved. For Erika and Kevin. For Erika, my first guide to discourse divine. For Kevin, my very best guide, teacher, and champion. TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract…v Chapter One: Divine Predication, Direct Reference, and the Attributes of Classical Theism…1 Introduction…1 The Nature of the Problem and Some Methodological Worries…3 Semantic Externalism, Kinds, and Properties…13 Alston and Religious Speech…20 Theological Reference and Predication… Direct Reference and Classical Theism…39 Some Consequences…44 Chapter Two: Hectoring Hector: A Thoroughgoing Critique of Hectorian Semantics…50 Introduction…50 Hectorian Semantics…52 Yadav’s Objections and Varieties of Externalism…55 Hector and Mental Content…64 Problems with Theological Applications of Hectorian Semantics…68 Conclusion…84 Chapter Three: Metaphor and the Mind of God in Nevi’im…86 Introduction…86 Part One…88 Hazony, Metaphor, and the s…88 Textual Evidence from Nevi’im…97 Part Two…101 God’s Perspective in the Prophets…1o1 God’s Perspective and the Language of Divine Emotion…107 Predicating Emotions of God in Contemporary Philosophy…116 Zagzebski and the Emotions of God…125 Biblical Epistemology, Opacity, and the New Testament…133 Chapter Four: Transitive Speech Acts and Melting Away Wax-Nose Anxieties in Wolterstorff’s Divine Discourse…137 Introduction…137 Divine Discourse: Readings the Work of Two Agents…140 Wisse’s Critique…151 Response to Wisse…155 An Alternative to Transitive Discourse…165 Bibliography…176 iv ABSTRACT Chapter One Divine Predication, Direct Reference, and the Attributes of Classical Theism The Church’s affirmation of statements predicating certain positive attributes to God is central to Christian doctrine. However, important biblical and doctrinal predications include ascriptions of emotion, mental states and even movement to God. It is contested whether divine predications should understood metaphorically, analogically, or univocally. The situation is further complicated when one takes into account divine attributes such as impassibility (the idea that God cannot be acted upon or suffer due to things external to himself), immutability (the idea that God is unchanging), and aseity (the idea that God is self-caused and only dependent on himself for his existence). If classical theists are right in attributing aseity and impassibility to God, it is difficult to see how predications like “God is loving” or “God is angry” should be understood. In this paper I show that contemporary philosophy of language is a surprisingly good bedfellow for religious language. I argue that language, understood in light of contemporary work on public meaning and direct reference, enables us to make meaningful predications of God while not undermining our commitments to some of the most difficult theological ascriptions. This view of divine predication in light of public meaning and reference turns out to be theory of univocal predication, one I call predication by attributive univocity. v Chapter Two Hectoring Hector: A Thoroughgoing Critique of Hectorian Semantics Divine predication has long proved a problem for theologians and philosophers of religion. Religious speech acts are difficult to explain, as many doctrinal propositions seem to run aground on the metaphysical implications of divine reference and predication. Determining how words refer and describe God is difficult when one considers the attributes that God orted to have: transcendence, simplicity, and holiness, among others. Theology just is the practice of explaining the nature of God in terms humans can understand, and yet God’s nature seems to imply that human language will forever be inadequate to the task of divine description. Attempts to explain theological language have made use of metaphorical, analogical, or univocal predications, and more recently theologians and philosophers have resorted to explaining how theology might be worthwhile even when one accepts that humans cannot, in principle, accurately speak of the divine. Kevin Hector’s recent project, Theology without Metaphysics, is an attempt to restore theological speech acts’ status as meaningful and intelligible. This work has been well-received by theologians and philosophers alike, but it is not without its critics. In this paper, I defend Kevin Hector's Theology without Metaphysics against Sameer Yadav's criticisms. However, I ultimately argue that Hector's version of semantic externalism fails; I also argue that Hector’s rejection of “essentialist- correspondentist” metaphysics is really not the source of the problems with which he is concerned. vi Chapter Three Metaphor and the Mind of God in Nevi’im In The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture, Yoram Hazony contrasts the uses of metaphor in Nevi’im and the New Testament. According to Hazony, metaphor is employed by Jesus to obscure teachings, but the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures use metaphor to make teachings intelligible. However, this understanding of metaphor is too simplistic to capture the scope of metaphorical statements made by the Hebrew prophets. In this paper, I suggest that an important set of philosophical arguments are advanced by the prophets in ways not captured by current interpretive methodologies. The paper is divided into two parts. In the first half, I argue against Hazony’s assessment of Nevi’im. In the second, I forward my position on the philosophical dimensions of Nevi’im: that prophetic writings reveal important moral facts about God’s nature and the ways in which we should respond to him in both action and emotion. Appealing to the works of Dru Johnson, Eleonore Stump and Linda Zagzebski, I show that the writings of the Hebrew prophets may in fact advance certain arguments about the emotions and motivations of God. Through the collected writings of Nevi’im, God functions as an exemplar for those receiving the words of the prophets. vii Chapter Four Transitive Speech Acts and Melting Away Wax-Nose Anxieties in Wolterstorff’s Divine Discourse In Divine Discourse, Wolterstorff offers five patterns that interpreters can use to deal with problematic passages of Scripture. Two strategies recommended by Wolterstorff include (1) changing the rhetorico-conceptual structure of a text, and (2) interpreting the passage as what Wolterstorff calls “transitive discourse.” However, anytime the interpreter takes these steps away from the most likely intended meaning given to the text by the human author, he leaves himself open to what Locke called “wax-nose anxieties.” Despite Wolterstorff’s best efforts to limit the threat posed by wax-nose anxieties, Maarten Wisse argues that the two aforementioned strategies leave Wolterstorff especially open to wax-nose concerns. In what follows, I will recount both Wolterstorff’s view and Wisse’s assessment. I will then show that there is no plausible way to save Wolterstorff from Wisse’s criticisms and offer an alternative interpretative strategy for problematic passages that are often considered transitive discourse. I argue that one of Wolterstorff’s ex isting strategies is sufficient for dealing with problematic passages once proper attention is given to genre, and it does so without invoking transitive discourse readings or changes in rhetorico-conceptual structure. viii CHAPTER ONE Divine Predication, Direct Reference, and the Attributes of Classical Theism I. Introduction In this paper I will address the nature of divine predications in both biblical and doctrinal contexts. The Church’s affirmation of predicating certain positive attributes to God is central to Christian doctrine. Important divine predications include ascriptions of emotion, movement, and mental states to God. The way in which such predications should be understood is a subject of much disagreement. Whether statements such as “God is loving” should be understood metaphorically, analogically, or univocally is contested. Further, if we suppose that humans are able to use multiple forms of predication to speak meaningfully about God, there still remains the task of determining which statements should be construed in which sense. Much of this discussion centers on the epistemological status of our predications and what kind of knowledge is necessary to make meaningful predications. There are considerable reasons to doubt that finite humans have the epistemological equipment to ascribe features to a God that theology identifies as transcendent and infinite. The situation is further complicated when one takes into account attributes such as immutability, aseity, and impassibility. These predicates ascribe to God the qualities of being unchanging, self-caused, and absolutely unaffected by things external to himself. If classical theists are right in attributing aseity and impassibility to God, it is difficult to see how predications 1 like “God is loving” or “God is angry” could be anything but metaphorical.