tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post8936938289007292080..comments2024-03-18T03:29:09.653-07:00Comments on Christ the Tao: A Gnu Unicorn misses the point. (On faith.) Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-12956376745679894332012-11-02T13:02:58.651-07:002012-11-02T13:02:58.651-07:00We've never been all that far apart, ideologic...We've never been all that far apart, ideologically, Brian. I think that you sort of have a god-concept with the universe, itself being G-d. My concept isn't all that different. I simply accept that G-d has interacted with man, on a personal level, and you don't.<br /><br />I don't think that I had any 'one' reason, for suddenly becoming religious. I pretty much accept that G-d simply became a bit insistent about it. But among my 'reasons' was the feeling that there was up against a spiritual threshold that I simply couldn't cross, without believing that the worlds really do have a master.<br /><br />I think that we probably both have the same concern about creeds that are intolerant of the beliefs of others, including when atheism becomes a creed of intolerance.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06957264469843748908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-10926361100269137932012-11-02T06:43:04.093-07:002012-11-02T06:43:04.093-07:00Hey there Jen! Great to hear from you. I guess tha...Hey there Jen! Great to hear from you. I guess that’s the amazing thing about Jesus – he has the power to bring even orthodox Jews and atheists together :-)Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-30475453508939394732012-10-31T18:55:50.871-07:002012-10-31T18:55:50.871-07:00I took a quick look at Mike's critique. It mad...I took a quick look at Mike's critique. It made me tired. I have a somewhat ambivalent relationship with faith, myself. But Mike makes me feel tired, because of his enormous amount of faith in himself. It takes an unimaginable amount of faith in self, to live a life that is pretty much dedicated to the criticism of religious people.<br /><br />I feel sort of sorry for him. His belief that religion is responsible for his unhappy worldview, has left him with nothing but a fervent faith in his self, and an intolerance for others.<br /><br />Sure, we know that religious people do this, too. They have an intolerance for other beliefs, that they become obsessed with. It's an awful thing. But some atheists exhibit exactly the same sort of intolerance. It's exactly the same sort of reasoning. And yet, Mike probably imagines that, not only is he not intolerant, but that he is immune to such intolerance.<br /><br />How tiresome!<br /><br />I don't really have any deep observations to make, tonight. Too tired!<br /><br />Brian, it's good to see a discussion with you in it, again. I feel a little wierd going to a Jesus blog, though. :)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06957264469843748908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-40805148088966505822012-10-28T19:19:50.752-07:002012-10-28T19:19:50.752-07:00Brian's challenges on Aquinas are more worthy ...Brian's challenges on Aquinas are more worthy of attention, but other posters here have offered helpful perspectives, now. So today, John Loftus posted on faith again, including a challenge to myself and the philosophers Victor Reppert and Randal Rauser. <br /><br />Only Loftus flipped A-Unicornists' argument. Incredibly, just as we finish rebutting Mike, who says Christians should not cite the Bible to prove their notion of what Christianity says about faith, one week later, Loftus makes exactly the opposite argument. What are these Christian apologists doing, defining "faith" without citing the Bible? <br /><br />Heaven has such a wonderful sense of irony. <br /><br />Anyway, I've just posted a reply to Loftus. Hopefully I'll find time to read Aquinas more fully, and see in more detail how he does or does not fit into the model I am arguing for, and most Christians seem to agree with. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-315506185029735762012-10-25T15:30:19.306-07:002012-10-25T15:30:19.306-07:00Brian, from the section you quoted:
"Reason ...Brian, from the section you quoted:<br /><br />"Reason may be employed in two ways to establish a point: firstly, for the purpose of furnishing sufficient proof of some principle, as in natural science, where sufficient proof can be brought to show that the movement of the heavens is always of uniform velocity. Reason is employed in another way, not as furnishing a sufficient proof of a principle, but as confirming an already established principle, by showing the congruity of its results, as in astrology the theory of eccentrics and epicycles is considered as established, because thereby the sensible appearances of the heavenly movements can be explained; not, however, as if this proof were sufficient, forasmuch as some other theory might explain them. In the first way, we can prove that God is one; and the like. In the second way, reasons avail to prove the Trinity; as, when assumed to be true, such reasons confirm it. We must not, however, think that the trinity of persons is adequately proved by such reasons. This becomes evident when we consider each point; for the infinite goodness of God is manifested also in creation, because to produce from nothing is an act of infinite power. For if God communicates Himself by His infinite goodness, it is not necessary that an infinite effect should proceed from God: but that according to its own mode and capacity it should receive the divine goodness. Likewise, when it is said that joyous possession of good requires partnership, this holds in the case of one not having perfect goodness: hence it needs to share some other's good, in order to have the goodness of complete happiness. Nor is the image in our mind an adequate proof in the case of God, forasmuch as the intellect is not in God and ourselves univocally. Hence, Augustine says (Tract. xxvii. in Joan.) that by faith we arrive at knowledge, and not conversely."<br /><br />Let me clarify my claim. My claim is that for St. Thomas the Trinity is amenable to reason. Reason is not 'neutral' on the issue; the Trinity is a more coherent picture of God than almost any other I know. Nevertheless this is not sufficient to prove that God is, in fact, a Trinity of Persons. But reason can show that it is a natural and consistent step from monism and not a brain-bending aberration totally beyond rationality. In other words St. Thomas doesn't draw a parenthesis around the Trinity and say, 'On this subject, fideism is okay.' He accepts the authority of the Church for what he thinks are pretty good reasons, and he applies reason to her claims.Southern Anglicanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08455266898847197606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-27007014665864982102012-10-25T15:13:57.718-07:002012-10-25T15:13:57.718-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Southern Anglicanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08455266898847197606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-73578114111274059682012-10-25T13:24:30.850-07:002012-10-25T13:24:30.850-07:00I agree enitrely that most Christians, including A...<i>I agree enitrely that most Christians, including Aquinas, think that their religion is based on reason and evidence, as well as on faith. And even someone like Kierkegaard thinks he has good “reasons” (i.e. justifications) for being a Christian, even if those justifications do not take the form of positive, publicly available evidence.</i><br /><br />I think the Kierkegaard comparison, without adequate qualification, is a case of severe equivocation on your part. If you're trying to imply that Aquinas' reason is like Kierkegaard's reason.<br /><br /><i> He says “what is of faith cannot be demonstrated, because a demonstration produces scientific knowledge; whereas faith is of the unseen” and faith is “concerned with invisible things, that exceed human reason”</i><br /><br />Again, what you keep missing here is that Aquinas, when talking about reason, is talking about a form that is distinct from what we know as modern science - he's talking about metaphysical demonstration proceeding from first principles, and he explicitly says that 'lesser' sciences are overruled by metaphysics. Likewise, when he talks about faith, he's talking with regards to God specifically.<br /><br />But both of those definitions are too narrow to do what you're trying to do here, and apply these terms to modern science. I'm pointing out, this simply isn't what Aquinas was talking about - neither word, used by Aquinas, applies to the scientific examples you're dealing with.<br /><br />Regarding the Higgs-Boson, I believe you're mistaken. My understanding is that the results discovered at the lab were consistent with a positive result of the Higgs - the right kind of signal, at a high level of confidence, in the right scope of results. It was a live option that they would not find this signature at the labs, and if so, this would have been a fatal blow to standard Higgs searches precisely because that result would have been inconsistent with the Higgs search.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-2594498686239777012012-10-25T08:27:01.439-07:002012-10-25T08:27:01.439-07:00Don Page, an eminent Christian quantum physicist, ...Don Page, an eminent Christian quantum physicist, wrote a chapter for my new book, Faith Seeking Understanding, arguing for a Many Worlds interpretation of quantum physics. True enough, I find it pretty hard to buy. But if he tells me less controversial facts about quantum fields and particles, I'll probably believe that -- at least, I hope his students will. My son is taking physics right now, and he'd better be taking notes in class. <br /><br />I think you'd enjoy that book. I hope you'll read it some time, though it might be hard to get in Ireland right now, since you have to order it from William Carey Library. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-57819421668271518812012-10-25T08:22:01.350-07:002012-10-25T08:22:01.350-07:00Well physics is not a good example for me because ...Well physics is not a good example for me because in my view many contemporary physicists are absolute bluffers who have very little notion what they are talking about - they take advantage of the fact that no one else knows what they are talking about either in order to convey the impression that they have some sort of inside knowledge concerning string theory, dark matter, quantum indeterminism, cosmology and so on - many of these theories are highly speculative and the probability that they are correct is pretty small. Did you see all the recent palaver about scientists “discovering” the Higgs-Boson in CERN in Switzerland? If you look more closely at the results, you find that they have not discovered the Higgs-Boson at all – all they did was run some tests where the observed results are consistent with the existence of the Higgs-Boson. Well, that is bluffing of the highest order – I mean, ALL existing observations are consistent with the existence of Higgs-Boson, as well as dark matter etc. so paying a few gazillion euro to find another few observations that are “consistent” with its existence does not strike me as particularly good value. So I would be very sceptical of contemporary physicists. <br /><br />Anyway, rant over <br />Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-4994149712597926592012-10-25T07:25:10.944-07:002012-10-25T07:25:10.944-07:00Brian: But what you say fits in perfectly with my ...Brian: But what you say fits in perfectly with my explanation, above. When Aquinas speaks of faith, he seems to be limiting himself to what I call the "fourth step of faith" -- faith in God. And just as faith in human beings depends on prior trust in the mind and the senses, RATIONAL trust, so Clement or Origen said not everyone has time or intellectual capabilities to do all the research that is necessary, for ANY worldview they chose -- that's just the nature of things. So we take reasonable intellectual shortcuts, such as trusting people we find trustworthy about matters they seem to understand -- preeminently, for Christians, Jesus Christ. But his trustworthiness can be and should be established intellectually, even if sometimes inchoately. <br /><br />The source Patrick cites above, the philosopher Edward Feser, while not quoting Thomas Aquinas directly, does explain Catholic thinking very much in the terms I give in the OP: <br /><br />"But what is faith? It is NOT what most people think it is; in particular, it is NOT a matter of believing something without any grounds for believing it, or believing it simply because you've taken a fancy to it, or because through sheer will you've worked yourself into a state of belief in defiance of all the evidence. In short, faith, rightly understood, is in no way at odds with reason. On the contrary, faith is, in a sense, GROUNDED in reason . . . "<br /><br />Feser then gives an example from what I call the "third step of faith" -- faith in other people. <br /><br />"You trust him (a quantum physicist friend), because he knows what he is talking about and wouldn't lie to you . . . "<br /><br />"Faith in the religious context -- or at least in the Catholic theological context -- is like that . . . faith involves believing some proposition we could not have discovered on our own and perhaps cannot even fully understand, but which we know must be true because God, who is omniscient and cannot lie, has revealed it. But . . .the claim that the proposition in quesiton HAS in fact been revealed by God is something that can and should be independently rationally justified. In short, reason tells us that there is a God and that he has revealed such-and-such a truth: faith is then a matter of believing what reason has shown God to have revealed. In that sense faith is not only not at odds with reason but is grounded in reason." <br /><br />The analogy here is that we have grounds for trusting the physicist (step 3), as we have grounds for trusting God (step 4). <br /><br />Feser cites authoritative Catholic texts to support his explanation, especially from the Vatican Council. I won't give those quotes at the moment. <br /><br />There is some different between Feser's Catholic definition of faith, and my own. In my view, faith should be defined to include an existential component, thus the airplane analogy. Also, in this sense, even belief in God is a matter of faith, since we must rationally trust our minds even if we think, say, the Ontological Argument is sound. And that also involves the same kind of faith, at Step 1. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-39707776747622366192012-10-25T03:02:13.499-07:002012-10-25T03:02:13.499-07:00Southern Anglican, concerning the Trinity and reas...Southern Anglican, concerning the Trinity and reason - the most relevant chapter in Aquinas is the one entitled: “Whether the Trinity of the Divine Persons Can Be Known by Natural Reason?” FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 32, Art. 1]<br /><br />Aquinas’s conclusion is: “It is impossible to attain to the knowledge of the Trinity by natural reason.” He says: “Whoever, then, tries to prove the trinity of persons by natural reason, derogates from faith in two ways. Firstly, as regards the dignity of faith itself, which consists in its being concerned with invisible things, that exceed human reason wherefore the Apostle says that "faith is of things that appear not" (Heb. 11:1), and the same Apostle says also, "We speak wisdom among the perfect, but not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world; but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery which is hidden" (1 Cor. 2:6, 7). Secondly, as regards the utility of drawing others to the faith. For when anyone in the endeavor to prove the faith brings forward reasons which are not cogent, he falls under the ridicule of the unbelievers: since they suppose that we stand upon such reasons, and that we believe on such grounds.”<br />Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-46076764663373813082012-10-25T02:45:08.754-07:002012-10-25T02:45:08.754-07:00Crude, “Aquinas is yet another example of Christia...Crude, “Aquinas is yet another example of Christianity where reason and evidence play a tremendous role”. I agree enitrely that most Christians, including Aquinas, think that their religion is based on reason and evidence, as well as on faith. And even someone like Kierkegaard thinks he has good “reasons” (i.e. justifications) for being a Christian, even if those justifications do not take the form of positive, publicly available evidence.<br /><br /><br />Regarding Aquinas on faith and reason in general. Aquinas says that “human reason cannot avail to prove what must be received on faith”. He even says that if reason was used to prove sacred doctrine “the merit of faith would come to an end”. He does say “there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated.” Here he is talking specifically about the existence of God – a matter he thinks is demonstrable by reason alone – but he says that if someone is incapable of understanding the reasons in this instance, then faith will do the work for him.<br /><br />Further he says “It was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation” “Scripture, inspired of God, is no part of philosophical science” and “there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason.” “Those things which are beyond man's knowledge may not be sought for by man through his reason, nevertheless, once they are revealed by God, they must be accepted by faith.”<br /><br />Regarding whether Aquinas would regard the safety of air travel as a matter of faith - Aquinas clearly says that “faith is about God” and that it is a specifically theological virtue. He says that “by faith we gaze on heavenly things which surpass the senses and human reason.” He says “what is of faith cannot be demonstrated, because a demonstration produces scientific knowledge; whereas faith is of the unseen” and faith is “concerned with invisible things, that exceed human reason”. <br /><br />Now, I do not think the question of air travel safety is one that surpasses the human sense and human reason, or that it is a theological issue, or that determining the safety or otherwise of air travel is ultimately a matter of religious faith concerning things unseen.<br />Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-2542991942914333782012-10-24T19:18:08.593-07:002012-10-24T19:18:08.593-07:00As for the relationship between faith and reason f...As for the relationship between faith and reason from a Thomist point of view the following contribution, written by a Thomist philosopher, is very informative: <br /><br />http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-ii.htmlPatrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08733557675273087950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-99818816394823442012-10-24T18:11:24.401-07:002012-10-24T18:11:24.401-07:00Darrin: COL. (Chuckle Out Loud.)
One can be sur...Darrin: COL. (Chuckle Out Loud.) <br /><br />One can be sure Dr. McCoy would be accused of "vitriol" if he were posting on-line. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-31457352484824874682012-10-24T18:07:56.433-07:002012-10-24T18:07:56.433-07:00SA: Thanks for the quotes! One thing Brian has co...SA: Thanks for the quotes! One thing Brian has convinced me of, ironically, is that I need to read Aquinas more seriously, and soon. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-2423799292851522182012-10-24T17:58:31.638-07:002012-10-24T17:58:31.638-07:00... sorry, I lost my temper before continuing in t...... sorry, I lost my temper before continuing in the article and realizing you pointed this out, as well. ;) Darrinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13296950331541804235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-21416072520527826152012-10-24T17:52:54.395-07:002012-10-24T17:52:54.395-07:00//If the universe exhibited a chaotic jumble of no...//If the universe exhibited a chaotic jumble of non-lawlike behavior, rather than falling into beautiful patterns, we would abandon that assumption as well. That’s the most compelling thing about science: it always stands ready to improve by casting out an old idea when the evidence demands it.//<br /><br />NO!!! IF THE UNIVERSE "BECAME" A CHAOTIC JUMBLE, YOU WOULDN'T "ABANDON THE ASSUUUUUUUUMPTION" AND "FORM A NEW HYPOOOOOOOTHESIS" ACCORDING TO THE "EEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIDENCE," YOU'D BE A CHAOTIC JUMBLE ALONG WITH IT YOU FREAKING STAMP-COLLECTING WITCH DOCTOR. UNIFORMITY OF NATURE IS AN UNFALSIFIABLE #$^@% ASSUMPTION, PERIOD. FACE IT.Darrinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13296950331541804235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-56080213736049182652012-10-24T16:20:35.394-07:002012-10-24T16:20:35.394-07:00Here is what St. Thomas says in the Compendium the...Here is what St. Thomas says in the Compendium theologiae:<br /><br />"The truths about God thus far proposed [those of his unity and simplicity] have been subtly discussed by a number of pagan philosophers, although some of them erred concerning these matters. And those who propounded true doctrine in this respect were scarcely able to arrive at such truths even after a long and painstaking investigation.<br /><br />"But there are other truths about God revealed to us in the teachings of the Christian religion, which were beyond the reach of the philosophers. These are truths about which we are instructed, in accord with the norm of Christian faith, in a way that transcends human perception.<br /><br />"The teaching is that although God is one and simple, as has been explained above, God is Father, God is Son, and God is Holy Spirit. And these are not three gods, but are one God. We now turn to a consideration of this truth, so far as is possible to us."<br /><br />Now this may seem to support the idea that 'the Trinity is neither supported nor rejected by reason, since it is simply beyond the comprehension of human reason in this life.' But I don't think that is quite right. St. Thomas goes on:<br /><br />"We take from the doctrine previously laid down that God understands and loves himself; likewise, that understanding and willing in him are not something distinct from his essence. Since God understands himself, and since all that is understood is in the person who understands, God must be in himself as the object understood is in the person understanding.<br /><br />"But the object understood, so far as it is in the one who understands, is a certain word of the intellect. We signify by an exterior word what we comprehend interiorly in our intellect. For words, according to the Philosopher, are signs of intellectual concepts. Hence we must acknowledge in God the existence of his Word.<br /><br />"...what the intellect comprehends is formed in the intellect, the intelligible object being, as it were, the active principle, and the intellect the passive principle. That which is thus comprehended by the intellect, existing as it does within the intellect, is conformed both to the moving intelligible object (of which it is a certain likeness) and the quasi-passive intellect (which confers on it the intelligible existence. Hence what is comprehended by the intellect is not unfittingly called the conception of the intellect.<br /><br />"But here a point of difference must be noted. What is conceived in the intellect is a likeness of the thing understood and represents its species; and so it seems to be a sort of offspring of the intellect. Therefore when the intellect understands something other than itself, the thing understood is, so to speak, the father of the word conceived in the intellect, and the intellect itself resembles rather a mother, whose function is such that conception takes place in her. But when the intellect understands itself, the word conceived is related to the understanding person as offspring to father. Consequently, since we are using the term word in the latter sense (that is, according as God understands himself) the word itself must be related to God, from whom the Word proceeds, as Son to Father."<br /><br />St. Thomas then goes through a similar reasoning process with the Holy Spirit as beloved-in-lover. I think it's pretty clear that while St. Thomas regarded some of the truths revealed by faith as of a kind unreachable through reason alone, many of them, even the reality of the Trinity, are nevertheless demonstrable. It is more that the Trinity is just the sort of thing nobody would guess or come to on their own; but it still follows naturally from the idea that God is one, simple, intelligent, etc. As St. Thomas says, "If the teacher settles the question by merely citing authorities, the student will, indeed, by assured that the matter is so, but he will gain nothing of science or understanding, and will depart empty-minded."Southern Anglicanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08455266898847197606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-59745569553026152402012-10-24T16:18:26.646-07:002012-10-24T16:18:26.646-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.pershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00135430089313093193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-21672288019911245762012-10-24T14:32:58.970-07:002012-10-24T14:32:58.970-07:00But I'm open to being corrected on this if the...<i>But I'm open to being corrected on this if there are examples of him using "reason" in the more informal, contextual sense indicated at the end of your second point, or using "faith" in the vaguer sense indicated at the end of your third point?</i><br /><br />It's not a question of Aquinas using 'reason' in another sense - the point is the very restricted sense that Aquinas is using 'faith' and 'reason' both. With 'reason', he is talking about metaphysical reasoning from first principles (and he does mention that it's possible for God to reveal some things that reason could, in principle, also reveal.) With 'faith' he is talking about revealed truths from an appropriate authority.<br /><br />As I pointed out, using Aquinas kills the point atheists want to make in David's OP - Aquinas believed God's existence, and much more about Him, was discovered by reason (yes, including various orthodox teachings.) Which means that Aquinas is yet another example of Christianity where reason and evidence play a tremendous role. Meanwhile, you said...<br /><br /><i>Conversely, the less evidence there is for a certain view, then the more faith is required in order to believe it. This is the view of Aquinas.</i><br /><br />But you're simply wrong. Aquinas doesn't treat 'reason' and 'faith' as two points on a sliding scale such that the more reason you have, the less faith you need. What he did was distinguish between two kinds of knowledge: knowledge acquired from the logical examination of first principles, and knowledge acquired from revelation or an appropriate authority. First of all, notice something: these are not exhaustive summaries of knowledge. Scientific knowledge, theories and estimations of probabilities, are explicitly *further down the line from metaphysical reasoning* in Aquinas' own view. Second, Aquinas also held that something could in principle be revealed by revelation that was also knowable by reason - so knowledge acquired by revelation did not rule out acquiring that same knowledge by reason.<br /><br />Moreover, evidence still could and would play a role in knowledge from an authority or revelation, since investigating evidence for that authority would still be possible, even necessary.<br /><br />I want to stress, again, that for Aquinas there was a gulf between metaphysical knowledge, and knowledge gained from 'lesser sciences'. Knowledge that flowed from first principles was fundamental and more certain than any knowledge gained by, say, empirical science.<br /><br />So no, Aquinas' statements about knowledge through reason do not amount to 'Aquinas would say we don't need faith to believe such-and-such about planes'. <br /><br />More than that, think it over. How do you 'know' what you claim to know about plane travel? Did you perform experiments, do data analysis, and come to a conclusion? Or are you relying on others' knowledge and authority to come to your conclusion about that and much more? Think about how Aquinas classifies knowledge from authority - even if the knowledge in question is in principle attainable by reason on the part of an individual. All while realizing, again, that such knowledge was classified as a less perfect/reliable form by Aquinas than metaphysical.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-27678979031800921312012-10-24T12:44:51.659-07:002012-10-24T12:44:51.659-07:00Aquinas says that in this world we cannot see God,...Aquinas says that in this world we cannot see God, but in the next world we shall see the essence of God directly and therefore we shall have no need of faith in the next world. Similarly, Aquinas says that neither Jesus nor the angels have faith, because they see God directly, unlike us, which is why we need faith to even have an imperfect, clouded vision of God.<br /><br />He says "Thus among the articles of faith not only are those things set forth to which reason cannot reach, such as the Trinity of the Godhead; but also those to which right reason can attain, such as the Unity of the Godhead."<br /><br />So the Trinity is one of those things that "reason cannot reach". It is beyond reason, so it must be accepted on faith - however, I think Aquinas would say that the Trinity is neither supported nor rejected by reason, since it is simply beyond the comprehension of human reason in this life.<br /><br />Here are four more relevant quotes:<br /><br />1 - the Apostle says (2 Cor. 5:6): "While we are in the body, we are absent from the Lord"; and he points out the reason of this absence, saying: "For we walk by faith and not by sight." Now from this it is clear that so long as we walk by faith and not by sight, bereft of the vision of the Divine Essence, we are not present to the Lord. But the souls of the saints, separated from their bodies, are in God's presence; wherefore the text continues: "But we are confident and have a good will to be absent . . . from the body, and to be present with the Lord." Whence it is evident that the souls of the saints, separated from their bodies, "walk by sight," seeing the Essence of God, wherein is true Happiness.<br /><br />2 - It is written (Heb. 11:1): "Faith is the evidence of things that appear not." But there was nothing that did not appear to Christ, according to what Peter said to Him (John 21:17): "Thou knowest all things." Therefore there was no faith in Christ<br /><br />3 - In the angels there is no faith, for they do not "walk by faith" but "by sight,"<br /><br />4 - By faith we gaze on heavenly things which surpass the senses and human reason.Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-5555582518933877622012-10-24T11:43:32.741-07:002012-10-24T11:43:32.741-07:00Both of you may have read more of Aquinas than I h...Both of you may have read more of Aquinas than I have to date, I'm ashamed to admit. But I'm wondering if what Aquinas means by faith can't be reconciled to what I call "the fourth step of faith." In that sense, trusting God's revelation would contrast with the first three steps of faith -- in mind, senses, and people -- yet also be reasonable and supportable by evidence. <br /><br />For instance, it may be that God has revealed His character is trinitarian. There is, indeed, no merely empirical way of proving this. If it is a revelation, though, it still reasonable and believable on established evidence -- the reasoning that established that there is a God, and the historical, experiential reasoning that established that Jesus is divine. <br /><br />Is that a plausible understanding of Aquinas? If not, can you point to any passages that seem to undermine it? <br /><br />I may ask other people who know Aquinas well for their input, until I have time to read the most relevant passages again myself. I had been wondering about this, even before Brian brought it up, and have seen different opinions. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-76317505097560486662012-10-24T11:19:34.256-07:002012-10-24T11:19:34.256-07:00Right, Aquinas thinks that the existence of God ca...Right, Aquinas thinks that the existence of God can be proven by reason, and that belief in God therefore does not require faith. But specifically Christian doctrines such as the Incarnation and the Trinity cannot be demonstrated by reason and therefore they require faith.<br /><br />He uses the words "reason" and "faith" in a very clear, technical, coherent and consistent way, and as far as I can see he sticks to using those words in that way all through the Summa Theologica - in fact, the clarity and consistency of his thought is frankly astounding. But I'm open to being corrected on this if there are examples of him using "reason" in the more informal, contextual sense indicated at the end of your second point, or using "faith" in the vaguer sense indicated at the end of your third point?Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-64055687243405187482012-10-24T10:59:41.668-07:002012-10-24T10:59:41.668-07:00Aquinas is clear that the central doctrines of ort...<i>Aquinas is clear that the central doctrines of orthodox Christianity (the Trinity, the Incarnation etc.) are based on Faith rather than Reason. </i><br /><br />No, that's not true without qualification. God's existence, omnipotence, etc are central doctrines of orthodox Christianity - and Aquinas is adamant that these can be known by reason. To acknowledge this is to destroy the atheist charge being leveled against theism in this thread. Instead it becomes 'Okay, well, Christianity relies on a mix of faith and reason'.<br /><br />Second, when Aquinas talks about using reason in this case, he's talking about reasoning from first principles to a certain conclusion - and he's saying that there's no way to reason from first principles to conclude the trinity. He is not advocating a fideist view where something is believed detached from reason - instead, something can be believed because it comes from a trustworthy authority, and reason can play a role in ascertaining the trustworthiness of said authority.<br /><br />Third, Aquinas would not say that believing that airplanes are safe 'doesn't require faith' in the sense you're using it - again, Aquinas' talk of 'reasoning' in those passages was reference to reasoning from first principles, and by 'faith' he specifically was making reference to revelation by God or relevant religious authorities. But faith in the sense that the knowledge is uncertain? Faith in the sense that assumptions are being made about the reliability of data, or that the conclusions are at best probably rather than strictly proven? Then absolutely Aquinas would agree that faith plays a role.<br /><br />The context of the words is important.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-87833950614974252742012-10-24T09:35:39.192-07:002012-10-24T09:35:39.192-07:00Brian: I appreciate an actual and reasonable chall...Brian: I appreciate an actual and reasonable challenge, which you have provided. In response: <br /><br />(1) Aquinas certainly is an authoritative Christian thinker, and his views should indeed be taken into account. I will therefore (if I have time) explain in a separate post why his views are in agreement with what I say above. (Though your reading seems plausible on the surface.) <br /><br />(2) Aquinas is not the only important Christian thinker, and not even the only on that level whom I quote. Note that I also quote Justin, Clement, Augustine, and Pope John Paul II, also very important thinkers in what would become the Catholic tradition. And this post is about what the NT says, which is more authoritative still. The Blind Faith Meme is, at best, a small minority position, as I show. <br /><br />(3) Anyway, if there is dispute, atheists should not take it upon themselves to resolve a dispute between Christians. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.com