Classical Theism

A brief introduction to classical theism. Classical theism is a systematic understanding of God shared among many Christian, Jewish, Pagan, Muslim, and Hindu thinkers throughout history. It is primarily philosophical rather than scriptural in origin, but it also opens up an intellectual space for understanding theism as a plausible and reasonable way to see reality. And so it makes for a useful point of entry into the world of scripture and religious experience.

With this episode I would like to do some systematic theology and focus on the most foundational subject of theology: God. Systematic theology is theology that pursues an orderly, rational, and coherent method. There are benefits to the systematic, orderly approach, which I want to take advantage of here. But it is admittedly not characteristic of the texts of scripture, which are often disorderly, uncanny, and occasionally contradictory. The systematic approach is a convenient way to understand and analyze theological concepts, but it’s usually not the way we actually encounter these things in religious experience. I’m reminded here of Blaise Pascal’s statement: “God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, not of the philosophers.” There’s much to be said for that sentiment. Nevertheless the systematic approach still has significant utility for comprehension and analysis. In talking about God in this systematic way the understanding of God I will take is that of classical theism.

In what follows I just want to lay out what classical theism is. I won’t get too much into arguments or proofs for God or for classical theism. That’s another topic. But I hope that just presenting what classical theism is will show it to be a very plausible and reasonable thing to believe. Even before taking any steps to argue for it or prove it.

First some definitions. Theism is the belief in the existence of God or gods. Monotheism is the belief that there is only one God. Classical theism is the belief that God is the source of all things. In more technical terms classical theism is the belief that God is metaphysically absolute. Classical theism is a form of monotheism but it’s more theoretically developed. It takes the belief that there is only one God and analyzes what that means, the way in which there is only one God, what this one God must be like. This is what makes it systematic, theological, and philosophical.

What does it mean for God to be metaphysically absolute, the source of all things? There are two major ways for there to be only one God. They are quite different and imply very different things about God’s nature. One way is for there to be a pre-existing reality in which God exists, a reality that is independent of God and prior to God. There’s a universe that happens to have a God in it and there’s only one God. The other way, the way of classical theism, is for God to be prior to everything. There is nothing without God. All reality depends on God for its existence. We could think of these loosely as God being inside all reality versus God being outside or beyond all reality.

In classical theism all of reality derives from God and depends on God. It’s even possible for God to be the only thing that exists. But it’s actually not possible for God not to exist. This is to say that God is absolutely necessary. Nothing else is necessary in this way. Everything else is contingent. It is possible for everything else not to exist. But it is not possible for God not to exist.

Classical theism tends to be philosophical, trans-religious, and trans-scriptural, meaning that it spans many religions and the texts of many religious traditions. Throughout history classical theists have been Christian, Pagan, Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu. Obviously classical theists in each of these traditions disagree on a lot. But they tend to agree in their classical theism and in their understanding of God’s primary attributes, even if they disagree on the specific things they believe God to have done in human history. Pagan classical theists include Plotinus and Proclus. Jewish classical theists include Philo of Alexandria and Maimonides. Christian classical theists include Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysius, Anselm, and Thomas Aquinas. Muslim classical theists include Ibn Sina, and Ibd Rushd. I also think that many of the ideas of Hindu thinkers like Shankara and Ramanuja have much in common with classical theism.

What’s interesting about classical theism is that it basically starts from the premise of God’s metaphysically absolute nature and derives God’s attributes from there. These attributes often coincide with scripture, albeit not always perfectly, which is an important theological issue. But that’s also a topic for another time. The attributes of God in classical theism include the following:

Perfect Goodness

Aseity is not a well-known term but it’s very important to the topic. The word comes from Latin “a se” meaning “from self”. Aseity is the property by which a being exists of and from itself, and not from anything else. God’s aseity means that God does not depend on anything else for his existence; not on the universe, not on anything it all.

Necessity is when something cannot fail to be the case. For example, logical truths are generally considered to be necessarily true. An example would be the proposition “If p and q, then p”. This would seem to be necessarily true. It couldn’t be otherwise. Philosophers might still debate that but it should at least be clear what we’re talking about with necessity. God’s necessity means that God cannot not exist. Understanding why that is and arguing for it is a bigger topic. But understanding the claim that God is necessary is key to understanding what classical theism is.

Simplicity means not having any parts. According to classical theism God is simple in this way. God is not composed of parts. Put another way, God is not composite. Composite is the opposite of simple. Many philosophers consider divine simplicity to be the most important concept of classical theism and hold that all of classical theism derives from it and is ultimately equivalent to it. To understand some of the motivation behind this, anything that is composite, made up of parts, has to be put together in the way that it is put together. But composition of this kind makes it dependent on whatever it is that puts it together. So it wouldn’t be the first or source of all things.

Eternity refers to what exists outside of time. Eternity, as understood in classical philosophy, is different from how the word is commonly understood. There is the notion of things being everlasting, existing within time but lasting forever, for an infinite duration. But this is different from the kind of eternity in classical theism. God’s eternity is his existence outside of time itself. Time, in fact, would be one of the things created by God. We can imagine God looking at the passage of time as we look at the passage of time for characters in a book. For the characters in a story, if they were real, they would experience time sequentially. But for us as readers we can look at the story as a whole, all at once, because we are outside of the time of that story. Like the characters in that story, we experience our time sequentially. The past is behind us. The future is ahead of us. Only the present is before us. But for God it is all present and equally before him.

Immutability is the impossibility of changing. There’s definitely a relation here to eternity. God could hardly change across time since he exists outside of time itself. This brings up an interesting question about whether God, being immutable, will seem the same to us at all times. Not necessarily. Even if God doesn’t change, we do. For example, God is perfectly good and that doesn’t change. But our morality varies significantly. The way we perceive God will vary significantly depending on whether our conduct is mostly moral versus mostly immoral.

Immateriality, as the term suggests, is the quality of not being material. Even without a technical definition I think we all have a good intuition what materiality is. In fact, it’s more difficult to think of anything that isn’t material. It’s the material that makes up our immediate experience. Matter is the stuff that, when you kick it, it kicks back. Material things exist in time and space. If we refer to more modern chemistry and physics, matter is composed of particles, waves, and fields. Particles like protons, neutrons, and electrons have mass, particles like photons do not. But they’re all material. Material things interact with each other. They exchange momentum; they attract or repel each other through electric change. Photons induce chemical reactions. But God, being immaterial is not like any of these things.

How could any thing be immaterial? This was a question that Augustine had. He was finally able to conceptualize immaterial entities by way of Platonist and Neo-Platonist philosophy, which have a lot to say about immaterial forms. Today we most commonly come across immateriality in the form of abstract, mathematical, and logical objects. The philosopher Phillip Cary uses the example of the Pythagorean theorem. The Pythagorean theorem is not something that exists in space and time. It’s eternal, necessary, and omnipresent. It didn’t ever start being true and it will never stop being true. It cannot not be true. And it’s true everywhere. It’s not made up of particles, waves, or fields. It’s not something you handle or that kicks back. That gives an idea of what an immaterial thing can be like.

God is not an abstract, mathematical, or logical object. But he is immaterial in classical theism. He’s more like an abstract, mathematical, or logical object than he is like an electron, proton, or magnetic field.

Omnipotence is the quality of having unlimited power. This is very related to God’s nature as metaphysically absolute, the source of all things. All things come from God and are the way they are because of God. There is no other source for all that is and no other power in serious competition with God. God is able to do anything that it is possible to do. What kind of constraints does that condition impose? What would be impossible for God? Contradiction certainly. Even God cannot make something to be the case and not be the case. You’ve probably heard the question, often asked in jest, “Could God make a stone so heavy that he couldn’t lift it?” Well, no. That would be a contradiction. Other constraints imposed by consistency may be more subtle. Like, why does God permit human history to proceed in certain ways, especially ways that we would much prefer that they didn’t? Here again, self-consistency probably plays an important role. Human free will is an important constraint. And there are likely other, unknown constraints, resulting from God’s unrevealed purposes.

Omniscience is the quality of knowing everything. This is also very related to being metaphysically absolute, the source of all things. As the cause of all things God also has knowledge of all things. If we imagine all things that can be known as a book God knows all things in that book, not only because he has read it, but also because he wrote it. He is the author of all that is. Many of the foregoing points about omnipotence apply here as well. There’s a classic concern about the conflict between divine omniscience and human free will. If God knows everything, including everything that we will ever do, can we really be said to freely choose to do those things? That’s a complicated problem and a whole topic in itself. Without actually resolving that question I’ll just make an observation using the analogy of the author. There is a sense in which the author of a story is constrained by the story itself. Authors can arbitrarily impose nonsensical decisions on their characters. But good authors don’t. Good authors follow their stories where they naturally lead. Their characters, even though they’re fictional, have a kind of free will of their own. That’s just an analogy but I think something similar applies to God’s authorship of all things and his knowledge of them. On the one hand he is the author and cause of all things. But this authorship and resulting knowledge is not just arbitrary. The evolution of all things, especially of human history, make sense and have a narrative coherence to them.

Finally, God is perfectly good. In Plato’s Republic, Socrates actually placed “the form of the Good” at the highest point on his spectrum of entities, the Divided Line. Goodness is not incidental to God’s nature but is absolutely intrinsic to who he is. One of the oldest problems in moral philosophy is whether God decrees what is good because it is good or whether it is good because he decrees it. This is a form of the Euthyphro Dilemma, based on another of Plato’s dialogues. Put another way, the question is whether God is prior to goodness or goodness prior to God. But in classical theism this is a false dilemma. God and the Good are not distinct at all. God is the Good.

Apart from classical theism the great worry with the Euthyphro Dilemma is that if goodness is merely whatever God decrees it to be then God could decree horrendous evils to be good. And they would have to be good. But under classical theism this is not possible. God is the Good. Neither God nor the Good are arbitrary. Horrendous evil cannot be made good and God cannot and will not decree them so. To do so would be to contradict his own nature.

All of the foregoing is principally philosophical rather than scriptural or based on revelatory religious experience. Though it has been most developed by Christians the foundations come largely from Platonist and Neo-Platonist philosophy, for example from Plotinus’s Enneads and Proclus’s Elements of Theology. Whether that is a weakness or a strength is a matter of perspective. I think it’s a strength but it also means that for Christian theology classical theism is a starting point rather than an end point. But I also consider it a great strength to see that classical theism spans so many traditions and schools of thought.

One of the best modern books on classical theism is David Bentley Hart’s The Experience of God. In that book he makes the following point:

“Certainly the definition of God I offer below is one that, allowing for a number of largely accidental variations, can be found in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Vedantic and Bhaktic Hinduism, Sikhism, various late antique paganisms, and so forth (it even applies in many respects to various Mahayana formulations of, say, the Buddha Consciousness or the Buddha Nature, or even to the earliest Buddhist conception of the Unconditioned, or to certain aspects of the Tao…” (p. 4)

I find the Hindu convergences especially fascinating. Shankara (circa 700 – 750) was an interpreter of Vedantic Hinduism, Advaita Vedanta to be specific. A central concept in that tradition is Brahman, the highest universal principle, the ultimate reality, the cause of all that exists. In Advaita Vedanta this is identical to the substance of Atman, the Self or self-existent essence of individuals. Ramanuja (1017 – 1137) had a different interpretation called “qualified non-dualism” which makes greater distinction between Atman and Brahman. But Brahman, the ultimate reality behind all that exists, is central to the thought of both.

There are four modern authors on classical theism that I really like. These are David Bentley Hart, Edward Feser, James Dolezal, and Matthew Barrett.

I already mentioned David Bentley Hart’s book The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss. Hart is an Orthodox Christian and also has an interesting affinity for Hinduism. In fact, the subtitle to his book – “Being, Consciousness, Bliss” – is a nod to the Hindu concept of Satcitananda, a Sanskrit term for the subjective experience of Brahman, the ultimate unchanging reality. Satcitananda is a compound word consisting of “sat”, “chit”, and “ananda”: being, consciousness, and bliss. These three are considered inseparable from Brahman.

Edward Feser’s book Five Proofs for the Existence of God goes through five proofs that he reworks from the ideas of five individuals: Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, Aquinas, and Leibniz. Each of the five proofs is classically theistic in nature. Later chapters in the book also go over the classical theist understanding of God’s nature in great detail.

James Dolezal’s major book on this subject is All That Is in God: Evangelical Theology and the Challenge of Classical Christian Theism. Dolezal pushes back on what he perceives as some drift away from classical theism in Evangelical theology. I mentioned earlier that some theologians place simplicity foremost among God’s attributes. Dolezal is one of these. Simplicity is central to his thought.

Matthew Barrett is a delightful theologian to read. He is editor of Credo Magazine and host of the Credo podcast. One of his common themes on Twitter is the need for Protestants and especially Evangelicals to take seriously the thought of Aquinas, the Church Fathers, and classical theism. His major book on the subject is None Greater: The Undomesticated Attributes of God.

Why talk about classical theism? To lay all my cards on the table, I desire for all to believe in God the Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit. I am enthusiastically Christian and desire for all to be so as well, because I believe it is true. One of the first steps in this direction is belief in God. But in modernity belief in God is hardly a given. It might even seem implausible. How is believing in God any different from believing in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Well, it’s actually extremely different. And I think that to really understand classical theism is to understand this difference.

God is not just an invisible being that we have to believe in, just because. Blind faith. Classical theism is much more philosophically reflective than that. To think about God is to think about and have some interest and curiosity about everything that exists, why it exists, and why it is as it is. It is maximally inquisitive and critically so. I believe that classical theism is very plausible and reasonable. That’s not actually why I believe in God or in Christianity. I attribute my belief to revelation from the Spirit. But intellectual openness and receptivity preceded that Spiritual revelation. Seeing classical theism to be a plausible and reasonable way to understand reality broke down intellectual and cultural barriers to spiritual receptivity. And that’s why I think it’s a topic worth talking about.

Ontological Pluralism

Jared and Todd talk about ontological pluralism: What exists? How do we categorize what exists? Are those categories intrinsic or man-made? A related idea is perspectival realism. We discuss the ideas of William Wimsatt and Scott Page, among others. Is reality monistic, dualist, pluralistic? Is the question even meaningful? And what (if any) practical implications would there be?

Outline – Ontological Pluralism

  1. People
    1. William Wimsatt
    2. Scott Page  
    3. Johannes Jaeger
    4. Lawrence Cahoone
    5. Spencer Greenberg 
  2. Ideas
    1. Rainforest Ontology (Wimsatt)
    2. Realms of Truth (Greenberg)
    3. Perspectival realism
      1. Meta-modernism (post-postmodernism)
  3. Ontologies
    1. Monism
    2. Dualism
      1. Matter
      2. Mind
    3. Trialism (Penrose)
      1. Physical world
      2. Mental world
      3. Platonic mathematical world
    4. Pluralism
  4. Reductionism
    1. Ontological: reality is composed of a minimum number of kinds of entities and substances
    2. Epistemological: reality is best explained by reduction to its most basic kinds of entities and substances
    3. Todd: in-principle epistemological reductionist but not an ontological reductionist. Everything that happens in a physical system evolves according to physical laws but those physical processes don’t constitute all there is.
    4. Can a macro-scale entity really be completely inexplicable in terms of micro-scale entities?
    5. Micro-scale events may only make sense in terms of macro-scale events.
      1. Ex: Enzymes and reactants
        1. Enzyme is larger and more complex than the reactants
        2. The speed of the reaction only makes sense by accounting for the enzyme
        3. But the enzyme is still explained in terms of smaller-scale entities (amino acids, atoms, etc.)
  5. Seven Realms of Truth – Spencer Greenberg
    1. Some things “exist” in the sense that they are in physical reality, like atoms (in “Matter Space”).
    2. Other things may “exist” in the sense that they are real experiences conscious beings have, like the taste of pineapple (in “Experience Space”).
    3. Still, other things may “exist” in the sense that they are shared constructs across multiple minds, like the value of money (in “Consensus Space”).
    4. Other things may “exist” in the sense of being conclusions derived from frameworks or sets of premises, like consequences of economic theories (in “Theory Space”).
    5. Some may “exist” in the sense that they are represented in systems that store or process information, such as the information in a database (in “Representation Space”).
    6. If universal moral truths “exist” (e.g. objective facts about what is right and wrong), then we can talk about moral rules existing (in “Morality Space”).
    7. Finally, if supernatural entities “exist”, such as spirits (meaning that not all beings inhabit Matter Space), then these beings are in a different realm than us (in “Supernatural Space”).
  6. Tropical Rainforest Ontology (Wimsatt)
    1. Contra Quine
      1. Willard van Orman Quine once said that he had a preference for a desert ontology.
    2. Robustness
      1. Criterion for what is real
      2. “Things are robust if they are accessible (detectable, measurable, derivable, defineable, produceable, or the like) in a variety of independent ways.
      3. Local
        1. Criteria used by working scientists
        2. “The nitty-gritty details of actual theory, actual inferences from actual data, the actual conditions under which we poised and detected entities, calibrated and ‘burned in’ instruments, identified and rejected artifacts, debugged programs and procedures, explained the mechanisms behind regularities, judged correlations to be spurious, and in general, the real complexities and richness of actual scientific practice.”
    3. Levels
      1. Dissipative wave (pro-reductionistic)
      2. Sharpening wave (pro-holistic)
    4. Perspectives
      1. “As long as there are well-defined levels of organization, there are relatively unambiguous inclusion or compositional relations relating all of the things described at different levels of organization… But conversely, when neat compositional relations break down, levels become less useful as ways of characterizing the organization of systems–or at least less useful if they are asked to handle the task alone. At this point, other ontological structures enter, either as additional tools, or as a replacement. These are what I have called perspectives–intriguingly quasi-subjective (or at least observer, technique or technology-relative) cuts on the phenomena characteristic of a system,which needn’t be bound to given levels.”
      2. “What I am calling perspectives is probably a diverse category of things which nonetheless appear to have at least some of the properties of being ‘from a point of view’ or to have a subjective or quasi-subjective character.”
    5. Causal Thickets
      1. “This term is intended to indicate a situation of disorder and boundary ambiguities. Perspectives may still seem to have an organizing power (just as viewing a thicket or shrub from different sides will reveal a shape to its bushy confusion), but there will be too many boundary disputes.”

Point-of-View Invariance and Noether’s Theorem

Noether’s theorem is an important theorem that relates invariance of space-time transformations to the laws of conservation: space-translation invariance to the conservation of linear momentum, space-rotation invariance to the conservation of angular momentum, and time-translation invariance to the conservation of energy. The models of physics are point-of-view invariant: physical models cannot depend on any particular position in space or moment in time.

A video version of this episode showing the equations is available on YouTube.

Where do the laws of physics come from? This question is the subtitle of Victor Stenger’s 2006 book Comprehensible Cosmos. I think this question is one version of the more general guiding question of my whole intellectual life: why are things the way they are? Stenger has a very interesting response to this question, which is based on what he calls principle of point-of-view invariance “The models of physics cannot depend on any particular point of view.”

The path from this principle to the laws of physics goes through an important theorem known as Noether’s Theorem. This theorem was developed by Emmy Noether in 1918. Put briefly, the theorem says that symmetries in a system generate conserved quantities. Anyone who’s studied (and remembers) physics will know of the conservation of momentum, conservation of angular momentum, and the conservation of energy. These conservation laws are absolutely foundational. And what’s remarkable is that there’s a reason for them. These conservation laws come from symmetries. The conservation of momentum, angular momentum, and energy come from symmetries of translation, rotation, and time.

Stenger puts it this way: “In any space-time model possessing time-translation invariance, energy must be conserved. In any space-time model possessing space-translation invariance, linear momentum must be conserved. In any space-time model possessing space-rotation invariance, angular momentum must be conserved. Thus, the conservation principles follow from point-of-view invariance. If you wish to build a model using space and time as a framework, and you formulate that model so as to be space-time symmetric, then that model will automatically contain what are usually regarded as the three most important ‘laws’ of physics, the three conservation principles.”

To me this is quite remarkable. But maybe I’m just easily impressed. So I went online to see how others view all this. I looked up on Quora responses to the question: “What is the significance of Noether’s theorem?” Here are some of the responses:

“I think it is almost the thing that makes sense of physics. Physics is based on a large number of conservation rules – conservation of energy, momentum etc. Without Noether’s Theorem, all you can say is that they are conserved – they are just givens. With the Theorem, you can say that they arise from the symmetries of the space we live in. [In] a space which did not have these symmetries… these conservations would be so different from the space we know as to be unrecognizable. It derives the otherwise arbitrary conservation rules from intuitively understood symmetries. Brilliant.” (Alec Cawley)

“Most of fundamental physics could be interpreted as positing a symmetry, then handing that symmetry off to Ms. Noether and asking her to tell us what the resulting physics is. In other words, without Noether’s Theorem, there wouldn’t be most of modern physics.” (Brent Follin, PhD in Theoretical Cosmology)

And my favorite.

“It’s a matter of life and death! Being a Physics student, the Noether’s theorem is extremely important with everything I do. If it were falsified, the whole structure of modern physics would crumble!” (Abhijeet Borkar, PhD in Physics (Astrophysics))

So it’s a pretty big deal. Hopefully that sparks some interest. Now let’s dig into it and see how it works.

Invariance and Transformations

First, let’s revisit this idea of point-of-view invariance. One of the first things you do in a physics problem is define your coordinates. If you’re on the surface of the Earth you usually set one axis pointing up from the center of the Earth. This is what we’re used to thinking of as “up”. That’s because in our everyday experience there pragmatically is an obvious coordinate system to use. There’s an up and a down. But that’s because we reference our everyday experience relative to Earth, which we’re living on. But we know, at least since the Copernican revolution, that this coordinate system isn’t absolute. The Earth isn’t the center of the universe, even if it is the center of our lived experience. But it’s not just that. There is no center of the universe at all. There’s no absolute up or down.

That doesn’t mean that we don’t use coordinates. Of course we do. We have to. But it does mean that the coordinate system we use is not absolute. We’ll usually use one that makes things easy for our calculations. But the system we represent in one coordinate system can also be represented in a different coordinate system.

This is easy to see with vectors. Let’s represent a vector on an x-y Cartesian coordinate system. The vector will start from the origin (0,0) and go out to point (4,3). What’s the magnitude of this vector? We calculate that by the equation:

√((x2 – x1)^2 + (y2 – y1)^2)

And plugging in our  values:

√((4 – 0)^2 + (3 – 0)^2) = √((4)^2 + (3)^2) = √(16+ 9) = √(25) = 5

The magnitude of this vector is 5.

Now let’s change the coordinate system shifting it 2 to the right and 7 up. Now this same vector starts at (-2,-7) and goes out to (2,-4). What’s the magnitude?

√((-2 – 2)^2 + (-7 – -4)^2) = √((-4)^2 + (3)^2) = √(16+ 9) = √(25) = 5

The magnitude is still 5.

Now let’s go back to the first coordinate system and rotate it 30 degrees counter-clockwise. 30 degrees in radians is π/6 radians. We make this transformation using the rotation matrix

R = [[cos θ,-sin θ], [sin θ, cos θ]]

And multiply R by our vector [[x],[y]].

The result is

Rv = [[x cos θ – y sin θ], [x sin θ + y cos θ]]

Rv = [[3/2 * √(3) – 2], [3/2 * 2 x √(3)]]

Rv = [0.598], [4.964]]

For our transformation θ is π/6 radians. Our new vector coordinates are (0,0) and approximately (0.598,4.964). Now the moment of truth, after all of that. What’s the magnitude? It’s

√((0.598- 0)^2 + (4.964 – 0)^2) = √((0.598)^2 + (4.964)^2) = √(0.358 + 24.642) = √(25) = 5

The magnitude is still 5.

When we look at this visually, it’s actually not surprising. The vector stays the same in all these cases. It’s just the coordinate system that’s moving around. This is the basic idea of invariance. And I think it gives a general sense about how something can remain constant if it doesn’t depend on these coordinate system transformations.

The Lagrangian

Before getting to Noether’s Theorem itself, we need to talk about the Lagrangian because Noether’s Theorem is expressed in terms of it. The Lagrangian is a function that describes the state of a system and is equal to the difference between the total kinetic energy, T, and the total potential energy, V, of a system.

L = T – V

The Lagrangian is used in Lagrangian mechanics and is a different way of looking at systems than Newtonian mechanics. Instead of looking at forces, as in Newtonian mechanics, in Lagrangian mechanics we’re looking at energies. The Lagrangian is a function of spatial coordinates and their derivatives with respect to time. Spatial coordinates could be the familiar Cartesian x,y,z coordinates but it’s customary to generalize these with a single variable. For example, q. For multiple spatial coordinates we can just number them off, q = {q1, q2,…, qn]. The time derivative of q is,. The time derivative of a spatial coordinate is velocity.

So some of the familiar quantities from Newtonian mechanics will be expressed differently in Lagrangian mechanics. Most notably, momentum. In Newtonian mechanics we express momentum as mass times velocity.

p = mv

To express this in terms of a Lagrangian let’s change v to . So,

p = mq̇

Now the Lagrangian is the difference between kinetic energy and potential energy.

L = T – V

Kinetic energy is

T = 1/2 mv^2


T = 1/2 m q̇^2

So we can rewrite the Lagrangian as

L = 1/2 mq̇^2 – V

Now taking the derivative with respect to

δL/δq̇ = mq̇

And mq̇ = p, so

p = δL/δq̇

And that’s the equation for momentum in terms of the Lagrangian.

p = δL/δq̇

So momentum is the derivative of the Lagrangian with respect to velocity. Also the derivative of the kinetic energy with respect to velocity.

The Hamiltonian

Another function I want to go over before moving on to Noether, and that’s the Hamiltonian function. The Hamiltonian is similar to the Lagrangian, except that it’s the sum of kinetic energy and potential instead of the difference between them.

H = T + V

The Hamiltonian is the total energy of the system. And we can express this in terms of the Lagrangian. Since L = T – V we can express the potential energy as

V = T – L

Substituting this into the Hamiltonian

H = T + V

H = T + (T – L)

H = 2T – L

H = 2(1/2 mq̇^2) – L

H = (mq̇)q̇ – L

Since p = mq̇

H = pq̇ – L

And since also p = δL/δq̇

H = (δL/δq̇)q̇ – L

This is the expression for the total energy in terms of the Lagrangian.

H = (δL/δq̇)q̇ – L

The Lagrange-Euler Equation of Motion

One more equation we should introduce before getting into Noether’s theorem is the Lagrange-Euler equation, also called the equation of motion. This has the form

d/dt (δL/δq̇) = δL/δq

What is this equation saying? Let’s translate this out of the Lagrangian form into the more familiar Newtonian quantities. An equivalent form of this equation is:

dp/dt = -δV/δq = F

d(mv)/dt = F

ma = F

This is Newton’s second law. It’s just expressed in a different form with the Lagrangian, which again is:

d/dt (δL/δq̇) = δL/δq

We’ll be plugging this equation into a lot of things in the foregoing so it’s important.

Noether’s Theorem

Now, let’s move to Noether’s theorem. We’ll look at Noether’s theorem for the conservation of momentum, the conservation of angular momentum, and for the conservation of energy.

We start with the Lagrangian as a function of position, q, and velocity, .

L(q, q̇)

What we’re going to do is apply the following transformation on q and .

q q(s)


If our Lagrangian has symmetry it should not change under this transformation to s. Expressed mathematically this means

d/ds L(q(s), q̇(s)) = 0

Let’s propose that under this transformation that there is a conserved quantity, C, of the following form:

C = (δL/δq̇)(δq/δs)

And since it is a conserved quantity it does not change over time. That is

dC/dt = 0

And here’s the proof for that. Take the proposed conserved quantity C and take the time derivative of it.

C = (δL/δq̇)(δq/δs)

dC/dt = d/dt ((δL/δq̇)(δq/δs))

Since we have two variables, q and , we need to apply the product rule:

dC/dt = d/dt (δL/δq̇) * (δq/δs) + (δL/δq̇) * (δq̇/δs)

Now, recall the Euler-Lagrange equation of motion.

d/dt (δL/δq̇) = δL/δq

We’re going to plug that in here to get.

dC/dt = (δL/δq)(δq/δs) + (δL/δq̇)(δq̇/δs)

What do we have here? The right hand side of this equation is what we get when we apply the chain rule to the derivative of the Lagrangian with respect to s.

d/ds L(q(s), q̇(s)) = (δL/δq)(δq/δs) + (δL/δq̇)(δq̇/δs)

And this is equal to 0. So

dC/dt = (δL/δq)(δq/δs) + (δL/δq̇)(δq̇/δs) = d/ds L(q(s), q̇(s)) = 0


dC/dt = 0

So what’s been proved here is that if the Lagrangian, L, does not change with respect to transformation, s, than the conserved quantity, C, doesn’t either.

That’s Noether’s Theorem. Now let’s look at some applications, examples of conserved quantities that result from different symmetries.

Conservation of Linear Momentum

To get the conservation of linear momentum we’re going to say that the Lagrangian is symmetric under continuous translations in space. Our spatial coordinates are

q = {q1, q2,…, qn].

And we’ll apply the transformation

q q(s)


q(s) = q + s

So we’re just sliding our coordinate system over by an interval, s.

The conserved quantity C is

C = (δL/δq̇)(δq/δs)

Taking the derivative of q with respect to s

δq/δs = δ/δs (q + s) = 1

So C becomes

C = (δL/δq̇) = p

Which is momentum. So when we apply the spatial transformation

q à q(s)

The conserved quantity, C, is momentum, p. In other words, the conservation of momentum results from symmetry in space. To give some interpretation, this means that the system has no dependence on where it is in space. It’s not being acted upon by any external forces. If there were an external force then it would depend on it’s location in space.

Recall that force is equal to

F = ma

F = m(dv/dt)

F = d/dt (mv)

F = dp/dt

Force is equal to the rate of change in momentum with respect to time. So clearly if there is a non-zero external force acting on the system momentum is not constant.

If there is an applied force external to the system, like with a spring, then momentum is obviously not conserved. And with such forces location makes a difference. With a spring it matters how much the spring is stretched. So momentum is not conserved in such cases where there’s not symmetry in space for that system. But in systems that do have symmetry in space, momentum is conserved.

Conservation of Angular Momentum

To get the conservation of angular momentum we’re going to say that the Lagrangian is symmetric under continuous rotations in space.

We apply the transformation.

q q(s)

In which case s is some angle of rotation. This is a two-dimensional case where q is represented by the matrix


We make this transformation using the rotation matrix

R = [[cos s,-sin s], [sin s, cos s]]

And multiply R by our matrix [[q1],[q2]]

The result is

Rq = [[cos s,-sin s], [sin s, cos s]] * [[q1],[q2]]

For very small values of s near 0

sin(s) ≈ s

cos(s) ≈ 1

That’s from Taylor’s series expansion to the first order. This makes the rotation matrix is equal to

[[1, -s], [s, 1]]

So the transformation is

[[1, -s], [s, 1]] * [[q1],[q2]]

The result of this transformation is that

q1 → q1 – s * q2

q2 → q2 + s * q1

For reasons that will be clear shortly, let’s differentiate these.

dq1/ds = -q2

dq2/ds = q1

Now let’s bring in our conserved quantity, C

C = (δL/δq̇)(δq/δs)

And since

q = {q1,q1}

C = (δL/δq̇1)(δq1/δs) + (δL/δq̇2)(δq2/δs)

Or in terms of momentum, p

C = p1 * (δq1/δs) + p2 * (δq2/δs)

The derivatives in this equation are equal to the derivatives we just calculated for q1(s) and q2(s). So, plugging those in:

C = q1 * p2 – q2 * p1

And this is equal to the cross product

C = q x p

Which is angular momentum L. Angular momentum is equal to the cross product of linear momentum and the position vector. So

C = L

The conserved quantity, C, is angular momentum, L. In other words angular momentum results from symmetry of rotation. To give some interpretation again, this is the condition in which the system has no external rotational forces, i.e. torque. To use the example of a spring again, if this were a system where we’re winding up a torsion spring then angular position very much matters. The tighter we wind it up the higher the torque. In that kind of system angular momentum is not conserved. But in the absence of that kind of torque, angular position and rotation don’t matter. So angular momentum is conserved.

Conservation of Energy

To get the conservation of energy we’re going to say that the Lagrangian is symmetric in time. So we have our Lagrangian

L(q, q̇)

And we’re going to say that it doesn’t change with time

dL/dt = 0

Let’s see what follows from this. First let’s to the derivative of the Lagrangian with respect to time. To do this we apply the chain rule.

dL/dt = (δL/δq)(δq/δt) + (δL/δq̇)(δq̇/ δt) + δL/δt

We already set δL/δt to 0 so that goes away. And Let’s simplify δq/δt to q̇ and δq̇/ δt to q̈.

dL/dt = (δL/δq) * q̇ + (δL/δq̇)* q̈

Recall from the Euler Lagrange equation that

δL/δq = d/dt (δL/δq̇)

And we can plug this in to get

dL/dt = d/dt (δL/δq̇) * q̇ + (δL/δq̇)* q̈

This is actually a result of the following application of the product rule:

d/dt (q̇ * (δL/δq̇)) = d/dt (δL/δq̇) * q̇ + (δL/δq̇)* q̈

So we can plug that in to get this more compact result:

dL/dt = d/dt (q̇ * (δL/δq̇))

Rearranging we get:

0 = d/dt (q̇ * (δL/δq̇) – L)

Maybe this looks familiar. Recall that the Hamiltonian, which is equal to the sum of kinetic and potential energy has the following form, expressed in terms of the Lagrangian.

H = (δL/δq̇)q̇ – L

So we can plug this into our equation to get

d/dt (H) = 0

Let’s go ahead express this in terms of kinetic energy, T, and potential energy, V.

H = T + V

d/dt (T + V) = 0

So from our starting condition

dL/dt = 0

We get

d/dt (T + V) = 0

If we set the condition where the Lagrangian doesn’t change with time then the total energy is conserved. This is the Noether symmetry-conservation relation.

What would it be like if things weren’t this way? Under time symmetry things like the gravitational constant and the masses of fundamental particles are constant across time. What if they weren’t? An object elevated above the Earth’s surface has potential energy

V = mgh

Where m is mass, g is acceleration due to gravity, and h is height. Acceleration due to gravity is a function of the gravitational constant G.

g = – GM/r^2

Where M is the mass of the gravitational field source, like the Earth, and r is the distance from the center of the Earth. For the elevated object in our example, none of these values is changing. But what if we could change the gravitational constant G? Say we increase it. Now acceleration due to gravity, g, is higher and potential energy, V, is higher. We’ve created energy from nowhere.

Or another example. At one moment in time you throw a ball up into the air with a certain velocity. So it starts off with a kinetic energy that gets converted to potential energy as it goes up into the sky. But then right as it reaches its highest point you turn the gravitational constant, G, way up and the ball slams to the ground at a much faster velocity than you started with. Again, we’ve created energy from nowhere.

But that doesn’t happen because the laws of physics don’t change over time.

Philosophical reflections

If you were to create a universe how would you do it? I don’t know how to create a universe but if I did my inclination would be to make it as self-designing as possible. Set a few basic rules and let things develop from there. This seems to be the most efficient and elegant way to configure things. I think what makes Noether’s Theorem so marvelous is that we get a great deal of purchase from a rather simple principle: symmetry.

This reminds me a little of what Immanuel Kant tried to do in his moral philosophy. In his 1785 Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals he proposed that all moral principles could be derived from one master principle, called the categorical imperative, which was the following:

“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.”

This is also known as the principle of universalizability. This reminds me of Noether’s Theorem in two ways. First, it’s a simple principle from which others can be derived. Second, it’s a principle of universalizability. We could say that Kant is making his ethics point-of-view invariant. I should act only according to a maxim that could be a universal law, that is not only applicable to me, but to anyone. That’s what it means for it to be universalizable.

In Comprehensible Cosmos Victor Stenger also proposed a principle of universalizability, but for physics. “The models of physics cannot depend on any particular point of view.” That’s the principle of point-of-view invariance. Stenger says of this principle:

“Physics is formulated in such a way to assure, as best as possible, that it not depend on any particular point of view or reference frame. This helps make possible, but does not guarantee, that physical models faithfully describe an objective reality, whatever that may be… When we insist that our models be the same for all points of view, then the most important laws of physics, as we know them, appear naturally. The great conservation principles of energy and momentum (linear and angular) are required in any model that is based on space and time, formulated to be independent of the specific coordinate system used to represent a given set of data. Other conservation principles arise when we introduce additional, more abstract dimensions. The dynamical forces that account for the interactions between bodies will be seen as theoretical constructs introduced into the theory to preserve that theory’s independence of point of view.”

Sort of like Kant’s principle of universalizability, point-of-view invariance keeps us honest. Repeatability of experiments by multiple observers, holding constant only those factors relevant to the experiment, is what ought to finally convince others of the validity of our observations. It won’t do much good if I have a singular experience that only I observe that, in other words, is not universalizable, not point-of-view invariant, but rather strictly tied to me and my point of view. That’s not to say that we don’t have private, subjective experiences that are real. They’re just phenomena of a different nature. Here’s more from Stenger on this point:

“So, where does point-of-view invariance come from? It comes simply from the apparent existence of an objective reality—independent of its detailed structure. Indeed, the success of point-of-view invariance can be said to provide evidence for the existence of an objective reality. Our dreams are not point-of-view invariant. If the Universe were all in our heads, our models would not be point-of-view invariant. Point-of-view invariance generally is used to predict what an observer in a second reference frame will measure given the measurements made in the first reference frame.”

I think that’s well put. And that line that “Our dreams are not point-of-view invariant” is one I think about a lot.

Noether’s Theorem is absolutely foundational. It’s been said that Noether’s theorem is second only to the Pythagorean theorem in its importance for modern physics. It’s remarkable that just one, compact principle can produce so much of what we observe in the world.

Reference Material

Baez, J. (2020b, February 17). Noether’s Theorem in a Nutshell. University of California, Riverside. Retrieved March 25, 2022, from

Branson, J. (2012, October 21). Recalling Lagrangian Mechanics. University of California San Diego. Retrieved March 25, 2022, from

Greene, B. (2020, May 11). Your Daily Equation #25: Noether’s Amazing Theorem: Symmetry and Conservation. YouTube. Retrieved March 25, 2022, from

Khan, G. J. H. What Is Noether’s Theorem? Ohio State University. Retrieved March 25, 2022, from

Stenger, V. J. (2006). The comprehensible cosmos: Where do the laws of physics come from? Prometheus Books.

Washburn, B. (2018, March 13). Introduction to Noether’s Theorem and Conservation Principles. YouTube. Retrieved March 25, 2022, from

Unknowns and Knowing God

Christianity has many unknowns, which makes possible many differing beliefs. This can be discouraging. There are limits in the extent of our reasoning, something Immanuel Kant explored in his theory of antinomies. And there are limits in the answers resolvable in scripture, in response to which Pseudo-Dionysius admonished that theology must remain within the bounds of revelation. But the unknowns need not stop us from knowing God. Key is to persist in way of holiness and nurture a life with the Holy Spirit.

Anyone familiar with a religion will have noticed that there are a lot of disagreements. Every religion has multiple versions even if they share common origins and common sacred texts. Christianity is replete with unknowns, which makes possible multiple interpretations as different people try to fill in the gaps. These differences are not only over minor matters but concern even the most fundamental doctrines like the nature of God, Jesus Christ, and the process of salvation. With so much underdetermined how is it possible to know God and follow him? I’ve been thinking about this a lot and I don’t know of any way to answer all the unknowns. But I do think that even with many unknowns it is nevertheless possible to know God and to follow him. The unknowns don’t need to be a cause for despair.

My original working title for this episode was “theological antinomies and apophatic theology”. I’ll explain what those terms mean in short order. But I scrapped that title for a few reasons. For one thing, it’s kind of alienating and pretentious. And I also don’t really want to endorse apophatic theology wholesale. Still it’s the title that got the wheels turning. And that was by putting two important thinkers into imaginary dialogue with each other: Pseudo-Dionysius and Immanuel Kant. The reason for doing that was to think through how to persist in the joyful celebration of the ideas of Christianity even in light of the many unknowns that remain unresolved.

Pseudo-Dionysius was a philosopher and Christian theologian in the 5th or 6th century. He’s called Pseudo-Dionysius because in his texts he takes on the persona of Dionysius the Areopagite, a 1st century disciple of Paul. He wasn’t that Dionysius, so we just call him Pseudo-Dionysius. The texts I’ve been reading are On the Divine Names and The Mystical Theology. These are very significant works in the history of Christian philosophy. His theology is a standard case of apophatic theology. Apophatic theology is also called “negative theology”. Rather than make statements about the way things are it makes statements about the way things are not.

Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher who lived from 1724 – 1804. Kant’s greatest work was his 1781 Critique of Pure Reason. In the Critique Kant came up with a  very interesting model for the way that the mind works and how we reason. What’s most relevant in it to my topic here is his notion of antinomies. An antinomy is a contradiction between beliefs or conclusions that are each in themselves reasonable. Kant proposed that it is part of our human nature to try to understand things beyond the limits of what reason can establish. And so our reasoning eventually leads us into antinomies. Kant’s antinomies had to do with the finitude or infinitude of time and space, the existence of fundamental, indivisible substances, causality versus spontaneity, and the existence of necessary being. Those all have some overlap with theological ideas but I don’t want to focus on Kant’s particular antinomies but rather this general idea that as we continue reasoning about things we eventually run into antinomies that, for one reason or another, we’re not able to resolve.

Dionysius wasn’t addressing the same problem of antinomies that Kant was but I think his thought is applicable to it. Here’s my basic idea. Christians devote themselves to God in many ways; through obedience, sacrifice, prayer, song, art, service, love, and through study. Theology is a rational study of God and of the religion. But since it is a rational activity it’s susceptible to the kinds of antinomies that Kant talked about. As we push further and further in our thinking about God and religion we reach limits that are intrinsic to the reasoning process itself. Also in the case of theology we come up against the limits of the finitude of revelation, in at least two ways. First, the scriptures just don’t answer all the questions we want to ask. And second, different parts of the scriptures lead us to different answers. You might say that the scriptures themselves contain antinomies.

One classic example of this is in regards to the godhood of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is the theological topic of the Trinity. Take the following ideas:

The Father is God.
The Son is God.
The Holy Spirit is God.
The Father is not the Son.
The Son is not the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is not the Father.
There is only one God.

We can find scriptures to support all of those. But it’s pretty apparent that this just doesn’t all fit together very nicely. There’s something unusual going on here. There’s been a lot of theology on this topic and I think a lot of it has been quite productive, even if indirectly. For example, the philosopher Joseph Koterski made the case that the philosophical concept of a “person” as understood in natural law theory arose in large part over the intellectual effort to make sense of this Trinitarian puzzle (Koterski, Natural Law and Human Nature. 2002). And that’s useful. Still, I can’t say that any theology has ever resolved the puzzle. And to be fair, it’s usually understood to be a holy mystery anyway, one that we can’t resolve, which is a bit like a Kantian antinomy.

Dionysius’s apophatic approach was to forebear from theorizing and even to deny any particular positive theological formulations. It reminds me a bit of twentieth century deconstruction, though it’s of course rather different in its underlying motivations. Dionysius had a keen sense of the way many religious ideas go beyond our capabilities to understand through our reason. And that was one reason for his apophatic approach. But he was also especially sensitive to our reliance on scripture. For example, here’s a passage from the opening paragraph of On The Divine Names:

“And here also let us set before our minds the scriptural rule that in speaking about God we should declare the Truth, not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the power which the Spirit stirred up in the Sacred Writers, whereby, in a manner surpassing speech and knowledge, we embrace those truths which, in like manner, surpass them, in that Union which exceeds our faculty, and exercise of discursive, and of intuitive reason.”

So that’s the first motivation, that these truths exceed our faculty and exercise of discursive and intuitive reason. Continuing on:

“We must not then dare to speak, or indeed to form any conception, of the hidden super-essential Godhead, except those things that are revealed to us from the Holy Scriptures.”

And there’s the kicker. I think that’s the even bigger issue for Dionysius. He is very sensitive to our dependence on revelation.

We might ask here, was Dionysius always true to his own standards? In my assessment he was not. He actually made a lot of positive assertions in his writings that were not based in revealed scripture but rather in Neoplatonist philosophy. That’s not to say those assertions were wrong. They might be correct. I find Neoplatonism rather compelling and attractive. But I also think it tends to make God look too impersonal and inaccessible, which is exactly the opposite of what a life with the Holy Spirit presupposes. So he wasn’t perfect or perfectly consistent. But I find him an interesting and valuable thinker. And his standards were good ones.

One more passage from Dionysius:

“For a super-essential understanding of It is proper to Unknowing, which lieth in the Super-Essence Thereof surpassing Discourse, Intuition and Being; acknowledging which truth let us lift up our eyes towards the steep height, so far as the effluent light of the Divine Scriptures grants its aid, and, as we strive to ascend unto those Supernal Rays, let us gird ourselves for the task with holiness and the reverent fear of God. For, if we may safely trust the wise and infallible Scriptures, Divine things are revealed unto each created spirit in proportion to its powers, and in this measure is perception granted through the workings of the Divine goodness, the which in just care for our preservation divinely tempereth unto finite measure the infinitude of things which pass man’s understanding.” (On The Divine Names 1:1)

This is great stuff. I think this is consummate theology right here. Dionysius is exceedingly astute and a gifted philosopher and that’s wonderful, but even more important to his success as a theologian is his piety, his humility, and his reverence for God. I think that makes a huge difference. It’s one thing for an intelligent person to be able to expertly articulate the fine details of a theological theory. But in the words of Paul, if he doesn’t have the pure love of Christ it’s like sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal (1 Corinthians 13:1).

It’s important not to claim to know more than we do. It’s alright, actually admirable to acknowledge the unknowns, the limits of our knowledge. It’s an act of reverence for God to acknowledge that we are dependent on his revealed word and that he has chosen not to reveal answers to all of our theological and doctrinal questions. But what is critical in the life of faith is to know God in a personal way. Something I consider indispensable and irreplaceable in religious life is direct communication with the Spirit. It’s crucial to remember that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are persons and that we come to know persons through personal encounters. Our personal encounters with people don’t give us exhaustive knowledge about them in every possible detail. In my relationships with human beings there’s a ton of information that I don’t know about them. It would certainly be valuable to know more about them in that manner. But ultimately that’s not what it means to have a personal relationship.

The Holy Spirit is the indispensable gift in the life of a Christian. Jesus said:

“If you love Me, keep My commandments. And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever—the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you… These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.” (John 14:15-18.25-27) A life with the Holy Spirit is a life of keeping the commandments and of prayer. The Holy Spirit is sent to bring the words of Christ to remembrance and to give peace. This is a life of a personal relationship with God.