Does the "Perfect Being Theology" program of Thomas Morris and Yujin Nagasawa succeed in formulating coherent divine attributes?

The "Perfect Being Theology" program developed by Thomas Morris in the 1980s and reformulated by Yujin Nagasawa in the last decade represents one of the most important contemporary attempts to build a coherent concept of divine attributes. The question of its "success" requires careful analysis of its methodology, achievements, and limitations.

Inadequate Responses to Avoid

From some defenders of the program, three responses deserve attention:

"The program succeeds completely because it is based on Anselm's historical logic." This is a misleading oversimplification. The contemporary program goes far beyond Anselm and faces challenges Anselm never knew (such as contemporary paradoxes of absolute power). Appealing to historical authority does not solve contemporary philosophical problems.

"Nagasawa solved all paradoxes with his MaximalGod theory." This is an exaggerated claim. Nagasawa himself acknowledges in "Maximal God" (2017) that his theory solves some paradoxes at a price: abandoning the classical understanding of certain attributes. This is not so much a "solution" as a redefinition of the problem.

"Formal logic guarantees coherence." This confuses formal validity with material truth. The fact that a system is logically coherent does not mean it describes the actual God or even a metaphysically possible God.

From some critics, two responses are also inadequate:

"The program is mere word play." This is an unfair reduction. The program uses tools of contemporary logic and analytic metaphysics to address real problems in philosophy of religion. Dismissing it as "word play" ignores the genuine philosophical progress it has made.

"Any attempt to define God is doomed to failure." This is an unproductive nihilistic position. Even if God transcends complete understanding, this does not mean that every attempt at partial understanding is worthless. Criticism should be specific, not wholesale.

Structure of Morris's Program

Thomas Morris in "Our Idea of God" (1991) and "Anselmian Explorations" (1987) laid the foundations:

Basic Principle: God is the maximally great being possible to conceive. From this principle, we deduce divine attributes through conceptual analysis.

Methodology: We begin with the intuition of "greatness" and analyze it. Attributes that make a being "greater" are ascribed to God in the highest possible degree. Power is better than impotence, so God is omnipotent. Knowledge is better than ignorance, so God is omniscient.

Handling Paradoxes: When two attributes conflict (such as absolute power and absolute goodness in the problem of evil), we reanalyze the concepts to find a coherent formulation. For example: omnipotence = the power to do everything that is logically possible and consistent with the divine nature.

Achievement: Morris succeeded in providing a clear methodological framework for deriving divine attributes and solving some classical paradoxes (such as: Can God create a stone he cannot lift?).

Nagasawa's Development - MaximalGod Theory

Yujin Nagasawa in "Maximal God: A New Defence of Perfect Being Theism" (2017) offered a radical development:

Conceptual Shift: Instead of "greatest in every attribute," Nagasawa proposes "the greatest sum of attributes." God is not necessarily infinite in every attribute, but possesses the optimal combination of attributes that achieve maximal greatness.

Solving Paradoxes: This solves paradoxes such as: the ability to sin (a power attribute) versus sinlessness (another moral perfection). In MaximalGod theory, God possesses sinlessness because it contributes to overall greatness more than the ability to sin.

Conceptual Flexibility: The theory allows for degrees in attributes. God may not be "omnipotent" in the literal sense, but possesses the optimal degree of power consistent with overall greatness.

Strongest Contemporary Criticisms

Brian Leftow's Criticism (2022): The program assumes that "greatness" is a clear and objective concept. But what counts as "greater" may differ according to cultural and philosophical context. The program projects limited human intuitions onto the unlimited God.

Mark Johnston's Criticism: In "Saving God" (2009), Johnston argues that the program creates "the God of philosophers" not the God of living religion. Logical coherence does not guarantee religious adequacy.

Peter van Inwagen's Criticism: Even if the program succeeds in formulating a coherent concept, this does not prove that this concept describes an actually existing being. Logical possibility does not entail metaphysical possibility.

The Problem of Ad Hoc Modifications: When a paradox appears, the program redefines attributes. This appears ad hoc: we change definitions to suit the desired result rather than following logic wherever it leads.

Strengths of the Program

Methodological Clarity: The program provides a clear and disciplined methodology for discussing divine attributes, rather than relying solely on intuition or text.

Openness to Criticism and Development: Unlike traditional theology, the program is open to philosophical criticism and continuous modification.

Solving Real Paradoxes: Despite criticisms, the program has succeeded in solving or reformulating a number of paradoxes that have troubled theology for centuries.

Compatibility with Philosophical Developments: The program benefits from developments in contemporary logic, possible worlds theory, and analytic metaphysics.

Balanced Critical Assessment

The program partially succeeds in:
- Providing a methodological framework for discussing divine attributes
- Solving some traditional logical paradoxes
- Clarifying relationships between different attributes
- Developing precise language for philosophical theology

But it faces serious challenges:
- Assuming the objectivity of the concept of "greatness"
- Tension between logical coherence and religious adequacy
- Risk of ad hoc redefinitions
- Gap between logical possibility and actual existence

From the Perspective of Rational Preponderance (rajḥān ʿaqlī)

The program provides a useful tool within the approach of rational preponderance, but not as a decisive proof. It contributes to making the concept of God clearer and less prone to paradoxes, thus strengthening the rational preponderance of monotheism. But it does not settle the question of God's existence or ultimate nature.

The Deeper Contribution

Perhaps the program's most important achievement is not "success" in a final formulation of divine attributes, but in developing precise philosophical tools for thinking about these matters. Even critics of the program benefit from its methodological clarity and conceptual precision.

Where We Stand in This Debate Today

The debate in the 2020-2026 period has moved beyond the question "Does the program succeed or fail?" toward a more precise question: "Which version of the program is most capable of standing?" Nagasawa's MaximalGod model has attracted increasing attention, but has produced a new division: one camp sees in it a clever rescue of the program by abandoning the exaggeration of each attribute individually, while another camp sees in it a fundamental concession that empties the idea of "perfect being" of its classical content. Recent works such as Scott Hill's reviews (2021) and Joshua Rasmussen's (2023) have attempted to build intermediate models that maintain infinity in essential attributes while accepting flexibility in secondary attributes. Meanwhile, criticism has deepened from the direction of analytic open theism, which challenges the first premise: Does "greatness" really entail absolute immutability and comprehensive knowledge of the future? Today's landscape is more pluralistic and less certain than it was with Morris, and this represents philosophical maturation, not retreat.

From the Perspective of Rational Preponderance (The Website's Method)

Rational preponderance does not demand that the Perfect Being Theology program provide decisive proof of the coherence of divine attributes, nor does it reject it merely for having paradoxes not yet resolved. Instead, it poses a cumulative probabilistic question: Does the program make the concept of the one perfect God more coherent than it was before? The probable answer: yes, but with limits. The program has succeeded in raising the degree of internal coherence of the classical monotheistic concept, and this is added to other cumulative evidence—cosmological, teleological, and moral—as a reinforcing factor, not as an independent argument. However, the epistemic price the program pays—especially in the MaximalGod version—must be honestly calculated: redefining attributes may save logical coherence but may distance the concept from the God toward whom actual worship is directed. The most honest philosophical position: the program is a valuable tool within the system of preponderance, not a substitute for the entire system.

For Further Reading

- Thomas V. Morris, Our Idea of God (University of Notre Dame Press, 1991)
- Thomas V. Morris, Anselmian Explorations (University of Notre Dame Press, 1987)
- Yujin Nagasawa, Maximal God: A New Defence of Perfect Being Theism (Oxford UP, 2017)
- Brian Leftow, "Why Perfect Being Theology?" (International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 2011)
- Mark Johnston, Saving God: Religion after Idolatry (Princeton UP, 2009)
- Katherin Rogers, Perfect Being Theology (Edinburgh UP, 2000)
- "Formulation: Perfect Being Theology" page on the website
- "Classical Attributes of God" page on the website