No True Scotsman: On the Presence, Character, and Origin of the "Scotus Story" in Radical Orthodoxy and Beyond (Introduction)
As He interrogates Adam—taking a bit of
license from a modern genre—God assumes the visage of something like the first
detective to solve a “whodunit.” This may explain why theologians as a breed
are fascinated with finding the perpetrators of one “fall” or another. Another reason being (I imagine) that tenure
tracks are undoubtedly harder to attain when everyone else is doing just
great. Somebody somewhere screwed it up
for the rest of us, and we are going to find them and be a hero. And if we must have an office that smells of
rich mahogany and contains many fine leather-bound books in the meantime, so be
it.
From claims of “Constantinianism,” or “Onto-Theology”, or
“Classical Theism”, to the vaguely sinister claim of “substance metaphysics” or
that something is not “Trinitarian enough,” whodunit narratives have felled their
fair share of trees to get into print.
Philosophers even get in on the action, borrowing the impulse from their
theological brethren.[1]
One such story has in the last few years received quite a
bit of notoriety—the so-called “Scotus Story.”[2] While the typically perennial question has
been “What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem,” if one reads works of the
Radically Orthodox, the impression is more that the question should be: “What
does Scotland have to do with Cambridge?” What I want to do here is not to ask
whether the story is correct (like many such stories it has elements of truth
and falsehood, in my opinion). Rather I
want to look at how the story came to be
as a piece of historiography. In so
doing we will also investigate some of its wider characterizations, in order to
get an idea of why a seemingly obscure figure like Duns Scotus is so important
one way or another to so many people.
I.
The Villain Enters
As the parable goes—in barest of outlines—Duns Scotus (known
as the “Subtle Doctor”) made modifications to the preceding theological
tradition that ultimately led to its undoing in secularism, atheism, and even
consumer capitalism. These are all
serious charges, and immediately we should be suspicious that one man could
accomplish so much (unintentionally, no less).
The name “Scotus Story” should not fool us, however, for it is not
merely about the man Duns Scotus, or his ideas.
Rather it is about a cascade of changes related to theologians that
followed him, including especially William of Ockham, and more generally
theological ideas labeled voluntarism and nominalism. If you are unfamiliar with these somewhat
ungainly terms, fear not, for we will unpack them in a moment.
Depending on which flavor of the story one gets, Scotus
developed a “univocal” concept of being. What this means: an argument was
developed demonstrating that terms we use for God—like strength, wisdom, or
goodness—mean essentially the same thing as they do when we say them of finite
things. God is like us—just
quantitatively more so. And why is this so horrifying, you might
ask? From one angle, idolatry: it makes
God into just another piece of the universe—albeit the Biggest.[3]
From another angle it eventually led to scientific
explanations seemingly displacing God,
as the three “explanations” (God or nature or humanity) jockeyed for position
as primary cause. In addition, with the
increased emphasis on God’s will, the world no longer reflected God’s nature
(as good, say, or beautiful) or His unity (for only individuals exist—there are
no beautiful beaches, only sand).
Everything becomes merely the arbitrary declaration of His will. This not only appeared to strip our ability
to perceive meaning in the world, but it also threatened God’s revelation
itself. Not wanting God to be bound even
to his “past” decisions, an increasing emphasis on the distinction between
God’s “ordained will” (what he has revealed) and his “absolute will” (what He
could possible do) emerged.
[1] Stephen Mulhall, Philosophical
Myths of the Fall (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007).
[2] The name “Scotus Story” is the umbrella designation given
to variations of this tale by Daniel P. Horan, Postmodernity and Univocity: A Critical Assessment of Radical Orthodoxy
and John Duns Scotus (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014), vii.
[3] For overviews of Scotus and his views relative to Aquinas,
cf. David Burrell, Analogy and
Philosophical Language (New Haven: Yale, 1973), 93-213.
Comments