Catholic Theology: Thomas Aquinas and Predestination

[Contarini]

So what is predestination?
In my ignorance, I assumed that the meaning was to be taken as literal. That is, the future of every particle in this universe of universes is fixed, like a recording being played, and by pressing ‘fast forward’ the future can be seen, and known.
Myself, I find this concept utterly incompatible with Church teaching on ‘free will’ and also with the best teachings of our best physicists, who are convinced, that the future is only predictable over an infinitesimal instant of time, after which Heisenberg uncertainty utterly fuzzies the prognosis, the further into the future you predict, the fuzzier the result.
If you mean by predestination, that there are propensities, based on probabilistic reactions to circumstances, where the probabilities are variable, and might be preset to varying levels, then yes, that is acceptable, both to me, and as far as I know, to physics.
Or maybe you mean something else…

We do. Predestination is not the same thing as determinism (though Jonathan Edwards’ version may be), because it is the act of a sovereign, transcendent God who exists outside time. Predestination does not mean that second causes (the kinds of causes that scientists talk about) produce their effects by necessity. St. Thomas specifically denied this. He taught that God causes things to act in the way that accords with their nature–stones act by necessity or chance, but human beings act freely. Of course, to some people the idea of God causing someone to do a certain thing but to do it freely seems contradictory, and St. Thomas in my opinion didn’t put a lot of effort into explaining how this works (at least in what I have read). Another problem with St. Thomas’s position is that God only causes good things–evil is a privation in the act of the creature, and God does not cause this, although He does sovereignly permit it (which, again, some might say amounts to the same thing).

Still, in spite of the problems, I think the Thomistic model is superior to any alternative I know.

Edwin

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

We do. Predestination is not the same thing as determinism (though Jonathan Edwards’ version may be), because it is the act of a sovereign, transcendent God who exists outside time. Predestination does not mean that second causes (the kinds of causes that scientists talk about) produce their effects by necessity. St. Thomas specifically denied this. He taught that God causes things to act in the way that accords with their nature–stones act by necessity or chance, but human beings act freely. Of course, to some people the idea of God causing someone to do a certain thing but to do it freely seems contradictory, and St. Thomas in my opinion didn’t put a lot of effort into explaining how this works (at least in what I have read). Another problem with St. Thomas’s position is that God only causes good things–evil is a privation in the act of the creature, and God does not cause this, although He does sovereignly permit it (which, again, some might say amounts to the same thing).

Still, in spite of the problems, I think the Thomistic model is superior to any alternative I know.

Edwin

Thankyou for your considered response.
There is of course a problem even with predestination as modified.
Yes, G_d exists outside of Time and Space. But this in itself causes a problem, for G_d designed the universe according to strict laws. These laws make it impossible for G_d to interface with this 3 D +T world as a hyperdimensional being. Consider a pencil and a piece of paper: the pencil, (3d object), may write on the paper while the tip is in contact with the paper surface, (2D object), The paper surface reacts to the tip of the pencil, perceiving only the part of the tip that shares its space.
The pencil tip can only write on the paper while it shares its space. If it tries to penetrate into the paper, it can, but in the process, it disrupts the paper, and so destroys its space.
We have the perverse situation that G_d, while relating to this universe is confined by this universe. Though potentially G_d can know the endtime result, like Schroedinger’s cat, which is neither alive nor dead, but both, as long as the box is closed, G_d can only know the endtime situation when the box is opened, but opening the box will end the time.
As for G_d causing evil, well, who are we to judge what is evil.
We see many things in this world that we perceive as evil, but consider the flies: if it were not for flies, the world would be knee deep with dung.
Consider spiders, if it were not for spiders, the world would be knee deep in flies!
Things we perceive as evil may indeed be necessary tests required to improve the world.
There is no evil god.
There is only G_d
Whatever is created, and how it works is the design of G_d.
What we perceive as evil is there because it is necessary.
The universe would not work without it.

 

[mgrfin]

Thankyou for your considered response.
There is of course a problem even with predestination as modified.
Yes, G_d exists outside of Time and Space. But this in itself causes a problem, for G_d designed the universe according to strict laws. These laws make it impossible for G_d to interface with this 3 D +T world as a hyperdimensional being. Consider a pencil and a piece of paper: the pencil, (3d object), may write on the paper while the tip is in contact with the paper surface, (2D object), The paper surface reacts to the tip of the pencil, perceiving only the part of the tip that shares its space.
The pencil tip can only write on the paper while it shares its space. If it tries to penetrate into the paper, it can, but in the process, it disrupts the paper, and so destroys its space.
We have the perverse situation that G_d, while relating to this universe is confined by this universe. Though potentially G_d can know the endtime result, like Schroedinger’s cat, which is neither alive nor dead, but both, as long as the box is closed, G_d can only know the endtime situation when the box is opened, but opening the box will end the time.
As for G_d causing evil, well, who are we to judge what is evil.
We see many things in this world that we perceive as evil, but consider the flies: if it were not for flies, the world would be knee deep with dung.
Consider spiders, if it were not for spiders, the world would be knee deep in flies!
Things we perceive as evil may indeed be necessary tests required to improve the world.
There is no evil god.
There is only G_d
Whatever is created, and how it works is the design of G_d.
What we perceive as evil is there because it is necessary.
The universe would not work without it.

I hate to burst your bubble, Chairman Dave. But the paper and the pencil do not share the same space.

peace

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I hate to burst your bubble, Chairman Dave. But the paper and the pencil do not share the same space.

peace

You are absolutely right, the pencil and the paper do not share the same space, but that is what I was saying. The pencil is ‘hyperdimensional’ wrt the surface of the paper, ie it is 3 D + T, whereas the paper surface is 2 D + T.
However, the tiny bit of the surface of the tip of pencil, which is in contact with the surface of the paper, does share the same space as the surface of the paper, both being 2 D + T objects.
This was the point I was trying to make.
In order to affect the paper without disrupting it, an aspect of the pencil, that is the very tip of the lead, has to enter into the 2 D + T universe of the paper surface, as a 2 D + T entity, so that a tiny portion of the surface of the tip of the pencil, thus shares the space of the paper surface.
This is the analogy I am drawing out.
It is of course only a model, and does not make any claim to be a reality, but it gives an inkling as to the infinitessimal aspect of G_d, being hyperdimensional wrt 3 D + T, ie outside of time and space, which can ever be projected into our universe without disrupting it.
‘Disrupt’ here means to destroy, permanently, or temporarily, the integrity (of the universe).

 

[mgrfin]

You are absolutely right, the pencil and the paper do not share the same space, but that is what I was saying. The pencil is ‘hyperdimensional’ wrt the surface of the paper, ie it is 3 D + T, whereas the paper surface is 2 D + T.
However, the tiny bit of the surface of the tip of pencil, which is in contact with the surface of the paper, does share the same space as the surface of the paper, both being 2 D + T objects.
This was the point I was trying to make.
In order to affect the paper without disrupting it, an aspect of the pencil, that is the very tip of the lead, has to enter into the 2 D + T universe of the paper surface, as a 2 D + T entity, so that a tiny portion of the surface of the tip of the pencil, thus shares the space of the paper surface.
This is the analogy I am drawing out.
It is of course only a model, and does not make any claim to be a reality, but it gives an inkling as to the infinitessimal aspect of G_d, being hyperdimensional wrt 3 D + T, ie outside of time and space, which can ever be projected into our universe without disrupting it.
‘Disrupt’ here means to destroy, permanently, or temporarily, the integrity (of the universe).

You said it again: “However, the tiny bit of the surface of the tip of pencil, which is in contact with the surface of the paper, does share the same space as the surface of the paper, both being 2 D + T objects.”

No, they don’t share the same space!!!

peace

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

You said it again: “However, the tiny bit of the surface of the tip of pencil, which is in contact with the surface of the paper, does share the same space as the surface of the paper, both being 2 D + T objects.”

No, they don’t share the same space!!!

peace

No Friend,
You are in clear error here. the tiny bit of the surface of the tip of the pencil in contact with the surface of the paper, is touching the paper, so is in the same place as the paper.
It is also co-planar with the paper surface, so shares its 2 dimensionality at the point of contact. If it were not in contact, it could not transfer parts of its surface on to the surface of the paper.
So it is in contact, and is co-planar, so it shares the same space.
QED.

 

[mgrfin]

No Friend,
You are in clear error here. the tiny bit of the surface of the tip of the pencil in contact with the surface of the paper, is touching the paper, so is in the same place as the paper.
It is also co-planar with the paper surface, so shares its 2 dimensionality at the point of contact. If it were not in contact, it could not transfer parts of its surface on to the surface of the paper.
So it is in contact, and is co-planar, so it shares the same space.
QED.

No, friend you are wrong.

Philosophically, or scientifically, however, the pencil and the paper, nomatter how close, they still are in different space. Still how close bacteria are, you have to have a microscope to see them and their space. But they are not occupying the same space.If they occupied the same space, they would not be distinct. Bugs, paper and pencil are distinct.
You are going to have to find another example to prove whatever point you are trying to make.

peace

 

[Bishopite]

No, friend you are wrong.

Philosophically, or scientifically, however, the pencil and the paper, nomatter how close, they still are in different space. Still how close bacteria are, you have to have a microscope to see them and their space. But they are not occupying the same space.If they occupied the same space, they would not be distinct. Bugs, paper and pencil are distinct.
You are going to have to find another example to prove whatever point you are trying to make.

peace

I agree with you.

 

[Bishopite]

No Friend,
You are in clear error here. the tiny bit of the surface of the tip of the pencil in contact with the surface of the paper, is touching the paper, so is in the same place as the paper.
It is also co-planar with the paper surface, so shares its 2 dimensionality at the point of contact. If it were not in contact, it could not transfer parts of its surface on to the surface of the paper.
So it is in contact, and is co-planar, so it shares the same space.
QED.

What point are you trying to make?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I agree with you.

You are both making the same philosophical error here.
Yes the 3 D + T sheet of paper, and the 3 D + T pencil cannot share the same space, but the boundary between the two touching objects is the coincident plane of the surface of the paper, and the tiny portion of the surface of the tip of the pencil.

Like the oil/water interface separating the two fluids in a jar, this is a 2 D + T artefact, neither oil, nor water, but the surface of contact between the two fluids, is a shared 2 D + T space of the oil surface and the water surface.

The water has two kinds of surface: water/glass, and water/oil, whereas the oil has three kinds of surface: oil/water, oil/glass, and oil/air.

The fact that the oil and the water cannot be in the sam 3 D + T space, does not invalidate the possibility that their surfaces may occupy the same 2 D + T space.

You need to understand the difference between bulk and boundary.
Teritories may share a boundary, but not land.

Now that you have allowed your philosphical error to fog the issue, you now need to recap to the beginning of this red herring, then you might begin to understand the point being made.

12th October is when I introduced the analogy.
If you cannot understande hyperdimensionality, when considering areas wrt lines, and volumes wrt planes, how can you begin to comprehend that which is hyperdimensional wrt our 3 D + T universe?

The point I was making was just that what can share a space with a lower dimensiona artefact is only an infinitessimal aspect of the higher dimensional entity.
That at least should be clear from the argument.

 

[mgrfin]

You are both making the same philosophical error here.
Yes the 3 D + T sheet of paper, and the 3 D + T pencil cannot share the same space, but the boundary between the two touching objects is the coincident plane of the surface of the paper, and the tiny portion of the surface of the tip of the pencil.

Like the oil/water interface separating the two fluids in a jar, this is a 2 D + T artefact, neither oil, nor water, but the surface of contact between the two fluids, is a shared 2 D + T space of the oil surface and the water surface.

The water has two kinds of surface: water/glass, and water/oil, whereas the oil has three kinds of surface: oil/water, oil/glass, and oil/air.

The fact that the oil and the water cannot be in the sam 3 D + T space, does not invalidate the possibility that their surfaces may occupy the same 2 D + T space.

You need to understand the difference between bulk and boundary.
Teritories may share a boundary, but not land.

Now that you have allowed your philosphical error to fog the issue, you now need to recap to the beginning of this red herring, then you might begin to understand the point being made.

12th October is when I introduced the analogy.
If you cannot understande hyperdimensionality, when considering areas wrt lines, and volumes wrt planes, how can you begin to comprehend that which is hyperdimensional wrt our 3 D + T universe?

The point I was making was just that what can share a space with a lower dimensiona artefact is only an infinitessimal aspect of the higher dimensional entity.
That at least should be clear from the argument.

Well, Dave I have taken courses in Thomistic Epistemology and Cosmology, and I don’t know what you are talking about.

peace

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Well, Dave I have taken courses in Thomistic Epistemology and Cosmology, and I don’t know what you are talking about.

peace

Well Friend, We accept that G_d is outside of this universe’s space and time. That is equivalent to being hyprdimensional wrt this 3 D + T universe.

We cannot comprehend the hyperdimensional universe, but we can understand the hypodimensional universes of the plane and the line.

Geometry is the science of the plane, and real number mathematics is the science of the line.

So though we cannot look up into the higher universe, we can look down into the two lower universes. From this higher aspect thereon, we can then imagine how denizens of such a lower universe might interpret interaction with us in their higher universe.
It is of course only an analogy, but this analogy was found useful by physicists investigating higher order aspects of this universe, General Relativity for instance.

Thus I consider this musing might provide an insight for those pondering the imponderable.

 

[john_doran]

Well Friend, We accept that G_d is outside of this universe’s space and time. That is equivalent to being hyprdimensional wrt this 3 D + T universe.

god is not “outside” time and space: he’s (traditionally, anyway) thought to be ***non-***spatial and ***a-***temporal; that is, god is ***non-***dimensional, and is thus not “hyperdimensional” with anything.

[Edited by Moderator]

 

[cpayne]

why do you always write “G_d”?

N_w, l_t’s n_t g_t p_cky, J_hn.

 

[mgrfin]

Well Friend, We accept that G_d is outside of this universe’s space and time. That is equivalent to being hyprdimensional wrt this 3 D + T universe.

We cannot comprehend the hyperdimensional universe, but we can understand the hypodimensional universes of the plane and the line.

Geometry is the science of the plane, and real number mathematics is the science of the line.

So though we cannot look up into the higher universe, we can look down into the two lower universes. From this higher aspect thereon, we can then imagine how denizens of such a lower universe might interpret interaction with us in their higher universe.
It is of course only an analogy, but this analogy was found useful by physicists investigating higher order aspects of this universe, General Relativity for instance.

Thus I consider this musing might provide an insight for those pondering the imponderable.

Maybe.

I’m still trying to figure out who G_d is.

peace

 

[Contarini]

Maybe.

I’m still trying to figure out who G_d is.

This is the reverential Jewish practice of not writing the name of God out. I understand that Jews do not consider it binding on the Internet, because the main reason for it is to ensure that God’s name doesn’t get thrown in the trash or otherwise treated disrespectfully, as would happen if you wrote it on paper. I believe that Orthodox rabbis have determined that deleting electronic information spelling out the name of God is not similarly sacreligious. However, many Jews still do this on the Internet out of habit, and some others have adopted the practice (I do it sometimes when addressing Jews.) I think it’s ironic that a fan of Tatian would do this, since I believe Tatian had anti-Jewish leanings if anything (perhaps I’m stereotyping him based on his association with the broad “Gnostic” movement).

Edwin

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please stay on topic. Thank you all.

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

Sorry it took so very very long to get back to everyone here. I ended up getting bogged down in work, and now that I have some room to breath, I will start writing and responding here again. Forgive my absence, as it was due to my laziness.

Hi Saul Tentmaker! Thank you so much for your very informative posts. I have a question that I raised on another thread but would like to ask you since you are so well informed. How does the Thomist explain the Fall? Was the Fall preordained, a decree of God? Was God the ultimate cause of the Fall?

God Bless,
Michael

God can only be the cause of things as to their right end (telos). God’s absence, the privation of His grace and effect upon the world, due to our rebellion, is the fall. God did not cause privation, because privation is not a thing, and so cannot be caused.

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

If any Protestant is a Thomist then by definition Thomism could not be the truth!

I like this statement, because it is very important not to forget.

Thomism is not the truth. Christ is the Truth!

Thomism is a way to express and understand, in an inferior and incomplete way, aspects of the truth.

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

Speaking about Thomism, with regards to reprobation, is the teaching of Negative Reprobation legitimate or does it goes against defined dogma?

Negative reprobation, as it involves God willing good, and as the Church has not made a definitive (or any, to my knowledge) statement against it, is in accord with defined dogma. I would even say it is most in accord (it seems to me to make the most sense, given what we know).