Heller M, Woodin W.H. (eds.) Infinity. New research frontiers (CUP, 2011)(ISBN 1107003873)(O)(327s)_MAml_

32 infinity as a transformative concept in science and theologyIn the locus classicus in his Mystica Theologia V, the Areopagite claimed that it isimpossible to understand God in terms of human rationality. 70 This approach of theAreopagite seems to end up in an intellectual dead end: God’s actual infinity cannotbe discerned by the human intellect. On the contrary, one has to leave behind thelimitations of thinking. One has to get rid of thinking itself in order to get just aglimpse of God’s actual infinity. This claim of apophatic theology could have been theend of all intellectual attempts to understand God’s infinity. How did this theologicalendeavor go on?In the subsequent historical development, there was no further step in Eastern theologythat went beyond the Areopagite. In Western theology, actual infinity, as aproperty of God, was developed in various contexts and by various theologians. Oneway was by arguing with the Aristotelian concept of potential infinity, once Aristotlewas received in Western theology. This line was pursued by theologians such as DunsScotus and St. Thomas Aquinas (Sweeney 1992a, pp. 413–37). Duns had a distinctconcept of God’s infinity, arguing against Aristotle that the infinity of God cannot beconceived of in a potential manner, because that would presuppose thinking about infinityin terms of quantity, which he thought to be inappropriate for God. God cannot bedescribed in a quantitative way. Besides, he thought that the concept of infinity is superiorto that of a first cause (Pannenberg 1988, p. 379; Dettloff 2002; Dreyer and Ingham2003; Honnefelder 2005). Thus, the nominalistic-voluntaristic tradition of thinkingabout God’s infinity emerged, which was further pursued by William of Occam andJohn Buridan.St. Thomas Aquinas contends the infinity of God (Aquinas 1934, I, 7, 1–4), arguingagainst the negative attitude of ancient Greek philosophy and toward and for an actualinfinity. He combines the concept of infinity of the early Church with Greek hylomorphism,and he asks the question as to whether God can be perfect if he is infinite. Inthis way he takes up Greek thinking that perfection can only be thought of as beingrelated to finite entities. His solution is that God’s infinity can be reconciled with hisperfection only if one thinks of God as being pure form, which is possible. Therefore,one can argue that Thomas transformed the Greek’s mutual exclusion of perfection andinfinity on the basis of his understanding of God as pure form. In this sense St. Thomashad a weak understanding, so to speak, of God’s actual infinity. 71 It is an understandingof infinity that stresses infinity as a quality, or more precisely as a quality belonging to70 “Far more ascending we proclaim now that he, the first principle is neither soul nor spirit. He has nopower of imagination nor opinion nor reason nor recognition (). God cannot be expressed in wordsnor can he be understood by thinking. He is neither number, nor order (), neither magnitude norminimum, neither equality nor non-equality, neither similarity () nor non-similarity. ( . . . ) Heis not being (), not eternity, not time. He cannot be understood by thinking, he is not knowledge(), not truth, not dominion, not wisdom, not one (), not unity (), not god-likeness(), not mercy, not spirit () as we understand it. ( . . . ) There is no word (), no name,no knowledge () about him” (Dionysios Areopagita 1956, V, 1045D–1048B, p. 171; Ritter andHeil 1991).71 “Unde infinitum secundum quod se tenet ex parte formae non determinatae per materiam, habet rationemperfecti. Illud autem, quod est maxime formale omnium, est ipsum esse, ut ex superioribus patet. Cum igituresse divinim non sit esse receptum in aliquot, sed ipse sit suum esse subsistens, ut supra ostensum est,manifestum est quod ipse Deus est infinitus et perfectus” (Aquinas 1934,I,7,1).