Dr. Craig criticises Thomism as unintelligible and makes God impersonal

  • Thread starter Thread starter fisherman_carl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ve seen a review of Feser and read a bit of Feser. I’ll get it sent to me. It seems to me this is at least partly a translation issue.

If Hume is thought to have trumped the Scholasts there has been a failure in imagination in interpreting the Scholasts.

Feser’s idea of science is rather smaller than mine. Where Feser says that dualism and eliminativism are because science doesn’t deal with what science doesn’t deal with (a point I absolutely agree with in itself) I also think there is a logical fault on the point of the “scientists” which Feser seems to miss, putting the problems down to metaphysics. Maybe logic (the genuine thing, not the cut-down version people play with on this forum) and metaphysics are the same thing.
 
fisherman_carl said:
So while it might not make sense to modern science Miracles are not supposed to make sense to science. In fact Miracles tend to defy what we would naturally expect to happen. That is why we call them Miracles.
Click to expand...
Modern science routinely denies miracles, if one defines miracle as a remarkable event for which there is no scientific explanation. This is the philosophy of scientism that has infected scientific reasoning. Yet it seems that there is no scientific explanation for the Big Bang. There are no laws of nature in existence at T-1, and the laws that do come into existence will not arrive until the first cosmic dust settles. Many scientists will consent that if there is a miracle anywhere, it deserves to be here, a natural event produced by divine decree. Many scientists obstinately will not even consent to this possibility.
 
Tomdstone said:
This is true to some extent. From the natural law alone, I don’t see how you could prove that God would have a Son and a Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father.
Click to expand...
Is it really correct to say that God “has” a son and holy spirit. God is Triune, and the proof becomes more apparent when phrased that way. Just take your own created image as an example. You have a passion in life, call that your son. You have a force that unites you to your passion. There is your spirit.
 
Wesrock said:
… Accidents “happen to” a substance but do not change its self identity.

The modern definition of substance has not been around forever, but really came into use after the scholastics around the time of John Locke.

…

Substance = that which is apt to exist in itself and not in another (i.e., not as a part of another being).

Accident = that which is apt to exist not in itself but only in another. The latter, properly speaking, do not have their own being, but share the being of a substance. Their being is a being-in-substance, the substance is a being in itself.

Or to be clearer, “red” is not a substance. Red does not exist on its own. Red can only be found existing in another substance as one of its properties. Color is an accident. So is taste. A taste does not exist on its own, free-standing in its own right, but only exists in the substance of something else.

A dog exists as a being in its own right. It’s not a property of another being. A dog is a substance. It’s not boiped down to what it is made out of but what it is at its core as a single, unified being.

I’m not sure what’s so confusing about transubstantiation of the Eucharist. All it means is that the host becomes the whole person of Jesus under the appearance of bread and wine. That which it is has changed, even if the properties abscribed to it haven’t. Does this happen in nature? No. But we’re talking about a divine miracle here. The host is Jesus, not bread. It didn’t get Jesus added to it, but truly became him, something different, regardless of its color and taste or chemical properties.

Substance in scholastic usage does not refer to the material.
Click to expand...
Its properties haven’t changed because they “heavily” imply it, as I testify. This sounds like dualism in disguise, coupled with the otherworldliness one gets in most varieties of Hinduism and Buddhism. It is bread in regard to material because it has the properties of bread AND it IS the Body of Christ. And yes that IS a miracle. It is not necessary to get into difficulties because what I have stated is VERY ample to fulfil the requirement to believe the Real Presence. Where the Real Presence Protestants fall short is that they think the Catholic Church requires belief in the bread ceasing to exist, which it doesn’t. Now I appreciate that the Catholic Church and scholasm are independent (if interdependent) things but things Catholic do come into what various protestants think to a greater or lesser extent and this kind of protestant a great deal.

What you call transsubstantiation and what they call consubstantiation are the same, but out of politeness they claim to be agreeing with your allegation that they believe something different.

The Church is the Body of Christ but it doesn’t stop being you, me, the Pope, etc at the time. A smile without a cat doesn’t last long.

I can wear “material” for what you admit doesn’t exist without something, as long as I don’t have to misuse “substance” for what you admit above is “identity”.

(Locke or no Locke, “substance” is parlance. Children fresh from their lessons have got to be told something that makes sense to them AND is true. Same for old people whose scales are falling off their eyes. It’s false to maintain that something has to not make sense for it to be true, however ingrained in churchy circles.)

On a light note, identity is the trendy “in” term for 2016. Essence is if you want to be more 1950s 😉
 
catholic1seeks said:
…

I have to say I thought it was funny. One person in the audience brought up James 2 (I think he was just playing devil’s advocate - there didn’t seem to be any Catholics in the small room). And Craig read the entire passage, but kept insisting that is only seems contradictory to (his interpretation of) Paul “on the surface”. And he said how the good work, such as Abraham’s sacrifice of his son, was a way of completing his faith. Now that caught me off guard. How is a good work just a fruit of faith and at the same time something that completes faith? He kept insisting on the way good works are the fruit of a true faith – even though the passages bluntly ends by saying we are justified by “works and not by faith alone.” …
Click to expand...
I wish my computer would show videos. Must fix it! I find Jesus, Paul and James completely seamless. Words like fruit and completion are allusive. In fact all language is allusive as I can testify, one of my earlier careers having been in language. Of course finnicking over literally-literal meanings in some varieties of religion gives the game away about what kind of religion or attitude within religion it is.
 
Thomism IS dualism, but not the same type of dualism that you find in Descartes.
 
I’m no expert, but it has always been my understanding that St.Thomas’ purpose in his writings was to demonstrate, in the face of Islamic challenge at the time, that Christianity is not contrary to Aristotelean philosophy and logic. Islamic scholars claimed that it was, and he was refuting that assertion for the highly educated.

So, it really wasn’t his purpose to completely explicate the “personality” of God. He readily admitted that logic and reason have their limits and that we rely, and must rely, on Revelation for those things that are not reachable by reason alone. Criticizing Thomas for not better examining the nature of God is like criticizing Stephen Hawking for not explaining how to train a good cattle dog in one of his writings.
 
Wesrock said:
I have not had the opportunity to review either Craig’s particular comments or Feser’s response, but my first impression of Thomism was an impersonal and distant God. The deeper I’ve gone into Thomism, particularly with the help of W. Norris Clarke who synthesizes the basics rather well, the more convinced I am that the God as described by Thomas Aquinas is very near and very personal. I think there’s just a steep learning curve as you get aquainted with the language and the concepts. There’s a systematic framework you have to get aquainted with, and I think that’s a turn off for some people. And Thomas never claimed that natural theology could tell us everything about God. Some things, such as the Trinity, can only be known by revelation.

Feser’s explanations, while exceedingly helpful, do tend more towards an analytical and rational approach, so I can understand first impressions after reading Feser may only catch that, too.
Click to expand...
👍

Yes, the approach that Aquinas takes in presenting his work is very difficult to get a handle on and I imagine a stumbling block to many. You have to force yourself to learn it. That’s why so much of Thomism is essentially a matter of simplifying his work so as to present it to a modern audience. Fesser does a very good Job in this regard.

But I wonder what is the future of Thomism? Is there anything more to be said or added to his work?
 
Wesrock said:
Thomism IS dualism, but not the same type of dualism that you find in Descartes.
Click to expand...
👍

I have always wondered why so many assume that Aquinas was not a dualist. The soul is the form of the body, but if the soul remains when the body is gone then obviously he is a dualist in some sense of the word.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
What future has the future without Thomism? 🤷
Click to expand...
Possibly more equality between men and women. After all, St. Thomas says that: in a secondary sense the image of God is found in man, and not in woman and man was not created for woman, but woman for man:
"The image of God, in its principal signification, namely the intellectual nature, is found both in man and in woman. Hence after the words, “To the image of God He created him,” it is added, “Male and female He created them” (Gn. 1:27). Moreover it is said “them” in the plural, as Augustine (Gen. ad lit. iii, 22) remarks, lest it should be thought that both sexes were united in one individual. But in a secondary sense the image of God is found in man, and not in woman: for man is the beginning and end of woman; as God is the beginning and end of every creature. So when the Apostle had said that “man is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man,” he adds his reason for saying this: “For man is not of woman, but woman of man; and man was not created for woman, but woman for man.” "Summa Theologica I, qu. 93, art. 4 ad 1.
 
Tomdstone said:
Possibly more equality between men and women. After all, St. Thomas says that: in a secondary sense the image of God is found in man, and not in woman and man was not created for woman, but woman for man:
"The image of God, in its principal signification, namely the intellectual nature, is found both in man and in woman. Hence after the words, “To the image of God He created him,” it is added, “Male and female He created them” (Gn. 1:27). Moreover it is said “them” in the plural, as Augustine (Gen. ad lit. iii, 22) remarks, lest it should be thought that both sexes were united in one individual. But in a secondary sense the image of God is found in man, and not in woman: for man is the beginning and end of woman; as God is the beginning and end of every creature. So when the Apostle had said that “man is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man,” he adds his reason for saying this: “For man is not of woman, but woman of man; and man was not created for woman, but woman for man.” "Summa Theologica I, qu. 93, art. 4 ad 1.
Click to expand...
Thomas’ exegesis on scripture is not under the same category of his metaphysical study known as Aristotlean-Thomism. The above quote isn’t “Thomism.”

The Church sees in the union of man and woman together the image of God. Two persons, with love proceeding from one to the other. The fruit of this love being, naturally, another person. God is a family.
 
Wesrock said:
The above quote isn’t “Thomism.”
Click to expand...
Many define Thomism as the theology of Thomas Aquinas or of his followers. So, since the passage quoted is a direct quote from the theological writings of Thomas Aquinas, I don;t see why it would not be Thomism under that definition.
 
Tomdstone said:
Many define Thomism as the theology of Thomas Aquinas or of his followers. So, since the passage quoted is a direct quote from the theological writings of Thomas Aquinas, I don;t see why it would not be Thomism under that definition.
Click to expand...
Thomism is a vast array of philosophical and theological ideas. Most of Thomas’ ideas are soundly developed, some are developed but incomplete or debatable, some are even unconvincing. The ones that are unconvincing should not be taken as the essence of Thomism, any more than that Aristotle’s views advocating slavery should be taken as the essence of Aristotelian philosophy.

Hardly anybody who is prolific in philosophy and theology will not make a faulty or even repulsive remark sooner or later. 🤷

We live in a world that denies natural law ethics, which is at the heart of Thomas’ moral theology. Since the modern world has been repulsed by natural law ethics, virtually anything goes; that includes abortion, sodomy, euthanasia, pornography, same-sex marriage, you name it. Where there are no moral laws that are founded upon our human nature, and we acquire the “Anything goes” or “If it feels good, do it” morality, we become increasingly bestial.
 
Dr. Craig is a Molinist so it is not surprising he is not a Thomist. I don’t find Thomism, as I understand it, to make God impersonal.
catholic1seeks said:
I have been listening to Craig a lot lately because I like hearing talk about the cosmological arguments, etc. But I stumbled upon a series of his recent videos on Youtube (ReasonabeFaith’s channel), and one of the talks featured Justification/salvation, where he expresses the errors of the Catholic view. Of course he speaks much more fairly than other non-Catholics would, but I wish he would not comment in such a way when his expertise is more on the natural theology and philosophy level.

I have to say I thought it was funny. One person in the audience brought up James 2 (I think he was just playing devil’s advocate - there didn’t seem to be any Catholics in the small room). And Craig read the entire passage, but kept insisting that is only seems contradictory to (his interpretation of) Paul “on the surface”. And he said how the good work, such as Abraham’s sacrifice of his son, was a way of completing his faith. Now that caught me off guard. How is a good work just a fruit of faith and at the same time something that completes faith? He kept insisting on the way good works are the fruit of a true faith – even though the passages bluntly ends by saying we are justified by “works and not by faith alone.”

Anyway…
Click to expand...
In the podcast before this the topic was Molinism. Craig was asked what Molina’s views on ‘security of the believer’ were. Craig said he didn’t know. I don’t question this. But he also didn’t mention Molina was Catholic and that such a belief would be heretical. I find Dr. Craig to be fair to Catholicism but naturally find his defense of Protestantism to be lacking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top