Gaber,
I am not sure of my understanding of that quote from Aquinas as I would have to see the context. I am not arguing that we can know or prove everything about God’s nature through reason. All that I am arguing is that a changeless perfect being who is necessary for the universe as the logical result of Aquinas’ proofs. I am not saying we can know that God is three persons or know His form based on the arguments but that they prove the foundations for theism. You accept proofs from mathematics and physics. Likewise Aquinas’ proofs are metaphysical arguments of the same degree and validity. Certainly they are nothing compared to what he saw, afterall we don’t worship theorems.
CC42:
Welcome to CAF.
Although it’s been a long while, I remember some of the story about St. Thomas’ walk where he proclaimed that his
Summa was but a lot of straw. As I recall, he had gone through a period of time wherein he may have been privy to a number of mystical experiences that, well, showed him Heaven, and perhaps a glimpse of God. Shortly after, he was quoted with the supposedly derogatory remark about his
Summa.
As one reads St. Thomas, one discovers essentially no egoism in him. That was very hard to accomplish. Even the good Catholics, in these fora, often sneak some egoism into their/our writings, with the possible exception of my friend, Yppop. You understand, as well as I, that egoism is unnecessary when speaking the Truth.
I can’t tell you how often I have heard and read the bought-line, “Aquinas’ arguments have been refuted numerous times, in the past . . .” Or, “it’s been shown that they don’t hold water . . .”, etc. Then, when the pundit is asked to show where and why, he cannot, or else points to a horrible re-statement of Aquinas’ arguments, to make the pretense quasi-palatable.
I noticed that you said above: “I am not arguing that we can know or prove everything about God’s nature through reason.” I think ultimately you can though. A good example is, of course, his First Way argument. The antagonists will often argue it as the preliminary observations of local motion, rather than the full meaning of substantial change, which is what he argued, as it was the only relevant point to argue. (But, as we know, even “local motion,” upon full disclosure, refers back to some substantial impetus that extends back to a First Mover.)
Men often extrapolate from evidence.
Demonstration, which is the crux of Aquinas’ dialectic toward practical syllogism, as we also know, is the primary form of investigatory mechanism used by scientists. Let’s look, for example, at Dr. Walter Reed. In his search for the transmittal mechanism for Yellow Fever, he did not have to investigate ocean water, or snow-capped ski resorts, or the structure of cacti, to know that if they were influential in transmitting yellow fever, there would be yellow fever throughout the world. By his dialectical reasoning, he knew there was no inductively observed relation between these things and yellow fever. This shows, that “dialectics” and “demonstration” are not purely straight forward experiments that give repeatable results. They are very often used to to eliminate unsupportable notions.
Initial dialectics and demonstrations, if any, may prove the antithesis of what the scientist intends to prove. Then, ultimately, a scientist, like Dr. Reed, settles in on two, or more, hypotheses that can be tested. In Dr. Reed’s case, he settled in on: (1) yellow fever is transmitted by contact with secretions from an infected human being, and (2) yellow fever is transmitted by being bitten by a mosquito that had previously bitten an infected patient prior to bitting the uninfected subject.
“Let us analyze the two dimensions in Reed’s experiment; and in order to simplify the task, let us look at the last stages of his reasoning where the two testable alternatives were presented him. He could formulate his two conclusions in the following manner: If yellow fever is carried by a mosquito, then a person bitten by such a mosquito which has previously bitten a victim will contract the disease. Reed’s second conclusion would run: If yellow fever is transmitted by contact, then a person who makes physical contact with a fever victim will contract the disease. Up to this point, both of these conclusions were purely dialectical. They are consequences deduced from the twofold question: Is yellow fever carried by a mosquito or by physical contact?” -
The General Science of Nature, V.E. Smith, p. 69.
I look forward to your continued contributions to these fora.
God bless,
jd
