Creation and causation

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

Medieval thinkers regarded it as a foundational tenet of faith that the world had come to be through divine agency. The three monotheist Scriptures testify to this in clear terms, and each of the attendant theologies also came to regard it as important that God be recognized as creator. But how is God’s creative act to be understood? Is it entirely sui generis, or does it correspond to some recognized category of change, either straightforwardly or by analogy? Are the facts of creation and its salient characteristics susceptible to rational analysis and demonstration, or do they fall outside those phenomena that it is the business of philosophy to investigate? And what might the connection, or lack thereof, tell us about either creation or causation? After lengthy deliberations, and not without dissent, Christian orthodoxy settled on the world’s having been created ex nihilo in a limited past. At the same time, medieval philosophers also inherited the dominant philosophical view that the sensible world has always existed, a sempiternal beneficiary of an eternal agency. The compatibility of these two positions was considered problematic early on, and gave rise to an extensive debate over the eternity of the world. Because eternity was closely linked with self-sufficiency in the philosophical tradition, the idea that there might be other eternal principles besides God prompted questions about the necessity and contingency of the current world order and the different ways in which causal dependency might be construed. The majority of the developments occurred under falsafa (Arabic Aristotelianism), which will accordingly be given precedence in what follows.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationThe Cambridge History of Medieval Philosophy
PublisherCambridge University Press
Pages232-246
Number of pages15
Volume1-2
ISBN (Electronic)9781107446953
ISBN (Print)9781107675100
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2014

Fingerprint

Deity
Causation
Eternal
Medieval Period
Tenets
Creator
Contingency
Beneficiaries
Rational Analysis
Salient
Scripture
Philosopher
Compatibility
Philosophical Traditions
Causal
Ex Nihilo
Dissent
Philosophy
Faith
Thinkers

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Arts and Humanities(all)

Cite this

Kukkonen, K. T. (2014). Creation and causation. In The Cambridge History of Medieval Philosophy (Vol. 1-2, pp. 232-246). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CHO9781107446953.022

Creation and causation. / Kukkonen, Kalle Taneli.

The Cambridge History of Medieval Philosophy. Vol. 1-2 Cambridge University Press, 2014. p. 232-246.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Kukkonen, KT 2014, Creation and causation. in The Cambridge History of Medieval Philosophy. vol. 1-2, Cambridge University Press, pp. 232-246. https://doi.org/10.1017/CHO9781107446953.022
Kukkonen KT. Creation and causation. In The Cambridge History of Medieval Philosophy. Vol. 1-2. Cambridge University Press. 2014. p. 232-246 https://doi.org/10.1017/CHO9781107446953.022
Kukkonen, Kalle Taneli. / Creation and causation. The Cambridge History of Medieval Philosophy. Vol. 1-2 Cambridge University Press, 2014. pp. 232-246
@inbook{3c10a12f253846bd9ee83a0c179fa545,
title = "Creation and causation",
abstract = "Medieval thinkers regarded it as a foundational tenet of faith that the world had come to be through divine agency. The three monotheist Scriptures testify to this in clear terms, and each of the attendant theologies also came to regard it as important that God be recognized as creator. But how is God’s creative act to be understood? Is it entirely sui generis, or does it correspond to some recognized category of change, either straightforwardly or by analogy? Are the facts of creation and its salient characteristics susceptible to rational analysis and demonstration, or do they fall outside those phenomena that it is the business of philosophy to investigate? And what might the connection, or lack thereof, tell us about either creation or causation? After lengthy deliberations, and not without dissent, Christian orthodoxy settled on the world’s having been created ex nihilo in a limited past. At the same time, medieval philosophers also inherited the dominant philosophical view that the sensible world has always existed, a sempiternal beneficiary of an eternal agency. The compatibility of these two positions was considered problematic early on, and gave rise to an extensive debate over the eternity of the world. Because eternity was closely linked with self-sufficiency in the philosophical tradition, the idea that there might be other eternal principles besides God prompted questions about the necessity and contingency of the current world order and the different ways in which causal dependency might be construed. The majority of the developments occurred under falsafa (Arabic Aristotelianism), which will accordingly be given precedence in what follows.",
author = "Kukkonen, {Kalle Taneli}",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1017/CHO9781107446953.022",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9781107675100",
volume = "1-2",
pages = "232--246",
booktitle = "The Cambridge History of Medieval Philosophy",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Creation and causation

AU - Kukkonen, Kalle Taneli

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - Medieval thinkers regarded it as a foundational tenet of faith that the world had come to be through divine agency. The three monotheist Scriptures testify to this in clear terms, and each of the attendant theologies also came to regard it as important that God be recognized as creator. But how is God’s creative act to be understood? Is it entirely sui generis, or does it correspond to some recognized category of change, either straightforwardly or by analogy? Are the facts of creation and its salient characteristics susceptible to rational analysis and demonstration, or do they fall outside those phenomena that it is the business of philosophy to investigate? And what might the connection, or lack thereof, tell us about either creation or causation? After lengthy deliberations, and not without dissent, Christian orthodoxy settled on the world’s having been created ex nihilo in a limited past. At the same time, medieval philosophers also inherited the dominant philosophical view that the sensible world has always existed, a sempiternal beneficiary of an eternal agency. The compatibility of these two positions was considered problematic early on, and gave rise to an extensive debate over the eternity of the world. Because eternity was closely linked with self-sufficiency in the philosophical tradition, the idea that there might be other eternal principles besides God prompted questions about the necessity and contingency of the current world order and the different ways in which causal dependency might be construed. The majority of the developments occurred under falsafa (Arabic Aristotelianism), which will accordingly be given precedence in what follows.

AB - Medieval thinkers regarded it as a foundational tenet of faith that the world had come to be through divine agency. The three monotheist Scriptures testify to this in clear terms, and each of the attendant theologies also came to regard it as important that God be recognized as creator. But how is God’s creative act to be understood? Is it entirely sui generis, or does it correspond to some recognized category of change, either straightforwardly or by analogy? Are the facts of creation and its salient characteristics susceptible to rational analysis and demonstration, or do they fall outside those phenomena that it is the business of philosophy to investigate? And what might the connection, or lack thereof, tell us about either creation or causation? After lengthy deliberations, and not without dissent, Christian orthodoxy settled on the world’s having been created ex nihilo in a limited past. At the same time, medieval philosophers also inherited the dominant philosophical view that the sensible world has always existed, a sempiternal beneficiary of an eternal agency. The compatibility of these two positions was considered problematic early on, and gave rise to an extensive debate over the eternity of the world. Because eternity was closely linked with self-sufficiency in the philosophical tradition, the idea that there might be other eternal principles besides God prompted questions about the necessity and contingency of the current world order and the different ways in which causal dependency might be construed. The majority of the developments occurred under falsafa (Arabic Aristotelianism), which will accordingly be given precedence in what follows.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84954116238&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84954116238&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/CHO9781107446953.022

DO - 10.1017/CHO9781107446953.022

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9781107675100

VL - 1-2

SP - 232

EP - 246

BT - The Cambridge History of Medieval Philosophy

PB - Cambridge University Press

ER -