I think that Paul thinks the divine nature ‘magnetise’ reference to God in the kind of way David Lewis thinks natural properties magnetise reference to ‘water’ despite ignorance about it’s atomic structure etc..

Paul says

[God’s] invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world

(Romans 1:20 ESV)

Clearly many who use the term “Zeus” are not worshipping a divine being of eternal power because the Zeus of publicly sponsored Athenian worship is not eternal. Indeed jehovah’s witnesses despite using the term ‘jehovah’ in their worship arn’t worshipping a being with eternal power.

However, Paul’s speech in Acts 17 seems to indicate that “The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth..”(Acts 17:24 ESV) is the same thing as the thing in which “we live and move and have our being… for we are his handiwork (Acts 17:28 ESV– here Paul is quoting Greeks who use the term “Zeus”) And that these are all the same being that “has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” (Acts 17:31 ESV)

Baal and Ashera are evidently not supreme beings in that story because they are being worshipped side by side as a male and female sexual couple with distinct powers and abilities associated with heaven and earth respectively in contrast to the Lord of BOTH heaven and earth and everything therein.

Cheers,

Joshua

A very intriguing post. I have a couple of inquiries.
First, you argue that from a Christian point of view “…it is God himself who determines the reference of ‘God’—not we human beings (taken individually or collectively) in some grossly Promethean fashion.” But, surely, the term ‘God’ is part of a human language (in this case English) and the present debate pertains to how the reference of the term ‘God’, as used by different humans, is fixed. Could you clarify this issue. Second, do you maintain that the term ‘God’ is a rigid designator, in the Kripkean sense, analogous to the claim that ‘Thomas Jefferson’ is a rigid designator? If so, do you also agree that the referent of names, such as ‘Thomas Jefferson’ and ‘God’, is fixed via a causal-historical chain linking to an original term-introduction baptismal ceremony? I think that the position one takes on these question about reference-fixing of names is pivotal in deciding the issues you discuss in this post.

Thank you in advance for your response, if you deem that these questions merit one.

Peter Lupu
[email protected]

Why isn’t this sufficient to fix the reference of “Allah” on God, that they have always centrally said that this is the god who sent Abraham, Moses, and Jesus?

About your criticism of Rea. If “worshiping a god” just means directing the god-appropriate sort of honor and *something*, real or not, divine or not, then your disastrous consequence would follow. But I think Rea must be assuming that “worship” is a two-way interaction. Not only is prayer and worship sent up towards a being, but it’s a god, and he in some sense accepts or receives it, and may at his option respond. In this sense, it is doubtful that Rea or anyone else must admit that the worshipers of Baal or Zeus worshiped a god. But surely ancient Jews worshiped God in this sense, and without being trinitarians. And it is plausible that people going on natural knowledge of God or general revelation, or some monotheistic tradition, may be worshiping God. One would think they could refer to him by the description “unique, good and wise creator” or something like that.

It seems to me that who worships him is sort of God’s business. Referring to God is one thing, but actually worshiping him requires his consent – more than just referring to him. Certainly God answers to “Allah” when Arabic-speaking Christians use it. Might he also respond when a penitent Muslim – let’s say, one who is never really exposed to the Christian gospel – uses it? I don’t see why not. But then, plausibly, they are referring to him. I suppose he could as it were butt in if they were talking to someone else. But we should all be familiar with God condescending to interact with us despite our confusions and false assumptions about him – even about his essential attributes.

What do you think?