Does St Thomas Aquinas still "hold up" today?

[JamesTheJust]

I was watching the Amazing Atheist’s video on St Thomas Aquinas’s Five Ways (in which he makes a fool of himself, using unnecessary profanity every three words, completely misunderstanding the arguments themselves, and failing to grasp the impossibility of an infinite regress), and I began thinking, “Do all of St Thomas’s views still hold water? And, for that matter, what about Bl Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, and other great contemporaries of theirs?” I have heard that St Thomas was a realist, and that realism is incompatible with modern quantum mechanics. Is this true? What about their other views?

Please note: I am, in no way, a great scholar of theology or philosophy, many of you will probably have to spoon feed me the difficult concepts.

Have at it, great thinkers here on CAF!

 

[CrossofChrist]

SNIP

“Do all of St Thomas’s views still hold water… and other great contemporaries?”

SNIP

Some of them. The Church has rejected some of his views (e.g Immaculate Conception). At the present there seems to be more emphasis within the Church on Bonaventure rather than Aquinas/Magnus among Scholastics, in addition to the Church Fathers, because of their great use of imagery and the general neglect they’ve experienced in recent history (i.e post Bellarmine era). But I know you’re thinking more about philosophy rather than theology.

I’m not too good with philosophy, but I’ll just say that I find Aquinas’ First Cause argument pretty convincing. My favorite argument of his is the Argument from Design, which is only helped by modern scientific ideas like the Big Bang or evolution.

 

[JamesTheJust]

Thanks, CrossofChrist!

Anyone else with greater philosophical knowledge is welcome to chime in!

 

[KyrieEleison17]

I was watching the Amazing Atheist’s video on St Thomas Aquinas’s Five Ways (in which he makes a fool of himself, using unnecessary profanity every three words, completely misunderstanding the arguments themselves, and failing to grasp the impossibility of an infinite regress), and I began thinking, “Do all of St Thomas’s views still hold water? And, for that matter, what about Bl Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, and other great contemporaries of theirs?” I have heard that St Thomas was a realist, and that realism is incompatible with modern quantum mechanics. Is this true? What about their other views?

Please note: I am, in no way, a great scholar of theology or philosophy, many of you will probably have to spoon feed me the difficult concepts.

Have at it, great thinkers here on CAF!

Though I am no ‘great thinker’, I for one don’t believe they do. The Five Ways don’t rely on Ptolemaic cosmology, for example. They rely on things like the reality of motion or change. Moreover, there isn’t actually a substitute or alternate system available. There is no coherent competing metaphysics to the metaphysics of Saint Thomas. Not to my knowledge at least.

I just made a post in this section pointing out how modern physicists imagine that the universe is just a hologram. To me that is not a scientific ‘discovery’ but more likely a consequence of bad philosophy: a bad interpretation of the data.

 

[SonofBenedict]

Hello! I’m new here, but one of the reasons I signed up was specifically because I saw this post and wanted to chime in. I would say that Aquinas still does, indeed, hold up quite well today. There’s nothing incompatible with, say, the Five Proofs and quantum theory. While there may be difficulties in reconciling some of his theories, I don’t think his foundational principles are falsified. True, Thomas was a realist, but I don’t see how that would be incompatible with quantum mechanics- granted, I don’t have an encyclopedic knowledge of either topic so I may stand corrected, or just need to hear why they would be incompatible. Keep in mind that, if these men are truly correct, no objections prior or after their writings are truly successful- this runs along the lines of Aristotelian demonstration by which we come to epistemic knowledge of the thing demonstrated. If one has epistemic knowledge, it is true knowledge and cannot be invalidated or falsified. So when Aquinas, or Duns Scotus, or Ockham demonstrate things, you can be sure that if their arguments are valid and sound, that they have successfully demonstrated the conclusion and thus can know it with absolute certainty. Now, CrossofChrist points out that none of these men were right on all accounts, and rightly so, but they still have a great deal to teach us. I’m convinced that they still hold up quite well.

Peace in Christ,
Nick

 

[CrossofChrist]

Here Pope John Paul II briefly summarizes some arguments for God’s existence. The arguments are very Thomist.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I was watching the Amazing Atheist’s video on St Thomas Aquinas’s Five Ways (in which he makes a fool of himself, using unnecessary profanity every three words, completely misunderstanding the arguments themselves, and failing to grasp the impossibility of an infinite regress), and I began thinking, “Do all of St Thomas’s views still hold water? And, for that matter, what about Bl Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, and other great contemporaries of theirs?” I have heard that St Thomas was a realist, and that realism is incompatible with modern quantum mechanics. Is this true? What about their other views?

Please note: I am, in no way, a great scholar of theology or philosophy, many of you will probably have to spoon feed me the difficult concepts.

Have at it, great thinkers here on CAF!

Quantum Mechanics poses no threat to the Five Ways of Thomas. See my thread " The First Way Explained " on page four of this Forum. I addressed this supposed problem and may add to it later, I still have a lot to say but I want to concentrate on explaining the First Way as it applies to Local Motion. There is some " lively " discussion there, don’t be alarmed.

Duns Scotus and William of Ockham did not understand Thomas, so their own attempts at philosophy were never successful. Even Saints can error in philosophy and other sciences.

You should get Aquinas by Edward Feser and follow his blog spot, including his archives. He will answer many questions for you. edwardfeser.blogspot.com/

Linus2nd

 

[bben15]

Some of them. The Church has rejected some of his views (e.g Immaculate Conception). At the present there seems to be more emphasis within the Church on Bonaventure rather than Aquinas/Magnus among Scholastics, in addition to the Church Fathers, because of their great use of imagery and the general neglect they’ve experienced in recent history (i.e post Bellarmine era). But I know you’re thinking more about philosophy rather than theology.

I’m not too good with philosophy, but I’ll just say that I find Aquinas’ First Cause argument pretty convincing. My favorite argument of his is the Argument from Design, which is only helped by modern scientific ideas like the Big Bang or evolution.

Reject? The Immaculate Conception is a dogma. :ehh:

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Some of them. The Church has rejected some of his views (e.g Immaculate Conception).

You may want to check this out. Aquinas is still very much in vogue with scholars within the Church. His papal recognition through the centuries exceeds that of any other Catholic thinker.

the-pope.com/stThomas.html

Outside the Church I think he is not taken very seriously by many.

Will Durant barely mentions him in his The Story of Philosophy.

 

[JamesTheJust]

Reject? The Immaculate Conception is a dogma. :ehh:

Aquinas didn’t believe in the Immaculate Conception (at least, as it is understood today). Of course, this was in a time when the issue was still hotly debated within the Church.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Reject? The Immaculate Conception is a dogma. :ehh:

I meant St Thomas rejected the Immaculate Conception, and the Church sided with the Franciscans on that.

 

[CrossofChrist]

You may want to check this out. Aquinas is still very much in vogue with scholars within the Church.

I disagree. Because of the sad state of theology today Aquinas is largely neglected.

His papal recognition through the centuries exceeds that of any other Catholic thinker.

St Augustine has an 800 year advantage for papal recognition.

Outside the Church I think he is not taken very seriously by many.

Because they don’t bother to understand him.

 

[Tomyris]

I was watching the Amazing Atheist’s video on St Thomas Aquinas’s Five Ways (in which he makes a fool of himself, using unnecessary profanity every three words, completely misunderstanding the arguments themselves, and failing to grasp the impossibility of an infinite regress), and I began thinking, “Do all of St Thomas’s views still hold water? And, for that matter, what about Bl Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, and other great contemporaries of theirs?” I have heard that St Thomas was a realist, and that realism is incompatible with modern quantum mechanics. Is this true? What about their other views?

Please note: I am, in no way, a great scholar of theology or philosophy, many of you will probably have to spoon feed me the difficult concepts.

Have at it, great thinkers here on CAF!

Great thinker at your service here.

I’m thinking you may be looking at it backwards, and the backwardness is the idea that our thought-life has actually improved since St. Thomas. I would suggest you consider the possibility that modern philosophy does not hold up against the views of St. Thomas Aquinas. It’s more than a possibility, in my great thinking. I have the right to say that, being a great thinker. At least I THINK I am a great thinker.

I am not at all convinced that modern philosophy holds water at all. We have it to thank for the disaster of a civilization we are now facing and our self-inflicted anguish: relativism, loss of meaning and value, loss of dignity and any sense of reality.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Great thinker at your service here.

I’m thinking you may be looking at it backwards, and the backwardness is the idea that our thought-life has actually improved since St. Thomas. I would suggest you consider the possibility that modern philosophy does not hold up against the views of St. Thomas Aquinas. It’s more than a possibility, in my great thinking. I have the right to say that, being a great thinker. At least I THINK I am a great thinker.

I am not at all convinced that modern philosophy holds water at all. We have it to thank for the disaster of a civilization we are now facing and our self-inflicted anguish: relativism, loss of meaning and value, loss of dignity and any sense of reality.

But but but, it’s progress!

 

[Contarini]

I was watching the Amazing Atheist’s video on St Thomas Aquinas’s Five Ways (in which he makes a fool of himself, using unnecessary profanity every three words, completely misunderstanding the arguments themselves, and failing to grasp the impossibility of an infinite regress), and I began thinking, “Do all of St Thomas’s views still hold water? And, for that matter, what about Bl Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, and other great contemporaries of theirs?” I have heard that St Thomas was a realist, and that realism is incompatible with modern quantum mechanics. Is this true? What about their other views?

Please note: I am, in no way, a great scholar of theology or philosophy, many of you will probably have to spoon feed me the difficult concepts.

Have at it, great thinkers here on CAF!

I’m not sure about realism and quantum mechanics, but I’m not convinced they are incompatible (and for that matter, if I’m not mistaken quantum mechanics and relativity are incompatible, but both are believed to be true–why not just add Aristotelian realism to the mix?). However, Thomas’s Aristotelian biology is pretty clearly wrong, and I hope that few folks today would accept his ideas (also from Aristotle) on chattel slavery.

I am not sure about each angel being its own species, though who knows about that one. . .
Generally speaking, the “scientific” ideas he got from Aristotle are the most obviously wrong, if only because Aquinas’ own ideas are theological and harder to disprove.

Edwin

 

[Tomyris]

… that realism is incompatible with modern quantum mechanics. Is this true? …

Something clicked here…**Modern **quantum mechanics is data interpreted in a specific presuppositional framework. I am not sure how it would work out in an exclusively Thomist framework.

Hmmmm.

Your homework assignment: Assemble all the data used to develop quantum mechanics and reconstruct it in a medieval world-view of your choice (be prepared to explain your selection). Lucidly explain your explanations. Be sure to reconcile general and special relativity with quantum mechanics. Post your findings in 500 words or less, in iambic pentameter, in a comprehensive manner, duly footnoted and with a bibliography. An index is not necessary but might be helpful.

We helped you. Now it’s your turn.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Generally speaking, the “scientific” ideas he got from Aristotle are the most obviously wrong, if only because Aquinas’ own ideas are theological and harder to disprove.

Edwin

What you do not take into account here is that Aquinas was a healthy antidote to the Platonism that ruled medieval philosophy and theology. Many of the theologians of his day were at one with him in preparing the way for a kind of realism that would foreshadow the upsurge of modern science. That he was a little too cozy with Aristotle’s science he should not be blamed for. It was a good deal better than no science at all and certainly better than the hostile attitude of the Platonists toward science in general.

Jacques Maritain in his *Introduction to Philosophy *has an interesting chapter on the intellectual revolution Aquinas helpt to usher in.

Aquinas was no scientist, and he never claimed to be. His errors were typical of his time, as was the error of Einstein when he chose to doctor his theory of relativity so that it would show what most physicists of his day believed: that the universe was infinite and eternal. The Big Bang theory, which his own theory helped inadvertently to advance, showed that the universe was neither infinite nor eternal, attributes Aquinas had allowed to God alone. Einstein admitted that this was the biggest blunder of his career (all the more so becasue it took a Catholic priest mathematician to point out the error to which he had submitted. As it turned out, the Big Bang is more consistent with Aquinas than with Einstein’s original position that the universe is infinite and eternal.

 

[Contarini]

What you do not take into account here is that Aquinas was a healthy antidote to the Platonism that ruled medieval philosophy and theology. Many of the theologians of his day were at one with him in preparing the way for a kind of realism that would foreshadow the upsurge of modern science. That he was a little too cozy with Aristotle’s science he should not be blamed for. It was a good deal better than no science at all and certainly better than the hostile attitude of the Platonists toward science in general.

I wasn’t blaming him, exactly, though there are a couple of places where I do wish he’d been more critical. I was simply saying that these are places where few today would say Aquinas was right, and that this doesn’t mean that Thomism as a whole is “outdated.”

I would not trash the more Platonic theologians of the 13th century either–I love Bonaventure, for instance, and I’m not sure that where he and Aquinas differ Aquinas is always right. But as anyone who has read many of my posts on this forum knows, I myself tend to start with Aquinas in addressing just about any philosophical/theological/political/social issue. Even if he’s wrong, it can be helpful to start by considering why he’s wrong. (For instance, I think he was wrong about chattel slavery, but when people tell me that Obamacare enslaves people, it’s helpful to look at Aquinas’ definition as a starting point to see if that’s reasonable language to use.)

Edwin

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Aquinas and Bonaventure received their Masters about the same time. They both died the same year, and both of them died under suspicious circumstances, possibly poisoning?

Bonaventure used his influence to suppress the scholarship of Roger Bacon, the great fellow Franciscan who pioneered the revolution in scientific thought that was about to explode in the next two centuries.

Bacon in temperament would most likely have been closer to Aristotle and Aquinas than to Plato and Bonaventure.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Aquinas and Bonaventure received their Masters about the same time. They both died the same year, and both of them died under suspicious circumstances, possibly poisoning?

I never heard of these " suspicions " before. According to the Introduction of the S.T., Part 1, Ques 1 Thomas fell ill on the way to the Council of Lyons and was taken to the Cistersian Abby at Fossanuova, not far from his home at Roccasecca and the Abbey of Monte Cassino, where he died peacefully a few days later.

Linus2nd