Nominalism was a school of thought
that came to receive widespread acceptance in Europe on the eve of the
Protestant reformation. In opposition to the Aristotelian/Thomistic
synthesis, which asserted that God’s will for the world corresponds to
the nature of how reality actually is, William of Ockham and other
medieval nominalists asserted that there is no independent rational
order guiding God’s decisions.
Ockham was not even comfortable acknowledging that God’s own
character formed the basis of His will-acts. Indeed, for God to be
totally ultimate, Ockham taught, His decisions must be unconstrained by
any criteria whatsoever. Ockham’s God was thus capricious, arbitrary and
unpredictable.
This nominalist revolution had a profound effect on how late-medieval
Europeans perceived the world. The universe ceased to be conceived in
the way we find in Dante—a harmony of patterns, fitting together in a
glorious dance-like ecosystem—since nominalism implied that there are no
inherent patterns to the world apart from those which emerge
accidentally through the aggregate of God’s pedestrian will-acts. God’s
commands are not based on what is best for a thing according to its
nature, because things no longer possessed natures after “Ockham’s
razor” shaved off universals. Nominalists thus evacuated all teleology
from the universe, leaving only the names and concepts imposed on it
from outside. (Teleology refers to an account of reality in which final
causes exist in nature, so that just as human actions are performed with
a purpose or final end in view, so things within nature have a final
cause which defines the good of each particular thing.)
There is a sense in which the influence of nominalism in contemporary
culture is ubiquitous, since the nominalist revolution greatly
contributed to the advent of secular modernity. At least that is what
many scholars, including those associated with the “radical orthodoxy”
movement, have convincingly argued. But my purpose in this series of
articles is less ambitious than trying to offer an account of the
origins of modern secularism. I simply wish to zero-in on a few
practical areas where the thinking of contemporary Christians has been
tinctured by the poison of nominalism.
Now what, you may be wondering, does any of this have to do with sex? To find out, click on the following link to read my Colson Center article on the subject:
1 comment:
I liked your article, Mr. Phillips. Well written and very informative.
It does, however, leave me to wonder somewhat. Maybe I misread your article, but I seem to be able to grasp exactly what is the teleology of sex, or better, what you understand is the teleology of sexuality and what is God's pattern outside of sex being for marriage only.
You may have stated this, but I will ask nonetheless: what do you believe to be Gods pattern and the teleology of sexuality? And how, if it does, does that pertain to particular sexual acts and the organization of our sex lives? You used the world natural in your article, what would you see as such?
Post a Comment