Does Christianity imply a metaphysics?

[Qoeleth]

I am wondering if Christianity requi**res adoption of a particular metaphysical system. Is it necessary to adopt Platonism (or a variant thereof) in order to be Christian?

Would it be possible to be a Christian materialist? Perhaps thinking God is a powerful physical being, and heaven is a physical place somewhere in the universe, and the soul is somehow a physical part of the self (maybe exemplified in some ‘folk’ Christianities).

Would it be possible to be a Christian nihilist? Perhaps thinking that in the end nothing really exists or has meaning, and that the crucifixion was the heroic apotheosis of that futility (maybe exemplified in Camus).

Would it be possible to be a Christian idealist or solipsist? Thinking that the world was simply an idea passing through one’s head.

I am not asking if these are ‘right’- but rather, is Christianity is translatable across different metaphysical systems? If so, I would be interested in hearing example of Christianity which are outside the Platonist/Aristotelean schemes.

 

[TS_Aquinas]

I would say it is moderately Platonic and heavy Aristotelian by nature, but then again that is the height of metaphysics before drooling lobotomites like Locke, Hume, Kant or the ever modern popular stepchild, Dawkins, came on the scene and sold their snake oil And distorted the mainstream. Then again, they got their push from anti-Thomists fideists Catholics like Scotus, Decartes and Ockham.

 

[Qoeleth]

I would say it is moderately Platonic and heavy Aristotelian by nature, but then again that is the height of metaphysics before drooling lobotomites like Locke, Hume, Kant or the ever modern popular stepchild, Dawkins, came on the scene and sold their snake oil And distorted the mainstream. Then again, they got their push from anti-Thomists fideists Catholics like Scotus, Decartes and Ockham.

But, can we make Christianity plausible to modern people without converting them to Aristotelean/Platonic metaphysics?

 

[Alterum]

But, can we make Christianity plausible to modern people without converting them to Aristotelean/Platonic metaphysics?

Yes. The Church has never explicitly endorsed a particular metaphysical system. Most Christians don’t study metaphysics at all. Of course some metaphysical systems work better than others

 

[asd72]

Pope Benedict XVI has written on this subject. He see’s the intersection of the Biblical message and Greek thought as providential. That Faith and Reason must go together.

He sees 3 stages of dehellenization:

1. The Reformation - The belief that faith must be purified from any outside influence of thought.

2)Liberal theology - Jesus had a simple message which was an ethic not a cult, which was later hellenized. Theology is essentially historical. Knowledge is reduced to what can be verified or falsified by experimentation.

3)Greek inculturation just happened to be the first inculturation of Christianity. It is incidental to Christianity and not binding for other cultures that embrace Christianity.

I probably haven’t explained it well.

 

[TS_Aquinas]

But, can we make Christianity plausible to modern people without converting them to Aristotelean/Platonic metaphysics?

No, as the dogma goes “whoever says God cannot be proven through natural reason alone, let him be anathema.” By that decree alone, all drivel of fideism written by Scotus, Decartes and Ockham are heretical. Also being many dogmas revolve around Aristotelian - Thomistic metaphysics such as God’s immutability, eternity, simplicity, etc… and dogmas concerning the soul and body are hylemorphic which presupposes Aristotle’s Four Cuases and moderate Platonic Form, it would impossible to not accept such metaphysical truths of Plato, Aristotle and Thomas without formally being a heretic. It does not matter if people don’t study philosophy, in order to be in full communion is to accept such principles. The person can study if the metaphysics hold water, which they do without fail, but at the end of the day they are called to assent.

 

[Alterum]

No, as the dogma goes “whoever says God cannot be proven through natural reason alone, let him be anathema.” By that decree alone, all drivel of fideism written by Scotus, Decartes and Ockham are heretical. Also being many dogmas revolve around Aristotelian - Thomistic metaphysics such as God’s immutability, eternity, simplicity, etc… and dogmas concerning the soul and body are hylemorphic which presupposes Aristotle’s Four Cuases and moderate Platonic Form, it would impossible to not accept such metaphysical truths of Plato, Aristotle and Thomas without formally being a heretic. It does not matter if people don’t study philosophy, in order to be in full communion is to accept such principles. The person can study if the metaphysics hold water, which they do without fail, but at the end of the day they are called to assent.

This is flatly wrong. First, no one said anything about Scotus, Ockham, Descartes, or fideism, so it looks like you have a fight to pick somewhere else. Second, the Church uses and even privileges Aristotelico-Thomistic metaphysics, just like she privileges Latin, but that does not mean that the truths expressed in one system cannot be expressed in another. Finally, I quote from Fides et Ratio, section 76 (with my emphasis), to give you some idea of John Paul II’s thinking on this issue:

In preaching the Gospel, Christianity first encountered Greek philosophy; but this does not mean at all that other approaches are precluded. Today, as the Gospel gradually comes into contact with cultural worlds which once lay beyond Christian influence, there are new tasks of inculturation, which mean that our generation faces problems not unlike those faced by the Church in the first centuries.

My thoughts turn immediately to the lands of the East, so rich in religious and philosophical traditions of great antiquity. Among these lands, India has a special place. A great spiritual impulse leads Indian thought to seek an experience which would liberate the spirit from the shackles of time and space and would therefore acquire absolute value. The dynamic of this quest for liberation provides the context for great metaphysical systems.

In India particularly, it is the duty of Christians now to draw from this rich heritage the elements compatible with their faith, in order to enrich Christian thought. In this work of discernment, which finds its inspiration in the Council’s Declaration Nostra Aetate, certain criteria will have to be kept in mind. The first of these is the universality of the human spirit, whose basic needs are the same in the most disparate cultures. The second, which derives from the first, is this: in engaging great cultures for the first time, the Church cannot abandon what she has gained from her inculturation in the world of Greco-Latin thought. To reject this heritage would be to deny the providential plan of God who guides his Church down the paths of time and history. This criterion is valid for the Church in every age, even for the Church of the future, who will judge herself enriched by all that comes from today’s engagement with Eastern cultures and will find in this inheritance fresh cues for fruitful dialogue with the cultures which will emerge as humanity moves into the future. Thirdly, care will need to be taken lest, contrary to the very nature of the human spirit, the legitimate defense of the uniqueness and originality of Indian thought be confused with the idea that a particular cultural tradition should remain closed in its difference and affirm itself by opposing other traditions.

 

[TS_Aquinas]

This is flatly wrong. First, no one said anything about Scotus, Ockham, Descartes, or fideism, so it looks like you have a fight to pick somewhere else.

I wasn’t directing my comment in any way to you but to the OP and demonstrating that not assenting to A - T metaphysics paves the way to intellectual idiots of fideism, skepticism, conceptualism, nominalism, solipsism, materialism, Cartesian dualism, Hegelian dialectics, metaphysical naturalism, eliminative materialism, etc… So it seems you’re the one looking for a fight, one of which you cannot win.

Second, the Church uses and even privileges Aristotelico-Thomistic metaphysics, just like she privileges Latin, but that does not mean that the truths expressed in one system cannot be expressed in another.

Poor correlation. The Church doesn’t privilege A - T metaphysics, she uses it because reason demands it. Because natural theology and revealed theology are sourced from the same Being, they do not and cannot contradict each other. Once again, we are not fideists.

Finally, I quote from Fides et Ratio, section 76 (with my emphasis), to give you some idea of John Paul II’s thinking on this issue:

That’s nice.

 

[Qoeleth]

I wasn’t directing my comment in any way to you but to the OP and demonstrating that not assenting to A - T metaphysics paves the way to intellectual idiots of fideism, skepticism, conceptualism, nominalism, solipsism, materialism, Cartesian dualism, Hegelian dialectics, metaphysical naturalism, eliminative materialism, etc… So it seems you’re the one looking for a fight, one of which you cannot win.

Poor correlation. The Church doesn’t privilege A - T metaphysics, she uses it because reason demands it. Because natural theology and revealed theology are sourced from the same Being, they do not and cannot contradict each other. Once again, we are not fideists.

That’s nice.

Chuff! You really like Aquinas, eh?

But there is a problem with attempting to reject fideism. You are appealing to reason, as a reason to accept reason. Which is circular.

Not that I am advocating fideism- just saying it is hard to refute, if a person adopts that stance (since reason cannot be used as a means of refuting it!)

 

[TS_Aquinas]

Chuff! You really like Aquinas, eh?

But there is a problem with attempting to reject fideism. You are appealing to reason, as a reason to accept reason. Which is circular.

Not that I am advocating fideism- just saying it is hard to refute, if a person adopts that stance (since reason cannot be used as a means of refuting it!)

I find the metaphysics of Eckhart to be the finality of Thomism, though read by muddle-headed children can be misinterpreted as heresy. In the centrality of such metaphysics is disinterest, or detachment of outcome and self and only then can one truly follow reason and faith. Your observation is true if one were to beg the question of reason, but through willful assent to the intellect can reason reveal itself to the person detached of self. This is where eastern philosophy of detachment of self fails miserably, they turn it into nominalism and relativism and turn a blind eye to truth that is found by all persons. This is where Plato’s ‘third realm’ comes in and Aristotle’s correction of it, but that’s another thread.

 

[Alterum]

I wasn’t directing my comment in any way to you but to the OP and demonstrating that not assenting to A - T metaphysics paves the way to intellectual idiots of fideism, skepticism, conceptualism, nominalism, solipsism, materialism, Cartesian dualism, Hegelian dialectics, metaphysical naturalism, eliminative materialism, etc… So it seems you’re the one looking for a fight, one of which you cannot win.

You seem confused. “Not assenting” to Aristotelian metaphysics does not mean assenting to fideism, etc. Some metaphysical systems are incompatible with Catholic dogma; some are not. Aristotelianism is not entailed by Catholicism. (In fact, if you don’t modify Aristotle’s own metaphysics, the Christian God is a self-contradiction.)

Poor correlation. The Church doesn’t privilege A - T metaphysics, she uses it because reason demands it. Because natural theology and revealed theology are sourced from the same Being, they do not and cannot contradict each other. Once again, we are not fideists.

You need to specify (1) which metaphysical system, exactly, reason demands (and whose is it, so that I can research it?); and (2) why. Absent that, this is just blind assertion. Once you’ve specified which metaphysical system, exactly, is entailed by Catholicism, and why, you can answer some questions that have been troubling philosophers for millennia. I’d especially like to know how to solve the problem of abstract reference related to universals, if you’d be so kind.

Also, you again appear confused. It may be true that “natural theology” and revelation do not conflict. But that’s just a non-sequitur; it has nothing to do with determining whether a certain metaphysics (and whether only one metaphysics) is consistent with Catholic teaching. You seem to be implying that only the West (and perhaps only the Greeks) had “natural theologians” (I don’t know quite what to make of that word in this context).

That’s nice.

Yes. It’s also a Papal encyclical. You disagree with it. The readers can choose whom to trust.

 

[TS_Aquinas]

You seem confused. “Not assenting” to Aristotelian metaphysics does not mean assenting to fideism, etc. Some metaphysical systems are incompatible with Catholic dogma; some are not. Aristotelianism is not entailed by Catholicism. (In fact, if you don’t modify Aristotle’s own metaphysics, the Christian God is a self-contradiction.)

Never said you don’t modify Aristotle’s metaphysics, this why we put emphasis on Aristotelian - Thomism. But in order to do so one must demonstrate why, thank you Aquinas (who was far more intelligent then Aristotle.) Aquinas, being extremely intelligent, also was not infallible as some, and I stress the word ‘some’, things he demonstrated was shown false. Such as his thoughts on the Immaculate Conception, though that is only faulted due to the biological understanding at the time, it made it nearly impossible to support the IC. If he were teaching today, using our biological science, he’d have no problem demonstrating the IC. Other issues, I can even demonstrate his position regarding limbo is false, another thread, another time. Point is, what matters is what can be metaphysically demonstrated as truth.

Also history is on my side what happens when supposed intellectuals reject A - T philosophy, when Scotus and friends advocated that the Divine Intellect presupposes the Divine Will, the way was paved for the (anti)Enlightenment Era idiots whom people have the audacity to call ‘philosophers.’ Now nethanderals today use their drivel for skepticism and atheism and Christians resort to garbage such as “Divine Command Theory.” All because the fathers of anti-Thomism either were to prideful to assent to it or were to stupid to understand it.

You need to specify (1) which metaphysical system, exactly, reason demands (and whose is it, so that I can research it?); and (2) why. Absent that, this is just blind assertion. Once you’ve specified which metaphysical system, exactly, is entailed by Catholicism, and why, you can answer some questions that have been troubling philosophers for millennia. I’d especially like to know how to solve the problem of abstract reference related to universals, if you’d be so kind.

Also, you again appear confused. It may be true that “natural theology” and revelation do not conflict. But that’s just a non-sequitur; it has nothing to do with determining whether a certain metaphysics (and whether only one metaphysics) is consistent with Catholic teaching. You seem to be implying that only the West (and perhaps only the Greeks) had “natural theologians” (I don’t know quite what to make of that word in this context).

If you so wish, we can tear down the separation of systems and labels and just use what is demonstratably true. For convenience though most of us just utter Thomism and we get the idea of the metaphysics that holds most all demonstratable truths. If you want to take it in another direction, we can just say Catholic metaphysics, which supports most of A - T metaphysics.

Yes. It’s also a Papal encyclical. You disagree with it. The readers can choose whom to trust.

Did I say I disagree with it? Now you’re putting words in my mouth. One, the quote doesn’t affect my position. Two, the contextual understanding shows we cannot throw out the already assumed metaphysics the Church uses. Three, even if did affect my position, it isn’t an infallible document, people can either choose to assent such a thing or the Angelic Doctor of the Church. I’ll put my money on the metaphysics of this Doctor whom the Church extracts from to define dogma.